Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Could a haast's eagle really kill an adult human?
Topic Started: Dec 21 2012, 10:15 AM (10,401 Views)
Vodmeister
Member Avatar
Ultimate Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It could kill an ordinary adult man, but I suspect that a real pro athlete and fighter, such as Brock Lesnar or Vodmeister could probably kill a Haast's eagle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vodmeister
Jul 16 2014, 06:17 PM
It could kill an ordinary adult man, but I suspect that a real pro athlete and fighter, such as Brock Lesnar or Vodmeister could probably kill a Haast's eagle.
Its been suggested that they did kill adult humans, the maoris in particular. Even face to face I favor the haasta eagle against an ordinary man such as yourself I mean not such as yourself. lol Wonder how hulk hogan would fair against one. Against a guy that big, that eagle would have to use stealth. lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vodmeister
Member Avatar
Ultimate Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
All a Haast's eagle would have to do to beat the Hogan's steroid arse is fly around him a few times, the Hulkster would run out of breath in minutes.

A real fighter like Brock Lesnar or Vodmeister would wreck any eagle face to face.

Edited by Vodmeister, Jul 16 2014, 06:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vegetarian
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
yes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
romanianborz
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Definetely yes.
Even the golden eagle wich is not amongst the strongeste eagle species killed humans in several ocasions documented well. Last incident happened in 2002 in a zoological park from Uzbekistan.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
romanianborz
Jul 17 2014, 12:44 AM
Definetely yes.
Even the golden eagle wich is not amongst the strongeste eagle species killed humans in several ocasions documented well. Last incident happened in 2002 in a zoological park from Uzbekistan.
Could you post the incident? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Agentjaguar
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Only 31 lbs in weight? Someone needs to do a size comparison of this eagle vs. an adult human.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Some comparisons online seem accurate, even conservative as far as size is concerned.
http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/h/haast%27s-eagle-and-eyles-harrier-size.jpg
http://img.pederick.id.au/gallery/d/239-1/IMG_2024.JPG
http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r485/deemwhy/haast.jpg

I think that the eagle could kill a human is out of the question (but obviously even a golden eagle would have that capability, irrespective of whether or not there are documented cases). Whether the human would stand some chance of fighting back depends on the individual, but I suspect most humans wouldn’t stand a realistic chance without a weapon.
Edited by theropod, Jul 22 2014, 09:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vodmeister
Member Avatar
Ultimate Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod
 
Whether the human would stand some chance of fighting back depends on the individual, but I suspect most humans wouldn’t stand a realistic chance without a weapon.

Really, a human wouldn't stand a chance against a 31 pound eagle? Head-on without ambush?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vodmeister
Jul 22 2014, 09:45 AM
Theropod
 
Whether the human would stand some chance of fighting back depends on the individual, but I suspect most humans wouldn’t stand a realistic chance without a weapon.

Really, a human wouldn't stand a chance against a 31 pound eagle? Head-on without ambush?
Vodmeister- Its not just the weight that makes it dangerous. This eagle could have a back talon as long as 6-8 inches possibly, and could swoop down at 45-60 mph. At that speed, its been said that a haasta eagle striking a person at that force would be the equivalent of a full sized cinder block hitting you after being dropped from an 8 story building. These birds had massive feet and talons that were extremely strong. Saw the account not long ago but can't seem to find it now, but a harpy eagle just while siting on his masters arm got excited, squeezed, and broke his arm in two places. Imagine what a haasta eagle could do. Once it sinks its talons in the human will be in so much pain and will suffer internal bleeding and paralasys that he will hardly be able to fight back. They say it is unwise to fight back when a raptor has a strong grip on you, as fighting back will only make the bird squeeze harder. However, the person here will be fighting for his life, but those piercing talons will quickly effect his movement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vodmeister
Jul 22 2014, 09:45 AM
Theropod
 
Whether the human would stand some chance of fighting back depends on the individual, but I suspect most humans wouldn’t stand a realistic chance without a weapon.

Really, a human wouldn't stand a chance against a 31 pound eagle? Head-on without ambush?
Most humans probably wouldn’t. I’ll wager most humans would already get serious trouble with a harpy or golden eagle.

Eagles are disproportionately light, but you have to envision this animal as visually larger than the human, with talons able to puncture the vertebrae and/or skulls of considerably larger animals (and yes, moas have small skulls, but golden eagles show they aren’t the pinnacle of their capabilities), an aerial advantage and vastly superior speed and agility.
How would you suggest an average human would fight back effectively?
Edited by theropod, Jul 22 2014, 07:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Legends say that Haast’s Eagle could and did kill and eat human beings. If it fed on 300-pound moas regularly, then perhaps this legend is not so far-fetched. Most adult humans, especially those with a handy weapon, would have been able to fend off the Haast’s Eagle without too much difficulty, if they saw it coming, even though the Haast’s Eagle was much bigger than even the biggest eagle of today. The forty-pound giant Haast's Eagle swooping down silently from behind and striking at the head and neck of an unaware human, however, would have been an extremely serious, if not fatal, blow. Imagine the power of a 40-pound raptor swooping down at speeds of up to 45 miles per hour (assuming a hunting flight speed similar to today’s eagles) and striking out at its prey with powerful, sharp claws, each of which could strike home like a three-inch-long dagger. Killing the 300-pound moa with a single strike to the head or neck, Haast’s Eagle was almost certainly capable of killing human children or even adults. http://www.examiner.com/article/man-eating-giant-haast-s-eagle-legend-backed-by-new-study

A human with a weapon does not count, but even if the human did see the eagle coming I believe the eagle would still be able to kill the person. The front talons were about 3 inches long while the back ones were 5-7 inches long.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jul 23 2014, 06:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kingkazma
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cept humans can dodge. I wouldn't stand still, I'd wait until it got close, then I'd sidejump and hope it crashes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Scaled based on the largest tarsometatarsus and ulna in Holdaway (1990), the largest skull in his sample was 167mm long, not far off from the type specimen of Velociraptor (176mm). The average was 160mm, over 40% bigger than the average of the sample of harpy eagles that he had, all in all his largest harpies were only as big as the smallest Harpagornis.

A comment regarding the 15kg mass estimate of Harpagornis, it comes from Brathwaite (1992), he used trunk dimensions of an Harpagornis skeleton and compared it with the those of two other eagles skeletons, the weights were taken from the literature so that's one source of error, it came out at 11.5kg, he then mentioned that an skeleton in another museum had an ulna 17% longer but he argued

"As ulna length is a measure of wing area rather than of body size, body weight should be proportional to the linear measurement cubed divided by the measurement squared"

mmm what? is the ulna proportionally more gracile? I don't get his reasoning, assuming the ulna is 17% larger in all dimensions then we'll be looking at a 18.4kg (41lbs) eagle.
Edited by blaze, Jul 23 2014, 11:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Jul 23 2014, 11:04 AM
Posted Image

Scaled based on the largest tarsometatarsus and ulna in Holdaway (1990), the largest skull in his sample was 167mm long, not far off from the type specimen of Velociraptor (176mm). The average was 160mm, over 40% bigger than the average of the sample of harpy eagles that he had, all in all his largest harpies were only as big as the smallest Harpagornis.

A comment regarding the 15kg mass estimate of Harpagornis, it comes from Brathwaite (1992), he used trunk dimensions of an Harpagornis skeleton and compared it with the those of two other eagles skeletons, the weights were taken from the literature so that's one source of error, it came out at 11.5kg, he then mentioned that an skeleton in another museum had an ulna 17% longer but he argued

"As ulna length is a measure of wing area rather than of body size, body weight should be proportional to the linear measurement cubed divided by the measurement squared"

mmm what? is the ulna proportionally more gracile? I don't get his reasoning, assuming the ulna is 17% larger in all dimensions then we'll be looking at a 18.4kg (41lbs) eagle.
Thats the thing with prehistoric creatures. We will never the truth. The best we can do is guess and estimate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply