On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 21:54:14 +0100, amacmil304 [at] aol.com wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:50:08 +0100, Malcolm Kane
><malcolm [at] jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <4l3ka29rpup86um278rs4jgso85nibmejl [at] 4ax.com>,
>>amacmil304 [at] aol.com writes
>>>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:16:21 +0100, Malcolm
>>><Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <hBpS71JV$YqEFwfX [at] jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Kane
>>>><malcolm [at] jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>>In message <0tnia294lsmbb5d79ed3fkrbr9khotkabr [at] 4ax.com>,
>>>>>amacmil304 [at] aol.com writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Water voles are nowhere near extinction
>>>>>
>>>>>I would be interested in your evidence of this "fact".
>>>>>
>>>>>I am also interested in how you address the welfare of the voles which
>>>>>are being predated by an introduced animal to which they have not
>>>>>evolved any protective mechanisms.
>>>>>
>>>>>>and to use that term to
>>>>>>describe their almost non-presence in the UK
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely from an animal welfare point of view we have to be concerned by
>>>>>the rapid decline of the species. This suggests many individuals are
>>>>>suffering premature death before they have chance to breed. Definitely
>>>>>a huge animal welfare problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> is grossly misleading and
>>>>>
>>>>>OK to say almost extinct in the UK would be better but in a UK
>>>>>discussion group I doubt that any but pedants would need the addition.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you any figures to show they are faring any better elsewhere?
>>>>>
>>>>>>another example of the dishonesty of fake conservationists.
>>>>>>
>>>>This denial of extinction by Angus is in response to this remark of
>>>>mine: "the water vole can only be saved from extinction along a river if
>>>>the mink are got rid of." There are many rivers from which the water
>>>>vole has disappeared, driven into extinction along that river by mink.
>>>>Angus has chosen to ignore the words "along a river" but that's just
>>>>another example of his dishonesty.
>>>
>>>It's your dishonesty that is shining through. Disappearance "along a
>>>river" does not make the species "extinct".
>>
>>It does on that river. Local extinction is a valid point.
>>
>
>Rubbish, for the reason I have given.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>There is no need to "introduce" water voles to the River Dore except
>>>>>>by those who are obsessed with the nativeness of species.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry Angus I disagree and I would have thought somebody with your
>>>>>track record in animal welfare would also disagree. The individual
>>>>>animals are either being killed early before having chance to breed or
>>>>>are dying before having a chance to breed . This in my opinion is a
>>>>>large welfare problem. I fail to see how either of these situations
>>>>>can be described as being acceptable for the individual voles welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>I see that Angus's alternative to getting rid of mink in order to safely
>>>>reintroduce water voles was:
>>>>
>>>>"I wouldn't introduce voles where mink are present."
>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>which is one of his feebler efforts, wouldn't you agree?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Common sense and concern for the welfare of both mink and water voles.
>>
>>So come on. Draw on your 30 years of animal welfare experience and give
>>some positive ways to improve the vole welfare without harming the mink.
>>
>
>It's not a welfare issue as I have explained elsewhere. Do try to
>keep up.
>
>Still sore about having to withdraw your lie, I see :-))
>
>
>>>
>>>>In other words, he can't think of a way of bringing back the water vole
>>>>without getting rid of this introduced predator, which one must remember
>>>>was also deliberately released into the wild by his AR friends. He
>>>>clearly prefers to see the extinction of the water vole from more and
>>>>more rivers. Fortunately, his views are only shared by a few other AR
>>>>supporters, and even then they are rather muted about it. You will
>>>>recall the huge fuss made about getting rid of hedgehogs from the Uists,
>>>>yet there was barely a murmur about the simultaneous, and highly
>>>>successful, removal of the mink from the same islands.
>>>
>>>Many people are against the killing of mink but like foxes they are
>>>considered to act against human interests such as killing poultry etc.
>>>But it should be remembered that neither have keys to secure poultry
>>>pens. If people don't look after their poultry what else can they
>>>expect.
>>
>>Which still doesn't answer how YOU would bring back voles and improve
>>their welfare without harming mink.
>
>Simple, I wouldn't think of introducing voles where there were mink.
>
>
>>
>>So come on give us the benefit of your experience.
>>
>
>Still sore about having to withdraw your lie, I see :-))
>
>>>
>>>I see you've not addressed the issue about raptors.
>>>
>>>So would you have raptors killed for animal welfare reasons?
>>>
>>>If not, why not?
>>>
>>I addressed it elsewhere when I said only the predators which have been
>>released into places where they didn't occur before by AR activists.
>
>Not all mink were released by AR activists.
Quite so. In fact, most mink were released by the farmers themselves,
once fur farming became uneconomical. Funny really, the irony. It's
also the farmers who destroy the vole habitats in the whole.
"As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!"
Woody Guthrie
