Re: Unambiguous definition?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:30:30 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <5fgfp3dva2558hfgu8ckkngrc8sb8dfg5o@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:13:05 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <c31fp3577utgpstgn2a055gnqvdi16m5ed@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:35:10 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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.

Nonsense. They haven't evolved in the UK.

So what? They have evolved to be adaptable, including in the UK.

So have grey squirrels - much better than reds.

And become a pest. Did you hear the debate in the House of Lords
yesterday about them with the mention of the success there's been in
controlling them in Northumberland?


That's a completely different issue to whether adaptability of
introductions is a measure of nativeness. Indeed, the perceived need
by fake conservationists to kill greys that are very successful shows
that your argument has no value whatsoever. Animals introduced from
other countries are not "native" to this environment and the idea that
a paper classification makes them so is no less than a fraudulent
claim. But what else can we expect from fakes out to line their own
pockets by creating substance where there is none.



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.

I understand perfectly that what you're saying is that it doesn't
matter where they've evolved.

Duh! Your lack of understanding really does show you up, Angus.


No answer, I see. Thought not.

I see that you can't even recognise an answer now.


I can recognise an answer that doesn't give one relevant to the issue.



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.

Sure we are. But you can't re-establish animals that have not been
established here in the first place. They've been established and
evolved elsewhere.

Your lack of understanding just shows you up, Angus.


No answer, I see. Thought not.

I see that you can't even recognise an answer now.

I can recognise an answer that doesn't give one relevant to the issue.



All the species concerned can be seen to be
very adaptable (through evolution, naturally) to a wide range of
environmental conditions.

Rubbish. Adaptability has nothing to do with evolution. Ask any grey
squirrel :-))

That claim, that adaptability has nothing to do with evolution is about
the clearest demonstration that you don't understand what you are
talking about that you could have possibly given. Sadly for you, your
lack of understanding means that you probably won't ever realise why.

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.

Different populations in different environments.

Showing massive adaptability.

But nothing to do with evolving in the UK.

You just don't want to even try and understand, do you?

I'm not going to be conned by your rubbish Adaptability is as much
prevalent in what you call non-natives as your fake "native"
introductions. They have not born or evolved in this country so are
not native individuals. The whole concept is a laugh that's screwing
money out of the taxpayer. You're taking the public for a ride.


What a load of trash you lot come up with.

Not compared with you.

It's not me who's conning the public.





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?


They don't need to be compared. You have already admitted they are
different. Are you now saying they're not?

So you haven't ever been to the Norwegian coast. How unsurprising that
you write as if you are knowledgeable about it.


I don't need to have been to Norway.


Thank you for confirming that you don't know what you are talking about.

Rubbish. One doesn't need to travel to any country to know it's
environment is different. That information is freely available.








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.


Adaptability has nothing to do with being native. What I understand
is that your nativeness is complete nonsense. You end up arguing
against yourself and what I point that out you say I don't understand
:-))

Adaptability has everything to do with the ability of the species to be
re-established in the UK.



But adaptability has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's a
so-called native species or otherwise. Just look at the grey squirrel
. There cannot be a much more adaptable animal than that.

We were discussing re-establishing populations in this country and you
were complaining that the species involved wouldn't be the same as those
that were in the first place.

We're discussing introductions of animals that have evolved in other
countries and being falsely claimed as "native" to Britain and do not
meet your own criteria for nativeness in terms of having evolved here.
Species is only a paper classification and has not what is being
introduced.








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.


Not according to what I've been told.

Well, it is according to what I've read and been told.

So you don't know first hand? Just like I've not been to Norway.

You're a fraud, Malcolm - and not a very good one.

Then so are you, only worse, as you very obviously don't have first hand
knowledge of the red squirrel becoming extinct, not least because they
didn't.


Are you saying the Forestry Commission lied?






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.


But the birds have evolved for thousands of years in a different
environment and not in this country and you have the cheek to call
them native to the UK What rubbish!

The species is native to the UK, Angus.

"Species" is only a paper classification. It's the animals that are
introduced and they are not native to this country by your own
argument. They have evolved elsewhere.

The species is the classification that matters, Angus. Get used to it.


But it's not the classification that's being introduced; it's real
live animals that have not evolved in this country and cannot be
native - by your own argument.

This is just you trying to say
that individuals are somehow not the same as the species they
belong to. This just shows up your lack of understanding,


It shows and understanding considerably better than yours - and I'm
not a so-called expert.

No, sadly, you don't understand.


I understand perfectly that the so-called conservationists are
deceiving the public by introducing animals that have evolved
elsewhere and claiming they are native to this country.





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.

I couldn't care less either. It wasn't me who brought it up. It seems
you care more than me :-))

I think it only right to remind readers where you are coming from and
that you have a history of trying to make words mean something other
than their accepted meanings.

Well, these meanings are frequently used by the media and people
understand them perfectly well.

The purpose of the court case brought against me by the Woodland Trust
was to get the establishment to shut me up and it failed dismally.

I just love how defensive you get every time it is mentioned :-)

Quite the reverse. I don't need to be defensive. It shows how
defensive the Woodland Trust is about killing wildlife and over time
they have been the losers.

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 ... 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?
    ... 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: Not so "native" introductions
    ... One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is ... environment and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive ... 'nativeness' being invalidated by human 'assistance'. ... I have no objection to anybody conserving anything but I strongly ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
Quantcast