Badger cull

RE: Badger cull

apache — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:51:05 GMT

[quote user="Stephanie Kay"]My understanding is that the Krebs report showed culls increased bTB incidence and that the most effective way to reduce spread of tb to cattle was to cover food and water troughs. [/quote]

Have you actually read the report? It showed a small reduction in TB in cull areas but the perturbation effect because the culling was inadequately done more TB was found in other areas because badgers social groups had been broken up so they wandered. If you look at some recent work it shows that badgers don't come into direct contact with cattle. Covering food and water sounds nice in theory but how do you keep the badgers off the grass!

1. Culling badgers reduces TB. Krebbs shows some effect, the Irish work showed massive reductions from culling badgers (if done properly). The biggest problem is people interfering with the trials and not letting us collect quality data.

2. I think we must not forget that TB in badgers is a massive welfare issue. It's a slow chronic way to die. Culling sick setts will leave a more healthy badger population.

3. Agree, culling shown to increase hedgehog numbers.

We just need more extensive and effective culling in those affected areas. No one has given a credible alternative solution.

RE: Badger cull

Stephanie Kay — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:33:27 GMT

My understanding is that the Krebs report showed culls increased bTB incidence and that the most effective way to reduce spread of tb to cattle was to cover food and water troughs. This has been reinvestigated and found again.

The fact that TB is a welfare issue for cattle is besides the point in considering

a) the effectiveness of actions taken to reduce its incidence (in fact it is vital to follow evidence base and not just cull if culling increases incidence of btb)

b) the welfare of cattle is not more important than the welfare of badgers

c) effects on wildlife

RE: Badger cull

emmadilemma — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:52:22 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What I find interesting, and don't understand, is why so many people seem to feel so much more strongly about killing badgers as opposed to other species, like foxes or rabbits.

Or about the killing of production animals without pre-stunning[/quote]

You'll find that a lot of the people who are actively opposing the badger cull, are actually the same people who oppose hunting with dogs and many other forms of animal abuse. A large proportion will also be vegans who campaign against intensive farming methods. Once you become educated in one area you realise that these things are generally intertwined.

RE: Badger cull

Alison Clare Hickman — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:27:42 GMT

me too jojofruits

I have been reading, absorbing and considering all the views on this issue and conclude I don't know enough to agree or disagree with either opposing side... #myjuryisstillout

RE: Badger cull

jojofruits — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:05:02 GMT

for once.. and its very rare for me.. I'm going to sit on my hands...

RE: Badger cull

Sal the 1st — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:21:33 GMT

sorry but you both dilute any argument you may be making by bringing in other factors - maybe take your other factors to a tangent if you want to make a real impact.

RE: Badger cull

James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:57:10 GMT

Hear hear. How about stopping raising animals knee deep in their own faeces, pouring slurry and contaminated milk into water courses and transporting them all around the country and beyond, and THEN look at wildlife issues. Is it just coincidence that the M. bovis problem (along with many others) has risen proportionately with the intensiveness by which animals are farmed??

And in answer to a previous response, I don't think I will be researching ballistics and the best way to 'mess up an animal's insides' any time soon. The way with which it's described I find very unsettling. Kinda like fox hunting - the relish with which the proponents talk about it makes it very hard to believe it's about necessity rather than some sort of sick pleasure.

RE: Badger cull

emmadilemma — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:00:36 GMT

I think it's more than appropriate that a debate about the badger cull covers the over consumption of meat and dairy as they're intrinsically linked. As far as badger welfare goes, this government couldn't give a crap about badgers or indeed any wildlife...especially those that interfere with the farming or hunting/shooting industries. This cull is political and has no scientific basis.

As far as 'epidemiology' goes im no expert but the governments own independent expert panel have told them that this cull isnt going to work and that's good enough for me.

RE: Badger cull

apache — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 01:21:53 GMT

Lets not get this into a debate on farming/eating meat. Lets look at badger culling in isolation. For those against culling can you answer me the following:

1. TB is clearly established in the badger population (I don't think any of us doubt that). How do we deal with this infection in the badger population - currently its a badger welfare issue. The badgers are suffering from TB.

2. What evidence would convince you that a cull was necessary, and how would we go about securing such evidence? When we try and do trials and criminals/activists interfere with the methodology meaning we get meaningless results - a solution to that?

3. Do you have a single example of an infectious disease successfully controlled whilst ignoring the wildlife reservoir?

I find it sad when talking to professionally qualified scientists how many of you want to bury your heads in the sand and ignore basic principals of epidemiology.

RE: Badger cull

apache — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 01:14:53 GMT

[quote user="James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN"]Speaking of suffering, this 'Apache' character would have us believe that the animals don't suffer after having been shot with a 'high velocity rifle' (..are there any other kinds of rifle..?) - so they are all clean head shots then? I have been on many a shoot in previous chapters of my life, and he/she knows as well as I do that this is BS. Who are they trying to kid?[/quote]

I struggle not to be patronising when dealing with such replies. Take the one quoted paragraph

1. the majority of live quarry shooting in this country is done with subsonic .22 rifles for rabbit control. High velocity centrefire rifles are harder to get hold of and transfer vastly more energy to the animal. I'm not particularly interested in discussing ballistics, but do some research if it interests you - heaps on youtube/wikipedia etc.

2. Why head shots? It's widely regarded that head shooting is actually risky. The recommended site to shoot deer is heart/lung (basically the chest). They die very quickly with either. They are insensitive immediately, although muscle twitching may go on for a number of minutes but that does not mean the animal is alive or sensitive. Big expanding bullets make quite a lot of mess and are designed to impart their energy and kill the target. Shot placement isn't actually that important on something the size of a badger.

3. The 'suffering' issue is also quite interesting. If you look at reports of people who've been shot and survived they tend to describe an initial shock and often not much pain. Any injured animals are quickly followed up and shot again (rules such as can't take a shot too close to a sett etc).

RE: Badger cull

Sal the 1st — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:01:54 GMT

[quote user="James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN"]

I have been on many a shoot in previous chapters of my life, and he/she knows as well as I do that this is BS.

[/quote]

Me too and have to say I was always taught you didn't take a shot unless you had a reasonable expectation of a clean kill. True not all shots are clean head shots but then it doesn't have to be a head shot to be very quickly lethal with a capable shooter does it? and its certainly more humane than gassing or poisoning

RE: Badger cull

Wildlife Nurse — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 23:55:57 GMT

Started with lack of farming bio security. Same problem with foot and mouth. But no, as per usual, wildlife gets the blame from humans not clearing up after themselves. I've nursed shot badgers, it was horrific. Wildlife isn't the issue, its the lack of bio security on farms.

It's wrong, I'm siding with David Attenborough.

RE: Badger cull

Katherine Spear — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 21:36:33 GMT

Just wanted to add my support to your points Emma and James rather than just reading the debate! Also agree with you Arlo - the futures vegan!

RE: Badger cull

James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:32:24 GMT

Agree on the issue of suffering which is why I try not to have anything to do with animal agriculture. Anyone who thinks that the culpability of wildlife in the spread of disease is anywhere near that of modern intensive farming practices is a fool. It's a scapegoat, a smokescreen.

Speaking of suffering, this 'Apache' character would have us believe that the animals don't suffer after having been shot with a 'high velocity rifle' (..are there any other kinds of rifle..?) - so they are all clean head shots then? I have been on many a shoot in previous chapters of my life, and he/she knows as well as I do that this is BS. Who are they trying to kid?

The issue of badgers preying upon hedgehogs? Foxes eat ducks but I don't see a problem with the duck population?? Hedgehogs are doing just as badly in urban areas with far fewer badgers - go figure.

And the 'Wind in the Willows' comment was just patronising.

Millions of £ spent, thousands of badgers killed and the evidence that it's making any difference whatsoever amounts to diddly s**t.

RE: Badger cull

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:43:56 GMT

[quote user="apache"]Now you are just being silly[/quote]

[quote user="apache"]I'm getting a little bored by this.[/quote]

Ease up a bit. This is an emotive enough subject already without getting narky!

[quote user="emmadilemma"]For now I remain unconvinced and will continue to be sceptical of the cherry picked evidence being produced by the government to support this unscientific cull.[/quote]

Fair enough!

What I find interesting, and don't understand, is why so many people seem to feel so much more strongly about killing badgers as opposed to other species, like foxes or rabbits.

Or about the killing of production animals without pre-stunning.

Or about the near extinction of so many species in the UK: https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/stateofnature2016/. Is this not a far more important issue? The problem is that most of the threatened species are insects, and they're just not very sexy.

[quote user="James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN"]If there really is no way of raising cattle without the need to slaughter wildlife animals then personally I would rather just go without.[/quote]

Interested that you make the distinction that it is OK to raise a cow to then kill and eat it, but not OK to eat cow if raising it has required a badger to be killed. I mean, there's no difference from the badger or the cow's perspective. They're both just dead.

Actually, I do strongly agree with you about eating less meat. It is truly frightening when you look at how much energy and other resources it takes to raise a cow. Not to mention what all that farting is doing to the atmosphere (I am not joking).

That's by the by. Surely the biggest issue in life is not death, but suffering. In other words, dying itself is not a welfare issue. It's how any animal (including us) dies that really matters.

Because suffering not death is what concerns me, I have no problem with badgers being killed, especially if there is some chance that it will reduce the suffering of farmers, cattle and other badgers. It's no different to culling deer in order to prevent overpopulation and suffering amongst other deer. What I really care about is that it is done humanely.

RE: Badger cull

James Colver Cert. Ed, RVN — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:20:40 GMT

See enough of this debate in the back pages of the VT.

My own thought - it's a disgraceful mentality - wildlife getting in the way of human economic activity? Kill it!! Sorry but are we not supposed to be animal lovers?

If there really is no way of raising cattle without the need to slaughter wildlife animals then personally I would rather just go without. We do not need to wear leather, drink milk or eat beef. Justification for the badger cull is nothing more than justification for our own greed.

I am not vegan myself although I have a massive amount of respect for those that are - but on the rare occasions that I eat meat it's a fish I have caught, or a chicken or duck I have raised and taken responsibilty for from start to finish.

No WAY would I buy into animal agriculture - it has become an absolutely hideous industry and the repugnant badger cull is just another symptom of this. Cruelty to animals to enable more cruelty to animals. Sorry - not for me.

RE: Badger cull

emmadilemma — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:29:14 GMT

Is a shame that this discussion couldn't be continued without resorting to personal insults. For now I remain unconvinced and will continue to be sceptical of the cherry picked evidence being produced by the government to support this unscientific cull.

RE: Badger cull

apache — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:57:03 GMT

[quote user="emmadilemma"]The biggest trial was the Krebs trial that lasted for 10 years up until 2007. It concluded that culling makes no meaningful contribution to the reduction of Btb. During the trial btb was marginally reduced within the culling area but actually rose outside the area due to the dispersal of badgers, as family groups broke up and fled the area.[/quote]

The Krebb's trail is practically meaningless. The methodology was flawed from the study design. Trapping and killing was never going to work. Huge numbers of traps interfered with by criminals. Very short periods of time catching up the badgers. It's why I explained for culling to work it needs to be complete and over a large area.

I explained why some of these animals took a long time to die in the report - in the vast majority of cases it's recording methodology not necessarily a slow death. Shooting is very humane.

[quote user="emmadilemma"]The main reason for the decline in hedgehog numbers is agriculture and loss of food and habitat. Badgers and hedgehogs have been coexisting for a very long time.[/quote]

Now you are just being silly - hedgehog numbers double over 5 years in cull area versus controls.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095477

(and that's with a crappy, expensive, relatively ineffective cull).

[quote user="emmadilemma"]The reason the badger act came into force was because they were one of our most persecuted wild animals so lifting those restrictions would open the door to serious wildlife crime.[/quote]

Again not totally true. The issue was badger baiting which needs to remain the awful crime that it is. Do you have any evidence the foxes that are constantly controlled by gamekeepers/shooters/farmers are suffering? Exactly what wildlife 'crimes' do you see being committed if the badger act was revoked (I'd argue AWA 2006 covering unnecessary suffering prevents badger baiting).

I'm getting a little bored by this. It's like arguing with homeopaths. I doubt you will admit you are wrong, but you don't seem to have a viable solution to the real problem of TB infected badgers and the inevitable role they have in spreading TB to cattle. A cull (in infected areas) is the only way that will be efficacious. Badger numbers do need controlling in other areas, as their only predator is the car....

RE: Badger cull

emmadilemma — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:09:05 GMT

Re apaches post...havent got time to do quotes sorry. As far as the humanness of free shooting badgers at night goes, a leaked IEP report to the bbc from the recent trials suggested that 6-18% of shot badgers took more than 5 minutes to die. One highlighted case had been shot in the hindquarters and was persued for 10 minutes before being shot in the head. Then there was the infamous badger 200 who was pm'd at secret world and had been shot in the spine...the chest cavity and brain were unaffected. Of all the Badgers shot over the culls very few were independently monitored so it's more than reasonable to suggest that this happened and wasn't reported by the shooters.

The main reason for the decline in hedgehog numbers is agriculture and loss of food and habitat. Badgers and hedgehogs have been coexisting for a very long time.

The reason the badger act came into force was because they were one of our most persecuted wild animals so lifting those restrictions would open the door to serious wildlife crime.

RE: Badger cull

emmadilemma — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:41:32 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Latest statement from BVA on all this here: https://www.vetnurse.co.uk/b/veterinary-nursing-news/archive/2017/09/12/bva-welcomes-new-tb-measures-but-urges-greater-clarity.aspx

But emmadilemma - I was under the impression that there IS evidence that where culling has been conducted, bovine TB is reduced, though I admit that my knowledge in this area is extremely limited. Am I wrong about that?

[/quote]

The biggest trial was the Krebs trial that lasted for 10 years up until 2007. It concluded that culling makes no meaningful contribution to the reduction of Btb. During the trial btb was marginally reduced within the culling area but actually rose outside the area due to the dispersal of badgers, as family groups broke up and fled the area.

RE: Badger cull

Mason8 — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 01:02:29 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/05/bovine-tb-not-passed-on-through-direct-contact-with-badgers-research-shows#comments

Might be better taking all the money wasted on culling and just give it to the farmers as a yearly allowance. This is a no win situation.

50000 cattle were sent to the slaughter for mastitis and 30000 for btb in 2008.

If you want to wipe out even more of your native wildlife go for it but when every predetor is gone and you start having pest infestations the earth's natural formula of pest control won't be here to help and the only knowledge of British wildlife left will be what is written in books.

RE: Badger cull

apache — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:23:59 GMT

[quote user="emmadilemma"]It costs £80 to vaccinate a badger against btb and £6,800 to cull one! [/quote]

Point 1 - it need cost the taxpayer nothing. This is the stupidity of the current rules. If we treated badgers the same as foxes then they would be controlled by gamekeepers/farmers for free. The cull would be much more effective. I have no particular ethical issue shooting healthy badgers in an infected area. Lets leave vaccination as it's pretty useless in infected badger populations (although I can see a place perhaps as a firebreak around new breakdowns).

[quote user="emmadilemma"]there's a massive welfare issue with the shooting of badgers at night too, which has been condemned as inhumane by the BVA and by the governments own independent experts. [/quote]

Point 2 - there was concern with the length of time the badgers took to die, but much of this was a misunderstanding of the paperwork. The time of shot had to be recorded and then the time the badger was confirmed dead. Sometimes the marksmen would sit quietly and shoot other badgers - giving an artificially long time between shot and death confirmation. I don't know how much shooting you do but things that are shot do continue to move/convulse/twitch but they are very much dead and not suffering. These badgers were shot with high velocity rifles - their fate was set. Please don't be under any illusion it was a slow or painful death. Shooting is very humane.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I was under the impression that there IS evidence that where culling has been conducted, bovine TB is reduced[/quote]

There is, just not by a lot. The reasons mainly those that I set out in my first post - the cull is barely good enough as it stands. More badgers need to be killed over large areas to reduce the infection pressure. Look at examples from other countries where they dealt with TB very successfully culling wildlife - badgers in Ireland, Possums in NZ/Auz I forget which.

[quote user="emmadilemma"]Farmers are desperate and i get that but for the government to go against scientific advice

We're still learning exactly how Btb is spread between cattle and badgers but until there's more evidence surely the money being spent on this cull would be better spent improving farm biosecurity and research[/quote]

This really is not against scientific advice. It's basic epidemiology. We know badgers pass the infection in their urine and faeces and the bacterium lives long periods of time in the environment. It's thought unlikely there is much direct badger-cattle spread. We know all of this. It makes a mockery of badger proof troughs and feed stores as they pee and defecate over the grass the cows (and deer) eat.

What we need is bloody effective badger cull and see what happens then. So far it's not being properly tested. I really think we need a relaxation in the badger act to allow that to happen. I really hope that's the way things are moving. I want healthy wildlife and that means balance (badger numbers need controlling like anything else). They eat hedgehogs and destroy the nests of ground nesting birds. Cause untold damage. They are nothing like Wind in the Willows.....

RE: Badger cull

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:31:14 GMT

Latest statement from BVA on all this here: https://www.vetnurse.co.uk/b/veterinary-nursing-news/archive/2017/09/12/bva-welcomes-new-tb-measures-but-urges-greater-clarity.aspx

RE: Badger cull

emmadilemma — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:02:25 GMT

It is a massive welfare issue, however killing even infected badgers won't kill the infection itself. We're still learning exactly how Btb is spread between cattle and badgers but until there's more evidence surely the money being spent on this cull would be better spent improving farm biosecurity and research. None of the Badgers being culled are even being tested first so the majority will likely be healthy. It costs £80 to vaccinate a badger against btb and £6,800 to cull one!

Setting aside the actual effectiveness of such a cull, there's a massive welfare issue with the shooting of badgers at night too, which has been condemned as inhumane by the BVA and by the governments own independent experts.

Farmers are desperate and i get that but for the government to go against scientific advice and continue with something that clearly isn't working is ridiculous.

RE: Badger cull

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:15 GMT

[quote user="apache"]I don't think there is any debate over the fact badgers become infected with TB, spread infection via their urine and faeces and can infect other badgers and cattle?

I don't think there is any debate that tuberculosis is a huge welfare issue for the cattle, the farmers and the badgers?

There will be no progress controlling any infectious disease without dealing with the wildlife reservoir. This is not specific to TB. It's basic epidemiology.

The biggest problem we have, as I see it, with the badger cull is the unnecessary bureaucracy surrounding the culling and the well meaning but misinformed people trying to sabotage it. For it to be effective badgers need to be culled out entirely in infected areas (where the badger population is infected), this level of effectiveness is simply not happening as things stand. This is the failing of the current system.

An effective cull is essential to get rid of TB in both cattle and badgers. It's a massive badger welfare issue (not to mention other knock on things such as hedgehogs).[/quote]

That pretty much sums up my (albeit limited) understanding too.