Obviously, Paul doesn't actually talk out of his AH, this would be very difficult indeed, so I apologise profusely.NickB wrote:Paul, I feel, is perfectly justified to expect an apology for, what I can see, is unwarranted abuse.
Martin
Obviously, Paul doesn't actually talk out of his AH, this would be very difficult indeed, so I apologise profusely.NickB wrote:Paul, I feel, is perfectly justified to expect an apology for, what I can see, is unwarranted abuse.
What does WTF mean?Jack Harrison wrote:WTF does that mean?...opposite sides of the same human neurosis.
Jack
No.David M wrote:Martin, do you act autonomously because you get frustrated by bureaucracy and officialdom when dealing with recognised conservation bodies?
I assume therefore that you wouldn't try to save your own property from such destruction if bureaucracy or officialdom did nothing?David M wrote:I often think if we were dealing with a forest fire, by the time the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, the whole area would have already burned down, but at least we'd be able to reassure ourselves that our original plan to deal with it had been properly thought through!
A UK-based genetic mixing surely has to be preferable to extinction, but then using only the minimum of divergent material.NickB wrote:a UK-based genetic mixing would be preferable to extinction.....or would it?
I agree, tone it down Martin.NickB wrote: I find that exchanges work best if the participants stick to reasoned debate, rather than resort to personal insults
Again, I would like examples, and examples which have changed more rapidly than the rate at which bottle-necked colonies of Mountain Ringlet have lost ground on the lower slopes of some of its mountains. Again, I would ask the question what happens when the ecological requirements of this species are higher than the mountains they inhabit due to climate change?NickB wrote:As we have seen, species can change their behaviour and food-plants locally when faced with challenges.
Of course I would. That's self-preservation.Martin White wrote:I assume therefore that you wouldn't try to save your own property from such destruction if bureaucracy or officialdom did nothing?David M wrote:I often think if we were dealing with a forest fire, by the time the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, the whole area would have already burned down, but at least we'd be able to reassure ourselves that our original plan to deal with it had been properly thought through!
Martin
We began interfering a very long time ago (c.5 thousand years). What we have now is far from a pristine enviornment with genetically altered butterflies evolved to fit that degraded enviornment. In my opinion we have an obligation to interfere. An obligation to put things right, or restore a proper balance. We don't have the right not to interfere, assuming, that is, we have the brains to do it correctly, but I'm fairly certain you knew this already.NickB wrote:Do we feel we have the right to interfere?
I think I understand your moral issues, but sometimes it's GM'd butterflies or a case of no butterflies at all irrespective of whatever niches we've left them with. My butterflies in this context are certainly GM'd, unfortunately.NickB wrote:... or is it, we can, so we are going to do it, because we can?
I do have issues of a moral nature with this!
Specially GM'd butterflies to fit the niches we have left them with?
Once proof exists that a strategy has NOT worked this invariably leads to a cover-up or white-wash job to protect the employment prospects of the people involved. Ambitious academics with their new PHDs then repeat the same mistakes over and over again. This never does the butterflies any good, and science rarely moves on. One novelty of science is that provided with duplicate results two groups of scientists are capable of coming to two completely different conclusions. This depends on who is paying them and the belief systems of such employers. E.g. Saturated fats are very good for you (McDonalds) or harmful in anything but moderation (The Health Service). Although there are other methods, for example during China’s so called Cultural Revolution scientists could easily be persuaded to come up with spectacular crop yields or face threats of having some of their internal organs removed whilst still alive (and possibly external ones too). Personally speaking, I would come to any conclusion you could possibly care to name given the alterative of having my testicles removed whilst still breathing.NickB wrote:proof that the strategy has NOT worked is often only after the negative effects have made themselves apparent, to the dis-advantage of the butterflies concerned. But the proof then does exist that it does not work! That does not necessarily do the butterflies much good, but science has moved forward and a PhD beckons for some ambitious academic.....Sometimes it does appear to be like that....
This thread really has degenerated into a load of b*llocks.....having [his]testicles removed whilst still breathing.
Large HeathDavid M wrote:Which butterfly species is your current top priority?
I've been told to tone it down, so I'm not going to anwser someone who swears.Jack Harrison wrote:WTF means "What The F*ck"
Jack
LOL!Martin White wrote:I've been told to tone it down, so I'm not going to anwser someone who swears.Jack Harrison wrote:WTF means "What The F*ck"
Jack
Martin
I'm interested to know why Large Heath only occurs from mid-Wales northwards despite seemingly ideal conditions being present further south, eg in S. Wales and Exmoor/Dartmoor region.Martin White wrote:Large HeathDavid M wrote:Which butterfly species is your current top priority?