Muntjack Deer
 

(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

Yes. Breed lynx :-)

I suppose slow cooking with onions, garlic and red wine is right out?


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at www.albany.net/~gwoods
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1200' elevation. NY WO G

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
wrote:
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

Yes. Breed lynx :-)

I suppose slow cooking with onions, garlic and red wine is right out?

You have a slight problem of killing them in that sort of dense
development, without getting more long pig than venison. Of course,
there are places where they don't worry about such minor details,
but in others the neighbours disapprove.


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

Muntjack Deer
 

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:12:11 +0100, "Dennis Simpson"
wrote:

Muntjack deer have a habit of wandering around our group of six retirement
bungalows and munching flowers in pots, particularly Pansies. Anybody know
of any easy "buzz-off" ideas?

A large dog off the leash and/or a shotgun discharged with
freedom and elan. Combine bans on hunting with effective dog
leash laws, and the deer run riot; at least, that's what's
happened *here*.

Gardeners on Vancouver Island, including many in surprisingly
densely built-up areas, are constantly trying to find ways of
thwarting deer -- and have been doing so for many, many years.
The problem of preventing deer damage is well-studied. One
solution is the erection of a deer fence -- a strong, tall
chainlink affair with special features to discourage both
leapings over and squirmings under. And even such a fence is of
no use if you leave the gate open!

Other methods include:

1. Planting only "deer-proof" plants.
2. Hanging tufts of human hair from fences, trees, and shrubs.
3. Hanging bars of "Zest" bathsoap about.
4. Sprinkling bloodmeal hither and thither.
5. Sprinkling fence posts and such with human urine.

I cannot vouch for the effectiveness of any of these. YMMV.

Your best bet may be to spring out of a shrub, slaughter Bambi
with a sharp knife, and have venison pie as a regular item in
your diet.

Good luck.

--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
Rodger Whitlock wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:12:11 +0100, "Dennis Simpson"
wrote:

Muntjack deer have a habit of wandering around our group of six retirement
bungalows and munching flowers in pots, particularly Pansies. Anybody know
of any easy "buzz-off" ideas?

A large dog off the leash and/or a shotgun discharged with
freedom and elan. Combine bans on hunting with effective dog
leash laws, and the deer run riot; at least, that's what's
happened *here*.

And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty. The fact that the
misbegotten politically correct idiots in this country support the
misgenated Powers That Be that want to disarm the peasantry is a
disgrace. The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

You need to be EXTREMELY careful using those in built-up areas,
but it is actually easier to use them safely in such conditions
than shotguns.

Of course, the ecologically correct solution is the reintroduction
of Eurasian lynx, which is where I came in. But the aforementioned
misbegotten and misgenated will have nothing to do with that ....


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

Muntjack Deer
 

I used to fence off the flower beds and leave the gate open. MJD and
occaisionally Peacocks used to frequently my garden and gave the family a
lot of pleasure.

Stephen Jay


"Guns and bombs and flying machines are the tools of the war
Killing people wholesale is that what men are for.
Murder rape and pillaging armed robbery and cheats.
Laser guided missiles exploding with white heat."
"The Man" SJR

Dennis Simpson scribbled:

Muntjack deer have a habit of wandering around our group of six
retirement bungalows and munching flowers in pots, particularly
Pansies. Anybody know of any easy "buzz-off" ideas?
Thanks, Dennis

Muntjack Deer
 

"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in
message ...

snip
Your best bet may be to spring out of a shrub, slaughter Bambi
with a sharp knife, and have venison pie as a regular item in
your diet.


'Careful. Male Bambi muntjac have very useful antlers and tusks - which I
wouldn't want to mess with!

Its funny, isn't it, having Bambi in the garden is 'awww some' - until it
eats the pansies. :-)

--
ned

Muntjack Deer
 

On 20 Oct 2002 17:54:41 GMT, (Nick Maclaren)
wrote:

...long pig...

Do you think that a quince sauce would go well with long pig?

--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Muntjack Deer
 

On 20 Oct 2002 19:14:52 GMT, (Nick Maclaren)
wrote:

In article ,
Rodger Whitlock wrote:
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:12:11 +0100, "Dennis Simpson"
wrote:

Muntjack deer have a habit of wandering around our group of six retirement
bungalows and munching flowers in pots, particularly Pansies. Anybody know
of any easy "buzz-off" ideas?

A large dog off the leash and/or a shotgun discharged with
freedom and elan. Combine bans on hunting with effective dog
leash laws, and the deer run riot; at least, that's what's
happened *here*.

And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty....

The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

I stand corrected. I don't think I've ever handled a firearm in
my life so one gun is indistinguishable from the next afaiac.

You need to be EXTREMELY careful using those in built-up areas,
but it is actually easier to use them safely in such conditions
than shotguns.

Of course, the ecologically correct solution is the reintroduction
of Eurasian lynx, which is where I came in. But the aforementioned
misbegotten and misgenated will have nothing to do with that ....

Believe it or not, they are actually reintroducing wolves into
parts of North America that have been wolf-less for a century or
more.

Can I ship you a few cougars as an alternative deer-control
predator? They seem to be having a minor population explosion of
their own, perhaps thanks to the introduction onto Vancouver
Island of rabbits and grey squirrels, both of which provide
medium-small mammalian prey for cougars. Aside from these two
introduced species, we have very few mammals in the same general
size range. Lots of mice and mouse-like critters, some tiny red
native squirrels (very shy and very territorial -- in 32 years
I've only seen one three times), beavers, and the nearly extinct
Vancouver Island marmot. And more raccoons than you can shake a
stick at. That's it afaik.

No moles, gophers, skunks, possums, or anything else along those
lines. There are advantages to living on an island that was
almost entirely glaciated during the last ice age.

--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
Rodger Whitlock wrote:

Of course, the ecologically correct solution is the reintroduction
of Eurasian lynx, which is where I came in. But the aforementioned
misbegotten and misgenated will have nothing to do with that ....

Believe it or not, they are actually reintroducing wolves into
parts of North America that have been wolf-less for a century or
more.

Oh, yes, and they have their own problems with idiots, too.

Can I ship you a few cougars as an alternative deer-control
predator? They seem to be having a minor population explosion of
their own, perhaps thanks to the introduction onto Vancouver
Island of rabbits and grey squirrels, both of which provide
medium-small mammalian prey for cougars. ...

As far as I am concerned, the experiment would be well worth while.
However, the aforementioned UK idiots have made it illegal to
introduce predators but not herbivores. Seriously :-( If I thought
that unilateral action might work, I might not be dissuaded, but
it wouldn't.


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

Muntjack Deer
 

Dennis Simpson writes
Muntjack deer have a habit of wandering around our group of six retirement
bungalows and munching flowers in pots, particularly Pansies. Anybody know
of any easy "buzz-off" ideas?

Muntjac and other deer are not too happy inside even normal suburban
height fenced areas where there is no easy escape, even though they can
jump quite high when they want to. Muntjac in particular tend to push
their way through gaps in the hedge, or open gates as already suggested.
We seem to be OK since I added a wire stock fence (squares of strong
wire, smaller at the bottom) inside the three rail fencing. But you have
to fence and wire all round the perimeter, however long, (as they will
wander in and across a paddock to get to your garden if necessary) and
cover all the gaps. I pushed and fixed sections of chicken wire into the
smaller gaps under the hedge.

You might also try pir lights which also stay on in twilight / early
morning.

Dogs would only provide protection if they were out in the garden at
night / in the twilight, every night.

--
David

Muntjack Deer
 

Nick Maclaren wrote on Mon 21 Oct 2002 09:03:03a :


As far as I am concerned, the experiment would be well worth while.
However, the aforementioned UK idiots have made it illegal to
introduce predators but not herbivores. Seriously :-( If I thought
that unilateral action might work, I might not be dissuaded, but
it wouldn't.

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

[although the reason we have Chinese muntjac and not Indian muntjac is
because some Indian muntjac allegedly killed a duke's dog, so he made
sure they were killed before they escaped....]

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
Big Al wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote on Mon 21 Oct 2002 09:03:03a :

As far as I am concerned, the experiment would be well worth while.
However, the aforementioned UK idiots have made it illegal to
introduce predators but not herbivores. Seriously :-( If I thought
that unilateral action might work, I might not be dissuaded, but
it wouldn't.

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
of the UK where they are needed. No way.


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

Muntjack Deer
 

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
of the UK where they are needed. No way.

I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)

Janet.

Muntjack Deer
 

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers
to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
of the UK where they are needed. No way.

I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)


Trouble is, they'd be unlikely to stay there. Now if you'd said Belfast, or
the Isle of Man ...

Muntjack Deer
 

On 20 Oct 2002 19:14:52 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty. The fact that the
misbegotten politically correct idiots in this country support the
misgenated Powers That Be that want to disarm the peasantry is a
disgrace. The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

Beg to differ.

Shotgun is not only cruel but illegal against deer in UK.

Any .22 is illegal against deer in England and Wales.

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind. You need somone
with an open license (allowing them to shoot anywhere) firing
downwards: i.e. someone who REALLY knows what he/she is doing. I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.
--
Derek Turner

The english summer consists of three fine days and a thunderstorm. - Charles II

Muntjack Deer
 

"Derek Turner" wrote in message
...
On 20 Oct 2002 19:14:52 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty. The fact that the
misbegotten politically correct idiots in this country support the
misgenated Powers That Be that want to disarm the peasantry is a
disgrace. The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

Beg to differ.

Shotgun is not only cruel but illegal against deer in UK.

Any .22 is illegal against deer in England and Wales.

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind.

True, see Schedule 2 Deer Act 1991 - there are exceptions, though, see also
s6 (4) & (5) of the same Act, which allow use of smooth bar guns under
specific unusual circumstances.

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
Derek Turner wrote:
On 20 Oct 2002 19:14:52 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty. The fact that the
misbegotten politically correct idiots in this country support the
misgenated Powers That Be that want to disarm the peasantry is a
disgrace. The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

Beg to differ.

Shotgun is not only cruel but illegal against deer in UK.

It is now. It wasn't until a few years back.

Any .22 is illegal against deer in England and Wales.

I am aware of that. The UK gun laws are notorious for their
stupidity.

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind. You need somone
with an open license (allowing them to shoot anywhere) firing
downwards: i.e. someone who REALLY knows what he/she is doing. I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.

You have contradicted yourself thoroughly. The APPROPRIATE weapon
is a .22 magnum, as you seem to be aware of from the above paragraph;
the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant.

It should be obvious that the laws are stupid from the very fact
that they insist on the same calibre for roe and red (to include
just 'native' species). A .243 is too small for most people to
use on red without a serious risk of wounding, and anything
above that is too large to use on roe because of the risk of
passing straight through.


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

Muntjack Deer
 

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:05:40 +0100, Derek Turner
wrote:

...muntjack...I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.

Ah, but does a quince-based sauce go well with it?

[My quince tree, after 13 years and being torn up by the roots
and moved holus bolus to a much sunnier site 3-4 years ago, has,
eureka! fruited: nine quinces. Halleluja! All of which have been
converted to what I'm calling "quince butter", but you can think
of as a very thick quince sauce.]


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Muntjack Deer
 

On 23 Oct 2002 19:08:06 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind. You need somone
with an open license (allowing them to shoot anywhere) firing
downwards: i.e. someone who REALLY knows what he/she is doing. I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.

You have contradicted yourself thoroughly.

Sorry, I should have said 'what you need (to stay within the law) is
a....

The APPROPRIATE weapon
is a .22 magnum, as you seem to be aware of from the above paragraph;

vbg

the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant.

Not if I want to keep my firearms certificate, it's not!

And I stand by the rest of the paragraph.

--
Derek Turner

The english summer consists of three fine days and a thunderstorm. - Charles II

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
Derek Turner writes:
|
| Sorry, I should have said 'what you need (to stay within the law) is
| a....
|
| The APPROPRIATE weapon
| is a .22 magnum, as you seem to be aware of from the above paragraph;
|
| vbg
|
| the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant.
|
| Not if I want to keep my firearms certificate, it's not!
|
| And I stand by the rest of the paragraph.

No dissention there. Using any firearm in a "group of six retirement
bungalows" isn't something that you want some half-trained idiot
doing. And I regard 99% of the gun-toting UK police as being
half-trained at best, and the Home Office as being idiots at best.

I am more scared by those lunatics carrying submachine guns around
Heathrow than I am of terrorists, because I have some idea of what
would happen if they fired them in a concourse.

Bring back lynx to the south east of England - our ecology needs
them, BADLY!


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

Muntjack Deer
 

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers
to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
of the UK where they are needed. No way.

I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)

Hey now, what have you got against Slough?

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk


Janet.

Muntjack Deer
 

Muntjack Deer
 

In article ,
"Alan Holmes" writes:
| "Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
| ...
|
| A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
| of the UK where they are needed. No way.
|
| I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
| Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
| away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)
|
| Hey now, what have you got against Slough?

Hang on. What has she got against lynx?


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

Muntjack Deer
 

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


In article ,
"Alan Holmes" writes:
| "Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
| ...
|
| A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
| of the UK where they are needed. No way.
|
| I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
| Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
| away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)
|
| Hey now, what have you got against Slough?

???? Reforesting Slough and reintroducing life of any kind, would be an
enormous compliment to the esteemed conurbation.

Hang on. What has she got against lynx?

Only their smell, forcibly inflicted upon this household for many
years, when "Lynx" (aka in this household as "Stynx") was the favourite
brand of deodorant among the teenage male inhabitants. Sprayed through
the shirts they were wearing and down their trouser fronts as an
alternative to personal hygeine :-(

Janet.

Muntjack Deer
 

Bring back lynx to the south east of England - our ecology needs
them, BADLY!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,

Personally I think it's a bit late for that. The damage has been done. To
return to anything like the original state of fauna levels within the UK 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

Dave.

Muntjack Deer
 

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, this should be posted to an
ocological/conservationist/etc. newsgroup, not a gardening one. Secondly, Lynx
are unlikely to catch/eat deer if there are easier things to catch such as the
domestic cat, sheep, etc.

Reintroducing lynx isn't practical, and may well turn out to be a disaster, if
it was ever seriously attempted. There are better options to achieve the
results you seem to be looking for.

Dave.

Muntjack Deer
 

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

snip

What I am certain of is that the attempt will not be allowed, and
many of the most active and powerful opponents will be so-called
conservationists. Which does not mean that there are not some real
ones, but the pretend variety is more common and influential. And
so we can expect to see most of our native ecologies disappear
within a century, except perhaps in very small reserves with very
restricted access.

I believe you are correct in thinking it is very unlikely conditions will
be
judges right for an attempt to restablish lynx in the wild in the UK. I'm
not sure why you think conservationists are to blame though!

Please reread the distinction I made between so-called conservationists
and real ones!


I have done so, but it doesn't define the difference, i.e. what makes some
conservationists 'real', and others 'pretend'. So I'm none the wiser, I'm
afraid.

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).

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.

Muntjack Deer
 

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.

Dave.

Muntjack Deer
 

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!

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.

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.

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


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

Muntjack Deer
 

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

--
ned

Muntjack Deer
 

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

Muntjack Deer
 

"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

Muntjack Deer
 

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

Muntjack Deer
 

"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.

Muntjack Deer
 

"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.

Muntjack Deer
 

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

Muntjack Deer
 

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

Muntjack Deer
 

| 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.

Muntjack Deer
 

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. ;-)

Muntjack Deer
 

"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.