Re: Protecting our moorhen chicks

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:09:43 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:

Old stuff snipped.

>>>No, where we differ is that I think it should be the humans that
>>>should be positively managed
>>Why do you think I differ there ? This is not a topic we have
>>discussed, but you're telling me what I think !
>
>Well you have said what you think I think Remember? "Where we
>differ is that you think that sitting back and doing nowt will be a
>more effective policy than "positive management"."
Nice try :-) but you had been describing your ideas.

>>Managing humans is a
>>real problem. At the moment we have a Westminster government that is
>>totally anti-rural (I mean genuine rural as opposed to suburbia
>>extended). We have a Scottish government which has just reduced the
>>options for controllong disturbance to wildlife. The Scottish
>>govenrment is also focussing on "reversing" population decline as the
>>means to overcoming age imbalances. If we want to manage humans, we
>>face not just these powerful forces, but also the vast bulk of the
>>population who support them.
>
>I would agree with that.
>
>>
>>We should need a government supported by a society which is focussed
>>on societies rights to protect the future for the good of society.
>>What we have is a goverment that is too weak, to worried about being
>>shoved off the gravy train at the next election, to stand up against
>>the current pre-eminence of greed. When greed finds itself thwarted,
>>it shouts 'individual rights', or 'human rights' and the government is
>>too deep in the same issues to argue.
>
>This is back to humans. My post was about the double standards of
>Malcolm Ogilvie in respect of his statement the predators have to live
>too - or words to that effect.
Well, the discussion had moved on ! I said at the time :
>>>>>>Yes, we all have double standards. It's called a compromise viewpoint
>>>>>>because so many aspects of life are contradictory.
You have argued strongly against managing deer, but have also been
arguing in favour of deer fencing (see below). How can you criticize
Dr.Ogilvie's "double standards" when you have to resort to similar
subtle applications of policy to deal with the hugely complex issues
involved ? In saying this, I am not criticizing your policies in any
way. Please recognize that lashing out in the way you did is simply
hypocritical.

>>Population pressure on rural areas is all about quality of life. To
>>many people, cities are *** places.
>
>I don't agree. Cities are vibrant places. Scenery is rather boring.
I would go further. City scenery is _extrememly_ boring. What is more,
all those people have destroyed the environment completely.

>>If the "fake conservationists
>>and quangos" have made the countryside a nice place for those humans,
>>they might have done so by protecting the environment, helping all
>>other species.
>
>But they don't.
Disagree.

>The ring of fake conservationists and government is what's wrong. The
>fakes give the government advice and the goverment gives them the
>power to implement their flawed ideals. This ring needs to be broken.
Hmm, yes "innefficient". Break ? Nah ! You fail to offer a credible
alternative. I don't think anarchy would help the environment. I don't
think you really grasp the complexities of the ecosystem (from your
failure to see that overgrazing is one of the major problems in
Ethiopia and the Sudan) or politics (from your lack of understanding
of what is happening).

>>>All of which could be positively managed by changing human activities.
>>We would need a very different model of government. Something like the
>>Chinese, without the middle order corruption <g>
>>
>>Yes I support your ideals. In practice it would be as workable as
>>communism. I believe we must work within the present structure which
>>means we will achieve bloody little your way. Indeed, we will probably
>>achieve very little by any technique because of the conflicts of
>>multiple special interest groups in our society. We had better use all
>>the techniques so we can add all the miniscule advances up to, if we
>>are lucky, a millimetre.
>
>I don't agree. Ten years ago who would have predicted the hunting ban?
Most of the rural population ! Yes, we saw it coming. Look back
through old Farmers Weekly and you may even find discussion goes back
much further.

>>What you are proposing sounds like it would result in a bi-polar
>>landscape. At one extreme we would have fenced areas, no deer and
>>thick vegetation. At the other we would have areas with loads of deer,
>>over-grazed, prone to erosion etc. That is exactly what we have in
>>many areas now !
>
>No. If conservationists wish to plant trees they should protect them
>and the deer population would stabilise in accordance with its habitat
>if the artificial impacts such as stalking and culling were removed.
>
>
>>I can only think you are proposing an increase in the
>>fenced area.
>
>Not necessarily. Trees can be individually protected.
Yes, but we can only afford to do that on an insignificant scale. It
costs many times more than fencing large areas.

>>Why ? Neither of these areas represents anything natural
>>(to which I thought you aspired). I want a more variable (lower)
>>number of deer, so that in some places grazing is heavy enough to keep
>>large areas relatively scrub free; some areas have shades of
>>intermediate grazing so they are very mixed; and some areas are
>>lightly enough grazed to allow pockets (of variable size) of fairly
>>thick wood. That wide range of habitats should support a wide range of
>>species. (I am not forgetting that beyond that I would hope to see
>>plenty other habitat which are not natural ranging for (red) deer such
>>as tundra, machair, bog).
>
>Why should man decide which species he prefers?
I think we are trying to preserve as wide a diversity as possible,
preventing another species destroying much of that diversity.

>Millions of mammals and birds die when nature catches them out. One
>wouldn't htink of shooting them to save them.
No - "save" is the wrong word anyway. Reduce suffering.

However, you seem to be ignoring the effects that your policy might
have on public support for those very policies. If your policies were
seen to be causing mass starvation (even if that perception was
incorrect) your policy would be in very hot water.

>>I believe in management of man, and in management of species like
>>deer. Killing ? Not if I can help it, but maybe.
>
>But man won't accept management and kills deer to mask his own
>failings.
"Won't accept management" - Yes. So I don't advocate managing man as
the only strategy. Killing deer ? not if I can help it, but you are
also advocating policies that, by your own admission, will kill deer.

>>Man can be responsible, but other species may be the agents through
>>which the mechanism acts.
>
>A surplus of deer is not going to make much difference, if any.
Disagree, the evidence is all around us that excess herbivores are
doing damage. Deer are, to all intents and purposes, only predated
with the rifle (which is why I advocate other management). Sheep are
vastly reduced now. Rabbits are predated by several species and prone
to disease epidemics.

>>So you don't believe in killing animals, but you do believe in leaving
>>the Ethiopians and Sudanese to starve ? Don't worry, I know you don't
>>think like that at all.
>
>Well actually I do. It's a habitat problem. Many people or deer will
>die if their habitat doesn't support them.
No wonder you get little public support. You think people should be
deliberately left to starve ? Would you think the same if you had been
born one of those people ?

>>The point is that these issues are complex and
>>will only respond to complex solutions. I believe culling is a
>>necessary part of that complex but should be a last resort.
>
>It's not that complex. And I don't believe in culling.
Well, if you have no belief in human rights, it certainly simplifies
things. Start a nuclear war to reduce population. Pity about the
environmental destruction.

>>Without culling your management policy would deliberately increase the
>>numbers of weak and deliberately starve them.
>
>I don't see how it would only increase the numbers of weak deer. It
>would after a short time start to strengthen the gene pool.
Hmm. Hunters and cullers say they achieve that too.

>>Now I am not saying you
>>are wrong - I think these are necessary parts of the readjustment
>>process we need. I also think that humane culling could reduce
>>unnecessary suffering.
>
>Why only for deer?
Because they are the most pressing destructive herbivore. If that is a
criticsm of my policy towards humans I have made some responses above.
I believe that our first responsibility is towards our own species as
a whole. In the short term and long term I believe maintenance of
biodiversity will be important for us.

>>I still see unresolvable conflict in my own views. for instance, there
>>has been a lot of publicity recently about decline in Golden Eagle
>>numbers over the "recent past". There is a huge row going on about
>>persecution. While I agree this is probably occurring to some degree I
>>would be very surprised if it had increased in the time frame spoken
>>of. Why ? Because during that same time frame the economics of the
>>situation have tilted heavily in the eagles favour. Sheep are
>>virtually uneconomic in the Highlands now.
>>
>>What might be happening to the eagles ? I wonder if the huge increase
>>in the number of hill-walkers might be a major contributory factor.
>>Eagles are notoriously vulnerable to disturbance. A few decades ago we
>>were all Munro-baggers. Now many have "been there, done that" and have
>>moved off in pursuit of new hills. Many of these people are fit, even
>>into retirement, so time, work commitments, distance, physical
>>challenge, can all be dismissed. Just about every area now attracts
>>walkers. As an example, I climbed Ben Damh in Torridon in November a
>>few years ago. I counted forty folk including myself on that hill
>>(plenty dogs too). How can eagles withstand that sort of spread of
>>disturbance ?
>
>That's a major problem. People get paid too much for doing too little
>and have too much recreation time. That must change with the
>pressures from the emerging economies. see today's Financial Mail on
>Sunday.
Maybe it will. Maybe we shall see.

>>Society needs interesting space to exercise folk to keep them healthy.
>>That interesting space is damaged by the process. What to do ?
>
>People need to work harder in a physical way.
I associate that sort of work with primary and secondary production.
We have too much of that already - it causes consumption and
environmental degradation.

People won't do it. In emerging economies like China the people
benefitting from taking over our markets all have the same aspirations
as here. We won't have to go back to compete with them, they aspire to
our lifestyle. Look at what has happened to Japan.

People are inherently lazy. They want cars instead of bicycles, remote
controls for their entertainment systems. They get off their backsides
only for the grandest prizes - like Scotlands fantastic scenery. Or
their health.

Mike.
.