http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
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
>http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf

Ah yes, the so-called facts according to your 'People Too' friend, Ian 
Mitchell. This article was published two years ago, or hadn't you 
noticed the date of publication in your haste to post about it?

Still, if you're reduced to recycling old news in your obsessive need to 
denigrate the RSPB, that just reveals how much you are having to scratch 
around for items with which to attempt to do so.

Mitchell no longer lives on Islay, but I wonder if he did whether he 
would trumpet the huge increase in Corncrake numbers here from 10 
calling males in 2003 to over 80 this year. There have been similar 
increases on other islands, including Coll and Tiree.

-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:06:31 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
>
>Ah yes, the so-called facts according to your 'People Too' friend, Ian 
>Mitchell. This article was published two years ago, or hadn't you 
>noticed the date of publication in your haste to post about it?

It appears to be the facts according to Country Illustrated magazine.


>
>Still, if you're reduced to recycling old news in your obsessive need to 
>denigrate the RSPB, that just reveals how much you are having to scratch 
>around for items with which to attempt to do so.
>
>Mitchell no longer lives on Islay, but I wonder if he did whether he 
>would trumpet the huge increase in Corncrake numbers here from 10 
>calling males in 2003 to over 80 this year. There have been similar 
>increases on other islands, including Coll and Tiree.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's attributed to the RSPB.  We have
loads of birds on our property that' got absolutely nothing to do with
them.

And the article was not about Islay, Coll or Tiree.

And since you mention People Too here's what they wrote:

http://www.people-too.org.uk/archives/corncrakes.htm


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 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:06:31 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
>>
>>Ah yes, the so-called facts according to your 'People Too' friend, Ian
>>Mitchell. This article was published two years ago, or hadn't you
>>noticed the date of publication in your haste to post about it?
>
>It appears to be the facts according to Country Illustrated magazine.
>
No, Angus, it *appeared* to be the facts back in 2006. Have they 
published an updated account since then?
>
>>
>>Still, if you're reduced to recycling old news in your obsessive need to
>>denigrate the RSPB, that just reveals how much you are having to scratch
>>around for items with which to attempt to do so.
>>
>>Mitchell no longer lives on Islay, but I wonder if he did whether he
>>would trumpet the huge increase in Corncrake numbers here from 10
>>calling males in 2003 to over 80 this year. There have been similar
>>increases on other islands, including Coll and Tiree.
>
>That doesn't necessarily mean it's attributed to the RSPB.  We have
>loads of birds on our property that' got absolutely nothing to do with
>them.
>
You will also have birds which are there because of the RSPB.

And numbers of Corncrakes on the RSPB reserves on Islay have gone up far 
more than in the rest of the island.

>And the article was not about Islay, Coll or Tiree.
>
You appear not to have recalled that you put the word "Corncrake" in the 
subject line of your original message.

>And since you mention People Too here's what they wrote:
>
>http://www.people-too.org.uk/archives/corncrakes.htm
>
Yes, Angus, in 2002, even longer ago than your previous reference. And 
it wasn't what "People Too" wrote but Mitchell, again. You really are 
scraping the barrel. The article was robustly rebutted, which was easy 
to do. And this article does mention Coll, so doubtless you will be 
interested to know that, just three years later, in 2005, there were 
over 150 calling Corncrakes on Coll, including many on the RSPB reserve 
there. Indeed, approaching 10% of all corncrakes in the UK are on RSPB 
reserves. I doubt very much that Mitchell published any sort of 
correction, not least because People Too's publication ceased appearing 
after only a handful of issues. Were you a subscriber?

-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:04:54 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:06:31 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
>>>
>>>Ah yes, the so-called facts according to your 'People Too' friend, Ian
>>>Mitchell. This article was published two years ago, or hadn't you
>>>noticed the date of publication in your haste to post about it?
>>
>>It appears to be the facts according to Country Illustrated magazine.
>>
>No, Angus, it *appeared* to be the facts back in 2006. Have they 
>published an updated account since then?

Have the RSPB published how many corncrakes are at their reserve since
then?

>>
>>>
>>>Still, if you're reduced to recycling old news in your obsessive need to
>>>denigrate the RSPB, that just reveals how much you are having to scratch
>>>around for items with which to attempt to do so.
>>>
>>>Mitchell no longer lives on Islay, but I wonder if he did whether he
>>>would trumpet the huge increase in Corncrake numbers here from 10
>>>calling males in 2003 to over 80 this year. There have been similar
>>>increases on other islands, including Coll and Tiree.
>>
>>That doesn't necessarily mean it's attributed to the RSPB.  We have
>>loads of birds on our property that' got absolutely nothing to do with
>>them.
>>
>You will also have birds which are there because of the RSPB.
>

What makes you think that?


>And numbers of Corncrakes on the RSPB reserves on Islay have gone up far 
>more than in the rest of the island.
>

But they're still presiding over the largest fall in bird numbers ever
recorded - despite an income of over £1m a week.

>>And the article was not about Islay, Coll or Tiree.
>>
>You appear not to have recalled that you put the word "Corncrake" in the 
>subject line of your original message.

So?

>
>>And since you mention People Too here's what they wrote:
>>
>>http://www.people-too.org.uk/archives/corncrakes.htm
>>
>Yes, Angus, in 2002, even longer ago than your previous reference. 

So the later reference is much more accurate and the magazine even
confirmed that the RSPB had not been able to refute the publication.

>And 
>it wasn't what "People Too" wrote but Mitchell, again. You really are 
>scraping the barrel. The article was robustly rebutted, which was easy 
>to do. And this article does mention Coll, so doubtless you will be 
>interested to know that, just three years later, in 2005, there were 
>over 150 calling Corncrakes on Coll, including many on the RSPB reserve 
>there. Indeed, approaching 10% of all corncrakes in the UK are on RSPB 
>reserves. I doubt very much that Mitchell published any sort of 
>correction, not least because People Too's publication ceased appearing 
>after only a handful of issues. Were you a subscriber?

I don't subscribe to any publications.


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 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:04:54 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:06:31 +0100, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Ah yes, the so-called facts according to your 'People Too' friend, Ian
>>>>Mitchell. This article was published two years ago, or hadn't you
>>>>noticed the date of publication in your haste to post about it?
>>>
>>>It appears to be the facts according to Country Illustrated magazine.
>>>
>>No, Angus, it *appeared* to be the facts back in 2006. Have they
>>published an updated account since then?
>
>Have the RSPB published how many corncrakes are at their reserve since
>then?
>
Yes.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>Still, if you're reduced to recycling old news in your obsessive need to
>>>>denigrate the RSPB, that just reveals how much you are having to scratch
>>>>around for items with which to attempt to do so.
>>>>
>>>>Mitchell no longer lives on Islay, but I wonder if he did whether he
>>>>would trumpet the huge increase in Corncrake numbers here from 10
>>>>calling males in 2003 to over 80 this year. There have been similar
>>>>increases on other islands, including Coll and Tiree.
>>>
>>>That doesn't necessarily mean it's attributed to the RSPB.  We have
>>>loads of birds on our property that' got absolutely nothing to do with
>>>them.
>>>
>>You will also have birds which are there because of the RSPB.
>>
>
>What makes you think that?
>
Because thanks to the RSPB, more people than ever before are feeding 
birds in their gardens.
>
>>And numbers of Corncrakes on the RSPB reserves on Islay have gone up far
>>more than in the rest of the island.
>>
>
>But they're still presiding over the largest fall in bird numbers ever
>recorded - despite an income of over £1m a week.
>
What a typical piece of Angus-speak: "presided over".  And what utter 
rubbish, too, although that could really go without saying. If it hadn't 
been for the actions of the RSPB, several species would not now breed in 
Britain, several populations, including Corncrakes, would not have 
increased in the way that they have, and declines of some species would 
have been far more severe, especially on farmland where the RSPB have 
done terrific work in highlighting the reasons for the declines and 
demonstrating on their own farms how to alleviate them.

>>>And the article was not about Islay, Coll or Tiree.
>>>
>>You appear not to have recalled that you put the word "Corncrake" in the
>>subject line of your original message.
>
>So?
>
So, we are discussing Corncrakes.

>>
>>>And since you mention People Too here's what they wrote:
>>>
>>>http://www.people-too.org.uk/archives/corncrakes.htm
>>>
>>Yes, Angus, in 2002, even longer ago than your previous reference.
>
>So the later reference is much more accurate and the magazine even
>confirmed that the RSPB had not been able to refute the publication.
>
No, Angus, the two articles are written by the same person using several 
of the same inaccurate and highly partial figures and both are seriously 
out of date. Still, you obviously prefer to believe your land-owning, 
game-keeping friends in People Too rather than the facts.

>>And
>>it wasn't what "People Too" wrote but Mitchell, again. You really are
>>scraping the barrel. The article was robustly rebutted, which was easy
>>to do. And this article does mention Coll, so doubtless you will be
>>interested to know that, just three years later, in 2005, there were
>>over 150 calling Corncrakes on Coll, including many on the RSPB reserve
>>there. Indeed, approaching 10% of all corncrakes in the UK are on RSPB
>>reserves. I doubt very much that Mitchell published any sort of
>>correction, not least because People Too's publication ceased appearing
>>after only a handful of issues. Were you a subscriber?
>
>I don't subscribe to any publications.
>
What about newspapers?

-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:45:28 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:04:54 +0100, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:06:31 +0100, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah yes, the so-called facts according to your 'People Too' friend, Ian
>>>>>Mitchell. This article was published two years ago, or hadn't you
>>>>>noticed the date of publication in your haste to post about it?
>>>>
>>>>It appears to be the facts according to Country Illustrated magazine.
>>>>
>>>No, Angus, it *appeared* to be the facts back in 2006. Have they
>>>published an updated account since then?
>>
>>Have the RSPB published how many corncrakes are at their reserve since
>>then?
>>
>Yes.
>

Well, how many?

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Still, if you're reduced to recycling old news in your obsessive need to
>>>>>denigrate the RSPB, that just reveals how much you are having to scratch
>>>>>around for items with which to attempt to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mitchell no longer lives on Islay, but I wonder if he did whether he
>>>>>would trumpet the huge increase in Corncrake numbers here from 10
>>>>>calling males in 2003 to over 80 this year. There have been similar
>>>>>increases on other islands, including Coll and Tiree.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't necessarily mean it's attributed to the RSPB.  We have
>>>>loads of birds on our property that' got absolutely nothing to do with
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>You will also have birds which are there because of the RSPB.
>>>
>>
>>What makes you think that?
>>
>Because thanks to the RSPB, more people than ever before are feeding 
>birds in their gardens.

Not in our garden.  We've been feeding birds for years including crows
, magpies,  rooks etc and have plenty of smaller birds as well.


>>
>>>And numbers of Corncrakes on the RSPB reserves on Islay have gone up far
>>>more than in the rest of the island.
>>>
>>
>>But they're still presiding over the largest fall in bird numbers ever
>>recorded - despite an income of over £1m a week.
>>
>What a typical piece of Angus-speak: "presided over".  And what utter 
>rubbish, too, although that could really go without saying. If it hadn't 
>been for the actions of the RSPB, several species would not now breed in 
>Britain, several populations, including Corncrakes, would not have 
>increased in the way that they have, and declines of some species would 
>have been far more severe, especially on farmland where the RSPB have 
>done terrific work in highlighting the reasons for the declines and 
>demonstrating on their own farms how to alleviate them.

What typical Malcolm speak.  What about the thousands of birds killed
daily by motorcars ?  You never hear a squeak form the RSPB about them
probably because most people who will donate will be motorists.
Wouldn't do to upset the gravy train?

And what about all the wild birds shot on RSPB reserves and of the
flight paths into these reserves.  Never a cheep about that .



>>>>And the article was not about Islay, Coll or Tiree.
>>>>
>>>You appear not to have recalled that you put the word "Corncrake" in the
>>>subject line of your original message.
>>
>>So?
>>
>So, we are discussing Corncrakes.
>

So we were.  That's why the subject was "Corncrakes"  in the plural I
might add.

>>>
>>>>And since you mention People Too here's what they wrote:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.people-too.org.uk/archives/corncrakes.htm
>>>>
>>>Yes, Angus, in 2002, even longer ago than your previous reference.
>>
>>So the later reference is much more accurate and the magazine even
>>confirmed that the RSPB had not been able to refute the publication.
>>
>No, Angus, the two articles are written by the same person using several 
>of the same inaccurate and highly partial figures and both are seriously 
>out of date. Still, you obviously prefer to believe your land-owning, 
>game-keeping friends in People Too rather than the facts.
>

The facts in these article seem not able to be disputed - except by
you.

>>>And
>>>it wasn't what "People Too" wrote but Mitchell, again. You really are
>>>scraping the barrel. The article was robustly rebutted, which was easy
>>>to do. And this article does mention Coll, so doubtless you will be
>>>interested to know that, just three years later, in 2005, there were
>>>over 150 calling Corncrakes on Coll, including many on the RSPB reserve
>>>there. Indeed, approaching 10% of all corncrakes in the UK are on RSPB
>>>reserves. I doubt very much that Mitchell published any sort of
>>>correction, not least because People Too's publication ceased appearing
>>>after only a handful of issues. Were you a subscriber?
>>
>>I don't subscribe to any publications.
>>
>What about newspapers?

I buy newspapers but do not subscribe to any.


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)

wrote in message 
news:pfvcb45t7ud45v0nnhgauc9rbr51ohmie7@4ax.com...
> http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf

The protagonist seems to be saying that the corncrake needs more people 
around to scare off the raptors.

Bob Seago

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:42:53 +0100, "Bob Seago" 
wrote:

>
> wrote in message 
>news:pfvcb45t7ud45v0nnhgauc9rbr51ohmie7@4ax.com...
>> http://www.countryclubuk.com/ci/ci79-corncrake.pdf
>
>The protagonist seems to be saying that the corncrake needs more people 
>around to scare off the raptors.

That the RSPB are so fond of introducing.


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)