Re: RSPB/SNH slaughter of hedgehogs stopped by antihunt laws, now find loophole to blast hedgehogs instead.


<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8vdsg15t600n587j15o7etbuhl9qgfqbrl@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:23:14 +0100, "BAC"
> <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >You are forgetting that the definitions of 'natural' and 'native' are
> >moveable feasts, e.g. in the opinions of many, it would be 'natural' for
a
> >member of a reintroduced species to spread under its own steam from the
> >point of reintroduction, and the animal would be regarded as 'native', in
> >spite of the seemingly contrary facts its forbears were of foreign origin
> >and had been deliberately introduced. Human activities, of course, are
not
> >regarded as 'natural' unless done in the name of correcting past
'errors'.
> >It being entirely up to the 'correctors' to decide what constitutes
> >sufficient error to merit correction. Hence there can be no split in the
> >ranks of the 'righteous', since all eventualities can be covered :-)
>
> Sounds like God who can do no wrong :-)

I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of people who engage in
nature conservation are honestly convinced that their chosen sets of beliefs
as to what is 'right' or 'wrong' in those respects are indisputably and self
evidently correct.

>
> >
> >Besides, this appears to be a digression from the main issue in respect
of
> >the Uist hedgehogs, which has not hitherto concerned whether it is OK to
> >remove the creatures (assuming the research into the declines of some
> >populations of birds, and the protestations that removal of the hedgehogs
is
> >the only viable means of protection, are accepted), but which means of
that
> >removal, i.e. relocation, or extermination, or a combination of the two,
> >should have been adopted. IIRC, your position has been that translocation
to
> >the mainland is preferable to extermination, since, ethically, you
consider
> >that conservation ends seldom if ever justify the use of lethal means,
and
> >certainly not in cases where non-lethal means are both practicable and
> >available.
>
> Exactly my position although I do have reservationis about the quality
> of research by those most likely to profit from the conclusions.

I think it's quite normal to be sceptical of research if the researchers
have a vested interest in one particular conclusion, but provided the
research and conclusions are examined and not found wanting by independent
and competent referees, it might be folly to just dismiss it out of hand.

The
> nazi conservationists are paid by us to reach conclusions that cost us
> again to be implemented. It's time the government ditched these
> leaches.
>

First, I doubt many conservationists are Nazis, or even Stalinists, although
their views on what means are justified by the ends they desire may
sometimes seem harsh and ruthless. Secondly, it's in the government's
interests for there to be institutionalised nature conservation bodies (the
'trades unions' of the eco movement, perhaps?), so I very much doubt they'll
ditch them any time soon.


.