Dear Sir

Fake "native" introductions

Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
"native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.

The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
to tourism.

The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.


Yours faithfully



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 9 Feb, 17:11, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Sir
>
> Fake "native" introductions
>
> Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
> evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
> lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
> "native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.
>
> The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
> squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
> to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
> deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
> to tourism.
>
> The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
> humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Angus Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.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)

The whole concept is flawed, depending as it does on a false
distinction between humans and nature. The only worthwhile
classification, however, is this: which species bring a benefit
(economic, aesthetic, whatever) to humans? Toads are unimportant
unless we want them around for some human purpose. Ditto grey
squirrels and every other species. Nothing else counts. How could it?
To matter means only to matter to humans. How could it mean anything
else?
--

Malcolm Ogilvie

In article 
, 
"MAOgilvie@indaal.co.uk"  writes
>On 9 Feb, 17:11, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> Dear Sir
>>
>> Fake "native" introductions
>>
>> Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
>> evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
>> lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
>> "native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.
>>
>> The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
>> squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
>> to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
>> deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
>> to tourism.
>>
>> The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
>> humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.
>>
>> Yours faithfully
>>
>> Angus 
>>Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.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)
>
>The whole concept is flawed, depending as it does on a false
>distinction between humans and nature. The only worthwhile
>classification, however, is this: which species bring a benefit
>(economic, aesthetic, whatever) to humans? Toads are unimportant
>unless we want them around for some human purpose. Ditto grey
>squirrels and every other species. Nothing else counts. How could it?
>To matter means only to matter to humans. How could it mean anything
>else?
>--
>
>Malcolm Ogilvie

I didn't write the above as I do not have a gmail address. Note also the 
deliberate mis-spelling of my surname in the address.


-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:10:08 -0800 (PST), "MAOgilvie@indaal.co.uk"
 wrote:

>On 9 Feb, 17:11, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> Dear Sir
>>
>> Fake "native" introductions
>>
>> Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
>> evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
>> lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
>> "native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.
>>
>> The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
>> squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
>> to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
>> deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
>> to tourism.
>>
>> The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
>> humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.
>>
>> Yours faithfully
>>
>> Angus Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.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)
>
>The whole concept is flawed, depending as it does on a false
>distinction between humans and nature. The only worthwhile
>classification, however, is this: which species bring a benefit
>(economic, aesthetic, whatever) to humans? Toads are unimportant
>unless we want them around for some human purpose. Ditto grey
>squirrels and every other species. Nothing else counts. How could it?
>To matter means only to matter to humans. How could it mean anything
>else?


Gosh!  You've changed your tune, Makcolm.


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 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:41:15 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article 
>, 
>"MAOgilvie@indaal.co.uk"  writes
>>On 9 Feb, 17:11, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Dear Sir
>>>
>>> Fake "native" introductions
>>>
>>> Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
>>> evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
>>> lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
>>> "native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.
>>>
>>> The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
>>> squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
>>> to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
>>> deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
>>> to tourism.
>>>
>>> The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
>>> humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.
>>>
>>> Yours faithfully
>>>
>>> Angus 
>>>Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.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)
>>
>>The whole concept is flawed, depending as it does on a false
>>distinction between humans and nature. The only worthwhile
>>classification, however, is this: which species bring a benefit
>>(economic, aesthetic, whatever) to humans? Toads are unimportant
>>unless we want them around for some human purpose. Ditto grey
>>squirrels and every other species. Nothing else counts. How could it?
>>To matter means only to matter to humans. How could it mean anything
>>else?
>>--
>>
>>Malcolm Ogilvie
>
>I didn't write the above as I do not have a gmail address. Note also the 
>deliberate mis-spelling of my surname in the address.


I just love it when you get all defensive, Malcolm.

Are they going to boot you out of SNH in March?

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 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:41:15 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article
>>,
>>"MAOgilvie@indaal.co.uk"  writes
>>>On 9 Feb, 17:11, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> Dear Sir
>>>>
>>>> Fake "native" introductions
>>>>
>>>> Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
>>>> evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
>>>> lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
>>>> "native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.
>>>>
>>>> The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
>>>> squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
>>>> to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
>>>> deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
>>>> to tourism.
>>>>
>>>> The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
>>>> humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.
>>>>
>>>> Yours faithfully
>>>>
>>>> Angus
>>>>Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.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)
>>>
>>>The whole concept is flawed, depending as it does on a false
>>>distinction between humans and nature. The only worthwhile
>>>classification, however, is this: which species bring a benefit
>>>(economic, aesthetic, whatever) to humans? Toads are unimportant
>>>unless we want them around for some human purpose. Ditto grey
>>>squirrels and every other species. Nothing else counts. How could it?
>>>To matter means only to matter to humans. How could it mean anything
>>>else?
>>>--
>>>
>>>Malcolm Ogilvie
>>
>>I didn't write the above as I do not have a gmail address. Note also the
>>deliberate mis-spelling of my surname in the address.
>
>
>I just love it when you get all defensive, Malcolm.
>
>Are they going to boot you out of SNH in March?
>
What on earth is defensive about pointing out that some arsehole is 
trying to make out that I'm posting messages that I'm not?

-- 
Malcolm

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:10:08 -0800 (PST), "MAOgilvie@indaal.co.uk"
> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Feb, 17:11, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Dear Sir
>>>
>>> Fake "native" introductions
>>>
>>> Experts tell us that 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, it is not the paper classification of "species" that has
>>> evolved but animals themselves, so there is no justification for
>>> lumping members of this classification together and describing them as
>>> "native" when they have no connection whatsoever to this country.
>>>
>>> The concept of importing animals such as the capercaillie, beaver, red
>>> squirrels etc to replace originals, and calling them "native", seems
>>> to be the product of sloppy scientific thinking at the very least, or
>>> deliberate deception at worst in the interest of their economic value
>>> to tourism.
>>>
>>> The only real "natives" of this country are those animals - including
>>> humans - that are born here and thus native by birthright.
>>>
>>> Yours faithfully
>>>
>>> Angus 
>>>Macmillanwww.roots-of-blood.org.ukwww.killhunting.orgwww.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)
>>
>>The whole concept is flawed, depending as it does on a false
>>distinction between humans and nature. The only worthwhile
>>classification, however, is this: which species bring a benefit
>>(economic, aesthetic, whatever) to humans? Toads are unimportant
>>unless we want them around for some human purpose. Ditto grey
>>squirrels and every other species. Nothing else counts. How could it?
>>To matter means only to matter to humans. How could it mean anything
>>else?
>
>
>Gosh!  You've changed your tune, Makcolm.
>
>
Yes, well, you've just revealed that you're not bright enough to see 
that I didn't write that.

-- 
Malcolm