Discussion:
Excellent news WARNING RSPB CONservation hooligans at work. Lundy Rat.
(too old to reply)
David
2005-07-16 19:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:57:02 +0100, Malcolm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4683425.stm
Ailsa Craig all over again, though I doubt Angus will even begin to
understand why it is such good news.
Why so coy if its such a success? Because you know its CONservation
hooliganism at its most extreme and the RSPB led slaughter of yet
another species it doesnt think should live in its twitcher driven
world. These rats and birds happily existed together for many
centuries, as indeed the natural world does. In fact its only since
CONservation hooligan charities like the RSPB came to the fore we now
have so many problems. I wonder why?


Some experts on the truth can be found in the following

http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Rats_Nest/Ship_Rats/Lundy_text.htm

EXTERMINATION OF LUNDY COLONY

Plans by the R.S.P.B. et al to wipe out one of the only two remaining
British colonies of ship rat in early 2003.

Go to graphic version

Return to Hello Sailor start-page

*S*T*O*P* *P*R*E*S*S*!*

TEMPORARY HALT TO LUNDY CULL


With sufficient publicity it may still be possible to save the unique
and historic strain of Lundy ship rats. Joan and Roger Branton, a
couple who are experts on the ship rat, visited the island in April
2003 and could find no evidence of surviving rats; but the RSPB
reckoned there were 20 still alive at that point, whom they were doing
their best to kill even though rodent-experts had offered to catch
them and remove them from the island.

The Brantons found poisoned bait left out in traps wide enough to
allow rabbits etc. to enter and be killed, and in some cases poisoned
bait was exposed where visitors' children, and the Red Listed
song-thrush, could easily get at it. There were no notices warning
visitors of the presence of deadly poison. A cruel drowning-trap was
also found.

They found that since their previous visit to the island in the '80s,
the eco-system has been largely destroyed - apparently mainly due to
excessive tourism. Wild flowers which had formerly flourished were now
almost entirely absent. Large areas which had been covered by
rhodedendrons (which are invasive and do need to be controlled) had
been burned back and then not replaced by any plants of equivalent
size, and this had resulted in massive soil-erosion as the
rhodedenrons had actually been holding the cliffs together. The team
carrying out the rat-extermination were compounding the problem by
roaring around this fragile environment on quad bikes. In fact it's
astonishing that any birds except pigeons and crows still nest there.

As a result of evidence collected by the Brantons, the cull was
suspended in May 2003 on the orders of the Health & Safety Executive,
and of the RSPCA. This may be shutting the stable door after the horse
has bolted, as it's questionable whether any rats from this unique
colony have survivied; but if there are any rats left they now have a
chance to recover. Your letters can help make the temporary suspension
of the cull permanent.

Also in May 2003, it was reported that the puffin colony on Coquet
Island, Northumberland, had disappeared. In 2002 there had been more
than 37,000 adult puffins on Coquet; in 2003 there were less than 200.
Experts believe that the puffins simply decided the isalnd was
overcrowded and that they were going to go nest somewhere else; and
nobody suggested that it was the fault of any rats, at all.


Lundy is a small island 11 miles off the coast of Devon, in south-west
England. At time of writing, early in 2003, it is inhabited by one of
the only two remaining established colonies of ship rat in Britain
(the other being on the Shiant Islands in the Hebrides), as well as
the usual/inevitable raffish collection of Norway rats.

Until the mid 18th C the ship rat, a.k.a. The Old English Rat, was the
only rat in Britain: it is the rat of legend, the rat mediaeval barns
were rife with. The Lundy rats are believed to have swum ashore from a
shipwreck of the Spanish Armada. They are unusually small - about
gerbil-size - and have a high proportion of white-bellied agoutis, a
colour very rare elsewhere in the world. They cohabit amicably with
the neighbouring Rattus norvegicus colony, disproving the Victorian
idea that the invading Norway rat deliberately killed the native ship
rat (rather than out-competing it).

The ship rat colony has lived on Lundy for 400+ years, and the Norway
rat colony has been there for about 200 years, without apparent ill
effect on the island's puffins and Manx shearwaters. In the last few
decades, however, seabird numbers have fallen.

Dr Keith Hiscock, marine biologist and long-standing member of the
Lundy Field Society, reports that the rare and interesting sea-life
all around Lundy is in sharp decline as at spring 2003. Since the
seabirds on Lundy are fish-eaters, one need look no further than the
decline in nearby fish-stocks to explain the decline in birds.

Occasional predation of bird-chicks has been reported - in an area
well away from either rat colony, on an island inhabited by gulls,
peregrine falcons, domestic cats and deer (who kill ground-nesting
birds and suck out their bones for the calcium to make antlers).

R. rattus is primarily vegetarian, and the Lundy strain are tiny and
very lightweight in build. Some years ago a couple called Joan and
Roger Branton ran a ship rat domestication project using animals
wild-caught on Lundy, and found that these rats had no interest in
meat and and were unable to recognize bird-eggs as food.

However, the Lundy Seabird Recovery Project, a coalition between
English Nature, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (R.S.P.B.) and a tourist organization called the
Landmark Trust, has decided the fall in seabird numbers must be due to
predation by the ship rat. The sole evidence is that two ship rats
were found to have feathers in their stomach contents: unsurprizing,
since rats are scavengers and the island is littered with the carcases
of seabirds killed by gulls.

The L.S.R.P. claims there are "up to" 40,000 rats on Lundy: but
repeated scientific surveys have put the ship rat colony at around 400
individuals (the normal size for a wild rat colony), plus a similar
number of Norway rats.

If the rats were predating on seabirds it might be desirable to cull
them to relieve pressure on the bird colonies, even if the decline in
birds was due to lack of fish. But one could equally say a decline in
seabird numbers is a good thing because it relieves pressure on the
increasingly rare fish.

Nor is extermination neccessary even if the ship rats were taking
eggs. The Shiant population is maintained at around 200 individuals by
judicious culling, and cohabits with the local seabirds without harm.
But since January 2003 the L.S.R.P. has been attempting to poison all
the rats on Lundy, using second-generation rodenticides not licensed
for outdoor use. These will not only cause suffering to the rats but
will get into the food-chain and kill the islanders' cats, as well as
any birds which scavenge on the carcases of poisoned rats.

The L.S.R.P. regards the ship rats as of no scientific interest
because they are "not indigenous". However, ship rats probably came to
Britain with the Romans - i.e. they've been here as long as brown
hares, and twice as long as rabbits, both of which we treat as native
species.

Worldwide ship rats are not endangered: indeed they are one of the
commonest mammals on earth. But they are probably the rarest mammal in
Britain, with a total population less than 1,000 - and it's a crying
shame to wipe them out: especially as there's no scientific evidence
that doing so will do the seabirds of Lundy the slightest good.

The real reason for this mass extermination is that the Landmark
Trust, which promotes bird-watching holidays, feels that the rats are
untidy and bad for tourism. In fact ship rats are pretty and playful
creatures, and Britain's rarest mammal would be a major tourist
attraction in its own right if they would only promote them properly.
This is the preferred option of the Lundy Field Society.

[It occurs to me that the Landmark Trust's increasing promotion of
Lundy as a tourist destination must mean an increase in the resident
human population, to cater for those tourists. An increase in the
human population nearly always means an increase in the cat population
- and cats, much as I love them, are the major predator on British
birds.]

The British charity Animal Aid has produced a leaflet campaigning
against the extermination. For copies of this leaflet, and further
details of how you can help, please 'phone their office on 01732 364
546 ext. 29, or e-mail them at ***@animalaid.org.uk.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who is concerned about the destruction of this unique colony
should write a.s.a.p. to the following organizations, and to the
Britsh press:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

English Nature
Dr Andy Brown, Chief Executive, Northminster House, Peterborough, PE1
1UA.
Tel.: 01733 455 000 Email: ***@english-nature.org.uk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Landmark Trust
Peter Pearce, Director, Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead, Berkshure, SL6 3SW
Tel.: 01628 825 417 Email: ***@landmarktrust.co.uk (Peter
Pearce's P.A.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Trust
Fiona Reynolds, Director General, 36 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H
9AS
Tel.: 0207 222 5097 Email: ***@nationaltrust.org.uk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R.S.P.B.
Graham Wynne, Chief Executive, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19
2DL
Tel.: 01767 680 551 Email: ***@rspb.org.uk


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Animal Aid asks members of these organizations to write telling them
that they are considering withdrawing their membership over this
issue: and non-members to write to the above addresses raising the
following points:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slaughter in the name of coservation is inhumane and a waste of
resources.

[Myself, I don't entirely agree with this one - at least, I accept
that there are some situations where destruction of introduced animals
is the only practical way to save a rare species. But to slaughter an
extremely rare animal to save a moderately rare animal, when there
isn't even any evidence that the extremely rare animal is any threat
to the moderately rare one, is not only inhumane and wasteful - it's
bloody ridiculous. The sole logic seems to be "Feathers good: fur
bad."]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask these groups why they think that the puffin population has only
started to decrease over the last few decades, after co-existing with
black ship rats for hundreds of years.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The use of poison is inhumane, and there is the real possibility that
other species might accidentally be attracted to the bait.

[This is not to mention that other species - cats, dogs, scavenging
birds - will quite definitely eat poisoned rat-carcases and be killed
themselves.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I myself would add the following to this list:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask these organizations why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that
there are up to 40,000 rats on Lundy, when repeated scientific surveys
place the ship rat colony at only 400 individuals, and the Norway rat
colony not much bigger?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask them why they are just telling the press, BBC etc. that they are
simply exterminating "rats" and not that they are wiping out one of
the only two colonies of the rarest mammal in Britain?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask them why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that the rats came
to Lundy off passing ships - but not that they did so half a millenium
ago, and are a unique and completely isolated population with many
interesting features which they are about to destroy forever?
David
2005-07-17 09:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:06:11 +0100, Malcolm
Post by David
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:57:02 +0100, Malcolm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4683425.stm
Ailsa Craig all over again, though I doubt Angus will even begin to
understand why it is such good news.
Hitler no doubt would have said the same about the extermination of
the Jews :-(
A classic, meaningless, remark from Angus. Faced with a conservation
success story, all he can do is resort to his usual nonsense.
Its not a success story if it meant destroying an islands rat
population and opening it up to theme park CONservation by inviting
thousands of people to visit and trample this supposedly oh so fragile
environment.

See here posted before.
Why so coy if its such a success? Because you know its CONservation
hooliganism at its most extreme and the RSPB led slaughter of yet
another species it doesnt think should live in its twitcher driven
world. These rats and birds happily existed together for many
centuries, as indeed the natural world does. In fact its only since
CONservation hooligan charities like the RSPB came to the fore we now
have so many problems. I wonder why?
Some experts on the truth can be found in the following
http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Rats_Nest/Ship_Rats/Lundy_text.htm
EXTERMINATION OF LUNDY COLONY
Plans by the R.S.P.B. et al to wipe out one of the only two remaining
British colonies of ship rat in early 2003.
Go to graphic version
Return to Hello Sailor start-page
*S*T*O*P* *P*R*E*S*S*!*
TEMPORARY HALT TO LUNDY CULL
With sufficient publicity it may still be possible to save the unique
and historic strain of Lundy ship rats. Joan and Roger Branton, a
couple who are experts on the ship rat, visited the island in April
2003 and could find no evidence of surviving rats; but the RSPB
reckoned there were 20 still alive at that point, whom they were doing
their best to kill even though rodent-experts had offered to catch
them and remove them from the island.
The Brantons found poisoned bait left out in traps wide enough to
allow rabbits etc. to enter and be killed, and in some cases poisoned
bait was exposed where visitors' children, and the Red Listed
song-thrush, could easily get at it. There were no notices warning
visitors of the presence of deadly poison. A cruel drowning-trap was
also found.
They found that since their previous visit to the island in the '80s,
the eco-system has been largely destroyed - apparently mainly due to
excessive tourism. Wild flowers which had formerly flourished were now
almost entirely absent. Large areas which had been covered by
rhodedendrons (which are invasive and do need to be controlled) had
been burned back and then not replaced by any plants of equivalent
size, and this had resulted in massive soil-erosion as the
rhodedenrons had actually been holding the cliffs together. The team
carrying out the rat-extermination were compounding the problem by
roaring around this fragile environment on quad bikes. In fact it's
astonishing that any birds except pigeons and crows still nest there.
As a result of evidence collected by the Brantons, the cull was
suspended in May 2003 on the orders of the Health & Safety Executive,
and of the RSPCA. This may be shutting the stable door after the horse
has bolted, as it's questionable whether any rats from this unique
colony have survivied; but if there are any rats left they now have a
chance to recover. Your letters can help make the temporary suspension
of the cull permanent.
Also in May 2003, it was reported that the puffin colony on Coquet
Island, Northumberland, had disappeared. In 2002 there had been more
than 37,000 adult puffins on Coquet; in 2003 there were less than 200.
Experts believe that the puffins simply decided the isalnd was
overcrowded and that they were going to go nest somewhere else; and
nobody suggested that it was the fault of any rats, at all.
Lundy is a small island 11 miles off the coast of Devon, in south-west
England. At time of writing, early in 2003, it is inhabited by one of
the only two remaining established colonies of ship rat in Britain
(the other being on the Shiant Islands in the Hebrides), as well as
the usual/inevitable raffish collection of Norway rats.
Until the mid 18th C the ship rat, a.k.a. The Old English Rat, was the
only rat in Britain: it is the rat of legend, the rat mediaeval barns
were rife with. The Lundy rats are believed to have swum ashore from a
shipwreck of the Spanish Armada. They are unusually small - about
gerbil-size - and have a high proportion of white-bellied agoutis, a
colour very rare elsewhere in the world. They cohabit amicably with
the neighbouring Rattus norvegicus colony, disproving the Victorian
idea that the invading Norway rat deliberately killed the native ship
rat (rather than out-competing it).
The ship rat colony has lived on Lundy for 400+ years, and the Norway
rat colony has been there for about 200 years, without apparent ill
effect on the island's puffins and Manx shearwaters. In the last few
decades, however, seabird numbers have fallen.
Dr Keith Hiscock, marine biologist and long-standing member of the
Lundy Field Society, reports that the rare and interesting sea-life
all around Lundy is in sharp decline as at spring 2003. Since the
seabirds on Lundy are fish-eaters, one need look no further than the
decline in nearby fish-stocks to explain the decline in birds.
Occasional predation of bird-chicks has been reported - in an area
well away from either rat colony, on an island inhabited by gulls,
peregrine falcons, domestic cats and deer (who kill ground-nesting
birds and suck out their bones for the calcium to make antlers).
R. rattus is primarily vegetarian, and the Lundy strain are tiny and
very lightweight in build. Some years ago a couple called Joan and
Roger Branton ran a ship rat domestication project using animals
wild-caught on Lundy, and found that these rats had no interest in
meat and and were unable to recognize bird-eggs as food.
However, the Lundy Seabird Recovery Project, a coalition between
English Nature, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (R.S.P.B.) and a tourist organization called the
Landmark Trust, has decided the fall in seabird numbers must be due to
predation by the ship rat. The sole evidence is that two ship rats
were found to have feathers in their stomach contents: unsurprizing,
since rats are scavengers and the island is littered with the carcases
of seabirds killed by gulls.
The L.S.R.P. claims there are "up to" 40,000 rats on Lundy: but
repeated scientific surveys have put the ship rat colony at around 400
individuals (the normal size for a wild rat colony), plus a similar
number of Norway rats.
If the rats were predating on seabirds it might be desirable to cull
them to relieve pressure on the bird colonies, even if the decline in
birds was due to lack of fish. But one could equally say a decline in
seabird numbers is a good thing because it relieves pressure on the
increasingly rare fish.
Nor is extermination neccessary even if the ship rats were taking
eggs. The Shiant population is maintained at around 200 individuals by
judicious culling, and cohabits with the local seabirds without harm.
But since January 2003 the L.S.R.P. has been attempting to poison all
the rats on Lundy, using second-generation rodenticides not licensed
for outdoor use. These will not only cause suffering to the rats but
will get into the food-chain and kill the islanders' cats, as well as
any birds which scavenge on the carcases of poisoned rats.
The L.S.R.P. regards the ship rats as of no scientific interest
because they are "not indigenous". However, ship rats probably came to
Britain with the Romans - i.e. they've been here as long as brown
hares, and twice as long as rabbits, both of which we treat as native
species.
Worldwide ship rats are not endangered: indeed they are one of the
commonest mammals on earth. But they are probably the rarest mammal in
Britain, with a total population less than 1,000 - and it's a crying
shame to wipe them out: especially as there's no scientific evidence
that doing so will do the seabirds of Lundy the slightest good.
The real reason for this mass extermination is that the Landmark
Trust, which promotes bird-watching holidays, feels that the rats are
untidy and bad for tourism. In fact ship rats are pretty and playful
creatures, and Britain's rarest mammal would be a major tourist
attraction in its own right if they would only promote them properly.
This is the preferred option of the Lundy Field Society.
[It occurs to me that the Landmark Trust's increasing promotion of
Lundy as a tourist destination must mean an increase in the resident
human population, to cater for those tourists. An increase in the
human population nearly always means an increase in the cat population
- and cats, much as I love them, are the major predator on British
birds.]
The British charity Animal Aid has produced a leaflet campaigning
against the extermination. For copies of this leaflet, and further
details of how you can help, please 'phone their office on 01732 364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who is concerned about the destruction of this unique colony
should write a.s.a.p. to the following organizations, and to the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English Nature
Dr Andy Brown, Chief Executive, Northminster House, Peterborough, PE1
1UA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Landmark Trust
Peter Pearce, Director, Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead, Berkshure, SL6 3SW
Pearce's P.A.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Trust
Fiona Reynolds, Director General, 36 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H
9AS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.S.P.B.
Graham Wynne, Chief Executive, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19
2DL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Aid asks members of these organizations to write telling them
that they are considering withdrawing their membership over this
issue: and non-members to write to the above addresses raising the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slaughter in the name of coservation is inhumane and a waste of
resources.
[Myself, I don't entirely agree with this one - at least, I accept
that there are some situations where destruction of introduced animals
is the only practical way to save a rare species. But to slaughter an
extremely rare animal to save a moderately rare animal, when there
isn't even any evidence that the extremely rare animal is any threat
to the moderately rare one, is not only inhumane and wasteful - it's
bloody ridiculous. The sole logic seems to be "Feathers good: fur
bad."]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask these groups why they think that the puffin population has only
started to decrease over the last few decades, after co-existing with
black ship rats for hundreds of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of poison is inhumane, and there is the real possibility that
other species might accidentally be attracted to the bait.
[This is not to mention that other species - cats, dogs, scavenging
birds - will quite definitely eat poisoned rat-carcases and be killed
themselves.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask these organizations why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that
there are up to 40,000 rats on Lundy, when repeated scientific surveys
place the ship rat colony at only 400 individuals, and the Norway rat
colony not much bigger?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask them why they are just telling the press, BBC etc. that they are
simply exterminating "rats" and not that they are wiping out one of
the only two colonies of the rarest mammal in Britain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask them why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that the rats came
to Lundy off passing ships - but not that they did so half a millenium
ago, and are a unique and completely isolated population with many
interesting features which they are about to destroy forever?
David
2005-07-17 10:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Interesting article from the bird world after the recent revelation
that 8 birds died after eating chilean grapes. It makes you appreciate
the benefits of going organic even for our pets.


THE KITCHEN PHYSICIAN IV

Feeding Organic Foods Affordably
by Carolyn Swicegood

http://www.birdsnways.com/wisdom/ww21eii.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You may be surprised at how affordably we can feed pesticide-free
foods to our parrots. It is much easier now to select foods that
promote health and longevity by minimizing the exposure of our birds
to toxic pesticide residues, thanks to a report by the Environmental
Working Group on the toxicity of produce. This report outlined the
most toxic and least toxic fruits and vegetables, as detailed in my
last article, The Kitchen Physician III.
Eating organic food and drinking pure water can have profoundly
beneficial effects on the health and longevity of parrots. If your
parrot became ill due to the ingestion of pesticide residues, how much
money would you spend to restore it to health? The cost of feeding
organic foods is minimal in comparison to the cost of illness, and
there are several favorite foods of parrots that are safe to buy even
when not grown organically.

According to Consumer Reports, January 1998, there are 9,700
pesticides in existence, and in 1995, U.S. farmers applied 566 million
pounds of pesticides to major fiber and food crops. Last summer, the
U.S. Geological Survey announced the first results of a massive study
of pesticides in 5,000 water samples from wells and rivers. Half the
wells--and nearly all streams--contained at least one pesticide.
Almost every pesticide legal for use in the United States, even when
applied according to label directions, will kill birds. Carbamates and
organophosphates kill insects (or birds) by disrupting the organism's
nervous system. Although eating pesticide residues on foods will not
kill a parrot instantly, long-term exposure will result in a slow but
sure toxic buildup in the bird's system. Knowing the magnitude of the
problem, it is imperative that we give our parrots the purest possible
water and the least contaminated food that is available.

A recent article in the Journal of Applied Nutrition gave credence to
the notion that organic foods have higher nutrient levels than
non-organically grown food. In this study the mineral content of
organic apples, pears, potatoes, wheat, and sweet corn were compared
to commercial varieties. Overall the organic foods showed higher
levels of nutrient minerals and lower levels of heavy metals.

Here are a few of the minerals that were found in higher levels in
organic foods: CHROMIUM is a micro-nutrient that was found to be
higher in organic foods by an average of 78%. SELENIUM is one of the
antioxidant nutrients that protects us from damage by environmental
chemicals. It was found to be an average of 390% higher in organic
foods. CALCIUM averaged 63% higher in organic foods. BORON, which
works along with calcium to keep bones strong, averaged 70% more.
MAGNESIUM averaged 138% more.

When organic foods were tested for mineral levels, the researchers
also looked for the amount of heavy metals--aluminum, cadmium, lead
and mercury. Aluminum has been implicated for years in the development
of Alzheimer's disease in humans. Its content in organic food averaged
40% less than in commercial foods. Lead toxicity often is a problem in
parrots. Lead averaged 29% lower in organic foods. Mercury, which can
cause neurological damage, averaged 25% lower in organic foods.

Other studies have looked at vitamin levels of food plants treated
with certain pesticides. They showed that application of some
pesticides lowered the vitamin levels in the plants they were applied
to. This is not the same theory as that of plants raised with
chemicals being low in nutrients because of soil depletion. Not all
studies on the differences between organically-grown foods and
conventionally-grown foods agree on the varying levels of vitamins,
minerals, and even taste. Although some researchers have concluded
that there is no difference in taste between food grown organically
and conventionally, many gourmet chefs seek out organic ingredients
for their special dishes because they believe the tastes to be more
intense. This of course could have to do with the type of soil or
other factors.

A more important question is whether or not the accumulation of
pesticide residues in non-organically grown foods is a real health
concern. Studies have never been able to conclusively show a direct
correlation between residues in food and a decline in human health,
but there are numerous problems in doing any such study. The first is
that you would need a population of people who are free of chemical
residues to compare to, and no one has been able to find such a group!
According to an ongoing EPA study of fat samples taken from surgeries
and autopsies across the country, we are all loaded with chemical
residues. Similar studies done in other countries all show the same
results.

The clearest studies that we have about pesticide residues and disease
are those looking at breast cancer in humans. In the last few years
there have been a series of studies looking at the level of DDT, DDE,
and PCB in women. They have very clearly shown chemical residues of
DDT in the serum and fat cells of women, and since we no longer use
DDT to spray for mosquitoes, the only known route of exposure to DDT
in this country is on foods that we have imported. We still
manufacture DDT in the U.S. even though its use has been banned here.
We export the DDT to other countries who use it on their produce and
then we import their produce with the DDT, hence exposing ourselves
and our parrots to its toxicity. We know from the lesson learned from
the Bald Eagle problem years ago that DDT is devastating to the
successful reproduction of some birds. It is imperative that we at
least give our endangered parrots in captive breeding programs every
advantage in the attempt to prevent their extinction, and that would
include the elimination of hormone-altering pesticides from their
diet.

Here is what the Consumer Report has to say about the effect of
pesticides on children, which can be compared in some ways to the
effects on parrots: "Whatever the health effects, children--with their
fast-growing, small bodies, speedy metabolisms, and less varied
diets--are especially vulnerable". This same report states: "Organic
food guarantees you a diet as low in pesticide residues as possible".

Many of us are aware that like children, our parrots are especially
sensitive to pesticides. But we like to provide our birds with a
smorgasbord of fresh foods in hopes of covering all the bases of their
nutritional needs. Unfortunately, produce is the food group with the
highest incidence of pesticide and chemical residues which are linked
with potential cancer, neurological problems, and hormonal imbalances.


Listed here are some foods that we can buy in our local markets and
health food stores, secure in the knowledge that they are relatively
free of pesticide residues. Following this list, there will be a list
of foods that we should either avoid altogether or buy only if grown
organically.

TOFU--In our supermarkets and in Asian specialty markets, much of the
compressed soybean curd food called tofu is organic, and yet
inexpensive, costing around two dollars per pound. Tofu is an
excellent vegetarian source of protein, B vitamins, and it contains
anti-cancer phytochemicals called isoflavones. You may be surprised at
how much parrots enjoy the texture of tofu. It has very little taste
but will take on the flavor of whatever food you choose to soak it in,
such as fruit juice. If soaked in hot water with melted organic almond
butter, it takes on an entirely different flavor with additional
calcium and other nutrients. It can be crumbled into a soak and cook
dish or a "mash" of fruits, vegetables, and other foods.

BABY FOODS--Recently, even the big brand name manufacturers of baby
foods, like Gerber and Beechnut, began marketing certified organic
baby foods. There are dried mixes of whole grains and fruits and
berries. Also there are many jar foods of tasty tropical fruit mixes,
as well as vegetables, rice, and pasta. One jar of organic tropical
fruit tossed with any one of the many shapes of pasta creates a
healthy and tempting taste treat for parrots. Fettucini-style pasta
with Gerber's Apple & Strawberry or Pear & Blueberry is one of many
tasty "pastabilities".

SPROUTS--When you "grow your own", you can be sure that there is no
pesticide contamination. Sprouting is as easy as buying a package of
mung beans from your health food store, soaking a cupful overnight,
spreading them in a collander, covering them with a paper towel,
rinsing several times a day for a couple days, and voila! You have a
food that is as fresh and alive as you possibly can get. Once you see
how easy it is to make mung bean sprouts, you may want to try lentils,
alfalfa, sunflower seeds, wheatberries, and other beans and peas.
There are sprouting jars and mixes and anti-fungal preparations
available, but it can be done very simply without any special
equipment. If you fear that fungus will grow on the sprouts, you can
purchase Nutribiotic Citricidal at your health food store and add it
to the soak water of the sprouting food.

HEALTH FOOD STORE ITEMS--As any parrot lover who shops in health food
stores will tell you, bring your check book! Although some items
purchased in natural foods markets are a little more expensive, there
is a virtual smorgasbord of items to tempt your feathered friends. One
can purchase many organic items, including fresh produce, in the
larger stores. One of my favorites items is the various flavored "nut
butters", including almond, cashew, pistachio, and hazelnut butter.
These are high in natural fats but can be utilized to make other
dishes more taste tempting . Most weaning babies find a sandwich made
of nut butter on whole grain bread irresistible. There are many whole
grain breads available in health food stores, including those made
from sprouted grains. The different types of whole grain pastas,
including spelt, and other non-wheat grains, can be used for parrots
with allergy problems. Organic juices of many flavors are a treat for
parrots as well as humans. Some will be found in the freezer and can
be defrosted one slice at a time as needed. Nearly all health food
stores sell sprouts, mixes for sprouting, and sprouting jars and other
types of equipment that one can use for growing their own sprouts.
Also available is the Nutribiotic Citricidal mentioned earlier to
prevent bacteria and molds from growing on the sprouting seeds, nuts
and grains. Many herbal preparations that are used for parrots are
available in health food stores, such as echinacea which is sometimes
used as an immune system stimulator, Aloe Detox which can be a
lifesaver in treating ill parrots, St. John's Wort, Pycnogenol, and
other feather plucking remedies. At the direction of a naturopathic
veterinarian, many homeopathic remedies from health food stores can be
used with no danger of toxicity.

If you have only one or two parrots, you can easily afford to make
your own organically-grown seed mix from the health food store by
choosing shelled or unshelled sunflower seeds, whole millet, wheat
berries, oats, buckwheat groats, unshelled sesame seeds, and many
other nuts, grains and seeds tailored to the tastes and nutritional
needs of your birds. For birds with obesity problems, one can choose
from the products with lower levels of fats. By determining the
protein levels of the available products, one can adjust this level
for the breeding and molting phases of their birds. If you haven't yet
visited your local health food market with your parrot friends in
mind, you're in for a very special treat.

Other foods that we can buy from our local markets without concern for
high levels of pesticides are:

CORN, SWEET POTATOES, BROCCOLI, BRUSSEL SPROUTS, CAULIFLOWER, U.S.
GRAPES, BANANAS, PLUMS, IMPORTED CHERRIES, and WATERMELON.

Here is a list of foods that never should be given to our parrots
unless they have been organically grown:

STRAWBERRIES, RED AND GREEN BELL PEPPERS, SPINACH, U.S. CHERRIES,
PEACHES, MEXICAN CANTALOUPES, CELERY, APPLES, APRICOTS, GREEN BEANS,
CHILEAN GRAPES, AND CUCUMBERS

A new set of nationwide organic standards is making its way over the
final set of bureaucratic hurdles in Washington, D.C. at this writing.
Once these rules are in place, the plethora of organic labels will be
reduced to one: that of the U.S.D.A. The new national standards are
not expected to vary much from the existing ones. Consumers can trust
labels indicating that a food is organically-grown. Contrary to rumor,
there has been only one recent major incident of known or suspected
fraud: a Minnesota food company that repackaged conventional foods and
sold them as organic. Organic farmers cannot take the risk of
mis-labeling foods and losing their designation as a Certified Organic
Farmer.

Here is information from AVIAN MEDICINE: PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION by
RITCHIE, HARRISON AND HARRISON, Wingers Publishing, Inc.

"Exposure to high concentrations of pesticides can lead to nonspecific
signs of poisoning including gastro- intestinal problems, tremors,
weakness, dyspnea, seizures or sudden death. Chronic low-grade
exposure to pesticides may induce more subtle clinical signs that are
more difficult to attribute to a toxin exposure. These exposures may
cause immunosuppression and increased susceptibility to disease,
decreased reproductive activity or generalized unthriftiness".
And...... "Interestingly, free-ranging granivorous birds that are
offered both organic (no pesticides) and pesticide-treated grains will
preferentially consume the organic foods. Test birds would not eat the
pesticide-treated foods until all of the organic grains were gone".

There is no question that pesticide-free foods are a better choice for
our parrots. Although it may seem to be a lot of trouble to feed in
this manner, once you get into a routine of feeding from the clean
group of foods and avoiding the foods that are known to be
problematic, it really is not difficult and it will prove rewarding
for both you and your parrots. It can make a real difference in their
health and longevity.

Winged Wisdom Note: Carolyn Swicegood is the owner of the LAND OF VOS,
a small breeding establishment specializing in the Vosmaeri
sub-species of Eclectus parrots. She has been "hooked on Vozzies" for
ten years. Carolyn has also written a number of articles for a variety
of magazines.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright ? 1998 Carolyn Swicegood and Winged Wisdom. All rights
reserved.
Email: ***@LandofVos.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winged Wisdom Pet Bird Magazine
A pet bird ezine, pet bird e-zine, for pet parrots & exotic birds.
Articles on the care & breeding of pet birds, pet parrots & exotic
birds
Birds n Ways Home Winged Wisdom Home Table of Contents

Cockatoo Parrot picture courtesy of Glasgow Enterprises



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright ? 1998 Birds n Ways All rights reserved.
Page design: Carol Highfill ---- Last update: March 1, 1998
David
2005-07-17 10:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Go Organic you know it makes sense.








Why organic fertilizers and organic
gardening are darn good ideas
http://www.plantea.com/organic-fertilizer.htm
By Marion Owen, Fearless Weeder for PlanTea, Inc. and
Co-author of Chicken Soup for the Gardener's Soul




Coke vs. Pepsi, Toyota vs. Ford, organic fertilizers vs. chemicals.
Tug-of-wars like these are hot and ongoing. No one can declare a clear
victory. Gardeners are no different. They're comfortable discussing
tomato varieties and the best time to plant peas and mow lawns.

Yet there's one topic that polarizes gardeners faster than a snowstorm
in May: fertilizers. Which are better, organic fertilizers or chemical
ones? Can plants tell the difference? Furthermore, would we really
starve if it weren't for agri-chemicals? Finally, is there a place for
organic gardening in today's world?


Thought I teach organic gardening courses through the University of
Alaska and support the virtues of organic fertilizers in interviews,
seminars and presentations, I'm going to step aside and present
viewpoints from other individuals, as well as provide snippets from
government reports, resources, and links. Let's start with Nell
Newman, daughter of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward . . .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nell Newman is head of Newman's Own Organics, a division of her
father's food company which she started in 1993. Nell traces her
interest in organic agriculture to her childhood in rural Connecticut,
where she grew up in the woods in an old farmhouse. "I knew where food
came from because I had a connection to what we ate. I grew it and
picked it, or caught it and cleaned it."

Though serious about organic food, Nell tries to win people over
gently. "It's a fine line between educating and proselytizing," she
says. "It's a different tone. And I usually don't listen when people
proselytize to me."

This gentle style is the key to her company's success. "We want to
offer organic food products with wide consumer appeal," says Nell.
"That was the motivation for the motto, 'great-tasting products that
happen to be organic,' because then you don't have to convert people
to some whole other way of thinking. People don't change so easily. If
it tastes like a hot dog or tastes like a pretzel, they'll buy it and
enjoy it without having to be convinced. And then perhaps they'll come
around to the organic thing and say, "Well maybe it is a good thing."

-- Nell Newman, head of Newman's Own Organics from a September 1999
interview in Conscious Choice The Journal of Ecology and Conscious
Living


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"What can be more valuable now than a small garden, free of synthetic
fertilizers and pesticide poisons, yielding food that tastes as good
as the vegetables and fruits we were able to buy in markets years ago?
Valuable not only to the body but to the spirit."

-- Robert Rodale (1930-1990) Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of Rodale for nearly twenty years


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"To test the benefits of organic gardening, I constructed two
identical raised beds. Both began with carefully prepared soil and
were planted with seeds and seedlings from the same source. I tended
one bed organically, using compost for fertility. On the other, I used
that well-known blue synthetic fertilizer. I did not use pesticides of
any kind on either bed. In both beds, I controlled pests by
hand-picking and by hosing off the plants.

The non-organic bed had an initial burst of growth, but it seemed to
attract aphids and ants. The plants in the organic bed soon caught up
and surpassed the chemically fertilized plants and had far fewer pest
problems. Also, in the chemical bed, the pH increased a great deal, so
I must now lower it.

I harvested more and better veggies from the organic bed, and I
continue to say, 'Those who know, garden organically; all others can
be taught.'"

-- Doug Moore, Cottonwood, Arizona
in a letter printed in Organic Gardening magazine (June 2002)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The environmental costs of using recommended pesticides in the United
States are estimated to be $9 billion a year; included are 67 million
birds killed each year from the recommended use of pesticides.

-- Organic Trade Association, an excellent source of information
about the organic industry, FAQ's, and current events


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It seems to me that the demand for organic produce is more than
anything else a direct consequence of great concern that has mounted
over the years about modern scientific farming systems which, I think,
have become unbalanced. We have depleted the land and use animals as
machines. We are now seeing the consequences of that and, hopefully,
we are learning from our mistakes before it is too late.

I believe that what really happened was that agriculture lost its soul
and that organic agriculture can put the soul back into farming. By
soul I mean that bit that isn't necessarily provable by science. It
is, nevertheless, something that actually leads to being able to work
in harmony with nature. It's a very peculiar theme and certainly, I
believe that management of a farm requires a bit of art and a great
deal of science but you can't just do the science and not the art.

-- A speech by The Prince of Wales at the opening of the
Aberdeen University Centre for Organic Agriculture,
Aberdeen, Scotland, October 13, 1998


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Toxic chemicals are contaminating groundwater on every inhabited
continent, endangering the world's most valuable supplies of
freshwater, according to a Worldwatch paper, Deep Trouble: The Hidden
Threat of Groundwater Pollution. Calling for a systematic overhaul of
manufacturing and industrial agriculture, the paper notes that several
water utilities in Germany now pay farmers to switch to organic
operations because this conversion costs less than removing farm
chemicals from water supplies.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the United States, populations of honeybees, essential for
pollinating commercial crops, have shrunk precipitously, while frogs
with extra legs and missing eyes have been found in northern states.
Pesticides are a leading suspect behind both aberrations.

-- Worldwatch, a non profit public policy research organization
dedicated to informing policymakers and the public about
emerging global problems and trends and the complex links
between the world economy and its environmental support systems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Although organic produce is becoming much more widely available and
cheaper to buy, it's still a hassle to get it in most parts of the
country. So if it's not organic, it's important for you to know which
crops are likely to carry the heaviest pesticide residues. Fruits to
watch out for include apples, peaches, Chilean grapes, Mexican
cantaloupes, strawberries, apricots and cherries. Commonly
contaminated vegetables and grains include spinach, cucumbers, bell
peppers, peanuts, green beans, potatoes and wheat flour. The wax on
the outside of apples, cucumbers and green peppers usually contains
fungicides. You have to peel these to remove the toxins.

In general, beware of imported fruit, which usually isn't checked very
well to see if growers have met U.S. pesticide standards (generally
much stricter than elsewhere). Your best bets are not to eat these
crops at all, grow your own or eat organic. You can grow a surprising
amount of food in a very small space, and enjoy the emotional and
physical benefits of gardening besides. Watch for pesticide-free
displays in your supermarket, and get to know the laws in your state
that govern when produce can be labeled "organic." You can also join
consumer action groups to demand safe foods and clear labeling.

I hope that more people will support the organic agriculture movement,
which is finally gaining a lot of ground in this country.

-- Andrew Weil, M.D., is an internationally recognized expert on
medicinal herbs, mind-body interactions, and Integrative Medicine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When chemical fertilizers are put into the soil they dissolve and seek
natural combinations with minerals already present. New combinations
glut or overload the plant, causing it to become unbalanced. Others
remain in the soil, many in the form of poisons.

Plants that are chemically fertilized may look lush, but lush growth
produces watery tissues, which become more susceptible to disease; and
the protein quality suffers.

Anyone alive before World War II, especially in Europe, knows that
bread, fruit, vegetables, and meat bear no relation to what they were
before the war. Our crop yields may have doubled or even tripled, but
their nutritive quality has diminished progressively. Visual
impression of foods has become the most important factor, though
anyone with a glimmer of second sight will pass up, as no more alive
than the products of Madame Toussand's wax museum, the cosmetic and
congealed displays of the grocery store today.

-- from the book, Secrets of the Soil: New Solutions for Restoring Our
Planet
by Peter Tompkins, Christopher Bird


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



An Interview with John Robbins, educator, pioneer and best-selling
author of Diet for a New America. By Dennis Hughes, Share Guide
Publisher

Dennis: ...And the groundwater and the downwind crops are also
affected.

John: Yes, and eventually everyone is affected. When pesticide-based
agriculture was first developed, they hybridized what they called the
Green Revolution. It seemed like a miracle, because we were suddenly
doubling the crop yield. It's actually similar to injecting some
amphetamine into a human being. They are going to suddenly feel a
tremendous rush of energy. If they don't have some sanity and common
sense they may think, "Oh this is incredible! I'll just plug into the
energy of the universe." But a drug induced addiction is not stable
and it's not sustainable, and it's not healthy. In agriculture we have
become addicted to chemicals in the form of chemical-based fertilizers
and pesticides.

I think that we're eating foods that are laden with chemicals but lack
nutritional value. For example, the synthetic fertilizers replace the
nitrogen and phosphorous and potassium which are the three primary
mineral requirements of the plants, but they don't replace the boron,
the molybdinum, the great plethora of micro nutrients and trace
minerals. It looks good, it's big, but it's not nutritionally
balanced. I'm wondering if some of the bizarre emotional and physical
problems that people are experiencing are a consequence of those
imbalances.

Dennis: And other changes. I've been reading about things like early
puberty in girls.

John: Right. Eighty years ago (and still in traditional indigenous
cultures today) women had their first menstrual cycle at the age of
17, sometimes 16, sometimes 18. This is traditional. This is how the
human being seems to have been designed to develop. But in Western
cultures today we have a large number of girls 8, 9 and 10 beginning
their menstrual cycles. The average in this country is 11 1/2 right
now. This has been directly traced to three things: the increasing fat
level in our diets; the use of hormones in animal production
(particularly in beef production); and thirdly, to the presence in the
environment of certain estrogen mimicking chemicals.

Dennis: At first I had problems spending more money on an organic
banana than on a commercial banana. It really bothered me sometimes,
there was a high price difference. But now I'm starting to feel like
you vote with your dollars and every extra bit that I'm giving
supports the movement.

John: Yes, you do vote with your dollars.

-- Shareguide, The Holistic Health Magazine
-- EarthSave, founded by John Robbins, author of Diet for a New
America


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We encourage the use of organic methods. It is eveident that the use
of toxic chemicals in food production contributes to both short- and
long-term soil and consumer health problems. Farmers and gardeners are
increasingly interested in developing more sustainable agricultural
and horticultural methods.

-- Printed in Johnny's Selected Seeds, catalog.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More recently, the chemical revolution convinced many people that
proper gardens had to look perfect. To those who followed this
revolution, this meant that their gardens had to be immaculate,
without a weed or bug in sight. Perfectionism is a loser's game in any
case, but in gardening, it has been a force for harm. The concept of a
"perfect garden" encourages people to see the natural world as
something to be overcome. Domination of nature through poisons like
pesticides and herbicides is cruelly easy. Its very simplicity fosters
feelings of superiority and makes it seem as if it were right to kill
any living thing that might annoy a human. Heaven forbid that a bug or
weed should mar the perfection of our acres of lawn or billowing
borders!

In my experience, organic gardening is easier than control-oriented
power gardening. When you use planting patterns found in nature, you
don't need to maintain combative "chainsaw" relationships with your
plants. I design beds and borders so a plant's natural attribute (like
a gentle weeping form) is an asset, not a detriment, to the
surrounding plants. I don't try to alter the essential nature of a
plant or my soil; instead, I simply take advantage of their strengths.
I'm not an expert on pests and diseases because I rarely deal with
either of them. By leaving plenty of native plants along my property
edges, I provide habitat, cover, and fodder for wildlife. Those wild
edges also support beneficial insects that are natural predators of
pesky ones.

What I like best about organic gardening is the result--an easygoing,
healthy haven full of birds, blossoms, and beauty. My garden is a
place overflowing with ease and comfort, not endless chores and
problems. That feels great to me.

-- Ann Lovejoy, author of Ann Lovejoy's Organic Garden Design School,
by Rodale Press. For more information about Rodale Organic Gardening
magazine and books, visit www.organicgardening.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for visiting. Stop by again. I'll put the coffee on!
Rosyposey
2005-07-17 16:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David
Go Organic you know it makes sense.
Why organic fertilizers and organic
gardening are darn good ideas
http://www.plantea.com/organic-fertilizer.htm
By Marion Owen, Fearless Weeder for PlanTea, Inc. and
Co-author of Chicken Soup for the Gardener's Soul
I agree. That's another bonus for keeping chickens, organic fertilizer
readily provided, and organic eggs kindly donated (and if I weren't
vegetarian then some lovely organic meat too). I try to avoid ever using
chemicals -except for medicines.
David
2005-07-17 16:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:49:38 +0100, Malcolm
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, Malcolm
Post by David
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:06:11 +0100, Malcolm
Post by David
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:57:02 +0100, Malcolm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4683425.stm
Ailsa Craig all over again, though I doubt Angus will even begin to
understand why it is such good news.
Hitler no doubt would have said the same about the extermination of
the Jews :-(
A classic, meaningless, remark from Angus. Faced with a conservation
success story, all he can do is resort to his usual nonsense.
No Malcolm, The Lundy rats were exterminated in the cause of promoting
another species as did Hitler exrterminate Jews to benefit his chosen
people. Very simple and meaningful comparison but obviously too
difficult for you to understand.
And all Angus can manage in response to some excellent conservation news
is to invoke his discredited comparison with Hitler and the Jews, thus
providing beyond doubt that he has neither any knowledge about
conservation nor a sense of proportion.
That's not conservation. Any fool can kill a predator to enhance the
habitat of another species. It doesn't take much knowledge.
But the real reason for the extermination of the Lubndy rats was for
tourism. The RSPB admit as much in their statement;
"Aside from the conservation argument, they're an amazing, charismatic
species and most people, even if they're not interested in bird
watching, will know what a puffin looks like.
"They're entertaining and comical, and children love them."
That's what the RSPB sink to :-(
No, Angus, you are twisting words, as usual. The statement starts off
"aside from the conservation argument".
Because there was no conservation argument in the slaughter policy,
purely the extermination of an entire species.
In other words, the conservation
argument was the main reason for getting rid of the rats to allow the
puffins to return.
No it quite clearly means they had insufficient justification to
slaughter and entire species, probably on the whim of one psychotic
individual within the RSPB. Germany had Adolf, we know about him, who
do the RSPB have that holds so much power?
There was the added bonus that they are attractive
and appealing birds.
What does that have to do with conservation? I'd say that was classic
CONservation hooliganism. Lets hope they dont take a dislike to
unemployed bums living on Islay or you'd be scared.
Are you advocating that all tourism to Lundy should stop? What would
you suggest putting in its place which would allow people to do on
living there?
Whats that got to do with conservation?
Post by David
Still confused about the level of your intelligence?
No, Angus. In comparison with you, my intelligence is doing fine, thank
you.
As you think you don't have limited intelligence it obviously is.
Compared with you, Angus, I doubt that anyone has limited intelligence.
At last something we can agree on, you do fail to show even limited
intelligence as do your weird friends.
David
2005-07-17 17:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If rats and hedgehogs are so bad on the islands its a wonder we have
any birds left at all. RSPB bullshit just doesnt tally up........




Acting to Save Songbirds

http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/commentsarticle2ba9.html?commentsid=79

Your Views and Comments




Letter from KM Scotland
I was interested to read about the rat eradication schemes on Lundy
(and isle of May). There have been others and we now have the
"non-native" hedgehog and mink culls in the Hebrides. Since all these
beasties also inhabit the Mainland of the UK, it"s a wonder there are
any birds left at all. This is never pointed out by conservationists
who just blame farmers for habitat destruction and gamekeepers for
persecution.

I understand Britain has an absolute plague of rats at the moment.
When are any of the experts going to start compiling data on
populations, estimated impacts, etc? The RSPB don"t do anything unless
it brings money into their coffers but there is no excuse on the part
of EN, SNH or the CCW. 3+ years ago I was told SNH was monitoring the
spread and impact of the pine marten. Since then, not a cheep. This
little wizard can wipe out 40 - 50 young pheasant poults at a go. But
it"s "native".

Incidentally, many of Scotland"s islands (except Skye) have no avian
or ground predators to speak of, one of the main reasons (in my view)
why so many birds still survive there. But it could be argued, could
it not, that species like the fox, weasel or eagle were probably wiped
out there by past persecution and so, instead of applauding islanders
(speaking as an islander!) for having been good custodians of the
landscape and preserving so many rare species, we should probably be
pointing out that the fruits of this custodianship are based on past
eradication of many predators?! Just a thought but, certainly, in
terms of land management on islands being "friendly", there is nothing
to a distinguishing crofting in the Hebrides from that of the adjacent
western Mainland - except the presence or absence of predators.
a***@aol.com
2005-07-17 19:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David
If rats and hedgehogs are so bad on the islands its a wonder we have
any birds left at all. RSPB bullshit just doesnt tally up........
It's the grants they tally up :-(
Post by David
Acting to Save Songbirds
http://www.songbird-survival.org.uk/commentsarticle2ba9.html?commentsid=79
Your Views and Comments
Letter from KM Scotland
I was interested to read about the rat eradication schemes on Lundy
(and isle of May). There have been others and we now have the
"non-native" hedgehog and mink culls in the Hebrides. Since all these
beasties also inhabit the Mainland of the UK, it"s a wonder there are
any birds left at all. This is never pointed out by conservationists
who just blame farmers for habitat destruction and gamekeepers for
persecution.
I understand Britain has an absolute plague of rats at the moment.
When are any of the experts going to start compiling data on
populations, estimated impacts, etc? The RSPB don"t do anything unless
it brings money into their coffers but there is no excuse on the part
of EN, SNH or the CCW. 3+ years ago I was told SNH was monitoring the
spread and impact of the pine marten. Since then, not a cheep. This
little wizard can wipe out 40 - 50 young pheasant poults at a go. But
it"s "native".
Incidentally, many of Scotland"s islands (except Skye) have no avian
or ground predators to speak of, one of the main reasons (in my view)
why so many birds still survive there. But it could be argued, could
it not, that species like the fox, weasel or eagle were probably wiped
out there by past persecution and so, instead of applauding islanders
(speaking as an islander!) for having been good custodians of the
landscape and preserving so many rare species, we should probably be
pointing out that the fruits of this custodianship are based on past
eradication of many predators?! Just a thought but, certainly, in
terms of land management on islands being "friendly", there is nothing
to a distinguishing crofting in the Hebrides from that of the adjacent
western Mainland - except the presence or absence of predators.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
Phil Kyle
2005-07-17 21:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:57:02 +0100, Malcolm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4683425.stm
Ailsa Craig all over again, though I doubt Angus will even begin to
understand why it is such good news.
Why so coy if its such a success? Because you know its CONservation
hooliganism at its most extreme and the RSPB led slaughter of yet
another species it doesnt think should live in its twitcher driven
world. These rats and birds happily existed together for many
centuries, as indeed the natural world does. In fact its only since
CONservation hooligan charities like the RSPB came to the fore we now
have so many problems. I wonder why?
Some experts on the truth can be found in the following
http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Rats_Nest/Ship_Rats/Lundy_te
xt.htm
EXTERMINATION OF LUNDY COLONY
Plans by the R.S.P.B. et al to wipe out one of the only two remaining
British colonies of ship rat in early 2003.
Go to graphic version
Return to Hello Sailor start-page
*S*T*O*P* *P*R*E*S*S*!*
TEMPORARY HALT TO LUNDY CULL
With sufficient publicity it may still be possible to save the unique
and historic strain of Lundy ship rats. Joan and Roger Branton, a
couple who are experts on the ship rat, visited the island in April
2003 and could find no evidence of surviving rats; but the RSPB
reckoned there were 20 still alive at that point, whom they were doing
their best to kill even though rodent-experts had offered to catch
them and remove them from the island.
The Brantons found poisoned bait left out in traps wide enough to
allow rabbits etc. to enter and be killed, and in some cases poisoned
bait was exposed where visitors' children, and the Red Listed
song-thrush, could easily get at it. There were no notices warning
visitors of the presence of deadly poison. A cruel drowning-trap was
also found.
They found that since their previous visit to the island in the '80s,
the eco-system has been largely destroyed - apparently mainly due to
excessive tourism. Wild flowers which had formerly flourished were now
almost entirely absent. Large areas which had been covered by
rhodedendrons (which are invasive and do need to be controlled) had
been burned back and then not replaced by any plants of equivalent
size, and this had resulted in massive soil-erosion as the
rhodedenrons had actually been holding the cliffs together. The team
carrying out the rat-extermination were compounding the problem by
roaring around this fragile environment on quad bikes. In fact it's
astonishing that any birds except pigeons and crows still nest there.
As a result of evidence collected by the Brantons, the cull was
suspended in May 2003 on the orders of the Health & Safety Executive,
and of the RSPCA. This may be shutting the stable door after the horse
has bolted, as it's questionable whether any rats from this unique
colony have survivied; but if there are any rats left they now have a
chance to recover. Your letters can help make the temporary suspension
of the cull permanent.
Also in May 2003, it was reported that the puffin colony on Coquet
Island, Northumberland, had disappeared. In 2002 there had been more
than 37,000 adult puffins on Coquet; in 2003 there were less than 200.
Experts believe that the puffins simply decided the isalnd was
overcrowded and that they were going to go nest somewhere else; and
nobody suggested that it was the fault of any rats, at all.
Lundy is a small island 11 miles off the coast of Devon, in south-west
England. At time of writing, early in 2003, it is inhabited by one of
the only two remaining established colonies of ship rat in Britain
(the other being on the Shiant Islands in the Hebrides), as well as
the usual/inevitable raffish collection of Norway rats.
Until the mid 18th C the ship rat, a.k.a. The Old English Rat, was the
only rat in Britain: it is the rat of legend, the rat mediaeval barns
were rife with. The Lundy rats are believed to have swum ashore from a
shipwreck of the Spanish Armada. They are unusually small - about
gerbil-size - and have a high proportion of white-bellied agoutis, a
colour very rare elsewhere in the world. They cohabit amicably with
the neighbouring Rattus norvegicus colony, disproving the Victorian
idea that the invading Norway rat deliberately killed the native ship
rat (rather than out-competing it).
The ship rat colony has lived on Lundy for 400+ years, and the Norway
rat colony has been there for about 200 years, without apparent ill
effect on the island's puffins and Manx shearwaters. In the last few
decades, however, seabird numbers have fallen.
Dr Keith Hiscock, marine biologist and long-standing member of the
Lundy Field Society, reports that the rare and interesting sea-life
all around Lundy is in sharp decline as at spring 2003. Since the
seabirds on Lundy are fish-eaters, one need look no further than the
decline in nearby fish-stocks to explain the decline in birds.
Occasional predation of bird-chicks has been reported - in an area
well away from either rat colony, on an island inhabited by gulls,
peregrine falcons, domestic cats and deer (who kill ground-nesting
birds and suck out their bones for the calcium to make antlers).
R. rattus is primarily vegetarian, and the Lundy strain are tiny and
very lightweight in build. Some years ago a couple called Joan and
Roger Branton ran a ship rat domestication project using animals
wild-caught on Lundy, and found that these rats had no interest in
meat and and were unable to recognize bird-eggs as food.
However, the Lundy Seabird Recovery Project, a coalition between
English Nature, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (R.S.P.B.) and a tourist organization called the
Landmark Trust, has decided the fall in seabird numbers must be due to
predation by the ship rat. The sole evidence is that two ship rats
were found to have feathers in their stomach contents: unsurprizing,
since rats are scavengers and the island is littered with the carcases
of seabirds killed by gulls.
The L.S.R.P. claims there are "up to" 40,000 rats on Lundy: but
repeated scientific surveys have put the ship rat colony at around 400
individuals (the normal size for a wild rat colony), plus a similar
number of Norway rats.
If the rats were predating on seabirds it might be desirable to cull
them to relieve pressure on the bird colonies, even if the decline in
birds was due to lack of fish. But one could equally say a decline in
seabird numbers is a good thing because it relieves pressure on the
increasingly rare fish.
Nor is extermination neccessary even if the ship rats were taking
eggs. The Shiant population is maintained at around 200 individuals by
judicious culling, and cohabits with the local seabirds without harm.
But since January 2003 the L.S.R.P. has been attempting to poison all
the rats on Lundy, using second-generation rodenticides not licensed
for outdoor use. These will not only cause suffering to the rats but
will get into the food-chain and kill the islanders' cats, as well as
any birds which scavenge on the carcases of poisoned rats.
The L.S.R.P. regards the ship rats as of no scientific interest
because they are "not indigenous". However, ship rats probably came to
Britain with the Romans - i.e. they've been here as long as brown
hares, and twice as long as rabbits, both of which we treat as native
species.
Worldwide ship rats are not endangered: indeed they are one of the
commonest mammals on earth. But they are probably the rarest mammal in
Britain, with a total population less than 1,000 - and it's a crying
shame to wipe them out: especially as there's no scientific evidence
that doing so will do the seabirds of Lundy the slightest good.
The real reason for this mass extermination is that the Landmark
Trust, which promotes bird-watching holidays, feels that the rats are
untidy and bad for tourism. In fact ship rats are pretty and playful
creatures, and Britain's rarest mammal would be a major tourist
attraction in its own right if they would only promote them properly.
This is the preferred option of the Lundy Field Society.
[It occurs to me that the Landmark Trust's increasing promotion of
Lundy as a tourist destination must mean an increase in the resident
human population, to cater for those tourists. An increase in the
human population nearly always means an increase in the cat population
- and cats, much as I love them, are the major predator on British
birds.]
The British charity Animal Aid has produced a leaflet campaigning
against the extermination. For copies of this leaflet, and further
details of how you can help, please 'phone their office on 01732 364
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Anyone who is concerned about the destruction of this unique colony
should write a.s.a.p. to the following organizations, and to the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
English Nature
Dr Andy Brown, Chief Executive, Northminster House, Peterborough, PE1
1UA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The Landmark Trust
Peter Pearce, Director, Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead, Berkshure, SL6 3SW
Pearce's P.A.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The National Trust
Fiona Reynolds, Director General, 36 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H
9AS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
R.S.P.B.
Graham Wynne, Chief Executive, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19
2DL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Animal Aid asks members of these organizations to write telling them
that they are considering withdrawing their membership over this
issue: and non-members to write to the above addresses raising the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Slaughter in the name of coservation is inhumane and a waste of
resources.
[Myself, I don't entirely agree with this one - at least, I accept
that there are some situations where destruction of introduced animals
is the only practical way to save a rare species. But to slaughter an
extremely rare animal to save a moderately rare animal, when there
isn't even any evidence that the extremely rare animal is any threat
to the moderately rare one, is not only inhumane and wasteful - it's
bloody ridiculous. The sole logic seems to be "Feathers good: fur
bad."]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Ask these groups why they think that the puffin population has only
started to decrease over the last few decades, after co-existing with
black ship rats for hundreds of years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The use of poison is inhumane, and there is the real possibility that
other species might accidentally be attracted to the bait.
[This is not to mention that other species - cats, dogs, scavenging
birds - will quite definitely eat poisoned rat-carcases and be killed
themselves.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Ask these organizations why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that
there are up to 40,000 rats on Lundy, when repeated scientific surveys
place the ship rat colony at only 400 individuals, and the Norway rat
colony not much bigger?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Ask them why they are just telling the press, BBC etc. that they are
simply exterminating "rats" and not that they are wiping out one of
the only two colonies of the rarest mammal in Britain?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Ask them why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that the rats came
to Lundy off passing ships - but not that they did so half a millenium
ago, and are a unique and completely isolated population with many
interesting features which they are about to destroy forever?
Well I must say I agree.
--
Phil Kyle™
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness
to continue to criticise your sig
is infinite." -- Neil Barker
John
2005-07-20 05:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Makes me glad I went veggie. Thought they had banned all this
suffering?








Home > Factory farming > Markets > Special report: July 2005
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/farming/markets.htm

MARKETS
Government Advisory Body Demands Action On Water
A new report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) on farmed
animals at gatherings* gives recommendations for improved animal
welfare at livestock markets. The most noteworthy recommendations
include; establishing a system of ongoing monitoring and training for
market staff; and the provision of water to all animals when not
involved in a ëdefined activityí, such as movement prior to or
following sale.


"A pig in a market cage that the industry said didn’t exist".


Although Animal Aid welcomes this development, we would like to see
not only the ‘provision’of, but direct access for animals to the water
- which of course would be difficult in pens with high stocking
densities. Even if the government accepts its own advisory body’s
recommendations and makes it obligatory for markets to ensure no
animal suffers from thirst, livestock markets will remain a problem.
This is because they are incredibly stressful for animals and
represent a totally unnecessary stage in the cycle of abuse to which
farmed animals are subjected. Encouragingly, however, in the last ten
years, the number of livestock markets in Great Britain has decreased
by two thirds, and the number of ‘slaughter animals’ sold through
markets has also declined significantly. (Others pass through markets
en route to another farm for further fattening.)

Other important recommendations in the report include:

As a Legal requirement
Formal designation of an Animal Welfare Officer.
Ensuring ‘duty of care’ within the Animal Welfare Bill encompasses
animals at gatherings.
Specific prohibition of hitting, poking or prodding with a stick any
animal around the head, eyes or other sensitive part of the body.
Electric goads avoided as far as possible.
Prohibition of certain methods of handling calves; including dragging
by neck strings, tail twisting and ‘wheelbarrowing’.
When not involved in a defined ‘activity’, all animals should be
provided with sufficient space to lie down, get up and turn around
without difficulty.
To provide bedding for all animals held in the market overnight.
Unfit animals not to be brought to a market premises.
Markets selling dairy cattle must have facilities for milking.
To provide an adequate number of permanent loading and unloading bays
which allow animals to enter and leave all vehicles at the minimum
possible incline.
All animals have non-slip flooring in areas of animal movement

To be included in the Code of Practice
Fractious animals that have become distressed should be sold from the
pen and not the sales ring.

Markets Exposed
Back in April the Daily Express ran our campaign advert on ‘livestock’
markets. The ad illustrated some of the shocking cruelty that takes
place in UK animal sales every week. Express readers were asked to
send an attached coupon asking Ben Bradshaw MP - Minister for Animal
Welfare at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) to ban livestock markets.

We had calls and letters from irate members of the farming industry,
declaring that our photos were untruthful. There was also a threat to
refer it to the Advertising Standards Association. The photos were
taken from the many hours of undercover footage gathered by our market
investigators at various locations across the country. Extensive
evidence of abuse has been documented in our major reports; ‘A Dirty
Business’, ‘Bartered Lives’ and ‘A Brutal Business’.

The picture of a sick and exhausted pig lying squashed in a metal
barred pen on bare concrete, seemed to irritate the farming industry
the most. (Obviously, this is not the kind of image they would like
splashed all over a major national newspaper.) We were told countless
times that we had faked the photo and that this image could not be
seen at livestock markets. So we visited a market in the north of
England. There we found distressing scenes of sad and frightened pigs,
kept solitary in metal barred pens barely large enough to hold them,
with concrete floors and no bedding.
Animal Aid has been monitoring markets for more than 10 years and has
consistently recorded animals being kicked and punched by callous and
untrained handlers. Even in the height of the summer, animals are
rarely given water.

Animals at markets need your help. Please support our call for a ban
on livestock sales. Contact us to order a FREE markets pack for more
information.

* Other gatherings include: staging points and gatherings at dealers’
and hauliers’ yards, agricultural shows and exhibitions; and also
centres where animals await collection - for example cattle for
destruction under the BSE rules.

Action
If you have a livestock market in your town, why not pay a visit and
say what you have seen in a letter to your local paper.

Write to
Ben Bradshaw MP, Animal Welfare Minister, Defra, Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square,
London, SW1P 3JR. Ask for a ban on all livestock markets.
Go Veggie
It’s the easiest and most positive step you can take towards
alleviating the suffering of farmed animals. Click here to order your
FREE Go Veggie pack full of tips, advice and tasty recipes.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/vegan/freepack.htm
Donate
Please help us to fund future media ads, to bring this issue to the
public’s attention.

www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |

Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
***@animalaid.org.uk
David
2005-07-18 08:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:13:34 +0100, "BAC"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4683425.stm
Ailsa Craig all over again, though I doubt Angus will even begin to
understand why it is such good news.
It is not unvarnished good news to those people who regret the passing of
the small colony of rattus rattus, exterminated along with the rattus
norvegicus. There are many puffins up and down our coasts, and hardly any r.
rattus.
It may also be a little simplistic to attribute the observation of the first
chick since 1972 (have puffins been extinct there since 1972, then, that was
not my understanding?) solely to the removal of rats, anyway, the no fishing
zone established to the east of the island is reputed to have had a
beneficial effect on marine life abundance in the area, probably to the
advantage of marine life predators based on and around the island.
Its just another CONservation tallus taleus. The sad thing is whilst
these idiots get away with this kind of hooliganism we are actually no
nearer to resolving as to why we are suffering huge climate, species
and habitat changes.
Why so coy if its such a success? Because you know its CONservation
hooliganism at its most extreme and the RSPB led slaughter of yet
another species it doesnt think should live in its twitcher driven
world. These rats and birds happily existed together for many
centuries, as indeed the natural world does. In fact its only since
CONservation hooligan charities like the RSPB came to the fore we now
have so many problems. I wonder why?
Some experts on the truth can be found in the following
http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Rats_Nest/Ship_Rats/Lundy_text.htm
EXTERMINATION OF LUNDY COLONY
Plans by the R.S.P.B. et al to wipe out one of the only two remaining
British colonies of ship rat in early 2003.
Go to graphic version
Return to Hello Sailor start-page
*S*T*O*P* *P*R*E*S*S*!*
TEMPORARY HALT TO LUNDY CULL
With sufficient publicity it may still be possible to save the unique
and historic strain of Lundy ship rats. Joan and Roger Branton, a
couple who are experts on the ship rat, visited the island in April
2003 and could find no evidence of surviving rats; but the RSPB
reckoned there were 20 still alive at that point, whom they were doing
their best to kill even though rodent-experts had offered to catch
them and remove them from the island.
The Brantons found poisoned bait left out in traps wide enough to
allow rabbits etc. to enter and be killed, and in some cases poisoned
bait was exposed where visitors' children, and the Red Listed
song-thrush, could easily get at it. There were no notices warning
visitors of the presence of deadly poison. A cruel drowning-trap was
also found.
They found that since their previous visit to the island in the '80s,
the eco-system has been largely destroyed - apparently mainly due to
excessive tourism. Wild flowers which had formerly flourished were now
almost entirely absent. Large areas which had been covered by
rhodedendrons (which are invasive and do need to be controlled) had
been burned back and then not replaced by any plants of equivalent
size, and this had resulted in massive soil-erosion as the
rhodedenrons had actually been holding the cliffs together. The team
carrying out the rat-extermination were compounding the problem by
roaring around this fragile environment on quad bikes. In fact it's
astonishing that any birds except pigeons and crows still nest there.
As a result of evidence collected by the Brantons, the cull was
suspended in May 2003 on the orders of the Health & Safety Executive,
and of the RSPCA. This may be shutting the stable door after the horse
has bolted, as it's questionable whether any rats from this unique
colony have survivied; but if there are any rats left they now have a
chance to recover. Your letters can help make the temporary suspension
of the cull permanent.
Also in May 2003, it was reported that the puffin colony on Coquet
Island, Northumberland, had disappeared. In 2002 there had been more
than 37,000 adult puffins on Coquet; in 2003 there were less than 200.
Experts believe that the puffins simply decided the isalnd was
overcrowded and that they were going to go nest somewhere else; and
nobody suggested that it was the fault of any rats, at all.
Lundy is a small island 11 miles off the coast of Devon, in south-west
England. At time of writing, early in 2003, it is inhabited by one of
the only two remaining established colonies of ship rat in Britain
(the other being on the Shiant Islands in the Hebrides), as well as
the usual/inevitable raffish collection of Norway rats.
Until the mid 18th C the ship rat, a.k.a. The Old English Rat, was the
only rat in Britain: it is the rat of legend, the rat mediaeval barns
were rife with. The Lundy rats are believed to have swum ashore from a
shipwreck of the Spanish Armada. They are unusually small - about
gerbil-size - and have a high proportion of white-bellied agoutis, a
colour very rare elsewhere in the world. They cohabit amicably with
the neighbouring Rattus norvegicus colony, disproving the Victorian
idea that the invading Norway rat deliberately killed the native ship
rat (rather than out-competing it).
The ship rat colony has lived on Lundy for 400+ years, and the Norway
rat colony has been there for about 200 years, without apparent ill
effect on the island's puffins and Manx shearwaters. In the last few
decades, however, seabird numbers have fallen.
Dr Keith Hiscock, marine biologist and long-standing member of the
Lundy Field Society, reports that the rare and interesting sea-life
all around Lundy is in sharp decline as at spring 2003. Since the
seabirds on Lundy are fish-eaters, one need look no further than the
decline in nearby fish-stocks to explain the decline in birds.
Occasional predation of bird-chicks has been reported - in an area
well away from either rat colony, on an island inhabited by gulls,
peregrine falcons, domestic cats and deer (who kill ground-nesting
birds and suck out their bones for the calcium to make antlers).
R. rattus is primarily vegetarian, and the Lundy strain are tiny and
very lightweight in build. Some years ago a couple called Joan and
Roger Branton ran a ship rat domestication project using animals
wild-caught on Lundy, and found that these rats had no interest in
meat and and were unable to recognize bird-eggs as food.
However, the Lundy Seabird Recovery Project, a coalition between
English Nature, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (R.S.P.B.) and a tourist organization called the
Landmark Trust, has decided the fall in seabird numbers must be due to
predation by the ship rat. The sole evidence is that two ship rats
were found to have feathers in their stomach contents: unsurprizing,
since rats are scavengers and the island is littered with the carcases
of seabirds killed by gulls.
The L.S.R.P. claims there are "up to" 40,000 rats on Lundy: but
repeated scientific surveys have put the ship rat colony at around 400
individuals (the normal size for a wild rat colony), plus a similar
number of Norway rats.
If the rats were predating on seabirds it might be desirable to cull
them to relieve pressure on the bird colonies, even if the decline in
birds was due to lack of fish. But one could equally say a decline in
seabird numbers is a good thing because it relieves pressure on the
increasingly rare fish.
Nor is extermination neccessary even if the ship rats were taking
eggs. The Shiant population is maintained at around 200 individuals by
judicious culling, and cohabits with the local seabirds without harm.
But since January 2003 the L.S.R.P. has been attempting to poison all
the rats on Lundy, using second-generation rodenticides not licensed
for outdoor use. These will not only cause suffering to the rats but
will get into the food-chain and kill the islanders' cats, as well as
any birds which scavenge on the carcases of poisoned rats.
The L.S.R.P. regards the ship rats as of no scientific interest
because they are "not indigenous". However, ship rats probably came to
Britain with the Romans - i.e. they've been here as long as brown
hares, and twice as long as rabbits, both of which we treat as native
species.
Worldwide ship rats are not endangered: indeed they are one of the
commonest mammals on earth. But they are probably the rarest mammal in
Britain, with a total population less than 1,000 - and it's a crying
shame to wipe them out: especially as there's no scientific evidence
that doing so will do the seabirds of Lundy the slightest good.
The real reason for this mass extermination is that the Landmark
Trust, which promotes bird-watching holidays, feels that the rats are
untidy and bad for tourism. In fact ship rats are pretty and playful
creatures, and Britain's rarest mammal would be a major tourist
attraction in its own right if they would only promote them properly.
This is the preferred option of the Lundy Field Society.
[It occurs to me that the Landmark Trust's increasing promotion of
Lundy as a tourist destination must mean an increase in the resident
human population, to cater for those tourists. An increase in the
human population nearly always means an increase in the cat population
- and cats, much as I love them, are the major predator on British
birds.]
The British charity Animal Aid has produced a leaflet campaigning
against the extermination. For copies of this leaflet, and further
details of how you can help, please 'phone their office on 01732 364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who is concerned about the destruction of this unique colony
should write a.s.a.p. to the following organizations, and to the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English Nature
Dr Andy Brown, Chief Executive, Northminster House, Peterborough, PE1
1UA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Landmark Trust
Peter Pearce, Director, Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead, Berkshure, SL6 3SW
Pearce's P.A.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Trust
Fiona Reynolds, Director General, 36 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H
9AS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.S.P.B.
Graham Wynne, Chief Executive, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19
2DL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Aid asks members of these organizations to write telling them
that they are considering withdrawing their membership over this
issue: and non-members to write to the above addresses raising the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slaughter in the name of coservation is inhumane and a waste of
resources.
[Myself, I don't entirely agree with this one - at least, I accept
that there are some situations where destruction of introduced animals
is the only practical way to save a rare species. But to slaughter an
extremely rare animal to save a moderately rare animal, when there
isn't even any evidence that the extremely rare animal is any threat
to the moderately rare one, is not only inhumane and wasteful - it's
bloody ridiculous. The sole logic seems to be "Feathers good: fur
bad."]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask these groups why they think that the puffin population has only
started to decrease over the last few decades, after co-existing with
black ship rats for hundreds of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of poison is inhumane, and there is the real possibility that
other species might accidentally be attracted to the bait.
[This is not to mention that other species - cats, dogs, scavenging
birds - will quite definitely eat poisoned rat-carcases and be killed
themselves.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask these organizations why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that
there are up to 40,000 rats on Lundy, when repeated scientific surveys
place the ship rat colony at only 400 individuals, and the Norway rat
colony not much bigger?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask them why they are just telling the press, BBC etc. that they are
simply exterminating "rats" and not that they are wiping out one of
the only two colonies of the rarest mammal in Britain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask them why they are telling the press, BBC etc. that the rats came
to Lundy off passing ships - but not that they did so half a millenium
ago, and are a unique and completely isolated population with many
interesting features which they are about to destroy forever?
Lord HawWhore
2005-07-18 21:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David
Interesting article from the bird world after the recent revelation
that 8 birds died after eating chilean grapes. It makes you appreciate
the benefits of going organic even for our pets.
THE KITCHEN PHYSICIAN IV
Feeding Organic Foods Affordably
by Carolyn Swicegood
http://www.birdsnways.com/wisdom/ww21eii.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be surprised at how affordably we can feed pesticide-free
foods to our parrots. It is much easier now to select foods that
promote health and longevity by minimizing the exposure of our birds
to toxic pesticide residues, thanks to a report by the Environmental
Working Group on the toxicity of produce. This report outlined the
most toxic and least toxic fruits and vegetables, as detailed in my
last article, The Kitchen Physician III.
Eating organic food and drinking pure water can have profoundly
beneficial effects on the health and longevity of parrots. If your
parrot became ill due to the ingestion of pesticide residues, how much
money would you spend to restore it to health? The cost of feeding
organic foods is minimal in comparison to the cost of illness, and
there are several favorite foods of parrots that are safe to buy even
when not grown organically.
According to Consumer Reports, January 1998, there are 9,700
pesticides in existence, and in 1995, U.S. farmers applied 566 million
pounds of pesticides to major fiber and food crops. Last summer, the
U.S. Geological Survey announced the first results of a massive study
of pesticides in 5,000 water samples from wells and rivers. Half the
wells--and nearly all streams--contained at least one pesticide.
Almost every pesticide legal for use in the United States, even when
applied according to label directions, will kill birds. Carbamates and
organophosphates kill insects (or birds) by disrupting the organism's
nervous system. Although eating pesticide residues on foods will not
kill a parrot instantly, long-term exposure will result in a slow but
sure toxic buildup in the bird's system. Knowing the magnitude of the
problem, it is imperative that we give our parrots the purest possible
water and the least contaminated food that is available.
A recent article in the Journal of Applied Nutrition gave credence to
the notion that organic foods have higher nutrient levels than
non-organically grown food. In this study the mineral content of
organic apples, pears, potatoes, wheat, and sweet corn were compared
to commercial varieties. Overall the organic foods showed higher
levels of nutrient minerals and lower levels of heavy metals.
Here are a few of the minerals that were found in higher levels in
organic foods: CHROMIUM is a micro-nutrient that was found to be
higher in organic foods by an average of 78%. SELENIUM is one of the
antioxidant nutrients that protects us from damage by environmental
chemicals. It was found to be an average of 390% higher in organic
foods. CALCIUM averaged 63% higher in organic foods. BORON, which
works along with calcium to keep bones strong, averaged 70% more.
MAGNESIUM averaged 138% more.
When organic foods were tested for mineral levels, the researchers
also looked for the amount of heavy metals--aluminum, cadmium, lead
and mercury. Aluminum has been implicated for years in the development
of Alzheimer's disease in humans. Its content in organic food averaged
40% less than in commercial foods. Lead toxicity often is a problem in
parrots. Lead averaged 29% lower in organic foods. Mercury, which can
cause neurological damage, averaged 25% lower in organic foods.
Other studies have looked at vitamin levels of food plants treated
with certain pesticides. They showed that application of some
pesticides lowered the vitamin levels in the plants they were applied
to. This is not the same theory as that of plants raised with
chemicals being low in nutrients because of soil depletion. Not all
studies on the differences between organically-grown foods and
conventionally-grown foods agree on the varying levels of vitamins,
minerals, and even taste. Although some researchers have concluded
that there is no difference in taste between food grown organically
and conventionally, many gourmet chefs seek out organic ingredients
for their special dishes because they believe the tastes to be more
intense. This of course could have to do with the type of soil or
other factors.
A more important question is whether or not the accumulation of
pesticide residues in non-organically grown foods is a real health
concern. Studies have never been able to conclusively show a direct
correlation between residues in food and a decline in human health,
but there are numerous problems in doing any such study. The first is
that you would need a population of people who are free of chemical
residues to compare to, and no one has been able to find such a group!
According to an ongoing EPA study of fat samples taken from surgeries
and autopsies across the country, we are all loaded with chemical
residues. Similar studies done in other countries all show the same
results.
The clearest studies that we have about pesticide residues and disease
are those looking at breast cancer in humans. In the last few years
there have been a series of studies looking at the level of DDT, DDE,
and PCB in women. They have very clearly shown chemical residues of
DDT in the serum and fat cells of women, and since we no longer use
DDT to spray for mosquitoes, the only known route of exposure to DDT
in this country is on foods that we have imported. We still
manufacture DDT in the U.S. even though its use has been banned here.
We export the DDT to other countries who use it on their produce and
then we import their produce with the DDT, hence exposing ourselves
and our parrots to its toxicity. We know from the lesson learned from
the Bald Eagle problem years ago that DDT is devastating to the
successful reproduction of some birds. It is imperative that we at
least give our endangered parrots in captive breeding programs every
advantage in the attempt to prevent their extinction, and that would
include the elimination of hormone-altering pesticides from their
diet.
Here is what the Consumer Report has to say about the effect of
pesticides on children, which can be compared in some ways to the
effects on parrots: "Whatever the health effects, children--with their
fast-growing, small bodies, speedy metabolisms, and less varied
diets--are especially vulnerable". This same report states: "Organic
food guarantees you a diet as low in pesticide residues as possible".
Many of us are aware that like children, our parrots are especially
sensitive to pesticides. But we like to provide our birds with a
smorgasbord of fresh foods in hopes of covering all the bases of their
nutritional needs. Unfortunately, produce is the food group with the
highest incidence of pesticide and chemical residues which are linked
with potential cancer, neurological problems, and hormonal imbalances.
Listed here are some foods that we can buy in our local markets and
health food stores, secure in the knowledge that they are relatively
free of pesticide residues. Following this list, there will be a list
of foods that we should either avoid altogether or buy only if grown
organically.
TOFU--In our supermarkets and in Asian specialty markets, much of the
compressed soybean curd food called tofu is organic, and yet
inexpensive, costing around two dollars per pound. Tofu is an
excellent vegetarian source of protein, B vitamins, and it contains
anti-cancer phytochemicals called isoflavones. You may be surprised at
how much parrots enjoy the texture of tofu. It has very little taste
but will take on the flavor of whatever food you choose to soak it in,
such as fruit juice. If soaked in hot water with melted organic almond
butter, it takes on an entirely different flavor with additional
calcium and other nutrients. It can be crumbled into a soak and cook
dish or a "mash" of fruits, vegetables, and other foods.
BABY FOODS--Recently, even the big brand name manufacturers of baby
foods, like Gerber and Beechnut, began marketing certified organic
baby foods. There are dried mixes of whole grains and fruits and
berries. Also there are many jar foods of tasty tropical fruit mixes,
as well as vegetables, rice, and pasta. One jar of organic tropical
fruit tossed with any one of the many shapes of pasta creates a
healthy and tempting taste treat for parrots. Fettucini-style pasta
with Gerber's Apple & Strawberry or Pear & Blueberry is one of many
tasty "pastabilities".
SPROUTS--When you "grow your own", you can be sure that there is no
pesticide contamination. Sprouting is as easy as buying a package of
mung beans from your health food store, soaking a cupful overnight,
spreading them in a collander, covering them with a paper towel,
rinsing several times a day for a couple days, and voila! You have a
food that is as fresh and alive as you possibly can get. Once you see
how easy it is to make mung bean sprouts, you may want to try lentils,
alfalfa, sunflower seeds, wheatberries, and other beans and peas.
There are sprouting jars and mixes and anti-fungal preparations
available, but it can be done very simply without any special
equipment. If you fear that fungus will grow on the sprouts, you can
purchase Nutribiotic Citricidal at your health food store and add it
to the soak water of the sprouting food.
HEALTH FOOD STORE ITEMS--As any parrot lover who shops in health food
stores will tell you, bring your check book! Although some items
purchased in natural foods markets are a little more expensive, there
is a virtual smorgasbord of items to tempt your feathered friends. One
can purchase many organic items, including fresh produce, in the
larger stores. One of my favorites items is the various flavored "nut
butters", including almond, cashew, pistachio, and hazelnut butter.
These are high in natural fats but can be utilized to make other
dishes more taste tempting . Most weaning babies find a sandwich made
of nut butter on whole grain bread irresistible. There are many whole
grain breads available in health food stores, including those made
from sprouted grains. The different types of whole grain pastas,
including spelt, and other non-wheat grains, can be used for parrots
with allergy problems. Organic juices of many flavors are a treat for
parrots as well as humans. Some will be found in the freezer and can
be defrosted one slice at a time as needed. Nearly all health food
stores sell sprouts, mixes for sprouting, and sprouting jars and other
types of equipment that one can use for growing their own sprouts.
Also available is the Nutribiotic Citricidal mentioned earlier to
prevent bacteria and molds from growing on the sprouting seeds, nuts
and grains. Many herbal preparations that are used for parrots are
available in health food stores, such as echinacea which is sometimes
used as an immune system stimulator, Aloe Detox which can be a
lifesaver in treating ill parrots, St. John's Wort, Pycnogenol, and
other feather plucking remedies. At the direction of a naturopathic
veterinarian, many homeopathic remedies from health food stores can be
used with no danger of toxicity.
If you have only one or two parrots, you can easily afford to make
your own organically-grown seed mix from the health food store by
choosing shelled or unshelled sunflower seeds, whole millet, wheat
berries, oats, buckwheat groats, unshelled sesame seeds, and many
other nuts, grains and seeds tailored to the tastes and nutritional
needs of your birds. For birds with obesity problems, one can choose
from the products with lower levels of fats. By determining the
protein levels of the available products, one can adjust this level
for the breeding and molting phases of their birds. If you haven't yet
visited your local health food market with your parrot friends in
mind, you're in for a very special treat.
Other foods that we can buy from our local markets without concern for
CORN, SWEET POTATOES, BROCCOLI, BRUSSEL SPROUTS, CAULIFLOWER, U.S.
GRAPES, BANANAS, PLUMS, IMPORTED CHERRIES, and WATERMELON.
Here is a list of foods that never should be given to our parrots
STRAWBERRIES, RED AND GREEN BELL PEPPERS, SPINACH, U.S. CHERRIES,
PEACHES, MEXICAN CANTALOUPES, CELERY, APPLES, APRICOTS, GREEN BEANS,
CHILEAN GRAPES, AND CUCUMBERS
A new set of nationwide organic standards is making its way over the
final set of bureaucratic hurdles in Washington, D.C. at this writing.
Once these rules are in place, the plethora of organic labels will be
reduced to one: that of the U.S.D.A. The new national standards are
not expected to vary much from the existing ones. Consumers can trust
labels indicating that a food is organically-grown. Contrary to rumor,
there has been only one recent major incident of known or suspected
fraud: a Minnesota food company that repackaged conventional foods and
sold them as organic. Organic farmers cannot take the risk of
mis-labeling foods and losing their designation as a Certified Organic
Farmer.
Here is information from AVIAN MEDICINE: PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION by
RITCHIE, HARRISON AND HARRISON, Wingers Publishing, Inc.
"Exposure to high concentrations of pesticides can lead to nonspecific
signs of poisoning including gastro- intestinal problems, tremors,
weakness, dyspnea, seizures or sudden death. Chronic low-grade
exposure to pesticides may induce more subtle clinical signs that are
more difficult to attribute to a toxin exposure. These exposures may
cause immunosuppression and increased susceptibility to disease,
decreased reproductive activity or generalized unthriftiness".
And...... "Interestingly, free-ranging granivorous birds that are
offered both organic (no pesticides) and pesticide-treated grains will
preferentially consume the organic foods. Test birds would not eat the
pesticide-treated foods until all of the organic grains were gone".
There is no question that pesticide-free foods are a better choice for
our parrots. Although it may seem to be a lot of trouble to feed in
this manner, once you get into a routine of feeding from the clean
group of foods and avoiding the foods that are known to be
problematic, it really is not difficult and it will prove rewarding
for both you and your parrots. It can make a real difference in their
health and longevity.
Winged Wisdom Note: Carolyn Swicegood is the owner of the LAND OF VOS,
a small breeding establishment specializing in the Vosmaeri
sub-species of Eclectus parrots. She has been "hooked on Vozzies" for
ten years. Carolyn has also written a number of articles for a variety
of magazines.
Jacks Back.
Lord HawWhore
2005-07-19 12:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:10:27 +0100, "BAC"
Post by David
A classic, meaningless, remark from Angus. Faced with a conservation
success story, all he can do is resort to his usual nonsense.
No Malcolm, The Lundy rats were exterminated in the cause of
promoting another species as did Hitler exrterminate Jews to benefit
his chosen people. Very simple and meaningful comparison but
obviously too difficult for you to understand.
Angus are you suggesting Jews are a different species to Germans?
Isn't he suggesting that the Germans probably thought something like
that, sixty odd years ago?
According to past performance, he is probably just putting out his usual
silly slant that conservationists, because they tinker with the balance of
nature, are like the nazis who attempted to exterminate a race of human
beings. If he thinks these things are equivalent, it makes him more sad
than if he just wishes to get a bit more publicity for his anti public
access and conservation cause.
Personally, I agree there is little moral equivalence between the 'ethnic
cleansing' of populations of humans that the cleansers regard as alien
and/or inferior, and the extermination of local populations of animals that
the cleansers regard as alien and/or inferior (e.g. hybrids). However, that
doesn't mean I cannot recognise that there are some similarities common to
both types of action - namely a conviction that the ends justify the means,
and an indifference to the fate of the 'cleansed', particularly if the
latter can be categorised under the cleanser's philosophy as having had no
right to have been there in the first place. Indeed, the fact that the Nazis
and their more modern 'ethnic cleansing' counterparts saw nothing wrong in
treating some of their fellow human beings with less respect, dignity and
consideration than is customarily shown to animals, is probably one of the
most disturbing aspects of such behaviour, IMO.
The most amazing thing is its all being done right under our noses.
The CONservation hooligans sure know their art.

Crooked ponces. I wouldnt donate anything to a charity again just
because of the RSPB conmen. Who can you trust?
John
2005-07-25 08:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:18:21 +0100, "BAC"
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:41:50 +0100, Malcolm Kane
You may not like the comparison but its nevertheless an accurate
one.
Fortunately Angus it isn't an accurate one. Hitler wanted to destroy
all Jews and in fact I think anyone not Aryan. Conservation does
not
have this aim.
I'm quite sure they don't want to destroy all Jews but they do want to
destroy alien species
Its strange you can't comprehend that. Sad really.
Not sad at all. The comparison is an accurate one.
Comprehension problems again Angus? Hitler wanted to destroy all none
Aryan give ONE example of where conservation wants to destroy ALL of a
species or race.
Well, not that I believe conservationists are Nazis, but some
conservationists would wish to exterminate all ruddy duck/white headed
duck
hybrids in Europe, north Africa and Asia, does that count as a valid
example?
No, because that's just a few thousand birds out of a total world
population in excess of 500,000.
Strange, I thought it was the total world population of such hybrids (note I
wasn't using the 'pure bred' RDs as an example to fit MK's parameters, just
the hybrids), the object of the exercise being to preserve the 'racial
purity' of the WHD (aka prevent extinction by hybridisation).
Sounds nazi to me. I wonder if the RSPB top brass have aryan
inclinations. Total domination of wildlife first, then us, then the
world? Some would say that fat cat RSPB CEO would make an ideal Doctor
Evil and certainly fakes like the fat, bald and senile Ogilvie fit
the profile for minime;s lol
Perhaps MK would be happier if Angus were accusing conservationists of
following apartheid doctrines, as opposed to nazi ones?
I doubt he really understands what he writes anyway, does anyone!
John
2005-07-25 18:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.league.uk.com/video/index.htm

5MB Fox being dug out ready to run for its life again
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip2.MPG

2MB Fox being killed (slowly) by hounds then thrown by hunter
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip3.MPG

5MB Two people tormenting a fox and enjoying it
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip4.MPG

3MB Distressed stag being drowned
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip6.MPG

2MB Stag falling at hedge with hounds upon it
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip7.MPG

2MB Another distressed wounded stag in a garden
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip8.MPG

2MB Stag being whipped in a river
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip9.MPG

3MB Very tired stag - but they enjoy this of course
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip10.MPG

1MB Quick nip to the neck - deer
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip11.MPG

2MB Stag being drowned
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip12.MPG

2MB Hare coursing
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip13.MPG

1MB Hare being chased by Holcombe Hunt
2MB More hares
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip14.MPG
Golightly
2005-07-25 19:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
http://www.league.uk.com/video/index.htm
... and then there are the 'real' animal lovers who just love killing puppies, and other perfectly healthy animals, and dumping their bodies in rubbish bins www.petakillsanimals.com Still, I expect it makes a nice change from grave-robbing.
Richard
2005-07-26 10:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:49:20 +0100, John <***@notmail.com> wrote:

[list of links deleted]

Ignoring the fact that you are a year out of date regarding the law
what has this got to do with birdwatching, gardening, vegatarianism,
demon.local or indeed all bar one of the newsgroups to which you
posted this rubbish?
John
2005-07-26 10:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard
[list of links deleted]
Ignoring the fact that you are a year out of date regarding the law
You mean this?
Post by Richard
http://www.league.uk.com/video/index.htm
5MB Fox being dug out ready to run for its life again
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip2.MPG
2MB Fox being killed (slowly) by hounds then thrown by hunter
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip3.MPG
5MB Two people tormenting a fox and enjoying it
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip4.MPG
3MB Distressed stag being drowned
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip6.MPG
2MB Stag falling at hedge with hounds upon it
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip7.MPG
2MB Another distressed wounded stag in a garden
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip8.MPG
2MB Stag being whipped in a river
http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip9.MPG
3MB Very tired stag - but they enjoy this of course
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip10.MPG
1MB Quick nip to the neck - deer
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip11.MPG
2MB Stag being drowned
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip12.MPG
2MB Hare coursing
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip13.MPG
1MB Hare being chased by Holcombe Hunt
2MB More hares
http://home.btclick.com/lacs.2/video_mpeg/clip14.MPG
Information is never out of date, just matures.
Post by Richard
what has this got to do with birdwatching, gardening, vegatarianism,
demon.local or indeed all bar one of the newsgroups to which you
posted this rubbish?
About as much as yours twat.
Malclom McL
2005-07-26 11:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Post by Richard
what has this got to do with birdwatching, gardening, vegatarianism,
demon.local or indeed all bar one of the newsgroups to which you
posted this rubbish?
About as much as yours twat.
Ah! An intellectual!

Whether he aggrees, disagrees or simply thinks that you posted to the wrong
forum Richard has a right to disagree with you and does not deserve that
kind of low level abuse for doing so.

He's right that this doesn't belong in sci.ag,poultry

If we agree with you then your behaviour embarasses us, if we disagree with
you then your behaviour confirms our opinion of your group. Either way your
post was about as relevant as demanding the government introduce a 70mph
speed limit and shouting about it in the middle of a synagogue - please go
away!
John
2005-07-26 11:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:14:07 +0100, "Malclom McL"
Post by Malclom McL
Post by John
Post by Richard
what has this got to do with birdwatching, gardening, vegatarianism,
demon.local or indeed all bar one of the newsgroups to which you
posted this rubbish?
About as much as yours twat.
Ah! An intellectual!
Whether he aggrees, disagrees or simply thinks that you posted to the wrong
forum Richard has a right to disagree with you and does not deserve that
kind of low level abuse for doing so.
Calling a twat a twat is abuse! you need to get out into the real
world buddy if that's all you have to worry about. Twat.
Post by Malclom McL
He's right that this doesn't belong in sci.ag,poultry
I say it does live with it or jump off a bridge and take your bumchum
with you.
John
2005-07-26 11:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I never knew things had got this bad for animals....

http://www.eatthis.org.uk/

So you think you know where your food comes from! But how many people
really know how that piece of meat got on their plate? In the UK, more
than 950 million animals are slaughtered for food every year. The
average meat-eater will consumes about 2000 animals including pigs,
chickens, cows and lambs, in his or her lifetime, plus half a tonne of
fish.

The majority of animals are reared in factory farms, where they are
denied fresh air, proper exercise and the freedom to carry out their
natural behaviour. Throughout the process of forced pregnancy,
fattening, transport and slaughter, the objective of the farming and
meat industries is to obtain maximum profit. When their times comes to
die, slaughter is a brutal, bloody end.

In recent years, outbreaks of BSE and foot and mouth disease have
shown us that the more that animals are stressed and exploited, the
more likely they are to get sick. The illnesses that farmed animals
suffer very often end up affecting those humans who eat them, making
large numbers ill and even causing - as in the case of BSE - many
human fatalities.

Chickens - who's in your nuggets?

There are two types of commercial chickens, 'broilers' raised for meat
and 'laying hens' who are used to produce eggs.

Broiler chickens are crammed into dark, dingy sheds, sometimes up to
100,000 at a time. They are bred to reach their optimum
slaughter-weight in just six weeks. They put on so much weight, so
quickly that their still-developing legs often buckle under the
strain. Access to food and water points is difficult, as the birds are
unable to force themselves through the crush. Weaker and sicker birds
collapse and die from thirst and hunger.


There are two types of commercial chickens, 'broilers' raised for meat
and 'laying hens' who are used to produce eggs.

Broiler chickens are crammed into dark, dingy sheds, sometimes up to
100,000 at a time. They are bred to reach their optimum
slaughter-weight in just six weeks. They put on so much weight, so
quickly that their still-developing legs often buckle under the
strain. Access to food and water points is difficult, as the birds are
unable to force themselves through the crush. Weaker and sicker birds
collapse and die from thirst and hunger.

The cramped conditions may also lead to abnormal aggressive behaviour,
such as pecking at each other, which can turn to cannibalism. To try
to stop this from happening, chicks have the ends of their beaks
sliced off with a hot blade. Inside the sheds, the litter that lines
the floor is typically not changed for the duration of the birds'
lives. They are forced to stand and sleep in their own faeces and
urine, which covers their feet, causing ulcers and sores and often
burns away the feathers on their breasts. Because of the terrible
conditions, bugs and germs run rife. Farmers put antibiotics in the
food in an attempt to fight off disease and infection.

They are then sent off to slaughter when only six weeks old, to be
made into nuggets and other chicken meat products for people's plates.

The life and death of turkeys is virtually identical to that of
chickens.


Cows - who's in your burger?

There are two types of cattle: dairy and beef. Those raised for beef
are heavier and carry more meat.

You might believe cattle have a nice, happy life out in the fields,
but they are kept in sheds for nearly half the year. Over the winter
months, they are commonly penned up in individual, narrow stalls,
standing in their own excrement and urine. Nearly all animals show
signs of foot injury caused by standing on concrete-floors to which
they are not suited.


Cattle regularly have their horns chemically burnt off to prevent them
from harming each other in the confined, stressful conditions of the
sheds and during transport. Male beef calves are often painfully
castrated with no anaesthetic, despite being slaughtered at 10-12
months old - which is before they are even old enough to breed.

When barely a year old, many cattle are sent to livestock markets
where farmers and dealers bid on them. Handlers invariably have little
sympathy or concern for the animals and routinely slap, kick and beat
them to goad them around the ring. Even in the height of the summer,
animals at markets are rarely given any water to drink.

From market, they will be transported to another farm for further
fattening or will be sent for slaughter. Typically killed when still
less than a year old, they are destined to end up as meat for burgers
and other beef products.


Pigs - who's in your bacon?


Pigs are sensitive and playful animals, much like dogs. Most pigs
today are raised inside filthy, cramped factory farms, where breeding
sows are forced to produce as many piglets as possible in a
never-ending cycle of pregnancies.

A week before they are due to give birth, sows are moved to a
farrowing crate - a cage-like structure built from metal and concrete
that is only a little bit bigger than the sow herself. Inside this
device she is unable to stretch, turn around or move freely, in order
to prevent her from crushing her babies. Crushing is an occasional
natural occurrence in the wild, and only made more likely in factory
farms due to the abnormally large litters modern sows are forced to
produce.


At three or four weeks old, the piglets are taken away from their
mothers. A high protein diet causes them to grow very big, very fast.
As with other animals produced for food, the freakishly large pigs
suffer painful leg and joint problems. The filthy, cramped and
unnatural conditions also lead to heart and breathing problems, as
well as infections that affect the gut, skin, brain and nervous
system. To fight off disease, pigs are routinely fed a cocktail of
drugs.

Although having a natural lifespan of 15 years, pigs are typically
slaughtered when only 3-6 months old, to be made into sausages and
other pork meat products.


Sheep and lambs - who's in your chop?

Just because you see sheep and lambs out in the fields, doesn't mean
they are living a natural life and are happy and healthy. You see
sheep standing out in rain, snow or scorching heat - but it's not by
choice. They have nowhere else to go, no shelter, and frequently not
even enough water to drink.

Each year, millions of newborn lambs die within a few days of birth.
This is mostly from disease, exposure, or malnutrition. And hundreds
of thousands of adult sheep also die in the fields annually, often due
to pregnancy complications. Naturally, sheep would give birth to one
baby at a time. But nowadays, through genetic selection and special
feeding programmes, they routinely give birth to two or three.


Shortly after birth, lambs are subjected to two painful mutilations:
castration and tail-docking. Males are castrated in order to prevent
unplanned breeding (even though many lambs are slaughtered before they
reach sexual maturity). Tails are cut off to prevent flies laying
their eggs in the dirty skin underneath.

Sheep suffer lameness, bug infestation, rotting teeth, blindness,
viral and bacterial infections, caused by the stress on their bodies.
Ewes (female sheep) often miscarry, their wombs collapse and their
teats become infected.

A range of "preventive" drugs for a wide range of parasites have to be
given, either by injection, pouring them down the throat, or
submerging the animals in a chemical 'sheep dip'.

Although they can live for 15 years, sheep are typically slaughtered
at 3 -10 months old to be made into lamb chops and other meat
products.


Fish - who have you battered?

Fish, like humans and other animals, have a brain, nervous system and
pain receptors all over their bodies. When under stress and faced with
dangerous situations, they display symptoms including pounding
heartbeat, fast breathing, adrenaline rush, writhing and gasping.

When hauled up from the deep, fish undergo excruciating decompression.
The intense internal pressure ruptures the swimbladder, pops out the
eyes and pushes the oesophagus and stomach out through the mouth. Fish
caught in nets will die of crushing or suffocation, or have their
bellies sliced open on the decks of the ships.


On commercial fish farms, salmon, trout and other species are reared
in dirty, cramped, underwater cages and pens. Due to overcrowding in
the cages, infections and diseases spread easily. Many become ill with
painful lice, which eat them alive from the outside in. The industry
tries to control the lice through the use of antibiotics and toxic
pesticides.

Salmon are killed by first being clubbed on the head and then having
their gills cut so that they bleed to death. Many trout are condemned
to a slow and agonising death by suffocation in air or on ice.

Eggs - Who have you scrambled?

Hatcheries breed different types of chickens for egg production or for
meat. Each year, 'useless' male chicks born of the egg-laying variety
are 'disposed of' as they are of no use to the industry as they can't
lay eggs. Sick, weak and male chicks are sorted from the rest and
thrown into giant sacks or crates to be sent to the gas chamber or a
giant mincing machine into which they are tossed alive.

75% of eggs produced in the UK come from 'battery' hens. Battery farms
consist of row upon row of wire mesh cages stacked on top of each
other inside huge windowless sheds. Four or five hens are crammed into
each cage, with less space each than three-quarters of an A4 piece of
paper. They can barely move let alone stretch their wings.


The stress of living in such conditions will often cause the hens to
be abnormally aggressive, pecking at and pulling out one another's
feathers. In extreme cases this leads to cannibalism. Decaying corpses
of dead birds are rarely removed from the cages, as the farm workers
might not even notice them. To try to avoid hens injuring each other,
they have the tips of their beaks sliced off when they are chicks.

Before they are 18 months old, hens are usually worn out and not
'profitable enough for the industry. These are sent for slaughter and
sold for just a few pence, to be used as ingredients in cheap products
such as stock cubes.

Milk - What's that a pint of?

Just like human females, cows produce milk only after giving birth. In
order to provide the vast quantities demanded by consumers, cows are
kept in a constant cycle of pregnancies. Soon after birth - typically
at one or two days old - calves are taken away from their mothers.
Separation causes great anxiety for both. Cows bellow for days at the
loss of their young. There is no real demand for a great many of the
calves, they are essentially a waste by-product. Some go for pet or
baby food, or have parts of their stomach removed to make rennet (an
ingredient used in certain types of cheese). Some will be reared for
meat or to give milk.

By the time they are five years old, dairy cattle will be too worn-out
to produce the quantities of milk required. These tired-out female
cows will be killed and incinerated as older cattle currently cannot
be used for food because of fears that they will pass on BSE to
humans. Some may be in an advanced stage of pregnancy when destroyed.

The physical burden on cows causes them to become exhausted and
emaciated. 20% of UK dairy animals are lame. Swollen udders prevent
them from standing or walking properly and dirty, crowded and damp
winter housing causes them foot problems.


Slaughter - How are they killed?

Modern abattoirs typically slaughter around 150 chickens or 5 pigs and
sheep per minute. At these speeds it is almost impossible for the
animals' welfare to be properly considered. Treating animals with
respect and compassion is not a priority. Inside slaughterhouses,
traumatised animals are often prodded and beaten to hurry them along.
Sheer terror can cause them to shake and defecate uncontrollably.

To render them insensitive to pain before they have their throats cut,
animals are 'stunned' using a variety of methods. All too often,
however, stunning goes wrong. Even when effective, if the animals are
left for too long after stunning has taken place, they will start to
regain consciousness. This may be before having their throats cut, or
whilst they are hanging upside down, bleeding to death.

To stun cattle, a 'captive bolt' pistol is used. This fires a
retractable rod into the brain to knock them out. But incorrect
placement of the gun leads to many animals not being stunned properly.
They then have a chain tied around one leg and are hauled upside down
to have their throats cut.

Pigs, sheep and lambs are stunned using tongs, which fire an
electrical current through their brain. Sloppy work means they may
receive agonising shocks to the face or head. Inaccurate placement of
the tongs, them being applied for too short a time and/or the use of a
too low a current increases the chance of animals being conscious when
their throats are cut. After stunning, pigs and sheep are also
shackled upside down by one back leg. Investigators have witnessed
thrashing, conscious pigs slipping their shackles, dropping headfirst
to the ground spurting blood from their necks, and being hoisted back
up again to die. Some slaughterhouses kill pigs with carbon dioxide
gas, which causes severe respiratory distress. They can be seen
hyperventilating and trying to escape from the gas chamber.

To stun chickens and turkeys, the birds are first shackled upside down
- which in itself causes immense pain and distress - and are then
dunked into an electrified tank of water. Dangling wings often touch
the water first, receiving agonising shocks. Many birds raise their
heads, miss the water completely and are fully conscious when they are
dragged past the neck-cutters. Even this stage may not kill them
outright and some are alive when they enter the feather-loosening
scalding tank.




Wanna know more?


http://www.eatthis.org.uk/
RMax
2005-07-26 12:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Information is never out of date, just matures.
Post by Richard
what has this got to do with birdwatching, gardening, vegatarianism,
demon.local or indeed all bar one of the newsgroups to which you
posted this rubbish?
About as much as yours twat.
Does your mummy know you're playing with her computer?
a***@aol.com
2005-07-26 18:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard
[list of links deleted]
Ignoring the fact that you are a year out of date regarding the law
what has this got to do with birdwatching, gardening, vegatarianism,
demon.local or indeed all bar one of the newsgroups to which you
posted this rubbish?
But it's not out of date. Hunting is still permitted in the UK with
the only exception that the hounds are not allowed to catch and tear
the quarry apart and "accidents" can happen where the hounds catch
the fox. This is why LACSare training hunt monitors.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
JB
2005-07-26 19:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@aol.com
But it's not out of date. Hunting is still permitted in the UK with
the only exception that the hounds are not allowed to catch and tear
the quarry apart and "accidents" can happen where the hounds catch
the fox. This is why LACSare training hunt monitors.
If you look at the videos to which links were posted you will
see they precede the hunting legislation. Some of those videos,
if you agree with LACS description (the quality is poor so its
hard to be certain) portray actions which would have been
illegal even under prior legislation or the suggested 'middle
way' options. The links were posted without any explanation
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.

I can understand that 'john' was regarded as an immature offensive
and ill mannered fool writing about obsolete and irrelevant
matters. However sincerely he believes in animal rights his actions
seem totally pointless and his responses to those who gainsaid
him just serve to lower public opinion of him.
John
2005-07-26 20:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JB
Post by a***@aol.com
But it's not out of date. Hunting is still permitted in the UK with
the only exception that the hounds are not allowed to catch and tear
the quarry apart and "accidents" can happen where the hounds catch
the fox. This is why LACSare training hunt monitors.
If you look at the videos to which links were posted you will
see they precede the hunting legislation.
BlahBlahBlah
Post by JB
Some of those videos,
if you agree with LACS description (the quality is poor so its
hard to be certain) portray actions which would have been
illegal even under prior legislation or the suggested 'middle
way' options.
But still carried out and still relevant to make the public aware.
Post by JB
The links were posted without any explanation
They don't need any. What part of the content do you not understand?
Post by JB
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.
Luckily most of us are not so narrow minded when selecting what we
choose to read or not. You don't like it don't read it.
Post by JB
I can understand that 'john' was regarded as an immature offensive
and ill mannered fool writing about obsolete and irrelevant
matters. However sincerely he believes in animal rights his actions
seem totally pointless
The acts are as relevant today as they have ever been.
Post by JB
and his responses to those who gainsaid
him just serve to lower public opinion of him.
You have a problem treating tosspots like a tosspots?

Weirdo, get over yourself.
Tumbleweed
2005-07-26 20:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Post by JB
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.
Luckily most of us are not so narrow minded when selecting what we
choose to read or not. You don't like it don't read it.
"most of us"? And you know that how? You are spamming. Please dont.
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
John
2005-07-26 21:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:45:39 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
Post by Tumbleweed
Post by John
Post by JB
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.
Luckily most of us are not so narrow minded when selecting what we
choose to read or not. You don't like it don't read it.
"most of us"? And you know that how?
The majority read it and digest. Very few whine and moan apart from
those with small dicks and limp brains.
Post by Tumbleweed
You are spamming.
Its education.
Post by Tumbleweed
Please dont.
Nuts
JB
2005-07-27 09:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:45:39 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
Post by Tumbleweed
Post by John
Post by JB
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.
Luckily most of us are not so narrow minded when selecting what we
choose to read or not. You don't like it don't read it.
"most of us"? And you know that how? You are spamming. Please dont.
Leave him alone, he knows nothing and will just turn round and insult
anyone who points that out.
Tumbleweed
2005-07-27 20:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:45:39 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
Post by Tumbleweed
Post by John
Post by JB
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.
Luckily most of us are not so narrow minded when selecting what we
choose to read or not. You don't like it don't read it.
"most of us"? And you know that how? You are spamming. Please dont.
Leave him alone, he knows nothing and will just turn round and insult
anyone who points that out.
Skool holidays I suppose.

Though I wonder what he hopes to achieve by alienating those he wants to
convert?

Almost makes you want to go out and kill some wildlife just to get your own
back on him :-)
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Striker
2005-07-27 10:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
John <***@notmail.com> wrote:

<snip John's drivel>
Post by John
You have a problem treating tosspots like a tosspots?
Weirdo, get over yourself.
If you are unable to engage in a civilised debate without resorting to abuse, then it
simply underlines the fact that you have nothing relevant to say, that you cannot
backup your opinions with reasoned argument and that you simply trot out the same
hackneyed drivel that has been fed to your unquestioning and naive mind by those you
clearly hero worship.

If you truly understand what you are putting forward then use intelligent responses
to support your case. If you don't (which I'm increasingly sure that you don't) then
simply keep quiet.

Either way, spamming newsgroups which are not relevant to your comments will win you
no friends or converts, and insulting others will just irritate those whom you wish
to convince.

Time to get the killfile working methinks

*plonk*
John
2005-07-27 10:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:11:50 +0100, Striker
Post by Striker
<snip John's drivel>
Post by John
You have a problem treating tosspots like a tosspots?
Weirdo, get over yourself.
Time to get the killfile working methinks
*plonk*
Shame you didn't do that before sharing your weird thoughts with us.

Prat.
John
2005-07-27 17:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Interesting post recently alerted us to concerns about ripoff
charities. Given the fact the RSPB, Woodland Trust etc have been
conning the public and ripping us off for years this post is most
topical. No wonder the charities don't like answering questions and no
wonder the RSPB would prefer slaughtering wildlife then protecting it.

For an insight into the real goals of the CONservation hooligans like
the RSPB visit

http://tinyurl.com/896bw

http://tinyurl.com/7rjuf

And remember while you're being ripped off, the genuine wildlife
conservation issues are going untended.


and a must see is the charity blogger


http://charityblogger.blogspot.com

Monday, July 25, 2005
The Mean British Public

Don't believe the hype. The Great British Public is not generous.
American citizens give twice as much to charity as we do. The Dutch,
Danish and Norwegians give more. The Australian (public's) response to
the tsunami was more generous than ours. And even worse, we're getting
meaner: the British public now gives 25 per cent less to charity (as
percentage of our Gross Domestic Product) than it did in 1993. On this
fact, the boss of the Charities Aid Foundation backs me up.

Sure, 80% of adults gave to Tsunami relief - which is astounding - and
gave £400 million, says The Times. But bearing in mind that the
British public gives £7 billion a year to charity, that's less than
20% of what we give anyway - and if Live Aid was anything to go by, it
means that we will tighten our belts for the rest of the year and the
overall pot will stay the same size.

This is no secret in the charity world. Small charities have braced
their belts for lower income this year, and the figures in 2006 will
probably justify their fears - if they are still in operation.

That's it. Just a rant. I think people should know.

posted by The Charity Blogger @ 11:10 AM 2 comments

Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Make Poverty History - made easy

Unless you've been living on Comet Tempel 1 (and if so, apologies for
the recent bang), you'll be aware of G8 and Make Poverty History and
wristbands and Geldof and celebrities you've never heard of.

If you got lost in the mix, let me try to explain it from this donor's
perspective, and show how you can sidestep the very complicated
arguments and arrive at one commonly accepted truth.

There are three main parts to Make Poverty History* (and Blair and
Brown's work at the Africa Commission and G8):

1. Reducing or cancelling debt to many impoverished countries
There is argument around this ranging from: why do some countries get
debt relief and others (who worked hard to pay back) get little
reward? - to - won't paying off the debt leave some countries
vulnerable to impossibly higher interest rates on subsequent loans
(Laos is apparently against rescheduling for this reason) - to - won't
the saved money only benefit the president and his cronies, and not
the country? All interesting points.
Controversy rating: 6/10

2. Massively increasing the amount of government aid to poor countries
The arguments against this are: well, all that money goes missing
doesn't it? (It doesn't all, but sizeable chunks are sometimes
unaccounted for. According to anecdote, aid given by charities, not
governments, has a better record of reaching its destination); all the
money goes on airconditioned LandCruisers, bloated administration and
high salaries (a modicum of truth, but you need good people and
infrastructure to get anything done on a big scale); and there's
probably another good five or more points.
Controversy rating: 7/10

3. Bringing wealth to Africa by stopping Western protectionism and
investing in African business
Any takers? No? There is no argument here**. The people who rail at
the first two points agree that this is a good strategy. And the
people who bang on about the first two points also bang on about this
one.
Controversy rating: 1/10

So there we have it. If you hear anyone saying Make Poverty History is
rubbish, ask them about their view on supporting trade with Africa.
And if you're in a contrary frame of mind, you can raise the other two
points.

But what you may see now is that the organisations which support trade
with Africa are probably on the soundest footing. The big hitters here
include Oxfam's Make Trade Fair Campaign and the Fair Trade
Foundation. But there are other groups you've never heard of which are
probably doing a grand job in the background. The Trade Justice
Movement is the big one and their site is worth a scan if you have the
stamina for more detail (and good on you if you do).


* There is a fourth, which is stopping AIDS, but this is arguably part
of each of the other three; you need money to do it.
** Except for the environmental one, which opposes Western-syle
economic growth in developing countries.

posted by The Charity Blogger @ 4:00 PM 0 comments

Sunday, July 17, 2005
Big Mouth Strikes Again (thank god)

John Bird is the ex-alcoholic, ex-con and ex-most-other-things who
founded The Big Issue magazine sold by your local friendly homeless
person. To say he speaks his mind is like saying morphine is an
analgesic. He's the only person I can think of in the do-gooder arena
who is a serious stirrer.

John's latest fireworks showered over the Guardian Unlimited web pages
last month when he said that some homeless charities make the homeless
problem worse. I've heard that point of view from charity people
before, but I've never read it in the press. The voluntary sector
tends to keep such doubts to itself. John was raising an issue that is
regularly debated in closed circles and he unveiled the common
thinking that, "A lot of homeless organisations never give people the
opportunity of growing up and looking after themselves."

John is an extreme, messianic-style character (his own words), but
that doesn't detract from his deep experience nor from the no-bullshit
deduction he employs when talking about charities. Frankly it's a
shame he doesn't get more airtime, dragging more debaters behind him.

John has a new web site which recommends organisations - mostly
charities - which John believes addresses society's problems in useful
ways. The site is basic but it describes lots of interesting
organisations. I don't know of other site which recommends charities
with such authority or attitude. It's called Best Practices for Change
(http://www.bp4c.com).

posted by The Charity Blogger @ 6:17 AM 0 comments

Friday, July 15, 2005
Are there too many charities?

There are a few issues the charity world simply can't agree on, and
one of the most titillating ones is: are there too many charities - or
not enough?

We have around 200,000 charities in the UK ('around' because no-one's
quite sure how many there are in Northern Ireland, but that's another
story). This is a lot, even if you exclude the types you wouldn't
normally put money in a tin for - for example, grant-giving
foundations, friendly societies or *cough* private schools.

Now this all seems a bit surprising if you go through the motions of
registering a charity, in England at least (which I am doing). There
is a 43-page application form to fill, significant sections of which
are large empty boxes into which you have to explain your aims,
activities and fundraising strategies. It's the kind of form You Need
To Know How To Fill Out. You must also append your organisation's
Constitution - the kind of document which keeps lawyers and their
extended families in beer money for life.

"Children, animals and London do well. Crazy people, single mothers
and Clwyd don't."

If you get your application right, you'll be Gift Aid-friendly in six
months. Anything less may set you back a year or longer - or forever.
Charity Commissioners have allegedly reduced applicants to tears
because they didn't use the right language in their repeated
applications.

I can only think the Commission wasn't always this demanding. Either
that, or most of the charities formed since the 1601 Statute of
Charitable Uses are still going.

I digress. The Commission is a beleaguered organisation - they have
only 600-odd staff for all those charities for goodness' sake - and
funnily enough they seem agreed that there are too many charities.
They were very happy with the creation of a Collaborative Working Unit
by one of the big umbrella bodies last October, designed to get
charities to work together. Quite right: good idea.

But it's clear that some charity sectors and geographical areas get a
bunch more money than others. Children, animals and London do well.
Crazy people, single mothers and Clwyd don't.

As many charity heads insist when it suits them, you can't generalise
about charities - and that observation must hold true in this case.
I'm told there are over 50 prostate cancer charities, which is
probably a rather inefficient way of tackling the cause. Yet I know
that there's no local charity helping the frazzled old boy who sleeps
in my local park.

"Individuals pained by such emotion will move mountains to make their
commemorative project happen"

The stimulus for this stream of consciousness is Marie
Fatayi-Williams, who so eloquently paid tribute to her son who was
killed in the London bus bombing last week. On Friday she announced
that she will set up a foundation called The Anthony Fatayi-Williams
Peace and Conflict Resolution Foundation in honour of her son.
Presumably it will be charitable.

When I read this, I realised why there are so many charities.
Individuals pained by such emotion will move mountains to make their
commemorative project happen - even if there are other organisations
that do similar work, with which they will be competing directly for
funds, and whose competitive presence may in fact diminish the work of
the whole movement.

I suspect the Charity Commission does this already, but maybe they
could be making more of an effort to look for similar organisations
when faced with a familiar sounding set of objectives. Maybe they
could then recommend the applicant talks to those organisations. For
example Mrs Fatayi-Williams could be directed to the Conflict,
Development and Peace Network (CODEP) or International Alert or The
International Association for Conflict Management.

Just a thought.

posted by The Charity Blogger @ 4:10 PM 0 comments

Olympics: small charities for the high jump

Great, we got the Olympics. Not so great: smaller charities will
inevitably suffer as a result. The funds they usually get will divert
to bullet trains and an 80,000-seater stadium.

As you probably know, many small charities rely heavily on grants or
contracts with local or central government. They have to, since the
money donated by the public is sucked up by the large charities which
have the marketing clout to get our attention. You haven't heard of
most of them. And you certainly won't after 2012 because several of
them are in for the chop.


"Some of the resources invested in East London will now not be
available for regenerating other parts of the capital"


Most observers of the Olympics agree on one thing: it costs the host
city a fortune to stage and, in most cases, a loss. This Forbes
article has an ironic take on it.

Los Angeles is the only city which in recent years came out on top,
largely because it didn't build anything new. London on the other hand
will be starting from scratch on the Hackney Marshes. The scale of the
plans is astonishing. As are the cost estimates. This 1992 British
Olympian doesn't make much of them.

It will bring work, visitors and nice housing to the poorest part of
London. But London School of Economics specialist Tony Travers
predicts, "Some of the resources invested in East London will now not
be available for regenerating other parts of the capital. Within the
local boroughs... there will be a steep addition to the cost of
running basic services as 2012 approaches. There will be environmental
improvements to fund, new facilities to run and, eventually, much
litter to pick up. Not all of these costs will be met from Whitehall
grants."

What to do? Adopting a local charity - smart advice in any case - is a
good place to start.



posted by The Charity Blogger @ 4:10 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The London bombings

Shaken by the events of last week, my mum emailed me yesterday and
asked, "What can ordinary people do about this?"

Well, Mum, my reaction is, predictably: reach for your wallet - or
volunteer. If there weren't situations like this, charities wouldn't
exist, and many charities deal with some aspect of this bloodbath,
from cause to effect.

Causes - where do you start? Poverty? Oil? Lack of education? You will
have your own opinion. I like the idea of religions talking to each
other. The Three Faiths Forum anyone? Or helping people talk to each
other without pulling out a gun. Peaceworkers UK for example.

Effects - there are a few obvious contenders here, the high profile
going to the British Red Cross, whose ambulances were at the scene.
They are also part of the widely advertised London Bombings Relief
Charitable Fund. This charity was registered in two days, which anyone
who has started a charity knows must be a record (it takes everyone
else six months), and which makes me wonder about... never mind.

£1 million has been raised already by this fund and it's not clear
precisely where the money will go. There are fewer than 50 badly
injured people, and maybe 1000 or so affected in other ways. I suspect
the majority will be well catered to by the NHS. I can think of people
who won't be supported as lavishly - for example those in the
notoriously poorly funded mental health sector. Is there a compromise
here? The National Phobics Society helps people with Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.

So, Mum - there's no reason to feel powerless. If you are so inclined,
do your own research at the clunky Commission listing of all
charities.*

*Here's hoping the GuideStar listing which goes live soon will have a
better search function.

posted by The Charity Blogger @ 3:56 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The first UK charity blog*

British charities receive £32 million a year. That's more than the
combined budget of the Army, Navy and RAF. It's bigger than the United
Nations budget. £7 million of it is given by you and me through our
direct debits, cheques and coins.

Not one journalist in the consumer press covers this sector. No-one
specialises in it. No-one debates it. But it affects all of us to some
extent or another - many as grateful beneficiaries, many as trustees,
many as charity muggees, many as non-givers (some of them feel guilty
apparently).

What's going on?

Can I be the first donor who's thought of writing a blog about
charities?

Is the media afraid of charities? Does it think people aren't
interested (and would rather read, say, the business pages?) Or do
they think they're all beyond criticism?


Do we, the public, accept them blindly? Or is it our lame British
reserve - the dissatisfied diner telling the waiter that yes the meal
was lovely thank you?

Frankly, I want to know where my donations are going. And I want us
all to wake up a bit.


I've been doing some homespun research over the last few months and my
main finding is this: it's virtually impossible to find out any
objective information about the sector. There's an informational black
hole here.


So my mission here is to try to shed a little light. And if you can
add your (fact-based) opinion, all the better. Let's go...





*The first American charity blog - very readable - is written by Trent
Stamp. Trent runs a charity evaluation service which looks at how
charities manage their money. That's a good start (and the UK has no
equivalent so we are in no position to judge) but it's only half of
the picture: the equally important bit is the strategy and quality of
the work. Finance-only evaluation has been fairly compared to judging
a wine by the number of grapes you put in it.




posted by The Charity Blogger @ 10:40 AM 1 comments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace
2005-07-27 21:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Interesting post recently alerted us to concerns about ripoff
charities. Given the fact the RSPB, Woodland Trust etc have been
conning the public and ripping us off for years this post is most
topical. No wonder the charities don't like answering questions and no
wonder the RSPB would prefer slaughtering wildlife then protecting it.
I've read some of your posts. Not many to be fair as I got utterly bored. Do you ever
say anything original, or concise or that is of your own composition? Or do you
simply post this copied stuff because you've been told to?

Now I guess you're an unemployed/unemployable loser with little else to do but if you
must clog up unrelated news groups with your utter stupidity, at least make it short
and interesting!

I suppose you'll come back at this with a one word insult as you've done to other
posters that don't go along with your half (over estimate probably) thought through
rants, but that is irrelevant to me.

Humans you see evolved beyond being just animals. We therefore have a responsibility
towards our planet. Sometimes this involves difficult decisions, such as removing one
alien species to allow another to survive. Not always pleasant decisions I'll grant
you, but they are necessary. Real conservation involves getting into the environment
and actually doing some work, not posting copied diatribes into multiple newsgroups.

You clearly aren't too bright, but I'll be watching your posts for a while to see
whether you slowly grow up, learn to listen or indeed (although this is unlikely)
begin to evolve.

If you're not sure how to respond, then I suggest you ask those you clearly look to
and admire, and you presumably tell you what to post.

A word of advice John - step back, think reason it out. You're starting to get
embarrassing.
a***@aol.com
2005-07-27 22:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:57:51 +0100, Ace
Post by Ace
Post by John
Interesting post recently alerted us to concerns about ripoff
charities. Given the fact the RSPB, Woodland Trust etc have been
conning the public and ripping us off for years this post is most
topical. No wonder the charities don't like answering questions and no
wonder the RSPB would prefer slaughtering wildlife then protecting it.
I've read some of your posts. Not many to be fair as I got utterly bored. Do you ever
say anything original, or concise or that is of your own composition? Or do you
simply post this copied stuff because you've been told to?
Before you criticise others why don'y you address some of the issues
that have been raised - copied and otherwise?
Post by Ace
Now I guess you're an unemployed/unemployable loser with little else to do but if you
must clog up unrelated news groups with your utter stupidity, at least make it short
and interesting!
I suppose you'll come back at this with a one word insult as you've done to other
posters that don't go along with your half (over estimate probably) thought through
rants, but that is irrelevant to me.
Now I'd call that boring speculation.
Post by Ace
Humans you see evolved beyond being just animals.
If we're not "just animals", what are we?
Post by Ace
We therefore have a responsibility
towards our planet. Sometimes this involves difficult decisions, such as removing one
alien species to allow another to survive.
Rubbish! Those are not "difficult decisions" they are reasonably well
paid jobs for fake conservationists.
Post by Ace
Not always pleasant decisions I'll grant
you, but they are necessary.
They're not necessary at all.
Post by Ace
Real conservation involves getting into the environment
and actually doing some work, not posting copied diatribes into multiple newsgroups.
No. that's fake conservation. Real conservation is reducing your
impact on the natural environment and halting the unnecessary
encouragement of consuming finite resources.
Post by Ace
You clearly aren't too bright, but I'll be watching your posts for a while to see
whether you slowly grow up, learn to listen or indeed (although this is unlikely)
begin to evolve.
If you're not sure how to respond, then I suggest you ask those you clearly look to
and admire, and you presumably tell you what to post.
A word of advice John - step back, think reason it out. You're starting to get
embarrassing.
I think you've just shown how embarrasing to conservation you can be
:-)

You're like the rest of them - a fake.





Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
Ace
2005-07-27 22:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@aol.com
Before you criticise others why don'y you address some of the issues
that have been raised - copied and otherwise?
Because they are false issues. Emotively put, highly biased and incorrect.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Now I guess you're an unemployed/unemployable loser with little else to do but if you
must clog up unrelated news groups with your utter stupidity, at least make it short
and interesting!
I suppose you'll come back at this with a one word insult as you've done to other
posters that don't go along with your half (over estimate probably) thought through
rants, but that is irrelevant to me.
Now I'd call that boring speculation.
Why?
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Humans you see evolved beyond being just animals.
If we're not "just animals", what are we?
Intelligent and reasoning beings, who have evolved beyond being instinct based
animals
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
We therefore have a responsibility
towards our planet. Sometimes this involves difficult decisions, such as removing one
alien species to allow another to survive.
Rubbish! Those are not "difficult decisions" they are reasonably well
paid jobs for fake conservationists.
Nothing fake in ensuring a native species survives instead of the alien species
introduced by humans in the past.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Not always pleasant decisions I'll grant
you, but they are necessary.
They're not necessary at all.
They clearly are - think it through.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Real conservation involves getting into the environment
and actually doing some work, not posting copied diatribes into multiple newsgroups.
No. that's fake conservation. Real conservation is reducing your
impact on the natural environment and halting the unnecessary
encouragement of consuming finite resources.
Conservation does involve reducing impact on the environment I agree. Reducing this
impact can involve making positive changes to the environment, which may include the
eradication of species such as rats that attack birds, as noted in a previous thread.
Post by a***@aol.com
I think you've just shown how embarrasing to conservation you can be
:-)
You're like the rest of them - a fake.
Not at all - I spend much of my holiday trying to keep local sites in good condition.
I'm a teacher and I put a lot of emphasis in my work with the children on the
importance of ensuring that we behave responsibly toward the environment. The problem
is that fools like John do more harm than they can possibly imagine. By continually
posting his inane stuff, he simply annoys everyone and effectively turns them off
conservation and all the other issues. He is unable to reply to reasoned argument and
simply throws insults. That sort of behaviour achieves nothing.

(If you're one of his handlers - her really does need training!) ;-)

Regards
a***@aol.com
2005-07-28 10:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:48:12 +0100, Ace
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Before you criticise others why don'y you address some of the issues
that have been raised - copied and otherwise?
Because they are false issues. Emotively put, highly biased and incorrect.
In what way?
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Now I guess you're an unemployed/unemployable loser with little else to do but if you
must clog up unrelated news groups with your utter stupidity, at least make it short
and interesting!
I suppose you'll come back at this with a one word insult as you've done to other
posters that don't go along with your half (over estimate probably) thought through
rants, but that is irrelevant to me.
Now I'd call that boring speculation.
Why?
Because it's your opinion of a person rather than addressing the
issues.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Humans you see evolved beyond being just animals.
If we're not "just animals", what are we?
Intelligent and reasoning beings, who have evolved beyond being instinct based
animals
Nonsense. If we were intelligent and reasoning beings we would not be
in the current environmental mess which threatens all species on the
planet.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
We therefore have a responsibility
towards our planet. Sometimes this involves difficult decisions, such as removing one
alien species to allow another to survive.
Rubbish! Those are not "difficult decisions" they are reasonably well
paid jobs for fake conservationists.
Nothing fake in ensuring a native species survives instead of the alien species
introduced by humans in the past.
Of course there is. If you think that you shouild exten it to all
activities of man which damage the environment.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Not always pleasant decisions I'll grant
you, but they are necessary.
They're not necessary at all.
They clearly are - think it through.
You tell me.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Real conservation involves getting into the environment
and actually doing some work, not posting copied diatribes into multiple newsgroups.
No. that's fake conservation. Real conservation is reducing your
impact on the natural environment and halting the unnecessary
encouragement of consuming finite resources.
Conservation does involve reducing impact on the environment I agree.
Good, you're getting there.
Post by Ace
Reducing this
impact can involve making positive changes to the environment, which may include the
eradication of species such as rats that attack birds, as noted in a previous thread.
In what way does it reduce the impact on the environment? It is more
about conservation zealots and their fascist desires.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
I think you've just shown how embarrasing to conservation you can be
:-)
You're like the rest of them - a fake.
Not at all - I spend much of my holiday trying to keep local sites in good condition.
Which are probably visited by hundreds of motorists all consuming
finite resources to view "conservation".
Post by Ace
I'm a teacher and I put a lot of emphasis in my work with the children on the
importance of ensuring that we behave responsibly toward the environment.
The fakes in conservation actully cause damage. They are part of the
problem not the solution.
Post by Ace
The problem
is that fools like John do more harm than they can possibly imagine. By continually
posting his inane stuff, he simply annoys everyone and effectively turns them off
conservation and all the other issues. He is unable to reply to reasoned argument and
simply throws insults. That sort of behaviour achieves nothing.
If he is turning people off conservation in its present form he is
probably doing the planet a favour.
Post by Ace
(If you're one of his handlers - her really does need training!) ;-)
I'm not anybody's handler.
Post by Ace
Regards
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
John
2005-08-02 08:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:48:12 +0100, Ace
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Before you criticise others why don'y you address some of the issues
that have been raised - copied and otherwise?
Because they are false issues. Emotively put, highly biased and incorrect.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Now I guess you're an unemployed/unemployable loser with little else to do but if you
must clog up unrelated news groups with your utter stupidity, at least make it short
and interesting!
I suppose you'll come back at this with a one word insult as you've done to other
posters that don't go along with your half (over estimate probably) thought through
rants, but that is irrelevant to me.
Now I'd call that boring speculation.
Why?
Probably because its a pathetic comment? Not hard is it!
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Humans you see evolved beyond being just animals.
If we're not "just animals", what are we?
Intelligent and reasoning beings, who have evolved beyond being instinct based
animals
You sure have us fooled then, when will we notice this in
conservation?
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
We therefore have a responsibility
towards our planet. Sometimes this involves difficult decisions, such as removing one
alien species to allow another to survive.
Rubbish! Those are not "difficult decisions" they are reasonably well
paid jobs for fake conservationists.
Nothing fake in ensuring a native species survives instead of the alien species
introduced by humans in the past.
Its completely false and akin to discriminating against the black man
or the Indian you Nazi creep.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Not always pleasant decisions I'll grant
you, but they are necessary.
They're not necessary at all.
They clearly are - think it through.
Actually not.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Ace
Real conservation involves getting into the environment
and actually doing some work, not posting copied diatribes into multiple newsgroups.
No. that's fake conservation. Real conservation is reducing your
impact on the natural environment and halting the unnecessary
encouragement of consuming finite resources.
Conservation does involve reducing impact on the environment I agree. Reducing this
impact can involve making positive changes to the environment, which may include the
eradication of species such as rats that attack birds, as noted in a previous thread.
As noted you're an arse.
Post by Ace
Post by a***@aol.com
I think you've just shown how embarrasing to conservation you can be
:-)
You're like the rest of them - a fake.
Not at all - I spend much of my holiday trying to keep local sites in good condition.
Ah the dogooder who wants conservation to be his little pet hobby with
no real concern for the environment or habitat, bit like those
arsehole twitchers Ogilvie and co. Gets a hard on over rare species
and turns obsessive stalker over the common sparrow. Kook.
Post by Ace
I'm a teacher and I put a lot of emphasis in my work with the children on the
importance of ensuring that we behave responsibly toward the environment.
Which should include avoiding CONservation hooliganism. How can you be
a teacher when you don't even understand conservation?
Post by Ace
The problem
is that fools like John do more harm than they can possibly imagine. By continually
posting his inane stuff,
Its called education and the net is a fab tool for opening peoples
eyes. Many of us actually used to donate to charity in good faith, not
any more.
Post by Ace
he simply annoys everyone and effectively turns them off
conservation and all the other issues.
Only arseholes like you who think conservation is something for them
and not wildlife.
Post by Ace
He is unable to reply to reasoned argument and
simply throws insults. That sort of behaviour achieves nothing.
On the contrary. Treating arseholes like arseholes is the only way to
go and very satisfying/ You don't like being treated like a prat,
don't act like one.
Post by Ace
(If you're one of his handlers - her really does need training!) ;-)
And that commands a civil, adult response? OK.

Wanker.
John
2005-08-10 11:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In light of the recent revelations about charities coining it in
without any real strategy to actually help the good causes this
announcement may be worthy of consideration, after all what's the
point in sending a cow as famine relief when the cow needs more
resources than crops.

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/news/2005/0508niger.htm

CRISIS IN NIGER
Urgent action needed: help HIPPO (Help International Plant Protein
Organisation) to provide vegetarian famine relief.

As the crisis in Niger worsens, with millions on the brink of starving
to death, Animal Aid lends its support to a small but effective aid
agency known as HIPPO, which is committed to providing nutritious,
vegan famine relief.

Severe drought and a locust-invasion that decimated crops have
resulted in a food shortage in Niger of epic proportions. As we watch
news footage of skeletal figures eating rats, parched grass and
desperately picking at maggot-infested livestock carcasses, it is hard
for us to imagine the horror these people are facing.

Many starving people from Niger are massing near the border with
Nigeria. In conjunction with the Nigerian Vegetarian Society, HIPPO is
appealing for funds to provide them with nutritious vegetarian food.

Millions of lives are hanging in the balance and urgent action is
needed to keep people alive. In the short-term, this means food. In
the long term, it means sustainable agriculture.

The arguments about how best to grow crops in hostile environments and
to counter the ravaging effects of drought are complex. Before the
true scale of the Niger famine hit the headlines, Animal Aid publicly
criticised three key aid agencies’ policy of ‘donating’ livestock to
Africa. We highlighted the inefficiency and wastage of rearing animals
for meat in areas in which water and other resources are at a premium.
Why give precious water and crops to animals, who are then killed for
their meat, when the water and food could go to people directly?

Click here to read our press release.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/press/0506food.htm
Click here to read Send A Cow’s response to Animal Aid, and our
counter-response.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/news/2005/0507sndc.htm
Read Feed the World: The Vegetarian Solution.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/vegan/feed99.htm
HIPPO promotes animal-free farming in developing countries, which is
the most efficient way of producing food for human consumption, such
as by providing seeds, tools and equipment for growing and milling
soya beans. In Lagos, Nigeria, HIPPO supports a vegetarian street
feeding programme. The charity also provides food for two vegetarian
orphanages in Kenya, and for a community project (African Food Bank).
HIPPO has helped to develop the sustainable, organic, non-GM,
production of crops, especially pulses, in Kenya, Malawi and Ethiopia
and has assisted a soya food processing plant in Uganda. HIPPO also
sends high protein vegetarian foods to orphanages in Romania and
Croatia.

Please support HIPPO. Lives depend on it.

Donations should be in the form of cheques made payable to HIPPO and
sent to:

HIPPO
The Old Vicarage
Llangynog
Carmarthen
SA33 5BS

Email: ***@aol.com.

http://www.ivu.org/articles/net/hippo.html
John
2005-08-10 11:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
Interesting post recently alerted us to concerns about ripoff
charities. Given the fact the RSPB, Woodland Trust etc have been
conning the public and ripping us off for years this post is most
topical. No wonder the charities don't like answering questions and no
wonder the RSPB would prefer slaughtering wildlife then protecting it.
For an insight into the real goals of the CONservation hooligans like
the RSPB visit
http://tinyurl.com/896bw
http://tinyurl.com/7rjuf
And remember while you're being ripped off, the genuine wildlife
conservation issues are going untended.
and a must see is the charity blogger
http://charityblogger.blogspot.com
Monday, July 25, 2005
The Mean British Public
Don't believe the hype. The Great British Public is not generous.
American citizens give twice as much to charity as we do. The Dutch,
Danish and Norwegians give more. The Australian (public's) response to
the tsunami was more generous than ours. And even worse, we're getting
meaner: the British public now gives 25 per cent less to charity (as
percentage of our Gross Domestic Product) than it did in 1993. On this
fact, the boss of the Charities Aid Foundation backs me up.
Sure, 80% of adults gave to Tsunami relief - which is astounding - and
gave £400 million, says The Times. But bearing in mind that the
British public gives £7 billion a year to charity, that's less than
20% of what we give anyway - and if Live Aid was anything to go by, it
means that we will tighten our belts for the rest of the year and the
overall pot will stay the same size.
This is no secret in the charity world. Small charities have braced
their belts for lower income this year, and the figures in 2006 will
probably justify their fears - if they are still in operation.
That's it. Just a rant. I think people should know.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Make Poverty History - made easy
Unless you've been living on Comet Tempel 1 (and if so, apologies for
the recent bang), you'll be aware of G8 and Make Poverty History and
wristbands and Geldof and celebrities you've never heard of.
If you got lost in the mix, let me try to explain it from this donor's
perspective, and show how you can sidestep the very complicated
arguments and arrive at one commonly accepted truth.
There are three main parts to Make Poverty History* (and Blair and
1. Reducing or cancelling debt to many impoverished countries
There is argument around this ranging from: why do some countries get
debt relief and others (who worked hard to pay back) get little
reward? - to - won't paying off the debt leave some countries
vulnerable to impossibly higher interest rates on subsequent loans
(Laos is apparently against rescheduling for this reason) - to - won't
the saved money only benefit the president and his cronies, and not
the country? All interesting points.
Controversy rating: 6/10
2. Massively increasing the amount of government aid to poor countries
The arguments against this are: well, all that money goes missing
doesn't it? (It doesn't all, but sizeable chunks are sometimes
unaccounted for. According to anecdote, aid given by charities, not
governments, has a better record of reaching its destination); all the
money goes on airconditioned LandCruisers, bloated administration and
high salaries (a modicum of truth, but you need good people and
infrastructure to get anything done on a big scale); and there's
probably another good five or more points.
Controversy rating: 7/10
3. Bringing wealth to Africa by stopping Western protectionism and
investing in African business
Any takers? No? There is no argument here**. The people who rail at
the first two points agree that this is a good strategy. And the
people who bang on about the first two points also bang on about this
one.
Controversy rating: 1/10
So there we have it. If you hear anyone saying Make Poverty History is
rubbish, ask them about their view on supporting trade with Africa.
And if you're in a contrary frame of mind, you can raise the other two
points.
But what you may see now is that the organisations which support trade
with Africa are probably on the soundest footing. The big hitters here
include Oxfam's Make Trade Fair Campaign and the Fair Trade
Foundation. But there are other groups you've never heard of which are
probably doing a grand job in the background. The Trade Justice
Movement is the big one and their site is worth a scan if you have the
stamina for more detail (and good on you if you do).
* There is a fourth, which is stopping AIDS, but this is arguably part
of each of the other three; you need money to do it.
** Except for the environmental one, which opposes Western-syle
economic growth in developing countries.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Big Mouth Strikes Again (thank god)
John Bird is the ex-alcoholic, ex-con and ex-most-other-things who
founded The Big Issue magazine sold by your local friendly homeless
person. To say he speaks his mind is like saying morphine is an
analgesic. He's the only person I can think of in the do-gooder arena
who is a serious stirrer.
John's latest fireworks showered over the Guardian Unlimited web pages
last month when he said that some homeless charities make the homeless
problem worse. I've heard that point of view from charity people
before, but I've never read it in the press. The voluntary sector
tends to keep such doubts to itself. John was raising an issue that is
regularly debated in closed circles and he unveiled the common
thinking that, "A lot of homeless organisations never give people the
opportunity of growing up and looking after themselves."
John is an extreme, messianic-style character (his own words), but
that doesn't detract from his deep experience nor from the no-bullshit
deduction he employs when talking about charities. Frankly it's a
shame he doesn't get more airtime, dragging more debaters behind him.
John has a new web site which recommends organisations - mostly
charities - which John believes addresses society's problems in useful
ways. The site is basic but it describes lots of interesting
organisations. I don't know of other site which recommends charities
with such authority or attitude. It's called Best Practices for Change
(http://www.bp4c.com).
Friday, July 15, 2005
Are there too many charities?
There are a few issues the charity world simply can't agree on, and
one of the most titillating ones is: are there too many charities - or
not enough?
We have around 200,000 charities in the UK ('around' because no-one's
quite sure how many there are in Northern Ireland, but that's another
story). This is a lot, even if you exclude the types you wouldn't
normally put money in a tin for - for example, grant-giving
foundations, friendly societies or *cough* private schools.
Now this all seems a bit surprising if you go through the motions of
registering a charity, in England at least (which I am doing). There
is a 43-page application form to fill, significant sections of which
are large empty boxes into which you have to explain your aims,
activities and fundraising strategies. It's the kind of form You Need
To Know How To Fill Out. You must also append your organisation's
Constitution - the kind of document which keeps lawyers and their
extended families in beer money for life.
"Children, animals and London do well. Crazy people, single mothers
and Clwyd don't."
If you get your application right, you'll be Gift Aid-friendly in six
months. Anything less may set you back a year or longer - or forever.
Charity Commissioners have allegedly reduced applicants to tears
because they didn't use the right language in their repeated
applications.
I can only think the Commission wasn't always this demanding. Either
that, or most of the charities formed since the 1601 Statute of
Charitable Uses are still going.
I digress. The Commission is a beleaguered organisation - they have
only 600-odd staff for all those charities for goodness' sake - and
funnily enough they seem agreed that there are too many charities.
They were very happy with the creation of a Collaborative Working Unit
by one of the big umbrella bodies last October, designed to get
charities to work together. Quite right: good idea.
But it's clear that some charity sectors and geographical areas get a
bunch more money than others. Children, animals and London do well.
Crazy people, single mothers and Clwyd don't.
As many charity heads insist when it suits them, you can't generalise
about charities - and that observation must hold true in this case.
I'm told there are over 50 prostate cancer charities, which is
probably a rather inefficient way of tackling the cause. Yet I know
that there's no local charity helping the frazzled old boy who sleeps
in my local park.
"Individuals pained by such emotion will move mountains to make their
commemorative project happen"
The stimulus for this stream of consciousness is Marie
Fatayi-Williams, who so eloquently paid tribute to her son who was
killed in the London bus bombing last week. On Friday she announced
that she will set up a foundation called The Anthony Fatayi-Williams
Peace and Conflict Resolution Foundation in honour of her son.
Presumably it will be charitable.
When I read this, I realised why there are so many charities.
Individuals pained by such emotion will move mountains to make their
commemorative project happen - even if there are other organisations
that do similar work, with which they will be competing directly for
funds, and whose competitive presence may in fact diminish the work of
the whole movement.
I suspect the Charity Commission does this already, but maybe they
could be making more of an effort to look for similar organisations
when faced with a familiar sounding set of objectives. Maybe they
could then recommend the applicant talks to those organisations. For
example Mrs Fatayi-Williams could be directed to the Conflict,
Development and Peace Network (CODEP) or International Alert or The
International Association for Conflict Management.
Just a thought.
Olympics: small charities for the high jump
Great, we got the Olympics. Not so great: smaller charities will
inevitably suffer as a result. The funds they usually get will divert
to bullet trains and an 80,000-seater stadium.
As you probably know, many small charities rely heavily on grants or
contracts with local or central government. They have to, since the
money donated by the public is sucked up by the large charities which
have the marketing clout to get our attention. You haven't heard of
most of them. And you certainly won't after 2012 because several of
them are in for the chop.
"Some of the resources invested in East London will now not be
available for regenerating other parts of the capital"
Most observers of the Olympics agree on one thing: it costs the host
city a fortune to stage and, in most cases, a loss. This Forbes
article has an ironic take on it.
Los Angeles is the only city which in recent years came out on top,
largely because it didn't build anything new. London on the other hand
will be starting from scratch on the Hackney Marshes. The scale of the
plans is astonishing. As are the cost estimates. This 1992 British
Olympian doesn't make much of them.
It will bring work, visitors and nice housing to the poorest part of
London. But London School of Economics specialist Tony Travers
predicts, "Some of the resources invested in East London will now not
be available for regenerating other parts of the capital. Within the
local boroughs... there will be a steep addition to the cost of
running basic services as 2012 approaches. There will be environmental
improvements to fund, new facilities to run and, eventually, much
litter to pick up. Not all of these costs will be met from Whitehall
grants."
What to do? Adopting a local charity - smart advice in any case - is a
good place to start.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The London bombings
Shaken by the events of last week, my mum emailed me yesterday and
asked, "What can ordinary people do about this?"
Well, Mum, my reaction is, predictably: reach for your wallet - or
volunteer. If there weren't situations like this, charities wouldn't
exist, and many charities deal with some aspect of this bloodbath,
from cause to effect.
Causes - where do you start? Poverty? Oil? Lack of education? You will
have your own opinion. I like the idea of religions talking to each
other. The Three Faiths Forum anyone? Or helping people talk to each
other without pulling out a gun. Peaceworkers UK for example.
Effects - there are a few obvious contenders here, the high profile
going to the British Red Cross, whose ambulances were at the scene.
They are also part of the widely advertised London Bombings Relief
Charitable Fund. This charity was registered in two days, which anyone
who has started a charity knows must be a record (it takes everyone
else six months), and which makes me wonder about... never mind.
£1 million has been raised already by this fund and it's not clear
precisely where the money will go. There are fewer than 50 badly
injured people, and maybe 1000 or so affected in other ways. I suspect
the majority will be well catered to by the NHS. I can think of people
who won't be supported as lavishly - for example those in the
notoriously poorly funded mental health sector. Is there a compromise
here? The National Phobics Society helps people with Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.
So, Mum - there's no reason to feel powerless. If you are so inclined,
do your own research at the clunky Commission listing of all
charities.*
*Here's hoping the GuideStar listing which goes live soon will have a
better search function.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The first UK charity blog*
British charities receive £32 million a year. That's more than the
combined budget of the Army, Navy and RAF. It's bigger than the United
Nations budget. £7 million of it is given by you and me through our
direct debits, cheques and coins.
Not one journalist in the consumer press covers this sector. No-one
specialises in it. No-one debates it. But it affects all of us to some
extent or another - many as grateful beneficiaries, many as trustees,
many as charity muggees, many as non-givers (some of them feel guilty
apparently).
What's going on?
Can I be the first donor who's thought of writing a blog about
charities?
Is the media afraid of charities? Does it think people aren't
interested (and would rather read, say, the business pages?) Or do
they think they're all beyond criticism?
Do we, the public, accept them blindly? Or is it our lame British
reserve - the dissatisfied diner telling the waiter that yes the meal
was lovely thank you?
Frankly, I want to know where my donations are going. And I want us
all to wake up a bit.
I've been doing some homespun research over the last few months and my
main finding is this: it's virtually impossible to find out any
objective information about the sector. There's an informational black
hole here.
So my mission here is to try to shed a little light. And if you can
add your (fact-based) opinion, all the better. Let's go...
*The first American charity blog - very readable - is written by Trent
Stamp. Trent runs a charity evaluation service which looks at how
charities manage their money. That's a good start (and the UK has no
equivalent so we are in no position to judge) but it's only half of
the picture: the equally important bit is the strategy and quality of
the work. Finance-only evaluation has been fairly compared to judging
a wine by the number of grapes you put in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask all charities where our money is going, if they don't
tell you they have something to hide.

The RSPB spend most of each pound they get on admin, which includes
fat cat salaries, perks and windfalls.
John
2005-07-25 08:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:50:56 +0100, "BAC"
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:41:50 +0100, Malcolm Kane
You may not like the comparison but its nevertheless an accurate
one.
Fortunately Angus it isn't an accurate one. Hitler wanted to destroy
all Jews and in fact I think anyone not Aryan. Conservation does
not
have this aim.
I'm quite sure they don't want to destroy all Jews but they do want to
destroy alien species
Its strange you can't comprehend that. Sad really.
Not sad at all. The comparison is an accurate one.
Comprehension problems again Angus? Hitler wanted to destroy all none
Aryan give ONE example of where conservation wants to destroy ALL of a
species or race.
Well, not that I believe conservationists are Nazis, but some
conservationists would wish to exterminate all ruddy duck/white headed
duck
hybrids in Europe, north Africa and Asia, does that count as a valid
example?
No as they aren't trying to exterminate ALL individuals of the species.
At least not from my point of view. Had modern attitudes to
biodiversity and aliens been applied sooner they numbers would not have
been great and they would have been a few problem individuals.
Still however IMO not a whole species or race.
One of the aims of the programme is to exterminate *all* free RD/WHD hybrids
in Europe and neighbouring North Africa and Asia, which is probably getting
on for 100% of the world population of that 'race', so I believe it does
meet your parameters for a valid example. Don't forget, if it were not for
the fact that RDs and WHDs can produce viable hybrids, there would be little
excuse for killing either them or their 'pure' RD forbears.
And this from the RSPB who con us into donating money su[pposedly to
protect wildlife and habitat!

Better of buying a pork chop.
John
2005-07-25 09:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:13:12 +0100, "BAC"
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:04:22 +0100, Malcolm Kane
<snip>
They are facts. It's a fact that the principle of what Hitler did to
Jews and what conservationists are doing to wildlife is exactly the
same. Killing to improve the habitat of those they favour.
Sorry Angus I am not sure if you are in denial again or it is a
comprehension problem. Hitler killing Jews had nothing to do with
human habitat.
The Nazis' killing of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, homosexuals and
other groups was probably driven by a mistaken (and some would say perverse)
interpretation of the 'science' of eugenics, coupled with a degree of
ruthlessness unfortunately shared with other totalitarian regimes throughout
human history.
Obviously, the Nazis' treatment of what they saw as inferiors or defectives
was designed to benefit (and ensure the purity of) their 'Aryan race'. IMO
it was more about 'selective breeding' than habitat, as long as they had
established sufficient 'lebensraum' for their purposes.
Funny but the ideals are fitting the RSPB and other CONservation
hooligans more and more, and certainly explains why these crooks are
presiding over the largest species and habitat decline the world has
ever known.
John
2005-07-25 09:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:22:43 +0100, "BAC"
<RSPB>
They are collectively presiding over the largest decline in bird
populations ever recorded.
Have you a hint of evidence to support that?
Over what time scale? Which species?
This is Angus you are talking to you can't expect such mundane things as
evidence.
But those of us who have an interest in such matters do not need Angus to
point out that many UK bird populations are thought to have been in serious
decline in recent times. Those organisations such as the BTO and RSPB which
attempt to monitor such things have not made any secret about it, e.g.
http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2004/key_findings.htm
for example.
If there were no perceived dangers to birds, it is likely that there would
be no RSPB, because there would be no need for one. The question, really,
isn't whether or not there has been a decline in some bird populations over
the 'life-span' of the RSPB (that, frankly, seems undeniable) but whether
the RSPB has made the situation any 'better' or 'worse'?
Quite. The simple fact is that very little of the money we give these
CONservation groups is actually being spent on reasons for decline.
The RSPB have spent a few thousand pounds on sparrow decline and
almost never mention it any more, same for songbirds etc and whilst
these crooks are pretending to look for solutions the wildlife and
habitat is suffering and we are being fleeced.

If they spent their advertising budget of seven million pounds per
annum on research instead of flooding the country with junk mail and
spam. How much does it cost to get rid of seven millions pounds worth
of junk mail to the environment?
John
2005-07-25 09:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:53:50 +0100, "BAC"
Post by David
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:41:50 +0100, Malcolm Kane
You may not like the comparison but its nevertheless an accurate
one.
Fortunately Angus it isn't an accurate one. Hitler wanted to
destroy
all Jews and in fact I think anyone not Aryan. Conservation does
not
have this aim.
I'm quite sure they don't want to destroy all Jews but they do want
to
destroy alien species
Its strange you can't comprehend that. Sad really.
Not sad at all. The comparison is an accurate one.
Comprehension problems again Angus? Hitler wanted to destroy all
none
Aryan give ONE example of where conservation wants to destroy ALL of
a
species or race.
Well, not that I believe conservationists are Nazis, but some
conservationists would wish to exterminate all ruddy duck/white headed
duck
hybrids in Europe, north Africa and Asia, does that count as a valid
example?
No, because that's just a few thousand birds out of a total world
population in excess of 500,000.
Strange, I thought it was the total world population of such hybrids
(note I
wasn't using the 'pure bred' RDs as an example to fit MK's parameters,
just
the hybrids), the object of the exercise being to preserve the 'racial
purity' of the WHD (aka prevent extinction by hybridisation).
I didn't appreciate what you were trying to say. Yes, the intention is
to remove all hybrids, but I don't think you can talk about a
"population" of them. They occur *within* the two populations of Ruddy
and WHD and have no separate existence. Once all the Ruddies are removed
from within the range of the WHD, there can be no more.
Without wishing to split hairs, if all the RDs were removed, but not their
hybrid offspring, there would almost certainly continue to be a population
of hybrids, maintained by breeding with each other and remaining 'pure'
WHDs. Else why kill the hybrids in the first place?
Crazy logic but that's RSPB thinking for you. That's the trouble when
you're trying to fool all of the people all of the time, they get
caught out.
John
2005-07-25 10:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:44:21 +0100, Malcolm
<RSPB>
They are collectively presiding over the largest decline in bird
populations ever recorded.
Have you a hint of evidence to support that?
Over what time scale? Which species?
This is Angus you are talking to you can't expect such mundane things as
evidence.
But those of us who have an interest in such matters do not need Angus to
point out that many UK bird populations are thought to have been in serious
decline in recent times. Those organisations such as the BTO and RSPB which
attempt to monitor such things have not made any secret about it, e.g.
http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2004/key_findings.htm
for example.
If there were no perceived dangers to birds, it is likely that there would
be no RSPB, because there would be no need for one. The question, really,
isn't whether or not there has been a decline in some bird populations over
the 'life-span' of the RSPB (that, frankly, seems undeniable) but whether
the RSPB has made the situation any 'better' or 'worse'?
Angus's repeating that the RSPB are presiding over a decline in birds is
so feeble, not to mention dishonest, as to hardly need you to respond.
Especially when it doesn't suit your warped agenda hmm? Just as well
most of us are able to make our own minds up about you and your senile
intentions. Get a job.
The answer to your question is, obviously, that the RSPB have made the
situation far, far better than it would have been without them, not just
by specific actions on habitat management and creation for individual
species, but by very active lobbying along with other organisations and
agencies to reverse policies which were doing so much damage.
Really! what have they done for sparrows, songbirds etc?

We know the RSPB are directly responsible for the decisions resulting
in the wholesale slaughter of species such as ruddy duck, uist
hedgehogs,the rare lundy ships rat, deer, foxes and other "common
species" they don't happen to like, but just what have they done in
reality? If they can afford to spend in excess of 7 million pounds on
flooding the country with junk mail and advertising surely they could
spend a few bob on sparrows, thrushes etc? After all isn't that why we
give them money!
John
2005-08-02 08:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:12:30 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
Post by Tumbleweed
Post by John
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:45:39 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
Post by Tumbleweed
Post by John
Post by JB
why they were being posted and in newsgroups which seem random.
Luckily most of us are not so narrow minded when selecting what we
choose to read or not. You don't like it don't read it.
"most of us"? And you know that how? You are spamming. Please dont.
Leave him alone, he knows nothing and will just turn round and insult
anyone who points that out.
Skool holidays I suppose.
Though I wonder what he hopes to achieve by alienating those he wants to
convert?
People are able to make their own minds up, they just need to be
provided with the facts. What you do with them is your choice.
Post by Tumbleweed
Almost makes you want to go out and kill some wildlife just to get your own
back on him :-)
A true pro hunt nut. Which is why your opinion is worthless and poking
you is great fun.
Geoff
2006-12-29 09:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.fishinghurts.com/

Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.

Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
friends, and their discoveries are fascinating:

• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."

• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.

• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."

• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University

• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006

• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Dutch
2006-12-29 09:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel.
Animals are dead when you eat them, so it's not cruel to them do so.
Geoff
2006-12-29 09:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dutch
Post by Geoff
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel.
Animals are dead when you eat them, so it's not cruel to them do so.
The killing is cruel. In the case of fishing, the vast majority is
*just for fun*, the injured fish are simply thrown back in, to be
played with another day!

Like nature isn't hard enough as it is, it needs some overweight
gnomes, to add to the suffering?

What would possess a human being, to sit on his own all day, like a
gnome, in the same spot, waiting to harm wildlife, for no reason,
apart from *It's fun*? http://tinyurl.com/yl4agg


http://www.fishinghurts.com/

Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.

Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
friends, and their discoveries are fascinating:

• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."

• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.

• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."

• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University

• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006

• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Geoff
2006-12-29 10:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic006.asp

The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France

PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
there is some good news. According to the World Society for the
Protection of Animals, the French minister for overseas territories
visited Réunion at the end of September to meet with the governor of
the island to ensure that measures to prevent such barbaric practices
are being put in place by Réunion authorities; the governor assured
animal welfare groups that he condemns this cruel practice and
announced that any dog or cat found aboard a fishing vessel in Réunion
waters registered with the municipal authorities will be confiscated.
Police have also been ordered to monitor and control these incidents,
and the judiciary has been told to punish any offenses with the
severest penalties. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society reports that
the first violator has already been charged as a result of efforts by
police to investigate the practice.

We encourage you to contact the minister and the governor to thank
them for their actions. Encourage them to continue to extend
enforcement of these measures:

L'Honorable M. François Baroin
Le Ministre de l'Outre-Mer
27, rue Oudinot
75007 Paris
France

L'Honorable M. Laurent Cayrel
Le Gouverneur de la Réunion
1, av. Victoire
97400 Saint-Denis
La Préfecture de la Réunion


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Remus
2006-12-29 13:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic006.asp
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats ....
Visit www.petakillsanimals.com to see 'just' how much Peta cares for dogs and cats.
Geoff
2006-12-29 14:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic006.asp
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats ....
Visit www.petakillsanimals.com to see 'just' how much Peta cares for dogs and cats.
That makes this OK does it?

http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic006.asp

The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France

PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
there is some good news. According to the World Society for the
Protection of Animals, the French minister for overseas territories
visited Réunion at the end of September to meet with the governor of
the island to ensure that measures to prevent such barbaric practices
are being put in place by Réunion authorities; the governor assured
animal welfare groups that he condemns this cruel practice and
announced that any dog or cat found aboard a fishing vessel in Réunion
waters registered with the municipal authorities will be confiscated.
Police have also been ordered to monitor and control these incidents,
and the judiciary has been told to punish any offenses with the
severest penalties. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society reports that
the first violator has already been charged as a result of efforts by
police to investigate the practice.

We encourage you to contact the minister and the governor to thank
them for their actions. Encourage them to continue to extend
enforcement of these measures:

L'Honorable M. François Baroin
Le Ministre de l'Outre-Mer
27, rue Oudinot
75007 Paris
France

L'Honorable M. Laurent Cayrel
Le Gouverneur de la Réunion
1, av. Victoire
97400 Saint-Denis
La Préfecture de la Réunion
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
rick
2006-12-30 03:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic006.asp
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and
cats ....
Visit www.petakillsanimals.com to see 'just' how much Peta
cares for dogs and cats.
That makes this OK does it?
=====================
No, it puts into perspective the 'purity' of the bunch that you
cite as animal saviors. They kill more animals than they save
once they get their bloody hands on them. The 'e' in their logo
isn't lower case by accident, fool...



snip ignorant spew...
Geoff
2006-12-29 14:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
http://www.peta.org/about/hottopic006.asp
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats ....
Visit www.petakillsanimals.com to see 'just' how much Peta cares for dogs and cats.
A pro hunt, pro nut, pyscho led website, fed by the meat, smoking and
vivisection industry. Talk about an agenda!

Better yet. See why they turned wild!

Is there a “Good Ol Boy” Network in North Carolina?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2005/06/315035.html

PETA has been involved with trying to improve animal welfare
conditions in parts of North Carolina for some time. A few years ago
PETA launched a campaign against Yadkin County officials who
continuously ignored “the dire living—and dying—conditions for the
unwanted animals whose care and custody they are charged with”. PETA
went public with their concerns causing Yadkin officials to receive
numerous letters of concern. This angered Yadkin officials and they
refused PETA’s help to build a shelter. Instead they took $15,000 for
a shelter from a sleazy lobbyist and front group for the tobacco,
restaurant, alcohol and meat industries called The Center for Consumer
Freedom (CCF). CCF has been attacking PETA for years calling the
organization “terrorists”. CCF is also the outfit behind the
“petakills” website. It is very confusing why Yadkin County, NC
refused PETA’s money for animal welfare improvement but took The
Center for Consumer Freedom’s (which hates PETA) money. Since when
does a lobbyist who represents industries such as tobacco, meat,
alcohol and restaurants care about animal welfare? Has there been an
accurate accounting of how Yadkin county officials used all the
donations they received to build the shelter? What is even stranger is
the behavior of the media not only in the USA and Canada but abroad.
They are interviewing CCF for articles regarding animal welfare. Makes
you wonder, is there some collaboration and corruption going on
between the “good ol’ boys”; CCF and some North Carolina officials?



For PETA’s work regarding Yadkin County, North Carolina, please read
below

http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin

Despite the efforts of the local humane society and animal advocates
throughout the U.S., Yadkin County officials continue to ignore the
dire living—and dying—conditions for the unwanted animals whose care
and custody they are charged with. Commissioners don’t seem to
consider their county’s unwanted animals as worthy of anything more
than the county landfill adjacent to the animal shelter.
Many of you remember lending your voices to the lost, stray, and
abandoned animals of Yadkin County, North Carolina. Complaints about
the county “shelter”—a dilapidated collection of cramped wire-and-wood
cages with metal roofs offering little to no protection from the
elements—have been flooding PETA’s headquarters for years. These
animals still need your help.

PETA and many concerned citizens have attempted—in vain—to help Yadkin
County improve the deplorable conditions at its shelter. In 1996,
county officials rejected an offer to pay the difference in cost
between intravenous injections (the most humane method of euthanasia)
and the gas chamber. In May 2002, after receiving increased pressure
from PETA and local residents, Yadkin County commissioners finally
voted to put $75,000 toward the construction of a new shelter if the
community could raise an additional $75,000. PETA offered to donate
$15,000 toward the construction of the shelter if the county would
ensure that certain humane standards were met. The commissioners never
bothered to respond directly to PETA (but Commissioner Thomas Wooten
had the audacity to tell the media that the offer was “not as much as
[he] would have liked” and that each of PETA’s 750,000 members should
be willing to donate $1! And in January 2003, commissioners turned
down an offer by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to
visit the shelter and make suggestions for improvements for free. Why?
County Manager Cecil Wood told the local paper, the Elkin Tribune,
“We’re already aware of the problems we have over there. We’re
focusing on a new shelter.”

It is now nearly a year later, and nothing has changed for the needy
animals in Yadkin County. Not only has a new shelter not been built,
little if any effort is being made to find land to build it on,
either! And the animals are paying the price, often with their lives.

Animals at the shelter are killed in a crude, windowless metal box
pumped full of carbon monoxide. Even adequate carbon monoxide
equipment can fail, subjecting fully conscious animals to the horror
of watching and hearing others struggle and suffer as they succumb to
the fumes. But makeshift chambers, like the one used by Yadkin County,
are virtually guaranteed to subject animals to suffering and to a
prolonged, agonizing death. PETA is told—and video footage
confirms—that animals are crammed into the box one on top of another
and that live animals are thrown in, layer after layer, on top of dead
and dying ones. A shelter employee allegedly once bragged about being
able to stuff more than 80 animals into the tiny “kill box” at once.

Yadkin County’s Annual Animal Control Report for January 1, 2003,
through October 11, 2003, shows that out of 1,933 animals killed, only
four puppies and four kittens were euthanized by a veterinarian. This
means that the rest of the animals—including the old, young, and sick
ones, who are particularly susceptible to gas-related trauma because
they breathe and circulate oxygen and other gases differently than
healthy adult animals—were crammed into and died inside the chamber
that has been used to kill animals at the shelter for years. (News
reports indicate that Yadkin County commissioners have spent nearly
$7,000 on a new gas chamber, which they refuse to hook up until a new
shelter is built. So the new chamber sits unused.)

Yadkin County budget reports for 2001 through 2003 show that not one
cent was slated to be spent on training for the animal control staff
or on veterinary fees. One complainant wrote to PETA to say that on
one occasion, an adult dog had "a large flap of skin and muscle
[lying] down over his left hip, exposing bone. He lay from Wednesday
until Friday on kill day. He had numerous other wounds, and the hip
injury was teeming with maggots." PETA's file on Yadkin County is full
of similar heartbreaking accounts.

The General Statutes of North Carolina, specifically § 130A-192, state
that impounded animals who are not reclaimed can only be destroyed by
“a procedure approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association,
the Humane Society of the United States [HSUS], or … the American
Humane Association [AHA].”

The AVMA panel states that “inhalant agents [should] not be used alone
in animals less than 16 weeks old except to induce loss of
consciousness, followed by the use of some other method to kill the
animal.”

The HSUS states, “It is unacceptable to use [carbon monoxide] for the
euthanasia of dogs and cats who are … [o]ld …; [u]nder the age of four
months; [s]ick or injured; or ([o]bviously) pregnant.”

The AHA considers euthanasia by injection of sodium pentobarbital to
be “the only acceptable method for euthanasia of dogs and cats in
animal shelters” and states, “American Humane considers the use of any
other lethal method for dogs and cats in animal shelters unacceptable,
including use of carbon monoxide ...”

The AVMA also specifies in its panel that when carbon monoxide is
used, the “chamber must be of the highest quality construction and
should allow for separation of individual animals … [and] the chamber
must be well lit and have view ports that allow personnel direct
observation of animals …,” neither of which is followed by Yadkin
County.

Moreover, Yadkin County has a mandatory kill policy, prohibiting
adoptions, supposedly because of a fear of rabies. However, the county
dedicates no resources to enforcing North Carolina law requiring that
animals be vaccinated against rabies. The excuse? Money, which, of
course, would be collected if violators of the state rabies law were
fined as warranted!

Conditions for animals before they are destroyed are equally cruel.
The rundown structure that animals are housed in offers little to no
protection from harsh wind, freezing or scorching temperatures, rain,
and snow and more often than not is covered in urine and feces. Small,
weak animals are housed in cages with aggressive large animals, who
bully the smaller animals and prevent them from eating or drinking.
Food bowls are not used at the facility, so food is simply thrown on
the ground, contaminated by feces, urine, dirt, and water, creating a
disgusting health hazard for the animals. The water buckets provided
for the animals appear to be too tall for small dogs to reach, and the
water is often foul and black with mold and filth. Cats are forced to
sit on wire in small cages.

On November 4, 2003, Yadkin County Humane Society President Alice
Singh spoke to the House Interim Committee on the Prevention and
Disposition of Unwanted and Abandoned Companion Animals in
Raleigh—formed last August by the Honorable Speakers of the North
Carolina House of Representatives to address the overpopulation crisis
and related issues in the state—about dire conditions at the Yadkin
County shelter. Singh shared with committee members heart-wrenching
photos of the facility, and graphic video footage of gas killings shot
in 1997 (the same gas box is still in use) by a North Carolina School
of the Arts student. The following day, County Manager Cecil Wood
advised humane society members that they were no longer welcome to use
the county planning building for their monthly meetings as they had
been doing for nine months. The humane society is the only hope that
these animals have.

Please help. Commissioners must get their heads out of the sand and
immediately improve the deplorable conditions that the animals have
and continue to be subjected to right now. Construction of a shelter
hasn’t even begun and won’t be completed overnight once it does.
There’s a long list of simple things that the county can and must do
to make the shelter comply with minimum national standards.

Please contact Yadkin County commissioners and urge them to stop
shirking their legal, moral, and financial responsibilities to their
county’s lost, abandoned, and unwanted animals. Ask that they provide
these animals with the least they deserve: a painless, peaceful death
administered by a licensed veterinarian at least until caring
individuals can be trained. Please push for immediate improvements to
be made at the current facility. Animals shouldn’t have to wait for
fundraising and construction efforts before having their basic needs
met.

Yadkin County Commissioners

Cecil Wood, County Manager
Yadkin County Commission
P.O. Box 146
Yadkinville, NC 27055
336-679-4200
336-679-6005 (fax)
***@yadkincounty.gov

Roger Evans, Commissioner
6052 Aquilla Creek Rd.
East Bend, NC 27018
336-699-3261

Kim Clark Phillips, Commissioner
1139 Knoll Dr.
Yadkinville, NC 27055
336-463-4590
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Derek Moody
2006-12-29 17:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, Geoff
<URL:mailto:***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nothing but did his standard cut and paste X-post job.
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they (and Pete) recycle the same story every few months in case there's
someone new out there who is gullible enough to swallow the story without
checking it or thinking it through.

Cherio,
--
Fishing: http://www.fishing.casterbridge.net/
Writing: http://www.author.casterbridge.net/derek-moody/
uk.rec.fishing.game Badge Page:
http://www.fishing.casterbridge.net/urfg/
Jim Webster
2006-12-29 17:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Derek Moody
Nothing but did his standard cut and paste X-post job.
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they (and Pete) recycle the same story every few months in case there's
someone new out there who is gullible enough to swallow the story without
checking it or thinking it through.
anyway, we know from petes own admission that he is a lady from london who
thinks she has bought a farm
If she believes that she might well believe anything ;-))
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 17:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike
2006-12-29 17:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
very relevant to gardening because of the problems cats caused

"THINKS" I wonder how many gardeners take up fishing ;-) Plenty of bait
about ;-)

Mike
--
..........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
"Bigbilly" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 18:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
very relevant to gardening because of the problems cats caused
"THINKS" I wonder how many gardeners take up fishing ;-) Plenty of bait
about ;-)
Mike
YOU have to be friendly to cats that way you can get em close enough to grab
and drop in your water butt
BUT the point im trying to make is these "people" are cross posting all this
anti everything bolloxs to sites that don't want it.

Like you and I have just done. 7 other groups recieved this mail

I'm on a bird watching group and don't want to read there religious
thoughts, political beliefs etc etc
Oz
2006-12-29 18:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbilly
I'm on a bird watching group and don't want to read there religious
thoughts, political beliefs etc etc
The killfile is your friend .....
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 21:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The kill file is your friend .....
--
Oz
It is indeed, but I'm one of the few who believe Geoff will one day astound
us all with an original post so I haven't kill filed him yet, cause I would
like to see it
Jim Webster
2006-12-29 22:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbilly
The kill file is your friend .....
--
Oz
It is indeed, but I'm one of the few who believe Geoff will one day astound
us all with an original post so I haven't kill filed him yet, cause I would
like to see it
a real optimist

tell you what, if it ever happens, you wouldn't be good enough to repost it
for the rest of us who have kifiled him would you.

When you think about it, you would be doing a public service, the rest of us
can go on ignoring him, secure in the knowledge that if he ever does say
anything of interest, we will be told

Jim Webster
Oz
2006-12-30 08:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbilly
It is indeed, but I'm one of the few who believe Geoff will one day astound
us all with an original post so I haven't kill filed him yet, cause I would
like to see it
I hope you are still young.

Also I, and others, may killfile you too to avoid seeing pete's garbage.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Geoff
2006-12-30 09:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oz
Post by Bigbilly
It is indeed, but I'm one of the few who believe Geoff will one day astound
us all with an original post so I haven't kill filed him yet, cause I would
like to see it
I hope you are still young.
Also I, and others, may killfile you too to avoid seeing pete's garbage.
Promises, promises.
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Geoff
2006-12-29 18:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbilly
Post by Mike
very relevant to gardening because of the problems cats caused
"THINKS" I wonder how many gardeners take up fishing ;-) Plenty of bait
about ;-)
Mike
YOU have to be friendly to cats that way you can get em close enough to grab
and drop in your water butt
BUT the point im trying to make is these "people" are cross posting all this
anti everything bolloxs to sites that don't want it.
Like you and I have just done. 7 other groups recieved this mail
I'm on a bird watching group and don't want to read there religious
thoughts, political beliefs etc etc
Then don't!


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 21:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Then don't!
What's the matter Geoffrey couldn't find a suitable post to cut and paste
here, had to rely on your own intellect, hence this is the reply?
Geoff
2006-12-29 21:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbilly
Post by Geoff
Then don't!
What's the matter Geoffrey couldn't find a suitable post to cut and paste
here, had to rely on your own intellect, hence this is the reply?
http://www.fishinghurts.com/
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.
Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."
• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.
• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."
• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University
• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006
• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004
You'll do a lot of fishing Moody, but wont catch anything
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/fishing_gnome.asp
--
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Alan Holmes
2006-12-29 20:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Bigbilly" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
Like I said before!
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 21:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Holmes
Like I said before!
OK.
Geoff
2006-12-29 18:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:05 +0000, The garden gnome and lover of
Post by Derek Moody
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they
<snip the garden gnome rant>

http://www.fishinghurts.com/

Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.

Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
friends, and their discoveries are fascinating:

• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."

• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.

• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."

• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University

• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006

• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Geoff
2006-12-29 18:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:05 +0000, The garden gnome and lover of
Post by Derek Moody
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they
<snip the garden gnome rant>
Moody gone fishing... http://tinyurl.com/ymqehk
Be quick if you're to catch him!
Post by Geoff
http://www.fishinghurts.com/
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.
Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."
• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.
• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."
• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University
• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006
• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Geoff
2006-12-29 18:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:05 +0000, Derek Moody
Post by Derek Moody
Nothing but did his standard cut and paste X-post job.
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they (and Pete) recycle the same story every few months in case there's
someone new out there who is gullible enough to swallow the story without
checking it or thinking it through.
Cherio,
Your prose is slipping moody. Go for some lessons here, take a few of
your fishing gnome friends?
http://tinyurl.com/yfrls8

--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
2006-12-29 19:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:05 +0000, Derek Moody
Post by Derek Moody
Nothing but did his standard cut and paste X-post job.
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they (and Pete) recycle the same story every few months in case there's
someone new out there who is gullible enough to swallow the story without
checking it or thinking it through.
Cherio,
Your prose is slipping moody. Go for some lessons here, take a few of
your fishing gnome friends?
http://tinyurl.com/yfrls8
Geoff, you're a tedious re-cycler of bovine fecal matter which ever light
you use to look at it.

Do the world a favour and get off your arse from behind your computer screen
and go and save some poor tree frog from extinction somewhere deep in the
Amazon.

Don't bother booking a return flight though.
--
Cheers - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/
Geoff
2006-12-29 19:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:01:38 GMT, "Brownz \(Asus S6F Vista\)"
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:05 +0000, Derek Moody
Post by Derek Moody
Nothing but did his standard cut and paste X-post job.
Post by Geoff
The Use of Cats and Dogs as Bait in France
PETA continues to monitor the situation in which dogs and cats were
reportedly being used as fishing bait on the island of Réunion, and
And they (and Pete) recycle the same story every few months in case there's
someone new out there who is gullible enough to swallow the story without
checking it or thinking it through.
Cherio,
Your prose is slipping moody. Go for some lessons here, take a few of
your fishing gnome friends?
http://tinyurl.com/yfrls8
Geoff, you're a tedious re-cycler of bovine fecal matter which ever light
you use to look at it.
Do the world a favour and get off your arse from behind your computer screen
and go and save some poor tree frog from extinction somewhere deep in the
Amazon.
Don't bother booking a return flight though.
gnome.Gnome.Gnome!
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
w***@whocares.com
2006-12-30 09:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Whats this got to do with a UK fishing group?

Dutch
2006-12-29 10:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Dutch
Post by Geoff
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel.
Animals are dead when you eat them, so it's not cruel to them do so.
The killing is cruel.
That is not the definiton of cruelty, and besides she specifically referred
to *eating them* not killing them.
rick
2006-12-30 03:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Dutch
Post by Geoff
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine
biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't
deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel.
Animals are dead when you eat them, so it's not cruel to them
do so.
The killing is cruel. In the case of fishing, the vast majority is
*just for fun*, the injured fish are simply thrown back in, to
be
played with another day!
==============================
Wow, what a coincidence, the animals you kill for your selfish
usenet entertainment are killed cruely too! Only they don't get
a second chance. Why no crocadile tears about the billions and
billions that die because of your contributions, killer?
Post by Geoff
Like nature isn't hard enough as it is, it needs some
overweight
gnomes, to add to the suffering?
======================
LOL Like you? Sitting on your hind-end spewing idiocy on usenet.
Whatta maroon...
Post by Geoff
What would possess a human being, to sit on his own all day,
like a
gnome, in the same spot, waiting to harm wildlife, for no
reason,
apart from *It's fun*? http://tinyurl.com/yl4agg
=====================
You tell us why, hypocrite? Afterall, that's exactly what you
are doing here, except that YOU can ad environmental destruction
to your actions, killer...


snip stupidity....
w***@whocares.com
2006-12-30 09:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why are you posting comments from a marine biologists in a coarse
fishing newsgroup? Do you really think that by reading that you are
going to make me give up fishing and for others here to do the same?

What is your agenda? Doesn't mummy give you enough attention or has
she stopped breast feeding you?

Why not post it in an anti-fishing newsgroup or the I am so green I
live in a tree newsgroup?

Bet you never eaten meat in your life or wear leather shoes or a
leather jacket...Come on return that leather thong you have back to
the wild.

You forget that anglers are normally the first ones to bring to the
attention of the authorities that a river or lake has been polluted or
fish stocks are dying.

Also there are many commercial lakes that have been man made, that are
supported by anglers (day tickets) that support other wild life.

Why pick on fish, why not support more endangered species like the
polar bear, whales, turtles and trolls?

By the way I do not drink or smoke and certainly do not look like a
garden gnome. Just holding a fishing rod does not but you in the
category of a garden gnome or are you just not educated enough to know
the difference?

Feed the trolls - Love it....
Fishman ><(((°>
2006-12-29 10:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
John Cleese I think..........

If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
Geoff
2006-12-29 10:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:16:42 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
So it's OK to eat humans then?

Basil Brush.
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
The Caretaker
2006-12-29 15:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:16:42 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
So it's OK to eat humans then?
In certain circumstances it's OK to eat anything to sustain life.
--
The Caretaker ........
Mike
2006-12-29 15:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Caretaker
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:16:42 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
So it's OK to eat humans then?
In certain circumstances it's OK to eat anything to sustain life.
--
The Caretaker ........
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3503
--
..........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
Geoff
2006-12-29 16:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:15 GMT, The Caretaker
Post by The Caretaker
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:16:42 GMT, "Fishman ><\(\(\(°>"
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
So it's OK to eat humans then?
In certain circumstances it's OK to eat anything to sustain life.
You bet, but we're not talking about certain circumstances.
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 17:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Holmes
2006-12-29 20:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Bigbilly" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
A brilliant, well thought out article, which will promote a great deal of
intellectual discussion!
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 21:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Holmes
A brilliant, well thought out article, which will promote a great deal of
intellectual discussion!
No probs glad you enjoyed it
Jim Webster
2006-12-29 22:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbilly
Post by Alan Holmes
A brilliant, well thought out article, which will promote a great deal of
intellectual discussion!
No probs glad you enjoyed it
no really, it contributed considerably to the clarity of the discussion and
said pretty well everything that needed to be said
If everyone on usenet was so consise there would be far less ill feeling and
we might all get something more useful done ;-))

Cheers

Jim Webster
Remus
2006-12-29 21:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
You bet, but we're not talking about certain circumstances.
The simple fact is that you don't really know what you are talking about. Now put your little suit back on and caper into the street - I'm sure there's an organ grinder missing you badly.
Geoff
2006-12-29 21:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
You bet, but we're not talking about certain circumstances.
The simple fact is that you don't really know what you are talking about.
Maybe you could tell us. What's so good about looking like a gnome,
with your rod hanging out, trying to hurt little fish? (usually
bolstered by plenty of fags and drink)
Post by Remus
Now put your little suit back on and caper into the street -
I'm sure there's an organ grinder missing you badly.
Beats having a hobby that means I sit on my bum all day, looking like
a garden gnome! I suppose getting real life is out of the question?
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
http://www.fishinghurts.com/
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.
Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."
• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.
• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."
• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University
• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006
• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004
You'll do a lot of fishing Moody, but wont catch anything
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/fishing_gnome.asp
--
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
2006-12-30 01:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
You bet, but we're not talking about certain circumstances.
The simple fact is that you don't really know what you are talking about.
Maybe you could tell us. What's so good about looking like a gnome,
with your rod hanging out, trying to hurt little fish? (usually
bolstered by plenty of fags and drink)
It beats hanging around behind an anonymous internet connection bolstered by
FAGs and drink, and looking like a cnut.

At least we're getting out there, enjoying nature, tidying the environment,
clearing refuse, and socialising with real people, instead of staying at
home and hiding behind a computer screen occaisionally posting drivel in
between masturbation sessions.

Get a freekin life dude......
--
Cheers - Brownz
http://www.brownz.org/
Geoff
2006-12-30 09:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:31:48 GMT, "Brownz \(Asus S6F Vista\)"
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
Post by Geoff
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
You bet, but we're not talking about certain circumstances.
The simple fact is that you don't really know what you are talking about.
Maybe you could tell us. What's so good about looking like a gnome,
with your rod hanging out, trying to hurt little fish? (usually
bolstered by plenty of fags and drink)
It beats hanging around behind an anonymous internet connection bolstered by
FAGs and drink, and looking like a cnut.
No it doesn't. In fact, rumour has it that most people who enjoy
hurting defenseless creatures are indeed fags! Not sure what that
means though, but I'm sure the cap fits!
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
At least we're getting out there,
Sitting on your arses, like gnomes, harming wildlife!
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
enjoying nature,
Abusing nature.
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
tidying the environment,
Throwing your empty beer cans, fag butts, fishing tackle in, and
alongside the water. Not to mention aggressive, loud behavior once
intoxicated!
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
clearing refuse, and socialising with real people,
Gnomes don't socialize. You sit alone in a purposeful, solitary
manner. Like a gnome!
Post by Brownz (Asus S6F Vista)
instead of staying at
home and hiding behind a computer screen occaisionally posting drivel in
between masturbation sessions.
At least you're honest!

Why not try taking your kids out for a walk, or getting a life that
doesn't have to harm something?


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
rick
2006-12-30 03:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
You bet, but we're not talking about certain circumstances.
The simple fact is that you don't really know what you are
talking about.
Maybe you could tell us. What's so good about looking like a
gnome,
with your rod hanging out, trying to hurt little fish? (usually
bolstered by plenty of fags and drink)
====================
Again, you tell us why sitting at the computer playing with your
pud and spewing your ignorance for all the world to while
contributing the deaths of billions of animals is "doing"
something to help, killer...
Post by Geoff
Post by Remus
Now put your little suit back on and caper into the street -
I'm sure there's an organ grinder missing you badly.
Beats having a hobby that means I sit on my bum all day,
looking like
a garden gnome! I suppose getting real life is out of the
question?
=========================
No, you're just sitting around looking like an ass, eh fool?
Post by Geoff
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
http://www.fishinghurts.com/
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine
biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they
have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500
research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term
memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just
like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish
can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and
that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the
South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry
them to a
safe place—even use tools.
Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our
finned
• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning,
cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving
that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have
impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of
manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural
traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."
• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is
studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more
intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive
powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including
non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of
complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all
respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps
that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized
light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.
• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of
Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says
"fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are
probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other
small
animals and birds."
• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that
would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University
• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish
have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that
goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish
and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006
• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to
escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months
later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years
ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004
You'll do a lot of fishing Moody, but wont catch anything
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/fishing_gnome.asp
--
--
***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer
Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2
The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to
avoid washing
1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner
than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide
which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool
enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Jim Webster
2006-12-29 10:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
absolutely, that's why they taste so good



Jim Webster
Geoff
2006-12-29 10:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:33:40 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
absolutely, that's why they taste so good
I have no doubt you have participated in cannibalism.


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Remus
2006-12-29 13:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:33:40 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
absolutely, that's why they taste so good
I have no doubt you have participated in cannibalism.
I have no doubt that most people reading your messages think you are a moron. Anyway, if I was starving and you were the only edible thing around ........
Geoff
2006-12-29 14:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Remus
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:33:40 -0000, "Jim Webster"
Post by Jim Webster
Post by Fishman ><(((°>
John Cleese I think..........
If the good Lord hadn't intended us to eat animals he wouldn't have made
them out of meat.
absolutely, that's why they taste so good
I have no doubt you have participated in cannibalism.
I have no doubt that most people reading your messages think you are a moron.
Beat a gnome, doesn't it?
Post by Remus
Anyway, if I was starving and you were the only edible thing around ........
What? Commit suicide! Certainly wouldn't be to take anything on that
could fight back would it?


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Derek Moody
2006-12-29 17:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, Geoff

Aka: Pete the Troll, Judge Dredd, Bishop Mbongo, several hundred other
fabricated ID's and a clutch of forged ones.

in <URL:mailto:***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nothing of his own (he rarely does) but instead pasted a load of third hand
anti-angling propaganda that he copied from a website which I doubt he has
permission to copy and which I am certain he has not bothered to read.

Pete, you forget.

We already know that to you, whether a fish feels pain, remembers or can
learn is irrelevant. Your one and only desire is to provoke an argument.
Only a few years ago, on this group (u.r.f.c for others in the X-post),
you expressed a preference for eating fish suffocated slowly in heaps to
those killed with a blow to the head - but then you were trying for a
different argument with a different X-post.

Cheerio,
--
Fishing: http://www.fishing.casterbridge.net/
Writing: http://www.author.casterbridge.net/derek-moody/
uk.rec.fishing.game Badge Page:
http://www.fishing.casterbridge.net/urfg/
Bigbilly
2006-12-29 17:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike
2006-12-29 17:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
or gardening and it's a wonder that the 'owners' have not put their oar in

Mike
--
..........................................................
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com
"Bigbilly" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:-***@giganews.com...
Geoff
2006-12-29 17:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:00:27 +0000, The garden gnome known as Derek
<snip, snip away>

Eat this.

http://www.fishinghurts.com/

Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.

Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
friends, and their discoveries are fascinating:

• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."

• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.

• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."

• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University

• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006

• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004


--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Geoff
2006-12-29 18:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geoff
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:00:27 +0000, The garden gnome known as Derek
<snip, snip away>
Eat this.
http://www.fishinghurts.com/
Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the world's leading marine biologists, said,
"I never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn't deliberately eat a
grouper any more than I'd eat a cocker spaniel. They're so
good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have
personalities, they hurt when they're wounded." A recent issue of Fish
and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited more than 500 research
papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they
can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and
sophisticated social structures.
Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart,
interesting animals with their own unique personalities—just like the
dogs and cats we share our homes with. Did you know that fish can
learn to avoid nets by watching other fish in their group and that
they can recognize individual "shoal mates"? Some fish gather
information by eavesdropping on others, and some—such as the South
African fish who lay eggs on leaves so that they can carry them to a
safe place—even use tools.
Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
• A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish
are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive
long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The
introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."
• Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent than
they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers
match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-human
primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of complex
social relationships. Their spatial memory—"equal in all respects to
any other vertebrate"—allows them to create cognitive maps that guide
them through their watery homes, using cues such as polarized light,
sounds, smells, and visual landmarks.
• Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish have
a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably able
to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other small
animals and birds."
• "We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people."
—Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University
• A scientific review presented to the Australian Veterinary
Association completely disproved the old myth that goldfish have
three-second memories; instead, the veterinarians found that goldfish
have impressive memories and problem-solving abilities. One of the
researchers said that after conducting the review, they wanted “to get
the message out to vets to start looking more closely at fish and
considering their welfare like they do other animals.”
—The Sunday Times, May 28, 2006
• "Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later. This
is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years ago."
—Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004
You'll do a lot of fishing Moody, but wont catch anything
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/f/fishing_gnome.asp
--


***************************
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you
spare yourself the sight."
- Albert Schweitzer

Check out Animal Aid’s brand new one-minute video.
This powerful film, containing shocking images,
just begs to be seen by as many people as possible.
Help raise awareness by sending it to your friends
and family. http://tinyurl.com/yjmxo2






The logic some people use for not attending church, is used to avoid washing

1.I was forced to as a child.
2.People who make soap are only after your money.
3.I wash on special occasions like Christmas and Easter.
4.People who wash are hypocrites-they think they are cleaner than everyone else.
5.There are so many different kinds of soap,I can't decide which one is best.
6.I used to wash, but it got boring so I stopped.
7.None of my friends wash.
8.The bathroom is never warm enough in the winter or cool enough in the summer.
9.I'll start washing when I get older and dirtier.
10.I can't spare the time .
Loading...