In message ,
writes
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.

Ever? So are you saying the animals unconsciously know we have got
below a certain population switch off the increased fecundity?

Or are you saying the increased fecundity can never bring the population
back to where it was.


You have even claimed
it to be well known fact.

It is.

Can you point me to a standard written work which says this?

Can you explain why it does not apply in farmed animals?


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.


There has been an increase in whale populations but not at a speed
which shows any signs of being higher than the "normal" breeding rate
for the species. Why didn't the increased fecundity kick in?
--
Malcolm Kane

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:04:17 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

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.

Give evidence as to why you think they don't stabilise

Do as the man says try
reading some up to date sources

You will have to do better than make vague references.

It is a basic fact that populations stabilise according to their
habitat - even to the extent of extinction if their habitat is wiped
out.




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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:07:41 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

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.

You have snipped out parts I have already answered :-(



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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:44:32 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Tumbleweed
writes
wrote in message
. ..

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.

He won't. He has been recommended to do this before, including being
given some actual titles of such books, but he prefers to remain
ignorant on such basic matters as ecology, conservation, population
control, woodland management, deer management, etc., etc., because he is
presumably afraid that if he actually studied the subjects he might
learn something that ran counter to his prejudices.

What you mention above are reasons why man is not allowing populations
to stabilise. You never disappoint when you show your ignorance :-)



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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:44:32 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Tumbleweed
writes
wrote in message
. ..

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.

He won't. He has been recommended to do this before, including being
given some actual titles of such books, but he prefers to remain
ignorant on such basic matters as ecology, conservation, population
control, woodland management, deer management, etc., etc., because he is
presumably afraid that if he actually studied the subjects he might
learn something that ran counter to his prejudices.

Really. Show us these magic claims where slaughtering wildlife causes
the population to stabilise then, and do what nature never intended?

Are you part of the magic circle?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:46:34 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:04:17 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

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.

Give evidence as to why you think they don't stabilise

Do as the man says try
reading some up to date sources

You will have to do better than make vague references.

It is a basic fact that populations stabilise according to their
habitat - even to the extent of extinction if their habitat is wiped
out.

Quite amazing when you consider these are so called conservationists
we are teaching, quite amazing. However if you look back over species
and habitat decline since the likes of the RSPB came to fruition, is
it any wonder we are doomed?

wrote in message
...


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.


Whats the diff between a wolf eating a deer and a person eating a deer? Meat
is as natural part of our diet as it is the wolves or any other predator.
It seems your long rants are nothing at all to do with 'conservation' or
'ecology', you are a veggie and dont believe animals should be eaten by
people , though apparently its OK if other animals eat each other.

--
Tumbleweed

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:04:17 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

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.

Give evidence as to why you think they don't stabilise



If you are so ignorant as to believe that, especially as its suits your
predudices, carry on. I wouldnt try and persuade otherwise, someone who
thought the Sun revolved round the earth either.
If you really do care, then check out any book written in the last 20 years
on ecology.

--
Tumbleweed

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

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.

Hunting myths
http://www.animalfrontline.nl/jagen/myths.php


1. Hunting is a right

Wrong.

Hunting is a privilege. ALL states recognize hunting as a privilege
granted to certain individuals... not a right. Neither the federal nor
any state constitution recognize hunting as a right. From the Illinois
hunter education manual, page 5:

"Privileges are extra benefits given to a person or group. They may be
given only to people who meet certain conditions. Hunting is an
example of a privilege." ALL states teach in their hunter education
classes that hunting is a privilege.

2. Hunters control animal populations


Wrong.
Hunters manipulate animal populations for their own benefit.

Whitetail deer have been manipulated to the point of overpopulation in
some areas. From Mr. DuBrock, Director of Wildlife, Pennsylvania Game
Comission:

"The increase in deer in Pennsylvania is a direct result of hunting
practices which have routinely killed large number of bucks, thus
removing a large number of animals from the herd and causing the
compensatory rebound. Furthermore, such hunting practices, by
constantly killing males while leaving females alive, have upset the
natural 1:1 female to male ratio to at least 5 females to every 1
male." As rural areas have outgrown the ability to support a healthy
deer herd, the animals have expanded into more populated areas and are
now common in suburbs. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in
auto/deer accidents, damage to property, and starvation of animals.
Hunters actually cause overpopulation and the degradation of the deer
herd in general by seeking to kill antlered bucks with no regard for
the herd in general. This results in skewed sex ratios, as high as 25
females to one male in some areas. Since deer are polygamous, the herd
multiplies while the hunting kill increases. From the 1998-99 Kentucky
Hunting Regulations Manual, page 12:

"In 1976, the first year for mandatory check in, Kentucky recored
3,476 harvested deer. Herd growth accelerated in the 1980's. A
two-deer limit was begun in 1987. By 1989 the quality of the deer left
much to be desired. Lots of deer were being killed, but they were
small with small racks [antlers]. Hunters blamed malnutrition, disease
or poor genetics, but the real reason was lack of age. Kentucky had
lots of healthy deer with good genetics, but they were young. The
number of deer living long enough to reach their rpime was very small.
22% of the bucks were two years or older, less than 6% were three
years old. Biologists determined that the quality of the deer herd
would improve if more of the herd lived longer. Genetically superior
bucks would naturally out-compete their unfit rivals." THAT is what
hunting does to deer.

What about other animals? There are 1145 species of mammals and birds
in North America. 141 are classified as game animals. Of the
remaining, almost 90% of the species, NONE are overpoulated and
starving. Left to their own, animal populations will stabilize and
meet the carrying capacity of their habitat.

Among game animals, populations are declining. And have been for
decades. Hunters stock millions of pheasants, quail, ducks, foxes,
raccoons, and turkeys each year on private property expressly for
hunting. Not to mention the breeding of exotics for hunting in
enclosures. Why is this necessary? The US Fish and Wildlife Service
has steadily reduced daily limits of ducks and geese in the past 20
years. Duck limits are 1/3 to 1/10 what they were in the early to
mid-1980s. The goose quotas for 1998 are reduced as much as 50% from
1997. This is partially due to reduced populations and partially due
to hunter's lack of reporting kills under the federal H.I.P.S.
program.

Hunters disdain the competition of natural predators. Most states
allow year round killing of fox, coyotes, raccoons and even mountain
lions in some cases. Where year round hunting is not allowed, seasons
are long and bag limits large or unlimited. In the past, bounties were
paid on these animals. As late as 1980, Michigan paid $5 for a male
coyote, $20 for a female.

At the same time that hunters say they "control" or "reduce
overpopulation" they will piont out that there are more deer than when
the Pilgrims came in 1620. True enough. But gone are the bison, the
wolves, the fox, the gray goose, the elk (once widespread in the
east), the moose, the passenger pigeon, the prairie chicken, the
prairie dog, the pronghorn antelope, the grouse and ducks that
blackened the skies with their numbers. All have been eliminated by
the hunter. To replace them we have an overabundance of deer, at the
behest of game departemnts in search of dollars, immature herds and
turkeys stocked in areas that are not native driving out native
populations of birds.

94% of the population (non-hunters) have surrendered to the 6% of
hunters who have manipulated our animals to their benefit. It is time
this stops.

3. Hunters contribute to wildlife


Wrong.
Hunters contribute to hunting. Hunters contribute money to hunting in
various ways, let's examine them.

Hunting licenses and state stamps. These are sold and the money
collected at the state level. The states use 71% of the funds
generated by these sources to enforce the hunting regulations of the
states (Iowa DNR studies). The remainder are used to improve and
maintain state lands for hunting use. Cleaning up after the hunting
season, providing parking areas, and even stocking game on state lands
for hunters to kill. Illinois stocks pheasants on 8 state parks for
hunter's exclusive use as targets. The parks are closed to other uses
during the hunting season. Ed Rodniak, manager of the Chain O' Lakes
State Park in Lake Co., IL states that carryover (survival) of the
birds is "0 %". Those that are not killed by hunters die of exposure
to the elements. These are pen raised, hand fed birds.

These fees, then, become reimbursement to the states for regulating
and catering to the hunters. It is not "for the wildlife".

Federal stamps. These are issued by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
The money is collected and redistributed to the states, after "an
expensive night on the town in Washimgton, DC". After "costs", the
states are returned approximately 43% of the funds for "wetland
development" and law enforcement. Violation of migratory bird hunting
rules is a federal offense, and fines are paid to the federal
government, yet the federal government provides no law enforcement.
This is done by the states. These funds are used to reimburse the
states for the costs of enforcing federal laws with state employees.
Wetland projects must be approved in advance, and the project must
benefit migratory waterfowl or bird species, these species are, in
turn, hunted. No non-game species directly recieve any benefit of
these funds.

The Pittman-Robertson Tax. This began in 1937 as a 10% federal excise
tax on the sale of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition for them. During
WW2, the tax was raised to 11% and has remained at that level. In 1970
the fund was expanded to include handguns, reloading (ammunition)
components, boats, outboard motors and fishing equipment. Fisherman
and target shooters objected. Only 16% of America's firearms owners
are hunters, and less than 10% of fisherman and boaters hunt. They
objected to providing funds for hunters. So the act was modified to
include lake and river improvement for boat access, public shooting
range development, and hunter and boating education classes.

These funds are distributed to states based on a formula of state size
(square miles of area) and number of hunting licenses sold. Funds "for
wildlife" must be used to benefit huntable species or land open for
hunting. When Senator Boxer (D. CA) introduced the "Desert Protection
Act", which would have closed hunting on 2 million acres of California
desert, the USFWS protested that doing so would make the land
ineligible to receive Pitman-Robertson funds. Again the hunters assure
the use of the money for their direct benefit.

So, what kind of projects do we get for the generous contributions of
hunters? Stocking turkeys where they have never existed before,
trading turkeys from Texas to Florida for alligators, to restore the
hunter decimated populations of the animals, attempts to introduce elk
to the lower penninsula of Michigan for hunting. Attempts to introduce
elk to Kentucky. Why? Simple. Hunting has become a tourist industry,
and the game departments are the innkeepers of that industry. Kentucky
does not want Kentuckians that wish to hunt elk going to Montana or
Colorado, not when the federal government will pay to stock the elk in
Kentucky. Florida needed turkeys to restore it's decimated population
of the native osceola species. Unfortunately Osceola turkeys lived
only in Florida. No problem. Trade some alligators to Texas gator
hunters for the Rio Grande species of turkey native to Texas. Thus
allowing Texans to hunt gators at home and sealing the fate of the few
remaining Osceola turkeys. But hey, a turkey is a turkey, and now
Florida hunters can kill a turkey right at home.

At the same time states play games to increase their "piece of the
pie". Many states used to allow persons under 16 yrs. old, over 65
yrs. old, and landowners to hunt without licenses. Not any more. Now
they must have a license, or permit, but they may be charged only a
nominal fee for this. Some as low a 50 cents. BUT... it is a license
sale, and therefore increases that state's funds... at the expense of
another state.

What these funds have done is to make the government game departments,
charged with the resources that belong to everyone, the handmaidens of
the hunters. We can be assured to have an overabundance of targets for
hunters, but no real balance of nature. No balance was ever intended.

4. Alternatives to hunting

"There are no practical alternatives to hunting", we are told.
"Hunting reduces animal populations and generates revenue. It does not
'cost' anything." Well, let's look at this myth.

Currently the only wild animals in a condition of "overpopulation"
(too many animals for the habitat) are whitetailed deer, and then only
in isolated areas. Whitetails are NOT overpopulated in the vast
majority of their range. Whitetailed deer represent less than 2% of
the animals killed by hunters each year, yet are always used as the
excuse for all hunting. Even bird hunters use whitetails as their
excuse while they hunt pen raised, stocked birds. Many common game
birds are not even native to North America, but were imported for
hunting. Ringnecked pheasant (China), Hungarian, or gray partridge
(central Europe) and chuckar (central Europe to Asia) are good
examples.

There are natural, inexpensive alternatives to hunting. Stopping the
war on natural predators is one way. Coyotes, wolves, mountain lions,
foxes, eagles, hawks, owls and raccoons have been persecuted for
centuries. STOP!!!!!!!! These animals are valuable predators and
scavengers. They are natural, and part of nature's plan for balance.
The habitat is not complete without them. In addition to providing
year 'round population control of prey species, they benefit the herd
by naturally selecting weak and inferior animals as food. They are
simply easier to prey upon. After all, it is not necessary for a deer
to be stronger or smarter than a wolf or coyote.... he need only be
stronger, or smarter, than another deer.

In urban and suburban areas where confined population cells of
whitetails are a problem, contraception is a viable alternative. Dr.
Gary Killian of Penn State University has developed an oral
contraceptive for deer and other animals. The drug is "selective" and
only affects female deer. Any other animals eating the drug laced food
are not affected. It is impossible for the animals to "overdose" on
the drug, and as little as one bale of treated hay can effectively
protect the female deer in an area as large as one square mile. The
drug has an effective action of one year. So populations can be
monitored and controlled. Treatments can be delivered by helicopter or
by vehicle. At Angel Island in California the deer herd was reduced
from 150 animals to 60 animals. At Point Reyes National Seashore the
Tule elk herd was reduced from 212 to 70 animals. Natural predators
and natural death reduced the herd, and birth control prevented the
"rebound" effect so often seen with hunting.

Why aren't more agencies using it? Because hunters, who claim to love
wildlife and only hunt for the good of the wildlife, do not believe in
population control unless it means they get to kill something. Why
wouldn't they support a reduction in deer herds, since that is what
they claim to be doing? The game departments, always the handmaidens
of hunters, use "studies" paid for by hunters to conclude that
contraception is not viable.

Until we break the stranglehold the hunters have on game departments
and "wildlife biologists", they will always conclude hunting is the
best alternative. Educating the non-hunting public to these facts is
the best way to do this.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:09:47 GMT, Paul wrote:

We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

That's the solution to our overfishing problem. Damn, I wish I'd thought of
that.

--
Tim C.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:33:06 +0200, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:09:47 GMT, Paul wrote:

We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

That's the solution to our overfishing problem. Damn, I wish I'd thought of
that.

Just as well you're not allowed out much.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:33:06 +0200, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:09:47 GMT, Paul wrote:

We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

That's the solution to our overfishing problem. Damn, I wish I'd thought of
that.

The solution to overfishing is to stop overfishing, quite simple
really.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:40:35 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:44:32 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article , Tumbleweed
writes
wrote in message
m...

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.

He won't. He has been recommended to do this before, including being
given some actual titles of such books, but he prefers to remain
ignorant on such basic matters as ecology, conservation, population
control, woodland management, deer management, etc., etc., because he is
presumably afraid that if he actually studied the subjects he might
learn something that ran counter to his prejudices.

What you mention above are reasons why man is not allowing populations
to stabilise. You never disappoint when you show your ignorance :-)

There's no such thing as a stabilised population, just as there is no
such thing as a "state of equilibrium" which you were waffling about
some while back. Every population is in a state of flux and always has
been since the first bacteria appeared on earth. It has nothing to do
with man "allowing populations to stabilise".

No you're confused. Man does not allow populations to stabilise.

Populations just don't do
that. If you think they do, then doubtless from your extensive reading
on the subject you will be able to produce some examples.

All populations stabilise in accordance with their habitat.


Still, if, as you appear to do, you believe in "the balance of nature",
then you will doubtless be interested to know that you share this belief
with landowners and gamekeepers who regularly claim that birds of prey
"upset the balance of nature" and want to use this meaningless phrase as
an excuse to kill them.

Of course I believe in the balance of nature. And like all balances it
is subject to movement as the weight on either side changes. The
movement will be greatest when a population is out of balance with its
habitat but if left alone will gradually approach a position where
there is hardly any movement at all unless influenced by outside
forces.

I am surprised you are not aware of this.



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

wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:09:47 GMT, Paul wrote:
snip
We all
know killing large numbers of animals merely causes them to breed more
and quicker.

That's the only valid argument I have ever heard against political
assassination.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:42:08 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .


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.


Whats the diff between a wolf eating a deer and a person eating a deer?

Wolves kill to survive and will generally pich an older or weaker
specimen. People kill for fun, recreation and trophies.

Meat
is as natural part of our diet as it is the wolves or any other predator.

If you think that look at the converse. Why not let wolves and foxes
etc prey on lambs?

It seems your long rants are nothing at all to do with 'conservation' or
'ecology', you are a veggie and dont believe animals should be eaten by
people , though apparently its OK if other animals eat each other.

It's very much to do with conservation. So-called conservationists
are killing deer to protect their trees.



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