On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:59:37 +0000, echinosum
wrote:


;774754 Wrote:
Seems you can't think of one after all :-))

Don't worry about it. Just join the queue of those who know that
conservationists are fakes but try to say they're not.

I'll name some organisations whose contributions are, on balance, far
more positive than negative:

National Trust
John Muir Trust
RSPB
Woodlands Trust


In what way?



I have no doubt that there are some specific actions of these bodies
that you don't like. I don't like everything they do either, but I
don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I have no doubt that
Britain would be a much worse place without their contribution.

Again in what way?



I don't think that they take much in the way of public funds either.

Of course they do.


It is always easy to criticise others, but if you were in control you
would find that there are difficult conflicting issues to be addressed,
and you have to disappoint some people all of the time and all people
some of the time.

It really nothing to do with "disappointing" anyone. It's to do with
whether these organisations harm the natural environment to fund their
existence. Have a look at their websites.

Here's an example:

_________________________

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds


Media Release


3 February 2005


Sir

Scientists at this week's climate change conference have issued a
succession of warnings about the dire consequences of climate change
for mankind and wildlife.

Plants, mammals and birds are heading for extinction; rising seas are
eroding coasts and swallowing up coastal homes; coral reefs are losing
their capacity to soak up carbon dioxide - the gas most responsible
for climate change - while storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves are
all set to increase in number. And all this, we have been told, could
happen far more quickly than we originally thought. We are calling it
'global warming' but more accurately, we are cooking our planet.

There are more than four million references to global warming on the
internet search engine Google but 'global overheating' merits just 123
mentions, 'global scorching', 175; 'global frying', 68; and even
'global heating' only 6,000! Yet none of these phrases is adequate
for the devastation we are facing.

Cooking our planet will disrupt and devastate all life and giving this
process the cosy name global warming only makes it easier for all of
us, especially politicians, to ignore the consequences.

Yours faithfully


Dr Mark Avery
Director of Conservation
RSPB
The Lodge
Sandy
SG19 2DL

_________________________

At the same time as this press release, they were accepting pages of
paying advertisements in their Birds magazine for world-wide travel.

That in my view is dishonest.and certainly not "conservation".


Perhaps you would like to sketch out the way in which
you think the British countryside should be managed, perhaps drawing
parallels with other countries where you think they do it better than
us, so we can see exactly what it is you want.

The human footprint needs to be reduced throughout the planet's wild
places; not expanded by so-called conservationists.




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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)