Re: Water vole restoration

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:53:40 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <BtoagBCDiWuEFw5y@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In message <e6nib2tsoi3qgehmsr0ct156vro3i0vlvc@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:49:10 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <ZphcxvAnRSuEFwa6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In message <e08hb21gb3i6rdk8k2fin45itg1d97tr9j@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

A river without mink is of benefit to far more than just water voles.
The GCT has done considerable research into controlling mink, which are
serious predators of fish and game as well as of water voles. They also
have expertise in wildlife habitat management, including of rivers,
because of their research interests in brown trout. They've put the two
together to the benefit of water voles.

Now the truth's coming out.

I doubt that anyone other than you didn't understand in the first place.


They GCT did it so they could protect the animals they want to kill
before anything else gets them :-(

Obviously they are a legitimate organisation for the hunting of game.


Not much to do with water voles.

The voles are a good indicator and benefit from the activities of the
GCT. Do you object to that?

It's very obvious from Angus's comment "Now the truth's coming out" that
he was, as is usual for him, in a state of total ignorance, this time
about what the GCT does and why. He seems to have been trying to imply
that the facts of the GCT's work on improving riverine habitats and
water vole restoration was somehow being suppressed before I posted
about it. Well, he was, again as usual, completely wrong. The "truth",
as he calls it, as been "out" to anyone who can read what's written on a
website. Everything I posted has long been in the public domain for
those with the wit to find it and, of course, the ability to understand
it, which is not Angus's strong point.


On the contrary. no mention of the underlying reasons here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/5130908.stm

That is not the point Angus. The BBC are reporting on an improvement
for voles not on an organisation and its aims/activities. They assume
(obviously wrongly in your case ) that those following the report
either know about the GTC, or can find out about it if they wish.

I see that it isn't just a question of Angus being unable to read or
understand a website, it's a question of him not being able to even find
the blatantly obvious website where the information is displayed :-(


As usual, Dr T is clutching at straws :-))

Is this where he tells me to f*** off ?



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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Water vole restoration
    ... A river without mink is of benefit to far more than just water voles. ... The GCT has done considerable research into controlling mink, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Water vole restoration
    ... A river without mink is of benefit to far more than just water voles. ... The GCT has done considerable research into controlling mink, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Water vole restoration
    ... A river without mink is of benefit to far more than just water voles. ... The GCT has done considerable research into controlling mink, ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Water vole restoration
    ... A river without mink is of benefit to far more than just water voles. ... The GCT has done considerable research into controlling mink, ... The voles are a good indicator and benefit from the activities of the GCT. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Water vole restoration
    ... I see that Angus's alternative to getting rid of mink in order to safely ... reintroduce voles to that location. ... introducing the water voles to the R.Dore. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)