In article , BAC
writes
"Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes
"Mick Manford" wrote in message
. com...
Gorgeous George wrote in message
...
On 28 Apr 2003 09:03:52 -0700, (Mick Manford)
wrote:
Instead of just typing in "Lie" when you don't like something I say,
perhaps you could add some extra, you know, like, arguement to back up
your claim.
Similarly you state boldly that I am somebody called Gervais or
something like that. Utter nonsense and indeed a lie. I'm Mick
Manford. My mother can confirm this.
Do enlighten me as to why you think I am somebody else.
Are you denying that Uist Hedgehog Rescue have only removed one animal
from North Uist? Have you asked them. Cos if you phone them up that is
what they will tell you. Nobody need take my word for it on this. If
you ask them how many hedgehogs they have taken they will tell you
over a hundred. If you ask them how many were from North Uist where
the cull is taking place they will tell you one (unless the figure has
shot up in recent days)
Perhaps you may recall that the aim of both the SNH cullers and the
hedgehog
welfare organisations is to remove all hedgehogs from the Uists and
Benbecula over a period of years to try and reduce hedgehog depredation
on
some wading birds. If, as you imply, the hedgehog welfare organisations
have
removed around a hundred hedgehogs from the islands so far this year,
that
is a hundred or so less to disrupt the birds, and about three times
better
(i.e. more) than has been accomplished by the cullers in the same period.
The cullers, operating solely in North Uist, have apparently culled c.30
from an estimated population of 200 (=15%) on that island, while the
removers, operating mainly on Benbecula and South Uist, have removed
c.100 from an estimated population of 5000 (= 2%).
You make a very valid point that every one removed from whichever island
means fewer birds' eggs eaten, but I haven't actually seen the removers
say other than they are protecting hedgehogs from being culled.
If the hedgehog people merely wished to frustrate the cull, they would
presumably be attempting to sabotage it, rather than relocate hedgehogs.
I have not seen a single claim from the removers that the hedgehogs
aren't to blame for the reduction in breeding birds. Therefore, if
frustrating the cull was ever actually considered, it must have been
very quickly appreciated that it was not the way forward.
As you must know, BHPS agreed at an early stage, and prior to SNH's decision
in the matter, that removal of the hedgehogs was justified, in the interests
of the waders. I don't think they ever argued that the hedgehogs should be
left to their own devices, nor did they consider sabotaging the cull
(although it would not be surprising if some individuals not connected with
the main hedgehog welfare groups had not thought about that). They only
wanted the trapped hedgehogs to be turned over to them for translocation via
their established national welfare apparatus.
If you thought this, with which I generally agree, what was the point of
your statement "If the hedgehog people merely wished to frustrate the
cull, they would presumably be attempting to sabotage it, rather than
relocate hedgehogs"? You seem to have introduced a possibility which
didn't happen, which you didn't expect to happen, and which is therefore
irrelevant to any argument.
As this option has been denied, they just have to make the best of a bad
job, but we shouldn't overlook the fact that the main beneficiaries of their
efforts are the threatened waders, nor that the success of the overall
removal project is likely to benefit from their efforts.
Agreed, except that none of the "removers" has actually stated this,
despite having the opportunity to do so. Instead they have concentrated
on the aspect of saving the hedgehogs from being culled.
--
Malcolm