http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2110506,00.html
· Half of all Dutch farmers now carry superbug 
· Urgent call to screen UK lifestock and test imports 

Ian Sample Science correspondent

The Guardian 


Campaigners today call for urgent tests on the UK's farm animals after
the emergence of a new strain of MRSA which has spread rapidly among
farmers in Europe, causing an array of serious infections.
The drug-resistant bug is thought to have arisen in pigs fed
antibiotics to protect them against farm-borne diseases and boost
their growth. The emergence of the new strain backs up fears voiced by
some experts that the heavy use of antibiotics in farm animals could
lead to a drug-resistant bug capable of infecting humans.

The strain of staphylococcus aureus, known as ST398, is resistant to
commonly used antibiotics and has caused skin infections and rare
heart and bone infections in patients in the Netherlands, Denmark,
Belgium and Germany.
A report published today by the organic farming organisation, the Soil
Association, says the superbug represents a new threat to human
health. It urged the government to introduce immediate screening of
national livestock and strict testing of imported meat products and
animals from affected regions, to prevent the superbug spreading to
Britain. The report reveals the swift spread of the new MRSA strain,
which tested positive in 39% of pigs at nine abattoirs in the
Netherlands last year. A further survey identified the strain in 13%
of Dutch calves.

Medical officials found that 50% of Dutch farmers were carriers of the
strain, a prevalence 1,500 times higher than the rest of the
population. In one pig farming region 80% of all MRSA cases are now
caused by the farm animal strain. A survey by the Dutch food and
consumer product safety authority last year found traces of the bug in
20% of pork meat, 21% of chicken meat and 3% of beef.

"It's going to get to the UK sooner or later, but the government is
doing nothing to look for it," said Richard Young, a co-author of the
report. "We should be doing routine surveillance on imported meat and
imported live chicks."

The document also recommends a screening programme for farmers coming
from European countries before they work with live animals.

"It's a new strain we should be looking for here," said Mark Enright,
an expert in MRSA at Imperial College, London. "The excessive use of
antibiotics is always a bad idea. If you do that for long enough,
inevitably one of the strains that emerges will be good at causing
disease in humans."

The new strain was first detected two years ago in the Netherlands.

A Defra spokesman said the government had commissioned research into
the spread of the infection among animals. "There is no consensus on
whether animals became infected from other animals or humans,
therefore the identification of MRSA in animals cannot be conclusively
linked to the use of antibiotics in animals."

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:56:18 -0000, "Pat Gardiner"
 wrote:

>Pat's Note: I find it increasingly hard to understand why anyone should ever 
>trust Defra. Hope before experience, I suppose.
>
>http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/13967/poultry-register-draws-concerns
>
>
>Tuesday, January 29, 2008
>Poultry Register Draws Concerns
>UK - A UK government proposal to begin a poultry register has drawn such 
>concern over what a process of 'information sharing' will entail that the 
>British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has called for an 
>urgent meeting with Defra.
>
>
>
>
>
>According to the BASC, The register was set up to help minimise the effects 
>of avian influenza and assurances were made by Defra at the time that 
>personal information would only be used for this purpose.
>
>Defra launched a consultation in November to ascertain the views of people 
>already on the poultry register on the possibility of sharing information 
>across other government departments such as HM Revenue and Customs.
>
>BASC has submitted a response to the consultation to seek clarification on 
>what Defra means by sharing information for "additional purposes". BASC is 
>concerned that personal data, which people had submitted in good faith, will 
>be used for purposes other than to minimise the effects of avian flu.
>
>Head of gamekeeping and game shooting, Stewart Scull, said: "I was involved 
>in the original discussions about establishing the poultry register in 2005 
>when Defra gave assurances that any information provided would only be used 
>for its intended purpose, to combat avian flu. While BASC supports Defra's 
>proposal to allow the poultry register to be used to combat other notifiable 
>diseases such as Newcastle Disease, we're concerned that it is now being 
>proposed to make this information available to multiple agencies not 
>directly involved in disease outbreaks."

BASC and other shooting groups had their noses put out of joint when
Animal Aid forced HMRC to investigate the shooting industry regards
possible VAT payments.

Since then they have been on tip toes and warning each other to ensure
payments are declared.

THE SHOOTING INDUSTRY’S £20 MILLION TAX DODGE EXPOSED
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/pr_shooting/ALL/1468/

Not so "native" introductions

One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.

However, there is a basic problem with this.  The word "species" is
only a descriptive term within a man-made classification system, so it
is ridiculous to latch the adjective "native" onto a classification,
when in the real world it should relate to actual animals that have
been born and bred in a location to which their native standing
rightfully applies.

If it is important to conservationists that a species evolves
naturally in Britain to earn its "native species" status here, then it
should be equally important that the same species evolving in a
different natural environment abroad, should not be regarded as
"native" to this country.

So it is completely fallacious to claim just because a "species"
exists in other parts of the world as well as in Britain, that
overseas animals can be regarded as "native" if "reintroduced" to this
country.  Indeed, the word "reintroduced" compounds the fallacy by
implying they were "introduced" previously - which in conservation
speak would have made them "aliens". 

An example of this is the red squirrel, which has a range stretching
from Northern Europe to China.  However, it takes an enormous stretch
of one's imagination to regard red squirrels anywhere from here to
China, as being native to one particular location. These animals have
evolved within a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions
and most certainly been affected by their association with different
flora and fauna encountered across the part of the range they inhabit.
To argue that these influences are not important is to argue against
the whole concept of "native species".

The current population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced
(reintroduced?) from various parts of Europe around a hundred years
ago, following their virtual extermination by those with forestry
interests who regarded them as "tree rats" that damaged trees - a term
now being used, just as unfairly, to demonise grey squirrels in the
eyes of the general public.

Both populations of squirrels, red and grey, have recently been
introduced to this country and there is no conclusive evidence that
even the earlier red squirrels evolved here continuously from the time
of the land bridge to Europe around 10,000 years ago. 

Conservationists claiming animals and birds "reintroduced" to this
country are "native" because the species existed here in the past are
deceiving the public. 

Truth is, most animals and birds being introduced or protected by
so-called conservationists and government agencies are being exploited
for their economic value to tourism.

Grey squirrels being slaughtered in their thousands to "protect" reds,
are victims of an agenda of greed and falsehoods.



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)

wrote in message 
news:pobup3tq72k3nakk591uj1ai5ulloo4bi4@4ax.com...
> Not so "native" introductions
>
> One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
> that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
> environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
> at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
> got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
>

Given that virtually every part of the planet's surface has been (and 
continues to be) significantly altered by the activities of humanity, to the 
extent that some people believe we are no longer in the eocene, but the 
anthropocene, it seems somewhat pointless to argue too much about 
'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'.

However, in practical conservation terms, people tend to conserve that 
which, for whatever reason, they consider worthy of conservation, whether in 
the field of the built environment, art, or fauna and flora. Regardless of 
scientific definitions :-)

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:42:06 -0000, "BAC"
 wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:pobup3tq72k3nakk591uj1ai5ulloo4bi4@4ax.com...
>> Not so "native" introductions
>>
>> One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
>> that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
>> environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
>> at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
>> got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
>>
>
>Given that virtually every part of the planet's surface has been (and 
>continues to be) significantly altered by the activities of humanity, to the 
>extent that some people believe we are no longer in the eocene, but the 
>anthropocene, it seems somewhat pointless to argue too much about 
>'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'.

I agree. But the job of those who say they are conserving the natural
environment should be to try to roll back the effect of human
activities; not encourage them.   

>
>However, in practical conservation terms, people tend to conserve that 
>which, for whatever reason, they consider worthy of conservation, whether in 
>the field of the built environment, art, or fauna and flora. Regardless of 
>scientific definitions :-) 
>

I have no objection to anybody conserving anything but I strongly
disagree with killing some to conserve others.  


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)

X-No-Archive: yes
In article , BAC 
 writes
>
> wrote in message
>news:pobup3tq72k3nakk591uj1ai5ulloo4bi4@4ax.com...
>> Not so "native" introductions
>>
>> One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
>> that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
>> environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
>> at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
>> got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
>>
>
>Given that virtually every part of the planet's surface has been (and
>continues to be) significantly altered by the activities of humanity, to the
>extent that some people believe we are no longer in the eocene, but the
>anthropocene, it seems somewhat pointless to argue too much about
>'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'.
>
>However, in practical conservation terms, people tend to conserve that
>which, for whatever reason, they consider worthy of conservation, whether in
>the field of the built environment, art, or fauna and flora. Regardless of
>scientific definitions :-)
>
Not entirely!

But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown 
argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from 
being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and 
he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the 
inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK, 
except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on 
the mainland). Angus cares not :-(

In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts, 
as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to 
"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely 
exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then 
grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took 
place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red 
squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove 
it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were, 
until proved otherwise.

How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which 
has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population 
slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly 
disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey 
squirrel from North America.

Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something 
about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the 
native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from 
invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that 
this is having some success.

-- 
Malcolm

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:32:48 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>In article , BAC 
> writes
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:pobup3tq72k3nakk591uj1ai5ulloo4bi4@4ax.com...
>>> Not so "native" introductions
>>>
>>> One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
>>> that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
>>> environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
>>> at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
>>> got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
>>>
>>
>>Given that virtually every part of the planet's surface has been (and
>>continues to be) significantly altered by the activities of humanity, to the
>>extent that some people believe we are no longer in the eocene, but the
>>anthropocene, it seems somewhat pointless to argue too much about
>>'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'.
>>
>>However, in practical conservation terms, people tend to conserve that
>>which, for whatever reason, they consider worthy of conservation, whether in
>>the field of the built environment, art, or fauna and flora. Regardless of
>>scientific definitions :-)
>>
>Not entirely!

I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
directed at me - although I was mentioned.

First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
ridiculous that it has little or no credibility. 
>
>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown 
>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from 
>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and 
>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the 
>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK, 
>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on 
>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>

That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
not be present in the UK. 

Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
Who knows?   

>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts, 
>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to 
>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely 
>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then 
>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took 
>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red 
>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove 
>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were, 
>until proved otherwise.
>

Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.  It's
you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.

>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which 
>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population 
>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly 
>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey 
>squirrel from North America.

This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.  

Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
it native" :-))

I just can't believe you're so silly.

>
>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something 
>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the 
>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from 
>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that 
>this is having some success.

It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
years to come? 


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, 29 Jan 2008 17:32:48 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>In article , BAC
>> writes
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:pobup3tq72k3nakk591uj1ai5ulloo4bi4@4ax.com...
>>>> Not so "native" introductions
>>>>
>>>> One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
>>>> that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
>>>> environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
>>>> at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
>>>> got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Given that virtually every part of the planet's surface has been (and
>>>continues to be) significantly altered by the activities of humanity, to the
>>>extent that some people believe we are no longer in the eocene, but the
>>>anthropocene, it seems somewhat pointless to argue too much about
>>>'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'.
>>>
>>>However, in practical conservation terms, people tend to conserve that
>>>which, for whatever reason, they consider worthy of conservation, whether in
>>>the field of the built environment, art, or fauna and flora. Regardless of
>>>scientific definitions :-)
>>>
>>Not entirely!
>
>I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
>directed at me - although I was mentioned.
>
>First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
>they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
>because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
>ridiculous that it has little or no credibility.

That's just wishful thinking on your part. The terms "native" and 
"non-native" have been defined for the purposes of legislation and your 
opinions of them are irrelevant.

>>
>>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown
>>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from
>>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and
>>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the
>>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK,
>>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on
>>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>>
>
>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.

No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One 
professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is 
not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as 
just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an 
attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.

>So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
>the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
>for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
>not be present in the UK.
>
Anyone who thinks it is "on the whim" is either completely ignorant or 
complete biassed. In your case, it is presumably both.

>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>Who knows?
>
Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here. Your claim that the 
whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.

>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>until proved otherwise.
>>
>
>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.

This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current 
population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?) 
from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their 
virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".

The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK 
and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's 
deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.

And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red 
squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?

> It's
>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>
They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.

>>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which
>>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population
>>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly
>>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey
>>squirrel from North America.
>
>This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
>simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
>of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.
>
>Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
>it native" :-))
>
>I just can't believe you're so silly.
>
I used the word "simpler" purely to make a contrast with your overblown 
and over-complicated inventions about native and non-native. The simple 
fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.

>>
>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>this is having some success.
>
>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>years to come?
>
Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged - 
witness what is happening in Northumberland.

-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:32:48 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>In article , BAC
>>> writes
>>>>
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>news:pobup3tq72k3nakk591uj1ai5ulloo4bi4@4ax.com...
>>>>> Not so "native" introductions
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
>>>>> that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
>>>>> environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive
>>>>> at what is regarded as its natural location.  In short, it should have
>>>>> got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Given that virtually every part of the planet's surface has been (and
>>>>continues to be) significantly altered by the activities of humanity, to the
>>>>extent that some people believe we are no longer in the eocene, but the
>>>>anthropocene, it seems somewhat pointless to argue too much about
>>>>'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'.
>>>>
>>>>However, in practical conservation terms, people tend to conserve that
>>>>which, for whatever reason, they consider worthy of conservation, whether in
>>>>the field of the built environment, art, or fauna and flora. Regardless of
>>>>scientific definitions :-)
>>>>
>>>Not entirely!
>>
>>I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
>>directed at me - although I was mentioned.
>>
>>First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
>>they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
>>because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
>>ridiculous that it has little or no credibility.


>That's just wishful thinking on your part. The terms "native" and 
>"non-native" have been defined for the purposes of legislation and your 
>opinions of them are irrelevant.
>
Sure they have and that's exactly why using your own argument red
squirrels are not native.  They have been introduced.  Even the ones
in Cumbria are not native as was thought recently  And on top of that
you've no proof they've been in here continuously since the land
bridge.  You're a bunch of chancers, aren't you?

>>>
>>>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown
>>>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from
>>>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and
>>>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the
>>>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK,
>>>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on
>>>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>>>
>>
>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>
>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One 
>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is 
>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as 
>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an 
>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.

Who in Bristol University has opposed it?

>
>>So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
>>the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
>>for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
>>not be present in the UK.
>>
>Anyone who thinks it is "on the whim" is either completely ignorant or 
>complete biassed. In your case, it is presumably both.

Of course it's a whim.  There's no proof.

>
>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>>Who knows?
>>
>Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here. 

What proof do you have of that?

>Your claim that the 
>whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.
>

Your claim that they've been here continuously since the land bridge
is a blatant lie.  Because you don't know that.

>>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>>until proved otherwise.
>>>
>>
>>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.
>
>This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current 
>population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?) 
>from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their 
>virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".
>

Sure.  UK is not Scotland.


>The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK 
>and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's 
>deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.
>

Prove it.


>And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red 
>squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?
>

From the Forestry Commission.   I've told you that before.


>> It's
>>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>>
>They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.
>

What claim have I made?

>>>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which
>>>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population
>>>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly
>>>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey
>>>squirrel from North America.
>>
>>This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
>>simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
>>of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.
>>
>>Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
>>it native" :-))
>>
>>I just can't believe you're so silly.
>>
>I used the word "simpler" purely to make a contrast with your overblown 
>and over-complicated inventions about native and non-native. 

No you didn't. Read what you wrote.

>The simple 
>fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.
>

Sure, in terms of birth just like the greys.  But you in your views -
unless you can prove it.

And what about the capercaillie.  Another fake native.  And then
there's beavers.   

>>>
>>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>>this is having some success.
>>
>>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>>years to come?
>>
>Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged - 
>witness what is happening in Northumberland.


So you don't know.


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 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
>>>directed at me - although I was mentioned.
>>>
>>>First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
>>>they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
>>>because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
>>>ridiculous that it has little or no credibility.
>
>
>>That's just wishful thinking on your part. The terms "native" and
>>"non-native" have been defined for the purposes of legislation and your
>>opinions of them are irrelevant.
>>
>Sure they have and that's exactly why using your own argument red
>squirrels are not native.  They have been introduced.  Even the ones
>in Cumbria are not native as was thought recently  And on top of that
>you've no proof they've been in here continuously since the land
>bridge.  You're a bunch of chancers, aren't you?
>
Red squirrels are native to Britain, Angus, and there's nothing you can 
do to change that. The species has been here for 10,000 years or more 
and the fact that small numbers were brought over from Europe to boost 
the population doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. The Red 
Kite and the White-tailed Eagle are both native to Britain and it looks 
as if the beaver will be back as native species before too long.

>>>>
>>>>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown
>>>>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from
>>>>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and
>>>>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the
>>>>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK,
>>>>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on
>>>>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>>>>
>>>
>>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>>
>>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One
>>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is
>>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as
>>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an
>>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.
>
>Who in Bristol University has opposed it?
>
Please produce a statement from Bristol University, not from one 
professor or even one department, that supports your claim or, in 
future, be more honest about what you claim.

>>
>>>So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
>>>the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
>>>for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
>>>not be present in the UK.
>>>
>>Anyone who thinks it is "on the whim" is either completely ignorant or
>>complete biassed. In your case, it is presumably both.
>
>Of course it's a whim.  There's no proof.
>
There is ample proof. You may not want to accept it, or even understand 
it, but there is proof enough.

>>
>>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>>>Who knows?
>>>
>>Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here.
>
>What proof do you have of that?
>
The species has been here for more than 10,000 years.

>>Your claim that the
>>whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.
>>
>
>Your claim that they've been here continuously since the land bridge
>is a blatant lie.  Because you don't know that.
>
It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact. And before you say that it 
isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus, 
which doesn't include you.

>>>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>>>until proved otherwise.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.
>>
>>This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current
>>population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?)
>>from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their
>>virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".
>>
>
>Sure.  UK is not Scotland.
>
Exactly, so why did you claim that the population of the UK was 
introduced when to say so is, to use your own words, a blatant lie?
>
>>The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK
>>and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's
>>deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.
>>
>
>Prove it.
>
I don't have to. You do as you are making the claims.
>
>>And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red
>>squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?
>>
>
>From the Forestry Commission.   I've told you that before.
>
They can't have read the sources I have, then.

>
>>> It's
>>>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>>>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>>>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>>>
>>They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.
>>
>
>What claim have I made?
>
That the red squirrel was not continuously here for the last 10,000 
years.

>>>>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which
>>>>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population
>>>>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly
>>>>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey
>>>>squirrel from North America.
>>>
>>>This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
>>>simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
>>>of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.
>>>
>>>Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
>>>it native" :-))
>>>
>>>I just can't believe you're so silly.
>>>
>>I used the word "simpler" purely to make a contrast with your overblown
>>and over-complicated inventions about native and non-native.
>
>No you didn't. Read what you wrote.
>
I have. You didn't understand what I wrote or, as you so often do, 
decided to twist the words to suit your warped agenda.

>>The simple
>>fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.
>>
>
>Sure, in terms of birth just like the greys.  But you in your views -
>unless you can prove it.
>
It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact. And before you say that it 
isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus, 
which doesn't include you.

>And what about the capercaillie.  Another fake native.  And then
>there's beavers.
>
The capercaillie is a native of Britain. The beaver will soon be again. 
That's great news, Angus. You should be rejoicing at the return of an 
extinct species.

>>>>
>>>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>>>this is having some success.
>>>
>>>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>>>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>>>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>>>years to come?
>>>
>>Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged -
>>witness what is happening in Northumberland.
>
>
>So you don't know.
>
Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel 
from extinction.


-- 
Malcolm

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:EDWza2NZz1oHFwWq@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
<snip>

>>
> Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel from 
> extinction.
>
>

Presumably you mean 'the Scottish (or UK) red squirrel population from 
extinction'? The species isn't particularly threatened with extinction in 
the same way as species like the giant panda, or Bengal tiger, are at risk?

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:54:33 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
>>>>directed at me - although I was mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
>>>>they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
>>>>because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
>>>>ridiculous that it has little or no credibility.
>>
>>
>>>That's just wishful thinking on your part. The terms "native" and
>>>"non-native" have been defined for the purposes of legislation and your
>>>opinions of them are irrelevant.
>>>
>>Sure they have and that's exactly why using your own argument red
>>squirrels are not native.  They have been introduced.  Even the ones
>>in Cumbria are not native as was thought recently  And on top of that
>>you've no proof they've been in here continuously since the land
>>bridge.  You're a bunch of chancers, aren't you?
>>
>Red squirrels are native to Britain, Angus, and there's nothing you can 
>do to change that. The species has been here for 10,000 years or more 
>and the fact that small numbers were brought over from Europe to boost 
>the population doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. The Red 
>Kite and the White-tailed Eagle are both native to Britain and it looks 
>as if the beaver will be back as native species before too long.
>

Repeated say it doesn't make it so.


>>>>>
>>>>>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown
>>>>>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from
>>>>>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and
>>>>>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the
>>>>>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK,
>>>>>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on
>>>>>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>>>
>>>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One
>>>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is
>>>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as
>>>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an
>>>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.
>>
>>Who in Bristol University has opposed it?
>>
>Please produce a statement from Bristol University, not from one 
>professor or even one department, that supports your claim or, in 
>future, be more honest about what you claim.
>

You're avoiding the question.



>>>
>>>>So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
>>>>the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
>>>>for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
>>>>not be present in the UK.
>>>>
>>>Anyone who thinks it is "on the whim" is either completely ignorant or
>>>complete biassed. In your case, it is presumably both.
>>
>>Of course it's a whim.  There's no proof.
>>
>There is ample proof. You may not want to accept it, or even understand 
>it, but there is proof enough.
>

Proof enough?  I wouldn't like to be condemned to death on your
account.  

>>>
>>>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>>>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>>>>Who knows?
>>>>
>>>Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here.
>>
>>What proof do you have of that?
>>
>The species has been here for more than 10,000 years.
>

That's not proof.   That's a meaningless statement absent any
evidence.


>>>Your claim that the
>>>whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.
>>>
>>
>>Your claim that they've been here continuously since the land bridge
>>is a blatant lie.  Because you don't know that.
>>
>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact. 

A "fact" has to be backed up by proof - and you've none.  So you're
lying.

>And before you say that it 
>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus, 
>which doesn't include you.
>

Totally irrelevant.


>>>>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>>>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>>>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>>>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>>>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>>>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>>>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>>>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>>>>until proved otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.
>>>
>>>This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current
>>>population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?)
>>>from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their
>>>virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".
>>>
>>
>>Sure.  UK is not Scotland.
>>
>Exactly, so why did you claim that the population of the UK was 
>introduced when to say so is, to use your own words, a blatant lie?

Because they have been shown not to be indigenous.  


>>
>>>The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK
>>>and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's
>>>deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.
>>>
>>
>>Prove it.
>>
>I don't have to. You do as you are making the claims.

Others have made the claims - not me. 

>>
>>>And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red
>>>squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?
>>>
>>
>>From the Forestry Commission.   I've told you that before.
>>
>They can't have read the sources I have, then.
>

Are you saying they don't know what they're talking about?


>>
>>>> It's
>>>>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>>>>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>>>>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>>>>
>>>They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.
>>>
>>
>>What claim have I made?
>>
>That the red squirrel was not continuously here for the last 10,000 
>years.
>

No I haven't.  What I've said it that you don't have nay proof they
have.  That's entirely different.  So do you have proof they have been
here continuously for the past 10,000 years?


>>>>>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which
>>>>>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population
>>>>>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly
>>>>>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey
>>>>>squirrel from North America.
>>>>
>>>>This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
>>>>simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
>>>>of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.
>>>>
>>>>Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
>>>>it native" :-))
>>>>
>>>>I just can't believe you're so silly.
>>>>
>>>I used the word "simpler" purely to make a contrast with your overblown
>>>and over-complicated inventions about native and non-native.
>>
>>No you didn't. Read what you wrote.
>>
>I have. You didn't understand what I wrote or, as you so often do, 
>decided to twist the words to suit your warped agenda.
>

No, Malcolm. That's the Mr Afterthought in you coming out.


>>>The simple
>>>fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.
>>>
>>
>>Sure, in terms of birth just like the greys.  But you in your views -
>>unless you can prove it.
>>
>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.

So you're quite content to accept "facts" without any proof?

> And before you say that it 
>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus, 
>which doesn't include you.
>

So you've said.

>>And what about the capercaillie.  Another fake native.  And then
>>there's beavers.
>>
>The capercaillie is a native of Britain. 

Not the current population.

>The beaver will soon be again. 
>That's great news, Angus. You should be rejoicing at the return of an 
>extinct species.
>

If it's extinct, where is it coming from?


>>>>>
>>>>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>>>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>>>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>>>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>>>>this is having some success.
>>>>
>>>>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>>>>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>>>>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>>>>years to come?
>>>>
>>>Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged -
>>>witness what is happening in Northumberland.
>>
>>
>>So you don't know.
>>
>Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel 
>from extinction.

The red squirrel is nowhere near "extinct" and it's emotive nonsense
to claim it is if its just not present in Britain.


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 , BAC 
 writes
>
>"Malcolm"  wrote in message
>news:EDWza2NZz1oHFwWq@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
><snip>
>
>>>
>> Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel from
>> extinction.
>>
>>
>
>Presumably you mean 'the Scottish (or UK) red squirrel population from
>extinction'? The species isn't particularly threatened with extinction in
>the same way as species like the giant panda, or Bengal tiger, are at risk?
>
>
Obviously.

-- 
Malcolm

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:44:15 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , BAC 
> writes
>>
>>"Malcolm"  wrote in message
>>news:EDWza2NZz1oHFwWq@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>
>>> Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel from
>>> extinction.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Presumably you mean 'the Scottish (or UK) red squirrel population from
>>extinction'? The species isn't particularly threatened with extinction in
>>the same way as species like the giant panda, or Bengal tiger, are at risk?
>>
>>
>Obviously.

Not with your fantasy world scare mongering it isn't so *obvious*.
Plus the fact you're not known for truth and honesty!

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:54:33 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
>>>>>directed at me - although I was mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
>>>>>they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
>>>>>because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
>>>>>ridiculous that it has little or no credibility.
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's just wishful thinking on your part. The terms "native" and
>>>>"non-native" have been defined for the purposes of legislation and your
>>>>opinions of them are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>Sure they have and that's exactly why using your own argument red
>>>squirrels are not native.  They have been introduced.  Even the ones
>>>in Cumbria are not native as was thought recently  And on top of that
>>>you've no proof they've been in here continuously since the land
>>>bridge.  You're a bunch of chancers, aren't you?
>>>
>>Red squirrels are native to Britain, Angus, and there's nothing you can
>>do to change that. The species has been here for 10,000 years or more
>>and the fact that small numbers were brought over from Europe to boost
>>the population doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. The Red
>>Kite and the White-tailed Eagle are both native to Britain and it looks
>>as if the beaver will be back as native species before too long.
>>
>
>Repeated say it doesn't make it so.
>
That's been your problem all along. You have repeated your lies time and 
again and they still aren't true.
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown
>>>>>>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from
>>>>>>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and
>>>>>>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the
>>>>>>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK,
>>>>>>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on
>>>>>>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>>>>
>>>>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One
>>>>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is
>>>>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as
>>>>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an
>>>>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.
>>>
>>>Who in Bristol University has opposed it?
>>>
>>Please produce a statement from Bristol University, not from one
>>professor or even one department, that supports your claim or, in
>>future, be more honest about what you claim.
>>
>
>You're avoiding the question.
>
No, I'm not.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>>So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
>>>>>the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
>>>>>for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
>>>>>not be present in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>Anyone who thinks it is "on the whim" is either completely ignorant or
>>>>complete biassed. In your case, it is presumably both.
>>>
>>>Of course it's a whim.  There's no proof.
>>>
>>There is ample proof. You may not want to accept it, or even understand
>>it, but there is proof enough.
>>
>
>Proof enough?  I wouldn't like to be condemned to death on your
>account.
>
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>>>>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>>>>>Who knows?
>>>>>
>>>>Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here.
>>>
>>>What proof do you have of that?
>>>
>>The species has been here for more than 10,000 years.
>>
>
>That's not proof.   That's a meaningless statement absent any
>evidence.
>
All the evidence is there if you know where to look for it.

>
>>>>Your claim that the
>>>>whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your claim that they've been here continuously since the land bridge
>>>is a blatant lie.  Because you don't know that.
>>>
>>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.
>
>A "fact" has to be backed up by proof - and you've none.  So you're
>lying.
>
Continuing to call me a liar doesn't make it true. You don't recognise 
any fact that doesn't fit your warped agenda.

>>And before you say that it
>>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus,
>>which doesn't include you.
>>
>
>Totally irrelevant.
>
No, Angus, it is wholly relevant because your failure to accept it 
doesn't matter a jot. Get used to it.
>
>>>>>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>>>>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>>>>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>>>>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>>>>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>>>>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>>>>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>>>>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>>>>>until proved otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.
>>>>
>>>>This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current
>>>>population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?)
>>>>from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their
>>>>virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure.  UK is not Scotland.
>>>
>>Exactly, so why did you claim that the population of the UK was
>>introduced when to say so is, to use your own words, a blatant lie?
>
>Because they have been shown not to be indigenous.
>
Of course they have. They were here 10,000 years ago.
>
>>>
>>>>The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK
>>>>and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's
>>>>deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Prove it.
>>>
>>I don't have to. You do as you are making the claims.
>
>Others have made the claims - not me.
>
No, you have made the claim. If others did, then produce the evidence.

>>>
>>>>And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red
>>>>squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?
>>>>
>>>
>>>From the Forestry Commission.   I've told you that before.
>>>
>>They can't have read the sources I have, then.
>>
>
>Are you saying they don't know what they're talking about?
>
You obviously can't read if you ask that question.
>
>>>
>>>>> It's
>>>>>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>>>>>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>>>>>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>>>>>
>>>>They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What claim have I made?
>>>
>>That the red squirrel was not continuously here for the last 10,000
>>years.
>>
>
>No I haven't.  What I've said it that you don't have nay proof they
>have.  That's entirely different.  So do you have proof they have been
>here continuously for the past 10,000 years?
>
Have you any that they haven't? Because if not, they have.
>
>>>>>>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which
>>>>>>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population
>>>>>>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly
>>>>>>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey
>>>>>>squirrel from North America.
>>>>>
>>>>>This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
>>>>>simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
>>>>>of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
>>>>>it native" :-))
>>>>>
>>>>>I just can't believe you're so silly.
>>>>>
>>>>I used the word "simpler" purely to make a contrast with your overblown
>>>>and over-complicated inventions about native and non-native.
>>>
>>>No you didn't. Read what you wrote.
>>>
>>I have. You didn't understand what I wrote or, as you so often do,
>>decided to twist the words to suit your warped agenda.
>>
>
>No, Malcolm. That's the Mr Afterthought in you coming out.
>
Oh look, Angus's usual wriggle when confronted with the exposure of his 
dishonesty.
>
>>>>The simple
>>>>fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, in terms of birth just like the greys.  But you in your views -
>>>unless you can prove it.
>>>
>>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.
>
>So you're quite content to accept "facts" without any proof?
>
Accepted facts, yes.

>> And before you say that it
>>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus,
>>which doesn't include you.
>>
>
>So you've said.
>
And will continue to say, just to remind you that your failure to accept 
facts doesn't matter a jot. Get used to it.

>>>And what about the capercaillie.  Another fake native.  And then
>>>there's beavers.
>>>
>>The capercaillie is a native of Britain.
>
>Not the current population.
>
The species, Angus.

>>The beaver will soon be again.
>>That's great news, Angus. You should be rejoicing at the return of an
>>extinct species.
>>
>
>If it's extinct, where is it coming from?
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>>>>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>>>>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>>>>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>>>>>this is having some success.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>>>>>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>>>>>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>>>>>years to come?
>>>>>
>>>>Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged -
>>>>witness what is happening in Northumberland.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you don't know.
>>>
>>Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel
>>from extinction.
>
>The red squirrel is nowhere near "extinct" and it's emotive nonsense
>to claim it is if its just not present in Britain.
>
Your claim that every grey squirrel born in Britain is "native" is 
nonsense, though whether you are really emotional about them being 
killed is difficult to discern. Somehow your support for animal rights 
doesn't always ring true.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:40:11 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:54:33 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought I' leave responding to this post for a day as it was not
>>>>>>directed at me - although I was mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First of all, Malcolm, "not entirely" means most will conserve what
>>>>>>they want without scientific definitions.  I would agree with that
>>>>>>because the so-called scientific definitions of "native" is so
>>>>>>ridiculous that it has little or no credibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's just wishful thinking on your part. The terms "native" and
>>>>>"non-native" have been defined for the purposes of legislation and your
>>>>>opinions of them are irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>Sure they have and that's exactly why using your own argument red
>>>>squirrels are not native.  They have been introduced.  Even the ones
>>>>in Cumbria are not native as was thought recently  And on top of that
>>>>you've no proof they've been in here continuously since the land
>>>>bridge.  You're a bunch of chancers, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>Red squirrels are native to Britain, Angus, and there's nothing you can
>>>do to change that. The species has been here for 10,000 years or more
>>>and the fact that small numbers were brought over from Europe to boost
>>>the population doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. The Red
>>>Kite and the White-tailed Eagle are both native to Britain and it looks
>>>as if the beaver will be back as native species before too long.
>>>
>>
>>Repeated say it doesn't make it so.
>>
>That's been your problem all along. You have repeated your lies time and 
>again and they still aren't true.




>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But Angus has constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown
>>>>>>>argument all in a futile attempt to prevent some grey squirrels from
>>>>>>>being killed. Were he to be successful (which he certainly won't be, and
>>>>>>>he knows it, which makes his argument all the more futile), the
>>>>>>>inevitable result would be the extinction of the red squrrel in the UK,
>>>>>>>except perhaps on a few islands (either offshore or remote patches on
>>>>>>>the mainland). Angus cares not :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One
>>>>>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is
>>>>>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as
>>>>>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an
>>>>>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.
>>>>
>>>>Who in Bristol University has opposed it?
>>>>
>>>Please produce a statement from Bristol University, not from one
>>>professor or even one department, that supports your claim or, in
>>>future, be more honest about what you claim.
>>>
>>
>>You're avoiding the question.
>>
>No, I'm not.
>

Of course you are.  I asked you who in Bristol University opposed it
and you can't say.

>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So it's a waste of taxpayers' money to have to kill grey squirrels for
>>>>>>the long term foreseeable future on the whim that they are responsible
>>>>>>for the demise of the reds. And they won't be "extinct". they'll only
>>>>>>not be present in the UK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone who thinks it is "on the whim" is either completely ignorant or
>>>>>complete biassed. In your case, it is presumably both.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it's a whim.  There's no proof.
>>>>
>>>There is ample proof. You may not want to accept it, or even understand
>>>it, but there is proof enough.
>>>
>>
>>Proof enough?  I wouldn't like to be condemned to death on your
>>account.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>>>>>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>>>>>>Who knows?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here.
>>>>
>>>>What proof do you have of that?
>>>>
>>>The species has been here for more than 10,000 years.
>>>
>>
>>That's not proof.   That's a meaningless statement absent any
>>evidence.
>>
>All the evidence is there if you know where to look for it.
>

It's not there.   It's pure speculation.- nothing more.


>>
>>>>>Your claim that the
>>>>>whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your claim that they've been here continuously since the land bridge
>>>>is a blatant lie.  Because you don't know that.
>>>>
>>>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.
>>
>>A "fact" has to be backed up by proof - and you've none.  So you're
>>lying.
>>
>Continuing to call me a liar doesn't make it true. You don't recognise 
>any fact that doesn't fit your warped agenda.
>

But you are lying, Malcolm.   You've absolutely no proof whatsoever
that red squirrels have been continuously in Britain for 10,000 years.

>>>And before you say that it
>>>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus,
>>>which doesn't include you.
>>>
>>
>>Totally irrelevant.
>>
>No, Angus, it is wholly relevant because your failure to accept it 
>doesn't matter a jot. Get used to it.

So what proof is there to make it an "accepted fact"?    There's none
- so the so-called conservationists are just a bunch of crooks lining
their own pockets with grants to preserve things the have made up to
be native.



>>
>>>>>>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>>>>>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>>>>>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>>>>>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>>>>>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>>>>>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>>>>>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>>>>>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>>>>>>until proved otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current
>>>>>population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?)
>>>>>from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their
>>>>>virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure.  UK is not Scotland.
>>>>
>>>Exactly, so why did you claim that the population of the UK was
>>>introduced when to say so is, to use your own words, a blatant lie?
>>
>>Because they have been shown not to be indigenous.
>>
>Of course they have. They were here 10,000 years ago.

There's scant evidence to support that if you look closely enough and
there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that they have been here
continuously for that time.


>>
>>>>
>>>>>The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK
>>>>>and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's
>>>>>deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Prove it.
>>>>
>>>I don't have to. You do as you are making the claims.
>>
>>Others have made the claims - not me.
>>
>No, you have made the claim. If others did, then produce the evidence.
>

Do your own research.


>>>>
>>>>>And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red
>>>>>squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From the Forestry Commission.   I've told you that before.
>>>>
>>>They can't have read the sources I have, then.
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying they don't know what they're talking about?
>>
>You obviously can't read if you ask that question.

So you think they don't know what they are talking about.


>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>>>>>>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>>>>>>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What claim have I made?
>>>>
>>>That the red squirrel was not continuously here for the last 10,000
>>>years.
>>>
>>
>>No I haven't.  What I've said it that you don't have nay proof they
>>have.  That's entirely different.  So do you have proof they have been
>>here continuously for the past 10,000 years?
>>
>Have you any that they haven't? Because if not, they have.

That is nonsense.  I have no evidence they haven't been here
continuously for 10,000 years but the significant point is that
neither do you and you're claiming they have.


>>
>>>>>>>How much simpler to regard the red squirrel as a native species, which
>>>>>>>has been here continuously for the last 10,000 years, had its population
>>>>>>>slightly boosted from Europe in the 19th century and is now rapidly
>>>>>>>disappearing because of the introduced and definitely non-native grey
>>>>>>>squirrel from North America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This must be the ultimate in your sloppy scientific mind. "How much
>>>>>>simpler" can you really get by using that phrase. So is this the basis
>>>>>>of all the "scientific" nonsense in the fake conservation industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is this what you advise SHN to do?   "Let's make it simple , just call
>>>>>>it native" :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I just can't believe you're so silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I used the word "simpler" purely to make a contrast with your overblown
>>>>>and over-complicated inventions about native and non-native.
>>>>
>>>>No you didn't. Read what you wrote.
>>>>
>>>I have. You didn't understand what I wrote or, as you so often do,
>>>decided to twist the words to suit your warped agenda.
>>>
>>
>>No, Malcolm. That's the Mr Afterthought in you coming out.
>>
>Oh look, Angus's usual wriggle when confronted with the exposure of his 
>dishonesty.
>>

No wriggle whatsoever.


>>>>>The simple
>>>>>fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure, in terms of birth just like the greys.  But you in your views -
>>>>unless you can prove it.
>>>>
>>>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.
>>
>>So you're quite content to accept "facts" without any proof?
>>
>Accepted facts, yes.
>

What's the difference between an accepted fact and a fact?


>>> And before you say that it
>>>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus,
>>>which doesn't include you.
>>>
>>
>>So you've said.
>>
>And will continue to say, just to remind you that your failure to accept 
>facts doesn't matter a jot. Get used to it.
>

So now they're facts rather than "accepted" facts.  None with any
proof to back it up.



>>>>And what about the capercaillie.  Another fake native.  And then
>>>>there's beavers.
>>>>
>>>The capercaillie is a native of Britain.
>>
>>Not the current population.
>>
>The species, Angus.
>

But the imported members of that species are not native and have not
evolved here.

If it is important to conservationists that a species evolves
naturally in Britain to earn its "native species" status here, then it
should be equally important that the same species evolving in a
different natural environment abroad, should not be regarded as
"native" to this country.

So the whole concept is ridiculous.


>>>The beaver will soon be again.
>>>That's great news, Angus. You should be rejoicing at the return of an
>>>extinct species.
>>>
>>
>>If it's extinct, where is it coming from?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>>>>>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>>>>>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>>>>>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>>>>>>this is having some success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>>>>>>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>>>>>>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>>>>>>years to come?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged -
>>>>>witness what is happening in Northumberland.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you don't know.
>>>>
>>>Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel
>>>from extinction.
>>
>>The red squirrel is nowhere near "extinct" and it's emotive nonsense
>>to claim it is if its just not present in Britain.
>>
>Your claim that every grey squirrel born in Britain is "native" is 
>nonsense, though whether you are really emotional about them being 
>killed is difficult to discern. Somehow your support for animal rights 
>doesn't always ring true.

All squirrels born in this country are natives of this country - just
as we are.



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, 2 Feb 2008 10:40:11 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:54:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One
>>>>>>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is
>>>>>>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as
>>>>>>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an
>>>>>>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who in Bristol University has opposed it?
>>>>>
>>>>Please produce a statement from Bristol University, not from one
>>>>professor or even one department, that supports your claim or, in
>>>>future, be more honest about what you claim.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're avoiding the question.
>>>
>>No, I'm not.
>>
>
>Of course you are.  I asked you who in Bristol University opposed it
>and you can't say.
>
You stated "That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has 
pointed out."

Instead of admitting that it wasn't the whole University who pointed it 
out, you have wriggled in your usual dishonest fashion when found out 
making claims you can't sustain. So, produce your evidence that it was 
the whole University, or withdraw your claim.

>>>>>>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>>>>>>elsewhere and are paying the price of being in an unsuitable habitat.
>>>>>>>Who knows?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Balderdash. The red squirrels have evolved here.
>>>>>
>>>>>What proof do you have of that?
>>>>>
>>>>The species has been here for more than 10,000 years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's not proof.   That's a meaningless statement absent any
>>>evidence.
>>>
>>All the evidence is there if you know where to look for it.
>>
>
>It's not there.   It's pure speculation.- nothing more.
>
So you don't have the evidence that the species wasn't here 
continuously. I didn't think so.
>
>>>
>>>>>>Your claim that the
>>>>>>whole UK population was introduced is a blatant lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your claim that they've been here continuously since the land bridge
>>>>>is a blatant lie.  Because you don't know that.
>>>>>
>>>>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.
>>>
>>>A "fact" has to be backed up by proof - and you've none.  So you're
>>>lying.
>>>
>>Continuing to call me a liar doesn't make it true. You don't recognise
>>any fact that doesn't fit your warped agenda.
>>
>
>But you are lying, Malcolm.   You've absolutely no proof whatsoever
>that red squirrels have been continuously in Britain for 10,000 years.
>
If you don't think they were, produce your evidence. You're the one 
making that claim, but so far you haven't produced a single fact to back 
it up.

>>>>And before you say that it
>>>>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus,
>>>>which doesn't include you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Totally irrelevant.
>>>
>>No, Angus, it is wholly relevant because your failure to accept it
>>doesn't matter a jot. Get used to it.
>
>So what proof is there to make it an "accepted fact"?    There's none
>- so the so-called conservationists are just a bunch of crooks lining
>their own pockets with grants to preserve things the have made up to
>be native.
>
Yes, well, your increasing desperation is revealed by your descent to 
libel :-(

>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>>In order to construct his argument, he is as selective with the facts,
>>>>>>>>as usual, i.e. making the claim that the red squirrel was subject to
>>>>>>>>"virtual extermination", or in other words, they were not completely
>>>>>>>>exterminated, which he gets as close to claiming as he can, and then
>>>>>>>>grossly exaggerates the scale of imports from mainland Europe which took
>>>>>>>>place. He also repeats his tired and completely unproven claim that red
>>>>>>>>squirrels were not here continuously for the last 10,000 years. Prove
>>>>>>>>it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
>>>>>>>>until proved otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unlike Scotland, in the UK reds were not completely wiped out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is what you wrote at the start of this thread: "The current
>>>>>>population of red squirrels in the UK was introduced (reintroduced?)
>>>>>>from various parts of Europe around a hundred years ago, following their
>>>>>>virtual extermination by those with forestry interests".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure.  UK is not Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>>Exactly, so why did you claim that the population of the UK was
>>>>introduced when to say so is, to use your own words, a blatant lie?
>>>
>>>Because they have been shown not to be indigenous.
>>>
>>Of course they have. They were here 10,000 years ago.
>
>There's scant evidence to support that if you look closely enough and
>there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that they have been here
>continuously for that time.
>
If you don't think they have, when everyone that matters does, it is up 
to you to produce the evidence to support your claim.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The red squirrel didn't suffer "virtual extermination" throughout the UK
>>>>>>and nor was the "current population" of the UK introduced. That's
>>>>>>deliberately misleading, indeed a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't have to. You do as you are making the claims.
>>>
>>>Others have made the claims - not me.
>>>
>>No, you have made the claim. If others did, then produce the evidence.
>>
>
>Do your own research.
>
I didn't think you could produce it.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And, as a matter of interest, what is your evidence that the red
>>>>>>squirrel ever became extinct in Scotland?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From the Forestry Commission.   I've told you that before.
>>>>>
>>>>They can't have read the sources I have, then.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying they don't know what they're talking about?
>>>
>>You obviously can't read if you ask that question.
>
>So you think they don't know what they are talking about.
>
You obviously still can't read as you've asked the same question again.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>you who's being selective with the facts.  And I have not said they
>>>>>>>weren't continuously here for 10,000 years; I only ask those who say
>>>>>>>they were, for proof - which they don't appear to have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>They don't have to have it. You have to provide proof for your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What claim have I made?
>>>>>
>>>>That the red squirrel was not continuously here for the last 10,000
>>>>years.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No I haven't.  What I've said it that you don't have nay proof they
>>>have.  That's entirely different.  So do you have proof they have been
>>>here continuously for the past 10,000 years?
>>>
>>Have you any that they haven't? Because if not, they have.
>
>That is nonsense.  I have no evidence they haven't been here
>continuously for 10,000 years but the significant point is that
>neither do you and you're claiming they have.
>
See above and produce the evidence for your claim.

>>>>>>The simple
>>>>>>fact is that the red squirrel is native to the UK, as you well know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, in terms of birth just like the greys.  But you in your views -
>>>>>unless you can prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>It is not a lie, it is an accepted fact.
>>>
>>>So you're quite content to accept "facts" without any proof?
>>>
>>Accepted facts, yes.
>>
>
>What's the difference between an accepted fact and a fact?
>
Do your own research.
>
>>>> And before you say that it
>>>>isn't accepted by you, it is accepted by everyone that matters, Angus,
>>>>which doesn't include you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So you've said.
>>>
>>And will continue to say, just to remind you that your failure to accept
>>facts doesn't matter a jot. Get used to it.
>>
>
>So now they're facts rather than "accepted" facts.  None with any
>proof to back it up.
>
You're the one challenging the facts. Produce your supporting evidence.
>
>
>>>>>And what about the capercaillie.  Another fake native.  And then
>>>>>there's beavers.
>>>>>
>>>>The capercaillie is a native of Britain.
>>>
>>>Not the current population.
>>>
>>The species, Angus.
>>
>
>But the imported members of that species are not native and have not
>evolved here.
>
The species is native to Britain. Rejoice that it died out and has been 
re-established, just like the white-tailed eagle and, soon, the beaver.

>If it is important to conservationists that a species evolves
>naturally in Britain to earn its "native species" status here, then it
>should be equally important that the same species evolving in a
>different natural environment abroad, should not be regarded as
>"native" to this country.
>
>So the whole concept is ridiculous.
>
So the whole concept is beyond your comprehension, because you don't 
want to believe anything that doesn't support your blatant 
anti-conservation agenda.

>
>>>>The beaver will soon be again.
>>>>That's great news, Angus. You should be rejoicing at the return of an
>>>>extinct species.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it's extinct, where is it coming from?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fortunately, governments and organisations who actually know something
>>>>>>>>about squirrels are putting necessary resources into trying to save the
>>>>>>>>native red squirrel by preventing the non-native grey squirrel from
>>>>>>>>invading the red's last strongholds. And it is good to read reports that
>>>>>>>>this is having some success.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's another easy option to kill greys but you won't stop them.  But
>>>>>>>that isn't "success".  Other greys will replace them.   And how long
>>>>>>>will it be before the money runs out to continually kill greys for
>>>>>>>years to come?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wait and see. The cordon sanitaire is being successfully enlarged -
>>>>>>witness what is happening in Northumberland.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So you don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>Just rejoice that a great deal is being done to save the red squirrel
>>>>from extinction.
>>>
>>>The red squirrel is nowhere near "extinct" and it's emotive nonsense
>>>to claim it is if its just not present in Britain.
>>>
>>Your claim that every grey squirrel born in Britain is "native" is
>>nonsense, though whether you are really emotional about them being
>>killed is difficult to discern. Somehow your support for animal rights
>>doesn't always ring true.
>
>All squirrels born in this country are natives of this country - just
>as we are.
>
Doesn't work like that, Angus.

What country is Cliff Richard native of? Britain or India?

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:54:53 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:40:11 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:54:33 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:50:10 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has pointed out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, Angus, "Bristol University" has pointed out nothing of the sort. One
>>>>>>>professor at the University has indeed made his views known, but he is
>>>>>>>not "Bristol University". From most people, this could be regarded as
>>>>>>>just lazy shorthand, but in your case it is undoubtedly deliberate in an
>>>>>>>attempt to give greater credence to views you happen to agree with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who in Bristol University has opposed it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Please produce a statement from Bristol University, not from one
>>>>>professor or even one department, that supports your claim or, in
>>>>>future, be more honest about what you claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're avoiding the question.
>>>>
>>>No, I'm not.
>>>
>>
>>Of course you are.  I asked you who in Bristol University opposed it
>>and you can't say.
>>
>You stated "That will be the eventuality, as Bristol University has 
>pointed out."
>
>Instead of admitting that it wasn't the whole University who pointed it 
>out, you have wriggled in your usual dishonest fashion when found out 
>making claims you can't sustain. So, produce your evidence that it was 
>the whole University, or withdraw your claim.

It was a team from BU who did the study.  Not just one person.

If you know anyone from there that disputes it do let us know.

>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps one of the problems is that reds introduced here evolved
>>>>>>>>elsewhere and are paying the price o