On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:34:53 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>The statement form the Woodland Trust about deer management:
>
>+++++++++++++++
>
>We will consider a range of options, balancing the needs of the habitat,
>our neighbours, other species and the deer themselves. These options could
>include or be a combination of the following:

Playing God.

>
>Decisions on felling or coppicing will take account of deer. The Trust
>will consider the size and shape of areas felled with the aim of
>minimising the impact deer will have on subsequent regeneration. Where it
>is expected that deer damage is likely to be high it may effect the
>decision on whether to fell or coppice at all. 

Fair enough.  I've no problem with that.

>
>
>Where deer damage is likely to be high either to newly established
>woodland or to coppice the Trust will consider protection of the habitat,
>through fencing or brushwood hedges. 

No reason why not.

>Where fencing is appropriate we will
>take into consideration the impact such fencing will have on the landscape
>and other species. In some cases it may be more appropriate to protect
>young trees individually. 
>

What has landscape got to do with it?  Aesthetically pleasing
woodlands for humans?

>
>In some circumstances none of the above may be effective. 

Why not?   Trees can be protected from deer very easily.


>In these cases
>the Trust will undertake humane culling of deer numbers to a level whereby
>the damage levels are acceptable in the context of the objectives of the
>site, the needs of our neighbours and the needs to maintain a viable deer
>population. Where possible this will be undertaken as part of a Deer
>Management Group. 

This is where the Nazi conservation element starts to unfold.  The
killing of members of one species to enhance the prospects of others..
That's what Hitler and his thugs did to the Jews to enhance the
prospects of the Aryans.  

And there is no limit to the number of deer they can kill under this
innocuous looking statement; they can kill as many or as few as they
wish.   And "deer management is not about "managing" it's about
killing.  I suppose Hitler could have been described as a "human
manager" in these terms. 

Also blame the neighbours.  The neighbours are probably not funded by
charitable donations  That's why the members and those who donate
should see what the Woodland Trust does to deer.  I'm sure very few
will bother to read the management plans and will be taken in by "deer
management" and "control".  No "killing" of course :-((  

They have tree planting days why not deer killing days and see how
much public support they lose.   

>
>Where deer are affecting the interests of our neighbours then the Trust
>would consider culling as part of a wider Deer Management Plan and as part
>of a Deer Management Group provided that this is not detrimental to the
>conservation interests of the wider area. 

See above.

>
>The Woodland Trust<s Native Species Conservation Position Statement (2005)
>states:
>
>When considering the need to control a species, its native or non-native
>status is unimportant. The key issue is whether it is causing significant
>ongoing habitat change or loss of other species, additional to that from
>climate change.
>
But that's not quite true, is it?   "Concerted action should be taken
to prevent the arrival and establishment of species that are likely to
threaten our woodland biodiversity e.g. Asian longhorn beetle."

They are targeting an "alien species" because of it's impact on native
species.  The above statement is ridiculous.

And as far as climate change is concerned the Woodland Trust is part
of the problem - certainly not the solution.    Remember that planting
trees above 20 degrees latitude makes little or no difference to
combatting climate change and the money would be better spent in
planting and protecting trees in the Tropics.

Dogs' lavatories are the Woodland Trust's specialty, in my view, and
there not much benefit to the anthropocentric nonsense of biodiversity
there.  

By the way. I made a mistake in the note to BT so I'll be correcting
it.  See if you can spot it?






>++++++++++++++++
>
>The formatting has been lost in the cut and paste.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article ,
    wrote:

> >In these cases the Trust will undertake humane culling of deer numbers
> >to a level whereby the damage levels are acceptable in the context of
> >the objectives of the site, the needs of our neighbours and the needs
> >to maintain a viable deer population. Where possible this will be
> >undertaken as part of a Deer Management Group. 

> This is where the Nazi ......<snipped>

> And there is no limit to the number of deer they can kill under this
> innocuous looking statement; they can kill as many or as few as they
> wish. 
Read it again, it says the contrary to this.
>  And "deer management is not about "managing" it's about
> killing.  I suppose Hitler could have been described as a "human
> manager" in these terms. 
In your mind.

> Also blame the neighbours. 

<more disinformation snipped> Read it again.



> > The Woodland Trust<s Native Species Conservation Position Statement
> >(2005) states:
> >
> >When considering the need to control a species, its native or
> >non-native status is unimportant. The key issue is whether it is
> >causing significant ongoing habitat change or loss of other species,
> >additional to that from climate change.
> >
> But that's not quite true, is it?   "Concerted action should be taken
> to prevent the arrival and establishment of species that are likely to
> threaten our woodland biodiversity e.g. Asian longhorn beetle."

> They are targeting an "alien species" because of it's impact on native
> species.  The above statement is ridiculous.

Read it again Angus:
>>>>The key issue is whether it is
>>>>causing significant ongoing habitat change or loss of other species,
>>>>additional to that from climate change.

-- 
Regards from Bob Seago:  http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:29:10 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>
>> >In these cases the Trust will undertake humane culling of deer numbers
>> >to a level whereby the damage levels are acceptable in the context of
>> >the objectives of the site, the needs of our neighbours and the needs
>> >to maintain a viable deer population. Where possible this will be
>> >undertaken as part of a Deer Management Group. 
>
>> This is where the Nazi ......<snipped>
>
>> And there is no limit to the number of deer they can kill under this
>> innocuous looking statement; they can kill as many or as few as they
>> wish. 
>Read it again, it says the contrary to this.

No it doesn't.  They decide how many deer die to suit their agenda.


>>  And "deer management is not about "managing" it's about
>> killing.  I suppose Hitler could have been described as a "human
>> manager" in these terms. 
>In your mind.
>
>> Also blame the neighbours. 
>
><more disinformation snipped> Read it again.

I have, and they blame the neighbours.

>
>
>
>> > The Woodland Trust<s Native Species Conservation Position Statement
>> >(2005) states:
>> >
>> >When considering the need to control a species, its native or
>> >non-native status is unimportant. The key issue is whether it is
>> >causing significant ongoing habitat change or loss of other species,
>> >additional to that from climate change.
>> >
>> But that's not quite true, is it?   "Concerted action should be taken
>> to prevent the arrival and establishment of species that are likely to
>> threaten our woodland biodiversity e.g. Asian longhorn beetle."
>
>> They are targeting an "alien species" because of it's impact on native
>> species.  The above statement is ridiculous.
>
>Read it again Angus:

I have, and they are specifically referring to "arrival and
establishment" and then go on to give an example of what could be
described as an "alien" species. 

And don't forget that some years ago the Woodland Trust were
co-signatories of  a letter to Ross Finnie MSP calling for a
significant culling of deer in Scotland - even on ground they didn't
own.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:16:11 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>And don't forget that some years ago the Woodland Trust were
>>co-signatories of  a letter to Ross Finnie MSP calling for a
>>significant culling of deer in Scotland - even on ground they didn't
>>own.
>>
>In which they joined many other responsible individuals and 
>organisations who have realised the ecological damage being done by the 
>too high numbers of deer in Scotland - regardless of who owns the land.

Which shows that they support the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of
thousands of deer in Scotland.  

People; don't join the Woodland Trust to have them campaigning with
others for the killing of thousands of deer.


 
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:11:38 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:16:11 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>And don't forget that some years ago the Woodland Trust were
>>>>co-signatories of  a letter to Ross Finnie MSP calling for a
>>>>significant culling of deer in Scotland - even on ground they didn't
>>>>own.
>>>>
>>>In which they joined many other responsible individuals and
>>>organisations who have realised the ecological damage being done by the
>>>too high numbers of deer in Scotland - regardless of who owns the land.
>>
>>Which shows that they support the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of
>>thousands of deer in Scotland.
>>
>Indeed, a very sensible and responsible attitude given the destruction 
>caused by too high densities of deer.

Which we should punish the pro hunt nuts and CONservation hooligans
for causing.

>>People; don't join the Woodland Trust to have them campaigning with
>>others for the killing of thousands of deer.
>>
>A typical Angus sweeping statement.
>
>Perhaps the same "people" have read the latest statistics which say that 
>74,000 road traffic accidents are caused by deer annually.

Once again the pro hunt nuts and CONservation hooligans should be held
liable. 







--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:11:38 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:16:11 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>And don't forget that some years ago the Woodland Trust were
>>>>co-signatories of  a letter to Ross Finnie MSP calling for a
>>>>significant culling of deer in Scotland - even on ground they didn't
>>>>own.
>>>>
>>>In which they joined many other responsible individuals and
>>>organisations who have realised the ecological damage being done by the
>>>too high numbers of deer in Scotland - regardless of who owns the land.
>>
>>Which shows that they support the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of
>>thousands of deer in Scotland.
>>
>Indeed, a very sensible and responsible attitude given the destruction 
>caused by too high densities of deer.
>
>>People; don't join the Woodland Trust to have them campaigning with
>>others for the killing of thousands of deer.
>>
>A typical Angus sweeping statement.

Well, do they?

The Woodland Trust certainly don't include this in their
environmentally damaging unsolicited persuasion propaganda. 

>
>Perhaps the same "people" have read the latest statistics which say that 
>74,000 road traffic accidents are caused by deer annually.

No. They are caused by motorists.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:50:31 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:11:38 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:16:11 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And don't forget that some years ago the Woodland Trust were
>>>>>>co-signatories of  a letter to Ross Finnie MSP calling for a
>>>>>>significant culling of deer in Scotland - even on ground they didn't
>>>>>>own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>In which they joined many other responsible individuals and
>>>>>organisations who have realised the ecological damage being done by the
>>>>>too high numbers of deer in Scotland - regardless of who owns the land.
>>>>
>>>>Which shows that they support the killing of tens, if not hundreds, of
>>>>thousands of deer in Scotland.
>>>>
>>>Indeed, a very sensible and responsible attitude given the destruction
>>>caused by too high densities of deer.
>>>
>>>>People; don't join the Woodland Trust to have them campaigning with
>>>>others for the killing of thousands of deer.
>>>>
>>>A typical Angus sweeping statement.
>>
>>Well, do they?
>>
>>The Woodland Trust certainly don't include this in their
>>environmentally damaging unsolicited persuasion propaganda.
>>
>So what?
>
>And if everything the WT might do or might be involved in was included 
>in their publicity leaflets they would be even larger and therefore, in 
>your eyes, even more environmentally damaging.
>
>>>
>>>Perhaps the same "people" have read the latest statistics which say that
>>>74,000 road traffic accidents are caused by deer annually.
>>
>>No. They are caused by motorists.
>>
>So, if a cyclist shot out of a turning a few yards in front of you and 
>you hit him you would accept that you had caused the accident, would 
>you?

Do you not know that motorists are obliged to drive in a manner that
ensures they can stop in an emergency.  And it should be recognised
that deer can come out of woodlands on to roads - especially if
disturbed by human activities - shooting, dogwalkers etc..  

>
>Interesting POV. Does your car insurance company know that you will 
>always take the blame for such an accident?

If I were to blame for an accident I would say so irrespective of what
insurance companies say.  I don't believe it is right for insurance
companies to demand that their client always deny responsibility
irrespective of the circumstances.

I can quite accept in the dishonest world of fake conservation that
seems appropriate :-(



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:51:47 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:50:31 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>>
>>>>The Woodland Trust certainly don't include this in their
>>>>environmentally damaging unsolicited persuasion propaganda.
>>>>
>>>So what?
>>>
>>>And if everything the WT might do or might be involved in was included
>>>in their publicity leaflets they would be even larger and therefore, in
>>>your eyes, even more environmentally damaging.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps the same "people" have read the latest statistics which say that
>>>>>74,000 road traffic accidents are caused by deer annually.
>>>>
>>>>No. They are caused by motorists.
>>>>
>>>So, if a cyclist shot out of a turning a few yards in front of you and
>>>you hit him you would accept that you had caused the accident, would
>>>you?
>>
>>Do you not know that motorists are obliged to drive in a manner that
>>ensures they can stop in an emergency.
>
>Of course, but as that doesn't happen in the real world in which 
>everyone, including you, drives there are inevitably accidents (many 
>hundreds of thousands of them a year) and blame is normally apportioned.

Not "normally" apportioned at all.  There is usually someone at fault.
>
>> And it should be recognised
>>that deer can come out of woodlands on to roads - especially if
>>disturbed by human activities - shooting, dogwalkers etc..
>>
>Indeed, but on 74,000 occasions a year, there are collisions between 
>deer and road users. And disturbance by shooting or walkers is only 
>involved in some of them.

So why shouldn't the shooters and walkers pick up the bill for such
accidents?

Good to see you admit this.  Not before time.  You know I shall quote
you on this :-)

>
>>>
>>>Interesting POV. Does your car insurance company know that you will
>>>always take the blame for such an accident?
>>
>>If I were to blame for an accident I would say so irrespective of what
>>insurance companies say.  I don't believe it is right for insurance
>>companies to demand that their client always deny responsibility
>>irrespective of the circumstances.
>>
>So have you told your insurance company of this attitude of yours, and 
>would you, in the event of an accident in which you felt you were to 
>blame refuse to deny responsibility?

You're confused, Malcolm - again.

I have made it clear that if I felt I was responsible for a crash I
would say so.  

And if I was driving at speed through a woodland and hit a deer I
would feel it was my own fault.

>
>>I can quite accept in the dishonest world of fake conservation that
>>seems appropriate :-(
>>
>Your obsession is showing again :-(

Your dishonesty is showing again.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)