in

Badger Cull

Last post Thu, Sep 11 2008 19:06 by MadCow666. 242 replies.
Page 3 of 10 (243 items) < Previous   1 2 3 4 5   Next >  ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Tue, Jul 8 2008 18:50 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    do you think we do not know that already, so stand up in public like we have to.

    the nfu have actually pulled their fingers out, hope its not to late.

     

  • Tue, Jul 8 2008 19:24 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    green guy:

    Johno,

    I think many people have forgotten the poor old brock in all this.

    There are many of us in the badger trust who would support a cull of infected badgers.

    Many of us who want a healthy badger population to thrive rather than being wiped out with TB.

    However if they find out who we are we will not be members for long.

    There are too many extremists at the top, ones who believe a sick, TB riddled badger has a better life than no life at all.

    The Governments decision has done the poor badger a great disservice.

     

    I don't believe I've just read that.

    Your 'leader' and his cohorts have the gall to stand up and prattle on about tuberculosis being 'all cattle to cattle transmission', and that the 'science supports this'. He is on record as describing the transmission as being caused by 14 million animal movements - a point the diminutive professor Bourne picked up as well. And even when the goddam BCMS data sheet was thrust in his paw, showing this referred to movement of DATA not hooves, and that 'on' movement s only accounted for 2 million, he still announced it. He completely spun the grammar on published work into hedgehog numbers - sheesh Alistair Campbell would have been proud. And yet, and yet.... I'm speechless - you say 'many of us want sick badgers culled' but 'if they find out who we are we will not be members for long'. Are you a man or a mouse? For four long bloody years a few of us have put up all informnation we can glean on the TB blog, which was started with the 538 parliamentary questions lobbed at Bradshaw, which supported our belief that epidemiologically, there was absolurely no need for the RBCT at all. We have help and advice of epidemiologists, veterinary scientists and animal behaviourists. And abuse and ridicule from the Badger Trust. We tried to appeal to the single collective brain cell - and bridge the gap. Close up the crazy polemics of badgers v. cattle.

    And then I read 'we want sick badgers culled' for there own sake. Well hallelujah. Not every farmer -in fact very few - want to wipe out thousands of badgers. It is unachievable, unaccceptable and unecessary. Conversely when you've had 5 years of restrictions and 30 back to back 60 day tests and shot almost 50 home bred, some heavily pregnant cattle - then the Badger Trust propaganda machine could be the last straw. 

    Our herds were all home bred, three of us had no 'cattle' neighbours, the others good double fencing, and yet contrary to la Lawson's prattle we all suffered prolonged Tb breakdowns. The rubbish spouted on the Badger Trust website, is regurgitated verbatim by the groupies who DO support the Trust - as it is on these forums. So, Green Guy, you and your friends better stand up and be counted, because sure as God made little green apples, if tuberculosis gets much more widespread in the badger population, you won't have a 'cause' at all. And we will have no pleasure in saying 'We told you so', when the inevitable TB spillover hits the front pages of the red-tops, as someones pride and joy - cat or child - it's immaterial, they are all at risk, is confirmed with tuberculosis picked up from infected TB riddled badgers.

    This bought-and-paid-for government is shooting the messenger. The canary in the coalmine; but the firedamp is still there - ready to explode. But what did Lawson and Yarnley say? 'Cows get killed anyway'. So that's all right then. Except it isn't. Spillover into other mammals from grossly infected badgers is occurring, and will inevitably get flagged up, as it becomes more widespread. Nearly 30 cats already, dogs, llamas, free range pigs, goats ....

     On a previous post - a while ago, you mentioned using PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction technology - Dr. Roger Breeze would like to try it too). As far as I'm aware Warwick are the only ones with the primed box of tricks, Deathrow being the only source of the assay. I asked for more info on that.

    You did not reply.

     

  • Tue, Jul 8 2008 21:19 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    Matt

                I think you are being a bit hard on green guy there blaming him for all the sins of Trevor Lawson. Devil

     

        We need a coalition of the willing to tackle the ever-growing problem of TB in badgers and all are welcome.   And anyone who will stand up and say “There are many of us in the badger trust who would support a cull of infected badgers” is especially welcome.  Yes 

     

  • Tue, Jul 8 2008 22:30 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    Tom Rigby:

    Matt

                I think you are being a bit hard on green guy there blaming him for all the sins of Trevor Lawson. Devil

     

        We need a coalition of the willing to tackle the ever-growing problem of TB in badgers and all are welcome.   And anyone who will stand up and say “There are many of us in the badger trust who would support a cull of infected badgers” is especially welcome.  Yes 

     

    Tom,

    I'm not blaming Green Guy for Lawson's 'sins'. But when Lawson stands up and peddles his spin, e.g today;  'the scientific concensus is that cattle are spreading TB within herds and to other cattle' ... he speaks for the Badger Trust of which Green Guy is a member. Thus he is speaking on his behalf.

    I agree that a coalition of like minded people should be the aim to get out of this impasse, and that is why we started the blog. But if members of the Badger Trust feel that if they speak out for badger welfare (as opposed Badger Trust welfare) ... " if they find out who we are, we will not be members for long" .... then why remain members and give grist and support to this propaganda machine? I heard the same phrase from Pauline Kidner in 1997 "The NFBG is not against culling infectious badgers" ... she said. After ten years of banging my head against a brick wall, it sounds a bit empty to me, unless actions support it. Why say it on a forum? Why not tell Lawson? Is he that much of a bruiser? 

    What's the saying.."evil flourishes when good men remain silent" - or something like that.

    Two farmers have telephoned me this week, at the end of their respective tethers with more cattle to go for premature slaughter. Will this push them over the edge? I hope not. Will Lawson's confident and unchallenged pronouncement that TB is a cattle problem and nothing whatsoever to do with the half dead badgers littering their fields comfort them? I doubt it. And will the Minister's sly backhander that he 'could have introduced more cattle restrictions', but he didn't (he's set up another group to do it for him) give them cause for hope? No.

    My head has been on the block for a decade now, so I make no apology for suggesting Green Guy stands a bit taller, together with his friends who would support a cull of infectious / infected (which?) badgers. Otherwise, his point may be missed.

    Matt

     

     

  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 8:21 In reply to

    • 2708785
    • Not Ranked
      Male
    • Joined on Wed, Jul 9 2008
    • North Yokshire

    Hmm [^o)] Re: Badger Cull - BBC says it won't happen

    Indeed, the 1997 list of business donations highlights £1,059,000 given to the labour party from "The animal protection Lobby", or 9% of the total funds given of that catagory. With the finances of the labour party being in such a dire state, it would be madness for Mr Benn to antagonize tha few remaining income streams available. 

    Grippa
  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 9:22 In reply to

    • Peter Wells
    • Top 150 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on Sun, May 22 2005
    • Gloucestershire
    • Trusted Users

    Re: Badger Cull

    green guy:

    Many of us who want a healthy badger population to thrive rather than being wiped out with TB.

    However if they find out who we are we will not be members for long.

    Good for you Green Guy. You are honest and unfortunately a part of an organisation (like many others) which has become a tool in the hands of people whose own aims do not match the original and laudable aims of the organisation.

    "It is" as Geoffrey Howe once famously said in his resignation speech, "for others themselves to decide what to do in the circumstances."

     

     

  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 9:27 In reply to

    • Peter Wells
    • Top 150 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on Sun, May 22 2005
    • Gloucestershire
    • Trusted Users

    Re: Badger Cull

    MadCow666:
    What's the saying.."evil flourishes when good men remain silent" - or something like that

    "All that remains for the triumph of evil is that good men remain silent."

  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 10:15 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    Hi there MadCow - just a thought. I've mentioned your blog a few times because I think it is really good. Would you be OK with me mirroring it through FWiSpace so regulars know when there is a new post. They would appear in the same way as posts from Matthew Naylor on The Longer View.

     http://www.fwi.co.uk/Community/blogs/

     

     

     

    Latest headlines from Farmers Weekly Interactive
  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 10:21 In reply to

    • johno
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 18 2006

    Re: Badger Cull

    Have I missed something:

    Why are they spending £20mn on a badger vaccine when it is a cattle problem (so say)

    If TB is still increasing, isn't more frequent testing and pre movement testing therefore making it worse

    Why in most other countries is it politically unacceptable to cull cattle but leave wildlife

     

  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 10:31 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    johno:

    Why are they spending £20mn on a badger vaccine when it is a cattle problem (so say)

     

    The evidence doesn't even prove that it is just a cattle problem. Lord Rooker made a speech to the House of Lords on Monday where he said:

    "My right honourable friend in the other place made it clear that he was grateful to the EFRA Select Committee for its report. He also made it abundantly clear that he took the view that, from a practical point of view, a culling operation would not succeed and could make matters even worse.

    My noble friend is quite right that badger-to-badger transfer takes place in large setts with more badgers and more food. Living in crowded conditions was how human beings caught TB in the first place. Badger-to-cattle transmission is heavy; I understand that it accounts for about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of cases and that cattle-to-cattle transmission accounts for about 10 per cent of cases. It is difficult to be precise."

    He's denied that there is a difference of opinion betwen him and Hilary Benn on the right way forward. But some of his comments don't bear this out - he sounds like a man in favour of a cull.

    Latest headlines from Farmers Weekly Interactive
  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 12:04 In reply to

    • farmer ben
    • Top 150 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 30 2007
    • Ponsanooth, Cornwall

    Re: Badger Cull

    a bagder cull would be good, it's either them or the cows! MILKBEEF- all comes from cows, we need them! NO BADGERS!
  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 12:45 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    very good point johno, bet Mr Benn would have some clever answer though

  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 12:49 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

     

    Isabel Fine with us to do a link. With thanks.

     

    Peter. With thanks.

     

    farmer ben. You are quite wrong. Badgers are an important part of the ecology. The problem they have - and it is a major problem for them - is that they have been awarded cult status, which makes the only species as far as some of their supporters are concerned. This has had a detrimental effect on them because of endemic tuberculosis, but also for various species  which these omnivourous opportunists will wipe out as food sources tighten.   But 'no badgers' is neither necessary nor achievable. It is also what the Badger Trust peddle as an excuse for blindsiding any management policy.

     

    Glad to see Rooker's comments - for what good they did . Defra's check list of over 20 'must do' things for biosecurity also concentrates on keeping badgers away from cattle. Why, if the problem is all cattle-to-cattle?  

  • Wed, Jul 9 2008 14:41 In reply to

    Re: Badger Cull

    Done it. An extract of every ne