On 12 Apr 2005 20:41:11 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

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.

Why wait, we're chortling at you now!

"Karen" wrote in message
...
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.



I may well be, but your reply is hardly a convincing argument for that:-)

--
Tumbleweed

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

wrote in message
news
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.


But i thought that killing (aka overfishing) caused them to breed more
prolifically (according to you)?

Can you stick to one argument? Why is it that culling (according to you)
causes deer populations to increase, but not fish, whales, bison or the
dodo? And what have you got against hunting anway? Wolves kill deer and eat
them. We kill deer and eat them. So what?

--
Tumbleweed

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

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
wrote in message
...
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.

I wasnt the one that said 'its a well known fact that killing animals only
causes them to breed more'.


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.

Hmm. Conservationists might. I suspect most (sensible) hunters would say
something like 'its necessary to restrict hunting to a level that ensures a
steady supply of animals to hunt'. And a conservationist might say 'its
necessary to reduce deer levels to a level that leaves an ecology I am happy
with', because 'ecological damage' is a meaningless term unless you want to
precisely define it, and I suspect it will come down to a subjective view
when you do.

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.

You dont think people controlled deer by hunting over that period then?


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.

Better life for a wild animal than a factory farmed one. Tastier as well.


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.

Its a myth that populations stabilise. Try reading some modern textbooks.

--
Tumbleweed

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

In message , Tumbleweed
writes

"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.

Thanks for clarifying that. It is more or less how I understood the
theory to work. Seems typical of the logic of most of Angus' arguments.
--
Malcolm Kane

In message ,
writes

The right number of deer is what the habitat sustains.

The point you so conveniently omit to take into account Angus is that
deer habitat in this country will if left alone include every single
grazing field - certainly in this area.

Do you propose the nation turns en masse to eating wild venison - very
nice but I like a change sometimes.

Other wise where do you suggest the farmer rears his cattle and sheep?
--
Malcolm Kane

In message ,
writes
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.

SNIP

The fact remains Angus that you have frequently said that animals breed
faster because their numbers have been reduced. You have even claimed
it to be well known fact. Can you explain them why there has not been a
large increase in the whale population since the main pressures of
whaling were removed?
--
Malcolm Kane

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:59:20 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:



--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
wrote in message
.. .
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.

I wasnt the one that said 'its a well known fact that killing animals only
causes them to breed more'.

It does in certain circumstances. If the carrying capacity of the
habitat is adequate and deer are killed then the remaining ones'
fecundity is increased and results in a higher birth rate. So killing
down to a number below the carrying capacity can result in more births
later on.



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.

Hmm. Conservationists might. I suspect most (sensible) hunters would say
something like 'its necessary to restrict hunting to a level that ensures a
steady supply of animals to hunt'. And a conservationist might say 'its
necessary to reduce deer levels to a level that leaves an ecology I am happy
with', because 'ecological damage' is a meaningless term unless you want to
precisely define it, and I suspect it will come down to a subjective view
when you do.

Exactly. And that's why we find that conservationists and hunters
squabble over who get to kill the deer for their own reasons.

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.

You dont think people controlled deer by hunting over that period then?

Not to the same extent. Wolves took little more than 5% of deer.



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.

Better life for a wild animal than a factory farmed one. Tastier as well.

But a wild animal is not domesticated stock.

We shouldn't own wildlife just because it happens to trespass on our
ground.



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.

Its a myth that populations stabilise.

Not at all. All populations will stabilise according to their habitat
- including humans.

Try reading some modern textbooks

Tell me why these textbooks would claim otherwise.







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

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:00:55 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message , Tumbleweed
writes

"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.

Thanks for clarifying that. It is more or less how I understood the
theory to work. Seems typical of the logic of most of Angus' arguments.

Nonsense. Read my response.

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

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:44:37 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
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.


But i thought that killing (aka overfishing) caused them to breed more
prolifically (according to you)?

No, I never said that. Over fishing reduces the population to such an
extent that any increase in fecundity is overtaken by the numbers
killed.



Can you stick to one argument?

No, because there's two.

Why is it that culling (according to you)
causes deer populations to increase,

Because the numbers are manipulated to leave enough deer for hunting
purposes and as some are killed the fecundity increases leading to an
increase in population.

but not fish, whales, bison or the
dodo?

They are being wiped out. See above.


And what have you got against hunting anway? Wolves kill deer and eat
them. We kill deer and eat them. So what?

I don't agree with any wildlfe being hunted by man. They are not our
"property". They are wildlife in their own right and their freedom to
exist should be respected.

Some years ago I suggested that man hunting should be allowed where
hunters could pay to hunt their fellow men in the form of mercenaries
who could shoot back. I think it would be an exciting "sport" but
regrettably cowardly hunters who can only kill defenceless wildlife
would be unlikely to participate for fear of getting hurt or killed
:-(




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

In message ,
writes
Its a myth that populations stabilise.

Not at all. All populations will stabilise according to their habitat
- including humans.

Try reading some modern textbooks

Tell me why these textbooks would claim otherwise.

Mainly because populations don't stabilise. Do as the man says try
reading some up to date sources
--
Malcolm Kane

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:08:07 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
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.

SNIP

The fact remains Angus that you have frequently said that animals breed
faster because their numbers have been reduced.

Yes, but there's a point where the populations are so depleted that
the increased fecundity doesn't catch up.

You have even claimed
it to be well known fact.

It is.

Can you explain them why there has not been a
large increase in the whale population since the main pressures of
whaling were removed?

In some cases the whale population has increased but in others their
food source has been reduced due to man's activities. I red only last
week that plankton was much reduced in some areas for some reason I
can't recall. It might have been changing currents due to the water
warming or cooling.






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

In message ,
writes
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:44:37 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
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.


But i thought that killing (aka overfishing) caused them to breed more
prolifically (according to you)?

No, I never said that. Over fishing reduces the population to such an
extent that any increase in fecundity is overtaken by the numbers
killed.



Can you stick to one argument?

No, because there's two.

Why is it that culling (according to you)
causes deer populations to increase,

Because the numbers are manipulated to leave enough deer for hunting
purposes and as some are killed the fecundity increases leading to an
increase in population.

but not fish, whales, bison or the
dodo?

They are being wiped out. See above.

But Angus whales in general have not been persecuted for quite a number
of years. Why has the "fecundity" trigger not kicked in.


And what have you got against hunting anway? Wolves kill deer and eat
them. We kill deer and eat them. So what?

I don't agree with any wildlfe being hunted by man. They are not our
"property". They are wildlife in their own right and their freedom to
exist should be respected.

That does not really address why man should not be allowed to fulfil his
natural role as top predator and kill Deer.


--
Malcolm Kane

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:41:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Karen" wrote in message
...
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.



I may well be, but your reply is hardly a convincing argument for that:-)

But yours is.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:44:37 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
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.


But i thought that killing (aka overfishing) caused them to breed more
prolifically (according to you)?

Can you stick to one argument? Why is it that culling (according to you)
causes deer populations to increase, but not fish, whales, bison or the
dodo? And what have you got against hunting anway? Wolves kill deer and eat
them. We kill deer and eat them. So what?

You're a clear argument against allowing nuts to have guns, you'd
never read the instructions!