On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:00:33 +0100, Derek Moody
wrote:

Grey Squirrels:
Squirrels have successfully colonised much of the United Kingdom,
since their importation from North America in the late 1800s. There
is an estimated adult grey squirrel population of 2.5 million in
snip

I say shoot the lot. Grey squirrels are a damned menace especially
when they get into your roof. The are just vermin.
Myths & Facts Online
A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
By Mitchell G. Bard


http://tinyurl.com/ysepr




+------------------------+
| NO PLONKING ZONE |
+------------------------+
| | |
| | | |
..| |.. .| |..
...\| |/.... \| |/..











**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world.
There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

Need a fake diploma for fun? contact my collegues Malcolm Ogilvie
or Michael Saunby who both bought one and got one free, only $15 each,
have as many as you like www.fakediplomas.com

John
In limine sapientiae

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:53:08 +0100, Nick Maclaren
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:25:34 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Ray writes
I like the use of the word "Control"
For control read "KILL"

Yup, that's natures way wherever possible.

What does the senseless bullying and exploitation of wildlife by a
minority of perverts for deviant pleasure have to do with nature?

What is natural about the grey squirrel in the U.K?


John
In limine sapientiae

In article ,
John Edgar writes:
|
| What is natural about the grey squirrel in the U.K?

They aren't as unnatural as trolls!

Note that I did not post the abuse, so here is a serious answer
to your reasonable question. There are at most two mammals that
are native to the British Isles over a 10,000 year timescale (the
fox and blue hare), and a very high proportion of the others
have been introduced by man (deliberately or accidentally). The
British Isles have an extremely unnatural ecology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"John Edgar" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:53:08 +0100, Nick Maclaren
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:25:34 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Ray writes
I like the use of the word "Control"
For control read "KILL"

Yup, that's natures way wherever possible.

What does the senseless bullying and exploitation of wildlife by a
minority of perverts for deviant pleasure have to do with nature?

What is natural about the grey squirrel in the U.K?



The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the UK is that
the species does not comply with the definition of 'native' currently
considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the UK is that
| the species does not comply with the definition of 'native' currently
| considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

I wasn't aware that there WAS one! What is it? Which deer count,
and why? Do rabbits count? What about the Orkney vole? And both
rats?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the UK is
that
| the species does not comply with the definition of 'native' currently
| considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

I wasn't aware that there WAS one! What is it? Which deer count,
and why? Do rabbits count? What about the Orkney vole? And both
rats?


Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they arrived
here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance. Red
deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined to
become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika and
muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have been
introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded as
non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift around
the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken to the
orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native', too.
Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are 'non-native', as
well.

There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not allowed
to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with 'bad'.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the UK
is
that
| the species does not comply with the definition of 'native' currently
| considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

I wasn't aware that there WAS one! What is it? Which deer count,
and why? Do rabbits count? What about the Orkney vole? And both
rats?


Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they arrived
here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance. Red
deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined to
become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika and
muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have been
introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded as
non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift around
the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken to
the
orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native', too.
Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are 'non-native',
as
well.

There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not
allowed
to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with 'bad'.



Non-native is not bad.
Bad is bad.
Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or poisoning the
kids.

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they arrived
| here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance. Red
| deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
| suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined to
| become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika and
| muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have been
| introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded as
| non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift around
| the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken to the
| orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native', too.
| Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are 'non-native', as
| well.
|
| There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
| non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not allowed
| to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with 'bad'.

Well, there is, somewhat. I agree that the above is the traditional
view, but it got rather badly dented as people discovered that many
'native' species weren't, and the complexity of the situation in the
UK. The evidence in favour of many species, such as roe deer, is
mixed, too. Plus the problems with most species, especially
non-woodland ones, being native to only some parts of the country
because they have been spread by man's actions. And, of course,
reintroductions.

That is why I am not aware that there is a "definition of 'native'
currently considered correct by the majority of conservationists."
I think that you will find that there is less of a consensus than
that.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Des Higgins
writes


Non-native is not bad.
Bad is bad.
Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or poisoning the
kids.


So how do you categorise harming a 'bad' species?

Humans make a mess of more species than most. So by your definition they
are bad. What then is so bad about poisoning the kids? (assuming you
mean human kids and not young goats).

I'm just asking the question, not saying one way or another.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they
arrived
| here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance.
Red
| deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
| suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined
to
| become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika
and
| muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have been
| introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded
as
| non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift
around
| the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken to
the
| orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native',
too.
| Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are
'non-native', as
| well.
|
| There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
| non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not
allowed
| to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with 'bad'.

Well, there is, somewhat. I agree that the above is the traditional
view, but it got rather badly dented as people discovered that many
'native' species weren't, and the complexity of the situation in the
UK. The evidence in favour of many species, such as roe deer, is
mixed, too. Plus the problems with most species, especially
non-woodland ones, being native to only some parts of the country
because they have been spread by man's actions. And, of course,
reintroductions.

That is why I am not aware that there is a "definition of 'native'
currently considered correct by the majority of conservationists."
I think that you will find that there is less of a consensus than
that.


Granted, there has been recognition of the fact that application of the
'traditional' definition to a dynamic system has its difficulties, but, as
far as I am aware, it still lies at the root of opinions as to whether or
not to classify a species as 'native' to the UK. There are people who seek
to further refine the definition to consideration of 'nativeness' to
specific locations within the UK (e.g. Scots pine perhaps being non-native
in Wales, hedgehogs being non-native in the Uists, etc), and there are those
who subclassify some species which do not meet the 'native' criteria into
'naturalised', and maybe 'reintroduced', but, at the heart of it, the basic
criteria for qualification as 'native' for the chosen location, remains the
same, I believe.

I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must,
presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue?

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the UK
is
that
| the species does not comply with the definition of 'native'
currently
| considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

I wasn't aware that there WAS one! What is it? Which deer count,
and why? Do rabbits count? What about the Orkney vole? And both
rats?


Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they
arrived
here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance.
Red
deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined
to
become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika and
muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have been
introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded
as
non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift
around
the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken to
the
orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native', too.
Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are
'non-native',
as
well.

There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not
allowed
to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with 'bad'.



Non-native is not bad.
Bad is bad.
Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or poisoning the
kids.



I agree that being non-native should not, in itself, be presumed to be bad.
What bad means in a particular context, of course, is a matter of opinion.
Plants or animals which are potentially harmful can require careful
management, certainly.

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must,
| presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue?

I have seen all of the following:

Established for most of a millennium (includes rabbits)
Established since history (i.e. before the Roman invasion)
No definite proof of human involvement
Not deliberately introduced (includes rats etc.)
Including reintroductions (e.g. capercaillie)
Oh, sod it, this doesn't make sense


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| The only thing which is unnatural about the grey squirrel in the
UK
is
that
| the species does not comply with the definition of 'native'
currently
| considered correct by the majority of conservationists.

I wasn't aware that there WAS one! What is it? Which deer count,
and why? Do rabbits count? What about the Orkney vole? And both
rats?


Conventionally, species are regarded as 'native' to the UK if they
arrived
here since the last ice age without human intervention or assistance.
Red
deer and roe deer are generally regarded as native, because evidence
suggests they (and reindeer) were living on parts of the land destined
to
become the UK before the channel was formed. Other species like sika
and
muntjack were introduced. Rabbits are generally understood to have
been
introduced by humans, for the pot, so, strictly speaking, are regarded
as
non-native. As are both brown and black rats, which hitched a lift
around
the world from humans. The orkney vole is thought to have been taken
to
the
orkneys by neolithic human settlers, so it's probably 'non-native',
too.
Many naturalised species such as chestnuts and holm oak are
'non-native',
as
well.

There's nothing wrong with people classifying species as native or
non-native if they feel the need, of course, as long as that is not
allowed
to grow into a dogma to the effect non-native is synonymous with
'bad'.



Non-native is not bad.
Bad is bad.
Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or poisoning
the
kids.



I agree that being non-native should not, in itself, be presumed to be
bad.
What bad means in a particular context, of course, is a matter of opinion.
Plants or animals which are potentially harmful can require careful
management, certainly.



The extremes are easy.
Take plants. In Ireland many species are not native but live happily in
parks and gardens or the wild.
One or two are a real pest though. These include Rhodendron ponticum (wipes
out native oakforest),
Reynoutria x (cannot remember species or even correct spelling); Heracleum
mantegazzianum (looks cool
but blisters skin and is invasive; can elbow out native species). These are
pests and I am quite happy to
get support getting rid of them. This is reasonabley clear cut. At the
other extreme are things like cornfield
weeds, some of which are very pretty and many of which are now very scarce.
These used to be pests and are probably not native (some may be) but it
is sad to seem them go. You also get everything inbtween.

With mammals, the cute and cuddly bit causes an extra complication. That is
an emotive issue rather than a
conservation one. If rats are competing with native species then I do not
have a problem with killing them.
Others do.

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Des Higgins
writes


Non-native is not bad.
Bad is bad.
Bad means making a mess of other species which are native or poisoning
the
kids.


So how do you categorise harming a 'bad' species?


Sorry? Crossed wires here?
I do not get the question.
All I was saying was that a species is not bad just because it is not native
(and hence was agreeing with most other posters here).
I then tried to say that some species, nonetheless are a problem. This is
most easily seen in conservation terms.
One very clear and simple case is Rhodendron ponticum which is a pretty
species Rhododendron that also
devastates Irish (and Scottish?) Oakwoods.

Humans make a mess of more species than most. So by your definition they
are bad.

In conservation terms, yes; clearly, the worst there is.
In other terms, some of my best friends are human.

What then is so bad about poisoning the kids? (assuming you
mean human kids and not young goats).

I'm just asking the question, not saying one way or another.

You sure :-)?


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must,
| presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue?

I have seen all of the following:

Established for most of a millennium (includes rabbits)
Established since history (i.e. before the Roman invasion)
No definite proof of human involvement
Not deliberately introduced (includes rats etc.)
Including reintroductions (e.g. capercaillie)
Oh, sod it, this doesn't make sense



Personally, I agree with the latter one.