On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:20:34 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:40:35 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:44:32 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Tumbleweed
writes
wrote in message
news:s2bo51d3u4dno3lvj4n22g808bkicg9s2k@4ax. com...

Absolute rubbish. Old and weak will undoubtably succumb to cold but
that's natural and can improve the gene pool. Over time without
un-natural pressures deer populations like any other species will
stabilise in accordance with their habitat.

Its a myth that populations stabilise. Try reading some modern textbooks.

He won't. He has been recommended to do this before, including being
given some actual titles of such books, but he prefers to remain
ignorant on such basic matters as ecology, conservation, population
control, woodland management, deer management, etc., etc., because he is
presumably afraid that if he actually studied the subjects he might
learn something that ran counter to his prejudices.

What you mention above are reasons why man is not allowing populations
to stabilise. You never disappoint when you show your ignorance :-)

There's no such thing as a stabilised population, just as there is no
such thing as a "state of equilibrium" which you were waffling about
some while back. Every population is in a state of flux and always has
been since the first bacteria appeared on earth. It has nothing to do
with man "allowing populations to stabilise".

No you're confused. Man does not allow populations to stabilise.


As I have just written in another post Angus will be right nobody who
does not fit in with his prejudices and AR agenda can possibly right -
even if it is the rest of the world.

Denial or what?


You're paranoid :-)


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