I don't have a problem with grammar but occasionally my fingers don't find the keys I want - Arnie if you need to slow down or read you posts back before pressing submit, it will result in more respect for your posts - that must surely be a good thing?
Conservation is NOT about being nice to animals. Its about maintaining and restoring habitats and ecosystems to as near pristine as possible and the overarching rule in every case has to be protecting native species. That inevitably sometimes has to mean killing non-native species. This is not a judgement on individual animals, it is about preserving biodiversity. If unrestrained Mink were allowed to finish off British Water Voles, we would not only lose a charismatic native species, but an animal that helps maintain rivers and streams through its curbing of bankside vegetation. We have seen before how stopping something can have quite unexpected effects (e.g. loss of Large Blue butterflies due to ending of fiercely close cropping of the sward). There is so much we don't know about how inappropriate animals and plants can have knock-on effects on ecosystems.
Culling is expensive and requires persistence - it is no good doing a ninety percent job and then stopping, the population being culled will just march on doing its th again. Accordingly, conservation culling is a decision taken with reluctance after due consideration of lots of scientific evidence. This contrasts with economic culling which is done to preserve profits and authorised to keep votes (I'm talking Badgers now, right?)
I have spent happy hours watching Mink on my local waterways but I recognise that they must be annihilated for the benefit of the real UK wildlife. You need to start taking a less naive view and considering thedeep implications of the things said to you instead of shooting from the hip all the time.
John