In article ,
ned wrote:

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

As the main point of introducing them (ie, lynx) would be to
endanger other
species, that would rather rule them out!

Surely we have learned the lesson that you don't solve a known
unmanageable problem by introducing an unknown unmanageable problem.

This argument is one of the more egregious pieces of propaganda used
by the destructivist lobby, and we have seen its effects for a long
time. It is not, of course, applied to the introduction of Monsanto
species, the imposition of extreme laws and restrictions to 'control'
a problem introduced by incompetence and so on.

In this case, neither problem is unknown, and the problem of lynx
overpopulation is known to be manageable.

There is also the point that, when facing near-certain disaster, the
very worst decision is to do nothing.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In this case, neither problem is unknown, and the problem of lynx
overpopulation is known to be manageable.

There is also the point that, when facing near-certain disaster, the
very worst decision is to do nothing.


Disaster?????
Methinks we have wound you up a tad too much.
You're not one of 'The End Is Nigh' crowd are you? :-))

--
ned

In article ,
"ned" writes:
| "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
| ...
|
| In this case, neither problem is unknown, and the problem of lynx
| overpopulation is known to be manageable.
|
| There is also the point that, when facing near-certain disaster, the
| very worst decision is to do nothing.
|
| Disaster?????
| Methinks we have wound you up a tad too much.
| You're not one of 'The End Is Nigh' crowd are you? :-))

Why don't you make an attempt to find out what the scientists say
about this, rather than taking your 'information' from those who
have an interest in deceiving the public?

For readable introductions to the area, look at some of Oliver
Rackham's books. And then start looking up the changes of the
past half century, and the lifetime of very restricted populations
and ahy they die out (note populations not individuals). You may
need to learn some population dynamics and genetics, but that will
do you no harm.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
BAC wrote:

I would think the only 'conservation' reason for opposing reintroduction
of
lynx would be if the proposal didn't meet the conventional criteria for
reintroductions (which I can't quote in full from memory, and can't be
bothered to look up, but which include, IIRC, introduction into a
suitable
habitat, with a good chance of survival, and not endangering other
species).

As the main point of introducing them would be to endanger other
species, that would rather rule them out!

If the main point were to be the elimination of an entire native species
such as Roe deer, it would rule them out. If it were thought that
reintroduction might endanger other native species, e.g. capercaillie, that
might rule them out, too. I'm not sure that reducing the numbers of a
population (but not endangering the survival of the species) would rule them
out, though.


Personally, I would imagine the most vociferous opposition would come
from
people who simply wouldn't like the idea of large predators of any kind
roaming the countryside.

Large predators? Lynx? The mind boggles.

Large in comparison with what we have now, yes.


I am pretty certain that the RSPB opposed even an experiment with
them, claiming the risk to ground nesting birds. Well, that is
a genuine risk. But the current threat is the elimination of
most of woodland plant habitats, much of the hedgerow and similar
habitat, and a DRASTIC change in the composition of the woods (even
if they survive, which is unclear). But that was ignored.


The RSPB supports and engages in other deer population control measures,
though.

You are right where the most vociferous opposition comes from, but
I don't think that it is the most influential.


You may be right - I don't know.

"DaveDay34" wrote in message
...
Personally I think it's a bit late for that. The damage has been done.
snip
you'd
have to get rid of mink, all domestic cats, and all rabbits. Somehow I
can't
see people supporting the sorts of measures that would be needed, or
even
understanding what you'd be trying to do, or why.

FWIW


I don't believe it would be possible to get rid of all mink or domestic
cats, and certainly not all rabbits, it's a lot easier said than done.

I think that's the point I was trying to make. It's not practical, and
even if
you could do it, would you really want to destroy the eco-system we have
to try
to turn the clock back? A dangerous dream for anyone to have.

No, I personally would not wish to recreate a uniform bronze age habitat
across the UK, even if it were possible. However, nor would I particularly
like to see what we have now further 'eroded'. It's not a simple choice,
IMO.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:15:28 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


"DaveDay34" wrote in message
...
Personally I think it's a bit late for that. The damage has been done.
snip
you'd
have to get rid of mink, all domestic cats, and all rabbits. Somehow I
can't
see people supporting the sorts of measures that would be needed, or
even
understanding what you'd be trying to do, or why.

FWIW


I don't believe it would be possible to get rid of all mink or domestic
cats, and certainly not all rabbits, it's a lot easier said than done.

I think that's the point I was trying to make. It's not practical, and
even if
you could do it, would you really want to destroy the eco-system we have
to try
to turn the clock back? A dangerous dream for anyone to have.

No, I personally would not wish to recreate a uniform bronze age habitat
across the UK, even if it were possible. However, nor would I particularly
like to see what we have now further 'eroded'. It's not a simple choice,
IMO.


On the recemt television programme on Darwin the remark was made that
over 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now
extinct, or did I hear that right. (No implication that this was a
recent phenomenon)


Paul Mc Cann

In article ,
Paul Mc Cann writes:
|
| On the recemt television programme on Darwin the remark was made that
| over 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now
| extinct, or did I hear that right. (No implication that this was a
| recent phenomenon)

That sounds reasonable, given that recognisable species have
existed for hundreds of millions of years.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

| On the recemt television programme on Darwin the remark was made that
| over 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now
| extinct, or did I hear that right. (No implication that this was a
| recent phenomenon)

That sounds reasonable, given that recognisable species have
existed for hundreds of millions of years.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,

If you consider the dinosaurs, and eveything that's been around before and
since, it's at least 99% of all species that have become extinct at one time or
another. Not really something to get excited about.

75% or there abouts (if I remember correctly) of all life on earth was killed
off at one time when the earth was hit by an asteroid. It's happened several
times. Species die out and are replaced by others. It's what gave the mammals
the edge over the dinosaurs (or should that be the thing that tipped the scales
in their favour?).

Anyway, basically the figures are correct.

Dave.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"ned" writes:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In this case, neither problem is unknown, and the problem of lynx
overpopulation is known to be manageable.

There is also the point that, when facing near-certain disaster,
the very worst decision is to do nothing.

Disaster?????
Methinks we have wound you up a tad too much.
You're not one of 'The End Is Nigh' crowd are you? :-))

Why don't you make an attempt to find out what the scientists say
about this, .......

I presume you have one in particular in mind. Scientists are diverse
in their views. One says this. One says that. How many scientists have
had views on trying to save the Panda?
A scientific view is not right because it is a scientific view.
Scientists come in all shades of opinion, each sufficiently 'learned'
to put forward plausible theories. Differing points of view will widen
the perspective of a problem and discussion - and dissention, will
long continue but only history (not a loud argument) will prove that
one view was closer to the truth than others.


......................................... You may
need to learn some population dynamics and genetics, but that will
do you no harm.


Ooooh. 'Ark at him.
'Gone all cap and gown again. :-))


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,

--
Regards,
ned,
University of Life. ;-)

"Paul Mc Cann" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:15:28 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:


"DaveDay34" wrote in message
...
Personally I think it's a bit late for that. The damage has been
done.
snip
you'd
have to get rid of mink, all domestic cats, and all rabbits.
Somehow I
can't
see people supporting the sorts of measures that would be needed, or
even
understanding what you'd be trying to do, or why.

FWIW


I don't believe it would be possible to get rid of all mink or
domestic
cats, and certainly not all rabbits, it's a lot easier said than done.

I think that's the point I was trying to make. It's not practical, and
even if
you could do it, would you really want to destroy the eco-system we
have
to try
to turn the clock back? A dangerous dream for anyone to have.

No, I personally would not wish to recreate a uniform bronze age habitat
across the UK, even if it were possible. However, nor would I
particularly
like to see what we have now further 'eroded'. It's not a simple choice,
IMO.


On the recemt television programme on Darwin the remark was made that
over 99% of the species that have existed on this planet are now
extinct, or did I hear that right. (No implication that this was a
recent phenomenon)


Something like that. Hardly surprising, considering how long life has
existed on the planet, and how much conditions have changed over that
period. And in the very long run, I expect life in some form or another will
persist on the planet, irrespective of human actions today. That doesn't
mean we can't or shouldn't have preferences about what we would like to see
in our back yard while we are here, though, IMO.

In article ,
ned wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Why don't you make an attempt to find out what the scientists say
about this, .......

I presume you have one in particular in mind. Scientists are diverse
in their views. One says this. One says that. How many scientists have
had views on trying to save the Panda?
A scientific view is not right because it is a scientific view.

If I had meant one scientist, I should have said so.

In the past, we have had official disinformers targeting this group,
most clearly when I too accurately guessed the reason for the hasty
withdrawal of Benlate. I doubt that you are one, in which case you
are a mere troll.

As I said, go and learn something about this area.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
ned wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Why don't you make an attempt to find out what the scientists say
about this, .......

I presume you have one in particular in mind. Scientists are
diverse
in their views. One says this. One says that. How many scientists
have had views on trying to save the Panda?
A scientific view is not right because it is a scientific view.

If I had meant one scientist, I should have said so.

In the past, we have had official disinformers targeting this group,
most clearly when I too accurately guessed the reason for the hasty
withdrawal of Benlate. I doubt that you are one, in which case you
are a mere troll.


'Official dis-informers' !
My word. We do have a jaundiced view of the world.
But, at least you were right in doubting that I might fall into such a
class. Like you, I have opinions. Like you, I choose (on occasion) to
express them. On this occasion, we differ. End of story.

'A troll? ROFL. I hardly think so. 'Just a different outlook on
life.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

--
ned :-)

The current situation is that we are likely to cause an effect on
the ecosystem comparable with the major 'events', such as the one
associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. I.e. a 95%
REDUCTION in the number of species over a short period.


Are you suggesting that 95% of all species (presumably animal species) in the
world will become extinct in the next 200 years? That seems a little excessive
and alarmist. I'd hate to see anything like that happen, but from what I see
of the facts/figures, those sorts of numbers of species going the way of the
Dodo just don't add up. I think this might just be one (relatively
pessimistic/alarmist) view amongst many.

Dave.

In article ,
(DaveDay34) writes:
| The current situation is that we are likely to cause an effect on
| the ecosystem comparable with the major 'events', such as the one
| associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. I.e. a 95%
| REDUCTION in the number of species over a short period.
|
| Are you suggesting that 95% of all species (presumably animal species) in the
| world will become extinct in the next 200 years? That seems a little excessive
| and alarmist. I'd hate to see anything like that happen, but from what I see
| of the facts/figures, those sorts of numbers of species going the way of the
| Dodo just don't add up. I think this might just be one (relatively
| pessimistic/alarmist) view amongst many.

That is one prediction. Yes, it is alarmist - but is it right?
There is a hell of a lot of evidence that it may be. And it is
not just talking about animal species, but plant species, too.

The problem with a lot of such things is that the populations
hold up until a certain point, and then collapse almost totally.
You therefore see relatively little effect until shortly before
the disaster happens - this is precisely what scientists are
afraid of with the North Sea cod stocks, and have seen in other
such populations.

The reason that the figures are so high is that a few ecologies
both account for a disproportionate number of species and rely
on very complex interactions. Tropical rain forests are the
classic examples, but I believe that coral reefs are similar.
If a collapse occurs, the ECOLOGY collapses, leading to the
exinction of all species dependent on it.

In the UK, a more reasonable figure would be 80-90%.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679