Re: Conservation Extremism and Barbarity

From: Gluteus Maximus (legion_at_ceaserus.com)
Date: 08/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:31:33 +0100

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:55:15 +0100, Professor Ludwig
<conservation@berlin-fin.de> wrote:

>http://www.spaceforum.co.uk/con-servation/extr.htm
>
>Conservation Extremism and Barbarity
>
>The sickening sight of mutilated carcasses piled in a field following
>the helicopter herded slaughter of 600 deer at Glenfeshie Estate in
>Scotland is representative of current conservation fascist principles
>where it is no longer enough to plant trees or protect rare species
>without cruelly butchering wildlife that is competing for the same
>habitat.
>
>This philosophy, driven by political dogma and a desire for a national
>environmental identity, is only one short step away from the
>intolerant fanaticism of those who perpetrate ethnic cleansing against
>human populations.
>
>Conservation has now become synonymous with extremism and it is time
>the public condemned such cruelty by withdrawing support from the
>uncharitable charities that advocate and encourage such barbarity.
>
>So which charities advocate and encourage this killing and which
>should you consider boycotting?
>
>The following paragraph was part of a letter sent some time ago to
>Ross Finnie, MSP, Minister for the Environment and Rural Development:
>
>“We point out to the Minister that populations of deer in Scotland are
>at record levels and, according to the Deer Commission, red deer
>numbers are still increasing in most areas. The impact on the natural
>environment of the current high populations has been a major concern
>for many years with repeated requests from environmental organisations
>and others for higher culls and population reductions. A major drop in
>deer culls in the coming season would result in a further sharp rise
>in populations.”
>
>The letter was signed on behalf of
>
>The John Muir Trust,
>National Trust for Scotland,
>Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland,
>Ramblers Association Scotland,
>Woodland Trust Scotland,
>Millennium Forest for Scotland Trust,
>and WWF Scotland.
>
>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 that 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 were
>responsible for in the first place. The horrid cycle continues year
>after year.
>
>Why don’t the conservationists abandon their hunting cronies and
>oppose the real reason for the deer population increase? Not a chance
>- it’s all about money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes
>to maintain the hunting industry for tourism income and the
>conservationists depend on government grants via the Forestry
>Authority to plant their trees etc.
>
>The fake conservationists won’t bite the hand that feeds them and the
>deer are the losers as can be seen by the butchery of Glenfeshie.
>

Did you know the ruddy duck cull is the work of the RSPB?

**********************************************

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
    they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
    how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
    manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
    secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard *** when in fact you're
    as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
    will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------
BE WARNED YOU PHUCKERS. I WILL BAR BQ YOUR ASS.

We have received an allegation that you have posted an article/s to
newsgroups demon.local,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,
uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,scot.birds,uk.rec.gardening,
uk.business.agriculture,uk.rec.fishing.coarse,sci.agriculture.poultry
[<kmfdljArhNO5EwYq@4AX.com and others>] which our external solicitors
believe to bear a defamatory meaning and as such we have had to remove
the article from our servers.

The part in question is the comment "Pete is a fraud, a liar and
a cheat." as well as some other comments in your article.

We cannot and do not make any judgement as to whether such material is
defensible. However, the state of the law at the moment means that if
we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published through
our systems, Thus plc may be liable for damages, along with you, if it
does not take action to prevent that material being published. Those
damages could be substantial and we could both incur heavy legal
expenses.

In addition, the current state of the law could leave Thus plc
liable if it failed to take action and you disseminated any further
material through our systems which was later found to be defamatory.

While we do not necessarily agree with the current legal position we
must accept it, and have therefore removed the posting in question.

Please reply to this email acknowledging that you understand the problem
and that you will not, in future, publish further material which
could be considered defamatory of Pete through Demon's systems.

We attach below a suggested form of acknowledgement for your
convenience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

I acknowledge receipt of your email and confirm that I understand your
explanation of the legal situation regarding material which is
considered defamatory.

I confirm that I will not publish such material in future using my Demon
service, and will not publish further material which could be considered
defamatory of Pete.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Demon Legal Team.