Badger Cull 2013

[hutch6 550]

The badger population is artificially high due to its prolonged period of protected status. a cull is well over due btb or no btb

 

Is it really? What natural predators do badgers have Paulus? When did the last natural predator leave the island?

 

As badgers have been largely protected since 1973, their setts since 1991 and can have a litter of up to 5, why are we not over run with them Paulus? With that many badgers running around this rock of ours surely the bTB cases would be through the roof everywhere and not just in hotspot areas. Then again a few guys with a few dogs doing a few covert jobs here and there taking the odd badger must have kept the numbers down just as it has done with foxes and deer. Think on.

 

What about the large populations of cats, dogs, deer, corvids and rodents that can carry and transmit the desease?

[Born Hunter 17,798]

Matt the Rat is very clued up on the science behind this, it'd be interesting to hear his views. One thing I do know, Re bTB and badger culling the science is so clouded with politics it can hardly be considered science!

 

As for wiping out the badger, it's a cull not an erradication!

[hutch6 550]

 

The badger population is artificially high due to its prolonged period of protected status. a cull is well over due btb or no btb

 

In a truely natural environment they would not be an apex predator. Large canids, lynx, bear etc would all prey on old brock!

 

 

Maybe the cubs BH but you won't find many natural predators willing to take on an adult badger, especially one that is backed up into corner.

 

Do you really think that the animals you have mentioned would go through all the trouble of digging out a sett only to risk potential injury that could prevent them from feeding or hunting adequatley again? True, badgers aren't an apex predator but nature knows they aren't to be taken lightly. Cars and man are the only real predators badgers have world wild.

[mushroom 13,233]

I don't get how a badger cull will erradicate bTB when there are a whole other multitude of creatures that harbour and spread it. Deer, wild boar, cats, dogs, rats and alpacas are just a few, so why aren't measures being put in place to cull these alongside an improvement of animal husbandry?

 

The previous cull provided conclusive evidence that it made no difference to the numbers of bTB cases in the trialled area. I fear this is just a way of giving in the nutty NFU leadership team and hiding the fact that hundreds of millions of public money has been wasted on research, compensation and development for an innoculation but the best they can come up with is a vaccine that shows a positive result to the bTB test activator. This is just a cheaper alternative to trapping and vaccinating the badgers for which there IS a verified vaccine. Sure Brian May is a bit of a dick but I don't think a cull is the way to manage this. Maybe of the farmers stopped spreading confirmed infected slurry from their pits into their fields as fertiliser that would be a big step in the right direction. Plenty of farmers have badgers living on their land and have yet to see and outbreak case on their land.

On your bike!!!! Thinking you may be on the wrong forum there's plenty others out there for people with your views

[mushroom 13,233]

 

The badger population is artificially high due to its prolonged period of protected status. a cull is well over due btb or no btb

 

Is it really? What natural predators do badgers have Paulus? When did the last natural predator leave the island?

 

As badgers have been largely protected since 1973, their setts since 1991 and can have a litter of up to 5, why are we not over run with them Paulus? With that many badgers running around this rock of ours surely the bTB cases would be through the roof everywhere and not just in hotspot areas. Then again a few guys with a few dogs doing a few covert jobs here and there taking the odd badger must have kept the numbers down just as it has done with foxes and deer. Think on.

 

What about the large populations of cats, dogs, deer, corvids and rodents that can carry and transmit the desease?

 

Have you ever driven through an area with a large badger population?? They're the dead black and white things at the side of the road!!!

[C Hall 552]

Lift the protected species law and let the farmers shoot cull and make there own minds up if they want them on the land or not, all this political shit!!!

[Born Hunter 17,798]

Hutch, badgers leave their setts mate. And they aren't the fleetest of creatures I'm quite sure. I imagine a large predator would quite easily kill one but I'm just speculating here. Either way the badger population is at an unnatural high and TB or not needs reducing for ecological balance. Like I have said, others will know more about the relationship between badger and TB in cattle than me.

[hutch6 550]

Matt the Rat is very clued up on the science behind this, it'd be interesting to hear his views. One thing I do know, Re bTB and badger culling the science is so clouded with politics it can hardly be considered science!

 

As for wiping out the badger, it's a cull not an erradication!

 

The "science" isn't even science BH. It is a politically driven scheme and nothing else.

 

Ah, now I though it was a trial in two areas over a five year period with a four year rest and investigation period (as they did before) but it is a nationwide scheme. They will monitor the two areas for effectivenes of badger removal, safety of the work and the humaness of the kills, after that are going nationwide with it. We are looking at a reduction in badgers upto -90% in some areas. How can that be justified as a cul. A cull is to control, this will nearly wipe them out with no scientific evidence.

[mushroom 13,233]

 

Matt the Rat is very clued up on the science behind this, it'd be interesting to hear his views. One thing I do know, Re bTB and badger culling the science is so clouded with politics it can hardly be considered science!

 

As for wiping out the badger, it's a cull not an erradication!

 

The "science" isn't even science BH. It is a politically driven scheme and nothing else.

 

Ah, now I though it was a trial in two areas over a five year period with a four year rest and investigation period (as they did before) but it is a nationwide scheme. They will monitor the two areas for effectivenes of badger removal, safety of the work and the humaness of the kills, after that are going nationwide with it. We are looking at a reduction in badgers upto -90% in some areas. How can that be justified as a cul. A cull is to control, this will nearly wipe them out with no scientific evidence.

 

Take yourself off to May's house ffs he'll be happy for your input. Next you'll be saying they control their own numbers

[hutch6 550]

 

I don't get how a badger cull will erradicate bTB when there are a whole other multitude of creatures that harbour and spread it. Deer, wild boar, cats, dogs, rats and alpacas are just a few, so why aren't measures being put in place to cull these alongside an improvement of animal husbandry?

 

The previous cull provided conclusive evidence that it made no difference to the numbers of bTB cases in the trialled area. I fear this is just a way of giving in the nutty NFU leadership team and hiding the fact that hundreds of millions of public money has been wasted on research, compensation and development for an innoculation but the best they can come up with is a vaccine that shows a positive result to the bTB test activator. This is just a cheaper alternative to trapping and vaccinating the badgers for which there IS a verified vaccine. Sure Brian May is a bit of a dick but I don't think a cull is the way to manage this. Maybe of the farmers stopped spreading confirmed infected slurry from their pits into their fields as fertiliser that would be a big step in the right direction. Plenty of farmers have badgers living on their land and have yet to see and outbreak case on their land.

On your bike!!!! Thinking you may be on the wrong forum there's plenty others out there for people with your views

 

 

Oh I'm sorry, do I not hunt and fish? JUst because I am against this cull doesn't make me any less of a pro-hunt than anyone else. If the actual science behind the cull has too many big words for you then just ask and I'll explain them for you or do you just see a free for all go ahead without a care for the consequnces or the ability to see the bigger picture the knock-on effect this will have?

 

Cull doesn't prove (as the actual science states) that badgers aren't to blame for bTB spreading. Public AGAIN go nuts about folk being able to shoot anything or hunt anythign with dogs as it serves no purpose. Further restrictions on the hunting laws. Are you daft or just punk?

[Huwidge 69]

hutch6 you seem to have far to much love for this pest. it will only end in tears for you when a cull is put in place.

[hutch6 550]

 

 

Matt the Rat is very clued up on the science behind this, it'd be interesting to hear his views. One thing I do know, Re bTB and badger culling the science is so clouded with politics it can hardly be considered science!

 

As for wiping out the badger, it's a cull not an erradication!

 

The "science" isn't even science BH. It is a politically driven scheme and nothing else.

 

Ah, now I though it was a trial in two areas over a five year period with a four year rest and investigation period (as they did before) but it is a nationwide scheme. They will monitor the two areas for effectivenes of badger removal, safety of the work and the humaness of the kills, after that are going nationwide with it. We are looking at a reduction in badgers upto -90% in some areas. How can that be justified as a cul. A cull is to control, this will nearly wipe them out with no scientific evidence.

 

Take yourself off to May's house ffs he'll be happy for your input. Next you'll be saying they control their own numbers

 

 

Well you've just proved you can't read so I'll type the next bit slowly and in little words.

 

Cubs are vulnerable to natural predation and humans and cars do the rest with the adults.

[jasher 55]

 

 

I don't get how a badger cull will erradicate bTB when there are a whole other multitude of creatures that harbour and spread it. Deer, wild boar, cats, dogs, rats and alpacas are just a few, so why aren't measures being put in place to cull these alongside an improvement of animal husbandry?

 

The previous cull provided conclusive evidence that it made no difference to the numbers of bTB cases in the trialled area. I fear this is just a way of giving in the nutty NFU leadership team and hiding the fact that hundreds of millions of public money has been wasted on research, compensation and development for an innoculation but the best they can come up with is a vaccine that shows a positive result to the bTB test activator. This is just a cheaper alternative to trapping and vaccinating the badgers for which there IS a verified vaccine. Sure Brian May is a bit of a dick but I don't think a cull is the way to manage this. Maybe of the farmers stopped spreading confirmed infected slurry from their pits into their fields as fertiliser that would be a big step in the right direction. Plenty of farmers have badgers living on their land and have yet to see and outbreak case on their land.

To be fair I haven't read enough of the evidence/alternatives to reducing bTB to debate the suggestions your making BUT taking on board the areas you've highlighted such as spreading slurry and animal husbandry why would it make sense to spend even more money vaccinating a pest species rather than culling?

 

 

Badgers are a pest species? Where is that stated? What pest activity do they carry out?

 

Why would it make more sense to wipe out a species that has perfectly adequate vaccine to prevent the individual becoming a host or transport? Under that argument anyone with a common cold should be terminated to prevent the spread of the virus but unlike witht he common cold bTB has a multitude of carriers across various species.

 

The "science" behidn the cull proposition suggests that bTB cases will reduce by 16%. WTF is causing the 84% then and why aren't folk looking at the causes of the larger sections instead of wiping out something that causes just 16%?

 

DEFRA themselves only 5yrs ago stated that the common single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin (SICCT) test which is used on British cattle had more than positive results (pardon th pun) - "Many countries have eradicated bTB through the systematic application of the tuberculin skin test alone and the slaughter of all test reactors."

No culling of any wildlife required.

 

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/control/tuberculin.htm

 

The issue lies in intensive farming which a result fo consumer demands. Demands for cheaper and cheaper produce has meant that farmers have to cram as many animals as they can the turn a profit which is bound to backfire somewhere along the lines and in this case the badger is to blame and must face the brunt of the blinkered people who can not accpet that consumer behaviour has to change in ordre for farming practices to change in order for the catalysts for bTB to be reduced. This will focus on the 84% reduction factors and not the 16% factors.

The only thing the 16% factors focus on is to give some relief to those who wish to blast all and sundry in the countryside to bits who feel they have had a involuntary vaccectomy since the hunting ban came in. They just can't get enough popping off the odd bit here and there, they want the feeling of being able to shoot something different and as shooting badgers hasn't been legal since the last ice age it's new and exciting to them rather than them thinking "Hang on, we had badgers and cattle on this land for millenia and yet this is a relatively new thing?"

 

Vets are even holding their hands up and saying "We are sorry we didn;t spot bTB In cats and dogs earlier!" and the pro-cullers are coming back with "Shhh! There's badgers to kill!"

 

This cull will not serve as anything except to take out a link in our natural wildife which could have disasterous knock effects for other species you ARE allowed to shoot legally.

 

Taking aside your views on the effectiveness of a cull in regards to bTB. Do you genuinly believe in the current numbers that Badgers are not a pest species that don't need controlling?

[mushroom 13,233]

 

 

I don't get how a badger cull will erradicate bTB when there are a whole other multitude of creatures that harbour and spread it. Deer, wild boar, cats, dogs, rats and alpacas are just a few, so why aren't measures being put in place to cull these alongside an improvement of animal husbandry?

 

The previous cull provided conclusive evidence that it made no difference to the numbers of bTB cases in the trialled area. I fear this is just a way of giving in the nutty NFU leadership team and hiding the fact that hundreds of millions of public money has been wasted on research, compensation and development for an innoculation but the best they can come up with is a vaccine that shows a positive result to the bTB test activator. This is just a cheaper alternative to trapping and vaccinating the badgers for which there IS a verified vaccine. Sure Brian May is a bit of a dick but I don't think a cull is the way to manage this. Maybe of the farmers stopped spreading confirmed infected slurry from their pits into their fields as fertiliser that would be a big step in the right direction. Plenty of farmers have badgers living on their land and have yet to see and outbreak case on their land.

On your bike!!!! Thinking you may be on the wrong forum there's plenty others out there for people with your views

 

 

Oh I'm sorry, do I not hunt and fish? JUst because I am against this cull doesn't make me any less of a pro-hunt than anyone else. If the actual science behind the cull has too many big words for you then just ask and I'll explain them for you or do you just see a free for all go ahead without a care for the consequnces or the ability to see the bigger picture the knock-on effect this will have?

 

Cull doesn't prove (as the actual science states) that badgers aren't to blame for bTB spreading. Public AGAIN go nuts about folk being able to shoot anything or hunt anythign with dogs as it serves no purpose. Further restrictions on the hunting laws. Are you daft or just punk?

 

Daft punk with letters after my name

 

The cull is designed to reduce the numbers significantly then see if there is a connection between numbers and TB, it is an experiment!

 

Many experiments have been doomed to fail in the views of others over the centuries strangely we now reap the benefits..... Nuclear power, antibiotics, Vaccines, the car, the plane, mental health care!

[hutch6 550]

Hutch, badgers leave their setts mate. And they aren't the fleetest of creatures I'm quite sure. I imagine a large predator would quite easily kill one but I'm just speculating here. Either way the badger population is at an unnatural high and TB or not needs reducing for ecological balance. Like I have said, others will know more about the relationship between badger and TB in cattle than me.

 

Why do you think that it is? Why don't badgers where there are the apex predators mentioned not run for cover but will take their chances and stand their ground? What purpose do those balck and white stripes on their heads serve if not as a warning the same as the skunk?

 

Not a lot wants to mess with badgers.