# Badger Cull Postponed



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

It's been announced that the cull has been postponed.

Great news.


----------



## jrp204 (23 October 2012)

Thats ok, we'll just keep on culling the cattle then.


----------



## redriverrock (23 October 2012)

I have spent alot of time looking into this and am very pleased that the facts are coming out and the cull has been postponed


----------



## kiteman0 (23 October 2012)

Thats ok, we'll just keep on culling the cattle then.


Well said. After seeing a hell of a lot of cows going up a ramp every test day I know how I feel about the cull being postponed


----------



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

Devastating for farmers to be loosing cattle to this dreadful disease - of course. Bit there really has to be am alternative to slaughtering our wildlife.

I very much hope that vaccination will now be seriously researched.


----------



## jrp204 (23 October 2012)

http://www.farmersguardian.com/why-the-badger-cull-has-been-postponed/50753.article


----------



## Fools Motto (23 October 2012)

Personally, I find it a bad move postponing the cull. But, a very slim part of me understands others' joy over it.


----------



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

Fools Motto - you're alive!!!


----------



## Alec Swan (23 October 2012)

For those who oppose the cull,  having read worryingly distorted claims from pop stars,  amongst others,  one short question for you;

How would you feel,  were the cattle yours,  and as you stood and watched them being shot?  

I would describe myself as a conservationist,  but if I kept cattle,  which I don't,  our resident badgers would find fresh digs,  I can assure you.

Alec.


----------



## jrp204 (23 October 2012)

Vaccination has not been tested in cattle, the fact it works in badgers does not mean it will work in cattle and it would take 10 yrs of research before any vaccination programme could be put in place. Vaccinated cattle will test positive for bTB making it impossible to tell if they have been vaccinated or are carrying the disease, and instantly stopping any export trade.
I invite anyone come and chat to my BIL, last autumn he loaded 45 of his 48 cattle in a lorry as they were all reactors. His farm is low intensity, closed herd with no cattle to cattle contact outside the herd. Explain that one.
I suppose the simple thing would be to leave the badgers, the cattle will be culled and we can import our meat and milk from countries with lower welfare standards, foot and mouth, bTB etc. 
All will be good until Jo Blog's cat or dog goes down with bTB let alone little Johnny.


----------



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

Alec,  quite simply is be devastated. But there has to be another way forward.


----------



## jrp204 (23 October 2012)

amymay said:



			Devastating for farmers to be loosing cattle to this dreadful disease - of course. Bit there really has to be am alternative to slaughtering our wildlife.

So, we shouldn't cull wildlife that spreads disease, you're ok with rats and mice then or is it ok to kill them?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Amymay (23 October 2012)

It's an interesting point actually jrp, and not one I'd considered. 

But a 70% (and now possibly 80%) proposed cull seems to border on an extinction level event, and this can't possibly air well with anyone.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (23 October 2012)

The Cull cannot be started Quick Enough to rid us of this plague which has been brought about by the ridiculous over protection of this species.


----------



## jrp204 (23 October 2012)

Badger numbers have more than tripled so a major reduction in hotspots, even localised exinction would be possible allowing reintroduction from clean areas.
It is very easy to shout the odds when your livlihood is not affected, monetary and emotionally.


----------



## wildoat (23 October 2012)

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, is this situation not exacerbated by certain farmer/cattle traders moving and selling their cattle which are constantly moved from one area to another for short term economic gains?

I know this was true in the past, not sure if it is still the case!

Perhaps I can be advised if my suggestion is unfounded!

Tony


----------



## mon (23 October 2012)

Bad news for cattle, bunny buggers shout louder with little fact, TB must be controlled and the science boffins earn a fortune and fail to understand the disease. We have our test next month and cattle hate it and stresses them out plus extra time and risks to handlers and cattle which sucklers aren't overly handled.


----------



## singlefarmer (23 October 2012)

amymay said:



			It's an interesting point actually jrp, and not one I'd considered. 

But a 70% (and now possibly 80%) proposed cull seems to border on an extinction level event, and this can't possibly air well with anyone.
		
Click to expand...

What do you think a 100% cattle cull would be then ????????????????????
Believe me it is only a matter of time before a member of the general public is infected with tb from a badger.


----------



## Alec Swan (23 October 2012)

wildoat said:



			Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, is this situation not exacerbated by certain farmer/cattle traders moving and selling their cattle which are constantly moved from one area to another for short term economic gains?

I know this was true in the past, not sure if it is still the case!

Perhaps I can be advised if my suggestion is unfounded!

Tony
		
Click to expand...

Generally,  though not always,  the bulk of BTB strikes dairy cattle,  as opposed to beef herds,  and the bulk of dairy herds are "Closed" herds.  "Closed",  as in that with the exception of sires,  and most of the matings are by AI,  there are no outside influences from imported cattle.  It's to do with herd health,  and it matters.

Cattle movements around the country will not,  because they can not,  affect those who operate closed herds.  

Badgers spread Bovine TB,  it's that simple.  Those who deny the evidence are doing so because they are following a warped agenda.  I wish that it wasn't so,  but sadly,  it is.

Alec.


----------



## mon (23 October 2012)

They won't admit that, if not interested in cull, let's not even test cattle, we must be able to cull badgers which are vicious animals not cuddly pets.


----------



## grey dawn (24 October 2012)

had my cattle tested last month, all fine, animal health lady who came to test was invoved in last badger cull down south a few years ago, was saying how many manky animals were found, if the badgers are already sick vacination won't work you have to start with a clean population


----------



## Moomin1 (24 October 2012)

amymay said:



			Devastating for farmers to be loosing cattle to this dreadful disease - of course. Bit there really has to be am alternative to slaughtering our wildlife.

I very much hope that vaccination will now be seriously researched.
		
Click to expand...

This.


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

Pre 
Movement testing has to be done unless going to slaughter. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/premovement/index.
Funnily enough badgers don't have Premovement testing and research has shown that badgers found in and around farm buildings will more often than not be sick. It is easy to say farmers should badger proof their buildings/fields but this is extremely hard and expensive to do as trying to stop a badger is like pushing custard up hill. With farm incomes, especially on beef and dairy farms being very low, often below 10k it's about time someone fought their corner, it is a foul disease in all it infects but managing it by culling only 1 of the carriers is ridiculous.


----------



## WestCoast (24 October 2012)

Erm - I assume that you guys complaining about this being stopped have actually read the research. They found that after 5 years of culling the rate of TB went down by a whopping 16% and the rate on neighbouring farms increased due to additional badger movements. In addition this was for trapping and killing, not shooting, which was the proposed method i.e. there is absolutely no evidence of the effectiveness of this. It was only being done as a political gesture by a government that wouldn't know evidence based policy if it bit them on the bum. 

Paula


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

As usual,  when it comes to contentious issues,  the Government pussy foot around,  offering placating half measures to both sides,  and it achieves nothing.

The shooting of individual badgers wont have any effect on BTb,  what so ever,  but then Government already know that!!  There is only one system which will stand any chance of reducing the infection rate in cattle,  and that would be to gas entire setts,  killing every animal underground.  In BTb hotspots,  if 30-40% of setts were gassed,  and if there were then a demonstrable reduction in BTb cases,  then the answer to the problem has been found.  As those areas which have been denuded of badgers,  would slowly be re-populated,  the regime of awareness and the monitoring of numbers would need to be on-going,  with follow up reductions being carried out.

Will it happen?  Will it buggery.  Our spineless Government is so fearful of those who claim to have an interest in wildlife,  those who claim a degree of expertise,  but who in reality speak ill-informed and emotive nonsense,  that we will still be where we are now in 5 years time.  Never will Government come to realise that those who would reduce the population of badgers actually have the animal's interests at heart.  A reduction in the badger population would benefit not only those who keep cattle,  but the badgers themselves.

Alec.


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

The  previous cull was not extensive enough and allowed for too much preturbutation. 
So, what is the answer?? We are killing cattle that react then show no clinical signs of the disease pm, but we are allowing infected wildlife free range. Not just badgers but deer, wild boar and other mustelids. Camelids carry it but are not being routinely tested and are moved. 
Imagine this scenario, Mary Keen, a top breeder of fantastic sport horses with bloodlines going back generations has a reactor, her other animals cannot be moved off the premises unless for slaughter. 3 months later, a retest, 80% of her stock including in foal mares due to foal within the next month have a reaction.She has not bought in any animals, her mares have been put in foal to her resident stallion or to AI. All off to slaughter, compensation, yes but not at the animals true worth but a generic figure. 
How would you feel then, same scenario at your livery yard? The difference of course would be this is your pet, people would soon be looking for where this infection came from and I would put money on that ole brock would be seen in a different light.
The badger population on our farm has increased hugely, we now have parts of fields we cannot put the tractor on as the setts are so big. Whether or not they have bTB i have no idea but with no natural predator i would be delighted to see a decrease in numbers. People still want food and we are losing land and animals because the rural minority have no voice and the generally urban majority are allowed too much of a say.


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

Paulag said:



			Erm - I assume that you guys complaining about this being stopped have actually read the research. They found that after 5 years of culling the rate of TB went down by a whopping 16% and the rate on neighbouring farms increased due to additional badger movements. In addition this was for trapping and killing, not shooting, which was the proposed method i.e. there is absolutely no evidence of the effectiveness of this. It was only being done as a political gesture by a government that wouldn't know evidence based policy if it bit them on the bum. 

Paula
		
Click to expand...

 The answer is a proper cull not just a few , what is the point of a badger 
they are just a pest realy like rats and foxes  put a bounty on the buggers, protect our  small farmers before they all are forced out of bussiness and replaced with these huge factory farms where the cows never see the light of day and the fields are just massive areas of maze and grass .. This is about the countryside as we know it and our wildlife  let the farmers do what they have done for 100s of years manage and keep our wonderfull contryside
yes the goverment  is crap they listen to all sorts of presure groups chattering classes and so called pop "stars" and junk science   ....


----------



## WestCoast (24 October 2012)

This seriously smacks of the politician's syllogism:

We must do something
This is something
Therefore, we must do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician's_syllogism

Although my favourite description from one of the papers yesterday: omnivoreshambles. 

It's not that I don't sympathise with farmers, of course I do. But you cannot do something just for the sake of it that won't work. 

Paula


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

Paulag said:



			This seriously smacks of the politician's syllogism:

We must do something
This is something
Therefore, we must do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician's_syllogism

Although my favourite description from one of the papers yesterday: omnivoreshambles. 

It's not that I don't sympathise with farmers, of course I do. But you cannot do something just for the sake of it that won't work. 

ePaula
		
Click to expand...

 yes  they did it with climate change !!!! but the TB problem is a fact and its a fact that badgers spread TB  simple....


----------



## wildoat (24 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Generally,  though not always,  the bulk of BTB strikes dairy cattle,  as opposed to beef herds,  and the bulk of dairy herds are "Closed" herds.  "Closed",  as in that with the exception of sires,  and most of the matings are by AI,  there are no outside influences from imported cattle.  It's to do with herd health,  and it matters.

Cattle movements around the country will not,  because they can not,  affect those who operate closed herds.  

Badgers spread Bovine TB,  it's that simple.  Those who deny the evidence are doing so because they are following a warped agenda.  I wish that it wasn't so,  but sadly,  it is.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec,

with respect I never said I was against the cull.
This is a very serious problem, yet another dreadful scenario for our farmers 
who have had more than their share of devastation in recent times.
If the cull has been proved to solve the problem then it would be surely impossible for anyone to offer an argument against it.
Farmers really do need the support of the public and the government.
Our country is in such a mess because successive governments rarely do what's right, the politicians generally  prefer they to put their careers first rather than doing 
what they often know is required, simple as!

Tony


----------



## sport horse (24 October 2012)

Perhaps there is someone more knowledgeable than me out there ( I am sure there is as it would not be difficult).

I have a small farm for totally horse purposes. There is a massive badger population and this has grown hugely over the past 3 decades. I am left with huge holes in my fields which are dangerous to my horses - I have had one that I suspect fell into a badger hole and it was fatally injured at just 2 years old.  By law I have to put up with that or move. The badgers have more rights than I do! 

Badgers are protected from human intervention, except, we can run them over with great regularity and no one, not even the beloved Animal Rights, seem to have campaigned to stop road traffic to save the badgers.

No other animal appears to prey on badgers, even to the extent that nothing will touch a dead badger. The corpses lie untouched for weeks even flies and maggots are not interested and certainly not the local authority! There are currently 4 badgers corpses along the lanes  within 1/2 mile and they have been there for weeks.

My land is private but I have to put up with Badger 'people' coming to check on the badger setts (which I have never touched or interfered with) thus trespassing on my land at all hours of the day and night. Why should my horses be frightened by people trespassing with torches at night?

Could someone please tell me, if unlike other species, badgers are never ever culled by human or animal, how long will it take for badgers to take over the world?

As for the number of culled cattle - well they do not matter of course. 

As for the cancellation of the cull - well, yet again,  illegal thuggery wins.


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

Trouble is cull's have not been done properly in the past. For example, if you were to take cornwall, it is effectively cut off from Devon by the Tamar. If you culled all the badgers in Cornwall and effectively stopped the travel of Badgers across the tamar you would have a 'proper' cull that would produce results one way or another. This obviously isn't going to happen, if you shoot badgers you will not possibly cull the whole sett allowing movement, same with trapping. Gassing would probably be the most effective with monitering setts for movement afterwards. You would still have the infection within deer whose population has doubled within the last 10 yrs. There is a herd of red deer locally that was released from captivity, they have increased in numbers to about 25 now and virtually every farm around where they roam has now had reactors. We have Roe deer on our farm now, unheard of in my lifetime, and i'm no spring chicken. 
Unless the public want to start eating the wildlife perhaps they should think about who does feed them and who has some of the highest welfare standards in Europe before they shout down the farmers.


----------



## Maesfen (24 October 2012)

kiteman0 said:



			Thats ok, we'll just keep on culling the cattle then.


Well said. After seeing a hell of a lot of cows going up a ramp every test day I know how I feel about the cull being postponed
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.  When will the fluffy bunnies acknowledge that there are far too many of the bloody things and most of them should be shot.  They have no natural predators so something needs to be done.  I've lost count of how many livestock, dogs and machinery have been lost which is all due to them.  Why else do we not have any hedgehogs around here (and where badgers are) oh yes, it's because the bloody badgers kill  them.  This country is a joke sometimes.


----------



## Cuffey (24 October 2012)

sporthorse I sympathise with you and can only suggest you fence off the setts if possible

My friend was initially delighted to photograph a badger on her yard
THEN
It forced its way into her poultry house (heavy metal door chained and concrete blocks outside) killed ducks, savaged her guard geese and on a separate occasion murdered her childrens pet rabbits.
She was refused permission to shoot it
She moved house!

Anyone interested in numbers of cattle destroyed for positive tests to BTb.....
In 2011 43,915
This CANNOT go on 

http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/w...&country=GBR&this_country_code=GBR&detailed=1


----------



## hayinamanger (24 October 2012)

We have had TB in our closed beef herd this summer, one of our best cows was taken, post mortem results were negative, heartbreaking.

Badgers need to be culled, they are sick with TB.  Shooting a few now and then is futile, the sett disperses and TB spreads further.  I blame all the wildlife programmes on tv, badgers are shown as cute & cuddly animals and the government is afraid of the outcry from a nation of badger-huggers.


----------



## combat_claire (24 October 2012)

I previously worked on a farm in Kent. The boss pointed out a steep trail that ran from the copse at the top of the field to the water trough and asked me what I thought had made it. I guessed at the sheep; but he told me it was too steep a gradient for the sheep to traverse and informed me it was badgers coming down for a drink. He never kept any of his cattle in that field and remained TB free. 

The animal rights activists who are so determined to stop the badger cull cannot seem to see the wider picture. Not only do we have thousands of head of cattle being slaughtered annually at a cost of millions to the taxpayer, but we have sick badgers dying in excruciating pain and kicked out of their setts; not to mention the welfare aspects that are caused by placing TB infected herds into restrictions. 

On the same farm in Kent they took on dairy followers to rear them on until they were old enough to return to the dairy farm as heifers to get up the duff. The farm that supplied the calves was placed on movement restrictions and no stock could leave the holding. They had no staff or facilities to look after the calves and after restrictions were lifted and the calves allowed to move to our holding they were poor specimens who all had to be returned to bottle feeding despite having been supposedly weaned. 

I've just returned from Exmoor where the topic of the cull came up. One farmer I was speaking to turned to me and with real sadness and bitterness in his voice remarked that ' I wish those who want to stop the badger cull would come and shoot my cows; they might feel differently then'.


----------



## combat_claire (24 October 2012)

Maesfen said:



			When will the fluffy bunnies acknowledge that there are far too many of the bloody things and most of them should be shot.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely far too many fluffy bunnies and animal rights activists, but is it not a little harsh to start shooting them too!!??


----------



## Potato! (24 October 2012)

My OH&#8217;s farm is a closed beef suckler herd. However all cattle that leave the farm are pre movement tested. Also they were up until last summer being tested every month. Just think 500 head of cattle push through the system every month all of those in calf cows etc and the stress caused.  Now the three neighbouring farms have all gone down with tb within a few weeks of each other. No contact is made by the cattle other than by a railway line which has a diseased badger set (It has been confirmed by an conservation and badger expert). My OH lost 34 of his in calf pedigree Galloway cows and his pedigree Bull.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

wildoat said:



			Alec,

with respect I never said I was against the cull.

Tony
		
Click to expand...

My post wasn't actually aimed at you,  it was a general observation for those who rejoice in the postponement.  That was my intention anyway,  and I apologise if it came over differently.



combat_claire said:



			I previously worked on a farm in Kent. The boss pointed out a steep trail that ran from the copse at the top of the field to the water trough and asked me what I thought had made it. I guessed at the sheep; but he told me it was too steep a gradient for the sheep to traverse and informed me it was badgers coming down for a drink. He never kept any of his cattle in that field and remained TB free. 

The animal rights activists who are so determined to stop the badger cull cannot seem to see the wider picture. Not only do we have thousands of head of cattle being slaughtered annually at a cost of millions to the taxpayer, but we have sick badgers dying in excruciating pain and kicked out of their setts; not to mention the welfare aspects that are caused by placing TB infected herds into restrictions. 

On the same farm in Kent they took on dairy followers to rear them on until they were old enough to return to the dairy farm as heifers to get up the duff. The farm that supplied the calves was placed on movement restrictions and no stock could leave the holding. They had no staff or facilities to look after the calves and after restrictions were lifted and the calves allowed to move to our holding they were poor specimens who all had to be returned to bottle feeding despite having been supposedly weaned. 

I've just returned from Exmoor where the topic of the cull came up. One farmer I was speaking to turned to me and with real sadness and bitterness in his voice remarked that ' I wish those who want to stop the badger cull would come and shoot my cows; they might feel differently then'.
		
Click to expand...

Such an excellent post,  and specifically your quote from the West Country farmer.  

What I fail to understand,  is why those who are opposed to the cull steadfastly refuse to accept that those of us who farm,  specifically those who keep cattle in the troubled areas,  REALLY DON'T WANT ANNIHILATION OF BADGERS.  THEY WANT THE NUMBERS REDUCED TO WITHIN MANAGEABLE NUMBERS.  That's all it is,  honestly.

By a reduction in numbers,  the UK badger population will return to a state of health,  and when the balance is restored,  the occasional sighting of a badger at last light will be welcomed,  by all.

I'll admit that the often ridiculous claims made by the likes of Brian May,  a man who has probably poured a great deal of money into the campaign,  are irksome in the extreme,  when they are offered in the face of the facts that decent country people,  those who provide us with milk and meat,  are being vilified for asking for a more balanced approach to wildlife management,  then I find my pulse rate rising.

Again,  C_C,  an excellent post.

Alec.


----------



## Aru (24 October 2012)

Bad news for the cattle industry in the UK. 

If you want to see non bias research read the Irish research findings...Where no government or Animal rights groups interfered and biased the studies and results.
This is one of the older documents but it gives an idea of the data found

http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/br0405_2_bovinetuberculosis.pdf

Our TB levels have been steadily dropping and staying static in comparison to the Uk's where the levels steadily rises....
http://www.bovinetb.info/ireland.php

We do not do random culls....we do cull badgers under special license where tb outbreaks show a pattern that suggests they are a source of infection. The culls are not the main basis of the controls and are carefully regulated to see are they warranted. Cattle movements are still a source of new Tb outbreaks in-spite of all the pre movement testing done..no one is trying to claim its just badgers.... but the issue is multi dynamic and needs a multi-dynamic solution approach 

UCD dublin is also one of the leading areas of research into the vaccine for badgers and that area is still being actively pursed and new research into more relaible tests to detect tb in cattle is also on the go.

Controlled warranted culls could do a lot of good in the UK. Its a pity that some people prefer badgers to cattle.


----------



## Orangehorse (24 October 2012)

The reason the cull has been postponed was that research found DOUBLE the number of estimated badgers, hence it was going to be impossible to shoot the required numbers in the time available.

Remember people, that back in the 1970s TB in cattle had virtually been eliminated, that is the UK was just about disease free.  This was done by gassing every badger sett around if a routine cattle test showed TB in a herd.  Therefore not only did the cow with TB get slaughtered but any badger that might have been carrying it to other herds were slaughtered as well.  There was no shortage of badgers.

There were just a few cases occuring in Gloucestershire when the gassing was stopped and badgers were made a protected species.  I never heard of TB in cattle 30 years ago, then a neighbouring farmer started to get outbreaks, which meant that we had to be tested as well, always negative.  The neighbour had a dairy herd and used to buy in heifers, calve them and then sell them on, so he was getting them from different parts of the country.

Time was when the badger groups denied that badgers could give TB to cattle, but many years ago the vets were saying that was rubbish.  

Everyone goes on about poor badgers, mustn't shoot them when pregnant, no one cares about the cows that are pregnant.

I have my doubts about shooting badgers, how can they make enough difference to the population.  Badger setts should be gassed until TB in cattle has gone.  We know that badgers are not an endangered species, they can carry on breeding in the New Forest, Kent, etc. etc.  it is in the West Country and creeping ever northwards towards Cheshire that they need getting rid.


----------



## Orangehorse (24 October 2012)

Just a PS - if the badgers were giving a disease to horses, which meant that had to be PTS, I bet no one would be so keen on badgers then.


----------



## martlin (24 October 2012)

The postponement of the cull is bad news, although I do understand the reasoning given... maybe that's naive of me, but I want to believe that it will actually happen next year.
To those who say there must be a better way... That might be so, but unless you can actually come up with a better solution, a controlled cull that will bring the badger population down to manageable numbers id definitely worth a go.

We only keep few cattle nowadays, I didn't handle the stress of bTB well and we decided to leave beef farming behind.


----------



## Aleka81 (24 October 2012)

Badgers are rife in my area! And to be honest the cull should be asap and for as long as it needs to be effective.
Anybody who doesnt believe in the cull needs their head testing! Quite frankly I cant believe how many of us on here who own livestock (horses) are actually anti the countryside, farmers, farming and animals to be honest...


----------



## Potato! (24 October 2012)

I was discussing how widespread TB is in the area my OH farms. The senior vet in the very large practice stated that there was not a single farm on their books that were not under TB restrictions in the last 5 years.


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

Aleka81 said:



			Badgers are rife in my area! And to be honest the cull should be asap and for as long as it needs to be effective.
Anybody who doesnt believe in the cull needs their head testing! Quite frankly I cant believe how many of us on here who own livestock (horses) are actually anti the countryside, farmers, farming and animals to be honest...
		
Click to expand...

 Yes ditto some of the coments on here are just bonkers !!! why is it???? I can understand it from some dopey bint in the suburbs who watches all the morkish sentimetal dross  on the idiots lantern but someone that has horses and contact with the rural world !!!!


----------



## grey dawn (24 October 2012)

If you want more info on cull / TB try the NFU website ,TBfree England website, and defra.


----------



## EAST KENT (24 October 2012)

I find the kill everything attitude incredibly outdated.Put this in another context, a dog in the village gets Parvo,so a two mile ring fenced area has every canine slaughtered within it,and no movement outside of that area also.The answer of course is to ring fence by vaccination! 

  It took God knows how many years for our government to admit that Rabies vaccine actually works,so befuddled are their minds. If it is to be believed there actually is no objection from the bloody EU against our cattle being vaccinated,so why the delay? Vaccine can be given to a tb tested cow in calf,that calf is then protected,and so on ,until the whole herd is protected,exactly as good dog breeders do here already with canines.

   My believe is that the Defra bodies should fund this,and maybe encourage farmers financially to do so,rather than accept compensation for killing the beasts.It all seems so archaic  to me,as being a proper scientifically informed dog breeder the route to success is not rocket science.

 Maybe for their own welfare badgers do need culling when scientifically proven to have tb in that particular sett,the population levels have risen ,and in any animal this predisposes to disease (factory farmers please note)But they do not need wholesale slaughter.Just a tad of common sense and science is the logical answer.
And for those stupid people who will cry out that their dogs are never vaccinated and are fine,well that my dears is because the responsible amongst us  also protect yours by not allowing endemic disease.
 Mammals of any type can be managed in this the same as any other.
.Humans by the way can/are  vaccinated against tb.


----------



## combat_claire (24 October 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			until the whole herd is protected,exactly as good dog breeders do here already with canines.
		
Click to expand...

The major trouble with this solution being that we do no export dogs with a view to them being consumed by humans. This was printed in the Western Morning News. 

"The differentiation test, and TB vaccine for use in cattle, would have to be validated and EU law changed before beef from vaccinated cattle was available for consumption in Europe. In excess of £34 million has already been spent on research, and a further £15 million is earmarked for development of vaccines for cattle and badgers over the next four years. "


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

How would farmers react if instead of a bounty being offered for badgers, the money was put towards improving fencing and building security on farms that are affected by badger entry?


----------



## martlin (24 October 2012)

How do you actually stop badgers from entering farms?


----------



## Maesfen (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			How would farmers react if instead of a bounty being offered for badgers, the money was put towards improving fencing and building security on farms that are affected by badger entry?
		
Click to expand...

That would be great if badgers weren't tunnelling animals that have no awareness of boundaries above them.


----------



## Maesfen (24 October 2012)

EAST KENT said:



			.
.Humans by the way can/are  vaccinated against tb.
		
Click to expand...

My mother died of TB.


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

Maesfen said:



			That would be great if badgers weren't tunnelling animals that have no awareness of boundaries above them.

Click to expand...

Well yes, but presumably that is why badger-proof fencing is expensive.... just because I'm pro-badger doesn't mean I'm stupid.


----------



## Maesfen (24 October 2012)

Orangehorse said:



			.  it is in the West Country and creeping ever northwards towards Cheshire that they need getting rid.
		
Click to expand...

Too late, they have been rife here for the last 40 years; we are over run with the blasted things.
My FIL used to move litters by request from farmers  but even that option was not enough; move a litter and another family move in within weeks.  There is some land here that is devastated by the things, so much that they can't use machinery in those fields for fear of repeat 'sinkings' and I know of several cattle that have been lost due to the land suddenly caving in underneath them and they have been smothered.  An entrance to a sett can be a hundred yards or more away from the furthest tunnel; not funny when you only have small fields.


----------



## Maesfen (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			Well yes, but presumably that is why badger-proof fencing is expensive.... just because I'm pro-badger doesn't mean I'm stupid.
		
Click to expand...

There is no badger proof fencing that can stop a badger going over a boundary because their tunnels are far too deep; it's not like you can put up a wall and say all safe now because they just burrow underneath and they're not shallow burrows either, some can be a dozen foot or more deep.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

For those who think that fencing badgers _"In"_ or _"Out"_,  are options,  perhaps I could point out to you that up until July2010,  I was a livestock fencing contractor,  and can speak with a little experience.  

Fencing badgers "In" isn't an option,  as they will either find a way out,  or starve to death.  Fencing them out isn't an option either,  because of the prohibitive costs.  If we assume that a 10 acre field would have a perimeter of at least 1000 metres then at the barest minimum of £20 per metre,  for purpose made badger fencing to be supplied and erected,  and beside that we would need to add specialist manufactured gates,  and concrete bases to prevent badgers from digging,  then each 10 acre field would cost in the region of £23-25k,  and then having spent that money,  the little tinkers would still find a way through.  That,  or they'd stand at the perimeter fence,  and as BTb is passed on through nasal exhalations,  the spores which are so damaging would *still* be passed on. 

Those who keep cattle,  in the main,  have done everything within their power to protect themselves and their livestock,  and they have,  to a man,  come down on the side of a cull,  and a major one,  at that.  There are no other practical or realistic options.

I wonder where the Original Poster,  Amymay is,  and what she feels now.  I wonder if she now sees that there are those,  who whilst opposing her view,  may well have made valid points.

Alec.


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

The posts about badger setts being dangerous are surely far removed from the argument over the cull.  The scientific evidence is that the cull is likely to do little to reduce TB in cattle and might actually increase it.  If people have setts on their land that is making the land impossible to use, the argument to remove that sett and then make it difficult for badgers to return is easily supported.  That has nothing to do with TB transmission.
My question about fencing is aimed at situations where badgers visit farms that have cattle.  At the moment, there is no financial incentive to try to reduce this contact without killing either animal.  If money was available for fencing initiatives, and possibly even help with building badger highways that keep them seperate from cattle, would that be welcomed?  At least then the money would be being put to a productive use that was unlikely to worsen the TB situation (and would have much more chance of improving it) OR create huge negative publicity for farmers.
An additional option I have seen discussed is to stop the current testing system, which has about a 20% false result rate anyway.  TB transmission from cattle via milk to the general public is, I think, almost impossible, and transmission rates to farmers is miniscule.  Cattle could be tested only at slaughter and removed from the food chain if positive, or they could be tested before export.  The money saved on reduced testing and compensation could be used for further strategies to reduce contact of cattle and wildlife - it's not just badgers that carry TB is it?


----------



## WestCoast (24 October 2012)

Sorry, got it wrong. It took 9 years to get the 16% drop in bovine tb from the cull research. And fleeing badgers carried it to neighbouring farms. 

Apparently our lovely government has cancelled 4 out of 5 vaccine trials - now I've heard it said that farmers don't just vote for the Tory party, they are the Tory party. Hardly a non influential minority, which can be seen by the fact that this valueless cull nearly went ahead to appease them by doing something even if it wouldn't work.


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Those who keep cattle,  have,  to a man,  come down on the side of a cull,  and a major one,  at that.  There are no other practical or realistic options.
		
Click to expand...

No, they haven't.  I've seen plenty of responses from farmers who are worried about the cull because they do believe the scientific evidence that says it may worsen TB.  People don't want to kill 'their' healthy badgers.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			.......  

Cattle could be tested only at slaughter and removed from the food chain if positive, or they could be tested before export.  The money saved on reduced testing and compensation could be used for further strategies to reduce contact of cattle and wildlife - it's not just badgers that carry TB is it?
		
Click to expand...

You should be heading up Defra.  Brilliant!! 

FFS.

Alec.


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			How would farmers react if instead of a bounty being offered for badgers, the money was put towards improving fencing and building security on farms that are affected by badger entry?
		
Click to expand...

 Most likely with a long list of expleitives!!!
I think it's hapening the old little farms are going and being replaced with mega factory farms totaly sterrile huge fields growing grass and maize and nowhere for badgers or wildlife to cause problems,  nature controled , with little so called consevation areas on the farm,  is this what you want??? I think its close to the end for the countryside as we know it and alot is due to idiots and the morons we have in goverment without any practical knowlege and the few with common sense are constantly shouted down...


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

Farmers have been losing their livlihoods over this for years and they are expected to sit back and take it on the chin from people who this doesn't affect in any way. When the manure hits the fan they will still want cheap food.


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

perfect11s said:



			Most likely with a long list of expleitives!!!
I think it's hapening the old little farms are going and being replaced with mega factory farms totaly sterrile huge fields growing grass and maize and nowhere for badgers or wildlife to cause problems,  nature controled , with little so called consevation areas on the farm,  is this what you want??? I think its close to the end for the countryside as we know it and alot is due to idiots and the morons we have in goverment without any practical knowlege and the few with common sense are constantly shouted down...
		
Click to expand...

Actually the increase in maize acreage has been a bonus for badgers, they can soon trash a crop.


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Fencing badgers "In" isn't an option,  as they will either find a way out,  or starve to death.  Fencing them out isn't an option either,  because of the prohibitive costs.  If we assume that a 10 acre field would have a perimeter of at least 1000 metres then at the barest minimum of £20 per metre,  for purpose made badger fencing to be supplied and erected,  and beside that we would need to add specialist manufactured gates,  and concrete bases to prevent badgers from digging,  then each 10 acre field would cost in the region of £23-25k,  and then having spent that money,  the little tinkers would still find a way through.  That,  or they'd stand at the perimeter fence,  and as BTb is passed on through nasal exhalations,  the spores which are so damaging would *still* be passed on. 

Click to expand...

And this bit seems to ignore a fairly important point - why do the badgers want to be the other side of the particular fence?  If it is because there are resources there that they want (what?), can they be provided elsewhere, or moved so that the badger has no reason to get to that point any more.  If the fence is blocking a travel route, can an alternative, easier, route be established and if not can the current route be maintained while keeping cattle out of contact.  Could double fencing be used to keep a distance between cow and badger.  Could cows be housed a night more often so they don't come into direct contact etc etc.
You don't need to make it impossible for an animal to do something, just make it uneconomical.  This is what I meant about using money to help plan things like fencing programmes - make use of the badger experts out there to outwit the badgers.  It would be a poor show if humans can't manage to do that.


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

jrp204 said:



			Farmers have been losing their livlihoods over this for years and they are expected to sit back and take it on the chin from people who this doesn't affect in any way. When the manure hits the fan they will still want cheap food.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh but we can import our food like we import manual workers we dont need our own farmers , the badgers will pay all the bills they are actualy gods and have the power to solve world hunger  and wars  there is nothing more important in life as as badger worship anyone who harms them is a child of satan and should be burnt !!!!


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			You should be heading up Defra.  Brilliant!! 

FFS.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Go on then, tell me what is wrong with the suggestion, don't just swear about it.


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

jrp204 said:



			Actually the increase in maize acreage has been a bonus for badgers, they can soon trash a crop.
		
Click to expand...

 not if there are no badgers


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

perfect11s said:



			Ahh but we can import our food like we import manual workers we dont need our own farmers , the badgers will pay all the bills they are actualy gods and have the power to solve world hunger  and wars  there is nothing more important in life as as badger worship anyone who harms them is a child of satan and should be burnt !!!![/QUOTE

Oh bow to the brock god............................
Import our food complete with free Foot and Mouth, bTB, salmonella, newcastle disease, avian influenza to name a few, reared in conditions far below UK welfare standards. But thats ok.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Potato! (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			And this bit seems to ignore a fairly important point - why do the badgers want to be the other side of the particular fence?  If it is because there are resources there that they want (what?), can they be provided elsewhere, or moved so that the badger has no reason to get to that point any more.  If the fence is blocking a travel route, can an alternative, easier, route be established and if not can the current route be maintained while keeping cattle out of contact.  Could double fencing be used to keep a distance between cow and badger.  Could cows be housed a night more often so they don't come into direct contact etc etc.
You don't need to make it impossible for an animal to do something, just make it uneconomical.  This is what I meant about using money to help plan things like fencing programmes - make use of the badger experts out there to outwit the badgers.  It would be a poor show if humans can't manage to do that.
		
Click to expand...


Yes i can just see my OH having time to be turning in and out his 500 cows plus calves every day. Badgers have been seen trying to get into cattle feed troughs raised off the ground and mineral lick.  The will also take the gate off its hinges to get into an empty field.   We  employed a Badger expert and he actually advised that there was nothing other than culling could be done. I would love to see where all this extra money has come from to double up on fencing considering all the exta feed/ bedding/ etc etc  as we cant sell our stock on top of monthly testing!


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

jrp204 said:





perfect11s said:



			Ahh but we can import our food like we import manual workers we dont need our own farmers , the badgers will pay all the bills they are actualy gods and have the power to solve world hunger  and wars  there is nothing more important in life as as badger worship anyone who harms them is a child of satan and should be burnt !!!![/QUOTE

Oh bow to the brock god............................
Import our food complete with free Foot and Mouth, bTB, salmonella, newcastle disease, avian influenza to name a few, reared in conditions far below UK welfare standards. But thats ok.
		
Click to expand...

 LOL !!! The thing is this country is going down we  may well become 3rd world, im shocked and dismayed at the number of clever enterprising and practical people i meet who are planning to leave, leaving or thinking about leaving the country  its a massive brain drain
of the very people we need to pull us out of the mess we are in but there insnt much help or benifit to staying so they go to Aus to work in the mining indutrstry , buy farms in canada, anywhere but here, never to return   Id say we are left with the semi educated public sector types
and the hard of thinking, sad realy if I didint have aged parents and a foot on the housing ladder Id be off like a shot ...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (24 October 2012)

The only possible practical/effective/economic way to separate cattle and badgers, assuming no cull/control on the latter is for cattle to be kept in the sort of indoor 365 days a year mega dairies that the very same people who oppose a cull also oppose - ironic, eh.

Plus I dont WANT to see the best livestock raising parts of this island empty of stock apart from a dying badger. 

Frankly, if the numbers are 3x what was thought then that provides the final compelling justification to abandon a bureaucratic cull and instead do what should and could have been done years ago and amend the badger act so they are treated just like any other non endangered wild animal who can cause predation or disease issues for livestock. 

I have never understood why the treatment is so different from that of foxes, rats etc esp given that badgers are spreading a disease which can kill people and domestic animals. (see TB blogspot for the account of the poor lady who was infected with bovine TB from her alpacas - who picked it up from - well you can guess....)

Badger baiting etc would still be just as much of a crime but farmers with TB infection or issues with badgers would be able to clear the sett. They can tell a clean sett from an infected one, for a start, a badger out alone in the daytime has probably been driven out, and quite likely because of TB.

The other point is that, if the government do not get a grip on this issue in conjunction with the ever more strangling movement restrictions and planned cutting of compensation for culls, farmers will be forced (and I mean forced) to 'deal with' the problem themselves, law or no law. I hope they do so, for the sake of the badgers, the cattle, the deer, the camelids, dogs and people whose future lives they will save. If this doesnt happen, Britain can look forward to a future with no livestock in its fields and we can import cheap meat raised cruelly overseas.

I speak as a non cattle farmer but as someone with livestock. I also love wildlife. But healthy wildlife.


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			Go on then, tell me what is wrong with the suggestion, don't just swear about it.
		
Click to expand...

Hopefully,  you weren't offended.  The problems that I have with the whole subject are such that it is an incredibly complex matter,  and we need to balance those points which support each argument,  and conversely,  those which don't.  I'm not sure that I can stretch myself that far.

The reality is that you are proposing that those who keep cattle,  who all so often work a 14 hour day,  throughout the year,  and often longer hours in the summer,  spend even more time,  bringing cattle in at night,  when those ovines need the grass uptake which is available,  and to disturb resting and lactating cattle,  where their nutritional uptake,  SPECIFICALLY at night,  is of vital importance,  and all because you don't want brock to die.  

Another line of yours,  and I'm doing my best to be tolerant;  the line where you've suggested that funds are available for fencing.  I've already responded that at £20-25 per metre,  and many farms would need 50 *THOUSAND * metres,  you've now suggested that perhaps we could put up double fences.  Guess who's going to pay for all this ....... yep,  you've got it,  you and I.  You may not mind,  but I do,  especially when I see children,  here in the UK who go without,  especially when I see an education system which is struggling,  and especially when I see the elderly lying and dying in hospital walk ways........ and all through lack of funds.

Yes,  I mind,  I mind a great deal. 

Alec.


----------



## perfect11s (24 October 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			The only possible practical/effective/economic way to separate cattle and badgers, assuming no cull/control on the latter is for cattle to be kept in the sort of indoor 365 days a year mega dairies that the very same people who oppose a cull also oppose - ironic, eh.

Plus I dont WANT to see the best livestock raising parts of this island empty of stock apart from a dying badger. 

Frankly, if the numbers are 3x what was thought then that provides the final compelling justification to abandon a bureaucratic cull and instead do what should and could have been done years ago and amend the badger act so they are treated just like any other non endangered wild animal who can cause predation or disease issues for livestock. 

I have never understood why the treatment is so different from that of foxes, rats etc esp given that badgers are spreading a disease which can kill people and domestic animals. (see TB blogspot for the account of the poor lady who was infected with bovine TB from her alpacas - who picked it up from - well you can guess....)

Badger baiting etc would still be just as much of a crime but farmers with TB infection or issues with badgers would be able to clear the sett. They can tell a clean sett from an infected one, for a start, a badger out alone in the daytime has probably been driven out, and quite likely because of TB.

The other point is that, if the government do not get a grip on this issue in conjunction with the ever more strangling movement restrictions and planned cutting of compensation for culls, farmers will be forced (and I mean forced) to 'deal with' the problem themselves, law or no law. I hope they do so, for the sake of the badgers, the cattle, the deer, the camelids, dogs and people whose future lives they will save. If this doesnt happen, Britain can look forward to a future with no livestock in its fields and we can import cheap meat raised cruelly overseas.

I speak as a non cattle farmer but as someone with livestock. I also love wildlife. But healthy wildlife.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly 100%


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			.......  I've seen plenty of responses from farmers who are worried about the cull because they do believe the scientific evidence that says it may worsen TB.  

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

Nonsense!!

Alec.


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Nonsense!!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

First you swear at me, then you call me a liar.  So much for reasoned debate.


----------



## soloequestrian (24 October 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			Frankly, if the numbers are 3x what was thought then that provides the final compelling justification to abandon a bureaucratic cull and instead do what should and could have been done years ago and amend the badger act so they are treated just like any other non endangered wild animal who can cause predation or disease issues for livestock.
		
Click to expand...

This makes way more sense than the proposed cull.  As I said above, many farmers don't want to get rid of 'their' badgers - why would you kill off loads of healthy badgers and leave room for the possiblity that diseased ones will move in from another cull zone?


----------



## Alec Swan (24 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			First you swear at me, then you call me a liar.  .......
		
Click to expand...

I've done neither.  The word "Nonsense" comes from the term "No sense",  and that sums up your argument.  Sorry,  and I wish that it was otherwise.  Sadly,  it isn't.

Alec.


----------



## hayinamanger (24 October 2012)

It is true that badgers are very terratorial.  This used to work in our favour.  If you were a cattle farmer who also had badgers and you had a clear tb test, it was safe to say that your badgers were clean and kept out any itinerant badgers.  When TB started to become a problem in the late 90s (in Devon) when we went from a routine breeding adults only test every 2 years, to annual testing all bovines over 6 weeks, many farms continued to stay clear.  

Farmers and wildlife have lived and let live for hundreds of years.  As more herds were affected, farmers began to take matters into their own hands, quite understandably, and badgers were being snared, shot and poisoned.  The badgers began to disperse and dirty became mixed with clean and the rest is history.

I say again, badgers are not cute and cuddly.  If you have ever had a close encounter with one, they are astonishingly aggressive.  It's tough that they have TB, they are sick and dying and spreading the disease.  It cannot be allowed to continue.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (24 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			I've done neither.  The word "Nonsense" comes from the term "No sense",  and that sums up your argument.  Sorry,  and I wish that it was otherwise.  Sadly,  it isn't.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair you are both right (ish)  in the sense that the scientists believe that to be effective, a limited area cull is *only* going to make the problem less if you take out over 70% of the badger population. 

So if that happened, the TB problem would reduce. However, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty over the population figures, the only certainty being there are an awful  lot more badgers out there in these areas than previously estimated (and surely therefore a lot more than would require any continuation of the blanket protection they currently enjoy.!!.......))

this is why farmers are concerned - they want to do the cull but only if it will work to help badgers and cattle, otherwise it will be seized on as a stick to beat them with, plus many of them believe they can clear out diseased badgers and leave healthy ones and could do a better job as they have little faith in the politicians and their own representatives. They dont believe that no exercise of TB badger culling is needed, it would be wrong for anyone to give that impression, it is all about the methodology and bureaucracy involved and the competence of those 'organising' it.


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 October 2012)

sport horse said:



			My land is private but I have to put up with Badger 'people' coming to check on the badger setts (which I have never touched or interfered with) thus trespassing on my land at all hours of the day and night. Why should my horses be frightened by people trespassing with torches at night?
		
Click to expand...

WHY do you have to put up with them?  I have 5 bloody setts on my land - thankfully they are largely in the woodland and only one on the edge of a field.  But no WAY would I let any bunny-hugger badger people NEAR them (after all, if you were a badger baiter and wanted to find new setts to rob, what would be the easiest way to find out where setts were???  - join a Badger group, of course!)

Although if you WANT to get rid of your badgers, people with torches visiting at night, CAN work.  My neighbour, whose small patch of woodland joins ours, was bemoaning the fact that she though all 'her' badgers had been killed on the road - she SO enjoyed going out at night to watch them by torchlight!  I'd already spotted the new Sett not too far from her woodland - but now in ours!  Brock wanted peace and quiet!


----------



## fburton (24 October 2012)

There's been some interesting discussion and debate about this on BBC Radio 4's _Farming Today_ programme this week (wot I listen to in the morning while I'm thinking about getting out of bed).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj8q


----------



## JanetGeorge (24 October 2012)

Orangehorse said:



			The reason the cull has been postponed was that research found DOUBLE the number of estimated badgers, hence it was going to be impossible to shoot the required numbers in the time available.

Remember people, that back in the 1970s TB in cattle had virtually been eliminated, that is the UK was just about disease free.  This was done by gassing every badger sett around if a routine cattle test showed TB in a herd.  Therefore not only did the cow with TB get slaughtered but any badger that might have been carrying it to other herds were slaughtered as well.  There was no shortage of badgers.

There were just a few cases occuring in Gloucestershire when the gassing was stopped and badgers were made a protected species.  I never heard of TB in cattle 30 years ago, then a neighbouring farmer started to get outbreaks, which meant that we had to be tested as well, always negative.  The neighbour had a dairy herd and used to buy in heifers, calve them and then sell them on, so he was getting them from different parts of the country.

Time was when the badger groups denied that badgers could give TB to cattle, but many years ago the vets were saying that was rubbish.  

Everyone goes on about poor badgers, mustn't shoot them when pregnant, no one cares about the cows that are pregnant.

I have my doubts about shooting badgers, how can they make enough difference to the population.  Badger setts should be gassed until TB in cattle has gone.  We know that badgers are not an endangered species, they can carry on breeding in the New Forest, Kent, etc. etc.  it is in the West Country and creeping ever northwards towards Cheshire that they need getting rid.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more (and I LIKE badgers - in small numbers!)  Gassing setts would be FAR more humane and effective than free shooting (and cost a lot less!  Dairy farmers - in particular - cannot continue with the falling price for milk AND the risk of losing large numbers of their herds!  I've lost count of the number of dairy farmers around us that have got out!


----------



## happyhunter123 (24 October 2012)

Very bad news for our poor farmers, very good news for that awful May and his clueless cronies. I just hope that the plan can go ahead, and go ahead properly next year. I have my doubts, however. It gives the cull's opponents plenty of time to campaign, and more than likely they will succeed-they normally do.


----------



## jrp204 (24 October 2012)

I would like to know how a badgers life is more valuable than a rats?


----------



## fburton (24 October 2012)

jrp204 said:



			I would like to know how a badgers life is more valuable than a rats?
		
Click to expand...

Inherent value would be the same, I'd have thought. To torture a rat would be just as bad as torturing a badger. Added value depends on the extent to which they are valued or reviled by people, on economic benefit/cost, tastiness, etc. - a moveable feast. So different people regard the killing of rats and badgers rather differently.


----------



## Alyth (24 October 2012)

One thing puzzles me - many other forms of wildlife also carry tb - rabbits, hares, deer etc.  Should they be culled as well?


----------



## fburton (24 October 2012)

Alyth said:



			One thing puzzles me - many other forms of wildlife also carry tb - rabbits, hares, deer etc.  Should they be culled as well?
		
Click to expand...

Presumably the epidemiology of the disease has indicated that badgers are the main culprit - though I would be surprised if they were alone in being vectors, given that transmission occurs via pee and poo. In addition...

"There is also the potential for direct transmission of bacteria through nose to nose contact between badgers and cattle as the bacteria can be spread as respiratory aerosols."

apparently. I can't imagine rabbits, hares or even deer coming close enough to cattle to snuffle or sneeze.


----------



## happyhunter123 (24 October 2012)

Alyth said:



			One thing puzzles me - many other forms of wildlife also carry tb - rabbits, hares, deer etc.  Should they be culled as well?
		
Click to expand...

Well it's quite simple; they are all culled already, it's perfectly legal to shoot them when you want and if you have a problem. I'm not sure how significant a vector these animals are compared to badgers though.


----------



## mutley75 (24 October 2012)

could we not just go New Zealand style and put 1080 out for the badgers?


----------



## perfect11s (25 October 2012)

mutley75 said:



			could we not just go New Zealand style and put 1080 out for the badgers?
		
Click to expand...

 I like the way you're thinking


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (25 October 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Well it's quite simple; they are all culled already, it's perfectly legal to shoot them when you want and if you have a problem. I'm not sure how significant a vector these animals are compared to badgers though.
		
Click to expand...

Deer are fairly susceptible but dont live as long with it as badgers do before they die of it, also they are less close to the livestock and most importantly, they dont shed the virus as much as badgers so (unfortunately badgers are mega susceptible, mega shedders and hang on with the disease for a long time, tho they will eventually also die a long and painful death). 

Sheep goats etc can also catch it but they dont catch it as easily hence no restrictions on them at present. 

Camelids eg alpacas are very very susceptible and should be but currently are not subject to similar testing and movement restrictions as cattle. They are also a high risk of transmitting it to humans due to their close relationshiip with keepers and their spitting habits (some will tell you alpacas dont spit but you only have to watch this weeks Rolf Harris animal programme to know that's not always the case....yeucch!)


----------



## jrp204 (25 October 2012)

Red deer are particularly susceptable as are wild boar, on the continent the wild boar are proving a problem, game shooters set up feeding stations for the boar which inevitably spreads the disease extremely well. It isn't possible to use the cattle test on camelids but surely it is about time they were routinely tested, there is no restriction on moving them all over the country.


----------



## Alec Swan (25 October 2012)

If I could be granted one wish,  it would be that those who are opposed to the culling of badgers,  would understand that those who would support the practice are simply trying to reinstate a sustainable balance.  

No one wants to see badgers eradicated from any area,  we only wish to see badgers in manageable numbers.  Numbers which will support a healthy badger population,  and minimise the risk of BTb within our cattle.

Can anyone explain to me why those who oppose the management of wildlife,  are so deaf to common sense?  Can anyone explain to me just why it is that with diseased and unhealthy badgers,  those who would purport to being their supporters,  can stand by and watch the poor creatures suffer,  as they do?

Alec.


----------



## ladyt25 (25 October 2012)

Alyth said:



			One thing puzzles me - many other forms of wildlife also carry tb - rabbits, hares, deer etc.  Should they be culled as well?
		
Click to expand...

This. But also why can't TB be treated? Why have they no actually brought in a vaccine for cattle by now? This problem has been going on for years and, as far as I was aware, TB is treatable or am I wrong? Is it the case of once you have it you always have it?

Just seems madeness to me that the answer to everything is a mass cull of either the animal they feel is responsible (in this case the badger only) and/or the livestock.Same goes for foot and mouth - surely a treatable and preventable disease and wouldn't DEFRA be better placed to provide funds for vaccines rather than these extremes?

I guess it because livestock is generally intended for slaughter anyway so is it then not worth the bother??


----------



## Aleka81 (25 October 2012)

happyhunter123 said:



			Well it's quite simple; they are all culled already, it's perfectly legal to shoot them when you want and if you have a problem. I'm not sure how significant a vector these animals are compared to badgers though.
		
Click to expand...

Bang on! All of the above are culled every single night/day....very naive of you if you didnt know that!


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (25 October 2012)

ladyt25 said:



			This. But also why can't TB be treated? Why have they no actually brought in a vaccine for cattle by now? This problem has been going on for years and, as far as I was aware, TB is treatable or am I wrong? Is it the case of once you have it you always have it?

Just seems madeness to me that the answer to everything is a mass cull of either the animal they feel is responsible (in this case the badger only) and/or the livestock.Same goes for foot and mouth - surely a treatable and preventable disease and wouldn't DEFRA be better placed to provide funds for vaccines rather than these extremes?

I guess it because livestock is generally intended for slaughter anyway so is it then not worth the bother??
		
Click to expand...

The best available vaccine is BcG and it is only approx 50% effective. Vaccination would also mean the closure of all meat exports from this country immediately since it is effectively introducing the virus into the cattle and it is a human transmissable disease. 

You would then find it very difficult to work out which animals had the virus since the only TB tests there are only for live cattle work by testing for exposure - which all the vaccinated animals would test positive for. 

So you would lose the only test we have to test for exposure in exchange for a vaccine which is only 50% effective and even where it works simply slows down the virus multiplying. The only tests that would still work are very expensive per animal.

It isnt like flu - it isnt a virus variant where you just need to come up with this years strain - it is a LOT more difficult to develop an effective TB vaccine. 

In addition, in relation to vaccination of the wild  animal population it is important to remember that it would have to be annual. How many deer/badgers do you reckon would be queueing up to be caught in a trap in years 2 and subsequently, even if you can catch them in year one. And some terrain eg mountains would make it impossible to catch them in the first place.

TB is treatable in humans by a very expensive and extremely unpleasant six month long regime of drugs. Some people have horrendous side effects and cannot be treated. Others fail to finish the course, leading to drug resistant tB (which is why if you run away from TB treatment you can be forcibly returned to hospital to finish the treatment). Some strains of TB are already untreatable as they are resistant to all the drugs. 

Shortly before badgers were given gold plated protection in this country TB had been almost eradicated in humans and farm animals, within 5 years it would have been, which makes me want to tear my hair out at the missed opportunity. Since that time, the TB incidence has exploded,  in line with an exploding badger population. 

I do not see why it is not in the best interests of badgers to have a smaller population in some areas but a healthy one rather than a large population of diseased and suffering animals. 

Scapegoating is where you unjustifiably pick on someone for something that was nothing to do with them. The issue here is that (altho the badger people used to deny it but have given that up due to the weight of scientific evidence) badgers are very prone to TB, very efficient spreaders of TB and have a huge population so are not remotely endangered which was the premise of the protections in the Badger Act.


----------



## Potato! (25 October 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			The best available vaccine is BcG and it is only approx 50% effective. Vaccination would also mean the closure of all meat exports from this country immediately since it is effectively introducing the virus into the cattle and it is a human transmissable disease. 

You would then find it very difficult to work out which animals had the virus since the only TB tests there are only for live cattle work by testing for exposure - which all the vaccinated animals would test positive for. 

So you would lose the only test we have to test for exposure in exchange for a vaccine which is only 50% effective and even where it works simply slows down the virus multiplying. The only tests that would still work are very expensive per animal.

It isnt like flu - it isnt a virus variant where you just need to come up with this years strain - it is a LOT more difficult to develop an effective TB vaccine. 

In addition, in relation to vaccination of the wild  animal population it is important to remember that it would have to be annual. How many deer/badgers do you reckon would be queueing up to be caught in a trap in years 2 and subsequently, even if you can catch them in year one. And some terrain eg mountains would make it impossible to catch them in the first place.

TB is treatable in humans by a very expensive and extremely unpleasant six month long regime of drugs. Some people have horrendous side effects and cannot be treated. Others fail to finish the course, leading to drug resistant tB (which is why if you run away from TB treatment you can be forcibly returned to hospital to finish the treatment). Some strains of TB are already untreatable as they are resistant to all the drugs. 

Shortly before badgers were given gold plated protection in this country TB had been almost eradicated in humans and farm animals, within 5 years it would have been, which makes me want to tear my hair out at the missed opportunity. Since that time, the TB incidence has exploded,  in line with an exploding badger population. 

I do not see why it is not in the best interests of badgers to have a smaller population in some areas but a healthy one rather than a large population of diseased and suffering animals. 

Scapegoating is where you unjustifiably pick on someone for something that was nothing to do with them. The issue here is that (altho the badger people used to deny it but have given that up due to the weight of scientific evidence) badgers are very prone to TB, very efficient spreaders of TB and have a huge population so are not remotely endangered which was the premise of the protections in the Badger Act.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with this


----------



## Orangehorse (25 October 2012)

Three cheers for this.

And by the way, the cattle ARE tested at slaughter for lesions, we had one.

There are quite a few interesting papers published in the farming press, often from retired DEFRA staff, who feel that they can now speak out.  There was one about cattle being slaughtered but no lesions found, but the information I read that even if no lesions were visible, the fact that they had tested positive for TB means that they have got it, somewhere.

Interstingly, cattle will often isolate the infection - encaspulate - (remember the TB tumours in James Heriott books?)  Alpacas on the other hand will just breathe it out, all over their owners.  Our DEFRA vet said they should be tested like cattle, but it just isn't in the legistlation as there probably weren't any when the laws were made.  There are occasional cases in cats and dogs, but those infections aren't widespread.


----------



## jrp204 (25 October 2012)

Well said LLM.


----------



## Maesfen (25 October 2012)

jrp204 said:



			Well said LLM.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, thanks for that LLM.


----------



## Ninfapaola (25 October 2012)

Badgers have no natural predators; why is this?  Is it because their predators were exterminated many, many years ago?  This is what happens when the balance of nature is disturbed.  Kill off one species and other species will multiply.  It's something that all we humans have to take responsibility for.  Maybe the introduction of the badgers' predators could be re introduced but by doing so will 'open another can of worms'.  So were do we start or stop - makes you think.


----------



## fburton (25 October 2012)

It sounds like we need a cull of alpacas too - dirty animals!


----------



## Alec Swan (25 October 2012)

Ninfapaola said:



			Badgers have no natural predators; why is this?  Is it because their predators were exterminated many, many years ago?  This is what happens when the balance of nature is disturbed.  Kill off one species and other species will multiply.  It's something that all we humans have to take responsibility for.  Maybe the introduction of the badgers' predators could be re introduced but by doing so will 'open another can of worms'.  So were do we start or stop - makes you think.
		
Click to expand...

Badgers have never had a natural enemy.  They are in a rather unique position,  in that there's little that wants to take them on!!  In Africa,  Where they have Honey Badgers,  even Lions treat them with respect.

Badgers are also unique in that for all their totally disproportionate power,  they exist on a rather low grade diet of earth worms and beetles,  fruit and eggs when they are in season,  and presumably,  carrion as it becomes available.  During the Spring,  they will dig out stops of baby rabbits,  and they'll also find the nests of baby mice,  and where they come into conflict with the Man/Cattle situation,  is that their predilection for beetles sends them out,  on our balmy summer nights,  tipping over dried,  and suitable cow pats,  whilst searching for beetles.

Your quote "It's something that all we humans have to take responsibility for",  is strangely true.  We've allowed a population explosion to take place,  without any thought as to the welfare of badgers,  cattle or man.

The posts from lachlanandmarcus,  have been a most welcome injection of common sense.  Well Done,  who ever you are! 

Alec.


----------



## happyhunter123 (25 October 2012)

The government has lost the vote 147 to 28 from today's debate. They don't have to listen, but the anti-cullers will be claiming this as a major victory. What happens now?


----------



## fburton (25 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			The posts from lachlanandmarcus,  have been a most welcome injection of common sense.  Well Done,  who ever you are! 

Click to expand...

Seconded! A nice summary of the issues around vaccination (which also have applicability to FMD, I imagine).


----------



## Maesfen (25 October 2012)

Perhaps we should round up every badger we can find and dump them on Brian May's property as he seems to like them so much; he can certainly have ours and see how he likes being told what he can and can't do on his own land and not be able to do anything about what is destroying it.


----------



## mon (25 October 2012)

Agree measfen he doesnt have to earn a living from cattle, a lot of these personalities should stick to singing acting etc.


----------



## JanetGeorge (25 October 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Badgers are also unique in that for all their totally disproportionate power,  they exist on a rather low grade diet of earth worms and beetles,  fruit and eggs when they are in season,  and presumably,  carrion as it becomes available.  During the Spring,  they will dig out stops of baby rabbits,  and they'll also find the nests of baby mice,  and where they come into conflict with the Man/Cattle situation,  is that their predilection for beetles sends them out,  on our balmy summer nights,  tipping over dried,  and suitable cow pats,  whilst searching for beetles.
		
Click to expand...

Some badgers DO develop a 'taste' for other things.  A farmer friend of mine surprised a badger fighting a BIG ewe.  He had killed one of her triplets, and mauled another so badly it had to be PTS.  The ewe needed 15 stitches!  Badger had held lamb down with his powerful front legs and gone in behind the ribcage to take the kidneys - farmer had already lost 10 lambs between 1 and 3 weeks old in the previous week when he found the culprit - until then he thought it was a VERY odd type of fox attack!  ALL of them just had the two wounds which enabled badger to get fresh kidney for breakfast!


----------



## brighteyes (25 October 2012)

I have no issue with a cull for a scientifically sound reason.  If a random shooting of 70% of a population in an area will eradicate TB, get on with it.  If you can ascertain 70% and get all the TB carriers at the same time.  

I am not convinced of the certainty behind the prescription or that it will be in the least bit effective.  I have no faith in DEFRA's ability to manage livestock or wildlife to any degree of benefit.  They seem to operate by the maxim 'if in doubt, slaughter it out'.


----------



## lachlanandmarcus (25 October 2012)

brighteyes said:



			I have no issue with a cull for a scientifically sound reason.  If a random shooting of 70% of a population in an area will eradicate TB, get on with it.  If you can ascertain 70% and get all the TB carriers at the same time.  

I am not convinced of the certainty behind the prescription or that it will be in the least bit effective.  I have no faith in DEFRA's ability to manage livestock or wildlife to any degree of benefit.  They seem to operate by the maxim 'if in doubt, slaughter it out'.
		
Click to expand...

It would reduce it, rather than eradicate it, I dont think anyone claims it will get all the TB carriers - the hope is to reduce it for long enough to develop a vaccine that is effective enough and long lasting enough to be a viable alternative (which the current one is not) but this would be min 5 years away if it were to be properly tested, which it must be because of the disease being a human catchable one.  The issues of the vaccine re exports/masking how many animals have TB would still need to be addressed. 

Slaughter (preferably of infected setts, nationwide, by farmers not a localised random cull) would still have to be a key part of the picture even if a vaccine is developed - for the vaccine to start to eradicate the disease you have to start with a relatively low proportion of animals infected - to be blunt a vaccine doesnt have any effect on an animal with TB and badgers live too long with it to leave them infected....

While there is much consensus (farmers included!) that DEFRA have not handled this well (government have a legal resp to control disease which they have and are failing to do), the opponents of dealing with the badger issue have to bear a big share of responsibility since it has led to such delays that the issue is now critical. It is a bigger health issue than foot and mouth, because it is such a serious disease in humans, and because of the number of species it can infect to act as a massive reservoir of infection.

Very ironically, the design of the current planned cull is more to do with having to ensure it is bullet proof in terms of legal challenges than possibly the most effective design to deal with the disease, which is crazy and leads to the risks of underculling that have led to the postponement of the cull until next year.

Amend the Badger Act, treat badgers like foxes and deer - I dont see why this should be controversial. After all, some estimates reckon there are now more badgers than foxes in this country.


----------



## singlefarmer (25 October 2012)

soloequestrian said:



			How would farmers react if instead of a bounty being offered for badgers, the money was put towards improving fencing and building security on farms that are affected by badger entry?
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear words fail me......................


----------



## singlefarmer (25 October 2012)

Paulag said:



			Sorry, got it wrong. It took 9 years to get the 16% drop in bovine tb from the cull research. And fleeing badgers carried it to neighbouring farms. 

Apparently our lovely government has cancelled 4 out of 5 vaccine trials - now I've heard it said that farmers don't just vote for the Tory party, they are the Tory party. Hardly a non influential minority, which can be seen by the fact that this valueless cull nearly went ahead to appease them by doing something even if it wouldn't work.
		
Click to expand...

They are trialling a vaccination of badgers in West Wales.There are 4 people going around trapping badgers and vaccinating them. There is also a nurse travelling with them asking them every so often, "how are you feeling?" "are you ok?" because the job is so "stressful". Trouble is , the same badgers are coming into the traps for the bait..................

Not sure if anyone knows this- when a "reactor" cow is sent to slaughter they are tested at the slaughterhouse for tb, not all reactors have tb and the ones that don't the Intervention Board sells that meat into the food chain.It is safe to eat but people complain about the compensation being paid to farmers who have cows culled.


----------



## mutley75 (25 October 2012)

i WILL THROUGH IT OUT THERE AGAIN 1080!!!!!


----------



## wildoat (25 October 2012)

lachlanandmarcus said:



			It would reduce it, rather than eradicate it, I dont think anyone claims it will get all the TB carriers - the hope is to reduce it for long enough to develop a vaccine that is effective enough and long lasting enough to be a viable alternative (which the current one is not) but this would be min 5 years away if it were to be properly tested, which it must be because of the disease being a human catchable one.  The issues of the vaccine re exports/masking how many animals have TB would still need to be addressed. 

Slaughter (preferably of infected setts, nationwide, by farmers not a localised random cull) would still have to be a key part of the picture even if a vaccine is developed - for the vaccine to start to eradicate the disease you have to start with a relatively low proportion of animals infected - to be blunt a vaccine doesnt have any effect on an animal with TB and badgers live too long with it to leave them infected....

While there is much consensus (farmers included!) that DEFRA have not handled this well (government have a legal resp to control disease which they have and are failing to do), the opponents of dealing with the badger issue have to bear a big share of responsibility since it has led to such delays that the issue is now critical. It is a bigger health issue than foot and mouth, because it is such a serious disease in humans, and because of the number of species it can infect to act as a massive reservoir of infection.

Very ironically, the design of the current planned cull is more to do with having to ensure it is bullet proof in terms of legal challenges than possibly the most effective design to deal with the disease, which is crazy and leads to the risks of underculling that have led to the postponement of the cull until next year.

Amend the Badger Act, treat badgers like foxes and deer - I dont see why this should be controversial. After all, some estimates reckon there are now more badgers than foxes in this country.
		
Click to expand...

Very informative contribution, thanks!

Seems we need to cut the bullshit and get real, this problem could easily spiral out of control, interesting then to see who would be happy to take the blame!

You'd think governments in general would have learnt from the past catastrophes, why are they so slow to respond, they are supposed to be the experts!

Tony


----------



## perfect11s (26 October 2012)

wildoat said:



			Very informative contribution, thanks!

Seems we need to cut the bullshit and get real, this problem could easily spiral out of control, interesting then to see who would be happy to take the blame!

You'd think governments in general would have learnt from the past catastrophes, why are they so slow to respond, they are supposed to be the experts!

Tony
		
Click to expand...

   They (politcians)are  more interested in being popular in the short term so will listen to experts like drummers rather than vets and the people on the ground. But the main problem with all this is the badger has better PR than  agriculture f in bonkers realy that people are so stupid and emotional about vermin...rather than the countryside and food security ...words fail me as to how stupid and pathetic this country has become..


----------



## Alyth (26 October 2012)

mutley75 said:



			i WILL THROUGH IT OUT THERE AGAIN 1080!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even go there!!!  I live in New Zealand which is one of the very few, if not the only country, that allows the use of 1080 and it causes a lot of problems....people here are fighting our Department of Consersvation because they insist on using it against possums.....and causing the death of livestock due to inaccurate drops and the poison becoming available to farm dogs etc....


----------



## fburton (26 October 2012)

There was more on the vaccination issue in this morning's _Farming Today_, including the timing and politics of approving/licensing an already-developed DIVA test (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngrw5


----------



## perfect11s (26 October 2012)

Alyth said:



			I wouldn't even go there!!!  I live in New Zealand which is one of the very few, if not the only country, that allows the use of 1080 and it causes a lot of problems....people here are fighting our Department of Consersvation because they insist on using it against possums.....and causing the death of livestock due to inaccurate drops and the poison becoming available to farm dogs etc....
		
Click to expand...

 Yes not very nice but it seems to have had the desired effect and the possum problem has lessend , over here its much easyier to find  badger setts and would be possible to target them without colataral damage ,however the  simple answer surely is for the goverment to remove the protected status from badgers and then farmers can quitely get rid of there problem.????


----------



## stencilface (26 October 2012)

Yes, but NZ uses this to get rid of an unnatural, non-native predator - it is not the same as having a cull of a native mammal 

I think they really need to think long term with this and figure out an actual solution, even the pro cullers admit that it wouldn 't eradicate TB entirely, well of course it wouldn't, it is Bovine TB after all, carried by bovines too. Surely its time consuming, expensive and just a bit blood thirsty to be having a huge cull every 30-40 years?

I think some of the issue comes from badgers having access to cattle feed doesn't it, is there no way this coudl be better managed? I have closed badger setts on dairy farm land (for quarry purposes) and it took quite a bit of time licensing/on the ground to do this etc etc, I have no doubt that when the site is finally handed back to the farmer that he will cull them himself. 

If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can figure out how to eradicate TB?


----------



## fburton (26 October 2012)

Stencilface said:



			If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can figure out how to eradicate TB?
		
Click to expand...

You'd have thought so. The trouble is biological 'engineering' is often a lot harder than the mechanical sort - one can't put vaccines or antibiotics together the way one can build a space shuttle.


----------



## dominobrown (26 October 2012)

I am sorry but there is no way you can eradicate all badgers throughout Britain, and you would also cull millions of healthy badgers not carrying the disease. 

Yes it would cost millions to develop a vaccine, but then it is done. A cull of badgers would go on for decades, probably be ineffective and cost millions as well.


----------



## Orangehorse (26 October 2012)

No one wants to cull all badgers throughout Britain.  What is needed is a cull of all infected badgers.  It was nearly completed once, so no reason why it couldn't be done again, if the government had more backbone.  Of course, there is a MUCH higher badger population now.

There are plenty of areas of Britain where there is no TB in cattle or in badgers.


----------



## Alec Swan (26 October 2012)

Alyth said:



			I wouldn't even go there!!!  I live in New Zealand which is one of the very few, if not the only country, that allows the use of 1080 and it causes a lot of problems........
		
Click to expand...

Having done a bit of research,  1080 seems to be a rather needlessly cruel and barbaric way of killing anything.  Gassing would be the most certain and humane method,  with shooting as a relatively slow and generally ineffective method of accounting for relatively large numbers.  

Should Government ever find the collective spine which will be needed,  can you just imagine the uproar that there would be,  if whole sett gassing or poison were used?  Far easier to go for the least effective,  and therefore the preferred method.  

Placate the masses by agreeing to a system which would be virtually useless.  You see if I'm not right.   

Alec.


----------

