Badgers spread tb in cattle. This has been shown by government scientists. the scientists recomended a cull in some areas.
So the cull should go ahead to save the slaughter of 1000s of cattle each year?
No the government has said No, can you believe it?
hilary benn said it wouldn't be publicly acceptable. Does that mean they will only impose policies that are popular no matter what the potential loss might be?
I have started an e- petition i will post a link when i get it back (if they accept it)
I am afraid that that sums up this government. They don't work on the same common sense attitude as the rest of the population. Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Check this Badger out!!..................
This is an article taken from the 26 June edition of the shooting times, page 6.
The Welsh minister for rural affairs, Ellin Jones, has revealed that badgers will be reintroduced to areas where they are culled as part of the Bovine TB eradication programme. She said there were no plans to wipe out the mammal as well as the disease: ''in instigating the badger cull in any area the intentions would be to reintroduce disease-free badgers so that Wales would have a disease-free wildlife population, just as we replace cattle that have been removed because of the disease''
Why does it require a total irradication? Surely if you lower the population numbers in an area that is bad with TB then you lower the number of cross infected cattle.
The less the two animals meet, the less the chance of catching something from them.
I am (obviously) no scientist so am very happy to have the finer points explained to me. Please use short words!
cows and badgers
I think badgers will come into contact with cows because they will eat bugs from cow muck. cow muck is often found in cow fields. so if there are any badgers then they will go near cows.
I was aware of the two studies. But i knew that both supported the fact badgers have Tb and it is transferred to cattle. Both agree that culling is the answer but study #1 says that it would have to be nearer eradication as Pete says.
I also am no expert. but if your own study says cull then the scientists opinion must be worth more than Jonny Twoccer from the flats down the town centre?
This post would not exist if the bunnyhuggers and interfering politicians had not been given creedence.
It is quite simple, there was no overpopulation problems before they got protected status, take them of the list and the paragraph below about expenses wont apply.
The scientists against the cull think the eradication would be need to be on such a scale and over such a long period, it would simply be too expensive and impractical to carry out especially as there is no proof it would be effective
How can you have 'proof' that something has been 'effective' prior to the event
Typical unscientific mumbo jumbo
Take them off the protected list, leave it a year or so then go and see how many you can count