Re: Unambiguous definition?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:24:31 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <ba6ep35nk77kk28qd3k7d2o72etdu0g3sb@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:05 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <i5vdp3ph62r6pjteplv140k2f2qh4n8e2r@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:27:47 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <d3vcp3h7tafjvqrdaadorde6emuaib305j@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:33 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <23kcp3ps6oonjqk76gugh3o0l9aq7urob5@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT), Robert Seago
<rjseago@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <u8bap31d2epeari5g71e801i0h3sf3nri2@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Anyone care to give an unambiguous definition of "native species"?


Conventionally, species native to the UK are regarded as those that have
arrived here since the last ice age without human assistance.

This is the generally accepted convention.

The rationale behind it, and the reason that I concur with it is
that, the
heritage in Britain that we have is composed of species which have been
selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use.

I thought that's what it might be . So what about those (re)introduced
from foreign countries by so-called conservationists with different
climates, soils and land use? Red squirrel and beavers for instance.

Red squirrels never died out in the UK, so what happened was not a
reintroduction but the boosting of an existing population, the same as
with Red Kites.

Where did you come to that conclusion?

Here.


Thought it had no credibility.

I'm not interested in what you *think* about it, Angus, only in your
evidence that the red squirrel died out in the UK, so please produce it.

The Forestry Commission produced it - not me.

Did they? Then I would disagree with them.


As you have been told more than once, all modern reintroductions follow
internationally agreed guidelines which govern both the suitability of
the source population as well as the conditions in the reintroduction
locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils,
land use, food availability, etc., etc.

That doesn't make them indigenous to where they are introduced.

The species was indigenous to the area, died out and was re-established.
The species is therefore indigenous.

They
have evolved in entirely different environments.

The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as
the west of Scotland, which explains why the birds brought from Norway
are flourishing.

No they're not. Norway has a different environment to Scotland,
different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a
different climate. So the WTEs have evolved in a different
environment which completely undermines your argument that native
species should evolve within their own environment for thousands of
years.

I'm afraid that your lack of knowledge about white-tailed eagles is
letting you down and allowing you to make ill-informed statements such
as the above. Please indicate the differences in the environment between
western coastal Norway and western coastal Scotland which you believe
are important in support of your claims.

Colder climate. Different species affecting the environment in which
the WHT has evolved.

That might, but only might, apply if the WTE was a species which was
completely unable to adapt in even minor ways to its environment and
only occurred on the Norway coast. However, it doesn't apply because the
WTE occurs from the Mediterranean to well above the arctic circle and
from the Atlantic to the Pacific and so is clearly highly adaptable and
perfectly suited to be moved from Norway to Scotland, which share a
great many environmental characteristics.


But the fact it can adapt is not the point.

Each of the above populations have evolved in different
environments.and not in the UK. You've argued many times
that native species must evolve within their own
ecosystem/environment.

If not, then you whole idea of a species being native because it
evolves with its own environment over thousands of years is fake.




You are your kind are a bunch of opportunists - you make it up as you
go along. And you can't even agree among yourselves; hence you
disagree with some of the definitions of "native species"

The whole concept is just too ridiculous and has nothing to do with
scientific facts. It's to do with exploiting these birds for
tourism.- nothing more.

I don't expect you to either understand or accept the concept of
reintroducing species that man has driven to extinction or
near-extinction.

Not from foreign countries where the environment is different. By your
own argument this shows up the fraudulent concept of introductions.

Once more you have shown the concept to be garbage.

See above about adaptation. It appears that you know nothing about it
which leads you to make untenable statements such as the above.

Quite the opposite, Malcolm. A very real and pertinent statement.

Adaptation has nothing to do with it.






And you could say
the same about grey squirrels that "the conditions in the
reintroduction locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of
climate, soils, land use, food availability, etc., etc.

No, you couldn't. Grey squirrels were *introduced* here.

So were reds.

So what?

So they were introduced.

A small number from Scandinavia are recorded as having been released at
Dunkeld in the 19th century.


So they were introduced after being shot to oblivion.



There were no grey squirrels here until man introduced them
from North America. There have always been red squirrels here since the
last Ice Age.


Even if that were true, which there is little or no evidence to
support it, red squirrels form Scandinavia have not been here for
thousands of years. They evolved in a different environment and were
introduced by man here later than the greys.

See above about adaptation. You seem to think that the "environment" is
completely different in different places and therefore the animals of
the same species in the two places will be completely different. Neither
belief is correct.


It doesn't matter whether they're different or not. They're not
"native" by your own argument - they have not evolved here.




And you can't re-introduce something if it wasn't introduced in the
first place.

You are, as is your wont, trying to alter the accepted meaning of the
word.


Another basic flaw in the thinking of the fakes. What did I say about
the dregs of academia being in your industry? They spout before they
think!

Sloppy terminology backing up sloppy science.

No, Angus, just you practising your well-recorded ability to change the
meanings of words. I seem to recall that you tried and failed to
convince a judge to accept your meaning over the accepted one.

I stand by everything I said which is all recorded on Google and the
term I used is used frequently to describe the killing of wildlife in
national newspapers. But it's made little difference to me or my
websites :-))

Of course you stand by it, Angus. You would hate to lose face by
admitting you were wrong even though you lost the court case. We all
understand that.

But I wasn't wrong and I believe at least one witness committed
perjury by lying at the hearing.

However, as it made little difference to me, I saw no point in taking
the matter back to court.


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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unambiguous definition?
    ... Norway has a different environment to Scotland, ... different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a ... that native species must evolve within their own ... is that your nativeness is complete nonsense. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Unambiguous definition?
    ... Norway has a different environment to Scotland, ... different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a ... that native species must evolve within their own ... that adaptability has nothing to do with evolution is about ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Unambiguous definition?
    ... Norway has a different environment to Scotland, ... different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a ... that native species must evolve within their own ... is that your nativeness is complete nonsense. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Unambiguous definition?
    ... which explains why the birds brought from Norway ... different species regarded as native by fake conservationists and a ... environment which completely undermines your argument that native ... that native species must evolve within their own ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Unambiguous definition?
    ... species native to the UK are regarded as those that have ... selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use. ... locality to make sure that it is suitable in terms of climate, soils, ... There have always been red squirrels here since the ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)