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

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.