Badger cull debate

[marshlander]

The no 10 petition to stop the badger cull has passed the 100,000 signature threashhold that triggers a debate

Green MP Caroline Lucas, vice chair of the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on animal welfare, is one of five MPs sponsoring the debate. She said:

“I am delighted that the voices of all those who signed the e-petition against this reckless badger cull will now be heard in Parliament when the debate takes place next week.

“In choosing to plough ahead with the barbaric cull in our countryside, the coalition government has shown complete contempt for scientific evidence on bovine TB.

“A nine year randomised cull trial by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB – costing £50m and destroying 10,000 badgers – concluded that ‘badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain’.

“Even Lord Krebs, the Government adviser responsible for a 10-year experimental cull in the 1990s, has rejected the method – with his name appearing alongside more than 30 leading animal disease scientists warning against a cull in a letter to the Observer last week.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257 Still time to sign

[The Riff-Raff Element]

It is a disgrace. Back in 2008 in this august forum I suggested that the whole plan was put in place by landowners who wanted to free up land that was occupied by a nominally "protected" species to allow for housebuilding. At the time I was being flippant, but in retrospect I think I may have been closer to the truth than I suspected. There is no good science behind this, so why do it? Follow the money...

[oldjerry]

Jon,179 British troops lost their lives in Iraq when the Govt at the time lied,falsified figures,(and continue to do so ) in order to persue hidden agendas in favour of powerful groups here in the UK,so ,in truth ,are you REALLY that surprised??

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Disappointed more than surprised, Jerry. I try not to be cynical, but it's bloody hard sometimes.

[boboff]

It's a conspiracy I tell you!!!

Or is it the have nots, bitching at the haves?

As I understand it TB in increasing and costing millions, by selective culling we can test whether this has an effect on this, a scientific approach to a Public Health/Animal welfare issue?

It's a trial to see if it works?

Why is that so wrong, if you accept that we as humans have some right to kill other species at our whim, to protect our need to produce meet and milk, then I can't see why this is an issue.

If you don't accept that we do, then I hope your Vegan lifestyle suits you, and I respect your views, as I can empathise with them directly.

[oldjerry]

That's not what we're saying,who's said anything about conspiracy?? It's obvious that badgers aren't the main source of the spread of TB in the countryside(actually I reckon cattle are),the fact is that people need to be seen to be doing something.Dairy farmers are on their knees and we've been brainwashed since WW2 into thinking that milk is an absolute necessity for growing healthy children.By putting off the development of a decent reliable test for decades,we're in a situation of paying out millions per year to slaughter cattle that DONT have TB.I don't have a problem with killing animals,and I hate Badgers(see elsewhere) ,but it's mere tokenism and it shows the reality of the ''Driven by science'' basis of DEFRA..........And of course,you and I are paying for all this.....

[The Riff-Raff Element]

There has already been selective culling to test the notion that TB is being chiefly spread by badgers - that's rather the point. In fact, if memory serves, about £50 million has been spent since 2008 trying to prove the connection, and it hasn't proven anything. Rather than following the evidence (or lack of it), HMG has decided to kill 30,000 badgers anyway. Possibly they want to do this to save face over the tonne of money they've already spent, perhaps it is to free up building land for their chums or perhaps it is because they just like killing things: I couldn't say for sure.

I don't think anyone is disputing that TB in cattle is a concern for both human health and animal welfare reasons, but I share the view that this is a needless slaughter of wildlife that will probably achieve absolutely nothing.

[the.fee.fairy]

I sometimes wonder whether the fact that fox hunting has been all but banned has given certain people the idea that badger culling may just replace their favourite 'sport'.

[Zech]

There's a lot of information here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... sfeed=true

[boboff]

Given my reply was in part to engender a debate, please don't think I have gone completely mad!

Today I feel less able to argue the point as I have just leveled and whackered 10 tonne of sub base material on my drive, which is now looking lovely!

[Zech]

Well your point that it's a trial is what prompted me to look it up. Yes indeed, the politicians are trying to say this is a trial, but it's a completely rubbish trial in scientific terms.

This government cancelled most of the vaccination trials when they came to power. I haven't looked up the details, but I'm guessing that those trials were government funded whereas the cull 'trial' will be paid for by farmers.

[oldjerry]

Well,shotgun cartridges are cheap.

[boboff]

Badger in wind in the willows is very high and mighty and know it all, and for that reason alone I think a cull is in order!

Dunc?

[MKG]

I agree with you, boboff - that is, if you want to rampage around the country killing wild animals for no good reason whatsoever. We can have a high old time (apart from in Wales and parts of the south-west where bovine TB is rife) killing for the sake of it. Mind you, as there is very little bovine TB in the areas other than those I mentioned, it seems hardly worthwhile - but at least we'll get those badgers

I can't call it evidence (yet) but it certainly appears from DEFRA's own figures that there is no correlation between badger numbers and the incidence of bovine TB. There DOES appear to be a correlation between badgers carrying the disease and the presence of infected cattle. Pots and kettles, think I. I have to wonder if slaughtering all of the cattle in the high-infection areas might do some good. It certainly would for the badgers.

A number of farmers are pulling out their hair and jumping wildy up and down insisting that they know that badgers are to blame. Those same farmers are the ones who know that red kites, sparrowhawks, ospreys and any other bird which doesn't sit in a bush tweeting sweetly are enemies of the world order and existence as a whole. Kill 'em, they say (the raptors, that is, not the farmers - but hey!). Well, it's their land, and wild animals have no right to be there, have they?

Why don't we just get rid of the lot? Everything - rodents, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals - except the ones which farmers, DEFRA and the Countryside Alliance (have I spelled that right?) designate as useful. What a wonderful, disease-free environment we'll have then. At least, until another government-funded research station decides to pour crap down its drains. Must have been a badger working there at the time.

Mike

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Good Lord! Is it possible that the scale of (literate) public opinion has had an effect?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... or-setback

Either that or the Tory backwoodsmen have finally realised that this particular slaughter won't involve hunting pink and have gone all lukewarm on the idea.