The Russian Researchers Who Weren't as Eagle Eyed as they Should Have Been
It cost more than they bargained for.
I love a funny story.
We all like to think we are smarter than the average bear, but sometimes we get it wrong, spectacularly wrong.
In this tale, it wasn't bears but eagles who cost the researchers more than they bargained for.
Some people like dogs, some prefer cats. Some adore all animals. Scientists can be weird, though. They form bonds with all sorts of creatures: worms, barnacles, squids... well you name it, they study them.
In this case, it was Russian researchers who tripped up. The scientists wanted to know where their Steppe Eagles went when they migrated. It isn't as if you can put on a dark jacket, a hat and a pair of sunglasses then follow them wherever they go.
They wanted to study the eagles and record their behaviour patterns. Where they go, what they do and their breeding regime were all of interest to them.
By better understanding the birds, they would be able to help with their conservation effort. The Steppe Eagle numbers had been declining in Russia and Central Asia for years.
They were already aware that power lines are a particular threat to the birds and further construction along their migration route could endanger the eagles more.
The scientists came up with a plan.
They set up pipe traps, the least likely to harm the birds, and caught a baker's dozen. They then fitted the 13 eagles with collars containing SMS transmitters. These could transmit a GPS signal every minute, allowing the researchers to gather their exact coordinates as the eagles migrated. The team used satellite images to see if the birds reached a safe location.
What they didn't reckon on was the cost.
The SMS messages were cheap, all part of the mobile phone provider's plan. What they didn't reckon on were the enormous distances the eagles can travel.
Soon, all 13 eagles were on their way south and flew out of the Russian borders. The eagles didn’t particularly mind the transmitters strapped to their back and they certainly didn't care about the cost.
The scientists weren't too perturbed about the costs either, it had all been factored in, but that was until they were hit with roaming charges.
The eagles might have been frequent flyers, but they didn’t get a discount. During the summer in Kazakhstan, one unit accumulated thousands of SMS messages over a period of four months. The messages failed to send as they were out of range.
When the eagle flew unexpectedly to Iran, the backlog of messages were sent all at once, triggering expensive roaming charges. The resulting bill used up the entire tracking budget meant for all the eagles.
A wing and a prayer.
Word of their predicament ruffled a few feathers. A crowdfunding campaign helped cover the costs and, following a flurry of press interest, the telephone company refunded some money and reduced tariffs for further studies.
It’s not just the eagles who are flying high again.
It is a salutary lesson. Expect the best but be prepared for the worst. A little forethought goes a long way.
The next time you head off out for a walk, a cycle or a run in the car ask yourself, 'what if the worst thing happens?' A question that helps clear your head in case of the unexpected because you have already given it some thought.
It might spur you to take an umbrella or a little extra cash. It might remind you to charge your phone before you go or check the tyres are fully inflated. It's the little bits of preparation that prevent the big upsets.
About the Creator
Malky McEwan
Curious mind. Author of three funny memoirs. Top writer on Quora and Medium x 9. Writing to entertain, and inform. Goal: become the oldest person in the world (breaking my record every day).
Keep reading
More stories from Malky McEwan and writers in Earth and other communities.
Trump Slams UK Deal to Hand Over Chagos Islands After Previously Backing It
If you thought politics couldn’t surprise you anymore, Donald Trump just proved otherwise. In a dramatic U-turn, the former U.S. president criticized the United Kingdom’s decision to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius—a deal he had previously backed. What was once considered a solution to a decades-long dispute has now become a hot topic, sparking debates about strategy, diplomacy, and international trust.
By Muhammad Hassanabout 7 hours ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.