Badger Culling

FiscalAvenger

Maybe I am an urban wuss with no idea of the realities of urban life, but it seems somewhat stupid for the government to be spending a fortune exterminating, badgers, a protected species, in a particularly nasty way, on the possible grounds that they are giving TB to cattle rather than being given TB by cattle. More here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0514/tb.html



fiscalavenger.com

LovelyTom

That really does seem very very stupid, why exterminate the badgers before logically thinking about it? and why exterminate them in the first place? surely there are other ways to deal with it...it's not right

Schlemm

Testing cattle for TB and brucellosis is a legal requirement and is also a huge expense for farmers, and a real pain for them too if you've a reactor in your test. I don't know why they don't do something better to eradicate TB than targeting badgers, it seems like a waste of time and money IMO. Does anyone know what the procedures are in other countries for TB and brucellosis?

BryanL

what a spoof "report" it's by badgerwatch Ireland,what else would they say(with a UK badger group) and released before the british government decide to cull badgers this week.

this is from DEFRA(british dept. of agriculture)
Do badgers influence bovine TB epidemiology?
3.1 There is considerable circumstantial and experimental evidence to show that
there is a link between the epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis in badgers
and in cattle. All major reviews of the subject have argued for this link (e.g.
Krebs 1997, § 4.2) though frequently pointing out that a critical experimental
demonstration was lacking. Indeed, one of the motivations for setting up the
RBCT was to “provide unambiguous evidence on the role of the badger in cattle
TB” (Krebs 1997). We believe the FABCT provides the strongest support to
date of a link between the disease in badgers and cattle. In our opinion the
existence of a link should be considered as settled, though the nature of the link
is more problematic.

Lou.m

Culling does not actually eradicate disease as there it is very difficult to tell which animals have been infected and which have not without huge expense much more than it would take for farmers to test their animals and protect them. And so they just cull them which is ridiculous as it unbalances the natural and delicate status in rural areas. They cull foxes and wonder why there is an explosion in the rabbit population. And then because the rabbit population is so huge disease spreads among them like wild fire because smaller areas are over populated. Years ago there was a lot of culling of rabbits because there was so much eye disease within the population. They realised it had spread so much because the population had grown so much in such a small space people were not hunting rabbits any more and foxes had been culled. Farmers now had the threat of disease being spread to the animals from rabbits.

There will be unforseen consequences from this.

I know i am a vegetarian and so my ideas will differ from most but it is not just because i dont eat animals it just seems cruel and ridiculous.

It also seems hypocritical that the government who banned fox hunting is doing this.

I think culling is just cruel.

Mr. Presentable

I'm surprised they need to be culled, as any time I drive in rural Ireland I see them lying by the roadside

doctor evil

Lou.m wrote:

It also seems hypocritical that the government who banned fox hunting is doing this.

Foxhunting (or correctly hunting with dogs) was never banned, its format has just changed. That law was never about animal welfare.

King.Penguin

There are 3 considerations when you start thinking about a cull.

1. How will the cull be performed?
2. Why will the cull be performed?
3. What are the ecological consequences?

1.

Will the animals be culled humanely?

The badgers are caught using some kind of restraint that traps them at the stomach using a thick wire. I can't find a good explanation of this system on the internet. I don't see how this can work without severely hurting the badger. Once caught, what happens to the badger? Does he just sit there hoping another badger, fox, dog doesn't attack him? Will he suffer from thirst, cold or hunger? After a maximum of 17 hours being trapped the badger will be shot in the head with .22 calibre rifle by trained shooter. This is the most humane aspect of the ordeal.

I am totally against the use of poisons that cause suffering in animals during culls as well as, obviously, traps or snares that hurt or maim an animal, causing it to suffer before its death. Cages have certain benefits - food, water, bedding can be placed inside and they offer a certain protection from predators. But an animal may stress due to the confinement.

2.

Badgers do carry the TB bacterium and they are a potential source of infection for cattle and humans (although very very unlikely). TB infection in humans can be fatal especially for those immuno-compromised. Cattle with bTB (bovine TB) are slaughter immediately. Although the farmer is compensated (to what degree I'm not sure) I'm sure he'd rather sell his cows for meat/dairy rather than burn them.

However, in this case, the important question is do badgers actually infect cattle with TB, do they it often and is this worth the significant culling? The jury is still out on question 1, especially when we take into account the fact that it may be the cattle rather than the badgers doing the infecting. The rate of transmission? It's still very difficult/impossible to tell. I think Badger rights activists as well as agricultural departments maintain that good husbandry will decrease the chances of infection dramatically (don't let badgers into your cow feed barn, don't move your cattle along badger trails, don't let your cattle drink foul water, don't let your cattle interact with other cattle).

3.

Obviously there is a massive loss of badgers, and the resulting genetic loss. Next it puts more strain on existing badgers to find mates. It also effects their territoriality as badgers may move into ranges previously occupied by culled badgers. It's also possible that the remaining badgers may be more infective to cattle then a larger population.

Ultimately, unless I'm missing something huge, I can't see the justification for the cull. I know they're working on a vaccine and I know they're getting lots of interesting info out of research on the carcasses but is it really worth the 65000 dead badgers?

Lou.m

doctor evil wrote:

Foxhunting (or correctly hunting with dogs) was never banned, its format has just changed. That law was never about animal welfare.

Well actually i was talking about britain it has been now made illegal for hounds accompanied by horses and people to trace down the scent of a fox and following it.(In britain at least)

Foxes are still culled but they are not supposed to be chased.

The law although maybe misguided from the point of people who supported it was about animal welfare.

Only drag hunting is allowed in britain now i am not aware of the situation in Ireland.

Of course foxes are still culled in Britain.

Lou.m

King.Penguin wrote:

There are 3 considerations when you start thinking about a cull.

1. How will the cull be performed?
2. Why will the cull be performed?
3. What are the ecological consequences?

1.

Will the animals be culled humanely?

The badgers are caught using some kind of restraint that traps them at the stomach using a thick wire. I can't find a good explanation of this system on the internet. I don't see how this can work without severely hurting the badger. Once caught, what happens to the badger? Does he just sit there hoping another badger, fox, dog doesn't attack him? Will he suffer from thirst, cold or hunger? After a maximum of 17 hours being trapped the badger will be shot in the head with .22 calibre rifle by trained shooter. This is the most humane aspect of the ordeal.

I am totally against the use of poisons that cause suffering in animals during culls as well as, obviously, traps or snares that hurt or maim an animal, causing it to suffer before its death. Cages have certain benefits - food, water, bedding can be placed inside and they offer a certain protection from predators. But an animal may stress due to the confinement.

2.

Badgers do carry the TB bacterium and they are a potential source of infection for cattle and humans (although very very unlikely). TB infection in humans can be fatal especially for those immuno-compromised. Cattle with bTB (bovine TB) are slaughter immediately. Although the farmer is compensated (to what degree I'm not sure) I'm sure he'd rather sell his cows for meat/dairy rather than burn them.

However, in this case, the important question is do badgers actually infect cattle with TB, do they it often and is this worth the significant culling? The jury is still out on question 1, especially when we take into account the fact that it may be the cattle rather than the badgers doing the infecting. The rate of transmission? It's still very difficult/impossible to tell. I think Badger rights activists as well as agricultural departments maintain that good husbandry will decrease the chances of infection dramatically (don't let badgers into your cow feed barn, don't move your cattle along badger trails, don't let your cattle drink foul water, don't let your cattle interact with other cattle).

3.

Obviously there is a massive loss of badgers, and the resulting genetic loss. Next it puts more strain on existing badgers to find mates. It also effects their territoriality as badgers may move into ranges previously occupied by culled badgers. It's also possible that the remaining badgers may be more infective to cattle then a larger population.

Ultimately, unless I'm missing something huge, I can't see the justification for the cull. I know they're working on a vaccine and I know they're getting lots of interesting info out of research on the carcasses but is it really worth the 65000 dead badgers?

I cant agree more

doctor evil

Lou.m wrote:

Well actually i was talking about britain it has been now made illegal for hounds accompanied by horses and people to trace down the scent of a fox and following it.(In britain at least)

Foxes are still culled but they are not supposed to be chased.

The law although maybe misguided from the point of people who supported it was about animal welfare.

Only drag hunting is allowed in britain now i am not aware of the situation in Ireland.

Of course foxes are still culled in Britain.

I was refering to Britain as well. They can still be chased by two dogs as long as the animal is shot. The law is a sham and very difficult to prove to have been broken (dog that gets off the lead for example), if it was about welfare then snares should be banned.

In Ireland there is no change and I hope there won`t be!.

fits

Lou.m wrote:

Well actually i was talking about britain it has been now made illegal for hounds accompanied by horses and people to trace down the scent of a fox and following it.(In britain at least)

The law is nothing to do with horses... it is illegal to to 'deliberately' hunt an animal with more than two hounds/dogs. That is all there is to it.... whether on foot or on horseback.
Why do people always think the horses have something to do with it???

fits

Oh and to go back on topic... I dont really know if badgers transfer tb to cattle or not. I really hope they dont, but I'm certainly not going to take the word of badgerwatch Ireland for it.
Are there any badger sanctuaries in Ireland?, if not, there should be. They're lovely animals, and we should take care of them.

Snares are an appallingly cruel method of killing any animal. They really should be outlawed. I've no problem with proper culling, but I've a huge problem with snares. I'm always terrified my dogs will get caught up in one.

BryanL

Fits the whole country is a badger sanctuary,you can't touch badgers without a licence,which is only given if there is a T.B. outbreak.Badgerwatch Ireland are there for the badgers so i think they aren't briefing against badgers.
10-20% of badgers have been shown in all studies to have T.B.does anyone care about that irrespective of cattle i think it's terrible that that many bagers are suffering and no one cares about reducing that.maybe a badger cull would shed some light on how to help badger health
Bryan

Dyr

remarkable findings just in from badger cull studies; shooting badgers isbad for their health

fits

BryanL wrote:

Fits the whole country is a badger sanctuary,you can't touch badgers without a licence,which is only given if there is a T.B. outbreak.Badgerwatch Ireland are there for the badgers so i think they aren't briefing against badgers.
10-20% of badgers have been shown in all studies to have T.B.does anyone care about that irrespective of cattle i think it's terrible that that many bagers are suffering and no one cares about reducing that.maybe a badger cull would shed some light on how to help badger health
Bryan

well there you go! shows how much I know about it

I still think snares should be outlawed.

BryanL

this response from the minister gives some idea of the real numbers involved.

Agriculture and Food Minister Mary Coughlan rejected the badger protection groups’ conclusions.

She said peer reviewed research has demonstrated that culling of infected badger significantly reduces TB in cattle.

She said badgers are only captured where they are implicated in serious outbreaks of bovine TB.

Total removal of badger populations is not allowed, and there is no question or possibility of badgers being exterminated.

She said restraints used to capture badgers are approved under the Wildlife Act, fitted with a stop to prevent tightening or strangulation. A condition of badger capture licencing is that restraints are checked before noon the day after they are set.

She said research has shown that at least 40% of badgers in the vicinity of TB infected herds are infected, and that infection by badgers was the single most important source of infection of cattle.

Contrary to a Badgerwatch and Badger Trust statement, badgers and cattle share the same strains of TB locally, said the Minister, and bovine TB incidence is 7% in the UK and only 5.4% in Ireland

fits

BryanL wrote:

She said restraints used to capture badgers are approved under the Wildlife Act, fitted with a stop to prevent tightening or strangulation. A condition of badger capture licencing is that restraints are checked before noon the day after they are set.

Well can you explain to me how these 'restraints' work if they don't 'tighten'.
I'm not being confrontational, I just dont know much about it, other than seeing the results of cats and foxes being caught up in them... I saw one case recently, a pregnant cat found in Tipperary with the snare caught around her belly and her whole body was swollen. horrible...

fits

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/lovingreys/catsnare2.jpg

doctor evil

No offence fits but you should put a warning on that just in case.

Lou.m

doctor evil wrote:

I was refering to Britain as well. They can still be chased by two dogs as long as the animal is shot. The law is a sham and very difficult to prove to have been broken (dog that gets off the lead for example), if it was about welfare then snares should be banned.

In Ireland there is no change and I hope there won`t be!.

That is bizarre!!!

Politicians!!! We should hunt them.

We should hunt Bertie!
Usually i am for the protection of animals but in this case..
I think that would unite animals rights activists and hunt followers!!