On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:28:35 +0000, Malcolm 
wrote:

>Puffins in serious decline due to lack of food (sand eels etc) approx 40/50% lost due to starvation. 
>Predation by other seabirds is significant and *normal* nature looks after itself.
> Yet we have been misled in blaming rats. Gulls alone predated over 3000 puffin
> chicks on one island, yet CONservation hooliganism has ensured we have wasted
> circa £54,760 per km2 slaughtering rats in a scapegoat exercise when the millions 
>could have been spent on genuine conservation. 
>That's a cost to the tax payer of around £20 per puffin! 
>
>Many seabirds are in serious decline with insufficient food to go round 
>due to over fishing etc, yet the CONservation hooligans seek to increase 
>breeding of puffins from 428,000 pairs to 1,750,000 pairs. 
>Just where is the food going to come from for the increase in an already 
>fragile environment?
>
>One things for sure, as long as we have CONservation hooliganism we will never 
>have any money for genuine conservation.
>

Add to that £7million wasted in slaughtering the UK ruddy duck
population, or rather trying, as total extermination would never work.

The waste must be running into billions over the last few decades.
Imagine what could have been done with that money.

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 :-)

>>>
>>>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.

>>
>>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" :-))

-- 
Malcolm