Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Badger, Badger, Badger

33 posts in this topic

Posted

The Badger culls are due to begin in the UK in June 2013, it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The cull is necessary as the current badger population is too high and is exceeding the resources of their habitat. It's not happening just for fun, you know. Badgers are a protected species in the UK so a cull only happens through necessity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The cull is necessary as the current badger population is too high and is exceeding the resources of their habitat. It's not happening just for fun, you know. Badgers are a protected species in the UK so a cull only happens through necessity.

And to halt the spread of TB.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And to halt the spread of TB.

I'd forgotten about that part. Yeah.. That's pretty damned essential!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

After looking it up yes, the cull is essential from both a wildlife management and the public health standpoints.

It always gets me how some of these armchair conservationists / environmentalists go knee-jerk negative on culls and hunts that are essential, even for the species being killed. Our deer hunr is essential becsuse their reproduction rate vastly exceeds their death rate from predation and natural causes. As a result there are more deer here than any time in the last 120 years - literally in the millions. Without a hunt to keep the population down the whole herd suffers food shortages & starvation in our cold winters. It's truly heartbreaking to see large numbers of dead and malnourished deer per square mile when the hunt fails to cull enough deer. Without the hunt it would be worse.

Hunts provide a deer population check, a great deal of economic activity, license fees support many DNR programs for all species including endangered ones, and the harvested deer are a very popular food source. Many hunters turn part of f their allotment (you can harvest >1 deer) to 3 charities that supply venison to food banks for the poor and homeless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^ We have a problem with deer too, but don't have much hunting to compensate... There's going to have to be a cull soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Crate them up and send them over here. We love those vicious animals. :)

150px-BuckyBadger.svg.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Badger population is not necessarily too high, they will increase in population as much as they can as long as resources and predation don't stop them (like any other animal). Culling them will also not necessarily slow or stop the disease and will just disrupt their normal territorial movements. Normally badgers are fairly confined in their movements, however a cull will open up new territories for remaining infected and non-infected badgers, which will lead to territorial expansion and greater movements of badgers which therefore increases spread of disease. Read more here http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/badgers-and-bovineTB (Also just so you know, The Wildlife Trusts are pro deer culling)

Not everyone opposed to the badger cull is an armchair conservationist, there are many good reasons not to proceed with the cull and to further explore using a vaccine to TB, not least of all because a cull will only ever be a temporary fix that will in all probability make matters worse in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Badger fur is great for brushes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And to halt the spread of TB.

Hi,

Accredited scientific evidence and citations required.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's unfortunate but as far as I'm concerned as long as it's done humanely I am OK with it. It's much less painful to die from a bullet through the head than it would be to starve to death because you are overpopulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hi,

Accredited scientific evidence and citations required.

Thanks.

Hi,

Have you been living under a rock?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hi,

Have you been living under a rock?

Thanks.

Hi,

So that means you know none then?

Enjoy your murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No! Don't kill Badger

eGN3azRzMTI=_o_breaking-bad---badgers-interview.jpg

Oh, wait, they already did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe there isn't too many beaver, but too many people invading their space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Space isn't the issue as generally badgers coexist pretty well around people. The problem is that they've become a disease vector for bovine TB, canine distemper, and sundry viruses that can hit livestock and less often pets. That's a whole other issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

some believe humans need to be culled too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

some believe humans need to be culled too.

When they themselves volunteer then perhaps they'll be seen as more than attention grabbing Nazi wanna-bes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hi,

Accredited scientific evidence and citations required.

Thanks.

Here, not that you'll read them.

And from Defra:

What is the evidence for allowing culling of badgers in pilot areas?

The Defra badger cull policy is based on scientific evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Using the results of this trial (based on an average of 5 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here, not that you'll read them.

And from Defra:

Nice, so the first result is about boars so is irrelevent.

Next result;

'Here we present results from a large-scale field trial3, 4, 5 that indicate that localized badger culling not only fails to control but also seems to increase TB incidence in cattle.'

Oh that's funny. 'Our analysis shows that some measures of sociality may remain significantly disrupted for up to 8 years after culling. This may have epidemiological consequences because previous research has shown that even in a relatively undisturbed badger population, movements between groups are associated with increases in the incidence of Mycobacterium bovis infection. This is consistent with the results from a large-scale field trial, which demonstrated decreased benefits of culling at the edges of culled areas, and an increase in herd breakdown rates in neighbouring cattle.'

Next: 'We show that, as carried out in this experiment, culling reduces cattle TB incidence in the areas that are culled, but increases incidence in adjoining areas. These findings are biologically consistent with previous studies2, 3, 4, 5 but will present challenges for policy development.'

The next one is about analysis and doesn't include the findings in the abstract.

Not bad, you tried to back up your reasons but failed to do so with all evidence pointing in the opposite direction of your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The material evidence in support of the cull in regard to TB transfer to cattle is wildly superficial and open to debate, as for over population like most animals they can only survive if sufficient material resources exist locally to sustain their ecosystem.You cannot base a thesis on one set of results, it would be like invading a country just because of one mans word.

There is medication that can be applied to bovines to reduce the incidence of TB so why is this action not taken first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe there isn't too many beaver, but too many people invading their space.

Badger.

Got beaver on your mind? :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I couldn't resist

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

>

There is medication that can be applied to bovines to reduce the incidence of TB so why is this action not taken first?

Because as other prophylactic uses of medication vs bacteria has shown, it tends to produce resistant strains - superbugs - which current meds do not work on. Not smart.

Better to restrict the potential disease vectors. In bovine TB that includes badgers. In HIV it's wearing condoms. Until you can convince the badgers to run around in little HAZMAT suits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Strange response given humans use the same method in infants to reduce the incidence of say measles and again the proof against badgers is biased propoganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.