http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Experts-urge-cull-of-grey.5501940.jp

-- 
Malcolm

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:14:30 +0100, Malcolm   
wrote:

>
> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Experts-urge-cull-of-grey.5501940.jp
>

This is just what you would expect at a 'Game' fair - BULLSHIT! See  
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/blogs/markavery/ for the true story.

"David Andrews"  wrote in message 
news:op.uxv0wyl6h4k61r@david.home...
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:14:30 +0100, Malcolm  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Experts-urge-cull-of-grey.5501940.jp
>>
>
> This is just what you would expect at a 'Game' fair - BULLSHIT! See 
> http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/blogs/markavery/ for the true story.

Seems like the YP merely reprinted the neatly spun propaganda as swallowed 
by the Guardian.

In article , BAC
 wrote:

> "David Andrews"  wrote in message
> news:op.uxv0wyl6h4k61r@david.home...
> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:14:30 +0100, Malcolm
> >  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Experts-urge-cull-of-grey.5501940.jp
> >>
> >
> > This is just what you would expect at a 'Game' fair - BULLSHIT! See
> > http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/blogs/markavery/ for the true story.

> Seems like the YP merely reprinted the neatly spun propaganda as
> swallowed by the Guardian. 
Which part of the Guardian article do you think is questionable?

On 30 July, 22:44, Robert Seago  wrote:

>
> Which part of the Guardian article do you think is questionable?

"Agreement on wholesale cull" - There was no agreement, as pointed out
in the RSPB article.

" the policy to cull grey squirrels has also received widespread
public support.
Almost seven out of ten people think grey squirrels should be
controlled in the UK, according to a poll commissioned by the European
Squirrel Initiative"

No it hasn't. The poll doesn't even mention the word 'cull'. And only
a 1000 people were questioned, and there was no mention of who or
where they were. My guess is that they just made up the figures.

The first question was 'are you aware that the grey squirrel is
responsible for the decline to almost extinction of the native red
squirrel?'. This doesn't make sense. 1) the premise is wrong as this
is not a fact 2) red squirrels are common in many parts of Europe
(this charity is the EUROPEAN Squirrel Initiative).

Looking at the survey http://www.europeansquirrelinitiative.org/survey.html
I'm sure even red squirrel supporters will doubt its credibility!

In article 
, 
dave  writes
>On 30 July, 22:44, Robert Seago  wrote:
>
>>
>> Which part of the Guardian article do you think is questionable?
>
>"Agreement on wholesale cull" - There was no agreement, as pointed out
>in the RSPB article.
>
>" the policy to cull grey squirrels has also received widespread
>public support.
>Almost seven out of ten people think grey squirrels should be
>controlled in the UK, according to a poll commissioned by the European
>Squirrel Initiative"
>
>No it hasn't. The poll doesn't even mention the word 'cull'. And only
>a 1000 people were questioned, and there was no mention of who or
>where they were. My guess is that they just made up the figures.
>
If you look at the results of any opinion polling published in the 
press, you will find that a random sample of around 1000 is absolutely 
standard, regardless of whether they are asking about grey squirrels, 
voting intentions, or whatever. Also regardless of whether or not anyone 
believes the results, the statistics behind such polls are well proven.

This from Wikipedia:
"a poll with a random sample of 1,000 people has a margin of sampling 
error of 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole population. A 3% 
margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number 
of times, 95% of the time the estimate will be within 3% of the 
population average. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger 
sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% 
they would need a sample of around 10,000 people. In practice pollsters 
need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in 
sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical 
compromise."

In other words, if the poll says that 70% think grey squirrels should be 
controlled, the percentage could be as low as 67% or as high as 73%, but 
the chances of it being outside those limits is less than 1 in 20. 
Pollsters using a methodology which gives a 1 in 20 chance of being 
different from the results given are following a wide range of 
scientific disciplines, e.g. chemistry, medicine, biology, etc., for 
whom this level of statistical significance is absolutely standard.

>The first question was 'are you aware that the grey squirrel is
>responsible for the decline to almost extinction of the native red
>squirrel?'. This doesn't make sense. 1) the premise is wrong as this
>is not a fact

If the people polled believed that it is not a fact, then their response 
would have reflected this, surely?

>2) red squirrels are common in many parts of Europe
>(this charity is the EUROPEAN Squirrel Initiative).
>
The status of the red squirrel outside Britain or the name of the 
organisation are both completely irrelevant.The website states that the 
poll sample was restricted to the *British* population and the questions 
very clearly referred to Britain.

>Looking at the survey http://www.europeansquirrelinitiative.org/survey.html
>I'm sure even red squirrel supporters will doubt its credibility!

Regardless of whether or not someone agrees with the results, the fact 
that the poll is repeated annually actually gives it more statistical 
credibility. The firm that were commissioned to carry out the work seem 
to have a good reputation, above being accused of making up the figures: 
http://www.nemsmr.co.uk/

-- 
Malcolm

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:5083295c69rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article , BAC
>  wrote:
>
>> "David Andrews"  wrote in message
>> news:op.uxv0wyl6h4k61r@david.home...
>> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:14:30 +0100, Malcolm
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Experts-urge-cull-of-grey.5501940.jp
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is just what you would expect at a 'Game' fair - BULLSHIT! See
>> > http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/blogs/markavery/ for the true story.
>
>> Seems like the YP merely reprinted the neatly spun propaganda as
>> swallowed by the Guardian.
> Which part of the Guardian article do you think is questionable?
>
If you read the article

http://www.farmersguardian.com/agreement-on-wholesale-cull%E2%80%A6of-grey-squirrels/26831.article

together with Mark Avery's blog (see the link posted by David Andrews), it 
seems obvious that the article employs selective quoting to imply that he 
and Poul Christenson spoke in favour of a wholesale cull of grey squirrels, 
whereas they did not. Hence it amounts to misrepresentation, which is fair 
to describe as questionable, I think.

On 1 Aug, 07:46, Malcolm  wrote:
> In article
> If you look at the results of any opinion polling published in the
> press, you will find that a random sample of around 1000 is absolutely
> standard ...

Okay.

> >The first question was 'are you aware that the grey squirrel is
> >responsible for the decline to almost extinction of the native red
> >squirrel?'. This doesn't make sense. 1) the premise is wrong as this
> >is not a fact
>
> If the people polled believed that it is not a fact, then their response
> would have reflected this, surely?

Would they? If a yes/no response was required there would have been no
room for debate. Or maybe only yes/no replies were counted.


> >2) red squirrels are common in many parts of Europe
> >(this charity is the EUROPEAN Squirrel Initiative).
>
> The status of the red squirrel outside Britain or the name of the
> organisation are both completely irrelevant ...

Yes, sorry. I missed that.

> >Looking at the surveyhttp://www.europeansquirrelinitiative.org/survey.html
> >I'm sure even red squirrel supporters will doubt its credibility!
>
> Regardless of whether or not someone agrees with the results, the fact
> that the poll is repeated annually actually gives it more statistical
> credibility ...

I don't think carrying out a survey every year makes it more credible.
The survey asks in my opinion vague questions and I don't think any
concrete conclusion can be drawn from it. The word 'cull' is never
mentioned but it's still used to support the pro-cull argument.

I see a lot of surveys and, regardless of whether I support the topic
or not, I often have doubts over the credibility of the survey. It's
not just because, in this case, I oppose a grey squirrel cull.

In article ,
   BAC  wrote:
?
> >
> If you read the article

> http://www.farmersguardian.com/agreement-on-wholesale-cull%E2%80%A6of-grey-squirrels/26831.article

> together with Mark Avery's blog (see the link posted by David Andrews),
> it seems obvious that the article employs selective quoting to imply
> that he and Poul Christenson spoke in favour of a wholesale cull of
> grey squirrels, whereas they did not. Hence it amounts to
> misrepresentation, which is fair to describe as questionable, I think. 


But did you not defend the survey by someone who asked responders to choose
between the cull on one hand and the other option, some mixed message where
a contraceptive/anti viral vaccination, would save the red squirrel? 
Neither of which exist.

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:50841acb5arjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   BAC  wrote:
> ?
>> >
>> If you read the article
>
>> http://www.farmersguardian.com/agreement-on-wholesale-cull%E2%80%A6of-grey-squirrels/26831.article
>
>> together with Mark Avery's blog (see the link posted by David Andrews),
>> it seems obvious that the article employs selective quoting to imply
>> that he and Poul Christenson spoke in favour of a wholesale cull of
>> grey squirrels, whereas they did not. Hence it amounts to
>> misrepresentation, which is fair to describe as questionable, I think.
>
>
> But did you not defend the survey by someone who asked responders to 
> choose
> between the cull on one hand and the other option, some mixed message 
> where
> a contraceptive/anti viral vaccination, would save the red squirrel?
> Neither of which exist.
>

That would be the Advocates for Animals opinion survey which showed 
considerable disapproval of the Scottish grey squirrel cull? ISTR I defended 
the integrity of the body commissioned to carry out the opinion survey, and 
the sampling methodology employed, when some seemed to be implying it had 
not been a 'proper' opinion survey, probably because they didn't like the 
results. I don't believe Advocates for Animals have said contraception or 
vaccine methods for squirrels exist at the moment, anyway, nor should it be 
assumed that everyone who would be happy to see grey squirrels controlled by 
such means would approve of lethal control in their absence.

That is a separate issue and entirely irrelevant to the inaccuracy of the 
Farmers Guardian article, which, hopefully by accident, misrepresented the 
opinions of Mark Avery and Poul Christenson. It seems you consider that to 
be OK.

In article ,
   BAC  wrote:


> That would be the Advocates for Animals opinion survey which showed
> considerable disapproval of the Scottish grey squirrel cull? ISTR I
> defended the integrity of the body commissioned to carry out the
> opinion survey, and the sampling methodology employed, when some seemed
> to be implying it had not been a 'proper' opinion survey, probably
> because they didn't like the results. I don't believe Advocates for
> Animals have said contraception or vaccine methods for squirrels exist
> at the moment, anyway, nor should it be assumed that everyone who would
> be happy to see grey squirrels controlled by such means would approve
> of lethal control in their absence.
But they were offering a non existent option which true they did not state
existed, but it was put as an option to choose in their survey.
> That is a separate issue and entirely irrelevant to the inaccuracy of
> the Farmers Guardian article, which, hopefully by accident,
> misrepresented the opinions of Mark Avery and Poul Christenson. It
> seems you consider that to be OK. 


ISTR  that they offered two options one of which was culling squirrels, and
the other was a motherhood and apple pie option which I think we would all
have opted for if it existed.  

ISTR They also confused the  matter of whether their miracle option for
saving the red squirrel was a contraceptive or a vaccine against the pox
virus.

In article , BAC
 wrote:


> > But did you not defend the survey by someone who asked responders to
> > choose between the cull on one hand and the other option, some mixed
> > message where a contraceptive/anti viral vaccination, would save the
> > red squirrel? Neither of which exist.
> >

> That would be the Advocates for Animals opinion survey which showed
> considerable disapproval of the Scottish grey squirrel cull? ISTR I
> defended the integrity of the body commissioned to carry out the
> opinion survey, and the sampling methodology employed, when some seemed
> to be implying it had not been a 'proper' opinion survey, probably
> because they didn't like the results. I don't believe Advocates for
> Animals have said contraception or vaccine methods for squirrels exist
> at the moment, anyway, nor should it be assumed that everyone who would
> be happy to see grey squirrels controlled by such means would approve
> of lethal control in their absence.

> That is a separate issue and entirely irrelevant to the inaccuracy of
> the Farmers Guardian article, which, hopefully by accident,
> misrepresented the opinions of Mark Avery and Poul Christenson. It
> seems you consider that to be OK. 
From their web site:
*****************

Respondents to the survey were asked the following question:

Do you believe that grey squirrels should be killed in Scotland or not in
an attempt to conserve red squirrels? 

Yes [34%]    No [54%]    Don't know [11%] 

For people aged 16-24 the responses were: 

Yes [18%]    No [72%]    Don't know [11%]

They were given the following information beforehand:

Grey squirrels were introduced to the UK over a hundred years ago and are
now well established.  

Grey squirrels are blamed by some as one of the causes for declining red
squirrel populations as they can out-compete them in many habitats and can
carry the squirrel pox virus which can be lethal for red squirrels.  

Government agencies and conservation organisations now intend to spend
hundreds of thousands of pounds killing thousands of grey squirrels over
the next few years, in an attempt to conserve red squirrel populations. 
Most of the squirrels will be trapped and either shot or struck on the head
with a blunt instrument.  Some animal welfare groups argue that this is
unethical and unlikely to be effective in the long term.  Alternative
proposed solutions include habitat management and the development of a
vaccine against squirrel pox.

**********************


There were other comments from them at the time suggesting that an option
was a future contraceptive with a means of administering it to grey
squirrels, while not the reds.

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:5084ae0f4brjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   BAC  wrote:
>
>
>> That would be the Advocates for Animals opinion survey which showed
>> considerable disapproval of the Scottish grey squirrel cull? ISTR I
>> defended the integrity of the body commissioned to carry out the
>> opinion survey, and the sampling methodology employed, when some seemed
>> to be implying it had not been a 'proper' opinion survey, probably
>> because they didn't like the results. I don't believe Advocates for
>> Animals have said contraception or vaccine methods for squirrels exist
>> at the moment, anyway, nor should it be assumed that everyone who would
>> be happy to see grey squirrels controlled by such means would approve
>> of lethal control in their absence.

> But they were offering a non existent option which true they did not state
> existed, but it was put as an option to choose in their survey.

 I believe you are mistaken about that - the question asked was "Do you 
believe that grey squirrels should be killed in Scotland or not in an 
attempt to conserve red squirrels?". As far as I am aware, there was no 
question asking for a view on other means of control.

>> That is a separate issue and entirely irrelevant to the inaccuracy of
>> the Farmers Guardian article, which, hopefully by accident,
>> misrepresented the opinions of Mark Avery and Poul Christenson. It
>> seems you consider that to be OK.
>
>
> ISTR  that they offered two options one of which was culling squirrels, 
> and
> the other was a motherhood and apple pie option which I think we would all
> have opted for if it existed.

I think you are mistaken about that - see above.

>
> ISTR They also confused the  matter of whether their miracle option for
> saving the red squirrel was a contraceptive or a vaccine against the pox
> virus.

From what I have seen, the preamble to the opinion survey mentioned vaccine 
development as one of a number of alternative proposed solutions. Which is, 
of course, accurate, since Advocates for Animals have proposed it, and, 
presumably, honestly believe in what they say.

However, if respondents to the survey doubted whether habitat improvement or 
vaccine development would lead to an effective solution, that would 
undoubtedly have been reflected in their responses, (with apologies to 
Malcolm for the misquote).

I have to say I find it astonishing that you should apparently believe that 
Advocates for Animals setting out its views about squirrel control in a 
preamble to an opinion survey it commissioned on the Scottish cull some 
months ago somehow justifies the recent misrepresentation in the media of 
the opinions of people like Mark Avery concerning a UK cull.

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:5084b472b1rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article , BAC
>  wrote:
>
>
>> > But did you not defend the survey by someone who asked responders to
>> > choose between the cull on one hand and the other option, some mixed
>> > message where a contraceptive/anti viral vaccination, would save the
>> > red squirrel? Neither of which exist.
>> >
>
>> That would be the Advocates for Animals opinion survey which showed
>> considerable disapproval of the Scottish grey squirrel cull? ISTR I
>> defended the integrity of the body commissioned to carry out the
>> opinion survey, and the sampling methodology employed, when some seemed
>> to be implying it had not been a 'proper' opinion survey, probably
>> because they didn't like the results. I don't believe Advocates for
>> Animals have said contraception or vaccine methods for squirrels exist
>> at the moment, anyway, nor should it be assumed that everyone who would
>> be happy to see grey squirrels controlled by such means would approve
>> of lethal control in their absence.
>
>> That is a separate issue and entirely irrelevant to the inaccuracy of
>> the Farmers Guardian article, which, hopefully by accident,
>> misrepresented the opinions of Mark Avery and Poul Christenson. It
>> seems you consider that to be OK.

> From their web site:

I assume you mean Advocates for Animals website?

> *****************
>
> Respondents to the survey were asked the following question:
>
> Do you believe that grey squirrels should be killed in Scotland or not in
> an attempt to conserve red squirrels?
>
> Yes [34%]    No [54%]    Don't know [11%]
>
> For people aged 16-24 the responses were:
>
> Yes [18%]    No [72%]    Don't know [11%]
>
> They were given the following information beforehand:
>
> Grey squirrels were introduced to the UK over a hundred years ago and are
> now well established.
>
> Grey squirrels are blamed by some as one of the causes for declining red
> squirrel populations as they can out-compete them in many habitats and can
> carry the squirrel pox virus which can be lethal for red squirrels.
>
> Government agencies and conservation organisations now intend to spend
> hundreds of thousands of pounds killing thousands of grey squirrels over
> the next few years, in an attempt to conserve red squirrel populations.
> Most of the squirrels will be trapped and either shot or struck on the 
> head
> with a blunt instrument.  Some animal welfare groups argue that this is
> unethical and unlikely to be effective in the long term.  Alternative
> proposed solutions include habitat management and the development of a
> vaccine against squirrel pox.
>
> **********************
>
>

So where's the inaccuracy in those extracts? It is fact that some animal 
welfare groups oppose culling for the reasons stated, and it is also fact 
that habitat management and development of a vaccine have been put forward 
as alternatives to culling (by the same animal welfare groups).

Contrast that with the Farmer's Guardian article, where selective out of 
context quoting has been used to misrepresent the opinions of prominent 
conservationists, and I hope you may yet concede there is no parallel 
between the two.

In article ,
   BAC  wrote:


> So where's the inaccuracy in those extracts? 
My problem is that there was at the time a preamble that is not reflected
in their present summary of it.  I distinctly remember commenting on the
fact that they had put out stuff which set out the two options I have said.
 And the one also confused the matter of whether it was a contraceptive or
a vaccine.  


> It is fact that some animal
> welfare groups oppose culling for the reasons stated, and it is also
> fact that habitat management and development of a vaccine have been put
> forward as alternatives to culling (by the same animal welfare groups).

> Contrast that with the Farmer's Guardian article, where selective out of
> context quoting has been used to misrepresent the opinions of prominent
> conservationists, and I hope you may yet concede there is no parallel
> between the two. 

The Farmers Guardian website has:

***************
 

THE grey squirrel must be eradicated to stop the damage to woodlands and
save the threatened red squirrel, conservationists and landowners agreed at
the CLA Game Fair this weekend.

Experts from the RSPB, Natural England, CLA and the Game and Wildlife
Conservation Trust were united in their view that grey squirrels were a
pest and more resources should be thrown at a cull.

Unlike the suggested badger cull, the policy to cull grey squirrels has
also received widespread public support.

Almost seven out of ten people think grey squirrels should be controlled in
the UK, according to a poll commissioned by the European Squirrel
Initiative earlier this year.

Dr Mark Avery, RSPB director of conservation, took part in Saturday's (July
25) CLA debate on wildlife. He said: "If I could magic away the grey
squirrel tomorrow, I would make that decision."

Dr Steve Tapper, of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust added: "Yes,
we should be eradicating some of these species."

While Poul Christiansen, Natural England's acting chairman, described the
grey squirrel as a "nightmare".

The grey was introduced to Britain in the 19th century and it has a
population estimated at 3.3 million, compared with 160,000 red squirrels.

Not only does the grey squirrel carry a deadly pox which infects its red
cousin, but it is also bigger and stronger than the red and out-muscles it
for food.

Landowners say the grey squirrel also destroy thousands of maturing trees
by stripping off the bark.

***************
Which of those statements misrepresent what those people say, by quoting
out of context?

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:50851fcbdfrjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   BAC  wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
> The Farmers Guardian website has:
>
> ***************
>
>
> THE grey squirrel must be eradicated to stop the damage to woodlands and
> save the threatened red squirrel, conservationists and landowners agreed 
> at
> the CLA Game Fair this weekend.
>
> Experts from the RSPB, Natural England, CLA and the Game and Wildlife
> Conservation Trust were united in their view that grey squirrels were a
> pest and more resources should be thrown at a cull.
>
> Unlike the suggested badger cull, the policy to cull grey squirrels has
> also received widespread public support.
>
> Almost seven out of ten people think grey squirrels should be controlled 
> in
> the UK, according to a poll commissioned by the European Squirrel
> Initiative earlier this year.
>
> Dr Mark Avery, RSPB director of conservation, took part in Saturday's 
> (July
> 25) CLA debate on wildlife. He said: "If I could magic away the grey
> squirrel tomorrow, I would make that decision."
>
> Dr Steve Tapper, of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust added: "Yes,
> we should be eradicating some of these species."
>
> While Poul Christiansen, Natural England's acting chairman, described the
> grey squirrel as a "nightmare".
>
> The grey was introduced to Britain in the 19th century and it has a
> population estimated at 3.3 million, compared with 160,000 red squirrels.
>
> Not only does the grey squirrel carry a deadly pox which infects its red
> cousin, but it is also bigger and stronger than the red and out-muscles it
> for food.
>
> Landowners say the grey squirrel also destroy thousands of maturing trees
> by stripping off the bark.
>
> ***************
> Which of those statements misrepresent what those people say, by quoting
> out of context?
>

If you have read Mark Avery's blog, the link to which was posted earlier in 
this thread, I'm surprised you need to ask that question. According to him, 
only part of what he said was quoted, as a consequence of which the article 
read as if he were advocating the eradication of the grey squirrel and the 
throwing of more resources at culling them, whereas that was not in fact the 
case. He also said he didn't believe Poul Christiansen had signed up to a 
cull, either. Now, assuming Dr Avery is telling the truth in his blog, and I 
have no reason to doubt it, I would say that the selective quoting of parts 
of what he and Poul Christiansen said in order to make it appear that they 
and/or their respective organisations were amongst the "conservationists and 
landowners" which the first paragraph of the article stated to have "agreed" 
that the grey squirrel "must be eradicated", and/or amongst the "experts" 
who, according to the second paragraph, were "united in their view that grey 
squirrels were a pest and more resources should be thrown at a cull", was 
blatant misrepresentation. As, most importantly, was the headline to the 
article, which you omitted for some unknown reason, "Agreement on wholesale 
cull of grey squirrels". The selective quotes were used to imply that the 
RSPB and Natural England, via Mark Avery and Poul Christiansen, were part of 
the claimed "agreement", whereas, according to Dr Avery (and he should know) 
that was not the truth.

Can you really not see that?

In article , BAC
 wrote:

> "Robert Seago"  wrote in message
> news:50851fcbdfrjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> > In article , BAC
> >    wrote:
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > The Farmers Guardian website has:
> >
> > ***************
> >
> >
> > THE grey squirrel must be eradicated to stop the damage to woodlands
> > and save the threatened red squirrel, conservationists and landowners
> > agreed at the CLA Game Fair this weekend.
> >
> > Experts from the RSPB, Natural England, CLA and the Game and Wildlife
> > Conservation Trust were united in their view that grey squirrels were
> > a pest and more resources should be thrown at a cull.
> >
> > Unlike the suggested badger cull, the policy to cull grey squirrels
> > has also received widespread public support.
> >
> > Almost seven out of ten people think grey squirrels should be
> > controlled in the UK, according to a poll commissioned by the
> > European Squirrel Initiative earlier this year.
> >
> > Dr Mark Avery, RSPB director of conservation, took part in Saturday's
> > (July 25) CLA debate on wildlife. He said: "If I could magic away the
> > grey squirrel tomorrow, I would make that decision."
> >
> > Dr Steve Tapper, of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust added:
> > "Yes, we should be eradicating some of these species."
> >
> > While Poul Christiansen, Natural England's acting chairman, described
> > the grey squirrel as a "nightmare".
> >
> > The grey was introduced to Britain in the 19th century and it has a
> > population estimated at 3.3 million, compared with 160,000 red
> > squirrels.
> >
> > Not only does the grey squirrel carry a deadly pox which infects its
> > red cousin, but it is also bigger and stronger than the red and
> > out-muscles it for food.
> >
> > Landowners say the grey squirrel also destroy thousands of maturing
> > trees by stripping off the bark.
> >
> > *************** Which of those statements misrepresent what those
> > people say, by quoting out of context?
> >

> If you have read Mark Avery's blog, the link to which was posted earlier
> in this thread, I'm surprised you need to ask that question. According
> to him, only part of what he said was quoted, as a consequence of which
> the article read as if he were advocating the eradication of the grey
> squirrel and the throwing of more resources at culling them, whereas
> that was not in fact the case. He also said he didn't believe Poul
> Christiansen had signed up to a cull, either. Now, assuming Dr Avery is
> telling the truth in his blog, and I have no reason to doubt it, I
> would say that the selective quoting of parts of what he and Poul
> Christiansen said in order to make it appear that they and/or their
> respective organisations were amongst the "conservationists and
> landowners" which the first paragraph of the article stated to have
> "agreed" that the grey squirrel "must be eradicated", and/or amongst
> the "experts" who, according to the second paragraph, were "united in
> their view that grey squirrels were a pest and more resources should be
> thrown at a cull", was blatant misrepresentation. As, most importantly,
> was the headline to the article, which you omitted for some unknown
> reason, "Agreement on wholesale cull of grey squirrels". The selective
> quotes were used to imply that the RSPB and Natural England, via Mark
> Avery and Poul Christiansen, were part of the claimed "agreement",
> whereas, according to Dr Avery (and he should know) that was not the
> truth.

> Can you really not see that? 
I hadn't read Mark Avery's blog.

"Robert Seago"  wrote in message 
news:5085bcc622rjseago@zetnet.co.uk...
> In article , BAC
>  wrote:
>
<snip>
>> >
>> > *************** Which of those statements misrepresent what those
>> > people say, by quoting out of context?
>> >
>
>> If you have read Mark Avery's blog, the link to which was posted earlier
>> in this thread, I'm surprised you need to ask that question.

<snip>

> I hadn't read Mark Avery's blog.
>

That explains it, then :-)