The battle of the Badger

17 Oct 2012

Quote by Lilith
You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does

That is an interesting point. I'm not sure I entirely agree. I will ponder that and come back with a proper reply later.
Ok... now for a more reasoned response!
I think it is difficult to know entirely where the drivers really come from within any industry. The obvious thought may be that the consumer drives what the supplier does, and that is certainly true to a certain extent (i.e. what is the point of producing something that nobody wants?) But, consumers are also subjected to a huge amount of marketing and other methods to make brands and products desirable. We are effectively told what we want. There is also a "group mentality" effect with a lot of consumer products/services - the more popular something becomes, the more people want it, and so on. So, I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg argument here: do producers make things because consumers want them, or do consumers want things because producers use clever marketing to make them want those things? There are certainly a lot of products out there that nobody really needs in any real sense of the word, and there are also a lot of products that nobody would have even thought to want until somebody made them.
In addition to the above thoughts, none of what I have said so far actually addresses methods of production. All of the above only really applies to the types of products and services that are available. I think it is far less easy to draw a connection between consumer demands and ethics in methods of production. Consumers usually weigh up a variety of factors when making a decision about what to buy (although, this is usually subconscious). But, they can only weigh up factors of which they are aware. It is therefore necessary for consumers to be aware of ethical issues in order to factor them into their decision-making process about what to purchase. Otherwise, purchasing decisions tend to boil down to quality and cost - i.e. looking for the lowest common denominator. Once unethical methods of production become publicised (or, alternatively, once long-standing methods of production become viewed as unethical based on the prevailing majority morality), the extent to which consumers will factor those concerns into decisions depends on a host of other factors: how bad are the methods perceived to be (blood diamonds being an extreme example)?; how difficult is it to source the product in a more ethical way?; how expensive is the ethical version of that product?, etc.
Apologies for the slight pun, given my comment above that drivers in industry is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation... The best recent example I can think of is Jamie Oliver's expose of the chicken and egg farming industry and the resultant impact that his efforts have had on the increased use of free-range eggs in products. Even McDonalds use free-range eggs these days!! However, although the expose has had a big impact on egg production, it has not had the same sort of impact on chicken consumption. It is still very rare to find free-range chicken on the menu at restaurants. Why? Because the cost differential is significantly greater. There is also another message that I don't think has really hit home yes - the message to "eat less meat". That is more of an environmental issue than a question of ethics in farming, but, if there were less demand, it would be easier to farm in a less intensive manner.
Right - this is getting a bit long now, so I will stop there. innocent

23 Oct 2012

Common sense prevails ( albeit temporarily it would seem ) as Govt bows to public pressure and ongoing legal challenges. As someone who signed Brian May's petition endorsed by the among other things this pleases me greatly! :mrgreen:

23 Oct 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Badger cull to be delayed as Tories take another U-turn
Common sense prevails ( albeit temporarily it would seem ) as Govt bows to public pressure and ongoing legal challenges. As someone who signed Brian May's petition endorsed by the Badger Trust among other things this pleases me greatly! :mrgreen:

In your link above Neil it states ' amid growing concern about the cost and effectiveness of the controversial scheme '.
I would go further than that and say an absolute scandal. The way the human race treats animals at times is nothing short of barbaric, and the farmers always think they have some God given right over anyone/ anything else. With imports getting cheaper and cheaper, I wonder how many more years farmers in this country actually have left as a going concern?
I for one want to see the Badger win it's own battle, and on what I have read about this issue I have donated £100 to a badger cull direct action fund, so as to hope to help the hunt saboteurs ( within the law of course ), to try and stop the murder of these wonderful animals.

23 Oct 2012

*falls off chair in amazement*
LOLWUT? :shock: Direct action and hunt sabs? Why Star, I've misjudged you all this time. You surprise me. Nice surprise don't get me wrong, but surprise all the same. Good for you putting your money where your conviction is.
*applauds*

23 Oct 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
*falls off chair in amazement*
LOLWUT? :shock: Direct action and hunt sabs? Why Star, I've misjudged you all this time. You surprise me. Nice surprise don't get me wrong, but surprise all the same. Good for you putting your money where your conviction is.
*applauds*

Thanks Neil.
I love animals such as this with a passion and at this moment in time, the Government have thankfully decided to halt this culling until the scientific evidence is better than it currently is.
I also have paid money into what I think are other worthwhile causes, like save the whale etc.
Farmers are usually at the forefront of the screaming for culling mobs, and as I said earlier Neil what with cheaper and cheaper imports, I wonder how much longer the farmers in this country actually have left?
I would hope that money raised for this cause Neil, is not met with any violence from any protesters, but the Badgers have to have human voices on their side in this issue, as far too often animals are left at the hands of the human and we know where that usually leads.

23 Oct 2012

Bravo Star!!

24 Oct 2012

I have read a report that suggests that, far from decreasing the rates of bovine TB, culling tends to cause a increase.

24 Oct 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay
I have read a report that suggests that, far from decreasing the rates of bovine TB, culling tends to cause a increase.

That's true, badgers are territorial. Therefore they tend to stick within their defined acreage and not wander off in to neighboring areas. This confines TB to certain areas and shows how one farm can become infected and the adjoining not. once you cull the badgers in one area you then allow the thinner badger populace to travel.
Which as we all know was how Typhoid Mary's clients were so good at passing on her gift!
Another important comment came from a DEFRA spokeperson yesterday when they said the trial cull is not going to go ahead as the proposed cost of staging culls is actually more than tackling the TB outbreak and the compensation involved.
Badgers: 1
Human Race: 0
hoo-flippin-raah!

24 Oct 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
Badgers: 1
Human Race: 0
hoo-flippin-raah!

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

26 Oct 2012

Woop woop! :mrgreen:
Star, looks like your hundred quid won't be needed just yet after all? smile

31 Oct 2012

?Year Significance
1920s The Government develops the tuberculin skin test to enable the routine testing of cattle for bTB.
1935 Pasteurisation of milk largely protects humans from bTB.
1935 - 1937 Ministry of Agriculture first introduced the Tuberculosis – Attested Herd Scheme.
1950s Compulsory TB testing introduced – which progressively reduced the number of reactors.
1960 All cattle in the UK tested at least once and all reactors removed.
1970s South West is identified as having a higher rate of incidence. TB first discovered in Badgers in 1971.
1973 Badgers Act first introduced to protect badgers against baiting.
1975 - 1981 Strategic culling using gassing started. Thornbury badger clearance trial eliminated TB in cattle herds for 10 years.
1980 - 1982 1980 Temporary halt to culling during Zuckerman Report No culling. 1981 Gassing stopped.
1982 -1986 Clean ring policy. 1986 Dunnet Report - clean ring policy stopped and replaced by partial trapping policy / interim strategy.
1987 Outbreaks begin a year on year rise which has continued until the present day.
1992 The Protection of Badgers Act introduced.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.

31 Oct 2012

Quote by Lilith
You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does

That is an interesting point. I'm not sure I entirely agree. I will ponder that and come back with a proper reply later.
Ok... now for a more reasoned response!
I think it is difficult to know entirely where the drivers really come from within any industry. The obvious thought may be that the consumer drives what the supplier does, and that is certainly true to a certain extent (i.e. what is the point of producing something that nobody wants?) But, consumers are also subjected to a huge amount of marketing and other methods to make brands and products desirable. We are effectively told what we want. There is also a "group mentality" effect with a lot of consumer products/services - the more popular something becomes, the more people want it, and so on. So, I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg argument here: do producers make things because consumers want them, or do consumers want things because producers use clever marketing to make them want those things? There are certainly a lot of products out there that nobody really needs in any real sense of the word, and there are also a lot of products that nobody would have even thought to want until somebody made them.
In addition to the above thoughts, none of what I have said so far actually addresses methods of production. All of the above only really applies to the types of products and services that are available. I think it is far less easy to draw a connection between consumer demands and ethics in methods of production. Consumers usually weigh up a variety of factors when making a decision about what to buy (although, this is usually subconscious). But, they can only weigh up factors of which they are aware. It is therefore necessary for consumers to be aware of ethical issues in order to factor them into their decision-making process about what to purchase. Otherwise, purchasing decisions tend to boil down to quality and cost - i.e. looking for the lowest common denominator. Once unethical methods of production become publicised (or, alternatively, once long-standing methods of production become viewed as unethical based on the prevailing majority morality), the extent to which consumers will factor those concerns into decisions depends on a host of other factors: how bad are the methods perceived to be (blood diamonds being an extreme example)?; how difficult is it to source the product in a more ethical way?; how expensive is the ethical version of that product?, etc.
Apologies for the slight pun, given my comment above that drivers in industry is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation... The best recent example I can think of is Jamie Oliver's expose of the chicken and egg farming industry and the resultant impact that his efforts have had on the increased use of free-range eggs in products. Even McDonalds use free-range eggs these days!! However, although the expose has had a big impact on egg production, it has not had the same sort of impact on chicken consumption. It is still very rare to find free-range chicken on the menu at restaurants. Why? Because the cost differential is significantly greater. There is also another message that I don't think has really hit home yes - the message to "eat less meat". That is more of an environmental issue than a question of ethics in farming, but, if there were less demand, it would be easier to farm in a less intensive manner.
Right - this is getting a bit long now, so I will stop there. innocent

If every body started to purchase organic product only, guess what every farmer would start producing

5 Nov 2012

Read that the RSPCA are pushing to get milk from Badger friendly farms clearly marked on the bottle, gives everyone a chance to throw their support either way.
That could put the Cat amongst the Pigeons.

5 Nov 2012

Quote by dsfrancetoo
Read that the RSPCA are pushing to get milk from Badger friendly farms clearly marked on the bottle, gives everyone a chance to throw their support either way.
That could put the Cat amongst the Pigeons.

always a good thing lets worry how friendly the farm is to badger as apposed to how well the cow is kept :doh:

5 Nov 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
Read that the RSPCA are pushing to get milk from Badger friendly farms clearly marked on the bottle, gives everyone a chance to throw their support either way.
That could put the Cat amongst the Pigeons.

always a good thing lets worry how friendly the farm is to badger as apposed to how well the cow is kept :doh:
Ah, come on Rob, it's not like the two are mutually exclusive, is it? The RSPCA already has its Freedom Foods scheme, presumably this would be an extension to that? Not beyond the wit of man to extend the remit of a scheme that looks at how well food is produced to also take into account any impact that production has on other native species in the farm's surroundings is it I wouldn't have thought? I like it, would probably support it. Where possible and finances allow I buy stuff produced to above minimum standards already, Freedom Food being one of them.

25 Nov 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Read that the RSPCA are pushing to get milk from Badger friendly farms clearly marked on the bottle, gives everyone a chance to throw their support either way.
That could put the Cat amongst the Pigeons.

always a good thing lets worry how friendly the farm is to badger as apposed to how well the cow is kept :doh:
Ah, come on Rob, it's not like the two are mutually exclusive, is it? The RSPCA already has its Freedom Foods scheme, presumably this would be an extension to that? Not beyond the wit of man to extend the remit of a scheme that looks at how well food is produced to also take into account any impact that production has on other native species in the farm's surroundings is it I wouldn't have thought? I like it, would probably support it. Where possible and finances allow I buy stuff produced to above minimum standards already, Freedom Food being one of them.
Lobbying our elected representatives for change and improvement is a right that is at the core of our democratic process. The Countryside Alliance participates in lobbying on your behalf on a number of issues - we ask you to get involved where you can too (see below story on the Law Commission). It seems, however, that taking this route does not apply if you are the RSPCA, which appears to feel it can bypass the lobbying process altogether.
This attitude was highlighted during the recent badger cull furore, which saw feelings run high. Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA stated publicly that anyone involved in the cull would be “named and we will decide as citizens whether they will be shamed”. He knows such actions could lead to reprisals, possibly violent, for farmers and shooters, which is why he made such a provocative statement.
Threatening people’s personal security whilst they are carrying out a perfectly legal activity cannot be justified. This example shows, once again, that the RSPCA believes it is above the law when it comes to fighting for its agenda, even if this involves promoting violence and other illegal acts. There is an inconsistency at play: using the law to prosecute hunts, but reverting to mob rule when rulings go against their way of thinking. This should not be the way a Royal Society does business.
To add salt to the wounds, the RSPCA has threatened desperate farmers with removal of their “Freedom Food” label from any farm taking part in the cull. This is completely disingenuous. Surely they would advocate the culling of animals that were causing disease to any livestock? Indeed, the RSPCA is even part of the Deer Initiative, which tackles the issue of over population of deer through culling. How can the Society possibly justify the one but not the other?
The RSPCA has five key pledges. Pledge three states that “We pledge to increase the proportion of animals reared under higher welfare systems in the UK.” By opposing the cull, they break this pledge by actively preventing cattle from being protected from disease. Once again, the RSPCA has shown itself to be little more than an extremist animal rights organisation which is more concerned with promoting philosophies than protecting animals.

25 Nov 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Read that the RSPCA are pushing to get milk from Badger friendly farms clearly marked on the bottle, gives everyone a chance to throw their support either way.
That could put the Cat amongst the Pigeons.

always a good thing lets worry how friendly the farm is to badger as apposed to how well the cow is kept :doh:
Ah, come on Rob, it's not like the two are mutually exclusive, is it? The RSPCA already has its Freedom Foods scheme, presumably this would be an extension to that? Not beyond the wit of man to extend the remit of a scheme that looks at how well food is produced to also take into account any impact that production has on other native species in the farm's surroundings is it I wouldn't have thought? I like it, would probably support it. Where possible and finances allow I buy stuff produced to above minimum standards already, Freedom Food being one of them.
meanwhile Neil the masses are buying half priced Argentinian beef from the like of Iceland with little care for way it was kept or where it is from banghead

2 Dec 2012

It came as some surprise last weekend to find that Queen musician Brian May had been leasing the stalking rights on his land. The news was broken by the Sunday Times, who found that he was receiving payments of £750 a year for the right to shoot deer on his Middlemarsh estate. Many other papers picked up on this story because of its significance since Dr May has become a figurehead of the animal rights movement.
This is more than just irony. Brian May is the self styled saviour of animals. Not a TV, radio or newspaper interview is complete without the obligatory comment from him "standing up" for the animals. He has vehemently opposed any form of culling, but was most vocal in the recent case of the proposed badger cull. The fact that a millionaire rock star raised his own dwindling profile at the expense of dairy farmers on the brink of collapse and bankruptcy is hard enough to accept. The fact that he did this having profited from a deer cull on his own land is indefensible.
Dr May stood shoulder to shoulder with the RSPCA and other animal rights groups to oppose the badger cull at all costs, including boycotting milk from already pressed farmers. As I reported last week, he also endorsed the policy that would make public the names of all those involved in culling, regardless of the consequences. In a cruel twist of poetic justice, May has been the one whose name was made public for allowing shooting to take place on his land.
Now the tables have been turned, Brain May appears to prefer secrecy about what happens on his own land. The word hypocrite hardly does justice to the level of duplicity displayed, but at least he must start to comprehend how the affected farmers feel.

2 Dec 2012

Very disingenuous that article Blue I think, the argument is not a valid one. The deer are presumably eaten as food once shot, the shooting is simply the slaughtering process used in this method of farming deer. May be a fun day out for the hunter in a way that is profitable for the farmer but that's an incidental bonus to the primary aim of food production, culling deer populations being necessary to maintain a healthy, sustainable herd while simultaneously putting food on the table. It's not the same. The badger cull is only indirectly linked with food production, and its value in protecting food production whether milk or beef is highly questionable. Would need to be much more certain of a positive effect before any cull could be justified, assuming there were no other measures available, which is also highly questionable. Anyways, the article is a transparent ad hominem attempting to smear Brian May personally, presumable because the CA's argument is so weak they have to resort to playground tactics and does not have popular support.

2 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Very disingenuous that article Blue I think, the argument is not a valid one. The deer are presumably eaten as food once shot, the shooting is simply the slaughtering process used in this method of farming deer. May be a fun day out for the hunter in a way that is profitable for the farmer but that's an incidental bonus to the primary aim of food production, culling deer populations being necessary to maintain a healthy, sustainable herd while simultaneously putting food on the table. It's not the same. The badger cull is only indirectly linked with food production, and its value in protecting food production whether milk or beef is highly questionable. Would need to be much more certain of a positive effect before any cull could be justified, assuming there were no other measures available, which is also highly questionable. Anyways, the article is a transparent ad hominem attempting to smear Brian May personally, presumable because the CA's argument is so weak they have to resort to playground tactics and does not have popular support.

For the farmers effected, and there lively hoods, may not feel the link as indirect as you. We could equally say that culling the badger may sustain a healthy badger population. As brian May has declared war on the farmer, he must take what he gets back. What may seem play ground to you is a battle ground for those making a living. When May and the RSPCA act as they have been, they must expect retaliation.
This attitude was highlighted during the recent badger cull furore, which saw feelings run high. Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA stated publicly that anyone involved in the cull would be “named and we will decide as citizens whether they will be shamed”. He knows such actions could lead to reprisals, possibly violent, for farmers and shooters, which is why he made such a provocative statement.
Threatening people’s personal security whilst they are carrying out a perfectly legal activity cannot be justified. This example shows, once again, that the RSPCA believes it is above the law when it comes to fighting for its agenda, even if this involves promoting violence and other illegal acts. There is an inconsistency at play: using the law to prosecute hunts, but reverting to mob rule when rulings go against their way of thinking. This should not be the way a Royal Society does business.
To add salt to the wounds, the RSPCA has threatened desperate farmers with removal of their “Freedom Food” label from any farm taking part in the cull. This is completely disingenuous. Surely they would advocate the culling of animals that were causing disease to any livestock? Indeed, the RSPCA is even part of the Deer Initiative, which tackles the issue of over population of deer through culling. How can the Society possibly justify the one but not the other?
Popular support, does not make some thing right or wrong.

2 Dec 2012

The action by the RSPCA means only three things to me.
They believe deer culling is necessary and justified. They do not believe. the culling of badger is necessary or justified. They are therefore worth listening to as they are prepared to form an opinion based on the evidence available and put their money where their mouth is.
That said I have never been a fan of the RSPCA.

4 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
The action by the RSPCA means only three things to me.
They believe deer culling is necessary and justified. They do not believe. the culling of badger is necessary or justified. They are therefore worth listening to as they are prepared to form an opinion based on the evidence available and put their money where their mouth is.
That said I have never been a fan of the RSPCA.

So is any one who is prepared to put the money where there mouth is worth listening to?
ot sure all the evedance agrees

Quote by Bluefish2009

?Year Significance
1920s The Government develops the tuberculin skin test to enable the routine testing of cattle for bTB.
1935 Pasteurisation of milk largely protects humans from bTB.
1935 - 1937 Ministry of Agriculture first introduced the Tuberculosis – Attested Herd Scheme.
1950s Compulsory TB testing introduced – which progressively reduced the number of reactors.
1960 All cattle in the UK tested at least once and all reactors removed.
1970s South West is identified as having a higher rate of incidence. TB first discovered in Badgers in 1971.
1973 Badgers Act first introduced to protect badgers against baiting.
1975 - 1981 Strategic culling using gassing started. Thornbury badger clearance trial eliminated TB in cattle herds for 10 years.
1980 - 1982 1980 Temporary halt to culling during Zuckerman Report No culling. 1981 Gassing stopped.
1982 -1986 Clean ring policy. 1986 Dunnet Report - clean ring policy stopped and replaced by partial trapping policy / interim strategy.
1987 Outbreaks begin a year on year rise which has continued until the present day.
1992 The Protection of Badgers Act introduced.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.

4 Dec 2012

It is a mistake to assume that a correlation (which is what your graph shows) demonstrates cause and effect. It simply doesn't.

Quote by Bluefish2009
The action by the RSPCA means only three things to me.
They believe deer culling is necessary and justified. They do not believe. the culling of badger is necessary or justified. They are therefore worth listening to as they are prepared to form an opinion based on the evidence available and put their money where their mouth is.
That said I have never been a fan of the RSPCA.

So is any one who is prepared to put the money where there mouth is worth listening to?
ot sure all the evedance agrees

Quote by Bluefish2009

?Year Significance
1920s The Government develops the tuberculin skin test to enable the routine testing of cattle for bTB.
1935 Pasteurisation of milk largely protects humans from bTB.
1935 - 1937 Ministry of Agriculture first introduced the Tuberculosis – Attested Herd Scheme.
1950s Compulsory TB testing introduced – which progressively reduced the number of reactors.
1960 All cattle in the UK tested at least once and all reactors removed.
1970s South West is identified as having a higher rate of incidence. TB first discovered in Badgers in 1971.
1973 Badgers Act first introduced to protect badgers against baiting.
1975 - 1981 Strategic culling using gassing started. Thornbury badger clearance trial eliminated TB in cattle herds for 10 years.
1980 - 1982 1980 Temporary halt to culling during Zuckerman Report No culling. 1981 Gassing stopped.
1982 -1986 Clean ring policy. 1986 Dunnet Report - clean ring policy stopped and replaced by partial trapping policy / interim strategy.
1987 Outbreaks begin a year on year rise which has continued until the present day.
1992 The Protection of Badgers Act introduced.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.

5 Dec 2012

It could equally be a mistake to ignore it, with out further research, some thing I fully support for those suffering farmers

5 Dec 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
It could equally be a mistake to ignore it, with out further research, some thing I fully support for those suffering farmers

Funnily enough I have just finished working for a week on my brothers mixed farm. He recently had one of his store cattle slaughtered as a result of a failed TB test which it turned out was a false positive.
He was compensated by DEFRA just as he would have been if it had been TB infected.
He doesn't regard the compensation as unfair.
I have to say I am glad I will probably never have to apply for a license to transport pigs again mind.

6 Dec 2012

I will be perfectly honest with you here Ben, I am not truly for or against the Badger cull, I don't fall into either camp. What I can say is I do not have a major problem with the idea of a cull.
What I do have a problem with is the double standards of people like the RSPCA, and Brian May. Now, I understand you feel the deer cull and Badger cull are miles apart, I don't.
The RSPCA is a partner in the Deer Initiative, a body that supports and encourages deer management groups, which inevitably means healthy deer being shot to prevent over-population and preserving flora. So culling healthy animals is fine for conservation reasons, but culling animals to curb disease is not? RSPCA vice president Brian May is revealed as having allowed deer shooting on his Dorset estate
For me, both Cull's fall into the same camp.
I don't believe in animal rights, I believe in animal welfare. Saying ‘it is never right to kill an animal is an animal rights stance, not an animal welfare approach.I firmly believe, because of the world we now live in, have created, animal welfare means, management by our hands. Because this disease is an utterly miserable way to die, I feel any badger seen suffering with this should be shot, on animal welfare grounds.
Until a better method of control for TB is found, I feel we have to run with what we got. We keep hearing that a vaccine is just round the corner but I have heard that line most of my life. The fact is, vaccines do not work at all well with bTB. For little-understood reasons, any immunity a vaccination confers seems to be lost after a year or two in all animals; the amount of protection is also variable. Badgers seem particularly poor at resisting bTB infection, and vaccination never seems to confer immunity to the disease, but only reduces the amount of bacteria shed and the rapidity of death from the disease. Vaccinating badgers is unlikely to do much save annoy a lot of brocks and get a few well-meaning idiots bitten. :sad:
If you asked me to choose a method of control it would be fumigation with carbon monoxide, DEFRA research indicates that fumigation with carbon monoxide in sufficient concentrations is probably the easiest, cheapest and most humane method.
Thats my view point wink

6 Dec 2012

I think the difference is that Deer culling is proven to be necessary whereas the slaughter of badgers to prevent bovine TB is not. In so far as these things can be "proven" of course.

6 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
I think the difference is that Deer culling is proven to be necessary whereas the slaughter of badgers to prevent bovine TB is not. In so far as these things can be "proven" of course.

Most of what I have seen and read indicate otherwise. Put aside prevention, infected animals should be delt with on animal welfare basis

6 Dec 2012

That's not what the cull is doing Blue. Healthy, sick, it doesn't distinguish. It's a general cull even in areas where much of the badger population might be disease free? How would you know anyways? Are they all gonna be tested for TB before they're shot? No.

7 Dec 2012

Neil, you are correct, that was more my view, at this stage the proposed culls are trials, experimental, and not something rolled out across the country in all bovine TB affected areas. We will have to see what effect this has.
Living, well more visiting these days, in the countryside, I hear much about these things, peoples views, many of these people words carry much weight with me. The words of a well respected farmer below;
As one who has spent the last 80 years living & farming in the country, I have seen it all happen. The successful efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture & farmers to eradicate bovine TB (see the table I posted above) & then the disastrous upsurge to an uncontrolled badger population leading to a tragic negation of years of work & the reappearance of the Bovine TB problem, the decimation of much of our other wildlife & a ridiculous over population of badgers limited only by disease & starvation .
These words carry great weight with me, and can be heard over and over by those with experience of such things. Had we continued the gassing protocols originally used, none of this would be necessary at all, and we might now be merely discussing contraceptive vaccines to limit badger populations.
I suspect what will happen in time is the licenced, Wholesale gassing of setts across a very large area of countryside over a period of years, with a view to locally extincting the main reservoir host of bovine TB. There will then need to be follow-up monitoring done to identify and destroy any remaining hot-spots. Then we can look at contraceptive vaccines to limit badger populations.
You may disagree, but I suspect this is what will be required and what will happen