wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:24:53 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?


Angus could you for the sake of the ornithological world tell us which
birds of prey have been introduced?

Some years ago, birds of prey were released into the highlands of
Scotland which was condemned by the hunting fraternity. You're the
experts; you tell me what they were. I only read about it.

You made the statement, Justify it

In message ,
writes
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:24:53 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?


Angus could you for the sake of the ornithological world tell us which
birds of prey have been introduced?

Some years ago, birds of prey were released into the highlands of
Scotland which was condemned by the hunting fraternity. You're the
experts; you tell me what they were. I only read about it.

Angus do please Answer the question.

WHICH birds of prey. That means what species were they.

As far as I am aware no birds of prey have been introduced.

Populations which once existed have been recreated but no species have
been introduced.

This isn't yet another case of you either not knowing or misinterpreting
the situation is it?
--
Malcolm Kane

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:56:08 GMT, (Karen) wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:56:17 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:24:53 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?


Angus could you for the sake of the ornithological world tell us which
birds of prey have been introduced?

Some years ago, birds of prey were released into the highlands of
Scotland which was condemned by the hunting fraternity. You're the
experts;

Ogilvie and co can/have been called many things, expert is not one of
them. LOL


My mistake. I shaouls have put expert in inverted commas :-)




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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:35:55 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:24:53 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?


Angus could you for the sake of the ornithological world tell us which
birds of prey have been introduced?

Some years ago, birds of prey were released into the highlands of
Scotland which was condemned by the hunting fraternity. You're the
experts; you tell me what they were. I only read about it.

They were Red Kites released on the Black Isle. Elsewhere in the thread
you were saying that the birds of prey were released from captivity. The
Red Kites were wild birds from Sweden and Spain.

If they weren't captured, how were they "released". I didn't say bred
in captivity.

Your confusion extends to your inability to comprehend plain english.


You further showed your ignorance about British wildlife as well as your
state of confusion, by making your statement about the "introduction of
birds of prey" in the context of my saying that landowners and keepers
were culling hen harriers.

Malcolm, I have told you many times that I don't claim to be an expert
in any subject. All I know is that birds of prey were released.


The two species of bird of prey are
completely different and live in completely different habitats and eat
largely different things. Linking the one with the other was the sort of
nonsense to be expected from you.

I distinctly remember reading that landowners were opposed to the
release of these birds. In fact, I think I remember that the program
was not successful. Am I right?



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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:32:07 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:11:51 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:24:00 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
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:s2bo51d3u4dno3lvj4n22g808bkicg9s2 ...

Absolute rubbish. Old and weak will undoubtably succumb to

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.

A particularly silly and meaningless remark. So what's new?

Meaningless to you in your confusion.

No, meaningless, because I am not confused.

Very meaningful. It's a sympton of the confused that they don't think
they are. See a real doctor.

Really, Angus? Well, you should know. How often do you have to see your
doctor?

LOL You're so stuck for words you have to copy what I say.

Originality has never been the strongest of all your weak points.




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.

If both the habitat and the organism are changing, there is no
stability. Pretty basic stuff, indeed.

Of course there is. You seem not to understand what stabilising is.

I do, very well, and I am still waiting for you to post some examples.


You really are in great difficulty here. Asking for examples shows hoe
little you know.

No, Angus, you're confused again. Refusing to give me any examples shows
how little *you* know.


LOL You're so stuck for words you have to copy what I say.

Originality has never been the strongest of all your weak points.



Nature is in balance at all times but that doesn't
meant it is cast as an unmoveable entity. You're idea that it is out
of balance at all times is indeed working within a balanced system.
You just don't seem to have the mental capacity to appreciate that.

Take stability. A ship fitted with stabilisers will roll less but
will still roll within decreed limits.

Oh dear :-( This is not a good analogy, especially not the second time
round.

It's an excellent analogy. Stability doesn't mean freezing movement
as you seem to think.



It's the same with populations. The fewer outside forces (stormy
weather) the less it will fluctuate (roll) and the balance between
limits will be reduced to the point it is barely noticable (calm sea).

I find it incredible that you are unable to grasp this simple concept.

I can grasp a concept about ships very well, much better than you.

So you're an "expert" in ships as well? What a clever fellow you are
:-(

However, if you are so convinced that "it's the same with populations"
you'll be able to give some actual examples, won't you?

It's all around you - even locusts.




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.

I don't have to justify anything, Angus. You are the one who has made
the claim that "species stabilise in according with their habitat". I
asked for some examples. If you now think that any examples would be
"intangible", this suggests that you can't actually think of any, which
would confirm my view that they don't exist.

Oh gosh! Back to your rant of " non-existence when you don't
understand something :-(

Which is about as pathetic attempt at smokescreening as one is likely to
see.

Not at all.


You have claimed that "species stabilise in accordance with their
habitat". I asked to see some examples of that and all you could manage
was to accuse me of asking for "intangible" examples. This was, of
course, a lie, because I didn't specify any particular kind of examples.
Any will do, tangible or intangible. So what about it?

All examples are intangible.

Well, if you believe that, then you'll be able to give me some
intangible examples, won't you?

No. It's a bit like you asking me to give the height of a wave that
starts a ship rolling. Your question shows your ignorance.



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.

Oh dear, more ignorance :-(

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?

I'm saying, as you very well know, that linking the introduction of
birds of prey with the desire by some landowners and gamekeepers to cull
birds of prey was wrong. The birds of prey that they want to cull,
indeed some are already culling them, are not the introduced species.

I didn't say they were an introduced species, I said they were
introduced.

OK, then perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining which birds of prey were
introduced where?

No need. You have said what they were elsewhere.




The birds of prey that landowners and keepers want to cull, indeed are
culling, include Hen Harrier, Buzzard, Sparrowhawk, Golden Eagle and
Peregrine, none of them introduced.

In what way?


You really suffer from silly wooly thinking :-)

You really suffer from being so ignorant about such basic things.

I think you are twisting again.

Are hen harriers not being introduced to certain areas?

What on earth makes you think that?

Are you saying they're not?

They definitely are not. You obviously think they are, so perhaps you
would like to say where you got your information from.

No I don't, I asked you. Can't you remember a few lines back.

Your whole life seems to be based on assumptions. That's what makes
psuedo scientists :-)




You really *are* ignorant about British wildlife, aren't you?

I understood that some birds of prey were introduced to the wild in
certain areas from captivity. Were they not hen harriers? If not
what were they? You're the expert. I don't claim to be an expert in
anything.

No indeed, which leads you to believe, apparently, that Hen Harriers
have been "introduced to certain areas".

Back to your assumptions :-(


The only deliberate
introductions of birds of prey that have taken place are of Red Kites
and White-tailed Eagles.

So birds of prey were released. I think I said that.

These have not come from captivity, but from
wild stocks elsewhere in Europe, the youngsters being brought over here
in the summer prior to fledging and released after a short period when
they are old enough to fend for themselves.

LOL How did they bring the birds over without them being in
captivity. That sounds like something quite amazing. Perhaps you
really do know something worthwhile after all.


The Goshawk, after being exterminated in the UK by man, has now
recolonised some areas as a result of falconers' birds escaping.

No other bird of prey has been "introduced" anywhere.

You've already acknowledged birds of prey were released. Why bother
about " no others".







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 know that perfectly well Angus, but I was trying to suggest a
situation which would fit your description above in which stability
occurs when it is not, in your words, "influenced by outside forces".

You're really confused now. Bringing in non existent senarios shows
the closed system is your mind.

You were the one to bring in a non-existent scenario with your "a
population ....... if left alone will gradually approach a position
where there is hardly any movement at all unless influenced by outside
forces." I merely asked for an example, suggesting that the only one
you would be able to find would be a closed system. You acknowledged
that such things don't exist so I await your example to support your
non-existent scenario.

See above, Malcolm. Don't labour your ignorance.

But I'm not ignorant, Angus. I clearly know much more about the subject
than you, the self-confessed non-expert. But I do think you ought to be
able to provide some examples for what you believe is the norm.

By suggesting there is a "norm", you are perpetuating your ignorance.




The only situation in which a population would not be influenced by
outside forces would have to be a closed one. You know, just as I do,
that there is no such thing as a closed system in nature.

See above.

Ergo, there
cannot be a stabilised population.

Of course there can.

You obviously don't understand what stabilisation is.

If you are so confident, with your "of course there can", then you will
have no difficulty in producing some examples of it, will you?


See above, Malcolm. Don't labour your ignorance.

But I'm not ignorant, Angus. I clearly know much more about the subject
than you, the self-confessed non-expert. But I do think you ought to be
able to provide some examples for what you believe is the norm.

By suggesting there is a "norm", you are perpetuating your ignorance.





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.

Why are they "intangible", Angus. You have made the claims about "the
balance of nature" and that populations "stabilise in accordance with
their habitat", not me. I happen to disagree with your claims and
therefore have asked for some examples. I don't have to justify
anything, but you do.

It's all around you. You mention elsewhere "locusts". Are you saying
they are not in balance with nature? If so how do they exist?

No, locusts are not "in balance".

Of course they are.

Of course they are not.

Why not?




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 perhaps ought to look up the definition of a dictionary,
Angus. You could also look up other things in the SOED which don't
exist, like 'fairy', 'ghost', 'triffid', or even 'dalek'!

You obviously still don't understand the concept.

I perfectly understand that a dictionary includes words and phrases for
objects and concepts which don't exist. Something which you appeared to
failed to understand.

You obviously still don't understand the concept


Just repeating your parrot phrase when I have already answered it
doesn't really advance the discussion, does it?

It's very difficult to advance any discussion when you suffer from
such comprehension problems.



You may be disappointed, though, if you try and look up the phrase 'fake
conservationist'!

Look up the two words and put them together and you'll see what it is.

But the dictionary doesn't put the two words together, does it?

The dictionary doesn't put lots of two word phrases together.


Well done, Angus, you're learning.

But you don't seem to be.



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 believe that a population can be stable, please provide me with
an example.

See above.

I'm still waiting for examples. You appear very reluctant to produce
any. Why is that?

See above, Malcolm. Don't labour your ignorance.

Still no examples, Angus? Why not, I wonder?

See above. Wondering and staring into space is a sympton of the
confused.





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

Another silly and meaningless remark.

Meaningless to a confused mind.

But my mind is not confused and your remark remains silly and
meaningless.

Only to the confused :-)


No, Angus, when it was written by someone who is confused.

LOL You're so stuck for words you have to copy what I say.

Originality has never been the strongest of all your weak points.





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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:17:56 GMT, "suspicious minds"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:24:53 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?


Angus could you for the sake of the ornithological world tell us which
birds of prey have been introduced?

Some years ago, birds of prey were released into the highlands of
Scotland which was condemned by the hunting fraternity. You're the
experts; you tell me what they were. I only read about it.

You made the statement, Justify it

RSPB are often releasing captive breed birds of prey, and usually
around game estates.

We all need to be a little vigilant these days and gets these
extremist hunt nuts locked up, those that are detremined to break the
law.

Beats orienteering..lol Do let us know how you get on.

Perhaps we could offer a reward for the largest number of nuts caught
at the years end?

The league has a good site dealing with how we can help and is
available at the following.


http://www.huntcrimewatch.com

Spotting illegal hunting
Of course, we hope that hunters will obey the law, but if they do not,
it is important that the Police are able to investigate them and that
they are prosecuted in the courts. In particular, it is important to
understand the difference between an innocent 'drag hunt', where
hounds follow an artificial scent, and the illegal hunting of wild
mammals. There is nothing wrong with hunts going drag hunting -
indeed, this is what we have long urged them to do.
Successful prosecutions require 'objective' evidence rather than
'subjective' opinion. One way to provide this is to gather video
evidence of an offence being committed. This evidence should establish
beyond reasonable doubt 'who' did 'what', 'where' and 'when'.

Signs of possible law breaking

The following signs are not, in advance of the actual prosecution,
proof that someone is breaking the law. Remember that to accuse an
individual of law breaking is, if not true, a serious libel.

However, these signs indicate real grounds for concern and should be
reported to the League Against Cruel Sports or to the Police. If you
send your concerns to the League, we can advise you on whether your
suspicions may be justified.




In relation to badger setts, you can also contact the National
Federation of Badger Groups - see
http://www.badger.org.uk/action/hunting-with-dogs.html



Suspicious signs when observing hound exercising
'Casting' (dispersing) of the hounds across a wide area of land or
through woodland, gorse or thick cover, as if to allow them a chance
to pick up a scent.
The hounds running ahead of the riders, and baying (howling/barking) -
a sign that a scent may have been found, and that the hounds are in
pursuit.
Baying hounds not being called off immediately, by use of a horn,
physical contact (e.g. a whip) or verbal command.
Riders posted at various points around a wood where more than two
hounds are within the woods



Suspicious signs when observing any form of 'drag hunting'


Hounds following a scent across areas where the scent was unlikely to
have been laid, for example through crops, and across main roads,
railway lines, thick hedgerows or domestic property.
Hounds deviating from the drag trail, and not being immediately called
back, by use of a horn, or physical or verbal commands.
Blocked badger setts (it is now illegal for fox hunts to 'stop' badger
setts to prevent foxes seeking refuge in them)
Riders posted at various points around a wood where more than two
hounds are within the woods







Suspicious signs when observing supposed hunting or rats or rabbits

Under the Hunting Act 2004 it will continue to be legal to hunt rats
and rabbits with dogs. Hunting rats may be used as a defence for mink
hunting, and some fox and hare hunters have stated that they will
convert to rabbit hunting.

You should be suspicious of:


Dogs chasing an animal for mor than half a minute are unlikely to be
chasing a rabbit because rabbits will go underground very quickly when
chased.
If the hunters are chasing a hare, the hounds should be called off
immediately.
Hares are distinguishable from rabbits in that they are larger and
have longer ears.





Suspicious signs when observing stalking or 'flushing out'


More than two dogs used in the stalking and flushing of wild mammals
to guns.
The dogs chasing or killing a wild mammal.
The dogs not being called off by use of a horn, or physical or verbal
commands if any flushed animal is not shot.
Reasonable steps not being taken to ensure that any flushed animal is
shot.

Suspicious signs when observing use of terriers below ground

More than one dog being used underground at a time.
Any fighting between the dogs and the fox
Use of terriers by people unlikely to hold written permission from
the land owner.
Killing of a fox by use of a spade.
Dogs in a badger sett (it is iIllegal to enter dogs into a badger
sett without a licence and only then in certain situations)


For more detailed information on what will be illegal after February
18 please click to read the Hunting Act 2004.

What is the 'Hunt Crime Watch' programme and why do we need it?

When the ban was implemented, we needed to change the main objective
of hunt monitoring from 'witnessing the wrongs of hunting' to
'gathering solid evidence for a successful prosecution'. We also
needed to be aware that hunts could seek to frustrate enforcement, and
be aware of a possible increase in violence from hunt supporters. This
is why we created the Hunt Crimewatch Programme.

The League and its supporters monitor the hunts and the hunters to
make sure that they are not breaking the law. Where the law is being
broken, we need to gather evidence of the offence. Monitoring is now
different and it takes many forms. As well as the traditional 'field'
monitoring, we need you to be observers - our eyes and ears in the
countryside in order to help us gather intelligence on all of the
hunts and their activities.

Each hunt is reacting to the ban in a different way. We will be
looking for evidence of hunting - in particular evidence of hunts
searching for and chasing live quarry but also for information on what
each hunt is doing.



How you can help

If you have notmonitored before, or would like to know more about
being a field monitor or an observer, you might be interested in
attending an introduction day. We hope to organise a number of these
events across the UK and publish further details with venues and dates
soon. Contact us for more information.

Field monitors

You will have the option of signing up to become an official League
'field' monitor and those who do will receive guidance based on expert
advice, the 'hunt monitor pack' (including an 'observers handbook'),
possible loan of second-hand equipment, invites to programme events,
and advice on what to do with the evidence gathered. For more
information on field monitoring, click here.



Observers

Those not wishing to sign up to become a monitor can help immensely
with observing and intelligence gathering. Again, we will offer you
expert guidance and support and will advise on what to do with
information gathered.

Evidence gathering - what to look for

Click here to discover the difference between legal and illegal
hunting.

How else can I help?

As well as finding out whether hunts are hunting illegally, we need to
find out whether hunts are losing support, whether their subscriptions
plummet, whether they disband or perhaps join together, whether they
have switched to drag hunting, where they hold their meets and what
they do with their hounds. All of this information will help in the
fight to ensure that hunts do not break the law when it comes into
force and if they do, it will help to make sure that they get the
criminal record they deserve.


Please email us if you can help with any of the following
activities:



If you want to attend an 'introduction day' to hunt monitoring.
If you see or hear anything that you think might be relevant and
useful. If you have them, please send us details of where hunts are
meeting. You might find this information by looking in local post
offices and shops where hunts will sometimes advertise their meets.
You could also phone your local hunt to find out where they are
meeting. Please see http://www.mfha.co.uk/ where you will find a list
of hunts with contact details.
If you can help donate equipment such as video cameras (even if they
are old-fashioned ones), camcorder batteries and tapes, handheld GPS,
mobile phones, walkie talkies, compasses, binoculars, or small audio
cassette recorders. Anything donated could be passed on to monitors
who might need it.

Please send us news cuttings from your local papers with information
about the hunt which will help us to piece together their movements
and intentions.
Spread the word about the programme and the other ways in which people
can help and encourage others to join us





Home Page l Spotting illegal hunts l Monitoring hunts l
Make a donation l Contact us l Main League site


? League Against Cruel Sports

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:17:12 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:32:07 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:11:51 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:



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

No, I'm not confused.

So you're confused about being confused.

A particularly silly and meaningless remark. So what's new?

Meaningless to you in your confusion.

No, meaningless, because I am not confused.

Very meaningful. It's a sympton of the confused that they don't think
they are. See a real doctor.

Really, Angus? Well, you should know. How often do you have to see your
doctor?

LOL You're so stuck for words you have to copy what I say.

No, Angus, I'm repeating them back at you to demonstrate what
meaningless rubbish they are.

Stalker, you need some serious help with your obsession.

"Karen" wrote in message
news ..


To get back to Angus's original pronouncement, he appears to believe that
deer, for example, will not experience population rises and declines if
left
alone and in the absence of man as a predator (but not wolves as a
predator,
apparently), but will, somehow, get in mysterious harmony with their
environment, with none dying, for example, from starvation, and only the
exact right number being born to compensate for deaths from illness and
accidents.

Prat.

Your eloquence gets the better of me, and you certainly know how to persuade
an opponent and win an argument* though you might care to go back and look
when he denied that deer die of starvation.

--
Tumbleweed

*sarcasm, for the avoidance of doubt

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

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:23:42 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"BAC" wrote in message
...


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.

I don't regard that as a population that is either "stabilised" or "in
balance". Think algae or locusts.


If I think algae or locusts, I'm afraid I can't imagine circumstances
which
permit them to increase indefinitely beyond the carrying capacity of
their
range. I am puzzled how that could be possible.

After all, an algal 'bloom' will dissipate as soon as conditions no
longer
support it, like blanketweed in my pond. I can't think of a single
example
of a population capable of increasing indefinitely beyond the carrying
capacity of its range, can you?

Are you perhaps saying you don't regard a population's oscillations in
response to changing circumstances as that population being regulated
(balanced) by those changing circumstances (vagaries of nature)? I agree
there's no rhyme nor reason to such a 'balance', it's mere chance, if
that's
what you mean.


To get back to Angus's original pronouncement, he appears to believe that
deer, for example, will not experience population rises and declines if
left
alone and in the absence of man as a predator (but not wolves as a
predator,
apparently), but will, somehow, get in mysterious harmony with their
environment, with none dying, for example, from starvation, and only the
exact right number being born to compensate for deaths from illness and
accidents.

Absolute nonsense!

You have either not read into what I said or don't understand it.



So you deny saying that deer cannot die of starvation? And if I havent
understood what you wrote, well, thats your problem isnt it, as you are
looking to persuade people of your cause an drally them to your side. Thats
why you are posting isnt it? Its not just to rant, right?

--
Tumbleweed

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

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
writes


I distinctly remember reading that landowners were opposed to the
release of these birds. In fact, I think I remember that the program
was not successful. Am I right?

No. You are not right.

--
Malcolm

Indeed,
http://www.chilternsaonb.org/caring/...roduction.html
"The red kite re-introduction has proved to be one of the greatest
conservation success stories of the 20th century."


--
Tumbleweed

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:52:06 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Karen" wrote in message
news .


To get back to Angus's original pronouncement, he appears to believe that
deer, for example, will not experience population rises and declines if
left
alone and in the absence of man as a predator (but not wolves as a
predator,
apparently), but will, somehow, get in mysterious harmony with their
environment, with none dying, for example, from starvation, and only the
exact right number being born to compensate for deaths from illness and
accidents.

Prat.

Your eloquence gets the better of me, and you certainly know how to persuade
an opponent and win an argument* though you might care to go back and look
when he denied that deer die of starvation.

Prat.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:56:50 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:23:42 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"BAC" wrote in message
...


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.

I don't regard that as a population that is either "stabilised" or "in
balance". Think algae or locusts.


If I think algae or locusts, I'm afraid I can't imagine circumstances
which
permit them to increase indefinitely beyond the carrying capacity of
their
range. I am puzzled how that could be possible.

After all, an algal 'bloom' will dissipate as soon as conditions no
longer
support it, like blanketweed in my pond. I can't think of a single
example
of a population capable of increasing indefinitely beyond the carrying
capacity of its range, can you?

Are you perhaps saying you don't regard a population's oscillations in
response to changing circumstances as that population being regulated
(balanced) by those changing circumstances (vagaries of nature)? I agree
there's no rhyme nor reason to such a 'balance', it's mere chance, if
that's
what you mean.


To get back to Angus's original pronouncement, he appears to believe that
deer, for example, will not experience population rises and declines if
left
alone and in the absence of man as a predator (but not wolves as a
predator,
apparently), but will, somehow, get in mysterious harmony with their
environment, with none dying, for example, from starvation, and only the
exact right number being born to compensate for deaths from illness and
accidents.

Absolute nonsense!

You have either not read into what I said or don't understand it.



So you deny saying that deer cannot die of starvation? And if I havent
understood what you wrote, well, thats your problem isnt it, as you are
looking to persuade people of your cause an drally them to your side. Thats
why you are posting isnt it? Its not just to rant, right?

Prat.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:39:00 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article ,
writes


I distinctly remember reading that landowners were opposed to the
release of these birds. In fact, I think I remember that the program
was not successful. Am I right?

No. You are not right.

--
Malcolm

Indeed,
http://www.chilternsaonb.org/caring/...roduction.html
"The red kite re-introduction has proved to be one of the greatest
conservation success stories of the 20th century."

Who said anything about red kites?

Prat.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:42:46 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:35:55 +0100, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:24:53 +0100, Malcolm Kane
wrote:

In message ,
writes

Are you saying the breeding of game birds and the introduction of
birds of prey are natural occurances?


Angus could you for the sake of the ornithological world tell us which
birds of prey have been introduced?

Some years ago, birds of prey were released into the highlands of
Scotland which was condemned by the hunting fraternity. You're the
experts; you tell me what they were. I only read about it.

They were Red Kites released on the Black Isle. Elsewhere in the thread
you were saying that the birds of prey were released from captivity. The
Red Kites were wild birds from Sweden and Spain.

If they weren't captured, how were they "released". I didn't say bred
in captivity.

Your confusion extends to your inability to comprehend plain english.

Your confusion extends to not understanding the process by which the
re-introductions have occurred.

I understand that if they were "released" they must have been in
captiviity. Unless you know differently?



You further showed your ignorance about British wildlife as well as your
state of confusion, by making your statement about the "introduction of
birds of prey" in the context of my saying that landowners and keepers
were culling hen harriers.

Malcolm, I have told you many times that I don't claim to be an expert
in any subject. All I know is that birds of prey were released.

And because you know so little, you frequently make inaccurate remarks.

I don't have to know very much to understand that birds released must
be in captivity prior to that happening.



The two species of bird of prey are
completely different and live in completely different habitats and eat
largely different things. Linking the one with the other was the sort of
nonsense to be expected from you.

I distinctly remember reading that landowners were opposed to the
release of these birds. In fact, I think I remember that the program
was not successful. Am I right?

No. You are not right.

Are you saying it was successful?





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