Last week the SGA wrote to the Scottish Government about the threat of sea eagles eating children. The Scottish Government effectively told them to sod off, although not using those exact words, of course. The letter (or at least the snippets that we were privy to) caused astonishment around the world – a common response was, “What’s wrong with these people?”
However, not to be deterred, the SGA is still pursuing answers to its earlier questions. In an ill-disguised attack on the RSPB, Bert Burnett switches from the ‘eagle might eat child’ approach (although he doesn’t discount it entirely), and instead focuses on what he calls the “considerable direct damage being done to farmed stock by these eagles“. What considerable direct damage?, you may ask. It’d be a good question. Claims of this nature have been made before, notably by sheep farmers on the west coast (see here). However, several scientific studies later, the evidence demonstrated that sea eagles have a ‘minimal impact’ on lamb survival (see here), although when the results didn’t go their way then the crofters claimed the study was rigged (see here and here). Has Bert Burnett got new evidence to back up his claim of ‘considerable direct damage’? If he has, he needs to share it. Put up or shut up, Bert.
Bert’s latest rant is accompanied by two emails from some random individuals. I’m not sure why they were included. I wish he’d shared the following message, which was posted on the SGA Facebook page in response to their ‘eagle could eat baby’ story:
“If a sea eagle introduced by the RSPB carried off and ate a human baby, would the RSPB be guilty of murder? I think so.” Priceless.
To read the SGA’s latest rant about sea eagles, click here.