Badger cull - right or wrong?
Discussion
Not seen this mentioned on here before, but if it has sorry for missing it.
Half watching Countryfile Sunday night whilst cooking I noticed that the they are now to be two licenced shoots of badgers.
Countryfile showed one person that didn't want to be identified, proving he can hit a static target.
Apparently that proved he could kill a live, moving animal in one shot.
Then today I read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1962...
I've read and heard a lot about this subject and to be honest my feeling is that there has been a lot of pressure from the NFU.
I understand there is a vaccine that can be given to cows but it's not licences in the UK, it is in the rest of the EU.
Is it the cost of the vaccine?
Humans killing a wild animal because it effect the another animal is just wrong end of.
One animal effecting another in anyway is in my mind called nature.
Half watching Countryfile Sunday night whilst cooking I noticed that the they are now to be two licenced shoots of badgers.
Countryfile showed one person that didn't want to be identified, proving he can hit a static target.
Apparently that proved he could kill a live, moving animal in one shot.
Then today I read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1962...
I've read and heard a lot about this subject and to be honest my feeling is that there has been a lot of pressure from the NFU.
I understand there is a vaccine that can be given to cows but it's not licences in the UK, it is in the rest of the EU.
Is it the cost of the vaccine?
Humans killing a wild animal because it effect the another animal is just wrong end of.
One animal effecting another in anyway is in my mind called nature.
TBH I'm on the fence over the issue, and I didn't see Countryfile, but a couple of points:
skeggysteve said:
Half watching Countryfile Sunday night whilst cooking I noticed that the they are now to be two licenced shoots of badgers.
Countryfile showed one person that didn't want to be identified, proving he can hit a static target.
Apparently that proved he could kill a live, moving animal in one shot.
(I would hope) that any half-competent hunter, let alone one licenced to cull badgers, would only take a shot when the animal is still (maybe they will even lamp them?). Countryfile showed one person that didn't want to be identified, proving he can hit a static target.
Apparently that proved he could kill a live, moving animal in one shot.
skeggysteve said:
Humans killing a wild animal because it effect the another animal is just wrong end of.
One animal effecting another in anyway is in my mind called nature.
There are plenty of cases where human intervention is required to preserve populations, and in some cases species. Deer in the Highlands because we killed all the wolves, grey squirrels that encroach on the last remaining enclaves of reds and so on. One animal effecting another in anyway is in my mind called nature.
boy said: If you'd seen the welsh guy on country file a few months back having to have his whole herd of prize long horns slaughtered due to TB you'd maybe have a different opinion.
Surely there must be another way, fencing or vaccination for instance. I'm against killing the indigenous wildlife for the benefit of a private company.Only a few weeks ago we had pheasant shoots trying to get birds of prey shot.
Just seems wrong to me.
It's a problem that destroys lives and not only the cow or badger. It is a hard one to solve as you kill badgers and others simply move in which may carry TB.
We are now on a four year TB testing cycle and I hope it stays that way but I know it will not. Scotland was TB free but it's just had its first confirmed case in years. If I lose my cattle to TB I'm not going to be best pleased as its not just a matter of buying new cows it's the loss
of a pedigree line.
We have more badgers than ever before and even more deer. A cull is required as we are the modern wolf keeping the
Status quo.
No easy answer until we get a true vaccine.
We are now on a four year TB testing cycle and I hope it stays that way but I know it will not. Scotland was TB free but it's just had its first confirmed case in years. If I lose my cattle to TB I'm not going to be best pleased as its not just a matter of buying new cows it's the loss
of a pedigree line.
We have more badgers than ever before and even more deer. A cull is required as we are the modern wolf keeping the
Status quo.
No easy answer until we get a true vaccine.
C3BER said:
We have more badgers than ever before and even more deer.
Interesting point there. Deer numbers have increased greatly in the last twenty years. A quick Google suggests that TB-infected deer might play a part in spreading the disease to cattle in some areas. But most of the research seems to have focused on badgers. Presumably there is a scientific reason for that?A large scale Bambi cull should really get Brian May foaming at the mouth, but it does have some advantages. Deer, unlike badgers, are edible. Mmmmm.....
Roast badger yummy.
We are loosing the battle to cull dear and it's not helping with cross breeding of imported breeds. The rat deer that's running around Oxford has a shoot on sight policy against it to try and wipe it out.
If we have problems with deer then it's so hard to sort out badgers. The last cull took 10 years so this one is going to keep defra going for many years to come
We are loosing the battle to cull dear and it's not helping with cross breeding of imported breeds. The rat deer that's running around Oxford has a shoot on sight policy against it to try and wipe it out.
If we have problems with deer then it's so hard to sort out badgers. The last cull took 10 years so this one is going to keep defra going for many years to come
Edited by C3BER on Tuesday 18th September 09:00
C3BER said:
Roast badger yummy.
We are loosing the battle to cull dear and it's not helping with cross breeding of imported breeds. The rat deer that's running around Oxford has a shoot on sight policy against it to try and wipe it out.
If we have problems with deer then it's so hard to sort out badgers. The last cull took 10 years so this one is going to keep defra going for many years to come
Badger is edible? Cool. Can I get that in Waitrose?We are loosing the battle to cull dear and it's not helping with cross breeding of imported breeds. The rat deer that's running around Oxford has a shoot on sight policy against it to try and wipe it out.
If we have problems with deer then it's so hard to sort out badgers. The last cull took 10 years so this one is going to keep defra going for many years to come
Edited by C3BER on Tuesday 18th September 09:00
'Rat deer'... muntjac, or something else I haven't come across yet?
muntjac :- yes the giant rat.
I do love the approach of animal lovers dot com. It's sometimes as if we who spend time, love and care hate our animals according to them. Mr B May get off your bandwagon, cut your badger hair and come up with some ideas that work so we can sort this problem out.
At the moment there is no answer but we cannot sit back and do nothing unless you want to eat lettuce all your life. And the the rabbit population would explode and we cannot shoot those because we humans cannot kill wild animals. I'm wild that the bloody Romans brought it here in the first place. So it goes on and on with man versus our wildlife. We no longer have a wild native apex hunter to keep things in check it's now our job.
I do love the approach of animal lovers dot com. It's sometimes as if we who spend time, love and care hate our animals according to them. Mr B May get off your bandwagon, cut your badger hair and come up with some ideas that work so we can sort this problem out.
At the moment there is no answer but we cannot sit back and do nothing unless you want to eat lettuce all your life. And the the rabbit population would explode and we cannot shoot those because we humans cannot kill wild animals. I'm wild that the bloody Romans brought it here in the first place. So it goes on and on with man versus our wildlife. We no longer have a wild native apex hunter to keep things in check it's now our job.
skeggysteve said:
Humans killing a wild animal because it effect the another animal is just wrong end of.
One animal effecting another in anyway is in my mind called nature.
So what about if that "animal" is a flee, or an inspect that spreads disease among humans? Maybe a rat or a mouse infestation?One animal effecting another in anyway is in my mind called nature.
Wrong.
If it was guaranteed useful then it would be an option to be considered, but the eco system is rather complicated and not it's not as simple as saying cull all the badgers and there will be no more bovine TB and no downstream issues.
We definitely shouldn't cull based on a 'might' and bugger the cosequences.
If it was guaranteed useful then it would be an option to be considered, but the eco system is rather complicated and not it's not as simple as saying cull all the badgers and there will be no more bovine TB and no downstream issues.
We definitely shouldn't cull based on a 'might' and bugger the cosequences.
madbadger said:
Wrong.
If it was guaranteed useful then it would be an option to be considered, but the eco system is rather complicated and not it's not as simple as saying cull all the badgers and there will be no more bovine TB and no downstream issues.
We definitely shouldn't cull based on a 'might' and bugger the cosequences.
Stay out of this one you have an axe to grind If it was guaranteed useful then it would be an option to be considered, but the eco system is rather complicated and not it's not as simple as saying cull all the badgers and there will be no more bovine TB and no downstream issues.
We definitely shouldn't cull based on a 'might' and bugger the cosequences.
So do I I guess .... Here badger, badger.
Don't forget there was a UK 10 year trial so we do have data to work on and it's not just kill and be damned. There is also a trial on vaccines going on which is not highlighted. This will take years to sort out but it will eventually and Mr Badger will be happy to run amongst the cows.
C3BER said:
Don't forget there was a UK 10 year trial so we do have data to work on ...
Is that the one mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_TB#United_King... which says "while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain"?I really am pretty neutral on the issue but the cull seems to me more "we have to do something" rather than evidence-based.
"a nine-year trial which showed that the spread of the disease could be slowed slightly if more than 70% of badgers in an area could be eradicated"
Quote from the article that to me sums up just how pointless the whole culling excercise is. Might slow the spread slightly and only if they get anywhere near killing 70% anyway, which will be almost impossible for anyone to figure out.
It just isn't logistically feasible. There will be huge areas in both target areas where particular land-owners etc won't want the badgers on their land killed, and so those animals will simply move into the now empty setts (where the previous inhabitants have been blitzed) and potentially spread the disease further.
It's also going to cost farmers a vast amount of money that they don't have and if they reach an unsatisfactory conclusion, whilst angering a large percentage of the population, then they'll be worse off than they were before it started.
I feel for farmers but really don't think this is the way to go and would rather see Defra backing vaccination trials fully.
So I signed the petition (even though they didn't bother to proof-read it properly before posting it
)
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petit...
Quote from the article that to me sums up just how pointless the whole culling excercise is. Might slow the spread slightly and only if they get anywhere near killing 70% anyway, which will be almost impossible for anyone to figure out.
It just isn't logistically feasible. There will be huge areas in both target areas where particular land-owners etc won't want the badgers on their land killed, and so those animals will simply move into the now empty setts (where the previous inhabitants have been blitzed) and potentially spread the disease further.
It's also going to cost farmers a vast amount of money that they don't have and if they reach an unsatisfactory conclusion, whilst angering a large percentage of the population, then they'll be worse off than they were before it started.
I feel for farmers but really don't think this is the way to go and would rather see Defra backing vaccination trials fully.
So I signed the petition (even though they didn't bother to proof-read it properly before posting it
)https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petit...
Nimby said:
Is that the one mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_TB#United_King... which says "while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain"?
I really am pretty neutral on the issue but the cull seems to me more "we have to do something" rather than evidence-based.
As I understand it this is a limited trial in a couple of areas, intended specifically to gather more evidence. Badgers are not exactly endangered, and there are plenty of them in areas where there are no cattle, which are not under any threat at all. If the trial doesn't work, that will be an end to it and the badgerists can go and find something else to campaign against. And they undoubtedly will.I really am pretty neutral on the issue but the cull seems to me more "we have to do something" rather than evidence-based.
If society wants to go down the route that killing animals for human benefit is morally wrong, then we have a lot of changes to make. If not, then why is it OK to kill and incinerate TB-infected cattle, but not badgers?
230TE said:
If society wants to go down the route that killing animals for human benefit is morally wrong, then we have a lot of changes to make. If not, then why is it OK to kill and incinerate TB-infected cattle, but not badgers?
Because badgers are native to the country and were here before we were and cattle were raised and bred purely by people to be eaten (and so obviously to be killed). If they get killed by us a year or two earlier they're still killed humanely and for good/clear reasons that [d]definitely[/b] do impact on the spread of TB.Shooting a load of badgers in the woods may drop the TB rate by a percent or two, possibly, or it might not do anything and is simply wiping out large numbers of native animals, at vast expense, for no noticable gain.
Japveesix said:
Because badgers are native to the country and were here before we were.
So are rats. I'm not sure your point stands up, morally speaking. If we want to reorganise society so as not to inconvenience the animals that were here before us, it isn't badgers that we need to be culling. It's us.Your argument that the cull might not be effective is a stronger one, but isn't that the whole point of a trial - to see whether it works?
Japveesix said:
... cattle were raised and bred purely by people to be eaten (and so obviously to be killed)..
Based on what I've seen on "Countryfile", infected cattle *seem* to be perfectly healthy when tested - indeed the farmer is often surprised at a positive test. So is TB only a problem for dairy cattle?I got the impression beef cattle (breeding stock excepted) are normally slaughtered before TB can affect their health, and the meat is safe to eat anyway.
Forum | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff