On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:34:35 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:26:59 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Exactly like. The population is unstable and rising rapidly cull a
number and you stabilise it at the position you want.

Gosh! You agree that populations stabilise according to outside
forces.


Only in the case of culling. I was under the impression you were
talking about natural populations not controlled by man.

Nonsense. Culling is a form of changing the habitat. It means more
food and shelter for those left and will increase the fecundity of
them which will result in increased birth rates. Culling has been
going on for years but hasn't done much to reduce populations.

Tell that to the great auk and dodo.

Their habitat changed beyond their capacity to reproduce. I have
already said that possibility exists.


At least you accept that the situation is not natural.

Depends what you see as natural. In the case of the GA it was man's
hunting that wiped it out. I understand the fate of the Dodo is less
clear.



Yes man control populations to try to keep them stable but as you object
to this and appeared to be suggesting they did this under natural
conditions you appear to be moving the goal posts in your attempts to
justify the plainly wrong stance you try to hold.

Not at all. If left alone deer like all other species will stabilise
in accordance with their habitat.


Angus do bring your knowledge up to date you are at least 30 years
behind the present knowledge.

In what way am I out of date?

I am interested as to how you come to that conclusion.




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