Welcome to PetForumz.com!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

Culliing Grey Squirrels

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
   Pet Problems (Home) -> Animals Rights RSS
Next:  Norfolk & Suffolk Broads  
Author Message
amacmil304

External


Since: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 46



(Msg. 91) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: uk>business>agriculture, others (more info?)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:37:50 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:

>
><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:dbrql211knf5jgtet3d3jbsast7ovc5gea@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:17:07 -0800, "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><amacmil304.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.
>>>
>>>That is in fact one meaning of the term.
>>>
>>>[..]
>>
>> If it is, it's wrong. There's strong popularity for belief that there
>> is a God but it's not self evident that there is one.
>
>To whom? To you?

To anyone.

>
>>>>>They were wrong about the shape of the earth, but the world being flat
>>>>>was
>>>>>self evident to them. Your misconception is your belief that fact and
>>>>>self-evidence are synonymous.
>>>>
>>>> It was a mistaken belief. Unless things have changed over time they
>>>> only needed to look at a sea horizon :-)
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>> Not if they'd looked at the sea horizon.
>
>Now you're saying that *they* the observers should examine the external
>world. That would indicate *evidence*, not "self-evidence".
>

The curvature of the sea horizon is self evident that the world is not
flat.

>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Belief is not self evident. You've given the game away :-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Everything is based on beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. Some things are self evident.
>>>>>
>>>>>Name some of them. It's debatable whether or not anything is
>>>>>self-evident
>>>>>in
>>>>>the formal sense, but certainly not very many things are. Perhaps the
>>>>>fact
>>>>>that you exist can be said to be one, that's about it, and even that is
>>>>>still a belief.
>>>>
>>>> I can assure you it's not a belief.
>>>
>>>I can assure you that it is.
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a "fact" as you have already stated.
>
>That is your belief.
>

No, it's self evident.

>>>>>It appears to me that you have constructed a definition in you mind that
>>>>>is
>>>>>neither the formal meaning of self-evident nor the rhetorical meaning.
>>>>>The
>>>>>quote you are using in your signature is using it in the rhetorical.
>>>>
>>>> Care to define both?
>>>
>>>Formally a self-evident belief is one that requires no outside evidence,
>>>it
>>>proves itself. I exist is the basic one.
>>>
>>
>> It's a fact not a belief.
>
>I'm not interested in 1+1=2, surely Schopenhauer isn't either. He's
>referring to controversial *ideas* that find opposition and ridicule then
>ultimately acceptance.

No controversial ideas would require evidence to confirm them one way
or another.


>
>>>Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral precept,
>>>which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
>>>humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
>>>treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this meaning.
>>>
>>>[..]
>>
>> If you don't mind me saying it, that is nonsense. It has nothing to
>> do with self evidence.
>
>"We find these truths to be self-evident.."

What truths?

>
>Why are you using the phrase in your signature? Which self-evident ideas are
>you promoting or referring to? What makes it interesting to you?
>

Fake conservation.

Perhaps you'd care to answer my question in another post above.



>>>>>>>The following metaphysical propositions are often said to be
>>>>>>>self-evident:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a.. A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
>>>>>>> b.. It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>in the same manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I could go along with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>But it would still be a belief arrived at through contemplation.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a belief; it's self evident.
>>>
>>>You have a wrong idea of what thet means.
>>>
>>>They are things that you believe to be true, i.e. they are consistent with
>>>your worldview. In the world of Quantum mechanics they not be true.
>>>
>>
>> Much the same as the God example.
>
>No, not like the God example at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our most
>fundamental assumptions about the reality around us.
>
But is it self evident?


>>
>>>>>>>Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be
>>>>>>>self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that
>>>>>>>disagreement
>>>>>>>with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A claim to self evidence doesn't make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does make it so?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the self evidence itself that makes it so.
>>>
>>>Now you're talking in circles.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
>You are. You are using a circular definition of self-evident.

It's either self evident or not. You can't have it both ways.


>>
>>
>>>>>>>> People believe in
>>>>>>>> God but that doesn't mean a God is self evident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now you're denying the antecedent. Self-evidence involves a belief
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>something is obviously true without requiring proof. That does not
>>>>>>>mean
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>all beliefs imply self-evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We seem to agree on this. I have already said that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your argument directly above said the opposite.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. Read it again.
>>>
>>>It still does it.
>>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. Using the God example. It is a belief that is not
>> self evident yet it has strong popular approval.
>
>God is self-evident to some people.
>
>> Are you saying that the existence of God is self evident?
>
>Yes, to true believers it is.
>

That's a belief, not self evidence.


>>>>>>>I guess we've reached an impasse, you are totally enamoured of this
>>>>>>>false
>>>>>>>perception of yours, and I see no sign that you are capable of moving
>>>>>>>off
>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we have; but it's not a false perception.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is. There are two ways to understand the term "self-evident", one
>>>>>is
>>>>>a strict and formal way, and almost nothing qualifies beyond "I think,
>>>>>therefore I am" and the other is rhetorical, meaning "believed most
>>>>>deeply
>>>>>to be true". You're mixing the two to a very loose effect.
>>>>
>>>> The latter does not amount to self evidence as I pointed out in the
>>>> God example.
>>>
>>>Self-evidence can either be argued to exist formally in which case we
>>>would
>>>be having a technical philosophical argument or it can be stated as a
>>>rhetorical phrase meaning that something is deeply believed to be true.
>>
>> No. because as you have already said something that is self evident
>> does not need to be proved. You're confusing the differing opinions
>> of technicians to arrive at consensus, and the capacity to believe in
>> something, with something that is self evident.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you were to bash your head against a brick wall an observer would
>>>>>> be quite entitled to reach the conclusion that you were bashing your
>>>>>> head against a brick wall, without involving "the process of
>>>>>> reflection and debate" That's self evidence :-))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I might be an actor playing out a scene for some hidden camera (Candid
>>>>>Camera), the evidence may be deceiving you.
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with that. But it's deliberate deception.
>>>
>>>Perhaps, but it proves my point.
>>>
>>>
>> One can always be deceived.
>>
>>>>>In any case, now you are
>>>>>reducing a discussion about a quotation that is about ideas into one
>>>>>about
>>>>>mundane physical events. Are you interested in finding a deeper
>>>>>understanding of Schopenhauer's words or is this just about trying to
>>>>>extract a "win"? If it's the latter, which so far it appears to be, then
>>>>>I
>>>>>give up, you win.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think in normal circumstances self evidence is that which requires
>>>> no proof to come to a conclusion. I accept there are exceptions such
>>>> as tricks that can fool people into thing they are real. I also have
>>>> accepted that the quote should relate to "some" truth rather than
>>>> "all" because there will always be some truth that is not self
>>>> evident. However, just to believe something is true does not make it
>>>> self evident ie. flat Earth and God.
>>>
>>>If you use the term rhetorically then almost anything can be called
>>>self-evident, if you use it formally then almost nothing can.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe so. See my answer above.
>
>?
>>
>>
>> Angus Macmillan
>> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
>> www.killhunting.org
>> www.con-servation.org.uk
>>
>> All truth passes through three stages:
>> First, it is ridiculed;
>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 92) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:8o5sl2ltc9h4c728ovmppbfljo21kqaqud@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:37:50 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:dbrql211knf5jgtet3d3jbsast7ovc5gea@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:17:07 -0800, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><amacmil304 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.
>>>>
>>>>That is in fact one meaning of the term.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>
>>> If it is, it's wrong. There's strong popularity for belief that there
>>> is a God but it's not self evident that there is one.
>>
>>To whom? To you?
>
> To anyone.

Not true, to the majority of the earth's population the existence of God is
self-evident.

>>>>>>They were wrong about the shape of the earth, but the world being flat
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>self evident to them. Your misconception is your belief that fact and
>>>>>>self-evidence are synonymous.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a mistaken belief. Unless things have changed over time they
>>>>> only needed to look at a sea horizon :-)
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>> Not if they'd looked at the sea horizon.
>>
>>Now you're saying that *they* the observers should examine the external
>>world. That would indicate *evidence*, not "self-evidence".
>>
>
> The curvature of the sea horizon is self evident that the world is not
> flat.

Now you're making no sense at all. The curvature of the sea horizon is
*evidence* that the world is not flat, those are two separate components of
a process of rational evaluation.

[..]

>>I'm not interested in 1+1=2, surely Schopenhauer isn't either. He's
>>referring to controversial *ideas* that find opposition and ridicule then
>>ultimately acceptance.
>
> No controversial ideas would require evidence to confirm them one way
> or another.

???
>
>
>>
>>>>Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral
>>>>precept,
>>>>which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
>>>>humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
>>>>treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this
>>>>meaning.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>
>>> If you don't mind me saying it, that is nonsense. It has nothing to
>>> do with self evidence.
>>
>>"We find these truths to be self-evident.."
>
> What truths?

I thought you would have recognized the preamble to The Constitution of the
USA.

>>Why are you using the phrase in your signature? Which self-evident ideas
>>are
>>you promoting or referring to? What makes it interesting to you?
>>
>
> Fake conservation.

Is "fake conservation" whatever you mean by that, actually "self-evident" or
do you simply hold a reasonable position on the issue based on a
proponderance of evidence?

> Perhaps you'd care to answer my question in another post above.

What are you talking about?

[..]

>>No, not like the God example at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our most
>>fundamental assumptions about the reality around us.
>>
> But is it self evident?

It challenges ideas that we are used to believing to be self-evident, such
as the ability to pass through solid objects or to be in two places at the
same time.

[..]

>>You are. You are using a circular definition of self-evident.
>
> It's either self evident or not. You can't have it both ways.

Why not? Why can't "fake conservation" whatever you mean by that, be
"self-evident" to you and "self-evident" to your opponents at the same time?


[..]

>>God is self-evident to some people.
>>
>>> Are you saying that the existence of God is self evident?
>>
>>Yes, to true believers it is.
>>
>
> That's a belief, not self evidence.

"Self-evident" is a rhetorical phrase in this context. Just as "fake
conservation" whatever you mean by that, is "self-evident" to you, the
existence of God is self evident to others.

If we were discussing the rigorous and formal meaning of the term in
philosophy this would be a different discussion, but we obviously are not,
because under no plausible rigorous and formal definition does "fake
conservation" whatever you mean by that, qualify as one of the few
self-evident ideas.

"Self-evident" is a term people use to imbue their opinions with more
credence that they deserve.


[..]

 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
amacmil304

External


Since: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 46



(Msg. 93) Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: uk>business>agriculture, others (more info?)

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:46:59 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
<alan.holmes.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message
>news:12lr0ngf810l2a4@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> <amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dbrql211knf5jgtet3d3jbsast7ovc5gea@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:17:07 -0800, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><amacmil304.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.
>>>>
>>>>That is in fact one meaning of the term.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>
>>> If it is, it's wrong. There's strong popularity for belief that there
>>> is a God but it's not self evident that there is one.
>>
>> To whom? To you?
>>
>>>>>>They were wrong about the shape of the earth, but the world being flat
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>self evident to them. Your misconception is your belief that fact and
>>>>>>self-evidence are synonymous.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a mistaken belief. Unless things have changed over time they
>>>>> only needed to look at a sea horizon :-)
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>> Not if they'd looked at the sea horizon.
>>
>> Now you're saying that *they* the observers should examine the external
>> world. That would indicate *evidence*, not "self-evidence".
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Belief is not self evident. You've given the game away :-))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Everything is based on beliefs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. Some things are self evident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Name some of them. It's debatable whether or not anything is
>>>>>>self-evident
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the formal sense, but certainly not very many things are. Perhaps the
>>>>>>fact
>>>>>>that you exist can be said to be one, that's about it, and even that is
>>>>>>still a belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can assure you it's not a belief.
>>>>
>>>>I can assure you that it is.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. It's a "fact" as you have already stated.
>>
>> That is your belief.
>>
>>>>>>It appears to me that you have constructed a definition in you mind
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>neither the formal meaning of self-evident nor the rhetorical meaning.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>quote you are using in your signature is using it in the rhetorical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to define both?
>>>>
>>>>Formally a self-evident belief is one that requires no outside evidence,
>>>>it
>>>>proves itself. I exist is the basic one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a fact not a belief.
>>
>> I'm not interested in 1+1=2, surely Schopenhauer isn't either. He's
>> referring to controversial *ideas* that find opposition and ridicule then
>> ultimately acceptance.
>>
>>>>Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral precept,
>>>>which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
>>>>humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
>>>>treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this
>>>>meaning.
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>
>>> If you don't mind me saying it, that is nonsense. It has nothing to
>>> do with self evidence.
>>
>> "We find these truths to be self-evident.."
>>
>> Why are you using the phrase in your signature? Which self-evident ideas
>> are you promoting or referring to? What makes it interesting to you?
>>
>>>>>>>>The following metaphysical propositions are often said to be
>>>>>>>>self-evident:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a.. A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.
>>>>>>>> b.. It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>in the same manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I could go along with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But it would still be a belief arrived at through contemplation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a belief; it's self evident.
>>>>
>>>>You have a wrong idea of what thet means.
>>>>
>>>>They are things that you believe to be true, i.e. they are consistent
>>>>with
>>>>your worldview. In the world of Quantum mechanics they not be true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Much the same as the God example.
>>
>> No, not like the God example at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our most
>> fundamental assumptions about the reality around us.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered
>>>>>>>>fallacious
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be
>>>>>>>>self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that
>>>>>>>>disagreement
>>>>>>>>with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A claim to self evidence doesn't make it so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What does make it so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the self evidence itself that makes it so.
>>>>
>>>>Now you're talking in circles.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> You are. You are using a circular definition of self-evident.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> People believe in
>>>>>>>>> God but that doesn't mean a God is self evident.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now you're denying the antecedent. Self-evidence involves a belief
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>something is obviously true without requiring proof. That does not
>>>>>>>>mean
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>all beliefs imply self-evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We seem to agree on this. I have already said that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your argument directly above said the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't. Read it again.
>>>>
>>>>It still does it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. Using the God example. It is a belief that is not
>>> self evident yet it has strong popular approval.
>>
>> God is self-evident to some people.
>>
>>> Are you saying that the existence of God is self evident?
>>
>> Yes, to true believers it is.
>>
>>>>>>>>I guess we've reached an impasse, you are totally enamoured of this
>>>>>>>>false
>>>>>>>>perception of yours, and I see no sign that you are capable of moving
>>>>>>>>off
>>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have; but it's not a false perception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is. There are two ways to understand the term "self-evident",
>>>>>>one
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>a strict and formal way, and almost nothing qualifies beyond "I think,
>>>>>>therefore I am" and the other is rhetorical, meaning "believed most
>>>>>>deeply
>>>>>>to be true". You're mixing the two to a very loose effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The latter does not amount to self evidence as I pointed out in the
>>>>> God example.
>>>>
>>>>Self-evidence can either be argued to exist formally in which case we
>>>>would
>>>>be having a technical philosophical argument or it can be stated as a
>>>>rhetorical phrase meaning that something is deeply believed to be true.
>>>
>>> No. because as you have already said something that is self evident
>>> does not need to be proved. You're confusing the differing opinions
>>> of technicians to arrive at consensus, and the capacity to believe in
>>> something, with something that is self evident.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't feel like beating my head against a brick wall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you were to bash your head against a brick wall an observer would
>>>>>>> be quite entitled to reach the conclusion that you were bashing your
>>>>>>> head against a brick wall, without involving "the process of
>>>>>>> reflection and debate" That's self evidence :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I might be an actor playing out a scene for some hidden camera (Candid
>>>>>>Camera), the evidence may be deceiving you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to agree with that. But it's deliberate deception.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps, but it proves my point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> One can always be deceived.
>>>
>>>>>>In any case, now you are
>>>>>>reducing a discussion about a quotation that is about ideas into one
>>>>>>about
>>>>>>mundane physical events. Are you interested in finding a deeper
>>>>>>understanding of Schopenhauer's words or is this just about trying to
>>>>>>extract a "win"? If it's the latter, which so far it appears to be,
>>>>>>then I
>>>>>>give up, you win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think in normal circumstances self evidence is that which requires
>>>>> no proof to come to a conclusion. I accept there are exceptions such
>>>>> as tricks that can fool people into thing they are real. I also have
>>>>> accepted that the quote should relate to "some" truth rather than
>>>>> "all" because there will always be some truth that is not self
>>>>> evident. However, just to believe something is true does not make it
>>>>> self evident ie. flat Earth and God.
>>>>
>>>>If you use the term rhetorically then almost anything can be called
>>>>self-evident, if you use it formally then almost nothing can.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe so. See my answer above.
>>
>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Angus Macmillan
>>> www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
>>> www.killhunting.org
>>> www.con-servation.org.uk
>>>
>>> All truth passes through three stages:
>>> First, it is ridiculed;
>>> Second, it is violently opposed; and
>>> Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>>> -- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>>
>>
>
>And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?
>

It's self evident :-)
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Alan Holmes

External


Since: Nov 07, 2006
Posts: 34



(Msg. 94) Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:12lsgd0no8jh1b@news.supernews.com...
>
> <amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8o5sl2ltc9h4c728ovmppbfljo21kqaqud@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:37:50 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dbrql211knf5jgtet3d3jbsast7ovc5gea@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:17:07 -0800, "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><amacmil304.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> Strong popularity does not mean something is self evident.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is in fact one meaning of the term.
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>> If it is, it's wrong. There's strong popularity for belief that there
>>>> is a God but it's not self evident that there is one.
>>>
>>>To whom? To you?
>>
>> To anyone.
>
> Not true, to the majority of the earth's population the existence of God
> is self-evident.
>
>>>>>>>They were wrong about the shape of the earth, but the world being
>>>>>>>flat
>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>self evident to them. Your misconception is your belief that fact and
>>>>>>>self-evidence are synonymous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a mistaken belief. Unless things have changed over time they
>>>>>> only needed to look at a sea horizon :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't matter if it was mistaken or not, it was self-evident.
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>>
>>>> Not if they'd looked at the sea horizon.
>>>
>>>Now you're saying that *they* the observers should examine the external
>>>world. That would indicate *evidence*, not "self-evidence".
>>>
>>
>> The curvature of the sea horizon is self evident that the world is not
>> flat.
>
> Now you're making no sense at all. The curvature of the sea horizon is
> *evidence* that the world is not flat, those are two separate components
> of a process of rational evaluation.
>
> [..]
>
>>>I'm not interested in 1+1=2, surely Schopenhauer isn't either. He's
>>>referring to controversial *ideas* that find opposition and ridicule then
>>>ultimately acceptance.
>>
>> No controversial ideas would require evidence to confirm them one way
>> or another.
>
> ???
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Rhetorically "self-evident" refers to something, such as a moral
>>>>>precept,
>>>>>which we deeply believe to be fundamentally true or consistent with our
>>>>>humanity, for example the idea all human beings deserve equal and fair
>>>>>treatment under the law. I think that Schopenhauer was using this
>>>>>meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>> If you don't mind me saying it, that is nonsense. It has nothing to
>>>> do with self evidence.
>>>
>>>"We find these truths to be self-evident.."
>>
>> What truths?
>
> I thought you would have recognized the preamble to The Constitution of
> the USA.
>
>>>Why are you using the phrase in your signature? Which self-evident ideas
>>>are
>>>you promoting or referring to? What makes it interesting to you?
>>>
>>
>> Fake conservation.
>
> Is "fake conservation" whatever you mean by that, actually "self-evident"
> or do you simply hold a reasonable position on the issue based on a
> proponderance of evidence?
>
>> Perhaps you'd care to answer my question in another post above.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> [..]
>
>>>No, not like the God example at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our
>>>most
>>>fundamental assumptions about the reality around us.
>>>
>> But is it self evident?
>
> It challenges ideas that we are used to believing to be self-evident, such
> as the ability to pass through solid objects or to be in two places at the
> same time.
>
> [..]
>
>>>You are. You are using a circular definition of self-evident.
>>
>> It's either self evident or not. You can't have it both ways.
>
> Why not? Why can't "fake conservation" whatever you mean by that, be
> "self-evident" to you and "self-evident" to your opponents at the same
> time?
>
>
> [..]
>
>>>God is self-evident to some people.
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that the existence of God is self evident?
>>>
>>>Yes, to true believers it is.
>>>
>>
>> That's a belief, not self evidence.
>
> "Self-evident" is a rhetorical phrase in this context. Just as "fake
> conservation" whatever you mean by that, is "self-evident" to you, the
> existence of God is self evident to others.
>
> If we were discussing the rigorous and formal meaning of the term in
> philosophy this would be a different discussion, but we obviously are not,
> because under no plausible rigorous and formal definition does "fake
> conservation" whatever you mean by that, qualify as one of the few
> self-evident ideas.
>
> "Self-evident" is a term people use to imbue their opinions with more
> credence that they deserve.
>
>
> [..]
>
>

What the bloody hell has this to do with squirrels?
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 95) Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote
> What the bloody hell has this to do with squirrels?

Think about it for a while...
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Dutch

External


Since: Jul 02, 2003
Posts: 1110



(Msg. 96) Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote
> And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?

I strongly suggest that you learn how to use a killfile.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
BAC

External


Since: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 61



(Msg. 97) Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: Culliing Grey Squirrels [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message
news:12lvnnjar4q5qd4@news.supernews.com...
> "Alan Holmes" <alan.holmes RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote
> > And the relationship to the culling of tree rats is?
>
> I strongly suggest that you learn how to use a killfile.
>
>

That's ironic - he's recently been advocating use of killfiles over on
uk.rec.gardening.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Geoff

External


Since: Sep 17, 2006
Posts: 32



(Msg. 98) Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:08 pm
Post subject: Don't follow the herd and give a cow for Christmas [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Don't follow the herd and give a cow for Christmas
This article, by our Director Andrew Tyler, is republished from The
Independent
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2018744.ece
We're about to enter the season of gut-busting excess, when the tills
don't stop ringing and our appetites for giving and receiving get well
and truly sated. Just in time, another gift idea has come along that
is not about self-indulgence but doing good in the world; or so it
would seem.

Paying for farm animals to be gifted to impoverished communities in
the developing world, notably Africa, has moved from novelty to
omnipresent fashion. The aid agencies Oxfam and Christian Aid made the
early running. But this year about a dozen agencies are using your
money to punt goats, chickens, sheep, camels, donkeys, pigs and cows
to the world's starving. Prices vary : £70 will get you a cow from
Help The Aged, whereas Send A Cow demands £750 per animal. Farm
Friends wants £30 for a goat, while World Vision will settle for £91
for a whole herd.

The marketing strategy is resolutely upbeat. "Socks? A CD?," asks Farm
Friend, "The search for a genuinely memorable present is over." The
cow on Help the Aged's leaflet, meanwhile, is garbed in a Santa hat to
distinguish the agency's effort from the rest of the herd.

The message might bring comfort to the target audience, but such
schemes, sadly, are not a good thing. They serve only to increase not
diminish poverty. Why? Because farming animals is an inefficient,
expensive and environmentally destructive way of producing food. All
farmed animals require proper nourishment, large quantities of water,
shelter from extremes of weather and veterinary care. Such resources
are in critically short supply in much of Africa. In fact, the wide
variation in prices asked by the donor agencies testifies to this
reality: arguments have broken out between Send A Cow on the one hand
and Christian Aid and Oxfam on the other, as to the "quality" of the
animal delivered and whether the many supplementary costs are covered
in the asking price.

Sceptical readers might,at this point, accuse me of dressing up a
concern about animal welfare as a concern for the world's poor. Let's
be clear that there are major animal welfare issues involved in
sending animals to, for instance, the Horn of Africa where, earlier
this year, up to 80 per cent of cattle perished in a drought and many
of the remainder were washed away in the floods that followed. But
this is not about cows taking precedence over people.

The reality is that animal gift schemes are, in the words of the
conservation charity World Land Trust (WLT), "environmentally unsound
and economically disastrous". In a statement last week, WLT declared:
"Now that the grave consequences of introducing large numbers of goats
and other domestic animals into fragile, arid environments is well
documented, WLT considers it grossly irresponsible ... to continue
with the schemes ... as a means of raising quick money for charities
over the Christmas season".

It is incontestable that desertification and further human
impoverishment will follow the introduction of goats into already
degraded areas. But if goats are environmentally disastrous, cows are
extraordinarily burdensome economically. A newly lactating animal
requires up to 90 litres of water a day, a lot of food and veterinary
treatment to cover endemic problems such as scours, mastitis and
lameness.

But where do the vets come from? EU dairy farmers receive $2 a day per
cow to remain financially viable. For many years, British sheep
farmers have received more than 40 per cent of their income from the
taxpayer. If such feather-bedding is needed in the comparatively
benign agricultural environment of the West, how can we expect the
poorest people on earth to cope with their animal "gifts"? It is many
times more efficient to use the available agricultural resources -
land, labour, water - to feed people direct, rather than devoting
those resources to fattening animals.

Some donor agencies try to confront the inherent inefficiencies of
animal farming by setting up "zero-grazing" regimes. In other words,
the animals get permanently banged up in sheds. But they still need
water and food - and, in such deprived environments, suffer high
levels of economically punishing disease, early infertility and
premature death.

Ultimately, my objection is to the commercial forces that are seeking
to persuade people of the poor world that their best nutritional
interests are served by buying into modern, high-throughput farmed
animal production processes. With that comes an addiction to high
capital input systems, additional stresses on precious water supplies,
environmental destruction, a loss of control over the means of
production, bad health, a nightmare animal welfare scenario and more
human poverty and malnourishment.

So this year, boycott the donate-an-animal schemes and instead support
projects that help people, animals and the environment. Animal Aid,
for example, will be seeking support for a scheme to plant 2,000 trees
in Kenya's Rift Valley province. They will bear oranges, avocados,
mango, pawpaw, kei apple and macadamia nuts. Such efforts won't erase
the blight of poverty in Africa, but neither will they add to it.
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Alan

External


Since: Nov 30, 2006
Posts: 1



(Msg. 99) Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:26 am
Post subject: Livestock farming a major threat to environment. Far worse than motor vehicles even! [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions,
rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more
greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent - 18 percent -
than transport. It is also a major source of land and water
degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO"s Livestock Information and
Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of
the most significant contributors to today"s most serious
environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the
situation."

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy
products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than
double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in
2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million
tonnes.

Long shadow

The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other
agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion
people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output.
For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a
source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of
organic fertilizer for their crops.

But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to
the FAO report, Livestock"s Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and
Options. "The environmental costs per unit of livestock production
must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening
beyond its present level," it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the
livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from
human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even
more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of
human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the
digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which
contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth"s entire land surface,
mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global
arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As
forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of
deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70
percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to
grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth"s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of
coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics
and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides
used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water
cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water
resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the
production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock"s presence in vast tracts of
land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity
loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in
decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.

Remedies

The report, which was produced with the support of the
multi-institutional Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD)
Initiative, proposes explicitly to consider these environmental costs
and suggests a number of ways of remedying the situation, including:

Land degradation - controlling access and removing obstacles to
mobility on common pastures. Use of soil conservation methods and
silvopastoralism, together with controlled livestock exclusion from
sensitive areas; payment schemes for environmental services in
livestock-based land use to help reduce and reverse land degradation.

Atmosphere and climate - increasing the efficiency of livestock
production and feed crop agriculture. Improving animals" diets to
reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, and
setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure.

Water - improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Introducing
full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage
large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.

These and related questions are the focus of discussions between FAO
and its partners meeting to chart the way forward for livestock
production at global consultations in Bangkok this week. These
discussions also include the substantial public health risks related
to the rapid livestock sector growth as, increasingly, animal diseases
also affect humans; rapid livestock sector growth can also lead to the
exclusion of smallholders from growing markets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Geoff

External


Since: Sep 17, 2006
Posts: 32



(Msg. 100) Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:18 am
Post subject: Help stamp out deadly virus by cleaning bird baths and tables [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Help stamp out deadly virus by cleaning bird baths and tables
By Roland Batten
Comment | Read Comments (1)

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, male, perched on a branch. Picture by
Nigel Blake (rspb-images.com)
THERE is growing concern that a deadly virus may be sweeping the
countryside causing the deaths of hundreds of wild birds.

The disease is hitting finches and sparrows in particular and
scientists are urging householders to clean bird baths and bird tables
in a bid to stamp it out.

The virus, trichomoniasis, poses no risk to humans but it can lead to
a painful death for wild birds, which can pick up the disease through
water.

The virus attacks the throat, causing the bird problems with
swallowing and later with breathing.

Wildlife vets are investigating the cause of the outbreak, which
appears to be widespread across the UK but particularly in the West
Country and the Midlands. Members of the public have reported finding
bodies of finches and sparrows in their gardens.

Scientists are wondering whether the unusually hot summer has led to
the increase in the number of cases because it is spread by birds
sharing baths and feeders.

Advertisment continued...
The RSPB has urged bird lovers to regularly wash out bird baths and
cleaners as this may help to halt the spread of the disease.

The disease is common in pigeons and doves but this year it has spread
to finches and sparrows.

It can also be picked up by birds of prey, which may feed on an
infected pigeon.

Bird lovers are advised not to touch or handle any sick or dead bird
they may find but to contact the Garden Bird Health Initiative on
www.ufaw.org.uk The advice is not because the virus can spread to
humans, but a body of a dead bird can cause other health nasties such
as salmonella and E. coli.

8:45am Sunday 24th September 2006

Print Send Add CommentPosted by: Emily on 5:20am Sat 30 Sep 06
Trichomoniasis is not caused by a virus. It is caused by a small
eukaryotic organism called a protozoa. The trichomonad protozoa is
easily transmitted by water, hence the concern for hygiene for
waterers and bird baths and are most commonly problematic in
columbiform species (pigeons and doves), although they can certainly
cause problems in other wild birds as seems to be occuring right now.
There are viruses in the pox family that can cause similar -appearing
sores in the mouth and throat of birds, but if experts believe that
this outbreak is trichomoniasis, then it is not technically viral in
origin. Emily Wheeler DVM/PhD student in avian biology/wildlife
medicine University of Illinois, Urbana IL, USA
Trichomoniasis is not caused by a virus. It is caused by a small
eukaryotic organism called a protozoa. The trichomonad protozoa is
easily transmitted by water, hence the concern for hygiene for
waterers and bird baths and are most commonly problematic in
columbiform species (pigeons and doves), although they can certainly
cause problems in other wild birds as seems to be occuring right now.
There are viruses in the pox family that can cause similar -appearing
sores in the mouth and throat of birds, but if experts believe that
this outbreak is trichomoniasis, then it is not technically viral in
origin.

Emily Wheeler
DVM/PhD student in avian biology/wildlife medicine
University of Illinois, Urbana IL, USA


Garden Bird Health initiative - TrichomoniasisAgent:Trichomonas
gallinae is a single cell parasite that can cause a disease known
astrichomoniasis in British birds.Species affected:Trichomoniasis
typically affects pigeons and doves in the UK. It can also affect
birds of preythat feed on pigeons and doves that are sick with the
condition. The common name for thedisease in pigeons and doves is
“canker” and in birds of prey the disease is known as“frounce”.Since
summer 2005, disease caused by a Trichomonas parasite has also been
seen in finchspecies. As far as we are aware, this is the first time
that this has occurred*. Whilstgreenfinches and chaffinches are the
species that have been most frequently affected, otherfinch species
and house sparrows are susceptible to the disease.An increase in the
number of reported disease outbreaks in finches thought to be caused
bytrichomonas has occurred during and following the recent spell of
hot weather in July 2006.Pathology:Trichomonas typically causes local
sites of infection to develop at the back of the throat
andgullet.Clinical signs:In addition to showing signs of general
illness, for example lethargy and fluffed-up plumage,affected birds
may drool saliva, regurgitate food, have difficulty in swallowing or
show labouredbreathing. Finches are frequently seen to have matted wet
plumage around the face andbeak. In some cases, swelling of the neck
may be visible from a distance. The disease mayprogress over several
days or even weeks, consequently affected birds are often
emaciated.Disease spread:Trichomonas is vulnerable to desiccation and
cannot survive for long periods outside the host.Transmission of
infection between birds is most likely to be by birds feeding one
another withregurgitated food during the breeding season; through food
or drinking water contaminatedwith recently regurgitated saliva, or
possibly, from droppings of an infected bird.Risk to human and
domestic animal health:Trichomonas gallinae is a parasite of birds and
does not pose a health threat to humans ormammals such as dogs and
cats. The parasite has the potential to affect captive poultry andpet
birds.However, garden birds in the UK may carry other diseases that
can affect humans and pets,for example Salmonella, Campylobacter and
E.coli bacteria. The GBHi recommends followingsensible hygiene
precautions as a routine measure when feeding garden birds and
handlingbird feeders and tables. Following these rules will help avoid
the risk of any infectiontransmitting to people and help safeguard the
birds in your garden against disease (SeeBelow).•Clean and disinfect
feeders/ feeding sites regularly. Suitable disinfectants that can
beused include a weak solution of domestic bleach (5% sodium
hypochlorite) and other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2specially-designed commercial products (See Further information).
Always rinsethoroughly and air-dry feeders before re-use.•Brushes and
cleaning equipment for bird feeders, tables and baths should not be
usedfor other purposes and should not be brought into the house, but
be kept and usedoutside and away from food preparation areas.•Wear
rubber gloves when cleaning feeders and thoroughly wash hands and
forearmsafterwards with soap and water, especially before eating or
drinking. Avoid handlingsick or dead birds directly.Diagnosis:
Diagnosis of trichomoniasis in wild birds relies on post mortem
examination. Thesigns of the disease at post mortem are fairly
characteristic, and a variety of tests can be usedto confirm presence
of the parasite.If you wish to report finding dead garden birds, or
signs of disease in garden birds, pleasecall the Garden Bird Health
initiative on 0207 449 6685.Control:Whilst medicines are available for
treatment of trichomoniasis in captive birds, effective andtargeted
dosing of free-living birds under field conditions is not
possible.Where a problem with trichomoniasis exists, general measures
for control of disease in wildbird populations should be taken:•Ensure
optimal hygiene at garden bird feeding stations, including
disinfection (SeeFurther information)•Consider leaving bird baths with
standing water empty for a short period. Otherwise, beparticularly
vigilant to provide clean drinking water on a daily basis.•Feeding
stations encourage birds to congregate, sometimes in large densities,
therebyincreasing the potential for disease to spread between
individuals when outbreaksoccur. Where large numbers of birds are sick
or dying, consider significantly reducingor stopping feeding for a
short period (around 2 weeks). The reason for this is toencourage
birds to disperse, thereby minimising the chances of new birds
becomingaffected at the feeding station. Gradually reintroduce
feeding, monitoring for furthersigns of ill
health.Prevention:Following best practice for feeding garden birds is
recommended to help control and preventtransmission of disease at
feeding stations all year round.•Routine good table hygiene (See
Further information).•Provision of clean and fresh drinking water on a
daily basis.•Provision of fresh food from accredited sources.•Rotate
positions of feeders in the garden to avoid build up of contamination
in any onearea and pay particular attention to clearing food remains
that fall beneath onto theground.Further information:Best feeding
practices should be followed at all times to help ensure that the
birds visiting yourgarden remain healthy. More information can be
found in the GBHi booklet “Feeding GardenBirds – Best Practice
Guidelines” and in the accompanying GBHi leaflet. Details of how
toobtain these publications are available on the GBHi page of the UFAW
websitewww.ufaw.org.uk. Tel: 01582 831818* Pennycott, T.W., Lawson,
B., Cunningham, A.A., Simpson, V., Chantrey, J. (2005) Necrotic
ingluvitis in wildfinches Veterinary Record 157, 360* Holmes, P.,
Duff, P. (2005) Ingluvitis and oesophagitis in wild finches Veterinary
Record 157, 455
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top
Login to vote
Geoff

External


Since: Sep 17, 2006
Posts: 32



(Msg. 101) Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:40 am
Post subject: Re: Help stamp out deadly virus by cleaning bird baths and tables [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Garden Bird Health initiative - Trichomoniasis
Agent:
Trichomonas gallinae is a single cell parasite that can cause a
disease known as
trichomoniasis in British birds.
Species affected:
Trichomoniasis typically affects pigeons and doves in the UK. It can
also affect birds of prey
that feed on pigeons and doves that are sick with the condition. The
common name for the
disease in pigeons and doves is “canker” and in birds of prey the
disease is known as
“frounce”.

Since summer 2005, disease caused by a Trichomonas parasite has also
been seen in finch
species. As far as we are aware, this is the first time that this has
occurred*. Whilst
greenfinches and chaffinches are the species that have been most
frequently affected, other
finch species and house sparrows are susceptible to the disease.
An increase in the number of reported disease outbreaks in finches
thought to be caused by
trichomonas has occurred during and following the recent spell of hot
weather in July 2006.

Pathology:
Trichomonas typically causes disease at the back of the throat and in
the gullet.

Clinical signs:
In addition to showing signs of general illness, for example lethargy
and fluffed-up plumage,
affected birds may drool saliva, regurgitate food, have difficulty in
swallowing or show laboured
breathing. Finches are frequently seen to have matted wet plumage
around the face and
beak. In some cases, swelling of the neck may be visible from a
distance. The disease may
progress over several days or even weeks, consequently affected birds
are often emaciated.

Disease spread:
Trichomonas is vulnerable to desiccation and cannot survive for long
periods outside the host.
Transmission of infection between birds is most likely to be by birds
feeding one another with
regurgitated food during the breeding season; through food or drinking
water contaminated
with recently regurgitated saliva, or possibly, from droppings of an
infected bird.

Risk to human and domestic animal health:
Trichomonas gallinae is a parasite of birds and does not pose a health
threat to humans or
mammals such as dogs and cats. The parasite has the potential to
affect captive poultry and
pet birds.
However, garden birds in the UK may carry other diseases that can
affect humans and pets,
for example Salmonella, Campylobacter and E.coli bacteria. The GBHi
recommends following
sensible hygiene precautions as a routine measure when feeding garden
birds and handling
bird feeders and tables. Following these rules will help avoid the
risk of any infection
transmitting to people and help safeguard the birds in your garden
against disease (See
Below).

• Clean and disinfect feeders/ feeding sites regularly. Suitable
disinfectants that can be
used include a weak solution of domestic bleach (5% sodium
hypochlorite) and other
specially-designed commercial products (See Further information).
Always rinse
thoroughly and air-dry feeders before re-use.
2

• Brushes and cleaning equipment for bird feeders, tables and baths
should not be used
for other purposes and should not be brought into the house, but be
kept and used
outside and away from food preparation areas.

• Wear rubber gloves when cleaning feeders and thoroughly wash hands
and forearms
afterwards with soap and water, especially before eating or drinking.
Avoid handling
sick or dead birds directly.
Diagnosis: Diagnosis of trichomoniasis in wild birds relies on post
mortem examination. The
signs of the disease at post mortem are fairly characteristic, and a
variety of tests can be used
to confirm presence of the parasite.
If you wish to report finding dead garden birds, or signs of disease
in garden birds, please
call the Garden Bird Health initiative on 0207 449 6685.
Control:
Whilst medicines are available for treatment of trichomoniasis in
captive birds, effective and
targeted dosing of free-living birds under field conditions is not
possible.
Where a problem with trichomoniasis exists, general measures for
control of disease in wild
bird populations should be taken:

• Ensure optimal hygiene at garden bird feeding stations, including
disinfection (See
Further information)

• Consider leaving bird baths empty until no deaths occur. Otherwise,
be particularly
vigilant to provide clean drinking water on a daily basis. Empty and
dry the bird bath on
a daily basis (drying kills the trichomonas organism).

• Feeding stations encourage birds to congregate, sometimes in large
densities, thereby
increasing the potential for disease to spread between individuals
when outbreaks
occur. Where large numbers of birds are sick or dying, consider
significantly reducing
or stopping feeding for a short period (around 2 weeks). The reason
for this is to
encourage birds to disperse, thereby minimising the chances of new
birds becoming
affected at the feeding station. Gradually reintroduce feeding, whilst
continuing to
monitor for further signs of ill health (See Further information).
Prevention:
Following best practice for feeding garden birds is recommended to
help control and prevent
transmission of disease at feeding stations all year round. (See
Further information)

• Routine good table hygiene.
• Provision of clean and fresh drinking water on a daily basis.
• Provision of fresh food from accredited sources.
• Rotate positions of feeders in the garden to avoid build up of
contamination in any one
area and pay particular attention to clearing food remains that fall
beneath onto the
ground.
Further information:
Best feeding practices should be followed at all times to help ensure
that the birds visiting your
garden remain healthy. More information can be found in the GBHi
booklet “Feeding Garden
Birds – Best Practice Guidelines” and in the accompanying GBHi
leaflet. Details of how to
obtain these publications are available on the GBHi page of the UFAW
website
www.ufaw.org.uk. Tel: 01582 831818
* Pennycott, T.W., Lawson, B., Cunningham, A.A., Simpson, V.,
Chantrey, J. (2005) Necrotic ingluvitis in wild
finches Veterinary Record 157, 360
* Holmes, P., Duff, P. (2005) Ingluvitis and oesophagitis in wild
finches Veterinary Record 157, 455
 >> Stay informed about: Culliing Grey Squirrels 
Back to top