"Derek Turner" wrote in message
...
On 20 Oct 2002 19:14:52 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:


And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty. The fact that the
misbegotten politically correct idiots in this country support the
misgenated Powers That Be that want to disarm the peasantry is a
disgrace. The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

Beg to differ.

Shotgun is not only cruel but illegal against deer in UK.

Any .22 is illegal against deer in England and Wales.

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind.

True, see Schedule 2 Deer Act 1991 - there are exceptions, though, see also
s6 (4) & (5) of the same Act, which allow use of smooth bar guns under
specific unusual circumstances.

In article ,
Derek Turner wrote:
On 20 Oct 2002 19:14:52 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

And here. But I want to object strongly to the above of shotguns
for such purposes on the grounds of cruelty. The fact that the
misbegotten politically correct idiots in this country support the
misgenated Powers That Be that want to disarm the peasantry is a
disgrace. The appropriate weapon is a 0.22 rifle, or even a long
barreled pistol firing a 0.22 magnum.

Beg to differ.

Shotgun is not only cruel but illegal against deer in UK.

It is now. It wasn't until a few years back.

Any .22 is illegal against deer in England and Wales.

I am aware of that. The UK gun laws are notorious for their
stupidity.

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind. You need somone
with an open license (allowing them to shoot anywhere) firing
downwards: i.e. someone who REALLY knows what he/she is doing. I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.

You have contradicted yourself thoroughly. The APPROPRIATE weapon
is a .22 magnum, as you seem to be aware of from the above paragraph;
the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant.

It should be obvious that the laws are stupid from the very fact
that they insist on the same calibre for roe and red (to include
just 'native' species). A .243 is too small for most people to
use on red without a serious risk of wounding, and anything
above that is too large to use on roe because of the risk of
passing straight through.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 19:05:40 +0100, Derek Turner
wrote:

...muntjack...I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.

Ah, but does a quince-based sauce go well with it?

[My quince tree, after 13 years and being torn up by the roots
and moved holus bolus to a much sunnier site 3-4 years ago, has,
eureka! fruited: nine quinces. Halleluja! All of which have been
converted to what I'm calling "quince butter", but you can think
of as a very thick quince sauce.]


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

On 23 Oct 2002 19:08:06 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

What you need is a .243 or larger. There are very strict regulations
about the minimum calibre and foot-poundage of rounds used to kill
deer of any species, though in IMNSHO they are way OTT for muntjack,
having been legislated with native species in mind. You need somone
with an open license (allowing them to shoot anywhere) firing
downwards: i.e. someone who REALLY knows what he/she is doing. I'm
told it is delicious but I've never eaten it.

You have contradicted yourself thoroughly.

Sorry, I should have said 'what you need (to stay within the law) is
a....

The APPROPRIATE weapon
is a .22 magnum, as you seem to be aware of from the above paragraph;

vbg

the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant.

Not if I want to keep my firearms certificate, it's not!

And I stand by the rest of the paragraph.

--
Derek Turner

The english summer consists of three fine days and a thunderstorm. - Charles II

In article ,
Derek Turner writes:
|
| Sorry, I should have said 'what you need (to stay within the law) is
| a....
|
| The APPROPRIATE weapon
| is a .22 magnum, as you seem to be aware of from the above paragraph;
|
| vbg
|
| the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant.
|
| Not if I want to keep my firearms certificate, it's not!
|
| And I stand by the rest of the paragraph.

No dissention there. Using any firearm in a "group of six retirement
bungalows" isn't something that you want some half-trained idiot
doing. And I regard 99% of the gun-toting UK police as being
half-trained at best, and the Home Office as being idiots at best.

I am more scared by those lunatics carrying submachine guns around
Heathrow than I am of terrorists, because I have some idea of what
would happen if they fired them in a concourse.

Bring back lynx to the south east of England - our ecology needs
them, BADLY!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers
to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
of the UK where they are needed. No way.

I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)

Hey now, what have you got against Slough?

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk


Janet.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Actually Nick, AIUI, lynx are probably next on the list after beavers
to
get reintroduced. But if you want to get some 'natural' predators for
muntjac, we ought to be introducing tigers and leopards into the Home
Counties.....

A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
of the UK where they are needed. No way.

Whilst out driving around the Princes Risborough/Thame area today, I
saw a strange looking creature peer through a hedge, it ran away when
it saw the car, but from the way it was moving I came to the conclusion
that it was a muntjack deer.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

In article ,
"Alan Holmes" writes:
| "Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
| ...
|
| A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
| of the UK where they are needed. No way.
|
| I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
| Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
| away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)
|
| Hey now, what have you got against Slough?

Hang on. What has she got against lynx?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


In article ,
"Alan Holmes" writes:
| "Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
| ...
|
| A good idea :-) However, you won't see lynx introduced into any part
| of the UK where they are needed. No way.
|
| I'm not so sure. I think it will be like moles,...or beavers.
| Nimbyists might live-trap them and release them a long long way
| away...round about Slough would be ideal, or in the London parks :-)
|
| Hey now, what have you got against Slough?

???? Reforesting Slough and reintroducing life of any kind, would be an
enormous compliment to the esteemed conurbation.

Hang on. What has she got against lynx?

Only their smell, forcibly inflicted upon this household for many
years, when "Lynx" (aka in this household as "Stynx") was the favourite
brand of deodorant among the teenage male inhabitants. Sprayed through
the shirts they were wearing and down their trouser fronts as an
alternative to personal hygeine :-(

Janet.

Bring back lynx to the south east of England - our ecology needs
them, BADLY!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,

Personally I think it's a bit late for that. The damage has been done. To
return to anything like the original state of fauna levels within the UK you'd
have to get rid of mink, all domestic cats, and all rabbits. Somehow I can't
see people supporting the sorts of measures that would be needed, or even
understanding what you'd be trying to do, or why.

FWIW

Dave.

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, this should be posted to an
ocological/conservationist/etc. newsgroup, not a gardening one. Secondly, Lynx
are unlikely to catch/eat deer if there are easier things to catch such as the
domestic cat, sheep, etc.

Reintroducing lynx isn't practical, and may well turn out to be a disaster, if
it was ever seriously attempted. There are better options to achieve the
results you seem to be looking for.

Dave.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
BAC wrote:

snip

What I am certain of is that the attempt will not be allowed, and
many of the most active and powerful opponents will be so-called
conservationists. Which does not mean that there are not some real
ones, but the pretend variety is more common and influential. And
so we can expect to see most of our native ecologies disappear
within a century, except perhaps in very small reserves with very
restricted access.

I believe you are correct in thinking it is very unlikely conditions will
be
judges right for an attempt to restablish lynx in the wild in the UK. I'm
not sure why you think conservationists are to blame though!

Please reread the distinction I made between so-called conservationists
and real ones!


I have done so, but it doesn't define the difference, i.e. what makes some
conservationists 'real', and others 'pretend'. So I'm none the wiser, I'm
afraid.

I would think the only 'conservation' reason for opposing reintroduction of
lynx would be if the proposal didn't meet the conventional criteria for
reintroductions (which I can't quote in full from memory, and can't be
bothered to look up, but which include, IIRC, introduction into a suitable
habitat, with a good chance of survival, and not endangering other species).

Personally, I would imagine the most vociferous opposition would come from
people who simply wouldn't like the idea of large predators of any kind
roaming the countryside.

Personally I think it's a bit late for that. The damage has been done.
snip
you'd
have to get rid of mink, all domestic cats, and all rabbits. Somehow I
can't
see people supporting the sorts of measures that would be needed, or even
understanding what you'd be trying to do, or why.

FWIW


I don't believe it would be possible to get rid of all mink or domestic
cats, and certainly not all rabbits, it's a lot easier said than done.

I think that's the point I was trying to make. It's not practical, and even if
you could do it, would you really want to destroy the eco-system we have to try
to turn the clock back? A dangerous dream for anyone to have.

Dave.

In article ,
BAC wrote:

I would think the only 'conservation' reason for opposing reintroduction of
lynx would be if the proposal didn't meet the conventional criteria for
reintroductions (which I can't quote in full from memory, and can't be
bothered to look up, but which include, IIRC, introduction into a suitable
habitat, with a good chance of survival, and not endangering other species).

As the main point of introducing them would be to endanger other
species, that would rather rule them out!

Personally, I would imagine the most vociferous opposition would come from
people who simply wouldn't like the idea of large predators of any kind
roaming the countryside.

Large predators? Lynx? The mind boggles.

I am pretty certain that the RSPB opposed even an experiment with
them, claiming the risk to ground nesting birds. Well, that is
a genuine risk. But the current threat is the elimination of
most of woodland plant habitats, much of the hedgerow and similar
habitat, and a DRASTIC change in the composition of the woods (even
if they survive, which is unclear). But that was ignored.

You are right where the most vociferous opposition comes from, but
I don't think that it is the most influential.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

snip

As the main point of introducing them (ie, lynx) would be to
endanger other
species, that would rather rule them out!


Surely we have learned the lesson that you don't solve a known
unmanageable problem by introducing an unknown unmanageable problem.

--
ned