The Badger Cull

[bigrob]

The people involved with the badger cull must be waving their fists at the TV tonight. ITV news in the West have just announced the start date for the cull for the 4th year running! I have seen their reporter Ken Goodwin out in the field with all of his mates (the Antis) trying to pinpoint the marksmen out in the field. These poor blokes are doing a government backed trial and aren't getting any help from anyone. I have been told that they have done a lot of training for this and every time they go out they are being surrounded by halfwits! The problem is that Brian May tells nothing but lies about the effectiveness of a cull - the truth is sadly that the only option that works is a cull - it has worked successfully in 5 other countries. For any type of vaccination to work the animal in question has to be clear of the virus - do they check for this - NO. A local vet told me last year that each injection costs around £600. .

[ShootingEgg]

Why do they publish the date... Makes no sense... The people incharge of the cull shouldn't make ot public... or does freedom of information mean it has to be

[fortune]

who get to be a marksman doing the job. How does the department select the marksmen? It aint like they are going round the local pubs touting for guns and I havent seen any adverts. Whats the criteria that keeps the antis from infiltrating the shooters.

Just found this. A right read.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347541/badger-cull-controlled-shooting-guidance-2014.pdf

[Scully]

I think confusion reigns regarding the effectiveness of the cull, to be honest. There are claims and counter claims on both sides of the fence, and until we get both sides to sit down in a public debate, where both sides are allowed ( without shouting down ) to put across their views and present facts, confusion will continue to reign.

It's no good so called celebrities from either side giving their views; they aren't scientists. What we need is an open and public debate by those in the know instead of those with an agenda.

I have to admit I hear conflicting 'facts' on a daily basis almost and I genuinely don't know who is telling the truth. Opposing sides can't both be right.

[Whitebridges]

Extending the culling area must mean a success over the old ground ?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Whitebridges

[la bala]

I maybe wrong but i believe on certain things there are news blackouts. Something like this, our well known media service cant talk about it enough.

[CharlieT]

For any type of vaccination to work the animal in question has to be clear of the virus - do they check for this - NO. A local vet told me last year that each injection costs around £600. .

 

The only available vaccine for use on Badgers is BCG, which as you say doesn't work on infected badgers and that is so short in supply that the government had to suspend the program. The cost you mention actually worked out at a little over £700 per badger for the last vaccination period in 2015. The high cost reflects the total costs of running the program such as training, staff, traps, vaccine, vehicles etc, much like the badger cull costs.

 

But, like the cull, which I should add is paid for by the farmers, if it helps reduce the incidence if bTB in one's cattle it has to be worth the expense.

[andrew f]

who get to be a marksman doing the job. How does the department select the marksmen? It aint like they are going round the local pubs touting for guns and I havent seen any adverts. Whats the criteria that keeps the antis from infiltrating the shooters.

Just found this. A right read.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347541/badger-cull-controlled-shooting-guidance-2014.pdf

Farmers can choose a shooter for themselves all the shooter as to do is pass the shooting test and some other bits Edited August 30, 2016 by andrew f

[CharlieT]

The shooters and all staff are employed by the company set up to do the cull.

The company covers the total individual cull area and is financed by the farmers and landowners taking part in the scheme.

[Redgum]

We are in the fourth year of the cull here in Gloucestershire, and being one of the original two start areas we have certainly seen our share of anti activity. There are some who are passionate about saving badgers but the majority of anti's have been lured from more northerly cities, people who have nothing better to do are offered free food ,accommodation and the chance to wander unhampered across private land with chance of causing trouble to a party that have no other option but to retreat. Shooters have no extra protection or power than any other with a firearms license and have to act accordingly, be polite, non aggressive and walk away, mostly as they are being called paedophiles and spat at in the dark of the night. Its been an outrage how the sea of unwashed have got away with their actions without prosecution while hampering a legal activity. There have been cases of assault and attempted theft of a firearm but no convictions as contractors are not prepared to release their true identities in court for fear of reprisals.

But it doesn't stop with just harassing shooters, thousands of pounds of traps have been vandalised, pheasant shoots being targeted, disrupted and vandalised, I personally have had two high seats wrecked and while out with the clay trap last year teaching my lad how to point his 20 bore in the right direction, four people appeared out of the undergrowth in black balaclava's, unfortunately for them my missus was on the trap and asked them to politely leave , they soon fled, numpties obviously thought we were flinging badgers up in the air. Another tactic is just to waste police time and increase cull costs as they fill up all our countryside laybys with mac Donald wrappers.

[keg]

I think confusion reigns regarding the effectiveness of the cull, to be honest. There are claims and counter claims on both sides of the fence, and until we get both sides to sit down in a public debate, where both sides are allowed ( without shouting down ) to put across their views and present facts, confusion will continue to reign.

It's no good so called celebrities from either side giving their views; they aren't scientists. What we need is an open and public debate by those in the know instead of those with an agenda.

I have to admit I hear conflicting 'facts' on a daily basis almost and I genuinely don't know who is telling the truth. Opposing sides can't both be right.

It i shard to get the facts out of either side, a bit like Brexit!

[joe soapy]

It i shard to get the facts out of either side, a bit like Brexit!

The facts are not that difficult to understand

Every bovine in the risk areas, which is most of the country is tested annually for TB and killed if positive.

The test is to show if the animal has been exposed to the infection, not if the animal has actually got the disease.

Any cattle sold also have a pre movement test before leaving the farm.

Any farm getting a reactor then gets put onto 60 day testing interval untill it gets 3 clear tests, with no movements

allowed during this time except to slaughter.

On top of the normal live testing, all cattle being slaughtered are post mortem checked for any sign of TB by

very experienced inspectors, if TB is found the carcass is traced back to its origin and the farm put under restriction and testing regime .

All this leaves little chance of there being any endemic infection in the national herd.

The other thing to bear in mind is that it is very difficult for TB to be transmitted between cattle, under normal farm conditions

it just does not happen.

All the above can only lead to one conclusion, that is that the cattle are getting infected from another source.

Its been proven over many years that the removal of the source of infection eliminates the disease..

 

The trouble now is that many scientists and others are seeing the prolonging of the disease as a very lucrative gravy train

and the raising of their public profile

[ShootingEgg]

Am I right in saying badgers at one stage were not protected, theb were put on protected list and it was meant to be then reviewed after X amount of years. Would it not be benificial for them to have similar status as say a fox. Then those who want to control numbers can and those who dont wont.

 

Or is that just far to logical?

[BrowningB525]

Am I right in saying badgers at one stage were not protected, theb were put on protected list and it was meant to be then reviewed after X amount of years. Would it not be benificial for them to have similar status as say a fox. Then those who want to control numbers can and those who dont wont.

 

Or is that just far to logical?

In my opinion this is the only viable option moving forward.

 

In cattle farming areas badgers will be controlled by farmers. Less so in arable.

[scotslad]

Ur spot on shooting egg, the badger population is now ridiculous in many places.

Basc and other orgs as well as well sensible conservation bodies really should be fighting for this, but all running scared on the vocal minority,. Even the hedgehog charities which have ver strong scientific proof linking ibcrease in badgers to a decline in hedge hogs are scared to push the results

 

There is absolutley no justification for keeping badger protected, the reason broc was protected was far more to do with baiting than a population decline.

Most other european countries hunt badgers and populations/densities will be no where near as high as ours.

 

I can mind 1 old timer telling me how they used wait a local wagon depot/services to hitch down souh in wagons at wknds to go digging billy legally (completely different to baiting them!) they used to bag/box some and bring them back up the road to cumbria.

He reckoned a lot of the cumbrian broc were all intro'd by the diggers for digging and were released unharmed

[scotslad]

In my opinion this is the only viable option moving forward.

 

In cattle farming areas badgers will be controlled by farmers. Less so in arable.

 

U might be surprised in arable areas too, seen plenty of holes extending well in to fields, seen signs of them collapsing under wieght of combine/tractors.

Plus if u have a hole ur meant to leave quite a big area round it untouched by machinery.

I know i've had a couple of lucky escapes with quad bike almost driving into holes in fields when not really looking where i'm going, some can be 10m from the fence lines, some big ones would almost swallow the front end of a quad

 

When i worked on the railway it was a 30m exclusion zone with no machines withing 30m of holes, u'd be amazed the ammount of timber,,brash, branches u have to drag up/down track to save walking some badgers. Really made a hard enough job harder in some places

[Scully]

The facts are not that difficult to understand

Every bovine in the risk areas, which is most of the country is tested annually for TB and killed if positive.

The test is to show if the animal has been exposed to the infection, not if the animal has actually got the disease.

Any cattle sold also have a pre movement test before leaving the farm.

Any farm getting a reactor then gets put onto 60 day testing interval untill it gets 3 clear tests, with no movements

allowed during this time except to slaughter.

On top of the normal live testing, all cattle being slaughtered are post mortem checked for any sign of TB by

very experienced inspectors, if TB is found the carcass is traced back to its origin and the farm put under restriction and testing regime .

All this leaves little chance of there being any endemic infection in the national herd.

The other thing to bear in mind is that it is very difficult for TB to be transmitted between cattle, under normal farm conditions

it just does not happen.

All the above can only lead to one conclusion, that is that the cattle are getting infected from another source.

Its been proven over many years that the removal of the source of infection eliminates the disease..

 

The trouble now is that many scientists and others are seeing the prolonging of the disease as a very lucrative gravy train

and the raising of their public profile

 

That isn't what I meant actually; what happens to the cattle is fairly straightforward.

The confusing part is the various claims made by either side regarding the effectiveness of the cull, its causes and relevant solutions. Some claim the cull has worked well in other countries and some claim it has been proved it doesn't work, some say the badgers infect the cattle and others claim it is the cattle which infect the badgers and then the entire thing goes round in circles, while others claim the TB is on the ground, infected by either badgers or cattle. Like I say, they can't all be right, can they?

Who do we believe...the 'for' science, or the 'against' science? It reminds me of the lead shot argument, and like that argument, both sides will acrimoniously rattle on for years unless the truth and facts are out there for all to read.

[CharlieT]

Am I right in saying badgers at one stage were not protected, theb were put on protected list and it was meant to be then reviewed after X amount of years. Would it not be benificial for them to have similar status as say a fox. Then those who want to control numbers can and those who dontwont.

 

Or is that just far to logical?

 

Quite rightly, government policy is to achieve bTB free status for England.

 

The strategy which includes bTB cattle testing and killing those infected, developing vaccines for both cattle and badgers leading to the vaccination of cattle and badgers and the controlling of the disease in badgers through culling in areas of high incidence of bTB.

 

For culling to work, it requires, as far as possible, all badgers in that area to be killed. Something that would not be achieved by random shooting. Farmers want an end to bTB, not another mammal on the quarry list. The idea is that once diseased badgers have been dealt with the area will eventually be recolonised by healthy animals.

[Savhmr]

Whatever the facts are around the transmission of TB, from the testing done on a few farms that I shoot, there has been a very clear correlation between positive reactor tests and monitored badger numbers. The badger numbers are on the increase and along with that comes an increase in positive cattle tests. Not huge numbers, but a correlation. I can't for the life of me understand why in over 30 years of scientists being paid on this gravy train, that the government are still undecided...their own departments seem to deal in paper shuffling and little else.

 

The protection offered to badgers back in (please correct me if I am wrong on dates) 1982 was only ever meant to be temporary, like most protection notices, having a few years to run pending the establishment of how successful that period was in letting numbers regain balance. Since that time, the numbers have escalated because a badger has no natural predator and the damage that the increased numbers have done is simply staggering. Their earthworks have caused havoc on river and canal embankments creating increased flood risk through undermining embankment stability, they infest farms for easy food supplies, and do clearly spread their TB disease, they scavenge for anything they can get and this year I had the misfortune to witness a badger attack on a lamb which was sickening. I never realised they were such aggressive predators. We had more badger attacks on lambs this year than fox attacks. The local gamekeepers shoot every fox on sight (personally, I like to see a few foxes about as they haven't done us much harm). Badgers almost certainly outnumber foxes where we are. The answer is simply to remove protection status and allow farmers to control numbers as they see fit by shooting. If there comes a point at which the population becomes threatened again, the protection status can be re-applied for a few years but to do nothing is not the answer. The anti's have't a clue. Any we find on our land will be reported for aggravated trespass if they try and disrupt any of our activities this year.

[mick miller]

Just have a season, as they do on the continent. Job done. If this was put in place UK wide then disruption would become nigh on impossible, numbers would rapidly be reduced over a few years without the risk of the complete eradication we saw before.

[CharlieT]

Just have a season, as they do on the continent. Job done. If this was put in place UK wide then disruption would become nigh on impossible, numbers would rapidly be reduced over a few years without the risk of the complete eradication we saw before.

and how would that help eradicate bTB in England, which after all is what the cull is trying to achieve.

[panoma1]

The whole issue of wildlife protection needs review.........there should be no species excluded from being managed, controlled or where appropriate hunted.......but that control status should be subject to ongoing review, for example, before any species has declined in numbers to the extent that it is at risk, it should, where appropriate be placed under a total protection order until such time it has recovered to an acceptable and sustainable population, after which point it should be returned to the available for management, control and where appropriate hunting list......where a particular species is proven or deemed to be a risk to other species or human interests by being a vector for spreading disease the precautionary principle (So beloved by our protectionist enemies) should be used and that species should be subject to tight and ongoing control of their numbers.

The current protectionist driven laws do not work for anyone, except the protectionists! For example Buzzards (I'm sure we can name many more examples!) when they were rare needed protection....now we are overrun with them they should now be subject to control measures, Brent geese, curlew etc etc when they were in reportedly in decline were taken off the quarry list and protected......they are not in decline now so there is no scientific or conservation reason for not reinstating them to the legal quarry list!

If man does not control predatory and disease carrying species populations, it will be a "survival of the fittest" scenario, predators are at the top of the food chain, omnivores are versatile, vermin and scavengers are survivors but they all fall prey to predators........all other species are just food for predators!

If we protect every living creature the only thing left in the fullness of time will be the predators that is of course, until such time that they have eaten each other!

 

Just a point of view that may stimulate debate? Lol

[scotslad]

I totally agree with u panoma, any protection should be on a needs basis if a species needs it no one would complain but there are plwnty of protected species which are causing considerable damage to local ecosytems.

 

Even protection on more local/regional levels as some species are not that common in some areas while very common in others.

 

Then the proper use of the licensing system (which already exists) where u are allowed to cull a certain ammount in certain circumstances.

Just a bt of common sense needs to be applied, no one wants to wipe out any species but at same time u don't want to see any species locally exticnt due to predation either (could quite likely be the straw that beaks the back)

 

I know locally we've always been fortunate enough to have otters but now can will see atleast 1 everytime u go down the river, my mate has actually lost quite a few fish now to otters mid fight, ironic thing is he returns most of them. Plenty of duck ponds are no longer fledging ducks or even have ducks on them due the otter predation. The river is now mandotory100% catch and release (been volantry for yrs often about 80% returned) but salmon sea trout numbers are still very very low (and i realise otters predate very little on salmonoids) but hardly a chubb left in the water now and eel numbers are also well well down, while otter predation is not the reason salmon numbers are low it could be enough to keep them far lower when they are down. Esp when other more major prey species are struggling too.

Bringing back the otter hounds would help both the otters by spreading them about a bot and the river.

On plus side very few mink now which was not the case 25 yrs ago

 

Even ignoring the bTB issue badgers are causing wipespread environmental damage, look how hard we all try to control foxes, yet a badger has a very similar diet is heavier=so eat more and lives in far higher populations/densities than foxes. To be honest in areas with high broc numbers ur really wasting ur time shooting foxes

 

Charlie u and me both know how easy it would be to wipe out setts in 1 go with a bit of spade work and a tin of cymag, and it was legal to us eon foxes to relatively recently.

It would be far more effective and cheaper to monitor a far smaller population of badgers, at the moment no one really hs a clue how many there actually is which makes it very hard to evaluate how the cull has went.

If u want to show it in a good/bad light u just pick the higher or lower figuers that suit ur argument best.

[mick miller]

and how would that help eradicate bTB in England, which after all is what the cull is trying to achieve.

 

Only by default. It would, however, address the wider issues that affect farming elsewhere with damage to expensive equipment through setts dug into fields, protection of ground nesting birds and other fauna and provide a level of population control for a mammal that currently has none. Everything requires a degree of management, to ignore that is simply misguided.

 

Badgers are no longer an endangered species. On the contrary, in many parts of the countryside their numbers could be considered to be out of control.

[bigrob]

You may or may not know about a badger cull that was held in the Forest of Dean back in the sixties. The wild deer were plaqued with btb and they kept the cull quiet. Approx 70% of badgers were killed. The deer have been clear of the disease since. The badgers recovered also.