GOLDEN EAGLES FACE EXTINCTION IN U.S. AS NUMBERS PLUMMET, NEW STUDIES REVEAL: WIND FARMS ARE CAUSE

[Liberty Belle]

“Wind farms are the main cause. The issuing of license to kill will accelerate the decline toward extinction.”—Save the Eagles International

<snip> Save the Eagles International (STEI) issued a dire warning, providing detailed documentation proving that golden eagles and their nests are disappearing rapidly near wind farms across the U.S.

The group also blasted the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for changing its mission from protecting wildlife to “catering to the interests of an industry” that is a “ruinous one to boot.”

Although the studies focused on golden eagles, if no major action is taken, wind turbines' razor-sharp blades will also threaten the existence of other species, STEI predicts. The international group "solemnly warns the Western States that the biologically-blind policies will cause the extinction of the Golden Eagle, the California Condor, and other species of raptors.” Also at risk are species in Eastern and Central states, such as the Whooping Crane.

Much more at this link. Note that the USF&W is now actually authorizing "take" permits giving permission to some wind farms to kill eagles that anyone else would be prosecuted for killing as a felon! Whatever happened to their mission of protection our natural resources?

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/8319

[Scuba]

1. Why am I so skeptical?

[Liberty Belle]

8. No reason for skeptcisim-unless you're a troll for the wind industry (Koch Brothers $$$)

I would believe numerous studies by wildlife biologists over bogus numbers paid for by an industry that's dominated by big energy companies and Koch brother money.

[Scuba]

12. Here in Wisconsin the Koch's own coal plants, and had their bought-and-paid-for governor....

... kill wind farm development.


There are hundreds of wind turbines in my county and I've not heard even one report of bird kill.

[certainot]

37. koch money works a lot better denying global warming and in oil. i wouldn't put it past

those think tanks to develop bird killing machines.

[drm604]

55. Do you have a cite showing that the Kochs are invested in the turbines in question?

Please post it and enlighten us.

[Zoeisright]

69. Oh bullshit.

Birds that can fly through trees can certainly avoid wind turbines.

[Liberty Belle]

106. There are videos of large birds actually sitting on top of the turbines, and other videos of kills.

I personally know people who have seen birds killed at wind farms. They do not avoid them because unlike trees, which are stationary, turbine blades are moving fast and the poor birds simply misjudge it. Even the US Fish & Wildlife Service admits in its latest proposed eagle kills at wind farms are increasing and they pose a major danger to eagles. See a post below where I addressed the "take" issue by USFW - you can read it in the official USFW documents, which confirm the key point Save the Eagles was making. To deny that the turbines threaten eagles is akin to denying that smoking causes cancer.

[MADem]

114. If they're that stupid--and I don't think they are--how would they avoid crashing into mountains? nt

[bananas]

73. The president of "Save the Eagles" is a global warming denier with several astro-turf websites and

and several astro-turf organizations.
It's all documented below in posts 30, 41, 57, 71, and others.

[Liberty Belle]

84. Wrong. The local web designer they used has MANY sites in a wide range of fields.

See my responses to post 30. I don't know what you mean by "astro turf" sites but the fact that someone has a site registered to a web designer is meaningless. I've had sites registered by web designers who had other clients in the same field. That means nothing especially when they're all in the same geographical area.

[suffragette]

75. The only articles I've seen about wind and the Kochs show them spending $$$ opposing wind generation

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297394/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-study-bashing-offshore-wind-in-new-jersey/
Koch Brothers Fund Bogus Study Bashing Offshore Wind in New Jersey


http://uppitywis.org/blogarticle/why-walker-opposes-wind-energy-25-million-reasons-starting-1-mil
Why Walker opposes wind energy: 2.5 million reasons, starting with 1 million from Koch Brothers

More involved here, but a good collection of items regarding the various cover organizations Koch is funding, including a couple hit pieces on wind power:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/


http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/connecting-the-dots-of-denial/
Connecting the dots of denial


On the other hand, apparently the Massachusetts Audubon Society, after conducting extensive studies supports the project above that Koch has been trying to derail, so much so they've also filed a court motion about this:
http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/connecting-the-dots-of-denial/
http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/what-are-friends-for/

[Liberty Belle]

100. correction

Meant to say BP money, not Koch Brothers. BP owns some wind farms. Koch has been on other side of the issue.

[NYC_SKP]

129. LibertyBelle: That link of yours is to a Tea Party and Koch Brothers supported group:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Industrial_Wind_Action_Group

[wordpix]

24. color me skeptic, too

[valerief]

48. Me, too. nt

[Nikia]

63. Birds seem pretty good at avoiding moving objects

Like cars, but still occaisionally get hit.
I guess that I have a hard time believing that moving wind blades would be more likely to kill birds than moving vehicles.

[KansDem]

111. One of the few times I went golfing...

My friend teed off with an excellent shot right down the center of the fairway. Suddenly, a bird flew across and was struck by the ball and killed!

We don't know if it thought the ball was a tasty morsel (perhaps a white moth or butterfly) and was going in for "the kill," of just bad luck.

But it started out as a beautiful shot!

I agree, moving things will kill birds, including cars, blades, and golf balls. I just don't think in the numbers touted by anti-wind farm fanatics...

[grantcart]

97. BUT IT WAS ALL IN CAPITALS = HOW DARE YOU BE SKEPTICAL = IF IT WASN'T 100% TRUE

HE WOULD HAVE TO POST IN ITALICS.

[edgineered]

123. CONCUR - NEVER BEEN MISLED BY CAPITALISTS.

IOKIYAR status confirmed

[fascisthunter]

2. Call me a Skeptic as well

[Mojeoux]

5. I am skepty too

I looked at the link and the link on the link. Hmmmm
The photo looks staged also.

[Liberty Belle]

7. It is not staged. In our area there are reports of bird kills behind hidden. The problem is rampant

[MH1]

22. Got a link to current info from Audobon, Cornell, or any other well-known bird/wildlife group?

If not, I'll remain skeptical as well.

[wordpix]

28. here is Audubon's - in short, the org is for wind power but only IF

there will be siting scrutiny and minimal impacts to birds/wildlife.

http://policy.audubon.org/wind-power-overview-0

Wind Power Overview

Audubon's Position on Wind Power

Summary: Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Wind power facilities should be planned, sited and operated to minimize negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations. snip

Protecting Birds and Wildlife: While Audubon strongly supports wind power and recognizes it will not be without some impact, production and transmission facilities must be planned, sited and operated in concert with other actions needed to minimize and mitigate their impacts on birds and other wildlife populations. Several federal and state laws require this and the long-term sustainability of the wind industry depends on it. Wind power facilities impact birds from direct collisions with turbines and related facilities, such as power lines. Wind power facilities can also degrade or destroy habitat, cause disturbance and displacement, and disrupt important ecological links. These impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced, however, with proper siting, operation and mitigation.

Audubon supports the adoption of federal and state guidelines on the study, siting, operation and mitigation of wind power. Guidelines should provide developers, permitting agencies and conservation groups with the legal, technical and practical steps needed to minimize impacts on birds and other wildlife. Guidelines should provide the following essential elements:


Minimum pre-permitting study requirements and guidance on study methods, frequency and acceptable data sources to ensure that wind power is sited in appropriate locations

Clearly delineated siting criteria that designate areas where wind power should not be allowed, such as Important Bird Areas, major migratory corridors, wilderness areas, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other sensitive habitat such as wetlands and riparian corridors

Clearly defined monitoring and mitigation requirements in permits, with periodic reviews and requirements for adaptive management if impacts significantly exceed levels allowed by permit

Guidance on cumulative population impacts assessment and mitigation.

Audubon also encourages wind developers and permitting agencies to consult with wildlife experts, including Audubon staff and local chapters, to help inform study and siting decisions.

[truedelphi]

56. Thank you for the citation AND why not just give the citizens the money

To put wind turbines up on their houses? why is it always okay for "our government" to loan and give outright the money to these projects that enable the big utilities to become even bigger through the centralization of this type of thing. And then the centralization ends up killing the environment!.

Right now, there are plenty of newly designed wind turbines that can fit onto the roof of a house and supply power, and they look no more obtrusive than an attic fan.

If the Obama Administration is so dead certain that they can go head and offer up the nuclear industry some 55 billions of dollars, why not offer up the citizens the money instead, so they can put up their own turbines, and own their own storage batteries.

[freshwest]

66. And those can be equipped with screens and made nearly silent.

Here's a link:

http://www.bergey.com/

The don't create any more of a problem than a weather vane.

[Liberty Belle]

89. Bingo. But they need to be vertical axis turbines, not horizontals. Verticals don't kill birds.

This is all about keeping power away from the people and in the hands of industry that maintains control and pockets the profits.

Same with the desert solar farms. Jim Bell, a well known environmental designer, calculated San Diego could meet its power demands entirely through rooftop solar including covering parking spaces and putting solar on the covers, as well as major municipal buildings, shopping malls, etc. as well as incentives for individuals to do the same. But it's not happening because the power company in our area doesn't want it to, and they pay off all the politicians very well.

[truedelphi]

113. The turbines I have seen that go on top of one's roofs

Do not have exposed blades, any more than you would have exposed blades on a fan you use in your children's nursery..

So it becomes irrelevant if the blades are vertical or horizontal in that situation.

[midnight]

109. I like this idea.... and pics of these new designs?

[wordpix]

119. +1 sounds good to me - but the corporations want BIG everything

a home-sized system just won't do.

[grahampuba]

70. Bird Mortality Causes.

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Made a pie chart with facts with averages from this and another article, wind turbines did not even make a sliver.

color me skeptical as well.

and in research it seems Mark Duchamp is taking a break from his global warming denial speaking to rail against wind turbines...
love to take a look at this guys bank statements.

[hedgehog]

93. That chart didn't mention loss of habitat- which

I suspect is the greatest cause for drop in numbers.

[Liberty Belle]

85. I believe Audobon is on the wrong side on this issue.

Locally I can tell you there are Audobon members with grave concerns over their national group's position on wind.

I've also heard that pro-wind interests have offered lucrative consulting jobs to bird experts in order to silence voices of dissent. Maybe some folks here who have time to research this can help run that down, and also see if Audobon's Leadership has been infiltrated by any wind energy people. I've heard this rumor, but haven't had time or resources to run it down yet.

Wind energy is a difficult issue for many environmentalists who on the one hand, largely support steps to combat global warming and/or reduce dependence on fossil fuels, while on the other hand have concerns to protect wildlife. Those goals conflict here.

There are certainly many instances however of organizations coming down on the wrong side of an issue, and that doesn't mean that they are right. I've seen labor sometimes support projects with devastating environmental consequences, for instances, because they provide jobs.

[Liberty Belle]

101. Save the Eagles got active in part due to frustration that Audobon wasn't protecting birds from wind

turbines. AUdobon feels the greater good is stopping global warming to save the planet, and is willing to sacrifice some birds--an odd position from an organization devoted to birds. There have been a lot of wind farm consultancy jobs given to avian experts, and there's speculation that some Audobon officers may be among them. So a possible conflict of interest there.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. I'm skeptical as well.

Everything I have read indicates the birds aren't considered endangered and that the majority of their decline in parts of the US has been due to loss of habitat.

[doc03]

3. Goes to show you there is no such thing as "green energy". Everything has its

downside.

[Puzzledtraveller]

95. +1

[doc03]

4. I read a story a few weeks ago about several hundred birds

that were killed at a WV wind farm.

[certainot]

44. same people with the same story... see below

[tabatha]

6. Wind Turbine Deal To Kill Less Birds by Pete Danko, December 16th, 2010

The wind turbines in the Altamont Pass east of the San Francisco Bay Area, installed in the 1970s and ’80s, might be seen as a symbol of California’s early leadership in renewable energy. But for some bird lovers, the first-of-its-kind operation has long been little more than a killing field. That contrasting view has led to an extended bureaucratic and legal battle, one that appears finally to be drawing to a close.

Environmental groups, the state and NextEra Energy Resources, the largest wind turbine operator at the site, have reached an agreement that requires NextEra to upgrade all its older turbines to newer models that kill far fewer birds. In all, NextEra will replace some 2,400 turbines, with all its existing turbines off line no later than 2015. The deal was announced in a press release by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is also the governor-elect.

Because newer-model turbines are more efficient, the company will be able to generate the same amount of energy at Altamont – around 240 megawatts – using far fewer turbines. The company has also agreed to place the new turbines in “environmentally friendly locations.”

According to the state, a 2004 study “found that the 5,400 older turbines operating at Altamont Pass killed an estimated 1,766 to 4,271 birds annually, including between 881 and 1330 raptors such as golden eagles – which are protected under federal law – hawks, falcons and owls.”

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/12/wind-turbine-deal-to-kill-less-birds/

[Liberty Belle]

9. This is a bogus change. New turbines are bigger, but they''remeasuring smaller areas for bird kills.

The whole thing was rigged by wind industry to make it appear safer, but in fact the experts predict four times as many birds will be killed.

Huger blade sweep areas on these things are monstrous. I have a not-yet-published study in hand detailing how the fraud was perpetrated.

[tabatha]

15. That is too bad.

I, too, am concerned about bird deaths

[hack89]

91. The new turbines turn at much slower speeds.

I suspect that alone would make them safer for birds.

[MrSlayer]

10. Sounds like an attack by oil people on renewable energy.

But even if it isn't we still need wind farms. You can't save everyone and everything.

[Survivoreesta]

14. Yep

[Liberty Belle]

17. Wrong assumption. Author has a degree in environmental studies and is a strong conservationist

who has written much about the need for renewable energy sources that are clean and green. Take off the "green " blinders when it comes to these deadly wind turbines and look at the facts.

We don't need wind farms everywhere -- we've rushed headlong into this without looking at the problems, much as was done with nuclear a generation ago.

If wind is to be used, the industry should be required to come up with safer designs. Story says there are options, vertical axis turbine designs, that don't kill birds but haven't been developed on a commercial scale because the factories are geared up for the horizontal ones that slaughter birds. I live in an area with wind farms and it's heartrbreaking to see what's happening.

I have totally changed my mind on wind energy after seeing the decimation of wildlife and other problems - there are human health issues too; I've talked with people who live near there are they are getting headaches, heart palpitations, their livestock is spooked, and 500 foot tall towers are destroying our beautiful scenic wilderness areas.

There are better ways to stop global warming - solar, solar, solar.

[Beartracks]

50. I only recently heard about mag lev turbines

Far smaller footprint than traditional "windmill" turbines, with one mag lev replacing an entire windfarm of towers. Plus, they look like cylindrical buildings, which I should think would make them easier for birds to avoid.

But YES - Solar, solar, solar!!! I hear of new innovations all the time. Why isn't solar commercial yet???

[drm604]

65. The author is Miriam Raftery.

A quick Google search seems to show that she's a journalist. Do you have a cite showing that degree?

[Liberty Belle]

86. Her website, www.writerink.com lists the degree

University of California, Santa Barbara 1979. She has a B.A. in Environmental Studies.

I can personally vouch for the accuracy of that. You can check out the school records if you're still a skeptic.

[NYC_SKP]

130. "She" according to you, is "You", You wrote that yourself.

congratulations on the award.

Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-24-06 12:37 AM
Original message

DUer Liberty Belle wins nat'l journalism prize: voting machines article

Ilene PRoctor
INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS
Press Contact: Ilene Proctor or Angus Hsu
Direct Line: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Contact: Miriam Raftery 619-698-7617

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Writer wins national journalism prize for San Diego CityBeat article on election integrity issues

Freelance writer Miriam Raftery has been named co-winner of the 2006 Arlene Award, a national journalism prize presented by the American Society of Journalists & Authors for articles that make a difference in a community.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x429540

[Politicalboi]

13. Too bad they don't have some kind of sound

That can only be heard by birds high up that would keep them away.

[boppers]

27. Are you joking?

https://www.google.com/search?q=wind%20turbine%20noise%20pollution

[glinda]

52. I have always thought that.

[Liberty Belle]

87. Jim Wiegand has proposed that as well. He also suggests a sensor

on each turbine to detect impacts, and have the ability for remote monitoring so we don't have to rely on what the wind farm owners say. Jim is the new VP at Save the Eagles. He's been visiting eagle sites for decades and is a wildlife biologist, very dedicated to saving the birds.

[Liberty Belle]

16. Videos of birds hitting wind turbines, for the skeptics:

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=131 also photos of the bird kills.

[Mojeoux]

18. I am skepty of your link, and what is with the "Climate-gate" vid?

It does not work well. Your organization has one purpose, saving birds from wind turbines.
I get that, but I couldn't get to the site at first........then the vid did not work.

Also the "climate-gate" link is wack and implies that the only other issue your organization boosts is info on the so called "climate-gate?".

[drm604]

35. I disagree that saving birds is the organization's one purpose.

See my post #30 below. Whoever is behind this is against wind power in general. They have at least 4 anti wind power sites and only one is focused on bird safety.

I didn't notice the "climate-gate" vid. That is one more piece of evidence that this is astroturf.

[certainot]

47. thanks for below. & environmentalists need to know limbaugh practically singlehandedly made "climate

gate"

seldom does he do a whole hour at a time on one subject but in order to undercut obama at the copenhagen summit he did much of a whole week, including naming and repeating the names climate scientists as traitors of humanity that later received death threats.

sadly, many of our universities make a mockery of their mission statements and broadcast sports on limbaugh stations- giving them community cred. our universities are major supporters of global warming denial.

[DCBob]

81. The savetheeagles site makes subtle attacks on green energy and global warming..

while appearing to be pro-environment. Its a rightwing scam imo.

[Odin2005]

23. What about all the millions of birds killed by domestic cats?

[tabatha]

26. Cats don't kill raptors.

But they do kill far too many birds. Glass windows do as well.

[boppers]

33. Cats do kill raptors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrathene used to get killed all the time in my hometown.

[tabatha]

38. Sorry about that.

It is why I have given up having cats as pets.

[certainot]

39. and raptors kill cats

[boppers]

29. OP is about golden eagles. Talking about extinction.

And how many pictures of Golden Eagles are at the link?

One picture. Of one bird.

[izquierdista]

19. "razor sharp blades"??

I have yet to see an airfoil that is "razor sharp". Large and massive and able to splat large animals, yes, but sharp, no, I don't think so.

[Bohunk68]

78. That's what caught my eye

Razor sharp blades? I don't think so. I and several others were heavily involved when windpower was to be brought to our county in Upstate NY. The only reason we ended up against them was because of low frequency noise factors that had health-related problems. We explored the birdkill issue and found it to be without merit. A lot of made up stuff pulled out of, you guessed it, thin air. Our local golden tails are making a comeback because their habitat is returning now that farms are going out of business.

[tabatha]

20. Well, I have googled for more information on this, and I cannot find any.

I also started watching one of the Richard Muller videos and had to stop because he was being too political.

[Odin2005]

21. Color me skeptical, this sounds like Big Coal propaganda.

[wordpix]

25. WTF about the "take permits"?---kill eagles b/c they're being killed by wind blades?

[quaker bill]

79. A "take permit"

is a short name for an "incidental take permit" they are issued to airports, windfarms, and other such operations that might "incidentally" because of their operations, harass, injure, or kill a listed species. Often around airports, nests and nest trees are removed during the off-nesting season (when the birds aren't using it). This reduces the chance for an eagle/airplane collision, which is no good for either the eagle or the aircraft, and quite dangerous near takeoff and landing. No one is allowed to remove the empty nest without a "take permit" this would be considered "harassment" under the ESA.

"Take permits" are generally issued as part of a wildlife conflict management plan. The usual intent of these plans is to reduce "wildlife conflicts" by encouraging the wildlife to relocate farther away from the facility. Permission to actually kill the animals directly is very rarely a feature of these plans. The airport I am most familiar with does not have permission to shoot the protected species, but does have permission to use many non-lethal means to encourage the listed species to relocate. On the other hand, they are required to have a plan in place to shoot and remove non-listed species from the runways by the FAA, locally for the large part this means killing feral hogs and white tail deer when they are on the runway.

Only security officers that have been specifically trained and have been security cleared by HSA are allowed carry loaded shotguns on the tarmac. They are more than a bit intense about this.

[Liberty Belle]

105. independent info on the eagle "take permits" for wind farms - US Fish & Wildlife is doing this

This sums it up, and the last paragraph makes clear that even the USFW admits the turbines post serious problems to eagles:

"This new guidance is necessary because planned development of wind power facilities has increased dramatically in the core range of golden eagles in the US. Golden eagles are particularly vulnerable to collisions with wind turbines. In some areas, such collisions are a major source of mortality, and the documented level of take is increasing."

Still think Save the Eagles is making this all up?


Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance Will Aid Eagle Permitting Process



The US Fish and Wildlife Service published the final Eagle Permit Rule which authorizes limited issuance of permits to take bald and golden eagles. Last week the Service released the Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance which explains how programmatic take permits will be issued and recommends that wind developers engage in five-tiered consultation process with USFWS.



On February 8, 2011, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service released their draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. The guidance describes a voluntary process by which wind energy developers can prepare an Eagle Conservation Plan to support issuance of a programmatic permit to authorize unintentional take of eagles at wind energy facilities. It also provides non-binding guidance to applicants and biologists for conservation and adaptive management practices necessary to meet standards required for issuance of these permits, and to be in compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.



Programmatic take permits, which are required, will authorize limited incidental mortality and disturbance of eagles at wind facilities, provided effective conservation measures are carried out. To comply with the permit regulations, conservation measures must avoid and minimize take of eagles to the greatest extent possible. For programmatic permits necessary to authorize ongoing take of eagles, advanced conservation practices must be implemented such that any remaining take is unavoidable. For eagle management populations that cannot sustain additional mortality, any remaining take must be offset through compensatory mitigation such that the net effect on the eagle population is, at minimum, no change.



The draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance calls on wind turbine developers to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service in a 5-tiered process that includes: 1) early landscape-level site assessments; 2) site specific surveys; 3) risk assessment; 4) avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts; and 5) post-construction monitoring. At the end of each of the first four stages, the guidance recommends that project proponents determine which of four categories the project falls into: 1) high risk to eagles with little opportunity to minimize effects; 2) high to moderate risk to eagles with opportunity to minimize effects; 3) minimal risk to eagles; or 4) uncertain risk to eagles.



The latest guidance follows the 2009 Final Eagle Permit Rule, which, authorized under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, limited issuance of permits to take bald and golden eagles where the take is associated with, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. This new guidance is necessary because planned development of wind power facilities has increased dramatically in the core range of golden eagles in the US. Golden eagles are particularly vulnerable to collisions with wind turbines. In some areas, such collisions are a major source of mortality, and the documented level of take is increasing. This guidance provides options to industry, providing flexibility in the development of wind energy projects while protecting eagles.


Sources:

http://www.emps2.com/2011Feb_GoldenEagle.html (they got the info from the original source at USFS below)

You can read the entire Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance at the US Fish & Wildlife SErvice here, if you're an eagle lover read it and weep:

www.fws.gov/.../ECP_draft_guidance_2_10_final_clean_omb.pdf

[drm604]

30. How odd.

The press release PDF linked to in that article was issued by http://www.savetheeaglesinternational.org

That site smells like some unnatural lawn growth to me.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org is located at the IP adress 174.133.9.196, is registered with Godaddy, uses Name Servers located at anitaswebdesign.com, and uses Domains by Proxy to hide the identity of the real registrant.

What's interesting are some of the other domains at that same address.

http://torontowindaction.com is also located at the IP adress 174.133.9.196, is also registered with Godaddy, also uses Name Servers located at anitaswebdesign.com, and also uses Domains by Proxy to hide the identity of the real registrant.

http://greatlakeswindtruth.org is also located at the IP adress 174.133.9.196, is also registered with Godaddy, also uses Name Servers located at anitaswebdesign.com, and also uses Domains by Proxy to hide the identity of the real registrant.

http://savethetorontobluffs.com is also located at the IP adress 174.133.9.196, is also registered with Godaddy, also uses Name Servers located at anitaswebdesign.com, and also uses Domains by Proxy to hide the identity of the real registrant.

In case you think that this is all coincidental; there's more.

http://greatlakeswindtruth.org (mentioned above) has a page about Save the Eagles International. http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/save-the-eagles.html

Both greatlakeswindtruth.org and torontowindaction.com (also mentioned above) have a donation page. Both donation pages link to the same PayPal account.

So "Save the Eagles International", "Great Lakes Wind Truth" and "Toronto Wind Action" are all related in some way.

savethetorontobluffs.com (mentioned above) is also almost certainly related to the other three.

So: There are four sites; all seemingly being run by the same party or parties.

One is concerned about the effects of wind power on Toronto in general.

One is concerned about the effects of wind power on the Great Lakes.

One is concerned about the effects of wind power on the Toronto Bluffs.

One is concerned about the fate of golden eagles in San Diego County (specifically, how they may be affected by wind turbines).

It almost seems like someone has a bee in their bonnet about wind power specifically, but is trying to camouflage it behind insincere environmental concerns . I wonder why? I wonder who could be behind all of this?

[wordpix]

40. good job, drm, you're onto something

[boppers]

41. There's more.

I gave up a few jumps in, but yeah, it's pretty transparent.... check out a google search for "7004 Waring Circle", the street address for http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/ ....

[wordpix]

42. GrtLakesWindTruth is appealing to boaters & yachters to save the lakes!

http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/home/31/132-an-urgent-message.html

The big bad wind turbines are going to wreck the yachting and jet skiing out there.

[drm604]

46. Yea! Who cares about Global Warming!

We have to save the yachting and jet skiing!

[bananas]

71. LOL - "Hitler, Climategate, and the carbon tax" by Mark Duchamp

Here's a thread he started on usenet
Click on the youtube link and it says "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated."
This guy sounds like a wingnut.
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.birdwatching/browse_thread/thread/871ac54c54e5e6a7/bdeaaca8d89871b1

edit to add: I don't know if he made the video or just posted a link to it,
but that's the title of the thread he started.

edit to add: Mark Duchamp is president of STEI.

[yankeepants]

77. I live on Lake Ontario

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Yes, much of our rural communities surrounding the lake already have teetering economies that depend on the summer tourism industry. A wind farm would greatly damage that which people arrive for in droves. In turn, it would crush the livlihood of thousands of individuals and families who live here year round.

This is also a major migratory bird flyway and it is unimaginable how many birds would be killed and washed ashore by a wind farm in the lake.

Not only that, but these turbines are full of petroleum lubricants. We have already had one crash on land locally. A similar incident in the Lake would be environmentally devastating.

Please read this snip from an MIT study re: the Cape Wind Farm. They talk of minimizing risk but. . . let's get real these are huge industries and corporations driving these farms not environmentalists.

Excerpt:

Impacts on Air Quality, Climate Change, and Water Quality

What is the risk of oil spills from the wind park?

Each Cape Wind turbine generator would contain approximately 214 gallons of lubricants and hydraulic and transmission fluids in its nacelle or hub at any given time, for a total of 27, 820 gallons among all 130 towers. In addition, 40,000 gallons of electrical servicing oil would be stored on the electrical service platform. All equipment and storage tanks for Cape Wind would be designed to minimize the possibility of leaks or spills and have secondary containment that can hold their full contents.

www.masstech.org/offshore/CapeWindFAQs/airwater.html

[drm604]

82. "let's get real..."

Yes, why don't we get real? Of course these farms a driven by corporations and industry. How could they not be? Any global warming solutions will involve large scale industrial operations. That doesn't mean that they are inherently evil. It does mean that they need to be watched and regulated. It doesn't mean that they should be banned

Did you think that we believed that some amateur environmentalists built these things in their garages on the weekends?

Your quote (which you failed to attribute or even mark as a quote) is incomplete. If you read that entire section you'll see that it comes to a completely opposite conclusion from you. Here it is again with the relevant conclusions.

http://www.masstech.org/offshore/CapeWindFAQs/airwater.html

Each Cape Wind turbine generator would contain approximately 214 gallons of lubricants and hydraulic and transmission fluids in its nacelle or hub at any given time, for a total of 27, 820 gallons among all 130 towers. In addition, 40,000 gallons of electrical servicing oil would be stored on the electrical service platform. All equipment and storage tanks for Cape Wind would be designed to minimize the possibility of leaks or spills and have secondary containment that can hold their full contents.

The Minerals Management Service concluded that Cape Wind would likely be responsible for 7 percent of the oil spills expected to occur in Nantucket Sound during a 30 year period. MMS estimated that 2 spills attributable to Cape Wind could occur during a 30-year period, and that there was a 90 percent chance that these spills would involve 50 gallons of oil or less. The agency placed the odds of a spill involving 10,000 gallons at 1 percent.

The main risk of oil spills comes from vessels transiting the Sound, and this risk will be there whether or not Cape Wind is built.

[yankeepants]

115. Actually, this confirms my point

"Cape Wind would likely be responsible for 7 percent of the oil spills expected to occur in Nantucket Sound during a 30 year period."

In other words, this a "when" not "if" situation. This a lake not an ocean. A spill would be much worse in this contained space.

[hedgehog]

94. I live on Lake Ontario also (ok, 10 miles up river)

I would much rather risk the ecological damage from an operating or collapsed wind turbine than the devastation should any of the 30 some year old nuke plants at 9 Mile Point have any difficulties!

[yankeepants]

116. Why have both threats?

Someday those turbines will be 30 years old and failing also.

[wordpix]

45. GrtLakesWindTruth has good footage of a vulture getting whacked (youtube)

http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/

However, I still am skeptical.

[tkmorris]

49. REALLY good work

I know it's not exactly Sherlock Holmes material but tracking all that stuff down takes time and effort, and really, who has time to do that for every sketchy sounding article that gets posted? I know I don't so I REALLY appreciate when another DUer does.

So here's to you. Thanks.

[drm604]

54. You're welcome.

I enjoy doing it. I love piercing the curtains these people put up. I just wish I could find who's really behind it all. Maybe AEI. Maybe the Kochs. Maybe Exon Mobil. Who knows?

[eppur_se_muova]

53. Wow, it's like it's a completely phony front organization or something !

ETA: ditto what tkmorris said -- big time !

[dougolat]

61. Me, too: sleuthing appreciated! ....next generation designs, too

[Liberty Belle]

83. So what? The registrant is a web design company with MANY registered websites on many topics.

When I first started a business site of my own it was registered by a local web designer that I found through like-minded groups. She designed other sites for businesses in similar fields and I liked their professional appearance. Does that mean we're somehow all connected? Of course not.

The web designer for Save the Eagles is registered in Canada, same as Save the Eagles and two of the three wind groups, the third is just over the border in the Great Lakes. What you failed to mention is Anita's Design also has MANY other clients. Her portfolio online also lists a day care center, a web game site, a Canadian travel site, 3 spas and several other business sites. Are all the spas conspiring together too, based on your theory?

Also you misrepresent Save the Eagles site. It is not devoted to eagles in San Diego County. That just happens to be their latest lead on their homepage. If you scroll down or watch the site over time you'll find discussions on many other wind farms around the world. Their goal is to save eagles and other large birds of prey wherever such threats appear. These are wildlife experts; Jim Wiegand, one of my sources, is a wildlife biologist who has been visiting eagle nests for DECADES before wind farms ever came on the scene.

I sent Save the Eagles president an email asking for an explanation on this point as well as a couple of other questions raised on this forum. But the issue of 3 anti-wind sites being registered by the same Canadian designer seems like a red herring to me, guilt by association. It's not like they're all registered to a big oil or energy company, just a local web design company.

If you were going to design a site about dangers from wind farms to eagles, isn't it reasonable that you'd look for similar sites where you liked the design, and maybe hire that same designer? I am very appreciative to the forum moderator for unlocking the thread and giving me the opportunity to respond to this overly broad assumption.

[drm604]

98. Since they were nice enough to unlock this for you

you should have gone to the trouble to address everything I pointed out rather than just the weakest points.

I did not intentionally misrepresent anything. In fact I don't think I misrepresented something even unintentionally. I did not claim that Save the Eagles International was only concerned about San Diego County. Even if I had mistakenly asserted that, how would that in any way invalidate my claims that this is astroturf?

And you didn't even address the biggest "coincidences" that I brought up.

I'll quote from my original post:

In case you think that this is all coincidental; there's more.

http://greatlakeswindtruth.org (mentioned above) has a page about Save the Eagles International. http://greatlakeswindtruth.org/save-the-eagles.html

Both greatlakeswindtruth.org and torontowindaction.com (also mentioned above) have a donation page. Both donation pages link to the same PayPal account.

So "Save the Eagles International", "Great Lakes Wind Truth" and "Toronto Wind Action" are all related in some way.

Just to make it clear: Great Lakes Wind Truth has a page about Save the Eagles International, and links to info about the group. So there's your link between those two organizations.
Great Lakes Wind Truth And Toronto Wind Action both accept donations using the same PayPal account. That's a pretty darned strong link. It pretty much makes them the same organization financially. And that organization, at the very least, is aware of and supports (at least spiritually if not materially) Save the Eagles International.

Without all of that, the coincidences with the design firm and IP address (the only coincidences you bothered to address) would be minor and explainable. With all of that, they just add to the evidence.

When you have two anti wind power sites that are posing as different organizations but are both accepting money for the same party; a third site, torontowindaction.com, that is also concerned about wind power in Toronto and also uses the same IP address and design firm, seems a little suspicious. I'll grant you that the links to Toronto Wind Action are a little more tenuous than the links between the other three, but there is a definite possibility that those links are more than a coincidence.

Edited to Add: All of these organizations saw fit to hide their real identities when they registered their domains. If these are real, legit, organizations, then what do they have to hide? This is especially troubling when they accept monetary donations.

[Liberty Belle]

103. the 2 wind sites don't share a paypal account with Save the Eagles.

So what if one posts a link to Save the Eagles? If you're battling a wind farm it's natural to post links to national/international groups fighting the same issue. As for the two groups fighting local wind farms, even if somehow they were hiding a parent group it doesn't necessarily mean STEI is doing that. Having a web designer register your site is a very common practice, and I've done that myself with 2 sites not to hide anything, but merely for convenience or in one case, my credit card had been stolen and I let the web designer register to take the domain name while it was available rather than wait a few days for a new card.

As for the other issues, I was waiting to get a response from the President and VP from Save the Eagles International, which I now have. Both denied every taking any money from the oil or coal industry. Mark says the web designer provided a good deal. Again, everything you've raised is mere innuendo, and all of it is easily explainable. Is it possible there's some deep dark nefarious plot? I doubt it, never say never, but there's simply no evidence other than the coincidence of a Canadian nonprofit choosing the same Canadian web designer as a couple of other groups battling wind farms. The eagle group is not sharing funds with those groups, from what you've indicated. If they were, that would be a different matter, I'd agree.


Here is the response from Jim Wiegand, VP:

Unlike the wind industry experts paid to lie……… I am paid nothing for telling the truth.

As for climate change, I do believe it. I think it is mainly due to deforestation. Micro climates are being changed daily all over the world. Which is made even worse from the installation of wind farms and accompanying infrastructure.


Below is Mark Duchamp's response. As president, he addressed most of the other issues. I don't agree with his take on climate change, but nothing says a person wanting to save birds from being sliced apart is necessarily "green" on every issue. I personally know plenty of people on both sides of the climate change debate who have joined together locally to oppose the big wind farms here.

Duchamp's response:

Miriam,

Here is my reply. You may publish and circulate as you see fit.

Save the Eagles International (STEI) has no financial backing whatsoever from Big Oil, Big Coal, the nuclear industry, or any other company, organization, or individual. We are a group of volunteer conservationists from 12 different countries, with a zero budget. Our only expense was our webpage. I had asked around for a realy cheap deal, and the best one offered was to cost us only $300. So we took it, and paid from our own pockets. I wonder, how does that compare to the budget of the Audubon Society, the Peregrine Fund, the Sierra Club or NRDC? Yet none of these NGOs is raising its voice to stop the massacre of protected birds and bats by wind turbines. Why, you ask? - because of money. In elegant terms, it's called a "conflict of interest".

The irony is that, because STEI is defending the very birds and bats that these affluent NGOs have abandoned, we are being accused of being the bad guys. I find this a bit unfair, don't you?

STEI is a founding member of the World Council for Nature - wcfn.org - which is also a 100% volunteer organization with a zero-budget. Its webpage costs $17 a year, just for the registered domain. It is hosted by Wordpress, which is free of charge.

Members of STEI have a wide variety of opinions regarding the world's affairs. This is why we concentrate our efforts on a single issue, one over which we all agree: wind farms do not belong in wilderness areas, or anywhere where they will massacre protected bird and bat species.

We are sometimes being criticized with arguments such as: what's the killing of a few birds? anything is better than global warming! wind farms are necessary to save the planet, etc.

But it's not a few birds, it's millions of them, contrary to what biased studies paid by the wind industry are trying to deny. Bad science is being used to force wind farms into areas that are vital for the survival of the Golden Eagle, the Condor, the Whooping Crane, and in migration hotspots for countless other species. And this use of "scientific" smoke-and-mirrors confuse well-intentioned people into actually helping to destroy biodiversity, nature, and in the end, the planet. We at STEI think this is dead wrong.

Corrupting science to impose a political or financial agenda is not only unethical: it is extremely dangerous. STEI feel that, if people want to prove a point, they should use proper scientific evidence. So, when we see that nature is being destroyed for the benefit of an industry that has a huge footprint on nature yet is not effective, we choose to denounce this aberration. We point out that there has been no study showing how much pollution wind farms actually save. Yet there are at least 5 scientific papers that indicate the opposite is true: wind farms don't save anything, and may even cause more pollution because of increased emissions by the back-up power plants. But to destroy, yes: they are immensively destructive of wilderness areas and rare species. Should we remain silent about it, and watch the Golden Eagle and other emblematic species vanish from our skies? I don't think so, and our members don't either. Our lack of financial ties to any pressure group permits us to be independent and ethical: it is our strength.

Regarding Golbal Warming: we are sometimes being told that we should be fighting climate change instead of protecting birds and wild lands. As I said, our members may include believers and non-believers in GW, I don't know, but what I do know is that none agrees with the tenet that bad science should be used to convince people. So when this politically correct, mainstream university professor denounced in a video the scientific fraud widely referred to as "hide the decline", we decided to put it on our webpage, with the following comment:

"Professor Richard Muller is a climate scientist, professor at the University of California – Berkeley. He is not a “climate skeptic”: he believes that man’s CO2 emissions cause global warming. But he disapproves of “hiding the decline”. This video is a stunning 5-minute excerpt of his presentation."

If global warming is supported by bad science, and is in turn supporting an industry of dubious effectiveness which is causing tremendous harm to what it is STEI's mission to protect, should we remain silent about it?

Corrupt science is doing humanity a lot of harm, in a number of fields (remember the tobacco industry?). This should not be tolerated. STEI certainly won't.

Cheers

Mark

Mark Duchamp
President, Save the Eagles International
www.savetheeaglesinternational.org

[wordpix]

122. more dots to follow: wcfn.org states biofuels cause deforestation

Duchamp's World Council for Nature: "STEI is a founding member of the World Council for Nature - wcfn.org - which is also a 100% volunteer organization with a zero-budget. Its webpage costs $17 a year, just for the registered domain. It is hosted by Wordpress, which is free of charge."

How come Duchamp isn't joining already established anti-logging groups if he's so against deforestation?

I smell a King Cong rat... (Coal, Oil, Nuclear, Gas)

[Celebration]

32. so if this is a problem

build a big chain link fence around the wind turbines.

[Muskypundit]

34. The glare from solar panels is causing eagles to fly into the turbines.

-Coal lobby

[drm604]

36. Yes, and the soot from burning coal would reduce the glare

and save eagles.

[certainot]

43. even if this wasn't directly from the heritage foundation the challenge is still to minimize

the chances to the point where the think tanks and their ability to manipulate media is irrelevant.

[OmahaBlueDog]

51. Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.

Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.

Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat.

Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline."

From "Inherit the Wind" by Lawrence/Lee

If you don't want global warming, and you don't want nukes, and you don't want war in the Middle East, and you don't want tar sands oil, then this (and the issues with fish on hydro dammed rivers) are part of the trade-off.

[Rotegard]

58. I'm very, very sceptical of this post and the integrity of the cause

I have been the lead field manager for a couple of the biggest environmental groups in Minnesota ( MCWA, MPIRG ) which mounted the pressure that got much of the wind power mandated through the state legislature.. Several years ago I had along talk at the door in St Paul with the lead author of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the first huge (+100 Mw) windfarm out on Minnesota's Buffalo Ridge.

The problems with siting turbines to protect/avoid migratory birds is pretty staight-forward. Windfarms are required (Like other big power generators) to do EIS and they are subject to public review and comment.

Wind energy is much less a threat to birds than the mercury from coal and with intelligent design/siting almost no threat at all.
The management of existing windfarms are required by law to keep a hard count of bird casualties. That said it should be noted that in real terms, wind energy is already much cheaper than any carbon fuel or nukes.

When I read a post of this sort I smell Astroturf.

[OmahaBlueDog]

59. Everytime I see a truck with a blade or a hub come down I-29, I smile

I am very pro-wind power.

I agree the post is suspect. That said, even if it was not, I'll accept certain trade offs. As you say, the tradeoffs against coal are a no-brainer.

[Strelnikov_]

62. And as Rotegard noted, with adequate site studies impacts can be minimal

Some desirable sites will be off-limits due to impacts. Should not be an issue since we are a long way from 'peak wind'.

[Liberty Belle]

107. Wind farms on tribal lands are exempt.

A local group did a records request from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for bird kills at the facility after witnesses talked about them, and the BIA refused to turn over the data. Apparently if you kill birds with turbines on a reservation, you get a free pass.

There are reports of some other farms hiding bird kills. If you wait long enough to collect th bodies they vanish as other predators eat them. Some have buried/hidden them reportedly. Some kills ARE reported and even those numbers are staggering at some farms, though not all. It depends where they are located, types of blades, size of turbines, etc.

In our area the eagle habitat has been shrunk in many ways, so they don't have a lot of prime habitat left after multiple major wildfires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres, new development abutting the wilderness areas,other major energy projects, military and private contractor training camps (including one founded by an ex Blackwater VP called Eagle Rock) and now the wind farms.

Just as the early cars were primitive by today's standards--polluting, slow, dangerous--I hope someday today's turbines will be viewed as the dinosaurs of the alternative energy field. Why can't we develop safer models that don't slaughter birds? or just provide the incidentives for individual towns, homeowners, local governments, businesses, schools, etc. to put up small-scale, in-basin, regionally generated rooftop or hillside solar panels and personal wind turbines (the small helix designs that don't kill birds)? I know many people who have done this already and are totally off grid, motivated by losing power after repeated wildfires. We now have entire towns talking about doing so next. It's the best and safest option. We CAN have green energy AND protect our wildlife, but not if we don't ask for it.

[semillama]

126. Exactly. I have some experience with the industry on the consulting side

Specifically as a subconsultant to environmental consultants. And I can tell you that everyone I've dealt with takes issues like this seriously. The wind industry is very active in trying to mitigate effects, not just on environmental issues but even cultural issues. One wind farm here in Ohio got the plug pulled by the developer because of the visual impact it would have had in the specific area it was to be located - the area is known for the multiple church steeples you can see across the landscape, and the visual impact of the turbines would have been too expensive and complicated to attempt any mitigation.

[EC]

57. So who is STEI?

Well, it appears to be put together by a guy by the name of Mark Duchamp who is a climate change denier. http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=31

[Strelnikov_]

60. Damn. Would never of guessed that. n/t

[drm604]

64. You're right.

I ran into his name during my research (see my post #30) but I didn't realize he was a denier. He has a site called "Climategate Country Club".

http://climategatecountryclub.ning.com/profile/MarkDuchamp

[bananas]

72. And see post #71

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=19857

[wordpix]

120. seems to be headquartered in Spain

[boppers]

67. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

[saras]

68. I thought the concept was old news - I guess it takes a while

There are different kinds of turbines, with different effects. There are no laws regulating this directly, except after the fact. If your new design turns out to be especially bird-hostile, anyone with enough money (a lot) can sue. Otherwise, you're on your own. If yours is especially safe for birds (or for some specific kinds of birds), you're on your own proving it and selling it.

There are different places to put wind farms. A couple of old famous cases involved siting them in bird migration corridors between mountain ranges, because the winds were good and consistent there. Bad idea. Others are placed in what, as far as the birds are concerned, is the middle of nowhere, and only local birds interact with them. No worse problem than many other rural/industrial practices.

It's not a yes/no, either/or question, it's how many where and when. Given that, I expect extremist interest groups on both ends. It doesn't AUTOMATICALLY invalidate their data, but we shouldn't trust ANY data on DU without researching it, right?

There are bird kills. They do get covered up. There are also wind farms that don't kill any significant number of birds. And there's wind farms that experience the occasional unpredictable bird kill but don't have regular problems.

There's no reason to think wind power won't be exploited just as incompetently and corruptly as any other new technology. It doesn't automatically make its practitioners wise and moral.

I think in the long run this will be just one more criteria involved in siting wind farms, and hopefully in designing the turbines.

[Rex]

74. No no nooo....

That picture HURTS.

[snooper2]

99. staged

[Scuba]

76. Why is this discredited OP on the DU Home Page?

[Dead_Parrot]

80. I suspect it's automatic

A degree of teeth-grinding is in order. Sigh.

[nineteen50]

88. And

what about all that wind coming from Washington D.C. killing the middle class?

[Starboard Tack]

90. Unfortunately eagles do get killed occasionally by wind generators

and also by power lines and also by jet aircraft. The stories on them being rendered almost extinct by wind generators is hype.
We would save far more eagles and other birds if we eliminated jet aircraft and overhead power lines, neither of which are necessary to the survival of the planet. And if the planet doesn't survive, then the eagles will be shit out of luck too.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/26/eagle-with-web-following-struck-killed-by-plane/

[Islandlife]

92. How did this get by the Environmental Impact Studies?

If the OP is true, then either a blind eye was turned or the studies are unreliable.

If the OP is true, this will be another expensive can of worms.

[Liberty Belle]

102. EIRs are regularly ignored. Our area had one that read "severe and unmitigatible fire danger" for a

high voltage power line project through an area that has had the two worst wildfires in CA history. But the regulatory agencies rubber stamped it.

Another EIR I've seen lied flat out and said no bighorn sheep there. Everyone who hikes in the area or lives there has seen them. That was a solar farm project. But it's not just energy projects that get away with this stuff. It's any big company with $$$.

Same thing when Blackwater wanted to open a training camp. They arranged to get their former lawyer hired by the county to head up an environmental review for their proposed project. Thankfully media blew the lid on that one, in fact it was Ms. Raftery's story that did so and got her removed from the project, and her reporting that likely contributed to BW eventually giving up on building the mercenary training facility in Potrero CA. Story was on RawStory.com.

[Islandlife]

110. EIRs are a waste of money and time if they are used selectively..

for the sake of forwarding a hidden agenda.

The ineffectiveness, waste and abuse of the EIRs is the root of the problem and should be the top story.

Liberty Belle, please start another original post highlighting this problem in order to get help from other DU members in documenting the misuse and lies of the environmental impact studies.

[wordpix]

121. that is true; and the co's that write them sometimes have contracts with the state

So if your state is anti-environment, you can be sure that the environmentally damaging project will be whitewashed by the contractor.

[MicaelS]

96. Stuff like this that gives Environmentalism a bad name with the general public.

The Environmental movement has been screaming for the last 40 years for renewable energy. Solar, wind and water.

So know we're finally starting to get wind power on more than an experimental basis, and it's

"Oh no, wind turbines are killing birds!"
"Oh no, wind turbines are spoiling my view!"
"Oh no, wind turbines are ruining the landscape!"
"Oh no, wind turbines are causing nervous reactions in humans and people!"

OK, you say solar power is the answer Then we get:

"Solar farms are killing the desert tortoise!"
"Solar farms are ruining the environment for this or that animal!"
"Solar farms are destroying the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem!"

We have already had the rhetoric:

"Hydro power dams damage rivers!"
"All the good Hydro power locations are already developed!"

Why should the general public trust anything the Environmental movement has to say?

I think some in the Environmental movement are deliberate shit-stirrers so they can keep maintain high visibility and keep those donations coming in.

[DirkGently]

104. "STEI" appears the only source of this information. And it's run by a global warming skeptic.

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Same guy? Who posts on "Global Warming Scare," dot com?

This organization, and this guy, don't seem so much concerned about birds as concerned about discrediting wind power. There may be a legitimate concern buried somewhere in there, but this seems like an agenda driving the facts, not the other way around.

3. mark duchamp - December 20, 2007
Congratulations to the architects of this site. Denouncing fraudulent “scientific” claims will hopefully put an end to global hysteria, which is poised to ruin the world economy.

Of particular interest is the impact of ineffective wind farms on bird life, landscapes, and quality of life. Regarding birds, they have killed tens of millions already, including many belonging to endangered or vulnerable species. Scottish eagles, among others, stand to be wiped out by hundreds of windfarms to be built on the hills where they fly.

If you plan to visit Scotland, do it before it is completely disfigured by the wind monsters. Ditto with Spain, Italy, France, Wales, Cornwall, New Zealand, much of Australia, Canada, the US, etc.

Mark Duchamp
[e-mail]

http://globalwarmingscare.wordpress.com/about/

[Liberty Belle]

108. US Fish & Wildlife SErvice confirms a growing number of eagles killed by turbines

See messages posted above with direct links to USFW 's new draft "take" permit plan for eagles since so many are being killed by wind farms they say they can no longer prevent such deaths, just give up and allow it (so the wind farms won't be prosecuted as felons). Where is the incentive for the owners to try and make these any safer? That's what the goal should be particularly in areas of prime eagle habitat, which is not everywhere.

I disagree with DUchamp's take on climate change. So does his VP at Save the Eagles, by the way. It doesn't mean that they're wrong about the number of eagles being killed, and all the evidence I've looked at says they're right on that issue.

[bigworld]

112. Maybe make the tops of the turbine tower pointed so that the birds don't nest atop them?

[dipsydoodle]

117. Earlier UK links to subject in general here

Wind turbines: 'Eco-friendly' - but not to eagles

There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.

The real problem is that birds of prey and wind developers are both drawn, for similar reasons, to the same sites – hills and ridges where the wind provides lift for soaring birds and heavily subsidised profits for developers. Eagles may thus be drawn from hundreds of square miles to particular wind farms. And, as can be seen from the YouTube video of a vulture circling above a turbine in Crete (Google “Fatal accident with vulture on windmill”), the vortices created by blade tips revolving at up to 200mph can destabilise such large birds, plunging them into a fatal collision.

This ecological disaster has been abundantly documented and publicised, not least in Europe by Save The Eagles International, run by Mark Duchamp, a retired French businessman living in Alicante. Spain has one of the three highest concentrations of turbines in Europe and, according to the Spanish Ornithological Society (see Mr Duchamp’s Iberica 2000 website), they may be killing up to a million birds a year. But he focuses his campaign on what he sees as the disturbing failure to protect birds by the bodies whose job it is to do so, from the RSPB to the European Commission.

13 Mar 2010 : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7437040/Eco-friendly-but-not-to-eagles.html

Why birds crash into wind turbines

Professor Graham Martin at the University of Birmingham said large birds of prey and sea birds are particularly vulnerable to crashing into man made structures.

“There are some studies that definitely show that sizeable numbers of birds will get clobbered by wind turbines in particular locations,” he said.

In a new study, published in the journal Ibis, he suggested the reason the birds are susceptible is because they have evolved to look for movement either side and potential prey on the ground rather than straight ahead.

“We have got two eyes in the front of our heads and our best vision is forward,” he said. “But that is not the case for a lot of animals. Their best vision is laterally or down.”

17 Mar 2011 : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8385561/Why-birds-crash-into-wind-turbines.html

[lonestarnot]

118. What bullshit! What pug is killing eagles and putting them next to a windmill?

[ozone_man]

124. The golden eagle territory

is all of north america, so I highly doubt that a few windmills in the U.S. are going to affect them.

[Liberty Belle]

128. They don't nest everywhere - only in areas with rocky crags/crevasses and large trees.

in San Diego County most of the forests burned in the 2003 and 2007 wildfires, 2 worst fires in CA's history up to that point. So the areas with cliffs are the main areas left for eagles to nest and forage. Also it's not just a few windmills. Many are being built - and of course they build them where the wind currents are strongest, same places eagles and other raptors tend to fly, those windy mountain passes and in some places, high desert terrain.

[burrowowl]

125. K&R

[Remmah2]

127. Has any habitat improvement research been done?

In my area windfarms go up on top of farms. Grain crops lure in mice, birds, chipmunks and other game that are on the eagles food list. Maybe there is a better location for the windmills??