Re: Whats the difference?

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:17:36 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <ephbe4pj8u6hpu4bi50uhomha7gqfamego@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

The RBPB claim they are responsible for 6000 visitors going to Islay

To put that in perspective, the total number of visitors to Islay is
around 55000/annum

Perspective has nothing to do with it. The RSPB claim responsibility
for 6000.


What makes them British? Grey squirrels are breeding here
successfully and are classed as "aliens"


Because they were introduced from North America and have become a
serious threat to a native species, i.e. the red squirrel

One of the key criteria for determining if a species is "native" is
that it should have evolved with all other species within its own
ecosystem and not have been introduced or assisted by man to arrive at
what is regarded as its natural location. In short, it should have
got to where it is by its own efforts and evolved naturally.

However, the word "species" is only a descriptive term within a
man-made classification system, so it is ridiculous for
conservationists to latch the adjective "native" onto a
classification, when in the real world it should relate to actual
animals that have been born and bred in a location to which their
native standing rightfully applies.

If it is important to conservationists that a species evolves
naturally in Britain to earn its "native species" status here, then it
should be equally important that the same species evolving in a
different natural environment abroad, should not be regarded as
"native" to this country.

So it is completely false to claim just because a "species" exists in
other parts of the world as well as in Britain, that overseas animals
can be regarded as "native" if "reintroduced" to this country. Indeed,
the word "reintroduced" compounds the fallacy by implying they were
"introduced" previously - which in conservation speak would have made
them "aliens".

An example of this is the red squirrel, which has a range stretching
from Northern Europe to China. However, it takes an enormous stretch
of one's imagination to regard red squirrels anywhere from here to
China, as being native to one particular location. These animals have
evolved within a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions
and associated with different flora and fauna encountered across the
part of the range they inhabit. For conservationists to argue that
any of these influences are not important is to argue against their
own concept of "native species".

Ancestors of the current population of red squirrels in the UK have
been largely introduced (reintroduced?) from various parts of Europe,
following their virtual extermination by those with forestry interests
who regarded them as "tree rats" that damaged trees - a term now being
used, just as unfairly, to demonise grey squirrels in the eyes of the
general public.

As a result, both populations of squirrels, red and grey, have been
introduced to this country and there is no conclusive evidence that
even the earlier red squirrels evolved here continuously from the time
of the land bridge to Europe around 10,000 years ago.

Conservationists claiming animals including birds "reintroduced" to
this country are "native" because the species existed here in the past
are deceiving the public.

Truth is, most animals including birds being introduced or protected
by so-called conservationists and government agencies are being
exploited for their economic value to tourism - which in itself is one
of the most damaging activities of our time and substantially
contributes to the destruction of the natural environment they are
claiming to protect.

Grey squirrels being slaughtered in their thousands are victims of an
agenda of greed and falsehoods.




None whatsoever.

Why ask a question is you intend to answer it?

Well, you answer it.

I have expansion of range making the species safer from extinction and
righting the historical wrong of making them extinct (sorry you don't
like euphamisms killing them) in the first place.


You could say that about all species

And they're being introduced into a changed environment.

I have explained to you before, but you have obviously ignored because
it doesn't fit your agenda, that re-introductions such as that the
White-tailed Eagle and the Red Kite are carried out after a detailed set
of internationally agreed criteria have been satisfied, and that
includes that the environment into which they are being released is
suitable for them whether changed from the past or not.


Internationally agreed by conservationists on the make and accepted by
gullible politicians.

Ecosystems
don't stay the same just to accommodate introductions centuries later.

Well done. You rightly say that "ecosystems don't stay the same".

So you know that? That surprises me.

Perhaps in the light of that correct assessment you would care to
identify any ecosystems in which the birds currently breed (particularly
in those countries from which they are being brought over to Britain to
be released) which are identical to the ecosystems which existed
centuries ago. Hint: you won't be able to, because the birds are being
brought from the 21st century ecosystems where they are successfully
living which means that they are equally likely to successfully live in
the same 21st century ecosystems in this country.

You disappoint me. I was beginning to think you knew about these
things and you don't. Ecosystems change in different places. They
don't stay in parallel lines. Silly boy :-)

How nice to see you say something which completely destroys your
argument :-)



I think as usual it is you who has done this:-))







 They
are objects of fascination only.and their presense is marketed to the
travelling public.

I am a long way from Scotland but can you tell me, as you appear to
know) how many viewing points there are for the eagles and how much is
charged for admission?

The RSPB make money out of these projects from publicity which makes
people think it's beneficial.

Again I am not sure but I think the re-introduction is not being done
by the RSPB although I think they support it. Are you telling me
other organisations are doing it for the good of the RSPB at no
charge?

They're partners in the introduction.

Indeed they are. Well done for being correct yet again.

It is being done by the RSPB if they are partners



How do the RSPB make money from them? I assume as you haven't told me
you know of no viewing points and no charges to see them It seems the
statement about the RSPB making money out of them is at best a
sweeping statement and at worst probably down right wrong. Please
tell me how they make this money.


They make money from their publicising reserves which charge for non
members provide visitor facilities and sell binoculars etc.

Ah, a Macmillan sweeping statement. Please tell us exactly how many of
the RSPB's more than 200 reserves they charge entrance money for.

Probably the ones where they have the most visitors and makes it
worthwhile. This is why questions like you ask should be available to
the public under FoI legislation.






In fact, I would question that the very existence of the RSPB
operationally has any value in conserving finite resources on which
all species depend.  

I was under the impression (perhaps I am wrong that there reason for
being there was to preserve bird species and as a spin off all
nature.  

Is that what they say in their objectives?

I don't know but I am sure they probably don't mention preserving
finite resources.

Nor do they "protect" all species of birds.

Where in their Charter or publications does it state that they have to
protect "all" birds?


Ok Lets look at what it's stated objectives are:

_____________


The Objects of the Society shall be:

a) To conserve wild birds and the wider environment on which wild
birds depend, maintaining bird numbers, diversity and natural
geographic distribution.

b) To conserve natural and semi-natural habitats and to re-create
habitats.

c) To encourage others to practise the conservation of wild birds and
habitats.

d) To promote knowledge of conservation through education and
research.


In pursuing these Objects the Society shall undertake activities in
our United Kingdom, in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and
anywhere else in the world and by so doing seek to persuade the public
not only that the beauty of birds and nature enriches the lives of
many people but also that nature conservation is fundamental to a
healthy environment upon which the survival of the human race depends.

The Society shall take no part in the question of the killing of game
birds and legitimate sport of that character except when such
practices have an impact on the Objects of the Society.


________________


From above:

(a) Wild birds are not conserved by allowing them to be shot on RSPB
reserves. No mention of "species" or "populations". Wild birds are
individuals.

(b) No mention of the methods used such as killing wild birds and
other wildlife.

(c) No mention of encouraging people to damage the natural environment
and undermine the natural environment on which birds depend by
promoting travel.

(d) If they are to promote knowledge of conservation they should be
educating people that travelling is undermining the natural
environment on which birds and all other species depend.

The Royals probably got them to insert the last paragraph but they do
say "except when such practices have an impact on the Objects of the
Society" Well, the shooting of wild birds such as duck and geese
impact on (a) of their objectives. So they should very much take a
part in opposing this practice.


The Nazis killed humans for the same reason as the conservationists -
to benefit those they preferred.

Dear H.lantus

You will note that Macmillan has an obsession with the Nazis and invokes
them whenever he runs out of arguments.


Not at all, as you will see from above.

The principle is the same.

Killing for the benefit of the chosen.


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

  • An international conservation group launched an ambitious plan Thursday to raise tens of millions of
    ... Group launches plan to save 189 birds ... for what it is dubbing the Species Champions initiative. ... "Critically endangered birds can be saved from extinction through this ... "We all have a negative impact on the environment, ...
    (soc.culture.cambodia)
  • Re: Eponymy rules OK ...
    ... I imagine that birds in general will cope more easily than humans. ... Most species of birds have been reduced in numbers by human ... probably the conservationists don't think they have to warn people ... there will be fewer than ten bird species left in Europe. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Eponymy rules OK ...
    ... British conservationists warned ... effects of global warming on human behaviour. ... assertion that birds have been reduced in numbers by human activity, ... diversity of bird species". ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Eponymy rules OK ...
    ... I imagine that birds in general will cope more easily than humans. ... Most species of birds have been reduced in numbers by human ... probably the conservationists don't think they have to warn people ... What I meant was that a higher mean temperature wouldn't necessarily be ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Eponymy rules OK ...
    ... birds by wrecking their habitat, ... effects of global warming on human behaviour. ... probably the conservationists don't think they have to warn people ... species, surely? ...
    (alt.usage.english)