STOP the CON in CONSERVATION, RSPB, WT, WWT slaughtering wildlife by the million.

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by Jan Spanna, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. Jan Spanna

    Jan Spanna Guest

    A wake up call

    I used to be a warden on an RSPB reserve until I discovered the truth
    about CONservation hooliganism. The recent cry for deer controls is as
    a direct result of groups like the RSPB slaughtering deer with it's
    hunting partners instead of using proper wildlife management programs,
    these maintain game wildlife at peak birth rates which make it easier
    for lard arse hunters to have their little thrill of shooting game.
    The RSPB reserve at Abernethy is a joint partnership with a game
    shooting group, RSPB and BASC regular run joint ventures to shoot
    wildlife for fun. The RSPB refuse to answer questions and have even
    employed criminal trolls like Malcolm Ogilvie to conduct a dirty
    tricks campaign on newsgroups against those who try to expose the CON
    in conservation.

    We need to think twice about where our money is going.

    http://tinyurl.com/2v9zx

    http://tinyurl.com/2dyok


    These groups con us out of money to "protect wildlife" and then kill
    it, they con the country out of grants, tax breaks etc and end up
    costing us millions. The deer fiasco is a classic example of a never
    ending CONservation charity golden goose and we are silly enough to
    let them get away with it and then pay them for doing it!!

    LACS have deer reserves on its lands and the populations of deer
    remain fairly constant and cause no problems. Roe deer in the New
    Forest have not been culled for many years and the population is
    actually in decline, yet CONservation hooligans have been whining for
    decades how deer numbers are out of control and they need funding to
    bring numbers down! it's a CON and we need to ensure pro hunting
    groups are taken out of wildlife management programs, the two simply
    do not mix. AT least the hunting groups admit their measures are
    designed to maintain wildlife for hunting.


    Here's a letter of mine along similar lines that was published in the
    Glasgow
    Herald.

    17 August 2002

    Letters to the Editor
    The Herald
    Glasgow


    Dear Sir

    As the subject of your article "Animal Activist's Claims Outlawed by
    Judge" (17
    Aug.) I am not overly surprised by the verdict as the "establishment"
    protects
    its own.

    However, I feel I should make some comments about the killing of deer
    by
    conservation charities such as the Woodland Trust.

    Hunters and 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 were responsible for in the
    first
    place. The horrid cycle continues year after year.

    Why don't the conservationists abandon their hunting friends and join
    forces
    with the animal activists who oppose hunting? No chance - it's all
    about
    money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes to maintain the
    hunting
    industry as an economic benefit to rural areas 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.

    Animal rights and welfare activists, together with our MSPs, have rid
    this
    country of the scourge of hunting with dogs. The next target should
    be the
    hunting estates.

    17 August 2002



    Letters to the Editor
    The Herald
    Glasgow


    Dear Sir

    As the subject of your article "Animal Activist's Claims Outlawed by
    Judge" (17
    Aug.) I am not overly surprised by the verdict as the "establishment"
    protects
    its own.

    However, I feel I should make some comments about the killing of deer
    by
    conservation charities such as the Woodland Trust.

    Hunters and 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 were responsible for in the
    first
    place. The horrid cycle continues year after year.

    Why don't the conservationists abandon their hunting friends and join
    forces
    with the animal activists who oppose hunting? No chance - it's all
    about
    money. The government via the Deer Commission wishes to maintain the
    hunting
    industry as an economic benefit to rural areas 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.

    Animal rights and welfare activists, together with our MSPs, have rid
    this
    country of the scourge of hunting with dogs. The next target should
    be the
    hunting estates.


     
    Jan Spanna, Feb 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.