Badger Cull

Oresai

Member
Don't know if this story is of interest or not to members here, but seems the badger cull has definately been given the go-ahead.

THOUSANDS OF badgers are to be killed in England in an attempt to significantly reduce TB in cattle herds in Gloucestershire. The cull – the shooting and trapping of the badgers – could last for four years and eliminate 100,000.

Culling, which is fiercely opposed by animal rights campaigners, could begin in three weeks, once farmers prove they can pay for it.

A second licence will be issued to farmers in Somerset and both will be independently monitored. If the six-week culls are found to be “‘effective and humane” they will continue for up to four years and up to 10 licences a year will be awarded.

Up to 70 per cent of the badger population will be killed in each of the districts, though maximum limits will be set “to prevent the risk of local extinction”, Natural England, the British government’s advisory body, said yesterday.

This was from the Irish Times online if anyone wants to read the whole story. :)
 
Dont know if you heard Radio 5 live earlier with Brian May defending his anti cull stance?
The guy from NFU ( i think it was NFU) put forward a very strong,calm, reason for the cull. May seemed to be trying to get the public vote against the cull.
 
Dont know if you heard Radio 5 live earlier with Brian May defending his anti cull stance?
The guy from NFU ( i think it was NFU) put forward a very strong,calm, reason for the cull. May seemed to be trying to get the public vote against the cull.

It was the same BBC news this morning.


Nutty
 
Mr May can whine as much as he likes but this cull will go ahead and the farmers will have a chance to manage their pests themselves and quite rightly.

Farmers are the custodians of their land and should be allowed to protect it.
 
I've followed all this with great interest. I don't have a firm opinion either way, and don't feel I know enough to justify having one (don't you wish more people said *that*!). It seems that the one key bit of evidence lacking from the whole thing is a clear transmission mechanism: how is TB getting from badgers to cows (or, indeed, vice versa)?

Solve that, and it seems as if you solve most of the problem, since it then means that you can adopt targeted control strategies, incorporating both informed culls in the right times and places, and altered husbandry to minimise contact/transmission.

Overall, it does look as if there is no silver bullet. Culling may have some effect, but it seems unlikely to solve the whole problem. Especially since, unless you wipe out all the badgers in the UK, culled areas will continue to be re-populated (and presumably re-infected) by badgers from unculled areas.

However, as a good empiricist, I think it's probably right to go ahead and try limited culls. There's absolutely no point in having endless arguments in the absence of much good evidence.
 
It seems that the one key bit of evidence lacking from the whole thing is a clear transmission mechanism: how is TB getting from badgers to cows (or, indeed, vice versa)?

BTb is spread to cattle when they eat plants which have been urinated on by badgers. If you can suggest a way to prevent badgers from peeing all over the place that doesn't involve a bullet, then please do let us know!
 
On the interview the voice of agriculture pointed out that AT PRESENT only vacines administered by injection are available for TB in badgers and that there are no legal vacines for cattle.

Everyone s moving toward an ORAL vacine for badgers (trapping and injection ain't gonna work) and a legal vacine for cattle.

In the meantime, in a few HOT areas a physical reduction in badger numbers is a "good" method to assist in infection increase.

Guitarist doesn't want to go down, deeper on down, that route.

Stan
 
Never mind the TB what about the impact badgers also have on the countryside ie destruction of ground nesting birds and the bumble bee to name just two ,everything in moderation of course but we have more Newcastle utd supporters than foxs !!
 
BTb is spread to cattle when they eat plants which have been urinated on by badgers. If you can suggest a way to prevent badgers from peeing all over the place that doesn't involve a bullet, then please do let us know!

That's interesting. Is that known for sure? I'd be curious to see the paper showing that, if you have it. Thanks.
 
Never mind the TB what about the impact badgers also have on the countryside ie destruction of ground nesting birds and the bumble bee to name just two ,everything in moderation of course but we have more Newcastle utd supporters than foxs !!

To be fair, my guess is that thier impact pales into insignificance when compared to everything else that's being done to the countryside. It's like saying that someone with a weight problem will become healthy if they stop eating malteasers. Sure: stopping eating malteasers will have a small positive effect, but unless they make a whole suite of much more radical lifestyle changes, it's not going to change the overall prognosis. Same with declining bird/invertebrate species. Sure - removing a predator will have a small positive effect, but will be as nothing compared to solving the far more serious problems of habitat loss, collapse of food supply, changing plant and food supply phenology etc etc. Bearing in mind also that badgers are a natural predator, so advocating thier removal is actually an admission that something has gone so badly wrong that the system can no longer tolerate thier presence.
 
That's interesting. Is that known for sure? I'd be curious to see the paper showing that, if you have it. Thanks.

OK - here are some sources:
http://www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/FAQs/Questions/How-do-cattle-catch-the-disease-from-badgers-/
Bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) in British farmland wildlife: the importance to agriculture
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/husbandry_background.pdf
http://www.southwest-tbadvice.co.uk/biosecurity/badger-ecology

I this sums it up:

An infected badger can exceptionally excrete as many as 1.5 million bacilli per teaspoon of urine (300,000 per ml).


To be fair, my guess is that thier impact pales into insignificance when compared to everything else that's being done to the countryside. It's like saying that someone with a weight problem will become healthy if they stop eating malteasers. Sure: stopping eating malteasers will have a small positive effect, but unless they make a whole suite of much more radical lifestyle changes, it's not going to change the overall prognosis. Same with declining bird/invertebrate species. Sure - removing a predator will have a small positive effect, but will be as nothing compared to solving the far more serious problems of habitat loss, collapse of food supply, changing plant and food supply phenology etc etc. Bearing in mind also that badgers are a natural predator, so advocating thier removal is actually an admission that something has gone so badly wrong that the system can no longer tolerate thier presence.

Badgers are, in effect, giant rats. They will kill and eat anything they can find, and when their numbers rise to the levels we see around here, very few ground-nesting animals stand a chance of raising any young. We don't lack habitat or food supply in rural Devon, but we do lack hedgehogs, lapwings, skylarks, dormice, hares...
 
OK - here are some sources:

Badgers are, in effect, giant rats. They will kill and eat anything they can find, and when their numbers rise to the levels we see around here, very few ground-nesting animals stand a chance of raising any young. We don't lack habitat or food supply in rural Devon, but we do lack hedgehogs, lapwings, skylarks, dormice, hares...

Thanks for the links - very useful.

With regard to badgers denuding the countryside of thier prey animals: since they are a natural part of the system, then if it is the case that they are responsible for the declines, it indicates that there is something else missing or out of balance. A newly introduced predator can (sometimes) eradicate naive prey, but a predator that has a prior evolutionary history with its prey generally cannot - unless some other aspect of the system has changed.

The species that you put forward as being pushed to the edge by badgers had coexisted with them for millenia before we arrived, so it tends to suggest that we've done something to disrupt the balance. This may indeed mean that we have to start actively managing the badger population. However, to do this without adequately understanding the dynamics of these other species is dangerous. Before saying 'badgers are eating all the skylarks', you do really need good data on skylark populations and good evidence showing that a significant proportion of skylark mortality is caused by bagers - and that it is this mortality which is driving the population decline. If that data exists, I'd be very interested to see it.
 
Thanks for the links - very useful.

With regard to badgers denuding the countryside of thier prey animals: since they are a natural part of the system, then if it is the case that they are responsible for the declines, it indicates that there is something else missing or out of balance. A newly introduced predator can (sometimes) eradicate naive prey, but a predator that has a prior evolutionary history with its prey generally cannot - unless some other aspect of the system has changed.

The species that you put forward as being pushed to the edge by badgers had coexisted with them for millenia before we arrived, so it tends to suggest that we've done something to disrupt the balance. This may indeed mean that we have to start actively managing the badger population. However, to do this without adequately understanding the dynamics of these other species is dangerous. Before saying 'badgers are eating all the skylarks', you do really need good data on skylark populations and good evidence showing that a significant proportion of skylark mortality is caused by bagers - and that it is this mortality which is driving the population decline. If that data exists, I'd be very interested to see it.

I'm afraid that to the best of my knowledge that data doesn't exist, as it would have to take the starting point that badgers were wiping out many of our best loved species, and we all know that there are precious few biologists who would put their copies of The Guardian down long enough to consider such an awful thing.

You are quite right though - we have radically altered the balance of the system - by 'raising' badgers to the status of 'protected'. Up until then (i.e over the last millenium, before that it was done by wolves, etc.), local keepers would simply maintain their populations at sensible levels. That's why all the above were able to coexist. There has, however, been one other major change that has also made a massive difference to the numbers of badgers produced each year, and that's the widespread farming of cattle maize. Again, I think it unlikely that there have been any studies on this. I can, however, tell you that I spend, on average, about six nights a week out foxing with both NV and thermal imaging, and I see LOTS of badgers. I doubt there are many professional biologists who see as many as I do...
 
I'm afraid that to the best of my knowledge that data doesn't exist, as it would have to take the starting point that badgers were wiping out many of our best loved species, and we all know that there are precious few biologists who would put their copies of The Guardian down long enough to consider such an awful thing.

lol. Though I think you'd be surprised... I know of quite a few biologists in your area who are card carrying BASC members, Telegraph readers and avid stalkers/shooters. And they aren't alone - field biologists tend to fall into two types. There are the knit your own macaroni tree-huggers, but there are also a substantial proportion who are true 'countrymen', or have spent enough time in the field to have a much more realistic understanding of nature. Sadly, there is a tendency on both sides to label everyone on the other as a ridiculous stereotype. So farmers/keepers become red faced, barbour jacketed, shotgun toting bigots with a blood lust, and biologists become sandal wearing, hand wringing panty-wasters unable to see past thier own romantic wet dreams. Countryside management would be so much more efficient if both sides realised they have more common ground than they currently admit.

There has, however, been one other major change that has also made a massive difference to the numbers of badgers produced each year, and that's the widespread farming of cattle maize

That's interesting. How does that affect things?

I can, however, tell you that I spend, on average, about six nights a week out foxing with both NV and thermal imaging, and I see LOTS of badgers. I doubt there are many professional biologists who see as many as I do...

I'll agree that I was stunned at just how many there are out there when I started lamping. 15 in a two hour session is not unusual. Fortunately no cows in my area.
 
Clearly there will never be a clear view of the badger problem as so many people are driven by their own take on the matter. Living as I do in an area that always had a high numbers of badgers, but nothing approaching what are here now, I have seen the sheer misery that many farmers I know have been through due to TB. No-one who has actually seen their lifes work collapse about their ears has any idea what it must be like. Now the removal of some wild animals must surely take precedence over the views of certain people who are driven by their hearts rather than their heads. There is no talk of extermination here only an effort to see if the pernicious scourge of TB can be reduced and not only save the heartache endured by farmers but the enormous cost to the country. It surely makes sense to give it a fair trial and see once and for all if it is the solution.
On a slightly different tack, the badger is one of the top predators, the top one of course is man. We have altered the countryside in this country over the last few hundred years, to a vast degree, whether or not we like it this then brings the resposibility of controling not only the soil but everything else connected with it. You cannot leave anything that is virtually impervious to attack from anything else to thrive at the expense of everything else. Rabbits, rats and other creatures are controlled out of necessity, if they weren't there would be chaos. Over the years I have seen the impact a vastly increasing badger population has had on the countryside around my area. Hedgehogs have all but disappeared, at one time you could see evidence of dug out bumblebees nests, now they are a rarity as are the occupants. Raids on poultry are now as common by badgers as they are by foxes. It is now common to see standing corn, particularly wheat flattened by badgers, one farm I know has had something like four acres destroyed; at three tons an acre and the price of corn as it is the farmer wasn't a happy man. Should he be forced to stand by and see this type of damage increase year by year?
Common sense should prevail, it won't of course; take badgers off the protected list. Bring in draconion laws to prevent digging, baiting etc: and let those that have a problem deal with it and those that don't leave them alone. I'm afraid that's too simple though!
 
[
That's interesting. How does that affect things?

Badgers love it as a food source. There are some videos on line of upto 13 badgers in a silage pit. Regarding earlier comments re vaccination, a cattle vaccine that doesn't interfere with the test (therefore export trade) is at least 10 years off.
 
Clearly there will never be a clear view of the badger problem as so many people are driven by their own take on the matter. Living as I do in an area that always had a high numbers of badgers, but nothing approaching what are here now, I have seen the sheer misery that many farmers I know have been through due to TB. No-one who has actually seen their lifes work collapse about their ears has any idea what it must be like. Now the removal of some wild animals must surely take precedence over the views of certain people who are driven by their hearts rather than their heads. There is no talk of extermination here only an effort to see if the pernicious scourge of TB can be reduced and not only save the heartache endured by farmers but the enormous cost to the country. It surely makes sense to give it a fair trial and see once and for all if it is the solution.
On a slightly different tack, the badger is one of the top predators, the top one of course is man. We have altered the countryside in this country over the last few hundred years, to a vast degree, whether or not we like it this then brings the resposibility of controling not only the soil but everything else connected with it. You cannot leave anything that is virtually impervious to attack from anything else to thrive at the expense of everything else. Rabbits, rats and other creatures are controlled out of necessity, if they weren't there would be chaos. Over the years I have seen the impact a vastly increasing badger population has had on the countryside around my area. Hedgehogs have all but disappeared, at one time you could see evidence of dug out bumblebees nests, now they are a rarity as are the occupants. Raids on poultry are now as common by badgers as they are by foxes. It is now common to see standing corn, particularly wheat flattened by badgers, one farm I know has had something like four acres destroyed; at three tons an acre and the price of corn as it is the farmer wasn't a happy man. Should he be forced to stand by and see this type of damage increase year by year?
Common sense should prevail, it won't of course; take badgers off the protected list. Bring in draconion laws to prevent digging, baiting etc: and let those that have a problem deal with it and those that don't leave them alone. I'm afraid that's too simple though!

Very well put old keeper.
My personal opinion on species protection is that the protection level should be reviewed every 5 years or so, and altered accordingly if any animals are becoming too problematic. But again, that would require a small ammount of common sense from the powers that be!
 
lol. Though I think you'd be surprised... I know of quite a few biologists in your area who are card carrying BASC members, Telegraph readers and avid stalkers/shooters.

No I wouldn't - I could probably name several of them - having read your profile, I knew it'd wind you up! :D

Fortunately no cows in my area.

Or hedgehogs.
Or dormice.
Or...blah, blah, blah
 
Agree entirely with Old Keeper, remember its just a very big and powerfull weasel and as such nothing up to 1.3m off the ground is safe.

Prior to the fox hunting ban badgers were controlled by the hunts and the numbers were kept in check, now they are everywhere. I think farmers must shoulder some of the blame with the huge acrage of maize being grown and badgers fondness for the stuff.

Oh how i would wish for springwatch to show a badger digging out a bumble bee nest, better still making short work of a hedgehog on somebodys back lawn.

On my uncles farm in Wales there is nothing left, no rabbits/hares. Land use has not changed in decades yet last year all the wasp nests and rabbit stops had been dug out, badger runs everywhere.

The issue is we have got the Kate Humbles and Bill Oddies of this world showing only one side of the story and 90% of the general public haven't a clue about the other side.

Nobody wants to see the badger erradicated but the population needs to be drastically reduced in some areas and farmers and wildlife would benefit.

If you go onto DEFRA's site there is a big document on the proposals for the training course for training the shooters who will be doing the cull, intresting reading, just wonder who out there has the relevant experience to be the course organiser/tutor.

D
 
Back
Top