Simple Simon or is it Simple Malcolm?

The following was an exchange between Dr Malcolm Ogilvie a "scientific
advisor" to Scottish Natural Heritage and Angus Macmillan.


____________________________

Dr Ogilvie: 
:
"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."

Angus Macmillan:

"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."

__________________________


The above was in response to the following short article, which is
being widely circulated throughout the UK


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 that are 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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>Simple Simon or is it Simple Malcolm?
>
>The following was an exchange between Dr Malcolm Ogilvie a "scientific
>advisor" to Scottish Natural Heritage and Angus Macmillan.
>
Yet more evidence that Angus can't cope with valid criticism of his 
views, and doesn't like having his lies exposed. All he can manage in 
response is childish name calling and deliberate twisting of what I've 
said, further signs of his increasing desperation as he realises that 
despite years of campaigning he hasn't saved a single deer, or more 
recently a single grey squirrel, from being (perfectly legitimately) 
killed.

-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:53:08 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>Simple Simon or is it Simple Malcolm?
>>
>>The following was an exchange between Dr Malcolm Ogilvie a "scientific
>>advisor" to Scottish Natural Heritage and Angus Macmillan.
>>
>Yet more evidence that Angus can't cope with valid criticism of his 
>views, and doesn't like having his lies exposed. All he can manage in 
>response is childish name calling and deliberate twisting of what I've 
>said, further signs of his increasing desperation as he realises that 
>despite years of campaigning he hasn't saved a single deer, or more 
>recently a single grey squirrel, from being (perfectly legitimately) 
>killed.


I think it is rather funny that you keep putting both feet in your
mouth and then try to blame me :-))

______________________

Simple Simon or is it Simple Malcolm?

Dr Malcolm Ogilvie, Advisor to Scottish National Heritage:

"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."

Angus Macmillan

"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."

_____________________

The above was in response to the following, :which is being widely
circulated.



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 are 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)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:53:08 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>Simple Simon or is it Simple Malcolm?
>>>
>>>The following was an exchange between Dr Malcolm Ogilvie a "scientific
>>>advisor" to Scottish Natural Heritage and Angus Macmillan.
>>>
>>Yet more evidence that Angus can't cope with valid criticism of his
>>views, and doesn't like having his lies exposed. All he can manage in
>>response is childish name calling and deliberate twisting of what I've
>>said, further signs of his increasing desperation as he realises that
>>despite years of campaigning he hasn't saved a single deer, or more
>>recently a single grey squirrel, from being (perfectly legitimately)
>>killed.
>
>
>I think it is rather funny that you keep putting both feet in your
>mouth and then try to blame me :-))
>
>
And, once again, Angus, in his desperation, dishonestly twists words.

My phrase "how much simpler" followed directly on from my saying that 
you had "constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown argument".

-- 
Malcolm

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:58:03 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:53:08 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>Simple Simon or is it Simple Malcolm?
>>>>
>>>>The following was an exchange between Dr Malcolm Ogilvie a "scientific
>>>>advisor" to Scottish Natural Heritage and Angus Macmillan.
>>>>
>>>Yet more evidence that Angus can't cope with valid criticism of his
>>>views, and doesn't like having his lies exposed. All he can manage in
>>>response is childish name calling and deliberate twisting of what I've
>>>said, further signs of his increasing desperation as he realises that
>>>despite years of campaigning he hasn't saved a single deer, or more
>>>recently a single grey squirrel, from being (perfectly legitimately)
>>>killed.
>>
>>
>>I think it is rather funny that you keep putting both feet in your
>>mouth and then try to blame me :-))
>>
>>
>And, once again, Angus, in his desperation, dishonestly twists words.

I'm not twisting any words.
>
>My phrase "how much simpler" followed directly on from my saying that 
>you had "constructed a complicated and needlessly overblown argument".

But it didn't, Malcolm.  It followed directly from you saying: "Prove
it, Angus, and don't ask anyone to prove they *were* here. They were,
until proved otherwise"

So you're back to lying again.


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

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