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.


--


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

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.

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

>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.

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" :-))

-- 
Malcolm