In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:05 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:35:10 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Nonsense.  They haven't evolved in the UK.
>>>
>>So what? They have evolved to be adaptable, including in the UK.
>
>So have grey squirrels - much better than reds.
>
And become a pest. Did you hear the debate in the House of Lords 
yesterday about them with the mention of the success there's been in 
controlling them in Northumberland?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I understand perfectly that what you're saying is that it doesn't
>>>matter where they've evolved.
>>>
>>Duh!  Your lack of understanding really does show you up, Angus.
>>
>
>No answer, I see.  Thought not.

I see that you can't even recognise an answer now.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Sure we are. But you can't re-establish animals that have not been
>>>established here in the first place.  They've been established and
>>>evolved elsewhere.
>>>
>>Your lack of understanding just shows you up, Angus.
>>
>
>No answer, I see.  Thought not.
>
I see that you can't even recognise an answer now.

>
>>>>All the species concerned can be seen to be
>>>>very adaptable (through evolution, naturally) to a wide range of
>>>>environmental conditions.
>>>
>>>Rubbish. Adaptability has nothing to do with evolution.  Ask any grey
>>>squirrel :-))
>>>
>>That claim, that adaptability has nothing to do with evolution is about
>>the clearest demonstration that you don't understand what you are
>>talking about that you could have possibly given. Sadly for you, your
>>lack of understanding means that you probably won't ever realise why.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Different populations in different environments.
>>>
>>Showing massive adaptability.
>
>But nothing to do with evolving in the UK.
>
You just don't want to even try and understand, do you?

>What a load of trash you lot come up with.
>
Not compared with you.
>
>
>>
>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>They don't need to be compared. You have already admitted they are
>>>different.  Are you now saying they're not?
>>>
>>So you haven't ever been to the Norwegian coast. How unsurprising that
>>you write as if you are knowledgeable about it.
>>
>
>I don't need to have been to Norway.
>

Thank you for confirming that you don't know what you are talking about.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Adaptability has nothing to do with being native.  What I understand
>>>is that your nativeness is complete nonsense.  You end up arguing
>>>against yourself and what I point that out you say I don't understand
>>>:-))
>>>
>>Adaptability has everything to do with the ability of the species to be
>>re-established in the UK.
>>
>>
>
>But adaptability has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a
>so-called native species or otherwise.  Just look at the grey squirrel
>. There cannot be a much more adaptable animal than that.
>
We were discussing re-establishing populations in this country and you 
were complaining that the species involved wouldn't be the same as those 
that were in the first place.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not according to what I've been told.
>>>
>>Well, it is according to what I've read and been told.
>
>So you don't know first hand?  Just like I've not been to Norway.
>
>You're a fraud, Malcolm - and not a very good one.
>
Then so are you, only worse, as you very obviously don't have first hand 
knowledge of the red squirrel becoming extinct, not least because they 
didn't.

>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But the birds have evolved for thousands of years in a different
>>>environment and not in this country and you have the cheek to call
>>>them native to the UK    What rubbish!
>>>
>>The species is native to the UK, Angus.
>
>"Species" is only a paper classification.  It's the animals that are
>introduced and they are not native to this country by your own
>argument.  They have evolved elsewhere.
>
The species is the classification that matters, Angus. Get used to it.

>>This is just you trying to say
>>that individuals are somehow not the same as the species they
>>belong to. This just shows up your lack of understanding,
>>
>
>It shows and understanding considerably better than yours - and I'm
>not a so-called expert.
>
No, sadly, you don't understand.

>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I couldn't care less either.  It wasn't me who brought it up. It seems
>>>you care more than me :-))
>>>
>>I think it only right to remind readers where you are coming from and
>>that you have a history of trying to make words mean something other
>>than their accepted meanings.
>
>Well, these meanings are frequently used by the media and people
>understand them perfectly well.
>
>The purpose of the court case brought against me by the Woodland Trust
>was to get the establishment to shut me up and it failed dismally.
>
I just love how defensive you get every time it is mentioned :-)



-- 
Malcolm