PDA

View Full Version : Badger Cull



Milo
02-03--2006, 12:54 AM
You can take action against the badger cull here (http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm).

http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm

Sunny
02-03--2006, 09:44 PM
Arrrrgh this badger cull!! **looks exasperated** Prejudice against badgers has been going on for such a long time now. Hmm.... 80% of TB cases are passed from cattle to cattle. To me, that doesn't justify culling thousands of badgers across the country. Again it seems like another problem that is exacerbated by animal transport and/or overly close and cramped living conditions.

For anybody who hasn't heard about this cull... There is quite a good factual page on it on the RSPCA website here ----> http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=badgers&marker=1&articleId=1137587636944

Here in Devon there are a lot of cases of farmers killing badgers and then throwing them on the road so that they look like road kill. I think the badgers have a lot against them at the moment :eek:.

Love,
Sunny
xxx

Exedous
02-03--2006, 10:48 PM
If i caught folk killing badgers..id probably do...ooo... 8 years and id still not change my views. I hate..those sick, sad..low life's who reckon they're hard, coz they kill badgers????....

Education or Elimination...?? You decide..

:patch:

Aunty Al
03-03--2006, 06:30 PM
You can take action against the badger cull here (http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm).

http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm

Thanks Milo! Done :thumbup:

matthew
03-03--2006, 07:05 PM
I think in the interest of fairness a link should be added that has the goverments positition.:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/culling/p5whykil.htm

It might be a horrible thing to do..but i DO think it should not be removed from the table..



If i caught folk killing badgers..id probably do...ooo... 8 years and id still not change my views. I hate..those sick, sad..low life's who reckon they're hard, coz they kill badgers????....

Education or Elimination...?? You decide..



If i caught somebody killing a badger for no reason i would do 10.. but it is not 'mindless killing' .. It MIGHT be required.. we have to accept that as a possibility.

Rook
03-03--2006, 07:10 PM
Ta Mate. Been there and Done it. And you saved me scouring the internet to find it. Bright Blessings on ya.

Sunny
03-03--2006, 07:20 PM
I think in the interest of fairness a link should be added that has the goverments positition.:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/culling/p5whykil.htm

It might be a horrible thing to do..but i DO think it should not be removed from the table..



If i caught somebody killing a badger for no reason i would do 10.. but it is not 'mindless killing' .. It MIGHT be required.. we have to accept that as a possibility.

Yes... And i'm glad you've put that link up too, but this persecution of badgers is something that has gone on for a long time. Farmers in particular have been itching to find a good excuse for a large badger cull on the Governments decisions. Badgers have possibly more legal protection than any other British Wildlife, which has made killing them extensively really difficult in the past. So this is a perfect excuse.

"Although both badgers and cattle have been shown to carry bTB there has been much debate around the transmission of the disease between the two species." The very fact that there is still debate over this should be reason not to go ahead with a large badger cull.

Saying that, hedgehogs are becoming quite endangered, partly because of the increase in badgers. Badgers are the only animal that can use their claws to open curled up hedgehogs and eat them from the inside out. Hedgehogs do seem to be extremely unfortunatle little creatures anyway though - they've got so much against them!

Sunny
xxx

Exedous
03-03--2006, 11:05 PM
If i caught somebody killing a badger for no reason i would do 10.. but it is not 'mindless killing' .. It MIGHT be required.. we have to accept that as a possibility.

Eh????? ...It MIGHT be required???? WTF???
Explain???

:patch:

Milo
05-03--2006, 09:48 PM
Matthew's from another planet.

Exedous
06-03--2006, 11:27 AM
Matthew's from another planet.
Its that line -----> It MIGHT be required???? How??...Im confused...

:patch:

Aunty Al
06-03--2006, 12:34 PM
I can't understand the governemtn position that they can't establish a link between badgers and bovine TB in cows so they are killing the badgers to do post-mortems on them to find out. They don't kill humans to diagnose disease! Excuse me Mrs Jones, we think your husband may have TB so we need to kill your whole family to try to find out if he really has and if any of your family may also have it.

Exedous
06-03--2006, 12:39 PM
I can't understand the governemtn position that they can't establish a link between badgers and bovine TB in cows so they are killing the badgers to do post-mortems on them to find out. They don't kill humans to diagnose disease! Excuse me Mrs Jones, we think your husband may have TB so we need to kill your whole family to try to find out if he really has and if any of your family may also have it.

:clap:

Brick
08-03--2006, 09:45 AM
From the beeb of all places: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4783368.stm
Seems like replacing and properly maintaining hedgerows would be more effective than random slaughter. :whistle:

deadgirl
08-03--2006, 10:43 AM
badger fur coat:)

Exedous
08-03--2006, 11:18 AM
Seems like replacing and properly maintaining hedgerows would be more effective than random slaughter. :whistle:


...and HOW long has it taken them....?? :whistle:

:patch:

Aunty Al
08-03--2006, 12:11 PM
"Habitat could influence disease transmission; but you wouldn't want to go out now and tell people to grow longer hedgerows."
Why the heck not? It would seem to make a lot more sense than saying kill all the badgers because there may be an unproven link between them and bovine TB

Sunny
08-03--2006, 01:58 PM
"Habitat could influence disease transmission; but you wouldn't want to go out now and tell people to grow longer hedgerows."
Why the heck not? It would seem to make a lot more sense than saying kill all the badgers because there may be an unproven link between them and bovine TB




Exactly. They also go to say, "it could be that either badgers or cattle living on ecologically managed farms are healthier, raising their immunity." Too right!

Another thought. It doesn't make sense to cull so many healthy badgers. If they cull badgers that are not infected, just to fill the cull, they then encourage infected badgers to move into that territory... So they're not helping the problem at all.

Sunny
xxx

Aunty Al
08-03--2006, 03:44 PM
Yeah, the research said that a partial cull would make things worse. Its scary cos they could use this to justify a total cull of all badgers. Thankfully, I think that that would raise such an outrage that they would have to look at alternatives

Milo
08-03--2006, 04:00 PM
The deadline for responses to this consultation is 10 March 2006.

Click http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm

Brick
08-03--2006, 04:18 PM
The deadline for responses to this consultation is 10 March 2006.

Click http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm

Thanks for that! I've sent an email response using they're standard form but adding:
"In addition, there is evidence to suggest that an 'improving' method, that of increasing the quantity and quality or hedgerows, reduces TB incidence by up to 60% without recourse to badger culling. This may work by seperating cattle from other carrier species, such as badgers. It may also work (and more likely) by forming barriers between cattle populations hindering the spread of TB."
Just before the "Therefore, I object to all your proposals..." section.

Milo
08-03--2006, 04:23 PM
Thanks, dude. I can see the sense in it, but what's your source on the "improving method"?

The deadline for responses to this consultation is 10 March 2006.

Click http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/cam...gers/index.htm (http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm)

Brick
08-03--2006, 04:26 PM
Thanks, dude. I can see the sense in it, but what's your source on the "improving method"?

The deadline for responses to this consultation is 10 March 2006.

Click http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/cam...gers/index.htm (http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/agriculture/badgers/index.htm)
From earlier in the thread:


From the beeb of all places: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4783368.stm
Seems like replacing and properly maintaining hedgerows would be more effective than random slaughter.
:)

matthew
08-03--2006, 06:12 PM
Eh????? ...It MIGHT be required???? WTF???
Explain???

:patch:

I thought i did..sorry.

It might be a horrible thing to do..but i DO think it should not be removed from the table..

You have imho 3 things in the equation badgers cattle and the countryside.. Would you be up in arms if the cattle were in the place of the badgers ? 'Somethings gotta give'... The only option that does not include animals is the improvement of the hedgegroves..
Ok you improve the hedgegroves.. and after that their is still a issue !.. one down two to go.

It is not like the goverment has made a snap dicision 'out of the blue'.. just to kill some badgers.. It has always been a possibility not a enevitability imho.


Matthew's from another planet

charming.... hahahahaha

Nope i am from the same planet as yourselves.. just walking a different path..that is all. :o

I could just say 'save the badgers' and i am in favour of 'saving the badger'.. but sometimes you have to be a realist and a bit pragmatic about these issues.. Not saying you are not [or anybody is not, within this thread-digs self out of grave :o ]..

Somebody has to say these things.

Milo
08-03--2006, 06:24 PM
* Somebody has to say these things.

Only if it's what you think is right, Matthew. You've admitted elsewhere that you enjoy arguing and your views do seem to be consistently contrary. Had you considered that we don't need cattle?

matthew
08-03--2006, 07:21 PM
* Somebody has to say these things.

Only if it's what you think is right, Matthew. You've admitted elsewhere that you enjoy arguing and your views do seem to be consistently contrary. Had you considered that we don't need cattle?

I am not argueing though..
I am not even saying a cull should happen..
I just say it 'should not be taken off the table' ..
The only reason i said ''somebody has to say it'' is because somebody does imho.
As this is in the 'animal welfare' not 'protest' so i hoped it was not 'against the rules' to add something that seemingly is 'consistently contrary'.

I hoped my further comments added to why i said it.. it was not a attempt to start a arguement.. just my rationale.

My views are consistently contrary within the threads that i think contary to what is being said or implied..

I don't wade into EVERY debate and just say the opposite for ''shits an giggles'' ...

I sometimes don't think the same as many around here.. is this a crime ?.



Had you considered that we don't need cattle?


Erm it had sort of crossed my mind.. but millions of people including farmers would be either very pissed off or lose their lively hoods.. WHY should thousands and thousands [if not a million] of cattle be slaughtered ?.. again this is seemingly consistently contrary .. but it is true and a valid question.

Now you're provoking me hehehehe

Milo
08-03--2006, 11:42 PM
Had you considered that we don't need cattle?


Erm it had sort of crossed my mind.. but millions of people including farmers would be either very pissed off or lose their lively hoods.. WHY should thousands and thousands [if not a million] of cattle be slaughtered ?.. again this is seemingly consistently contrary .. but it is true and a valid question.

Now you're provoking me hehehehe

A little provocation may not be such a bad thing? But I thought you might have stepped "outside the box" on this one, Matthew.

Cattle in the UK have already been killed for meat by the age of 15 months to two years.


The total number of animals killed in British slaughterhouses in 2003 was approximately 900 million.

This included 9.35 million pigs, nearly 15 million sheep, 28 million turkeys, 20 million ducks, over 850 million chickens and 2.25 million cattle. This equates to 2.4 million animals slaughtered every day; 100,000 an hour; 1600 per minute and 26 every second.

So all the farmers need to do is to stop producing cattle, etc. and grow non-meat foods - easy!

Aunty Al
09-03--2006, 08:57 AM
I am not even saying a cull should happen..
I just say it 'should not be taken off the table' ..
The only reason i said ''somebody has to say it'' is because somebody does imho.
If there was any more certainty than a vague feeling that killing badgers might in some way or other help a bit, then sure it would need to be considered. But they don't seem to have much solid research to say that it definately will make a difference. Its an attitude that says that the lives of badgers don't matter because they're not a cash crop, so if the cull makes no differnce, there's no real loss that is just so darn wrong. I know that everyone doesn't value life, a lot of people don't even seem to value other people's lives so they aren't going to give tuppence for animals. But there are some of us that believe that animals deserve the chance to live their lives too and until they can totally justify their actions and KNOW its the solution, there should not be a single badger killed. IMHO!

ecomamma
09-03--2006, 08:18 PM
:thumbup: lets hope this works

matthew
09-03--2006, 08:30 PM
Had you considered that we don't need cattle?

We ? as in Po faced veggies.. yes i have considered that it would be nice if cattle was removed from the British dinner plate.. But what right have we to do that ?. You can't just clamp on another agenda.


A little provocation may not be such a bad thing? But I thought you might have stepped "outside the box" on this one, Matthew.

I appreciate cattle are killed anyway.. and stopping producing them would remove them from the equation.. Thus saving the badgers [in this idealised turn of events...] This will never be , inflicting our morals onto the 'meat eaters' to save some badgers is WRONG..

The mechanisation of animal killing for food..makes my stomach turn.. but visiting farms .. you appreciate these farmers care for their animals and its a fact of life they will eventually head on to the slaughter house.. Animals eat animals..thats just the way it is.. We have become 'sophisticated' in our means of killing.. but that does not change the fact it is 'natural' that 'man' eats animal.

This i guess is not news to you..so i won't patronise you.. This kinda language should be left to PETA.. ''stop producing cattle'' ..

I just think that is wrong..

This issue is not effecting the whole country.. so what do we do kill the cattle in the effected regions..save the badgers and problem solved.. ?.

It may work in your 'no cattle world' but that is SO selfish maybe even self indulgent... i know it is unreasonable.






So all the farmers need to do is to stop producing cattle, etc. and grow non-meat foods - easy


Great idea.. wonderful infact.. but what right have we to do that ?.

It would keep us 'badger lovers' happy and we would cheer for getting our own way...
No matter how we may feel EVERYBODY involved has the same right to want what is best for them.. hence over ten years of argeueing about the best course of action..

My point is that it MIGHT be a option that is required.. i don't believe a choice will be made lightly.. Nobody has hindsight to see the outcome..
Limiting the options may just make this issue go on long after the bager No.s have grown back to pre cull levels.

Sunny
09-03--2006, 08:41 PM
If there was any more certainty than a vague feeling that killing badgers might in some way or other help a bit, then sure it would need to be considered. But they don't seem to have much solid research to say that it definately will make a difference. Its an attitude that says that the lives of badgers don't matter because they're not a cash crop, so if the cull makes no differnce, there's no real loss that is just so darn wrong. I know that everyone doesn't value life, a lot of people don't even seem to value other people's lives so they aren't going to give tuppence for animals. But there are some of us that believe that animals deserve the chance to live their lives too and until they can totally justify their actions and KNOW its the solution, there should not be a single badger killed. IMHO!

That is one of my main reasons for being against this badger cull too. It is really unacceptable that the government are planning to go ahead with such a major cull, when they haven't properly researched it. If nothing else, it is a waste of time and money that the government could be spending on better things. Added to that, the sheer effect such a huge massacre will have on the environment, and to the general badger population, is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Especially when there is a big enough chance that they aren't even causing TB in a big way.
It looks very likely, if you look at that article about hedge maintenence (and at common sense) that the way the livestock are kept definately contributes towards their welfare and the number of stock with TB. This goes to show that possibly even a slight change in farming methods could be a more effective solution to the problem.
Surely this would be more sensible than to leap into an extreme cull of thousands of possibly uninfected badgers?

Sunny
xxx

matthew
09-03--2006, 08:42 PM
[quote=Aunty Al]If there was any more certainty than a vague feeling that killing badgers might in some way or other help a bit, then sure it would need to be considered.

That is awfully blinded to the reality of years and years of research that has been carried out..

The New Strategic Framework

A ten-year Government Strategic Framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in Great Britain (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/tb-strategicframework.pdf) http://www.defra.gov.uk/graphics/buttons/pdf.gif (889 KB) was published in March 2005. Through this framework Government aims to bring about a sustainable improvement in control of bTB over the next 10 years.

The framework builds upon the 1998 5-point plan of action and has been guided by the principles of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/default.htm), launched in June 2004. It sets out a vision for the future, along with 12 strategic goals (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/strategy/goals.htm), new commitments and principles that will be applied to achieve these. Specific disease control policies will be tailored to reflect the regional variation in disease and risk, and adjusted to make best use of emerging scientific findings.
It is vital that people recognise this isn’t just a matter for Government. The effective control of this disease will only be possible in partnership with stakeholders including farmers, vets and wildlife groups. We all have responsibilities when tackling bTB and this new strategy defines how we can work together to beat this disease.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/strategy/newstrategy.htm


But they don't seem to have much solid research to say that it definately will make a difference.

I bet they have more research that says it MIGHT than you probably have that it wil not.


Its an attitude that says that the lives of badgers don't matter because they're not a cash crop, so if the cull makes no differnce, there's no real loss that is just so darn wrong.

If it was just the farmers i may agree.. but it is Defra that is behind this..they want the best for everbody including the badgers.. lets not forget that.


I know that everyone doesn't value life, a lot of people don't even seem to value other people's lives so they aren't going to give tuppence for animals.

Thankfully those kinda people won't be making the dicision.



But there are some of us that believe that animals deserve the chance to live their lives too and until they can totally
justify their actions and KNOW its the solution, there should not be a single badger killed. IMHO!



I know i am comeing across as a 'Devils advocate' and possibly maybe a little bit of a bastard.. but i AM thinking about the outcome and DO hope the best option is found.. it WILL then be BETTER for ALL in the end..

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.:o

Sunny
09-03--2006, 08:49 PM
This i guess is not news to you..so i won't patronise you.. This kinda language should be left to PETA.. ''stop producing cattle'' ..

I just think that is wrong..

I with that Matthew... But don't you think it'd be better to try less extreme methods to the problem of TB first, rather than jumping head on into a large cull? [[i'm repeating myself i think, sorry!]] Surely it would be better to try to work towards a result where neither cattle nor badgers have been culled for no particular reason... And it *is* no particular reason. They have no way of really knowing which badgers are infected or not unless they cull them, therefore there will be a lot of completely unnecessary deaths...
That goes back to what i said about territory. It just seems ridiculous to be randomly killing badgers, and creating spaces where healthy badgers have been before - therefore opening a territory for infected badgers to move into...

Blegh...

Sunnny
xxx

Milo
09-03--2006, 09:26 PM
* We ? as in Po faced veggies.. yes i have considered that it would be nice if cattle was removed from the British dinner plate.. But what right have we to do that ?. You can't just clamp on another agenda.

No, one can't. One doesn't intend to try either, but if sometimes we're po-faced it might be because of the totally unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals every year?

* I appreciate cattle are killed anyway.. and stopping producing them would remove them from the equation.. Thus saving the badgers [in this idealised turn of events...] This will never be , inflicting our morals onto the 'meat eaters' to save some badgers is WRONG..

Idealised is a good place to start though, don't you think? And the totally unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals very year is somehow RIGHT?

* The mechanisation of animal killing for food..makes my stomach turn.. but visiting farms .. you appreciate these farmers care for their animals

To varying degrees and only up until they stop caring.

* and its a fact of life they will eventually head on to the slaughter house..

Unnecessarily.

* Animals eat animals..thats just the way it is.. We have become 'sophisticated' in our means of killing.. but that does not change the fact it is 'natural' that 'man' eats animal.

Are we obliged to comply with what is natural? Should I get rid of my pc, my campervan, my house?

* This i guess is not news to you..so i won't patronise you.. This kinda language should be left to PETA.. ''stop producing cattle'' .. I just think that is wrong..

It was not an instruction.

* This issue is not effecting the whole country.. so what do we do kill the cattle in the effected regions..save the badgers and problem solved.. ?. It may work in your 'no cattle world' but that is SO selfish maybe even self indulgent... i know it is unreasonable.

Do you mean unfair rather than unreasonable? We have reasoned it, haven't we? Unfair to whom? Unfair to which animals? Are badgers more or less entitled to an existence than cattle? Are people entitled to kill animals for no good reason?

How about a "no cattle Britain" first? In what respect would this be "SO selfish"? In that it would prevent people from unnecessarily killing cows?

What is your angle on this? You surely can't be of the veggie persuasion, if you think that the killing in British slaughterhouses of 900 million animals to provide unnecessary food is reasonable and fair.

Sunny
09-03--2006, 10:09 PM
I sometimes don't think the same as many around here.. is this a crime ?.

I think it's really good... I find it a shame really when a post is put up and everybody agrees, has a little rant about it, then that is post over. I suppose you've got something off your chest talking to likeminded people about it, but I do think you can sometimes learn a lot more if you're pushed to delve into the opinions of yourself and others even more... Heh, this is coming from somebody who supposedly doesn't even like debates! :o


This issue is not effecting the whole country.. so what do we do kill the cattle in the effected regions..save the badgers and problem solved.. ?

It is effecting the whole country... Take away thousands of badgers that have been pretty well established for a number of decades now, and you're definately going to create a big effect on the whole british ecosystem... I suppose that sounds extreme, but seriously, badgers are one of Britain's few well established predators - they're pretty damn important! The loss of so many badgers will effect the number of birds, mammals, plants, insects.. all the things that we can ignorantly ignore, but are essential to our own survival at the end of the day. We're all linked....


Love,
Sunny
xxx

Aunty Al
10-03--2006, 10:33 AM
I bet they have more research that says it MIGHT than you probably have that it wil not.
But that's kinda my point! Even with all the research they've done they can't say with any certainty that badgers are even involved in spreading the disease, let alone that killing them will help the situation. Its an irreversible decision to start a cull and I just don't feel that that can be justifeied on the grounds of ifs buts and maybes.

Furthermore, the culling trials in Ireland were considered ineffective and would not be used as a means of control of the disease in Ireland. In what way then would culling in Britain provide a more effective solution than it was in Ireland?

spacehopper
10-03--2006, 12:27 PM
Article on the proposed cull in the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1725255,00.html

Sunny
10-03--2006, 01:03 PM
Article on the proposed cull in the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1725255,00.html

I recommend reading that, it's a really interesting article...

Aunty Al
10-03--2006, 02:56 PM
Yeah, thanks for posting it spacehopper.

Sunny
10-03--2006, 05:56 PM
This is what it says in my local paper, the north devon journal
(http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=143632&command=displayContent&sourceNode=142719&contentPK=14158600&folderPk=91672)...

IT'S TIME TO GRASP THE NETTLE AND ORDER A CULL

07:02 - 10 March 2006 Today marks the closure of the consultation period on a plan to defeat the spread of bovine tuberculosis and the involvement of its wildlife vectors - badgers and deer.

It is a day for a hard decision to be taken by you: whether you should order the culling of diseased badgers throughout hotspot areas. The WMN hopes that, for the sake of the region's farming community, wildlife and countryside, at long last you will grasp the nettle and order a cull. There have been so many reports, trials and strategies, but only recently has the conclusive evidence been confirmed that culling infected badgers will help halt the disease spread - something many farmers have known for years.

The lobby against a cull has been vociferous, and the financial support some of them give the Labour Party is well known. That may make it all the more difficult for you, but the time has come for you to face up to tackling the biggest animal health problem the livestock industry currently faces.

The number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered has risen from 638 annually 20 years ago to 29,585 last year, and the cost of the disease to the taxpayer has risen to 90.5 million a year. This cannot be allowed to continue. It is the Government's statutory responsibility to eradicate this dreadful disease.

We are not suggesting there should be a cull of healthy badgers. But to make a cull of diseased badgers effective it must be carried out over a wide area, in a very short space of time. Otherwise diseased animals will migrate to infect healthy colonies.

The cull must be led by Defra, who have trained wildlife officers more than capable of doing the job. It is ironic that dozens of these officers, based in Cornwall and Gloucestershire, face redundancy as a result of cuts imposed by the Treasury.

Putting the onus of carrying out a cull of diseased badgers on farmers appears to be a cynical move by the Government to offload responsibility and "shift the blame" to a community that has already suffered enough, a rural population all too easily targeted by extremist animal rights groups.

Experts say gassing is the most effective and viable culling method and that rather than wait for tests to establish a special gas, fumes from tractor exhausts should be used in high disease incidence areas, a simple expedient and possibly the most humane solution.

Gassing, we believe, should be supervised by the Defra wildlife officers, and personal information about farmers involved should not be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now is the time to show strong leadership. For the sake of the beef and dairy industries (and the taxpayer), for the future health of thousands of cattle, and - by no means least - for the wellbeing of a healthy badger population, the decision to cull must be taken now.

What do you think? That article worries me... It is strange though, most of the farmers in the village are opposed to the badger cull...

Sunny
xxx

matthew
10-03--2006, 06:56 PM
* We ? as in Po faced veggies.. yes i have considered that it would be nice if cattle was removed from the British dinner plate.. But what right have we to do that ?. You can't just clamp on another agenda.

No, one can't. One doesn't intend to try either, but if sometimes we're po-faced it might be because of the totally unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals every year?

* I appreciate cattle are killed anyway.. and stopping producing them would remove them from the equation.. Thus saving the badgers [in this idealised turn of events...] This will never be , inflicting our morals onto the 'meat eaters' to save some badgers is WRONG..

Idealised is a good place to start though, don't you think? And the totally unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals very year is somehow RIGHT?

* The mechanisation of animal killing for food..makes my stomach turn.. but visiting farms .. you appreciate these farmers care for their animals

To varying degrees and only up until they stop caring.

* and its a fact of life they will eventually head on to the slaughter house..

Unnecessarily.

* Animals eat animals..thats just the way it is.. We have become 'sophisticated' in our means of killing.. but that does not change the fact it is 'natural' that 'man' eats animal.

Are we obliged to comply with what is natural? Should I get rid of my pc, my campervan, my house?

* This i guess is not news to you..so i won't patronise you.. This kinda language should be left to PETA.. ''stop producing cattle'' .. I just think that is wrong..

It was not an instruction.


* This issue is not effecting the whole country.. so what do we do kill the cattle in the effected regions..save the badgers and problem solved.. ?. It may work in your 'no cattle world' but that is SO selfish maybe even self indulgent... i know it is unreasonable.

Do you mean unfair rather than unreasonable? We have reasoned it, haven't we? Unfair to whom? Unfair to which animals? Are badgers more or less entitled to an existence than cattle? Are people entitled to kill animals for no good reason?



How about a "no cattle Britain" first? In what respect would this be "SO selfish"? In that it would prevent people from unnecessarily killing cows?






What is your angle on this? You surely can't be of the veggie persuasion, if you think that the killing in British slaughterhouses of 900 million animals to provide unnecessary food is reasonable and fair.


No offence but i think you are contradicting yourself a little.. so i won't attempt to respond to the previous points...

I AM a veggie have been for about 10 years..
The ''other planet'' that you seem to think i am on, is one in wich people eat meat.. i was going to say ''they have every right'' but i am sure you would conclude ''no they don't ''..
I DO admire and once upon a time shared you position on this..

We are effectively ''hunter gatherers'' our bodies have evolved into ''meat eating'' .. it's a simple fact we can't avoid.

We can reflect on the morals of it all and how awful it all is [all those cattle being killed] and deciede NOT to eat meat.
We can't though change the world to the degree that you wish..
The end result of me thinking about it was ''it aint fair''.. i am sorry i can't articulate it any better than that..

matthew
10-03--2006, 07:00 PM
I think it's really good... I find it a shame really when a post is put up and everybody agrees, has a little rant about it, then that is post over. I suppose you've got something off your chest talking to likeminded people about it, but I do think you can sometimes learn a lot more if you're pushed to delve into the opinions of yourself and others even more... Heh, this is coming from somebody who supposedly doesn't even like debates! :o

I think i should not have opened my big mouth to be honest with you.. but i agree with what you are saying.. maybe at the back of my mind .. that IS why i decieded to post.. i hasten to add it was a HONEST opinion of myself.. and NOT one to stir up the hornets nest..





We're all linked....


Love,
Sunny
xxx


I am gonna agree with you i have to really, you make a good point and it would be a bit wrong of me to ignore it. The dilema of it all and why it is SO difficult.

matthew
10-03--2006, 07:03 PM
I recommend reading that, it's a really interesting article...

I read that.. bit ''pulling at the heart strings'' with the images but i guess quite a decent article all in all.

Atomik
10-03--2006, 07:17 PM
We are effectively ''hunter gatherers'' our bodies have evolved into ''meat eating'' .. it's a simple fact we can't avoid.At the risk of opening a wider debate, I'm gonna have to pull you on that. Our bodies have not evolved to the point where meat is our natural foodstuff. Evolution takes a lot longer than that! However, we were never true vegetarians either. We're equipped more as scavengers. So while we may have eaten meat when we were 'in the wild', it would've been in very small quantities - either the remains of other creatures' kills, or small animals we could've caught and killed ourselves with our bare hands (which ain't many!).

Marlboro
10-03--2006, 11:25 PM
If I could, I'd take in every single Badger to save them from being killed. It's completly terrible! I wonder if any other person would take a bullet for an animal..

matthew
11-03--2006, 12:02 PM
At the risk of opening a wider debate, I'm gonna have to pull you on that. Our bodies have not evolved to the point where meat is our natural foodstuff. Evolution takes a lot longer than that! However, we were never true vegetarians either. We're equipped more as scavengers. So while we may have eaten meat when we were 'in the wild', it would've been in very small quantities - either the remains of other creatures' kills, or small animals we could've caught and killed ourselves with our bare hands (which ain't many!).

I never said anythink like

''Our bodies have not evolved to the point where meat is our natural foodstuff.''

I meant our teeth our digestive capability etc evolved to accept meat into our diet...
I agree nor or is it a fact we need to eat it in the quantity some do, people are just greedy.... I did not mean that we actively seeked meat because it was a imperitive like for a carnivore.. we just ate it because it was food just like eating plants.

Marlboro
11-03--2006, 12:19 PM
Just to add, our teeth stop growing at a certain point when the root closes. If one was a herbivore (considering one was a herbivirous animal), the teeth would continue to grow, as the root would not close. Because our root closes, means our body was designed to eat meat. But I'm sure you all knew that. :topic:

matthew
11-03--2006, 12:23 PM
Just to add, our teeth stop growing at a certain point when the root closes. If one was a herbivore (considering one was a herbivirous animal), the teeth would continue to grow, as the root would not close. Because our root closes, means our body was designed to eat meat. But I'm sure you all knew that. :topic:


I did not.. i guess it backs up a little bit what i was saying..thanks.

PeacePiper
15-03--2006, 03:58 PM
Just to add, our teeth stop growing at a certain point when the root closes. If one was a herbivore (considering one was a herbivirous animal), the teeth would continue to grow, as the root would not close. Because our root closes, means our body was designed to eat meat. But I'm sure you all knew that. :topic:

But is that true for all herbivores? I'd guess it's because their teeth need to grind and mash all day (and need to regrow from wear), we may never need this even if we all became vegetarian because cooking food means alot less chewing - thankfully - even if we were vegetarian for millions of years, our teeth wouldn't need to grow longer to replace worn areas

I'd bet we have quite similar teeth to other apes, not all of which are carnivorous *wanders off to look for dental scans of Gorillas* :D

Brick
28-04--2006, 03:03 PM
At the extreme risk of getting this back on the original track. :) I just got a form letter response from defra:


Bovine TB and Badgers Consultation
Defra
1a Page Street
London
SW1P 4PQ

Website: www.defra.gov.uk (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) <http://www.defra.gov.uk (http://www.defra.gov.uk/)>
Email: bTB.consultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Consultee,

CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF BOVINE TB IN CATTLE IN HIGH INCIDENCE AREAS IN
ENGLAND

Thank you for contributing your views to the consultation on badger culling
as part of the measures to control the spread of bovine TB in cattle in high
incidence areas in England. Your comments on the proposed badger culling
strategy will be taken into consideration along with the comments of other
respondents.

A report will be produced summarising the responses to the consultation.
This has taken longer than expected due to the large number of consultation
responses received (47,474 responses were received during the consultation
period). We do not have a date for the final report but an announcement
will be made when it is available. Once published the report will be
accessible by following the link from the Defra website's Bovine TB Pages
at <http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/index.htm>

No decision has yet been made on whether or not to cull badgers to help
control bovine TB in cattle. Ministers will consider all available evidence
including the summary of consultation responses before making a decision.

Yours sincerely,

The bTB Wildlife Policy Team

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Just how much weight our views will be given? Compare my feather to the NFU's boulder...
But... Enough feathers...

Aunty Al
28-04--2006, 05:54 PM
I would guess there were quite a few feathers! Probably enough for Tony to think twice about how many votes he'd lose before he allows the badgers to be culled anyway. Its worth continuing the fight! Thanks for bringing us up to date.