It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.

Ménage à trois with a twist?

Look what I found whilst searching Google. Old you might think? but if
you consider Ogilvie is an EX employee of RSPB and a current employee
of SNH the plot surely thickens?



http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875

http://www.iberica2000.org/ES/Articulo.asp?Id=3744

Covering up the death of eagles at Scottish windfarms (3744)
 
A REALITY CHECK PROVES THE SCOTTISH EAGLES DO NOT AVOID WINDFARMS AS
CLAIMED 
An inconvenient truth gleaned from various sources shows that wind
farms have already, directly or indirectly, killed eagles, caused them
to "disappear", or reduced their breeding success in Scotland. It is
the best kept secret in this curious land where some eagle deaths make
the headlines, while others are either denied or swept under the
carpet - depending on who did the killing.

This paper brings proof that covering up the dark side of wind farms
is rampant in Scotland, as indeed it is everywhere : from politicians
to NGO´s, and from bird societies to those sadly ill informed sections
of the media, the wind power scam is well protected. Misrepresentation
of facts is routinely fed to a public unsure and nervous about future
events. Such a well recognised ‘state of fear’ blinds the normally
perceptive who would otherwise be less easily fooled.

 

.
.









Above picture : raptors are the essence of wilderness, and highlands
without eagles are like a garden without birds : something I hope
we´ll never see. 


For reasons as impossible to excuse as they are obvious, those charged
with protection of our protected species and habitats are apparently
convincing themselves that the carnage being wrought by windfarms
world wide, from Altamont Pass to Smola to the Navarre region of Spain
and elsewhere, will ‘magically’ somehow never affect the Scottish
environment ! Yet we are talking about identical species, from an
identical threat to be erected in parallel examples of unbelievably
bad locations.

Ornithology as a ‘profession’ is in danger of being forever tainted by
those preferring to deny the ever mounting evidence in favour of
becoming paid acolytes of the wind industry.

So take a good look at the eagles while you can - for barring
miracles, they will soon be gone forever. It will be ‘adios’
wilderness : here comes the age of destruction. 

Do not count on the European Commission to help : they are part of the
problem, not the solution - see --> Is the European Commission helping
with the environmental destruction of Europe ?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In or about 1997, two golden eagles died at Beinn Ghlas, Argyll, where
a windfarm was to be built : it happened in the course of a
radio-tracking experiment. The windfarm was built nevertheless, in
1999. An article by Mike Gregory, a well-known raptor specialist from
the area, says the following : 

"This was one of the eagle territories targeted by the Forestry
Commission/RSPB radio-tracking project in the early Nineties. Both
adult birds were trapped at the nest and fitted with radio
transmitters and by the end of 1997 both birds had been found dead.
Since then there has been no evidence of occupation by a resident pair
of eagles, although the territory is visited occasionally by
neighbouring birds." (1)

Chances are that roaming immature eagles, and "floaters" looking for a
breeding range of their own, are also visiting the vacant territory
from time to time. It is common behaviour for these birds, and the
windfarm would not deter them any more than they do the adult eagles
from neighbouring territories as mentioned by Mr Gregory. A scientific
study has proven that eagles and other raptors are in fact attracted
by wind turbines (2). Besides, there is ample evidence from around the
world to show that these great birds do get close to wind turbines, to
the point of getting killed by the blades (3). 

When an eagle breeding range such as Beinn Ghlas becomes vacant, it
does not take very long before another pair will claim the territory
as their own. But Mike tells us that Beinn Ghlas was not occupied by a
pair since 1997, which could mean that the windfarm is acting as an
ecological trap ( i.e. killing the eagles that move in ). 

Indeed, a letter from Scottish Natural Heritage ( "SNH") dated 4
November 2003 reveals that an eagle had "recently died" at Beinn
Ghlas, that his female had left, and that another pair had moved in
(4) (page 2).

If these birds were missed by Mike Gregory, who is only checking on
that breeding territory at large intervals, it is likely that they
were killed before he could see them. For once eagles claim a
territory, they tend to keep it till the end. 

SNH say in the letter : " the female left the territory". But as no
monitoring was done, i.e. there was no search for bird carcasses under
the turbines, how can SNH be sure that the bird left, as opposed to
being killed ? If SNH followed the precautionary principle, they would
have assumed that the female also met her death. This would be
consistent with normal eagle behaviour : when a breeding eagle dies,
the surviving bird normally stays on the territory, and pairs up with
a floater. The assumption formulated by SNH is neither based on known
eagle behaviour, nor is it supported by evidence ( the female was not
seen anywhere else, was it ? ). It is in fact self serving : as a
quango, SNH must support government policy, which wrongly considers
eagle breeding territories as adequate locations for windfarms. And in
this context the news of eagles being killed or disappearing in
windfarm areas would disserve such policy. 

The other pair, the one that "moved in" after the female "left", was
never to be seen again : Mike Gregory, for one, never has ; yet he
checks on that territory year after year. As in the case of the female
above, it is likely that both these eagles were killed by the turbine
blades. And there may have been more victims in the 8 years of
operation of the windfarm : adults that would have claimed the
territory, or visiting neighbouring adults, or roaming subadults.

As searches under the turbines were not conducted, we don´t have eagle
carcasses to prove the point. But we do know that a pair claimed the
territory ( "moved in" ), and that they soon disappeared. We also know
that one eagle died ( SNH did not mention the cause ). And we know
that his female disappeared.

Under the Freedom of Information legislation, SNH was asked for
autopsies and correspondence on the subject of dead or missing eagles
at windfarms ( including 3 years before construction, and a 10km
circle around the turbines ). But according to their reply (5), there
is only the matter of a golden eagle who disappeared at the Beinn an
Tuirc windfarm, also in Argyll. We are told that they hold nothing at
all regarding Beinn Ghlas :
- nothing about the 2 eagles that died in a radio-tracking experiment 
- nothing about the eagle that died shortly before November 2003,
- nothing about the female that "left",
- nothing about the pair that "moved in " only to disappear shortly
after, 
- and nothing about the pair that disappeared from a neighbouring
territory (1) 

What is most remarkable is that we have, on one hand, a letter from
one of their officers mentioning one dead eagle and 3 that disappeared
(4), and on the other hand a letter under Freedom of Information
saying that they hold no correspondence on the matter (5).
Are they negating their own signature ? 
- Unless they have a plausible explanation, it does look as if they
are covering up. 









Above picture : ospreys too are being killed by windfarms and/or their
power lines. Evidence of it has not surfaced in Scotland so far, but
in view of what appears to be a cover up, this does not mean it hasn´t
happened.




From what we´ve seen, there is every reason to believe that the Beinn
Ghlas windfarm is acting as a "population sink" for golden eagles,
killing them as they move in, one after the other.

Yet in another letter, dated 16 August 2006, SNH misrepresented to me
that golden eagles avoid windfarms : "In general, therefore, we would
expect the effect of a windfarm to be to displace any resident eagles"
(6). This position was also made public, as evidenced by Mr Gregory´s
article (1) ( second paragraph before last ) . Yet it is not only in
contradiction with evidence from other windfarms around the world (
Altamont Pass, Navarre, Aragon, Soria etc. ), but also with what we
have seen happen at Beinn Ghlas.

The lack of credibility of SNH is nothing new. It has been exposed
before, here : The shame of Scotland











Above picture : raptors are not the only victims of wind turbines
and/or their power lines. Swans and geese are also on the list, as are
most birds and even bats. It is a sad future we are preparing for our
kids. 



SNH also base their eagles-avoid-windfarms position on the Beinn an
Tuirc windfarm, where monitoring of eagle flight patterns was
conducted after the turbines were erected. If we are to believe the
ornithology consultants, the resident eagles immediately proceeded to
avoid the windfarm, which is contrary to eagle behaviour in other
countries. 

Assuming that the field observer did his job conscienciously, it would
appear that the desired "avoidance" was obtained through manipulation:


First manipulation :

1) from page 35 of the monitoring report, right column, top of first
paragraph, we learn that the B&T eagles´ main food source is carrion;

2) then we learn on line 10 that sheep carcasses were removed from the
windfarm area as they were found;

3) from the Environmental Statement we know that it takes 5 to 7 years
for heather to grow into suitable habitat for grouse, after the
forestry is felled. Consequently, the management area held neither
prey nor sheep carrion that would have attracted the eagles;

4) this leads to a couple of questions : why would the eagles stop
flying over the windfarm ? and why would they fly so often over a
management area devoid of prey or carrion ? 
- The removal of sheep carcasses from the windfarm area is part of the
answer. The deposit of sheep carcasses or the release of prey in the
management area would be the other part.

The eagles did not spontaneously stop flying over the windfarm area
and favoured instead an unattractive, useless felled area of forestry.
As the absence or presence of prey or carrion influences their flight
paths, it is logical to think that carrion or prey was made available
to them in the management area. - There is no "avoidance" : this is
just "manipulation".

Costly as this programme may be, it is done at B&T to give support to
the false claim that Scottish eagles avoid windfarms. And this in turn
permits SNH to support windfarms in the wrong locations, such as
golden eagle breeding territories in other parts of Scotland.




Second manipulation :

It is said in the monitoring report that flight paths of intruding
eagles were not reported on the map. 
- Why ? Could it be because they flew through the windfarm ? 
Indeed they did. Here is what the report says : "In this study,
resident golden eagles appeared to avoid the windfarm within their
home range except when responding to intruders south and west of the
centre of the territory" ( which is where the windfarm stands ). 

How often would this occur ? 
- Page 30 : "one to 6 observations of intruding eagles were made per
year. These are not included in our analyses"
This means that, at least one of the years, six intrusions were
observed in 16 days of observation. Extrapolating, that would be : 6
in 16 days = 0.375 intrusion per day x 365 = 137 intrusions per annum,
and as many chases by the resident eagles. How many of these chases
would take part in the south-western part of their territory, where
the windfarm is located ? - A fair number, possibly 30 or more. 
But these flights are not shown on the map. 
- Why ?
- Could it be because it would be inconvenient to show that the
eagles, either residents or intruders, did not avoid the windfarm ?



A less than satisfactory assumption : 

The B&T monitoring report says : "the home range was occupied
throughout the study period, by apparently the same 2 adult eagles". 
The key word here is "apparently", for the birds are being observed
from distances of 1 kilometer or more. And from that distance an adult
eagle looks pretty much like any other, even with binoculars. 

Apart from that, 45 days are allowed to elapse between watches, and
that is plenty of time for a surviving eagle to pair up with a
newcomer after the original mate has been killed ( it has been
observed that pairing up with a new mate can occur within a week of
the death of a partner ). So there is no guarantee that the resident
eagles were not killed, then replaced by newcomers, and so on ( the
population sink effect ). As the windfarm is not monitored for
mortality, there is no way to know.



Eventually though, it was discovered that an eagle had "disappeared"
at B&T (1). So a search was conducted, but no carcass was found. 
- No carcass, no evidence, no problem ! So SNH may continue to
pretend, based on the B&T "evidence", that in Scotland eagles avoid
windfarms...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Finally, in the autumn of 2003, a rare white-tailed sea eagle was
found dead near a wind turbine on Pabay, a small island off Skye. Here
is what the autopsy report has to say : 


"This eagle carcase was , as you know , already a few days old when
found (maggots at least half grown I would guess)
I could see no external evidence of bruising or other injury .
The heart was enlarged and thin-walled , suggesting the bird is likely
to have been in "compensated" heart failure , and therefore somewhat
exercise intolerant for some time . The gullet and stomachs were
empty - there was little or no carcase fat .
In spite of state of the internal organs , there was some free blood
inside the sternum.
Because of its heart problem it could have died suddenly at any time -
and if it died whilst airborne , hitting the ground could have caused
internal haemorrhage.
It is not possible for me to say one way or the other whether the wind
turbines might have been involved ..."



SNH don´t hold, er, any correspondence ( or autopsy ) about that
incident either. 
- Most convenient !

Yet we had mentioned that death to ornithologist Malcom Ogilvie,
member as he is of their Scientific Advisory Committee...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




WHAT ABOUT THE RSPB ? 


A few months back, RSPB reported to the press the death of an eagle
that had been poisoned. They were keen to bring this up, and rightly
so.

I only wish they would be as keen to report eagles that die in other
circumstances : near wind turbines for instance. They may claim they 
did not know about the facts I reported here (?) ; but they know about
many others in other countries, which they try to ignore --> see :
RSPB executives are causing severe harm to bird life 

Releasing information about eagles killed by windfarms might harm
Scottish and Southern Energy´s business ... and SSE are selling a
product called "RSPB Energy"... whose sales pitch is linked to
renewable energy.
Most codes of ethics would call this a conflict of interest, and
denounce it.

In the article just mentioned ( see link ) I showed how the RSPB were
forced to disclose the first 9 eagle deaths at the Smola windfarm, and
how they chose to ignore the subsequent four. I suspect the next
report from Smola, where they are involved, will announce that the
eagles have now learned to avoid the blades... against all evidence
from around the world. 

The public will believe it of course. The RSPB wouldn´t cover up
evidence , would they ?



Mark Duchamp
.......................................................March 30th 2008
save.the.eagles@gmail.com


MORE INFORMATION : 

The negative effects of windfarms: links to papers published by Mark
Duchamp

PICTURE GALLERY
Pictures of birds cut to pieces, of turbines on fire, of accidents, of
ruined (or to-be-ruined) landscapes... 
TO ENLARGE : click "Photos" above picture on homepage.


FOOTNOTES 

(1) - Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the Argyll Experience - 07th July
2007 
Mike Gregory and Sandy Gordon are two founder members of the Argyll
Raptor Study Group who have studied Golden Eagles in south Argyll and
Kintyre for 35 years. That amount of experience needs to be listened
to. Mike´s article in Scottish Bird News No.84 provides a different
perspective from other published data on the impact on Golden Eagles
of windfarm development at Beinn an Tuirc and Beinn Ghlas. Based on
findings from these sites, Mike suggests that wind farms and Golden
Eagles do not go well to-gether...

Mike Gregory ---> scroll down to : Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the
Argyll Experience.

His article


(2) - "raptors spent significantly more time flying at close proximity
to turbine blades ... than 51-100 m away ... or >100 m away …
Analyzing the total number of minutes of flight time reveals that
something about wind turbines may attract red-tailed hawks to fly near
turbines and at dangerous heights. Similarly, American kestrels flew
in proximity level 1 (ie 1-50m from turbine) nearly four times longer
than expected by chance, golden eagles two times longer, and northern
harriers three times longer" . 
BIRD RISK BEHAVIORS AND FATALITIES AT THE ALTAMONT PASS WIND RESOURCE
AREA, THELANDER, C. G, SMALLWOOD, K.S., RUGGE, L. Period of
Performance: March 1998-December 2000, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Report SR-500-33829, 2003. Report


(3) - Eagles and windfarms


(4) - SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 1

SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 2
penultimate paragraph mentions the eagles


(5) - SNH letter 7 March 2008
b> "We do not hold any correspondence relating to incidents of eagle
deaths or disappearances at or in areas of up to 10 km surrounding
windfarms" 

(6) - SNH letter 16 Aug 2006


(7) - Chilling Statistics 

Insertado por: marcos (30/03/2008) 
Fuente/Autor: Mark Duchamp

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:13:04 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
>the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
>environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.
>
>Ménage à trois with a twist?
>
>Look what I found whilst searching Google. Old you might think? but if
>you consider Ogilvie is an EX employee of RSPB and a current employee
>of SNH the plot surely thickens?
>
>
>
>http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
>
>http://www.iberica2000.org/ES/Articulo.asp?Id=3744
>
>Covering up the death of eagles at Scottish windfarms (3744)
> 
>A REALITY CHECK PROVES THE SCOTTISH EAGLES DO NOT AVOID WINDFARMS AS
>CLAIMED 
>An inconvenient truth gleaned from various sources shows that wind
>farms have already, directly or indirectly, killed eagles, caused them
>to "disappear", or reduced their breeding success in Scotland. It is
>the best kept secret in this curious land where some eagle deaths make
>the headlines, while others are either denied or swept under the
>carpet - depending on who did the killing.
>
>This paper brings proof that covering up the dark side of wind farms
>is rampant in Scotland, as indeed it is everywhere : from politicians
>to NGO´s, and from bird societies to those sadly ill informed sections
>of the media, the wind power scam is well protected. Misrepresentation
>of facts is routinely fed to a public unsure and nervous about future
>events. Such a well recognised ‘state of fear’ blinds the normally
>perceptive who would otherwise be less easily fooled.
>
> 
>
>.
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : raptors are the essence of wilderness, and highlands
>without eagles are like a garden without birds : something I hope
>we´ll never see. 
>
>
>For reasons as impossible to excuse as they are obvious, those charged
>with protection of our protected species and habitats are apparently
>convincing themselves that the carnage being wrought by windfarms
>world wide, from Altamont Pass to Smola to the Navarre region of Spain
>and elsewhere, will ‘magically’ somehow never affect the Scottish
>environment ! Yet we are talking about identical species, from an
>identical threat to be erected in parallel examples of unbelievably
>bad locations.
>
>Ornithology as a ‘profession’ is in danger of being forever tainted by
>those preferring to deny the ever mounting evidence in favour of
>becoming paid acolytes of the wind industry.
>
>So take a good look at the eagles while you can - for barring
>miracles, they will soon be gone forever. It will be ‘adios’
>wilderness : here comes the age of destruction. 
>
>Do not count on the European Commission to help : they are part of the
>problem, not the solution - see --> Is the European Commission helping
>with the environmental destruction of Europe ?
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>In or about 1997, two golden eagles died at Beinn Ghlas, Argyll, where
>a windfarm was to be built : it happened in the course of a
>radio-tracking experiment. The windfarm was built nevertheless, in
>1999. An article by Mike Gregory, a well-known raptor specialist from
>the area, says the following : 
>
>"This was one of the eagle territories targeted by the Forestry
>Commission/RSPB radio-tracking project in the early Nineties. Both
>adult birds were trapped at the nest and fitted with radio
>transmitters and by the end of 1997 both birds had been found dead.
>Since then there has been no evidence of occupation by a resident pair
>of eagles, although the territory is visited occasionally by
>neighbouring birds." (1)
>
>Chances are that roaming immature eagles, and "floaters" looking for a
>breeding range of their own, are also visiting the vacant territory
>from time to time. It is common behaviour for these birds, and the
>windfarm would not deter them any more than they do the adult eagles
>from neighbouring territories as mentioned by Mr Gregory. A scientific
>study has proven that eagles and other raptors are in fact attracted
>by wind turbines (2). Besides, there is ample evidence from around the
>world to show that these great birds do get close to wind turbines, to
>the point of getting killed by the blades (3). 
>
>When an eagle breeding range such as Beinn Ghlas becomes vacant, it
>does not take very long before another pair will claim the territory
>as their own. But Mike tells us that Beinn Ghlas was not occupied by a
>pair since 1997, which could mean that the windfarm is acting as an
>ecological trap ( i.e. killing the eagles that move in ). 
>
>Indeed, a letter from Scottish Natural Heritage ( "SNH") dated 4
>November 2003 reveals that an eagle had "recently died" at Beinn
>Ghlas, that his female had left, and that another pair had moved in
>(4) (page 2).
>
>If these birds were missed by Mike Gregory, who is only checking on
>that breeding territory at large intervals, it is likely that they
>were killed before he could see them. For once eagles claim a
>territory, they tend to keep it till the end. 
>
>SNH say in the letter : " the female left the territory". But as no
>monitoring was done, i.e. there was no search for bird carcasses under
>the turbines, how can SNH be sure that the bird left, as opposed to
>being killed ? If SNH followed the precautionary principle, they would
>have assumed that the female also met her death. This would be
>consistent with normal eagle behaviour : when a breeding eagle dies,
>the surviving bird normally stays on the territory, and pairs up with
>a floater. The assumption formulated by SNH is neither based on known
>eagle behaviour, nor is it supported by evidence ( the female was not
>seen anywhere else, was it ? ). It is in fact self serving : as a
>quango, SNH must support government policy, which wrongly considers
>eagle breeding territories as adequate locations for windfarms. And in
>this context the news of eagles being killed or disappearing in
>windfarm areas would disserve such policy. 
>
>The other pair, the one that "moved in" after the female "left", was
>never to be seen again : Mike Gregory, for one, never has ; yet he
>checks on that territory year after year. As in the case of the female
>above, it is likely that both these eagles were killed by the turbine
>blades. And there may have been more victims in the 8 years of
>operation of the windfarm : adults that would have claimed the
>territory, or visiting neighbouring adults, or roaming subadults.
>
>As searches under the turbines were not conducted, we don´t have eagle
>carcasses to prove the point. But we do know that a pair claimed the
>territory ( "moved in" ), and that they soon disappeared. We also know
>that one eagle died ( SNH did not mention the cause ). And we know
>that his female disappeared.
>
>Under the Freedom of Information legislation, SNH was asked for
>autopsies and correspondence on the subject of dead or missing eagles
>at windfarms ( including 3 years before construction, and a 10km
>circle around the turbines ). But according to their reply (5), there
>is only the matter of a golden eagle who disappeared at the Beinn an
>Tuirc windfarm, also in Argyll. We are told that they hold nothing at
>all regarding Beinn Ghlas :
>- nothing about the 2 eagles that died in a radio-tracking experiment 
>- nothing about the eagle that died shortly before November 2003,
>- nothing about the female that "left",
>- nothing about the pair that "moved in " only to disappear shortly
>after, 
>- and nothing about the pair that disappeared from a neighbouring
>territory (1) 
>
>What is most remarkable is that we have, on one hand, a letter from
>one of their officers mentioning one dead eagle and 3 that disappeared
>(4), and on the other hand a letter under Freedom of Information
>saying that they hold no correspondence on the matter (5).
>Are they negating their own signature ? 
>- Unless they have a plausible explanation, it does look as if they
>are covering up. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : ospreys too are being killed by windfarms and/or their
>power lines. Evidence of it has not surfaced in Scotland so far, but
>in view of what appears to be a cover up, this does not mean it hasn´t
>happened.
>
>
>
>
>From what we´ve seen, there is every reason to believe that the Beinn
>Ghlas windfarm is acting as a "population sink" for golden eagles,
>killing them as they move in, one after the other.
>
>Yet in another letter, dated 16 August 2006, SNH misrepresented to me
>that golden eagles avoid windfarms : "In general, therefore, we would
>expect the effect of a windfarm to be to displace any resident eagles"
>(6). This position was also made public, as evidenced by Mr Gregory´s
>article (1) ( second paragraph before last ) . Yet it is not only in
>contradiction with evidence from other windfarms around the world (
>Altamont Pass, Navarre, Aragon, Soria etc. ), but also with what we
>have seen happen at Beinn Ghlas.
>
>The lack of credibility of SNH is nothing new. It has been exposed
>before, here : The shame of Scotland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : raptors are not the only victims of wind turbines
>and/or their power lines. Swans and geese are also on the list, as are
>most birds and even bats. It is a sad future we are preparing for our
>kids. 
>
>
>
>SNH also base their eagles-avoid-windfarms position on the Beinn an
>Tuirc windfarm, where monitoring of eagle flight patterns was
>conducted after the turbines were erected. If we are to believe the
>ornithology consultants, the resident eagles immediately proceeded to
>avoid the windfarm, which is contrary to eagle behaviour in other
>countries. 
>
>Assuming that the field observer did his job conscienciously, it would
>appear that the desired "avoidance" was obtained through manipulation:
>
>
>First manipulation :
>
>1) from page 35 of the monitoring report, right column, top of first
>paragraph, we learn that the B&T eagles´ main food source is carrion;
>
>2) then we learn on line 10 that sheep carcasses were removed from the
>windfarm area as they were found;
>
>3) from the Environmental Statement we know that it takes 5 to 7 years
>for heather to grow into suitable habitat for grouse, after the
>forestry is felled. Consequently, the management area held neither
>prey nor sheep carrion that would have attracted the eagles;
>
>4) this leads to a couple of questions : why would the eagles stop
>flying over the windfarm ? and why would they fly so often over a
>management area devoid of prey or carrion ? 
>- The removal of sheep carcasses from the windfarm area is part of the
>answer. The deposit of sheep carcasses or the release of prey in the
>management area would be the other part.
>
>The eagles did not spontaneously stop flying over the windfarm area
>and favoured instead an unattractive, useless felled area of forestry.
>As the absence or presence of prey or carrion influences their flight
>paths, it is logical to think that carrion or prey was made available
>to them in the management area. - There is no "avoidance" : this is
>just "manipulation".
>
>Costly as this programme may be, it is done at B&T to give support to
>the false claim that Scottish eagles avoid windfarms. And this in turn
>permits SNH to support windfarms in the wrong locations, such as
>golden eagle breeding territories in other parts of Scotland.
>
>
>
>
>Second manipulation :
>
>It is said in the monitoring report that flight paths of intruding
>eagles were not reported on the map. 
>- Why ? Could it be because they flew through the windfarm ? 
>Indeed they did. Here is what the report says : "In this study,
>resident golden eagles appeared to avoid the windfarm within their
>home range except when responding to intruders south and west of the
>centre of the territory" ( which is where the windfarm stands ). 
>
>How often would this occur ? 
>- Page 30 : "one to 6 observations of intruding eagles were made per
>year. These are not included in our analyses"
>This means that, at least one of the years, six intrusions were
>observed in 16 days of observation. Extrapolating, that would be : 6
>in 16 days = 0.375 intrusion per day x 365 = 137 intrusions per annum,
>and as many chases by the resident eagles. How many of these chases
>would take part in the south-western part of their territory, where
>the windfarm is located ? - A fair number, possibly 30 or more. 
>But these flights are not shown on the map. 
>- Why ?
>- Could it be because it would be inconvenient to show that the
>eagles, either residents or intruders, did not avoid the windfarm ?
>
>
>
>A less than satisfactory assumption : 
>
>The B&T monitoring report says : "the home range was occupied
>throughout the study period, by apparently the same 2 adult eagles". 
>The key word here is "apparently", for the birds are being observed
>from distances of 1 kilometer or more. And from that distance an adult
>eagle looks pretty much like any other, even with binoculars. 
>
>Apart from that, 45 days are allowed to elapse between watches, and
>that is plenty of time for a surviving eagle to pair up with a
>newcomer after the original mate has been killed ( it has been
>observed that pairing up with a new mate can occur within a week of
>the death of a partner ). So there is no guarantee that the resident
>eagles were not killed, then replaced by newcomers, and so on ( the
>population sink effect ). As the windfarm is not monitored for
>mortality, there is no way to know.
>
>
>
>Eventually though, it was discovered that an eagle had "disappeared"
>at B&T (1). So a search was conducted, but no carcass was found. 
>- No carcass, no evidence, no problem ! So SNH may continue to
>pretend, based on the B&T "evidence", that in Scotland eagles avoid
>windfarms...
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Finally, in the autumn of 2003, a rare white-tailed sea eagle was
>found dead near a wind turbine on Pabay, a small island off Skye. Here
>is what the autopsy report has to say : 
>
>
>"This eagle carcase was , as you know , already a few days old when
>found (maggots at least half grown I would guess)
>I could see no external evidence of bruising or other injury .
>The heart was enlarged and thin-walled , suggesting the bird is likely
>to have been in "compensated" heart failure , and therefore somewhat
>exercise intolerant for some time . The gullet and stomachs were
>empty - there was little or no carcase fat .
>In spite of state of the internal organs , there was some free blood
>inside the sternum.
>Because of its heart problem it could have died suddenly at any time -
>and if it died whilst airborne , hitting the ground could have caused
>internal haemorrhage.
>It is not possible for me to say one way or the other whether the wind
>turbines might have been involved ..."
>
>
>
>SNH don´t hold, er, any correspondence ( or autopsy ) about that
>incident either. 
>- Most convenient !
>
>Yet we had mentioned that death to ornithologist Malcom Ogilvie,
>member as he is of their Scientific Advisory Committee...
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>WHAT ABOUT THE RSPB ? 
>
>
>A few months back, RSPB reported to the press the death of an eagle
>that had been poisoned. They were keen to bring this up, and rightly
>so.
>
>I only wish they would be as keen to report eagles that die in other
>circumstances : near wind turbines for instance. They may claim they 
>did not know about the facts I reported here (?) ; but they know about
>many others in other countries, which they try to ignore --> see :
>RSPB executives are causing severe harm to bird life 
>
>Releasing information about eagles killed by windfarms might harm
>Scottish and Southern Energy´s business ... and SSE are selling a
>product called "RSPB Energy"... whose sales pitch is linked to
>renewable energy.
>Most codes of ethics would call this a conflict of interest, and
>denounce it.
>
>In the article just mentioned ( see link ) I showed how the RSPB were
>forced to disclose the first 9 eagle deaths at the Smola windfarm, and
>how they chose to ignore the subsequent four. I suspect the next
>report from Smola, where they are involved, will announce that the
>eagles have now learned to avoid the blades... against all evidence
>from around the world. 
>
>The public will believe it of course. The RSPB wouldn´t cover up
>evidence , would they ?
>
>
>
>Mark Duchamp
>.......................................................March 30th 2008
>save.the.eagles@gmail.com
>
>
>MORE INFORMATION : 
>
>The negative effects of windfarms: links to papers published by Mark
>Duchamp
>
>PICTURE GALLERY
>Pictures of birds cut to pieces, of turbines on fire, of accidents, of
>ruined (or to-be-ruined) landscapes... 
>TO ENLARGE : click "Photos" above picture on homepage.
>
>
>FOOTNOTES 
>
>(1) - Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the Argyll Experience - 07th July
>2007 
>Mike Gregory and Sandy Gordon are two founder members of the Argyll
>Raptor Study Group who have studied Golden Eagles in south Argyll and
>Kintyre for 35 years. That amount of experience needs to be listened
>to. Mike´s article in Scottish Bird News No.84 provides a different
>perspective from other published data on the impact on Golden Eagles
>of windfarm development at Beinn an Tuirc and Beinn Ghlas. Based on
>findings from these sites, Mike suggests that wind farms and Golden
>Eagles do not go well to-gether...
>
>Mike Gregory ---> scroll down to : Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the
>Argyll Experience.
>
>His article
>
>
>(2) - "raptors spent significantly more time flying at close proximity
>to turbine blades ... than 51-100 m away ... or >100 m away …
>Analyzing the total number of minutes of flight time reveals that
>something about wind turbines may attract red-tailed hawks to fly near
>turbines and at dangerous heights. Similarly, American kestrels flew
>in proximity level 1 (ie 1-50m from turbine) nearly four times longer
>than expected by chance, golden eagles two times longer, and northern
>harriers three times longer" . 
>BIRD RISK BEHAVIORS AND FATALITIES AT THE ALTAMONT PASS WIND RESOURCE
>AREA, THELANDER, C. G, SMALLWOOD, K.S., RUGGE, L. Period of
>Performance: March 1998-December 2000, National Renewable Energy
>Laboratory Report SR-500-33829, 2003. Report
>
>
>(3) - Eagles and windfarms
>
>
>(4) - SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 1
>
>SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 2
>penultimate paragraph mentions the eagles
>
>
>(5) - SNH letter 7 March 2008
>b> "We do not hold any correspondence relating to incidents of eagle
>deaths or disappearances at or in areas of up to 10 km surrounding
>windfarms" 
>
>(6) - SNH letter 16 Aug 2006
>
>
>(7) - Chilling Statistics 
>
>Insertado por: marcos (30/03/2008) 
>Fuente/Autor: Mark Duchamp

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:13:04 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
>the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
>environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.
>
>Ménage à trois with a twist?
>
>Look what I found whilst searching Google. Old you might think? but if
>you consider Ogilvie is an EX employee of RSPB and a current employee
>of SNH the plot surely thickens?
>
>
>
>http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
>
>http://www.iberica2000.org/ES/Articulo.asp?Id=3744
>
>Covering up the death of eagles at Scottish windfarms (3744)
> 
>A REALITY CHECK PROVES THE SCOTTISH EAGLES DO NOT AVOID WINDFARMS AS
>CLAIMED 
>An inconvenient truth gleaned from various sources shows that wind
>farms have already, directly or indirectly, killed eagles, caused them
>to "disappear", or reduced their breeding success in Scotland. It is
>the best kept secret in this curious land where some eagle deaths make
>the headlines, while others are either denied or swept under the
>carpet - depending on who did the killing.
>
>This paper brings proof that covering up the dark side of wind farms
>is rampant in Scotland, as indeed it is everywhere : from politicians
>to NGO´s, and from bird societies to those sadly ill informed sections
>of the media, the wind power scam is well protected. Misrepresentation
>of facts is routinely fed to a public unsure and nervous about future
>events. Such a well recognised ‘state of fear’ blinds the normally
>perceptive who would otherwise be less easily fooled.
>
> 
>
>.
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : raptors are the essence of wilderness, and highlands
>without eagles are like a garden without birds : something I hope
>we´ll never see. 
>
>
>For reasons as impossible to excuse as they are obvious, those charged
>with protection of our protected species and habitats are apparently
>convincing themselves that the carnage being wrought by windfarms
>world wide, from Altamont Pass to Smola to the Navarre region of Spain
>and elsewhere, will ‘magically’ somehow never affect the Scottish
>environment ! Yet we are talking about identical species, from an
>identical threat to be erected in parallel examples of unbelievably
>bad locations.
>
>Ornithology as a ‘profession’ is in danger of being forever tainted by
>those preferring to deny the ever mounting evidence in favour of
>becoming paid acolytes of the wind industry.
>
>So take a good look at the eagles while you can - for barring
>miracles, they will soon be gone forever. It will be ‘adios’
>wilderness : here comes the age of destruction. 
>
>Do not count on the European Commission to help : they are part of the
>problem, not the solution - see --> Is the European Commission helping
>with the environmental destruction of Europe ?
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>In or about 1997, two golden eagles died at Beinn Ghlas, Argyll, where
>a windfarm was to be built : it happened in the course of a
>radio-tracking experiment. The windfarm was built nevertheless, in
>1999. An article by Mike Gregory, a well-known raptor specialist from
>the area, says the following : 
>
>"This was one of the eagle territories targeted by the Forestry
>Commission/RSPB radio-tracking project in the early Nineties. Both
>adult birds were trapped at the nest and fitted with radio
>transmitters and by the end of 1997 both birds had been found dead.
>Since then there has been no evidence of occupation by a resident pair
>of eagles, although the territory is visited occasionally by
>neighbouring birds." (1)
>
>Chances are that roaming immature eagles, and "floaters" looking for a
>breeding range of their own, are also visiting the vacant territory
>from time to time. It is common behaviour for these birds, and the
>windfarm would not deter them any more than they do the adult eagles
>from neighbouring territories as mentioned by Mr Gregory. A scientific
>study has proven that eagles and other raptors are in fact attracted
>by wind turbines (2). Besides, there is ample evidence from around the
>world to show that these great birds do get close to wind turbines, to
>the point of getting killed by the blades (3). 
>
>When an eagle breeding range such as Beinn Ghlas becomes vacant, it
>does not take very long before another pair will claim the territory
>as their own. But Mike tells us that Beinn Ghlas was not occupied by a
>pair since 1997, which could mean that the windfarm is acting as an
>ecological trap ( i.e. killing the eagles that move in ). 
>
>Indeed, a letter from Scottish Natural Heritage ( "SNH") dated 4
>November 2003 reveals that an eagle had "recently died" at Beinn
>Ghlas, that his female had left, and that another pair had moved in
>(4) (page 2).
>
>If these birds were missed by Mike Gregory, who is only checking on
>that breeding territory at large intervals, it is likely that they
>were killed before he could see them. For once eagles claim a
>territory, they tend to keep it till the end. 
>
>SNH say in the letter : " the female left the territory". But as no
>monitoring was done, i.e. there was no search for bird carcasses under
>the turbines, how can SNH be sure that the bird left, as opposed to
>being killed ? If SNH followed the precautionary principle, they would
>have assumed that the female also met her death. This would be
>consistent with normal eagle behaviour : when a breeding eagle dies,
>the surviving bird normally stays on the territory, and pairs up with
>a floater. The assumption formulated by SNH is neither based on known
>eagle behaviour, nor is it supported by evidence ( the female was not
>seen anywhere else, was it ? ). It is in fact self serving : as a
>quango, SNH must support government policy, which wrongly considers
>eagle breeding territories as adequate locations for windfarms. And in
>this context the news of eagles being killed or disappearing in
>windfarm areas would disserve such policy. 
>
>The other pair, the one that "moved in" after the female "left", was
>never to be seen again : Mike Gregory, for one, never has ; yet he
>checks on that territory year after year. As in the case of the female
>above, it is likely that both these eagles were killed by the turbine
>blades. And there may have been more victims in the 8 years of
>operation of the windfarm : adults that would have claimed the
>territory, or visiting neighbouring adults, or roaming subadults.
>
>As searches under the turbines were not conducted, we don´t have eagle
>carcasses to prove the point. But we do know that a pair claimed the
>territory ( "moved in" ), and that they soon disappeared. We also know
>that one eagle died ( SNH did not mention the cause ). And we know
>that his female disappeared.
>
>Under the Freedom of Information legislation, SNH was asked for
>autopsies and correspondence on the subject of dead or missing eagles
>at windfarms ( including 3 years before construction, and a 10km
>circle around the turbines ). But according to their reply (5), there
>is only the matter of a golden eagle who disappeared at the Beinn an
>Tuirc windfarm, also in Argyll. We are told that they hold nothing at
>all regarding Beinn Ghlas :
>- nothing about the 2 eagles that died in a radio-tracking experiment 
>- nothing about the eagle that died shortly before November 2003,
>- nothing about the female that "left",
>- nothing about the pair that "moved in " only to disappear shortly
>after, 
>- and nothing about the pair that disappeared from a neighbouring
>territory (1) 
>
>What is most remarkable is that we have, on one hand, a letter from
>one of their officers mentioning one dead eagle and 3 that disappeared
>(4), and on the other hand a letter under Freedom of Information
>saying that they hold no correspondence on the matter (5).
>Are they negating their own signature ? 
>- Unless they have a plausible explanation, it does look as if they
>are covering up. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : ospreys too are being killed by windfarms and/or their
>power lines. Evidence of it has not surfaced in Scotland so far, but
>in view of what appears to be a cover up, this does not mean it hasn´t
>happened.
>
>
>
>
>From what we´ve seen, there is every reason to believe that the Beinn
>Ghlas windfarm is acting as a "population sink" for golden eagles,
>killing them as they move in, one after the other.
>
>Yet in another letter, dated 16 August 2006, SNH misrepresented to me
>that golden eagles avoid windfarms : "In general, therefore, we would
>expect the effect of a windfarm to be to displace any resident eagles"
>(6). This position was also made public, as evidenced by Mr Gregory´s
>article (1) ( second paragraph before last ) . Yet it is not only in
>contradiction with evidence from other windfarms around the world (
>Altamont Pass, Navarre, Aragon, Soria etc. ), but also with what we
>have seen happen at Beinn Ghlas.
>
>The lack of credibility of SNH is nothing new. It has been exposed
>before, here : The shame of Scotland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : raptors are not the only victims of wind turbines
>and/or their power lines. Swans and geese are also on the list, as are
>most birds and even bats. It is a sad future we are preparing for our
>kids. 
>
>
>
>SNH also base their eagles-avoid-windfarms position on the Beinn an
>Tuirc windfarm, where monitoring of eagle flight patterns was
>conducted after the turbines were erected. If we are to believe the
>ornithology consultants, the resident eagles immediately proceeded to
>avoid the windfarm, which is contrary to eagle behaviour in other
>countries. 
>
>Assuming that the field observer did his job conscienciously, it would
>appear that the desired "avoidance" was obtained through manipulation:
>
>
>First manipulation :
>
>1) from page 35 of the monitoring report, right column, top of first
>paragraph, we learn that the B&T eagles´ main food source is carrion;
>
>2) then we learn on line 10 that sheep carcasses were removed from the
>windfarm area as they were found;
>
>3) from the Environmental Statement we know that it takes 5 to 7 years
>for heather to grow into suitable habitat for grouse, after the
>forestry is felled. Consequently, the management area held neither
>prey nor sheep carrion that would have attracted the eagles;
>
>4) this leads to a couple of questions : why would the eagles stop
>flying over the windfarm ? and why would they fly so often over a
>management area devoid of prey or carrion ? 
>- The removal of sheep carcasses from the windfarm area is part of the
>answer. The deposit of sheep carcasses or the release of prey in the
>management area would be the other part.
>
>The eagles did not spontaneously stop flying over the windfarm area
>and favoured instead an unattractive, useless felled area of forestry.
>As the absence or presence of prey or carrion influences their flight
>paths, it is logical to think that carrion or prey was made available
>to them in the management area. - There is no "avoidance" : this is
>just "manipulation".
>
>Costly as this programme may be, it is done at B&T to give support to
>the false claim that Scottish eagles avoid windfarms. And this in turn
>permits SNH to support windfarms in the wrong locations, such as
>golden eagle breeding territories in other parts of Scotland.
>
>
>
>
>Second manipulation :
>
>It is said in the monitoring report that flight paths of intruding
>eagles were not reported on the map. 
>- Why ? Could it be because they flew through the windfarm ? 
>Indeed they did. Here is what the report says : "In this study,
>resident golden eagles appeared to avoid the windfarm within their
>home range except when responding to intruders south and west of the
>centre of the territory" ( which is where the windfarm stands ). 
>
>How often would this occur ? 
>- Page 30 : "one to 6 observations of intruding eagles were made per
>year. These are not included in our analyses"
>This means that, at least one of the years, six intrusions were
>observed in 16 days of observation. Extrapolating, that would be : 6
>in 16 days = 0.375 intrusion per day x 365 = 137 intrusions per annum,
>and as many chases by the resident eagles. How many of these chases
>would take part in the south-western part of their territory, where
>the windfarm is located ? - A fair number, possibly 30 or more. 
>But these flights are not shown on the map. 
>- Why ?
>- Could it be because it would be inconvenient to show that the
>eagles, either residents or intruders, did not avoid the windfarm ?
>
>
>
>A less than satisfactory assumption : 
>
>The B&T monitoring report says : "the home range was occupied
>throughout the study period, by apparently the same 2 adult eagles". 
>The key word here is "apparently", for the birds are being observed
>from distances of 1 kilometer or more. And from that distance an adult
>eagle looks pretty much like any other, even with binoculars. 
>
>Apart from that, 45 days are allowed to elapse between watches, and
>that is plenty of time for a surviving eagle to pair up with a
>newcomer after the original mate has been killed ( it has been
>observed that pairing up with a new mate can occur within a week of
>the death of a partner ). So there is no guarantee that the resident
>eagles were not killed, then replaced by newcomers, and so on ( the
>population sink effect ). As the windfarm is not monitored for
>mortality, there is no way to know.
>
>
>
>Eventually though, it was discovered that an eagle had "disappeared"
>at B&T (1). So a search was conducted, but no carcass was found. 
>- No carcass, no evidence, no problem ! So SNH may continue to
>pretend, based on the B&T "evidence", that in Scotland eagles avoid
>windfarms...
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Finally, in the autumn of 2003, a rare white-tailed sea eagle was
>found dead near a wind turbine on Pabay, a small island off Skye. Here
>is what the autopsy report has to say : 
>
>
>"This eagle carcase was , as you know , already a few days old when
>found (maggots at least half grown I would guess)
>I could see no external evidence of bruising or other injury .
>The heart was enlarged and thin-walled , suggesting the bird is likely
>to have been in "compensated" heart failure , and therefore somewhat
>exercise intolerant for some time . The gullet and stomachs were
>empty - there was little or no carcase fat .
>In spite of state of the internal organs , there was some free blood
>inside the sternum.
>Because of its heart problem it could have died suddenly at any time -
>and if it died whilst airborne , hitting the ground could have caused
>internal haemorrhage.
>It is not possible for me to say one way or the other whether the wind
>turbines might have been involved ..."
>
>
>
>SNH don´t hold, er, any correspondence ( or autopsy ) about that
>incident either. 
>- Most convenient !
>
>Yet we had mentioned that death to ornithologist Malcom Ogilvie,
>member as he is of their Scientific Advisory Committee...
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>WHAT ABOUT THE RSPB ? 
>
>
>A few months back, RSPB reported to the press the death of an eagle
>that had been poisoned. They were keen to bring this up, and rightly
>so.
>
>I only wish they would be as keen to report eagles that die in other
>circumstances : near wind turbines for instance. They may claim they 
>did not know about the facts I reported here (?) ; but they know about
>many others in other countries, which they try to ignore --> see :
>RSPB executives are causing severe harm to bird life 
>
>Releasing information about eagles killed by windfarms might harm
>Scottish and Southern Energy´s business ... and SSE are selling a
>product called "RSPB Energy"... whose sales pitch is linked to
>renewable energy.
>Most codes of ethics would call this a conflict of interest, and
>denounce it.
>
>In the article just mentioned ( see link ) I showed how the RSPB were
>forced to disclose the first 9 eagle deaths at the Smola windfarm, and
>how they chose to ignore the subsequent four. I suspect the next
>report from Smola, where they are involved, will announce that the
>eagles have now learned to avoid the blades... against all evidence
>from around the world. 
>
>The public will believe it of course. The RSPB wouldn´t cover up
>evidence , would they ?
>
>
>
>Mark Duchamp
>.......................................................March 30th 2008
>save.the.eagles@gmail.com
>
>
>MORE INFORMATION : 
>
>The negative effects of windfarms: links to papers published by Mark
>Duchamp
>
>PICTURE GALLERY
>Pictures of birds cut to pieces, of turbines on fire, of accidents, of
>ruined (or to-be-ruined) landscapes... 
>TO ENLARGE : click "Photos" above picture on homepage.
>
>
>FOOTNOTES 
>
>(1) - Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the Argyll Experience - 07th July
>2007 
>Mike Gregory and Sandy Gordon are two founder members of the Argyll
>Raptor Study Group who have studied Golden Eagles in south Argyll and
>Kintyre for 35 years. That amount of experience needs to be listened
>to. Mike´s article in Scottish Bird News No.84 provides a different
>perspective from other published data on the impact on Golden Eagles
>of windfarm development at Beinn an Tuirc and Beinn Ghlas. Based on
>findings from these sites, Mike suggests that wind farms and Golden
>Eagles do not go well to-gether...
>
>Mike Gregory ---> scroll down to : Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the
>Argyll Experience.
>
>His article
>
>
>(2) - "raptors spent significantly more time flying at close proximity
>to turbine blades ... than 51-100 m away ... or >100 m away …
>Analyzing the total number of minutes of flight time reveals that
>something about wind turbines may attract red-tailed hawks to fly near
>turbines and at dangerous heights. Similarly, American kestrels flew
>in proximity level 1 (ie 1-50m from turbine) nearly four times longer
>than expected by chance, golden eagles two times longer, and northern
>harriers three times longer" . 
>BIRD RISK BEHAVIORS AND FATALITIES AT THE ALTAMONT PASS WIND RESOURCE
>AREA, THELANDER, C. G, SMALLWOOD, K.S., RUGGE, L. Period of
>Performance: March 1998-December 2000, National Renewable Energy
>Laboratory Report SR-500-33829, 2003. Report
>
>
>(3) - Eagles and windfarms
>
>
>(4) - SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 1
>
>SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 2
>penultimate paragraph mentions the eagles
>
>
>(5) - SNH letter 7 March 2008
>b> "We do not hold any correspondence relating to incidents of eagle
>deaths or disappearances at or in areas of up to 10 km surrounding
>windfarms" 
>
>(6) - SNH letter 16 Aug 2006
>
>
>(7) - Chilling Statistics 
>
>Insertado por: marcos (30/03/2008) 
>Fuente/Autor: Mark Duchamp

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:13:04 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:


c
>It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
>the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
>environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.
>
>Ménage à trois with a twist?
>
>Look what I found whilst searching Google. Old you might think? but if
>you consider Ogilvie is an EX employee of RSPB and a current employee
>of SNH the plot surely thickens?
>
>
>
>http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
>
>http://www.iberica2000.org/ES/Articulo.asp?Id=3744
>
>Covering up the death of eagles at Scottish windfarms (3744)
> 
>A REALITY CHECK PROVES THE SCOTTISH EAGLES DO NOT AVOID WINDFARMS AS
>CLAIMED 
>An inconvenient truth gleaned from various sources shows that wind
>farms have already, directly or indirectly, killed eagles, caused them
>to "disappear", or reduced their breeding success in Scotland. It is
>the best kept secret in this curious land where some eagle deaths make
>the headlines, while others are either denied or swept under the
>carpet - depending on who did the killing.
>
>This paper brings proof that covering up the dark side of wind farms
>is rampant in Scotland, as indeed it is everywhere : from politicians
>to NGO´s, and from bird societies to those sadly ill informed sections
>of the media, the wind power scam is well protected. Misrepresentation
>of facts is routinely fed to a public unsure and nervous about future
>events. Such a well recognised ‘state of fear’ blinds the normally
>perceptive who would otherwise be less easily fooled.
>
> 
>
>.
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : raptors are the essence of wilderness, and highlands
>without eagles are like a garden without birds : something I hope
>we´ll never see. 
>
>
>For reasons as impossible to excuse as they are obvious, those charged
>with protection of our protected species and habitats are apparently
>convincing themselves that the carnage being wrought by windfarms
>world wide, from Altamont Pass to Smola to the Navarre region of Spain
>and elsewhere, will ‘magically’ somehow never affect the Scottish
>environment ! Yet we are talking about identical species, from an
>identical threat to be erected in parallel examples of unbelievably
>bad locations.
>
>Ornithology as a ‘profession’ is in danger of being forever tainted by
>those preferring to deny the ever mounting evidence in favour of
>becoming paid acolytes of the wind industry.
>
>So take a good look at the eagles while you can - for barring
>miracles, they will soon be gone forever. It will be ‘adios’
>wilderness : here comes the age of destruction. 
>
>Do not count on the European Commission to help : they are part of the
>problem, not the solution - see --> Is the European Commission helping
>with the environmental destruction of Europe ?
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>In or about 1997, two golden eagles died at Beinn Ghlas, Argyll, where
>a windfarm was to be built : it happened in the course of a
>radio-tracking experiment. The windfarm was built nevertheless, in
>1999. An article by Mike Gregory, a well-known raptor specialist from
>the area, says the following : 
>
>"This was one of the eagle territories targeted by the Forestry
>Commission/RSPB radio-tracking project in the early Nineties. Both
>adult birds were trapped at the nest and fitted with radio
>transmitters and by the end of 1997 both birds had been found dead.
>Since then there has been no evidence of occupation by a resident pair
>of eagles, although the territory is visited occasionally by
>neighbouring birds." (1)
>
>Chances are that roaming immature eagles, and "floaters" looking for a
>breeding range of their own, are also visiting the vacant territory
>from time to time. It is common behaviour for these birds, and the
>windfarm would not deter them any more than they do the adult eagles
>from neighbouring territories as mentioned by Mr Gregory. A scientific
>study has proven that eagles and other raptors are in fact attracted
>by wind turbines (2). Besides, there is ample evidence from around the
>world to show that these great birds do get close to wind turbines, to
>the point of getting killed by the blades (3). 
>
>When an eagle breeding range such as Beinn Ghlas becomes vacant, it
>does not take very long before another pair will claim the territory
>as their own. But Mike tells us that Beinn Ghlas was not occupied by a
>pair since 1997, which could mean that the windfarm is acting as an
>ecological trap ( i.e. killing the eagles that move in ). 
>
>Indeed, a letter from Scottish Natural Heritage ( "SNH") dated 4
>November 2003 reveals that an eagle had "recently died" at Beinn
>Ghlas, that his female had left, and that another pair had moved in
>(4) (page 2).
>
>If these birds were missed by Mike Gregory, who is only checking on
>that breeding territory at large intervals, it is likely that they
>were killed before he could see them. For once eagles claim a
>territory, they tend to keep it till the end. 
>
>SNH say in the letter : " the female left the territory". But as no
>monitoring was done, i.e. there was no search for bird carcasses under
>the turbines, how can SNH be sure that the bird left, as opposed to
>being killed ? If SNH followed the precautionary principle, they would
>have assumed that the female also met her death. This would be
>consistent with normal eagle behaviour : when a breeding eagle dies,
>the surviving bird normally stays on the territory, and pairs up with
>a floater. The assumption formulated by SNH is neither based on known
>eagle behaviour, nor is it supported by evidence ( the female was not
>seen anywhere else, was it ? ). It is in fact self serving : as a
>quango, SNH must support government policy, which wrongly considers
>eagle breeding territories as adequate locations for windfarms. And in
>this context the news of eagles being killed or disappearing in
>windfarm areas would disserve such policy. 
>
>The other pair, the one that "moved in" after the female "left", was
>never to be seen again : Mike Gregory, for one, never has ; yet he
>checks on that territory year after year. As in the case of the female
>above, it is likely that both these eagles were killed by the turbine
>blades. And there may have been more victims in the 8 years of
>operation of the windfarm : adults that would have claimed the
>territory, or visiting neighbouring adults, or roaming subadults.
>
>As searches under the turbines were not conducted, we don´t have eagle
>carcasses to prove the point. But we do know that a pair claimed the
>territory ( "moved in" ), and that they soon disappeared. We also know
>that one eagle died ( SNH did not mention the cause ). And we know
>that his female disappeared.
>
>Under the Freedom of Information legislation, SNH was asked for
>autopsies and correspondence on the subject of dead or missing eagles
>at windfarms ( including 3 years before construction, and a 10km
>circle around the turbines ). But according to their reply (5), there
>is only the matter of a golden eagle who disappeared at the Beinn an
>Tuirc windfarm, also in Argyll. We are told that they hold nothing at
>all regarding Beinn Ghlas :
>- nothing about the 2 eagles that died in a radio-tracking experiment 
>- nothing about the eagle that died shortly before November 2003,
>- nothing about the female that "left",
>- nothing about the pair that "moved in " only to disappear shortly
>after, 
>- and nothing about the pair that disappeared from a neighbouring
>territory (1) 
>
>What is most remarkable is that we have, on one hand, a letter from
>one of their officers mentioning one dead eagle and 3 that disappeared
>(4), and on the other hand a letter under Freedom of Information
>saying that they hold no correspondence on the matter (5).
>Are they negating their own signature ? 
>- Unless they have a plausible explanation, it does look as if they
>are covering up. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : ospreys too are being killed by windfarms and/or their
>power lines. Evidence of it has not surfaced in Scotland so far, but
>in view of what appears to be a cover up, this does not mean it hasn´t
>happened.
>
>
>
>
>From what we´ve seen, there is every reason to believe that the Beinn
>Ghlas windfarm is acting as a "population sink" for golden eagles,
>killing them as they move in, one after the other.
>
>Yet in another letter, dated 16 August 2006, SNH misrepresented to me
>that golden eagles avoid windfarms : "In general, therefore, we would
>expect the effect of a windfarm to be to displace any resident eagles"
>(6). This position was also made public, as evidenced by Mr Gregory´s
>article (1) ( second paragraph before last ) . Yet it is not only in
>contradiction with evidence from other windfarms around the world (
>Altamont Pass, Navarre, Aragon, Soria etc. ), but also with what we
>have seen happen at Beinn Ghlas.
>
>The lack of credibility of SNH is nothing new. It has been exposed
>before, here : The shame of Scotland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Above picture : raptors are not the only victims of wind turbines
>and/or their power lines. Swans and geese are also on the list, as are
>most birds and even bats. It is a sad future we are preparing for our
>kids. 
>
>
>
>SNH also base their eagles-avoid-windfarms position on the Beinn an
>Tuirc windfarm, where monitoring of eagle flight patterns was
>conducted after the turbines were erected. If we are to believe the
>ornithology consultants, the resident eagles immediately proceeded to
>avoid the windfarm, which is contrary to eagle behaviour in other
>countries. 
>
>Assuming that the field observer did his job conscienciously, it would
>appear that the desired "avoidance" was obtained through manipulation:
>
>
>First manipulation :
>
>1) from page 35 of the monitoring report, right column, top of first
>paragraph, we learn that the B&T eagles´ main food source is carrion;
>
>2) then we learn on line 10 that sheep carcasses were removed from the
>windfarm area as they were found;
>
>3) from the Environmental Statement we know that it takes 5 to 7 years
>for heather to grow into suitable habitat for grouse, after the
>forestry is felled. Consequently, the management area held neither
>prey nor sheep carrion that would have attracted the eagles;
>
>4) this leads to a couple of questions : why would the eagles stop
>flying over the windfarm ? and why would they fly so often over a
>management area devoid of prey or carrion ? 
>- The removal of sheep carcasses from the windfarm area is part of the
>answer. The deposit of sheep carcasses or the release of prey in the
>management area would be the other part.
>
>The eagles did not spontaneously stop flying over the windfarm area
>and favoured instead an unattractive, useless felled area of forestry.
>As the absence or presence of prey or carrion influences their flight
>paths, it is logical to think that carrion or prey was made available
>to them in the management area. - There is no "avoidance" : this is
>just "manipulation".
>
>Costly as this programme may be, it is done at B&T to give support to
>the false claim that Scottish eagles avoid windfarms. And this in turn
>permits SNH to support windfarms in the wrong locations, such as
>golden eagle breeding territories in other parts of Scotland.
>
>
>
>
>Second manipulation :
>
>It is said in the monitoring report that flight paths of intruding
>eagles were not reported on the map. 
>- Why ? Could it be because they flew through the windfarm ? 
>Indeed they did. Here is what the report says : "In this study,
>resident golden eagles appeared to avoid the windfarm within their
>home range except when responding to intruders south and west of the
>centre of the territory" ( which is where the windfarm stands ). 
>
>How often would this occur ? 
>- Page 30 : "one to 6 observations of intruding eagles were made per
>year. These are not included in our analyses"
>This means that, at least one of the years, six intrusions were
>observed in 16 days of observation. Extrapolating, that would be : 6
>in 16 days = 0.375 intrusion per day x 365 = 137 intrusions per annum,
>and as many chases by the resident eagles. How many of these chases
>would take part in the south-western part of their territory, where
>the windfarm is located ? - A fair number, possibly 30 or more. 
>But these flights are not shown on the map. 
>- Why ?
>- Could it be because it would be inconvenient to show that the
>eagles, either residents or intruders, did not avoid the windfarm ?
>
>
>
>A less than satisfactory assumption : 
>
>The B&T monitoring report says : "the home range was occupied
>throughout the study period, by apparently the same 2 adult eagles". 
>The key word here is "apparently", for the birds are being observed
>from distances of 1 kilometer or more. And from that distance an adult
>eagle looks pretty much like any other, even with binoculars. 
>
>Apart from that, 45 days are allowed to elapse between watches, and
>that is plenty of time for a surviving eagle to pair up with a
>newcomer after the original mate has been killed ( it has been
>observed that pairing up with a new mate can occur within a week of
>the death of a partner ). So there is no guarantee that the resident
>eagles were not killed, then replaced by newcomers, and so on ( the
>population sink effect ). As the windfarm is not monitored for
>mortality, there is no way to know.
>
>
>
>Eventually though, it was discovered that an eagle had "disappeared"
>at B&T (1). So a search was conducted, but no carcass was found. 
>- No carcass, no evidence, no problem ! So SNH may continue to
>pretend, based on the B&T "evidence", that in Scotland eagles avoid
>windfarms...
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Finally, in the autumn of 2003, a rare white-tailed sea eagle was
>found dead near a wind turbine on Pabay, a small island off Skye. Here
>is what the autopsy report has to say : 
>
>
>"This eagle carcase was , as you know , already a few days old when
>found (maggots at least half grown I would guess)
>I could see no external evidence of bruising or other injury .
>The heart was enlarged and thin-walled , suggesting the bird is likely
>to have been in "compensated" heart failure , and therefore somewhat
>exercise intolerant for some time . The gullet and stomachs were
>empty - there was little or no carcase fat .
>In spite of state of the internal organs , there was some free blood
>inside the sternum.
>Because of its heart problem it could have died suddenly at any time -
>and if it died whilst airborne , hitting the ground could have caused
>internal haemorrhage.
>It is not possible for me to say one way or the other whether the wind
>turbines might have been involved ..."
>
>
>
>SNH don´t hold, er, any correspondence ( or autopsy ) about that
>incident either. 
>- Most convenient !
>
>Yet we had mentioned that death to ornithologist Malcom Ogilvie,
>member as he is of their Scientific Advisory Committee...
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>WHAT ABOUT THE RSPB ? 
>
>
>A few months back, RSPB reported to the press the death of an eagle
>that had been poisoned. They were keen to bring this up, and rightly
>so.
>
>I only wish they would be as keen to report eagles that die in other
>circumstances : near wind turbines for instance. They may claim they 
>did not know about the facts I reported here (?) ; but they know about
>many others in other countries, which they try to ignore --> see :
>RSPB executives are causing severe harm to bird life 
>
>Releasing information about eagles killed by windfarms might harm
>Scottish and Southern Energy´s business ... and SSE are selling a
>product called "RSPB Energy"... whose sales pitch is linked to
>renewable energy.
>Most codes of ethics would call this a conflict of interest, and
>denounce it.
>
>In the article just mentioned ( see link ) I showed how the RSPB were
>forced to disclose the first 9 eagle deaths at the Smola windfarm, and
>how they chose to ignore the subsequent four. I suspect the next
>report from Smola, where they are involved, will announce that the
>eagles have now learned to avoid the blades... against all evidence
>from around the world. 
>
>The public will believe it of course. The RSPB wouldn´t cover up
>evidence , would they ?
>
>
>
>Mark Duchamp
>.......................................................March 30th 2008
>save.the.eagles@gmail.com
>
>
>MORE INFORMATION : 
>
>The negative effects of windfarms: links to papers published by Mark
>Duchamp
>
>PICTURE GALLERY
>Pictures of birds cut to pieces, of turbines on fire, of accidents, of
>ruined (or to-be-ruined) landscapes... 
>TO ENLARGE : click "Photos" above picture on homepage.
>
>
>FOOTNOTES 
>
>(1) - Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the Argyll Experience - 07th July
>2007 
>Mike Gregory and Sandy Gordon are two founder members of the Argyll
>Raptor Study Group who have studied Golden Eagles in south Argyll and
>Kintyre for 35 years. That amount of experience needs to be listened
>to. Mike´s article in Scottish Bird News No.84 provides a different
>perspective from other published data on the impact on Golden Eagles
>of windfarm development at Beinn an Tuirc and Beinn Ghlas. Based on
>findings from these sites, Mike suggests that wind farms and Golden
>Eagles do not go well to-gether...
>
>Mike Gregory ---> scroll down to : Windfarms and Golden Eagles, the
>Argyll Experience.
>
>His article
>
>
>(2) - "raptors spent significantly more time flying at close proximity
>to turbine blades ... than 51-100 m away ... or >100 m away …
>Analyzing the total number of minutes of flight time reveals that
>something about wind turbines may attract red-tailed hawks to fly near
>turbines and at dangerous heights. Similarly, American kestrels flew
>in proximity level 1 (ie 1-50m from turbine) nearly four times longer
>than expected by chance, golden eagles two times longer, and northern
>harriers three times longer" . 
>BIRD RISK BEHAVIORS AND FATALITIES AT THE ALTAMONT PASS WIND RESOURCE
>AREA, THELANDER, C. G, SMALLWOOD, K.S., RUGGE, L. Period of
>Performance: March 1998-December 2000, National Renewable Energy
>Laboratory Report SR-500-33829, 2003. Report
>
>
>(3) - Eagles and windfarms
>
>
>(4) - SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 1
>
>SNH letter 4 November 2003 - page 2
>penultimate paragraph mentions the eagles
>
>
>(5) - SNH letter 7 March 2008
>b> "We do not hold any correspondence relating to incidents of eagle
>deaths or disappearances at or in areas of up to 10 km surrounding
>windfarms" 
>
>(6) - SNH letter 16 Aug 2006
>
>
>(7) - Chilling Statistics 
>
>Insertado por: marcos (30/03/2008) 
>Fuente/Autor: Mark Duchamp

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:22:47 +0100 someone who may be Old Codger
 wrote this:-

Crosspostings trimmed.

>>Look what I found whilst searching Google.

From a quick skim...

>>This paper brings proof that covering up the dark side of wind farms
>>is rampant in Scotland, as indeed it is everywhere

It proves nothing of the sort.

>>For reasons as impossible to excuse as they are obvious, those charged
>>with protection of our protected species and habitats are apparently
>>convincing themselves that the carnage being wrought by windfarms
>>world wide, from Altamont Pass to Smola to the Navarre region of Spain
>>and elsewhere, will ‘magically’ somehow never affect the Scottish
>>environment

If this assertion was correct then the area around wind farms would
be littered with dead birds. Feel free to visit one and check this
out. I have never found a carpet of dead birds around a wind farm,
including the fairly large Black Law where birds were making bird
like noises amongst the turbines.

>>In or about 1997, two golden eagles died at Beinn Ghlas, Argyll, where
>>a windfarm was to be built

In other words they were not killed by the wind farm. 

>>When an eagle breeding range such as Beinn Ghlas becomes vacant, it
>>does not take very long before another pair will claim the territory
>>as their own. But Mike tells us that Beinn Ghlas was not occupied by a
>>pair since 1997, which could mean that the windfarm is acting as an
>>ecological trap ( i.e. killing the eagles that move in ). 

"could mean".

That is one possibility, amongst many. To prove that it is happening
should be fairly easy. Without that proof it is just an assertion.

RSPB put it well
<http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/windfarms/index.asp>

"The RSPB views climate change as the most serious long-term threat
to wildlife in the UK and globally and, therefore, we support the
Government's target to source 15% of electricity from renewables by
2015.

"To meet this target, the RSPB favours a broad mix of renewables,
especially those, like solar energy, with large long- term potential
and minimal environmental impacts. However, wind power has the
greatest potential to make a significant difference in the UK in the
coming decade. It is the most advanced and widely available of the
new renewable technologies."

QED









-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 8 Jun, 10:13, Old Codger  wrote:
>
> A REALITY CHECK PROVES THE SCOTTISH EAGLES DO NOT AVOID WINDFARMS AS
> CLAIMED

<Gigantic snip>


............. which was a rather long-winded way of confirming the
blindingly obvious fact that we can't have it all.

No matter what the issue is in a closed system, if you change one
thing it has to have a knock-on effect somewhere else.  I've been
waiting for the negative ecological effects of wind farms to emerge
for a while now, although I don't feel this is a particularly
significant one of them.  I thought the effects of reduced widspeeds
downwind might be the first to show - increased incidences of plant
diseases or pests, or changes in species distribution and I think they
might still do so.  From a meteorological point-of-view, you can't
remove energy from a system without it having SOME effect but just how
much and whether the effects are tolerable are open to debate.  After
all, the growth of large urban areas over the past century or so has
had far more significant effects on those areas and the surrounding
countryside, but we've felt this has been tolerable - so far.
Leastways, the effects have not been considered "catastrophic".

I think we always have to remember entropy, which tells us that
there's no such thing as a free lunch.  And when we think there is,
that free lunch means someone else ends up going hungry.

Regards,


-  Tom.

In article ,
David Hansen  writes:
|> 
|> RSPB put it well
|> <http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/windfarms/index.asp>

No, it didn't.  But that doesn't mean the claptrap posted by that
troll has any basis.  For all its numerous and serious faults, the
RSPB is and always has been systematically pro-bird.

|> "To meet this target, the RSPB favours a broad mix of renewables,
|> especially those, like solar energy, with large long- term potential
|> and minimal environmental impacts. However, wind power has the
|> greatest potential to make a significant difference in the UK in the
|> coming decade. It is the most advanced and widely available of the
|> new renewable technologies."

To describe solar energy in the UK as having a "large long-term
potential and minimal environmental impact" is the sort of economy
with the truth that I would expect from the RSPB, but it is merely
jumping on the political bandwagon in saying that.  It is, however,
correct about wind farms.

That doesn't mean the few, small, areas of semi-natural landscape
left in the UK should be inflicted with such things, because there
are much better places for them.  As I have posted before (somewhere),
the best locations are along motorways, in industrial estates and
so on.  If the government were competent, it would make a requirement
that all proposals for new ones or major redevelopment would include
proposals for wind turbines - which could, of course, be excluded
on the basis of undesirable consequences.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Old Codger wrote:
> It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
> the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
> environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.
> 
> Ménage à trois with a twist?
> 
> Look what I found whilst searching Google. Old you might think? but if
> you consider Ogilvie is an EX employee of RSPB and a current employee
> of SNH the plot surely thickens?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
> 
> http://www.iberica2000.org/ES/Articulo.asp?Id=3744
> 
> Covering up the death of eagles at Scottish windfarms (3744)
>  
[snip]

Marc Duchamp, who is behind all the websites and the entire campaign, is 
a well known anti-renewables nimby.

It is unclear if he has any human friends.

Old Codger wrote:
<another load of dribble>
Off-topic again in most of these newsgroups.
Find some relevant group to post in, you Old Fart.

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:48:26 +0100, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:

>On 8 Jun 2008 13:21:02 GMT, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>David Hansen  writes:
>>|> 
>>|> RSPB put it well
>>|> <http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/windfarms/index.asp>
>>
>>No, it didn't.  But that doesn't mean the claptrap posted by that
>>troll has any basis.  For all its numerous and serious faults, the
>>RSPB is and always has been systematically pro-bird.
>
>No it isn't. It is only "pro-bird" to some birds .  It allows the
>shooting of wild and game birds on its "reserves" that should be
>havens rather than killing fields.

The slaughter of our ruddy ducks was forced through by the RSPB
bullying Europe.

Many others too
http://tinyurl.com/3qoopa

http://tinyurl.com/3wp3wh

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:26:13 +0100, Marag Dubh  wrote:

>Old Codger wrote:
>> It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
>> the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
>> environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.
>> 
>> Ménage à trois with a twist?
>> 
>> Look what I found whilst searching Google. Old you might think? but if
>> you consider Ogilvie is an EX employee of RSPB and a current employee
>> of SNH the plot surely thickens?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
>> 
>> http://www.iberica2000.org/ES/Articulo.asp?Id=3744
>> 
>> Covering up the death of eagles at Scottish windfarms (3744)
>>  
>[snip]
>
>Marc Duchamp, who is behind all the websites and the entire campaign, is 
>a well known anti-renewables nimby.
>
>It is unclear if he has any human friends.

Does Ogilvie, except for those who screw the system?

Internet posting to Malcolm Kane of Penrith from Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie


“Malcolm, it must be what a teacher feels like after trying to drum
something into the head of the dullard who is going to leave school
with a single 'O' grade. There's only so much that someone so
intellectually challenged can understand. The problem will come in
later life, when an inability to grasp concepts, not to mention be
able to understand the meanings of words, will seriously let them
down, to the point when, how ever often they are told something, they
merely repeat, as a rote, statements and claims which they think are
very telling but, in fact, were meaningless or just plain wrong the
first time, and continue to be so regardless of how many times they
are repeated. The situation will be even worse if, during their lives,
they have gained absolutely no personal knowledge of the subjects
about which they spout and thus are completely unable to comprehend
anyone who points out that their ignorance is letting them down.”

Dr Malcolm A Ogilvie
Scientific Adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage
On Internet Newsgroup uk.environment.conservation
Date: Mon,18 Sept 2006 07:32;30 +0100


Comment:  	
A  nasty prejudiced and unwarranted attack on those leaving school
with one O Grade from a nasty little man.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On 8 Jun 2008 13:21:02 GMT, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article ,
>David Hansen  writes:
>|> 
>|> RSPB put it well
>|> <http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/windfarms/index.asp>
>
>No, it didn't.  But that doesn't mean the claptrap posted by that
>troll has any basis.  For all its numerous and serious faults, the
>RSPB is and always has been systematically pro-bird.

No it isn't. It is only "pro-bird" to some birds .  It allows the
shooting of wild and game birds on its "reserves" that should be
havens rather than killing fields.


 

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>
>Comment:
>A  nasty prejudiced and unwarranted attack on those leaving school
>with one O Grade from a nasty little man.
>
>
Still resorting to childish name-calling and insults, Angus?

Still, you never have had any other way of coping with people who show 
you up as being wrong, have you?

Your surrender is accepted as on so many other occasions.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:07:58 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>
>>Comment:
>>A  nasty prejudiced and unwarranted attack on those leaving school
>>with one O Grade from a nasty little man.
>>
>>
>Still

Look who pops up when you ratttle the cage. It's old Malky.

"Old Codger"  wrote in message 
news:r38n44plhipit7s6fhq79t9j6v4cd3krdb@4ax.com...
> It's quite clear the CONservation hooligans have been known to stretch
> the truth. Fabricate reasons to slaughter wildlife and even support
> environmentally damaging projects if THE PRICE was right.
>
> Ménage à trois with a twist?

I have personally witnessed thousands of grebes of this world needlessly 
painted, illustrated and written about. What is the government doing?