On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:31 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
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.

No, I'm not confused.

So you're confused about being confused.

You often accuse me of being that, but it is
merely an indication that you're not able to answer my points.



Whether
or not man is affecting populations, they still won't ever "stabilise".


Of course they will in accordance with their habitat.

If the habitat changes, so will the organism.

Pretty basic stuff.


Populations just don't do
that. If you think they do, then doubtless from your extensive reading
on the subject you will be able to produce some examples.

All populations stabilise in accordance with their habitat.

If you believe that, then doubtless from your extensive reading on the
subject you will be able to produce some examples of this happening,
won't you?

Don't be daft, Malcolm. This is your favourite ploy. When you can't
justify something you ask for intangible examples.



Still, if, as you appear to do, you believe in "the balance of nature",
then you will doubtless be interested to know that you share this belief
with landowners and gamekeepers who regularly claim that birds of prey
"upset the balance of nature" and want to use this meaningless phrase as
an excuse to kill them.

Of course I believe in the balance of nature.

And thereby give encouragement to landowners and keepers who want to
cull birds of prey :-((

Not at all, because their breeding systems are not natural nor is the
introduction of birds of prey.

You really suffer from silly wooly thinking :-)


And like all balances it
is subject to movement as the weight on either side changes. The
movement will be greatest when a population is out of balance with its
habitat but if left alone will gradually approach a position where
there is hardly any movement at all unless influenced by outside
forces.

If you believe this, then you will be able to give some examples of it
happening, won't you? I would be very interested to learn of the
existence of a completely closed system with "hardly any movement at
all" which has no "outside forces" influencing it.

There's no such thing as a closed system in nature, Malcolm. I
thought you might know that. You're showing your confusion again :-(


I am surprised you are not aware of this.

You shouldn't be. I have made my views on the matter clear on a number
of past occasions.

Your views don't mean you understand the matter.


I await your examples of "the balance of nature" in action, of
populations that have managed to "stabilise in accordance with their
habitat".

Don't be daft, Malcolm. This is your favourite ploy. When you can't
justify something you ask for intangible examples.

Tell you what. If there's no such thing as the "balance of nature",
why would it be in your favourite reference book you use all the time?
The SOED.

I think you're confused about the word "stabilise". It doesn't mean
cast in stone. A ship can be stable but also move about. A population
can be stable but also move in relation to its habitat.

If you're still confused, consult a real doctor :-)




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