It was all very predictable Lillith the lynx, which escaped from a Borth Zoo in Wales, has been shot.
The unfortunate creature decided to take up residence in a caravan park, which was closed in the off- season. The local council authorised the shooting on the lynx on the grounds that it was occupying a tourist area and that it was a danger to the public. The lynx had entered a heavily populated area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/escaped-lynx-lillith-could-have-attacked-children-council-says/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/11/lilith-escaped-lynx-is-killed-over-growing-public-safety-fears
There were reports that the council considered that the lynx would be a danger to children. The zoo claimed that this is untrue. There also reports that the zoo were about to capture the lynx when a council officer accidentally thwarted an attempt to net the animal. This attempt would have been successful.
The killing of the lynx raises a number of issues raise a number of issues:
If the lynx was in a heavily populated area what was a marksman doing loosing off a bullet? A slip of the wrist could have seen a child being injured or even worse killed.
Was the lynx anymore dangerous than a large aggressive dog or an aggressive driver? We do not shoot dogs until they make an attack. Why should the lynx be treated differently?
If the zoo was close to netting the cat, why not allow more attempts especially as a council official allegedly interfered with the trapping of the feline?
Are children not intelligent enough to keep away from a feral cat? When I was young I knew instinctively to keep away from a hissing and feral domestic cat and likewise the cat knew to keep away from me. I was only ever scratched by a completely domesticated cat but only then, when I annoyed it.
Why are zoos keeping species such as the lynx in captivity? There is no need to do this. The animals suffer because they are solitary and used to roaming long distances when hunting. When they are in captivity they try to hide. Eurasian lynxes are not threatened world wide so there is no need for a captive breeding programme. However, there is a need for a captive breeding programme to re-introduce the Iberian lynx back into the Algarve.
Why does mankind have to reach for the gun when wild animals somehow present a "problem"? We are doing the same thing in relation to badgers and we reach for the gun often without evidence that the wild animal in question is really a threat. In the case of the wild boars in the Forest of Dean it has become necessary to make a cull but this is based on scientific evidence. The boar population is growing out of control because we have eliminated their predators: wolves, bears and lynxes. It seems that, in this case, the decision to shoot the lynx was based on convenience, and lobbying from some farmers.
A lynx has never been recorded to willingly harm or kill a human being. If left to their own devices, in the wild, they will never approach a human being. They will only strike back if we go out of our way to annoy and threaten them or harm their cubs. Even then an attack from lynx is unlikely to be fatal as they are not as powerful as leopards. If the lynx had escaped completely and had established itself in the wild, to lead the true life of a lynx, then it could have been left alone to live out its life in freedom without danger to human life. Lynx hunt deer and they rarely attack sheep.
The plan to re-introduce lynxes into the wild in the UK has been set back by this incident. Their re-introduction, based on scientific evidence, will help restore the balance of nature in areas where damage is caused by wild deer. The lynx preys upon deer and also keeps them on the move. In many areas it is too dangerous to cull the deer because we cannot shoot them if they are too close to heavily populated areas. Re-introducing the lynx will be a humane way of controlling the deer population without danger or excessive costs. The lynx will also attract tourists who will never see them, but these animal lovers can always have their dreams.
My dream is that we only reach for the gun to kill wild animals when they are seen to be a real problem based on scientific evidence. My dream is based on rationality but not sentiment or convenience.
Wednesday, 15 November 2017
Monday, 13 November 2017
Brexit now reeks of failure
It was always going to be very difficult to wrest the UK away from the EU without any sort of plan. In my view it was irresponsible to call for a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU without an objective assessment of the facts and a recommendation from a Royal Commission. It was naive to insist that a first past the post vote of a 50% +1 majority of those who voted would be sufficient to authorise major constitutional change. Most sensible countries demand at least a 60% majority. It was also irresponsible not to take into account the desires of the individual nations that make up the UK. The fact that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU should have been sufficient political reason to veto our departure from the EU.
Around 16 million people voted to remain in the EU and over 17 million voted to leave. 13 million people did not vote. Our country is completely divided and will remain so. If we leave the EU to find that we are in economic and political difficulty then all the remain and most of the non-voters will harbour resentment for years. Brexit will have to be a guaranteed success and it will have to deliver El Dorado.
Imagine what could happen if there was a referendum to abolish the monarchy just for Britain to become a republic. 16 million voted to retain the status quo, 17 million voted for a republic and 13 million did not vote. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to keep the status quo but England and Wales voted for a republic. What would happen if the republic did not work and there was political chaos? To change the constitution in such a cavalier manner risks economic chaos and possible civil war; referendums can be dangerous if they are not managed astutely. Most of the time a simple majority vote is insufficient to prevent dangerous political divisions.
The task of managing Britain's departure from the EU is enormous and might not be achievable in the time available. The divisions within the governing party are preventing a viable plan for the future from being drawn up and agreed. We have no idea what our future relationship with the EU is going to be. We have made no proposals. We have only made demands, it is the "cake and eat it" approach.
Our government is demanding that we have a completely free trade arrangement in the EU but without having freedom of movement of labour. We are also demanding that we do not have to adhere to the judgements of the European Court of Justice. Our government is demanding all the benefits of being in the customs union whilst being free to negotiate trade deals outside of the auspices of the EU.
The EU is perhaps the only major trading bloc that has anywhere near free trade arrangements and such arrangements require the free movement people. How could free trade exist between England and Scotland if the Scottish people are denied the right to travel to England?
The EU can only say NO to our demands. We have decided to leave the EU organisation on a voluntary basis; we were not asked to go. We, as a nation, have neither the economic, political or military power to impose our will on the EU. The EU knows that we will suffer economically when we leave and all they have to do is sit and wait. The EU will also be damaged by Britain leaving, both economically and politically on the world stage. The economic damage to the EU, will however, be mitigated by the signing of "free trade " deals with Canada and Japan. Britain will have to re-negotiate all of our existing trade deals that we have as a result of our membership of the customs union. These trade deals could have covered 70% of our world trade. If we damage the EU or other nations as a result of our irresponsibility then we cannot expect any favours in return.
Britain is in a weak negotiating position we have made demands which simple cannot be met. Imagine, if we were to assert our sovereignty and leave NATO and then demand that NATO should protect us if we were attacked. The USA would say no and quite rightly so . If we want the protection of NATO we must pool our sovereignty with the US and other nations and stick to the rules.
The prime minister is in a weak if not impossible predicament. She knows that it could be dangerous to leave the EU but she is having her hand forced. There are conspiracies to replace her within her own party and the opposition parties also want to see her removed. Deposing her will not change the situation. The whole situation is simply unmanageable even Sir Winston Churchill would probably have failed in what the government is trying to do.
Some of the consequences of leaving the EU and customs union without a good and close agreement, such as EEA plus, are unthinkable. The following:
1) Administrative chaos: it is quite possible that we will leave the EU but we will have incorporated all of their law into British law with the Exit Bill. This could mean that EU citizens will still be allowed to freely migrate to the UK but British citizens being the denied the right to migrate freely to the EU.
Existing EU Customs Law will apply to the UK. EU goods will be allowed free movement but British goods could be stopped at the border with the EU for checks.
Customs checks on the border at the Channel tunnel will cause huge queues on the M2 and M20 motorways.
2) Commercial difficulties: Many companies will relocate their headquarters to the EU. There will be major job losses. Prices for food will go up. The farming industry will be damaged. We will have balance of payments difficulties, when our former customs union and single market partners impose new tariff and non-tariff barriers on our exports. The pound will plunge making imports cheaper (if this is not offset by tariffs) but imports more expensive. It will also make foreign currency debt repayments much more expensive.
3) Political difficulties: these will be the worst consequences of all. There has been no solution proposed for Northern Ireland. If there has to be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic we risk a return to the Troubles of the 70's and 80's - three thousand British citizens died as a result of these Troubles. The DUP will veto an alternative proposal for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, as they hold the balance of power in parliament. If the Northern Ireland problem cannot be settled then this should be good cause to call off the Brexit venture.
If Brexit fails there will be good cause for the SNP to call for another referendum on Scottish independence. This will cause further divisions and it could be dangerous for Scotland if independence is granted on a slim 52/48% majority.
What happens if the EXIT Bill fails or is amended so much that it becomes powerless. We will have left the EU but in legalistic limbo. EU law will still apply to the UK but the EU will regard us as a third party nation. Parliament will have to construct some kind of emergency legislation in a rushed manner.
All in all we are facing extreme political, administrative and commercial difficulties. It seems that at the moment that these problems cannot be resolved.
What would Sir Winston Churchill have done? Well, he would not have had the referendum in the first place. What would he have done if he was forced to take over the premiership in the current state of affairs. Well he would have faced down the arch Brexiteers in parliament. He would either have stopped Brexit altogether or commissioned a Royal Commission to analyse the facts and recommend a way forward. He would then let parliament decide on a free vote.
At the moment a small minority of parliamentary hardliners are in control and they are driving the UK over a cliff. Parliament must assert its authority and back a prime minister who can pull us back from the brink. Will this happen? Probably not: only a severe and regrettable financial crisis will save us from even greater trouble. Will this happen before Brexit becomes official? Probably not: the rocks at the bottom of the cliff are jagged and we will be falling on them at break neck speed.
It is time to sop dreaming about El Dorado and face reality.
Around 16 million people voted to remain in the EU and over 17 million voted to leave. 13 million people did not vote. Our country is completely divided and will remain so. If we leave the EU to find that we are in economic and political difficulty then all the remain and most of the non-voters will harbour resentment for years. Brexit will have to be a guaranteed success and it will have to deliver El Dorado.
Imagine what could happen if there was a referendum to abolish the monarchy just for Britain to become a republic. 16 million voted to retain the status quo, 17 million voted for a republic and 13 million did not vote. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to keep the status quo but England and Wales voted for a republic. What would happen if the republic did not work and there was political chaos? To change the constitution in such a cavalier manner risks economic chaos and possible civil war; referendums can be dangerous if they are not managed astutely. Most of the time a simple majority vote is insufficient to prevent dangerous political divisions.
The task of managing Britain's departure from the EU is enormous and might not be achievable in the time available. The divisions within the governing party are preventing a viable plan for the future from being drawn up and agreed. We have no idea what our future relationship with the EU is going to be. We have made no proposals. We have only made demands, it is the "cake and eat it" approach.
Our government is demanding that we have a completely free trade arrangement in the EU but without having freedom of movement of labour. We are also demanding that we do not have to adhere to the judgements of the European Court of Justice. Our government is demanding all the benefits of being in the customs union whilst being free to negotiate trade deals outside of the auspices of the EU.
The EU is perhaps the only major trading bloc that has anywhere near free trade arrangements and such arrangements require the free movement people. How could free trade exist between England and Scotland if the Scottish people are denied the right to travel to England?
The EU can only say NO to our demands. We have decided to leave the EU organisation on a voluntary basis; we were not asked to go. We, as a nation, have neither the economic, political or military power to impose our will on the EU. The EU knows that we will suffer economically when we leave and all they have to do is sit and wait. The EU will also be damaged by Britain leaving, both economically and politically on the world stage. The economic damage to the EU, will however, be mitigated by the signing of "free trade " deals with Canada and Japan. Britain will have to re-negotiate all of our existing trade deals that we have as a result of our membership of the customs union. These trade deals could have covered 70% of our world trade. If we damage the EU or other nations as a result of our irresponsibility then we cannot expect any favours in return.
Britain is in a weak negotiating position we have made demands which simple cannot be met. Imagine, if we were to assert our sovereignty and leave NATO and then demand that NATO should protect us if we were attacked. The USA would say no and quite rightly so . If we want the protection of NATO we must pool our sovereignty with the US and other nations and stick to the rules.
The prime minister is in a weak if not impossible predicament. She knows that it could be dangerous to leave the EU but she is having her hand forced. There are conspiracies to replace her within her own party and the opposition parties also want to see her removed. Deposing her will not change the situation. The whole situation is simply unmanageable even Sir Winston Churchill would probably have failed in what the government is trying to do.
Some of the consequences of leaving the EU and customs union without a good and close agreement, such as EEA plus, are unthinkable. The following:
1) Administrative chaos: it is quite possible that we will leave the EU but we will have incorporated all of their law into British law with the Exit Bill. This could mean that EU citizens will still be allowed to freely migrate to the UK but British citizens being the denied the right to migrate freely to the EU.
Existing EU Customs Law will apply to the UK. EU goods will be allowed free movement but British goods could be stopped at the border with the EU for checks.
Customs checks on the border at the Channel tunnel will cause huge queues on the M2 and M20 motorways.
2) Commercial difficulties: Many companies will relocate their headquarters to the EU. There will be major job losses. Prices for food will go up. The farming industry will be damaged. We will have balance of payments difficulties, when our former customs union and single market partners impose new tariff and non-tariff barriers on our exports. The pound will plunge making imports cheaper (if this is not offset by tariffs) but imports more expensive. It will also make foreign currency debt repayments much more expensive.
3) Political difficulties: these will be the worst consequences of all. There has been no solution proposed for Northern Ireland. If there has to be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic we risk a return to the Troubles of the 70's and 80's - three thousand British citizens died as a result of these Troubles. The DUP will veto an alternative proposal for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, as they hold the balance of power in parliament. If the Northern Ireland problem cannot be settled then this should be good cause to call off the Brexit venture.
If Brexit fails there will be good cause for the SNP to call for another referendum on Scottish independence. This will cause further divisions and it could be dangerous for Scotland if independence is granted on a slim 52/48% majority.
What happens if the EXIT Bill fails or is amended so much that it becomes powerless. We will have left the EU but in legalistic limbo. EU law will still apply to the UK but the EU will regard us as a third party nation. Parliament will have to construct some kind of emergency legislation in a rushed manner.
All in all we are facing extreme political, administrative and commercial difficulties. It seems that at the moment that these problems cannot be resolved.
What would Sir Winston Churchill have done? Well, he would not have had the referendum in the first place. What would he have done if he was forced to take over the premiership in the current state of affairs. Well he would have faced down the arch Brexiteers in parliament. He would either have stopped Brexit altogether or commissioned a Royal Commission to analyse the facts and recommend a way forward. He would then let parliament decide on a free vote.
At the moment a small minority of parliamentary hardliners are in control and they are driving the UK over a cliff. Parliament must assert its authority and back a prime minister who can pull us back from the brink. Will this happen? Probably not: only a severe and regrettable financial crisis will save us from even greater trouble. Will this happen before Brexit becomes official? Probably not: the rocks at the bottom of the cliff are jagged and we will be falling on them at break neck speed.
It is time to sop dreaming about El Dorado and face reality.
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Poor old Lynx
Lillith the lynx that has escaped from a zoo in Borth has been accused of killing a number of sheep. A farmer from Wales has accompanied the zoo owners to show the corpses of seven dead sheep to them. The lynx apparently trailed the farmer and zoo owners from a distance of 10 meters. This is some brave lynx as at 10 metres a shotgun could be used to blast the feline into cat heaven.
There is no hard evidence yet that Lillith killed these sheep and even if she did this is no reason to stop the the re-introduction of wild lynxes into UK forests. Contrary to what some farmers representatives are saying, the lynx will represent no real danger to sheep.
In the wild young lynxes learn to hunt for deer, foxes and other wild animals at night. They do not learn to attack sheep. Neither will the lynx make an unprovoked attack on a human being. They are clever enough to avoid human contact. A lynx will only be a danger if you corner it or try to molest its young.
The whole purpose of re-introducing the lynx to the UK is to help control the deer population by keeping the deer on the move. Deer are causing considerable damage to parks and farmland. The deer population is growing out of control because we have extirpated their predators - wolves, bears and lynxes. There are not enough experienced hunters to make culling efficient. In many areas it is not possible to loose off bullets without endangering human beings.
The re-introduction of the lynx is a sensible idea to provide a natural solution to deer over population.
There is no need for farmers to fear the lynx or to spread fear stories that these cats will attack the general public. Farmers can easily be compensated for the few sheep that the lynx might take.
Dogs are a far greater danger to sheep.
The lynx is so good at hiding that I doubt that members of the public will ever come across one in the wild. They are difficult to see in a zoo enclosure. It took 5 days for the zoo owners to find out that the lynx had escaped as they were used to it hiding away.
The time has come for some farmers to stop whinging and accept that re-introducing the lynx might improve our environment according to good scientific research. It is time to put away the gun as far as the lynx is concerned and time to engage the brain.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/07/lillith-the-lynx-blamed-for-seven-sheep-deaths-in-north-wales
There is no hard evidence yet that Lillith killed these sheep and even if she did this is no reason to stop the the re-introduction of wild lynxes into UK forests. Contrary to what some farmers representatives are saying, the lynx will represent no real danger to sheep.
In the wild young lynxes learn to hunt for deer, foxes and other wild animals at night. They do not learn to attack sheep. Neither will the lynx make an unprovoked attack on a human being. They are clever enough to avoid human contact. A lynx will only be a danger if you corner it or try to molest its young.
The whole purpose of re-introducing the lynx to the UK is to help control the deer population by keeping the deer on the move. Deer are causing considerable damage to parks and farmland. The deer population is growing out of control because we have extirpated their predators - wolves, bears and lynxes. There are not enough experienced hunters to make culling efficient. In many areas it is not possible to loose off bullets without endangering human beings.
The re-introduction of the lynx is a sensible idea to provide a natural solution to deer over population.
There is no need for farmers to fear the lynx or to spread fear stories that these cats will attack the general public. Farmers can easily be compensated for the few sheep that the lynx might take.
Dogs are a far greater danger to sheep.
The lynx is so good at hiding that I doubt that members of the public will ever come across one in the wild. They are difficult to see in a zoo enclosure. It took 5 days for the zoo owners to find out that the lynx had escaped as they were used to it hiding away.
The time has come for some farmers to stop whinging and accept that re-introducing the lynx might improve our environment according to good scientific research. It is time to put away the gun as far as the lynx is concerned and time to engage the brain.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/07/lillith-the-lynx-blamed-for-seven-sheep-deaths-in-north-wales
Saturday, 28 October 2017
Electing public officials and judges; what fool thought of that one?
We heard lots from the official campaign to leave the EU about democracy. Most of it was hypocritical rubbish. We heard that the head of the European Commission was an un-elected bureaucrat who was telling Britain what to do - how dare he? Britain needed to reassert its authority to put this nasty bureaucrat in his place.
No sensible state has an elected head of the civil service. The head of the EU Commission is approved by the the council of ministers and the European parliament. Just like Britain, the head of the civil service or EU Commission is not elected and should never be elected by a popular vote.
If Britain were to elect the head of the civil service then he or she would become like a head administrator and elected president rolled into one. This would lead to a conflict of interest and what would happen if the the head of the civil service disagreed with the prime minister?
The Leave politicians know that it is not possible, in a free society, to have elected officials; what would happen to the political impartiality of the civil service? Would a Labour elected head of the civil service refuse to implement the policies of a Conservative government or vice versa? This would be a recipe for political chaos. We already have political chaos as a result of the ill conceived referendum. Why pile on more agony by electing the head of the civil service?
If, as a Leave voter, you expect to have elected civil servants then you have been duped. Just like you were duped about promises for £350 million pound per week of extra money for the NHS. Neither of these promises will be delivered by leaving the EU.
Similar accusations were made about the European Court Of Justice being composed of un-elected judges. What sort of politician proposes that we elect our judges? This would be a recipe for a system of justice based on madness. How could any one contemplate having judges elected on the basis of what political party they support?
Heaven help you if you are a known Green party supporter coming up before a UKIP judge, or even a Conservative party supporter coming up before a Labour judge. Judges must be seen to be politically impartial and must actually be impartial. If as a result of leaving the EU the political classes insist on elected judges then we will soon be on the path to a totalitarian government assisted by a politicised judiciary. North Korea here we come.
Once again if you voted to leave the EU on the the promise that you would get elected judges then you were double duped. You either won't get what you want, or if you do get what you want, then you could end up being imprisoned by a judge who does not like your political opinions.
No sensible state has an elected head of the civil service. The head of the EU Commission is approved by the the council of ministers and the European parliament. Just like Britain, the head of the civil service or EU Commission is not elected and should never be elected by a popular vote.
If Britain were to elect the head of the civil service then he or she would become like a head administrator and elected president rolled into one. This would lead to a conflict of interest and what would happen if the the head of the civil service disagreed with the prime minister?
The Leave politicians know that it is not possible, in a free society, to have elected officials; what would happen to the political impartiality of the civil service? Would a Labour elected head of the civil service refuse to implement the policies of a Conservative government or vice versa? This would be a recipe for political chaos. We already have political chaos as a result of the ill conceived referendum. Why pile on more agony by electing the head of the civil service?
If, as a Leave voter, you expect to have elected civil servants then you have been duped. Just like you were duped about promises for £350 million pound per week of extra money for the NHS. Neither of these promises will be delivered by leaving the EU.
Similar accusations were made about the European Court Of Justice being composed of un-elected judges. What sort of politician proposes that we elect our judges? This would be a recipe for a system of justice based on madness. How could any one contemplate having judges elected on the basis of what political party they support?
Heaven help you if you are a known Green party supporter coming up before a UKIP judge, or even a Conservative party supporter coming up before a Labour judge. Judges must be seen to be politically impartial and must actually be impartial. If as a result of leaving the EU the political classes insist on elected judges then we will soon be on the path to a totalitarian government assisted by a politicised judiciary. North Korea here we come.
Once again if you voted to leave the EU on the the promise that you would get elected judges then you were double duped. You either won't get what you want, or if you do get what you want, then you could end up being imprisoned by a judge who does not like your political opinions.
Tuesday, 17 October 2017
Cull of Wild Boars in Forest of Dean - time for a sense of proportion
I support the re-introduction of some of the mammal and bird species which have been extirpated or driven to extinction in the UK by humans. Wild boars were re-introduced either by accident when animals escaped from farms or by activists who deliberately released them. Wild boars have now reestablished themselves in many areas, including the Forest of Dean where there is a healthy breeding population of around 1500. The Forestry Commission has estimated that a population of 400 is an optimum level. The Commission have decided to cull the wild boars.
There are activists who are opposed to this cull and are taking action to prevent the shooting of these iconic animals.
There needs to be some sort of agreement between the activists and the Forestry Commission. The predators of wild boars have also been eliminated. There is no longer a population of bears or wolves to keep wild boar numbers down or keep the boars on the move to prevent them causing too much damage. The lynx has also been extirpated and these predators would have taken young boars and would have helped to keep herds on the run. There is, therefore, nothing to stop the population of wild boars increasing. The boars are, therefore, free to damage their own environment and the environment of humans. There needs to be some sort of control. Activists who are attempting to prevent the cull should take this into account. There is no justification for extirpating wild boars again but the Forestry Commission is not proposing this. There must be room for compromise.
A similar situation is being encountered with the deer population. Vast areas of woodland are being damaged by fallow and roe deer. In my own area it is not possible to cull the deer because the parks are too close to human habitation.
Attempts are being made to re-introduce the lynx to help control the deer population and keep it on the move but farmers are in the main totally opposed to the re-introduction of these predators for fear that they will take sheep. The farmers are wrong on this one as lynx rarely hunt sheep.
Human beings have upset the balance of nature in the UK and it is now time to restore some of this balance. It is too late for the wolves and bears; a re-introduction programme would probably fail except perhaps for the wildest parts of Scotland.
There is very little reason, however, to object to the re-introduction of the lynx, beaver or eagle (to England and Wales). We can afford this and their presence would improve the environment for everyone. However, we need to control the population numbers, based on scientific evidence,
of the introduced species. This means, in the case of the wild boars, a limited cull where the facts justify it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/12/boar-war-the-forest-of-dean-pixies-fighting-against-the-cull-of-wild-pigs
There are activists who are opposed to this cull and are taking action to prevent the shooting of these iconic animals.
There needs to be some sort of agreement between the activists and the Forestry Commission. The predators of wild boars have also been eliminated. There is no longer a population of bears or wolves to keep wild boar numbers down or keep the boars on the move to prevent them causing too much damage. The lynx has also been extirpated and these predators would have taken young boars and would have helped to keep herds on the run. There is, therefore, nothing to stop the population of wild boars increasing. The boars are, therefore, free to damage their own environment and the environment of humans. There needs to be some sort of control. Activists who are attempting to prevent the cull should take this into account. There is no justification for extirpating wild boars again but the Forestry Commission is not proposing this. There must be room for compromise.
A similar situation is being encountered with the deer population. Vast areas of woodland are being damaged by fallow and roe deer. In my own area it is not possible to cull the deer because the parks are too close to human habitation.
Attempts are being made to re-introduce the lynx to help control the deer population and keep it on the move but farmers are in the main totally opposed to the re-introduction of these predators for fear that they will take sheep. The farmers are wrong on this one as lynx rarely hunt sheep.
Human beings have upset the balance of nature in the UK and it is now time to restore some of this balance. It is too late for the wolves and bears; a re-introduction programme would probably fail except perhaps for the wildest parts of Scotland.
There is very little reason, however, to object to the re-introduction of the lynx, beaver or eagle (to England and Wales). We can afford this and their presence would improve the environment for everyone. However, we need to control the population numbers, based on scientific evidence,
of the introduced species. This means, in the case of the wild boars, a limited cull where the facts justify it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/12/boar-war-the-forest-of-dean-pixies-fighting-against-the-cull-of-wild-pigs
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
Yippeeee I've found a way to get the NHS £350 million a week
Yes, I am now a convert to leaving the EU and reasserting our national sovereignty. Let's leave NATO too.
Why should some un-elected American general tell us we should spend 2% of our national budget on defence. That is 38 billion quid a year. Why should Donald Trump tell us we should spend this money? We didn't elect him.
Without NATO we could take back control. I calculate it will be more cost efficient just have a big enough army, navy and air force to protect our national waters, air and land. This should only cost about £20 billion a year. This will free up £18 billion a year or £350 million a week, thereabouts, to invest in our NHS. Then, we won't need all those nasty foreigners to help cure us, as we could afford to replace them with robot nurses and doctors with a built in human touch.
Leave campaigners from all parties including UKIP should support this idea as it is a matter of principle that we assert our sovereignty and take back control. Perhaps you will join in too.
I wonder what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin think about this idea? Surely, they would never contemplate invading a fully sovereign country?
Why should some un-elected American general tell us we should spend 2% of our national budget on defence. That is 38 billion quid a year. Why should Donald Trump tell us we should spend this money? We didn't elect him.
Without NATO we could take back control. I calculate it will be more cost efficient just have a big enough army, navy and air force to protect our national waters, air and land. This should only cost about £20 billion a year. This will free up £18 billion a year or £350 million a week, thereabouts, to invest in our NHS. Then, we won't need all those nasty foreigners to help cure us, as we could afford to replace them with robot nurses and doctors with a built in human touch.
Leave campaigners from all parties including UKIP should support this idea as it is a matter of principle that we assert our sovereignty and take back control. Perhaps you will join in too.
I wonder what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin think about this idea? Surely, they would never contemplate invading a fully sovereign country?
Monday, 9 October 2017
Beavers and common sense
At last we have a common sense solution to flooding for some parts of the land. Why not use beavers as natural flood control agents. They do their work for no costs whatsoever. They naturally save people's properties from flooding. They do no harm to the environment, on suitable land; in fact they create an improved environment for other plant and animal species to flourish.
Some of the residents of Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean must be delighted that these harmless creatures will be allowed to manage a flood control scheme.
We should never have extirpated this species just for their fur. I have written about this subject before and never have I been so delighted to say, "I told you so."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/beavers-uk-flood-defences-forest-of-dean
Some of the residents of Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean must be delighted that these harmless creatures will be allowed to manage a flood control scheme.
We should never have extirpated this species just for their fur. I have written about this subject before and never have I been so delighted to say, "I told you so."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/beavers-uk-flood-defences-forest-of-dean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
