On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:19:30 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

[snip]

During my reading of your letter which I snipped, I acquired a strong
feeling that you do not have much appreciation of the principles
wildlife conservation.

There is more to it than softheartedly attempting to keep alive every
wild animal in sight.

I am sure the RSPB knows its job better than you do.

Franz



You obviously haven't understood the content of my letter.

Whilst I personally object to the RSPB's support of bloodsports in the
manner of permitting wildlife killing on its reserves, the thrust of
my letter is that Joe Public is unaware of these goings on and
therefore not able to make a judged decision as whether to join an
organisation that in his view "protects" birds.

Also I make the point that if the RSPB is so concerned about climate
change as indicated in its press release of 3 February 2005 it should
take steps to reduce its own impact by following the recommendations I
have stated. If not, it would seem that it doesn't believe in
practicing what it preaches and values the money coming in from
environmentally damaging activities more than its mock concern for
climate change.




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

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
snip
I wonder what he thinks about the hundreds of parakeets released
into the wild by petshop owners scared by the exotic pets laws some
years back (I think it was in Maggie's reign) ? Those damned
screechy things spread into the suburbs of Croydon in about August
last year and I'm glad I've moved to Oxford since then. Shooting's
too good for them.

Careful, the denizens of Oxford might harbour similar thoughts about
some escapees from Croydon :-) Angus' normal response to queries like
yours is to suggest adoption of a 'live and let live' policy,
confident that matters will reach a 'natural balance' if left to
their own devices.

snip

As to your last paragraph I wish I received that some years ago when I was
assisting on "The Sexual Imperative" series as we spent thirteen days
living
and sleeping in London Zoo. Those lions and tigers ought not be locked up
like that! ;-) Let's see Angus's policy at work then.

I did say it was his normal response, not his only one, and I'm sure his
policy allows people the right of self defence, even Londoners.

Anyway, from your zoo experience, do you have the answer to whether lion
poo is an effective domestic cat deterrent?

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:55 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:38 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Duncan
writes

wrote in message
m...

(selectively snipped, I do admit)

what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:


Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.

As if the motorists would sit at home with their cars in their garages
if there was no countryside fair to go to, as they must have done last
year in Scotland where the fair held in the previous few years didn't
happen.

As usual, Malcolm deliberately misses the point. Conservation
organisations should not be encouraging people to use cars. If they
do they're the same an any other entertainment provider advertising
for punters to visit their theme-parks , cinemas, showgrounds, beaches
etc. - who are not claiming to be conservationists. It's the
dishonesty of the conservationists I am criticising.

But as your criticism comes from being a self-confessed nimby, it isn't
exactly very honest either, is it?

The RSPB's slogan is "For birds, for people, for ever". In other words,
their conservation is for the benefit of people as well as of birds,
something that you appear unable to grasp.


Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.

RSPB have had a policy for the last ten years that means that wherever
and whenever possible, staff must use public transport. And, which I
don't think he believes, this applies to all senior management,
including the chief executive, none of whom have a car provided by the
organisation.

The get out here is "wherever and whenever possible" which makes the
policy mean nothing.

Which is a wholly erroneous opinion.



On a trip to one such RSPB countryside fair, I passed a man beside a parked
vehicle (a Land-Rover, if my memory serves me right) who was displaying
banners in support of the above campaigns. I assume it was one of Angus's
pals, or perhaps even He Himself. It struck me that whilst keen to condemn
the RSPB as hypocrites for organising such events and using heavy-duty
vehicles, the supporters of root-of-blood etc will still exploit the captive
audience such events provide, and drive a less than fuel-efficient vehicle
to get there!

That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has
access to a Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he
likes it and not, it seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And
he says he won't consider amending his own environmentally-damaging ways
until compelled to do so by government. When accused of hypocrisy he
just says that he is not a conservationist! I leave you to work out the
logic of his position!

The logic of my position is quite clear. I am not a conservationist
and never have been but I expect those who say they are, to be honest,
and not engage in environmentally damaging activities just to make
money.

Simple really! Obviously not simple enough for Malcolm :-(

You've forgotten (or deliberately left out) one very important fact,
namely that the money the RSPB raise is ploughed back into conservation.


After the fat cats have fed at the trough, which is the sole reason
you hung around them so long. Shame they no longer consult you...lol

BAC wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
snip
[snippety]
snip

As to your last paragraph I wish I received that some years ago when
I was assisting on "The Sexual Imperative" series as we spent
thirteen days living and sleeping in London Zoo. Those lions and
tigers ought not be locked up like that! ;-) Let's see Angus's
policy at work then.

I did say it was his normal response, not his only one, and I'm sure
his policy allows people the right of self defence, even Londoners.

Ah! But only enough to scare the thing away surely. None of that Tony
Martin stuff surely ?

The parakeets now between the Biggin Hill and Croydon area don't have a nice
chirp as you might hear in documentaries. They seem to have evolved
something akin to taking two piece of expanded polysytrene, one in each
hand, lick each piece then waggling them about on a supermarket window.
Yep, that musical.

Anyway, from your zoo experience, do you have the answer to whether
lion poo is an effective domestic cat deterrent?

No-one ever answered that. The only information or stories that traveled
were the mishaps with animals! ;-)

I'll have to ask my mate the cameraman about it.


Richard.

"Gazzer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:55 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:49:38 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Duncan
writes

wrote in message
m...

(selectively snipped, I do admit)

what could the RSPB do to reduce its own emissions?

It could:


Stop hosting countryside fairs that attract thousands of motorists.

As if the motorists would sit at home with their cars in their garages
if there was no countryside fair to go to, as they must have done last
year in Scotland where the fair held in the previous few years didn't
happen.

As usual, Malcolm deliberately misses the point. Conservation
organisations should not be encouraging people to use cars. If they
do they're the same an any other entertainment provider advertising
for punters to visit their theme-parks , cinemas, showgrounds, beaches
etc. - who are not claiming to be conservationists. It's the
dishonesty of the conservationists I am criticising.

But as your criticism comes from being a self-confessed nimby, it isn't
exactly very honest either, is it?

The RSPB's slogan is "For birds, for people, for ever". In other words,
their conservation is for the benefit of people as well as of birds,
something that you appear unable to grasp.


Set an openly revealed target for reducing staff's use of cars both
to
travel to work and during operations and stick to it.

RSPB have had a policy for the last ten years that means that wherever
and whenever possible, staff must use public transport. And, which I
don't think he believes, this applies to all senior management,
including the chief executive, none of whom have a car provided by the
organisation.

The get out here is "wherever and whenever possible" which makes the
policy mean nothing.

Which is a wholly erroneous opinion.



On a trip to one such RSPB countryside fair, I passed a man beside a
parked
vehicle (a Land-Rover, if my memory serves me right) who was
displaying
banners in support of the above campaigns. I assume it was one of
Angus's
pals, or perhaps even He Himself. It struck me that whilst keen to
condemn
the RSPB as hypocrites for organising such events and using heavy-duty
vehicles, the supporters of root-of-blood etc will still exploit the
captive
audience such events provide, and drive a less than fuel-efficient
vehicle
to get there!

That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has
access to a Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he
likes it and not, it seems, because he needs its off-road abilities.
And
he says he won't consider amending his own environmentally-damaging
ways
until compelled to do so by government. When accused of hypocrisy he
just says that he is not a conservationist! I leave you to work out the
logic of his position!

The logic of my position is quite clear. I am not a conservationist
and never have been but I expect those who say they are, to be honest,
and not engage in environmentally damaging activities just to make
money.

Simple really! Obviously not simple enough for Malcolm :-(

You've forgotten (or deliberately left out) one very important fact,
namely that the money the RSPB raise is ploughed back into conservation.


After the fat cats have fed at the trough, which is the sole reason
you hung around them so long. Shame they no longer consult you...lol

And here's Pete the troll revealing who he is from his language and who he
attacks despite his endless name changes.

Hiya Pete, found a new ISP, have you? They'll soon learn about you.

In article , Malcolm
writes
That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has access to a
Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he likes it and not, it
seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And he says he won't consider
amending his own environmentally-damaging ways until compelled to do so by
government. When accused of hypocrisy he just says that he is not a
conservationist! I leave you to work out the logic of his position!

So what relationship, if any, does Angus have to Pete?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:38:45 +0000, Kay
wrote:

In article , Malcolm
writes
That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has access to a
Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he likes it and not, it
seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And he says he won't consider
amending his own environmentally-damaging ways until compelled to do so by
government. When accused of hypocrisy he just says that he is not a
conservationist! I leave you to work out the logic of his position!

So what relationship, if any, does Angus have to Pete?

Who's Pete?

Michael Saunby, in one of his more confused states of mind said it was
me - and then retracted that when he thought it was someone else;
then got that wrong as well.

He probably forgot to take his pills:-)



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

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:38:45 +0000, Kay
wrote:

In article , Malcolm
writes
That's the one. I believe it was he himself. He either owns or has access to a
Land Rover, but normally drives a Range Rover because he likes it and not, it
seems, because he needs its off-road abilities. And he says he won't consider
amending his own environmentally-damaging ways until compelled to do so by
government. When accused of hypocrisy he just says that he is not a
conservationist! I leave you to work out the logic of his position!

So what relationship, if any, does Angus have to Pete?


pete is one of many, many sock puppets of the confused pro hunt nut
saunby, so confused he's now anti-hunt..lol

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:19:30 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

[snip]

During my reading of your letter which I snipped, I acquired a strong
feeling that you do not have much appreciation of the principles
wildlife conservation.

There is more to it than softheartedly attempting to keep alive every
wild animal in sight.

I am sure the RSPB knows its job better than you do.

Franz



You obviously haven't understood the content of my letter.

Whilst I personally object to the RSPB's support of bloodsports in the
manner of permitting wildlife killing on its reserves, the thrust of
my letter is that Joe Public is unaware of these goings on and
therefore not able to make a judged decision as whether to join an
organisation that in his view "protects" birds.

Also I make the point that if the RSPB is so concerned about climate
change as indicated in its press release of 3 February 2005 it should
take steps to reduce its own impact by following the recommendations I
have stated. If not, it would seem that it doesn't believe in
practicing what it preaches and values the money coming in from
environmentally damaging activities more than its mock concern for
climate change.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

********
The Royal Society for Protection of Birds??. -- Pah!.
They'll never get another penny from me.
The Morecambe bay/Furness Coast Road beaches are day and night being raped
by hundreds of people from Countries thousands of miles away. The mussel
beds have already been ruined and smashed up by vehicles. Thousands of tons
of cockles are being raked up and shipped to the Continent and nobody seems
able to put a stop to it.
The Barrow-Ulverston Coast Road beaches are the favourite Summer recreation
places for the Furness peninsular folk.
Time was when every time one went to bathe and picnic there, thousands of
Oyster-Catchers did their beautiful aerobatics over the beaches and over
ones's heads, and Ducks swarmed the incoming tide edges. Seagulls abounded
and amateur fishermen laid out their long-lines.
For more than a year ago the beaches have benn silent and completely denuded
of marine-bird life.
The whole of the beaches are now not worth visiting.
It is argued that the beaches from Sellafield Nuclear plant to the Heysham
nuclear plant are the most radiation-polluted in the whole of England, so
who is eating those irradiated molluscs completely ignorant of that danger?.
So, I'll tell you what the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds are
doing about it.
Sweet nothing at all. I have never seen any protest signs or anything at all
from that Charity.
What do we hear from the R.S.P C.B regarding the Protection of Birds?.
NOT A DICKY-BIRD!.
Just like Coast Road beaches.
Doug.

********