http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1

Any views?

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:4facda2d8crjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> Any views?
>

Cue Angus - "A plague on both your houses!", or something similar :-)

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:12:40 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
>Any views?

Oh dear pro hunt nuts at war with each other. Shame on you.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:12:40 +0100, Robert Seago
 wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
>Any views?

Bank robbers calling muggers criminals.

One's as bad as the other.

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 , Robert Seago 
 writes
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
>Any views?
>
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a defensive 
attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor poisoning 
or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their 
members are involved.

This is their counter-attack!

-- 
Malcolm

In article <I+ygocCbehTIFwRq@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
   Malcolm  wrote:

> In article , Robert Seago 
>  writes
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
> >
> >Any views?
> >
> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a defensive 
> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor poisoning 
> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their 
> members are involved.

> This is their counter-attack!

Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers saying
this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article <I+ygocCbehTIFwRq@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>   Malcolm  wrote:
>
>> In article , Robert Seago
>>  writes
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>> >
>> >Any views?
>> >
>> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a defensive
>> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor poisoning
>> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
>> members are involved.
>
>> This is their counter-attack!
>
> Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers saying
> this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>

At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that 
conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in 
protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including 
the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use lethal 
control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and most 
gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests. It's 
a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be that 
all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are pests, 
whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species 
(doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to add).

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:05:46 +0100, "BAC"
 wrote:

>
>"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>> In article <I+ygocCbehTIFwRq@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>>   Malcolm  wrote:
>>
>>> In article , Robert Seago
>>>  writes
>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>> >
>>> >Any views?
>>> >
>>> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a defensive
>>> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor poisoning
>>> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
>>> members are involved.
>>
>>> This is their counter-attack!
>>
>> Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers saying
>> this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>
>
>At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that 
>conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in 
>protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including 
>the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use lethal 
>control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and most 
>gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests. It's 
>a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be that 
>all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are pests, 
>whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species 
>(doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to add). 
>

At least the gamekeepers are a trifle more honest.

On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>
> news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>
> >> In article , Robert Seago
> >>  writes
> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> >> >Any views?
>
> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a defensive
> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor poisoning
> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
> >> members are involved.
>
> >> This is their counter-attack!
>
> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers saying
> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>
> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including
> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use lethal
> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and most
> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests. It's
> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be that
> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are pests,
> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species
> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to add).

Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
other, I wouldn't care to comment.

"John M."  wrote in message 
news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>
>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>> >>  writes
>> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>
>> >> >Any views?
>>
>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a 
>> >> defensive
>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor 
>> >> poisoning
>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
>> >> members are involved.
>>
>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>
>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers 
>> > saying
>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>
>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including
>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use 
>> lethal
>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and 
>> most
>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests. 
>> It's
>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be 
>> that
>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are 
>> pests,
>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species
>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to 
>> add).
>
> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
> other, I wouldn't care to comment.

The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of protecting 
or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of so 
doing.

In article , BAC 
 writes
>
>"John M."  wrote in message
>news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>>
>>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>>> >>  writes
>>> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>>
>>> >> >Any views?
>>>
>>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>>> >> defensive
>>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>>> >> poisoning
>>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
>>> >> members are involved.
>>>
>>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>>
>>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers
>>> > saying
>>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>>
>>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including
>>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
>>> lethal
>>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and
>>> most
>>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests.
>>> It's
>>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be
>>> that
>>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are
>>> pests,
>>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species
>>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to
>>> add).
>>
>> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
>> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
>> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
>> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>
>The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of protecting
>or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of so
>doing.
>
But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their 
side and the other doesn't!

-- 
Malcolm

On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> In article , BAC
>  writes
>
>
>
> >"John M."  wrote in message
> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>
> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>
> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
> >>> >>  writes
> >>> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> >>> >> >Any views?
>
> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
> >>> >> defensive
> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
> >>> >> poisoning
> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
> >>> >> members are involved.
>
> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>
> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers
> >>> > saying
> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>
> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including
> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
> >>> lethal
> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and
> >>> most
> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests.
> >>> It's
> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be
> >>> that
> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are
> >>> pests,
> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species
> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to
> >>> add).
>
> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>
> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of protecting
> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of so
> >doing.
>
> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
> side and the other doesn't!

Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?

In article 
, 
John M.  writes
>On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> In article , BAC
>>  writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >"John M."  wrote in message
>> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>
>> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>> >>> >>  writes
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>
>> >>> >> >Any views?
>>
>> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>> >>> >> defensive
>> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>> >>> >> poisoning
>> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
>> >>> >> members are involved.
>>
>> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>
>> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers
>> >>> > saying
>> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>
>> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including
>> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
>> >>> lethal
>> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and
>> >>> most
>> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests.
>> >>> It's
>> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be
>> >>> that
>> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are
>> >>> pests,
>> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species
>> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to
>> >>> add).
>>
>> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
>> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
>> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
>> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>>
>> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of protecting
>> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of so
>> >doing.
>>
>> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
>> side and the other doesn't!
>
>Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
>behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?

I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on 
upholding the law, the other's isn't.

-- 
Malcolm

On Jun 11, 9:31 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> In article
> ,
> John M.  writes
>
>
>
> >On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> In article , BAC
> >>  writes
>
> >> >"John M."  wrote in message
> >> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> >> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> >> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
> >> >>> >>  writes
>
> >> >>> >> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> >> >>> >> >Any views?
>
> >> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
> >> >>> >> defensive
> >> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
> >> >>> >> poisoning
> >> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
> >> >>> >> members are involved.
>
> >> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>
> >> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers
> >> >>> > saying
> >> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>
> >> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
> >> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
> >> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - including
> >> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
> >> >>> lethal
> >> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and
> >> >>> most
> >> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are pests.
> >> >>> It's
> >> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to be
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are
> >> >>> pests,
> >> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured species
> >> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to
> >> >>> add).
>
> >> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
> >> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
> >> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
> >> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
> >> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>
> >> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of protecting
> >> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of so
> >> >doing.
>
> >> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
> >> side and the other doesn't!
>
> >Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
> >behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>
> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
> upholding the law, the other's isn't.

But the law is an ass ;-)

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:YQvso5JVgCUIFwZR@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article 
> , John 
> M.  writes
>>On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>>> In article , BAC
>>>  writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >"John M."  wrote in message
>>> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>>> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>>
>>> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>>> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>>> >>> >>  writes
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>>
>>> >>> >> >Any views?
>>>
>>> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>>> >>> >> defensive
>>> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>>> >>> >> poisoning
>>> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of 
>>> >>> >> their
>>> >>> >> members are involved.
>>>
>>> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>>
>>> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish 
>>> >>> > gamekeepers
>>> >>> > saying
>>> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>>
>>> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>>> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>>> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing - 
>>> >>> including
>>> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
>>> >>> lethal
>>> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them 
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> most
>>> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are 
>>> >>> pests.
>>> >>> It's
>>> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to 
>>> >>> be
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan 
>>> >>> are
>>> >>> pests,
>>> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured 
>>> >>> species
>>> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten 
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> add).
>>>
>>> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>>> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
>>> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few 
>>> >> game
>>> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than 
>>> >> the
>>> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>>>
>>> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of 
>>> >protecting
>>> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of 
>>> >so
>>> >doing.
>>>
>>> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
>>> side and the other doesn't!
>>
>>Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
>>behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>
> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on 
> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>

I don't accept my argument is flawed. 'Upholding the law' isn't the 
cornerstone (basis) of either group's objectives - management for the 
protection and/or enhancement of aspects of the ecosystems under their 
influence is. The law at any point in time is merely one of the factors they 
have to take into account in formulating their policies and deciding their 
actions, along with other matters like cost, public opinion, peer pressure 
and their own consciences. Individuals or groups of people with strong views 
on issues will sometimes conclude that, out of accepting status quo on those 
issues or flouting the law, the latter is the lesser of the two 'evils', and 
hence breaking the law is the 'right thing' for them to do - the Robin Hood 
principle, if you like. I would find it hard to believe anyone who said 
there were no circumstances under which they would ever knowingly break a 
law or contravene a regulation.

On Jun 12, 10:17 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> "Malcolm"  wrote in message
>
> news:YQvso5JVgCUIFwZR@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > , John
> > M.  writes
> >>On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >>> In article , BAC
> >>>  writes
>
> >>> >"John M."  wrote in message
> >>> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> >>> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>
> >>> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >>> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> >>> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>
> >>> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
> >>> >>> >>  writes
>
> >>> >>> >> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> >>> >>> >> >Any views?
>
> >>> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
> >>> >>> >> defensive
> >>> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
> >>> >>> >> poisoning
> >>> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of
> >>> >>> >> their
> >>> >>> >> members are involved.
>
> >>> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>
> >>> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish
> >>> >>> > gamekeepers
> >>> >>> > saying
> >>> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>
> >>> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
> >>> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
> >>> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing -
> >>> >>> including
> >>> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
> >>> >>> lethal
> >>> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them
> >>> >>> and
> >>> >>> most
> >>> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are
> >>> >>> pests.
> >>> >>> It's
> >>> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to
> >>> >>> be
> >>> >>> that
> >>> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan
> >>> >>> are
> >>> >>> pests,
> >>> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured
> >>> >>> species
> >>> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten
> >>> >>> to
> >>> >>> add).
>
> >>> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
> >>> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
> >>> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few
> >>> >> game
> >>> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>
> >>> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of
> >>> >protecting
> >>> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of
> >>> >so
> >>> >doing.
>
> >>> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
> >>> side and the other doesn't!
>
> >>Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
> >>behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>
> > I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
> > upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>
> I don't accept my argument is flawed. 'Upholding the law' isn't the
> cornerstone (basis) of either group's objectives - management for the
> protection and/or enhancement of aspects of the ecosystems under their
> influence is. The law at any point in time is merely one of the factors they
> have to take into account in formulating their policies and deciding their
> actions, along with other matters like cost, public opinion, peer pressure
> and their own consciences. Individuals or groups of people with strong views
> on issues will sometimes conclude that, out of accepting status quo on those
> issues or flouting the law, the latter is the lesser of the two 'evils', and
> hence breaking the law is the 'right thing' for them to do - the Robin Hood
> principle, if you like. I would find it hard to believe anyone who said
> there were no circumstances under which they would ever knowingly break a
> law or contravene a regulation.

Exactly. The problem seems to be how we view the ethos underlying the
behaviour of the two groups, as their activities seem very similar.
Only difference I can detect is that the "gamekeeper" group are less
concerned about the 'quality of death' experienced by fauna they wish
to remove from the system.

Many, non-hunting conservationists seem to empathise with individual
animals more than the hunting types, even though they acknowledge that
to achieve their aims, animals may have to be killed deliberately. Odd-
stories I have heard suggest that some hunters get additional pleasure
from the act of killing, over and above the thrill of the chase. Not
all are this way inclined by any means.

In article 
, 
John M.  writes
>On Jun 11, 9:31 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> In article
>> ,
>> John M.  writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> >> In article , BAC
>> >>  writes
>>
>> >> >"John M."  wrote in message
>> >> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>> >> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>
>> >> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>> >> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>> >> >>> >>  writes
>>
>> >> >>> >> 
>> >> >>> >> 
>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>
>> >> >>> >> >Any views?
>>
>> >> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>> >> >>> >> defensive
>> >> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>> >> >>> >> poisoning
>> >> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
>> >> >>> >> members are involved.
>>
>> >> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>
>> >> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers
>> >> >>> > saying
>> >> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>
>> >> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>> >> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>> >> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing 
>> >> >>>- including
>> >> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
>> >> >>> lethal
>> >> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and
>> >> >>> most
>> >> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species 
>> >> >>>are pests.
>> >> >>> It's
>> >> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view 
>> >> >>>seeming to be
>> >> >>> that
>> >> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are
>> >> >>> pests,
>> >> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt 
>> >> >>>favoured species
>> >> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to
>> >> >>> add).
>>
>> >> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>> >> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
>> >> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
>> >> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
>> >> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>>
>> >> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of 
>> >> >protecting
>> >> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the 
>> >> >means of so
>> >> >doing.
>>
>> >> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
>> >> side and the other doesn't!
>>
>> >Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
>> >behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>>
>> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
>> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>
>But the law is an ass ;-)
>
What all of it?   :-)

-- 
Malcolm

In article , BAC 
 writes
>
>"Malcolm"  wrote in message
>news:YQvso5JVgCUIFwZR@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> In article
>> , John
>> M.  writes
>>>On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>>>> In article , BAC
>>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >"John M."  wrote in message
>>>> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>>>> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>>>> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>>>> >>> >>  writes
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> 
>>>> >>> >> 
>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>>>
>>>> >>> >> >Any views?
>>>>
>>>> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>>>> >>> >> defensive
>>>> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>>>> >>> >> poisoning
>>>> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of
>>>> >>> >> their
>>>> >>> >> members are involved.
>>>>
>>>> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>>>
>>>> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish
>>>> >>> > gamekeepers
>>>> >>> > saying
>>>> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>>>
>>>> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>>>> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>>>> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing -
>>>> >>> including
>>>> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
>>>> >>> lethal
>>>> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> most
>>>> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are
>>>> >>> pests.
>>>> >>> It's
>>>> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming to
>>>> >>> be
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan
>>>> >>> are
>>>> >>> pests,
>>>> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured
>>>> >>> species
>>>> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> add).
>>>>
>>>> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>>>> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
>>>> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few
>>>> >> game
>>>> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>>>>
>>>> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of
>>>> >protecting
>>>> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means of
>>>> >so
>>>> >doing.
>>>>
>>>> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
>>>> side and the other doesn't!
>>>
>>>Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
>>>behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>>
>> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
>> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>>
>
>I don't accept my argument is flawed. 'Upholding the law' isn't the
>cornerstone (basis) of either group's objectives - management for the
>protection and/or enhancement of aspects of the ecosystems under their
>influence is. The law at any point in time is merely one of the factors they
>have to take into account in formulating their policies and deciding their
>actions, along with other matters like cost, public opinion, peer pressure
>and their own consciences. Individuals or groups of people with strong views
>on issues will sometimes conclude that, out of accepting status quo on those
>issues or flouting the law, the latter is the lesser of the two 'evils', and
>hence breaking the law is the 'right thing' for them to do - the Robin Hood
>principle, if you like. I would find it hard to believe anyone who said
>there were no circumstances under which they would ever knowingly break a
>law or contravene a regulation.
>

I thought we were discussing two groups of people. One manages birds and 
animals and uses some (limited) predator control, strictly within the 
law. The other manages birds and animals and also uses predator control. 
However, this group includes some who actually flout the existing law. I 
don't regard people who do that as "ethical".

-- 
Malcolm

On Jun 12, 12:48 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> In article
> ,
> John M.  writes
>
> >On Jun 11, 9:31 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> In article
> >> ,
> >> John M.  writes
>
> >> >On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> >> In article , BAC
> >> >>  writes
>
> >> >> >"John M."  wrote in message
> >> >> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> >> >> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >> >> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> >> >> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
> >> >> >>> >>  writes
>
> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> >> >> >>> >> >Any views?
>
> >> >> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
> >> >> >>> >> defensive
> >> >> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
> >> >> >>> >> poisoning
> >> >> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of their
> >> >> >>> >> members are involved.
>
> >> >> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>
> >> >> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish gamekeepers
> >> >> >>> > saying
> >> >> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>
> >> >> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
> >> >> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
> >> >> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing
> >> >> >>>- including
> >> >> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
> >> >> >>> lethal
> >> >> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them and
> >> >> >>> most
> >> >> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species
> >> >> >>>are pests.
> >> >> >>> It's
> >> >> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view
> >> >> >>>seeming to be
> >> >> >>> that
> >> >> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan are
> >> >> >>> pests,
> >> >> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt
> >> >> >>>favoured species
> >> >> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I hasten to
> >> >> >>> add).
>
> >> >> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
> >> >> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming for
> >> >> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few game
> >> >> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than the
> >> >> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>
> >> >> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of
> >> >> >protecting
> >> >> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the
> >> >> >means of so
> >> >> >doing.
>
> >> >> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
> >> >> side and the other doesn't!
>
> >> >Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
> >> >behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>
> >> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
> >> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>
> >But the law is an ass ;-)
>
> What all of it?   :-)

Well...all the bits I disagree with, certainly ;-)

In article 
, John 
M.  writes
>On Jun 12, 12:48 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> In article
>> ,
>> John M.  writes
>>
>> >On Jun 11, 9:31 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> ,
>> >> John M.  writes
>>
>> >> >On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>> >> >> In article , BAC
>> >> >>  writes
>>
>> >> >> >"John M."  wrote in message
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >>>news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>
>> >> >> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>> >> >> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>> >> >> >>> >>  writes
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> 
>> >> >> >>> >> 
>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> >Any views?
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>> >> >> >>> >> defensive
>> >> >> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>> >> >> >>> >> poisoning
>> >> >> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that 
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> members are involved.
>>
>> >> >> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>
>> >> >> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish 
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > saying
>> >> >> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>
>> >> >> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>> >> >> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
>> >> >> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing
>> >> >> >>>- including
>> >> >> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
>> >> >> >>> lethal
>> >> >> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference 
>> >> >> >>>between them and
>> >> >> >>> most
>> >> >> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species
>> >> >> >>>are pests.
>> >> >> >>> It's
>> >> >> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view
>> >> >> >>>seeming to be
>> >> >> >>> that
>> >> >> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their 
>> >> >> >>>management plan are
>> >> >> >>> pests,
>> >> >> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt
>> >> >> >>>favoured species
>> >> >> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', 
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> add).
>>
>> >> >> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>> >> >> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists 
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or 
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more 
>> >> >> >>acceptable than the
>> >> >> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>>
>> >> >> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of
>> >> >> >protecting
>> >> >> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the
>> >> >> >means of so
>> >> >> >doing.
>>
>> >> >> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
>> >> >> side and the other doesn't!
>>
>> >> >Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
>> >> >behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>>
>> >> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
>> >> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>>
>> >But the law is an ass ;-)
>>
>> What all of it?   :-)
>
>Well...all the bits I disagree with, certainly ;-)
>
Bearing in mind your earlier comment, is it your opinion that the law 
relating to the protection of birds of prey in Britain is an ass?

-- 
Malcolm

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:78YkTMOL+PUIFwOh@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article , BAC 
>  writes
>>
>>"Malcolm"  wrote in message
>>news:YQvso5JVgCUIFwZR@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> In article
>>> , 
>>> John
>>> M.  writes
>>>>On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>>>>> In article , BAC
>>>>>  writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >"John M."  wrote in message
>>>>> >news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
>>>>> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
>>>>> >>> >>  writes
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> >> >Any views?
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
>>>>> >>> >> defensive
>>>>> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
>>>>> >>> >> poisoning
>>>>> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that any of
>>>>> >>> >> their
>>>>> >>> >> members are involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish
>>>>> >>> > gamekeepers
>>>>> >>> > saying
>>>>> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
>>>>> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers 
>>>>> >>> in
>>>>> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing -
>>>>> >>> including
>>>>> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly 
>>>>> >>> use
>>>>> >>> lethal
>>>>> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference between them
>>>>> >>> and
>>>>> >>> most
>>>>> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species are
>>>>> >>> pests.
>>>>> >>> It's
>>>>> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view seeming 
>>>>> >>> to
>>>>> >>> be
>>>>> >>> that
>>>>> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their management plan
>>>>> >>> are
>>>>> >>> pests,
>>>>> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt favoured
>>>>> >>> species
>>>>> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good', I 
>>>>> >>> hasten
>>>>> >>> to
>>>>> >>> add).
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
>>>>> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists aiming 
>>>>> >> for
>>>>> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or a few
>>>>> >> game
>>>>> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more acceptable than
>>>>> >> the
>>>>> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of
>>>>> >protecting
>>>>> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the means 
>>>>> >of
>>>>> >so
>>>>> >doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
>>>>> side and the other doesn't!
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
>>>>behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>>>
>>> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
>>> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>>>
>>
>>I don't accept my argument is flawed. 'Upholding the law' isn't the
>>cornerstone (basis) of either group's objectives - management for the
>>protection and/or enhancement of aspects of the ecosystems under their
>>influence is. The law at any point in time is merely one of the factors 
>>they
>>have to take into account in formulating their policies and deciding their
>>actions, along with other matters like cost, public opinion, peer pressure
>>and their own consciences. Individuals or groups of people with strong 
>>views
>>on issues will sometimes conclude that, out of accepting status quo on 
>>those
>>issues or flouting the law, the latter is the lesser of the two 'evils', 
>>and
>>hence breaking the law is the 'right thing' for them to do - the Robin 
>>Hood
>>principle, if you like. I would find it hard to believe anyone who said
>>there were no circumstances under which they would ever knowingly break a
>>law or contravene a regulation.
>>
>
> I thought we were discussing two groups of people. One manages birds and 
> animals and uses some (limited) predator control, strictly within the law. 
> The other manages birds and animals and also uses predator control. 
> However, this group includes some who actually flout the existing law. I 
> don't regard people who do that as "ethical".
>

The thing about a group or person's ethics is that they are personal to the 
individual or group. Hence an action may well be consistent with the ethics 
of an individual or group, even if deemed illegal in the jurisdiction in 
which it is committed. For example, the Peak District mass trespasses were 
unlawful acts, but they were not unethical from the viewpoint of those who 
believed in a public right to roam. I'm sure you can think of many other 
examples, from little old ladies who refuse to pay their council tax, to 
people executed for practising their religion according to their beliefs 
rather than state dictats.

A gamekeeper who believes it is his duty to protect his charges from all 
predators is unlikely to think it is unethical to do just that, IMO, even if 
some of the measures he considers justified are unlawful, and also quite 
wrong in the eyes of people such as Angus and yourself :-)

In article , BAC 
 writes
>
>
>The thing about a group or person's ethics is that they are personal to the
>individual or group. Hence an action may well be consistent with the ethics
>of an individual or group, even if deemed illegal in the jurisdiction in
>which it is committed. For example, the Peak District mass trespasses were
>unlawful acts, but they were not unethical from the viewpoint of those who
>believed in a public right to roam. I'm sure you can think of many other
>examples, from little old ladies who refuse to pay their council tax, to
>people executed for practising their religion according to their beliefs
>rather than state dictats.
>
>A gamekeeper who believes it is his duty to protect his charges from all
>predators is unlikely to think it is unethical to do just that, IMO, even if
>some of the measures he considers justified are unlawful, and also quite
>wrong in the eyes of people such as Angus and yourself :-)
>
>
You are redefining what I understand by ethical.

I don't agree that every group or person has their own ethics that are 
divorced from the wider body of ethics and the law.

-- 
Malcolm

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:LWcIZNUYuTUIFwKd@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article , BAC 
>  writes
>>
>>
>>The thing about a group or person's ethics is that they are personal to 
>>the
>>individual or group. Hence an action may well be consistent with the 
>>ethics
>>of an individual or group, even if deemed illegal in the jurisdiction in
>>which it is committed. For example, the Peak District mass trespasses were
>>unlawful acts, but they were not unethical from the viewpoint of those who
>>believed in a public right to roam. I'm sure you can think of many other
>>examples, from little old ladies who refuse to pay their council tax, to
>>people executed for practising their religion according to their beliefs
>>rather than state dictats.
>>
>>A gamekeeper who believes it is his duty to protect his charges from all
>>predators is unlikely to think it is unethical to do just that, IMO, even 
>>if
>>some of the measures he considers justified are unlawful, and also quite
>>wrong in the eyes of people such as Angus and yourself :-)
>>
>>
> You are redefining what I understand by ethical.

We all live by our own moral codes, IMO, which might well conflict with the 
law.

>
> I don't agree that every group or person has their own ethics that are 
> divorced from the wider body of ethics and the law.
>

Well, do you think it is 'ethical' to be homosexual? Homosexuality is 
illegal in Iran - they execute them - so I suppose you do not?

In article ,
   BAC  wrote:


> I don't accept my argument is flawed. 'Upholding the law' isn't the
> cornerstone (basis) of either group's objectives - management for the
> protection and/or enhancement of aspects of the ecosystems under their
> influence is. The law at any point in time is merely one of the factors
> they have to take into account in formulating their policies and
> deciding their actions, along with other matters like cost, public
> opinion, peer pressure and their own consciences. Individuals or groups
> of people with strong views on issues will sometimes conclude that, out
> of accepting status quo on those issues or flouting the law, the latter
> is the lesser of the two 'evils', and hence breaking the law is the
> 'right thing' for them to do - the Robin Hood principle, if you like. I
> would find it hard to believe anyone who said there were no
> circumstances under which they would ever knowingly break a law or
> contravene a regulation. 

I think that instances of conservation organisations breaking the law
would be extremely rare. Probably the same could be said for the shooting
organisations.  It is however my view that there are many mavericks among
the hunting and shooting community who do break the law particularly where
controlling predators is concerned. I believe there are few amongst
conservationists.

On Jun 12, 1:45 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> In article
> , John
> M.  writes
>
> >On Jun 12, 12:48 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> In article
> >> ,
> >> John M.  writes
>
> >> >On Jun 11, 9:31 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> ,
> >> >> John M.  writes
>
> >> >> >On Jun 11, 4:20 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> >> >> In article , BAC
> >> >> >>  writes
>
> >> >> >> >"John M."  wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>>news:f6cdb603-554a-4aba-a103-317f2ad532a2@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 10:05 am, "BAC"  wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>>news:4fad58dcd7rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
>
> >> >> >> >>> > In article <I+ygocCbehTIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> >> >> >> >>> >   Malcolm  wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >>> >> In article , Robert Seago
> >> >> >> >>> >>  writes
>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/08/wildlife.conservation1
>
> >> >> >> >>> >> >Any views?
>
> >> >> >> >>> >> The Scottish Gamekeepers Association regularly has to adopt a
> >> >> >> >>> >> defensive
> >> >> >> >>> >> attitude in response to the latest incident of illegal raptor
> >> >> >> >>> >> poisoning
> >> >> >> >>> >> or trapping in Scotland, while obviously denying that
>
> >> >> >> >>> >> members are involved.
>
> >> >> >> >>> >> This is their counter-attack!
>
> >> >> >> >>> > Yes, and it is not the first time I have heard Scottish
>
> >> >> >> >>> > saying
> >> >> >> >>> > this.  Does remind me of P2 though :-)
>
> >> >> >> >>> At least the gamekeepers are being consistent in suggesting that
> >> >> >> >>> conservationists should apply similar methods as the gamekeepers in
> >> >> >> >>> protecting whichever populations of animals they are managing
> >> >> >> >>>- including
> >> >> >> >>> the killing of 'pests'. Conservationist organisations regularly use
> >> >> >> >>> lethal
> >> >> >> >>> control of species they see as pests, the difference
> >> >> >> >>>between them and
> >> >> >> >>> most
> >> >> >> >>> gamekeepers, perhaps, being diverging views on which species
> >> >> >> >>>are pests.
> >> >> >> >>> It's
> >> >> >> >>> a matter of perspective, I suppose, the gamekeepers' view
> >> >> >> >>>seeming to be
> >> >> >> >>> that
> >> >> >> >>> all species which 'threaten' the success of their
> >> >> >> >>>management plan are
> >> >> >> >>> pests,
> >> >> >> >>> whilst some conservationists reserve the right to exempt
> >> >> >> >>>favoured species
> >> >> >> >>> (doubtless in view of what they see as the 'greater good',
>
> >> >> >> >>> add).
>
> >> >> >> >> Despite the similarity of methods, it seems to me there is a rather
> >> >> >> >> different global view by each group, with conservationists
>
> >> >> >> >> maximum diversity while gamekeepers look to maximise one or
>
> >> >> >> >> species. Whether this makes one group's ethic more
> >> >> >> >>acceptable than the
> >> >> >> >> other, I wouldn't care to comment.
>
> >> >> >> >The ethics are similar, IMO, in that both groups feel the end of
> >> >> >> >protecting
> >> >> >> >or promoting that which they consider important, justifies the
> >> >> >> >means of so
> >> >> >> >doing.
>
> >> >> >> But there is the difference between them that one has the law on their
> >> >> >> side and the other doesn't!
>
> >> >> >Doesn't that make the law arbitrary if, as Brian argues, the ethics
> >> >> >behind each position are virtually indistinguishable?
>
> >> >> I think Brian's argument is flawed. One group's "ethic" is based on
> >> >> upholding the law, the other's isn't.
>
> >> >But the law is an ass ;-)
>
> >> What all of it?   :-)
>
> >Well...all the bits I disagree with, certainly ;-)
>
> Bearing in mind your earlier comment, is it your opinion that the law
> relating to the protection of birds of prey in Britain is an ass?

Only in as far as the proscribed penalties are too lenient. Loss of
shotgun license should be mandatory on conviction, and land-owners/
employers should be at risk of prosecution also.