timmytree Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 I'm still struggling with the ethics of a cull by shooting. I still think that eradicating badgers from one area by gassing would be quicker and easier, it would also give definite proof that badgers do or don't spread TB. I agree badgers need to be controlled, I enjoy watching them but there are far too many now. I feed at one sett (landowner is quite happy) but at night I couldn't be selective about which one to shoot so surely the chances are that healthy animals will be shot because they're out foraging while sickly animals are spending more time underground and are therefore missed by the cull. Gassing would at least take out all the badgers. I'm not suggesting complete eradication, just in targeted hotspots for TB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 5 hours ago, wymberley said: Depends who does the stipulating. 20 bore or minimum of 38g and 160 ftlbs at the muzzle. Just don't kill the messenger. Shotgun would be too indiscriminate, with people taking shots at range. They are very tough animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, oowee said: Shotgun would be too indiscriminate, with people taking shots at range. They are very tough animals. Not when there in a cage trap with the specific shotgun cartridges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Old farrier said: Not when there in a cage trap with the specific shotgun cartridges Of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, oowee said: Of course. Which is why, when shooting cage trapped badgers, only a shotgun with a minimum of 20 bore using frangible shot is specified on the license. The license also permits the shooting of free ranging badgers with a 12 bore using BB or AAA shot. Edited April 16, 2018 by CharlieT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the enigma Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 2 hours ago, timmytree said: I'm still struggling with the ethics of a cull by shooting. I still think that eradicating badgers from one area by gassing would be quicker and easier, it would also give definite proof that badgers do or don't spread TB. I agree badgers need to be controlled, I enjoy watching them but there are far too many now. I feed at one sett (landowner is quite happy) but at night I couldn't be selective about which one to shoot so surely the chances are that healthy animals will be shot because they're out foraging while sickly animals are spending more time underground and are therefore missed by the cull. Gassing would at least take out all the badgers. I'm not suggesting complete eradication, just in targeted hotspots for TB. Is it not the other way around, that the healthy badgers force the sickly one out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, CharlieT said: Which is why, when shooting cage trapped badgers, only a shotgun with a minimum of 20 bore using frangible shot is specified on the license. The license also permits the shooting of free ranging badgers with a 12 bore using BB or AAA shot. We know that (yawn) but the discussion was re putting them on the general licence. 20 bore would not be enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, oowee said: We know that (yawn) but the discussion was re putting them on the general licence. 20 bore would not be enough. Yawn all you like, but did you not realise that the Badger Act takes to oposite view. A person is guilty of an offence if— he uses for the purpose of killing or taking a badger any firearm other than a smooth bore weapon of not less than 20 bore or a rifle using ammunition having a muzzle energy not less than 160 footpounds and a bullet weighing not less than 38 grains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haynes Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 It was on country file I think, a few months ago, they were in Australia and they had problem with tb and badgers. So they got rid of the badgers and they cut the number of cases by 99percent. Surely that' proof enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anschutz.17hmr Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 N E minimum calibre is .222'. 70 yards maximum range,30 yards clear of cover! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 16, 2018 Report Share Posted April 16, 2018 5 hours ago, CharlieT said: Yawn all you like, but did you not realise that the Badger Act takes to oposite view. A person is guilty of an offence if— he uses for the purpose of killing or taking a badger any firearm other than a smooth bore weapon of not less than 20 bore or a rifle using ammunition having a muzzle energy not less than 160 footpounds and a bullet weighing not less than 38 grains. The discussion was hypothetical around what minimum calibre might be stipulated if they were put on the general licence, in which case the Act would not apply. 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.