Some famous sayings of Amacmil304
Taken from Internet newsgroup messages

The basic pitch

I agree with genuine biodiversity but not at the expense of killing some species of wildlife to promote others. [9 Nov 2002]

These organisations don't mind inviting humans, the greatest threat of all to conservation to their "reserves", because they make money out of them from memberships etc. Theme-park conservation springs to mind! [6 May 2001]

fake conservationists try to give the impression that they're saving the planet whilst at the same time they're encouraging people to destroy it.
That's CONservation. [7 Nov 2002]

On killing animals

If we're killing animals to benefit biodiversity then the human animal should be the first in line. If not, we shouldn't kill any animals for that reason at all. [10 Mar 2001]

On record as not opposing farming but against the killing of wildlife by organisations such as Woodland Trust, RSPB and Wildlife Trusts. [21 May 2002]

I'm not a vegetarian myself although I don't eat red meat [1 Jan 2003]

domestic animals are not wildlife and I don't "put them to sleep". I have the vet kill them if they are in pain. [6 Oct 2002]

On game animals

Campaign for the stopping of hunting all wildlife which is responsible for the high deer numbers and allow populations to adjust naturally over time. [27 Aug 2003]

On transport and the environment

The car is the least acceptable way to travel [21 Feb 2001]

I sold the Range Rover that Malcolm went on about........................ but I'd be as devious as he if I didn't admit I've bought another one. [5 Nov 2002]

in a lot of cases I use a van which is much more economical than my car. But I am in business. I am not soliciting money for conservation. [8 Nov 2002]

On tourism and the environment

Against "hot spot" tourism which ruins the environment [21 May 2002]

(In answer to a message about the Pyrenees) I know this area very well having stayed at Sommieres many times over the past thirty years [13 May 2001]

...and damage to the environment in general

Businesses cannot always work in a manner which is positive in environmental terms. They can do their bit to reduce environmental damage as much as possible. [18 Oct 2002]

In answer to the question "have you, since you became committed to conservation with a small n, taken all reasonable measures to reduce the net annual degradation of Earth's resources via property which you own or control?":
No. Because I'm a businessman. I do not make money from making claims of conservation. [16 Oct 2002]

And on a related suggestion about certain apparently conservation-unfriendly uses of his leisure time:
I am not a conservation campaigner. I campaign against those who dishonestly claim conservation values and kill wildlife to achieve their ideals. [3 Sep 2003]

Which is odd, given the following contributions by Mr Macmillan to the UK Government's Sustainable Development discussion forum [web-based; page addresses given]:
If we ruin the world they're will be no biodiversity to consider. What we need to do it to cut back on consumption even to stand still.
[24 Jan 2002, http://sdu.bgsportal.com/discussion/message.asp?m=128 ]

Sustainability and development are contradictory. We should be considering how we cut back with the least possible pain; but there has to be pain and we all have to share it.
[18 Jan 2002, http://sdu.bgsportal.com/discussion/message.asp?m=120 ]

A PS from the newsgroups:
I believe in honesty as much as conservation [17 Oct 2002]

Miscellaneous insights

Extracts from a discussion on attempts to protect geese on the island of Islay [Oct 2002]:
  Contributor: Without the RSPB's involvement in the whole thing, far more would be shot.
Amacmil304: But they're not doing anything to protect the ones that are shot.
  Contributor: They tried though didn't they?
Amacmil304: Trying and giving up isn't good enough.
  Contributor: They have not given up.
Amacmil304: Of course thay have. Geese are being killed and they are doing nothing about it.
  Contributor: You *KNOW* that there are many things the RSPB are doing. They may not result in a total ban on the shooting of geese but to say they are doing nothing is a lie and undermines the other things you say greatly.
Amacmil304: They are not doing anything to stop the geese that are being shot from being shot.

On the purpose of Sites of Special Scientific Interest:
To keep sad little scientific types in a job or they'd otherwise be unemployed. [20 Oct 2002]

On conservation land management:
Cutting rhodys and building dykes has nothing to do with conserving the planet's resources. That's CONservation to pretty up the countryside for the tourist industry. [7 Nov 2002]

On charities in general:
Well done Barclay Bros who own Littlewoods, the Ritz and the Scotsman for ending charity donations.
Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend that will sweep across the business world. For too long tax paying businesses have been supporting the fat cat leaches of charities that in many cases are administering little more than tax avoidence schemes. [21 Feb 2003]
but when it was later suggested that this might include Housing Associations...
This is completely untrue and an act of defamation that could affect the outcome of a proposed development that I am currently involved with. This could involve a substantial financial loss to others as well as to myself. [10 Aug 2003]
and when his demand for a retraction led to an email correspondence [not with me!]...
Have you any objection to me publishing our recent email correspondence to let those on this ng see what a squirm worm you really are? [22 Aug 2003]

On the continuing opposition to his views:
I can't help thinking there must be a grant or expenses account behind it somewhere. Would CONservationists work for nothing this long? [8 Nov 2002]

Then again, Amacmil304 is a sweetie compared to his internet "supporters".