2007 More interesting? Jerome

[Nigel]

Hi all,

Jerome stated,


“In 2007 please try to moan less and be more interesting in your post


An American scientist Dr Terry Kreeger has had his late 1980's researches
misquoted by the pro ban faction in order to substantiate their claim that
hunting is the most cruel option. So distorted were Dr Kreeger's finding by Prof
Harris, IFAW and the RSPCA that he wrote to the Sunday Times refuting ALL OF
THEIR CLAIMS. Kreeger had already written to the Burns Enquiry that there had
been a continuing problem with the 'interpretation' of his data, but still Prof
Harris persisted with his 'use' of Kreeger's data.

Love to discuss that idiot Harris anytime and the rest of your flawed [****] data anytime, please sunshine start the ball rolling?

Cheers and chuckles

Nigel

 

[endymion]

I will.....

Nigel, once a scientist collects and analyses data it is put out to the scientific community who are perfectly within their rights to form their own opinions and interpret it the way they see fit. Kreeger formed his own opinion from looking at his data but he does not have a monopoly on it and many scientists may agree or disagree with it, thats the way it works.

Prof Harris researches and writes on many aspects of mammal ecology including african mammals. He is not a one-trick pony with an obsession with foxes and the abolition of hunting, although this is how the pro-hunt fraternity like to portray him. He has a broad spectrum of research subjects and is probably the most highly respected ecologist we have in GB, if not Europe. His skills are in demand by many rural,
governmental, NGO and university bodies. One of my lecturers did her PHD with him and cannot speak highly enough of him.

Flawed data, thats hilarious! How would you know?

Here's a challenge for you: For every scientific paper you find in favour of hunting with hounds I'll show you two that find in opposition of it.

Are you gonna put your money where your mouth is and accept?

 

[Nigel]

Hi Endy,

I will put my money were my mouth is sunshine; the simple fact is Harris the twat was misinterpreting data kreegar had collected to satisfy his own ends.

“So distorted were Dr Kreeger's finding by Prof
Harris, IFAW and the RSPCA that he wrote to the Sunday Times refuting ALL OF THEIR CLAIMS”

Do I have to say anymore?


Flawed data, that’s hilarious! How would you know?

After reading ever single paper there has been on hunting including ever single submission to the Burns inquiry both pro and anti, draft copies and discussions, guess I can form a pretty good opinion. How about you sunshine?

“Here's a challenge for you: For every scientific paper you find in favour of hunting with hounds I'll show you two that find in opposition of it”

Oh good, hopefully nothing to do with that twat Harris? Show me? How about is the fox a pest? By………Stephen Harris……..using Kreegars data, can you not see the hilarious side to your crap argument….I can.

Cheers and chuckles

Nigel

Endy mate it`s not personal, and I enjoy your posts.

 

[endymion]

Your opinion on Harris is based on the fact you are pro hunt and hate the fact that he exposes the scientific myths about hunting with hounds. Kreeger may not be a fan of Harris but he cuts lonely figure as the overwhelming majority of other ecologists have the utmost respect for him. People see the name S Harris on a paper and don't bother even looking at the collaborators. So much of his work is written in conjuntion with other ecologists that if he was biased then a whole host of other ecologists are too.

I am happy to include papers from other people but I'm not gonna discount Harris because you personally don't like him.

Hold on to Mr Kreegers comments if they make you feel better, you'll be hard pressed to find many more like them.

 

[wurzel]

What always surprised me about Harris (scientific adviser to LACS) is how coy he was when LACS were torturing deer at Baronsdown !!


All dead and dying deer from in and around the LACS sanctuary should be subject to full independent post mortem examination and the results published for the benefit of livestock and wildlife disease surveillance in the area.

From the British Deer society......



"Eventually both LACS and DEFRA agreed to attend a confidential meeting in London organised by BDS to discuss the problem.



This meeting took place in September 2003 and was attended by Mark Nicolson [Chairman BDS], Peter Green [Veterinary Advisor BDS], Professor Stephen Harris [Scientific Advisor to LACS], Douglas Batchelor [LACS], Paul Tillsley [LACS], Alick Simmons [DEFRA London], Allan Wellwood [DVM SVS Taunton] and Matt Heydon ]DEFRA Wildlife Unit]. The meeting was held under Chatham House Rules [no minutes, no reporting] BDS considered the meeting to be helpful, informative and productive.



As result of the correspondence, conversations, emails, the discussion at the meeting and further correspondence during the autumn of 2003 BDS was able to establish the following facts:



DEFRA is not prepared to take the lead in the investigation of bTB in the deer of the Baronsdown sanctuary area. This is because there are, at present, no statutory powers to enable DEFRA to intervene in such a potential wildlife reservoir situation. All current legislation is framed in respect of cattle alone, with the exception of the TB [Deer] Order, which only places a duty upon individuals to report suspicion of TB in dead wild deer and provides no power to deal with the disease in living wild deer.



LACS has changed its policy in respect of feeding concentrates to the deer on the sanctuary and has ceased this practice. BDS applauds this decision.



LACS has appointed an independent veterinary surgeon to conduct post mortem examinations of all deer culled or found dead on the sanctuary and any lesions suspicious of TB are submitted to VLA. BDS applauds this policy.



An agreement was made with LACS that a joint project should be established to investigate the disease status of the deer in the area of the sanctuary and in November 2003 Peter Green wrote to Professor Harris with draft proposals for this project. Briefly, these were:



Project to collect material from culled red deer around Dulverton and from a population not contiguous with the Dulverton deer

Deer to be divided into two categories from both sources 1] deer culled because of weakness, old age or infirmity 2] deer culled routinely in the course of deer management.

Deer should be taken in late winter when environmental pressures are greatest [Jan-Mar]

The alternative source should be as closely as possible matched to the Dulverton/Baronsdown habitat ie. Exmoor perimeter with mixed woodland and marginal grassland.

Whole carcasses to be submitted to VLA Langford for complete pathological investigation.

Deer from the two sources to be age and gender matched.

Hunted [with hounds] deer should not be included.

Results to be kept confidential within the three parties BDS, LACS & DEFRA]



This draft project protocol was sent to Douglas Batchelor of LACS a month later as no reply had been received from Professor Harris. The receipt of the proposals was acknowledged but no further reply has been received by the Society in connection with the project, despite a further letter from Peter Green to Douglas Batchelor in January 2004. The proposed investigation was approved and encouraged by DEFRA; the VLA at Langford was willing to process the material.



During January 2004 further distressing reports were received of sick and thin deer from the area. One reliable source indicated that eight out of nine hinds culled in the area had widespread internal abscesses. A visit to the area by Peter Green confirmed that the deer were in no better condition than the previous year and that there was evidence of enteritis, weakness and emaciation. The Society was very disappointed by the failure of LACS to respond to the proposals for the agreed joint investigation and arrangements were made by BDS for a further collection of samples before the end of the hind season in February 2004. Local landowners and officers of the Exmoor Deer Management Society were very co-operative in the culling eight red deer on the land surrounding the LACS sanctuary at Baronsdown under the auspices of Hugh Rose, who conducted basic post mortem examinations before carcasses were submitted to VLA Langford for further examination and culture. The result of this collection was very disturbing indeed:



Six calves were culled [two female, four male] - four had clearly visible lesions

Two two-year-old hinds were culled – one had clearly visible lesions

All the samples submitted for culture proved positive for bTB



These results have been sent to the LACS veterinary surgeon with a request to share data on any samples submitted from within the sanctuary. LACS has declined to exchange information."


The man is nothing less than a pervert.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What's more they were filmed ILLEGALLY killing the deer by rounding them up with vehicles and shooting them from out of the window.

Douglas Batchelor when questioned about this said it was
'ridiculous'.

No action was taken.

If you think a law is ridiculous then just break it.

 

[Eagle_day]

"Your opinion on Harris is based on the fact you are pro hunt and hate the fact that he exposes the scientific myths about hunting with hounds."

My opinion on Harris is not personal nor is it because he's an anti, it's because he is a tenth-rate lab technician who gives serious science a bad name.

Whenever I want a laugh, I remember his 'research' telling me that the fox population in Lincolnshire remained unchanged during FMD on the basis of counting fox droppings on 2 or 3 sites in the county, none of which was in my hunt country. He is a charlatan and a fraud, who has allowed what shreds of objectivity he had to be blown away by pandering to his funders like LACS & IFAW.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Harris's research is about a specific type of hunting. The Hunting Act bans a myriad of different actual and possible activities involving dogs, many of which have not been considered at all and are not cruel.

The simple fact is that huntin g can be cruel but is not necessarily cruel. It should only be banned insofar as it is cruel. The simple way to do this is with a liscensing system whereby certain activities would require a liscense to be performed. The license would be granted and or retracted on the basis of scientific evidence.

There is no logic to the hunting act. Why can I only flush out to protect crops and livestock? Why can I hunt for research but not to protect livestock? Why can't I flush out before I hunt if I'm doing research? It just doesn't make sense. Laws should have a rational basis.

 

[endymion]

Man I dont have time to read huge replies, please keep them short!!

I will read it later tonight and get back to u.

 

[endymion]

...and those findings were just Harris were they? how about all the other scientists that collaborated on his work? All wrong are they?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What like 'yawn'?

If you can't think of an answer, aren't interested or can't even be bothered to read the post why bother replying at all?

 

[endymion]

I think the work of harris and others like him finds that there is no ecological need for hunting with hounds and that if a species is a pest hunting with hounds is not effective as a pest control method.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The work of Harris is completely irrelevant to what I do. It doesn't justify my activities being criminalised at all.

Good laws clearly define what they ban and only ban what they are intened to ban. Those who drafted the hunting act were worried about the need to prove intent to lkill or cruelty so they removed the need to prove either of these.

You don't have to be doing anything wrong at all to be breaking the hunting act. That makes it a thoroughly illiberal law.

 

[endymion]

This thread wasn't really about the law though was it? It's a discussion of scientific work carried out on on hunting.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Scientific work that it is argued forms the basis for the law, but doesn't.

 

[Eagle_day]

.... well it was, then you brought up Harris.

 

[wurzel]

"Man I dont have time to read huge replies, please keep them short!!"


Attention deficit ?

Or just not reading what you want to hear?

Why is Harris so secretive?

 

[endymion]

Politicians and scientists are two very different breeds and laws dont always reflect science .

 

[endymion]

Attention deficient?

Probably but I do have a life outside this forum too. I have read your post but I dont want to reply until i find out more about how LACS control their deer. Just out of interest I asked to work experience at Baronsdown and they told me they dont ever take on students. I have good grades and have worked on similair habitat manag ement programmes outside uni so it gave me the impression they were a bit guarded.

Is Harris secretive? I can't say I've ever noticed. I'm using some of his work at the moment for a non-fox/non-animal rights in any way shape or form project and I've found lots of info on his movements and methods while working.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Exactly, the ban is NOT justified by the scientific evidence. Nor by any form of principle. In fact it is not justified at all.

 

[Eagle_day]

Oh, the 'et al's?

Chasing the PETA dollar? Riding on the coat tails of mediocrity?

Who cares? They're merely disciples of a false prophet.

 

[endymion]

Is that really what you got from what I said? Selective reading methinks!

 

[endymion]

Not really, I can name them all but there are so many that it would be rather tiresome.

Disciples of a false prophet. Nice. Emotive. Sadly untrue though, as Harris is not always the principal writer on all papers. He merely makes a small contribution on some.

And what do PETA have to do with anything??! I dont know hardly anything about them apart from their anti-fur campaigns.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

You said the law does not allways reflect science. What science is there behind requiring deer to be shot for no good reason?

 

[endymion]

You don't make any sense sometimes

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What is the science or reason behind requiring deer that have been flushed out to be shot? It's a question, don't you understand it?

Do you know why the government says that flushed out deer should be shot?

The only reason I repeat myself is that you are unable to admit that they are wrong. It's better in some circumstances just to let the deer escape.

 

[wurzel]

"I have read your post but I dont want to reply until i find out more about how LACS control their deer. Just out of interest I asked to work experience at Baronsdown and they told me they dont ever take on students. I have good grades and have worked on similair habitat manag ement programmes outside uni so it gave me the impression they were a bit guarded. "

This is fascinating.

But you misunderstand yet again. LACS don't control their deer. They have no deer. They are solely interested in perverting nature.

They don't control deer numbers. Who do you think does?

You are so opinionated on deer hunting....then all of a sudden.....you know nothing !!!!


"Is Harris secretive? I can't say I've ever noticed."


Of course you have'nt !!

Read it again.....then um, notice !!!

 

[endymion]

Look if ure gonna accuse anyone of torturing deer then I'm gonna look into it for myself before I take your word for it, thank you very much. Being very busy with exams and all it would be handy if you could recommended anywhere I can find info that supports your claim.

You were discussing LACS torturing deer and not deer control. I have plenty of views on controlling deer but none on this LACS situation since I know nothing about it. Like I said if u provide the info I will read it.

How is Harris secretive?

 

[wurzel]

"Look if ure gonna accuse anyone of torturing deer then I'm gonna look into it for myself before I take your word for it, thank you very much. Being very busy with exams and all it would be handy if you could recommended anywhere I can find info that supports your claim."

Of course. Good luck. The BDS veterinary advisor, Peter Green, concluded that there was a significant welfare problem in the red deer in and around the LACS sanctuary. Try the British Deer Society.

"How is Harris secretive?"

Chatham House rules, no minutes, no reports. What has he got to hide?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But it's not about animal welfare TF.

As long as no one is hunting them what does it matter how much they suffer.

What has morality to do with preventing suffering?

This is about us not them.