On Nov 1, 3:58 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
> In article
> ,
> John M.  writes
>
>
>
> >On Nov 1, 8:11 am, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> In article
> >> ,
> >> John M.  writes
>
> >> >On Nov 1, 7:04 am, Malcolm  wrote:
> >> >> In article ,
> >> >> amacmil...@aol.com writes
>
> >> >> >On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:23:07 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>In article ,
> >> >> >>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >> >>>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:51:20 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>In article ,
> >> >> >>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >> >>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:09:53 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>>>>Got that?  Good.
>
> >> >> >>>>>Got that? Good.
>
> >> >> >>>>You very obviously haven't. You asked why farmers got paid and I told
> >> >> >>>>you that it is because geese can do agricultural damage. But
> >> >> >>>>geese also
> >> >> >>>>graze grass and do no agricultural damage and in those
> >> >> >>>>circumstances the
> >> >> >>>>farmers don't get paid.
>
> >> >> >>>>What's so difficult to understand?
>
> >> >> >>>It's very easily understood.
>
> >> >> >>>Geese damage all grass
>
> >> >> >>No, that's nonsense. Read what you've written and you will (no, make
> >> >> >>that might) realise why.
>
> >> >> >It's not nonsense.
>
> >> >> Have you actually read it again?  Have you made any effort to realise
> >> >> why I called it nonsense? Presumably not. So I'll spell it you for you.
>
> >> >> Please provide evidence for your use of the word "all".
>
> >> >> >>> but only when it impacts of a farmers income is
> >> >> >>>it considered agricultural damage.   You're wrongly confusing the
> >> >> >>>economic element with what geese do to grass.  They don't know whether
> >> >> >>>they're on agricultural land or not.
>
> >> >> >>No, I'm not confusing the economic element, because that is what we have
> >> >> >>been discussing.
>
> >> >> >I've been discussing ALL grass.
>
> >> >> The discussion has always been about economic damage caused by geese.
>
> >> >> >>You have assumed that whenever geese are on
> >> >> >>agricultural grass, i.e. that is farmed in some way, they are damaging
> >> >> >>it. This is not the case. There can be extensive grazing on the grass
> >> >> >>and the farmer suffers no economic loss.
>
> >> >> >Grass trampled underfoot is always damaged.  Just look at shortcuts
> >> >> >across grass in parks and rabbit runs.
>
> >> >> Neither of which have anything to do with geese or their effects on
> >> >> agricultural grassland.
>
> >> >> >>>Nothing complicated about it.
>
> >> >> >>You appear not to realise that grazing by animals/birds or for that
> >> >> >>matter mowing by man does not necessarily damage the grass. It can
> >> >> >>indeed, in some circumstances, improve it.
>
> >> >> >See above.
>
> >> >> Nothing "above" contradicts what I've just said which is tthat grazing
> >> >> by animals/birds or for that matter mowing by man does not necessarily
> >> >> damage the grass. It can indeed in some circumstances improve it.
>
> >> >Wasn't there a discovery some years back that light goose grazing on
> >> >winter sown cereals (wheat, I think) caused tillering? in root-stocks
> >> >which ultimately increased the yield?
>
> >> Yes, farmers regularly turn their sheep out onto newly sprouting winter
> >> wheat in order to obtain this tillering effect. which to explain it to
> >> Angus, means grazing off the single stem which arises from the seed so
> >> that it will be replaced by several stems. The same effect can be caused
> >> on grass. Farmers without either sheep or geese run a heavy roller over
> >> the crop to achieve the same thing.
>
> >Perhaps you should also explain to Angus that while farmers have
> >absolute control over the degree of sheep grazing, getting control
> >over grazing by wild geese is another matter
>
> Would you like to give me some advice on how one explains anything to
> Angus?

The impossible I do at once - but miracles take longer. Give me a
millenium or so for that one