On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:54:51 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:22 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

No, It is always possible to slaughter a species almost to extinction.


But surely Angus when the main pressure was taken off a number of years
ago this principle you have quoted before that it causes faster breeding
would by now have been making a really noticeable difference.

Again not necessarily. Just look at fish stocks gererally. They have
declined because of over fishing.

On the other hand read below.

Hunters and conservationists would have us believe that it is
necessary to reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level
that doesn't cause ecological damage. When asked why the population
has increased so rapidly, they tell us that deer reproduce
prolifically and that there are no large predators, namely the wolf,
left to control their numbers. On the face of it, that seems a
reasonable explanation but it is more of a plausible excuse for
hunters to enjoy their grizzly fun and conservationists to employ them
to hunt in almost exactly the same way under the more respectable
guise of culling.

There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a
very long time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more
than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many
decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have
had little impact on deer for the past 300 - 350 years. With that in
mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have
escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in the
last 50-60 years that their numbers have increased significantly,
coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that
provides shelter.

So is there a connection? Of course there is!

To understand the whole sorry mess, one must examine the structure and
covert allegiances between hunters and conservationists who, including
the Woodland Trust, form alliances within "deer management groups"
that are overseen by the Deer Commission to maintain an artificially
high deer population to satisfy the requirements of hunting estates.
But as deer know no boundaries, the population expands to other areas
unchecked, where they can damage unprotected saplings, ground flora
and ground nesting habitats.

This is when the deceit of the conservationists comes to the fore.
Having supped with the hunters, they now tell us they need to cull
deer to reduce the increase in population that the hunters were
responsible for in the first place. The horrid cycle continues year
after year.

Why don't the conservationists abandon their hunting friends and join
forces with the animal activists who oppose hunting? No chance - it's
all about money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes to
maintain the hunting industry as an economic benefit to rural areas
and the conservationists depend on grants via the Forestry Authority
to plant their trees.

The conservationists won't bite the hand that feeds them and the deer
are the losers.





Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk