What are your opinions of the badger cull?

What do you think of the government's trial period of the badger cull to tackle bovine tuberculosis?

I am personally against it. Is it really worth killing 70% of the nations badgers for an estimated 16% decrease in cases of bovine tuberculosis?

Reply 1

whyumadtho

14

They plan to kill 10,000 a year for the next four years if the trial is successful. :dong:

Reply 2

Arceus

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger

Reply 3

james22

16

So long as enough remain to keep the badger population stable I have no problem with it.

Reply 4

ThatPerson

18

My opinion is that badgers are cute. Therefore they shouldn't be culled :tongue:

Reply 5

fluttershy

9

I think the majority of evidence is against it, and the arguments to support it are mostly based on emotion rather than fact. It says something when Lord Krebs who carried out research into the previous culling trial and is one of the governments top advisers says that it is a bad idea and that vaccination and improved bio-security would work better. Not only is it cruel, but it's also dangerous. His research, with DEFRA acknowledges, shows that a cull of 70% is required, and less could actually make the situation worse. Accurate gauging of the number of badgers in an area is very difficult though so there is a risk that fewer than required will be killed and things will get worse. Kill too many though and it risks localised extinction. Badgers are an important part of the ecosystem, so loosing them even locally could have a serious impact. Many wild animals have an economic value, doing jobs that humans would otherwise have to do. Of cource the same pest controllers and sports hunters who are often behind culls are the same ones who benefit when reduction in numbers of one species requires control or increased control of another species.

Of course the big emotional arguments for it come in two forms. "Poor farmer" when farmers actually get pretty decent compensation, and consumer pressure for a cheap pint is doing far more harm to dairy farmers than bovine TB is. Alternative, for the animal lovers, is "poor cows". This argument would hold more water if most cows lived happy, full lives and died peacefully at a natural old age. The reality is that all dairy cows will go for slaughter, it's just those with TB will die a little earlier. When few dairy cows live to be 4 (compared to a natural life expectancy of about 20) then the idea of bovine TB leading to them being slaughtered a a little bit earlier really means little. At least they live longer than dairy bulls anyway, which since they can't produce milk are often killed shortly after birth, or will live short lives before being sold for low quality beef (and if the industry had it's way they'd be stuffed in veal crates before being slaughtered).

At least the antis can come up with decent and scientifically backed arguments alongside "it's cruel", "poor badgers" and "badgers are cute".

Reply 6

TimHuak

9

I support the cull 100%

Reply 7

InnerTemple

20

Considering that most of the evidence, even that of the Government's top adviser, is suggesting that the cull will be infective, the only logical conclusion is to be against the cull.

Reply 8

Aduk

Scientific experiments from Lord Krebs who has worked for successive governments, conducting research for the National Environment Council, and the chairing of the Food Standards Agency, have proved that culling is an ineffective killing method. Infact, culling spreads the TB infection, as badgers move to other places.

TB only effects 0.5 % of cows in farms in this country, so it's hardly a huge issue. The likes of the David Attenborough, Brian May, and the Badgers Trust have all condemned this practice. So the current self-centred government and farmers are going to ignore the facts that stare them in the face, and the opposition from a respected scientist such as Krebs, a respected BBC figure such as David Attenborough, and a respected musician such as May. It's beyond crazy to go ahead with this scheme that would be a disaster to the environmental landscape of this country.

And call me a loony left-winger but I think it's the truth.

Reply 9

Livingstone

12

I thought it said Badger Cult, like it was some kind of new religion.

Reply 10

username458263

9

I'm against it. We have the science, and the cute badgers. WTF government?

Reply 11

SnoochToTheBooch

17

badgers are cute and ergo should not be culled. **** the farmers.

Reply 12

Kiss

2

Original post by ThatPerson

My opinion is that badgers are cute. Therefore they shouldn't be culled :tongue:

I think thats a poor logic to work things out on.

Reply 13

badcheesecrispy

2

its disgusting and shows the savagery of the current government

why do humans believe they have the right to invade animals home environments and kill them? the planet has far too many humans, they take over beautiful animals natural environments and pollute and destroy them, they go into their homes, kill the mothers and sell babies as exotic 'pets' where wild animals live miserable lives, yet they still consider themselves more important than critically endangered species

pathetic, another thing that makes me detest the human race even more

Reply 14

badcheesecrispy

2

Original post by TimHuak

I support the cull 100%

are yo dumb blud?

the practice of killing dogs, government backed in bangladesh supposedly to stop rabies has failed miserably, it doesnt work and instead dogs are now being vaccinated by animal charities and collars being given to show the dog is safe and is rabies free, as its the only way of preventing rabies

killing animals does not stop it

catching and vaccinating the animals will

Reply 15

coopsyy

1

All us farmers want to do is wipe out TB too, just without destroying farmers lives. Why is a badger more important than a family and its income?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 16

prog2djent

I am against it. Who did badgers ever hurt? And if its a disease thing can't they vaccinate them/get to the source?

Reply 17

coopsyy

1

Original post by fluttershy

I think the majority of evidence is against it, and the arguments to support it are mostly based on emotion rather than fact. It says something when Lord Krebs who carried out research into the previous culling trial and is one of the governments top advisers says that it is a bad idea and that vaccination and improved bio-security would work better. Not only is it cruel, but it's also dangerous. His research, with DEFRA acknowledges, shows that a cull of 70% is required, and less could actually make the situation worse. Accurate gauging of the number of badgers in an area is very difficult though so there is a risk that fewer than required will be killed and things will get worse. Kill too many though and it risks localised extinction. Badgers are an important part of the ecosystem, so loosing them even locally could have a serious impact. Many wild animals have an economic value, doing jobs that humans would otherwise have to do. Of cource the same pest controllers and sports hunters who are often behind culls are the same ones who benefit when reduction in numbers of one species requires control or increased control of another species.

Of course the big emotional arguments for it come in two forms. "Poor farmer" when farmers actually get pretty decent compensation, and consumer pressure for a cheap pint is doing far more harm to dairy farmers than bovine TB is. Alternative, for the animal lovers, is "poor cows". This argument would hold more water if most cows lived happy, full lives and died peacefully at a natural old age. The reality is that all dairy cows will go for slaughter, it's just those with TB will die a little earlier. When few dairy cows live to be 4 (compared to a natural life expectancy of about 20) then the idea of bovine TB leading to them being slaughtered a a little bit earlier really means little. At least they live longer than dairy bulls anyway, which since they can't produce milk are often killed shortly after birth, or will live short lives before being sold for low quality beef (and if the industry had it's way they'd be stuffed in veal crates before being slaughtered).

At least the antis can come up with decent and scientifically backed arguments alongside "it's cruel", "poor badgers" and "badgers are cute".

I'd like to know where you get all your facts about dairy farming from. Have you ever set foot on a farm?

Compensation is no where near the actually worth of the animal. Compensation is higher in wales and Scotland, but still no where near what the cows are worth.

All dairy cows will go to slaughter? Really?? Hardly any dairy cows go to slaughter, no where near enough meet on them to sell as beef.

Few dairy cows live to the age of 4 - where the hell did you get that? To start with, most cows don't start producing milk, their first lactation, till about 30-36 months when they have their first calf, so about 3 years old. So you're trying to say cows only last one lactation? Obviously it depends on the dairy breed, as some are more intensive milkers than others, but the average age in this country I would guess at about 8 - I've milked cows that are 10/11/12. As long as you keep the heard healthy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 18

ellaapplepie

1

It's ridiculous, cruel, scientifically unreliable and just another example of the disgusting anthropocentrism that so many people seem to believe in.
But that's just my opinion, of course.