So what does Angus, and other people who put the lives of introduced 
pests ahead of the native species they are capable to destroying, think 
of this?


http://tinyurl.com/56dg62 - for Forestry Commission press release

and

http://tinyurl.com/356rdy - for Daily Telegraph article

New measures for moth harmful to humans

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 10/03/2008

Emergency measures to stop imports of a moth that affects oak trees and 
can cause severe allergic reactions in humans will be imposed at the end 
of this month, the Forestry Commission has said.

Oak trees imported from any of the EU member states will have to have a 
"passport" confirming that they have been grown in an area that is free 
of infestation from the oak processionary moth.

The decision has been taken by Ministers from England, Scotland and 
Wales following the destruction last year of 700 nests in the London 
boroughs of Richmond and Ealing. The infestation was discovered the 
previous autumn.

Surveyors from the Forestry Commission and the two boroughs are stepping 
up action again this spring as larvae (caterpillars) hatch from any of 
the moths' eggs that survived the winter.

 From April surveyors will also be looking for caterpillars hatching from 
the eggs, and the owners of trees with emerging caterpillars will be 
required to have them treated with the appropriate insecticide.

Any further nests that are found will also require to be destroyed, 
preferably in June, when the larvae congregate in them to pupate before 
emerging as adult moths in July.

Roddie Burgess, head of plant health for the Forestry Commission, said 
the destruction of nests last year had greatly reduced the infestation 
and it was hoped it would now be possible to eradicate the pest.

He added: "The spring, when the caterpillars are emerging from the eggs, 
is our next opportunity to take action. Later in the treatment season we 
will be asking the public to help us by notifying us of any nests or oak 
processionary caterpillars they see so that we can deal with them."


Well, Angus? You've made it clear that you don't support the elimination 
of rats from small islands where they have caused huge damage to nesting 
seabirds, so what is your stance on moths that destroy oak trees?


-- 
Malcolm

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:XFLKDfDOEfIIFwoo@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> So what does Angus, and other people who put the lives of introduced pests 
> ahead of the native species they are capable to destroying, think of this?
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/56dg62 - for Forestry Commission press release
>
> and
>
> http://tinyurl.com/356rdy - for Daily Telegraph article
>
> New measures for moth harmful to humans
>
> By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
> Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 10/03/2008
>
> Emergency measures to stop imports of a moth that affects oak trees and 
> can cause severe allergic reactions in humans will be imposed at the end 
> of this month, the Forestry Commission has said.
>
> Oak trees imported from any of the EU member states will have to have a 
> "passport" confirming that they have been grown in an area that is free of 
> infestation from the oak processionary moth.
>
> The decision has been taken by Ministers from England, Scotland and Wales 
> following the destruction last year of 700 nests in the London boroughs of 
> Richmond and Ealing. The infestation was discovered the previous autumn.
>
> Surveyors from the Forestry Commission and the two boroughs are stepping 
> up action again this spring as larvae (caterpillars) hatch from any of the 
> moths' eggs that survived the winter.
>
> From April surveyors will also be looking for caterpillars hatching from 
> the eggs, and the owners of trees with emerging caterpillars will be 
> required to have them treated with the appropriate insecticide.
>
> Any further nests that are found will also require to be destroyed, 
> preferably in June, when the larvae congregate in them to pupate before 
> emerging as adult moths in July.
>
> Roddie Burgess, head of plant health for the Forestry Commission, said the 
> destruction of nests last year had greatly reduced the infestation and it 
> was hoped it would now be possible to eradicate the pest.
>
> He added: "The spring, when the caterpillars are emerging from the eggs, 
> is our next opportunity to take action. Later in the treatment season we 
> will be asking the public to help us by notifying us of any nests or oak 
> processionary caterpillars they see so that we can deal with them."
>
>
> Well, Angus? You've made it clear that you don't support the elimination 
> of rats from small islands where they have caused huge damage to nesting 
> seabirds, so what is your stance on moths that destroy oak trees?
>
>

I can't speak for Angus, of course, but it seems to me that the initiatives 
being taken against this moth are motivated by (human) public health 
concerns, not the 'non-native' status of the species.

As for it being 'non-native', from what I have read about it, there seems to 
be no dispute that the moth has been expanding its range, quite naturally, 
in a northwards direction, and is now very well established in northern 
France, the Netherlands, and has even been reported in southern Sweden. Is 
it entirely impossible that some 'pioneers' may have made it across the 
Channel on their own wings?

In article , BAC 
 writes
>
>>
>> Well, Angus? You've made it clear that you don't support the elimination
>> of rats from small islands where they have caused huge damage to nesting
>> seabirds, so what is your stance on moths that destroy oak trees?
>>
>>
>
>I can't speak for Angus, of course,

The very idea!

>but it seems to me that the initiatives
>being taken against this moth are motivated by (human) public health
>concerns, not the 'non-native' status of the species.
>
That's not the impression I get from reading the FC website which I 
pointed out:

"The caterpillars are a forestry pest because they feed on oak leaves, 
seriously defoliating the trees. They are also a health problem....."

>As for it being 'non-native', from what I have read about it, there seems to
>be no dispute that the moth has been expanding its range, quite naturally,
>in a northwards direction, and is now very well established in northern
>France, the Netherlands, and has even been reported in southern Sweden. Is
>it entirely impossible that some 'pioneers' may have made it across the
>Channel on their own wings?
>
Males perhaps, but females are reported to be too heavy to make more 
than short distance flights - maximum 3km and usually much less.


-- 
Malcolm

On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:12:30 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>So what does Angus, and other people who put the lives of introduced 
>pests ahead of the native species they are capable to destroying, think 
>of this?


I think anything you say can be discounted as nonsense. You are a
liar, fake, cheat, fraud and CONservation hooligan who thinks
conservation is about milking it for all it's worth in financial gain.

You alone have pretty much destroyed any credibility the RSPB, BTO,
SNH etc had.

You are a leech, a canker on society. These days we just treat you as
a joke and with the contempt you deserve.

You copied, some would say stole, Konters excellent book on grebes and
claimed it as your own work. When exposed as a liar, cheat and fraud
you went on to bully, cajole, intimidate and threaten your victims.

it's all here http://tinyurl.com/22yuwg  and on
http://tinyurl.com/3npxvm despite your desperate attempts at hiding
your posting history from Google. Just like your pervert friend and
pro hunt bully Derek moody!

We all know why you are ashamed of your lies and bullying. Luckily
Google is our friend.

Hope that helps?

On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:54:19 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , BAC 
> writes
>>
>>>
>>> Well, Angus? You've made it clear that you don't support the elimination
>>> of rats from small islands where they have caused huge damage to nesting
>>> seabirds, so what is your stance on moths that destroy oak trees?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I can't speak for Angus, of course,
>
>The very idea!
>
>>but it seems to me that the initiatives
>>being taken against this moth are motivated by (human) public health
>>concerns, not the 'non-native' status of the species.
>>
>That's not the impression I get from reading the FC website which I 
>pointed out:
>
>"The caterpillars are a forestry pest because they feed on oak leaves, 
>seriously defoliating the trees. They are also a health problem....."
>
>>As for it being 'non-native', from what I have read about it, there seems to
>>be no dispute that the moth has been expanding its range, quite naturally,
>>in a northwards direction, and is now very well established in northern
>>France, the Netherlands, and has even been reported in southern Sweden. Is
>>it entirely impossible that some 'pioneers' may have made it across the
>>Channel on their own wings?
>>
>Males perhaps, but females are reported to be too heavy to make more 
>than short distance flights - maximum 3km and usually much less.

Makes you wonder how Lepidoptera ever got anywhere in the world or
perhaps you just think we don't know about wind travel etc?