Mrs Spelman has got the wrong end of the stick

[Scotsgun]

Christel,

The vaccination method has been tried and failed, both with localised bdger studies and othe species. God forbid it ever got to the scale of the rabbit mixy debacle :cool2:

Badgers transmit TB and so does cattle movement between farms etc of ... some of which are probably infected.

TB may also get into other species, such as deer and sheep.

Don't forget that the cattle are routinely testd for TB by the vet.

Also deer stalkers, deer managers, game dealers, etc especially those intending to supply the food chain have a legal responsibility to check carcasses for notifiable diseases including TB, Foot & Mouth, etc.

Should common sense ever prevail and a nationwide badger cull is introduced (really can't see the hopeless Scottish Govt supporting though) then it would probaly run like those of other 'pests' - cormarants, night culling of deer etc. The license will be issued to a specific person and for that piece of land only. I would be more than willing to cull as understand how important it could be to the farmer and how disasterous TB could be for their livelihood. It will also be another incentive for them to allow me on their land to stalk deer, wildfowl, pigeons, etc

Lastly, the offer of the pelt was only in half jest. I regularly keep and give away pelts, wings and tails. Usual recipients include an artist, a guy who runs the local flytiers guild who offers free tuition to kids,local fishermen and an amateur leatherworker.

[Dougan]

Christel,

The vaccination method has been tried and failed, both with localised bdger studies and othe species. God forbid it ever got to the scale of the rabbit mixy debacle :cool2:

Badgers transmit TB and so does cattle movement between farms etc of ... some of which are probably infected.

TB may also get into other species, such as deer and sheep.

Don't forget that the cattle are routinely testd for TB by the vet.

Also deer stalkers, deer managers, game dealers, etc especially those intending to supply the food chain have a legal responsibility to check carcasses for notifiable diseases including TB, Foot & Mouth, etc.

Should common sense ever prevail and a nationwide badger cull is introduced (really can't see the hopeless Scottish Govt supporting though) then it would probaly run like those of other 'pests' - cormarants, night culling of deer etc. The license will be issued to a specific person and for that piece of land only. I would be more than willing to cull as understand how important it could be to the farmer and how disasterous TB could be for their livelihood. It will also be another incentive for them to allow me on their land to stalk deer, wildfowl, pigeons, etc

Lastly, the offer of the pelt was only in half jest. I regularly keep and give away pelts, wings and tails. Usual recipients include an artist, a guy who runs the local flytiers guild who offers free tuition to kids,local fishermen and an amateur leatherworker.

Half jest or not, I didn't find it funny.

I've already said that I accept that some badgers will have to be destroyed - but for an animal lover, it's a serious and sad subject.

I also don't have a problem with 'one for the pot', and I've done some hunting myself in the past - I can prepare a rabbit with a hand axe in 2 mins flat, so I'm not squeemish. But I can't help finding it annoying when people talk so casually about shooting animals, and some even seem to think it's fun - which I just can't get my head around.

Of all the various 'excuses' people find for shooting animals, I agree that this particular issue has validity - but if we continue to take such a casual attitude to killing animals...then our great grandchildren will be lucky to ever see a British mammal in the wild bigger than a rat.

[Sandgroper]

Look at it this way badgers in the UK have few natural predators, thanks to man. Apart from man the only creatures that would have controlled badgers in the past were wolves, lynx and bears all of which man has removed from ecosystem.

Without predators to control them and since they are protected, it is only natural that the population would increase. It proven that population stress causes animals to become more susceptible to disease, so is it not possible that a cull could actually make a healthier badger population?

[Dougan]

Look at it this way badgers in the UK have few natural predators, thanks to man. Apart from man the only creatures that would have controlled badgers in the past were wolves, lynx and bears all of which man has removed from ecosystem.

Without predators to control them and since they are protected, it is only natural that the population would increase. It proven that population stress causes animals to become more susceptible to disease, so is it not possible that a cull could actually make a healthier badger population?

Yes - very good point. I'm just concerned that it is done properly i.e. no more than necessary, no cruelty involved (if the licences are issued indescriminatly, there will be a rise in 'badger baiting') and once the initial 'control' is done, then a real effort needs be made to find alternative solutions for the future, that will protect both badgers and cattle...so we don't end up in this s*** situation again.


btw: I was going to 'bang on' about bears and wolves in my last post...but I thought I'd spare everbody....

[Robin128]

Culls in the past have been by way of shooting and gassing. I doubt anyone will be allowed to bait with dogs and the like...that's not conservation but viscious thuggery.

Yeah, some do kill for the sake of it...but only a few. Farmers as you probably know have no love for foxes, especially those with fowl. Likewise bird on the corn leading to significantly reduced yields.

I don't think a cull will set out to irradicate badgers...and in any case that would be very difficult to achieve, since the proposed cull I believe is going to be tested in a few areas first.

Doubt the cull will go ahead...I think it will get blocked one way or another like it was recently in Wales.

And farmers will carry on doing their thing anyway.

:)

[ovenpaa]

Me and my father are dairy farmers here in Northern Ireland and I would definatly support a cull over here in intensively farned areas as Tuberculosis is a real problem in this area.

We breed and milk 150 pedigree Holstein cows aswell as breed Aberdeen Angus beef cattle.
2 years ago we had a bad a bad TB outbreak and 7 of our cows had to be taken away to be culled. This was a big loss to our herd and one of those cows was used to flush embryos from to implant into other cows as she was an outstanding cow.
We did get compensated for these cows but nowhere near to the value that they were worth, how do you expalin to the asessor that youre cow is worth about a grand more than he is offering you and that it took 35 years of work and breeding to get the genetics in youre herd!!
This also led us to become a closed herd which means we cannot sell any animals which led us to become over stocked with calves as we normally sell all of the bull calves. Housing, enough land to graze the cattle and excess slurry are all knockon effects of this overstocking.
Being a closed herd for so long led us to having to shoot all of the bull calves at birth as we were left with no choice. This is a hard decision and something that I had to try and do as my Father could not gather the courage to shoot them.
So this is an inside view of the knock on effects of Tuberculosis that many people will never hear.

Regards

Garry

I cannot imagine what goes through your mind when you have to destroy your own animals. I told Christel the other day the story of my great aunt and uncle who were dairy farmers in mid Wales, they were far from well off, electricity was via a pre war motorbike engine that ran a generator to power light in a couple of rooms, turn one light too many on and the generator fell over. Even in the 1960's the issues of TB were being discussed and they were all for a Badger cull. The death of even one animal was a huge loss to them. We all agree badgers are known carriers of TB and a cull may have a positive impact on some particularly badly hit farmers. For this reason alone I am all for the cull in select areas to see what results it yields, and it needs to be carried out for at least three years if not more to confirm if it makes a difference or not.

I am not sure about the wholesale persecution of badgers in all areas quite yet even though we have a huge badger population here in the UK.

[Robin128]

I guess the selected areas would have to be large enough to mitigate the risk of early reinhabitation and cattle movement.

:|

[Christel]

Of all the various 'excuses' people find for shooting animals, I agree that this particular issue has validity - but if we continue to take such a casual attitude to killing animals...then our great grandchildren will be lucky to ever see a British mammal in the wild bigger than a rat.

That reminded me, I watched some of Chris Packham's program about the New Forest the other day where he states that if we do not do something now the Forest will suffer irreversible damage. One key thing he pointed out was that the Forest Commission is planting conifers in great parts of the forest and of course the question is why not plant native species instead? Money is a big part of the answer, conifers grow faster than broad-leaves and can therefore be harvested quicker with income for the Forest Commission.
Whatever we do to the landscape it will affect it. Be that wood management, culling, protection of species. Humans should be careful as to what we decide to do with nature, nature may not recover or we may not get the desired result.

[Sandgroper]

That reminded me, I watched some of Chris Packham's program about the New Forest the other day where he states that if we do not do something now the Forest will suffer irreversible damage. One key thing he pointed out was that the Forest Commission is planting conifers in great parts of the forest and of course the question is why not plant native species instead? Money is a big part of the answer, conifers grow faster than broad-leaves and can therefore be harvested quicker with income for the Forest Commission.
Whatever we do to the landscape it will affect it. Be that wood management, culling, protection of species. Humans should be careful as to what we decide to do with nature, nature may not recover or we may not get the desired result.

Nature will always recover - it's just that we may not be around to see it.

[ovenpaa]

That reminded me, I watched some of Chris Packham's program about the New Forest the other day where he states that if we do not do something now the Forest will suffer irreversible damage. One key thing he pointed out was that the Forest Commission is planting conifers in great parts of the forest and of course the question is why not plant native species instead? Money is a big part of the answer, conifers grow faster than broad-leaves and can therefore be harvested quicker with income for the Forest Commission.
Whatever we do to the landscape it will affect it. Be that wood management, culling, protection of species. Humans should be careful as to what we decide to do with nature, nature may not recover or we may not get the desired result.

He also clearly showed the damage caused by grazing deer.