Re: Hold the deer killers to account

On 1 Sep 2006 01:25:48 -0700, "scottc67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<scottc67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:34:52 +0100, "Bernard"
<bernard.x.ramsden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


What is wrong with shooting the deer for their meat?

Your saying don't interfere with them, I say actively manage them as a
source of food.

Regards

Bernard



I say they're wild animals and should be left alone.


Surely eating an animal who's life suddenly ended while it was happily
roaming it's own back yard is far superior to eating something that was
reared in a factory environment and lead terrified to it's death in a
place surround by the smell of fear and death.

It's not far superior for the animal that's the victim when it wasn't
in that position in the first place.


By culling dear, human's are replacing Wolves in the food chain, the
land owners could re introduce Wolves to restore the natural balance I
suppose, but then of course they'd have to put fences round the Wolves
to protect visitors to their land ;-)

Absolute garbage.

So-called conservationists would have us believe that it is necessary
to reduce deer numbers to an acceptable population level that doesn't
cause ecological damage. When asked why the population has increased
so rapidly, they tell us that deer reproduce prolifically and that
there are no large predators, namely the wolf, left to control their
numbers. On the face of it, that seems a reasonable explanation but it
is more of a plausible excuse for hunters to enjoy their grizzly fun
and conservationists to employ them to hunt in almost exactly the same
way under the more respectable guise of culling.

There is no doubt that wolves were predators of deer, but not for a
very long time. The last wolf was killed in the UK around 1750, more
than 250 years ago, and their numbers were in serious decline for many
decades before that. So it is reasonable to assume that wolves have
had little impact on deer for the past 300 - 350 years. With that in
mind one could be excused for thinking that deer numbers would have
escalated at an enormous rate over that period. But it is only in the
last 50-60 years that their numbers have increased significantly,
coinciding with a thriving hunting industry and reforestation that
provides shelter.

So is there a connection? Of course there is!

To understand the whole sorry mess, one must examine the structure and
covert allegiances between hunters and conservationists who, including
the Woodland Trust, form alliances within "deer management groups"
that are overseen by the Deer Commission to maintain an artificially
high deer population to satisfy the requirements of hunting estates.
But as deer know no boundaries, the population expands to other areas
unchecked, where they can damage unprotected saplings, ground flora
and ground nesting habitats.

This is when the deceit of the conservationists comes to the fore.
Having supped with the hunters, they now tell us they need to cull
deer to reduce the increase in population that the hunters responsible
for in the first place. This horrid cycle to continues year after
year.

So why don't the conservationists abandon their hunting friends and
join forces with the animal activists who oppose hunting? Not a
chance - it's all about money. The government via the Deer Commission
wishes to maintain the hunting industry as an economic benefit for
hunting estates and the conservationists depend on grants via the
Forestry Authority to plant their trees.

The conservationists won't bite the hand that feeds them and the deer
are the losers.


I've been watching this newsgroup for some time now. I just thought it
would be a place where myself and other poor buggers who have to spend
most of their time in a town to earn a living can find out about their
weekend escapes. I didn't realise I would have the chance to read such
entertainingly ill thought out drivel from you, so thanks for that.

Your continual ravings about conservation organisations are very
entertaining. I'm not sure what the mysterious agenda is that you think
these organisations have, not being much of a conspiracy theorist I
still tend to think their purpose is conservation.

I do not oppose conservation; I oppose fake conservation
organisations.

The reason why so-called conservation organisations are fakes is that
they say they are conserving the natural environment but in reality
they are indulging in and encouraging environmentally damaging
activities which undermines that which they say they are conserving.

I would say that it's "donkeys" that don't understand that but donkeys
are probably more intelligent.

I don't remember
seing the chairmen of the RSPB or The National Trust in the Sunday
Times Rich list, so I don't think it's money they're after.


The Rich Listeners don't need the money :-))

It's donkey's like you that make me feel embarrased to call myself an
environmentalist.

So you're an environmentalist. How do you work out that your week-end
escapes are environmentally friendly?


All the best, and keep up the good work

Scott

Don't worry, I shall.


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: Conservation Extremism and Barbarity
    ... >“We point out to the Minister that populations of deer in Scotland are ... >and conservationists to employ them to hunt in almost exactly the same ... we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published through ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Conservation Extremism and Barbarity
    ... “We point out to the Minister that populations of deer in Scotland are ... Conservationists would have us believe that it is necessary to reduce ... to maintain the hunting industry for tourism income and the ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)
  • Re: Sibley on birds and windows
    ... management from the legislature's fickle grasp. ... Back when deer were practically extirpated by market ... but I understand and respect the role of hunting as ... current size or increase them for the benefit of hunters, ...
    (rec.birds)
  • Re: Sibley on birds and windows
    ... management from the legislature's fickle grasp. ... Back when deer were practically extirpated by market ... but I understand and respect the role of hunting as ... Deer hunting as it's practiced today only serves to maintain herds at their current size or increase them for the benefit of hunters, not decrease them or manage them for the benefit of the deer themselves as claimed by hunters. ...
    (rec.birds)
  • Re: Hold the deer killers to account
    ... The landowners who own the hills where the deer are located naturally ... their habitat involves the lingering death of thousands of animals over ... conserving the natural environment but in reality they are indulging ... The whole conservation industry is a con from top to bottom! ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
Loading