Re: Protecting our moorhen chicks

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:10:11 +0100, Mike McDowall
<m.a.mcdowall@xxxxxx> wrote:

>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.

No. I have never suggested doing nothing. I have suggested scrapping
stalking and fake conservation and letting the deer population
stabilise according to its habitat.

>
>>>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 :

Ah , but it doesn't get away from the double standards of the fake
conservationists.


>>>>>>>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.

I never claimed that city scenery was anything to do with it. Scenery
in general is boring.

>What is more,
>all those people have destroyed the environment completely.
>

Yes, and the fake conservationists want them to start on the
countryside.

>>>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.

About what?

>
>>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 !

Why inefficient?

>You fail to offer a credible
>alternative.

The credible alternative is to stop encouraging tourism because it is
one of the most environmentally damaging activities of our time.

>I don't think anarchy would help the environment.

Perhaps not.

>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).

Do you? I think you place an over emphasis on overgrazing. It's about
man's greed and political power that has destroyed Ethopia and the
Sudan not to mention tribal rivaleries. The climate also plays a
large part.

>
>>>>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.

Sure, there's been talk about it for decades but few saw it as a
reality.

>
>>>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.
>

Now were getting to the truth of the matter. It's not a question of
culling deer as a last resort; it's a question of the cost of
protecting treeson an individual basis.


>>>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.

That's where the flaw lies. The activities of man as the main species
that destroys diversity is all but excluded which make the whole thing
a farce.

>
>>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.

Save them from suffering. Why do you not advocate that man should
reduce all species to save them from suffering. What's so special
about deer?

>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.

That's nonsense. The increase in deer shows that the habitat is
sustaining them and even with this increase there's no mass
starvation. If the deer populations were left alone they would, over
time, adjust to their habitat. Spectacular starvation is unlikely to
be an issue unless in a closed environment.

>
>>>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.

No I'm not. I'm suggesting that deer should be treated the same as
many other mammals. Certainly some will die in winter but that's
natural. It even happens to humans.

>
>>>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.

So what. If man plants trees and won't protect them from deer in their
early years what else do you expect?

>Deer are, to all intents and purposes, only predated
>with the rifle (which is why I advocate other management).

Not true. They are "predated" by motor vehicles as well. What kind
of other management do you propose?

>Sheep are
>vastly reduced now.

Agreed.

>Rabbits are predated by several species and prone
>to disease epidemics.
>

Yes. That's why foxes should be left alone.


>>>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 ?
>
Probably not. But the planet cannot sustain fly-away population
increases and it will eventually come to every man for himself in
resources wars and the powerful will win and the weak die.

>>>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.

That's probably what will happen within the next few decades.

>
>>>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.

I'm sure they will. But it's not true. Trophy hunting and culling by
numbers does nothing to strengthen the gene pool. Indeed, it weakens
it.

>
>>>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.
>

Again were getting to the truth. You think that everything on the
planet is for the benefit of our species. Well, I'll tell you
something and remember it well. The activities of our species is what
you should fear most.

>>>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.
>

Why might it not?


>>>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.

Please explain. I don't think you understand what you are saying.


>
>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.

Exactly.

>We won't have to go back to compete with them, they aspire to
>our lifestyle. Look at what has happened to Japan.

Of course we will. China has just wiped out Rover.

>
>People are inherently lazy. They want cars instead of bicycles, remote
>controls for their entertainment systems.

I agree. But when they can't afford to buy them thins will change.


>They get off their backsides
>only for the grandest prizes - like Scotlands fantastic scenery. Or
>their health.
>

Sure, but only because they have more leisure time. Things are
beginning to change and populations struggling for economic survival
put food and essentials before leisure.




Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
.

Loading