Re: Unambiguous definition?


In article <44qep35tktuf50t48231hpdfar2f1cm1kb@xxxxxxx>, amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
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:

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.

Of course it is 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.

No, Angus, I haven't, because your understanding of the environment and evolution is so limited.

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

Nonsense. We are discussing a very small number of species which, having become either very rare or extinct in the UK, have been either boosted or re-established by bringing in small numbers of the same species from elsewhere in their range. All the species concerned can be seen to be very adaptable (through evolution, naturally) to a wide range of environmental conditions. Why are you finding it so difficult to understand that because the white-tailed eagle thrives in the Mediterranean area as well as north of the arctic circle this demonstrates that it has evolved to be highly adaptable. The conditions between the west coast of Norway and the west coast of Scotland differ hardly at all compared with those between the Mediterranean and the arctic. Have you ever been to the areas of the Norwegian coast where the WTEs came from?




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.

Of *course* it does. Please do at least *try* to understand some basic facts about wildlife.






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 still some left here.



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.

The species evolved here and then, in the case of the WTE, though not the red squirrel, died out. The species is now established again as a native breeder.




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, no-one could care less that you keep on claiming "but I wasn't wrong". No-one would expect anything different from you, for the reasons I've given. You've just reinforced what I said.

--
Malcolm
.

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?
    ... species native to the UK are regarded as those that have ... selected for our environment, that is our climates, soils and land use. ... that native species must evolve within their own ... There have always been red squirrels here since the ...
    (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. ... The white-tailed eagles in Norway are living in the same environment as ... birds brought from Norway are flourishing" explains nothing and was ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)