Kes Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 How do they know they took 5 minutes to die? 1700 killed, 6-18% died slowly apparently. With a shotgun, a follow up shot would be easy. With a rifle, at long range, at night, if it dropped out of sight after the first shot, then not easy to take second shot. But then how do you know it is still alive? Squealing? Surely it would take less than 5 minutes to walk (jog) over to it and dispatch? I just don't get how around 200 out of 1700 shot died that slowly, and who recorded it? Most people who post up their targets on here have the odd flier, and I can understand 6-18% not being killed outright on first shot, but no follow up? Maybe it started as 6-18% not killed with first shot, and got morphed into took 5 minutes to die... It doesnt seem right though The statistic about '6 -18 minutes to die' is very unusual for several reasons. First, why quote a range? Who measured it and why? Why then did the BBc say "many took too long to die". Badgers walk up to you in the field and at sets you can give them peanuts and shoot them at close range (if permitted). I just simply do not accept that almost a fifth of badgers took too long to die with capable marksmen undertaking the cull. I've never had a fox move that I have shot and I'm nothing special, as said if energy requirements are met and shot placement is good (as one should expect here) then it curtains instantly. Something smells and its not dead badgers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) The statistic about '6 -18 minutes to die' is very unusual for several reasons. First, why quote a range? Who measured it and why? Why then did the BBc say "many took too long to die". Badgers walk up to you in the field and at sets you can give them peanuts and shoot them at close range (if permitted). I just simply do not accept that almost a fifth of badgers took too long to die with capable marksmen undertaking the cull. I've never had a fox move that I have shot and I'm nothing special, as said if energy requirements are met and shot placement is good (as one should expect here) then it curtains instantly. Something smells and its not dead badgers. no it was not 6-18minuets to die it was 6-18% of them taken more than 5 minuets to die . and where did the figure of a 5th come from?? Edited February 28, 2014 by fruitloop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lampwick Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 It would be interesting to know how the reported stat was determined. Any ideas where we could find out welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 It does indeed seem a very odd statistic which many have raised valid points over, such as, who was standing there timing it, and if they were, why didn't the badger get dispatched rather than timing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 how were these figures compiled and who the heck was shooting them? The figures were attained through a combination of post mortem examination and field observers. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/files/badger-cull-iep-monitor-humane-shooting20130307.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) no it was not 6-18minuets to die it was 6-18% of them taken more than 5 minuets to die . and where did the figure of a 5th come from?? Sorry fruit loop must have be a mis-quote. The 1/5 was based on 18% being nearly 20% and thus a fifth. Which I read somewhere was the percentage that died 'inhumanely'. I still find it difficult to grasp that anyone would not use a follow-up shot, I simply cannot imagine watching an animal die in suffering. I'm sorry - I do not believe this, not because I dont want to (which I dont), but because knowing the mechanisms for examination, the use of trained marksman, the ease of administering a coup de grace, it sound far more like negative propoganda than fact. Someone at DEFRA is going to get culled for this. Why would anyone take the massive political risk and allow such a pathetic trial to take place, beggars belief - I could have done a better job organising it than these so called experts. Edited March 1, 2014 by Kes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malantone Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Why publicise the cull in the first place? the same thing was done in the lake district when a cull of the Canada geese on Windermere was planned, it was all over the papers and was postponed, I don`t understand the need to tell the world, if it`s legal get it done, let the antis cry afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Why publicise the cull in the first place? the same thing was done in the lake district when a cull of the Canada geese on Windermere was planned, it was all over the papers and was postponed, I don`t understand the need to tell the world, if it`s legal get it done, let the antis cry afterwards. I said the very same thing when they first announced the cull zones and dates. It was a recipe for disaster. Should have just done the job and announced the results later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 I was aware of the WMR minimum (which isn't entirely correct as it's actually 160ft lb, 38g, which some 40g .22lr can deliver) and the cull requirement was basically small deer spec, which makes marksmen and the 5 minutes to die even more odd! It meant that the 22WMR would have been the minimum calibre when the law was passed and since 1973 there's been no real incentive to change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 I said the very same thing when they first announced the cull zones and dates. It was a recipe for disaster. Should have just done the job and announced the results later. See freedom of information act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 at 10 yards a 12ga don't need no more than no.4 lead that will kill mostly anything. I bet you find the 5 min thing came from a tick box 1. Badger dead instantly (brain death) 2. Badger dead in up to 5 min maximum - bleed out / hydrostatic shock. How you ask a question has bearing on the result Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 It meant that the 22WMR would have been the minimum calibre when the law was passed and since 1973 there's been no real incentive to change anything. No need to change anything either, I'm totally lost as to why 1000ft lb plus was required to kill a Badger, our military (and many others) use 5.56 (very similar and NON expanding) to kill people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 15, 2014 Report Share Posted March 15, 2014 No need to change anything either, I'm totally lost as to why 1000ft lb plus was required to kill a Badger, our military (and many others) use 5.56 (very similar and NON expanding) to kill people! What I was getting at was that as it is illegal to shoot them post 1973, any change in law ceased to be an urgent consideration now that the odd LR round can top the 160. I don't think that it's possible to criticise whoever made the 1000 decision as they would have been acting on advice, It would be better to ask why of whoever gave that advice - I know not whether the GCT 2006 report was adopted. Interested to hear what you would have recommended. To avoid the, 'how long is a bit of string' element, say at a maximum range of 100 yards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) What I was getting at was that as it is illegal to shoot them post 1973, any change in law ceased to be an urgent consideration now that the odd LR round can top the 160. I don't think that it's possible to criticise whoever made the 1000 decision as they would have been acting on advice, It would be better to ask why of whoever gave that advice - I know not whether the GCT 2006 report was adopted. Interested to hear what you would have recommended. To avoid the, 'how long is a bit of string' element, say at a maximum range of 100 yards. I don't see any need to change the old 160ft lb etc rule, it worked historically and it still works, that was a minimum, so it should be left to those selected as being competent to remove badgers to pick their calibre/tools of choice for any given situation. Edited March 17, 2014 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 so it should be left to those selected as being competent to remove badgers to pick their calibre/tools of choice for any given situation. Eminently sensible and for my money, well said. If, and only if, what we hear about the wounding figures is correct, in the case of very short - but beyond shotgun - range shots would these incidents have possibly been reduced if a rifle more appropriate to that range had been available as an option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malantone Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 See freedom of information act so does the freedom of information say I have to tell everyone that I`m going to shoot Canada geese because a land owner wants rid of them. I don`t see why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalmac Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 at 10 yards a 12ga don't need no more than no.4 lead that will kill mostly anything. I bet you find the 5 min thing came from a tick box 1. Badger dead instantly (brain death) 2. Badger dead in up to 5 min maximum - bleed out / hydrostatic shock. How you ask a question has bearing on the result Sounds very likely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.