We do have another thread of the proposed cull of badgers, but this seemed important enough to make sure it didn't get lost in the huge previous thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7056501.stm

The reason I say it is important is because the UK government's chief scientist, Sir David King, has called for a cull of badgers under strict conditions, going against a recent report that said it would have no effect. The problem is, it seems to me that this is just a cull for the sake of seeming like doing something rather than because there is evidence it would help. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in carrying out research, if it is then ignored and the opposite to the recommendation carried out.

The overwhelming majority of the public would be against a cull, 95% according to the BBC article, which probably makes it unlikely to happen before an election. I am definitely against it until an independant report confirms Sir David's report findings, before that it will seem like killing to keep the farmers happy.

I couldn't believe this when I heard it on the news last night. As far as I am aware there is no evidence that directly links badgers to the spread of TB amongst cattle. From everything I've read a lot of the blame could (and maybe should) be placed at the door of modern farming practices, where intensive farming and reliance upon chemicals have stripped the soil of the natural minerals that would protect animals against infection. This does seem to be a case of the government bowing to pressure from the farmers who refute any claim that their practices might be a contributory factor.

It may be a bit of scaremongering, but the report I listened to claimed that the implementation of a badger cull would lead to the slaughter of up to 90% of the badger population in affected areas.

And this from a government that spent hundreds of hours of parliamentary time to get through its fox hunting ban on the grounds of animal welfare (also ignoring the findings and recommendations of the independant parliamentary study group).

I am still confused as to why cattle are not inoculated against TB...the evidence appears to show that even if badgers are culled, it simply spreads the disease by causing the badgers to move out of their home territory. When the badgers finally return, the cycle starts all over again.

Or is this just a ploy to get rid of badgers from their setts, which are protected by law, thus opening the way to declare that the badgers no longer being there, the sett is extinct, and that the land being preserved can be used in a more productive way (ie, building houses)?

Kingfisher

What I don't understand is where the badgers get TB from in the first place. And why not innoculate the badgers?

As for it being a ploy to get rid of badger setts... I so, so, hope that you are wrong. Because if you aren't, there is no hope for the wildlife of this country .

This post was last modified: 23-10-2007 03:26 PM by TimberWolf.

I think that as the cattle are contained, it would be easier to inoculate them first. A bit more difficult to inoculate the badgers, but still possible. I am not certain that anyone knows the origin of the TB, although it would be most interesting to find out.

There are many instances here in the US of a property owner being balked at turning their five acres into fifty or sixty houses because the land has a Bald Eagle nest on it. The eagles can't be disturbed whilst on the nest, but as soon as the eagles leave, the landowner races to build.

The law is different in the UK, but wherever money's to be made, someone will reach out a hand to take it.

Kingfisher

Here we go again. I'm sure we all remember a previous announcement by a Chief Scientist - he told us that beef was perfectly safe to eat!

Once again, we have a ridiculous reaction to a situation that has no basis in fact. I think we all know that it is much more likely that it is badgers that are infected with TB from cattle rather than the other way round.

The problem is that farmers always look round for something else to blame when things go wrong. In the past, bog asphodel Narthecium ossifragum was blamed for brittle bones in farm animals, and lousewort Pedicularis sp. for sheep having lice.

Now it's badgers giving cattle TB, simply a modern equivalent.

HORRIBLE! I'm sure some people just like killing things.

One thing's for sure: if/when the mass slaughter of badgers fails to solve the problem, no one in authority is going to take responsibility for the appaling consequences.

My estimations of the head of science have just gone down. I thought science was about research, not about pressure from groups who have a strong interest in the results. The farmers should be ashamed of themselves, but the Chief Scientist should be asked to resign over this because he obviously doesn't understand science.

As Timberwolf says, if there is a slaughter no one will take the blame when it doesn't work. In fact, we probably won't ever be told it hasn't worked and the public will never know that thousands of badgers were killed for nothing.