Badger Cull

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 19 Sep 2013, 11:22

kenneal - lagger wrote:The law sees a difference between farmed and domestic animals and wild animals. Logical?

In some minds.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 20 Oct 2013, 02:30

Paterson

The badgers moved the goal posts. We are dealing with a wild animal........

Now these wicked little buggers have moved them again

Given the purpose of this cull was a pilot to see if the badgers could be killed humanely and effectively, it has obviously shown that it is not possible, therefore the cull should be stopped. They needed to kill 70%, but since the census method was flawed to start with, the whole exercise was doomed from the start.

The plan was to kill 70% of badgers in the areas of west Somerset and Gloucestershire by free shooting.

Across both regions this meant around 5,000 badgers were to be killed in total.

The pilot areas:

Gloucestershire: Predominantly within the council districts of the Forest of Dean and Tewkesbury; parts lie within the districts of Wychavon, Malvern Hills and the south east part of Herefordshire. The area does not include the public forest estate in the Forest of Dean.
West Somerset: Predominantly within the council district of West Somerset and part lies within the district of Taunton Deane.
Source: Natural England
But Defra sources said these targets were based on population estimates from 2012 that have proved to be highly inaccurate.

In west Somerset, the population, which had been estimated at 2,400, has now been revised downwards to 1,450. In Gloucestershire, the numbers have been lowered from 3,400 to 2,350.

In a written statement to MPs, Mr Paterson said: "Current indications suggest that the pilot has been safe, humane and effective in delivering a reduction in the badger population of just under 60%.

"We set ourselves a challenging target of aiming to ensure that 70% of the badger population was removed.

"The chief veterinary officer (CVO) has advised that the 60% reduction this year will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull.

"However, Natural England are considering an application from Somerset for a short extension of the culling period, as provided for under the agreement with the company."

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 20 Oct 2013, 04:57

Considering the attention the shooters had from protesters they've done pretty well. But as I've said before the culling has to start at the forward edge of the diseased zone and work inwards to prevent repopulation from dirty areas. If they just removed the protection from badgers in infected areas they would get the job done for free. There are plenty of farmers and their supporters who are experienced shooters and would get the job done just as well.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Oct 2013, 09:14

And I hear that none of the shot badgers are being tested to see whether they are carrying TB. What a missed opportunity to do some useful science. It is scandalous.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Oct 2013, 08:15

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... CMP=twt_fd

The controversial badger cull taking place in Gloucestershire should be stopped immediately, says the lead scientist on the board of Natural England, the organisation charged with making the decision.

NE, the nation's official protector of nature, will rule Monday on whether the night-time badger shoots can be significantly extended, following the revelation that marksmen fell far short of their initial legal targets.

The intervention by David Macdonald, chair of NE's science advisory committee and one of the UK's most eminent wildlife biologists, is a heavy blow for the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, and the National Farmers' Union, who argue that killing badgers to curb tuberculosis in cattle is scientifically justified and necessary.

The badger cull is also being jeopardised by a legal threat launched on Saturday.

Macdonald, a professor at Oxford University, said: "My personal opinion as a biologist [is] not to continue the cull. One could not have significant comfort that the original proposals would deliver gains to farmers. Extending the cull would make the outcome even less predictable and even more unpromising."

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Oct 2013, 08:45

Most things this fracking government does is scandalous. They disguise their total incompetence by adding the label "difficult decisions" to their actions. Paterson is so unscientific he could be mistaken for Osborne who seems to have the intellect associated with a Boris.

Why can't we have a Merkel?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Oct 2013, 15:18

Right then! Let's do what a scientist who has overseen the spread of a fatal disease from a minor local problem in the West Country to a major problem that is spreading across the country and across species suggests. TB will soon be endemic in the whole of mainland UK, across many species and could well become a problem in he human population again as it spreads from our domestic cats to our children.

Yeh! Lets do that!

Edited to add "suggest" at end of first sentence. Ken

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Oct 2013, 16:07

Your sentence doesn't make sense, however, if this scientist has overseen the problem becoming endemic, he should be charged at least with negligence. Or did you mean something else? Also, if cats are the vector, then perhaps we should be doing something about cats. Or perhaps you meant something else. And what would you like to do with the foreign immigrants who are entering the country with antibiotic resistant TB?

I know you have an interest, since you own cattle which could contract the disease, but the government is hardly taking a scientific approach to this. Then they rarely do. At least they test the cattle before killing them, they don't even test the badgers after killing them. What about shooting the deer that are also carriers?

When the last F&M outbreak occurred the then government demanded the killing of many (most in fact) healthy animals on the strenght of the theory of a dipstick "scientific" advisor, and F&M is a treatable condition, but the politics didn't suit.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 21 Oct 2013, 16:55

I've added "suggests" to the end of the first sentence - thanks for pointing that out.

Our scientists, DEFRA and the last government, mainly, have let TB spread from the West Country eastwards and northwards without coming up with any viable solution to stop or even curb the spread of the disease. At least this government are suggesting something that stands a chance of working, if it is allowed to carry the work our correctly.

People shouldn't be allowed into the country with antibiotic resistant TB as they are a health hazard. I think that there is legislation in place to stop this happening anyway. They should get treatment at home before travelling rather than coming here to get treatment. That's called Health Tourism, I think, and generally frowned upon.

Cats were the indicator for the disease having arrived in the West Berkshire area, as I have written before in this thread. If you live in a TB infected area and own a cat I would keep a close eye on your cat and your children, if you have any. The cat and the children can be treated, I understand, the cat at your own expense, but that is not feasible in a wild population of badgers and deer.

Yes, I have an interest, which I have pointed out many times before, because I have cattle which HAVE contracted the disease despite my best efforts to keep them clear. We do not buy in cattle and they do not have contact with other herds so the vector must be wildlife. Deer I can shoot myself and get others to help me but, for no logical reasons, I can't shoot badgers. Why should badgers have protection that no other animal has? OK, put a closed season on them, as deer have, but why should that one, single species have absolute protection?

The compensation I get for a diseased animal doesn't cover my full costs by any means so cattle farmers are paying so that a few townies, vegans and vegetarians can salve their consciences by not allowing the culling of a diseased animal. The fact that the diseased animal is spreading disease to other healthy animals which will all die a slow, lingering, painful death doesn't enter their closed, ignorant minds.

Why should the government have tested badgers in the last test cull. The test cull wasn't to see if the badgers have TB, we already know that a significant proportion of them have TB, it was to see if they could be culled in sufficient numbers. Unfortunately a few protesters were able to disrupt the culling in the early stages.

If you want to change the law on animal disease and culling you will have to leave the EU to do so because that is where the law comes from. There is too much vested interest in the rest of the EU at the moment to stand any chance of changing that EU law but you are welcome to try. Just don't expect a result before TB is endemic in the whole of the UK and across many more species than are now effected.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 21 Oct 2013, 17:39

From closed, ignorant minds:

Given its high costs and low benefits we therefore conclude that badger culling is unlikely to contribute usefully to the control of cattle TB in Britain, and recommend that TB control efforts focus on measures other than badger culling

Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence - Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Oct 2013, 17:57

Are they closed? Possibly. Are they ignorant? Possibly, but you need to show some evidence.

Are badgers the vector? Well................

October 2013 ~ BTB in farm cats

A vet has written to raise the question of bTB in farm cats. As he says, referring to the farm cat (see below) that died of TB at the badly affected Gelli Aur college dairy farm herd in Carmarthenshire (a typical example, as Christianne Glossop points out, of the current problem)
"This very cat quite likely has spread bTB for years. Since few farm cats are treated as pets how many infected farm cats are still running around on this farm and on all other farms within UK? And how many have been tested for bTB ( x rayed ) ever?"

More at www.warmwell.com (probably the most authoritative source of agricultural information IMO. Well worth a bookmark.).

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 22 Oct 2013, 04:13

Badger culling need not cost the government much at all. All they need to do is remove the protection that badgers, uniquely, benefit from.

No one has justified why badger should, uniquely among large animals, be protected.

We don't have any farm cats because our collies drive them away so that isn't a vector for the introduction of TB into my herd either. Neither have they had any contact with "sheep, pigs and goats, as well as domestic pets, a ferret and a seal in 2012" or any time before or since as reported by AHVLA.

Other countries, such as Ireland, have also employed culling as part of their TB eradication measures.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 Oct 2013, 11:13

More closed minds at work, tut-tut:

Defra has said it wishes its policy for controlling TB in cattle to be science-led. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence that indicates that culling badgers will not be an effective or cost-effective policy.

The best informed independent scientific experts agree that culling on a large, long-term, scale will yield modest benefits and that it is likely to make things worse before they get better. It will also make things worse for farmers bordering on the cull areas.
—Lord Krebs, architect of the original Randomised Badger Culling Trials.

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.
—John Bourne, Chair of the Independent Scientific Group

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 22 Oct 2013, 11:35

Who is closed minded?Who is not closed minded? It could be argued the killing fraction is just as closed minded.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 Oct 2013, 12:05

woodburner wrote:Who is closed minded?Who is not closed minded? It could be argued the killing fraction is just as closed minded.

Dunno. According to Ken, townies, vegans and vegetarians. Doesn't leave many, does it?