Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: dogs for deer, or should that be dinner?

  1. #1

    dogs for deer, or should that be dinner?

    Keeping a medium-sized dog has the same ecological impact as driving a 4.6 litre Land Cruiser 10,000km a year.

    I wonder if they have considered a scrappage scheme? 2k of my next Landy in exchange for a ten year old springer?

  2. #2
    I suspect that this mythical "ecological impact" was based upon the release of carbon dioxide which some loony in the green movement has attributed to a dog.

    The green nutters and true believers in the myth of man made warming are attempting to lead the public to believe that carbon dioxide is a poison or pollutant. In truth inceased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a positive ecological effect as it inceases production by plants. In some forms of intensive farming, for example, the atmosphere in the greenhouses has a greatly increased proportion of carbon dioxide as this produces more crop, faster. Science states quite clearly that current levels of man made carbon dioxide have no impact upon our climate.

    I know that their condemnation of keeping dogs and their suggestion that you could save the planet by eating your dog is a bit of a laugh but we need to be very careful that we don't allow the green nutters unscientific pseudo-religious beliefs to encroach upon our lives or our use of language. The true believers may be small in number but they are loud of mouth and if we want to keep our modern, science based, lives and our shooting, fishing and freedom to think and act as we please (within reason) then it is important that we defeat them. So, keep both your dog and your 4X4, don't worry about carbon dioxide as it is a useful plant food and tell the green nutters to bog off out of your life.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    I took one look at the linked page, & was in shutdown mode straight off!

  5. #5
    I agree it is truly worrying that organisations such as the Royal Society have a range of pages with people expressing their opinions in support of the man made warming fantasy.

    The big issue is not the driving of government policy, because it is government that is driving the position of the RS rather than the other way around, but how this paints science. There has been no warming, in fact there has been a cooling trend, since 1998, despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and it is becoming clear to all that the man made warming story was a lie. In turn this undermines faith in science as people are sold the political line that "there is concensus among scientists" and "all scientists say..." when that is clearly not the case. There is no question that there are a range of scientists, mostly those working with computer models of climate, who maintain that man made CO2 is linked to climate but these people are small in number and Prof. Pelkie and, independently Prof. Pilmer puts their numbers in the 20 - 35 region worldwide. Their models have consistently failed to predict climate and gave no indication of a downward trend starting in 1998 they also failed to account for the manner in which the warming did take place. The public are not told this by their politicians and the media.

    With world population increasing and even countries such as the UK approaching an energy crisis we need to start listening to science and having faith in it. There is no way the public can have faith in science when they are told all scientists say it will get warmer, and then it gets colder. If the general population turns their backs on science then we may not get the new power stations we need and we may not get the advances in agriculture that allows us to grow the crops to feed the population of the earth. We must remember that the "green revolution" started out with the campaign to ban DDT, and they claimed scientific backing for that when there was none. As a direct result of this approx 2 - 3 million poor people die each year across the world of malaria. Before DDT was banned some countries had almost eliminated this disease and the science was clear that there was very little risk from DDT use and it was certainly not responsible for the many things the green movement claimed. I've seen estimates that DDT would have killed several hundred people since it was banned, without it the green movement are killing several million each year.

    The green movement, by and large, want to see us all living in mud huts and eating grass and it suits them that several million unknown (to the press in the developed west) black people die each year of malaria, after all they think there are too many humans on earth. It is important that each and every one of us rejects their unscientific propaganda and that we give poor people the tools they need to advance. It is also vital that we in the developed west use the science available to us to progress so we can power our future and so we can help feed those less able to produce their own food. This will depend upon science and it will depend upon the people having faith in science and this is what the green movement and the man made warming lie can potentially undermine.

Similar Threads

  1. dogs for deer!!
    By duggers in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-03-2013, 22:47
  2. books on deer dogs
    By bogwelly in forum Deer Dogs & Tracking
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 21-03-2013, 22:46
  3. dogs for deer
    By biglad in forum Deer Dogs & Tracking
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 22:22
  4. Deer dogs
    By trackergirl in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 21:39
  5. how do you transport dogs/deer ?
    By cervushunter in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16-08-2009, 19:50

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts