It seems the RSPB think if you feed birds in your garden you're
helping them.

They say:

"Did you know you're already helping us? Just by feeding the birds in
your garden you're encouraging many threatened species to thrive"

Well, I've got news for the RSPB.

We've fed birds in our garden for decades and it's not to help the
RSPB; it's to help the birds.

And we buy our birdseed at Costco for under a fiver for 10 kilos.and
I'd rather spend the money on seed than support a multi-million pound
business that discriminates against wildlife including birds.

For the price of an annual family membership you could buy
approximately 85 kilos of seed which could be better spent on keeping
wild birds fat and happy than contributing to executives salaries of
up to £100k per annum


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

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:48:30 +0100, wrote:

It seems the RSPB think if you feed birds in your garden you're
helping them.

They say:

"Did you know you're already helping us? Just by feeding the birds in
your garden you're encouraging many threatened species to thrive"

Well, I've got news for the RSPB.

We've fed birds in our garden for decades and it's not to help the
RSPB; it's to help the birds.

And we buy our birdseed at Costco for under a fiver for 10 kilos.and
I'd rather spend the money on seed than support a multi-million pound
business that discriminates against wildlife including birds.

For the price of an annual family membership you could buy
approximately 85 kilos of seed which could be better spent on keeping
wild birds fat and happy than contributing to executives salaries of
up to £100k per annum


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


Well said. This multi-million pound business spares no effort to
increase its profits. Just the other day, the new 'Chair' of the
Labour Party, Ms Hazel Blears, indicated that because of concern about
the drastically declining party membership they intended to link with
mass-membership organisations such as the RAC and the RSPB. No doubt
this will mean that these organisations will sell their membership
lists to the Labour Party (or donate them if honours and titles are in
prospect). Members may expect to be pestered by junk mail inviting
them to join the Labour Party. As an RAC member of 40 years standing,
if I receive such an approach I shall cancel my membership.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:26:24 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:48:30 +0100, wrote:

It seems the RSPB think if you feed birds in your garden you're
helping them.

They say:

"Did you know you're already helping us? Just by feeding the birds in
your garden you're encouraging many threatened species to thrive"

Well, I've got news for the RSPB.

We've fed birds in our garden for decades and it's not to help the
RSPB; it's to help the birds.

And we buy our birdseed at Costco for under a fiver for 10 kilos.and
I'd rather spend the money on seed than support a multi-million pound
business that discriminates against wildlife including birds.

For the price of an annual family membership you could buy
approximately 85 kilos of seed which could be better spent on keeping
wild birds fat and happy than contributing to executives salaries of
up to £100k per annum


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


Well said. This multi-million pound business spares no effort to
increase its profits. Just the other day, the new 'Chair' of the
Labour Party, Ms Hazel Blears, indicated that because of concern about
the drastically declining party membership they intended to link with
mass-membership organisations such as the RAC and the RSPB. No doubt
this will mean that these organisations will sell their membership
lists to the Labour Party (or donate them if honours and titles are in
prospect). Members may expect to be pestered by junk mail inviting
them to join the Labour Party. As an RAC member of 40 years standing,
if I receive such an approach I shall cancel my membership.


It's all about money; that's the problem. And the green energy scheme
is much the same. Its the equivalent of creative accounting and gives
the RSPB money in return to access to the members.

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

Jupiter wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:48:30 +0100, wrote:

It seems the RSPB think if you feed birds in your garden you're
helping them.

They say:

"Did you know you're already helping us? Just by feeding the birds in
your garden you're encouraging many threatened species to thrive"

Well, I've got news for the RSPB.

We've fed birds in our garden for decades and it's not to help the
RSPB; it's to help the birds.

And we buy our birdseed at Costco for under a fiver for 10 kilos.and
I'd rather spend the money on seed than support a multi-million pound
business that discriminates against wildlife including birds.

For the price of an annual family membership you could buy
approximately 85 kilos of seed which could be better spent on keeping
wild birds fat and happy than contributing to executives salaries of
up to £100k per annum


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


Well said. This multi-million pound business spares no effort to
increase its profits. Just the other day, the new 'Chair' of the
Labour Party, Ms Hazel Blears, indicated that because of concern about
the drastically declining party membership they intended to link with
mass-membership organisations such as the RAC and the RSPB. No doubt
this will mean that these organisations will sell their membership
lists to the Labour Party (or donate them if honours and titles are in
prospect). Members may expect to be pestered by junk mail inviting
them to join the Labour Party. As an RAC member of 40 years standing,
if I receive such an approach I shall cancel my membership.

I congratulate Angus for feeding the Birds for decades, but have you
checked out the content of the bird seed from Costco. I looked at it,
as it contained the majority of seeds from Amoreica, did not buy it.

Who is doing most injury to the indigenous flora, someone spreading
foreign plants or the RSPB?

Could you expand on the problem you seem to have with the RSPB?

On 17 Jun 2006 14:46:38 -0700, "davec" wrote:


Jupiter wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:48:30 +0100, wrote:

It seems the RSPB think if you feed birds in your garden you're
helping them.

They say:

"Did you know you're already helping us? Just by feeding the birds in
your garden you're encouraging many threatened species to thrive"

Well, I've got news for the RSPB.

We've fed birds in our garden for decades and it's not to help the
RSPB; it's to help the birds.

And we buy our birdseed at Costco for under a fiver for 10 kilos.and
I'd rather spend the money on seed than support a multi-million pound
business that discriminates against wildlife including birds.

For the price of an annual family membership you could buy
approximately 85 kilos of seed which could be better spent on keeping
wild birds fat and happy than contributing to executives salaries of
up to £100k per annum


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


Well said. This multi-million pound business spares no effort to
increase its profits. Just the other day, the new 'Chair' of the
Labour Party, Ms Hazel Blears, indicated that because of concern about
the drastically declining party membership they intended to link with
mass-membership organisations such as the RAC and the RSPB. No doubt
this will mean that these organisations will sell their membership
lists to the Labour Party (or donate them if honours and titles are in
prospect). Members may expect to be pestered by junk mail inviting
them to join the Labour Party. As an RAC member of 40 years standing,
if I receive such an approach I shall cancel my membership.

I congratulate Angus for feeding the Birds for decades, but have you
checked out the content of the bird seed from Costco. I looked at it,
as it contained the majority of seeds from Amoreica, did not buy it.

Who is doing most injury to the indigenous flora, someone spreading
foreign plants or the RSPB?

I don't think it really matters what is planted and where. Bird
seeds from America are not going to destroy the planet as we know it.


Could you expand on the problem you seem to have with the RSPB?


The problem I have with the RSPB is that they kill, and support the
killing of, wildlife to suit their varying agendas. They also allow
the shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves.


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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:48:08 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

The problem I have with the RSPB is that they kill, and support the
killing of, wildlife to suit their varying agendas. They also allow
the shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves.

Let's have a little honesty, please, Angus.

The RSPB has over 140 reserves. Are you claiming that they allow "the
shooting of wild and game birds" on all of them? If not, perhaps you
would like to tell us, firstly, on how many of them does shooting
actually take place and, secondly, on how many of those the RSPB
"allows" shooting, as opposed to them not being in a position to stop
it, bearing in mind that they may not own the shooting rights.


In the minds of most people, the RSPB is an organisation that protects
birds but in reality there is another side to it.

Some time ago, I came across a British Association for Shooting and
Conservation web-page, where it was revealed that shooters were
"managing" a wildfowl reserve for the RSPB. Within a day of me
bringing this to the attention of an Internet Newsgroup, the page was
removed from the Internet. Following a telephone call to the RSPB
headquarters in Edinburgh, I wrote to them asking if they would
identify the location of this reserve. They didn't reply.

Consequently, I started to do some research and found that shooting
tenants on their Abernethy Reserve kill about 200 brace of red grouse
each year. The RSPB's explanation was, "it is good for public
relations as the reserve is then not seen as divorced from normal
country pursuits".

Within a few days I came across the following message from a
contributor to an Internet wildfowling forum. "I shoot over marches
owned by the RSPB. They lease the Humber wildfowlers the shooting on
there and I suppose we sort of police them for the RSPB. Ironic how
they publicly attack us but still let us shoot on there."

Apart from the RSPB's continued advocacy for the slaughter of Ruddy
Ducks, Uist Hedgehogs, Lundy Rats and various species of deer, they
are also involved with those who shoot birds for fun and recreation.
Some way of "protecting" birds!

In my opinion, to solicit money from the general public for the
"protection of birds", then to allow them to be shot on "reserves",
which should be safe havens, is dishonest and disgraceful.


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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:28:50 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:48:08 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

The problem I have with the RSPB is that they kill, and support the
killing of, wildlife to suit their varying agendas. They also allow
the shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves.

Let's have a little honesty, please, Angus.

The RSPB has over 140 reserves. Are you claiming that they allow "the
shooting of wild and game birds" on all of them? If not, perhaps you
would like to tell us, firstly, on how many of them does shooting
actually take place and, secondly, on how many of those the RSPB
"allows" shooting, as opposed to them not being in a position to stop
it, bearing in mind that they may not own the shooting rights.


In the minds of most people, the RSPB is an organisation that protects
birds but in reality there is another side to it.

Some time ago, I came across a British Association for Shooting and
Conservation web-page, where it was revealed that shooters were
"managing" a wildfowl reserve for the RSPB. Within a day of me
bringing this to the attention of an Internet Newsgroup, the page was
removed from the Internet. Following a telephone call to the RSPB
headquarters in Edinburgh, I wrote to them asking if they would
identify the location of this reserve. They didn't reply.

Consequently, I started to do some research and found that shooting
tenants on their Abernethy Reserve kill about 200 brace of red grouse
each year. The RSPB's explanation was, "it is good for public
relations as the reserve is then not seen as divorced from normal
country pursuits".

Within a few days I came across the following message from a
contributor to an Internet wildfowling forum. "I shoot over marches
owned by the RSPB. They lease the Humber wildfowlers the shooting on
there and I suppose we sort of police them for the RSPB. Ironic how
they publicly attack us but still let us shoot on there."

Apart from the RSPB's continued advocacy for the slaughter of Ruddy
Ducks, Uist Hedgehogs, Lundy Rats and various species of deer, they
are also involved with those who shoot birds for fun and recreation.
Some way of "protecting" birds!

In my opinion, to solicit money from the general public for the
"protection of birds", then to allow them to be shot on "reserves",
which should be safe havens, is dishonest and disgraceful.

Or in other words, you were being dishonest when you claimed that
"They also allow the shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves."
as you have only been able to produce just two examples.

I'm not being dishonest at all. Read what I wrote.

So are you saying that the RSPB only allow shooting on two of their
reserves? As an RSPB adviser you should be able to provide
information as to how many reserves there are where birds are shot -
not only by shooting for sport but by the RSPB themselves. So come on
Malcolm, let the people in this ng know the truth.


Perhaps you
would like to tell us whether the RSPB own the shooting rights over the
whole of their Abernethy Reserve.

Are you saying the RSPB have no control over the shooting at
Abernethy? They admit they have a shooting tenant. I don't have
access to the title documents; you should know. Tell us now.


And, as you have been told before, the reserve involving BASC is one
where the RSPB interest is in summer breeding birds so that foreshore
shooting, which the RSPB doesn't own, does not have an effect on the
summer breeding birds and the arrangement with BASC prevents
uncontrolled shooting.

So what reserve is this you are referring to? This looks like another
one where RSPB have an "arrangement" with people who shoot birds
rather than protecting them.


The RSPB are quite right to advocate the removal of the introduced
hedgehogs from the Uists where they have done huge damage to the
ground-nesting waders.

So what increase has there been in ground nesting birds since the
hedgehogs were removed? And don't forget the RSPB is presiding over
the biggest fall in wild bird populations ever recorded. If they
spent more on protecting birds and less on fat cat executives who send
out environmentally damaging junk mail, such as I received a couple of
days ago, they might do better.

The culling of the Ruddy Duck is government
policy, but I notice you don't criticise the government over it, only
the RSPB.

Advocated and advised by the RSPB.

So is this where Malcolm aka Dr Thick tells me I'm a joyless c**t and
to f*** off - as he have done so in the past?

Just shows the quality of those the RSPB have as advisers :-((


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

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:26:24 +0100, Jupiter
wrote:

As an RAC member of 40 years standing,
if I receive such an approach I shall cancel my membership.

and what will you do when your car breaks down?

Join the AA!

Alan

RAC is a commercial
organisation owned by Lex Service PLC since 1999. I doubt if they will
give a toss.
--

Martin

In article ,
Martin writes:
|
| You tell me. You're the one that claimed that "They also allow the
| shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves". You attempted to
| convey the impression that it was on all their reserves. You have only
| been able to come up with two.
|
| I don't see anywhere where he attempted to convey that impression.
| Two is two too many.

No, it's far too few. What the conservation camp followers in this
country need is a damn sight more knowledge of ecology and preparedness
to live with nature, and a damn sight less bunny-cuddling and birdie-
cooing.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I agree with you 100%.
Reg
wrote:
It seems the RSPB think if you feed birds in your garden you're
helping them.

They say:

"Did you know you're already helping us? Just by feeding the birds in
your garden you're encouraging many threatened species to thrive"

Well, I've got news for the RSPB.

We've fed birds in our garden for decades and it's not to help the
RSPB; it's to help the birds.

And we buy our birdseed at Costco for under a fiver for 10 kilos.and
I'd rather spend the money on seed than support a multi-million pound
business that discriminates against wildlife including birds.

For the price of an annual family membership you could buy
approximately 85 kilos of seed which could be better spent on keeping
wild birds fat and happy than contributing to executives salaries of
up to £100k per annum


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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:07:07 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

In my opinion, to solicit money from the general public for the
"protection of birds", then to allow them to be shot on "reserves",
which should be safe havens, is dishonest and disgraceful.

Or in other words, you were being dishonest when you claimed that
"They also allow the shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves."
as you have only been able to produce just two examples.

I'm not being dishonest at all. Read what I wrote.

So are you saying that the RSPB only allow shooting on two of their
reserves?

You tell me. You're the one that claimed that "They also allow the
shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves". You attempted to
convey the impression that it was on all their reserves. You have only
been able to come up with two.

Not at all. That's your one-eyed interpretation.


As an RSPB adviser

I am not an RSPB adviser, although you keep claiming I am. More lies :-(

You were until recently. Did they eventually sack you?


you should be able to provide
information as to how many reserves there are where birds are shot -
not only by shooting for sport but by the RSPB themselves. So come on
Malcolm, let the people in this ng know the truth.

Are, I see you are admitting that you haven't been telling them the
truth. Good.

No Malcolm. The intelligent people on this ng will see you're
squirming and twisting.



Perhaps you
would like to tell us whether the RSPB own the shooting rights over the
whole of their Abernethy Reserve.


Well?

So is this where Malcolm aka Dr Thick tells me I'm a joyless c**t and
to f*** off - as he have done so in the past?

I repeated someone else's comment about you being "a joyless c**t" as it
seemed particularly apt.

You "endorsed" it which is just as well as saying it.

It's just a pity you haven't taken my other
advice.

Which was to f*** off.

Here's the transcript of what you said:

____________________

"When you started this thread, someone immediately responded with:

"Angus. you are a humourless, joyless c**t of the highest order. Do
the
cyberworld a favour and plug yourself into the mains. "

I endorse that view. Now f*** off."

____________________

If you gave the same "advice" to the RSPB, no wonder you're no longer
an adviser. Did you get the boot from SNH for the same advice?

No chance of you getting back there. They're abolishing the worthless
Area Boards. No freebies left for the likes of you :-))

Just shows the quality of those the RSPB have as advisers :-((

See above.

Indeed, see above.

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

In article ,
Martin writes:
|
| | You tell me. You're the one that claimed that "They also allow the
| | shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves". You attempted to
| | convey the impression that it was on all their reserves. You have only
| | been able to come up with two.
| |
| | I don't see anywhere where he attempted to convey that impression.
| | Two is two too many.
|
| No, it's far too few. What the conservation camp followers in this
| country need is a damn sight more knowledge of ecology and preparedness
| to live with nature, and a damn sight less bunny-cuddling and birdie-
| cooing.
|
| Outraged in Tunbridge Wells? :-)

Precisely. As a basis for planning, let alone legislation, ignorant
emotion is catastrophic - and that is what we have had for the past
half-century :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:15:48 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:07:07 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes

In my opinion, to solicit money from the general public for the
"protection of birds", then to allow them to be shot on "reserves",
which should be safe havens, is dishonest and disgraceful.

Or in other words, you were being dishonest when you claimed that
"They also allow the shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves."
as you have only been able to produce just two examples.

I'm not being dishonest at all. Read what I wrote.

So are you saying that the RSPB only allow shooting on two of their
reserves?

You tell me. You're the one that claimed that "They also allow the
shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves". You attempted to
convey the impression that it was on all their reserves. You have only
been able to come up with two.

Not at all. That's your one-eyed interpretation.


As an RSPB adviser

I am not an RSPB adviser, although you keep claiming I am. More lies :-(

You were until recently. Did they eventually sack you?

No, Angus. I was on their Scottish Advisory Committee for six years, or
two years longer than the normal term of service. I retired in early
2005. But you're always behind with the news, aren't you?


I'd hardly call that "news" :-))



If you gave the same "advice" to the RSPB, no wonder you're no longer
an adviser.

Like I said, I served a longer term than normal.

Did you get the boot from SNH for the same advice?

I retired from SNH's West Areas Board after 10 years, or six years
longer than the normal period of service.


Was that what was wrong with it.


No chance of you getting back there. They're abolishing the worthless
Area Boards. No freebies left for the likes of you :-))

Once again, you've got it wrong - a major habit of yours.

I've been a member of their Scientific Advisory Committee since April last year :-)

Gosh! How important you must feel :-))

So you're still on the freebie trail. Might have known. Do they pay
you as well? If they do I'd stick in. It must be more profitable than
writing books which sell below half price.

Is it scientific to tell people to f*** off when you don't agree with
them?

Seems you might be in the right niche with SNH.


Do they know you've got unlimited intelligence? What an asset that
must be for them.


Remember this?

__________________

Malcolm Ogilvie aka Dr Thick is confused about his measure of
intelligence.

A Macmillan said; "Do you think you don't have limited intelligence?"

Dr Thick said: "What a contorted question. The answer is yes. What
about yourself?"

__________________

What a confused dummy you are, Malcolm. You don't improve with age.




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

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:15:09 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Martin
writes
On 18 Jun 2006 16:05:49 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
Martin writes:
|
| | You tell me. You're the one that claimed that "They also allow the
| | shooting of wild and game birds on their reserves". You attempted to
| | convey the impression that it was on all their reserves. You
| | have only
| | been able to come up with two.
| |
| | I don't see anywhere where he attempted to convey that impression.
| | Two is two too many.
|
| No, it's far too few. What the conservation camp followers in this
| country need is a damn sight more knowledge of ecology and preparedness
| to live with nature, and a damn sight less bunny-cuddling and birdie-
| cooing.
|
| Outraged in Tunbridge Wells? :-)

Precisely. As a basis for planning, let alone legislation, ignorant
emotion is catastrophic - and that is what we have had for the past
half-century :-(

I agree with you.

There's a difference between control and shooting things for pleasure
for no good reason.

Providing shooting for rich gents in the name of control is not what
RSPB contributors have in mind when they make their donations.

The RSPB do not provide any shooting for rich gents, or anyone else,
whether in the name of control or for any other reason.


"In addition to this NGO conservation bodies such as the Wildlife
Trusts and RSPB have wildfowling tenants
on their reserves. Examples include Montrose Basin (Scottish Wildlife
Trust, Angus), Frampton Marsh
(RSPB, Lincolnshire), Ouse Washes (RSPB, Cambridgeshire), Tetney
Marshes (RSPB, Lincolnshire).
Locally, RSPB let sporting rights to Langstone & District Wildfowling
& Conservation Association
(L&DW&CA) at the Langstone Harbour RSPB reserve. Wardening at
Langstone Harbour is a co-operative
and joint venture between RSPB, Local Authority and L&DW&CA. In many
cases wildfowling clubs lease
sporting rights jointly with conservation bodies to allow for
cooperative and integrated management. Nearby
examples include Langstone & District Wildfowling & Conservation
Association’s joint Crown Estate leases
with the Hampshire Wildlife Trust and RSPB. In some cases wildfowling
clubs jointly own freehold with
conservation bodies – e.g. Fenla nd Wildfowlers Association jointly
own c. 250 acres of the Welney Reserve
(Ouse Washes) with the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT)."



Some way to protect birds :-((


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

Malcolm wrote:
[snip]

Malcom, and others. You have ruined uk.environment.conservation. You
have not, apparently, responded to requests there to desist. Please
will you therefore take your "arguments" back there, and don't give
"Amgus" his kicks here. Thank you.