Re: More fake conservation!
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 20:25:42 +0100
On Sun, 7 May 2006 10:54:30 +0100, "BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:glgn52p1lq7ad5pllr8pvfghqklqc83uft@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 5 May 2006 20:05:05 +0100, "BAC" <casswalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>the
wrote:
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ff1n52hbt5tpntnef1f3eu7opstp90esq4@xxxxxxxxxx
The shooting of "Sammy" the seal in the River Annan was another
example of fake conservation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/4976170.stm
The whole conservation movement is all about money.
The whole conservation movement didn't have this creature shot, it was
fishery manager what did it, Guv!
I agree, but the other so-called conservationists kill for much the
same reason.
Some people/groups involved in conservation kill unwanted animals which they
believe to be prejudicing their chances of achieving their aims, yes, that's
common knowledge, I think. It's the claim the're all motivated by money I
was disagreeing with.
I think most of them are motivated by money either directly or
indirectly. There seems to be a particular breed of person in these
organisations that is prepared to live off state handouts and
donations to further their ideals and I've noticed the same names pop
up in frequently in their parasitical career moves.
keepering,
Knowing how unpopular that would be with
the public, you can't blame him for trying to make it respectable by
claiming a 'noble' conservation motive, but it was probably just
or pest control.
That's why it's a fake as the rest of them.
If the real reason the seal was shot was fishery protection (as is the case,
say, when cormorants are shot under license by fishing clubs trying to
maintain fish stocks in their waters) then it might be stretching the truth
somewhat to describe it as a 'conservation' measure.
Yes.
Assuming 'conservation'
to have the 'nature conservation' meaning we normally discuss on this ng -
which the chap's likening his decision to RSPB fox killing would seem to
imply was what he intended.
It would seem that way.
Every salmon he killed was one less chance of sport for the
rod and line anglers, who are having a thin time of it as it is.
The thinner the better.
Not to people partly or wholly reliant on the income generated by
exploitation of the salmon fishing. The anglers arent allowed to keep any
spring run salmon caught as it is. If they believe the spring run isn't
worth the effort of wetting a line for, they'll go elsewhere.
Sure, but the seal should have just as much a right to catch salmon as
the anglers. It also begs the question of why the number of salmon
has depleted presumably before the seal arrived on the scene.
actually
The Annan's salmon stock must be in a perilous state indeed if the
depredations of a single juvenile grey seal (a native species fwiw)
relatives,threatens its survival. His mistake, of course, was to be seen eating the
fish, instead of tucking in to them beyond the estuary, like his
out of sight and out of mind.
Yes. One doesn't get punished for committing a "crime"; one gets
punished for being caught.
Otters used to be persecuted by some landowners because they saw them as
competitors for their game fish. Otters are found in the Annan catchment,
and, presumably, are protected from the seal's fate.
Which is unfair to individuals just because they don't belong to an
endangered species.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.
- References:
- More fake conservation!
- From: amacmil304
- Re: More fake conservation!
- From: BAC
- Re: More fake conservation!
- From: amacmil304
- Re: More fake conservation!
- From: BAC
- More fake conservation!
- Prev by Date: Re: Errors and untruths in letter about bird flu
- Next by Date: Re: Errors and untruths in letter about bird flu
- Previous by thread: Re: More fake conservation!
- Next by thread: Re: More fake conservation!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
