Conservation - as fake as a £9 note

At a time of spiralling prices and cuts in essential services across
the board, one industry seems to be escaping much of the hardship.

Never mind our armed services without proper equipment, prisons
stretched to capacity, hospitals being sources of infection, schools
failing future generations, social services not able to cope,
inadequate flood defences, precipitous potholes in our roads, and last
but not least the seemingly unstoppable rise in violent crime.

Despite all the political posturing, essential services are largely
being starved of cash, whilst millions of pounds are being thrown at
an industry which is about as fake as a nine pound note. Indeed, if
this industry operated in the high street, it would probably be closed
down for misrepresentation or downright fraud.

The industry of course is "conservation" which:

· Passes off the planting of nursery grown saplings (baby trees)
as "ancient woodlands".
· Claims planting trees combats climate change - where
scientific evidence concludes they do not above 20 degrees latitude
and that the money would be better spent protecting tropical forests.
· Promotes historical assumptions and speculation as "fact" in
respect of "native" species where it has no evidence to support its
claims.
· Introduces animals that have evolved abroad and claims they
are "native" to this country because they are in the same paper
classification of "species".
· Emotively uses words like "extinct" when it really means an
animal is not established in certain locations.
· Promotes and carries out ethnic cleansing by killing plants
and animals it deems inappropriate because of origin or abundance.
· Solicits donations from the public for conserving the natural
environment, yet indulges in and encourages environmentally damaging
activities to fund its existence.
· Sends out large quantities of unsolicited junk mail, which is
environmentally damaging by its production, distribution and disposal.
· Canvasses for volunteers to do menial tasks, but pays its
executives up to and over £100,000 a year.
· Contributes virtually nothing in rates and taxes to the
economy because it hides behind charity status.
· Creates its own crises, advises politicians what to do, and is
paid by the taxpayer to solve them - a "gravy train" ring.
· Is responsible for increasing the environmentally damaging
human footprint in wild places.
· Is backed by a forestry authority and other government quangos
that would be largely redundant if it wasn't for "conservation" -
bureaucrats keeping themselves in jobs.
· Promotes and allows blood sports on "reserves" that should be
wildlife havens.

All this while our country is descending into "third world" status at
an alarming rate.

The CON in conservation is there for all to see - for those who look
closely enough.


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)

wrote in message
...

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary

On 13/2/08 10:51, in article ,
"Mary Fisher" wrote:


wrote in message
...

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary


Attention encourages the outbursts.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:51:53 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary

What is not right about it - outburst or otherwise?

Do you know any genuine "conservationist" organisations that don't
qualify as fakes? If you do please let me know.


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)

The traditional saying refers to a nine-bob note.

Do you have an estimate, in pounds money, of the size of the "conservation industry" you refer to. I bet it is rather small in comparison to the essential services you say are being sacrificed. In fact in relation to the value to society it provides, I rather suspect it is being underfunded. Never have we been wealthier. We can afford to spend some money reinstating our trashed environment, and it is good value for money. Whether it is well done is another matter, but then few things in the public sector are well done.

Consumer goods are sold in teh high street. Public services are not, so it is a false comparison.

Our country descending into 3rd world status? Never has the gap between us and the poorest nations been greater. Both the private economy and the public services are at much their highest point ever, and continue growing. We have migrated away from a 3rd world economy to a knowledge-based economy based on services and high value added manufactures, leaving the extractive and heavy industries in the third world. It is Australia that is the 3rd world economy with a 1st world life style. No, I'm not a politician nor an apologist for any particular interest group.

Nonsense is also ridiculed and opposed, so Schopenhauer isn't much of a comfort.

I suspect if you go back and look at the past, as you might these days through watching old TV programs on DVD, you'll discover that a lot of things were worse then; you just weren't as aware of the opportunities for doing better then.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:51:53 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary

What is not right about it - outburst or otherwise?

Do you know any genuine "conservationist" organisations that don't
qualify as fakes? If you do please let me know.

Yes I do - but this isn't the place for it and there's no point in a
'discussion' between those who hold strong opinions and refuse to see
someone else's.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:51:25 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:51:53 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary

What is not right about it - outburst or otherwise?

Do you know any genuine "conservationist" organisations that don't
qualify as fakes? If you do please let me know.

Yes I do - but this isn't the place for it and there's no point in a
'discussion' between those who hold strong opinions and refuse to see
someone else's.



No need for a "discussion" just name one.

Surely gardeners are interested in conserving the natural environment
or is it all about growing thing artificially?


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)

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:51:25 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:51:53 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary

What is not right about it - outburst or otherwise?

Do you know any genuine "conservationist" organisations that don't
qualify as fakes? If you do please let me know.

Yes I do - but this isn't the place for it and there's no point in a
'discussion' between those who hold strong opinions and refuse to see
someone else's.



No need for a "discussion" just name one.

Surely gardeners are interested in conserving the natural environment
or is it all about growing thing artificially?

YEs but if something is mentioned and then damed by someone else it does no
good at all.

That's my last word in this thread.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:50:36 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:51:25 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:51:53 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...

snipped

There, do you feel better after that little outburst?

Mary

What is not right about it - outburst or otherwise?

Do you know any genuine "conservationist" organisations that don't
qualify as fakes? If you do please let me know.

Yes I do - but this isn't the place for it and there's no point in a
'discussion' between those who hold strong opinions and refuse to see
someone else's.



No need for a "discussion" just name one.

Surely gardeners are interested in conserving the natural environment
or is it all about growing thing artificially?

YEs but if something is mentioned and then damed by someone else it does no
good at all.

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.


That's my last word in this thread.



Pity. You had the opportunity to reveal a true conservation
organisation and failed the test.


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)

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

National Trust
John Muir Trust
RSPB
Woodlands Trust

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.

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

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. 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.

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)