Savethedeer Refutation, FAQ v 3.0
Colin A. B. Davidson
This is the latest version of the FAQ document containing refutations of
Angus's points.
Sorry if you've seen this before and don't want to again, but here it is
anyway in the hope that it'll be useful to you all.
Colin.
----------------------------------------
FREQUENTLY POSTED RESPONSES TO ANGUS MCMILLAN
Version 3.0
Most of the statements compiled herein are mine. This isn't because of any
feeling of superiority, it's just that I have these on record and I think
they're sufficiently detailed to get the points across. This is the second
version, but I suspect that there will be some errors. If you spot something
of yours in here and would like acknowledging, please feel free to let me
know and I'll do so.
--------------------------------
This FAQ document is meant to introduce readers of this NG
(uk.environment.conservation) and others to points frequently made to
counter the accusations made by Angus McMillan ('Gussy' 'Savethedeer').
Rather than painstakingly going through all of these points every time this
discussion arises, it was suggested to me that compiling this document would
save us all much time and effort.
The format of much of this document is one of quote (from the websites Angus
asks us to visit) followed by response. I won't quote the URL directly,
because the address itself is currently in the legally grey area becoming
known as 'cybersquatting', using the name of the Woodland Trust.
The new section of this document is in a different format, taking some of
the suggested alternatives to culling deer on board and looking at the
available evidence for those techniques.
------------------------------
Quote: They [woodland trust] have authorised the slaughter and butchering of
small family groups of roe deer to protect saplings, despite their
commitment that; "donations will be helping to secure our cherished woodland
and the thousands of creatures that live there".
Response: Any ecologist will tell you the value of preventing any species in
a woodland from getting out of control; if any of the herbivores get too
numerous, the damage done can be tremendous. No figures for population have
been put forward by the gentleman, and until they are his case here is very,
very flimsy. The course he advocates would, by conventional ecological
management, lead to devastation of the woodland.
Some reference to the literature published in this field shows the neccesity
of maintaining an appropriate population:
Buckley GP, Howell R, Watt TA, et al.
Vegetation succession following ride edge management in lowland plantations
and woods .1. The influence of site factors and management practices
BIOL CONSERV 82: (3) 289-304 DEC 1997
(This paper gives us a study of woodland regeneration, particularly
appropriate to this discussion)
"Deer grazing profoundly affected vegetation composition and structure,
greatly reducing tree and shrub regeneration. "
Mayle BA
Progress in predictive management of deer populations in British woodlands
FOREST ECOL MANAG 88: (1-2) 187-198 NOV 1 1996
(This is probably the best study on Deer control. Interestingly, there's
more emphasis on the level of population control than on the neccesity for
population control, the case for the neccesity of control being so strong!)
Kirby KJ, Thomas RC, Dawkins HC
Monitoring of changes in tree and shrub layers in Wytham woods
(Oxfordshire), 1974-1991
FORESTRY 69: (4) 319-334 1996
(Looks at a wood that has basically thinned a little in the time period,
exploring the reasons why. One of the factors was grazing by deer.)
"The shrub cover has also declined greatly, probably because of increased
deer browsing."
Patel A, Rapport DJ
Assessing the impacts of deer browsing, prescribed burns, visitor use, and
trails on an oak-pine forest: Pinery Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada
NAT AREA J 20: (3) 250-260 JUL 2000
(A very good recent study of the effect of high deer population density on
woodland)
"Higher deer densities led to significant declines in species richness, stem
density, cover, and median seedling height."
Scott D, Welch D, Thurlow M, et al.
Regeneration of Pinus sylvestris in a natural pinewood in NE Scotland
following reduction in grazing by Cervus elaphus
FOREST ECOL MANAG 130: (1-3) 199-211 MAY 1 2000
(Looks at whether the initial regeneration of a gap in a forest is affected
by a number of factors. Found that the presence of red deer, grazing the
area, could give saplings a chance of germinating, but did not demonstrate
that those saplings had any increased chance of surviving to adulthood, and
the statistical increase increase in germination is very low).
Jorritsma ITM, van Hees AFM, Mohren GMJ
Forest development in relation to ungulate grazing: a modeling approach
FOREST ECOL MANAG 120: (1-3) 23-34 JUL 12 1999
"The results presented in this paper concern the development of a pine
forest (Pinus sylvestris L.) in the Netherlands under various grazing
pressures over a period of 100 years. They show that even low densities of
ungulates can have significant impacts on the regeneration and thereby on
forest development. it is argued that this approach is generally applicable
in forest grazing research, providing a means for quantitative
interpretation of the interaction between herbivory and forest development"
Radeloff VC, Pidgeon AM, Hostert P
Habitat and population modelling of roe deer using an interactive geographic
information system
ECOL MODEL 114: (2-3) 287-304 JAN 1 1999
(again, doesn't really discuss the proven neccesity of culling, more
discusses the level to which culling is neccesary)
"We describe a model to determine deer population densities compatible with
forest management goals, and to assess harvest rates necessary to maintain
desired deer densities. "
Impact of bark stripping by sika deer, Cervus nippon, on subalpine
coniferous forests in central Japan
Yokoyama N, Maeji I, Ueda T, Ando M, Shibata E
FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
140: (2-3) 93-99 JAN 15 2001
Demonstrated that a major killer of trees was sika deer. By stripping too
much bark, trees died, which led to a long term change in the species of
plants represented in those forests and an overall loss of woodlands.
He's also argued that a good alternative to controlling deer numbers would
be to fence the trees. This is an odd position, considering the weight of
evidence there is to show us what damage this would cause. Examples:
TI: Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus in Scotland - demography of a declining
population
AU: Moss_R, Picozzi_N, Summers_RW, Baines_D
JN: IBIS, 2000, Vol.142, No.2, pp.259-267
Another study, which is extremely damning of deer fencing is...
TI: Assessment of bird collisions with deer fences in Scottish forests
AU: Baines_D, Summers_RW
JN: JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1997, Vol.34, No.4, pp.941-948
I quote this report directly now: "This study adds weight to previous
findings that fences are a frequent cause of mortality in capercaillie", and
"a policy of deer culling to achieve tree regeneration without deer fencing
would be desirable wherever practicable and especially within the range and
main native pinewood habitat of capercaillie".
----------------------------------------
Quote: Rather than taking a cheap and nasty commercial decision to
"intervene" in the lives of roe deer to save money, it should pay for the
protection of its trees.
Response: An option to fencing (which clearly damages endangered, native
birds as explained above) would be protection of individual saplings.
This cost breakdown was obtained from a commercial contractor involved in
such operations;
The huge price difference makes it abundantly clear that we're not looking
at the difference between cheap and expensive planting, the difference
(being nearly 4000 ponds per hectare) is such that little or no tree
planting could occur. In addition, this still does not address the problem
of deer overpopulation, and does not protect plants other than trees from
overgrazing.
Comparitive typical planting costs of 40 - 60 cm. native tree saplings.
All figures at per 1000 rate. Costs may vary according to scale, conditions,
stocking density and management company. Bare planting:
Tree - 40 - 60 cm. 15p
+VAT + delivery
Labour 9p
Profit @ 20% 5p +VAT
29p
Optimum planting density 2250 per ha. @ 29p = £652:50 per ha.
Planting in standard 1.2 m 'tubes' (effective against roe deer)
Tree - 40 - 60 cm. 15p
+VAT + delivery
Standard tube 67p +VAT +
delivery
4'6" planting stake 31p
+VAT + delivery
Labour 45p +VAT
Removal of tube and stake at 5-8 years 11p +VAT
Transport and disposal of tubes. 3p +VAT
Profit @ 20% 34p +VAT
£2:06p
2250 per ha @ £2:06p = £4,635 per ha
Plus environmental costs of tube production and landfill.
Labour costs for replacing any failed trees in years 1 and 2 are also much
higher than for bare planted trees because each tube has to be checked
individually, removed and re-attached during replacement planting.
------------------------------
Quote: This slaughter, euphemistically described as "deer control", is
despicable and dishonest!
Response: Emotional rubbish. Population control is a perfectly acceptable
description of responsible culling.
------------------------------
Quote: They have admitted that they allow traditional fox-hunting with
horses and hounds in about 8% (3500 acres) of their woodlands.
Response: Whatever you think about fox hunting, allowing it in a small part
of your land isn't going to ruin the habitat, and as part of a balanced
management policy doesn't represent an ecological hazard. Indeed, it can be
argued that by giving some financial value to the land hunting can help to
protect the habitat in the long term. However, that is beyond the scope of
this document.
-------------------------------
Quote: By way of a national woodland directory, they encourage a large
number of visitors to travel to, and descend upon, even the smallest of
their woodlands. This has the potential to disturb and destroy animal
habitats, by creating "hot spot" access. It also encourages the use of the
motorcar for non-essential journeys, which is environmentally irresponsible.
Response: This simply isn't true. Sites that need special protection because
they house especially rare species are quite closely protected. While no-one
is suggesting that tourism can't have an adverse effect, it's well worth
remembering that this generation of wealth by a woodland can give it the
economic value that will ultimately protect it from developers. Increasing
public awareness of the value of our few remaining ancient woodlands is just
about the most valuable thing the charity could possibly achieve, and the
only way to do this is by allowing some access. A little look at the site
http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/who/indexfr.htm will reveal the trusts
lobbying policy, it's quite revealing.
---------------------------------
Quote: Their urban woodland scheme known as the "Woods on your Doorstep"
initiative, is capable of destroying many animal habitats by encouraging a
large number of people to venture into locally sensitive areas that were
previously left undisturbed.
Response: The Woods on your Doorstep scheme aims to plant up to 200 -new-
woods in England and Wales. These aren't environmentally sensitive woods
because (1) they're too young, and (2) they are created with the specific
purpose of being accessible. If it wasn't for this project, those woods may
not exist at all.
--------------------------------------
Quote: Poachers come and go with impunity. When a recent incident was
reported, their response was to advise the complainant of the local police
telephone number.
Response: Poaching is an illegal activity. It would make sense to most of us
to report this kind of thing to the police. In their position, knowing that
a second hand report to the police would be less valuable to them than the
witnesses account, I'd have done the same. Someone involved in woodland
management responded to this by pointing out that to confront a poacher who
has a gun, you really have to call the police. When asked for advice on what
to do if confronted with an armed criminal, the police do advise that a
member of the public should not confront the criminal and should call for
the police.
--------------------------------------
Quote: They use "approved" herbicides which they claim are "safe", including
Glyphosate, that can harm wildlife and their habitats.
Glyphosate treatment has reduced populations of beneficial insects, birds,
and small mammals by destroying vegitation on which they depend for food and
shelter.
"Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including
humans", according to the Journal of Pesticide Reform, 1998, Vol18, No3.
Response: The potential damage caused by the glyphosate in regenerating
woodland is less than would be caused by not using glyphosate. That's why
it's used, and it's used widely by a range of organisations, not just the
woodland trust. Glyphosate is widely regarded as one of the safer chemicals
that can be used in environmental management.
I've had real trouble finding the journal of pesticide reform, it isn't
referred to in any scientific databases I've seen. It is in the British
library, but not in any of the research libraries I know. Mr Macmillan has
also failed to give us the publication details when requested.
Examples of research showing the usefulness of this product in woodland
management include:
TI: Control of coppice regrowth in roadside woodlands
AU: Willoughby_I
JN: FORESTRY, 1999, Vol.72, No.4, pp.305-312
A direct quote from this paper: "There was no evidence to suggest any
translocation of herbicides from treated stumps to untreated trees in these
trials"
So it wouldn't appear that any damage is being done here.
Another study is:
TI: A microcosm approach to the detection of the effects of herbicide
spray drift in plant communities
AU: Marrs_RH, Frost_AJ
JN: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1997, Vol.50, No.4, pp.369- 388
Again, quoting directly: "Although damaging effects were found in the
immediate downwind zone from the sprayer, the restriction of effects to 8 m
suggests that a buffer zone of this size would be adequate to protect
sensitive habitats from most deleterious impacts on community processes".
Essentially, while there can be damage, it's very, very localised, and
within the context of managing the ecosystem as a whole that's perfectly
acceptable. If anyone out there can suggest anything effective that is safer
then I'm sure those involved with managing such habitats would be delighted
to hear.
Here's another reference that I think makes very interesting reading (but
I'm a fungus freak, so it ain't surprising)
TI: Response of microbial processes and fungal community structure to
vegetation management in mixedwood forest soils
AU: Houston_APC, Visser_S, Lautenschlager_RA
JN: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE BOTANIQUE, 1998,
Vol.76, No.12, pp.2002-2010
While there was an impact on the fungal population, in that the relative
abundancies of different species were affected, "Two years after vegetation
management was imposed there were no detectable effects on basal
respiration, microbial biomass C, qCO(2), CmicCorg, or nitrogen
mineralization in either the organic or mineral soil layers compared with
measurements made in the harvested control plots". So, on the whole, the mid
term effect was minimal.
------------------------------------
Quote: "These statements extolling the benefits of its woodlands for all
forms of wildlife are false, dishonest and misleading, and inconsistent with
the Trust's actions.
(this is one of several accusations that the WT have lied about the actions
they take, or have not been open about their culling policy).
Response: The WT distribute the magaine 'Broadleaf' to their members. The
Spring 2000 issue contained a very relevant article, which included this
passage:
"[Glen Finglas] As in many parts of Scotland, there are too many deer at
present and some are being culled. The population will be reduced to a level
that will allow saplings to grow on and mature replacing the old veteran
trees before the whole wooded landscape disappears. In the long term, the
restored woodland will provide shelter and food for the remaining deer,
which will be better able to survive the biting winter in the glens."
So it is simply erroneous to suggest that the WT are lying about this, they'
ve clearly informed their members about their activities.
------------------------------------
CONTRACEPTION IN WILD DEER
Some commentators have suggested that contraception of wild deer might be a
viable alternative to culling.
A good general review of this topic is;
Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild mammals
Muller LI, Warren RJ, Evans DL
WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
25: (2) 504-514 SUM 1997
------------------
GENERAL CONCEPTS
A very good grounding in this area is given by the article:
Effects of fertility control on populations of ungulates: General,
stage-structured models
Hobbs NT, Bowden DC, Baker DL
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
64: (2) 473-491 APR 2000
Quoting the main findings of that paper;
"(1) More than 50% of fertile females will need to be maintained infertile
to achieve meaningful reductions in ungulate numbers even when fertility
rates are low (2) The relationship between the proportion of females maintai
ned infertile and the steady state density is highly nonlinear. This means
that small errors in estimating levels of infertility can lead to large
errors in achieved density. It also means that managers should expect to see
little change in steady-state density across a broad range of delivery
rates. (3) The efficacy of fertility control as a management technique
depends strongly on the persistence of the effect of the fertility control
agent and the ability of managers to recognize previously treated animals.
(4) Fertility control using long-lived agents can be more efficient than
culling in regulating ungulate numbers. (5) Treating small populations with
irreversible agents magnifies the likelihood of population extinction
relative to treatment by culling. As with all techniques, managing
population fertility must extend from a sound understanding of the influence
of management actions on the state and dynamics of the population."
Clearly, such schemes are -just- possible for small scale problems, but
cannot be extended across whole regions. To successfully control a large
population, in a large area, with this kind of technique without massive
fluctuations in the population, enormous cost and tremendous manpower is
going to be practically impossible, and even then very small errors could
lead to losses way out of proportion to what would be expected, ie the risk
factor for the wild population, hence the whole habitat, is too high for
this to be used on a large population..
Another (now somewhat old) article of interest is:
Potential consequences and problems with wildlife contraceptives
Nettles VF
REPRODUCTION FERTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
9: (1) 137-143 1997
This article is mainly concerned with contraceptive methods other than those
discussed below (PZP and GnRH vaccine), and highlights the problems
associated, such as;
"harmful effects on pregnant animals, inhibition of parturition or dystocia,
changes in ovarian structure or function, changes in sex ratio, changes in
lactation or mammary glands, impact on fertility of young, changes in
testicular structure or function, changes in secondary sex characteristics,
changes in bodyweight, changes in behaviour, changes in annual breeding
season, other physiologic and pathologic changes, abscesses or inflammatory
reactions, toxicity, interference with diagnostic tests and ecological
alterations. Concern is expressed that the use of immunocontraception could
create genetic changes in the target population that would influence disease
resistance".
GNRH VACCINE
GnRH vaccine has been advocated as an appropriate contraceptive agent in
deer by some, but I can find only one paper on this relating to deer;
Immunocontraception of white-tailed deer with GnRH vaccine
Miller LA, Johns BE, Killian GJ
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
44: (5) 266-274 NOV 2000
"Treatment lead to reduced fawning rates, altered estrus behavior, reduced
concentrations of progesterone, contraception and failure to maintain
pregnancy following conception. GnRH immunized does bred to untreated bucks
had an 88% reduction in fawning caused by either immunocontraception or
immunocontragestion. The vaccine effect is reversible, directly related to
the antibody titer. Infertility lasted up to two years without boosting.
GnRH immunized bucks demonstrated no interest in sexual activity when paired
with control females. Depending on the immunization schedule, antlers either
dropped early or remained in velvet."
Although the paper concludes with a statement that this technique is
promising, and can reduce fertility, it fails to discuss the environmental
impact of releasing GnRH into the environment or indeed the health
implications of this for the deer in much depth. I also find the change in
behaviour of the animals to be quite an odd phenomenon, and it's quite
perplexing that such changes (and changes in antler development) would be
considered acceptable in a wild population.
One wonders also what the opinion of many of the proponent of this method
would be if they realised that the likely production method for such a
vaccine would be the use of recombinant (GM) bacteria.
The method of using the GnRH vaccine is also called into doubt by:
Effect of GnRH immunisation on hormonal levels, sexual behaviour, semen
quality and testicular morphology in mature stallions
Malmgren L, Andresen O, Dalin AM
EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL
33: (1) 75-83 JAN 2001
This paper shows that there was a pronounced lack of libido (but not total
suppression) in the test animals, and that there was a reduction in
testicular size. Further, the effects of the treatment were found to be
variable between individual animals, in my mind very much calling into
question whether such a practice could be used on a large scale for wild
animals (where close monitoring of individuals is not possible). Indeed, as
long as such variation occurs there must surely be severe animal welfare
concerns for this drug if used on large numbers of wild animals, at least
until more controlled trials are conducted.
Another paper highlighting the problems that would arise if this drug were
used for wild animals is:
The effects of active immunization against GnRH on testicular development,
feedlot performance, and carcass characteristics of beef bulls
Cook RB, Popp JD, Kastelic JP, Robbins S, Harland R
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
78: (11) 2778-2783 NOV 2000
Bulls treated with such a vaccine grew more like steers (castrated bulls),
i.e. more slowly, and the meat had a different consistency. It is therefore
simply wrong to put this method forward as a no-problems panacea for
lowering fertility rates in large numbers of wild animals, the one study
published using this method for wild deer didn't look in any depth at the
effects that have since been observed in other animals.
Note the recency of all of these publications (all within the last few
months). To criticise charitable organisations in the UK for not having been
involved in this yet (a method not even used in any sort of scale in
domestic animals, at least not that I know of) seems a bit harsh.
PZP
Another technique that has attracted a little attention has been the use of
PZP (porcine zona pellucida). This was studied in;
Evaluating immunocontraception for managing suburban white-tailed deer in
Irondequoit, New York
Rudolph BA, Porter WF, Underwood HB
JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
64: (2) 463-473 APR 2000
To quote that paper:
"Potential of using immunocontraception at low deer population densities
(<25% ecological carrying capacity) is limited by the interaction of the
proportion of breeding-age females in the population and treatment efficacy,
as well as encounter rates. Immunocontraception has the best potential for
holding suburban deer populations between 30 and 70% of ecological carrying
capacity, but is likely to be useful only in localized populations when the
number of females to be treated is small (e.g., less than or equal to 200
deer)."
Clearly, we're not looking at a technique that could be applied in large
scale population control.
The best general review of this method is:
Possible mechanisms of mammalian immunocontraception
Barber MR, Fayrer-Hosken RA
JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
46: (2) 103-124 MAR 2000
It's clear that although this does show some promise for localised treatment
of some species, (such as the Nature paper below) it's not what we need
right now in the UK to control a huge population of deer.
Immunocontraception of African elephants - A humane method to control
elephant populations without behavioural side effects.
Fayrer-Hosken RA, Grobler D, Van Altena JJ, Bertschinger HJ, Kirkpatrick JF
NATURE
407: (6801) 149-149 SEP 14 2000
PZP has also been demonstrated effective in a small number of Elk (JOURNAL
OF WILDLIFE DISEASES 34: (3) 539-546 JUL 1998, and JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT 62: (1) 243-250 JAN 1998), but again the authors of these studies
strongly recommend that population studies need to be done before this can
seriously be used, and don't suggest that this is used on a large wild
population.
So, to conclude, while there is some scope for using
contraception/immunocontraception, when dealing with a large area and an
enormous population of deer, this is clearly not an option.
AMacmil304
>From: "Colin A. B. Davidson" c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk
>Date: 05-03-01 14:59 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <9809fv$6bk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>Dear All,
>
>This is the latest version of the FAQ document containing refutations of
>Angus's points.
>Sorry if you've seen this before and don't want to again, but here it is
>anyway in the hope that it'll be useful to you all.
snip.
Pete has already discredited your ramblings.
You must be getting desperate!
Read the website:
http://www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
Colin A. B. Davidson
"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010305122038...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Savethedeer Refutation, FAQ v 3.0
> >From: "Colin A. B. Davidson" c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk
> >Date: 05-03-01 14:59 GMT Standard Time
> >Message-id: <9809fv$6bk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>
> >Dear All,
> >
> >This is the latest version of the FAQ document containing refutations of
> >Angus's points.
> >Sorry if you've seen this before and don't want to again, but here it is
> >anyway in the hope that it'll be useful to you all.
>
> snip.
>
> Pete has already discredited your ramblings.
>
No, Pete has -disagreed- with the points in the FAQ, without presenting any
solid contrary evidence or coherent, viable arguments against them.
Angus, I don't believe for a minute that you believe the points in the FAQ
to be discredited, you must surely know that you have comprehensively lost
the argument.
If you disagree, and have some dispute with any of the points in the FAQ,
then answer those points. Just once.
Roger Mills
> I have sent a complaint to your isp
Makes a change from threats of violence, I suppose.
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>This is the latest version of the FAQ document containing refutations of
>>Angus's points.
>Pete has already discredited your ramblings.
Quite aside from the fact that Colin hasn't rambled at all, how hand
where has Pete discredited anything of his? MIDs and citations, please,
not vague assertions.
Come on now - if you're right, you can easily prove it, and discredit me
and Colin at the same time. Given the certainty with which you make the
allegation, this should present you with no challenge whatsoever; we
should be sitting ducks.
Come on, Macmillan, you can do it! Just one post, damning everything
we've said, by use of hard facts!
Oh...
--
Andy Mabbett
Just created:
uk.current-events.foot-and-mouth
Andy Mabbett
<C...@intel.com> writes
>please stop spamming the group with this rubbish
It's been posted once, in one newsgroup; hardly spam.
>I have sent a complaint to your isp
Send one to your own, too, for repeating it, won't you?
Colin A. B. Davidson
"media dept" <C...@intel.com> wrote in message
news:3aa7c370...@news.freeserve.net...
> please stop spamming the group with this rubbish
It's a new document, an update of an old FAQ. It's perfectly normal
procedure to post such an update. It's been postd once, and once only.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3aaecb5c...@news.eidosnet.co.uk...
> It's not new, is considered spam and the derogatory content is
> offensive to users here as well as abusive to the victim named in the
> contents.
How did you read it if I'm killfiled?
Read it again and compare it to the earlier document. It's contains several
new points, a new costing of planting woodlands with individual tree
protection, and new information on contraception in wild animals. It is
radically different to the last version of the document, and has been posted
only once. IT is therefore not spam.
It also contains no personal abuse at all, and -only- mentions Angus becase
it deals with the points made by him and referred to by him each and every
time he quotes his URL's. If you think otherwise, and that it -does- contain
abuse, then demonstrate such.
Philip Powell
<c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3aaecb5c...@news.eidosnet.co.uk...
>
>> It's not new, is considered spam and the derogatory content is
>> offensive to users here as well as abusive to the victim named in the
>> contents.
>
>How did you read it if I'm killfiled?
Bet there's no answer to that.
It is not spam and I do not consider it offensive since it refutes
baseless claims.
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <nopos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3aa3ddcd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> >>FREQUENTLY POSTED RESPONSES TO ANGUS MCMILLAN
> >>Version 3.0
>
> he says, it appears the writer of this does not accept anyone else has
> views over theirs, certainly not what this group or any other group
> was started for.
Mmmh hm. Please, justify that there is any abuse in the document, or any
refutation based purely on a non-acceptance of another persons opinion. I
have disagreed with comments, I have posted evidence on a number of topics.
Please, where is this 'abuse'?
>
> I would suggest you all send letters of complaint to the ISP of the
> party involved, as he is victimizing a legitimate user of this group.
Oh, please. There's no abuse or victimisation there whatsoever. Angus
frequently refers to the same URL's, these are counter points to the
arguments therein. In what way is that victimisation?
At no point have I victimised or tried to discredit Angus, what I've done is
posted counter arguments to his points.
> please give us checkable proof online of where you obtained this
> misinformation, note online checkable not from some obscure leaflet in
> a dentists surgery.
What?
Each and every one of the references I've quoted includes the neccesarry
information to allow anyone to go to the journal in question and read the
data. I honestly don't know which are available online. Most scientific
journals aren't freely available in that form, you'll have to do the leg
work and go to a good university library.
Note that the measure of the quality of a research article is not that it is
available online. The measure of the quality of a research article is the
quality of the data, the analysis of the data, and which journal it's
published in. I've stuck with quality scientific journals publishing only
peer reviewed research.
> Despite this you still also pester the group with 100s of messages
> that say the same.
With respect, I reply (when I have the inclination) to specific messages on
the group, on a range of topics. I don't repeat the entirity of this
document over and over again.
>
> >>The format of much of this document is one of quote (from the websites
Angus
> >>asks us to visit) followed by response. I won't quote the URL directly,
> >>because the address itself is currently in the legally grey area
becoming
> >>known as 'cybersquatting', using the name of the Woodland Trust.
>
> Nothing grey about it,angus owns the site.
From the sheer number of people who have questioned the validity of that, I
think it clear that it -is- a grey area. But that's an aside.
> >>Response: Any ecologist will tell you the value of preventing any
species in
> >>a woodland from getting out of control; if any of the herbivores get too
> >>numerous, the damage done can be tremendous. No figures for population
have
> >>been put forward by the gentleman, and until they are his case here is
very,
> >>very flimsy. The course he advocates would, by conventional ecological
> >>management, lead to devastation of the woodland.
>
> Totally disagree, that is just your opinion, so much for fact.
>
Errm, ok. Please cite where Angus has put forward population figures, and
name some reputable ecologist/environmental management professionals who
disagree.
(CUT)
> >>Buckley GP, Howell R, Watt TA, et al.
> >>Vegetation succession following ride edge management in lowland
plantations
> >>and woods .1. The influence of site factors and management practices
> >>BIOL CONSERV 82: (3) 289-304 DEC 1997
(CUT)
>
> Yes, no mention on non-lethal measures to control it here, no mention
> of control measures at all, just stating a fact deer like to eat
> vegetation, so of no use in discrediting angus then, document
> conveniently unavailable online so we cant check the content even
> exists, a handy tool the poster of this frequently uses.
It's not about non-lethal measures, it's about the impact of deer
overgrazing. In itself this paper demonstrates the problem. Do you disagree?
(CUT)
> >>Mayle BA
> >>Progress in predictive management of deer populations in British
woodlands
> >>FOREST ECOL MANAG 88: (1-2) 187-198 NOV 1 1996
(CUT)
>
> Again, no mention on non-lethal measures to control it here, no
> mention of control measures at all, just states the obvious that
> everything needs some form of control, so of no use in discrediting
> angus then, document conveniently unavailable online so we cant check
> the content even exists, a handy tool the poster of this frequently
> uses to substantiate his untrue claims on angus.
>
Errm, no. The paper is about -control-. It's not about discrediting anyone,
it's a document that explains the need for population control.
I am glad that you accept the need for population control of deer.
It's not 'conveniently unavailable online', it's simply that this is a
scientific journal that is available in good University libraries, 'online
access' is not the standard way of obtaining such articles. Even if it were,
you'd have to pay a subscription. IT might be easier to refer always to
online sources, but as so many things aren't freely available that way we're
stusk with doing things the old fashioned way.
> >>Kirby KJ, Thomas RC, Dawkins HC
> >>Monitoring of changes in tree and shrub layers in Wytham woods
> >>(Oxfordshire), 1974-1991
> >>FORESTRY 69: (4) 319-334 1996
(CUT)
> Again, just stating the obvious, nothing to discredit angus here.
>
And, again, the purpose isn't to discredit. It's to demonstrate the hugely
strong case for population control.
And, with respect, if you read this paper it does a lot more than state the
obvious.
> >>Patel A, Rapport DJ
> >>Assessing the impacts of deer browsing, prescribed burns, visitor use,
and
> >>trails on an oak-pine forest: Pinery Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada
> >>NAT AREA J 20: (3) 250-260 JUL 2000
(CUT)
> again stating the obvious, nothing to discredit non lethal control
> here.
And yet it's a point that Angus has disagreed with. No, this isn't trying to
discredit him, it's a presentation of data that shows to be true what he has
insisted is untrue.
(MORE ARTICLES AND IDENTICAL COMMENTS IN RESPONSE CUT)
The purpose of posting multiple examples of papers discussing the effects of
an overpopulation of deer is that the non-lethal control issue isn't
accepted by all (or many) in this NG. Some, in fact, have argued that there
is no need for population control; these examples show the neccesity of the
case for control, and that Angus's claim that the Trust is somehow reneging
on it's promise to protect the habitat by culling deer is flawed. Surely you
can see that the practice of culling deer does indeed protect the habitat
for a much more diverse range of organisms than could be supported were
culling not practised?
> >>He's also argued that a good alternative to controlling deer numbers
would
> >>be to fence the trees. This is an odd position, considering the weight
of
> >>evidence there is to show us what damage this would cause. Examples:
> >>
> >>TI: Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus in Scotland - demography of a
declining
> >>population
> >> AU: Moss_R, Picozzi_N, Summers_RW, Baines_D
> >> JN: IBIS, 2000, Vol.142, No.2, pp.259-267
>
> methods of deer control in areas of Capercallie,Pheasant fatalities
> would benefit greatly from non-lethal electric fence, Repellents etc.
Mmmh hm. But it ain't the electricity that kills the bird, it's the impact.
Excessive deer numbers also cause the loss of cover that is vital for these
bird species to survive. So fencing off areas does indeed protect the birds
by providing cover, but it will inevitably lead to casualties.
(CUT)
This part of the document isn't here to discredit non-lethal alternatives to
culling, it's here to demonstrate that the wide-scale fencing often in the
past advocated in this NG is not practical.
>
> >>Another study, which is extremely damning of deer fencing is...
> >>
> >> TI: Assessment of bird collisions with deer fences in Scottish forests
> >> AU: Baines_D, Summers_RW
> >> JN: JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, 1997, Vol.34, No.4, pp.941-948
> >>
> >>I quote this report directly now: "This study adds weight to previous
> >>findings that fences are a frequent cause of mortality in capercaillie",
and
> >>"a policy of deer culling to achieve tree regeneration without deer
fencing
> >>would be desirable wherever practicable and especially within the range
and
> >>main native pinewood habitat of capercaillie".
>
> Again viewed with no non lethal alternatives in mind. and not
> available online to check fully the reference
Gee, the JAE isn't available online? Oh, well, just goes to show that even
very good journals aren't neccesarily available online.
But please remember that the caper is on the edge. It needs all the help it
can get to avoid extinction, changes in the way we manage our land have hit
it hard. If we put barriers up around areas of trees, electric or otherwise,
they'll kill the young capers who fly into them. This isn't meant to say
anything about non-lethal alternatives because if you look at the date of
publication the most modern methods of non-lethal control had yet to be
published.
>
> >>----------------------------------------
> >>Quote: Rather than taking a cheap and nasty commercial decision to
> >>"intervene" in the lives of roe deer to save money, it should pay for
the
> >>protection of its trees.
>
> >>Response: An option to fencing (which clearly damages endangered, native
> >>birds as explained above)
>
> and discredited by myself above
>
Not really. If the fences are put up, birds will be killed, including the
rare caper. Nothing you have said really calls into question the results of
those studies.
> >>This cost breakdown was obtained from a commercial contractor involved
in
> >>such operations;
(CUT)
> Totally unrelated prices for a commercial enterprise not applicable to
> charity conservation groups dealing with specific areas.
>
Errm, not -strictly- true. The charity still has to pay material costs, and
for it's employees time. No charity has an unlimited army of volounteers.
The figures here aren't meant to be definitive (with fluctuations in season,
how could they be?), they're merely here to show that no charity can afford
individual tree protection.
> >>------------------------------
> >>Quote: This slaughter, euphemistically described as "deer control", is
> >>despicable and dishonest!
> >>
> >>Response: Emotional rubbish. Population control is a perfectly
acceptable
> >>description of responsible culling.
>
> Again no allowance for anyone to have a view other than his own, we
> all must think as he does or we are wrong, another attempt at
> discrediting angus which fails.
>
Please, with respect if you disagree with me you're perfectly welcome to
voice that. As am I.
Most of the big land owners, especially North of the border, have to control
the number of deer. They do it by culling. They call it deer control.
Therefore, that term is perfectly acceptable.
> >>Response: Whatever you think about fox hunting, allowing it in a small
part
> >>of your land isn't going to ruin the habitat, and as part of a balanced
> >>management policy doesn't represent an ecological hazard. Indeed, it can
be
> >>argued that by giving some financial value to the land hunting can help
to
> >>protect the habitat in the long term. However, that is beyond the scope
of
> >>this document.
>
> As most of your quotes are, if the general public knew this was
> allowed to happen I doubt the subscriptions would be so forthcoming,
> certainly in my case, allow any form of animal killing and my subs are
> withdrawn.
>
> Again angus is right.
>
Mmh hm. You've not really addressed my point there. As part of a balanced
management system, in what way does fox hunting on a limited number of sites
(on which the trust may well not have any control with regard tohunting)
contravene the trusts long term conservation goals, and could it not be
argued that by bringing people into the woodland it is an economic activity
that can help to preserve that habitat?
> >>Response: This simply isn't true. Sites that need special protection
because
> >>they house especially rare species are quite closely protected. While
no-one
> >>is suggesting that tourism can't have an adverse effect, it's well worth
> >>remembering that this generation of wealth by a woodland can give it the
> >>economic value that will ultimately protect it from developers.
Increasing
> >>public awareness of the value of our few remaining ancient woodlands is
just
> >>about the most valuable thing the charity could possibly achieve, and
the
> >>only way to do this is by allowing some access. A little look at the
site
> >>http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/who/indexfr.htm will reveal the trusts
> >>lobbying policy, it's quite revealing.
>
> Using your opinion to discredit angus again, where are the facts we
> were promised? angus's opinion above is perfectly valid, as valid as
> yours.
Mmmhy hm. Have you looked at the WT site quoted there? And can you back up
the initial claim of 'hot-spot- development, and that this causes damage?
Remember, I'm not the one making the claim here. Angus is the one who has
made a claim about the WT that is att odds with the information they
themselves give, and indeed with the experience many in this NG have
expressed. He really needs to back up said claim with some evidence or let
it drop.
> >>Response: The Woods on your Doorstep scheme aims to plant up to
200 -new-
> >>woods in England and Wales. These aren't environmentally sensitive woods
> >>because (1) they're too young, and (2) they are created with the
specific
> >>purpose of being accessible. If it wasn't for this project, those woods
may
> >>not exist at all.
>
> Again your opinion versus angus, each are right.
> so no discredit there of angus.
Errm, not really just opinion, more a refutation of Angus's point based upon
the freely available information on this project. Please, look at the WT's
web site, Angus's view here is really not logically defensible. If you look
into this project, you'll see that these are mostly new woodlands that would
not exist at all if it was not for the trust. Or do you have reason to
question that this is what the WT are doing with this project?
> >>Response: Poaching is an illegal activity. It would make sense to most
of us
> >>to report this kind of thing to the police. In their position, knowing
that
> >>a second hand report to the police would be less valuable to them than
the
> >>witnesses account, I'd have done the same. Someone involved in woodland
> >>management responded to this by pointing out that to confront a poacher
who
> >>has a gun, you really have to call the police. When asked for advice on
what
> >>to do if confronted with an armed criminal, the police do advise that a
> >>member of the public should not confront the criminal and should call
for
> >>the police.
>
> Again your opinion versus angus, each are right.
> so no discredit there of angus.
Errm, no. In what way can a criticism of the WT for suggesting that someone
who sees an armed criminal on their land report said criminal to the police
be fair? In what way, if the police are to be called, does this mean that
the criminal goes with impunity? I put it to you that Angus accusation here
against the trust is simply unfair.
> >>Response: The potential damage caused by the glyphosate in regenerating
> >>woodland is less than would be caused by not using glyphosate. That's
why
> >>it's used, and it's used widely by a range of organisations, not just
the
> >>woodland trust. Glyphosate is widely regarded as one of the safer
chemicals
> >>that can be used in environmental management.
>
> Again your opinion versus angus, each are right.
> so no discredit there of angus.
Not just opinion, it's backed up strongly by the data below.
> >>Examples of research showing the usefulness of this product in woodland
> >>management include:
>
> No one disputes the usefulness, angus rightly points out the side
> effects, again no reason to discredit angus.
>
> <snip more stuff on the benefits of chemicals non disputed by anyone
> what is in dispute is the side effects and it's use>
>
And the papers posted go into the side effects and show them to be, in this
type of scenario, negligible if not non-existant. If you disagree then
please go into those papers and explain why their conclusions, ie that
glyphosate is a safe compound to use in this situation, is wrong. Please can
you site some evidence that glyphosate, used in woodland management, is not
an environmentally sound procedure?
> >>------------------------------------
> >>Quote: "These statements extolling the benefits of its woodlands for all
> >>forms of wildlife are false, dishonest and misleading, and inconsistent
with
> >>the Trust's actions.
>
> >>(this is one of several accusations that the WT have lied about the
actions
> >>they take, or have not been open about their culling policy).
>
> Well I certainly have been unable to find any in depth detail on
> charity culling process and await details from them direct.
> again no reason to discredit angus.
>
Errm, I think rather it is. The trust are quite clearly not hiding this from
their members if they then put it in a magazine that they send out to them.
So the accusation that the trust is misleading its members, or that the
statements extolling it's woodlands are therefore misleading, is simply not
one that can be substantiated.
> >>Response: The WT distribute the magaine 'Broadleaf' to their members.
The
> >>Spring 2000 issue contained a very relevant article, which included this
> >>passage:
(CUT)
>
> No problem with that, that's what we want, the information
> forthcoming, however no mention on non lethal alternatives looked
> into.
That's not the point under discussion in this isntance. The point I'm making
here is that Angus accusation that the trust is misleading its members and
the public is clearly erroneous. If the trust were hiding this, being
misleading, why would htey publish an article about it?
>
> >>So it is simply erroneous to suggest that the WT are lying about this,
they'
> >>ve clearly informed their members about their activities.
>
> Not quite clearly enough it would seem, I never saw it.
>
Mmmh hm. Do you argue that they must make each and every one of their policy
decisions public to the extent that each and every one of their members is
aware of each and every one? Even including practices that are carried out
by pretty much all major conservation charities and land owners? The postage
cost alone would be hideous.
> >>------------------------------------
> >>CONTRACEPTION IN WILD DEER
> >>
> >>Some commentators have suggested that contraception of wild deer might
be a
> >>viable alternative to culling.
> >>
> >>A good general review of this topic is;
> >>Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild mammals
> >>Muller LI, Warren RJ, Evans DL
> >>WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
> >>25: (2) 504-514 SUM 1997
>
> Colin then goes on to show various reports to discredit "one" non
> lethal alternative being very careful to omit any positive aspects.
The articles I mentioned do show some positive aspects, and if you look I do
mention them. Your accusation there is simply wong.
>
> >>------------------
> >>
> >>GENERAL CONCEPTS
> >>
> >>A very good grounding in this area is given by the article:
> >>
> >>Effects of fertility control on populations of ungulates: General,
> >>stage-structured models
> >>Hobbs NT, Bowden DC, Baker DL
> >>JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
> >>64: (2) 473-491 APR 2000
(CUT)
>
> More understanding required on the matter, more research is ongoing
> into these principles.
Mmmh hm. And do you advocate that we can use contraception of wild animals
now when the best data we have suggests that it's dangerous, unstabling for
the population and clearly too expensive for large scale problems? If at
some point in the future things look different no-one here will question
whether this technology has a place, but in the meantime is it not a bit
irresponsible to advocate a demonstrably inefficient, over-expensive and
dangerous technology?
> Quite possible on smaller populations and used in conjunction with
> other non lethal methods could prove very effective.
Which other non-lethal measures to control the population? To control a
population you can either kill them or prevent then from being born, ie
contraception or culling. What other population control methods?
>
> >>Another (now somewhat old) article of interest is:
> >>
> >>Potential consequences and problems with wildlife contraceptives
> >>Nettles VF
> >>REPRODUCTION FERTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
> >>9: (1) 137-143 1997
(CUT)
> Concern, research still required and ongoing.
Read the paper. And, again, if the best data we can get says we should be
worried do you really advocating using such a technology in the field, on
wild animals until such concerns are addressed?
>
> >>GNRH VACCINE
> >>GnRH vaccine has been advocated as an appropriate contraceptive agent in
> >>deer by some, but I can find only one paper on this relating to deer;
> >>
> >>Immunocontraception of white-tailed deer with GnRH vaccine
> >>Miller LA, Johns BE, Killian GJ
> >>AMERICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
> >>44: (5) 266-274 NOV 2000
(CUT)
> So quite usable as one method of control.
>
At some point in the future, on a small scale, if we're prepared to pay a
tremendous amount for it then maybe, yes. But not on the large scale we're
discussing, and the paper doesn't advocate that.
> >>Although the paper concludes with a statement that this technique is
> >>promising, and can reduce fertility, it fails to discuss the
environmental
> >>impact of releasing GnRH into the environment or indeed the health
> >>implications of this for the deer in much depth. I also find the change
in
> >>behaviour of the animals to be quite an odd phenomenon, and it's quite
> >>perplexing that such changes (and changes in antler development) would
be
> >>considered acceptable in a wild population.
>
> your opinion based on no knowledge of the process just opinion, like
> angus or me who brought this up, opinion, both count, so again no
> reason here to discredit angus.
Errm, no. The paper simply doesn't address those issues, issues that I'm
sure you agree need to be addressed before a technology can be used in
conservation. You do agree that these are questions that need to be
answered, don't you?
>
> >>One wonders also what the opinion of many of the proponent of this
method
> >>would be if they realised that the likely production method for such a
> >>vaccine would be the use of recombinant (GM) bacteria.
>
> your speculation.
Yes, speculation, that's why it starts with 'one wonders'.
What is your view on that issue?
>
> >>The method of using the GnRH vaccine is also called into doubt by:
> >>
> >>Effect of GnRH immunisation on hormonal levels, sexual behaviour, semen
> >>quality and testicular morphology in mature stallions
> >>Malmgren L, Andresen O, Dalin AM
> >>EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL
> >>33: (1) 75-83 JAN 2001
(CUT)
> more controlled trials, correct.
Mmmh hm. And clearly we can't use this on wild animals in the near future,
these trials will take time. So we cannot justifiably have a go at the WT
for not holding it's breath. If they don't go ahead and cull the deer at the
moment, the damage that will be incurred is well documented.
> >>The effects of active immunization against GnRH on testicular
development,
> >>feedlot performance, and carcass characteristics of beef bulls
> >>Cook RB, Popp JD, Kastelic JP, Robbins S, Harland R
> >>JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
> >>78: (11) 2778-2783 NOV 2000
> >>
> >>Bulls treated with such a vaccine grew more like steers (castrated
bulls),
> >>i.e. more slowly, and the meat had a different consistency. It is
therefore
> >>simply wrong to put this method forward as a no-problems panacea for
> >>lowering fertility rates in large numbers of wild animals, the one study
> >>published using this method for wild deer didn't look in any depth at
the
> >>effects that have since been observed in other animals.
>
> Fine news for hunters, and meat sellers, of no interest to us who want
> non lethal alternatives and never eat deer.
This clearly demonstrates that there are veterinary effects of the vaccine
that need looking into. Do you not accept that to advocate using such a
practice in wild animals, that cannot be monitored closely, when it clearly
has some not-understood health implications for those animals is just a bit
irresponsible?
> >>Note the recency of all of these publications (all within the last few
> >>months). To criticise charitable organisations in the UK for not having
been
> >>involved in this yet (a method not even used in any sort of scale in
> >>domestic animals, at least not that I know of) seems a bit harsh.
>
> Opinion again, angus's opinion is just as valid.
> these non lethal trials and research has been going on for years in
> the USA and it is certainly about time the UK joined in.
Errm, no. Research has been going on in some areas of contraception of wild
animals for years, but those older methods have been clearly shown to be
somewhat dangerous (see the paper by Nettles above). So it's a bit unfair to
criticise any UK charity for not going ahead with a technique that isn't
generally considered safe. If contraception of wild deer is going to be a
possibility, then it'll come from these more recent techniques.
Or do you suggest that UK charities should say to hell with published
research and go with a technique that has severe environmental problems,
cost problems, animal welfare problems and isn't proven to be reliable?
>
> >>
> >>PZP
> >>
> >>Another technique that has attracted a little attention has been the use
of
> >>PZP (porcine zona pellucida). This was studied in;
> >>
> >>Evaluating immunocontraception for managing suburban white-tailed deer
in
> >>Irondequoit, New York
> >>Rudolph BA, Porter WF, Underwood HB
> >>JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
> >>64: (2) 463-473 APR 2000
(CUT)
> So when you consider the UK average herd is probably around 50 animals
> perfectly usable alternative isn't it.
>
Not really. We're not looking at individual herds that need controlling, and
we're not looking at just a few individual areas. It'a much, much larger
scale than that (I believe Malcolm quoted some figures fot the rise in deer
numbers in recent years). Different herds -do- interract, remember,
especially when we have such a large population.
> Opinion again no more valid than angus or anyone else.
>
Not really, it's the main finding of the research paper quoted above. Do you
dispute their data? On what grounds?
> >>Possible mechanisms of mammalian immunocontraception
> >>Barber MR, Fayrer-Hosken RA
> >>JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY
> >>46: (2) 103-124 MAR 2000
> >>
> >>It's clear that although this does show some promise for localised
treatment
> >>of some species, (such as the Nature paper below) it's not what we need
> >>right now in the UK to control a huge population of deer.
>
> Opinion again no more valid than angus or anyone else.
Errm, read the papers quoted. It isn't just an opinion. It's borne out by
all of the peer reviewed, published research articles I can find.
>
> >>
> >>Immunocontraception of African elephants - A humane method to control
> >>elephant populations without behavioural side effects.
> >>Fayrer-Hosken RA, Grobler D, Van Altena JJ, Bertschinger HJ, Kirkpatrick
JF
> >>NATURE
> >>407: (6801) 149-149 SEP 14 2000
> >>
> >>PZP has also been demonstrated effective in a small number of Elk
(JOURNAL
> >>OF WILDLIFE DISEASES 34: (3) 539-546 JUL 1998, and JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE
> >>MANAGEMENT 62: (1) 243-250 JAN 1998), but again the authors of these
studies
> >>strongly recommend that population studies need to be done before this
can
> >>seriously be used, and don't suggest that this is used on a large wild
> >>population.
> >>
> >>
> >>So, to conclude, while there is some scope for using
> >>contraception/immunocontraception, when dealing with a large area and an
> >>enormous population of deer, this is clearly not an option.
>
> Opinion again no more valid than angus or anyone else.
>
Not really just opinion. On what grounds do you dispute the finding of these
papers, that do not suggest that this method be used on a large scale?
> So in actual fact the FAQ set out to discredit angus and anyone else
> who dares to have a different opinion than the writers fails to
> discredit him or anyone else at all.
It isn't set out to discredit anyone. Angus has made a number of
accusations, these are answers to those, and infairness this document has
stood up to analysis very well. As yet, there's still no demonstrable
alternative to culling, at best you can claim that maybe, a few years hence,
we'll be seriouslydiscussing how to apply immunocontraception, buut we're
clearly nowhere near that yet. None of the papers published in the field
have claimed otherwise.
>
> non lethal methods of control have been proved perfectly viable in
> certain cases and the points angus highlights on the UK charities are
> valid points of which we knew nothing until he pointed them out to us.
Errm, no. I's been demonstrated that such methods might, if they prove to be
safe and effective, may be useful, but they've a few hurdles to get over
before they're really useable. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise,
because your opinion is flying in the face of the findings of published
research.
(ABUSE DELETED)
Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>
>>Pete has already discredited your ramblings.
>
>Quite aside from the fact that Colin hasn't rambled at all, how hand
>where has Pete discredited anything of his? MIDs and citations, please,
>not vague assertions.
>
>Come on now - if you're right, you can easily prove it, and discredit me
>and Colin at the same time. Given the certainty with which you make the
>allegation, this should present you with no challenge whatsoever; we
>should be sitting ducks.
>
>Come on, Macmillan, you can do it! Just one post, damning everything
>we've said, by use of hard facts!
>
>Oh...
Still waiting for MIDs and citations; still waiting for hard facts; this
despite the claim:
In article <20000609173426...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
AMacmil304 <amacm...@aol.com> wrote
>All my claims can be backed up with documentation.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
>, they
> have both been warned by the ISPs and Employers against wasting time
> and abusing usenet,
>
Ignoring the rest of the abuse, I'll repeat once more that this accusation
is simply untrue.
Andy Mabbett
<c.dav...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> writes
I'm looking forward to the retraction promised in:
Message-ID: <3abf1d3c...@pubnews.netcom.net.uk>
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
> Yet more lies, in 18 months you have been relentless in your
> vindictiveness, nothing would make you stop your campaign, until now,
> suddenly after your ISP and employers were informed of your antics,
> suddenly, almost overnight your posting rate of abuse dropped by 90%.
>
> If I am lying inform my ISP, it is a serious accusation,and as U well
> know I have documentary evidence old fruit.
Just isn't worth it. Expect to be ignored.
Colin A. B. Davidson
"Pete" <one_l...@NNNhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> OK, now we can progress,I'll deal with you, drop the slur on any users
> here in your FAQ.
>
There isn't a 'slur' on anyone therein. But as I've already said, if it
pleases people I'm perfectly happy to remove Angus's name from the document.
Stephen Toledo-Brown
>
> if it
> pleases people I'm perfectly happy to remove Angus's name from the document.
No. Leave his name in. Only remove things which are irrelevant or
untrue. Last time I looked, I could see nothing untrue in it, and only
one word which was irrelevant: "Gussie".
--
Steve Toledo-Brown
Speaking for myself only.
Humans please use reply-to address: nomail is a non-read spam hole.
Malcolm Hayes
Now this is added to the kill file. Troll somewhere else.
"Pete" <one_lo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3abc36d3...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:19:14 +0000, Stephen Toledo-Brown
> <nom...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >"Colin A. B. Davidson" wrote:
> >>
> >> if it
> >> pleases people I'm perfectly happy to remove Angus's name from the
document.
> >
> >No. Leave his name in. Only remove things which are irrelevant or
> >untrue. Last time I looked, I could see nothing untrue in it, and only
> >one word which was irrelevant: "Gussie".
>
> Gee, imagine the mess we would be in if you had anything of value to
> say.
>
>
AMacmil304
>From: Andy Mabbett an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
>Date: 21/03/01 15:50 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <xMg+K6CU...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
Andy, Colin and you have been discredited a number of times already.
I've no intention of repeating the process.
Andy Mabbett
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>Pete has already discredited your ramblings.
>>>Come on, Macmillan, you can do it! Just one post, damning everything
>>>we've said, by use of hard facts!
>>Still waiting for MIDs and citations; still waiting for hard facts; this
>>despite the claim:
>>
>> In article <20000609173426...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
>> AMacmil304 <amacm...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> >All my claims can be backed up with documentation.
>Andy, Colin and you have been discredited a number of times already.
So you say. When you have been discredited - often by yourself - I have
posted quotes and citations to back up my claims. I've challenged you to
provide evidence to support that assertion, which you have not yet done.
I specifically asked for:
>>>MIDs and citations, please, not vague assertions.
Will you provide such evidence? Can you? I think you won't, because you
can't.
>I've no intention of repeating the process.
Seems I'm right.