Badger Cull Cancelled?

[rob190364 2,594]

Do they think that if a farmer has badgers on his land, and is worried about TB, he's just going to leave his rifle in the cabinet and sit there with his fingers crossed....because some pen pusher has bottled out of using his rubber stamp??

 

The funny (or rather not so funny) part about it is the most protected mammal in the country is all over the feckin place!!! surely you protect endangered species? isn't that the idea, or am I missing something????

Edited October 23, 2012 by rob190364

[Guest cookiemonsterandmerlin]

They are so clueless

[kenny14 656]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

[BIG G wheton machine 1,594]

power to the people, the farmers should be able to dictate what goes on on his/her land. fcuk it folks we should just revolt n help out farmers ourselves on the quiet

[gonetoearth 5,144]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

[kenny14 656]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents .

 

And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it .

[whippet 99 2,613]

i bet a million pounds there will be no legal culling now,...............this is it now ,..........they have won again,,,,,,,,,,put money on it there will be no shooting.

they have to shoot 70 % of badgers in the areas to make it effective , now they say they cant reach targets as the population is too high.......

what a waste of time and money ,.............well i think the only one now who is going to pay the price is the badger........ because mark my words those farmers are going to have steam coming out of there ears and once again the law will be taken into the farmers hands ,.................like it or not ,.......they been let down again by a pathetic excuse and now the badgers will pay the price,..............like it or not. so they may have one politically again ,.............the culling will start , and if any body believes there will be culling next year ,...you better give your head a shake ,.......it aint going to happen. the farmers have been let down by false promises yet again,..........and fair play to all the farmers who have to take the law in there own hands again,...........fooking pathetic tree hugging twats.............

[gonetoearth 5,144]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents .

 

And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it .

You Work with or for unnatural england whos only wish is to fence of every field ,marsh, and wood in england you state you know what licenses and consents are reqired the come out with put them on the general licence. Yes ill end it there Edited October 25, 2012 by gonetoearth

[kenny14 656]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents .

 

And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it .

You Work with or for unnatural england whos only wish is to fence of every field ,marsh, and wood in england you state you know what licenses and consents are reqired the come out with put them on the general licence. Yes ill end it there

When I state 'working with' Natural England, I mean that I regularly submit license and consent applications to them and other relevant agencies, both for myself and more regularly for customers.

I'm also often contacted by these agencies with requests to provide information and data in order for them to process applications. Having done this for many years I'm painfully aware of the drawn out procedures and the ammount of red tape that's required for someone to gain permission to carry out any activity that might impact on a protected species.

Just because I do this as a means of income and because I'm legally required to, doesn't mean that I agree with their stance on anything. far from it in many cases.

 

My opinion on putting Badgers on the general license, with conditions, is just that - an opinion. I have little confidence that it'll ever happen, but a lot of confidence that it would provide a cost effective solution to the problems that Badgers are causing, and in many ways would actually be beneficial for badgers as a species.

[rob190364 2,594]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents .

 

And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it .

You Work with or for unnatural england whos only wish is to fence of every field ,marsh, and wood in england you state you know what licenses and consents are reqired the come out with put them on the general licence. Yes ill end it there

When I state 'working with' Natural England, I mean that I regularly submit license and consent applications to them and other relevant agencies, both for myself and more regularly for customers.

I'm also often contacted by these agencies with requests to provide information and data in order for them to process applications. Having done this for many years I'm painfully aware of the drawn out procedures and the ammount of red tape that's required for someone to gain permission to carry out any activity that might impact on a protected species.

Just because I do this as a means of income and because I'm legally required to, doesn't mean that I agree with their stance on anything. far from it in many cases.

 

My opinion on putting Badgers on the general license, with conditions, is just that - an opinion. I have little confidence that it'll ever happen, but a lot of confidence that it would provide a cost effective solution to the problems that Badgers are causing, and in many ways would actually be beneficial for badgers as a species.

They don't understand that concept bud, or rather they choose not to understand it....the whole thing about hare coursing and shooting says that in big capital letters. You'd have to be a feckin imbecile not to see that hare coursing rather than shooting them is better for the species as a whole but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

[kenny14 656]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents .

 

And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it .

You Work with or for unnatural england whos only wish is to fence of every field ,marsh, and wood in england you state you know what licenses and consents are reqired the come out with put them on the general licence. Yes ill end it there

When I state 'working with' Natural England, I mean that I regularly submit license and consent applications to them and other relevant agencies, both for myself and more regularly for customers.

I'm also often contacted by these agencies with requests to provide information and data in order for them to process applications. Having done this for many years I'm painfully aware of the drawn out procedures and the ammount of red tape that's required for someone to gain permission to carry out any activity that might impact on a protected species.

Just because I do this as a means of income and because I'm legally required to, doesn't mean that I agree with their stance on anything. far from it in many cases.

 

My opinion on putting Badgers on the general license, with conditions, is just that - an opinion. I have little confidence that it'll ever happen, but a lot of confidence that it would provide a cost effective solution to the problems that Badgers are causing, and in many ways would actually be beneficial for badgers as a species.

They don't understand that concept bud, or rather they choose not to understand it....the whole thing about hare coursing and shooting says that in big capital letters. You'd have to be a feckin imbecile not to see that hare coursing rather than shooting them is better for the species as a whole but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

 

Yep, as I said in my first post on this - Bending, dithering, ignorant and spineless.

[gonetoearth 5,144]

I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling).

 

So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on.

 

Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically.

never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you

 

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents .

 

And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it .

You Work with or for unnatural england whos only wish is to fence of every field ,marsh, and wood in england you state you know what licenses and consents are reqired the come out with put them on the general licence. Yes ill end it there

When I state 'working with' Natural England, I mean that I regularly submit license and consent applications to them and other relevant agencies, both for myself and more regularly for customers.

I'm also often contacted by these agencies with requests to provide information and data in order for them to process applications. Having done this for many years I'm painfully aware of the drawn out procedures and the ammount of red tape that's required for someone to gain permission to carry out any activity that might impact on a protected species.

Just because I do this as a means of income and because I'm legally required to, doesn't mean that I agree with their stance on anything. far from it in many cases.

 

My opinion on putting Badgers on the general license, with conditions, is just that - an opinion. I have little confidence that it'll ever happen, but a lot of confidence that it would provide a cost effective solution to the problems that Badgers are causing, and in many ways would actually be beneficial for badgers as a species.

. Thank you for your answer and i agree

[gonetoearth 5,144]

COMMON SENCE SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE as the people who goven this county have struck it out thier mind set !!!!!

[the_stig 6,614]

COMMON SENCE SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE as the people who goven this county have struck it out thier mind set !!!!!

we had 2 female dog walkers getting on our case a few week back over us a ratting a dyke --i asked what would they do if they where in there gardens -- she said dykes are there natural habitat and they should be left i pointed out they damage farmers crops and she lauged at me and said because i lived in a town i did`nt know what i was talking about and should learn they live and let live in the countryside .. cookie nearly pissed himself when i told her to foook off ..

[paulus 26]

COMMON SENCE SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE as the people who goven this county have struck it out thier mind set !!!!!

we had 2 female dog walkers getting on our case a few week back over us a ratting a dyke --i asked what would they do if they where in there gardens -- she said dykes are there natural habitat and they should be left i pointed out they damage farmers crops and she lauged at me and said because i lived in a town i did`nt know what i was talking about and should learn they live and let live in the countryside .. cookie nearly pissed himself when i told her to foook off ..

bully