Why shouldn't I flush out deer with dogs?

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
Apart from it being illegal, I was wondering if anyone could think of a reason why I shouldn't flush out deer with dogs.

Remembering that flushing out is distinct from chasing them.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
I said that Chernobyl was a god send for the nature conservation around the nuclear plant, which is a widely accepted fact. So what. Are you able to actually answer the question?

Apart from it being illegal, I was wondering if anyone could think of a reason why I shouldn't flush out deer with dogs.

Remembering that flushing out is distinct from chasing them.
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
I personally wouldn't want a "Chernobyl" to take place in any environment I cared about, but you (and Hercules) would. Nowt as strange as folk!
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
Nor would I. I don't want to die of radiation poisioning. However the nature around chernobyl is in a very good state.

Rather than constantly changing the subject and talking about Nuclear Accidents can you answer the question.

What's wrong with me flushing out deer.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
No, have you?

Rather than constantly changing the subject and talking about Nuclear Accidents can you answer the question.

What's wrong with me flushing out deer with dogs?
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
Because I've read a little about it. What do you know about the situation with wildlife around Chernobyl and how ity has changed since the accident?

How do you know the south pole is covered in snow if you haven't been there?

Do you think there is anything wrong with using dogs to flush out and chase deer?
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
You're basing your declaration that Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment on the fact that you've "read a little about it"?
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
I haven't declared that Chernobyl was a god send.

I have suggested that it was a god send for the nature in the exclusion zone which has benefited massively.

Chernobyl was a terrible and tragic accident that killed a great many people. What makies you think I would call that a god send?
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
"I haven't declared that Chernobyl was a god send."

You said of Chernobyl: "It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
Out of context as you know. I was talking about the local environment to the site in terms of nature conservation.

I'm sorry but this isn't getting anywhere. You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about.
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
You said the biggest nuclear meltdown in history was a "god send" for the environment. Your pal Hercules may agree with you - perhaps all pros do - but I happen to disagree. I think it was a bad day for the environment.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
You can deliberately misrepresent what I say and then argue against it, so what.

From the human perspective the environmental impact of chernobyl was devastating. However nature around the site has benefited, albeit indirectkly from the fact that the humans have left. It's a simple point.

Why do you keep calling me a pro? What makes you think I'm a pro?
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
How am I misrepresenting you?

You said, referring to Chernobyl:

"It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
Let me quote you in context - not that I can see what difference it makes:

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened. The place is now a wildlife paradise.

It's rubbish that nuclear is bad for the environment.

It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."

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


It still sounds utterly cringe-worthy.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
Firstly if you read what I said it DOES NOT say that the chernobyl accident was an environmental god send.

It says that nuclear is an environmenal god send. This is because in my opinion Nuclear power is our best way of alleviating global warming. I think that the risks of a nuclear accident are worth taking because global warming is likely to kill Billions of people in the next few decades.

I didn't say, refering to Chernobyl that it was an environmental god send, I said referring to Nuclear energy that it is an environmental god send.

Notice the sentences and the paragraphs they divide the words into seperate statements.
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened."

Did you say this or not?
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
What I said was that the naure around chernobyl has benefited from the accident. I went on to say that nuclear is an environmental god send.

I did NOT say that the Chernobyl accident was an environmental god send, nor did I say that nuclear bombs were an environmental god send. You are deliberately trying to make out I nsaid those things when I did not.

As far as I can see nature and wild life have not as a whole suffered as a result of the chernobyl accident, individual animals may have, but they are now more plentiful in the area than previously, humans have suffered hugely.
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
You said:

"However the fact remains that as far as nature is concerned it's in a much healthier state in and arond the town of Chernobyl than it was before the accident."

Who else agrees with that other than Hercules?
 

Beaufort

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2006
Messages
104
Visit site
Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.

I will now go to bed and hopefully dream about the lovely non-irradiated British countryside. You, AA, will no doubt see a post-Chernobyl "paradise" in your sleep.
 
Top