Conservationists killing off biodiversity
Dr John Thomas
situations which is the case to be found for many quick fix cheap
solutions where conservation charities try to kid us it is.
From the following.
http://www.ex.ac.uk/knotweed/managing_japanese_knotweed.htm
Cutting or pulling.
Regular cutting or pulling will, after a number of years, eventually
exhaust the rhizome and kill the plant. It is important that all cut
or pulled stems of Japanese Knotweed are kept on site, or disposed of
as described above. As stems, crowns and rhizomes readily regenerate,
they must be allowed to dry out thoroughly after they have been pulled
or cut. Regular checks should be made to ensure that this material is
not contaminating watercourses or other sites, or developing roots.
Thoroughly burning plant material on site where current by-laws allow
can be an effective means of disposal provided that the waste is burnt
on site and not removed to other land (this would be an offence under
the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
And here is an excellent use for it if you are feeling hungry ;-)
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/listarch/arch054.html
1. How to eat japanese knotweed (Vermont)
From: Rose Paul (rp...@tnc.org)
Regarding japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) being spread by
streams...I have seen recently washed up knotweed root mats taking
root in
exposed substrate in riparian areas, specifically low gravel bars
along
the river. My guess is that bits of roots get eroded from banks,
washed
downstream and stranded again anywhere the floodwaters will go. If
there's any kind of exposed soil, those roots will take hold. In one
floodplain preserve where we have been controlling knotweed, several
knotweed patches occur under closed tree canopy. The best way to deal
with
this plant is to survey for it every year, and dig up the new
infestations
before the rhizomes start to travel. This is a very feasible job for
volunteers.
A Recipe for Japanese Knotweed Pie (No kidding!)
The following recipe comes from Conservancy friend Jaye Lindner, who
catered a wild edibles feast for VTFO's Acorn members last spring.
4 Cups peeled and chopped Japanese knotweed shoots (tender, young
shoots
less than 18 inches high work best)
1 Cup Sugar
1 Egg
2 Tablespoon Unbleached Flour
Mix all ingredients well and pour into your favorite pie crust; cover
with
a top crust and bake at 425 degrees for 40 - 50 minutes
********************************
As you can see Gill where there is a will there is a way. If we were
told the truth about the pros and cons of weed killers in conservation
I am sure many of us would volunteer to do the job properly if given
the chance. Sadly we are being led blinkered down a road of abuse by
very clever groups who probably benefit from the use of chemicals and
the like.
You would probably find in the small print somewhere that there were
grants available to use chemicals & nothing for volunteer labour!!!
something is definitely wrong when we are not being told the truth.
GillCatton
> Whilst Glyphosphate is used it is really not necessary in most
> situations which is the case to be found for many quick fix cheap
> solutions where conservation charities try to kid us it is.
>
> Regular cutting or pulling will, after a number of years, eventually
> exhaust the rhizome and kill the plant. It is important that all cut
> or pulled stems of Japanese Knotweed are kept on site, or disposed of
> as described above. As stems, crowns and rhizomes readily regenerate,
> they must be allowed to dry out thoroughly after they have been pulled
> or cut. Regular checks should be made to ensure that this material is
> not contaminating watercourses or other sites, or developing roots.
> Thoroughly burning plant material on site where current by-laws allow
> can be an effective means of disposal provided that the waste is burnt
> on site and not removed to other land (this would be an offence under
> the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
>
> And here is an excellent use for it if you are feeling hungry ;-)
>
many recipies that are written for rhubarb - I think it has to be the
young stems and aparently it makes good jam too!- If only there was a
market for itthe problem may be solved!
>
> Regarding japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) being spread by
> streams...I have seen recently washed up knotweed root mats taking
> root in
> exposed substrate in riparian areas, specifically low gravel bars
> along
> the river. My guess is that bits of roots get eroded from banks,
> washed
> downstream and stranded again anywhere the floodwaters will go. If
> there's any kind of exposed soil, those roots will take hold. In one
> floodplain preserve where we have been controlling knotweed, several
> knotweed patches occur under closed tree canopy. The best way to deal
> with
> this plant is to survey for it every year, and dig up the new
> infestations
> before the rhizomes start to travel. This is a very feasible job for
> volunteers.
> As you can see Gill where there is a will there is a way. If we were
> told the truth about the pros and cons of weed killers in conservation
> I am sure many of us would volunteer to do the job properly if given
> the chance. Sadly we are being led blinkered down a road of abuse by
> very clever groups who probably benefit from the use of chemicals and
> the like.
>
> You would probably find in the small print somewhere that there were
> grants available to use chemicals & nothing for volunteer labour!!!
> something is definitely wrong when we are not being told the truth.
I agree with you about pulling being the most enviro friendly way of
dealing with the problem but I can't help but worry that because of
the scale of the problem and the fact that you have to pull all
through the growing season because the bastard plant can grow from
root fragments and even broken stems (which is why you have to burn it
or bury it 8 foot under for disposal)there just aren't enough
volunteers, and I know they could put someone on a payroll to do this
but that's an awful lot of man hours espcially since it's an ongoing
thing (you may have cleared your land but it doesn't mean that they
have upstream so regenreation is only matter of time). I don't know
if you've seen how frightening it is, try visiting parts of South
Wales, they're covered in it. It makes me really sad when I see it on
the side of a river somewhere new because I know that it's only a
matter of time..... There's this patch of woodland that particularly
sticks in my mind, it was a lovely section of periodically flooded
woodland and in one are it was lovely full of beautiful woodland
flowers and plants and then there's this army of Japanese Knotweed
marching in from the river, it dies in the winter and at the time I
was there, all I could see was this lovely mat of woodland plants and
then this bare soil covered in dead JK stalks with new JK growing
through, it was really horrible.
Also the physical action of pulling from river beds worries me because
surely as these plants grow so deep and because you have to do this
again and again throughout the growing season, you risk damage to the
river bank espcially since the plants grow down to the river side,
also (though I doubt you'd be prosecuted because you'd be trying to
help the situation - you may if you are a large organisation because
pulling may not be considered 'best practise') if only one fragment of
the plant was to fall in the river and float down-stream and result in
the growth of a new plant you could be prosecuted under the wildlife
and Countryside Act as it's illegal to plant or otherwise allow to
grow this plant.
I don't know the whole thing's crap, I wish it was a problem easily
solved.
Gill
<@
#\¬
^^
Sue & Bob Hobden
"GillCatton" wrote in message ((SNIP))
> I agree with you about pulling being the most enviro friendly way of
> dealing with the problem
Have you ever tried "pulling" this weed? What sort of machinery will be
needed to do that job, or cutting, and how often and at what cost to the
environment.
The most effective way of dealing with JKW is to cut each stem and pour a
strong weedkiller like SBK Brushkiller down each stem where it will travel
down to the roots and kill it. Provided you do every stem it's mostly a one
off job so little disruption to the surrounding area. I believe the National
Trust are using this method in Cornwall to avoid collateral damage. Yes, I
do know about the water table.
> or bury it 8 foot under for disposal)
As the roots go down 2metres burying it 8ft down would probably be doing it
a favour, I certainly would not trust that method of disposal, and again the
heavy machinery needed would cause untold damage. (you need a BIG hole)
Yes the Japanese do eat it a bit but then they eat all sorts of things. :-)
Unfortunately I have been unable to ascertain a method less damaging to the
environment than the one I state above.
--
Bob
http://www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an allotment site
in Runnymede, fighting for its existence against bureaucracy.
Dr John Thomas
<hob...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"GillCatton" wrote in message ((SNIP))
>
>> I agree with you about pulling being the most enviro friendly way of
>> dealing with the problem
>
>Have you ever tried "pulling" this weed? What sort of machinery will be
>needed to do that job, or cutting, and how often and at what cost to the
>environment.
Did you actually read anything that was written hear?
>The most effective way of dealing with JKW is to cut each stem and pour a
>strong weedkiller like SBK Brushkiller down each stem where it will travel
>down to the roots and kill it. Provided you do every stem it's mostly a one
>off job so little disruption to the surrounding area. I believe the National
>Trust are using this method in Cornwall to avoid collateral damage. Yes, I
>do know about the water table.
But still refuse to learn!!
>> or bury it 8 foot under for disposal)
>
>As the roots go down 2metres burying it 8ft down would probably be doing it
>a favour, I certainly would not trust that method of disposal, and again the
>heavy machinery needed would cause untold damage. (you need a BIG hole)
>Yes the Japanese do eat it a bit but then they eat all sorts of things. :-)
>
>Unfortunately I have been unable to ascertain a method less damaging to the
>environment than the one I state above.
Clearly your ignorance is clouding your vision & your ability at
trying to educate us with ignorance and blind stupidity is astounding.
Your attitudes seem to be at least 20 years out of date.
pb
"Dr John Thomas" > wrote
> Regular cutting or pulling will, after a number of years, eventually
> exhaust the rhizome and kill the plant. It is important that all cut
> or pulled stems of Japanese Knotweed are kept on site, or disposed of
> as described above. As stems, crowns and rhizomes readily regenerate,
> they must be allowed to dry out thoroughly after they have been pulled
> or cut. Regular checks should be made to ensure that this material is
> not contaminating watercourses or other sites, or developing roots.
> Thoroughly burning plant material on site where current by-laws allow
> can be an effective means of disposal provided that the waste is burnt
> on site and not removed to other land (this would be an offence under
> the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
>
You have clearly made a study of the situation. I wonder if you could give
an estimate of the number of man-hours required to clear, and keep clear,
say a mile of riverbank?
pb
Dr John Thomas
First lets put this into perspective. I know of no charity
conservation group that kills wildlife as a form of pest control or
uses weed killer by the 100s gallons, that has on it's land anywhere
near a mile of Jap[anese Knotweed or indeed any serious problems with
such weeds.
Using the methods outlined earlier and based on your figure of 1 mile.
One man good & true would take approx 8 hours to clear 400 yds of
riverbank properly & to maintain this level of clearance would require
some further 2 hours on average every 3 weeks.
Very do-able in my opinion given the volunteer base we have in the UK.
Again conservation charities who kill wildlife do NOT have anywhere
near serious problems with these weeds anyway.
Sue & Bob Hobden
A John Thomas wrote in message > >
>
> Did you actually read anything that was written hear?
Yes all of it, and most of it has no relation to reality.
>
> >The most effective way of dealing with JKW is to cut each stem and pour a
> >strong weedkiller like SBK Brushkiller down each stem where it will
travel
> >down to the roots and kill it. Provided you do every stem it's mostly a
one
> >off job so little disruption to the surrounding area. I believe the
National
> >Trust are using this method in Cornwall to avoid collateral damage. Yes,
I
> >do know about the water table.
>
> But still refuse to learn!!
Learn what, that some live in a different "black and white" world, and I
live in one full of compromise. So what damage to the environment is your
way going to do? because any way will cause damage it's just how to lessen
it.
> Clearly your ignorance is clouding your vision & your ability at
> trying to educate us with ignorance and blind stupidity is astounding.
> Your attitudes seem to be at least 20 years out of date.
Having read what you have written I am pleased you find me ignorant, anyone
who has a different opinion than you would naturally be ignorant, wouldn't
they.
Does your mum know you are playing with the computer? (yes it shows child)
AMacmil304
>From: king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com (Dr John Thomas)
>Date: 22/02/02 21:15 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c79b32b...@news.cis.dfn.de>
Yes, and the cheap fix is what they always go for - unless it applies to
salaries.
Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk
" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then they lose". Mahatma Gandhi.
Paul Rooney
<hob...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> But still refuse to learn!!
>
>Learn what, that some live in a different "black and white" world, and I
>live in one full of compromise.
<snip>
Exactly right. Most of the arguments here (and in many other ngs)
aren't over questions of cast iron principles, but are about what is
practical, sensible, or achievable. Far too many of the discussions
get contributions from people who don't understand what discussion is
for. Just recently in several ngs I've seen messages along the lines,
'Blah blah is blah full stop.' - as though further discussion were
impossible.
This applies to both camps in the environment discussions we've had
recently. One person gets it into his head that it's always wrong to
kill animals; another remembers being taught that alien trees are bad
- and neither side is willing to actually reflect on the implications
of their prejudices, or to learn how others' opinions or viewpoints
might alter these fixed positions.
Paul
Enjoying a beef and horseradish butty while gazing out at the dark sky
behind the excellent sycamores.
Dr John Thomas
<hob...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>A John Thomas wrote in message > >
>>
>> Did you actually read anything that was written hear?
>
>Yes all of it, and most of it has no relation to reality.
You really are the pits, but you take the crown for the dumbest idea
for non chemical weed killing. Use a digger!!!! hahaha
I dread to think what a sad world it would be if we were all like
you!! What do you use to open a tin of beans 1 stick or 2 sticks of
TNT?
>> >The most effective way of dealing with JKW is to cut each stem and pour a
>> >strong weedkiller like SBK Brushkiller down each stem where it will
>travel
>> >down to the roots and kill it. Provided you do every stem it's mostly a
>one
>> >off job so little disruption to the surrounding area. I believe the
>National
>> >Trust are using this method in Cornwall to avoid collateral damage. Yes,
>I
>> >do know about the water table.
>>
>> But still refuse to learn!!
>Learn what, that some live in a different "black and white" world, and I
>live in one full of compromise. So what damage to the environment is your
>way going to do? because any way will cause damage it's just how to lessen
>it.
I see so the pro chemical usage you advocate is safer than NO
chemicals!!!!!!!!! sigh. Are you fully awake or just half asleep?
Dr John Thomas
Yeah. sfunny that.
Running a charity has to be done by the cheapest method to be viable
so they say, yet when it comes to paying the top brass we need to be
paying the most expensive price!!!!
The pied piper is earning his keep making us swallow that lot.
Dr John Thomas
Well bully for you. When it comes to life there is no compromise. Be
it your life, mine or wildlife.
Doc
Enjoying a salad sandwich knowing nothing suffered in providing it and
being proud of it.
Rob Jack
paulv...@btinternet.com says...
> This applies to both camps in the environment discussions we've had
> recently. One person gets it into his head that it's always wrong to
> kill animals; another remembers being taught that alien trees are bad
> - and neither side is willing to actually reflect on the implications
> of their prejudices, or to learn how others' opinions or viewpoints
> might alter these fixed positions.
What you actually mean Paul is that these people don't agree with you..!
:-)
--
Rob
Rob Jack
b...@eudoramail.com says...
Utter rubbish..Clearing a patch about 3 metres in diameter took 5 years
- and it's still not certain its gone. You obviously have no idea..
Rob
Dr John Thomas
Ooh now that is vicious. Straight for the throat. So unlike you.!!
Dr John Thomas
Once again Jackass you prove what a village idiot you are. I don't
believe I gave any end period!!
Or perhaps you are dopey enough to imply a man must stand over his sq
mtr day in day out for 5 years!!!! the only time anyone would do that
is to make sure you didn't get out of the coffin again!!!!
Rob Jack
Such elegant language..awesome......
--
Rob
Nick Maclaren
Dr John Thomas <king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Enjoying a beef and horseradish butty while gazing out at the dark sky
>>behind the excellent sycamores.
>
>Well bully for you. When it comes to life there is no compromise. Be
>it your life, mine or wildlife.
>
>being proud of it.
Well, you are wrong. If you were a serious farmer, gardener, natural
historian or ecologist, you would know better.
At the VERY least, growing vegetables means depriving other animals
of food and/or living space, whereupon they will starve or be killed
in other ways. If you don't do that, you get no vegetables.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email: nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
Dr John Thomas
<kca...@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
Thanks Jackass. Your most welcome.
Dr John Thomas
>In article <3c7bd567...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
>Dr John Thomas <king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Enjoying a beef and horseradish butty while gazing out at the dark sky
>>>behind the excellent sycamores.
>>
>>Well bully for you. When it comes to life there is no compromise. Be
>>it your life, mine or wildlife.
>>
>>Enjoying a salad sandwich knowing nothing suffered in providing it and
>>being proud of it.
>
>Well, you are wrong. If you were a serious farmer, gardener, natural
>historian or ecologist, you would know better.
Oh yeah right. Do you need to work at being a dope or does it come
natural?
>At the VERY least, growing vegetables means depriving other animals
>of food and/or living space, whereupon they will starve or be killed
>in other ways. If you don't do that, you get no vegetables.
God that is pathetic even for your usual abysmal style of
justification. And what a surprise you showing a little concern for
something living for a change.
>Regards,
>Nick Maclaren,
>University of Cambridge Computing Service,
>New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Stop trying to impress us with the fact you work in Cambridge and and
are stupid enough to word your adverts to kid us into thinking you are
anything other than a shopkeeper selling overpriced goods & not a
university boffin. !!!!!! hahaha sad so sad.
You'll need to be a little brighter mush if you want to be taken
seriously here. For now we'll just file you in the same drawer as
Jackass and muppett.
Dr Thomas.
University Bog Cleaning Service
Next door to the shack of overpriced tat called University of
Cambridge Computing Service but has bugger all to do with the
university.
AMacmil304
>Date: 23/02/02 00:41 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.16e0f5a83...@news.freeserve.net>
What with?
Dr John Thomas
Probably big Macs bucket n spade!!!!!
Rob Jack
amacm...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >> Using the methods outlined earlier and based on your figure of 1 mile.
> >> One man good & true would take approx 8 hours to clear 400 yds of
> >> riverbank properly & to maintain this level of clearance would require
> >> some further 2 hours on average every 3 weeks.
> >
> >
> >Utter rubbish..Clearing a patch about 3 metres in diameter took 5 years
> >- and it's still not certain its gone. You obviously have no idea..
>
> What with?
>
>
Cutting to ground level and treating with weedkiller in one patch and
trying to dig it out totally in another. The dig out resulted in lovely
fresh shoots whilst the treated area just kept producing new shoots too.
--
Rob
AMacmil304
>Date: 22/02/02 22:56 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <a56i62$53ca5$1...@ID-93475.news.dfncis.de>
>Learn what, that some live in a different "black and white" world, and I
>live in one full of compromise. So what damage to the environment is your
>way going to do? because any way will cause damage it's just how to lessen
>it.
That is an astoundingly stupid statement.
There is only compromise on certain things and only if opposing parties agree.
That is the nature of compromise.
For instance there was no compromise on hunting with dogs and that's why it was
banned - and rightly so. That was "black and white".
GillCatton
I quite enjoy hearing opinions from both camps, (I don't consider
myself to be either (though others may disgree!) I find I'm sat very
firmly on the fence with most things) doesn't matter If I agree or not
I like it because it gets me thinking and analysing my own thoughts
and preconcieved / taught thoughts. What I HATE is when it desends
into insults which is constructive to no one. I kind of believe that
you can't reallly do anything in this life without it being
detrimental to something somewhere! (but am open to persuasion!)
Gill
Who is envious of your beef butty and who has very little against
sycamores but would still rather be looking at some ancient old
beautiful Oak trees.
xx
GillCatton
> "GillCatton" wrote in message ((SNIP))
>
> > I agree with you about pulling being the most enviro friendly way of
> > dealing with the problem
>
> Have you ever tried "pulling" this weed? What sort of machinery will be
> needed to do that job, or cutting, and how often and at what cost to the
> environment.
>
> The most effective way of dealing with JKW is to cut each stem and pour a
> strong weedkiller like SBK Brushkiller down each stem where it will travel
> down to the roots and kill it. Provided you do every stem it's mostly a one
> off job so little disruption to the surrounding area. I believe the National
> Trust are using this method in Cornwall to avoid collateral damage. Yes, I
> do know about the water table.
>
> > or bury it 8 foot under for disposal)
>
> As the roots go down 2metres burying it 8ft down would probably be doing it
> a favour, I certainly would not trust that method of disposal, and again the
> heavy machinery needed would cause untold damage. (you need a BIG hole)
>
> Yes the Japanese do eat it a bit but then they eat all sorts of things. :-)
>
> Unfortunately I have been unable to ascertain a method less damaging to the
> environment than the one I state above.
I was thinking rather on a small scale in a sensitive environment,
(for pulling by hand) but yes your method presumably would be
sucessful depending on herbicide used.
As regards burying, it is a standard practice especially on
development sites (where they are frequently doigging deep holes
anyway(where large machienry are everywhere anyway) but perhaps I got
the depth wrong. Last site I was on the put JK remains underneath a
large area of black plastic before putting (copious amounts of earth
over it ) and this was approved by CCW prior to implentation.
Gill
Paul Rooney
wrote:
>>
>> Paul
>> Enjoying a beef and horseradish butty while gazing out at the dark sky
>> behind the excellent sycamores.
>
>I quite enjoy hearing opinions from both camps, (I don't consider
>myself to be either (though others may disgree!) I find I'm sat very
>firmly on the fence with most things) doesn't matter If I agree or not
>I like it because it gets me thinking and analysing my own thoughts
>and preconcieved / taught thoughts. What I HATE is when it desends
>into insults which is constructive to no one. I kind of believe that
>you can't reallly do anything in this life without it being
>detrimental to something somewhere! (but am open to persuasion!)
>Gill
>
>Who is envious of your beef butty and who has very little against
>sycamores but would still rather be looking at some ancient old
>beautiful Oak trees.
>xx
I'm sure you're right - you can't do anything at all really without
damaging something or other. What I'd like to see is a clear statement
of which organisms are deemed to have rights, why this is so, and what
rights can possibly be outside of a human legal framework. My own
opinion is that rights are just a legal thing, or possibly, at the
very most, just a human thing.
I don't actually mind the abusive arguments - some of them are quite
funny, and some of the contributors are just asking for abuse
sometimes (-:
Paul
Dr John Thomas
wrote:
>Paul Rooney <paulv...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<4bjd7u43v82mvk6g8...@4ax.com>...
And that's how it should be.
>What I HATE is when it desends
>into insults which is constructive to no one.
That's very, very true but hey who can resist defending oneself?
> I kind of believe that
>you can't reallly do anything in this life without it being
>detrimental to something somewhere! (but am open to persuasion!)
>Gill
The secret is to have as little impact as possible.
Keep listening. ;-)
>Who is envious of your beef butty and who has very little against
>sycamores but would still rather be looking at some ancient old
>beautiful Oak trees.
>xx
Kisses now!!! snot fair. I can never pull da boids!!! LOL
OK yeah let me have it guys, I'm waitin.
AMacmil304
>Date: 25/02/02 11:39 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <o38k7u4si8ddltifu...@4ax.com>
>I don't actually mind the abusive arguments - some of them are quite
>funny, and some of the contributors are just asking for abuse
>sometimes (-:
It's all part of the game. You &*%$^* :-)
GillCatton
I agree with you that is very much a human thing, foxes wouldn't think
twice about killing the last rabbit for example. But I tend to see it
more of a effort not to mess up the world we comfortably live in, to
keep things tidy. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly, the way
I see it is that we should aim to live sustainably through maintenance
of certain principles just so that we can continue to live comfortably
do you see what I mean? It's like keeping the rooms in your house
tidy, it's not keeping the little things tidy that leads to a messy
room that's uncomfortable to live in. Therefore I feel that all
organisms have a basic right to exist and extinction should be
prevented wherever possible esp if being caused directly by us. The
loss of an insect species from the country due to a housing
development for example may be a very small thing in the great scheme,
but it's the loss of a principle that ultimately protects all animal
species including ourselves.
It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
from being cruel to animals and cruel to people. A Wildlife Liason
Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and those
who badger bait. I can't help but feel that those who rant about
potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still), raptor
poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
carried away there....!
So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
Gill
Michael Saunby
"GillCatton" <catt...@halcrow.com> wrote in message
news:bdd02055.02022...@posting.google.com...
> It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
> should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
> just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
> from being cruel to animals and cruel to people.
I can see how you might construct such a belief, such beliefs are common
place, e.g. that the lumps and bumps on the skull reflect the lumps and
bumps of the brain and the lumps and bumps of the brain reflect the
relative proportions of different parts of the mind and hence of the
personality. Trouble is under real scientific scrutiny the "common
sense" approach frequently breaks down.
There are few if any people in the UK who hunt who don't keep pets,
and/or working dogs, horses, etc. What you find in those who farm and
hunt but don't find so much in many pet owners is a clearer distinction
between animal and human, and it can be completely absent from AR
supporters. For example if you should accidentally run over a sheep
with your 4x4 then the farmer may well be very angry, however there are
pet owners who if you killed their dog may well consider it equivalent
to murder and wish to see you dead - they see their dog, or cat, as
equivalent to a human. For a person that can't see the difference
between man and animal the switch from (or response to) cruelty to
animals may well be cruelty to people, this doesn't happen with people
who can see the difference.
As for whether people who rear animals for food, or who hunt are cruel.
Well the answer in almost all cases is that they do not desire to be
cruel, again this may not always be true for pet owners, who perhaps
value the companionship of the animal above its own wellbeing.
> A Wildlife Liason
> Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
> those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and those
> who badger bait.
That's quite shocking. Are the police following up this lead? Badger
baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is pretty
much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny hugger to
want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's interesting,
though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
behaviour.
>I can't help but feel that those who rant about
> potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
> whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
> badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still), raptor
> poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
> hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
> ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
> and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
> profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
> found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
> carried away there....!
> So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
All these things are terrible and I agree that resources should be
provided to stamp them out, you might want to include use of air rifles
to shoot at pets and garden birds.
Michael Saunby
Dr John Thomas
wrote:
>It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
>should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
>just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
>from being cruel to animals and cruel to people. A Wildlife Liason
>Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
>those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and those
>who badger bait.
Twitchers yes. but badger baiters!! wouldn't surprise me tho.
> I can't help but feel that those who rant about
>potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
>whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
>badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still),
They do.
> raptor poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
>hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
>ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
>and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
>profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
>found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
>carried away there....!
>So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
Gill you appear to be under a misconception that those who protest
about the killing\cruelty are very selective in their protest, this is
simply untrue. As far as I am concerned "ALL" life is sacred and I
think you'll find any genuine person would think the same.
Selection comes from sham conservation like the conservation hooligans
in the RSPB who only "protect" some birds but refuse to help our very
own pheasants or to protest against many Euro bird cruelty cases.
This is the very crux of the matter. Sham conservation only seeks to
protect flavour of the month. We dont!!
Dr John Thomas
<msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>"GillCatton" <catt...@halcrow.com> wrote in message
>news:bdd02055.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
>> It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
>> should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
>> just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
>> from being cruel to animals and cruel to people.
>
>I can see how you might construct such a belief, such beliefs are common
>place, e.g. that the lumps and bumps on the skull reflect the lumps and
>bumps of the brain and the lumps and bumps of the brain reflect the
>relative proportions of different parts of the mind and hence of the
>personality. Trouble is under real scientific scrutiny the "common
>sense" approach frequently breaks down.
I certainly wouldn't call that analogy "common sense" where on earth
do you come from?
>There are few if any people in the UK who hunt who don't keep pets,
>and/or working dogs, horses, etc. What you find in those who farm and
>hunt but don't find so much in many pet owners is a clearer distinction
>between animal and human,
Yes it's called compassion. In the old days we would have had slaves
to & equally would not have given a stuff about their well being
beyond their ability to perform a function. Thankfully times have
changed.
> and it can be completely absent from AR
>supporters.
Crap. to suggest that someone who cares for all their animals & not
just as a tool is absent of anything is utter crap.
> For example if you should accidentally run over a sheep
>with your 4x4 then the farmer may well be very angry,
Purely from the financial aspect. Pay him and he will walk away with a
big cheesy smile.
> however there are
>pet owners who if you killed their dog may well consider it equivalent
>to murder and wish to see you dead - they see their dog, or cat, as
>equivalent to a human.
You appear confused, they are quite distinctly different. The value on
life is the same.
> For a person that can't see the difference
>between man and animal the switch from (or response to) cruelty to
>animals may well be cruelty to people, this doesn't happen with people
>who can see the difference.
Which clearly is that category you are in. AR people can see the
difference AND RESPECT the difference.
>As for whether people who rear animals for food, or who hunt are cruel.
>Well the answer in almost all cases is that they do not desire to be
>cruel,
But are by their very nature. Not many genuine caring people could
factory farm 1000s of animals for slaughter every year.
> again this may not always be true for pet owners, who perhaps
>value the companionship of the animal above its own wellbeing.
Dream on.
Rob Jack
b...@eudoramail.com says...
>
> Gill you appear to be under a misconception that those who protest
> about the killing\cruelty are very selective in their protest, this is
> simply untrue. As far as I am concerned "ALL" life is sacred and I
> think you'll find any genuine person would think the same.
You must have real problems with the concept of death then..!
--
Rob
W K
Rob Jack <kca...@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e5a3d8c...@news.freeserve.net...
And a basic misunderstanding of what MacDonalds is selling.
Nice Lunch?
Bye bye Pete.
Michael Saunby
"Rob Jack" <kca...@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e5a3d8c...@news.freeserve.net...
I think he, and others like him do, but we all struggle with it a bit
don't we? What is interesting is that they have a belief system not
unlike that held by very primitive societies, i.e. that those other
people who do not conform to their beliefs aren't human, sub-human I
guess, whereas the things they worship, i.e. animals, have an almost
super-human status, they can do no wrong. There's an excellent book by
Steven Mithen called "The prehistory of the mind" that attempts, among
other things to explain the development of anthropomorphism, the
advantages it brought to our ancestors and the unfortunate legacy - e.g.
racism. Being able to imagine an animal as having human awareness is
very valuable to a hunter because it gives a capacity to predict its
actions as though it behaves like a person (fear, anger, deception...),
being able to imagine people as like animals makes warfare possible (not
seen in animals). Mithen argues that these are abilities even our
closest animal relatives don't have, indeed it seems that even
Neanderthals didn't have the capacity for religion because like all
other animals they saw things as they were with no capacity to blur, but
they probably couldn't make war or be racist and weren't such good
hunters.
What I find particularly interesting is that evolution gave us the
capacity to imagine animals as being like us, rather than what a
designer might do and incorporate tools to actually understand the
animals, e.g. decode their calls, recognise their scent, etc, that other
top predators seem to have. Weird isn't it?
Michael Saunby
W K
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1014732765.13209....@news.demon.co.uk...
>There's an excellent book by
> Steven Mithen called "The prehistory of the mind" that attempts, among
> other things to explain the development of anthropomorphism,
<snip>
> actions as though it behaves like a person (fear, anger, deception...),
There's a fairly convincing argument that emotions are fairly simple
routines that don't require much thought, and as such have been around a lot
longer than humans and most certainly do exist in most mammals.
> being able to imagine people as like animals makes warfare possible (not
> seen in animals).
That's a bit of an old chestnut.
Chimpanzes certainly have territory disputes between large clans and are
quite happy to kill and eat each other.
Dr John Thomas
On the contrary. Once again you are way off the mark.
Death comes to us all of this we have no doubt.
What matters is how life & death is carried out.
Dr John Thomas
Are talking to your alter ego again?
Dr John Thomas
What is really weird is the utter crap you pro killers talk about & I
mean utter crap. You must have been so boring at school & STILL living
out the nightmare of just being you!!!
So sad.
Michael Saunby
"W K" <bill...@wire2.com> wrote in message
news:ASMe8.239$Px4...@news.uk.colt.net...
>
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:1014732765.13209....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> >There's an excellent book by
> > Steven Mithen called "The prehistory of the mind" that attempts,
among
> > other things to explain the development of anthropomorphism,
> <snip>
> > actions as though it behaves like a person (fear, anger,
deception...),
>
> There's a fairly convincing argument that emotions are fairly simple
> routines that don't require much thought, and as such have been around
a lot
> longer than humans and most certainly do exist in most mammals.
>
You misunderstand me. There is little, if any evidence, that non-humans
can *predict* the emotional response of animals other than of their own
species. i.e. anthropomorphism, or similar isn't found in other
species. For this to have any value then other animals would have to
have emotions or something very similar. Something is going on though,
because a pet dog will often act as though some humans are other dogs,
but perhaps this is just imprinting. The argument for the important
role in the blurring of distinctions between people and animals, and
even inanimate objects, is that the bulk of primate reasoning power is
associated with relationships within the family group and by allowing
that mental ability to leak into other domains we get a huge benefit.
Anyway, it's a long book and if it interest you I guess you'll read it
for yourself, and if it doesn't then I'll not waste your time.
> > being able to imagine people as like animals makes warfare possible
(not
> > seen in animals).
>
> That's a bit of an old chestnut.
> Chimpanzes certainly have territory disputes between large clans and
are
> quite happy to kill and eat each other.
>
Sure, but many humans aren't happy to kill other humans until a "wise"
leader comes along and explains that the other side aren't really human
because they eat babies, or don't respect animals, or whatever. Then
they're sub-human and anything goes, even slaughtering close friends if
they go to the wrong church. Chimps don't have the religious and
political organisations to make this possible, so presumably their wars
and friendships are rather more rational than ours.
Michael Saunby
Rob Jack
says...
conflicts. Animals generally only do enough to protect their food
resource and themselves and as soon as the threat abates they generally
cease aggression. Our wars are totally different.. if the enemy weakens
we increase our aggression.
--
Rob
W K
> You misunderstand me.
I did.
>There is little, if any evidence, that non-humans
> can *predict* the emotional response of animals other than of their own
> species. i.e. anthropomorphism, or similar isn't found in other
> species.
>For this to have any value then other animals would have to
> have emotions or something very similar.
The theory I mentioned does indeed say animals have emotions.
They aren't as special as we think and are basic animal survival tactics.
Ask Mr. Spock
>Something is going on though,
> because a pet dog will often act as though some humans are other dogs,
I think humans and dogs do understand some basics of each other's body
language without thinking about it.
W K
Rob Jack <kca...@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
> > > being able to imagine people as like animals makes warfare possible
(not
> > > seen in animals).
> >
> > That's a bit of an old chestnut.
> > Chimpanzes certainly have territory disputes between large clans and are
> > quite happy to kill and eat each other.
> >
> >
> >
> You would not see the mass slaughter in ape *wars* that you see in human
> conflicts. Animals generally only do enough to protect their food
> resource and themselves and as soon as the threat abates they generally
> cease aggression. Our wars are totally different.. if the enemy weakens
> we increase our aggression.
There is film showing that chimps do take over each other's teritory and act
in a way that is gratuitously aggressive.
Even in Monkeys the willingness to kill offspring and young males in
territory takeovers.
The only difference really is the ability to organise and mechanise.
Paul Rooney
>
>Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:1014734856.22323....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> You misunderstand me.
>I did.
>
>>There is little, if any evidence, that non-humans
>> can *predict* the emotional response of animals other than of their own
>> species. i.e. anthropomorphism, or similar isn't found in other
>> species.
>
>>For this to have any value then other animals would have to
>> have emotions or something very similar.
>
>The theory I mentioned does indeed say animals have emotions.
What theory is that?
Does it include regret, envy, hatred, for example?
Paul
Michael Saunby
>
>
> There is film showing that chimps do take over each other's teritory
and act
> in a way that is gratuitously aggressive.
> Even in Monkeys the willingness to kill offspring and young males in
> territory takeovers.
>
> The only difference really is the ability to organise and mechanise.
>
But where do those differences come from and what other effects do they
have? A lot of good stuff on these topics in Mithen's book.
Michael Saunby
W K
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:41:08 -0000, "W K"
> >The theory I mentioned does indeed say animals have emotions.
>
> What theory is that?
> Does it include regret, envy, hatred, for example?
It was one presented as an article in the new scientist when I used to read
it - so before 1991(!).
You can build up more complex emotions from mixtures of simpler ones. It can
be convincing in a lot of cases (but what is missing really is to convince
people that their emotions are the same set of mechanisms that a dog is
going through).
So lets think of a basic programme for "hatred"
A dog has a lot of bad experience with a certain person (or class of
people). The dog learns that the person is well worth avoiding and is
likely to cause pain etc.
An automatic response every time the dog sees the person is to go straight
into the programme marked 'aggression'
Is that hate? It looks like it.
But when a human sees someone they hate (or for that matter a person that
reminds you of someone you hate) you go straight into other emotions that
are probably not useful unless you are going to run away, or force them
away.
Is this basic and unreasonable gut reaction something that god gave
especially to us?
As elsewhere "That's not Logical captain".
Michael Saunby
The interesting bit comes when you consider whether a dog can imagine
that a person considers the dog to be a threat. Dogs may have emotions
but do they have the ability to credit humans with similar feelings?
Michael Saunby
Paul Rooney
>
>Paul Rooney <paulv...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:a9cn7ucccm6dt8j3k...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:41:08 -0000, "W K"
>
>> >The theory I mentioned does indeed say animals have emotions.
>>
>> What theory is that?
>> Does it include regret, envy, hatred, for example?
>
>It was one presented as an article in the new scientist when I used to read
>it - so before 1991(!).
>
>You can build up more complex emotions from mixtures of simpler ones. It can
>be convincing in a lot of cases (but what is missing really is to convince
>people that their emotions are the same set of mechanisms that a dog is
>going through).
>
<snip>
Thanks.There's some newer stuff though - I don't know the details, but
check out
http://www.saveourstrays.com/feelings.htm
which supports your case.
Paul
Michael Saunby
Surely you can't see emotions, only behaviours that suggest they are
present?
There's a wonderful example of how humans can attribute emotions and
intent to non living things (as the ancients did for rocks and rivers)
in an animation using dots. A first a dot appears to be struggling to
get up a slope (diagonal line), then another much stronger dot comes
along and helps it. No doubt such an example could include bullying, a
struggle between good and evil, birth, death, and a whole lot more.
Humans have remarkable imaginations and it can screw up science big
time, but if you just pause and think - "how come I can understand what
this animal is thinking but I can't understand what it's saying?" then
it helps. Some folks claim that most animals don't have language, maybe
they don't, but there's a lot more going on than we generally give them
credit for, e.g. sheep all have distinctive voices even if they're
sisters, now surely that can't be an accident?
Michael Saunby
Paul Rooney
<msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>Surely you can't see emotions, only behaviours that suggest they are
>present?
>
You can't see thoughts either, but you can identify (and measure)
specific brain activity which suggests that thoughts are occurring (or
you can take the reductionis view that such brain activity *is*
thoughts, and nothing more is needed in the account. The same applies
to emotions - when animals have similar activity in similar areas of
the brain to humans who are feeling emotions, then that suggests that
animals are feeling emotions too, I guess.
>There's a wonderful example of how humans can attribute emotions and
>intent to non living things (as the ancients did for rocks and rivers)
>in an animation using dots. A first a dot appears to be struggling to
>get up a slope (diagonal line), then another much stronger dot comes
>along and helps it. No doubt such an example could include bullying, a
>struggle between good and evil, birth, death, and a whole lot more.
>
>Humans have remarkable imaginations and it can screw up science big
>time, but if you just pause and think - "how come I can understand what
>this animal is thinking but I can't understand what it's saying?" then
>it helps. Some folks claim that most animals don't have language, maybe
>they don't, but there's a lot more going on than we generally give them
>credit for, e.g. sheep all have distinctive voices even if they're
>sisters, now surely that can't be an accident?
>
It is an accident, if we accept modern evolutionary theory!
Paul
Alan Gardiner
> > A Wildlife Liason
> > Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
> > those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and
those
> > who badger bait.
>
> That's quite shocking. Are the police following up this lead? Badger
> baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is pretty
> much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny hugger
to
> want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's
interesting,
> though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
> animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
> behaviour.
>
I can't find any reliable reference to this online but I am almost
certain that it has been shown that serial killers often start off by
being extremely cruel to animals as children. This is in agreement with
the statement made above about badger baiting and paedophiles.
Alan
Michael Saunby
"Alan Gardiner" <alan_g...@notherentlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vHRe8.52003$Ah1.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
David Bellamy has admitted that as a child he collected large numbers of
small creatures, he would see if he could collect enough to fill a jar.
The outcome is not the one your theory would predict.
To know the history of serial killers is perhaps useful, but you'd also
need to ensure that all people with similar histories became serial
killers for it to be very meaningful. Very many young people have
access to animals, and it's likely that those with serious problems will
try to destroy things around them, heck they might have been bed-wetters
too.
Does it not trouble you that you've been unable to find a reliable
reference? Surely such an important theory, if true, would underpin the
criminal justice system and evidence of cruelty to animals would be
accepted as an indicator of a serious and dangerous mental disorder.
Michael Saunby
Paul Rooney
<msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>> I can't find any reliable reference to this online but I am almost
>> certain that it has been shown that serial killers often start off by
>> being extremely cruel to animals as children. This is in agreement
>with
>> the statement made above about badger baiting and paedophiles.
>>
>
>David Bellamy has admitted that as a child he collected large numbers of
>small creatures,
That was the norm once upon a time in the not-so-distant past. It was
also normal until recently for conservationists to be (or have been)
shooters, egg collectors, butterfly collectors, hunters, etc. That's
because these activities aren't about cruelty - it's a completely
different issue.
Paul
JayDee
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
>
(Snip)
>
>David Bellamy has admitted that as a child he collected large numbers of
>small creatures, he would see if he could collect enough to fill a jar.
>The outcome is not the one your theory would predict.
>
>To know the history of serial killers is perhaps useful, but you'd also
>need to ensure that all people with similar histories became serial
>killers for it to be very meaningful. Very many young people have
>access to animals, and it's likely that those with serious problems will
>try to destroy things around them, heck they might have been bed-wetters
>too.
>
>Does it not trouble you that you've been unable to find a reliable
>reference? Surely such an important theory, if true, would underpin the
>criminal justice system and evidence of cruelty to animals would be
>accepted as an indicator of a serious and dangerous mental disorder.
>
thing, personally. I seem to recall reading of serial killers who had
killed animals when kids, and of people saying 'I always knew there was
something wrong about him....'. They always know after the event.
I have a pal who used to take potshots at birds - now he devotes all his
time to rescuing them!
--
JayDee
Alan Gardiner
>
> Does it not trouble you that you've been unable to find a reliable
> reference? Surely such an important theory, if true, would underpin
the
> criminal justice system and evidence of cruelty to animals would be
> accepted as an indicator of a serious and dangerous mental disorder.
>
> Michael Saunby
>
>
sites is that they have an agenda of their own which devalues the
content.
The second article has references to 24 papers which you could check if
you wish.
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/05/05032001/animal_cruelty_4329
5.asp
http://www.peta-online.org/mc/facts/fsc24.html
Alan
Paul Rooney
<alan_g...@notherentlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A Wildlife Liason
>> > Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
>> > those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and
>those
>> > who badger bait.
>>
>> That's quite shocking. Are the police following up this lead? Badger
>> baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is pretty
>> much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny hugger
>to
>> want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's
>interesting,
>> though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
>> animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
>> behaviour.
>>
>
>I can't find any reliable reference to this online but I am almost
>certain that it has been shown that serial killers often start off by
>being extremely cruel to animals as children.
All serial killers start off by drinking milk.
Paul
JayDee
<paulv...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>All serial killers start off by drinking milk.
>
>Paul
I reckon anyone who drank the school milk that I did as a kid, warmed
disgustingly on radiators in winter, would undoubtedly become a serial
killer.
(Just put me coat on and sharpen me axe)
--
JayDee
Paul Rooney
wrote:
We got the same stuff - used to throw it at each other. I could never
understand the fuss when it was abolished!
Paul
Michael Saunby
>
> >
> > Does it not trouble you that you've been unable to find a reliable
> > reference? Surely such an important theory, if true, would underpin
> the
> > criminal justice system and evidence of cruelty to animals would be
> > accepted as an indicator of a serious and dangerous mental disorder.
> >
> > Michael Saunby
> >
> >
> I looked a bit harder and found these links. The problem with many web
> sites is that they have an agenda of their own which devalues the
> content.
>
> The second article has references to 24 papers which you could check
if
> you wish.
However the agenda (AR) and target audience (impressionable youngster)
for PETA is so well know you'll have to wait a long while before I've
got that much time to spare. The first article doesn't seem to show
much other than that troubled youngsters try to hurt people and animals.
I'd be very surprised if anyone found a correlation, even a very weak
one, between boys and girls that regularly went fishing or shooting with
their parents and violent crime. Though would you then be willing to
accept that hunting isn't the same as being cruel to animals?
Pastor Bquik
Now we loved it and the school dinners.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thought 4 the day.
"There will come a day when such men as myself will view the slaughter of
innocent creatures as horrible a crime as the murder of his fellow man - Our
task must to be free ourselve's by widening our circle of compassion to
embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty"
Albert Einstein.
_______________
"Of all the creatures, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he's
the one that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for
sport, knowing it to be pain. The fact that man knows right from wrong proves
his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can
do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot."
Mark Twain.
BAC
"Rob Jack" <kca...@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e5b0f68...@news.freeserve.net...
I think it may be the degree of socialisation of a species which determines
how it behaves towards rival social structures, rather than intelligence or
ability to anthropomorphise e.g. ant colonies are probably equally as
ruthless in warfare with other ant colonies and with competitors like
termites as we are with each other, yet no-one, AFAIK, has attributed
'human' intellectual powers to the creatures. Ants 'invented' agriculture
and cities before us humans, too.
BAC
certain behavioural traits in childhood, anyone who acts similarly in
childhood is destined to become a serial killer in later life, is an invalid
syllogism. Mercifully!
GillCatton
> "GillCatton" <catt...@halcrow.com> wrote in message
> news:bdd02055.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
> > should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
> > just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
> > from being cruel to animals and cruel to people.
>
> There are few if any people in the UK who hunt who don't keep pets,
> and/or working dogs, horses, etc. What you find in those who farm and
> hunt but don't find so much in many pet owners is a clearer distinction
> between animal and human, and it can be completely absent from AR
> supporters. For example if you should accidentally run over a sheep
> with your 4x4 then the farmer may well be very angry, however there are
> pet owners who if you killed their dog may well consider it equivalent
> to murder and wish to see you dead - they see their dog, or cat, as
> equivalent to a human. For a person that can't see the difference
> between man and animal the switch from (or response to) cruelty to
> animals may well be cruelty to people, this doesn't happen with people
> who can see the difference.
I do see the distinction between animal and human but I do love my
cats more than sheep!
I didn't actually mean hunting, as I have said before this is not
something I would enjoy doing and I don't understand where the
pleasure is in it but I know that there are those who do enjoy it, but
as a whole I understand that those who hunt don't do it to be cruel to
the animal, most want a clean kill. Though again at the same time I
know that time do occur regularly where the kill isn't clean and
animals are left to suffer something I think is pretty bad but
probably unavoidable unless hunting is banned and then so much
valuable habitat would be lost so I don't want that either... (see I'm
sat on the fence again)So that wasn't what I was talking about I was
talking about being cruel to animals for enjoyment.
>
> As for whether people who rear animals for food, or who hunt are cruel.
> Well the answer in almost all cases is that they do not desire to be
> cruel, again this may not always be true for pet owners, who perhaps
> value the companionship of the animal above its own wellbeing.
> I agree.
> > A Wildlife Liason
> > Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
> > those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and those
> > who badger bait.
>
> That's quite shocking. Are the police following up this lead? Badger
> baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is pretty
> much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny hugger to
> want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's interesting,
> though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
> animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
> behaviour.
It wasn't a lead as such he says it's something he comes accross quite
often when houses are raided, material (videos, photographs etc)for
both things are often found apparently. It's not to hard to se why
either, both sects are enjoying hurting and being powerful over
something that can't fight back. Badger baiters so I've heard even
break the jaws of badgers when pitted against their beloved dogs so
they can't do any real harm.
> >I can't help but feel that those who rant about
> > potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
> > whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
> > badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still), raptor
> > poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
> > hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
> > ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
> > and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
> > profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
> > found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
> > carried away there....!
> > So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
>
> All these things are terrible and I agree that resources should be
> provided to stamp them out, you might want to include use of air rifles
> to shoot at pets and garden birds.
> Hell yes I include that !!! I have to admit though I recognise that my cat is an animal and not a human I would happyily do serious damage (preferably through the law but failing that...)to anyone who tied fireworks to him - but then I wouldn't feel as strongly as if they had done it to a younger child
>
Gill
> Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
"GillCatton" <catt...@halcrow.com> wrote in message
news:bdd02055.02022...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:<1014727366.10727....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
Badger
> > baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is
pretty
> > much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny
hugger to
> > want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's
interesting,
> > though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
> > animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
> > behaviour.
> It wasn't a lead as such he says it's something he comes accross quite
> often when houses are raided, material (videos, photographs etc)for
> both things are often found apparently. It's not to hard to se why
> either, both sects are enjoying hurting and being powerful over
> something that can't fight back. Badger baiters so I've heard even
> break the jaws of badgers when pitted against their beloved dogs so
> they can't do any real harm.
>
Insofar as anything like this is normal, it's what I'd expect to be the
case. My late Grandfather was a Detective Inspector and I've always
been aware that although there can at times be a lot of crime in some
places, it rarely reflects a huge increase in the number of criminals,
just the number of crimes some people manage to fit into a "working"
day. I'd also expect to see a great deal of stolen property, benefit
fraud, contraband, etc. in such places; "sub culture" is I guess the
word that many would give to it - or anarchy.
Michael Saunby
GillCatton
> "Alan Gardiner" <alan_g...@notherentlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:yKTe8.9031$R16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> one, between boys and girls that regularly went fishing or shooting with
> their parents and violent crime.
Though would you then be willing to
> accept that hunting isn't the same as being cruel to animals?
>
> I'll accept that hunting isn't the same as wanting to be cruel to animals but cruelty does happen accidentally in the course of hunting.
(though I appreciate that it's also when you run over a rabbit in your
car and don't kill it outright)
Gill
GillCatton
> On 26 Feb 2002 04:17:55 -0800, catt...@halcrow.com (GillCatton)
> wrote:
> > I can't help but feel that those who rant about
> >potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
> >whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
> >badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still),
>
> They do.
>
> > raptor poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
> >hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
> >ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
> >and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
> >profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
> >found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
> >carried away there....!
> >So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
>
> Gill you appear to be under a misconception that those who protest
> about the killing\cruelty are very selective in their protest, this is
> simply untrue. As far as I am concerned "ALL" life is sacred and I
> think you'll find any genuine person would think the same.
No I do understand that but it's all you and Angus seem to post about.
When I put up the post about wildlife crime for example, something I
thought you'd be happy to protest about you didn't even comment which
I find a little strange (though maybe the link didnt work - in which
case fair enough). I'm not critisising you as a person, I just don't
understand, I hear what you are saying above but it does seem to me
that you pick and choose what you support or rant against. and It
nearly always seems to be those who largely are trying to do a good
job, they may not always get it right in some areas they probably
occassionally get it hideously wrong (though it's possible that there
are those within even the AR movement that are there for the fight and
not the animals. There are also those that love animals sooo much that
they end up having too many and inadvertantly being cruel to them by
not being able to care for them properly - despite the fact they'd lay
their lives down for them) but they're trying working under best
practise methodology (that may be out of date but it's still what they
are expected to work by)These things change as time passes I mean
apparently (though I'm not sure where I heard this) it's used to be
considered cruel to keep pigs outside because it was too cold. Now
it's considered the most friendly way to keep them (though obviously
with shelter)
>
Why aren't you protesting against the pet trade, chinese medicine
where these activties are not only frequently cruel but threaten the
very existance of the species they trade in. At least conservation
charities have some redeeming features these things don't have any.
Gill
Michael Saunby
news:<1014765335.10486....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > "Alan Gardiner" <alan_g...@notherentlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:yKTe8.9031$R16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if anyone found a correlation, even a very
weak
> > one, between boys and girls that regularly went fishing or shooting
with
> > their parents and violent crime.
> I'd be suprised too.
>
> Though would you then be willing to
> > accept that hunting isn't the same as being cruel to animals?
> >
> > I'll accept that hunting isn't the same as wanting to be cruel to
animals but cruelty does happen accidentally in the course of hunting.
> (though I appreciate that it's also when you run over a rabbit in your
> car and don't kill it outright)
And of course there's also the extended cruelty of pets kept by
unsuitable people and/or in unsuitable circumstances.
It's stuff like this that makes being able to split things into
different categories and deal with them one at a time a handy skill to
have. Otherwise attempting to solve the "problem" of cruelty would be
beyond reach. Folks that favour a simplistic "crime and punishment"
approach tend to concern themselves with intent, those with commercial
and technical knowledge tend to favour approaches that look to
avoidance, risk, and benefits, through preventative measures. Which has
to my mind the benefit of also addressing accidental harm and giving
proper consideration to the consequences of regulations as well as the
consequences of crimes.
Michael Saunby
Dr John Thomas
wrote:
>"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<1014727366.10727....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> "GillCatton" <catt...@halcrow.com> wrote in message
>> news:bdd02055.02022...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
>> > should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
>> > just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
>> > from being cruel to animals and cruel to people.
>>
>> There are few if any people in the UK who hunt who don't keep pets,
>> and/or working dogs, horses, etc. What you find in those who farm and
>> hunt but don't find so much in many pet owners is a clearer distinction
>> between animal and human, and it can be completely absent from AR
>> supporters. For example if you should accidentally run over a sheep
>> with your 4x4 then the farmer may well be very angry, however there are
>> pet owners who if you killed their dog may well consider it equivalent
>> to murder and wish to see you dead - they see their dog, or cat, as
>> equivalent to a human. For a person that can't see the difference
>> between man and animal the switch from (or response to) cruelty to
>> animals may well be cruelty to people, this doesn't happen with people
>> who can see the difference.
>
>I do see the distinction between animal and human but I do love my
>cats more than sheep!
But have you had a sheep as a pet? You haven't lived until you have
brought up a lamb or calve as a family pet. Yes we all prefer
different things but we shouldn't knock those we don't have\like I
know your not knocking here.
Anyway until you have seen a calve trying to follow the cat through a
cat flap..........................lol
>I didn't actually mean hunting, as I have said before this is not
>something I would enjoy doing and I don't understand where the
>pleasure is in it but I know that there are those who do enjoy it, but
>as a whole I understand that those who hunt don't do it to be cruel to
>the animal,
Probably not in the majority of cases but the fact is they just don't
think about the killing. It's a game to them and there is some kind of
mental block that tells them the game is harmless. It's not!!
Just because one doesn't THINK about the consequences of their actions
doesn't make it any less distasteful.
Dr John Thomas
wrote:
>king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com (Dr John Thomas) wrote in message news:<3c878319...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>> On 26 Feb 2002 04:17:55 -0800, catt...@halcrow.com (GillCatton)
>> wrote:
>
>> > I can't help but feel that those who rant about
>> >potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
>> >whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
>> >badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still),
>>
>> They do.
>>
>> > raptor poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
>> >hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
>> >ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
>> >and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
>> >profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
>> >found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
>> >carried away there....!
>> >So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
>>
>> Gill you appear to be under a misconception that those who protest
>> about the killing\cruelty are very selective in their protest, this is
>> simply untrue. As far as I am concerned "ALL" life is sacred and I
>> think you'll find any genuine person would think the same.
>No I do understand that but it's all you and Angus seem to post about.
ANd wassup with that?
>When I put up the post about wildlife crime for example, something I
>thought you'd be happy to protest about you didn't even comment which
>I find a little strange (though maybe the link didnt work - in which
>case fair enough). I'm not critisising you as a person, I just don't
>understand,
I can only speak for myself, but I well imagine it is the same for
most of us. We can only dedicate so much time here to answer posts &
to be honest I am flat out just answering the nonsense attacks &
defending my view and a persons right to their view. It's not that we
are not interested in "ALL" wildlife, that clearly is the crux of most
of my complaint here. How can someone care for robin. greenfinch etc
and not give a stuff about the pheasants, magpies etc Yes I see it as
black and white you either care or you don't care. I care about
everything.
> I hear what you are saying above but it does seem to me
>that you pick and choose what you support or rant against.
Well clearly I am not doing a very good job at it or you are just
thick (no offense) as I certainly do care about "ALL" life & that is
why I fight so hard for it. Your statement however is exactly how I
would have described the people who attack my view or indeed groups
like the RSPB who ARE selective in their concerns.
>and It
>nearly always seems to be those who largely are trying to do a good
>job, they may not always get it right in some areas they probably
>occassionally get it hideously wrong (though it's possible that there
>are those within even the AR movement that are there for the fight and
>not the animals.
Culling wildlife is NOT getting it right. Planting new saplings before
sorting out so called pest areas is NOT getting it right.
Blaming the wildlife for our own shortcomings is NOT getting it right.
> There are also those that love animals sooo much that
>they end up having too many and inadvertantly being cruel to them by
>not being able to care for them properly - despite the fact they'd lay
>their lives down for them)
I would suggest they are few and far between.
>but they're trying working under best
>practise methodology (that may be out of date but it's still what they
>are expected to work by)These things change as time passes I mean
>apparently (though I'm not sure where I heard this) it's used to be
>considered cruel to keep pigs outside because it was too cold. Now
>it's considered the most friendly way to keep them (though obviously
>with shelter)
We live and learn. Old conservation practices where wildlife is
expendable without a second thought should be confined to the history
books. The reluctance on these charity groups to adopt the changes our
new found knowledge gives us is nothing short of criminal.
>Why aren't you protesting against the pet trade, chinese medicine
>where these activties are not only frequently cruel but threaten the
>very existance of the species they trade in.
I do as and when I can. It's all abhorrent.
>At least conservation
>charities have some redeeming features these things don't have any.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about their non redeeming
features.
JayDee
<Idontdoe...@NOTVALIFFORMAIL.com> writes
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:14:28 +0000, Paul Rooney
><paulv...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:35:35 +0000, JayDee <pid...@care4free.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <bh2o7us2r0ujmr32e...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
>>><paulv...@btinternet.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>All serial killers start off by drinking milk.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>
>>>I reckon anyone who drank the school milk that I did as a kid, warmed
>>>disgustingly on radiators in winter, would undoubtedly become a serial
>>>killer.
>>>
>>>(Just put me coat on and sharpen me axe)
>>
>>We got the same stuff - used to throw it at each other. I could never
>>understand the fuss when it was abolished!
>
>Now we loved it and the school dinners.
>
Never had a problem with school dinners - someone even got me to eat
cold mashed potato dished up in round scoops, by telling me it had ice
cream in the middle :-)
--
JayDee
Martin Sage
>That's quite shocking. Are the police following up this lead? Badger
>baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is pretty
>much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny hugger to
>want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's interesting,
>though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
>animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
>behaviour.
Most of the members of this NG would agree, but the political will to
stop such activities is very weak. I saw a program on TV on Monday
showing attempts to stop illegal hare coursing which suggested that the
penalties were so low that perpetrators considered the fines as an
acceptable cost of their "sport", and taunted the police who were trying
to stop them. The same seems to be true of egg collectors, badger
baiters etc. While most people are opposed to such activities there is
little support for adequate sentences to prevent them.
--
Martin Sage
www.sagefarm.demon.co.uk
Five Cats
<bill...@wire2.com> writes>news:1014734856.22323....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> You misunderstand me.
>I did.
>
>>There is little, if any evidence, that non-humans
>> can *predict* the emotional response of animals other than of their own
>> species. i.e. anthropomorphism, or similar isn't found in other
>> species.
>
>>For this to have any value then other animals would have to
>> have emotions or something very similar.
>
>The theory I mentioned does indeed say animals have emotions.
I have no doubt my cats experience emotions - but what (mostly) they are
is another matter. Is the cat cuddling up to me to get it's tummy
rubbed doing it for it's own pleasure, because it wishes to ingratiate
itself with me, or to comfort me? Who knows? I certainly don't.
>They aren't as special as we think and are basic animal survival tactics.
>Ask Mr. Spock
>
>>Something is going on though,
>> because a pet dog will often act as though some humans are other dogs,
>
>I think humans and dogs do understand some basics of each other's body
>language without thinking about it.
It's not just dogs and humans - bet even I can recognise a cow that's
threatening me! Being able to read (to some degree) the body language
of other species has great survival values. If a woodland bird gives an
'enemy on the ground' call it's not just members of it's own species
which recognise it.
However being able to read the body language and *knowing* what goes on
in their heads is two different things. I can recognise a cat stalking
something - but I don't know *why* it's doing it.
>
>
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
><snip>
>> A Wildlife Liason
>> Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
>> those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and those
>> who badger bait.
>
>That's quite shocking. Are the police following up this lead? Badger
>baiting, illegal hare coursing, and all other wildlife crime is pretty
>much universally hated. You don't need to be a vegan or bunny hugger to
>want to see those who are cruel to animals punished. It's interesting,
>though unpleasant, to think that an inability to distinguish between
>animals and humans can occur at both ends of the scale of human
>behaviour.
Gill's example seems very specific - but AFAIK there is quite a strong
correlation between cruelty to domestic animals and to children. People
seem more likely to report animal cruelty and one can only hope that if
the RSPCA officer finds a house swimming in sh*t with young children
that she/he calls in the appropriate authorities. Also, I would hope
that people investigating child abuse / cruelty would call in the RSPCA
where appropriate.
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
<paulv...@btinternet.com> writes
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:41:08 -0000, "W K" <bill...@wire2.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>>news:1014734856.22323....@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> You misunderstand me.
>>I did.
>>
>>>There is little, if any evidence, that non-humans
>>> can *predict* the emotional response of animals other than of their own
>>> species. i.e. anthropomorphism, or similar isn't found in other
>>> species.
>>
>>>For this to have any value then other animals would have to
>>> have emotions or something very similar.
>>
>>The theory I mentioned does indeed say animals have emotions.
>
>Does it include regret, envy, hatred, for example?
Cats certainly *seem* capable of envy, hatred and greed. Regret - I've
no idea but suspect not.
>
>
>Paul
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
<kca...@NOSPAMlineone.net> writes
>>
>> >There's an excellent book by
>> > Steven Mithen called "The prehistory of the mind" that attempts, among
>> > other things to explain the development of anthropomorphism,
>> <snip>
>> > actions as though it behaves like a person (fear, anger, deception...),
>>
>> There's a fairly convincing argument that emotions are fairly simple
>> routines that don't require much thought, and as such have been around a lot
>> longer than humans and most certainly do exist in most mammals.
>>
>> > being able to imagine people as like animals makes warfare possible (not
>> > seen in animals).
>>
>> That's a bit of an old chestnut.
>> Chimpanzes certainly have territory disputes between large clans and are
>> quite happy to kill and eat each other.
>>
>>
>>
>You would not see the mass slaughter in ape *wars* that you see in human
>conflicts. Animals generally only do enough to protect their food
>resource and themselves and as soon as the threat abates they generally
>cease aggression. Our wars are totally different.. if the enemy weakens
>we increase our aggression.
However chimpanzees are quite capable of launching a food hunt against
other smaller species of monkeys or ape.
--
Five Cats
Robert Seago
<URL:mailto:catt...@halcrow.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with you that is very much a human thing, foxes wouldn't think
> twice about killing the last rabbit for example. But I tend to see it
> more of a effort not to mess up the world we comfortably live in, to
> keep things tidy. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly, the way
> I see it is that we should aim to live sustainably through maintenance
> of certain principles just so that we can continue to live comfortably
> do you see what I mean? It's like keeping the rooms in your house
> tidy, it's not keeping the little things tidy that leads to a messy
> room that's uncomfortable to live in. Therefore I feel that all
> organisms have a basic right to exist and extinction should be
> prevented wherever possible esp if being caused directly by us. The
> loss of an insect species from the country due to a housing
> development for example may be a very small thing in the great scheme,
> but it's the loss of a principle that ultimately protects all animal
> species including ourselves.
> It's a similar reason why I feel that inhumane treatment of animals
> should be very much frowned upon both legislatively and morally not
> just because it's distatseful to most but because it's a small step
> Officer I spoke to said that there is a very definate link between
> those who are involved in child pornography and peadophilia and those
> potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
> whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
> poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
> hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
> ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
> and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
> profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
> found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
> carried away there....!
> So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
> Gill
>
together properly.
Regards from : Using a : Software for RISC OS:Conservation Pages
Robert Seago : StrongArm RiscPC : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
--
Robert Seago
<URL:mailto:paulv...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Humans have remarkable imaginations and it can screw up science big
> >time, but if you just pause and think - "how come I can understand what
> >this animal is thinking but I can't understand what it's saying?" then
> >it helps. Some folks claim that most animals don't have language, maybe
> >they don't, but there's a lot more going on than we generally give them
> >credit for, e.g. sheep all have distinctive voices even if they're
> >sisters, now surely that can't be an accident?
> >
> It is an accident, if we accept modern evolutionary theory!
>
> Paul
>
Not necessarily surely.
It may be, but it may be that natural selection in a herd species such
as sheep has favoured a group with different voices, for whatever
reason, perhaps it aids a lamb trying to find its mother for example.
Paul Rooney
<rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <cvjn7u0ah0lr1bek6...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
><URL:mailto:paulv...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >Humans have remarkable imaginations and it can screw up science big
>> >time, but if you just pause and think - "how come I can understand what
>> >this animal is thinking but I can't understand what it's saying?" then
>> >it helps. Some folks claim that most animals don't have language, maybe
>> >they don't, but there's a lot more going on than we generally give them
>> >credit for, e.g. sheep all have distinctive voices even if they're
>> >sisters, now surely that can't be an accident?
>> >
>> It is an accident, if we accept modern evolutionary theory!
>>
>> Paul
>>
>Not necessarily surely.
>
>It may be, but it may be that natural selection in a herd species such
>as sheep has favoured a group with different voices, for whatever
>reason, perhaps it aids a lamb trying to find its mother for example.
>
Sure - but it's still accidental.
Paul
Michael Saunby
My own thoughts on why evolution favours it are as follows -
Herd animals benefit at certain times from having a distinct identity
(unlike say a worker bee) to establish hierarchy if nothing else.
However predators that hunt in packs take advantage of any identifying
feature. It was thought that predators targeted weak or injured
animals, in fact they seem to target any identifiably different animal,
e.g. take a perfectly healthy African herd animal and paint a coloured
mark on it and it will not live long.
A distinctive voice, providing it's not used in the presence of
predators does the job of expressing a unique identity quite nicely,
though it seems sheep are also able to recognise each other's faces -
but we all know how limiting this can be, having a voice, and a name(?),
is good too.
But, you're quite right, it's simply an accident, like the brain of
humans, the trunk of the elephant, etc. An interesting accident though.
Michael Saunby.
Pastor Bquik
Oh sigh.
>However predators that hunt in packs take advantage of any identifying
>feature. It was thought that predators targeted weak or injured
>animals, in fact they seem to target any identifiably different animal,
>e.g. take a perfectly healthy African herd animal and paint a coloured
>mark on it and it will not live long.
What utter codswallop you talk. Show any reference anywhere in the
world for that ridiculous statement and I'll eat my habit!!
>A distinctive voice, providing it's not used in the presence of
>predators does the job of expressing a unique identity quite nicely,
>though it seems sheep are also able to recognise each other's faces -
>but we all know how limiting this can be, having a voice, and a name(?),
>is good too.
Sort of like we know your name & we know your writings=turds!! yeah
gottcha.
>But, you're quite right, it's simply an accident, like the brain of
>humans, the trunk of the elephant, etc. An interesting accident though.
It's not accidental. Your accidental but an elephants trunk is not.
How else would it club someone round the chops?
Michael Saunby
"Pastor Bquik" <Idontdoe...@NOTVALIFFORMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:3c824fdf...@news.lineone.net...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:28:23 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
> <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >However predators that hunt in packs take advantage of any
identifying
> >feature. It was thought that predators targeted weak or injured
> >animals, in fact they seem to target any identifiably different
animal,
> >e.g. take a perfectly healthy African herd animal and paint a
coloured
> >mark on it and it will not live long.
>
> What utter codswallop you talk. Show any reference anywhere in the
> world for that ridiculous statement and I'll eat my habit!!
>
That sounds like an excellent deal. How do you propose to prove that
you have accomplished this feat? Do you have a local newspaper that
might publish a photo? If this is not possible I might be prepared to
accept some other bet, what do you suggest?
Michael Saunby
Predator 8472
"Five Cats" <cats...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5Er7r0A8...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk...
paramount, (sharing information for issues of child protection takes
precidence over any issues of confidentiality), if there is evidence of
animal abuse than that is also taken into account when profiling/risk
assessing and charging the perpetrators,
W K
> However being able to read the body language and *knowing* what goes on
> in their heads is two different things. I can recognise a cat stalking
> something - but I don't know *why* it's doing it.
One thing though - if you do the 'big eyes, ears back' owl impression
routine which you no doubt see every time you hoover or drop something.
Our facial muscles seem to be wired in a similar way to a cat's. Do an
impression of "shock" and you can feel the same muscles pulling (though
obviously not moving anything).
Mamals are remarkably similar to each other in many ways.
And a final thing - something like "envy" that looks like it exists in cats.
What biological forces suddenly make this illogical, unhelpful gut feeling
so useful to modern humans? How come, all of a sudden nature invents a
brand new thing to give to humans, and it happens to feel a lot like
something left over from the apes.
GillCatton
> > In article <3c878319...@news.cis.dfn.de>, king-tut-of-ongo-
> > b...@eudoramail.com says...
> >
> > >
> > What I find particularly interesting is that evolution gave us the
> capacity to imagine animals as being like us, rather than what a
> designer might do and incorporate tools to actually understand the
> animals, e.g. decode their calls, recognise their scent, etc, that other
> top predators seem to have. Weird isn't it?
>
> Michael Saunby
Yeah I wish evolution had bloody given me those tools, I have to try
to do this for my job (particularly the sent thing) Sometimes i spend
ages walking the same path in a field trying to work out whether the
very faint wiff of mammal I just caught was badger or fox the whole
time wishing I was some other kind of mammal for whom the field was
probably stinking and the smells producing a veritable map of
pathways! Perhaps I need to get a dog!
Gill
GillCatton
> >
> > >There's an excellent book by
> > > Steven Mithen called "The prehistory of the mind" that attempts, among
> > > other things to explain the development of anthropomorphism,
> <snip>
> > > actions as though it behaves like a person (fear, anger, deception...),
> >
> > There's a fairly convincing argument that emotions are fairly simple
> > routines that don't require much thought, and as such have been around a lot
> > longer than humans and most certainly do exist in most mammals.
> >
> > > being able to imagine people as like animals makes warfare possible (not
> > > seen in animals).
> >
> > That's a bit of an old chestnut.
> > Chimpanzes certainly have territory disputes between large clans and are
> > quite happy to kill and eat each other.
> >
> You would not see the mass slaughter in ape *wars* that you see in human
> conflicts. Animals generally only do enough to protect their food
> resource and themselves and as soon as the threat abates they generally
> cease aggression. Our wars are totally different.. if the enemy weakens
> we increase our aggression.
Not mass slaughter but maybe excessive use of aggression, In the
documentary I saw a group of chimps killed a female and her young
'for' straying into their territory. The female represented little
threat (though taking food)and it may be logical to think that an
aggressive chase maybe a bite would be all that was required,but they
killed and ate (bits of) her and her young. I can understand killling
the youngster - other species do this I understand to bring the female
back into reproductive condition, I thought though that females were
rarely killed as they represented reproductive potential and they pose
little threat. Still I agree with the last sentance in most cases
Gill
Dr John Thomas
Did they do that with you?
GillCatton
> On 27 Feb 2002 03:30:10 -0800, catt...@halcrow.com (GillCatton)
> wrote:
>
> >king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com (Dr John Thomas) wrote in message news:<3c878319...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> >> On 26 Feb 2002 04:17:55 -0800, catt...@halcrow.com (GillCatton)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > I can't help but feel that those who rant about
> >> >potentially distasteful actions of conservation charities who on the
> >> >whole do a largely good job, should be concentrating their anger on
> >> >badger baiters (and there's a lot of them out there still),
> >>
> >> They do.
> >>
> >> > raptor poisoners, still active egg collectors, people who play football with
> >> >hedgehogs for fun those, who tie fireworks to any animal they can get
> >> >ther hands on, who are driving to extinction animals for the pet trade
> >> >and those who purposely set out to maim and injure for fun or for
> >> >profit with no benefit to wildlife or conservation at all. (ooh look I
> >> >found something I'm not sat on the fence about!) Sorry got a bit
> >> >carried away there....!
> >> >So there you go! Now I shall wait to be shot down by someone!
> >>
>
> >thought you'd be happy to protest about you didn't even comment which
> >I find a little strange (though maybe the link didnt work - in which
> >case fair enough). I'm not critisising you as a person, I just don't
> >understand,
>
> I can only speak for myself, but I well imagine it is the same for
> most of us. We can only dedicate so much time here to answer posts &
> to be honest I am flat out just answering the nonsense attacks &
> defending my view and a persons right to their view. It's not that we
> are not interested in "ALL" wildlife, that clearly is the crux of most
> of my complaint here. How can someone care for robin. greenfinch etc
> and not give a stuff about the pheasants, magpies etc Yes I see it as
> black and white you either care or you don't care. I care about
> everything.
>
Your method of conservation (not killing anything) does work and is
used in a large national park in Africa (don't ask me which I just
remeber seeeing it in a documentary about elephant culling)it works
here everything has established a natural cycle they don't need to
cull the elephants there for example because they keep a check on
their own population by eating too much, but this is in a place where
they still have all their natural predators the habitat hasn't been
messed with by people and their needs for static agriculture so it
works and it's great. But here I just can't see it working, why don't
you rally your AR troops and buy some land and manage it your way and
proove me wrong please do it then you will have more weight to change
'traditional' conservation methods, I can't see it working because we
have removed most top predators and provided an endless flow of waste
for generalists such as foxes and some corvids to maintain a
constantly higher population that they otherwise might have existed
and have been able to keep itself check, We've restricted the amount
of habitat available to support rarer species, we have introduced
species that are doing real damage to biodiversity (my 'favourite'
Japanese Knotweed for example, or mink which maybe in decline but are
still capable of doing damage to an already fragile Water Vole
population, mink may not be utterly to blame but they may turn out to
be the final straw, rabbits can ruin grassland that previously
supported rare butterflies). My point is that I feel we've altered
things so much (for good reasons and bad)that I don't think a leave it
alone approach would work you'd end with mainly just the dominant
species and few of the rarer ones that really need help. But like I
said proove me wrong.
>
Well clearly I am not doing a very good job at it or you are just
> thick (no offense) as I certainly do care about "ALL" life & that is
> why I fight so hard for it.
watching for a time.
>
> > There are also those that love animals sooo much that
> >they end up having too many and inadvertantly being cruel to them by
> >not being able to care for them properly - despite the fact they'd lay
> >their lives down for them)
>
> I would suggest they are few and far between.
hoards of animal rights people protesting against live transport of
livestock (something I don't particularly like either) Fine protest,
but they stopped the trucks from moving when full of animals, so
lengthening further their confined predicament and frightening them
with the comotion I just didn't think that was very fair to the
animals they were trying to protect.
Actually I've since read that RSPCA officers monitored the stress
levels of sheep durng transit and offloading and actually while jammed
in the lorry the stress levels were low (presumably because being a
herd animal they felt safer in a flock) but the action of loading them
on and off was very stressful so maybe the idea of stopping for breaks
is not such a good one. The situation may be different for other
species, and for less moral transporters that pay no regard to
ventilation etc and the stress levels would be even lower if they had
been slaughtered prior to long haul journeys.
>
> >but they're trying working under best
> >practise methodology (that may be out of date but it's still what they
> >are expected to work by)These things change as time passes I mean
> >apparently (though I'm not sure where I heard this) it's used to be
> >considered cruel to keep pigs outside because it was too cold. Now
> >it's considered the most friendly way to keep them (though obviously
> >with shelter)
>
> We live and learn. Old conservation practices where wildlife is
> expendable without a second thought should be confined to the history
> books. The reluctance on these charity groups to adopt the changes our
> new found knowledge gives us is nothing short of criminal.
>
>
> >Why aren't you protesting against the pet trade, chinese medicine
> >where these activties are not only frequently cruel but threaten the
> >very existance of the species they trade in.
>
> I do as and when I can.
> >At least conservation
> >charities have some redeeming features these things don't have any.
>
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about their non redeeming
> features.
That's true but also recognise what things would be like without them.
Gill
Dr John Thomas
wrote:
Not having natural predators doesn't mean the only alternative is
culling, despite what the conservation hooligans will tell you, that
is to say RSPB, WT etc In fact probably the sole reason for culling is
actually bad management & it is seen as a cheap, nasty quick fix for a
bodged conservation job.
>But here I just can't see it working, why don't
>you rally your AR troops and buy some land and manage it your way
That's hardly the point is it. Public awareness will in time ensure
non lethal intervention is the only acceptable way. We have years of
historic abuse of wildlife & environment to get rid of and public
awareness will bring this about in the end.
There are currently many, many 1000s of acres managed without culling
or destruction of environment using pesticides etc one excellent
facility is the league against cruel sports own lands.
Please see
Dont forget to sign the petition at
If you have not done so already.
> and
>proove me wrong please do it then you will have more weight to change
>'traditional' conservation methods,
> I can't see it working
One can only show you what is really going on out there. You need to
make your own mind up once you have the facts.
> because we
>have removed most top predators and provided an endless flow of waste
>for generalists such as foxes and some corvids to maintain a
>constantly higher population that they otherwise might have existed
>and have been able to keep itself check,
All wildlife will keep itself in check (aside from the odd glitch) it
is bad managements which cause disruption.
> We've restricted the amount
>of habitat available to support rarer species,
And indeed this will continue. Cant blame the wildlife for that.
> we have introduced
>species that are doing real damage to biodiversity (my 'favourite'
>Japanese Knotweed for example, or mink which maybe in decline but are
>still capable of doing damage to an already fragile Water Vole
>population, mink may not be utterly to blame but they may turn out to
>be the final straw, rabbits can ruin grassland that previously
>supported rare butterflies). My point is that I feel we've altered
>things so much (for good reasons and bad)that I don't think a leave it
>alone approach would work you'd end with mainly just the dominant
>species and few of the rarer ones that really need help. But like I
>said proove me wrong.
No one has suggested "leave it alone" everything needs controls even
us. It's how you control it that matters.
>> > There are also those that love animals sooo much that
>> >they end up having too many and inadvertantly being cruel to them by
>> >not being able to care for them properly - despite the fact they'd lay
>> >their lives down for them)
>>
>> I would suggest they are few and far between.
>Your're probably right, but I can't help but remember seeing the
>hoards of animal rights people protesting against live transport of
>livestock (something I don't particularly like either)
And a fine job they done too. It beats the likes of you and I sitting
on our butts saying ooh it's not nice but doing nothing about it.
These animals cannot help themselves you know.
> Fine protest,
>but they stopped the trucks from moving when full of animals, so
>lengthening further their confined predicament and frightening them
>with the comotion I just didn't think that was very fair to the
>animals they were trying to protect.
But preferable to die with a fighting chance then just be led meekly
to slaughter!!
>Actually I've since read that RSPCA officers monitored the stress
>levels of sheep durng transit and offloading and actually while jammed
>in the lorry the stress levels were low (presumably because being a
>herd animal they felt safer in a flock) but the action of loading them
>on and off was very stressful so maybe the idea of stopping for breaks
>is not such a good one. The situation may be different for other
>species, and for less moral transporters that pay no regard to
>ventilation etc and the stress levels would be even lower if they had
>been slaughtered prior to long haul journeys.
They shouldnt be transported anyway, none of them.
>> >but they're trying working under best
>> >practise methodology (that may be out of date but it's still what they
>> >are expected to work by)These things change as time passes I mean
>> >apparently (though I'm not sure where I heard this) it's used to be
>> >considered cruel to keep pigs outside because it was too cold. Now
>> >it's considered the most friendly way to keep them (though obviously
>> >with shelter)
>>
>> We live and learn. Old conservation practices where wildlife is
>> expendable without a second thought should be confined to the history
>> books. The reluctance on these charity groups to adopt the changes our
>> new found knowledge gives us is nothing short of criminal.
>Show them it can work in this country.
It can work in ANY country you just need the will.
>> >Why aren't you protesting against the pet trade, chinese medicine
>> >where these activties are not only frequently cruel but threaten the
>> >very existance of the species they trade in.
>>
>> I do as and when I can.
>> Well try harder :o)
>> >At least conservation
>> >charities have some redeeming features these things don't have any.
>>
>> That doesn't mean we shouldn't complain about their non redeeming
>> features.
>That's true but also recognise what things would be like without them.
No one is suggesting getting rid. Mind you I think groups like the
RSPB have conned us for long enough they would be best got rid!!! And
they know it which is why they refuse point blank to answer any
questions on these seemingly innocent activities.
Predator 8472
"Dr John Thomas" <king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:3c7f3213...@news.cis.dfn.de...
JayDee
<catt...@halcrow.com> writes
Or wings & specialist eyesight, Gill - is the Kestrel (?) that can see
trails left by small mammals even in long grass as they mark their
positions with urine or some gland or other? Or maybe a Snowy which can
detect prey under the snow cover.
--
JayDee
Pastor Bquik
<Predator.8472@spacecats7.???.oc.uk> wrote:
I must say you do fit the profile of a kiddie fiddla, as certain other
village idiots do here. In fact suffering animals and kiddie fiddling
seem to go hand in hand.. You are certainly not alone here.
Malcolm Kane
<king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> writes
>All wildlife will keep itself in check (aside from the odd glitch) it
>is bad managements which cause disruption.
>No one has suggested "leave it alone" everything needs controls even
>us. It's how you control it that matters.
>
Surely these two statements are mutually exclusive.
*IF* all wildlife will keep itself in check (which I have yet to see
proof of)
then
Why is no one suggesting leave it alone?
--
Malcolm Kane
Dr John Thomas
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3c7f6083...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Dr John Thomas
><king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> writes
>>All wildlife will keep itself in check (aside from the odd glitch) it
>>is bad managements which cause disruption.
>
>>No one has suggested "leave it alone" everything needs controls even
>>us. It's how you control it that matters.
>>
>Surely these two statements are mutually exclusive.
>
>*IF* all wildlife will keep itself in check (which I have yet to see
>proof of)
If you fence a herd of deer into a specific range. Rabbits to a
particular area they will regulate their own areas, They will only
live within their means.
Conservation hooligans come along, like RSPB, WT etc and plant juicy
new saplings etc in areas where this wildlife already lives and THEN
complain when the said wildlife comes along and starts nibbling at the
tasty new goodies.
>then
>
>Why is no one suggesting leave it alone?
Because we are not talking genuine conservation here. We are talking
theme park conservation. Years ago hundreds of miles of fencing were
put up to stop the range of deer (controls) this was the done thing.
Recently it was discovered that grants were available to pull this
fencing down and aid the re-introduction of the capercaillie that was
pretty much killed of by hunting. So what happens, nearly all the
fencing has been pulled down again. Even where you would never see a
capercaillie in a million years.
It's fencing today. Tomorrow it will be the scrub woodlands again Then
who knows what.
These idiots are not managing conservation for the environment or the
wildlife they are managing it purely on financial grounds. It's a huge
business, the RSPB spend over £7million pounds annually on flooding
the country with advertising & working every scam in the book.
BAC
>
> However predators that hunt in packs take advantage of any identifying
> feature. It was thought that predators targeted weak or injured
> animals, in fact they seem to target any identifiably different animal,
> e.g. take a perfectly healthy African herd animal and paint a coloured
> mark on it and it will not live long.
>
prey from a herd or flock in the few fleeting moments they have to decide
which animal to target. Prey which is weak, sick or injured (and therefore
probably easier targets) will probably behave in a subtly different way to
the herd or flock 'norm', e.g. they may exhibit a visible wound (a coloured
mark) or may limp, or may just bear themselves differently. Hence, predators
with a predisposition to choosing a target which appears or acts differently
to the norm will probably select an above average proportion of weakened and
easier targets. Hence, they will have had a survival advantage, so that
behaviour may have become the norm.
It would be interesting to paint identifying marks on healthy prey specimens
and observe whether they were targeted in preference to, say, unmarked but
injured specimens in the same herd/flock which were physically incapable of
keeping up with the rest when the herd/flock took flight.
Michael Saunby
"BAC" <cass...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KKHf8.12$VL6....@news.dircon.co.uk...
This according to Dennett is precisely what did happened, by accident,
with some research on Wildebeest in Kenya, the released animals were
killed within a couple of days by hyenas. As the ethics of repeating
such experiments are somewhat dubious maybe we'll never know exactly
what marks work and for which prey and predator species. It makes
particular sense in the context of pack hunting, as it's unlikely that
hyenas are able to exchange detailed information on a target,
"third from left, go, go, go",
"that one?",
"no the one behind it - third from left!",
"this one?",
"yes, that one!",
"are you sure? It looks very healthy to me",
"well it looked to be a bit weaker to me",
"too late, sorry!"
More likely they just have some built in ability to spot oddities, much
as we do - "look that blackbird has got a white feather" is more
noticeable than "does that bird look a little weak?" Though of course
in the absence of really obvious identifying marks, a predator would
look for other things such lack of symmetry, irregular movement, wounds,
and other things that can be seen, rather than implied (weakness, age).
If all predator animals in a pack have the same list, then they'll
instinctively pick on the same prey animal.
Michael Saunby
GillCatton
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:31:48 +0000, Malcolm Kane
> <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <3c7f6083...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Dr John Thomas
> ><king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> writes
> >>>
> particular area they will regulate their own areas, They will only
> live within their means.
> Conservation hooligans come along, like RSPB, WT etc and plant juicy
> new saplings etc in areas where this wildlife already lives and THEN
> complain when the said wildlife comes along and starts nibbling at the
> tasty new goodies.
Again, how do you keep the deer and rabbits out but allow Animals such
as badgers and foxes in? Or do you exclude them too?
>
I know Angus likes your term conservation hooligans which is fair
enough but to me it just sounds like a soundbite makes you sound like
a politician. Only my opinion though.
> >
> >
> >Why is no one suggesting leave it alone?
>
> Because we are not talking genuine conservation here. We are talking
> theme park conservation. Years ago hundreds of miles of fencing were
> put up to stop the range of deer (controls) this was the done thing.
> Recently it was discovered that grants were available to pull this
> fencing down and aid the re-introduction of the capercaillie that was
> pretty much killed of by hunting. So what happens, nearly all the
> fencing has been pulled down again. Even where you would never see a
> capercaillie in a million years.
And you won't see capercaillie until you have trees which ok you put
your fence up and the trees start to grow, they attract capercaillies
but they die as they strike the fences in flight so you take the
fences down but then your forest won't grow any bigger ever due to the
grazing deer so what do you do?
>
> It's fencing today. Tomorrow it will be the scrub woodlands again Then
> who knows what.
> These idiots are not managing conservation for the environment or the
> wildlife they are managing it purely on financial grounds. It's a huge
> business, the RSPB spend over £7million pounds annually on flooding
> the country with advertising & working every scam in the book.
If the adveritising brings in more members surely this is a good
thing, so longs as the cost of this extra advertising is covered by
the membership money it brings in where's the harm? I'm always getting
stuff from animal aid too you know it's not just the RSPB.
GIll
GillCatton
Yeah that would be fantastic! Perhaps they see different colours too,
I remember seeing a program on the telly that said Pigeons can see
many more greens than we can so maybe the kestrel can see the paths in
a slightly different colour because of the urine staning the
vegetation? (just a theory I'm sure someone who knows better will tell
me I'm wrong!!)
Gill
@> @>
Ź/# #\Ź
^^ ^^
GillCatton
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:53:19 -0000, "pb"
> <pe...@bracebridge-heath.co.ku> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dr John Thomas" > wrote
> >
> >> Regular cutting or pulling will, after a number of years, eventually
> >> exhaust the rhizome and kill the plant. It is important that all cut
> >> or pulled stems of Japanese Knotweed are kept on site, or disposed of
> >> as described above. As stems, crowns and rhizomes readily regenerate,
> >> they must be allowed to dry out thoroughly after they have been pulled
> >> or cut. Regular checks should be made to ensure that this material is
> >> not contaminating watercourses or other sites, or developing roots.
> >> Thoroughly burning plant material on site where current by-laws allow
> >> can be an effective means of disposal provided that the waste is burnt
> >> on site and not removed to other land (this would be an offence under
> >> the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
> >>
> >
> >You have clearly made a study of the situation. I wonder if you could give
> >an estimate of the number of man-hours required to clear, and keep clear,
> >say a mile of riverbank?
>
> First lets put this into perspective. I know of no charity
> conservation group that kills wildlife as a form of pest control or
> uses weed killer by the 100s gallons, that has on it's land anywhere
> near a mile of Jap[anese Knotweed or indeed any serious problems with
> such weeds.
>
Have you asked them all? Only It wouldn't suprise me if they didn't
have such a problem somewhere Cornwall has big problems for example
and a number of important wildife sites.
>
Using the methods outlined earlier and based on your figure of 1
mile.
> One man good & true would take approx 8 hours to clear 400 yds of
> riverbank properly & to maintain this level of clearance would require
> some further 2 hours on average every 3 weeks.
>
Where did you get this bit from out of interest? and how do you avoid
increased erosion of the bank?
> Very do-able in my opinion given the volunteer base we have in the UK.
>
> Again conservation charities who kill wildlife do NOT have anywhere
> near serious problems with these weeds anyway. They will in time
See you managed this sentance without the soundbite much better:O)
Dr John Thomas
>king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com (Dr John Thomas) wrote in message news:<3c80379...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:31:48 +0000, Malcolm Kane
>> <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <3c7f6083...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Dr John Thomas
>> ><king-tut-o...@eudoramail.com> writes
>> >>>
>> If you fence a herd of deer into a specific range. Rabbits to a
>> particular area they will regulate their own areas, They will only
>> live within their means.
>> Surely that's just putting them in big zoos, and if you fence in Rabbits then doesn't that prevent the passage of other mammals? Like badgers, hares etc? Surely they'd just multiply to a level where they'd eat all available food and starve to death wouldn't they (like in Australia)? Would you bring someone in to put them down when they're starving?
>
>> Conservation hooligans come along, like RSPB, WT etc and plant juicy
>> new saplings etc in areas where this wildlife already lives and THEN
>> complain when the said wildlife comes along and starts nibbling at the
>> tasty new goodies.
>Again, how do you keep the deer and rabbits out but allow Animals such
>as badgers and foxes in? Or do you exclude them too?
Fences-Ultrasonics-repellents-Electric Fences etc.
>I know Angus likes your term conservation hooligans which is fair
>enough but to me it just sounds like a soundbite makes you sound like
>a politician. Only my opinion though.
That's OK. To me it sounds a very apt term, so if I may I will
continue to use it.
>> >Why is no one suggesting leave it alone?
>>
>> Because we are not talking genuine conservation here. We are talking
>> theme park conservation. Years ago hundreds of miles of fencing were
>> put up to stop the range of deer (controls) this was the done thing.
>> Recently it was discovered that grants were available to pull this
>> fencing down and aid the re-introduction of the capercaillie that was
>> pretty much killed of by hunting. So what happens, nearly all the
>> fencing has been pulled down again. Even where you would never see a
>> capercaillie in a million years.
>And you won't see capercaillie until you have trees which ok you put
>your fence up and the trees start to grow, they attract capercaillies
>but they die as they strike the fences in flight so you take the
>fences down but then your forest won't grow any bigger ever due to the
>grazing deer so what do you do?
See the answer above. There are many more ways of fencing aside from
8ft high wooden fencing. Bear in mind the capercaillie problem is
limited to a small area but the fencing has come down in a huge area,
because there were grants available to pull it down and pretend to be
helping something which doesn't even exist any where near most of the
forests it was pulled down!!!
>> It's fencing today. Tomorrow it will be the scrub woodlands again Then
>> who knows what.
>> These idiots are not managing conservation for the environment or the
>> wildlife they are managing it purely on financial grounds. It's a huge
>> business, the RSPB spend over £7million pounds annually on flooding
>> the country with advertising & working every scam in the book.
>If the adveritising brings in more members surely this is a good
>thing, so longs as the cost of this extra advertising is covered by
>the membership money it brings in where's the harm?
No problem with a charity which is honest and up front about what it
does with the money. Not for one that seeks to deliberately deceive
people & when asked specific questions about it they then refuse to
answer them.
> I'm always getting
>stuff from animal aid too you know it's not just the RSPB.
>GIll
A mere pittance of what the RSPB spends and all of it is honest and up
front!!