quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
However...

quote:

Soon, the federally-protected raptors were destroying up to 30 percent of his flock...

White Oak Pastures said 20 or so eagles live at the ranch year around, but about 80 live there in the winter. At one point, eagles were killing 500 birds a day.

The Federal government is also the cause of the problem. At some point perhaps the eagles no longer need the protection of the Federal government. Man is the apex predator, and he is not allowed (by the Federal government) to touch these birds. Perhaps some limited hunting ought to be allowed to protect his property.

Agreed.

I don't find it hard to believe, at all, that 20 eagles could do that much damage. Eagles will flock to where there are easy pickings and kill and/or eat whatever they can. As pretty and "majestic" as they are, they really are no different than ravens or magpies. Scavengers.

When I was a kid, NW MT used to have major salmon runs (before the Fish & Game screwed up and killed off all the salmon) and we'd go up to McDonald Creek just outside of Glacier Park to watch the eagles come in. Hundreds of them would kill thousands and thousands of salmon. Some would be eaten, but a majority would be left on the banks dead to rot and be eaten by bears or whatever else came along for a meal.

Yes, it's nature at work, and in a way it's a pretty cool cycle. But, man's survival does, and should, come first. And I agree that if diversion tactics do not work, some limited hunting should be allowed. Indians can kill them, so why can't he to protect his livelihood and our food supply?

S.S.S.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

I don't think there are enough eagles in Georgia to do that kind of damage to a single flock.

This. I've lived in GA my whole life. I've maybe ever seen one outside of a raptor show.

But enough Eagles to kill 500 chickens a day. Come on... Guys looking for a bail out.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
This would not be a problem if Benjamin Franklin's preference had been chosen. Supposedly it's a myth he fought for it, but he did express his opinions about it in a letter to his daughter.

. What was Ben’s preference?

^^ Benjamin Franklin wrote that the Turkey should be our national bird.

What makes the government responsible for eagles? I understand he can't kill them, but why should you and I insure his chicken operation against the risk of eagles?

Man doesn't need Free Range Chickens to survive.

Nor Organic Brie, and loads of other things.

He's free to be a farmer of countless varieties, the vast majority of which aren't in danger by protected birds.

We, all of us, ought not be paying for this.

Great Horned Owls eat the Cottontail Rabbits in my yard.
Who do I send the bill to?

So many of the replies are typical of folks who were never around farming operations or predators.

We HAVE bald and golden eagles here. I have lost several cats to them over the past 30 years. I have seen goldens carry off fawns, then drop them to their death.

I have seen eagles in a field where we had been shooting gophers. They will go to the dead gophers, pick them open and consume only the heart , liver and maybe pick at the easiest meat. Then move on to the next body. So the thought of them killing multiples in a day, only taking the choicest bits, is VERY possible.

I've seen coyotes as well as fox who get into a hen house and kill ALL of the occupants, while only eating or carrying away one or two. Thirty or forty dead, but only one or two actually eaten. So mass killings by these birds, very possible.

Multiply by eighty birds in that area. Such losses are very possible.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in MT:
So many of the replies are typical of folks who were never around farming operations or predators.

We HAVE bald and golden eagles here. I have lost several cats to them over the past 30 years. I have seen goldens carry off fawns, then drop them to their death.

I have seen eagles in a field where we had been shooting gophers. They will go to the dead gophers, pick them open and consume only the heart , liver and maybe pick at the easiest meat. Then move on to the next body. So the thought of them killing multiples in a day, only taking the choicest bits, is VERY possible.

I've seen coyotes as well as fox who get into a hen house and kill ALL of the occupants, while only eating or carrying away one or two. Thirty or forty dead, but only one or two actually eaten. So mass killings by these birds, very possible.

Multiply by eighty birds in that area. Such losses are very possible.

So? Why are you and I responsible? His farming operation, he knew the rules going in. Eagles have been protected for decades. He takes the risk.

The human race is not at risk if eagles eat even 10,000 chickens. And again, his chickens, his problem.

quote:

So? Why are you and I responsible? His farming operation, he knew the rules going in. Eagles have been protected for decades. He takes the risk.

The human race is not at risk if eagles eat even 10,000 chickens. And again, his chickens, his problem.

The human race is not at risk... but apparently we taxpayers are at risk:

White Oak Pastures' efforts to obtain benefits and compensation specifically set aside by FSA for such livestock death and destruction by federally protected species hit many roadblocks, and in 2017, FSA denied White Oak Pastures' LIP claims. FSA claimed that the farm failed to prove that its livestock losses occurred as a direct result of avian attacks, despite intensive documentation, confirmation from biologists and video and photographic evidence to the contrary.

White Oak Pastures then appealed FSA's decision with the NAD. Following an extended period of appeals from both FSA and White Oak Pastures, the NAD ruled in the farm's favor. The NAD ruled that FSA acted improperly when it denied White Oak Pastures' request for compensation and that the request for proof was inconsistent with the program regulations, resulting in an "erroneous" decision.

"We are extremely grateful that the National Appeals Division ruled in our favor and recognized our right to fair compensation for our losses," said Harris.

With the ruling issued on Aug. 21, 2018, FSA is ordered by the NAD to work with White Oak Pastures to resolve the claims and issue a new decision.

https://www.feedstuffs.com/new...r-bald-eagle-attacks

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
What makes the government responsible for eagles? I understand he can't kill them, but why should you and I insure his chicken operation against the risk of eagles?

THIS. Were they not protected creatures when he began his chicken farm? Risk of doing business. (I own a small business.)

Man... you guys...

White Oak Pastures is everything you want a farm to be. They are doing fantastic animal husbandry the right way and raise fantastic food. They also employee a ton of people in a very economically depressed area and they pay a good wage and have very happy employees.

They process all of their own animals and less than 1% of the total animal is not used. They heal the environment and don't hurt it. And, they've done it with private money.

Apparently you guys are incapable of understanding that the eagles moved in after they figured out there was food there and that the owner of the food can't do anything to prevent their presence. Very much a chicken or the egg question and in this case the chickens moved in before the eagles. Yes, I know eagles were in the area but not in this concentration.

Unlike Perdue, or Tyson, or any of the other mega companies producing terrible food, you can go to White Oak and see their entire operation. Smithfield, Tyson, and Perdue, along with others, got their lobbyists to write a law saying it is illegal to film or in many cases even set foot on their growers properties. This is to "secure" the food system from acts of terrorism. Apparently dunking chickens in baths of bleach water to get all the excrement off their skin is not terrorism.

The Smithfield processing plant in NC should be burned to the ground. The working conditions there are abysmal and they get away with it because they hire uneducated and mostly illegal employees and then threaten them with deportation if they say anything. It is a real disgrace.

America pays mega-farm corporations billions of dollars a year and congress writes laws (or rather, the mega farm lobbyists do) that require ethanol when in a true free market it would never have been a winner. This guy, wants redress for a situation that the government is causing. His market is not the brain dead folks who buy .99 per pound chicken at Krogers. His are the people that are willing to pay a fair price for properly raised food. The issue comes when he suffers 30-50% losses while trying to stay inside the higher end market.

Of all the many things that our government does to waste money, taking care of this guy, and others like him, is not one of them.

^ might want to check that math...

quote:

...he’s lost more than $2 million [total, over the years] in poultry to the eagles...

...the compensation [or lack thereof] won’t “make or break” his $20-plus million-a-year in revenue operation, but the ruling may prove critical for smaller farms...

So: it's nowhere near 30-40% losses (not even 10%), and it wouldn't have broken him (by his own words), and it really isn't even about him, but by his own words "might help other smaller farms". So he's "teaching the government a lesson" by getting tax based help for himself, that wasn't critical, to help others, supposedly...

What he should have done is raise the price of his chickens by x% to compensate for his own incorrect assumptions about his loss rate due to Bald Eagles or anything else. Given the numbers in the article itself it seems like a single digit % increase would take care of it.

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:

America pays mega-farm corporations billions of dollars a year and congress writes laws (or rather, the mega farm lobbyists do) that require ethanol when in a true free market it would never have been a winner. This guy, wants redress for a situation that the government is causing. His market is not the brain dead folks who buy .99 per pound chicken at Krogers. His are the people that are willing to pay a fair price for properly raised food. The issue comes when he suffers 30-50% losses while trying to stay inside the higher end market.

Of all the many things that our government does to waste money, taking care of this guy, and others like him, is not one of them.

We shouldn't subsidize Tyson, and we shouldn't subsidize this guy, either.

Because that is what he wants. He wants a subsidy to make his business profitable or more profitable. I don't care that we may like the way he raises chickens or does business better. He wants a government handout. I am against those.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
you guys are brutal, how would you propose he deal with his federally protected bird nuisance?

In the first place I do not believe his numbers.

If he stated the numbers in the article, then I call BS on him.

He said he is losing some 500 birds a day, and as many as 80 eagles are doing it. That averages out to about 6.25 chickens per eagle per day. That is one helluva lot of chicken for each eagle.

We have eagles around here, especially down along the lower Potomac river. They live on fish. I have seen dozens of nature shows about eagles in the North West and Alaska. Those shows are pretty clear that those eagles are eating fish.

The ones around here, eat fish.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
you guys are brutal, how would you propose he deal with his federally protected bird nuisance?

Put the chickens back in cages where they were originally.

His problems stem from a business decision he made.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
^ might want to check that math...

quote:

...he’s lost more than $2 million [total, over the years] in poultry to the eagles...

...the compensation [or lack thereof] won’t “make or break” his $20-plus million-a-year in revenue operation, but the ruling may prove critical for smaller farms...

So: it's nowhere near 30-40% losses (not even 10%), and it wouldn't have broken him (by his own words), and it really isn't even about him, but by his own words "might help other smaller farms". So he's "teaching the government a lesson" by getting tax based help for himself, that wasn't critical, to help others, supposedly...

What he should have done is raise the price of his chickens by x% to compensate for his own incorrect assumptions about his loss rate due to Bald Eagles or anything else. Given the numbers in the article itself it seems like a single digit % increase would take care of it.

My math is just fine. There are times they lose 30-50% of their various flocks. Neither I nor the article said entire operation. It is dependent on where the flocks are and at what time of the year. They've managed to minimize some loss by changing their pasture rotation but sometimes they still get hit hard.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

We shouldn't subsidize Tyson, and we shouldn't subsidize this guy, either.

Because that is what he wants. He wants a subsidy to make his business profitable or more profitable. I don't care that we may like the way he raises chickens or does business better. He wants a government handout. I am against those.

Hey, I'm in. I don't think my money should be used to subsidize anything. I also don't think it should be used to help people who live in hurricane zones and are getting federal money to rebuild their city.

But, that ship sailed a long time ago. There is a reason that program is in place. Its' not like he invented it out of thin air.

Which do you think is a greater number: The money he is asking for or the money taken out of his pocket (at the point of a gun, also paid for with money stolen from him) by the various local, state, and federal governments?

Right there with you on the hurricane relief, year after year after year after year.