On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:53:33 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:54:22 +0100, "BAC"
wrote:


"Malcolm" wrote in message
news

In article , BAC
writes

"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes

I don't have to. You are the one making claims.

No Malcolm, you're the one that mentioned locusts in another thread,
so tell me why you think they don't stabilise in accordance with their
habitat.


Because no population does.

So, what are your views on density compensation, then?

I'm not sure I have "views" on it. It occurs in certain circumstances.


Sorry, I thought I was asking the other Malcolm.

I meant to say density dependence, anyway ! :-)

There's an interesting project underway
http://www.wildcru.org/research/pests/deer.htm
which should provide some answers re Roe deer density dependence, or
otherwise, and which I thought he might find interesting.

Yes, but I think the closed population environment and culling might
not give true results.


It also occurs to me this thread might equally well have been entitled 'who
is responsible for the size of our cormorant population' in which case
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/
vertebrates/reports/cormorant-removal.pdf
which addresses the postulated effects of various quantities of culling on a
'known' density dependent population might also be informative. Although I
am also mindful of http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/cslmodels_tcm5-68713.pdf

Angus, at least, should agree with the RSPB over this, and disapprove of
killing cormorants.


Absolutely. I agree with anyone who disapproves of killing wildlife -
even those with double standards who release media statements that are
contradictory to their activities. Note who signed the letter from
the RSPB.

The following quote is laughable when given the RSPBs coyness about
its own slaughter of wildlife and damage to habitat through the use of
chemicals. Google is full of their unwillingness to divulge
information to the public.

"We are grateful for the opportunity to see those revised analyses. In
light of the fact
that the previous paper was so fundamentally flawed, we are surprised
that the
revised analyses are not available for wider public and scientific
scrutiny. We urge
Defra to publish the revised documents on their website."


Perhaps we should write to the RSPB and state the same quote? lol