2008 Badger Cull Petition

[digger]

Evil, thank you for being a patronising child. Keep tapping away and spouting long posts, it clearly makes you right

Edited July 28, 2008 by digger

[paulf]

Well said Digger.

[Blackbart]

To say that the government listens to reports and inquiries to come to conclusions is a joke.They didnt listen to the official inquiry on fox hunting(lord burns report)They just went with the flow(and the cash)I havent read the report on the proposed badger cull and to be honest i dont need to,because it wouldnt matter if the report said badgers were responsible for most child murders and organised crime in the uk.They are in such a weak position that they wouldnt dare upset the millions of people who have never seen a badger without a tv presenter lying next to it as it wanders happily into someones garden and eats peanut butter and snacks that have been conveniently left out for it.

They may aswell have done a report on "would you still vote for us if we kill badgers".This government doesnt deal in facts,it deals in vote catching so like i said the report doesnt mean anything.The facts are(where i shoot anyway)there is a huge amount of badgers and they are destructive and a selective cull wouldnt go a miss.

[Evilv]

Evil, thank you for being a patronising child. Keep tapping away and spouting long posts, it clearly makes you right

 

Well - thanks. You're free to come up with some persuasive and sensible arguments if you want.

 

Well said Digger.

 

 

And so are you.

 

 

In the absence of either, I'll support the line presented by several other people here who have pointed out that the stupidity of an all out cull as happened in Ireland where they now have virtually no badgers and a record high level of bovine TB, and the idea that licensed culling may be necessary in SOME areas where badgers have become very numerous.

 

Facts and sensible deductions make a person right and their absence makes them wrong - nothing else.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Evilv

[Zapp]

Facts and sensible deductions make a person right and their absence makes them wrong - nothing else.

 

No.

 

Facts and sensible deductions make a person informed, not right.

 

To identify their absence is an opinion and nothing more.

 

ZB

[digger]

Well evil I do profusely apologise for having a basic understanding of the word "cull".

You decry the cull that will not be taking place as if it were a call for the rank and file gun owner to shoot badgers on sight, its clearly not that at all. To justify your poor reading of this nuisance word (cull) you cite happenings in another country which proves what exactly ? You own an atlas ? You have a passport ?I care not one iota for your bragging about how many acres you shoot over, nor do I care how many hours you spend using google to find ways to belittle farmers.

I do care that you are two faced enough to spout your condascending diatribe on here when any farmer worth his salt would ban you for such blatant dis regard of their way of life.

But you fill you boots son, call it an all out cull, selective cull or whatever, do me a favour and research the word.

Heres a clue, red deer are culled in Scotland and have been for decades, are they in danger of extinction ? When you put down your glass of vegetarian wine let me know your answers, no doubt they will be at odds to those who see farmers as people, not figures in the Gaurdian.

[CharlieT]

Vaccination at the present time is a no go, DEFRA advise the earliest date for a viable cattle vaccine will be 2015 and 2014 for badgers.

Earlier this month the government announced a further £20M funding for research into vaccines over the next 3 years. This will take the overall spending on vaccine research to £38M+.

 

It's funny how most people blame cattle movements for the spread of bTB as if all beef suckler herds and dairy farms are continuously introducing new stock to their herds. We have a fairly large beef suckler herd and breed our own replacements. Apart from buying in a new bull every few years ours is for all intents and purposes a closed herd. Our beasts never come into contact with other cattle yet we go down with bTB (and believe me the compensation does not in any way cover the loss). The only common denominator is the badger. I am convinced the badger is the carrier, our vet is convinced its the badger and so is every ministry vet that visits the farm. When the badgers disappear from the area so does bTB and when they appear again bTB comes back.............funny that.

 

There is only one reason the government wont authorise a cull and that is fear of the backlash from our urban based populace and upsetting the badger groups and bunny huggers.

 

For the future welfare of the badger and to insure they have a healthy future a cull in bTB areas is needed now.

 

Mind you quite why BASC is getting involved is beyond me. I would have thought it was way off their remit bringing gamekeeping into the argument.

Edited July 29, 2008 by CharlieT

[bob300w]

Two points to throw into the arena;

1/ There is to be no cull, see;

 

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/07/04/1...ated-245pm.html

 

2/ If badgers carry TB, why do they not all die from it? If all badgers that get TB die, then the disease should eradicate itself? Or are they re-infected by cattle? Or do some carry it and not die? This is simply a question, not a statement for or against, I think that the pro's and con's have been stated enough by now.

[Chard]

When the badgers disappear from the area so does bTB and when they appear again bTB comes back.............funny that.

 

This is where it gets difficult for anybody to make an informed decision.

 

Here we have a statement about the connection between badgers and TB. Earlier on, several posts refer to exactly the opposite experience with badgers in Ireland (and other areas, I believe),

 

So who's talking out of their harris? Somebody must be

 

This is the trouble with this type of debate, Everybody starts spouting "facts" which aren't facts at all, to support their argument, then it all becomes ********.

 

Out of interest, I don't see what the **** it's got to do with BASC either

Edited July 29, 2008 by Chard

[chippy18]

Hi All,

 

can i ask a question that is not in anyway for or against the cull, as to be honest i don't really care either way.

This is just something that i would like to know.

 

I am a BASC member and i have looked through their web site and i cant find anywhere their policy on this cull.

Was just wondering if anyone knew and also why this link to the site to vote is not mentioned on the BASC site if they

were backing the cull.

 

Cheers

Edited July 29, 2008 by chippy18

[Evilv]

nor do I care how many hours you spend using google to find ways to belittle farmers.

I do care that you are two faced enough to spout your condascending diatribe on here when any farmer worth his salt would ban you for such blatant dis regard of their way of life.

But you fill you boots son, call it an all out cull, selective cull or whatever, do me a favour and research the word.

Heres a clue, red deer are culled in Scotland and have been for decades, are they in danger of extinction ? When you put down your glass of vegetarian wine let me know your answers, no doubt they will be at odds to those who see farmers as people, not figures in the Gaurdian.

 

 

Your diversion from arguments into what amounts to personal abuse is odd to say the least. It also indicates a lack of dispassionate thought about the issue.

 

Farmers, unlike just about any other industry in this country receive large amounts of subsidy from the public purse That is a fact, if you don't want it known, you're out of luck. I know a lot of farmers and many are my friends. It was them that told me that the only people who did well out of FMD were the people whose cattle and sheep were culled. It is noteable that all the tourism businesses affected by FMD and the non-infected farms received not a penny. Odd that, isn't it? Another fact you won't like Digger, old chap, is that all that tourism business is a hell of a lt more important to the countryside economy that the feather bedded farming industry is - by far. It makes far more money. Unlike any other industry in the civilised world, farm subsidy means that a business with defective stock or product has it bought by the state for market value. You accuse me of being a Guardian reader - I'm a Conservative in fact. Conservatives are against public support of private business. So am I. If my farmer friends make a profit and prosper in their business it's theirs to keep. Why should the state bale them out when they fail? By the way - my friends know my views on this. I still shoot on their farms because they want the job done.

 

Also - perhaps you can help me out on the vegetarian wine thing? I thought it was all produced from grapes, do you know of some other kind with meat in it? If so, I'd like to try it. I like meat.

 

Your characterisation of my position on farmers and farming is false. It is a total distortion. What I said about farmers was the following:

 

• Farmers are almost unique in British business by being compensated when their product is defective (sick).
  
• A good deal of the TB problem has been shown to be caused by trade in animals.
  
• The H5N1 outbreak at a Norfolk turkey enterprise was trucked in from Hungary by the affected company but there were attempts to blame wildlife as the vector. The company that caused the outbreak by its poor bio-security received a huge tax payer crock of cash for the dead birds it had caused to become infected.
  
• Farmers are a tiny minority of the population of the UK - less than 1% of the population. They can not be allowed to dictate policy against the bulk of scientific evidence.
  

 

Now that is what I have said, so maybe if you could cut out the personal invective, grow up, act like an adult and point out where my statements are factually in error. This would be a better use of your time than telling me how horrible I am, and trying to characterise me as a lefty for advocating conservative policies (note - that's conservative with a small 'c' - it does make a difference).

Edited July 29, 2008 by Evilv

[CharlieT]

Evilv

 

You sir have a very cynical one sided blinkered view of farmers and farming, with such views I am surprised you wish to associate with the farmers you call your friends.

 

I sincerely trust you with such a low opinion of agriculture do not lower yourself to shoot on farmland.

[paulf]

In my opinion badger numbers have reached an endemic level regardless of TB, the badger IS a common species, nothing endangered about it to warrant the current protected status.

 

The solution to my mind is to allow controlled gassing along with monitoring within say a 5 mile radius of an outbreak of tb and for consideration to be given to removeing the protected status.

 

Culling badgers will in no way eradicate them, look at for instance the numbers of fox shot.

Edited July 29, 2008 by paulf

[Evilv]

Hi All,

 

can i ask a question that is not in anyway for or against the cull, as to be honest i don't really care either way.

This is just something that i would like to know.

 

I am a BASC member and i have looked through their web site and i cant find anywhere their policy on this cull.

Was just wondering if anyone knew and also why this link to the site to vote is not mentioned on the BASC site if they

were backing the cull.

 

Cheers

 

I suspect that it is a matter of an individual who works for BASC rather ill-advisedly using their name to curry support for something he has a personal interest in. It is just a guess, but I suspect that TomBASC has connections in farming. If anybody working for me used my company name like that, he'd be out on his ear and he'd deserve it what's more.

 

BASC has submitted papers to the government consultation process about how badgers ought to be dealt with by those culling them if a cull were brought into force. That is all. They do not advocate the cull as far as I can see. That is my personal opinion only. I do not speak for BASC. You can google and see for yourself if the organisation advocates a cull or not.

 

Call me 'old fashioned', but I would regard it as gross misconduct for an employee of an organisation to seek to associate that organisation with controversial policies which are not its own.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Evilv

[Ferret Master]

all that tourism business is a hell of a lt more important to the countryside economy that the feather bedded farming industry is - by far.

 

Well if it wasn't for farming in the British countryside, there would be no British countryside.

 

Ths tourism industry in the countryside that you talk of would go to pot quite quickly would it not?

 

FM

[Evilv]

Evilv

 

You sir have a very cynical one sided blinkered view of farmers and farming, with such views I am surprised you wish to associate with the farmers you call your friends.

 

I sincerely trust you with such a low opinion of agriculture do not lower yourself to shoot on farmland.

 

 

Sorry - exactly what in my bulleted summary do you wish to contradict? If any of the 'facts' I stated there are false, please point them out and I will, if you are correct, withdraw them and apologise. Please provide evidence though. I can support every one of my points with authentic facts and figures.

 

I don't have a low opinion of agriculture, just the socialist system of subsidy that pays people for nothing. What else is 'set aside'? The farmers I know work hard and work long. They didn't invent farm subsidies. Left wing, socialist governments did. I have run businesses of my own. Some were successful, and some were not. When they failed, they failed. I don't remember the government rushing up with a hand out when I couldn't keep up with the competition.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Evilv

[paulf]

" I can support every one of my points with authentic facts and figures."

 

Yawn

[CharlieT]

Elviv

 

Kind of you to say sorry.

 

Your apology is accepted and appreciated.

 

However the first word of your post........"sorry"........ would have sufficed, the rest were an unnecessary waste of your typing skills.

 

best regards

 

Charlie

[dustyfox]

Evilv you go the the supermarket you see meat that comes from another country and you see some meat that has come from a British farm, the one that comes from another country is way much cheaper than the British grown one. Which one would you buy?

 

Alot of farmers put alot of work and time into farming they provide food for the country with the price's of oil and food we cant just rely on imports. So maybe if we support our farmers more to bring the prices down and buy more British then maybe if your conclusion is correct bTB will drop when less imports are bought in.

 

Df

[Evilv]

all that tourism business is a hell of a lt more important to the countryside economy that the feather bedded farming industry is - by far.

 

Well if it wasn't for farming in the British countryside, there would be no British countryside.

 

Ths tourism industry in the countryside that you talk of would go to pot quite quickly would it not?

 

FM

 

What? You think it would disappear? Well, I don't know. Maybe we would have more wilderness to shoot in - like in the States. Wouldn't that be grand, all kind of wild things to shoot at - wolves even, feral cattle and pigs - whooo hooo. Just imagine. I envy those Americans who can 'hunt' as they call it all over the place.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Evilv

[Blackbart]

There is a lot more paper work on what and where and how many they shoot,unless your an indian and then you can mostly do what you want....Even shoot badgers

[Ferret Master]

I do think it would dissapear.

 

There would nobody managing and conserving it so as a result it would just be used for housing so the government can meet it's targets and concreted over for more shops, car parks and towns as there would be no reason to keep it any nobody looking after it.

 

Comparing us to America is just plain silly. Their land mass is far greater than ours which allows them to have areas of wilderness. The British countryside is a place which is the way that it is today because of farming and humans managing it.

 

In my opinion badger numbers need managing.

 

FM

[ziplex]

I do think it would dissapear.

 

There would nobody managing and conserving it so as a result it would just be used for housing so the government can meet it's targets and concreted over for more shops, car parks and towns as there would be no reason to keep it any nobody looking after it.

 

Comparing us to America is just plain silly. Their land mass is far greater than ours which allows them to have areas of wilderness. The British countryside is a place which is the way that it is today because of farming and humans managing it.

 

In my opinion badger numbers need managing.

 

FM

 

That's a mature response from a young gun I have to say, well done FM. I've been reading this with interest but still not too much the wiser really, never gave this too much thought and it's enlightening to say the least......it's made me more aware of yet another 'problem'

[Evilv]

There is a lot more paper work on what and where and how many they shoot,unless your an indian and then you can mostly do what you want....Even shoot badgers

 

 

Comparing us to America is just plain silly. Their land mass is far greater than ours which allows them to have areas of wilderness. The British countryside is a place which is the way that it is today because of farming and humans managing it.

 

 

FM

 

Yes - I know this is true. As for the managing thing, I think that sometimes we idealise the current state of the countryside as if it was perfect. There are parts where it is pretty good; where traditional field patters survive and there is high biodiversity and there are other parts where huge fields, loss of hedgerow and high impact farming has produced something else altogether.

 

Only a fool would think it can be all wild and natural in such a crowded island as this one, so yes - this isn't America and never will be.

 

 

I'm about done with this topic. There are those who want badger eradication, I don't. Ireland's experience where they have been virtually eradicated shows it doesn't work. TB in Ireland where badgers have been decimated is still more than twice the level of the UK. They abandoned pre movement testing for TB in 1999 and TB rocketted right after. Ireland has been slaugtering badgers for twenty years and there are supposed to be 60,000 badger snares set every night across the land.

 

In Britain, Badgers may need licensed control in some places. I am not against that. As for my remarks on subsidy and baling out businesses, I am totally against it. Far from being a left wing veggie, I am a right wing carnivore who shoots for fun. Subsidy and food mountains of produce bought when no one wants it, are a socialistic nightmare that distorts the market. I pay for food in the shops. Why should I pay more again in taxes to support businessmen who can't compete in the free market? We don't do that with cars anymore like we did in the 1970s. Remember how **** the British made cars were then? I do - they were total rubbish because of government subsidy and interference. If a business man can't make a living, he should do something else. That's how the rest of the economy works chaps - live with it. It is coming soon to the countryside.

 

Whatever we do in managing wildlife, I believe must be dictated by the need to preserve the species we have in adequate numbers. We have already extinguished wolves, beavers, bears and wild cats from most of this island over the last few hundred years and in the past hammered raptors to such an extent that they were virtually gone from large parts of the country. Farmers have to coexist with wildlife - there may be need for control of some species - that is fine. Eradication is not, and for any but legally defined pest species there must be control on how many can be taken. History shows us what happens without controls. These were once common until they were exterminated by farmers and landowners. I want them all back.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2008 by Evilv

[russuk]

Some thigh meat on that big lad second from bottom.

 

Article in the shooting press in the past few months that wild cats may be making a comeback. Can't remember why or when, but watch this space.

Edited July 30, 2008 by russuk