Badger Cull Postponed

happyhunter123 said:
Well it's quite simple; they are all culled already, it's perfectly legal to shoot them when you want and if you have a problem. I'm not sure how significant a vector these animals are compared to badgers though.
Click to expand...

Deer are fairly susceptible but dont live as long with it as badgers do before they die of it, also they are less close to the livestock and most importantly, they dont shed the virus as much as badgers so (unfortunately badgers are mega susceptible, mega shedders and hang on with the disease for a long time, tho they will eventually also die a long and painful death).

Sheep goats etc can also catch it but they dont catch it as easily hence no restrictions on them at present.

Camelids eg alpacas are very very susceptible and should be but currently are not subject to similar testing and movement restrictions as cattle. They are also a high risk of transmitting it to humans due to their close relationshiip with keepers and their spitting habits (some will tell you alpacas dont spit but you only have to watch this weeks Rolf Harris animal programme to know that's not always the case....yeucch!)
 
Red deer are particularly susceptable as are wild boar, on the continent the wild boar are proving a problem, game shooters set up feeding stations for the boar which inevitably spreads the disease extremely well. It isn't possible to use the cattle test on camelids but surely it is about time they were routinely tested, there is no restriction on moving them all over the country.
 
If I could be granted one wish, it would be that those who are opposed to the culling of badgers, would understand that those who would support the practice are simply trying to reinstate a sustainable balance.

No one wants to see badgers eradicated from any area, we only wish to see badgers in manageable numbers. Numbers which will support a healthy badger population, and minimise the risk of BTb within our cattle.

Can anyone explain to me why those who oppose the management of wildlife, are so deaf to common sense? Can anyone explain to me just why it is that with diseased and unhealthy badgers, those who would purport to being their supporters, can stand by and watch the poor creatures suffer, as they do?

Alec.
 
Alyth said:
One thing puzzles me - many other forms of wildlife also carry tb - rabbits, hares, deer etc. Should they be culled as well?
Click to expand...

This. But also why can't TB be treated? Why have they no actually brought in a vaccine for cattle by now? This problem has been going on for years and, as far as I was aware, TB is treatable or am I wrong? Is it the case of once you have it you always have it?

Just seems madeness to me that the answer to everything is a mass cull of either the animal they feel is responsible (in this case the badger only) and/or the livestock.Same goes for foot and mouth - surely a treatable and preventable disease and wouldn't DEFRA be better placed to provide funds for vaccines rather than these extremes?

I guess it because livestock is generally intended for slaughter anyway so is it then not worth the bother??
 
happyhunter123 said:
Well it's quite simple; they are all culled already, it's perfectly legal to shoot them when you want and if you have a problem. I'm not sure how significant a vector these animals are compared to badgers though.
Click to expand...

Bang on! All of the above are culled every single night/day....very naive of you if you didnt know that!
 
ladyt25 said:
This. But also why can't TB be treated? Why have they no actually brought in a vaccine for cattle by now? This problem has been going on for years and, as far as I was aware, TB is treatable or am I wrong? Is it the case of once you have it you always have it?

Just seems madeness to me that the answer to everything is a mass cull of either the animal they feel is responsible (in this case the badger only) and/or the livestock.Same goes for foot and mouth - surely a treatable and preventable disease and wouldn't DEFRA be better placed to provide funds for vaccines rather than these extremes?

I guess it because livestock is generally intended for slaughter anyway so is it then not worth the bother??
Click to expand...

The best available vaccine is BcG and it is only approx 50% effective. Vaccination would also mean the closure of all meat exports from this country immediately since it is effectively introducing the virus into the cattle and it is a human transmissable disease.

You would then find it very difficult to work out which animals had the virus since the only TB tests there are only for live cattle work by testing for exposure - which all the vaccinated animals would test positive for.

So you would lose the only test we have to test for exposure in exchange for a vaccine which is only 50% effective and even where it works simply slows down the virus multiplying. The only tests that would still work are very expensive per animal.

It isnt like flu - it isnt a virus variant where you just need to come up with this years strain - it is a LOT more difficult to develop an effective TB vaccine.

In addition, in relation to vaccination of the wild animal population it is important to remember that it would have to be annual. How many deer/badgers do you reckon would be queueing up to be caught in a trap in years 2 and subsequently, even if you can catch them in year one. And some terrain eg mountains would make it impossible to catch them in the first place.

TB is treatable in humans by a very expensive and extremely unpleasant six month long regime of drugs. Some people have horrendous side effects and cannot be treated. Others fail to finish the course, leading to drug resistant tB (which is why if you run away from TB treatment you can be forcibly returned to hospital to finish the treatment). Some strains of TB are already untreatable as they are resistant to all the drugs.

Shortly before badgers were given gold plated protection in this country TB had been almost eradicated in humans and farm animals, within 5 years it would have been, which makes me want to tear my hair out at the missed opportunity. Since that time, the TB incidence has exploded, in line with an exploding badger population.

I do not see why it is not in the best interests of badgers to have a smaller population in some areas but a healthy one rather than a large population of diseased and suffering animals.

Scapegoating is where you unjustifiably pick on someone for something that was nothing to do with them. The issue here is that (altho the badger people used to deny it but have given that up due to the weight of scientific evidence) badgers are very prone to TB, very efficient spreaders of TB and have a huge population so are not remotely endangered which was the premise of the protections in the Badger Act.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
The best available vaccine is BcG and it is only approx 50% effective. Vaccination would also mean the closure of all meat exports from this country immediately since it is effectively introducing the virus into the cattle and it is a human transmissable disease.

You would then find it very difficult to work out which animals had the virus since the only TB tests there are only for live cattle work by testing for exposure - which all the vaccinated animals would test positive for.

So you would lose the only test we have to test for exposure in exchange for a vaccine which is only 50% effective and even where it works simply slows down the virus multiplying. The only tests that would still work are very expensive per animal.

It isnt like flu - it isnt a virus variant where you just need to come up with this years strain - it is a LOT more difficult to develop an effective TB vaccine.

In addition, in relation to vaccination of the wild animal population it is important to remember that it would have to be annual. How many deer/badgers do you reckon would be queueing up to be caught in a trap in years 2 and subsequently, even if you can catch them in year one. And some terrain eg mountains would make it impossible to catch them in the first place.

TB is treatable in humans by a very expensive and extremely unpleasant six month long regime of drugs. Some people have horrendous side effects and cannot be treated. Others fail to finish the course, leading to drug resistant tB (which is why if you run away from TB treatment you can be forcibly returned to hospital to finish the treatment). Some strains of TB are already untreatable as they are resistant to all the drugs.

Shortly before badgers were given gold plated protection in this country TB had been almost eradicated in humans and farm animals, within 5 years it would have been, which makes me want to tear my hair out at the missed opportunity. Since that time, the TB incidence has exploded, in line with an exploding badger population.

I do not see why it is not in the best interests of badgers to have a smaller population in some areas but a healthy one rather than a large population of diseased and suffering animals.

Scapegoating is where you unjustifiably pick on someone for something that was nothing to do with them. The issue here is that (altho the badger people used to deny it but have given that up due to the weight of scientific evidence) badgers are very prone to TB, very efficient spreaders of TB and have a huge population so are not remotely endangered which was the premise of the protections in the Badger Act.
Click to expand...

Agree with this
 
Three cheers for this.

And by the way, the cattle ARE tested at slaughter for lesions, we had one.

There are quite a few interesting papers published in the farming press, often from retired DEFRA staff, who feel that they can now speak out. There was one about cattle being slaughtered but no lesions found, but the information I read that even if no lesions were visible, the fact that they had tested positive for TB means that they have got it, somewhere.

Interstingly, cattle will often isolate the infection - encaspulate - (remember the TB tumours in James Heriott books?) Alpacas on the other hand will just breathe it out, all over their owners. Our DEFRA vet said they should be tested like cattle, but it just isn't in the legistlation as there probably weren't any when the laws were made. There are occasional cases in cats and dogs, but those infections aren't widespread.
 
Badgers have no natural predators; why is this? Is it because their predators were exterminated many, many years ago? This is what happens when the balance of nature is disturbed. Kill off one species and other species will multiply. It's something that all we humans have to take responsibility for. Maybe the introduction of the badgers' predators could be re introduced but by doing so will 'open another can of worms'. So were do we start or stop - makes you think.
 
Ninfapaola said:
Badgers have no natural predators; why is this? Is it because their predators were exterminated many, many years ago? This is what happens when the balance of nature is disturbed. Kill off one species and other species will multiply. It's something that all we humans have to take responsibility for. Maybe the introduction of the badgers' predators could be re introduced but by doing so will 'open another can of worms'. So were do we start or stop - makes you think.
Click to expand...

Badgers have never had a natural enemy. They are in a rather unique position, in that there's little that wants to take them on!! In Africa, Where they have Honey Badgers, even Lions treat them with respect.

Badgers are also unique in that for all their totally disproportionate power, they exist on a rather low grade diet of earth worms and beetles, fruit and eggs when they are in season, and presumably, carrion as it becomes available. During the Spring, they will dig out stops of baby rabbits, and they'll also find the nests of baby mice, and where they come into conflict with the Man/Cattle situation, is that their predilection for beetles sends them out, on our balmy summer nights, tipping over dried, and suitable cow pats, whilst searching for beetles.

Your quote "It's something that all we humans have to take responsibility for", is strangely true. We've allowed a population explosion to take place, without any thought as to the welfare of badgers, cattle or man.

The posts from lachlanandmarcus, have been a most welcome injection of common sense. Well Done, who ever you are! ;)

Alec.
 
The government has lost the vote 147 to 28 from today's debate. They don't have to listen, but the anti-cullers will be claiming this as a major victory. What happens now? :(
 
Perhaps we should round up every badger we can find and dump them on Brian May's property as he seems to like them so much; he can certainly have ours and see how he likes being told what he can and can't do on his own land and not be able to do anything about what is destroying it.
 
Agree measfen he doesnt have to earn a living from cattle, a lot of these personalities should stick to singing acting etc.
 
Alec Swan said:
Badgers are also unique in that for all their totally disproportionate power, they exist on a rather low grade diet of earth worms and beetles, fruit and eggs when they are in season, and presumably, carrion as it becomes available. During the Spring, they will dig out stops of baby rabbits, and they'll also find the nests of baby mice, and where they come into conflict with the Man/Cattle situation, is that their predilection for beetles sends them out, on our balmy summer nights, tipping over dried, and suitable cow pats, whilst searching for beetles.
Click to expand...

Some badgers DO develop a 'taste' for other things. A farmer friend of mine surprised a badger fighting a BIG ewe. He had killed one of her triplets, and mauled another so badly it had to be PTS. The ewe needed 15 stitches! Badger had held lamb down with his powerful front legs and gone in behind the ribcage to take the kidneys - farmer had already lost 10 lambs between 1 and 3 weeks old in the previous week when he found the culprit - until then he thought it was a VERY odd type of fox attack! ALL of them just had the two wounds which enabled badger to get fresh kidney for breakfast!
 
I have no issue with a cull for a scientifically sound reason. If a random shooting of 70% of a population in an area will eradicate TB, get on with it. If you can ascertain 70% and get all the TB carriers at the same time.

I am not convinced of the certainty behind the prescription or that it will be in the least bit effective. I have no faith in DEFRA's ability to manage livestock or wildlife to any degree of benefit. They seem to operate by the maxim 'if in doubt, slaughter it out'.
 
brighteyes said:
I have no issue with a cull for a scientifically sound reason. If a random shooting of 70% of a population in an area will eradicate TB, get on with it. If you can ascertain 70% and get all the TB carriers at the same time.

I am not convinced of the certainty behind the prescription or that it will be in the least bit effective. I have no faith in DEFRA's ability to manage livestock or wildlife to any degree of benefit. They seem to operate by the maxim 'if in doubt, slaughter it out'.
Click to expand...

It would reduce it, rather than eradicate it, I dont think anyone claims it will get all the TB carriers - the hope is to reduce it for long enough to develop a vaccine that is effective enough and long lasting enough to be a viable alternative (which the current one is not) but this would be min 5 years away if it were to be properly tested, which it must be because of the disease being a human catchable one. The issues of the vaccine re exports/masking how many animals have TB would still need to be addressed.

Slaughter (preferably of infected setts, nationwide, by farmers not a localised random cull) would still have to be a key part of the picture even if a vaccine is developed - for the vaccine to start to eradicate the disease you have to start with a relatively low proportion of animals infected - to be blunt a vaccine doesnt have any effect on an animal with TB and badgers live too long with it to leave them infected....

While there is much consensus (farmers included!) that DEFRA have not handled this well (government have a legal resp to control disease which they have and are failing to do), the opponents of dealing with the badger issue have to bear a big share of responsibility since it has led to such delays that the issue is now critical. It is a bigger health issue than foot and mouth, because it is such a serious disease in humans, and because of the number of species it can infect to act as a massive reservoir of infection.

Very ironically, the design of the current planned cull is more to do with having to ensure it is bullet proof in terms of legal challenges than possibly the most effective design to deal with the disease, which is crazy and leads to the risks of underculling that have led to the postponement of the cull until next year.

Amend the Badger Act, treat badgers like foxes and deer - I dont see why this should be controversial. After all, some estimates reckon there are now more badgers than foxes in this country.
 
Paulag said:
Sorry, got it wrong. It took 9 years to get the 16% drop in bovine tb from the cull research. And fleeing badgers carried it to neighbouring farms.

Apparently our lovely government has cancelled 4 out of 5 vaccine trials - now I've heard it said that farmers don't just vote for the Tory party, they are the Tory party. Hardly a non influential minority, which can be seen by the fact that this valueless cull nearly went ahead to appease them by doing something even if it wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

They are trialling a vaccination of badgers in West Wales.There are 4 people going around trapping badgers and vaccinating them. There is also a nurse travelling with them asking them every so often, "how are you feeling?" "are you ok?" because the job is so "stressful". Trouble is , the same badgers are coming into the traps for the bait..................

Not sure if anyone knows this- when a "reactor" cow is sent to slaughter they are tested at the slaughterhouse for tb, not all reactors have tb and the ones that don't the Intervention Board sells that meat into the food chain.It is safe to eat but people complain about the compensation being paid to farmers who have cows culled.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
It would reduce it, rather than eradicate it, I dont think anyone claims it will get all the TB carriers - the hope is to reduce it for long enough to develop a vaccine that is effective enough and long lasting enough to be a viable alternative (which the current one is not) but this would be min 5 years away if it were to be properly tested, which it must be because of the disease being a human catchable one. The issues of the vaccine re exports/masking how many animals have TB would still need to be addressed.

Slaughter (preferably of infected setts, nationwide, by farmers not a localised random cull) would still have to be a key part of the picture even if a vaccine is developed - for the vaccine to start to eradicate the disease you have to start with a relatively low proportion of animals infected - to be blunt a vaccine doesnt have any effect on an animal with TB and badgers live too long with it to leave them infected....

While there is much consensus (farmers included!) that DEFRA have not handled this well (government have a legal resp to control disease which they have and are failing to do), the opponents of dealing with the badger issue have to bear a big share of responsibility since it has led to such delays that the issue is now critical. It is a bigger health issue than foot and mouth, because it is such a serious disease in humans, and because of the number of species it can infect to act as a massive reservoir of infection.

Very ironically, the design of the current planned cull is more to do with having to ensure it is bullet proof in terms of legal challenges than possibly the most effective design to deal with the disease, which is crazy and leads to the risks of underculling that have led to the postponement of the cull until next year.

Amend the Badger Act, treat badgers like foxes and deer - I dont see why this should be controversial. After all, some estimates reckon there are now more badgers than foxes in this country.
Click to expand...

Very informative contribution, thanks!

Seems we need to cut the bullshit and get real, this problem could easily spiral out of control, interesting then to see who would be happy to take the blame!

You'd think governments in general would have learnt from the past catastrophes, why are they so slow to respond, they are supposed to be the experts!

Tony
 
wildoat said:
Very informative contribution, thanks!

Seems we need to cut the bullshit and get real, this problem could easily spiral out of control, interesting then to see who would be happy to take the blame!

You'd think governments in general would have learnt from the past catastrophes, why are they so slow to respond, they are supposed to be the experts!

Tony
Click to expand...
They (politcians)are more interested in being popular in the short term so will listen to experts like drummers rather than vets and the people on the ground. But the main problem with all this is the badger has better PR than agriculture f in bonkers realy that people are so stupid and emotional about vermin...rather than the countryside and food security ...words fail me as to how stupid and pathetic this country has become..
 
mutley75 said:
i WILL THROUGH IT OUT THERE AGAIN 1080!!!!!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even go there!!! I live in New Zealand which is one of the very few, if not the only country, that allows the use of 1080 and it causes a lot of problems....people here are fighting our Department of Consersvation because they insist on using it against possums.....and causing the death of livestock due to inaccurate drops and the poison becoming available to farm dogs etc....
 
Alyth said:
I wouldn't even go there!!! I live in New Zealand which is one of the very few, if not the only country, that allows the use of 1080 and it causes a lot of problems....people here are fighting our Department of Consersvation because they insist on using it against possums.....and causing the death of livestock due to inaccurate drops and the poison becoming available to farm dogs etc....
Click to expand...
Yes not very nice but it seems to have had the desired effect and the possum problem has lessend , over here its much easyier to find badger setts and would be possible to target them without colataral damage ,however the simple answer surely is for the goverment to remove the protected status from badgers and then farmers can quitely get rid of there problem.????
 
Yes, but NZ uses this to get rid of an unnatural, non-native predator - it is not the same as having a cull of a native mammal :rolleyes:

I think they really need to think long term with this and figure out an actual solution, even the pro cullers admit that it wouldn 't eradicate TB entirely, well of course it wouldn't, it is Bovine TB after all, carried by bovines too. Surely its time consuming, expensive and just a bit blood thirsty to be having a huge cull every 30-40 years?

I think some of the issue comes from badgers having access to cattle feed doesn't it, is there no way this coudl be better managed? I have closed badger setts on dairy farm land (for quarry purposes) and it took quite a bit of time licensing/on the ground to do this etc etc, I have no doubt that when the site is finally handed back to the farmer that he will cull them himself. :o

If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can figure out how to eradicate TB?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top