I'm quite upset about the decision to , and have been following the news stories about this recently. I have always battled with myself over where I stand (in general) on the issue of animal culling. My gut reaction is that it is wrong to kill animals other than as part of the food chain - I eat meat and have no problem with hunting when the purpose is to eat the animals that are hunted. But, as a general rule, I find it upsetting when people hunt for fun or engage in any form of animal culling where the purpose is simply to kill the animal, as it is such a waste of a life and strikes me as uncivilised and cruel.
Having said all of that, my head tells me that this emotional reaction that I have is not always logical. We (humans) have made quite a mess of the natural balance in the world and we certainly do not live in harmony with our environment. We have created countless problems in nature, and I think it is our responsibility to do what we can to fix the problems that we create (although, those doing the fixing are rarely those who caused the problems in the first place...). For example, when invasive species are introduced into an environment and threaten an indigenous species (grey squirrels in the UK being a prime example), we then have a responsibility to protect the indigenous species (since it's our fault for buggering up the natural balance in the first place).
Anyway... my point is that I still don't know where I stand on the issue of animal culling in general, so for me, I think it very much depends on the specific circumstances in any given situation. In this case, I am leaning towards the view that the decision to permit badger culling is the wrong decision. There appears to be very little evidence that it will have a significant impact on the spread of TB, and (being cynical) I wonder whether the policy has been introduced simply so that the Government doesn't have to do anything more expensive to try to stem the spread of the disease.
I'd be interested to know what others think about this, as it really is the sort of issue that I always find difficult to resolve in my mind...
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
The battle of the Badger
last reply
70 replies
2.9k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
shame blue is not a regular as he used to be in here :sad:
he liked nothing better than giving a townie a good run for their money on countryside matters
:lol:
puts piece of straw in corner of mouth and comments "gerroff my land "
he liked nothing better than giving a townie a good run for their money on countryside matters
:lol:puts piece of straw in corner of mouth and comments "gerroff my land "
If there were concrete evidence that the badgers are to blame then we would have little or no argument. It seems that badgers are being singled out by the farming community. No-one blames birds or other animals that inhabit the same farm land and carry the same diseases. It’s about time that nature was left to run its course and farmers were stopped from meddling in nature.
AandW xxx
AandW xxx
Quote by Lizaleanrob
shame blue is not a regular as he used to be in here :sad:
he liked nothing better than giving a townie a good run for their money on countryside matters
puts piece of straw in corner of mouth and comments "gerroff my land "
Who said I was a townie...?? Country lass through and through, thank you very much! Suffolk born and bred, my friend (although not living there now, of course)... ;-)
I've an open mind on this. I agree that a precise percentage point is somewhat suspicious though when considering a 'scatter gun' approach to the cull. Who's to say that you actually culled the guilty portion?
On the other hand, there are those who say that it is wrong to cut down trees. They are after all just as much a 'living' being breathing life into us homo sapiens.
But, cutting down trees in a forest helps generate new life and removes the rot setting in....
Townie born and bred but now living as one with nature.
As for eradicating TB, R_t has a more sensible view on this. If the problem is the disease in cattle, then immunise the cattle.
Just don't feed it to me afterwards; my man boobs are big enough thank you very much :lol2:
On the other hand, there are those who say that it is wrong to cut down trees. They are after all just as much a 'living' being breathing life into us homo sapiens.
But, cutting down trees in a forest helps generate new life and removes the rot setting in....
Townie born and bred but now living as one with nature.
As for eradicating TB, R_t has a more sensible view on this. If the problem is the disease in cattle, then immunise the cattle.
Just don't feed it to me afterwards; my man boobs are big enough thank you very much :lol2:
Sex God
Vaccine V shooting,
Is a little to do with the praticalitys of the vaccine, but much more to do with cost
Further delays are simply postponing the problem, explains Jan Rowe, 67, Gill’s husband and the organiser of the cull.
‘We have been trying for 25 years to deal with this,’ he said. ‘The badger is an over-protected species — the protection was introduced because of badger baiting, not because they are endangered.’
Dismissing high-profile campaigners as ‘fools’, he insists that vaccines — currently being trialled to eradicate TB in badgers — won’t work because the animals need to be trapped and injected repeatedly over a five-year period, which would cost more than £7?million.
Shooting the creatures, however, will cost only £90,000.
Is a little to do with the praticalitys of the vaccine, but much more to do with cost
Further delays are simply postponing the problem, explains Jan Rowe, 67, Gill’s husband and the organiser of the cull.
‘We have been trying for 25 years to deal with this,’ he said. ‘The badger is an over-protected species — the protection was introduced because of badger baiting, not because they are endangered.’
Dismissing high-profile campaigners as ‘fools’, he insists that vaccines — currently being trialled to eradicate TB in badgers — won’t work because the animals need to be trapped and injected repeatedly over a five-year period, which would cost more than £7?million.
Shooting the creatures, however, will cost only £90,000.
Quote by Bluefish2009
Vaccine V shooting,
Is a little to do with the praticalitys of the vaccine, but much more to do with cost
Further delays are simply postponing the problem, explains Jan Rowe, 67, Gill’s husband and the organiser of the cull.
‘We have been trying for 25 years to deal with this,’ he said. ‘The badger is an over-protected species — the protection was introduced because of badger baiting, not because they are endangered.’
Dismissing high-profile campaigners as ‘fools’, he insists that vaccines — currently being trialled to eradicate TB in badgers — won’t work because the animals need to be trapped and injected repeatedly over a five-year period, which would cost more than £7?million.
Shooting the creatures, however, will cost only £90,000.
But injecting the cows?
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Vaccine V shooting,
Is a little to do with the praticalitys of the vaccine, but much more to do with cost
Further delays are simply postponing the problem, explains Jan Rowe, 67, Gill’s husband and the organiser of the cull.
‘We have been trying for 25 years to deal with this,’ he said. ‘The badger is an over-protected species — the protection was introduced because of badger baiting, not because they are endangered.’
Dismissing high-profile campaigners as ‘fools’, he insists that vaccines — currently being trialled to eradicate TB in badgers — won’t work because the animals need to be trapped and injected repeatedly over a five-year period, which would cost more than £7?million.
Shooting the creatures, however, will cost only £90,000.
But injecting the cows?
There are many problems with the vaccination of cattle. Vaccine will often give animals a small does of what ever you are vaccinating against. In the case of TB, some countrys then will not import vaccinated animals. Can the vaccine be a long term health problem for humans? Vaccination is not clear cut, or as straight forward as many would have us think.
Info on vaccination,
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (designed, overseen and analysed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, or ISG ) was a large field trial of widescale proactive culling and localised reactive culling (in comparison with areas which received no badger culling). In their final report the ISG concluded "First, 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. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second, weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone."
taken from
so there you have it, not conclusive one way or another...so lets keep killing animals in our name...
and the danger to us??? miniscule...
taken from
so there you have it, not conclusive one way or another...so lets keep killing animals in our name...
and the danger to us??? miniscule...
Sex God
As I said above, the deciding factor will almost always be cost, not necessarily what works best
Sex God
Quote by Rogue_trader
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial :
Pages 23 and 24 of that document as a general summary of findings make for most enlighterning reading, don't they RT?
;)Quote by Rogue_trader
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial :
I still haven't quite grasped how even a limited cull in some areas even requiring that licences be issued by the Sec State can be said to be lawful? The report above, Krebs trial, et al, even the advice DEFRA has up on its website re: culling badgers and incidence of TB all suggesting you're looking at a 9-16% fall in new bovine TB infections at best, having to be quite selective with your evidence even to get that much tops. That's a pretty low return. No matter, Protection of Badgers Act 1992 section 10 gives the Sec. State the power to grant licences for disease control, no problem, all dead straightforward, no test of potential effectiveness of cull even required. Except . . .
The Animal Healt Act 1981 section 21 gives the Minister the power to authorise a cull for non-rabies infections like TB in badgers, but only insofar as a cull of badgers in that area is 'necessary in order to eliminate, or substantially reduce the incidence of, that disease in animals of any kind in the area'. The Protection Of Badgers Act powers kinda flow directly from this. Now, I don't see how a mere 16% tops reduction in new infections even if achievable can be said to be stubstantially reducing anything, still less so if it's nearer the 9% mark. 1 part in 8 or so is not what I understand substantial to mean. 40-50%, yeah that would be substantial, but 16? Come on. Serious.
Quote by Ben_Minx
Smoke n mirrors.
The life expectancy of a badger round here once they find the sett is very short.
Heavy snow is when ours disappear and they end up on the roads as alleged roadkill.
So are you suggesting that they aren't roadkill and it is something far more sinister why they end up by the side of the road with half their guts hanging out???
Sexlightened
Comes to light today that this culling is based on a scientific report that states it may just reduce TB if 70% of the Badgers are culled.
The Scientist who conducted this research believes following it through and not culling the 70% will increase TB !
Couple of points for me, i know Scientists produce some great work but some of their study material seems pointless and can lead to these disastrous policies
The second point regarding this is why Defra have used this flimsy evididence to proceed with the cull, i suggest it's down to money and the need to do something. I base this on nothing more than my thoughts but wouldn't be surprised if this is the short term, knee jerk cheapest option
I say vacinate the cows and feed the Badgers some mashed potato, aparantly they love it !
The Scientist who conducted this research believes following it through and not culling the 70% will increase TB !
Couple of points for me, i know Scientists produce some great work but some of their study material seems pointless and can lead to these disastrous policies
The second point regarding this is why Defra have used this flimsy evididence to proceed with the cull, i suggest it's down to money and the need to do something. I base this on nothing more than my thoughts but wouldn't be surprised if this is the short term, knee jerk cheapest option
I say vacinate the cows and feed the Badgers some mashed potato, aparantly they love it !
Quote by suedey
Comes to light today that this culling is based on a scientific report that states it may just reduce TB if 70% of the Badgers are culled.
That reminds me of the old PAL dog food adverts... x% of owners (who expressed a preference).......
But, going back over old ground, what if you don't cull the correct 70%?
... And who paid the scientists for the report?
An absolute minefield. Do we really trust scientists that much?
Quote by Suedehead
Comes to light today that this culling is based on a scientific report that states it may just reduce TB if 70% of the Badgers are culled.
The Scientist who conducted this research believes following it through and not culling the 70% will increase TB !
Couple of points for me, i know Scientists produce some great work but some of their study material seems pointless and can lead to these disastrous policies
The second point regarding this is why Defra have used this flimsy evididence to proceed with the cull, i suggest it's down to money and the need to do something. I base this on nothing more than my thoughts but wouldn't be surprised if this is the short term, knee jerk cheapest option
I say vacinate the cows and feed the Badgers some mashed potato, aparantly they love it !
I hope this scientist is not working for the Government, as he could either be sacked or killed.
Sex God
Quote by Suedehead
The second point regarding this is why Defra have used this flimsy evididence to proceed with the cull, i suggest it's down to money and the need to do something. I base this on nothing more than my thoughts but wouldn't be surprised if this is the short term, knee jerk cheapest option!
It does seem to defy all reason doesn't it. I'd conclude either they're sick of shelling out the compensation and in these times of austerity they're clutching at the single flimsy straw that might help them reduce that somewhat out of sheer desperation, or more likely they're just pandering to the farming industry in the hope of securing their vote for the next election. It can't be because this is the best course of action according to the science whichever way you look at it, can it?
Wonder if anyone can comment on this:
Massive jump in slaughter numbers from 2001 to 2002 and since, from 4 figure numbers to 5. Clearly that's not down to a sudden explosion in TB in 2002, it must be down to changes to the testing regime of some kind? What happened there then?
Lilith:
In this case, I am leaning towards the view that the decision to permit badger culling is the wrong decision. There appears to be very little evidence that it will have a significant impact on the spread of TB, and (being cynical) I wonder whether the policy has been introduced simply so that the Government doesn't have to do anything more expensive to try to stem the spread of the disease.
Or lay blame?
It's the Farmers that are at fault here, willing to spray crops with all kinds of shi*ote, chemicals etc.....
Those same Farmers willingly open their arms to " Grants from the EU" to surstain their existance at the expense of the natural food chain :twisted:
In this case, I am leaning towards the view that the decision to permit badger culling is the wrong decision. There appears to be very little evidence that it will have a significant impact on the spread of TB, and (being cynical) I wonder whether the policy has been introduced simply so that the Government doesn't have to do anything more expensive to try to stem the spread of the disease.
Or lay blame?
It's the Farmers that are at fault here, willing to spray crops with all kinds of shi*ote, chemicals etc.....
Those same Farmers willingly open their arms to " Grants from the EU" to surstain their existance at the expense of the natural food chain :twisted:
Sex God
Quote by Paddy
Lilith:
In this case, I am leaning towards the view that the decision to permit badger culling is the wrong decision. There appears to be very little evidence that it will have a significant impact on the spread of TB, and (being cynical) I wonder whether the policy has been introduced simply so that the Government doesn't have to do anything more expensive to try to stem the spread of the disease.
Or lay blame?
It's the Farmers that are at fault here, willing to spray crops with all kinds of shi*ote, chemicals etc.....
Those same Farmers willingly open their arms to " Grants from the EU" to surstain their existance at the expense of the natural food chain :twisted:
You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does
