CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
AMacmil304
actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
"Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with acceptable
native varieties.
Bird protection charities are advocating exterminating non-native birds and
mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
What kind of message is this to send to our young people that
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.
W K
"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
> actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>
> "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
> rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
Silly language. Are they encouraged to be violent or do they just use saws
as any gardener would?
It has been pointed out to you many times why Rhodedendrons are bad for the
environment.
> Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
acceptable
> native varieties.
It has been pointed out to you many times why native trees are better for
the wildlife of an area than the trees that are removed.
> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>
> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
I never really thought of "gardeners question time" as being a nazi rally,
but really it is.
"ONly ze beautiful plants schall be permitted in ziss garden.
The ugly and ze week schall be exterminated."
Do you weed your garden Angus? If you do then you too must be a Nazi, but of
course only by your own logic.
BTW eaten any of your friends recently?
AMacmil304
>From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
>Date: 10/03/03 09:51 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4hn72$fcv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
>> Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
>> actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>>
>> "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>> rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>
>Silly language. Are they encouraged to be violent or do they just use saws
>as any gardener would?
More like violent language against aliens.
>It has been pointed out to you many times why Rhodedendrons are bad for the
>environment.
By CONservationists intent on destroying alien species.
>> Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
>acceptable
>> native varieties.
>
>It has been pointed out to you many times why native trees are better for
>the wildlife of an area than the trees that are removed.
Not better for the ones they kill to allow the saplings to grow. And not all
native trees are better that all non-native trees. Even MO was not able to
challenge that.
>> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>>
>> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>
>I never really thought of "gardeners question time" as being a nazi rally,
>but really it is.
>"ONly ze beautiful plants schall be permitted in ziss garden.
>The ugly and ze week schall be exterminated."
Off the point.
>Do you weed your garden Angus? If you do then you too must be a Nazi, but of
>course only by your own logic.
No because I don't discriminate between native and non-native.
>BTW eaten any of your friends recently?
I have never claimed to be a vegetarian and admit to having the occasional
chinese chicken meal. At least I'm honest.
W K
> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
> >Date: 10/03/03 09:51 GMT Standard Time
> >Message-id: <b4hn72$fcv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
> >
> >
> >"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> >> Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and
encouraging
> >> actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
> >>
> >> "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
> >> rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
> >
> >Silly language. Are they encouraged to be violent or do they just use
saws
> >as any gardener would?
>
> More like violent language against aliens.
Please find and quote.
> >It has been pointed out to you many times why Rhodedendrons are bad for
the
> >environment.
>
> By CONservationists intent on destroying alien species.
No, by anyone who understands anything about ecology.
You have the luxury of complete ignorance of such things.
> >> Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
> >acceptable
> >> native varieties.
> >
> >It has been pointed out to you many times why native trees are better for
> >the wildlife of an area than the trees that are removed.
>
> Not better for the ones they kill to allow the saplings to grow. And not
all
> native trees are better that all non-native trees. Even MO was not able
to
> challenge that.
He didn't try- as there are exceptions to the rule in biology most of the
time.
We compared the real live cases you'd find in the UK, and in all those cases
native trees support more wildlife than non-natives.
So, out of 1000 cases you couldn't even come up with one exception.
So what you are claiming may be true in 99.9% of the cases, and that 0.1%
case is really irrelevant, esp. when it in no way applies to what is
happening in scotland
> >> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
> >>
> >> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
> >
> >I never really thought of "gardeners question time" as being a nazi
rally,
> >but really it is.
> >"ONly ze beautiful plants schall be permitted in ziss garden.
> >The ugly and ze week schall be exterminated."
>
> Off the point.
Its to point out the stupidity of the logic.
Choosing only the beautiful to live in your garden????? Might not be "only
the ayrian" but would have nasty logic.
A bit like if you killed off everyone but supermodels.
The point is - you are again being a hypocrite.
> >Do you weed your garden Angus? If you do then you too must be a Nazi, but
of
> >course only by your own logic.
>
> No because I don't discriminate between native and non-native.
Why do you choose to weed certain plants.
You choose the ones that please you, your ideas of purity within the garden
of what is allowed and must not is surely nazi by your own warped logic.
> >BTW eaten any of your friends recently?
>
> I have never claimed to be a vegetarian and admit to having the occasional
> chinese chicken meal. At least I'm honest.
Its your logic that is dishonest.
Your logic would state that you are a murdering canibal.
Colin Davidson
> actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>
> "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
> rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
I invite you to passively cut down rhododendrons.
> Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
acceptable
> native varieties.
I invite you to defend, on a species diversity or total biomass basis, the
alternative approach which is to never remove non-native or invasive trees.
> Bird protection charities are advocating exterminating non-native birds
and
> mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
Justify that the reasoning is one of 'genetic purity' or retract the claim.
> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
A claim which does not follow from your statements.
> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
A very different one to that which you have received.
Martin Rand
directly to Angus' tedious and malicious silliness, but even I can't resist
poking my tuppennyworth in sideways occasionally...
Just in case there's anyone on this ng (or in the universe) other than Angus
who needs this pointing out, again:- Rhododendrons aren't destroyed because
they are "aliens". They are destroyed because they are highly invasive
plants that suppress wholesale existing communities of plants and other
wildlife through competition, overshading and release of plant toxins into
the soil. Among the communities they suppress are many showing great
richness and for which (such as Atlantic oakwoods) we bear an international
responsibility because of their diversity and uniqueness.
There are somewhere over 4000 alien species of plant that occur in the wild
or as weeds of cultivation in Britain. Of these, 97% or more are tolerated
or indeed enjoyed by conservationists, botanists and others because they
don't present the sort of threat that Rhododendron does. Of the remaining
3%, probably less than 1/3 (less than 1% overall) are the target of
eradication programmes.
Throughout the winter a group of us "violently destroy" (i.e. cut down or
uproot) birch trees which are perfectly native (even if not genetically
pure - Downy and Silver Birches hybridize). We do so for reasons similar to
those for cutting down Rhododendron - they're overwhelming a rich mire and
damp heath community of plants and insects that is probably unique in
Southern England, occupying about 20 hectares. As we do so, we have at our
backs, in a radius of a few miles, several hundred hectares of birch scrub
and oak-birch-hazel woodland which is doing just fine, thanks, along with
all its inhabitants. As we leave the site, our trousers metaphorically
drenched in the sap of innocent birches, we feel the satisfaction of a job
well done.
Since the name of the game is distastefully perverse analogies, perhaps we
should tolerate and enable the activities of all foreign preachers and
perpetrators of violence in Britain, because to do otherwise would be
"Nazi"?
"W K" <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:b4hn72$fcv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 12:14 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4hvl0$207d5e$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
>
>I've taken a solemn and awful vow to myself never to waste time responding
>directly to Angus' tedious and malicious silliness, but even I can't resist
>poking my tuppennyworth in sideways occasionally...
So much for your solemn vows, but can supporters of CONservation ever be
trusted? Obviously not :-(
>Just in case there's anyone on this ng (or in the universe) other than Angus
>who needs this pointing out, again:- Rhododendrons aren't destroyed because
>they are "aliens".
To start with they're not native and are enjoyed by many people.
They are destroyed because they are highly invasive
>plants that suppress wholesale existing communities of plants and other
>wildlife through competition, overshading and release of plant toxins into
>the soil.
The CONserationists are determined to destroy them because they're "invasive"
(another Nazi term?) and won't be tolerated by those obsessed with nativeness.
Among the communities they suppress are many showing great
>richness and for which (such as Atlantic oakwoods) we bear an international
>responsibility because of their diversity and uniqueness.
OK. So plant the AOs elsewhere. The countryside isn't totally covered with
Rhodys.
>There are somewhere over 4000 alien species of plant that occur in the wild
>or as weeds of cultivation in Britain. Of these, 97% or more are tolerated
>or indeed enjoyed by conservationists, botanists and others because they
>don't present the sort of threat that Rhododendron does.
4000? Let's have some evidence of this bland statement. But that aside other
people enjoy Rhodys so what gives you the right to destroy them and keep what
you like yourself?
Of the remaining
>3%, probably less than 1/3 (less than 1% overall) are the target of
>eradication programmes.
That's what I object to.
>Throughout the winter a group of us "violently destroy" (i.e. cut down or
>uproot) birch trees which are perfectly native (even if not genetically
>pure - Downy and Silver Birches hybridize). We do so for reasons similar to
>those for cutting down Rhododendron - they're overwhelming a rich mire and
>damp heath community of plants and insects that is probably unique in
>Southern England, occupying about 20 hectares. As we do so, we have at our
>backs, in a radius of a few miles, several hundred hectares of birch scrub
>and oak-birch-hazel woodland which is doing just fine, thanks, along with
>all its inhabitants.
A bit like what Hitler thought the Jews were doing to his economy.
As we leave the site, our trousers metaphorically
>drenched in the sap of innocent birches, we feel the satisfaction of a job
>well done.
Like a true CONservationist.
>Since the name of the game is distastefully perverse analogies, perhaps we
>should tolerate and enable the activities of all foreign preachers and
>perpetrators of violence in Britain, because to do otherwise would be
>"Nazi"?
No you're confused. It's the Nazi CONservationists that preach violence in the
UK . The Ruddy Duck extermination and Rhody bashing are fine examples.
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 17:30 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <JPEVnVKc...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
>>actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>>
>>"Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>>rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>>
>acceptable
>>native varieties.
>>
>>mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
>>
>>
>>What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>
>statements that he has an obsession against conservation organisations,
>charities, volunteers, tourism and developments in his backyard, with a
>total disregard for his own negative impact on the environment. He also
>confirms that he suffers from a total lack of any understanding of
>ecology, ecological processes, or the effect of non-native species on
>habitats and other species. Nor, despite much urging, has he made any
>attempt to gain such an understanding which might, just might, stop him
>making a fool of himself with ridiculous statements like the above.
No comment, I see
Just personal abuse :-(
You've lost it, Malcolm.
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
>actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>
>"Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>
>Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with acceptable
>native varieties.
>
>Bird protection charities are advocating exterminating non-native birds and
>mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
>
>Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>
>What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
Have you ever heard of biodiversity. The young people (who incidentally
have more sense than to take such a blinkered view) will get a good
conservation message.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>>From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
>>Date: 10/03/03 09:51 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <b4hn72$fcv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>>
>>
>>"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
>>> Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
>>> actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>>>
>>> "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>>> rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>>
>>Silly language. Are they encouraged to be violent or do they just use saws
>>as any gardener would?
>
>More like violent language against aliens.
>
>>It has been pointed out to you many times why Rhodedendrons are bad for the
>>environment.
>
>By CONservationists intent on destroying alien species.
>
>>> Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
>>acceptable
>>> native varieties.
>>
>>It has been pointed out to you many times why native trees are better for
>>the wildlife of an area than the trees that are removed.
>
>Not better for the ones they kill to allow the saplings to grow. And not all
>native trees are better that all non-native trees. Even MO was not able to
>challenge that.
Would you care to post some proof of that Angus as all my research has
failed to find anything to back up your statement - but I am sure that
if there is any you will be delighted to further your cause by posting
it.
>
>>> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>>>
>>> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>
>>I never really thought of "gardeners question time" as being a nazi rally,
>>but really it is.
>>"ONly ze beautiful plants schall be permitted in ziss garden.
>>The ugly and ze week schall be exterminated."
>
>Off the point.
Not at all it is exactly what is happening. Only for different reasons.
>
>>Do you weed your garden Angus? If you do then you too must be a Nazi, but of
>>course only by your own logic.
>
>No because I don't discriminate between native and non-native.
So no hoeing or digging round plants to leave bare earth then?
>
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm
It's all available on the web and is discussed regularly. Unlike your
false claims that the CONservation hooligans publish all their killing
and chemical usage stats....Unless of course you are still looking
thro the imaginary memberships books you have.
Malcolm
wrote:
>
>In article <20030310131700...@mb-bk.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: Malcolm M...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <JPEVnVKc...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
>>>>actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>>>>
>>>>"Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>>>>rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>>>>
>>>>Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
>>>acceptable
>>>>native varieties.
>>>>
>>>>Bird protection charities are advocating exterminating non-native birds and
>>>>mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
>>>>
>>>>Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>>>>
>>>>What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>>>
>>>The message being sent is that Angus Macmillan confirms by such
>>>statements that he has an obsession against conservation organisations,
>>>charities, volunteers, tourism and developments in his backyard, with a
>>>total disregard for his own negative impact on the environment. He also
>>>confirms that he suffers from a total lack of any understanding of
>>>ecology, ecological processes, or the effect of non-native species on
>>>habitats and other species. Nor, despite much urging, has he made any
>>>attempt to gain such an understanding which might, just might, stop him
>>>making a fool of himself with ridiculous statements like the above.
>>
>>
>>No comment, I see
>>
>>Just personal abuse :-(
>>
>>You've lost it, Malcolm.
>
>On the contrary. I have pointed out to all who have read your ridiculous
>statements that you are an obsessive whose opinion on these matters is
>worthless.
Ha ha coming from you that is a real good joke!
W K
> >From: "Martin Rand"
> >Just in case there's anyone on this ng (or in the universe) other than
Angus
> >who needs this pointing out, again:- Rhododendrons aren't destroyed
because
> >they are "aliens".
>
> To start with they're not native and are enjoyed by many people.
Aha, you have doubted that in the past.
Many tourists love them (on balance perhaps most), so why remove them and
replace them with ugly little oak trees?
I've made this point to you in the past and you have denied it. gotcha.
> They are destroyed because they are highly invasive
> >plants that suppress wholesale existing communities of plants and other
> >wildlife through competition, overshading and release of plant toxins
into
> >the soil.
>
> The CONserationists are determined to destroy them because they're
"invasive"
Fool. They destroy the habitat of many other plants, animals, fungi, the
lot.
From a community (ecological term you have been asked to look up many times,
you should really be made to stand in the corner and write out its meaning
1000 times before you are allowed to rejoin the class) of 100s or 1000s of
organisms, where there are rohdies it cuts the number down to single figures
if not just 1 or 2.
<>won't be tolerated by those obsessed with nativeness.
Not obsessed with nativeness, but having concern for the organisms that
evolved over millions of years to live together in our climate.
(have you found out what "community" means yet?). If native organisms are
wiped out they won't exist anywhere else.
> OK. So plant the AOs elsewhere.
Ah right, so make a fake community elsewhere - that really doesn't work very
well and you are sounding like a motorway contractor.
Should leave it like this:
"Angus MacMillan: has as much respect for nature and the environment as your
average motorway contractor"
[ie let things be destroyed then plant a couple of trees elsewhere. BTW
thats an analogy that works and is not offensive to the memory of 6 million
human beings (if you actually know what human beings are)]
>The countryside isn't totally covered with
> Rhodys.
There are plenty of chunks that are.
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>>From: "Martin Rand" martin.rand...@ntlworld.com
>>Date: 10/03/03 12:14 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <b4hvl0$207d5e$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
>>
>>I've taken a solemn and awful vow to myself never to waste time responding
>>directly to Angus' tedious and malicious silliness, but even I can't resist
>>poking my tuppennyworth in sideways occasionally...
>
>So much for your solemn vows, but can supporters of CONservation ever be
>trusted? Obviously not :-(
>
>>Just in case there's anyone on this ng (or in the universe) other than Angus
>>who needs this pointing out, again:- Rhododendrons aren't destroyed because
>>they are "aliens".
>
>To start with they're not native and are enjoyed by many people.
>
>They are destroyed because they are highly invasive
>>plants that suppress wholesale existing communities of plants and other
>>wildlife through competition, overshading and release of plant toxins into
>>the soil.
>
>The CONserationists are determined to destroy them because they're "invasive"
>(another Nazi term?) and won't be tolerated by those obsessed with nativeness.
DO you have even the slightest understanding of the term Biodiversity
Angus?
>
>
>Among the communities they suppress are many showing great
>>richness and for which (such as Atlantic oakwoods) we bear an international
>>responsibility because of their diversity and uniqueness.
>
>OK. So plant the AOs elsewhere. The countryside isn't totally covered with
>Rhodys.
I thought you were against turning the country into "theme parks" Angus?
Surely natural habitat is far better than created habitat even by your
strange ethics. Also how do you justify the destruction of the plants
to plant new Oak wood. If anyone was daft enough to try this you would
be one of the first screaming speciesism "all these plants being
destroyed to make way for Oaks.
>
>>There are somewhere over 4000 alien species of plant that occur in the wild
>>or as weeds of cultivation in Britain. Of these, 97% or more are tolerated
>>or indeed enjoyed by conservationists, botanists and others because they
>>don't present the sort of threat that Rhododendron does.
>
>4000? Let's have some evidence of this bland statement. But that aside other
>people enjoy Rhodys so what gives you the right to destroy them and keep what
>you like yourself?
Oh Angus you are getting me close to being abusive. He has never said
that the situation is one of what he likes he has been pushing
biodiversity. Something which you should support as if he was suggesting
clearing areas and planting Rhododendrons you would be screaming about
all the plants being destroyed to make way for them.
>
>Of the remaining
>>3%, probably less than 1/3 (less than 1% overall) are the target of
>>eradication programmes.
>
>That's what I object to.
>
>>Throughout the winter a group of us "violently destroy" (i.e. cut down or
>>uproot) birch trees which are perfectly native (even if not genetically
>>pure - Downy and Silver Birches hybridize). We do so for reasons similar to
>>those for cutting down Rhododendron - they're overwhelming a rich mire and
>>damp heath community of plants and insects that is probably unique in
>>Southern England, occupying about 20 hectares. As we do so, we have at our
>>backs, in a radius of a few miles, several hundred hectares of birch scrub
>>and oak-birch-hazel woodland which is doing just fine, thanks, along with
>>all its inhabitants.
>
>A bit like what Hitler thought the Jews were doing to his economy.
When will you realise that there is a difference between a tree and a
human? On second thoughts perhaps there isn't between some humans and
trees (sorry planks)
>
> As we leave the site, our trousers metaphorically
>>drenched in the sap of innocent birches, we feel the satisfaction of a job
>>well done.
>
>Like a true CONservationist.
>
Oh do get a grip Angus this is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen
you make. You are taking a stance which is against your normal line of
argument.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
Having looked abuse up in the dictionary I don't think the above is
abuse merely a correct statement of the situation.
--
Malcolm Kane
Martin Rand
the need to rally to Angus' absurdities any further myself. The ludicrous
comment on "planting Atlantic oakwoods elsewhere" says much, I think.
By the way, the evidence for the "bland statement" about 4000+ alien plants:
the most authoritative catalogues available to us now are:
Clement and Foster: "Alien Plants of the British Isles", 1994 (which
excludes grasses)
Ryves, Clement and Foster: "Alien Grasses of the British Isles", 1995 (which
obviously doesn't).
The first catalogues 3586 species or groups of related species (no, I didn't
count them - the authors kindly told me in the Introduction).
The second lists 580 species.
This comes to 4166 taxa. Since the situation obviously isn't static, the
"4000+" figure seems a reasonable way of stating it.
"Malcolm Kane" <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W7Z+7TAj...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
positivethoughts
> news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> > Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and
encouraging
> > actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
> >
> > "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
> > rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>
> Silly language. Are they encouraged to be violent or do they just use
saws
> as any gardener would?
>
> It has been pointed out to you many times why Rhodedendrons are bad for
the
> environment.
>
analyse
the point that Angus is making. Who among us has the right to declare the
plant
undesirable given that many people like it? Do we have a percentage for and
against?
The last sentence left of your post above is an opinion. Others have rights
to an alternative
opinion. I attended a course on the use of herbicides. The Lecturer started
the course by asking
a simple question. "Can anyone tell me what a weed is?" After many attempts
at answering this by
various students he gave his answer. A plant growing where it is not wanted.
To a farmer
roses are weeds if they grow in the potato field.
One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
Vision
W K
"positivethoughts" <positive...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b4j0qt$r5r$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
In this case it is rather simple, and not just a matter of opinion
Pro: They are nice decorative plants with pretty purple flowers.
Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other plants
growing that do.
Its striking and very convincing, when you take into account the 100s or
1000s of species that would exist side by side in a patch of land occupied
by communities of plants that evolved together.
AMacmil304
>From: "Martin Rand" martin.rand...@ntlworld.com
>Message-id: <b4iure$20rrt2$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
>
>Thanks for the comments, Malcolm. Having got it off my chest, I don't feel
>the need to rally to Angus' absurdities any further myself.
Good. You've already broken one solemn vow.
The ludicrous
>comment on "planting Atlantic oakwoods elsewhere" says much, I think.
Not absurd at all. I'm not against anybody planting AO but I am against the
Nazi CONservationist reasoning behind the condemnation of non-nativeness
whether it involves invasive plants or otherwise.
Just as I'm not against tree planting if it does not involve killing wildlife
as a cheap and nasty alternative to protecting saplings.
>By the way, the evidence for the "bland statement" about 4000+ alien plants:
>the most authoritative catalogues available to us now are:
>Clement and Foster: "Alien Plants of the British Isles", 1994 (which
>excludes grasses)
>Ryves, Clement and Foster: "Alien Grasses of the British Isles", 1995 (which
>obviously doesn't).
>
>The first catalogues 3586 species or groups of related species (no, I didn't
>count them - the authors kindly told me in the Introduction).
>The second lists 580 species.
>This comes to 4166 taxa. Since the situation obviously isn't static, the
>"4000+" figure seems a reasonable way of stating it.
Who other than the CONservationists care whether they are alien or not.
Only they could take nativeness that far which is a sign of the extremism that
exists in their minds.
Rob Jack
martin.rand...@ntlworld.com says...
> Thanks for the comments, Malcolm. Having got it off my chest, I don't feel
> the need to rally to Angus' absurdities any further myself. The ludicrous
> comment on "planting Atlantic oakwoods elsewhere" says much, I think.
Reminds me of a story about a representative of one of the big major oil
companies at a public meeting trying to convince the local community that
putting a major pipeline through their rural landscape would be OK. She
said "We will put the ecology back" and a voice from the gallery said
"Aye, by a hundred years!".
Rob
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 21:36 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <V4IiqKku...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20030310131514...@mb-bk.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: "Martin Rand" martin.rand...@ntlworld.com
>>>Message-id: <b4hvl0$207d5e$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
>>>
>>
>>Among the communities they suppress are many showing great
>>>richness and for which (such as Atlantic oakwoods) we bear an international
>>>responsibility because of their diversity and uniqueness.
>>
>>OK. So plant the AOs elsewhere. The countryside isn't totally covered with
>>Rhodys.
>>
>If a single statement of Angus's was needed to sum up his lack of
>knowledge of *everything* to do with the natural world then "so plant
>the Atlantic Oakwoods elsewhere" has to be the ultimate example.
It is patently obvious that Atlantic Oakwoods can be planted where Rhodys
aren't. Or are you saying that is not the case and that they can only be
planted where Rhodys have been?
>The sad thing is that he will probably never be able to realise what a
>demonstration of his utter and total ignorance he has just provided.
Not sad at all. Just aware that you people support an unhealthy quest for
genetic purity and nativeness closely associated with Nazi thinking.
>About the best analogy I can think of, though I am uncertain that Angus
>has the intelligence to appreciate it, is if someone complained at the
>lack of fish to catch in Loch Lomond and was told "OK. So stock it with
>mackerel and cod".
No sharks? :-)
A better analogy than that is the close resemblence of Nazi CONservationist
thinking of genetic purity in respect of the Ruddy Duck - and closer to home
the shooting of hybrid geese at Forfar Loch just because they're not regarded a
pure.
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 18:40 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <$YLETPDp...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
What research?
>>
>>>> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>>>>
>>>> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>>
>>>I never really thought of "gardeners question time" as being a nazi rally,
>>>but really it is.
>>>"ONly ze beautiful plants schall be permitted in ziss garden.
>>>The ugly and ze week schall be exterminated."
>>
>>Off the point.
>Not at all it is exactly what is happening. Only for different reasons.
>
>>
>>>Do you weed your garden Angus? If you do then you too must be a Nazi, but
>of
>>>course only by your own logic.
>>
>>No because I don't discriminate between native and non-native.
>
>So no hoeing or digging round plants to leave bare earth then?
Missed the point :-(
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 20:14 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <Lohl+EYK...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20030310050942...@mb-cl.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
>>>Message-id: <b4hn72$fcv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>It has been pointed out to you many times why native trees are better for
>>>the wildlife of an area than the trees that are removed.
>>
>>Not better for the ones they kill to allow the saplings to grow. And not
>all
>>native trees are better that all non-native trees. Even MO was not able to
>>challenge that.
>>
No you weren't. Please stop telling lies.
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 22:21 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4j34j$1ic$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"positivethoughts" <positive...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:b4j0qt$r5r$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>> One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
>
>In this case it is rather simple, and not just a matter of opinion
>
>Pro: They are nice decorative plants with pretty purple flowers.
>Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other plants
>growing that do.
You could say the same about cars and buildings but the CONservation Nazis
oppose the Rhody. That's one of the reasons that you're fake conservationists.
>Its striking and very convincing, when you take into account the 100s or
>1000s of species that would exist side by side in a patch of land occupied
>by communities of plants that evolved together.
So what. concentrate on places where there are no Rhodys. There's value in
variety. What a dull countryside it would be if there were only 30+ species of
tree which seems to be the aim of the NCs.
Rob Jack
amacm...@aol.com says...
>
> It is patently obvious that Atlantic Oakwoods can be planted where Rhodys
> aren't. Or are you saying that is not the case and that they can only be
> planted where Rhodys have been?
>
>
animals which has taken a long, long time to develop and evolve. You
could no more "plant an Atlantic Oakwood" than I could paint the Mona
Lisa!
Rob
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 20:15 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <DosnujY+...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20030310131700...@mb-bk.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: Malcolm M...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>>Message-id: <JPEVnVKc...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>In article <20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>>>>
>>>>"Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>>>>rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>>>>
>>>acceptable
>>>>native varieties.
>>>>
>and
>>>>mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>>>
>>>statements that he has an obsession against conservation organisations,
>>>charities, volunteers, tourism and developments in his backyard, with a
>>>total disregard for his own negative impact on the environment. He also
>>>confirms that he suffers from a total lack of any understanding of
>>>ecology, ecological processes, or the effect of non-native species on
>>>habitats and other species. Nor, despite much urging, has he made any
>>>attempt to gain such an understanding which might, just might, stop him
>>>making a fool of himself with ridiculous statements like the above.
>>
>>
>>No comment, I see
>>
>>Just personal abuse :-(
>>
>
>On the contrary. I have pointed out to all who have read your ridiculous
>statements that you are an obsessive whose opinion on these matters is
>worthless.
No you haven't. You're an obsessive supporter of CONservationism and the Nazi
principles of genetic purity, and that's why tou support the extermination of
the Ruddy Duck.
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 19:49 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <G7a6LrAv...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
From a Nazi CONservationist point of view.
AMacmil304
>From: Malcolm Kane mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
>Message-id: <8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
All shouting for the blood of the Ruddy Duck - I don't think so.
Only the obsessive NCs are doing that.
Olwyn Mawr
>
>One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
The owner of the land it's growing on?
Olwyn Mawr
<$YLETPDp...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>...
not all
>>native trees are better that all non-native trees. Even MO was not able
to
>>challenge that.
>
>Would you care to post some proof of that Angus as all my research has
>failed to find anything to back up your statement - but I am sure that
>if there is any you will be delighted to further your cause by posting
>it.
If that reply refers to the statement about native vs non-native trees, and
if "better" means beneficial to a wider diversity of other species, the
case is arguable on a UK-wide scale, but probably much less so within any
localised area. In other words, you could perhaps plant a non-native tree
in an ideal location within the UK to replace a native tree which had died
in its own location elsewhere in the UK, and achieve a net biodiversity
benefit- but you probably couldn't achieve such a benefit by replacing the
native tree with a non-native in the same location.
Malcolm Kane
Reading, practical experience and searches of the web. NOW ANSWER THE
QUESTION if you can. (Which I very much doubt).
>
>
>>>
>>>>> Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>>>
>>>>I never really thought of "gardeners question time" as being a nazi rally,
>>>>but really it is.
>>>>"ONly ze beautiful plants schall be permitted in ziss garden.
>>>>The ugly and ze week schall be exterminated."
>>>
>>>Off the point.
>>Not at all it is exactly what is happening. Only for different reasons.
>>
>>>
>>>>Do you weed your garden Angus? If you do then you too must be a Nazi, but
>>of
>>>>course only by your own logic.
>>>
>>>No because I don't discriminate between native and non-native.
>>
>>So no hoeing or digging round plants to leave bare earth then?
>
>Missed the point :-(
No yet again you pretend to not understand. You protest long and loud
about speciesism and yet I suspect carry it out in the way you look
after your garden. When you mow the grass you favour some species over
others just the sort of action you complain about in others. Next time
I am past your "castle" I will note how the garden looks.
>
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>>From: "Martin Rand" martin.rand...@ntlworld.com
>>Date: 10/03/03 21:07 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <b4iure$20rrt2$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
>>
>>Thanks for the comments, Malcolm. Having got it off my chest, I don't feel
>>the need to rally to Angus' absurdities any further myself.
>
>Good. You've already broken one solemn vow.
>
>
>The ludicrous
>>comment on "planting Atlantic oakwoods elsewhere" says much, I think.
>
>Not absurd at all. I'm not against anybody planting AO
Why not it does the very things you scream about. It destroys some
species to make room for what you want planted. Can you spell
hypocrite?
>but I am against the
>Nazi CONservationist reasoning behind the condemnation of non-nativeness
>whether it involves invasive plants or otherwise.
>
>Just as I'm not against tree planting if it does not involve killing wildlife
>as a cheap and nasty alternative to protecting saplings.
>
>
>>By the way, the evidence for the "bland statement" about 4000+ alien plants:
>>the most authoritative catalogues available to us now are:
>>Clement and Foster: "Alien Plants of the British Isles", 1994 (which
>>excludes grasses)
>>Ryves, Clement and Foster: "Alien Grasses of the British Isles", 1995 (which
>>obviously doesn't).
>>
>>The first catalogues 3586 species or groups of related species (no, I didn't
>>count them - the authors kindly told me in the Introduction).
>>The second lists 580 species.
>>This comes to 4166 taxa. Since the situation obviously isn't static, the
>>"4000+" figure seems a reasonable way of stating it.
>
>Who other than the CONservationists care whether they are alien or not.
Those who have a genuine interest in the future of the planet
biodiversity and conservation but that obviously doesn't include you.
>
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>>From: Malcolm M...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>Date: 10/03/03 21:36 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <V4IiqKku...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>In article <20030310131514...@mb-bk.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>From: "Martin Rand" martin.rand...@ntlworld.com
>>>>Message-id: <b4hvl0$207d5e$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Among the communities they suppress are many showing great
>>>>richness and for which (such as Atlantic oakwoods) we bear an international
>>>>responsibility because of their diversity and uniqueness.
>>>
>>>OK. So plant the AOs elsewhere. The countryside isn't totally covered with
>>>Rhodys.
>>>
>
>>If a single statement of Angus's was needed to sum up his lack of
>>knowledge of *everything* to do with the natural world then "so plant
>>the Atlantic Oakwoods elsewhere" has to be the ultimate example.
>
>It is patently obvious that Atlantic Oakwoods can be planted where Rhodys
>aren't.
Oh my God Angus if I thought you believed this statement I would KNOW
that you had even less knowledge of ecology than I give you credit for
(and boy that isn't much). It is like suggesting that we could replant
the Sessile Oak wood from the Cumbrian Hanging Valleys 20 miles on to
the Solway plain. The Geology is different the soil the aspect the
climate and innumerable other things. Has it never occurred to you why
do plant communities change sometimes within a hundred yards or so?
>Or are you saying that is not the case and that they can only be
>planted where Rhodys have been?
Firstly they can't be planted. They are extremely complex mixtures of
plants and animals have a look into food webs etc some time. Secondly
they require to grow in their "niche" if all is not right then a
different community will slowly arise. Do you Have *NO* knowledge and
*UNDERSTANDING*?
>
>>The sad thing is that he will probably never be able to realise what a
>>demonstration of his utter and total ignorance he has just provided.
>
>Not sad at all. Just aware that you people support an unhealthy quest for
>genetic purity and nativeness closely associated with Nazi thinking.
Extremely sad my children had more understanding of ecology and
animal/plant relationships while at junior school than you show.
>
>>About the best analogy I can think of, though I am uncertain that Angus
>>has the intelligence to appreciate it, is if someone complained at the
>>lack of fish to catch in Loch Lomond and was told "OK. So stock it with
>>mackerel and cod".
I couldn't have put it better myself.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>>The message being sent is that Angus Macmillan confirms by such
>>>>statements that he has an obsession against conservation organisations,
>>>>charities, volunteers, tourism and developments in his backyard, with a
>>>>total disregard for his own negative impact on the environment. He also
>>>>confirms that he suffers from a total lack of any understanding of
>>>>ecology, ecological processes, or the effect of non-native species on
>>>>habitats and other species. Nor, despite much urging, has he made any
>>>>attempt to gain such an understanding which might, just might, stop him
>>>>making a fool of himself with ridiculous statements like the above.
>>>
>>>
>>>No comment, I see
>>>
>>>Just personal abuse :-(
>>
>>Having looked abuse up in the dictionary I don't think the above is
>>abuse merely a correct statement of the situation.
>
>From a Nazi CONservationist point of view.
Angus do you think there are "Nazi Conservation" dictionaries and those
for the rest of the world? I speak the English Language as far as I
Know what is spoken in Scotland is near enough for a dictionary
definition to apply.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>>From: Malcolm Kane mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
>>Date: 10/03/03 18:36 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>In message <20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and encouraging
>>>actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>>>
>>>"Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>>>rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>>>
>>>Trees are destroyed because they are not "native" and replanted with
>>acceptable
>>>native varieties.
>>>
>>>Bird protection charities are advocating exterminating non-native birds and
>>>mammals for reasons of genetic impurity and to encourage native species.
>>>
>>>Only the genetically pure and native are acceptable!
>>>
>>>What kind of message is this to send to the young people of today?
>>
>>Have you ever heard of biodiversity. The young people (who incidentally
>>have more sense than to take such a blinkered view) will get a good
>>conservation message.
>
>All shouting for the blood of the Ruddy Duck - I don't think so.
>
>Only the obsessive NCs are doing that.
>
problem today with 30 15 - 16 year olds. They had all seen it in the
various media and they all (albeit regretfully) supported the cull.
They could weigh the extinction of one species against the death of a
small part of the world population. Even the girls - famed for the
Ahhhh factor agreed.
--
Malcolm Kane
AMacmil304
>From: Malcolm Kane mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
>Message-id: <nGBi0NHB...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
More probably indoctrinating the young with the NC point of view. Remember
Hitler youth?
AMacmil304
>Date: 10/03/03 23:46 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4j8d8$im0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>positivethoughts wrote in message ...
>>
>>One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
>
>The owner of the land it's growing on?
Of which huge chunks are being acquired by NCs.
Gorgeous George
<positive...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"W K" <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote in message
>news:b4hn72$fcv$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
>> > Tree planting CONservation charities are using terminology and
>encouraging
>> > actions that could spill over into intolerance in others ways.
>> >
>> > "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
>> > rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>>
>> Silly language. Are they encouraged to be violent or do they just use
>saws
>> as any gardener would?
>>
>> It has been pointed out to you many times why Rhodedendrons are bad for
>the
>> environment.
>>
>The Rhodedenron is enjoyed by many people in this Country. Let's properly
>analyse
>the point that Angus is making. Who among us has the right to declare the
>plant
>undesirable given that many people like it? Do we have a percentage for and
>against?
>
>The last sentence left of your post above is an opinion. Others have rights
>to an alternative
>opinion. I attended a course on the use of herbicides. The Lecturer started
>the course by asking
>a simple question. "Can anyone tell me what a weed is?" After many attempts
>at answering this by
>various students he gave his answer. A plant growing where it is not wanted.
>To a farmer
>roses are weeds if they grow in the potato field.
>
>One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed.
Oi you there are many weeds as beautiful as any flower, certainly as
necessary.
What we have is yet another attempt by CONservation hooligans to
tamper with nature, which is quite amazing given the fact that many of
them seem unable to even look after themselves!
.
*************************************************************************************
Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.
- Sir Winston Churchill
The Eagle Has Landed.
/T /I
/ |/ | .-~/
T\ Y I |/ / _
/T | \I | I Y.-~/
I l /I T\ | | l | T /
T\ | \ Y l /T | \I l \ ` l Y
__ | \l \l \I l __l l \ ` _. |
\ ~-l `\ `\ \ \\ ~\ \ `. .-~ |
\ ~-. "-. ` \ ^._ ^. "-. / \ |
.--~-._ ~- ` _ ~-_.-"-." ._ /._ ." ./
>--. ~-. ._ ~>-" "\\ 7 7 ]
^.___~"--._ ~-{ .-~ . `\ Y . / |
<__ ~"-. ~ /_/ \ \I Y : |
^-.__ ~(_/ \ >._: | l______
^--.,___.-~" /_/ ! `-.~"--l_ / ~"-.
(_/ . ~( /' "~"--,Y -=b-. _)
(_/ . \ : / l c"~o \
\ / `. . .^ \_.-~"~--. )
(_/ . ` / / ! )/
/ / _. '. .': / '
~(_/ . / _ ` .-<_
/_/ . ' .-~" `. / \ \ ,z=.
~( / ' : | K "-.~-.______//
"-,. l I/ \_ __{--->._(==.
//( \ < ~"~" //
/' /\ \ \ ,v=. ((
.^. / /\ " }__ //===- ` Roy!/ASC
/ / ' ' "-.,__ {---(==-
.^ ' : T ~" ll
/ . . . : | :! \\
(_/ / | | j-" ~^
Gorgeous George
wrote:
>
>"positivethoughts" <positive...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:b4j0qt$r5r$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>> One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
>
>In this case it is rather simple, and not just a matter of opinion
>
>Pro: They are nice decorative plants with pretty purple flowers.
>Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other plants
>growing that do.
Rubbish, everything in nature has it's place, even you sadly.
I can vouch that in my roddy the blackbird, robin and wren love to
flutter.
>Its striking and very convincing, when you take into account the 100s or
>1000s of species that would exist side by side in a patch of land occupied
>by communities of plants that evolved together.
Or the millions that would not! what's your point?
BAC
>
> Have you ever heard of biodiversity.
I'm sure he has, since the word has been used frequently on this group.
However, I'm not so sure all the people who use it have exactly the same
thing in mind, let alone agree as to its importance, or the reasons why it
is believed important :-)
Gorgeous George
Certainly those genetic purists don't know what it means.
W K
> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
> >Date: 10/03/03 22:21 GMT Standard Time
> >Message-id: <b4j34j$1ic$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
> >
> >
> >"positivethoughts" <positive...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:b4j0qt$r5r$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >
> >> One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
> >
> >In this case it is rather simple, and not just a matter of opinion
> >
> >Pro: They are nice decorative plants with pretty purple flowers.
> >Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other
plants
> >growing that do.
>
> You could say the same about cars and buildings but the CONservation Nazis
> oppose the Rhody. That's one of the reasons that you're fake
conservationists.
So are you actually saying you want your road and your house to be smashed
down so that we can extend the natural vegetation?
"real conservation" in your mind would mean destroying roads and houses for
the sake of environmentalism?
> So what. concentrate on places where there are no Rhodys. There's value
in
> variety. What a dull countryside it would be if there were only 30+
species of
> tree which seems to be the aim of the NCs.
Only "dull" in the eyes of people.
You are back to the aesthetic argument that you are on about all the time.
Hypocritical fool.
You think there should be nice exotic trees just for you and tourists to
look at? (and lets face it you only live in the countryside as a tourists)
This is exactly what you seem to think conservation organisations want (when
its not).
However, what conservationists understand and what you appear not to is that
native trees support wildlife. Insects, birds, fungi, all sorts.
If you had any appreciation for the environment then you would value that,
far more than the occaisional purple flower.
BAC
"Olwyn Mawr" <da...@trochos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b4j8dg$2cv$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
This could get interesting assuming further refinement of 'native' to mean
trees of genetic stock originating from the planting locality, and also that
climate change is occurring (National Trust, for instance, has noted it may
not be possible to maintain specimens in gardens indefinitely, as climate
changes) since one might discover that the trees defined as 'native' may no
longer flourish in all of their former range, but might be best suited by
conditions outside that range. What will 'native only' freaks do then?
If maximisation of local biodiversity is the key target, wouldn't we be
better off creating swamps rather than planting trees, anyway?
W K
"BAC" <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3Riba.13$E11....@news.dircon.co.uk...
> conditions outside that range. What will 'native only' freaks do then?
Do 'native only' freaks really exist, apart from in the fevered minds of
loons?
I have heard people discussing this in terms of flowering seasons and the
like, when talking about wildflowers from say eastern europe.
As such its a practical and not philosophical/pseudoreligious/nazi(!!)
standpoint.
BAC
> positivethoughts wrote in message ...
> >
> >One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
>
> The owner of the land it's growing on?
>
>
No, landowners are allowed only the rights over the land they have paid for
which the civil authorities permit them to enjoy from time to time. That's
why you have an ever evolving framework of laws and regulations defining
what you can and cannot do on 'your' land. If allowing vast tracts of land
considered to be 'important' from an ecological viewpoint to be covered with
rhodedendons currently remains amongst the things a landowner may decide,
its days will be numbered.
BAC
> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >Date: 10/03/03 21:07 GMT Standard Time
> >Message-id: <b4iure$20rrt2$1...@ID-42989.news.dfncis.de>
> >
>
>
> >By the way, the evidence for the "bland statement" about 4000+ alien
plants:
> >the most authoritative catalogues available to us now are:
> >Clement and Foster: "Alien Plants of the British Isles", 1994 (which
> >excludes grasses)
> >Ryves, Clement and Foster: "Alien Grasses of the British Isles", 1995
(which
> >obviously doesn't).
> >
> >The first catalogues 3586 species or groups of related species (no, I
didn't
> >count them - the authors kindly told me in the Introduction).
> >The second lists 580 species.
> >This comes to 4166 taxa. Since the situation obviously isn't static, the
> >"4000+" figure seems a reasonable way of stating it.
>
> Who other than the CONservationists care whether they are alien or not.
>
Botanists and taxonomists cared enough to carry out the classification. I
would hazard a guess that the average conservationist (if there is such a
thing) wouldn't have had a clue whether or not many of the naturalised
non-native species were non-native in origin.
> Only they could take nativeness that far which is a sign of the extremism
that
> exists in their minds.
>
It would become a sign of such extremism if the works Martin listed became
handbooks of candidates for extermination (most unlikely). As it is, the
fact so many species long considered harmless or beneficial are identified
as non-natives is ammunition against the 'all non-natives are bad' and
'should be got rid of on the precautionary principle' schools of thought
advocated by some.
As Martin has explained, the things that are got rid of are usually got rid
of because their presence in the area where action is taken is deemed a
nuisance, regardless of whether they are native or non-native (Roe deer are
native, after all!). If a 'target' is non-native, that seems to be used as
an additional justification if anybody objects, e.g. it didn't take long for
the Uist Hedgehogs to be condemned as not native to that part of the
country, and use of the 'alien' tag is usually obligatory when describing
certain invasive weeds. Ruddy Ducks seem an unusual case, because they don't
appear to cause any nuisance whatsoever in the UK, and are to be
exterminated purely because of their 'alien' status.
Rob Jack
cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk says...
where the land is designated as an SSSI or whatever I believe there has
to be an agreement between land owner and the appropriate govt body to
have Rhoddys removed and the govt body pays. So no one can be forced to
remove them. Similarly if a land owner wishes to destroy Rhoddys there
is nothing to stop him so doing.
Rob
W K
"Gorgeous George" <geor...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:cg7r6vsttj70ujo8u...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:21:08 +0000 (UTC), "W K"
> >Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other
plants
> >growing that do.
>
> Rubbish, everything in nature has it's place,
Indeed it does, but theirs is half way around the world, where I am sure
there are plenty of insects and other wildlife that can actually eat them,
live off their leaf mould etc.etc.
Plant a british oak tree over there and its unlikely that it would support
the local fauna.
> I can vouch that in my roddy the blackbird, robin and wren love to
> flutter.
Flutter maybe, but what insect food can they find there and what's in their
leaf mould?
Have a look sometime and you'll see things like blue tits feeding all over
the native plants but avoid the non-natives, because they do not support a
community of wildlife in the uk.
BAC
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:20:33 -0000, "BAC"
> <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Malcolm Kane" <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message <20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com>, AMacmil304
> >> <amacm...@aol.com> writes
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of biodiversity.
> >
> >I'm sure he has, since the word has been used frequently on this group.
> >
> >However, I'm not so sure all the people who use it have exactly the same
> >thing in mind, let alone agree as to its importance, or the reasons why
it
> >is believed important :-)
> >
> >
>
> Certainly those genetic purists don't know what it means.
>
I'm sure we all have preferred definitions of 'species' and 'biodiversity',
or even flexible definitions to fit different circumstances. I find
intriguing the degree of importance (and the reason for that importance)
people ascribe to the maximisation of biodiversity.
BAC
> In message <20030310184017...@mb-ct.aol.com>, AMacmil304
> <amacm...@aol.com> writes
> >>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >>From: Malcolm Kane mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
> >>Date: 10/03/03 18:36 GMT Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
> >>
> >
> Strange (and I know you will not believe this) I discussed the RD
> problem today with 30 15 - 16 year olds. They had all seen it in the
> various media and they all (albeit regretfully) supported the cull.
> They could weigh the extinction of one species against the death of a
> small part of the world population. Even the girls - famed for the
> Ahhhh factor agreed.
Strange indeed - what were the circumstances of this discussion?
Colin Davidson
>
> No you haven't. You're an obsessive supporter of CONservationism and the
Nazi
> principles of genetic purity, and that's why tou support the extermination
of
> the Ruddy Duck.
You have also compared cutting down rhododendrons with Nazism. Can you maybe
see where Malcolm is coming from now?
BAC
The question is, if the climate of the UK were to change significantly from
that of the immediate post glaciation period (which is the arbitrary cut off
for 'nativeness', I believe) such that many 'native' plants could no longer
exist here, but the situation would be ideal for some non-native plants,
would it be policy to protect the remnant 'native' populations at the
expense of better suited non-natives?
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <b4kcce$gmi$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030310182716...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>> >From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
>> >Date: 10/03/03 22:21 GMT Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <b4j34j$1ic$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >"positivethoughts" <positive...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b4j0qt$r5r$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> >
>> >> One persons Rhodedendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
>> >
>> >In this case it is rather simple, and not just a matter of opinion
>> >
>> >Pro: They are nice decorative plants with pretty purple flowers.
>> >Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other
>plants
>> >growing that do.
>>
>> You could say the same about cars and buildings but the CONservation Nazis
>> oppose the Rhody. That's one of the reasons that you're fake
>conservationists.
>
>So are you actually saying you want your road and your house to be smashed
>down so that we can extend the natural vegetation?
No. What I'm saying is that there's a lot more to conservation than "Bashing
Rhodys" and planting native trees - but regrettably you can't see that.
>"real conservation" in your mind would mean destroying roads and houses for
>the sake of environmentalism?
No. but development needs to be cut back dramatically to sustain our
environment. And before you pass some crap comment on a personal basis, that's
down to governmnet policy.
>
>> So what. concentrate on places where there are no Rhodys. There's value>in
>> variety. What a dull countryside it would be if there were only 30+
>species of
>> tree which seems to be the aim of the NCs.
>
>Only "dull" in the eyes of people.
>You are back to the aesthetic argument that you are on about all the time.
I'm not talking about aesthetics I'm talking about variety and it would be dull
indeed to only have 30+ tree species in the UK.
>Hypocritical fool.
Check your dictionary for abuse :-(
>You think there should be nice exotic trees just for you and tourists to
>look at? (and lets face it you only live in the countryside as a tourists)
All trees are nice whether one looks at them or not.
>This is exactly what you seem to think conservation organisations want (when
>its not).
Well, the Woodland trust say they want the public to enjoy their aestheticaly
pleasing woodlands. But they're CONservationists.
>However, what conservationists understand and what you appear not to is that
>native trees support wildlife. Insects, birds, fungi, all sorts.
>If you had any appreciation for the environment then you would value that,
>far more than the occaisional purple flower.
I value all the things you mention but do not think that wildlife and
non-native flora should be destroyed to achieve that aim. There are plenty of
opportunities for conservation without destruction
But the Nazi CONservationists prefer the destruction route because it makes
their task easier.
Gorgeous George
<cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Malcolm Kane" <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nGBi0NHB...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <20030310184017...@mb-ct.aol.com>, AMacmil304
>> <amacm...@aol.com> writes
>> >>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>> >>From: Malcolm Kane mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
>> >>Date: 10/03/03 18:36 GMT Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: <8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
>> >>
><snip>
>> >
>> Strange (and I know you will not believe this) I discussed the RD
>> problem today with 30 15 - 16 year olds. They had all seen it in the
>> various media and they all (albeit regretfully) supported the cull.
>> They could weigh the extinction of one species against the death of a
>> small part of the world population. Even the girls - famed for the
>> Ahhhh factor agreed.
>
>Strange indeed - what were the circumstances of this discussion?
>
No doubt in some fantasy world inside his head where everyone wears
stockings and suspenders, even the judges!
It's a complete lie.
Gorgeous George
wrote:
>
>"Gorgeous George" <geor...@iname.com> wrote in message
>news:cg7r6vsttj70ujo8u...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:21:08 +0000 (UTC), "W K"
>
>
>> >Against: They support virtually no other wildlife and prevent other
>plants
>> >growing that do.
>>
>> Rubbish, everything in nature has it's place,
>
>Indeed it does, but theirs is half way around the world, where I am sure
>there are plenty of insects and other wildlife that can actually eat them,
>live off their leaf mould etc.etc.
>Plant a british oak tree over there and its unlikely that it would support
>the local fauna.
>
>> I can vouch that in my roddy the blackbird, robin and wren love to
>> flutter.
>
>Flutter maybe, but what insect food can they find there and what's in their
>leaf mould?
>Have a look sometime and you'll see things like blue tits feeding all over
>the native plants but avoid the non-natives, because they do not support a
>community of wildlife in the uk.
So what! I have women flocking at my feet for my favours, you don't,
does that mean we should get rid of you?
It's a nonsense argument.
W K
> The question is, if the climate of the UK were to change significantly
from
> that of the immediate post glaciation period (which is the arbitrary cut
off
> for 'nativeness', I believe) such that many 'native' plants could no
longer
> exist here, but the situation would be ideal for some non-native plants,
> would it be policy to protect the remnant 'native' populations at the
> expense of better suited non-natives?
If that does happen in a significant way then the country's natural heritage
will be so thoroughly shafted that there wouldn't be much left to be
bothered about.
If the non-natives were from Europe you'd perhaps assume that the community
of organisms that go with them would be able to get here under their own
steam, or in fact be amongst the organisms that live here anyway.
W K
> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >From: "W K"
> >So are you actually saying you want your road and your house to be
smashed
> >down so that we can extend the natural vegetation?
>
> No. What I'm saying is that there's a lot more to conservation than
"Bashing
> Rhodys" and planting native trees - but regrettably you can't see that.
Who on earth said conservation was all about rhody bashing. What sort of
logic squeezes that zit of a thought out of your brain?
This thread is mainly about rhodies yes, but that the way you started it.
> I'm not talking about aesthetics I'm talking about variety and it would be
dull
> indeed to only have 30+ tree species in the UK.
...
> Well, the Woodland trust say they want the public to enjoy their
aestheticaly
> pleasing woodlands. But they're CONservationists.
That appears to be precisely your view and you are still being a fool, who
cannot see the inconsistency.
You still like to look at the pretty flowers of non-natives, but wish to
ignore the fact that they displace important communities of organisms.
Ah the motorway contractor logic, we can plant a few trees elsewhere and
that'll be ok.
BAC
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:01:38 -0000, "BAC"
> <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Malcolm Kane" <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:nGBi0NHB...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message <20030310184017...@mb-ct.aol.com>, AMacmil304
> >> <amacm...@aol.com> writes
> >> >>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >> >>From: Malcolm Kane mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk
> >> >>Date: 10/03/03 18:36 GMT Standard Time
> >> >>Message-id: <8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
> >> >>
> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> Strange (and I know you will not believe this) I discussed the RD
> >> problem today with 30 15 - 16 year olds. They had all seen it in the
> >> various media and they all (albeit regretfully) supported the cull.
> >> They could weigh the extinction of one species against the death of a
> >> small part of the world population. Even the girls - famed for the
> >> Ahhhh factor agreed.
> >
> >Strange indeed - what were the circumstances of this discussion?
> >
>
> No doubt in some fantasy world inside his head where everyone wears
> stockings and suspenders, even the judges!
>
> It's a complete lie.
>
I don't see how you have arrived at those conclusions, and they certainly
weren't what I was thinking..
BAC
>
> "BAC" <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:PZjba.9$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk...
>
> > The question is, if the climate of the UK were to change significantly
> from
> > that of the immediate post glaciation period (which is the arbitrary cut
> off
> > for 'nativeness', I believe) such that many 'native' plants could no
> longer
> > exist here, but the situation would be ideal for some non-native plants,
> > would it be policy to protect the remnant 'native' populations at the
> > expense of better suited non-natives?
>
> If that does happen in a significant way then the country's natural
heritage
> will be so thoroughly shafted that there wouldn't be much left to be
> bothered about.
I won't be here to see it, but some of the global warming/sea level/gulf
stream changes which have been suggested could make quite a difference.
>
> If the non-natives were from Europe you'd perhaps assume that the
community
> of organisms that go with them would be able to get here under their own
> steam, or in fact be amongst the organisms that live here anyway.
>
>
I suppose, given enough time, things would work themselves out anyway ...
Gorgeous George
wrote:
>
>In article <kijba.3$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk>, BAC
><cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Ruddy Ducks seem an unusual case, because they don't
>>appear to cause any nuisance whatsoever in the UK, and are to be
>>exterminated purely because of their 'alien' status.
>>
>Err, have you read a word that has been written about the Ruddy Duck?
>
>Yes, they are 'alien', but they are not being exterminated "purely
>because of their 'alien' status".
Yes they are. The excuse doesn't matter.
> There is the little additional matter
>of the threat they pose to the White-headed Duck.....
Not in the UK they don't. It's akin to shooting the bear in London zoo
because it "may" eat someone in timbuctoo... just another CONservation
hooligan twitcher ploy.
AMacmil304
>Date: 11/03/03 15:42 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <cxTwY4AB...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <kijba.3$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk>, BAC
><cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Ruddy Ducks seem an unusual case, because they don't
>>appear to cause any nuisance whatsoever in the UK, and are to be
>>exterminated purely because of their 'alien' status.
>>
>Err, have you read a word that has been written about the Ruddy Duck?
>
>Yes, they are 'alien', but they are not being exterminated "purely
Don't give us that! One of the first things that are said about the RD is that
it's from America with the implication that it's no right to be here anyway.
As well as being a Nazi Conservationist supporter you're a peddler of half
truths.
Colin Davidson
> Don't give us that! One of the first things that are said about the RD is
that
> it's from America with the implication that it's no right to be here
anyway.
>
> As well as being a Nazi Conservationist supporter you're a peddler of half
> truths.
That's just silly. Canadian pondweed, Elodea (something) is also from North
America. It can be invasive, it can be difficult to deal with if it gets out
of hand (who wants a canal full of only one thing?) but there's no concerted
effort to wipe it out just because it's American. The sweet chestnut tree is
non-native, but it's hardly invasive so no one is trying to eradicate that
from our shores. The rabbit isn't native, and although it's controlled where
it would cause damage in agriculture no one wants to eradicate it. You are
claiming that there's a dogmatic approach on the part of conservationists
despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you that conservationists
aren't dogmatically trying to remove from our shores a huge range of
non-native species.
Gorgeous George
You're talking nonsense again. CONservation hooligans like Ogilvie and
co have made it quite clear they would be happy to eradicate rabbits,
squirrels, ruddy duck etc etc etc..... the list is endless.
Robert Seago
> > "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
^^^^^^^^^
> > rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
Surely this man is a troll. Ignore him please.
Regards from : Using a : Remove the j from the address
Robert Seago : Risc PC : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
--
Gorgeous George
<rse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20030310044252...@mb-cl.aol.com...
>
>> > "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
> ^^^^^^^^^
>> > rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>
>Surely this man is a troll. Ignore him please.
And succumb to your lightning wit and repertoire? fat chance!
Colin Davidson
"Robert Seago" <rse...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant10181...@R.zetnet.co.uk...
> > > "Rhody Bashing" groups (gangs?) are encouraged to violently destroy
> ^^^^^^^^^
> > > rhododendrons because they are "alien" species
>
> Surely this man is a troll. Ignore him please.
Sorry.
AMacmil304
>Date: 11/03/03 18:22 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4l97m$hu8$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
That's just silly. I'm not opposing the the NCs for the species they're not
eradicating. But almost without fail the ones they are such as the Black Rats,
Hedgehogs, Mink and Ruddy Ducks are branded "alien".
BAC
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b4l97m$hu8$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Strange that, Colin, since it doesn't seem so long ago that there were
threads in this group with some people strongly arguing that all non native
species were harmful and, if possible, that they should be eliminated in
line with international obligations. There was even mention of invocation of
the 'precautionary principle' to justify the removal of non-native species
which hadn't proved a problem yet.
BAC
"Malcolm" <M...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cxTwY4AB...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >appear to cause any nuisance whatsoever in the UK, and are to be
> >exterminated purely because of their 'alien' status.
> >
Now, now - no need to make with the snide remarks.
>
> Yes, they are 'alien', but they are not being exterminated "purely
> because of their 'alien' status". There is the little additional matter
> of the threat they pose to the White-headed Duck.....
>
Thanks for reminding me about that. I keep forgetting it, probably because I
cannot take the degree of 'threat' seriously. RDs in the UK pose virtually
no threat to any WHD, since there are no breeding WHD (outside of
collections) in the UK for them to hybridise with, AFAIK.
AMacmil304
>Date: 11/03/03 12:37 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4klb0$52u$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030311070858...@mb-mk.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>> >From: "W K"
>
>> >So are you actually saying you want your road and your house to be
>smashed
>> >down so that we can extend the natural vegetation?
>>
>> No. What I'm saying is that there's a lot more to conservation than
>"Bashing
>> Rhodys" and planting native trees - but regrettably you can't see that.
>Who on earth said conservation was all about rhody bashing. What sort of
>logic squeezes that zit of a thought out of your brain?
>This thread is mainly about rhodies yes, but that the way you started it.
>
>> I'm not talking about aesthetics I'm talking about variety and it would be
>dull
>> indeed to only have 30+ tree species in the UK.
>...
>> Well, the Woodland trust say they want the public to enjoy their
>aestheticaly
>> pleasing woodlands. But they're CONservationists.
>
>That appears to be precisely your view and you are still being a fool, who
>cannot see the inconsistency.
That's their view.
>You still like to look at the pretty flowers of non-natives, but wish to
>ignore the fact that they displace important communities of organisms.
Same as many other things that you don't want to destroy such as houses and
cars.
>Ah the motorway contractor logic, we can plant a few trees elsewhere and
>that'll be ok.
Now that's landscaping and very much what the CONservationists are doing when
they ignore the bigger picture of conservation.
AMacmil304
>Date: 11/03/03 11:43 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <PZjba.9$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk>
Wouldn't the CONservationists look silly then. The "forests for a thousand
years" only lasting for a fraction of that time.
A bit like the "experts" involved in recommending investment in pensions and
the stock market.
AMacmil304
>Date: 11/03/03 12:32 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4kl0d$s6k$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>
>
>"BAC" <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:PZjba.9$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk...
>
>> The question is, if the climate of the UK were to change significantly
>from
>> that of the immediate post glaciation period (which is the arbitrary cut
>off
>> for 'nativeness', I believe) such that many 'native' plants could no
>longer
>> exist here, but the situation would be ideal for some non-native plants,
>> would it be policy to protect the remnant 'native' populations at the
>> expense of better suited non-natives?
>
>If that does happen in a significant way then the country's natural heritage
>will be so thoroughly shafted that there wouldn't be much left to be
>bothered about.
Not if there was a variety of non-native plants.
>If the non-natives were from Europe you'd perhaps assume that the community
>of organisms that go with them would be able to get here under their own
>steam, or in fact be amongst the organisms that live here anyway.
Ah. So european varieties are not "alien" .
That's a start.
So what's your Nazi CONservationist opinion of what should not be allowed to
flourish here?
Malcolm Kane
<cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>If maximisation of local biodiversity is the key target, wouldn't we be
>better off creating swamps rather than planting trees, anyway?
Surely maximising biodiversity requires a maximisation of habitats too.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
changes flora there will be little that can be done to protect the
"native" species. I do however think that replacement flora should be
what arrive naturally rather than by a decision to plant an "alien" just
because it can survive in the new climate.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
>>From: Malcolm M...@indaal.demon.co.uk
>>Date: 11/03/03 15:42 GMT Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cxTwY4AB...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>In article <kijba.3$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk>, BAC
>><cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>Ruddy Ducks seem an unusual case, because they don't
>>>appear to cause any nuisance whatsoever in the UK, and are to be
>>>exterminated purely because of their 'alien' status.
>>>
>>Err, have you read a word that has been written about the Ruddy Duck?
>>
>>Yes, they are 'alien', but they are not being exterminated "purely
>>because of their 'alien' status". There is the little additional matter
>>of the threat they pose to the White-headed Duck.....
>
>Don't give us that! One of the first things that are said about the RD is that
>it's from America with the implication that it's no right to be here anyway.
If you think that Angus can you make any suggestion as to why
extermination has not taken place before? After all they have had 50 or
so years to do it.
Could you also suggest why there has been all this delay and trials if
all they wanted to do was exterminate an alien? They could have got on
with the job so much faster and had that much more chance of success if
your suggestion is true.
I really do look forward to your rationalisation of the two points
above.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>"real conservation" in your mind would mean destroying roads and houses for
>>the sake of environmentalism?
>
>No. but development needs to be cut back dramatically to sustain our
>environment. And before you pass some crap comment on a personal basis, that's
>down to governmnet policy.
I am glad you finally agree Angus I have urged you to take up many of
your points with the government as it is due to there laws that many of
the things you object to are allowed to happen.. Strangely up to now
you have always found a reason why you shouldn't do it. I am glad you
have seen the light.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>
>"Malcolm Kane" <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nGBi0NHB...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk...
>> >>Date: 10/03/03 18:36 GMT Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: <8o$EfyC6s...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
>> >>
><snip>
>> >
>> Strange (and I know you will not believe this) I discussed the RD
>> problem today with 30 15 - 16 year olds. They had all seen it in the
>> various media and they all (albeit regretfully) supported the cull.
>> They could weigh the extinction of one species against the death of a
>> small part of the world population. Even the girls - famed for the
>> Ahhhh factor agreed.
>
>Strange indeed - what were the circumstances of this discussion?
>
>
College.
--
Malcolm Kane
W K
> >Subject: Re: CONservation Nazis' Doctrine of Intolerance.
> >From: "W K" hyag...@tesco.net
> >Date: 11/03/03 12:32 GMT Standard Time
> >Message-id: <b4kl0d$s6k$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
> >
> >
> >"BAC" <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:PZjba.9$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> >
> >> The question is, if the climate of the UK were to change significantly
> >from
> >> that of the immediate post glaciation period (which is the arbitrary
cut
> >off
> >> for 'nativeness', I believe) such that many 'native' plants could no
> >longer
> >> exist here, but the situation would be ideal for some non-native
plants,
> >> would it be policy to protect the remnant 'native' populations at the
> >> expense of better suited non-natives?
> >
> >If that does happen in a significant way then the country's natural
heritage
> >will be so thoroughly shafted that there wouldn't be much left to be
> >bothered about.
>
> Not if there was a variety of non-native plants.
nope. you miss the point.
And if you really cared about the greenhouse effect you'd dump the 4x4.
> >If the non-natives were from Europe you'd perhaps assume that the
community
> >of organisms that go with them would be able to get here under their own
> >steam, or in fact be amongst the organisms that live here anyway.
>
> Ah. So european varieties are not "alien" .
Please note, that is your obsession and not mine.
communities of plants and animals that have evolved together form stable and
diverse ecosystems.
Plants and animals will overlap in range, and non-natives from not to far
away will have evolved alongside some of the organisms we have here.
As such sycamore supports quite a few species whereas Eucalyptus or Rhodies
will support next to none
W K
"AMacmil304" <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> as many other things that you don't want to destroy such as houses and
> cars.
Interesting. when are you going to live without a car, and move back into a
town.
Olwyn Mawr
>
>"Olwyn Mawr" <da...@trochos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>you could perhaps plant a non-native tree in an
>>ideal location within the UK to replace a native tree which had died
>> in its own location elsewhere in the UK, and achieve a net biodiversity
>> benefit- but you probably couldn't achieve such a benefit by replacing
>> the native tree with a non-native in the same location.
>
>This could get interesting assuming further refinement of 'native' to mean
>trees of genetic stock originating from the planting locality, and also
that
>climate change is occurring (National Trust, for instance, has noted it
may
>not be possible to maintain specimens in gardens indefinitely, as climate
>changes) since one might discover that the trees defined as 'native' may
no
>longer flourish in all of their former range, but might be best suited by
>conditions outside that range. What will 'native only' freaks do then?
Such considerations are already being taken into account, as your National
Trust example indicates. A key aspect of current conservation philosophy is
the development of large-scale semi-natural zones, creating as many
linkages as possible between reserve areas, to help species migrate as the
climate changes. It is accepted, I think, that there are likely to be
serious problems- but that initially at least it's best to find how well
the current range of species can adapt, rather than deliberately
introducing non-native species to fill apparent gaps.
>If maximisation of local biodiversity is the key target, wouldn't we be
>better off creating swamps rather than planting trees, anyway?
Both (plus other habitats too) would be nice. For example, remember that
report (from Robert Seago ISTR) that the Woodland Trust was converting (or
reverting) part of its large new site in Essex to wetland.
Olwyn Mawr
>>>
>>>One persons Rhododendron is another persons weed. Who decides?
>>
>> The owner of the land it's growing on?
>
>No, landowners are allowed only the rights over the land they have paid
for
>which the civil authorities permit them to enjoy from time to time. That's
>why you have an ever evolving framework of laws and regulations defining
>what you can and cannot do on 'your' land. If allowing vast tracts of land
>considered to be 'important' from an ecological viewpoint to be covered
with
>rhododendrons currently remains amongst the things a landowner may decide,
>its days will be numbered.
As Rob Jack points out, Rhodies don't seem to be a notifiable weed yet, but
yes of course there are some plants, both native and "alien" which are
weeds because the Government says so. And you raise in effect the point
that on some SSSIs or similar designated sites, even a plant like barley
may be legally regarded as a weed.
BAC
Well, it 'd be a bit harsh to blame them for being unable to predict the
climate/weather for the next thousand years. I'm sure they'd react flexibly
to changing circumstances, if push came to shove.
>
> A bit like the "experts" involved in recommending investment in pensions
and
> the stock market.
>
Please, don't - a very sore point, that.
BAC
>
> In article <BXrba.20$R13....@news.dircon.co.uk>, BAC
> <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Malcolm" <M...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:cxTwY4AB...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> In article <kijba.3$R13...@news.dircon.co.uk>, BAC
> >> <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >Ruddy Ducks seem an unusual case, because they don't
> >> >appear to cause any nuisance whatsoever in the UK, and are to be
> >> >exterminated purely because of their 'alien' status.
> >> >
> >> Err, have you read a word that has been written about the Ruddy Duck?
> >
> >Now, now - no need to make with the snide remarks.
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, they are 'alien', but they are not being exterminated "purely
> >> because of their 'alien' status". There is the little additional matter
> >> of the threat they pose to the White-headed Duck.....
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for reminding me about that. I keep forgetting it, probably
because I
> >cannot take the degree of 'threat' seriously.
>
> about the Ruddy Duck you appear not to have understood it. And that is
> not intended as a snide remark. There is a great deal of information
> available on the web which explains precisely why you *should* take the
> degree of threat very seriously indeed.
As you will know from our past debates concerning the RD, I have read a
great deal of the information about the RD/WHD problem which is on the web,
although I cannot claim to have read every word which has been written. I
also believe I have understood a good deal of what I have read. Having read
it, and, I think, understood it, I am not persuaded that extermination of
the UK population of RD is justified by the degree of risk identified. In
fact, the more I have read, the less convinced I have felt, and my opinion
has moved from one of reluctant approval of the measure to one of resigned
scepticism.
>
> > RDs in the UK pose virtually
> >no threat to any WHD, since there are no breeding WHD (outside of
> >collections) in the UK for them to hybridise with, AFAIK.
> >
> There has never been an accepted record of a wild WHD in the UK.
I didn't think so.
>
> However, despite the love-hate relationship that the UK has with the
> rest of Europe in financial and economic matters, when it comes to
> conservation and biodiversity, the UK has willingly signed up to a
> number of European and international directives and conventions which,
> when it comes to birds, acknowledge the undoubted fact that they fly
> across international boundaries and therefore can have an affect away
> from the UK, just as the RD is undoubtedly having.
Those few individual RDs which have so far been recorded as having an effect
are not the ones which have remained in the UK. It is those which reach the
WHD breeding grounds which the people who wish to prevent hybridisation will
have to guard against for the foreseeable future, regardless of any
extermination policy in the UK.
Parochialism - saying
> that because there no problem within the UK boundaries there is no
> serious threat - has no place when dealing with mobile organisms such as
> birds.
You might think it parochial, but it is a fact there is no threat posed by
any RD whilst it remains within the UK's boundaries. I have seen no evidence
which proves that significant numbers of RDs migrate direct to WHD breeding
areas from the UK. People in the nearest WHD breeding location, Spain, will
have to continue their vigilance and action against incoming RDs whether or
not RDs are killed in the UK, because they cannot gamble that every bird
reaching Spain comes from the UK, nor will all the RDs in the UK be killed
overnight, nor is it certain that all other RDs in Europe will be killed,
even after the UK acts.
If, as I believe likely, the Spaniards will have to continue to manage their
WHD colonies to protect them from all manner of threats, including
hybridisation, indefinitely, there is no current reason to suppose they
would have been unable to continue to deal with RDs indefinitely. How many
RDs and hybrids did you say they'd killed in all the time they've been
bellyaching about them? Not a lot, IIRC.
>
> I'm very disappointed that you appear to have adopted this attitude.
>
I'm sorry about that, but that's the way I feel about this issue. The
presence of naturalised RDs in the UK has a value to me, and I have seen
nothing to convince me that value is likely be outweighed by benefits
flowing from the exercise. That's a personal and totally subjective view, of
course :-)
BAC
And they all just spontaneously wanted to express their approval for the RD
extermination scheme?
BAC
As you know, I no longer generally see Rob's posts, but I wouldn't disagree
with him about that. My point goes beyond mere designation of plants as
weeds, however. Landowners cannot do whatever they wish on their land, they
are subject to laws and over-riding rights as decided from time to time by
the legislature and enforced by the courts. Whenever the legislature sees a
need for a new restriction or power over private land, it merely takes that
power.
For example, in the recent trial of exterminating Ruddy Ducks, a significant
number of landowners refused to co-operate. Does that lead the Govt. to
decide the measure's impractical? No, it doesn't bother them in the
slightest, because they can simply take compulsory powers of access for the
purpose.
BAC
Depends on the size of the area over which you are measuring said
biodiversity, I suppose.
Logically, I would agree, the more different ecosystems, the better it would
seem.
Martin Rand
> In message <20030310180221...@mb-ct.aol.com>, AMacmil304> >>From: "Martin Rand" martin.rand...@ntlworld.com
> >>By the way, the evidence for the "bland statement" about 4000+ alien
plants:
> >>the most authoritative catalogues available to us now are:
> >>Clement and Foster: "Alien Plants of the British Isles", 1994 (which
> >>excludes grasses)
> >>Ryves, Clement and Foster: "Alien Grasses of the British Isles", 1995
(which
> >>obviously doesn't).
> >>
> >>The first catalogues 3586 species or groups of related species (no, I
didn't
> >>count them - the authors kindly told me in the Introduction).
> >>The second lists 580 species.
> >>This comes to 4166 taxa. Since the situation obviously isn't static, the
> >>"4000+" figure seems a reasonable way of stating it.
> >
> >Who other than the CONservationists care whether they are alien or not.
>
Well, funnily enough, I thought Angus cared, since he actually wanted some
corroboration for what he called my "bland statement". And _very
conveniently_, he has forgotten that the whole point of throwing the figures
up was to show that conservationists DON'T care whether they are alien or
not. Otherwise they might be worrying about all 4000+ taxa (or at least
those that haven't already disappeared again recently), rather than
somewhere between 20 and 40, and not even all of those in all circumstances.
Shall we say it once again, for the hard of thinking? CONSERVATIONISTS DON'T
CARE ABOUT THE ALIEN STATUS OF PLANTS OR ORGANISMS. THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR
DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS ON EXISTING ECOSYSTEMS AND COMMUNITIES OF WILDLIFE.
Also _very conveniently_ my little story about spending spare time chopping
down Birch trees seems to have been overlooked. Birch trees aren't aliens,
are they? I can't remember when I last laid hands on a Rhododendron. Oh yes,
it was 9 years ago and in the privacy of my own garden. There are still a
lot of things that won't grow in the ground it came out of.
Of course, neither of these facets of reality fit in nicely with mad
theories of a land overrun by Nazi plant-murderers. Ah well, life's a bitch
like that sometimes, isn't it?
Oh, and an Atlantic oakwood is not a plantation of trees. It is a
well-defined, very rich, very localized community of wild organisms that has
evolved naturally over a long period of time. It can't just be recreated. It
can't be substituted for. It can very easily be destroyed and Rhododendrons
are just one of the ways to do it.
I really must take those solemn vows to myself more seriously. One day I'm
going to find myself giving me a very hard time about this.
> Those who have a genuine interest in the future of the planet
> biodiversity and conservation but that obviously doesn't include you.
> >
>
> --
> Malcolm Kane
Martin Rand
irresistible. The whole starting point of this thread is just so ludicrously
funny.)
What does 'alien' mean as used by a botanist (and no doubt others)?
"Believed on good evidence to have been introduced by man and now more or
less naturalized." (Sell and Murrell, "Flora of Great Britain and Ireland")
"Introduced to a region deliberately or accidentally by man." (Stace, "New
Flora of the British Isles.")
What does this have to do with "genetic purity"?
Absolutely doodly squat, of course. Some of our prized and protected endemic
groups (Eyebrights for instance) are fornicating little mongrels that just
can't leave each other alone. Some of our troublesome alien waterweeds are
so aristocratic they never wave a stamen at any other species, and insist on
taxonomists putting them into genera on their own or with a couple of close
(platonic) friends.
Martin Rand
> > Who other than the CONservationists care whether they are alien or not.
> >
>
> Botanists and taxonomists cared enough to carry out the classification. I
> would hazard a guess that the average conservationist (if there is such a
> thing) wouldn't have had a clue whether or not many of the naturalised
> non-native species were non-native in origin.
>
> > Only they could take nativeness that far which is a sign of the
extremism
> that
> > exists in their minds.
> >
>
The authors wrote the books cited because they found these plants
interesting for a variety of reasons, and because (as they say in the
Preface) there was no easy way to find out more about them because the
references were scattered throughout handbooks and journals all over the
world - unlike our natives and a few of the more prominent introductions.
They are scientific works of reference. There is, unsurprisingly, no agenda
or blueprint for eradication behind these books. They correctly and
factually point out that some introductions (like Rhododendron) have become
threats to native vegetation. They also reasonably infer (reasonably,
because it has happened and is happening) that some plants found only as
casual occurrences now will in the future bring about dramatic changes. They
make no value judgement on those changes.
Anyone who has met Eric Clement would find the idea of applying an epithet
like "extremist" unbelievably funny...
Rob Jack
cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk says...
> >
> > As Rob Jack points out, Rhodies don't seem to be a notifiable weed yet,
> but
> > yes of course there are some plants, both native and "alien" which are
> > weeds because the Government says so. And you raise in effect the point
> > that on some SSSIs or similar designated sites, even a plant like barley
> > may be legally regarded as a weed.
> >
> >
>
> As you know, I no longer generally see Rob's posts, but I wouldn't disagree
> with him about that. My point goes beyond mere designation of plants as
> weeds, however. Landowners cannot do whatever they wish on their land, they
> are subject to laws and over-riding rights as decided from time to time by
> the legislature and enforced by the courts. Whenever the legislature sees a
> need for a new restriction or power over private land, it merely takes that
> power.
Ah that explains some things..you have me killfiled. Is that for a good
reason or just because we had a rather hot discussion a while back?
Of course, you may never see this unless some less strict individual
posts it in a reply. If you do perhaps you could describe some of these
restrictions which apply to a land owner. We obviously know of
constraints regarding tree felling and some planning laws but you seemed
to be implying something other than that in relation to wildlife which
was after the subject.
> For example, in the recent trial of exterminating Ruddy Ducks, a significant
> number of landowners refused to co-operate. Does that lead the Govt. to
> decide the measure's impractical? No, it doesn't bother them in the
> slightest, because they can simply take compulsory powers of access for the
> purpose.
>
Did they?
Rob
Paul Rooney
<kcajbo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>In article <97Fba.7$U25...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
>cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk says...
>
>> >
>> > As Rob Jack points out, Rhodies don't seem to be a notifiable weed yet,
>> but
>> > yes of course there are some plants, both native and "alien" which are
>> > weeds because the Government says so. And you raise in effect the point
>> > that on some SSSIs or similar designated sites, even a plant like barley
>> > may be legally regarded as a weed.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> As you know, I no longer generally see Rob's posts, but I wouldn't disagree
>> with him about that. My point goes beyond mere designation of plants as
>> weeds, however. Landowners cannot do whatever they wish on their land, they
>> are subject to laws and over-riding rights as decided from time to time by
>> the legislature and enforced by the courts. Whenever the legislature sees a
>> need for a new restriction or power over private land, it merely takes that
>> power.
>
>Ah that explains some things..you have me killfiled. Is that for a good
>reason or just because we had a rather hot discussion a while back?
>
>Of course, you may never see this unless some less strict individual
>posts it in a reply.
Done.
> If you do perhaps you could describe some of these
>restrictions which apply to a land owner. We obviously know of
>constraints regarding tree felling and some planning laws but you seemed
>to be implying something other than that in relation to wildlife which
>was after the subject.
>
>
>> For example, in the recent trial of exterminating Ruddy Ducks, a significant
>> number of landowners refused to co-operate. Does that lead the Govt. to
>> decide the measure's impractical? No, it doesn't bother them in the
>> slightest, because they can simply take compulsory powers of access for the
>> purpose.
>>
> Did they?
>
>Rob
--
Paul
http://www.paulrooney.connectfree.co.uk/myweb/index.htm
(Under construction)
Rob Jack
kcajbo...@lineone.net says...
> Of course, you may never see this unless some less strict individual
> posts it in a reply. If you do perhaps you could describe some of these
> restrictions which apply to a land owner. We obviously know of
> constraints regarding tree felling and some planning laws but you seemed
> to be implying something other than that in relation to wildlife which
> was after "all" the subject.
>
Sorry missed out "all" after "after" if you see what I mean!
> Rob
>
Rob
Rob Jack
Paul Rooney
<kcajbo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Muchos grazias Paul!
>
>Rob
No problemo, you Scots git.
Rob Jack
paulr...@aol.com says...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:04:12 -0000, Rob Jack
> <kcajbo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Muchos grazias Paul!
> >
> >Rob
>
> No problemo, you Scots git.
>
>
Rob
AMacmil304
>Date: 12/03/03 11:25 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <87Fba.6$U25...@news.dircon.co.uk>
Well done! You sussed him out :-)
Colin Davidson
> Strange that, Colin, since it doesn't seem so long ago that there were
> threads in this group with some people strongly arguing that all non
native
> species were harmful and, if possible, that they should be eliminated in
> line with international obligations. There was even mention of invocation
of
> the 'precautionary principle' to justify the removal of non-native species
> which hadn't proved a problem yet.
In that recent arrivals can be viewed as such you're right, but I've yet to
come across anyone who seriously thinks we can or should eliminate, say,
conker trees.
Colin Davidson
> That's just silly. I'm not opposing the the NCs for the species they're
not
> eradicating. But almost without fail the ones they are such as the Black
Rats,
> Hedgehogs, Mink and Ruddy Ducks are branded "alien".
Give one example where elimination of a native species is of value in
preventing habitat damage. That the organisms aren't native isn't the
problem, but it is part of the mechanism that contributes to them being a
problem.
BAC
I haven't 'sussed him out', I'm just intrigued as to why a college class of
15 to 16 year olds would wish to discuss the RD position with him.
BAC
"Colin Davidson" <ca...@biotech.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b4nm0c$ls3$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "BAC" <cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CXrba.21$R13....@news.dircon.co.uk...
>
> > Strange that, Colin, since it doesn't seem so long ago that there were
> > threads in this group with some people strongly arguing that all non
> native
> > species were harmful and, if possible, that they should be eliminated in
> > line with international obligations. There was even mention of
invocation
> of
> > the 'precautionary principle' to justify the removal of non-native
species
> > which hadn't proved a problem yet.
>
> In that recent arrivals can be viewed as such you're right,
My recollection is that even so called 'naturalised' species were being
tarred with the same brush as recent arrivals (hence the precautionary
principle - just because they haven't caused a problem in the past doesn't
mean they might not in the future), but perhaps I am mistaken.
but I've yet to
> come across anyone who seriously thinks we can or should eliminate, say,
> conker trees.
>
>
Good, I think the country would be a poorer place without many alien
specimens like conker trees, turkey oaks, etc., and am pleased to hear
no-one has been advocating felling any such and replacing them with 'native'
trees.