On 12 Apr 2005 07:45:33 -0700, "oddson2003"
wrote:

Like to see hunting encouraged in selected areas as a means for
harvesting deer, they should not be seen as aproblem, but as an
opportunity to encourage rural employment and financial substainability
of the countryside.

Bit like fox hunting failed to do? I dont think so.

On 12 Apr 2005 17:12:49 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


In article ,
writes:
| On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
| wrote:
|
| I have a cat.
| I hate cat-haters.
| You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is cat-killing and animal
| torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
| If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they never walked,
| copulated or saw again.
|
| Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Especially if it involved kicking ****s like you no doubt, in which
case I'd join in too.

In message , Tumbleweed
writes

"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

Nice one! :-)
--
Malcolm Kane

In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:22 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

No, It is always possible to slaughter a species almost to extinction.


But surely Angus when the main pressure was taken off a number of years
ago this principle you have quoted before that it causes faster breeding
would by now have been making a really noticeable difference.
--
Malcolm Kane

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

I have a cat.
I hate cat-haters.
You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is cat-killing
and animal torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they never
walked, copulated or saw again.

Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Says the psychopath.
The difference between you and non-psychopaths is that we only become
hostile when provoked.




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:22 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

No, It is always possible to slaughter a species almost to extinction.


But surely Angus when the main pressure was taken off a number of years
ago this principle you have quoted before that it causes faster breeding
would by now have been making a really noticeable difference.
--
Malcolm Kane

As far as I can understand from Angus, if people kill deer then the
population increases, but if (say) wolves kill deer, then the population
decreases or remains the same. And if people kill whales the population
falls, but if they kill deer the population increases. And if the main cause
of death of deer is starvation because there is no predation of any kind,
and no free deer condom vending machines provided, then there are the right
number of deer. Or something.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:28:12 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

I have a cat.
I hate cat-haters.
You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is cat-killing
and animal torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they never
walked, copulated or saw again.

Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Says the psychopath.
The difference between you and non-psychopaths is that we only become
hostile when provoked.

Forgive her, she knows not what she talks about, maclaren is an old
day pro hunt prat.

Karen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:28:12 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

I have a cat.
I hate cat-haters.
You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is cat-killing
and animal torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they never
walked, copulated or saw again.

Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Says the psychopath.
The difference between you and non-psychopaths is that we only become
hostile when provoked.

Forgive her, she knows not what she talks about, maclaren is an old
day pro hunt prat.


Shoot - and I thought she was a bloke !
Maybe she's past menopause and the oestrogen's dried up.
Makes 'em more like blokes - you know, hairy chins and stuff like that.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:41:19 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:22 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

No, It is always possible to slaughter a species almost to extinction.


But surely Angus when the main pressure was taken off a number of years
ago this principle you have quoted before that it causes faster breeding
would by now have been making a really noticeable difference.
--
Malcolm Kane

As far as I can understand from Angus, if people kill deer then the
population increases, but if (say) wolves kill deer, then the population
decreases or remains the same. And if people kill whales the population
falls, but if they kill deer the population increases. And if the main cause
of death of deer is starvation because there is no predation of any kind,
and no free deer condom vending machines provided, then there are the right
number of deer. Or something.

This just confirms you're a prat then.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:02:43 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Karen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:28:12 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

I have a cat.
I hate cat-haters.
You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is cat-killing
and animal torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they never
walked, copulated or saw again.

Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Says the psychopath.
The difference between you and non-psychopaths is that we only become
hostile when provoked.

Forgive her, she knows not what she talks about, maclaren is an old
day pro hunt prat.


Shoot - and I thought she was a bloke !
Maybe she's past menopause and the oestrogen's dried up.
Makes 'em more like blokes - you know, hairy chins and stuff like that.


She did transgender at some stages.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:54:51 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:22 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

No, It is always possible to slaughter a species almost to extinction.


But surely Angus when the main pressure was taken off a number of years
ago this principle you have quoted before that it causes faster breeding
would by now have been making a really noticeable difference.

Again not necessarily. Just look at fish stocks gererally. They have
declined because of over fishing.

On the other hand read below.

Hunters and conservationists would have us believe that it is
necessary to reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level
that doesn't cause ecological damage. When asked why the population
has increased so rapidly, they tell us that deer reproduce
prolifically and that there are no large predators, namely the wolf,
left to control their numbers. On the face of it, that seems a
reasonable explanation but it is more of a plausible excuse for
hunters to enjoy their grizzly fun and conservationists to employ them
to hunt in almost exactly the same way under the more respectable
guise of culling.

There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a
very long time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more
than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many
decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have
had little impact on deer for the past 300 - 350 years. With that in
mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have
escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in the
last 50-60 years that their numbers have increased significantly,
coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that
provides shelter.

So is there a connection? Of course there is!

To understand the whole sorry mess, one must examine the structure and
covert allegiances between hunters and conservationists who, including
the Woodland Trust, form alliances within "deer management groups"
that are overseen by the Deer Commission to maintain an artificially
high deer population to satisfy the requirements of hunting estates.
But as deer know no boundaries, the population expands to other areas
unchecked, where they can damage unprotected saplings, ground flora
and ground nesting habitats.

This is when the deceit of the conservationists comes to the fore.
Having supped with the hunters, they now tell us they need to cull
deer to reduce the increase in population that the hunters were
responsible for in the first place. The horrid cycle continues year
after year.

Why don't the conservationists abandon their hunting friends and join
forces with the animal activists who oppose hunting? No chance - it's
all about money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes to
maintain the hunting industry as an economic benefit to rural areas
and the conservationists depend on grants via the Forestry Authority
to plant their trees.

The conservationists won't bite the hand that feeds them and the deer
are the losers.





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

Karen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:02:43 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Karen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:28:12 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

I have a cat.
I hate cat-haters.
You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is
cat-killing and animal torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they
never walked, copulated or saw again.

Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Says the psychopath.
The difference between you and non-psychopaths is that we only
become hostile when provoked.

Forgive her, she knows not what she talks about, maclaren is an old
day pro hunt prat.


Shoot - and I thought she was a bloke !
Maybe she's past menopause and the oestrogen's dried up.
Makes 'em more like blokes - you know, hairy chins and stuff like
that.


She did transgender at some stages.

What, electively ?
How many times ?

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:19:26 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Karen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:02:43 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Karen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:28:12 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
writes:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:39:34 GMT, "Pheasant Plucker"
wrote:

I have a cat.
I hate cat-haters.
You know one of the FBI markers for serial killers is
cat-killing and animal torturing - the preserve of psychopaths.
If I ever caught someone harming a cat, I'd make sure they
never walked, copulated or saw again.

Quite right!

And I am sure that both of you would enjoy the activity greatly.


Says the psychopath.
The difference between you and non-psychopaths is that we only
become hostile when provoked.

Forgive her, she knows not what she talks about, maclaren is an old
day pro hunt prat.


Shoot - and I thought she was a bloke !
Maybe she's past menopause and the oestrogen's dried up.
Makes 'em more like blokes - you know, hairy chins and stuff like
that.


She did transgender at some stages.

What, electively ?

Three were optional she said.

How many times ?

Five she said.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:41:19 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:47:22 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Paul" wrote in message
...
Why do the RSPB and other conservation hooligan charities such as the
Woodland Trust kill wildlife rather than manage it properly. We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

Thats must be why there are lots of whales then?

No, It is always possible to slaughter a species almost to extinction.


But surely Angus when the main pressure was taken off a number of years
ago this principle you have quoted before that it causes faster breeding
would by now have been making a really noticeable difference.
--
Malcolm Kane

As far as I can understand from Angus, if people kill deer then the
population increases, but if (say) wolves kill deer, then the population
decreases or remains the same.

No, you've got it wrong.

Hunters and conservationists would have us believe that it is
necessary to reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level
that doesn't cause ecological damage. When asked why the population
has increased so rapidly, they tell us that deer reproduce
prolifically and that there are no large predators, namely the wolf,
left to control their numbers. On the face of it, that seems a
reasonable explanation but it is more of a plausible excuse for
hunters to enjoy their grizzly fun and conservationists to employ them
to hunt in almost exactly the same way under the more respectable
guise of culling.

There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a
very long time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more
than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many
decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have
had little impact on deer for the past 300 - 350 years. With that in
mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have
escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in the
last 50-60 years that their numbers have increased significantly,
coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that
provides shelter.

And if people kill whales the population
falls, but if they kill deer the population increases.

No, whales are being wiped out whereas deer populations are being
manipulated to provide targets for sick stalkers.

And if the main cause
of death of deer is starvation because there is no predation of any kind,

Absolute rubbish. Old and weak will undoubtably succumb to cold but
that's natural and can improve the gene pool. Over time without
un-natural pressures deer populations like any other species will
stabilise in accordance with their habitat.


and no free deer condom vending machines provided, then there are the right
number of deer. Or something.

The right number of deer is what the habitat sustains.

Perhaps if humans used more condoms the planet wouldn't be in the mess
it is.




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

This thread is getting funnier by the post. Please keep it up,
so that I can archive it and chortle over it in my old age!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.