You say that - but its not your pocket being picked... when you have to put food on your families table, you probably aren't as worried about some bird nobodies ever heard of. No farmers - No food.
Peritract•1h ago
1. Eagles are very well-known.
2. Farms that keep sheep have more than one lamb.
3. The government doesn't, and shouldn't, intervene to protect people against every single risk they face in business.
mopsi•49m ago
4. Farmers are already facing great difficulties from economic shocks like Brexit, Covid, Ukraine and Hormuz in a short span of time, and further strain is unwelcome.
Peritract•41m ago
Eagles are also dealing with other stuff (arguably more significant-- e.g. habitat loss), but that's an irrelevance to this issue.
The potential predations of a small number of eagles nationally will make very little difference to the enormous number of sheep kept by a large number of farmers. They can handle the strain, and if it's really somehow too much, there are mitigations short of extinction available to them.
9dev•29m ago
There will always be some reason against a measure that doesn’t immediately benefit humans in the short term but yields benefits in the long term.
heyitsmedotjayb•47m ago
1) This particular spotted big breasted eagle is hardly known and of little importance culturally.
2) Farm margins are very thin and its not up to you to dictate what an acceptable loss is.
3) Government has successfully in the past used hunting bounties to tame wilderness and increase farming productivity. The eradication of wolves in the great plains turned unremarkable scrub land into the most successful and productive era in farming the earth has ever seen. Maybe think about that next time you have a bite to eat and thank your local farmer.
onlypassingthru•34m ago
Wasn't the eradication of wolves just the natural consequence of destroying the food source and way of life of the natives? Gotta get those people dead or moved if you're going to steal their land, amirite!
Peritract•28m ago
The golden eagle is one of the most culturally significant birds worldwide; it's ridiculous to dismiss that.
There was nothing unremarkable about the great plains (note the name); they didn't produce the crop yield that you value, sure, but that's not the only possible metric to measure anything against.
I think farmers are great; I don't think we should exterminate countless species to save them from one of the extremely-predictable externalities of their jobs.
9dev•26m ago
If a farm is economically endangered by a single-digit number of animals killed by natural predators, they have vastly more immediate problems to take care of.
happytoexplain•1h ago
Just FYI, you should have sympathy.
There's an enormous difference between weighing the pros and cons and coming to a different conclusion than somebody else, and having no sympathy for somebody else.
Peritract•1h ago
Sympathy doesn't simply mean "understanding"; that's one small aspect of the definition of a more complex word that also denotes emotional reflection.
Having weighed the pros and cons, I have come to the conclusion that the correct amount of (emotional) sympathy for the position of "we should kill all the eagles because farmers deserve only endless profits, never (minor) costs" is infinitesimal.
mjfisher•1h ago
The reintroduction of Red Kites to the UK has been a huge success. I don't get particularly excited by birds normally, but regularly seeing such large creatures (almost 2m wingspans) curving through the sky is nothing short of majestic. They're almost reminiscent of dragons.
I wonder if I'll get to feel the same about golden eagles soon too.
Peritract•1h ago
heyitsmedotjayb•1h ago
Peritract•1h ago
2. Farms that keep sheep have more than one lamb.
3. The government doesn't, and shouldn't, intervene to protect people against every single risk they face in business.
mopsi•49m ago
Peritract•41m ago
The potential predations of a small number of eagles nationally will make very little difference to the enormous number of sheep kept by a large number of farmers. They can handle the strain, and if it's really somehow too much, there are mitigations short of extinction available to them.
9dev•29m ago
heyitsmedotjayb•47m ago
onlypassingthru•34m ago
Peritract•28m ago
There was nothing unremarkable about the great plains (note the name); they didn't produce the crop yield that you value, sure, but that's not the only possible metric to measure anything against.
I think farmers are great; I don't think we should exterminate countless species to save them from one of the extremely-predictable externalities of their jobs.
9dev•26m ago
happytoexplain•1h ago
There's an enormous difference between weighing the pros and cons and coming to a different conclusion than somebody else, and having no sympathy for somebody else.
Peritract•1h ago
Having weighed the pros and cons, I have come to the conclusion that the correct amount of (emotional) sympathy for the position of "we should kill all the eagles because farmers deserve only endless profits, never (minor) costs" is infinitesimal.