In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:36:08 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You obviously don't know what management is.
>>>
>>Ah, the classic Macmillan ploy. He patently doesn't understand something
>>so instead of trying to learn about it, accuses the person who is trying
>>to inform him of not knowing either.
>>
>>Sorry, Angus, you've just exposed your ignorance of management.
>>
>
>Absolute rubbish.
>
>Tell me something, the railway from Euston to Glasgow is fenced all
>the way up.  Does Railtrack manage all the land on each side of the
>railway for the 400 miles

Yes

>and does the fence just outside Glasgow
>manage the land just outside London?

The fence is the result of the management decisions of rail track.

As you pointed out early it manages peoples access to the line.

>>>
>>Anywhere where there is land which is not managed, influenced or
>>controlled by man. You claim there are *many* woodlands in such a state,
>>yet can't name even one. Why not?
>>
>I have told you that I own a woodland that is not managed at all.

Yes but it might be a figment of your imagination.  You can't say if it 
is fenced or what the adjoining land is used for.

It is also impossible to tell if your statement is accurate - we can't 
verify it. So name one you don't own.

> It
>is affected by adjacent property but that doesn't make it managed by
>adjacent owners.

I will bet you manage it by keeping dog walkers out but you certainly 
won't admit that.

>
>>>
>>>>Now you think of some examples of the "many" unmanaged woodlands
>>>>you claim exist. So far you have come up with a single woodland you own,
>>>>but as you are unable to say whether or not it is fenced or what the
>>>>adjacent land use is, then it isn't an example, is it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Of course it is.  It's not managed at all.  It's left to its own
>>>devices without any management input whatsoever.
>>>
>>Which means you have taken the conscious decision that it should be
>>"left to its own devices". That's management. By the way, the fact that
>>you have admitted that it is being "left to its own devices" must mean
>>that there is a fence round it. Thank you for confirming that you are,
>>indeed, managing it.
>>
>
>I have confirmed that I don't manage it at all.

But not if it is fenced and what the adjoining land is used for.  Why 
not?

This reply suggests it could be managed on your behalf.

>
>>>
>>Of course it is. You have claimed that your own woodland is being "left
>>to its own devices", which means that you control what is happening
>>there. Do you allow grazing animals from adjacent land to enter the
>>wood?
>
>I don't allow or disallow anything.

Of course you do.  If you don't prevent it you allow it.

Do you allow dog walking in your wood?  That's another question he won't 
answer even if one of you re-posts it for him to address.

-- 
Malcolm Kane