In article <flmf66$59a$3@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
<URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant04194263dBxcK@stronga
> rm.dereks.pad...
> > In article <fllkfi$k97$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
> > <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant041444c72BxcK@str
> onga
> > > rm.dereks.pad...
> > > > In article <fll7o8$t5c$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
> > > > <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > > > "Derek Moody"  wrote in message news:ant04053306cBxcK
> @str
> > > onga
> > > > > rm.dereks.pad...
> > > > > > In article <fljn6n$40j$1@reader01.news.esat.net>, pearl
> > > > > > <URL:mailto:tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As if it wasn't already clearly apparent, here's an analogy which
> > > > > > > illustrates the utter absurdity of their 'defence': * Moody, jim and
> > > > > > > co. live in the family country pile which has been handed down
> > > > > > > for countless generations.  Along we come and decide that the plot
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No Lotus.  *We* can count.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an analogy, moody.  You don't have a say in the matter.
> > > >
> > > > If you can't handle an analogy then don't create one.  Someone may want you
> > > > to maintain it for generations after you no longer require it.
> > >
> > > What??
> >
> > Well, it it's has a few wild ideas or snippets of indigenous sense then they
> > might consider it worthwhile preserving despite your original intention.
> 
> Who's "they"?

Anyone who comes along after the fact and make an arbitrary desision.

> > > > > > > is the perfect place to plant a fruit orchard.  So we start knocking
> > > > > > > down the walls until all that's left is one small room that eventually
> > > > > > > collapses as well.  Then we realise that it suits us to have a wall for
> > > > > > > a shaded area and windbreak, so with the old rubble we construct
> > > > > > > a long wall.  How dare they object to the destruction of the original
> > > > > > > dwelling, when *we* built a nice wall that they can shelter behind..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see.  So the real reason you objected to the loss of farmers' creations
> > > > >
> > > > > - The wall constructed with remnants of the original creation.
> > > >
> > > > And now you are objecting to the wall you yourself just built.  That's a
> > > > waste of analagous effort.
> > >
> > > Eh???
> >
> > So I presume you'll be analagously knocking down your analagous wall?
> 
> "I" might neglect it, or remove sections.  Depends what's suits "me".

Oh no.  We can't allow that. It would be vandalism of the highest order and
might hurt any fluffly little wild notions lurking within the crevices.

> > > > > > over the last half century was because -you- wanted to destroy them yourself
> > > > > > and use the debris to make a pile to hide behind.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to see the former residence restored, as it was before.
> > > >
> > > > It looks more like malign iconoclasm.  You didn't want it made, you didn't
> > > > want anyone else to unmake it.  You just wanted to break it yourself.
> > > > Having carefully stacked the product you just decided you don't like that
> > > > either.
> > >
> > > Huh????  It really does look like your logic's permanently out to lunch.
> >
> > Really? I'm using -exactly- the same logic you yourself did.
> 
> 'fraid not.
> 
> > > > > > And what will you eat in the ten years you are waiting for your orchard to
> > > > > > fruit?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's an analogy, moody.  Luckily for you we're vegetarians.
> > > >
> > > > Lucky for you you don't have to wait for your analgous trees to mature.
> > >
> > > That's right.  There's already an abundance of edible plants around.
> >
> > Oh no.  You just destroyed analagous grassland.  That's all you've got,
> > grass.  Unless you've become an analagous rabbit you're in trouble.
> 
> The analogy does break down here because we're sparing you,
> and we need the original creation in order to sustain ourselves.

The analogy survives as we spared you for the whole of the last 50 years and
we need the current incarnation on order to sustain ourselves, you and a
great many others.

> The relevant points are above, and I think you understood perfectly
> well what I am getting at from the very beginning, but won't admit it.

I have fully inderstood your entire thread.  I have no idea what you are
getting at.  It appears that you want us to preserve something you didn't
want so that you can be the one to break it.

Cheerio,

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Protecting roads from deer

Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
blame as well as being maimed or killed.

Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
thunderous of trucks skimming past them.  

So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?

Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
being disturbed by shooting.

For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
conservation and shooting industries.

However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.

Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
land where there are public roads.  

Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
reduce accidents.  

The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
not fall to the taxpayer.
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 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:43:33 +0000, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:

>Protecting roads from deer
>
>Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
>vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
>blame as well as being maimed or killed.
>
>Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
>roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
>on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
>thunderous of trucks skimming past them.  
>
>So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?
>
>Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
>survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
>shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
>remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
>conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
>being disturbed by shooting.
>
>For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
>relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
>disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
>hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
>research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
>conservation and shooting industries.
>
>However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
>adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
>shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
>a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
>with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
>suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
>unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.
>
>Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
>landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
>should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
>allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
>land where there are public roads.  
>
>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>reduce accidents.  
>
>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>not fall to the taxpayer.

I agree. The same is said of the game bird shooters. Our roads are
littered with dead game birds being bred too close to roads and then
hunted across roads. We should be sending the bill to the shooting
groups, if they had to pay for the carnage they cause on UK roads they
would think twice before killing wildlife for fun!

>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)








--

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

what a load of twaddle..............


"Adenoid Hynkel ."  wrote in message 
news:nipun3p1j7heamv3pbb4t0mr30qtsigk73@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:43:33 +0000, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Protecting roads from deer
>>
>>Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
>>vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
>>blame as well as being maimed or killed.
>>
>>Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
>>roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
>>on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
>>thunderous of trucks skimming past them.
>>
>>So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?
>>
>>Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
>>survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
>>shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
>>remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
>>conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
>>being disturbed by shooting.
>>
>>For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
>>relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
>>disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
>>hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
>>research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
>>conservation and shooting industries.
>>
>>However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
>>adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
>>shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
>>a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
>>with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
>>suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
>>unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.
>>
>>Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
>>landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
>>should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
>>allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
>>land where there are public roads.
>>
>>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>>reduce accidents.
>>
>>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>>not fall to the taxpayer.
>
> I agree. The same is said of the game bird shooters. Our roads are
> littered with dead game birds being bred too close to roads and then
> hunted across roads. We should be sending the bill to the shooting
> groups, if they had to pay for the carnage they cause on UK roads they
> would think twice before killing wildlife for fun!
>
>>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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>Protecting roads from deer
>
>Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
>vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
>blame as well as being maimed or killed.
>
>Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
>roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
>on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
>thunderous of trucks skimming past them.
>
>So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?
>
>Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
>survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
>shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
>remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
>conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
>being disturbed by shooting.
>
>For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
>relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
>disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
>hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
>research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
>conservation and shooting industries.
>
>However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
>adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
>shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
>a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
>with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
>suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
>unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.
>
It suggests nothing of the sort. You have jumped to a conclusion that 
doesn't exist which is of course typical of you.

And note that I was giving you my personal opinion. When I'm giving you 
an opinion as an SNH adviser I will sign my messages to that effect.

>Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
>landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
>should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
>allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
>land where there are public roads.
>
But you've just said that deer graze on roadside verges, and they belong 
to the local council.

>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>reduce accidents.
>
You're a great one for impractical suggestions, aren't you?

>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>not fall to the taxpayer.

So who should pay for the hundreds of thousands of deer living in, e.g. 
the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, common land throughout southern 
England, etc., etc., etc.?

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:32:48 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>Protecting roads from deer
>>
>>Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
>>vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
>>blame as well as being maimed or killed.
>>
>>Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
>>roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
>>on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
>>thunderous of trucks skimming past them.
>>
>>So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?
>>
>>Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
>>survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
>>shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
>>remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
>>conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
>>being disturbed by shooting.
>>
>>For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
>>relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
>>disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
>>hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
>>research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
>>conservation and shooting industries.
>>
>>However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
>>adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
>>shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
>>a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
>>with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
>>suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
>>unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.
>>
>It suggests nothing of the sort. 

I think it does.

>You have jumped to a conclusion that 
>doesn't exist which is of course typical of you.

That what you do all the time - not me.

>
>And note that I was giving you my personal opinion. When I'm giving you 
>an opinion as an SNH adviser I will sign my messages to that effect.
>

Read what I wrote.


>>Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
>>landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
>>should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
>>allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
>>land where there are public roads.
>>
>But you've just said that deer graze on roadside verges, and they belong 
>to the local council.
>

Sure they do, and they're not in the slightest afraid of the traffic.
However they could be startled by activities beyond the verges so
there should perhaps be a responsibility there.



>>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>>reduce accidents.
>>
>You're a great one for impractical suggestions, aren't you?
>

Why is that impractical?


>>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>>not fall to the taxpayer.
>


>So who should pay for the hundreds of thousands of deer living in, e.g. 
>the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, common land throughout southern 
>England, etc., etc., etc.?

The landowners or the users in that case, if they encourage or permit
the activities I have outlined   As I said in the first line is must
be accepted that some accidents will happen.

I'm pleased that such an important fellow like you accepts that some
of the accidents that happen are due to shooting and walkers.

That's a meaningful opinion and about the only one I've ever heard
from you that was meaningful at all.

I bow to your superior knowledge in this instance.


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 , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:32:48 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>Protecting roads from deer
>>>
>>>Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
>>>vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
>>>blame as well as being maimed or killed.
>>>
>>>Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
>>>roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
>>>on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
>>>thunderous of trucks skimming past them.
>>>
>>>So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?
>>>
>>>Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
>>>survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
>>>shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
>>>remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
>>>conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
>>>being disturbed by shooting.
>>>
>>>For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
>>>relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
>>>disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
>>>hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
>>>research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
>>>conservation and shooting industries.
>>>
>>>However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
>>>adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
>>>shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
>>>a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
>>>with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
>>>suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
>>>unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.
>>>
>>It suggests nothing of the sort.
>
>I think it does.
>
Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't have written it, but that doesn't make 
it correct.

>>You have jumped to a conclusion that
>>doesn't exist which is of course typical of you.
>
>That what you do all the time - not me.
>
Wrong.

>>
>>And note that I was giving you my personal opinion. When I'm giving you
>>an opinion as an SNH adviser I will sign my messages to that effect.
>>
>
>Read what I wrote.
>
I did.

>
>>>Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
>>>landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
>>>should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
>>>allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
>>>land where there are public roads.
>>>
>>But you've just said that deer graze on roadside verges, and they belong
>>to the local council.
>>
>
>Sure they do, and they're not in the slightest afraid of the traffic.
>However they could be startled by activities beyond the verges so
>there should perhaps be a responsibility there.
>
So, the deer are feeding on the verge and are startled by a loud horn 
from a car being driven on the road. What is the "responsibility there"?
>
>
>>>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>>>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>>>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>>>reduce accidents.
>>>
>>You're a great one for impractical suggestions, aren't you?
>>
>
>Why is that impractical?
>
If you can't work it out for yourself, one has to assume that you have 
never been to, e.g., the New Forest.
>
>>>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>>>not fall to the taxpayer.
>>
>
>
>>So who should pay for the hundreds of thousands of deer living in, e.g.
>>the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, common land throughout southern
>>England, etc., etc., etc.?
>
>The landowners or the users in that case, if they encourage or permit
>the activities I have outlined   As I said in the first line is must
>be accepted that some accidents will happen.
>
The "users" of the New Forest. Have you ever been there?

>I'm pleased that such an important fellow like you accepts that some
>of the accidents that happen are due to shooting and walkers.
>
What I actually said was "only some".

>That's a meaningful opinion and about the only one I've ever heard
>from you that was meaningful at all.
>
>I bow to your superior knowledge in this instance.
>
Good. Please carry on doing so and you might learn something about 
conservation, deer, red squirrels, managing woodland and a host of other 
subjects about which you are in denial.

-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>Protecting roads from deer
>
>Every year around this time the subject of deer collisions with
>vehicles comes up with monotonous regularity and the deer get the
>blame as well as being maimed or killed.
>
>Whilst it must be accepted that deer will unexpectedly run across
>roads, it must also be acknowledged that deer graze within a few feet
>on the verges of major roads quite unconcerned about the most
>thunderous of trucks skimming past them.
>
>So what makes them run across busy roads, thus causing accidents?
>
>Some years ago, the Erie Insurance Group in America carried out a
>survey into deer collisions and found that on the first days of the
>shooting season, accidents soared by up to five times the normal and
>remained substantially higher for the duration of the season.  The
>conclusion being that deer were running blindly across highways after
>being disturbed by shooting.

As has been pointed out before this is totally irrelevant.  The 
conditions in the USA are not comparable with the UK.  The numbers and 
type of hunters is different.  The environment is different.  The 
species of deer are different.  The traffic and road conditions are 
different.

>
>For some time I have been trying to establish to what extent this is
>relevant in this country as I do not believe deer will be any less
>disturbed by guns here, than in America.   My success has been
>hampered by negative responses from the police and that deer collision
>research is financially backed by those who are supporting the
>conservation and shooting industries.

Ooooooh conspiracy!!

>
>However, recently, in an Internet discussion forum a senior scientific
>adviser to Scottish Natural Heritage acknowledged that "disturbance by
>shooting or walkers is only involved in some of them", in response to
>a suggestion that disturbance by shooting and walkers - especially
>with dogs - could be a significant factor in deer collisions. This
>suggests that the authorities are well aware of the problem but are
>unwilling to take any measures that could affect shooting or walking.

It suggests nothing of the kind.  It suggests that you are twisting and 
misinterpreting a personal opinion of a member of the group.

>
>Legally, I understand the "ownership" of deer is attributed to the
>landowner on whose ground they are present, so surely the landowner
>should bear responsibility if any activities he/she encourages or
>allows, results in deer panicking and running wildly onto adjacent
>land where there are public roads.

Angus appears to assume that the majority of collisions are due to 
startled deer.

In this area they appear (from the ones I have come across) to be Roe 
startled at the edge of the road in the early morning.

There are no areas near here used for shooting.  Also as I understand 
most deer shooting in this country it takes place in mountains away from 
roads and carries very little disturbance.

>
>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>reduce accidents.

There are a number of problems in this.

Firstly it does nothing to prevent what appears to be the majority of 
cases round here of animals on the roadside or crossing the road from 
land which doesn't carry out anything to disturb the deer.

Secondly it doesn't take much imagination to see situations where deer 
come on to the road during the night, wander up the roadside verge 
ending up between two deer fences.  I would suggest that this going to 
stress the deer and cause more accidents.

>
>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>not fall to the taxpayer.

Are you suggesting that the cost should fall on the deer when the 
accident isn't caused by shooting or human walkers.

The whole thread seems designed to push your AR propaganda.  This NG is 
for the discussion of conservation.  Why don't you post such threads on 
an appropriate group.  There must be one for interested people like you 
to discuss your relevant points.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message <sSyywFD$E9fHFwLD@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>But you've just said that deer graze on roadside verges, and they belong
>>>to the local council.
>>>
>>
>>Sure they do, and they're not in the slightest afraid of the traffic.
>>However they could be startled by activities beyond the verges so
>>there should perhaps be a responsibility there.

If they aren't startled by passing cars then what makes you think they 
will be so easily startled by walkers or shooters?

>>
>So, the deer are feeding on the verge and are startled by a loud horn 
>from a car being driven on the road. What is the "responsibility there"?
>>
>>

I will await the answer with interest.

Has anyone noticed this is another of Angus' escape tactics.  When 
things get tricky on one thread (in this case about management of areas) 
he starts a number of new threads and lets the others quietly die by not 
posting.

>>>>Perhaps a part solution to the problem would be that landowners who
>>>>are involved in activities likely to cause deer collisions be required
>>>>to erect deer fencing along their roadside boundaries in an effort to
>>>>reduce accidents.
>>>>
>>>You're a great one for impractical suggestions, aren't you?
>>>
>>
>>Why is that impractical?
>>
>If you can't work it out for yourself, one has to assume that you have 
>never been to, e.g., the New Forest.
>>
>>>>The cost of protecting the driving public from these activities should
>>>>not fall to the taxpayer.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>So who should pay for the hundreds of thousands of deer living in, e.g.
>>>the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, common land throughout southern
>>>England, etc., etc., etc.?
>>
>>The landowners or the users in that case, if they encourage or permit
>>the activities I have outlined   As I said in the first line is must
>>be accepted that some accidents will happen.
>>
>The "users" of the New Forest. Have you ever been there?

Obviously not.  I wonder how he plans to charge the users of the land 
when he has the Lakeland fells fenced in?

>
>>I'm pleased that such an important fellow like you accepts that some
>>of the accidents that happen are due to shooting and walkers.
>>
>What I actually said was "only some".

Which could mean a tiny part of 1 percent.


-- 
Malcolm Kane