On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:17:54 +0100, Old Codger

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:00:46 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:17:54 +0100, Old Codger

I'm curious to know, who's Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.


Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context,
and we don't do that kind of thing here.

Post put back where it belongs.

Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from
natural areas

Article Category Animal behaviour
Article Type Research-Article
DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0374
Online Date Tuesday, September 04, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/2gbb2n

Abstract

Dog walking is among the world's most popular recreational activities,
attracting millions of people to natural areas each year with diverse
benefits to human and canine health. But conservation managers often
ban dog walking from natural areas fearing that wildlife will see dogs
as potential predators and abandon their natural habitats, resulting
in outcry at the restricted access to public land. Arguments are
passionate on both sides and debate has remained subjective and
unresolved because experimental evidence of the ecological impacts of
dog walking has been lacking. Here we show that dog walking in
woodland leads to a 35% reduction in bird diversity and 41% reduction
in abundance, both in areas where dog walking is common and where dogs
are prohibited. These results argue against access by dog walkers to
sensitive conservation areas.


Keywords
habituation, human disturbance, ecotourism, predation risk, domestic
dog
References
Bauman, A.E., Russell, S.J., Furber, S.E. & Dobson, A.J. 2001 The
epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine
health. Med. J. Aust. 175, 632–634.

Beale, C.M. & Monaghan, P. 2004 Human disturbance: people as
predation-free predators?. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 335–343,
(doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00900.x). [CrossRef]

Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J., Quinn, R.M. & Gregory, R.D. 1999 Do
local abundances of British birds change with proximity to range
edge?. J. Biogeogr. 26, 493–505,
(doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00298.x). [CrossRef]

Blumstein, D.T. 2006 The multipredator hypothesis and the evolutionary
persistence of antipredator behavior. Ethology 112, 209–217,
(doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01209.x). [CrossRef]

Blumstein, D.T. & Daniel, J.C. 2005 The loss of anti-predator
behaviour following isolation on islands. Proc. R. Soc. B 272,
1663–1668, (doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3147). [CrossRef]

Blumstein, D.T., Fernández-Juricic, E., Zollner, P.A. & Garity, S.C.
2005 Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance.
J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 943–953, (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01071.x).
[CrossRef]

Blumstein, D.T., Bitton, A. & DaVeiga, J. 2006 How does the presence
of predators influence the persistence of antipredator behavior?. J.
Theor. Biol. 239, 460–468, (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.011).
[CrossRef]

Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. & Treweek, J.
1997 Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of
disturbance research. J. Appl. Ecol. 34, 275–288,
(doi:10.2307/2404876). [CrossRef]

Keller, V. 1989 Variations in the response of great crested grebes
Podiceps cristatus to human disturbance—a sign of adaptation?. Biol.
Conserv. 49, 31–45, (doi:10.1016/0006-3207(89)90111-0). [CrossRef]

Lima, S.L. & Bednekoff, P.A. 1999 Temporal variation in danger drives
antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am.
Nat. 153, 649–659, (doi:10.1086/303202). [CrossRef]

Lord, A., Waas, J.R., Innes, J. & Whittingham, M.J. 2001 Effects of
human approaches to nests of northern New Zealand dotterels. Biol.
Conserv. 98, 233–240, (doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00158-0). [CrossRef]

Macdonald, D.W. & Sillero-Zubiri, C. 2004 Biology and conservation of
wild canids. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, B.D. & Banks, P.B. 2005 Do wild dogs exclude foxes? Evidence
for competition from dietary and spatial overlaps. Aust. Ecol. 30,
581–591, (doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01473.x). [CrossRef]

Naidoo, R. & Adamowicz, W.L. 2005 Economic benefits of biodiversity
exceed costs of conservation at an African rainforest reserve. Proc.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 16712–16716, (doi:10.1073/pnas.0508036102).
[CrossRef]

Serpell, J. 1996 In the company of animals: a study of human–animal
relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B. & Bulsara, M. 2005 The pet connection: pets
as a conduit for social capital?. Soc. Sci. Med. 61, 1159–1173,
(doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.017). [CrossRef]
Advanced Search Find Search Builder Close | Clear Title (ti) Abstract
(ab) Author (au) ISSN (issn) DOI (doi) And Or Not ( ) * (wildcard)
Within all content
Within this journal
Export this article Export this article as RIS | Text

Text PDF
The size of this document is 92 kilobytes. Although it may be a
lengthier download, this is the most authoritative online format.

Open: Entire document

HTML
This offers the quickest access for ease of browsing. Please note that
some scientific and mathematical characters may not render as
precisely as in PDF versions.

Open Full Text

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

On 10 Oct, 20:42, "John M." wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:
I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Let's stay on topic. Have you read my book on Grebes? I use original
research to prove that dogs kill Grebes.
Which is more important - a dog or a Grebe?

--

Malcolm Ogilvie

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:54:11 -0700, "
wrote:

On 10 Oct, 20:42, "John M." wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:
I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Let's stay on topic. Have you read my book on Grebes? I use original
research to prove that dogs kill Grebes.

That's a lie. Your research was not original and very likely copied
from the snoopy annual!

Which is more important - a dog or a Grebe?

Do you allow 50/50 or phone a friend? As I don't have any I'll open
the box.




--










Hansom 0++0




Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!


PRAYER FOR A NATION


When Pastor Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church, was asked
to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting
the usual politically correct generalities.
But what they heard instead was this:

Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness
and seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says,
‘Woe on those who call evil good,’ but that’s exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.

We confess that:

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;

We have, worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;

We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation;

We have killed our unborn and called it choice;

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;

We have abused power and called it political savvy;

We have coveted our neighbour’s possessions and called it ambition;

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;

We have ridiculed the time-honoured values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, 0 God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us;
cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have
been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state.

Grant them Your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the centre of Your will. I ask it in the name of Your Son, the Living Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.”


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

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete,

You love pete -true- xx

which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?"

That's a nasty, malicious libel and as such I will refer you to the
brief of OgilvieO, only he's a bit busy at the moment and not taking
on any new cases. Can you wait?

Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

pete has another stalker, seems to be catching in the obsessive,
compulsive disorder personality trait these days.

Who'd have thought exposing yet another of your sox would rattle you
so?

He Ho.






--










Hansom 0++0




Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!


PRAYER FOR A NATION


When Pastor Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church, was asked
to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting
the usual politically correct generalities.
But what they heard instead was this:

Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness
and seek your direction and guidance.
We know Your Word says,
‘Woe on those who call evil good,’ but that’s exactly what we have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.

We confess that:

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;

We have, worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;

We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation;

We have killed our unborn and called it choice;

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;

We have abused power and called it political savvy;

We have coveted our neighbour’s possessions and called it ambition;

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;

We have ridiculed the time-honoured values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, 0 God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us;
cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have
been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state.

Grant them Your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the centre of Your will. I ask it in the name of Your Son, the Living Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.”


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

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Stalker.

Oh I love to love, but my baby just wants to dance.....

"@@^" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:54:11 -0700, "
wrote:

On 10 Oct, 20:42, "John M." wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:
I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context,
and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Let's stay on topic. Have you read my book on Grebes? I use original
research to prove that dogs kill Grebes.

That's a lie. Your research was not original and very likely copied
from the snoopy annual!

Which is more important - a dog or a Grebe?

Do you allow 50/50 or phone a friend? As I don't have any I'll open
the box.

You should have asked the audience! There will be many wise old owls like me
watching your programme and we could have told you Grebes is more important
than dogs because if you step in Grebe shit it is easily cleaned off. Dog
shit is terrible to clean off these days as it is all sticky and clingy.
When I was young dogs used to shite hard white shit which you could kick
along the pavement and it would never stick to your shoes. Ah, the good old
days. I'm 96 next month, you know. I'm a silver surfer!

"@@^" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete,

You love pete -true- xx

which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?"

That's a nasty, malicious libel and as such I will refer you to the
brief of OgilvieO, only he's a bit busy at the moment and not taking
on any new cases. Can you wait?

You should contact the demon legal crack team! They are very good and they
even shut that Paul Rooney up when Chrith Hill threatened to post his proof.
They should be able to take your case unless Ogilvie has cornered the
*******s.

"Gloria" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context,
and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Stalker.

Oh I love to love, but my baby just wants to dance.....

Why are you posting this in demon.local?

Stop... etc... etc...

You have been warned.

The clock is ticking!

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:43:40 GMT, "anonym" wrote:


"@@^" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:54:11 -0700, "
wrote:

On 10 Oct, 20:42, "John M." wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:
I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context,
and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Let's stay on topic. Have you read my book on Grebes? I use original
research to prove that dogs kill Grebes.

That's a lie. Your research was not original and very likely copied
from the snoopy annual!

Which is more important - a dog or a Grebe?

Do you allow 50/50 or phone a friend? As I don't have any I'll open
the box.

You should have asked the audience! There will be many wise old owls like me
watching your programme and we could have told you Grebes is more important
than dogs because if you step in Grebe shit it is easily cleaned off. Dog
shit is terrible to clean off these days as it is all sticky and clingy.
When I was young dogs used to shite hard white shit which you could kick
along the pavement and it would never stick to your shoes. Ah, the good old
days. I'm 96 next month, you know. I'm a silver surfer!


We have a dog somewhere near us who shits like a horse, smack bang in
the middle of the pavement. I'm trying to find out who/what it is but
I fear I'll need an old Indian tracker. Once found I'll report him to
our Ken and he can slap a congestion charge on it!

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:46:38 GMT, "anonym" wrote:


"@@^" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete,

You love pete -true- xx

which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?"

That's a nasty, malicious libel and as such I will refer you to the
brief of OgilvieO, only he's a bit busy at the moment and not taking
on any new cases. Can you wait?

You should contact the demon legal crack team! They are very good and they
even shut that Paul Rooney up when Chrith Hill threatened to post his proof.
They should be able to take your case unless Ogilvie has cornered the
*******s.

Ah well I remember Sir Rooney. Never thought he was a runner, still I
suppose it depends what Ogilvie the pedant was chasing him with!

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:47:38 GMT, "anonym" wrote:


"Gloria" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."
wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete, which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?" Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context,
and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

Stalker.

Oh I love to love, but my baby just wants to dance.....

Why are you posting this in demon.local?

Stop... etc... etc...

You have been warned.

The clock is ticking!


I have a copied book, on a book of grebes, would you like it to while
away the hours?

The dog of course.

On Oct 10, 6:40 pm, "@@^" wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:42:29 -0700, "John M."

wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:32 am, Gloria wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:29 pm, Gloria wrote:

I'm curious to know, Pete, why you found it necessary to change
pseudonyms here while replying to yourself.

So, Pete - which is the original name you used all those years ago,
and so Pete is, we assume, your real name - why don't you answer the
question? And I now have a further question for you , Pete,

You love pete -true- xx

which is
"Why do you find it necessary to mess around with the headers in your
reply, and to alter my original text in that reply?"

That's a nasty, malicious libel and as such I will refer you to the
brief of OgilvieO, only he's a bit busy at the moment and not taking
on any new cases. Can you wait?

Got something to
hide perhaps? I'm sorry that you are confined to a wheelchair and with
the thought-police breathing hard down your neck, but that's no excuse
for such behaviour.

Please don't overtly snipped the posts otherwise we lose the context, and we don't do that kind of thing here.

No snipped text was in context for my reply. Concerning removal of
material from posts when it is irrelevant to the reply is made at the
request of Google, who host these forums. I for one appreciate this
and always seek to conform in this case.

pete has another stalker, seems to be catching in the obsessive,
compulsive disorder personality trait these days.

Who'd have thought exposing yet another of your sox would rattle you
so?

He Ho.

Perhaps changing synonyms for every post you send will fool the odd
lurker, Pete, but it won't cut the mustard here.

By the way, why don't you use Malcolm's real addy when you forge posts
purporting to come from him? It would look more realistic if you did.