Re: When was indigenous red squirrel fur used in medieval Britain?

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:34:33 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <ohv1i5pqeflonbb140q2n7h2nj7gl3t5to@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:26:12 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <uec1i5pucecssu46oimsec1cpjsfo79e16@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:30:20 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <bp70i5p7scva3c219gdjqsi6ag3q0anob8@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:35:36 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <l2kvh5pja45t1bpunevt5mcr6vqeuep6cf@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:35:56 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <ghpuh5l6gg1gifji4fju5rcekq3vc3vfa4@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

Can I quote you on this in a letter to SNH?

Quote what?

That where animals evolve makes no difference.

Why has there been so many failures of the capercaillie?

What????

Please produce your evidence of the "many failures" in the
reintroduction of the capercaillie.

1837,1959,1968, all got nowhere and 1975 onwards seems a bit of a
disaster as well. Fewer than 1000 birds?

Are you claiming that the capercaillie has become extinct since the 1837
reintroduction? When did that happen?

Capercallies have never been "extinct". I understand they reached the
stage where they were no longer established or greatly depleted prior
to the most recent introduction.

You claimed there have been "many failures". Now you don't seem to be
able to give me any details. How unsurprising.


So far all introductions seem to have failed in one way or another.

A failure suggests that there are no capercaillies surviving from the
reintroduction.

Garbage.

You are claiming that they have *all* failed, yet at the
last count there were nearly 2,000 of capercaillies in Scotland which
cannot be classed as a "failure". You appear to be having problems with
the meanings of words again :-(


Had they not almost disappeared before the most recent introduction?


Sure, but that doesn't meant that individuals all evolve in the same
environment.

What point are you trying to make?


You made it yourself the other day. They evolve to suit their
environment.

Are you claiming that red squirrels reintroduced into Britain have been
unable to "evolve to suit their environment"?

They haven't been here long enough to determine that. The fact that
they are dying out in places could show that they are ill-equipped to
stay here.

Or it could show that they are being outcompeted by the grey squirrel
and also dying from the pox caught from the grey squirrels.

So you don't know.

I know which
I, and everyone else who is knowledgeable on the subject, believe is the
case, and it isn't your less than credible straw-clutching.

"believe is the case" :-((

Slippery qualifier alert!


I didn't say that. How about lay terms?

For anyone who claims to know something about squirrels to the extent of
running a website about them, they are lay terms. Seems you don't know
anything.


So you don't know enough about it to translate it into words that
everyon would know. Thought not.

You can think what you like - it is very rarely worth knowing about. I
understand that paragraph, but then I actually know something about
animals and their genetics and can understand what I read in a standard
work on British mammals.

Not everyone can. And if you're writing in a public forum you should
appreciate that.

I have quoted you from the standard work on British mammals. Try
learning something new for a change instead of whinging about not
understanding some straightforward sentences about squirrel genetics.
You've set yourself up as knowing lots about squirrels - complete with
website. It appears that you don't.

See what I wrote above. "everyone" is not me.





Are you ever going to learn to gain some knowledge about a subject
BEFORE you start making claims about it?


Seems you do it all the time.

Apparently not.


You've been a so-called conservationist for all your life and you
still can't answer the question; is man part of nature?

Read the SNH website.

I have, and they don't count man as part of nature.

But you do. So what?

Of course I count man as part of nature. Do you not?

Yes, you count man as part of nature so that you can claim that the
bringing of grey squirrels from America to Britain was a "natural" act.

Why is it not as natural an act as that by any other species?

Well, that's rubbish.


Not in the slighest.


He also said, "There is no longer a ?native? red squirrel due to the
frequent introductions from Europe and habitat defragmentation which
has allowed gene flow between previously sub-divided populations."

Both can't be right.

Where and when did he say that?


Do your own research.

So you don't know. Thought not.



I wouldn't have quoted it if I didn't know.

Since he's you pal, why not ask him.

I don't need to. I've asked you and you haven't been able to produce any
information about it. Didn't think you could.


You can look it up just as I did.

Or were you just pretending you
know him?

You can think what you like, it is of no consequence. You might though,
get a clue from where he is now Professor.


But would he want to know you?


See above.

Nothing to see.



Plenty. As I said, do your own research.

So you don't know. Thought not.

See above.

Nothing above. You don't know.

Plenty above.



Do your own research. I'll give you a hint. They're in a report.

Seems that the "report" is now out of date. The definitive work on
British mammals doesn't seem to agree.


What he's said is not something that can change.

If he has said before that the red squirrel is not native and is now
saying that it is, then that is change.

But not the established reason behind it.

The "reason" is that this is the standard work on British mammals and it
states for all species whether they are native or introduced. Thus,
under grey squirrel, it states: "Native to NE America. Introduced to GB
and Ireland, as well as N Italy, S Africa, Australiasia." So nothing
there to back up your fatuous idea that squirrels born in Britain are
"native".

Well it's wrong then. It's presenting anthropocentric prejudice as
science and ignoring the fact that the activities of man is part of
nature.


If they're the ones that originated "reintroduction" for
"re-establish" then they obviously are.

Why should any of them care what you think of them.


They'll be so full of themselves they won't care what anyone thinks.

They certainly won't care what *you* think.


I'm quite sure they won't. But they don't matter that much.

Only to the extent of setting up an international convention which has
been adopted by every country in the EU.

Ideas can change. Just look at the increasing numbers disputing
climate change.

Yes, they're loonies. I hope you're not joining them.

I don't recall you doing anything that "matters that much".

Nor you.

Wrong.



Like what?



Where have I done that?

See above.

Where?

Read your posts.

I never look back to indulge you. Please show it if it's important to
you.

No, I'll just continue to remind you of it if necessary.


If it's necessary to you, look it up yourself.

I haven't snipped anything.

You're lying again.

Duh!

You're doing it *again*. You can't even read a simple message like this
and understand that I didn't accuse you of snipping anything. I was
commenting on *your* waffle which *I* had snipped.

Now apologise for accusing me of lying.


Snipping out things you can't cope with is as bad as lying.

I'll remember that when you next do it.


I seldom do.

Liar. You snipped the whole of 30 posts of mine in a day a couple of
weeks ago.

Because it was repetitive rubbish.


A week ago you were complaining a thread was too long.

Always true!



Well, I snipped them

Where did I say that?

Oh look, Angus is trying to deny he said that "The con needs to be
exposed" when referring to the native status of the red squirrel.

I'm not denying anything.

The whole concept of native and non-native species is a con. It
relies on the activities of man not being regarded as part of nature.
Indeed, it's anthropocentric prejudice, masquerading as science.

So you *are* accusing Steve Harris of conning people. Why did you
dispute this, above?

Read what I wrote.


Don't try and wriggle out of it by repeating something you said AFTER
you had accused him. Your earlier words were: "The con needs to be
exposed", which was directly related to the statement in the British
mammals book that the red squirrel is "undoubtedly native in GB".


I'm not wriggling at all. The whole concept of native and non-native
species is a con. It relies on the activities of man not being
regarded as part of nature. Indeed, it's anthropocentric prejudice,
masquerading as science.

Perhaps you should email him and tell him that and at the same time
ask him if he would mind telling you tan man is part of nature. You
obviously didn't finish your education at Bristol. Now's your chance
to catch up.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to beat the grey squirrel cull
    ... He has been using phrases about the Merseyside squirrels, ... fewer grey squirrels with more conservation and tourist ... nature which is fake conservation nonsense. ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: squirrel zapper
    ... >>squirrels on my birdfeeder. ... > co-exist in nature, sharing some food choices. ... > birds, and we put out food for them. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: squirrel zapper
    ... >>>squirrels on my birdfeeder. ... >> co-exist in nature, sharing some food choices. ... >> birds, and we put out food for them. ... >Not to start an off topic flame war but those who feed wild animals are not ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: squirrel zapper
    ... >>>squirrels on my birdfeeder. ... >>co-exist in nature, sharing some food choices. ... >>birds, and we put out food for them. ... Tom ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Has SNH got it wrong?
    ... Archaeology is the normal way to show that a species was present in ... I didn't say the first record of Capercaillie was the 13th century. ... That's because nature has been influenced by man. ... That's about the most ignorant statement I have ever ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)