| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#151
17-04-2005, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#152
18-04-2005, 07:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#153
18-04-2005, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#154
18-04-2005, 07:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#155
18-04-2005, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message ... In message , writes So you deny saying that deer cannot die of starvation? Not at all. Any animal can die of starvation. Millions of small birds die of starvation; that's not a reason for shooting them. It would be if (a) you could eat them, and (b) the small birds were altering the habitat in way that most people didnt find acceptable for whatever reason. That might be that we want more trees, or different plants than the deer leave, or because the deer are competing with other creatures, or any of 100 other reasons. No reason why we should simply allow the maximum deer population, or pit up with boom and bust deer populations, maybe we find the habitat more pleasant with less deer and more of other things (such as different plants and animals). We get to choose as luckily for us we evolved to be smarter than deer. I thought so. Saving deer from starvation has nothing to do with it. Yes it has Angus. As you now accept deer can die of starvation it is better that man acts a "top predator" and eats part of the population. This to apply your typical anthropomorphic attitude is pleasanter and preferable to a long slow starving to death. Most natural (i.e. non-accidental or culling) deaths of adult deer are a result of malnutrition, but not necessarily because of shortage of available food due to a high population density. See http://www.deer-uk.com/red_deer.htm from which "Red deer can have a life span of over 20 years, however this is unusual and they rarely live beyond 15 years. The highest period of mortality is in their first year, with over 80% of these deaths occurring within the first week of birth. Vulnerability during this period is dependant upon weather and predation. Both foxes and golden eagles have been known to take newborn calves. Late born calves are more likely to succumb. Hinds will normally breed between the ages of three and 13 years of age, whilst stags will normally mate between the ages of five and 11, although stags as young as one year will attempt to mount if the opportunity arises. After getting through the first year it is not until the age of eight that natural mortality starts to increase. Generally death by old age is governed by the deer's ability to consume food which is determined by tooth wear." |
|
#156
18-04-2005, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message ... In message , writes I don't have to. You are the one making claims. No Malcolm, you're the one that mentioned locusts in another thread, so tell me why you think they don't stabilise in accordance with their habitat. Because no population does. So, what are your views on density compensation, then? |
|
#157
18-04-2005, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Malcolm" wrote in message news  In article , BAC writes "Malcolm Kane" wrote in message ... In message , writes I don't have to. You are the one making claims. No Malcolm, you're the one that mentioned locusts in another thread, so tell me why you think they don't stabilise in accordance with their habitat. Because no population does. So, what are your views on density compensation, then? I'm not sure I have "views" on it. It occurs in certain circumstances. Sorry, I thought I was asking the other Malcolm. I meant to say density dependence, anyway ! :-) There's an interesting project underway http://www.wildcru.org/research/pests/deer.htm which should provide some answers re Roe deer density dependence, or otherwise, and which I thought he might find interesting. It also occurs to me this thread might equally well have been entitled 'who is responsible for the size of our cormorant population' in which case www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ vertebrates/reports/cormorant-removal.pdf which addresses the postulated effects of various quantities of culling on a 'known' density dependent population might also be informative. Although I am also mindful of http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/cslmodels_tcm5-68713.pdf Angus, at least, should agree with the RSPB over this, and disapprove of killing cormorants. |
|
#158
18-04-2005, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:54:22 +0100, "BAC"
wrote: "Malcolm" wrote in message news In article , BAC writes "Malcolm Kane" wrote in message ... In message , writes I don't have to. You are the one making claims. No Malcolm, you're the one that mentioned locusts in another thread, so tell me why you think they don't stabilise in accordance with their habitat. Because no population does. So, what are your views on density compensation, then? I'm not sure I have "views" on it. It occurs in certain circumstances. Sorry, I thought I was asking the other Malcolm. I meant to say density dependence, anyway ! :-) There's an interesting project underway http://www.wildcru.org/research/pests/deer.htm which should provide some answers re Roe deer density dependence, or otherwise, and which I thought he might find interesting. Yes, but I think the closed population environment and culling might not give true results. It also occurs to me this thread might equally well have been entitled 'who is responsible for the size of our cormorant population' in which case www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ vertebrates/reports/cormorant-removal.pdf which addresses the postulated effects of various quantities of culling on a 'known' density dependent population might also be informative. Although I am also mindful of http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/cslmodels_tcm5-68713.pdf Angus, at least, should agree with the RSPB over this, and disapprove of killing cormorants. Absolutely. I agree with anyone who disapproves of killing wildlife - even those with double standards who release media statements that are contradictory to their activities. Note who signed the letter from the RSPB. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
|
#159
18-04-2005, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:34:35 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote: In message , writes On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:26:59 +0100, Malcolm Kane wrote: In message , writes Exactly like. The population is unstable and rising rapidly cull a number and you stabilise it at the position you want. Gosh! You agree that populations stabilise according to outside forces. Only in the case of culling. I was under the impression you were talking about natural populations not controlled by man. Nonsense. Culling is a form of changing the habitat. It means more food and shelter for those left and will increase the fecundity of them which will result in increased birth rates. Culling has been going on for years but hasn't done much to reduce populations. Tell that to the great auk and dodo. Their habitat changed beyond their capacity to reproduce. I have already said that possibility exists. At least you accept that the situation is not natural. Depends what you see as natural. In the case of the GA it was man's hunting that wiped it out. I understand the fate of the Dodo is less clear. Yes man control populations to try to keep them stable but as you object to this and appeared to be suggesting they did this under natural conditions you appear to be moving the goal posts in your attempts to justify the plainly wrong stance you try to hold. Not at all. If left alone deer like all other species will stabilise in accordance with their habitat. Angus do bring your knowledge up to date you are at least 30 years behind the present knowledge. In what way am I out of date? I am interested as to how you come to that conclusion. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
|
#160
18-04-2005, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:31:32 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote: In message , writes On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:11:37 +0100, Malcolm Kane wrote: In message , writes I HAVE seen your replies in the thread they do not say what birds of prey have been introduced. What species were YOU referring to? According to the chevrons you seem to be answering your own post. Is this the equivalent to the mad talking to themselves? Why do you not provide an answer surely not because it would expose yet again a gaping hole in your knowledge? I didn't say I knew what birds had been introduced. I asked Dr Thick a question which he declined to answer. Angus as you well know. (If your grasp of the English language is so poor my apologies) the use of words in that post made it clear you thought they had. Malcolm is merely playing you at your own game and replying to you as you reply when asked a question. Malcolm is supposed to be an "expert". That's why I asked him. No game involved. I on the other hand ask a simple straight forward question about your statement. You seem unable to answer it. I did. See above. Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
|
#162
25-04-2005, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have often thought there seemed to be a lack of compassion for
animal welfare on BBC and it seems Im not alone Found this on the animal aid site Home News News bulletin: April 2005 http://www.animalaid.org.uk/news/2005/0504lett.htm BBC complaint Animal Aid has made a formal complaint to the BBC about their coverage of the recent announcement of an inquiry into the use of monkeys in medical research... Michael Grade BBC Chairman Broadcasting House London W1A 1AA April 15, 2005 Dear Mr Grade I write to complain about a news item that went out on BBC 1 television on Wednesday March 23. My concerns go beyond the handling of this particular piece, which is why I'd appreciate your consideration of the issue - not least the paragraphs in italics at the end of my letter. I have sent a copy to Fraser Steel. For background information on primate experiments, read The Scientific Case Against Primate Research. The piece related to the announcement by a prominent group of pro-animal experimentation research and scientific bodies that they intended to launch a major study of the use of non-human primates in medical research. The bodies included the Academy of Medical Sciences, The Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. Representatives of those bodies featured in the broadcast item, together with a Parkinson's disease sufferer who was offered as an example of how monkey experiments allegedly bring direct and spectacular benefits to patients. There was also a soundbite from our own scientific consultant, Andre Menache. Altogether, we found the item to be conspicuously biased in favour of those promoting the use of monkeys in medical research. This was particularly disappointing considering the BBC's recent self-confessed failure to achieve balance in this area - and because of the detailed discussions on the importance of balance that we had with your correspondent in advance of broadcast. Animal Aid's own position is that medical research using primates is both morally unsupportable and scientifically invalid. At a public inquiry in 2002 into Cambridge University's plans to build a new primate research centre, presided over by an independent Government inspector, evidence was submitted both for and against the use of primates in research. Animal Aid played a key role in coordinating scientific evidence against such research. The inspector concluded that the University had not substantiated its claim that the experiments would benefit human health or that they were of 'national importance', and recommended that planning permission be turned down. See also our 2003 report, Monkeying Around with Human Health. One of our central concerns about the study into primate research that you reported on in the March 23 broadcast was that - because of the declared commitment to primate research by the bodies involved - the resulting inquiry is unlikely to be an open assessment of the issue. Rather, we fear that it would amount to a propaganda exercise designed to assuage growing public concern over whether the use of primates is justified morally and scientifically. Returning to your own coverage, medical correspondent Fergus Walsh visited the Animal Aid office and interviewed our scientific consultant, Andre Menache. Fergus and I talked at some length about how the piece was to be presented. He was aware that, in April 2004, I received an apology from the Today programme after the BBC governors criticised them over the way they edited an interview with me for a January 2004 item about Cambridge University's decision not to pursue their plans to build the primate research centre referred to above. Fergus said he was committed to producing a balanced piece and he seemed genuine in that desire. However, I was concerned that, while he intended giving prominence to 'soft' footage he had been invited to shoot at an unnamed primate research centre, he was reluctant to consider balancing this by including graphic undercover footage of monkey experiments shot by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection at Cambridge University. He argued that using the BUAV footage was a problem because the BBC had 'not been there to verify it'. I pointed out that it had previously been used by Newsnight and that there had been no suggestion by any party that the footage was faked. Equally, he acknowledged that at the research centre he had visited he had not been permitted to see or film any damaged monkeys. This is despite the fact that brain research on primates is inevitably highly invasive, involving, typically, penetrating the skull and causing deliberate damage to the brain with surgery and/or with corrosive chemicals. Photo credit: ISAV For full details of the Cambridge inquiry, read The History of the Campaign. The broadcast piece did indeed give prominence to his soft lab footage, while omitting the BUAV film. Furthermore, while different proponents of monkey research were given an opportunity to make their case, Andre Menache was allowed just a couple or so sentences. Among the most distorting elements was the interview run at the end of the 6pm piece with a man suffering from Parkinson's disease. He was introduced as an example of the benefits monkey experiments can bring - his violent shaking eliminated by the switch of a device whose discovery, it was claimed, resulted directly from monkey research. This testimony - and the credence afforded it by the authorial voice - is very likely to have been decisive in persuading the uninitiated viewer that monkey experiments do indeed benefit human medicine. In fact, as we pointed out at the aforementioned Cambridge Primate centre public inquiry, deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's sufferers was discovered some 40 years ago through serendipity by the French surgeon, Dr A Benabid. Monkey experiments followed but it is the habit of the animal research community to try to attempt to 'confirm' in 'animal models' what has already been discovered in people. If the 'discovery' had first been made in monkeys, the only way of knowing if DBS would work in people - whose brains are markedly different - would have been to attempt it in people. In short, if we are to advance human medicine we must study (non-invasively and with informed consent) human beings and not other species. Even if Fergus Walsh and his news team were/are unconvinced by the proposition set out above, they were still in error when they presented DBS as an outcome of monkey experiments. Furthermore, five minutes on the web would have told them that (see enclosed items). Photo credit: ISAV See also our 2004 Mad Science Awards which went to primate vivisectors at Oxbridge. There is, it seems to me, a distressing reluctance at the BBC to challenge the 'official version' when it comes to medical research and animal experiments. Powerful voices within government, academic circles and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, are wedded to animal experiments and the BBC is too timid to challenge them by giving proper voice to a dissenting view. What is more, there is a tendency to explain away this timidity and lack of journalistic scrupulousness as 'responsible and balanced' reporting. By contrast, I would refer you to the coverage of the issue given by the 7pm Channel 4 News on the same evening. They ran both soft monkey footage and the BUAV undercover material (an expert in the studio said that both sequences were representative of what takes place in a monkey lab) and they pitted our scientific consultant against a leading animal research advocate in a debate. The piece tilted neither one way nor the other, but it dared to offer contrasting views on a matter of great public importance. For this is not only about the suffering of animals. It is about whether animal research yields benefits for human medicine or if it is a wasteful activity that also harms people. Yours sincerely Andrew Tyler Director, Animal Aid Copy: Fraser Steel |
|
#163
26-04-2005, 12:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:16:56 GMT, (Alan) wrote:
I have often thought there seemed to be a lack of compassion for animal welfare on BBC and it seems Im not alone Found this on the animal aid site Excellent! Home News News bulletin: April 2005 http://www.animalaid.org.uk/news/2005/0504lett.htm BBC complaint Animal Aid has made a formal complaint to the BBC about their coverage of the recent announcement of an inquiry into the use of monkeys in medical research... Michael Grade BBC Chairman Broadcasting House London W1A 1AA April 15, 2005 Dear Mr Grade I write to complain about a news item that went out on BBC 1 television on Wednesday March 23. My concerns go beyond the handling of this particular piece, which is why I'd appreciate your consideration of the issue - not least the paragraphs in italics at the end of my letter. I have sent a copy to Fraser Steel. For background information on primate experiments, read The Scientific Case Against Primate Research. The piece related to the announcement by a prominent group of pro-animal experimentation research and scientific bodies that they intended to launch a major study of the use of non-human primates in medical research. The bodies included the Academy of Medical Sciences, The Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. Representatives of those bodies featured in the broadcast item, together with a Parkinson's disease sufferer who was offered as an example of how monkey experiments allegedly bring direct and spectacular benefits to patients. There was also a soundbite from our own scientific consultant, Andre Menache. Altogether, we found the item to be conspicuously biased in favour of those promoting the use of monkeys in medical research. This was particularly disappointing considering the BBC's recent self-confessed failure to achieve balance in this area - and because of the detailed discussions on the importance of balance that we had with your correspondent in advance of broadcast. Animal Aid's own position is that medical research using primates is both morally unsupportable and scientifically invalid. At a public inquiry in 2002 into Cambridge University's plans to build a new primate research centre, presided over by an independent Government inspector, evidence was submitted both for and against the use of primates in research. Animal Aid played a key role in coordinating scientific evidence against such research. The inspector concluded that the University had not substantiated its claim that the experiments would benefit human health or that they were of 'national importance', and recommended that planning permission be turned down. See also our 2003 report, Monkeying Around with Human Health. One of our central concerns about the study into primate research that you reported on in the March 23 broadcast was that - because of the declared commitment to primate research by the bodies involved - the resulting inquiry is unlikely to be an open assessment of the issue. Rather, we fear that it would amount to a propaganda exercise designed to assuage growing public concern over whether the use of primates is justified morally and scientifically. Returning to your own coverage, medical correspondent Fergus Walsh visited the Animal Aid office and interviewed our scientific consultant, Andre Menache. Fergus and I talked at some length about how the piece was to be presented. He was aware that, in April 2004, I received an apology from the Today programme after the BBC governors criticised them over the way they edited an interview with me for a January 2004 item about Cambridge University's decision not to pursue their plans to build the primate research centre referred to above. Fergus said he was committed to producing a balanced piece and he seemed genuine in that desire. However, I was concerned that, while he intended giving prominence to 'soft' footage he had been invited to shoot at an unnamed primate research centre, he was reluctant to consider balancing this by including graphic undercover footage of monkey experiments shot by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection at Cambridge University. He argued that using the BUAV footage was a problem because the BBC had 'not been there to verify it'. I pointed out that it had previously been used by Newsnight and that there had been no suggestion by any party that the footage was faked. Equally, he acknowledged that at the research centre he had visited he had not been permitted to see or film any damaged monkeys. This is despite the fact that brain research on primates is inevitably highly invasive, involving, typically, penetrating the skull and causing deliberate damage to the brain with surgery and/or with corrosive chemicals. Photo credit: ISAV For full details of the Cambridge inquiry, read The History of the Campaign. The broadcast piece did indeed give prominence to his soft lab footage, while omitting the BUAV film. Furthermore, while different proponents of monkey research were given an opportunity to make their case, Andre Menache was allowed just a couple or so sentences. Among the most distorting elements was the interview run at the end of the 6pm piece with a man suffering from Parkinson's disease. He was introduced as an example of the benefits monkey experiments can bring - his violent shaking eliminated by the switch of a device whose discovery, it was claimed, resulted directly from monkey research. This testimony - and the credence afforded it by the authorial voice - is very likely to have been decisive in persuading the uninitiated viewer that monkey experiments do indeed benefit human medicine. In fact, as we pointed out at the aforementioned Cambridge Primate centre public inquiry, deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's sufferers was discovered some 40 years ago through serendipity by the French surgeon, Dr A Benabid. Monkey experiments followed but it is the habit of the animal research community to try to attempt to 'confirm' in 'animal models' what has already been discovered in people. If the 'discovery' had first been made in monkeys, the only way of knowing if DBS would work in people - whose brains are markedly different - would have been to attempt it in people. In short, if we are to advance human medicine we must study (non-invasively and with informed consent) human beings and not other species. Even if Fergus Walsh and his news team were/are unconvinced by the proposition set out above, they were still in error when they presented DBS as an outcome of monkey experiments. Furthermore, five minutes on the web would have told them that (see enclosed items). Photo credit: ISAV See also our 2004 Mad Science Awards which went to primate vivisectors at Oxbridge. There is, it seems to me, a distressing reluctance at the BBC to challenge the 'official version' when it comes to medical research and animal experiments. Powerful voices within government, academic circles and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, are wedded to animal experiments and the BBC is too timid to challenge them by giving proper voice to a dissenting view. What is more, there is a tendency to explain away this timidity and lack of journalistic scrupulousness as 'responsible and balanced' reporting. By contrast, I would refer you to the coverage of the issue given by the 7pm Channel 4 News on the same evening. They ran both soft monkey footage and the BUAV undercover material (an expert in the studio said that both sequences were representative of what takes place in a monkey lab) and they pitted our scientific consultant against a leading animal research advocate in a debate. The piece tilted neither one way nor the other, but it dared to offer contrasting views on a matter of great public importance. For this is not only about the suffering of animals. It is about whether animal research yields benefits for human medicine or if it is a wasteful activity that also harms people. Yours sincerely Andrew Tyler Director, Animal Aid Copy: Fraser Steel Angus Macmillan www.roots-of-blood.org.uk www.killhunting.org www.con-servation.org.uk |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Farm size and population story | Edible Gardening | |||
| Who is Responsible for the Size of Our Troll Population? | United Kingdom | |||
| Responsible pet ownership (was nancy' pet) | Australia | |||
Linear Mode
