Baby loons

You have answered none of them so go back and review my posts. So perhaps we will both have to be patient and wait and wait. Ahhhh

Loon chicks can be killed by an older sibling, or by an intruding adult loon. The largest single source of human-caused chick mortality is from collisions with fast-moving boats and personal watercraft.

http://www.loon.org/mortality.php

Personal Watercraft=Jet Skis

(The Loon Preservation Committee)

Amy B wrote:But for your own edification if you're trying to impress someone with your knowledge, commitment, and sincerity you might want to change your approach. There may be some future cause that you wish to embrace and you do indeed need a new approach.

  


.

red_hill wrote:

obervantone wrote:I have to jump in here...I never met anyone before that was born with the knowledge of the universe through "Genetic Memory"!    
Infants of all species are born knowing everything...that's priceless!

News Hawk
Hatchlings know how to swim from their first hours. They hear sounds from inside the shell—before they are hatched.

Call it "Genetic-Memory"—it is active in all creatures.

To use your logic, they have been hearing fireworks in the shell too. Give it up, really, you are really
reaching and failing  

Some would disagree with both of you:

In psychology, genetic memory is a memory present at birth that exists in the absence of sensory experience, and is incorporated into the genome over long spans of time.[1] It is based on the idea that common experiences of a species become incorporated into its genetic code, not by a Lamarckian process that encodes specific memories but by a much vaguer tendency to encode a readiness to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli.
—Wikipedia

  


.

Eddie...please...you want me to do your research again?  No, I have addressed your questions.  

You have answered none of them so go back and review my posts.

You are the only one linking loons and the SL and you still refuse to share your sources...you have none or you certainly would have proudly proclaimed them!

You are so uncertain and insecure about your statement:

One might argue that the speed limit on the lake has made a major contribution to the loon revival. We know that the chicks are far more buoyant than their parents and less able to maneuver out of harm's way should a performance boat be "doubling the speed limit". This is a good sign.

That you will not even admit that it is yours and yours alone, and you refuse to defend it when it is called into question.

You have seen the research and you have presented none to back your own claim in return, you just choose to ignore the research of experts.  
I can't help the ignorant who refuse to learn.

So for anyone still following this crap....I have spent 9 pages asking Eddie to back up his statement with proof.  
He refuses.  What does that tell you?

Happy boating...stay away from loons!

obervantone wrote:   I don't think you ever will since it is bull shit that you made up.

obervantone wrote:

So for anyone still following this crap....

Amy B wrote:  You sound like a rather angry person in general with a very short fuse. As I've noticed with some of your Go Fast Be Loud bretheren, when one can't win an argument with reason, logic, and articulate dialogue the next step is always to toss in the obscenities.

Thanks NH:

News Hawk wrote:

... The largest single source of human-caused chick mortality is from collisions with fast-moving boats and personal watercraft.

http://www.loon.org/mortality.php

But what do they know, they're just the Loon Preservation Committee.  

 



Still waiting for the answers to several of my questions observantone...but all I hear is crickets.

Nope, I've addressed your questions and you ignore mine, I'm finished with you.  
You only believe what you want to believe in spite of the evidence and expert statements to the contrary and the fact that you will not even defend your own position speaks volumes.

News Hawk wrote:

   ... The largest single source of human-caused chick mortality is from collisions with fast-moving boats and personal watercraft.

   http://www.loon.org/mortality.php

Odd, News Hawk, that does not appear to be the case in these graphs from the same Loon Preservation Committee
http://www.loon.org/ingested-lead-tackle.php
If you look at figure 6 you will see that Human Disturbance (read paddle boats) is the second leading cause of nest failure and boat collisions-chick barely registers.  

And the fact that, according to the same Loon Reservation Committee, there have been only 14 loon deaths caused by powerboats over a 22 year period always seems to be left out of your equation. You never include the number of birds killed or the timeline when you post.

You will note that the LPC graph does not differentiate between adults and chicks so they are the total number of bird deaths. 14 in a 22 year period.

But then, why would you look at the entire picture?

obervantone wrote: I'm finished with you.  

I think that may be just as well.

observantone wrote:
You only believe what you want to believe in spite of the evidence and expert statements to the contrary and the fact that you will not even defend your own position speaks volumes.

But we gave you 3 articles...one from the Loon Preservation Society, another from the Concord Monitor where the biologist says that power boats are the number one cause of loon chick mortality, and the third one from Minnesota which after you got the source that you asked for you negated.

observant one wrote:But then, why would you look at the entire picture?

Again, as in previous posts, the sarcastic, demeaning, and angry tone diminishes your message greatly. But at least you didn't try to further clarify and illustrate your ideas with more potty talk!

Seriously though, it seems as if my advice for a different tone to the dialogue did not make a huge impression, hence a bit of an analogy seemed to be in order. This one too came up over dinner last night. Bear with me as this is fairly short and there is a funny part. My wife (Edith, Edie for short) and I were discussing someone from work who reminded us of this thread, someone to whom I alluded in an earlier post. Edie is quite familiar with this person from the stories I've brought home. His name is Jim. Jim does not hold a high position of authority. Jim has been married 3 times which I mention only because it is something that he brags about. He is kind of an angry, intolerant and vulgar person and as you might imagine his personnel file is a mile long (how he has managed to hold his job for so long is another long story). In any case, he has chosen all 3 wives from the workplace setting. His second wife was petulant, judgemental, and confrontational as well. So...when he married his second wife one of my colleagues made a little joke which spread around work like wildfire. My colleague said that the only socially redeeming thing either of them had ever done was to take each other out of the dating pool. We still laugh about that joke.
 So to the point. Because of his opinionated, crude, and confrontational approach, when he makes suggestions (usually in the form of a complaint), people just don't pay attention. I bring this up because should you engage in further political/social debates (say if you were challenging a statewide boating speed limit), ratcheting down the anger and vulgarity and taking  a less confrontational tone could go a long way to enhance your credibility.
  Hopefully you have picked up a few pointers about civil discourse. I can't entirely blame you...maybe this is how people communicated in your home when you were growing up and it's all you saw. A former officer (or two) in SBONH made similar mistakes. He would talk in a crude, demeaning, intolerant, and arrogant manner. It made people close their ears and look for his Achilles heel and from what my neighbor told me they found it (and it could well have lost him the cause). When you say things like are you f-ing kidding, you're a jackass, and you son of bitch...it puts you in the same unenviable position.

Anyway, happy trails, Eddie and Edie

obervantone wrote:

News Hawk wrote:

   ... The largest single source of human-caused chick mortality is from collisions with fast-moving boats and personal watercraft.

   http://www.loon.org/mortality.php

Odd, News Hawk, that does not appear to be the case in these graphs from the same Loon Preservation Committee
http://www.loon.org/ingested-lead-tackle.php
If you look at figure 6 you will see that Human Disturbance (read paddle boats) is the second leading cause of nest failure and boat collisions-chick barely registers.  

And the fact that, according to the same Loon Reservation Committee, there have been only 14 loon deaths caused by powerboats over a 22 year period always seems to be left out of your equation.  You never include the number of birds killed or the timeline when you post.  

You will note that the LPC graph does not differentiate between adults and chicks so they are the total number of bird deaths.  14 in a 22 year period.  

But then, why would you look at the entire picture?

"Nest failures" involves only the egg(s) in the nest. (Kayaks, canoes, waders, swimmers)  

My statement speaks for itself, as it addresses Loon babies—who have left the nest). (Speedboats and Jet-Skis).

Loon adults suffer lead poisoning, but their babies would not be offered a treat of lead sinker by their parents. (So the baby-deaths cited are due to the Speedboats and Jet-Skis).

The dearth of Loon deaths over 22 years is likely due to the seasonal recruiting of volunteers. Loon deaths would go unreported if no volunteers came to the scene.

  


.

While uploading my own Loon videos to YouTube, I stumbled on a video of a Loon chick taking its first steps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_7fDCh8HiE

Mama Loon is making sounds I've never heard before.




.