[shygirl]

So the badger cull is going ahead tonight.
whats the view on here - seeing as many people keep cattle?
how did scotland manage to become tb free? is it just geographical or did they do something different management wise?

[lachlanandmarcus]

I support it, not cos I like the idea of killing badgers, but precisely because I like badgers and want to see a healthy badger population and also ! the continuation of livestock farming in the parts of the country where the best grazing is, which is the areas most populated by badgers with TB.



The thing that makes me angry is that far more badgers will have to die now, than would have been the case had either the badger act not been drawn up so blanket in protection (which is the case for no other non-endangered animal) or the opposition forced the legal process to go on so many years and successive governments to bury their heads in the sand.


No one knows how many other species are starting to be infected too, sheep certainly are, and when pet cats and dogs start getting it, and spreading it to their owners, I think it will be taken much more seriously, but it will probably be too late by then for human health. TB treatment is extremely unpleasant and gruelling and resistance is growing to the drugs, we simply have to get a handle on it.


Scottish landscapes are less favoured by badgers, with in large areas thin rocky soils unsuitable for setts etc, however it is only a matter of time before the outbreaks caused by people buying in cattle from elsewhere get into the wildlife populations and we lose the TB free status.  We haven't become TB free so much as not become a TB area yet.


Without drastic action, the very tight and getting almost impossibly restrictive controls on cattle farming in TB areas will result in the death of cattle farming in large parts of the UK, except for the totally indoor super sheds where the cattle never get to see a blade of grass.


Badgers will still be not endangered at the end of the cull, numbers wise. I do think a better approach would have been to amend the badger act to allow diseased setts to be cleared out (badgers culled) with a zone around them clear of badgers, and clean setts left in peace.


If farmers are subject to ever growing restrictions, demands to fund the cull caused by govt failure to control a zoonotic (passed to humans) fatal disease and action by antis, and failure to massively fund vaccine development, then I can see many of them just refusing to cooperate with the TB regime en masse and simply wiping out all badgers from their entire land, whatever the law states. You can only push people so far.


We cannot have high welfare extensive livestock farming unless we tackle the proven wildlife vector for this horrendous disease which was almost eradicated prior to the badger act coming in. (cattle movements can take the TB to a new area with a one off appearance on a farm, but the spread of TB once there is down to wildlife vectors)


Thankfully I'm not in that position.

[ferretkeeper]

Good points there L&M

My vet mentioned it referring to my goats recently, I don't keep cattle so had previously thought it was just something to be aware of with my alpacas, who can't be reliably tested and whose movements aren't even restricted  for some unknown reason. But my sheep too?

Where's the bloody vaccine?! 

[Factotum]

Ah, the vaccine...

Problem with that is there is no way of telling if a beast has been vaccinated or has had the disease - the currents test would show a positive result.

No animal or products from an animal with a positive can be used here or exported. The scientists are trying to develop a test that can tell diseased from vaccinated.

Another problem - at the moment the vaccine is not that good - so a better vaccine is being developed - however once we have that, we have to get agreement from the EU to use it. And get agreement on using the newer, better test to screen out the false positives.

I believe the EU takes time to make decisions - so don't hold your breath waiting for a quick resolution.

Sue

[lachlanandmarcus]

Good points there L&M

My vet mentioned it referring to my goats recently, I don't keep cattle so had previously thought it was just something to be aware of with my alpacas, who can't be reliably tested and whose movements aren't even restricted  for some unknown reason. But my sheep too?

Where's the bloody vaccine?! 

Here's the DEFRA link which acknowledges the susceptibility of other farm animals. There isn't any handle on how many are already infected, since there isn't any routine testing. Whether that's because as with alpacas the cattle skin test doesn't work on sheep (it ain't more than about 50% effective in cattle but worse in camelids), or whether it's head in sand I don't know,


It may be that sheep areas are less badger intensive areas of the country if I'm being charitable. But it worries me a bit....
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/animal-keepers/other-species/

[Steph Hen]

Support cull.

Why does any one care about badgers any more than foxes or rabbits? I wish someone would explain to me why it is too cruel to shoot badgers, but acceptable to shoot thousands and thousands or rabbits, or persecute Britain's rats. I love watching mice, birds, rats and rabbits playing and exploring or little fox cubs, just as I like to watch badgers interacting at thier setts. To me they are equal. I CAN'T believe that laws in this country are based on how pretty an animals' face is, or which children's books its featured in.

We've created and rely on this artificial landscape and we have to manage it as necessary. I don't agree with cruel practices, but respect animals equally, from rats to badgers to horses. If they need to be shot, then unless we ban the shooting of all wild animals as 'cruel', this surely is ok, just by simple logic? I do think it is necessary to control btb in this way.

[Lesley Silvester]

I support the cull for the reasons already given.

[southernskye]

I'm with "all of the above".
 
We need a healthy population of badgers, wildlife and farm animals that can then co-exist. bTB is a problem for many animals such as deer, pigs, sheep, goats, camelids and even humans....as well as the badgers and cattle. According to The Web it seems there are as many, if not more, badgers than foxes these days. A simple removing of the blanket protection would have sufficed in allowing their control in the same way as foxes, rabbits etc.
 
Rgds
Sskye

[Louise Gaunt]

There is some mixed thinking going on with regard to the cull. Removing badgers will remove one animal vector, but if there is significant TB in an ever increasing deer population the vector just changes doesn't it? And also, why no compulsory testing of camelids etc? I know the tests are less reliable in camelids and sheep, but the test is not 100 % reliable in cattle either. Just a few thoughts.

[mab]

there're a lot of conflicting views on this - the scientist say there's no proof it'll work, but then again, it appeared to work in Ireland (where they have been culling).


I suspect this cull is just the usual management practice by govt - if you don't know what to do then do anything so it looks like you're doing something.



apparently they're trying the vaccine on badgers in pembrokeshire.


I guess we'll have to wait and see which actually works (if either).

[Bumblebear]

I don't agree with it because I can't see how it will be effective - others animals carry tb; only culling some badgers (presumably some left alive may still have it); only in some parts of the country (don't all badgers get it?!).  So until the powers that be convince me otherwise with evidence, I don't like it. <ducks>

Ps. But I don't keep cattle

[SallyintNorth]

One of the issues is that badgers go right up into the cattle sheds, which the other wild animals that can be carriers do not tend to do.

One of the dangers of a blanket cull is that when a healthy sett is cleared, other badgers will come into the vacated area - and could be diseased.  So it would have made more sense to cull only diseased setts.

In terms of why do [a lot of] the public think it is wrong, I think they can understand more readily that rats spread disease and cause damage, rabbits destroy crops, foxes slaughter poultry and reputedly lambs, and they are not convinced about badgers and bTB, nor that there isn't a better way.

[lachlanandmarcus]

There is some mixed thinking going on with regard to the cull. Removing badgers will remove one animal vector, but if there is significant TB in an ever increasing deer population the vector just changes doesn't it? And also, why no compulsory testing of camelids etc? I know the tests are less reliable in camelids and sheep, but the test is not 100 % reliable in cattle either. Just a few thoughts.

Badgers are a uniquely effective vector of TB, they are much more brazen than other species that get TB (such as deer), their favoured eating and drinking habits bring them into much more close contact eg drinking from troughs, breaking into grain stores, they are much stronger (can break through fences and squeeze under small gaps). But most of all badgers both roam widely (more so once ostracised by the social group once they get TB)  and also survive for a long time while suffering with the disease, thus they spread it over a wide area and for a very long time. But they will die of it, a long and painful death in the end.


The test is approx 50% effective in cattle, but so low in camelids as to render it completely useless. Low numbers of camelids and the small overlap between camelid keepers and cattle keeping mean the primary risk from camelids is camelid to human BTB transmission (which is a serious issue).


Deer culling due to the explosion in numbers might be necessary anyway for a number of reasons (eg destroying biodiversity habitat and welfare of the deer, BTB adds another reason for numbers to be kept at a sustainable and heathy level. But with deer that would be legal.

[SteveHants]

This: http://www.bovinetb.info/docs/the-occurrence-of-mycobacterium-bovis-infection-in-cattle-in-and-around-an-area-subject-to-extensive-badger-control.pdf would suggest that culling badgers has been effective in the past.

[Shropshirelass]

I'm in 2 minds I'm from a farming family but also work in the veterinary industry & have worked in both Wales & England, & we as a family have been lucky to only have had 1 case in around 10-15 years in a heifer. But I have friends & know many people who have lost dozens of livestock to bovine TB - most of them farmed in wales & we aren't too badly affected in my home counties.

I don't know if the vaccines or the cull are going to make things worse as its soo confusing with different people saying different things all of the time. But whichever option its worth a go - I have seen & heard of so many cases of cattle been suspected of TB - being sent for slaughter & the animal was clear, cows heavily in calf are taken & culled if the slaughter men turn up - you then loose 2 animals & the calf might have been a decent animal for maybe the cost of a c-section (Granted I'm not saying keep possibly infected stock around for weeks). It's also soo difficult to move cattle if you wan't to in some areas or sell some if feed or moneys low.

I also don't believe badgers are 100% to blame - I think deer are a big part of the problem too now as they are getting soo widespread nowadays - me & another villager in 1 day almost hit 3 in  2 separate incident's where it's known we don't see deer & its noted they carry TB & graze on cattle grazing. I'm all for keeping a healthy wildlife population & enjoy seeing our wildlife - but it's when they become a pest like foxes & badgers killing poultry or rabbits destroying land ect there has to be some level of control - plus rabbit & other game tastes good.