In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:32:10 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:14:56 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:58:35 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>,
>>>>>>John M.  writes
>>>>>>>On Nov 1, 8:11 am, Malcolm  wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> John M.  writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >On Nov 1, 7:04 am, Malcolm  wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> In article ,
>>>>>>>> >> amacmil...@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:23:07 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>In article ,
>>>>>>>> >> >>amacmil...@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>> >> >>>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:51:20 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:09:53 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>Got that?  Good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>Got that? Good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>You very obviously haven't. You asked why farmers got paid
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>you that it is because geese can do agricultural damage. But
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>geese also
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>graze grass and do no agricultural damage and in those
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>circumstances the
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>farmers don't get paid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>>What's so difficult to understand?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>It's very easily understood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>Geese damage all grass
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>No, that's nonsense. Read what you've written and you will 
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>that might) realise why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >It's not nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> Have you actually read it again?  Have you made any effort 
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> why I called it nonsense? Presumably not. So I'll spell it you
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> Please provide evidence for your use of the word "all".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>> but only when it impacts of a farmers income is
>>>>>>>> >> >>>it considered agricultural damage.   You're wrongly confusing the
>>>>>>>> >> >>>economic element with what geese do to grass.  They don't
>>>>>>>> >> >>>know whether
>>>>>>>> >> >>>they're on agricultural land or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>No, I'm not confusing the economic element, because that is
>>>>>>>> >> >>what we have
>>>>>>>> >> >>been discussing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >I've been discussing ALL grass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> The discussion has always been about economic damage caused 
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>You have assumed that whenever geese are on
>>>>>>>> >> >>agricultural grass, i.e. that is farmed in some way, they
>>>>>>>> >> >>are damaging
>>>>>>>> >> >>it. This is not the case. There can be extensive grazing on
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>and the farmer suffers no economic loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >Grass trampled underfoot is always damaged.  Just look at shortcuts
>>>>>>>> >> >across grass in parks and rabbit runs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> Neither of which have anything to do with geese or their effects on
>>>>>>>> >> agricultural grassland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>>Nothing complicated about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >>You appear not to realise that grazing by animals/birds or 
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>matter mowing by man does not necessarily damage the grass. It can
>>>>>>>> >> >>indeed, in some circumstances, improve it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >See above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> Nothing "above" contradicts what I've just said which is 
>>>>>>>> >>tthat grazing
>>>>>>>> >> by animals/birds or for that matter mowing by man does not 
>>>>>>>> >>necessarily
>>>>>>>> >> damage the grass. It can indeed in some circumstances improve it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Wasn't there a discovery some years back that light goose grazing on
>>>>>>>> >winter sown cereals (wheat, I think) caused tillering? in root-stocks
>>>>>>>> >which ultimately increased the yield?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, farmers regularly turn their sheep out onto newly sprouting winter
>>>>>>>> wheat in order to obtain this tillering effect. which to explain it to
>>>>>>>> Angus, means grazing off the single stem which arises from the seed so
>>>>>>>> that it will be replaced by several stems. The same effect can 
>>>>>>>>be caused
>>>>>>>> on grass. Farmers without either sheep or geese run a heavy roller over
>>>>>>>> the crop to achieve the same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps you should also explain to Angus that while farmers have
>>>>>>>absolute control over the degree of sheep grazing, getting control
>>>>>>>over grazing by wild geese is another matter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Would you like to give me some advice on how one explains anything to
>>>>>>Angus?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Try truthfully.
>>>>>
>>>>>And could no-one from the South Atlantic advised on line fishing's
>>>>>impact on albatrosses rather than you having to travel there?
>>>>>
>>>>Try behaving differently if you want answers to your questions, i.e. do
>>>>not jump to wild conclusions based on ignorance and prejudice BEFORE
>>>>asking your question and try not using childish insults and name calling
>>>>BEFORE asking your question. You might then get an answer. Because you
>>>>chose to do those things BEFORE asking your question why on earth do you
>>>>think you deserve an answer?
>>>
>>>It's not whether I deserve an answer. its the question that deserves
>>>an answer.
>>>
>>>
>>As YOU are the questioner and it was YOU who preceded your question by
>>jumping to wild conclusions based on ignorance and prejudice BEFORE
>>asking your question and used childish insults and name calling BEFORE
>>asking your question, why on earth do you think YOUR question deserves
>>an answer?
>
>
>Because you claim to be a conservationist but swan off to the South
>Atlantic

A remark based on prejudice and ignorance. Your use of the words "swan 
off" show that. Why should I answer a question from someone who has 
already made up their mind what I was doing?

>to educate people down there when it's quite feasable for me
>to ask if there was no-one down there that could have done the same.
>
Yes, you are entitled to ask, but you only got round to asking AFTER you 
had jumped to wild conclusions based on ignorance and prejudice and 
AFTER you had used childish insults and name calling. It was then too 
late to ask your question because, by your behaviour, you had removed 
any possibility that I might feel inclined to give you an answer.

>Obviously you can't answer that question with showing yourself up as a
>fake conservationist.

The only "fake" conservationists are in your head.

When you've complained that your questions to conservation organisations 
don't get answers, I've pointed out that this is because of the way you 
ask them. The same thing applies here. You didn't ask me a question 
until you had made claims based on ignorance and prejudice and indulged 
in childish name calling and insults. Result: no answer to your 
question.

-- 
Malcolm