On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:07:15 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:48:23 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:23:23 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:14:20 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:11:27 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm sure that is the case.  Any excuse for "managing" populations
>>>>>>>>>>seems to be the order of the day:-(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But I don't believe that the deliberate killing of any wildlife or
>>>>>>>>>>feral individual because of its "paper status" is justified.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We should learn to live with them just as we do the weather.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So do you believe that any rats from the wrecked Spanish trawler which
>>>>>>>>>manage to land on St Kilda should not be killed and that the 140,000
>>>>>>>>>pairs of puffins nesting there should "learn to live with" them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you want an Island free of rats and are considering trapping them
>>>>>>>>they could be relocated .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leaving aside where the rats would be relocated to, unless you are you
>>>>>>>are volunteering your house or garden. Are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rats don't worry me.  If you don't "feed" them they'll not stay
>>>>>>around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Right, then that's the relocation site sorted!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If trapping is not sufficiently certain (apart from it being
>>>>>>>impracticable in such a habitat) and poisoning also has to be carried
>>>>>>>out, do you believe that any rats from the wrecked Spanish trawler which
>>>>>>>manage to land on St Kilda should not be killed and that the 140,000
>>>>>>>pairs of puffins nesting there should "learn to live with" them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well seabirds do on the mainland so why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Please tell me where 140,000 pairs of Puffins nest on the mainland.
>>>>
>>>>Nowhere I would think because they would have predators.
>>>>
>>>Correct.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On the other hand.  These rats, if there are any,  are arriving
>>>>>>>>naturally in two respects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. They've hitched a ride without any assistance from man
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How can a journey on a boat be "without any assistance from man"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They didn't get assistance to board the vessel; they did it of their
>>>>>>own accord.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Are you denying that the journey to St Kilda was man-assisted?
>>>>
>>>>See what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>Which doesn't answer my question?
>>>
>>
>>Of course it does.
>>
>So you believe that if any rats have landed on St Kilda, none of them 
>should be killed. Thank you for making that clear.

It's entirely consistent with what I've said for years.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2. The boat is a natural product of mans' evolution even although it's
>>>>>>>>an artificial method of travel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So what? The rats will have travelled there 100% aided by man, being
>>>>>>>quite unable to reach the islands unaided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But it's quite natural for them to travel by man - as I've already
>>>>>>pointed out.  Lots of organisms travel by man unaided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So what?
>>>>
>>>>It's quite natural.
>>>>
>>>What is? Travelling onboard a ship?
>>>
>>
>>Of course.  We have evolved to manufacture and use machines.  Are you
>>denying that?
>>
>Are you claiming that because man has made ships, it is absolutely OK 
>that rats should hitch a lift to St Kilda?
>

It's just as natural as not doing so.  Lots of organisms hitch rides.
Why should rats be any different?


>>
>>>>
>>>>>The point at issue is that St Kilda is free of rats and has the
>>>>>largest concentration of nesting seabirds in the UK, at over half a
>>>>>million pairs, and one reason for that is the absence of rats. If man
>>>>>has been careless enough to allow some to reach the islands, then they
>>>>>need to be eliminated as quickly as possible.
>>>>
>>>>The rats on Canna didn't kill off all the seabirds.
>>>
>>>They killed off all the burrow-nesting Manx Shearwaters and caused
>>>severe declines in the numbers of other species.
>>>
>>
>>So they didn't kill off all the seabirds.
>>
>Who said that they did? I didn't.

So?


>>
>>
>>>>And there's so
>>>>many puffins on St Kilda the chicks are dying from starvation.
>>>>  So if you're going to tell a story try telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>Look who's talking.
>>>
>>
>>I am. And you're not telling the full story. Puffins have been in
>>decline of St Kilda for years.
>>
>Have they? Would you like to produce the figures for that claim?

Of course they have.  It's in the public domain.



>>
>>>There have been problems of starving seabird chicks from many colonies,
>>>including especially the North Sea. Much of the blame can be placed on
>>>man's over-fishing.
>>
>>So there's too many for their resources.
>>
>No. There's been some starvation of chicks.
>

Lack of resources.


>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Even the steelwork is a product of man's evolution, Malcolm :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it's all part of nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So you think building steel ships is "part of nature"?
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is.  Everything we do is a product of our evolution.  The
>>>>houses we build are just as natural as birds nests
>>>>
>>>A point of view I don't share in the context of rats getting to St Kilda
>>>by ship. There's nothing natural in them doing that.
>>>
>>
>>I don't care whether you share it or not.  It's a fact.
>>
>It's also a fact that rats may have hitched a lift to St Kilda and must 
>be eliminated to prevent untold damage to the nesting seabirds.

Sloppy science again.  Read what you wrote.


>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You should know that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps instead of these attempts at diversionary tactics you would like
>>>>>>>to answer my question. Or daren't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No diversion at all.  Birds put up with rats on the mainland all the
>>>>>>time.
>>>>>
>>>>>We're discussing Puffins. Please list all mainland UK sites with Puffins
>>>>>together with their numbers, and then compare them with the number
>>>>>nesting on offshore islands. In this way, you might begin to realise why
>>>>>Puffins are almost exclusively island nesters.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  In conservation speak you could say that the puffins are too
>>>>>>numerous on St Kilda as they have no predators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, you couldn't, because that is neither conservation speak nor true.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it's true.  There's so many they're starving and only 40% of
>>>>eggs are hatching.
>>>>
>>>Nothing to do with rats.
>>
>>Sure. So there's too many for their resources.
>>
>The resources aren't "theirs".

It's as much theirs as any others who share it.


>>
>>>>
>>>>>Indeed, it is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>No it's not, see above
>>>>
>>>>>You keep going on about animals being
>>>>>controlled by their habitat and their predators. Well, that's exactly
>>>>>what happens with the Puffins on St Kilda.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure, they're short of food, so the population will drop.
>>>>
>>>Nothing to do with rats. If a population is dropping, the last thing it
>>>needs is the introduction of a previously-absent ground predator and
>>>very obviously, to everyone but you, all possible steps must be taken to
>>>prevent that.
>>
>>Why?   Because puffins are tourist attractions and rats are not?
>>
>Puffins on St Kilda are not a tourist attraction. 

Liar http://www.kildacruises.co.uk/wildlife/

>But then you've never 
>been there have you?

Wouldn't waste my time.



>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now, to get back to my question, which you are studiously avoiding
>>>>>answering, presumably because you daren't:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not avoiding anything
>>>>
>>>Then answer my question.
>>
>>I have.
>>
>So you believe that if any rats have landed on St Kilda, none of them 
>should be killed. Thank you for making that clear.

You're repeating yourself..


>
>
>>>
>>>>>If trapping is not sufficiently certain (apart from it being
>>>>>impracticable in such a habitat) and poisoning also has to be carried
>>>>>out, do you believe that any rats from the wrecked Spanish trawler which
>>>>>manage to land on St Kilda should not be killed and that the 140,000
>>>>>pairs of puffins nesting there should "learn to live with" them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I do not believe they should be killed.  Poisoning can kill non target
>>>>animals as well.
>>>>
>>>Such as?
>>>
>>
>>Other birds can by poisoned by feeding off carcases.
>>
>What other birds, Angus?
>

Whatever birds happen to feed off poisoned carcases.



>>>>
>>>>Now you answer this question.
>>>>
>>>>How many puffins are there on Ailsa Craig after six years since rats
>>>>were poisoned?
>>>>
>>>Do your own research!
>>
>>Two  I've heard it said :-(
>>
>And I suppose you believed what you heard because it suited your agenda 
>to do so. And nor did you even think of checking did you?

Well?  How many?

>
>>And from what I can see the RSPB who took over the rock don't even
>>mention them on them website.
>
>"From what you can see". What about checking some facts, Angus, just for 
>a change.
>

Theyt don't.


>> They're so stuck they even have a photo
>>of a puffin from the Isle of May.
>>
>>So what was all the fuss about?
>>
>>Grant sucking; no doubt :-((
>>
>No, Angus, it was to bring back the Puffin as a breeding species on 
>Ailsa Craig, which has been done successfully.

Two?

So what greater right have puffins to breed than rats?




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

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

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:52:53 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:07:15 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:48:23 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you answer this question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many puffins are there on Ailsa Craig after six years since rats
>>>>>>were poisoned?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do your own research!
>>>>
>>>>Two  I've heard it said :-(
>>>>
>>>And I suppose you believed what you heard because it suited your agenda
>>>to do so. And nor did you even think of checking did you?
>>
>>Well?  How many?
>>
>You should have done some research instead of just relying on what you 
>"heard".
>
>>>
>>>>And from what I can see the RSPB who took over the rock don't even
>>>>mention them on them website.
>>>
>>>"From what you can see". What about checking some facts, Angus, just for
>>>a change.
>>>
>>
>>Theyt don't.
>>
>You should have done some research instead of just relying on "from what 
>you can see".
>>
>>>> They're so stuck they even have a photo
>>>>of a puffin from the Isle of May.
>>>>
>>>>So what was all the fuss about?
>>>>
>>>>Grant sucking; no doubt :-((
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, it was to bring back the Puffin as a breeding species on
>>>Ailsa Craig, which has been done successfully.
>>
>>Two?
>>
>No, Angus, there were 80 pairs there in 2006, which considering the 
>first pair only bred in 2002 is a terrific result.
>
>I am delighted to be able to give you some actual facts in place of your 
>over-reliance on "I've heard" and "from what I can see", when you 
>unquestioningly accepted figures which suited your agenda but which 
>happened to be very far from the truth.
>
>I hope you will join in congratulating the conservationists who have 
>achieved this amazingly successful outcome.

How can it be a successful outcome when an artificially sanitised
environment has resulted in puffin mortality due to starvation in
excess of 45%!!

A clear example of CONservation hooligans, messing around with nature
based on Nazi principles, creating more problems rather than solving
any!

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PUFFIN POPULATION

http://www.shiantisles.net/nat_hist/nh01.html

In 1970 there were, on the Shiants, close to 200 pairs each of Herring
Gulls Larus argentatus and Great Black-backed Gulls L. rnarinus. Both
species steal the food being carried by Puffins to their chicks, but
only Great Black-backed Gulls were observed to kill and eat adult
Puffins. Of the 200 pairs of Great Black-backed Gulls, only about 50
take adult Puffins, as shown by the presence of Puffin carcases in
their terri­tories. During July 1971 the mean rate at which Puffin
carcases were brought to ten Great Black-backed Gull territories on
Dun, St Kilda, was found to be 0.78 Puffins per territory per day
(pers. obs,). The number of Puffin carcases on the Shiants suggests a
lower rate of predation than on Dun. If 50 pairs of Great Black-backed
Gulls kill adult Puffins at the rate of 0.5 Puffins per pair per day,
then during the Puffins' breeding season of roughly 120 days, when
they are most at risk from predation by gulls, some 3,000 adult
Puffins may be killed. Such a figure, though speculative, is not so
high as to suggest that predation by gulls is the sole factor
responsible for the decline of the Puffin on the Shiants.

Rats, both black and brown, Rattus rattus and R. norvegicus, are found
on the Shiants, having reached the islands in 1900 following a
shipwreck on the Galtachean (N. Nicolson in litt.). Drawing on
evidence from other Puffin colonies, such as Ailsa Craig, Lockley
(1953) implicates rats in the decline of Puffins on the Shiants. In
view of uncertainty as to when the decline began, this cannot be
considered proven. We can offer no observations on interactions
between rats and Puffins.

SUMMARY

There has been a steep decline in the Puffin Fratercula arctica
population of the Shiant Islands, Outer Hebrides, during the present
century, though when this began is uncertain. Counting methods
developed by Cambridge University parties in the summers of 1970 and
1971 are described and the results suggest a 20% drop in the
population between the two years. The reasons for the decline are not
known.

REFERENCES

HARVIE-BROWN, J. A. & T. E. BUCKLEY. 1888 A Vertebrate fauna of the
Outer Hebrides. Edinburgh. 

LOCKLEY, R. M. 1953. Puffins. London.

 

M. de L. Brooke, Gadley House, Manchester Road, Buxton, Derbyshire.

--


Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or 
'hilarious', it usually isn't? 





















































































Cut Here............................................

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:52:53 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:07:15 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:48:23 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you answer this question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many puffins are there on Ailsa Craig after six years since rats
>>>>>>were poisoned?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do your own research!
>>>>
>>>>Two  I've heard it said :-(
>>>>
>>>And I suppose you believed what you heard because it suited your agenda
>>>to do so. And nor did you even think of checking did you?
>>
>>Well?  How many?
>>
>You should have done some research instead of just relying on what you 
>"heard".
>

Spill it out , Malcolm.  How many pairs are there now on AC?

>>>
>>>>And from what I can see the RSPB who took over the rock don't even
>>>>mention them on them website.
>>>
>>>"From what you can see". What about checking some facts, Angus, just for
>>>a change.
>>>
>>
>>Theyt don't.
>>
>You should have done some research instead of just relying on "from what 
>you can see".

>>
>>>> They're so stuck they even have a photo
>>>>of a puffin from the Isle of May.
>>>>
>>>>So what was all the fuss about?
>>>>
>>>>Grant sucking; no doubt :-((
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, it was to bring back the Puffin as a breeding species on
>>>Ailsa Craig, which has been done successfully.

Of course it would be grant sucking.  

>>
>>Two?
>>
>No, Angus, there were 80 pairs there in 2006, which considering the 
>first pair only bred in 2002 is a terrific result.

So how much did it cost the taxpayer?  

>
>I am delighted to be able to give you some actual facts in place of your 
>over-reliance on "I've heard" and "from what I can see", when you 
>unquestioningly accepted figures which suited your agenda but which 
>happened to be very far from the truth.

>
>I hope you will join in congratulating the conservationists who have 
>achieved this amazingly successful outcome.


So why should one species have preference over another to breed?


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

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

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:56:38 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:
>>>I am delighted to be able to give you some actual facts in place of your
>>>over-reliance on "I've heard" and "from what I can see", when you
>>>unquestioningly accepted figures which suited your agenda but which
>>>happened to be very far from the truth.
>>
>>>
>>>I hope you will join in congratulating the conservationists who have
>>>achieved this amazingly successful outcome.
>>
>>
>>So why should one species have preference over another to breed?
>>
>Because there is international agreement to try and save native species 
>which are threatened by non-natives.

Drawn up and pushed by CONservation hooligans the RSPB. Scapegoating
alien species has nothing to do with saving native wildlife.
Slaughtering rats, ruddy ducks, grey squirrels has not had any impact
on declining target species. In fact as can be seen with the puffins
the obsessive quest to push them from 400k to 1.5m in a fragile
environment where already 45% are dying of starvation is ludicrous in
the extreme!

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:56:38 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:52:53 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:07:15 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:48:23 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now you answer this question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How many puffins are there on Ailsa Craig after six years since rats
>>>>>>>>were poisoned?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do your own research!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Two  I've heard it said :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>And I suppose you believed what you heard because it suited your agenda
>>>>>to do so. And nor did you even think of checking did you?
>>>>
>>>>Well?  How many?
>>>>
>>>You should have done some research instead of just relying on what you
>>>"heard".
>>>
>>
>>Spill it out , Malcolm.  How many pairs are there now on AC?
>>
>You could have done your own research and discovered there were far more 
>than two. Or perhaps you did and decided you didn't want to know what a 
>success it has been.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And from what I can see the RSPB who took over the rock don't even
>>>>>>mention them on them website.
>>>>>
>>>>>"From what you can see". What about checking some facts, Angus, just for
>>>>>a change.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Theyt don't.
>>>>
>>>You should have done some research instead of just relying on "from what
>>>you can see".
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> They're so stuck they even have a photo
>>>>>>of a puffin from the Isle of May.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what was all the fuss about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Grant sucking; no doubt :-((
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, Angus, it was to bring back the Puffin as a breeding species on
>>>>>Ailsa Craig, which has been done successfully.
>>
>>Of course it would be grant sucking.
>>
>That's an interesting phrase "grant sucking". It could only have been 
>thought up by a sucker :-)
>

Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse; he can give
it but can't take it.   He frequently abuses me by calling me a liar,
twister, ignorant, stupid etc., because I don't agree with his fake
conservation opinions but when he makes obvious blunders he can't cope
with personal criticism using similar abuse back at him.  He seems to
particularly dislike the Dr Thick label.

He tries to claim that this amounts to my surrender, which is patently
not the case, but seems too dim to understand that by his own argument
he has often already surrendered himself.  Such a claim shows a
befuddled mind that is incapable of logical thought and therefore
justifies the labels attached to him.

He has great difficulty in coping with reasoned argument and
mistakenly thinks that his opinions should go unquestioned and that
any other opinions are worthless.  


>>>>
>>>>Two?
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, there were 80 pairs there in 2006, which considering the
>>>first pair only bred in 2002 is a terrific result.
>>
>>So how much did it cost the taxpayer?
>>
>Look it up.
>

Can't be bothered but it will have cost the taxpayer plenty.


>>>
>>>I am delighted to be able to give you some actual facts in place of your
>>>over-reliance on "I've heard" and "from what I can see", when you
>>>unquestioningly accepted figures which suited your agenda but which
>>>happened to be very far from the truth.
>>
>>>
>>>I hope you will join in congratulating the conservationists who have
>>>achieved this amazingly successful outcome.
>>
>>
>>So why should one species have preference over another to breed?
>>
>Because there is international agreement to try and save native species 
>which are threatened by non-natives.
>
>Cue Angus's major hang-up about "native" and "non-native" :-))


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". 




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

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

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:57:19 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:56:38 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>>
>>>>Of course it would be grant sucking.
>>>>
>>>That's an interesting phrase "grant sucking". It could only have been
>>>thought up by a sucker :-)
>>>
>>
>>Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse; he can give
>>it but can't take it.
>
>Angus Macmillan just has one great problem. No-one takes any notice of 
>his whinging about conservation or non-native species.
>
>He's also desperately disappointed that his belief that only two pairs 
>of Puffins had returned to Ailsa Craig following the extermination of 
>the rats was out  by a factor of 40, making the project a resounding 
>success something he can't bring himself to admit.
>

It stands to reason if you eliminate the competitors or predators, the
chosen species will benefit.   That's the Nazi way of thinking.


>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So why should one species have preference over another to breed?
>>>>
>>>Because there is international agreement to try and save native species
>>>which are threatened by non-natives.
>>>
>>>Cue Angus's major hang-up about "native" and "non-native" :-))
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>Your use of the word "evolving" is the one causing you problems. 

Not in the slightest , Malcolm.  .

>And I 
>don't think you know enough about similarities and differences in "the 
>environment" for you to make the claims you do.
>

You "think" a lot of things and most of them are prejudiced and wrong.

>>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".
>>
>Fallacious is a good word and aptly describes your paragraph above.
>

If they have been introduced in the first place you would call them
"alien"  

>I see from the media that work has already started on St Kilda to see if 
>rats have landed from the wrecked ship. If they have, they will be 
>trapped and killed, so I assume that as you obviously believe very 
>strongly that they should not be killed you will be offering to pay for 
>them to be translocated and released in your garden, won't you?
>It will make some fine headlines for your "cause" :-))


It's not my island that puffins are starving on.  It belongs to the
National Trust.   They should pay for it themselves - and not the
taxpayer.





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

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

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:49:35 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:57:19 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see from the media that work has already started on St Kilda to see if
>>>rats have landed from the wrecked ship. If they have, they will be
>>>trapped and killed, so I assume that as you obviously believe very
>>>strongly that they should not be killed you will be offering to pay for
>>>them to be translocated and released in your garden, won't you?
>>>It will make some fine headlines for your "cause" :-))
>>
>>
>>It's not my island that puffins are starving on.  It belongs to the
>>National Trust.   They should pay for it themselves - and not the
>>taxpayer.
>>
>I haven't seen a report that says they aren't paying for it themselves. 
>However, while they may own the islands, the designations of double 
>World Heritage Site, National Scenic Area, Site of Special Scientific 
>Interest, Special Protection Area,  Special Area of Conservation, UNESCO 
>Biosphere Reserve, Scheduled Ancient Monument, Geological Review Site 
>and Marine Conservation Area mean that, like a Grade 1 listed building, 
>there can be grant aid available to help maintain the features covered 
>by the designations, which is only right and proper.

One big fat gravy train. Add to that the news that the CONservation
hooligans are sending out an all expenses paid adventure trip for a
few *select* rat catchers at the tax payers expense on an adventure
trip of a lifetime to St Kilda to find the proverbial needle in a
haystack. Talk about feathering your own nest.

>Also, every right-minded person will be hoping that there are no rats, 
>but if there are that they will be exterminated as quickly as possible.

Only idiots like you would have that mentality, though it's worth
noting not even the CONservation hooligans dare approach you to
participate any more these days!

The isolation must be getting to you.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:49:35 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:57:19 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see from the media that work has already started on St Kilda to see if
>>>rats have landed from the wrecked ship. If they have, they will be
>>>trapped and killed, so I assume that as you obviously believe very
>>>strongly that they should not be killed you will be offering to pay for
>>>them to be translocated and released in your garden, won't you?
>>>It will make some fine headlines for your "cause" :-))
>>
>>
>>It's not my island that puffins are starving on.  It belongs to the
>>National Trust.   They should pay for it themselves - and not the
>>taxpayer.
>>
>I haven't seen a report that says they aren't paying for it themselves. 
>However, while they may own the islands, the designations of double 
>World Heritage Site, National Scenic Area, Site of Special Scientific 
>Interest, Special Protection Area,  Special Area of Conservation, UNESCO 
>Biosphere Reserve, Scheduled Ancient Monument, Geological Review Site 
>and Marine Conservation Area mean that, like a Grade 1 listed building, 
>there can be grant aid available to help maintain the features covered 
>by the designations, which is only right and proper.
>
>Also, every right-minded person will be hoping that there are no rats, 
>but if there are that they will be exterminated as quickly as possible.


Hitler probably said something like that about the Jews.


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)