Anti-farming Nazis and moonbats want to put WOLVES back in UK …. I thought we had enough in Westminster and Brussels.

David Davis 

Well, here you are. They really meant it. Wolves …… I ask you!

I found this quite by accident while arguing with a student. 

Of course, if no farming is to be allowed to be carried out, and the landscape shall then revert to its pre-capitalist barbarian form (er, this is the 21st century, or so we thought, and the planet is for Man, no? And NOT the other way around?) then I guess it does not matter. 

Perhaps rich Chindian tourists will be conducted on “safaris” round the Highlands, and we will eventually climb back up to the socio-economic level of Kenya.

It may be that wolves in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK are the free-market solution to the earning targets of the rural inhabitants of a non-farming country. But in the age of ambulance-chasing lawyers, I don’t think so.

Sorry. Wolves have no place, any more, in these islands. They are gone for a reason. Man is pleased to allow certain useful and/or friendly predator-animals to co-exist with him, such as the Domestic Cat, and certain breeds of dog, and not others, if he needs the run of certain places, like the Crofters do.

Don’t think you’d get many takers for wolves, although I did see two, a year ago, on leads, in Ormskirk marketplace. They were very striking animals, and I patted them, and they smiled, but Siberia is a big enough place.

I do not suggest that we should put all “conservationists”, without any exception, in front of firing-squads quite yet, but the time may be near.

About these ads

9 responses to “Anti-farming Nazis and moonbats want to put WOLVES back in UK …. I thought we had enough in Westminster and Brussels.

  1. If the earth is for man and not vice versa then perhaps it would be a good idea to look after it. In practice of course such a dichotomy doesn’t exist. We are here as part of a very complex ecosystem, a system every bit as complex as the climate, but about which we know even less.

  2. Ecosystems have no “stable” state – just like the Earth’s “climate”.

    Every species of living creature impacts on the “ecosystem”, whether it knows it or not – both in small un-measurable ways, and in large ways, which might be measurable.

    Insects for example are just robots which are not “alive” in the sense that they have selfhood and consciousness, whereas we have both.

    Because Man wants to do the things he does, the “ecosystem” will therefore change as an effect of that. Not by much though imho, or even perhaps at all, since the Earth is a seriously large object and changes caused by its occupants will take quite some time if ever they are noticed at all. But mathematicians would of course be able to measure it, with sensitive enough instruments.

    Since the best info we have is that Earth will be habitable by advanced life for a maximum of 100-500 million years, (see stuff about the Sun, if our models are right, and they are righter than the global warm-mongerist Gorers) then it behoves us to deploy all our resources to building a high-energy/high-tech/unpredated civilisation, which has the highest probability of exiting the planet in the shortest possible time.

    Wolves have no place in a place occupied by people who like to eat things llike sheep, deer, cows etc. Siberia is still large enough, and if Man has no God-given right to do what he wants, then neither does the Wolf.

  3. Dave:

    I’m not _trying_ to disagree with you, but (a) I like wolves; and (b) I want them in the countryside, where they used to be. Perhaps I’m a bit reactionary on this — I like “Tarka the Otter” . (Non-PC).

    We had a fox in our garden the other day — strange people with directional antennae follow them around here. How much more exciting a wolf would be (but I worry for the kitties).

    Of course insects are alive — they are conscious of their environment, and they have limited volition. Much to my surprise, Japanese researchers froze some in liquid nitrogen and brought them back to life after nine months.



  4. Your comment might be relevant if I had claimed that the ecosystem was stable. I didn’t. It is precisely because it isn’t that we need to be careful about what we do.

    If however you seriously believe that man has to date had no measurable impact on the world then we are never going to get anywhere near common ground and further comment is useless.

  5. I do indeed believe that, Ian. I cannot tell a lie.

    Unless you include the connivance of “states” in the obliteration of the rainforests on “their” territories?

    As a scientist, I would not agree to destroy these things.

  6. I see…

    So across North America, vast numbers of passenger pigeon block out the sun while the plains still shake beneath the hooves of millions of bison, while here in Europe, the land is still covered by primeval forest – and of course we don’t need to talk about reintroducing wolves because they were never exterminated.

    I try to be polite, but in this case, the rhetorical question ‘What planet are you on’ has never seemed more apposite.

  7. A Sane person

    I could try to debate with you david but that wont achieve anything, so instead i will just point out a very obvious fact, you sir have shit for brains.

  8. The planet was obviously not made for man and eco-systems were balanced for billions of years before man came up with that crazy idea

  9. There is a fairly useful and constructive comment from “A Sane Person” above. Puctuation and the correct use of the “shift” key leave a little bit to be desired, but the feeling’s there all the same.

    If you are sure that you are right, then you owe it to the planet and to your self-respect to debate with me. No?