Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 960
And you ignored my questions...
I don't see the relevance of analysis of supply/demand. Should we cull badgers is the debate? I say no, what do you say?
Badger, Badger, Badger
- Thread starter Spiritinthesky
- Start date
And you ignored my questions...
I don't see the relevance of analysis of supply/demand. Should we cull badgers is the debate? I say no, what do you say?
Deer should be...but not because of TB
As pointed out on the first page, deer are already regularly culled in the UK in order to protect the countryside. They covered it on Countryfile a month or two ago.
I'm not yet in a position where I feel well enough informed to make a decision. So far we have seen 1 report against, and yet its still planned, so there must be more information out there.
I'm certainly not in a position to make a stance based on a bizarre blinkered understanding of how businesses operate and some random desire to stick it to 'greedy farmers'.
Be against the cull all you like, but at least form a sensible argument as to why before flooding the thread with anti farmer propaganda.
Genuine lol what do you honestly expect? There are a lots of toilet floaters that frequent these boards that value animal life lower than an empty crisp packet.
Last edited:
You say that but i wonder how many in here know just how many cows are put down because of TB each year. People talk about financial cost but lets not forget that many cows have to be destroyed because of this.
Which animals life should be valued higher? Its an interesting question.
Yes definitely. Me too..Theres no evidence to suggest the cull will work...but those who are basing the decision entirely on the fact they dont like the idea of animals being killed should accept that an awful lot of cows are being put down because of this disease.
Cows are animals too, Tank? And a Cow with TB is a useless animal that just gets put down. Is that fair on the Cows?
The Cows! Will someone please think of the Cows! THE COWS!
This confuses me. If there really was no evidence to suggest it will work then I don't see how it would have even been suggested, let alone got to the stage of almost being implemented? There must be some other evidence somewhere we haven't seen? At least I hope there is, as the alternative is that there are government departments of gun toting shotgun wielding morons wanting to run around the countryside killing stuff regardless.
It has to have something behind it to have got this far.
The Cows! Will someone please think of the Cows! THE COWS!
This confuses me. If there really was no evidence to suggest it will work then I don't see how it would have even been suggested, let alone got to the stage of almost being implemented? There must be some other evidence somewhere we haven't seen? At least I hope there is, as the alternative is that there are government departments of gun toting shotgun wielding morons wanting to run around the countryside killing stuff regardless.
It has to have something behind it to have got this far.
Last edited:
Well its more that the thinking behind the culls has been questioned and there is no consensus that this will work. As far as I can tell anyway. There was a big study done based on small scale badger culling, it last for 10 years or so and in the end concluded that culling would not work.
no unless you belive the planet has an over arching "intelligence" or god governing it at all there's no such thing as this "natural control measure" ********, outside of the animals becoming so numerous they consume all the food and then starve.
infections and disease don't just spring up to reduce numbers, there's not some kind of TB squirting pores in the fields of England that respond when the number of cows reaches a certain figure.
tell that to smallpox.
I dont support this cull but i am curious how the farmers could handle it themselves. Can you explain further please?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 960
My points were:
I think you'll find that the cattle are there because of farmers. Why not blame the farmers?
The cattle are there because the farmers want them to be, for their own financial benefit (cattle = commodity). I was just saying I am on the side of wildlife as it was here way before our farms in most cases. The badgers aren't the cause of the cattle being there, so they are effectively innocent bystanders. Farmers are the cause of the spread of Bovine TB in their herds because if they grew plant crops instead this wouldn't happen.
I was saying that badgers are being made into scapegoats for the Bovine TB problem in commercial cattle herds, and the price they have to pay is death. Farmers are complaining that they're out of pocket when Bovine TB strikes/spreads, so badgers die? I'm trying to understand why farmers wealth is more important than our wildlife?
I don't think I need to explain myself further at all, in fact I think you need to explain what is wrong with my points quoted above? Explain to me why farmers/farming should not be at the centre of this debate about Bovine TB in their commercial herds.
One of the reasons the human race has been so successful is the ability to change the environment to suit our needs. If you disagree with this then you may as well sell up your home and all your possessions and live in the woods.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 960
So anyone who disagrees with 'progress' has to live in the woods, or can we also exercise our right to free speech?
Of course you can. Isn't that what you are doing right now?
They could use vaccination and have a greater emphasis on farm bio-security.
Wonder how many cows are tested before they are sold and moved to another farm?
All cattle have to be tested for TB before they can be moved. High risk areas have annual testing as well.
Last edited: