Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?


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
>Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/27hpyv

Take your pick :-)


-- 
Malcolm

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:24:30 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>
>>
>http://tinyurl.com/27hpyv
>
>Take your pick :-)


Thanks, Malcolm, I shall.


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 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:24:30 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>
>>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/27hpyv
>>
>>Take your pick :-)
>
>
>Thanks, Malcolm, I shall.
>
>
I knew you would.

Just as I also know you'll pick the ones that suit your agenda and 
ignore those that don.t!

-- 
Malcolm

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:38:48 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:24:30 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/27hpyv
>>>
>>>Take your pick :-)
>>
>>
>>Thanks, Malcolm, I shall.
>>
>>
>I knew you would.
>
>Just as I also know you'll pick the ones that suit your agenda and 
>ignore those that don.t!

Like you do!

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:38:48 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:24:30 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/27hpyv
>>>
>>>Take your pick :-)
>>
>>
>>Thanks, Malcolm, I shall.
>>
>>
>I knew you would.
>
>Just as I also know you'll pick the ones that suit your agenda and 
>ignore those that don.t!


So, collectively, they're not unambiguous it would seem.



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 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:38:48 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:24:30 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/27hpyv
>>>>
>>>>Take your pick :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks, Malcolm, I shall.
>>>
>>>
>>I knew you would.
>>
>>Just as I also know you'll pick the ones that suit your agenda and
>>ignore those that don.t!
>
>
>So, collectively, they're not unambiguous it would seem.
>
Not collectively, no. And the list isn't exhaustive, either!

The most authoritative, obviously, are those that are incorporated into 
legislation, making the definition a legal one. The URLs with "gov" in 
the address are the ones to look at in this regard.

One or two of them, to my mind, are just plain wrong!!

-- 
Malcolm

In article ,
    wrote:
> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?


Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.

This is the generally accepted convention.  

The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.

Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare, Fallow
deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few conservationists would
wish to eradicate these species, with the possible exception of the Brown
Rat in some cases.

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

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>
>
>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>
>This is the generally accepted convention.  
>
>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.

I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.

>
>Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare, Fallow
>deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few conservationists would
>wish to eradicate these species, with the possible exception of the Brown
>Rat in some cases.

You don't "love" them if you kill them.


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:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>  wrote:

> >In article ,
> >    wrote:
> >> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
> >
> >
> >Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that
> >have arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
> >
> >This is the generally accepted convention.  
> >
> >The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that,
> >the heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have
> >been selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land
> >use.

> I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
> from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
> climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.

If something is extinct there is no choice.  I am still happy to see White
tailed eagles and Red kites.  I would be happy to see Beavers. 
Introductions are usually done with care to matching up the DNA as well as
possible.

> >
> >Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare,
> >Fallow deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few
> >conservationists would wish to eradicate these species, with the
> >possible exception of the Brown Rat in some cases.

> You don't "love" them if you kill them.

That does not follow.

For example I kill the odd fish for the pot but I love them.

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

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
> wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>>    wrote:
>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>
>>
>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>
>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>
>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>
>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>
Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a 
reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as 
with Red Kites.

As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow 
internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of 
the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction 
locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils, 
land use, food availability, etc., etc.

And,. of course, reintroductions are carried out by genuine 
conservationists.

-- 
Malcolm

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article ,
>>>    wrote:
>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>
>>>
>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>
>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>
>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>
>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>
>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a 
>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as 
>with Red Kites.

Where did you come to that conclusion?

>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow 
>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of 
>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction 
>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils, 
>land use, food availability, etc., etc.

That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.  They
have evolved in entirely different environments.  And you could say
the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.

And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
first place.

>
>And,. of course, reintroductions are carried out by genuine 
>conservationists.

Not by anyone, if they haven't been introduced previously.


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 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:25:07 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>  wrote:
>
>> >In article ,
>> >    wrote:
>> >> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>> >
>> >
>> >Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that
>> >have arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>> >
>> >This is the generally accepted convention.  
>> >
>> >The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that,
>> >the heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have
>> >been selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land
>> >use.
>
>> I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>> from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>> climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>
>If something is extinct there is no choice.  

But they're not really extinct, are they.  They're just not present
where you want them.  If I was as daft as the fake conservationists I
could claim that red squirrels were extinct in my garden. 


>I am still happy to see White tailed eagles and Red kites.  I would be happy to see Beavers. 
>Introductions are usually done with care to matching up the DNA as well as
>possible.
>

Happiness has got nothing to do with it.


>> >
>> >Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare,
>> >Fallow deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few
>> >conservationists would wish to eradicate these species, with the
>> >possible exception of the Brown Rat in some cases.
>
>> You don't "love" them if you kill them.
>
>That does not follow.
>
>For example I kill the odd fish for the pot but I love them.

To eat, obviously; but not as living beings.





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 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>    wrote:
>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>
>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>
>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>
>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>
>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>with Red Kites.
>
>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>
Here.

>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>
>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.

The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established. 
The species is therefore indigenous.

>They
>have evolved in entirely different environments.

The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as 
the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway 
are flourishing.

> And you could say
>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>
No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.

>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>first place.
>
You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the 
word.

>>
>>And,. of course, reintroductions are carried out by genuine
>>conservationists.
>
>Not by anyone, if they haven't been introduced previously.
>
See above.


-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>
>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>
>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>
>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>with Red Kites.
>>
>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>
>Here.
>

Thought it had no credibility.

>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>
>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>
>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established. 
>The species is therefore indigenous.
>
>>They
>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>
>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as 
>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway 
>are flourishing.

No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
environment which completely undermines your argument that native
species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
years.  

You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"

The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
tourism.- nothing more.


>
>> And you could say
>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>
>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.

So were reds.

>
>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>first place.
>>
>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the 
>word.
>

Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
think!

Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.

>>>
>>>And,. of course, reintroductions are carried out by genuine
>>>conservationists.
>>
>>Not by anyone, if they haven't been introduced previously.
>>
>See above.

See above.

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 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>
>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>
>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>
>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>with Red Kites.
>>
>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>
>Here.
>
>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>
>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>
>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established. 
>The species is therefore indigenous.

Sorry, I missed this.

It not the paper classification that being introduced but real live
animals from a different environment which because they have not
evolved here for thousands of years cannot possibly be - by your own
argument -"native" to this country.  

>
>>They
>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>
>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as 
>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway 
>are flourishing.

That's nonsense; it explains nothing. You could again say the same
thing about grey squirrels and a host of other plants and animals from
other countries that flourish here. 

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 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>>with Red Kites.
>>>
>>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>>
>>Here.
>>
>
>Thought it had no credibility.
>
I'm not interested in what you *think* about it, Angus, only in your 
evidence that the red squirrel died out in the UK, so please produce it.

>>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>
>>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>>
>>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
>>The species is therefore indigenous.
>>
>>>They
>>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>>
>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>are flourishing.
>
>No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
>different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
>different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
>environment which completely undermines your argument that native
>species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
>years.
>
I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is 
letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such 
as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between 
western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe 
are important in support of your claims.

>You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
>go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
>disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"
>
>The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
>scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
>tourism.- nothing more.
>
I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of 
reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or 
near-extinction.
>
>>
>>> And you could say
>>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>
>>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.
>
>So were reds.
>
So what? There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them 
from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the 
last Ice Age.

>>
>>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>>first place.
>>>
>>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
>>word.
>>
>
>Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
>the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
>think!
>
>Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.
>
No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the 
meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to 
convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.

-- 
Malcolm

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>>with Red Kites.
>>>
>>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>>
>>Here.
>>
>>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>
>>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>>
>>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
>>The species is therefore indigenous.
>
>Sorry, I missed this.
>
>It not the paper classification that being introduced but real live
>animals from a different environment which because they have not
>evolved here for thousands of years cannot possibly be - by your own
>argument -"native" to this country.
>
You seem to have it fixed in your mind that the environment is 
"different". Please produce your evidence for this.

>>
>>>They
>>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>>
>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>are flourishing.
>
>That's nonsense; it explains nothing. You could again say the same
>thing about grey squirrels and a host of other plants and animals from
>other countries that flourish here.
>
Indeed some do flourish here, and those, like the grey squirrel or 
Japanese knotwee, that do so at the expense of our native fauna or flora 
are therefore regarded as pests that need controlling. Well done for 
spotting this.

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:05 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>>>with Red Kites.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>>>
>>>Here.
>>>
>>
>>Thought it had no credibility.
>>
>I'm not interested in what you *think* about it, Angus, only in your 
>evidence that the red squirrel died out in the UK, so please produce it.

The Forestry Commission produced it - not me.

>
>>>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>>>
>>>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
>>>The species is therefore indigenous.
>>>
>>>>They
>>>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>>>
>>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>>are flourishing.
>>
>>No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
>>different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
>>different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
>>environment which completely undermines your argument that native
>>species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
>>years.
>>
>I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is 
>letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such 
>as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between 
>western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe 
>are important in support of your claims.

Colder climate. Different species affecting the environment in which
the WHT has evolved.


>
>>You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
>>go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
>>disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"
>>
>>The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
>>scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
>>tourism.- nothing more.
>>
>I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of 
>reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or 
>near-extinction.

Not from foreign countries where the environment is different. By your
own argument this shows up the fraudulent concept of introductions.

Once more you have shown the concept to be garbage. 


>>
>>>
>>>> And you could say
>>>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.
>>
>>So were reds.
>>
>So what? 

So they were introduced.

>There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them 
>from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the 
>last Ice Age.
>

Even if that were true, which there is little or no evidence to
support it, red squirrels form Scandinavia have not been here for
thousands of years.  They evolved in a different environment and were
introduced by man here later than the greys.


>>>
>>>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>>>first place.
>>>>
>>>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
>>>word.
>>>
>>
>>Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
>>the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
>>think!
>>
>>Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.
>>
>No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the 
>meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to 
>convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.

I stand by everything I said which is all recorded on Google and the
term I used is used frequently to describe the killing of wildlife in
national newspapers.  But it's made little difference to me or my
websites :-))

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 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:11:35 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is that, the
>>>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>>>with Red Kites.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>>>
>>>Here.
>>>
>>>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>>>
>>>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
>>>The species is therefore indigenous.
>>
>>Sorry, I missed this.
>>
>>It not the paper classification that being introduced but real live
>>animals from a different environment which because they have not
>>evolved here for thousands of years cannot possibly be - by your own
>>argument -"native" to this country.
>>
>You seem to have it fixed in your mind that the environment is 
>"different". Please produce your evidence for this.
>

I have.  Are you saying it's the same?

>>>
>>>>They
>>>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>>>
>>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>>are flourishing.
>>
>>That's nonsense; it explains nothing. You could again say the same
>>thing about grey squirrels and a host of other plants and animals from
>>other countries that flourish here.
>>
>Indeed some do flourish here, and those, like the grey squirrel or 
>Japanese knotwee, that do so at the expense of our native fauna or flora 
>are therefore regarded as pests that need controlling. Well done for 
>spotting this.

So your claim that  "the white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in
the same environment as the west of Scotland, which explains why the
birds brought from Norway are flourishing"  explains nothing and was
complete garbage"

Well done, Malcolm..
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 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:05 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is 
>>>>>>>>that, the
>>>>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>>>>with Red Kites.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>>>>
>>>>Here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thought it had no credibility.
>>>
>>I'm not interested in what you *think* about it, Angus, only in your
>>evidence that the red squirrel died out in the UK, so please produce it.
>
>The Forestry Commission produced it - not me.
>
Did they? Then I would disagree with them.

>>
>>>>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>>>>
>>>>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
>>>>The species is therefore indigenous.
>>>>
>>>>>They
>>>>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>>>>
>>>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>>>are flourishing.
>>>
>>>No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
>>>different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
>>>different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
>>>environment which completely undermines your argument that native
>>>species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
>>>years.
>>>
>>I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is
>>letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such
>>as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between
>>western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe
>>are important in support of your claims.
>
>Colder climate. Different species affecting the environment in which
>the WHT has evolved.
>
That might, but only might, apply if the WTE was a species which was 
completely unable to adapt in even minor ways to its environment and 
only occurred on the Norway coast. However, it doesn't apply because the 
WTE occurs from the Mediterranean to well above the arctic circle and 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific and so is clearly highly adaptable and 
perfectly suited to be moved from Norway to Scotland, which share a 
great many environmental characteristics.

>
>>
>>>You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
>>>go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
>>>disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"
>>>
>>>The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
>>>scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
>>>tourism.- nothing more.
>>>
>>I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of
>>reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or
>>near-extinction.
>
>Not from foreign countries where the environment is different. By your
>own argument this shows up the fraudulent concept of introductions.
>
>Once more you have shown the concept to be garbage.

See above about adaptation. It appears that you know nothing about it 
which leads you to make untenable statements such as the above.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And you could say
>>>>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>>>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>>>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>>
>>>>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.
>>>
>>>So were reds.
>>>
>>So what?
>
>So they were introduced.
>
A small number from Scandinavia are recorded as having been released at 
Dunkeld in the 19th century.

>>There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them
>>from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the
>>last Ice Age.
>>
>
>Even if that were true, which there is little or no evidence to
>support it, red squirrels form Scandinavia have not been here for
>thousands of years.  They evolved in a different environment and were
>introduced by man here later than the greys.
>
See above about adaptation. You seem to think that the "environment" is 
completely different in different places and therefore the animals of 
the same species in the two places will be completely different. Neither 
belief is correct.

>
>>>>
>>>>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>>>>first place.
>>>>>
>>>>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
>>>>word.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
>>>the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
>>>think!
>>>
>>>Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.
>>>
>>No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the
>>meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to
>>convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.
>
>I stand by everything I said which is all recorded on Google and the
>term I used is used frequently to describe the killing of wildlife in
>national newspapers.  But it's made little difference to me or my
>websites :-))
>
Of course you stand by it, Angus. You would hate to lose face by 
admitting you were wrong even though you lost the court case. We all 
understand that.

-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:24:31 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:05 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
>>>>>>>>>arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is the generally accepted convention.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is 
>>>>>>>>>that, the
>>>>>>>>>heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
>>>>>>>>>selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
>>>>>>>>from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
>>>>>>>>climates, soils and land use?  Red squirrel and beavers for instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
>>>>>>>reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
>>>>>>>with Red Kites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where did you come to that conclusion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thought it had no credibility.
>>>>
>>>I'm not interested in what you *think* about it, Angus, only in your
>>>evidence that the red squirrel died out in the UK, so please produce it.
>>
>>The Forestry Commission produced it - not me.
>>
>Did they? Then I would disagree with them.
>
>>>
>>>>>>>As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
>>>>>>>internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
>>>>>>>the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
>>>>>>>locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
>>>>>>>land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.
>>>>>
>>>>>The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
>>>>>The species is therefore indigenous.
>>>>>
>>>>>>They
>>>>>>have evolved in entirely different environments.
>>>>>
>>>>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>>>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>>>>are flourishing.
>>>>
>>>>No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
>>>>different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
>>>>different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
>>>>environment which completely undermines your argument that native
>>>>species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
>>>>years.
>>>>
>>>I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is
>>>letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such
>>>as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between
>>>western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe
>>>are important in support of your claims.
>>
>>Colder climate. Different species affecting the environment in which
>>the WHT has evolved.
>>
>That might, but only might, apply if the WTE was a species which was 
>completely unable to adapt in even minor ways to its environment and 
>only occurred on the Norway coast. However, it doesn't apply because the 
>WTE occurs from the Mediterranean to well above the arctic circle and 
>from the Atlantic to the Pacific and so is clearly highly adaptable and 
>perfectly suited to be moved from Norway to Scotland, which share a 
>great many environmental characteristics.
>

But the fact it can adapt is not the point.  

Each of the above populations have evolved in different
environments.and not in the UK. You've argued many times  
that native species must evolve within their own
ecosystem/environment.

If not, then you whole idea of a species being native because it
evolves with its own environment over thousands of years is fake.   


>>
>>>
>>>>You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
>>>>go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
>>>>disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"
>>>>
>>>>The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
>>>>scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
>>>>tourism.- nothing more.
>>>>
>>>I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of
>>>reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or
>>>near-extinction.
>>
>>Not from foreign countries where the environment is different. By your
>>own argument this shows up the fraudulent concept of introductions.
>>
>>Once more you have shown the concept to be garbage.
>
>See above about adaptation. It appears that you know nothing about it 
>which leads you to make untenable statements such as the above.

Quite the opposite, Malcolm.  A very real and pertinent statement.

Adaptation has nothing to do with it.


>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And you could say
>>>>>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>>>>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>>>>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.
>>>>
>>>>So were reds.
>>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>So they were introduced.
>>
>A small number from Scandinavia are recorded as having been released at 
>Dunkeld in the 19th century.
>

So they were introduced after being shot to oblivion.



>>>There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them
>>>from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the
>>>last Ice Age.
>>>
>>
>>Even if that were true, which there is little or no evidence to
>>support it, red squirrels form Scandinavia have not been here for
>>thousands of years.  They evolved in a different environment and were
>>introduced by man here later than the greys.
>>
>See above about adaptation. You seem to think that the "environment" is 
>completely different in different places and therefore the animals of 
>the same species in the two places will be completely different. Neither 
>belief is correct.
>

It doesn't matter whether they're different or not.  They're not
"native" by your own argument - they have not evolved here.


>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>>>>>first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
>>>>>word.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
>>>>the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
>>>>think!
>>>>
>>>>Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the
>>>meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to
>>>convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.
>>
>>I stand by everything I said which is all recorded on Google and the
>>term I used is used frequently to describe the killing of wildlife in
>>national newspapers.  But it's made little difference to me or my
>>websites :-))
>>
>Of course you stand by it, Angus. You would hate to lose face by 
>admitting you were wrong even though you lost the court case. We all 
>understand that.

But I wasn't wrong and I believe at least one witness committed
perjury by lying at the hearing.  

However, as it made little difference to me, I saw no point in taking
the matter back to court.


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 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:24:31 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:05 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
>>>>>>the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
>>>>>>are flourishing.
>>>>>
>>>>>No they're not.  Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
>>>>>different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
>>>>>different climate.   So the WTEs have evolved in a different
>>>>>environment which completely undermines your argument that native
>>>>>species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
>>>>>years.
>>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is
>>>>letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such
>>>>as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between
>>>>western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe
>>>>are important in support of your claims.
>>>
>>>Colder climate. Different species affecting the environment in which
>>>the WHT has evolved.
>>>
>>That might, but only might, apply if the WTE was a species which was
>>completely unable to adapt in even minor ways to its environment and
>>only occurred on the Norway coast. However, it doesn't apply because the
>>WTE occurs from the Mediterranean to well above the arctic circle and
>>from the Atlantic to the Pacific and so is clearly highly adaptable and
>>perfectly suited to be moved from Norway to Scotland, which share a
>>great many environmental characteristics.
>>
>
>But the fact it can adapt is not the point.
>
Of course it is the point.

>Each of the above populations have evolved in different
>environments.and not in the UK. You've argued many times
>that native species must evolve within their own
>ecosystem/environment.
>
No, Angus, I haven't, because your understanding of the environment and 
evolution is so limited.

>If not, then you whole idea of a species being native because it
>evolves with its own environment over thousands of years is fake.
>
Nonsense. We are discussing a very small number of species which, having 
become either very rare or extinct in the UK, have been either boosted 
or re-established by bringing in small numbers of the same species from 
elsewhere in their range. All the species concerned can be seen to be 
very adaptable (through evolution, naturally) to a wide range of 
environmental conditions. Why are you finding it so difficult to 
understand that because the white-tailed eagle thrives in the 
Mediterranean area as well as north of the arctic circle this 
demonstrates that it has evolved to be highly adaptable. The conditions 
between the west coast of Norway and the west coast of Scotland differ 
hardly at all compared with those between the Mediterranean and the 
arctic. Have you ever been to the areas of the Norwegian coast where the 
WTEs came from?

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
>>>>>go along.  And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
>>>>>disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"
>>>>>
>>>>>The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
>>>>>scientific facts.  It's to do with exploiting these birds for
>>>>>tourism.- nothing more.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of
>>>>reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or
>>>>near-extinction.
>>>
>>>Not from foreign countries where the environment is different. By your
>>>own argument this shows up the fraudulent concept of introductions.
>>>
>>>Once more you have shown the concept to be garbage.
>>
>>See above about adaptation. It appears that you know nothing about it
>>which leads you to make untenable statements such as the above.
>
>Quite the opposite, Malcolm.  A very real and pertinent statement.
>
>Adaptation has nothing to do with it.
>
Of *course* it does. Please do at least *try* to understand some basic 
facts about wildlife.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you could say
>>>>>>>the same about grey squirrels that  "the conditions in the
>>>>>>>reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
>>>>>>>climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.
>>>>>
>>>>>So were reds.
>>>>>
>>>>So what?
>>>
>>>So they were introduced.
>>>
>>A small number from Scandinavia are recorded as having been released at
>>Dunkeld in the 19th century.
>>
>
>So they were introduced after being shot to oblivion.
>
There were still some left here.

>
>
>>>>There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them
>>>>from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the
>>>>last Ice Age.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Even if that were true, which there is little or no evidence to
>>>support it, red squirrels form Scandinavia have not been here for
>>>thousands of years.  They evolved in a different environment and were
>>>introduced by man here later than the greys.
>>>
>>See above about adaptation. You seem to think that the "environment" is
>>completely different in different places and therefore the animals of
>>the same species in the two places will be completely different. Neither
>>belief is correct.
>>
>
>It doesn't matter whether they're different or not.  They're not
>"native" by your own argument - they have not evolved here.
>
The species evolved here and then, in the case of the WTE, though not 
the red squirrel, died out. The species is now established again as a 
native breeder.

>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
>>>>>>>first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
>>>>>>word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes.  What did I say about
>>>>>the dregs of academia being in your industry?  They spout before they
>>>>>think!
>>>>>
>>>>>Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.
>>>>>
>>>>No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the
>>>>meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to
>>>>convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.
>>>
>>>I stand by everything I said which is all recorded on Google and the
>>>term I used is used frequently to describe the killing of wildlife in
>>>national newspapers.  But it's made little difference to me or my
>>>websites :-))
>>>
>>Of course you stand by it, Angus. You would hate to lose face by
>>admitting you were wrong even though you lost the court case. We all
>>understand that.
>
>But I wasn't wrong and I believe at least one witness committed
>perjury by lying at the hearing.
>
>However, as it made little difference to me, I saw no point in taking
>the matter back to court.
>
Angus, no-one could care less that you keep on claiming "but I wasn't 
wrong". No-one would expect anything different from you, for the reasons 
I've given. You've just reinforced what I said.

-- 
Malcolm

In article ,
    wrote:

> >If something is extinct there is no choice.  

> But they're not really extinct, are they.  
Extinct in Britain, that's not too difficult is it?
> They're just not present
> where you want them.  If I was as daft as the fake conservationists I
> could claim that red squirrels were extinct in my garden. 
You wouldn't know one if you saw one.


> >I am still happy to see White tailed eagles and Red kites.  I would be
> >happy to see Beavers. Introductions are usually done with care to
> >matching up the DNA as well as possible.
> >

> Happiness has got nothing to do with it.
It has for me, but we all understand how you are only happy if you can
grizzle on in misery.

> >> >
> >> >Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare,
> >> >Fallow deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few
> >> >conservationists would wish to eradicate these species, with the
> >> >possible exception of the Brown Rat in some cases.
> >
> >> You don't "love" them if you kill them.
> >
> >That does not follow.
> >
> >For example I kill the odd fish for the pot but I love them.

> To eat, obviously; but not as living beings.

No I don't eat them alive  :-)

No actually you are wrong, I do love fish as living beings, and yes I do
still kill some.  That is a compromise that I am willing to make, just as
you said once that you consumed dairy products, which of course could not
have been produced without some compromise of your declared AR agenda.

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

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:43:39 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
 wrote:

>In article ,
>    wrote:
>
>> >If something is extinct there is no choice.  
>
>> But they're not really extinct, are they.  
>Extinct in Britain, that's not too difficult is it?

That's not "extinct". Dinosaurs are extinct; red squirrels are not 

>> They're just not present
>> where you want them.  If I was as daft as the fake conservationists I
>> could claim that red squirrels were extinct in my garden. 
>You wouldn't know one if you saw one.
>
>

More likely Malcolm Ogilvie wouldn't :-))

_______________________________

A Macmillan
"I'll leave that to Professor Acorn.  He'll no doubt have something to
say about it."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"No doubt you will."

A Macmillan:
"No doubt he will."

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie:
"You appear to be suffering from split personality syndrome. When you
believe you are a grey squirrel called Professor Acorn, do you think
you have a bushy tail and tufty ears?"


Comment:  Can someone at Scottish Natural Heritage please tell Dr
Ogilvie on of their scientific advisers that grey squirrels in the UK
don't have "tufty ears".

_______________________________



>> >I am still happy to see White tailed eagles and Red kites.  I would be
>> >happy to see Beavers. Introductions are usually done with care to
>> >matching up the DNA as well as possible.
>> >
>
>> Happiness has got nothing to do with it.
>It has for me, but we all understand how you are only happy if you can
>grizzle on in misery.
>

The "misery" is what fake conservation organisations inflict on
wildlife they deem as inappropriate by origin or numbers.


>> >> >
>> >> >Many species which we love such as Rabbit, Brown Rat, Brown Hare,
>> >> >Fallow deer etc. do not fall into this category, and few
>> >> >conservationists would wish to eradicate these species, with the
>> >> >possible exception of the Brown Rat in some cases.
>> >
>> >> You don't "love" them if you kill them.
>> >
>> >That does not follow.
>> >
>> >For example I kill the odd fish for the pot but I love them.
>
>> To eat, obviously; but not as living beings.
>
>No I don't eat them alive  :-)
>
>No actually you are wrong, I do love fish as living beings, and yes I do
>still kill some.  That is a compromise that I am willing to make, just as
>you said once that you consumed dairy products, which of course could not
>have been produced without some compromise of your declared AR agenda.

But you obviously got out with the knowledge that your are inflicting
cruelty on wildlife by fishing.

How would you like to be dragged the equivalent distance relating to
size by a hook in your mouth.

Well?
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)

it into the place of rest and
holiness; to make it holy to God; to make it the temple of God; to reconcile
it to, and, save it from, the wrath of God; to free it from the slavery of
sin, which visibly reigns in man; to give laws to this people, and engrave
these laws on their heart; to offer Himself to God for them, and sacrifice
Himself for them; to be a victim without blemish, and Himself the
sacrificer, having to offer Himself, His body, and His blood, and yet to
offer bread and wine to God...

Ingrediens mundum.[154]

"Stone upon stone."

What preceded and what followed. All the Jews exist still and are wanderers.

767. Of all that is on earth, He partakes only of the sorrows, not of the
joys. He loves His neighbours, but His love does not confine itself within
these bounds, and overflows to His own enemies, and then to those of God.

768. Jesus Christ typified by Joseph, the beloved of his father, sent by his
father to see his brethren, etc., innocent, sold by his brethren for twenty
pieces of silver, and thereby becoming their lord, their saviour, the
saviour of strangers and the saviour of the world; which had not been but
for their plot to destroy him, their sale and their rejection of him.

In prison, Joseph innocent between two criminals; Jesus Christ on the cross
between two thieves. Joseph foretells freedom to the one, and death to the
other, from the same omens. Jesus Christ saves the elect, and condemns the
outcast for the same sins. Joseph foretells only; Jesus Christ acts. Joseph
asks him who will be saved to remember him, when he comes into his glory;
and he whom Jesus Christ saves asks that He will remember him, when He comes
into His kingdom.

769. The

he knows it.

417. This twofold nature of man is so evident that some have thought that we
had two souls. A single subject seemed to them incapable of such sudden
variations from unmeasured presumption to a dreadful dejection of heart.

418. It is dangerous to make man see too clearly his equality with the
brutes without showing him his greatness. It is also dangerous to make his
see his greatness too clearly, apart from his vileness. It is still more
dangerous to leave him in ignorance of both. But it is very advantageous to
show him both. Man must not think that he is on a level either with the
brutes or with the angels, nor must he be ignorant of both sides of his
nature; but he must know both.

419. I will not allow man to depend upon himself, or upon another, to the
end that, being without a resting-place and without repose.

420. If he exalt himself, I humble him; if he humble himself, I exalt him;
and I always contradict him, till he understands that he is an
incomprehensible monster.

421.

and narrow, and can also be
comprehensive and weak.

3. Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand the
process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight and are not
used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who are accustomed
to reason from principles, do not at all understand matters of feeling,
seeking principles and being unable to see at a glance.

4. Mathematics, intuition.--True eloquence makes light of eloquence, true
morality makes light of morality; that is to say, the morality of the
judgement, which has no rules, makes light of the morality of the intellect.

For it is to judgement that perception belongs, as science belongs to
intellect. Intuition is the part of judgement, mathematics of intellect.

To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher.

5. Those who judge of a work by rule are in regard to others as those who
have a watch are in regard to others. One says, "It is two hours ago"; the
other says, "It is only three-quarters of an hour." I look at my watch, and
say to the one, "You are weary," and to the other, "Time gallops with you";
for it is only an hour and a half ago, and I laugh at those who tell me that
time goes slowly with me and that I judge by imagination. They do not know
that I judge by my watch.

6. Just as we harm the understanding, we harm the feelings al

of
opportunities for their souls, and were wont very often to meet together
in private houses, for religious purposes: and such meetings when
appointed were greatly thronged.

There was scarcely a single person in the town, old or young, left
unconcerned about the great things of the eternal world. Those who were
wont to be the vainest and loosest, and those who had been disposed to
think and speak lightly of vital and experimental religion, were now
generally subject to great awakenings. And the work of conversion was
carried on in a most astonishing manner, and increased more and more;
souls did as it were come by flocks to Jesus Christ. From day to day for
many months together, might be seen evident instances of sinners brought
out of darkness into marvellous light, and delivered out of an horrible
pit, and from the miry clay, and set upon a rock, with a new song of
praise to God in their mouths.

This work of God, as it was carried on, and the number of true saints
multiplied, soon made a glorious alteration in the town: so that in the
spring and summer following, anno 1735, the town seemed to be full of
the presence of God: it never was so full of love, nor of joy, and yet
so full of distress, as it was then. There were remarkable tokens of
God's presence in almost every house. It was a time of joy in families
on account of salvation being brought to them; parents rejoicing over
their children as new born, and husbands over their wives, and wives
over their husbands. The doings of God were then seen in His sanctuary,
God's day was a delight, and His tabernacles were amiable. Our public
assemblies were then beautiful: the congregation was alive in God's
service, every one earnestly intent on the public worship, every hearer
eager to drink in the words of the minister as they came from his mouth;
the assembly in general were, from time to time,

will not fail. They
hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of
men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines
that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have
done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says
within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order
matters so for himself as not to fail. But the foolish children of men
miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in
their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The
greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of
grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not
because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not
because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure
their own escape. If we could speak with them, and inquire of them, one
by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear
about hell, ever to be the subjects of misery: we doubtless, should hear
one and another reply, "No, I never intended to come here: I had laid
out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for
myself -- I thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care;
but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look for it at that time, and
in that manner; it came as a thief -- Death outwitted me: God's wrath
was too quick for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was fla