Re: Would you risk your child's life?

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:14:33 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <29lq32thrp0tp4sn07o3fu72l7pf7b1gm7@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:45:07 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <6e7q329hk2cgfb5setced893efmdejtlr5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:13:32 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <ilcp32pgu8kifho1uclq8rc7pa725rskeb@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:05:52 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <c9co3253q7b03map8bnelop37iu64ruuhv@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
Would you risk your life or your child's life by visiting a bird
reserve or sanctuary this year?

Read this letter for an expert and decide.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/59865.html

Is he just an expert or is he also advertising his firm's services?

Your wholly unjustified extrapolation of what the letter writer said to
bird reserves is presumably based on the fact that you boast never to
have visited one (though I think you admit to parking on the verge
outside Vane Farm on one occasion). Had you ever entered a bird reserve
you would quickly realise that reserves are designed to keep the birds
and the public apart, using screens and observation hides, so that the
birds remain undisturbed, but the public can still have good views of
them. This means that opportunities for coming into close contact with
either the birds or their droppings are very slight.

You don't really know as much about bird reserves as you pretend or
you are deliberately being misleading. Many bird reserves are located
in places where large numbers of migratory birds arrive from a variety
of sources. The infected swan appears to have been one of them.

The infected swan was not on a reserve, it was in a small harbour. There
was some consideration given to the possibility that it had come from
Montrose Basin (an SWT reserve complete with hides and screened
approaches separating visitors from birds), but that was when it was
thought to be a Mute Swan.

And, as I've already said, the birds and the people are deliberately
separated at reserves which you would know if you had ever visited one.


Not seperated from their droppings.

Separated from the vast majority of their droppings and certainly
unlikely to encounter more than a fraction of the droppings present in
parks and gardens.

Rubbish. People are perhaps given hides etc but the birds can still
access all around them - unless you're telling me the birds are
trained not to crap anywhere near the hides :-))

It is not rubbish, Angus. It is fact.

Really? How are they trained?



Your blatant attempt to suggest that visitors to bird reserves are at
more risk than anywhere else is just plain silly. You haven't got any
evidence to back it up while it is perfectly obvious to those of us who
have personal knowledge of bird reserves, which you admit you lack, that
you are trying, in vain, to promote your own anti-conservation agenda.

It's pretty obvious that the reserves in the East of Scotland are the
most likely to have infected birds - that's why there's an exclusion
zone.

Anywhere and any place is likely to have infected birds, including
poultry farms, town parks and gardens. For you to single out bird
reserves is merely revealing your deepest prejudices.

The reserves have the greatest concentration of wildfowl Poultry
farms in adjoining areas are keeping their birds inside to avoid
contact.


It is also a fact that birds do not s**t where you want thenm to, so
if there was an infected dropping it could easily be stood on by a
small child and later transferred to its hand when removing its shoes.

As can happen in the middle of Glasgow with pigeon droppings, every
garden in the land, and, as I've said, every town or city park.


Sure but the higher risk seems to be from wildfowl from abroad that
congregate in high numbers at reserves.. It is obvious that the
greater the number the more chance the could be some infected.

Not necessarily and anyway

Means probably :-)

negated by the fact that people do not come
into close contact with birds on reserves - this is actually prevented
by screens, banks and hides - whereas they do in town parks and gardens.

See above.

You can argue all you like, but as you haven't ever been inside a
reserve or visited a hide you are not in a position to compare them with
town parks and gardens. On reserves the public and the birds are kept
apart. In parks and gardens, they mix.

But there is not the high density of incomers.

Many swans and ducks are "resident" and local.




So there is a risk at these locations whether you like it or not and
more so where there is a mix of migratory birds and domestic ones.

Nonsense. There are migratory birds in your garden, Angus, mixing with
your hens, ducks and geese (I think you've said you keep them) as well
as in every town and city park in the land.

Any migratory birds in my garden are likely to be swallows or swifts.
Are you saying they would pass on the virus to our ducks and geese
more than geese, ducks or swans infecting wildfowl on reserves?

There is simply not the evidence to be able to say one way or the other.

Good you're getting to the truth. So what I'm saying is that it's
better to stay away from reserves.

I know what you're saying, but it is not based on anything sensible,
just on your prejudices.

It's based on the large consentration of incoming birds.

Wildfowl are clearly susceptible to avian flu but they are large and, in
the case of the swans, white and very visible so their corpses will be
seen and then tested.

Good again. So large flocks of wildfowl are the most likely to be
infected.

No, large flocks of poultry are the most likely to be infected.


Not if they're kept inside and away from those carrying the infection.

A very large number of different types of bird are
known to be capable of being infected by bird flu.

Sure. And it only need a mutation to cause a major outbreak among
humans. By the time you realise you've got it you're nearly dead.

So far, and despite the virus being present in densely populated parts
of China and south-east Asia, no such mutation has taken place. If and
when it does, epidemiologists say that that is the most likely area
where it will happen.



Not necessarily. It could happen anywhere.


Those that die
quickly, as many wildfowl seem to, will actually pass it on less than
those that survive to become carriers.


If that's so why hasn't bird flue died out amongst wildfowl?

Because new birds get infected from, e.g., poultry.


Not logical. Try again :-)




Whether I have been to a reserve or not is irrevelant but I certaily
wouldn't want to take a small child there now. Safer to keep away.

Which is a silly statement based on admitted ignorance. Are you going to
advise that every child be prevented from playing in a park or in their
garden? The risk, such as it is, which is virtually nil, is actually
greater than visiting a reserve.

The risk in areas where the virus has been found must be significant
or you wouldn't have people running about in white overalls and masks.

That is just taking sensible precautions, doubtless insisted upon by the
H&S Executive.

It is also a sensible precaution not to visit bird reserves.

No, it isn't. That's just your prejudiced view and it is clearly a
ridiculous one given that people can come into much closer contact with
wild birds and their droppings in many other places.


Not in the same concentration and of those likely to be infected.

In order to give you the sense of proportion which you
appear to lack, even though the flu has been present in China for at
least the last eight years, and subsequently in densely populated areas
of south-east Asia, the number of human cases stands at 193 of which 109
resulted in death.



So what you're saying is there's nothing to worry about? Why all the
fuss then? Better to ignore it.

Your reasoning is as fake as your "conservation".

No, I'm not saying that.

Good. Then it shouldn't be ignored. And that's my very point. Stay
away from the large numbers of incoming birds that could be infected.

I'm merely trying to convey some facts to you,
even though there is clearly little point because what you are saying is
governed by your prejudices.


You're not conveying any facts.



I suppose you don't care what risk there is as long as the visitors
roll in:-(

I see no reason to suggest to visitors that they should not visit
reserves, as there is no more risk to them there than anywhere else,
and, indeed, a great deal less than any much more frequented locations.

Like where?

Like town and city parks, as I've already said.

Where in general you'll find only a few incomers if at all.

You are, once more, ignorant of the true facts.


I'm saying there's an increased risk in going to places where large
numbers of incoming w2ildfowl are present.


And vastly less than for someone working with poultry.

Why poultry specifically?

Do you really not know? You read newspapers so it is impossible for you
to be ignorant of why someone working with poultry is at greater risk
than anyone else.


I'm asking you.

Read the newspapers.


I have. But I'm still asking you.


If you keep
ducks, geese and poultry, you're at greater risk than any visitor to a
bird reserve, even though that risk is extremely small even among people
who come into close contact with poultry and virtually non-existent
among people who might casually step in a dropping or even put it in
their mouth, as a child might.


Are you saying there's no risk to a child putting an infected faeces
in its mouth?

I'm saying that any risk is virtually non-existent.

Let's get this clear. I asked you if there's no risk to a child
putting an infected faeces in its mouth. and you are saying that any
risk is virtually non-existent. That is a startling revelation.
Perhaps Ross Finnie would welcome your opinion.

Perhaps he's already had it.


Really? Did he ask you personnaly?


All the human cases
that I've read about have been through very close contact with infected
birds, in particularly through inhaling dust n places where chickens are
kept.


Agreed - so far but the risk is impossible to quantify and could
become a pandemic - unless you know differently.

There is a chance it could become a pandemic, or so experts have been
telling us. If it does, then it is most likely to start in places where
people live in close contact with poultry, e.g. in China and south-east
Asia.


It could start anywhere.




You might, but of course you didn't because it didn't fit your agenda,
have drawn attention to the much greater, indeed almost inevitable,
opportunities for coming into close contact with both birds and their
droppings by people feeding the birds in city and town parks. Those
parks with lakes will have often large numbers of ducks, geese and swans
which will take food from peoples' hands and whose droppings litter the
paths and grass.

Sure there's a risk but probably much less than a reserve for the
above reasons.

No, Angus, because migratory birds visit town park lakes and become tame
enough to be hand fed and to walk around, and drop their droppings, on
paths and grass played on by children.


Perhaps people should avoid them as well.

Ah, I detect a shift in your attitude, Angus. Well done! You started off
by just highlighting bird reserves, because that fitted with your warped
agenda. With great reluctance and much questioning, you have now
accepted that there are other places where the public actually do come
into close contact with birds, unlike on reserves.


No shift in attitude. Just a sensible precaution. But the vast
numbers of incoming wildfowl on reserves are more likely to be a pool
of infection.

There is no evidence whatsoever for that claim. You are making it based
on prejudice and not fact.


It is a sensible precaution.



I hope none of the buildings you own have a sparrow or pigeon problem.

No more so than the Scottish Parliament :-))

I'll take that as a 'yes', then :-)

If I was a parent of a young child I would want to minimise the risk
of infection and would avoid contact with all birds in areas where
there is likely to be infection. Vane Farm and Montrose Basin
immediately spring to mind.

But that's only because you are working to a particularly warped agenda.
At neither place do the public come into close contact with either the
birds or their droppings, completely unlike town parks and gardens.

See above why that is not the case.

You may claim it is not the case, but you are wrong, as I have pointed
out.


I don't accept that. You are prejudiced about keeping reserves open
so the operators don't lose money.



Of course fake conservationists will play down the risk; they don't
want to lose money :-(

Of course, the greatest fake of them all, you, will try and grossly
exaggerate the risk while ignoring locations like your own garden, or
town parks which are visited by vastly more people than reserves and
where birds are regularly fed by hand and regularly crap over the paths
and grass.

Again, see above why that is not the case.

You may claim it is not the case, but you are wrong, as I have pointed
out.

See above.


I wonder if people are at risk from the crap you regularly spout on this
ng :-)

What undermines your crap is that I don't have an exclusion zone
around my garden whereas reserves like Montrose Basin and Vane Farm
are within an area that infection has been found.

So what if they are within the exclusion zone. No infected bird has been
found at either reserve.

I believe to encourage people to bird reserves in this area is
irresponsible and that people should stay away if they have any sense.

No, you are merely trying to twist facts to your own anti-conservation
agenda. No-one expects any less of you, but it doesn't make anything
you've claimed true.

It's a sensible precaution not to visit bird reserves in areas where
there is known infection.


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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Would you risk your childs life?
    ... you would quickly realise that reserves are designed to keep the birds ... more risk than anywhere else is just plain silly. ... of infection and would avoid contact with all birds in areas where ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Would you risk your childs life?
    ... you would quickly realise that reserves are designed to keep the birds ... The risk, such as it is, which is virtually nil, is actually ... there is likely to be infection. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Highland Show cancels bird evebt
    ... I cannot see why the reserves are not taking precautionary to shut ... If you tell us your risk assessment we will be able to see exactly how ... "You can still feed wild birds and ducks, but make sure that you wash ... See my response to Dr Thick ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Angus Macmillans stupidity
    ... migrant birds congregate and if I was the parent of a small child I ... people occurs every day whereas on bird reserves direct contact between ... based not on any perceived risk of flu but on your silly vendetta ... infection could be present among large numbers of migratory birds. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Yet another "experts" opinion
    ... "Perfectly legal shooting of accepted quarry species which have ... The wildfowlers know that there will be plenty of birds ... if they run reserves. ... It can be an excellent way of protecting birds when a shooting club's ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)