want the truth, see just how many animals the RSPB slaughter, how big


see



http://tinyurl.com/oz6v

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Trouble is, when predators are introduced in the hope they will deal
with a
| problem population, you're never certain what they'll actually choose
to
| eat.

In the case of the most relevant ones, lynx and wolves, we have a
pretty good idea. The former are unlikely to harm anything that
is endangered - and probably wouldn't even kill many cats, which
many people would regret.

I understand one thing European Lynx do is attempt to suppress the fox
population within their hunting range - perhaps because foxes are reputedly
the number one predator of immature roe deer. If released lynx were to start
killing people's pets, their future would be bleak, IMO.


| Interestingly, the population of Roe Deer is said to have plummeted
when it
| lost Royal protection status back in the middle ages, from which I'd
guess
| it used to be effectively kept in check by hungry commoners. So I'd
have to
| add changes in dietary preferences (or a reduction in persecution,
depending
| on your POV)to my list of possible human contributory 'causes'.

And it exploded when people no longer walked through fields with
guns and dogs, and dogs were not allowed to roam at night.


I suspect it's true that fairly widespread human predation on Roe deer in
the UK used to help keep the wild population numbers low.

"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.

The concept of population rebound in some species may not be as far fetched
as you seem to believe.

From Deer-UK's ecology of the Roe Deer,

http://www.deer-uk.com/roe_deer.htm

"In good conditions Roe have a high fecundity rate. In the South of England
twins are the norm and in very good conditions triplets are not uncommon.
Many triplet fetuses are found during a post-mortem examination, though not
all would necessarily have been born alive. But if all three fetuses are the
same size, the indications are that all three will be live at birth. Should
one or more be smaller than the others, then it is unlikely it would have
been born alive. In a particularly cold and/or wet early summer and autumn,
the survival of all three triplets is greatly reduced and it is normally
buck kids that fare worst. This could be due to nature perpetuating the
species by saving the does for the following breeding season."

So, following extensive culling, it seems probable there would be reduced
competition for available fodder etc amongst the survivors, hence the
incidence of multiple births would be likely to increase, until the
population reached 'normal' densities for the prevailing conditions.

I do not know whether the near extinction of some of the planet's cetaceans
will have had any effect on their species' birth rates, (it seems less
likely) but some experts are estimating the annual population growth of some
species at between 7 and 8% since the general ban was introduced.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
news

In article ,
writes
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 :-)

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". 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.

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.


Come, come, it's a well known fact that gamekeepers only kill birds of prey
and so on to save them from a horrible death by starvation once their
masters have shot the raptor's food.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
snip

I am surprised you are not aware of this.

You shouldn't be. I have made my views on the matter clear on a number
of past occasions.

I await your examples of "the balance of nature" in action, of
populations that have managed to "stabilise in accordance with their
habitat".


He has you there, Malcolm - there are far more species with a stable
population than unstable. All the extinct ones.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:17:22 GMT, Karen wrote:

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.

I was being sarcastic.
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:09:21 +0200, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:17:22 GMT, Karen wrote:

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.

I was being sarcastic.

So was I.

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , BAC
writes

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
snip

I am surprised you are not aware of this.

You shouldn't be. I have made my views on the matter clear on a number
of past occasions.

I await your examples of "the balance of nature" in action, of
populations that have managed to "stabilise in accordance with their
habitat".


He has you there, Malcolm - there are far more species with a stable
population than unstable. All the extinct ones.

Ho, ho!

I think, though, that you will need to consider whether, if an animal is
extinct, it can be said to have a population of any kind.....


For it to be extinct, it has to have a stable population of zero. No extant
species, of course, is likely to have a stable population (in the sense of a
static, fixed, unvarying number of individuals), even if it were possible to
count its numbers accurately at any given time.

I think what Angus means when he says populations 'stabilise in accordance
with their habitat' is that they tend towards equilibrium abundance. Of
course, there will be many factors likely to disturb any such equilibrium,
I'm sure he knows that, since it has been discussed at length here several
times in the past.

The 'balance of nature' he is on about is, I believe, a term to describe the
various mechanisms which prevent a population from increasing indefinitely
beyond the carrying capacity of its range.

"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message
...
In message , BAC
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.

The concept of population rebound in some species may not be as far
fetched
as you seem to believe.

From Deer-UK's ecology of the Roe Deer,

http://www.deer-uk.com/roe_deer.htm

"In good conditions Roe have a high fecundity rate. In the South of
England
twins are the norm and in very good conditions triplets are not uncommon.
Many triplet fetuses are found during a post-mortem examination, though
not
all would necessarily have been born alive. But if all three fetuses are
the
same size, the indications are that all three will be live at birth.
Should
one or more be smaller than the others, then it is unlikely it would have
been born alive. In a particularly cold and/or wet early summer and
autumn,
the survival of all three triplets is greatly reduced and it is normally
buck kids that fare worst. This could be due to nature perpetuating the
species by saving the does for the following breeding season."

So, following extensive culling, it seems probable there would be reduced
competition for available fodder etc amongst the survivors, hence the
incidence of multiple births would be likely to increase, until the
population reached 'normal' densities for the prevailing conditions.

I do not know whether the near extinction of some of the planet's
cetaceans
will have had any effect on their species' birth rates, (it seems less
likely) but some experts are estimating the annual population growth of
some
species at between 7 and 8% since the general ban was introduced.


I would suggest that the climate etc. is far more of a difference
between North and South than the difference in fodder due to removal of
population. For example if we take deer which we have been discussing.
Roe are the commonest round here and getting commoner if the sightings I
have over the years are any guide. There is obviously more than ample
fodder after all they eat what the sheep and cattle eat. Using the
fodder theory killing off a significant proportion should increase the
numbers being born. I would see this as doubtful as they aren't at the
moment restricted by food supplies.

Population dynamics will be determined by the interplay between mortality
and recruitment within the population. If a local population is already in
optimal conditions for reproductive success, such that a reduction in the
population would be unlikely to lead to better conditioned females with an
increase in multiple births, and/or an increase in infant survival rates,
then I would agree no change would be likely to be evident, since
'recruitment' would already be at maximum rates.

However, if culling or a natural catastrophe were to create more favourable
conditions for multiple births and/or infant survival rates, then the
existence of the mechanism previously described suggests a faster than
anticipated 'rebound' would be possible.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:20:34 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
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
news:s2bo51d3u4dno3lvj4n22g808bkicg9s2k@4ax. com...

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.


As I have just written in another post Angus will be right nobody who
does not fit in with his prejudices and AR agenda can possibly right -
even if it is the rest of the world.

Denial or what?


You're paranoid :-)


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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:31 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
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
news:s2bo51d3u4dno3lvj4n22g808bkicg9s2k@4ax. com...

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.

No, I'm not confused.

So you're confused about being confused.

You often accuse me of being that, but it is
merely an indication that you're not able to answer my points.



Whether
or not man is affecting populations, they still won't ever "stabilise".


Of course they will in accordance with their habitat.

If the habitat changes, so will the organism.

Pretty basic stuff.


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.

If you believe that, then doubtless from your extensive reading on the
subject you will be able to produce some examples of this happening,
won't you?

Don't be daft, Malcolm. This is your favourite ploy. When you can't
justify something you ask for intangible examples.



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 thereby give encouragement to landowners and keepers who want to
cull birds of prey :-((

Not at all, because their breeding systems are not natural nor is the
introduction of birds of prey.

You really suffer from silly wooly thinking :-)


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.

If you believe this, then you will be able to give some examples of it
happening, won't you? I would be very interested to learn of the
existence of a completely closed system with "hardly any movement at
all" which has no "outside forces" influencing it.

There's no such thing as a closed system in nature, Malcolm. I
thought you might know that. You're showing your confusion again :-(


I am surprised you are not aware of this.

You shouldn't be. I have made my views on the matter clear on a number
of past occasions.

Your views don't mean you understand the matter.


I await your examples of "the balance of nature" in action, of
populations that have managed to "stabilise in accordance with their
habitat".

Don't be daft, Malcolm. This is your favourite ploy. When you can't
justify something you ask for intangible examples.

Tell you what. If there's no such thing as the "balance of nature",
why would it be in your favourite reference book you use all the time?
The SOED.

I think you're confused about the word "stabilise". It doesn't mean
cast in stone. A ship can be stable but also move about. A population
can be stable but also move in relation to its habitat.

If you're still confused, consult a real doctor :-)




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

In message ,
writes
If you believe that, then doubtless from your extensive reading on the
subject you will be able to produce some examples of this happening,
won't you?

Don't be daft, Malcolm. This is your favourite ploy. When you can't
justify something you ask for intangible examples.


NO NO Angus the very thing he does not want is intangible examples.

He (we) always want very tangible ones please.
--
Malcolm Kane

In message , BAC
writes

"Malcolm Kane" wrote in message
...
In message , BAC
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.

The concept of population rebound in some species may not be as far
fetched
as you seem to believe.

From Deer-UK's ecology of the Roe Deer,

http://www.deer-uk.com/roe_deer.htm

"In good conditions Roe have a high fecundity rate. In the South of
England
twins are the norm and in very good conditions triplets are not uncommon.
Many triplet fetuses are found during a post-mortem examination, though
not
all would necessarily have been born alive. But if all three fetuses are
the
same size, the indications are that all three will be live at birth.
Should
one or more be smaller than the others, then it is unlikely it would have
been born alive. In a particularly cold and/or wet early summer and
autumn,
the survival of all three triplets is greatly reduced and it is normally
buck kids that fare worst. This could be due to nature perpetuating the
species by saving the does for the following breeding season."

So, following extensive culling, it seems probable there would be reduced
competition for available fodder etc amongst the survivors, hence the
incidence of multiple births would be likely to increase, until the
population reached 'normal' densities for the prevailing conditions.

I do not know whether the near extinction of some of the planet's
cetaceans
will have had any effect on their species' birth rates, (it seems less
likely) but some experts are estimating the annual population growth of
some
species at between 7 and 8% since the general ban was introduced.


I would suggest that the climate etc. is far more of a difference
between North and South than the difference in fodder due to removal of
population. For example if we take deer which we have been discussing.
Roe are the commonest round here and getting commoner if the sightings I
have over the years are any guide. There is obviously more than ample
fodder after all they eat what the sheep and cattle eat. Using the
fodder theory killing off a significant proportion should increase the
numbers being born. I would see this as doubtful as they aren't at the
moment restricted by food supplies.

Population dynamics will be determined by the interplay between mortality
and recruitment within the population. If a local population is already in
optimal conditions for reproductive success, such that a reduction in the
population would be unlikely to lead to better conditioned females with an
increase in multiple births, and/or an increase in infant survival rates,
then I would agree no change would be likely to be evident, since
'recruitment' would already be at maximum rates.

However, if culling or a natural catastrophe were to create more favourable
conditions for multiple births and/or infant survival rates, then the
existence of the mechanism previously described suggests a faster than
anticipated 'rebound' would be possible.


Would it be faster than * anticipated*?

It appears that you at least would anticipate it.
--
Malcolm Kane

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:51:46 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes
If you believe that, then doubtless from your extensive reading on the
subject you will be able to produce some examples of this happening,
won't you?

Don't be daft, Malcolm. This is your favourite ploy. When you can't
justify something you ask for intangible examples.


NO NO Angus the very thing he does not want is intangible examples.

He (we) always want very tangible ones please.

Stop twisting.




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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:47:42 GMT, Karen wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:09:21 +0200, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:17:22 GMT, Karen wrote:

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.

I was being sarcastic.

So was I.

Difficult to tell.
--
Tim C.