# TheBadger Cull,  Brian May & the RSPCA.....



## Alec Swan (30 November 2012)

So now it seems that May has been selling the rights to kill deer on his Dorset,  or Devon Estate,  whilst being opposed to a management plan for badgers.  I wonder if I'm alone in finding his hypocrisy,  as surprising as his stupidity.

By all accounts he has responded by claiming that people are trying to discredit him,  and the rspca.  No s*** Sherlock.

It's the blue rinse that's done it,  it's addled his brain!  Perhaps it's yet to occur to him that not everyone who lives a rural existence lives on turnips and chews straw.

Alec.


----------



## hayinamanger (30 November 2012)

Just seen this on the CA newsletter, I am seething.  The man is a complete hypocrite.


----------



## Nicnac (30 November 2012)

That smacks of hypocrisy.  Let's hope the Daily Fail gets hold of the story rather than the CA which is only read by the intelligentsia


----------



## Maesfen (30 November 2012)

It doesn't surprise me.  Presumably he hasn't got trouble with his badgers unlike thousands of other people but is happy to cull his deer for profit.   Double standards, hope it back fires on him.


----------



## Dobiegirl (30 November 2012)

They were not shooting the old and the weak either but its alright because they used a trained marksman.


----------



## zizz (30 November 2012)

I know that owns some land which is farmed by a local huntsman, and some woodland which is managed by the fountain forsetry who use stalking as part of their deer management!


----------



## mon (30 November 2012)

As usual double standards bet he like Paul McCartney have used illegal drugs in their time, were having a TB test next month what joy, cattle looking forward to it, love those who don't make a living from farming telling us what to do!


----------



## Elbie (30 November 2012)

Some journalist commented on it in the Evening Standard and was saying why can't one be for culling one species but against killing another. He was in favour of culling wasps but against culling blue whales so does that make him a hypocrite?

Comparing wasps to whales isn't really the same as comparing deer to badgers now is it?! What an idiot.


----------



## mon (30 November 2012)

Only things deer damage are plants whereas badgers are vicious animals apart from disease they carry and apart from man have no predators.


----------



## brighteyes (30 November 2012)

Don't deer also carry bTB?


----------



## BWa (30 November 2012)

It was on the Daily Mail website last week. The man is a Moron.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (30 November 2012)

BWa said:



			It was on the Daily Mail website last week. The man is a Moron.
		
Click to expand...

How True A Lot Badgers round our way get mistaken for Foxes in the Lamp Low Levels of BTB


----------



## BWa (30 November 2012)

An easy mistake to make I do believe!


----------



## Star_Chaser (30 November 2012)

Hes not the first or the last person to sell the stalking rights on his estates and I can't see why he can't still have a thing for badgers.  Two different species and two different managements types.  I'm not in favour of a complete cull for badgers I rather like them but i do and have stalked, happy to do so because one is for the table and one would be deemed vermin.

I do feel for cattle farmers but I'm not convinced the science backs up the theory when it comes to TB.  Not when a % size reaction is the guide for a positive or negative test result. The test is not 100% there was some issue supposedly at one point over the test submission used to identify it under achieving.

No idea why this is new news though hes been at it for a while this is from sept 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oenp6m5C1bE BBC one show re badger cull


----------



## Alyth (1 December 2012)

As an ex-pom who grew up in rural Devon in the 40/50s when TB testing was started I feel the whole badger cull topic is a political ploy....yes, there are so many wild animals that carry tb....like rabbits...can we 'cull' all the rabbit population???  Of course not, not even mixamatosis was able to do that.  So attempting to 'cull' all the badgers in the country won't do anything to help reduce the incidence of tb in cattle....so why villify someone who feels strongly about the subject?  IMO the best way of going about the problem is to recognise it and attempt to control it.  Now it cannot be controlled in the wild animal population and it is unreasonable to expect to be able to eliminate the whole wild animal population - even if that were desirable.....so we need to be able to control it in our domestic herds.  I guess that means vaccination?  And carrying that one step further, a more difficult problem is foot and mouth.....so perhaps vaccination against that disease as well should be mandatory.....and then we should move on further and see what other diseases are a problem to our national health safety.....


----------



## perfect11s (1 December 2012)

Alyth said:



			As an ex-pom who grew up in rural Devon in the 40/50s when TB testing was started I feel the whole badger cull topic is a political ploy....yes, there are so many wild animals that carry tb....like rabbits...can we 'cull' all the rabbit population???  Of course not, not even mixamatosis was able to do that.  So attempting to 'cull' all the badgers in the country won't do anything to help reduce the incidence of tb in cattle....so why villify someone who feels strongly about the subject?  IMO the best way of going about the problem is to recognise it and attempt to control it.  Now it cannot be controlled in the wild animal population and it is unreasonable to expect to be able to eliminate the whole wild animal population - even if that were desirable.....so we need to be able to control it in our domestic herds.  I guess that means vaccination?  And carrying that one step further, a more difficult problem is foot and mouth.....so perhaps vaccination against that disease as well should be mandatory.....and then we should move on further and see what other diseases are a problem to our national health safety.....
		
Click to expand...

 Bla bla yada yada Hmmm...


----------



## BWa (1 December 2012)

Did anyone see the article in FW last week, the one about how the Irish have doing an excellent job of eradicating TB, made for interesting reading about the positive results of a cull... Funny that.


----------



## mon (1 December 2012)

Good reading that BWa


----------



## Spook (1 December 2012)

The badgers are culling the ground nesting wasps and bees, digging out and eating all the nest. They are also along with fox, buzzard and mink etc. eating the eggs of most of the ground nesting birds........  we have untill recent years had very good numbers of curlew, sky lark, plover and oyster catchers..... truely this, past year, I have neither seen nor heard any of these birds on this farm here in Aberdeenshire.

Incidentally Badger Haunch is supposed to be very good eating. We see badgers here regularly as we do fox and buzzards etc...... otters have also been seen here on occasion.

We have had newborn calves ears and backends eaten out by badger, Sheep with just their livers eaten out of a small neat hole in the skin..... needless to say these animals have to be pts. if they have not died during their ordeal. Locally poultry huts are regularly raided.

To date we do not have TB., the badger population here must be healthy, but there will shortly be more reasons for a cull than only the presence of TB. Oh and the SSPCA release baders locally after removing them under licence from built up areas where they are damaging buildings and roads by udermining them.


----------



## Alec Swan (1 December 2012)

horseloaner said:



			Hes not the first or the last person to sell the stalking rights on his estates and I can't see why he can't still have a thing for badgers.  Two different species and two different managements types.  I'm not in favour of a *complete cull* for badgers I rather like them but i do and have stalked, happy to do so because one is for the table and one would be deemed vermin.

.......
		
Click to expand...

Two different species,  obviously,  but where is the management system for badgers?  There isn't one,  and therein lies the problem.  I too have a "thing",  as you put it,  for badgers.  I want to see the population reduced to numbers which are sustainable,  reduced so that they no longer come into conflict with man.  

I too stalk,  and deer have been a passion for the last near 50years.  Deer,  where they come into conflict with man are managed by controlled shooting.  Without that management,  the deer become a menace to themselves.  They become vermin,  and the hand of everyone is against them.  Badgers are now considered vermin,  by many,  and with a reduction in numbers,  and a reduction in their disease spreading capabilities,  so they will once again be the revered creature that they were previously.



Alyth said:



			.......  So attempting to 'cull' all the badgers in the country won't do anything to help reduce the incidence of tb in cattle....so why villify someone who feels strongly about the subject?  

.....
		
Click to expand...

Why it is that those who are opposed to the cull,  insist on claiming that those who would support it,  want *every* badger killed,  is beyond me.  It has never been,  and would never be the intent of those who are pro cull.

For others to claim that the removal or annihilation of a species is the plan,  are simply throwing out red herrings,  in an attempt ti filibuster.

Badgers have no natural enemies,  except man that is,  and by refusing to reduce the numbers,  to manageable bounds,  (as happens with deer incidentally) so the badgers themselves are being done a disservice.

Brian May is being vilified,  because he's set his thought process at a pitch where he wont accept the damage which the over population of badgers is doing,  and also refuses to accept that the crippling effect of BTb on those who attempt to earn a living from farming cattle,  is bringing many to their knees.  

Brian May,  who uses his public persona to  campaign on a subject which is so damaging and hurtful to those who actually live a rural life,  should be ashamed of himself.  As a rural landowner,  he's a disgrace.

Alec.


----------



## Alyth (1 December 2012)

perfect11s said:



			Bla bla yada yada Hmmm...
		
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your intelligent and thought provoking comment.  I am sure we will all ponder on your opinion for some time to come!!!!


----------



## mon (2 December 2012)

Alec have you ever considered running for prime minister you would certainly get my vote, and us farmers and real country folk would have a fine spokesman.


----------



## Alyth (2 December 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Two different species,  obviously,  but where is the management system for badgers?  There isn't one,  and therein lies the problem.  I too have a "thing",  as you put it,  for badgers.  I want to see the population reduced to numbers which are sustainable,  reduced so that they no longer come into conflict with man.  



Why it is that those who are opposed to the cull,  insist on claiming that those who would support it,  want *every* badger killed,  is beyond me.  It has never been,  and would never be the intent of those who are pro cull.

For others to claim that the removal or annihilation of a species is the plan,  are simply throwing out red herrings,  in an attempt ti filibuster.

Badgers have no natural enemies,  except man that is,  and by refusing to reduce the numbers,  to manageable bounds,  (as happens with deer incidentally) so the badgers themselves are being done a disservice.


Alec.
		
Click to expand...


Perhaps it's the use of the word 'cull' which to most people means 'eliminate'......so tell me how can you pick the tb infected badgers to cull while leaving the healthy ones?


----------



## perfect11s (2 December 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Two different species,  obviously,  but where is the management system for badgers?  There isn't one,  and therein lies the problem.  I too have a "thing",  as you put it,  for badgers.  I want to see the population reduced to numbers which are sustainable,  reduced so that they no longer come into conflict with man.  

I too stalk,  and deer have been a passion for the last near 50years.  Deer,  where they come into conflict with man are managed by controlled shooting.  Without that management,  the deer become a menace to themselves.  They become vermin,  and the hand of everyone is against them.  Badgers are now considered vermin,  by many,  and with a reduction in numbers,  and a reduction in their disease spreading capabilities,  so they will once again be the revered creature that they were previously.



Why it is that those who are opposed to the cull,  insist on claiming that those who would support it,  want *every* badger killed,  is beyond me.  It has never been,  and would never be the intent of those who are pro cull.

For others to claim that the removal or annihilation of a species is the plan,  are simply throwing out red herrings,  in an attempt ti filibuster.

Badgers have no natural enemies,  except man that is,  and by refusing to reduce the numbers,  to manageable bounds,  (as happens with deer incidentally) so the badgers themselves are being done a disservice.

Brian May is being vilified,  because he's set his thought process at a pitch where he wont accept the damage which the over population of badgers is doing,  and also refuses to accept that the crippling effect of BTb on those who attempt to earn a living from farming cattle,  is bringing many to their knees.  

Brian May,  who uses his public persona to  campaign on a subject which is so damaging and hurtful to those who actually live a rural life,  should be ashamed of himself.  As a rural landowner,  he's a disgrace.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 He might be a landowner  but that's  all,  wealth isn't  wisdom.... it's like these wealthy people  with lefty  views allways spouting about some injustice but never puting their money where there mouth is  ... he is just another hypocritcal moron with money throwing his weight about ,  pity people   listen to them...


----------



## mon (2 December 2012)

Agree jumped up aged Pop star who should stick to his profession and leave ours alone.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 December 2012)

Alyth said:



			Perhaps it's the use of the word 'cull' which to most people means 'eliminate'......so tell me how can you pick the tb infected badgers to cull while leaving the healthy ones?
		
Click to expand...

_noun
a selective slaughter of wild animals.
 [usu. as adj. ] an inferior or surplus livestock animal *selected* for killing : a cull cow._ My bold print.

I agree that the use of the word "Cull" is wrong,  firstly because it doesn't mean a total kill,  and secondly because the idea that BTb infected badgers could be *selected*,  is ridiculous,  just as the idea of night shooting is also and equally daft.

The only sensible reduction system which would work,  would be that in areas of high BTb mortality rates in cattle,  COUPLED TO high density populations of badgers,  then selected setts would be gassed.  The complete family unit would be killed.  The criteria used would need to be based on a percentage of the perceived population in a given area.

Removing individual family members would most probably be counter productive,  and would cause needless stress and cruelty.

Gassing would be a humane and effective method of destruction.  With gas mechanically pumped underground,  death is virtually instantaneous,  and by the removal of entire family units,  there would be virtually no chance of infected badgers being harassed and disturbed,  and so moving on,  spreading the problem on a wider scale,  and worsening matters.  The problem with gassing is that we haven't forgotten the gas chambers of WWII yet,  and we aren't likely too!

I heard May interviewed on the telly the other day,  and he said and I quote "I want to stop people from killing all the foxes and all the badgers".  I suppose that if I keep banging on about it,  for long enough,  some of it might sink in; "There is no wish for eradication.  Allow those who live a rural life,  and care equally passionately about wildlife,  to manage that wildlife, and as it has been managed,  very successfully for centuries.

Alec.

p.s. Alyth,  I apologise for the rant,  but I'm finding it ever more difficult to keep quiet when the daily lives and well being of many who farm,  are being suffocated by a group with little interest in the correct and caring management of wildlife,  and every interest,  or so it would seem,  in their own agendas,  and that applies to those who campaign against fox hunting too. a.


----------



## BWa (2 December 2012)

That's the issue, people get swept along being brain washed by some by him who insinuates that farmers want to wipe out all badgers. It was never about that and never will be, but the general public don't bother to find out the facts and believe an ageing rock star instead.


----------



## BWa (2 December 2012)

(by some?!) damn phone


----------



## Alec Swan (2 December 2012)

Just another example of skewed and emotive thinking for you;  Do you remember that awful man Maxwell who owned The Daily Mirror?  and do you remember when,  whilst holding hands with Greenpeace,  they campaigned against the slaughter of seals?  Over-night,  they stopped the trade in seal skins,  with disastrous effects upon a relatively small but self contained eco-culture. 

Until Greenpeace and Maxwell interfered,  the Inuit fisherman held a close season for their fish stocks,  to allow them to replenish their numbers.  During this close season,  those Inuit who relied upon fish,  augmented a living from harvesting the skins of young seals,  and selling them.  There was a happy and balanced relationship which involved fish,  seals and man.

With the collapse of the skin market,  there was no living for the fishermen during the close season,  the seal numbers expanded rapidly,  the fish stocks were decimated,  the fishermen couldn't earn a living from seals OR fishing,  so they moved into the outskirts of towns,  existed on Government handouts,  and with little apparent purpose to life,  alcohol abuse became an endemic problem amongst the Inuit,  and the suicide rate became measurable.  Why?

Those who claim to campaign for wildlife need to understand that living with the ethic that within a management plan,  everything must live forever,  are so misguided and they have the potential to effect catastrophe.  I just wish that the Campaigners would look beyond what's immediately in front of them.

To the credit of Greenpeace,  when they realised the damage that they had done,  they withdrew from the campaign,  but too late.  

Alec.

p.s. Another rant,  I apologise!


----------



## brighteyes (2 December 2012)

So, what do you make of  this?

I'm all for getting this dreadful situation for our farmers under control - it is ruining their livelihood and costing the taxpayer millions in compensation for cow culling. Let's face it though, the poor cows aren't pets, but simply milking and breeding machines to satisfy our relentless demand for dairy products and meat, and face the unceremonious, largely unpublicised and summary 'chop' if their yield falls or they become barren.  They have a very finite useful working life and it isn't rewarded by anything remotely generous.

We can eat TB infected meat so their carcasses ought not to be wasted completely.  Put them into pies, why not?

And it is bovine TB not Mustelidae TB. What's the betting it's some man-made issue which has caused the spread of the disease and badger population 'inconvenience' in the first place!


----------



## EAST KENT (2 December 2012)

Mmmm....startling resemblence between Mark Carwardine  and Brian May,remove the barnet and see what I mean.
I suppose it is "too costly" to trap from each sett a badger,TB test it ,and then decide the fate of the rest of the sett?That would make more sense to me than randomly killing of possibly healthy animals only for possibly unhealthy ones to move in.Although I have noticed that if something dire occurs in a sett it is abandoned for a very long time.


----------



## mon (2 December 2012)

At the moment we are in a 48 month testing area but neighbouring county is set to go in to a 12 month testing area, the store Market we use is in that area so think no official paperwork yet! We can take to market BUT if we don't manage to sell them what happens can we bring them back? Can we buy store cattle from there? No one has told us weather we control badger numbers or not how can a business run on no information and when we are made to test store cattle it is at a charge to us for NO benefit to us.


----------



## brighteyes (2 December 2012)

A Ministry vet round here has said it's nothing to do with badgers, more to do with reactors mixing with clear cattle (dodgy dealers). 

Killing badgers is futile - unless you kill every last infected one. And every last TB infected cow. And deer. And llama. In NZ, apparently possums and ferrets are the main vectors of transmission.

Bovine TB originated in cattle and it has spread to other species, so now they have to die, too.  Unless we need them, of course.


----------



## Dobiegirl (2 December 2012)

brightinsel said:



			A Ministry vet round here has said it's nothing to do with badgers, more to do with reactors mixing with clear cattle (dodgy dealers). 

Killing badgers is futile - unless you kill every last infected one. And every last TB infected cow. And deer. And llama. In NZ, apparently possums and ferrets are the main vectors of transmission.

Bovine TB originated in cattle and it has spread to other species, so now they have to die, too.  Unless we need them, of course.
		
Click to expand...

That dosnt explain how closed herds have got TB, imo the badger is the scapegoat and Im surprised they havnt looked at deer as being one of the main vectors. Deer travel further afield than badgers who are far more terrotorial.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 December 2012)

Dobiegirl said:



			....... and Im surprised they havnt looked at deer as being one of the main vectors. Deer travel further afield than badgers who are far more terrotorial.
		
Click to expand...

Being territorial,  and travelling further afield,  in the case of deer,  are a contradiction in terms.  In the West Country,where they have Red deer,  then they would be nomadic,  but where they have Roe deer,  then they may well die within 1 mile of where they were born.

I may be wrong,  but I suspect that throwing deer in to the mix,  may well be clouding the issue.

I've shot several thousand deer over the years,  but have never seen one which has displayed the symptoms of Tb.  We live in a changing and evolving world,  and it may well be that deer are now known to be a threat.  *IF* they are,  then a large part of my raison detre will sink!! 



brightinsel said:



			So, what do you make of  this?

.......
		
Click to expand...

As with many of your posts,  there's really too much to discuss,  at the first attempt!  Interesting points raised,  for all that. 

Sir David Attenborough,  for me anyway,  sits on the right hand of God,  BUT,  I fail to see how he can be an authority on global warming,  gorillas,  ants that live on the moon,  AND the badgers which may,  or may not carry BTb.  Sorry,  but that's not being realistic.  I suspect that he's offered support where it hasn't been warranted.

Simon King?  He's a film maker.  He's not as good as he thinks that he is,  but he's not that bad.  As he represents the various Wildlife Trusts,  who in turn are a collection of well intentioned idiots,  so there's not much to recommend him there,  is there?

I'm sorry to be disparaging of your post,  and whilst it was of interest,  there were no contributions which were of any value,  for me.  I'm here with an open mind,  but I need to be convinced that reducing the numbers of the known major carriers of BTb,  badgers,  is a mistake.

We all want the best for our wild life,  obviously,  but it's how we reach our goals,  or perhaps the path that we take,  which would result in the damage which we may do,  whilst en route.  That applies to my argument,  just as it does yours.

Alec.


----------



## Alyth (2 December 2012)

Alec Swan said:



_noun
a selective slaughter of wild animals.
&#8226; [usu. as adj. ] an inferior or surplus livestock animal *selected* for killing : a cull cow._ My bold print.

I agree that the use of the word "Cull" is wrong,  firstly because it doesn't mean a total kill,  and secondly because the idea that BTb infected badgers could be *selected*,  is ridiculous,  just as the idea of night shooting is also and equally daft.

The only sensible reduction system which would work,  would be that in areas of high BTb mortality rates in cattle,  COUPLED TO high density populations of badgers,  then selected setts would be gassed.  The complete family unit would be killed.  The criteria used would need to be based on a percentage of the perceived population in a given area.

Removing individual family members would most probably be counter productive,  and would cause needless stress and cruelty.

Gassing would be a humane and effective method of destruction.  With gas mechanically pumped underground,  death is virtually instantaneous,  and by the removal of entire family units,  there would be virtually no chance of infected badgers being harassed and disturbed,  and so moving on,  spreading the problem on a wider scale,  and worsening matters.  The problem with gassing is that we haven't forgotten the gas chambers of WWII yet,  and we aren't likely too!

I heard May interviewed on the telly the other day,  and he said and I quote "I want to stop people from killing all the foxes and all the badgers".  I suppose that if I keep banging on about it,  for long enough,  some of it might sink in; "There is no wish for eradication.  Allow those who live a rural life,  and care equally passionately about wildlife,  to manage that wildlife, and as it has been managed,  very successfully for centuries.

Alec.

p.s. Alyth,  I apologise for the rant,  but I'm finding it ever more difficult to keep quiet when the daily lives and well being of many who farm,  are being suffocated by a group with little interest in the correct and caring management of wildlife,  and every interest,  or so it would seem,  in their own agendas,  and that applies to those who campaign against fox hunting too. a.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable explaination!!  I also looked up the word 'cull', but I think that it's meaning and use has changed since my dictionary was printed back in the 1950s!!  And I totally agree with the idea of being able to select for sickness is rediculous - I was being sarcastic!!


----------



## brighteyes (2 December 2012)

*Alec* Google LACS, deer sanctuary and bTB...

I'm not trying to muddy waters and should have edited the YT video to exclude the others but I felt their opinions were valid, too.

The cull of anything hasn't got that much to do with anything except commerce and public demand for the food and environment demanded by the masses. I wonder what will happen when we have culled everything inconvenient to us based on flawed science and ill thought out proposals.  I haven't any objections to a controlled cull of an animal thriving because of human mismanagement (ironic, eh?) except that I doubt it will do any good.


----------



## brighteyes (2 December 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Being territorial,  and travelling further afield,  in the case of deer,  are a contradiction in terms.  In the West Country,where they have Red deer,  then they would be nomadic,  but where they have Roe deer,  then they may well die within 1 mile of where they were born.

I may be wrong,  but I suspect that throwing deer in to the mix,  may well be clouding the issue.

I've shot several thousand deer over the years,  but have never seen one which has displayed the symptoms of Tb.  We live in a changing and evolving world,  and it may well be that deer are now known to be a threat.  *IF* they are,  then a large part of my raison detre will sink!! 



As with many of your posts,  there's really too much to discuss,  at the first attempt!  Interesting points raised,  for all that. 

Sir David Attenborough,  for me anyway,  sits on the right hand of God,  BUT,  I fail to see how he can be an authority on global warming,  gorillas,  ants that live on the moon,  AND the badgers which may,  or may not carry BTb.  Sorry,  but that's not being realistic.  I suspect that he's offered support where it hasn't been warranted.

Simon King?  He's a film maker.  He's not as good as he thinks that he is,  but he's not that bad.  As he represents the various Wildlife Trusts,  who in turn are a collection of well intentioned idiots,  so there's not much to recommend him there,  is there?

I'm sorry to be disparaging of your post,  and whilst it was of interest,  there were no contributions which were of any value,  for me.  I'm here with an open mind,  but I need to be convinced that reducing the numbers of the known major carriers of BTb,  badgers,  is a mistake.

We all want the best for our wild life,  obviously,  but it's how we reach our goals,  or perhaps the path that we take,  which would result in the damage which we may do,  whilst en route.  That applies to my argument,  just as it does yours.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to muddy the waters, but am pointing out badgers seem to have got the rap for this and cows carrying bTB don't show signs, sometimes at all? Deer might not either.


----------



## Alec Swan (2 December 2012)

brightinsel said:



*Alec* Google LACS, deer sanctuary and bTB...

........
		
Click to expand...

Been there,  done that,  and there are those who should be serving prison sentences.  NOT ONE WORD from Defra,  Trading Standards,  or the rspca.  View the recordings of those who farm in the area,  and from those who care about *their* native deer.  The league against cruel sports,  are a disgrace.

Anger?  Rage would be a better word.

Alec.


----------



## brighteyes (2 December 2012)

I was pointing out that the LACS deer 'sanctuary was on place bTB had been found in deer, and I don't see how they can be discounted as carriers.


----------



## jrp204 (2 December 2012)

FIL lost 38 out of 42 suckler cows and calves to bTB last spring, tests have shown it is a strain carried in a herd of red deer that we're thoughtfully released from captivity 6 yrs ago. Damn things, although spectacular to see are everywhere and impossible to fence out. The 4 calves not infected were housed indoors.


----------



## brighteyes (2 December 2012)

jrp204 said:



			FIL lost 38 out of 42 suckler cows and calves to bTB last spring, tests have shown it is a strain carried in a herd of red deer that we're thoughtfully released from captivity 6 yrs ago. Damn things, although spectacular to see are everywhere and impossible to fence out. The 4 calves not infected were housed indoors.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder how they'll make a succesful case where Bambi is the bad guy.


----------



## Alyth (3 December 2012)

brightinsel said:



			A Ministry vet round here has said it's nothing to do with badgers, more to do with reactors mixing with clear cattle (dodgy dealers). 

Killing badgers is futile - unless you kill every last infected one. And every last TB infected cow. And deer. And llama. In NZ, apparently possums and ferrets are the main vectors of transmission.

Bovine TB originated in cattle and it has spread to other species, so now they have to die, too.  Unless we need them, of course.
		
Click to expand...

I live in NZ now - and every rabbit my son has shot has tb lungs......


----------



## Alec Swan (3 December 2012)

jrp204 said:



			FIL lost 38 out of 42 suckler cows and calves to bTB last spring, tests have shown it is a strain carried in a herd of red deer that we're thoughtfully released from captivity 6 yrs ago. Damn things, although spectacular to see are everywhere and impossible to fence out. The 4 calves not infected were housed indoors.
		
Click to expand...

I feel for your FIL,  it must be dire.

Having been reminded by brightinsel of the Tb status of the deer at Baronsdown,  and having read of the rabbits in NZ,  and then considering that unlike the wild deer in this country,  which though carriers,  don't seem,  to me anyway,  to be sufferers,  then I wonder if the displayed infection rate of Tb is as much,  or more,  to do with population density,  as it is the carriers themselves.  If that's the case,  then the success of the badger cull in Ireland,  and there being a direct and parallel reduction in the cases in cattle,  then I would imagine that that would strengthen the argument to reduce the overall population of badgers in the UK,  or at least in the hot-spot areas.

Another point,  is that if there were a fairly hefty reduction in badger numbers (as there has been in parts of Ireland),  and if the incidents of Tb in cattle didn't reduce,  then badgers could be considered blameless,  and the numbers allowed to recover.  If,  as in Ireland,  the reduction in badgers coincided with a reduction in the reported cases in cattle,  then the answer to the problem would be found.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (3 December 2012)

brightinsel said:



			A Ministry vet round here has said it's nothing to do with badgers, more to do with reactors mixing with clear cattle (dodgy dealers). 

...........
		
Click to expand...

Vets,  Ministry or otherwise,  can hypothesise just as the rest of us can.  The restrictions,  passport controls and massive fines,  even for simple mistakes in ear tagging keep most who farm cattle on the straight and narrow,  I can assure you!!  For a vet to suggest that it's dodgy cattle dealers who are responsible,  is ridiculous.  

I'm not going to say that every dealer in cattle is lilly white,  but to suggest that a disease spread is the responsibility of the very few who are brave or stupid enough to step outside the law,  makes no sense what so ever.  

Most who keep and deal in,  cattle,  are in receipt of SF Payments.  ANY transgression,  even through oversight,  can have those payments withdrawn,  or clawed back.  Bankruptcy would be the likely result.  Sorry,  but your vet's talking out of his hat! 

I've yet to fully understand why cattle can't be vaccinated against Tb.  When I've asked before,  others have mumbled something about exports,  but whether that's to do with live animals,  or processed carcasses,  I don't know.  If it is solely to do with live export,  then I suspect that the current compensation paid to those who lose cattle far outweigh the value of exports.  Does anyone have a clear explanation?

Alec.

Ets,  and to answer my own question,  I've just dragged up this explanation from Defra's website;

"Vaccination of cattle against TB is currently prohibited by EU legislation, in place principally because BCG vaccination of cattle can interfere with the tuberculin skin test which is the recognised primary diagnostic test for TB in cattle.

Vaccinating cattle in the UK against TB but without a Marketing Authorisation for the vaccine runs the risk that live cattle and cattle product exports could be banned by other countries.  While the export market for live cattle is relatively small, the value of our meat and dairy exports is much greater. Our dairy exports alone grew by nearly 20% in 2011, to more than £1.1billion."

So that's the end of that!!


----------



## jrp204 (3 December 2012)

The cattle vaccine hasn't had sufficient trialing, the majority of trials have been done in badgers and just because it works in them doesn't mean it will work in the cattle. Also, because it is a live vaccine the cattle will then be technically 'infected' with no quick way of knowing if it is because they are vaccinated or infected. This is where the export thing comes in, they wouldn't risk exporting infected animals to the continent where there is no bTB


----------



## Star_Chaser (3 December 2012)

brightinsel said:



			I was pointing out that the LACS deer 'sanctuary was on place bTB had been found in deer, and I don't see how they can be discounted as carriers.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps because deer are big business to many landowners who sell the stalking rights and other industries as a consequence.  Badgers are only a cost unless your running sightseeing tours.  If a complete cull of deer as well as badgers occur it would hit a lot of people in the pocket.

Old report from 2004 but this is an interesting read obviously this research will have been updated since this was issued http://www.bds.org.uk/response_to_defra.html

http://animalhealth.defra.gov.uk/ab...uidance/documents/13_Tuberculosis_in_deer.pdf Defra's leaflet on TB in deer herds


----------



## Star_Chaser (3 December 2012)

jrp204 said:



			The cattle vaccine hasn't had sufficient trialing, the majority of trials have been done in badgers and just because it works in them doesn't mean it will work in the cattle. Also, because it is a live vaccine the cattle will then be technically 'infected' with no quick way of knowing if it is because they are vaccinated or infected. This is where the export thing comes in, they wouldn't risk exporting infected animals to the continent where there is no bTB 

Click to expand...

Don't mainland Europe and those who we import meat from have bTB? How did we manage to be so unique?


----------



## jrp204 (3 December 2012)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			Don't mainland Europe and those who we import meat from have bTB? How did we manage to be so unique?
		
Click to expand...

It's a touch of sarcasm. There is bTB on the continent, they just don't shout about it. It is in the deer, wild boar, badgers, alpacas and like us their cattle. Do you think the french would be so precious about culling?


----------



## Star_Chaser (3 December 2012)

jrp204 said:



			It's a touch of sarcasm. There is bTB on the continent, they just don't shout about it. It is in the deer, wild boar, badgers, alpacas and like us their cattle. Do you think the french would be so precious about culling?
		
Click to expand...

depends have you seen the buggers shoot??   Sadly we do seem to end up in the proverbial poo when it comes to our exports but are happy to import to much poorer standards than our own.


----------



## happyhunter123 (4 December 2012)

Just a couple of weeks ago there was a (stupid) story in the press about an MP who tweeted that he wanted to kill a stag. He probably wasn't serious.
The RSPCA said: "It is sad when people cant see the beauty in a wild animal like this and just want to kill it.
The League said: We worry about the Governments underlying beliefs about the importance of our wildlife. It should be respected. 

Then we here that May allowed the same to happen just a week or so later, and they all rush to protect him. Suddenly, management of deer is said to be 'necessary'. When it's a Tory MP, it's terrible, when it's Brian May it's fine. 

These groups are a disgrace and I hope that the public see right through them and their hypocrisy.


----------



## applecart14 (7 December 2012)

a chap from DEFRA said to me once that a lot of badgers that are seen as roadkill, lying at the side of the road are in fact badgers that have been put there by farmers after they have filled them with shot.

Hmmm interesting and probably true.  Sitting on the fence on that one.


----------



## Superhot (7 December 2012)

Apple cart, that is definitely true, I've seen it for myself...never known a road kill with only a single hole in the head...


----------



## Alec Swan (7 December 2012)

applecart14 said:



			a chap from DEFRA said to me once that a lot of badgers that are seen as roadkill, lying at the side of the road are in fact badgers that have been put there by farmers after they have filled them with shot.

Hmmm interesting and probably true.  Sitting on the fence on that one.
		
Click to expand...




Superhot said:



			Apple cart, that is definitely true, I've seen it for myself...never known a road kill with only a single hole in the head...
		
Click to expand...

Interesting indeed,  were there any point to it. 

Alec.


----------



## mon (7 December 2012)

Had suckler cows in for first part of TB test today some got mega stressed as not handled much unlike dairy cows, vet convinced badgers are a main reason, god knows how we are going to get them all in and safely through crush again monday for checking.


----------



## happyhunter123 (7 December 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Interesting indeed,  were there any point to it. 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

It's always been a claim made by the AR groups, but it seems a stupid one. A farmer who'd shot a badger could far more easily dispose of it in other manners. There are plenty of very quiet places in the countryside where the public have no access to, and a farmer could easily bury it or leave it under a bush. Throwing it on the road would be MUCH more risky as motorists would see you! 
Badger on the road=roadkill, just like a fox or a rabbit on the road is. Simple.


----------



## Star_Chaser (7 December 2012)

applecart14 said:



			a chap from DEFRA said to me once that a lot of badgers that are seen as roadkill, lying at the side of the road are in fact badgers that have been put there by farmers after they have filled them with shot.

Hmmm interesting and probably true.  Sitting on the fence on that one.
		
Click to expand...

What a pile of tosh... most farmers wouldn't want to get caught chucking them onto the highway.  I did a study for uni on roadkill and its very easy to tell the difference between hit by a car and other methods of dispatch.


----------



## happyhunter123 (7 December 2012)

Noels_Star_Chaser said:



			What a pile of tosh... most farmers wouldn't want to get caught chucking them onto the highway.  I did a study for uni on roadkill and its very easy to tell the difference between hit by a car and other methods of dispatch.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, if you wanted to keep it secret, throwing it onto a road with passing motorists would be lunacy! You'd think that at least someone would have been caught if this was actually going on!


----------

