Hello everyone,
i didn't have any purpose to post on that thread before reading Brock's theory and behaviour.
No person who is against developers, who tries to conserve animal/bird habitats, to educate people has the excuse of acting like that (throwing sticks and scaring a bird that kills for its survival). I wonder with what kind of logic?? a person decides that small birds and squirrels must live while the hawk must leave!
This is a egoistic, 100% anthropocentric, stupid, dangerous behaviour.
The fact that you are referring to more serious problems (habitat loss etc.) which are indeed the major world problem for wildlife, is just an excuse. It has nothing to do with the fact that you choose who is going to live in yours neighbouthood park and who is not (speaking about wildlife).
As for your experts that support the hawk trap and release in an other area, or the fact that they say it must attack to a human to do this, please tell them they should burn their degrees in their fireplace this winter..
It is so stupid to feed the hawk with a cooked chicken meat instead of allow it to hunt its self.
As for the Darwinism laws, you should know that human being is not following the nature's laws anymore. We don't belong and don't act like the rest of nature. But still that has nothing to do with behaviours and thoughts like Brock's.
I 've heard of people want to dissipate magpies, crows from their yards because they eat the fruits from the trees,
people who want to dissipate the crows and gulls from some parks in big towns because they make some problems,
farmers who want to kill the wolves and jackals because they kill their domestic animals (the latter very rarely does it) but it's a victim usually,
but all these people, although i disagree with them in many ways, they really have some reasons to hate/dislike these animals.
It's the first time i hear someone is trying to scare a hawk because it kills the birds and squirrels of the park, or the ONLY one woodpecker of the park!!!
It seems that some people have nothing else to do than just trying to find a reason to post a thread on BF, with their 'heroic' behaviour of saving the Only one Woodpecker, or writting about rolling ball in every thread.
Enough from me,
George
George
You summed up my gut feelings about Brock's 'theory of conservation' perfectly, although perhaps we should call it a theory of misguided compassion.
To talk about the pressures on wildlife and habitat in one second and then to become an additional pressure yourself by seeking to intervene is such a circular self-defeating argument that I am what we called gob-smacked.
Lee