Proposed badger cull

[Angelfishsolo]

Yer we used to go shooting as cadets .303, 7.62mm etc it was always funny being down in the butts, we used to have to fill in the holes where people had hit the targets with paste and paper. Until the re barrelled bren gun opened up on it then there was just one big hole unless the guy that was shooting was a poor shot at which point everyone just hid.lol

A bren gun, that's going back some isn't it?

 

[Dragonwight]

A bren gun, that's going back some isn't it?

Yer the cadets use to get all the old cast offs it was re barrelled to 7.62mm from .303 this was around 1984. You think thats bad they use to send you up in an aeroplane (chipmunk) with a ww2 parachute that doubled up as seat with instructions if anything went wrong you pulled the canopy back , stood on the wing facing rearwards and jumped off!You can imagine what you thought of that at 14.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yer the cadets use to get all the old cast offs it was re barrelled to 7.62mm from .303 this was around 1984. You think thats bad they use to send you up in an aeroplane (chipmunk) with a ww2 parachute that doubled up as seat with instructions if anything went wrong you pulled the canopy back , stood on the wing facing rearwards and jumped off!You can imagine what you thought of that at 14.

Soooo glad I was a Scout

 

[Sittingduck]

I have shot a .22 at tin cans and a bolt action rifle on an army range in Berlin. TBH neither gave me any real pleasure. A handgun might be different but I never had that opportunity.

Recently shot a .357 Magnum on a range in Las Vegas and then stepped up to a .44 Magnum. The latter kicked like a mule! Very hard to group shots or draw a smiley face on the target a'la Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. Quite painful on the wrist after a cpl of shots were discharged and I was quite glad when it was all over!


Disclaimer: there were no badgers involved

 

[Yellow Fang]

In this country consumers justifiably want high welfare standards which tesco et al are only too happy to impose, however they won't sell British meat that doesn't meet these standards and don't feel like they have to pay the farmers appropriately. They will still import cheap, intensively farmed crap, from south america especially for their value ranges thereby keeping the prices down.

In a way this is worse. So because British farmers are being undercut by foreign beef farmers operating less humane farming practices, that, in some way would make excusable farmers and traders circumnavigating a vaccination program, leaving the only alternative a badger cull. So, poor animal welfare standards abroad mean a badger cull here. I'm not sure I buy the theory that harsh economics justifies the cull anyway. First, why would farmers want to circumnavigate the vaccination programme? Is it that expensive? Is the only test of TB a blood test? Don't cattle with TB show any other symptoms, coughing for example? Secondly, farmers, like just about every other business, are always under economic pressure. We can't leave everything to economic forces to solve. On a world wide scale, unrestrained economic forces are leading to the destruction of rainforests, fisheries and the extinction of any carnivore more than a foot long. Also, I just do not believe that no suitable cattle vaccine could have been developed by now if it had been made a priority.

 

[Chromatic]

Im sure i read a few years back that in germany they were vaccinating badgers against TB by dropping pellets from the air which they would then eat and it had substantially reduced TB. Expensive to do i should imagine.

They are running a badger vaccination trial around where I live at the moment. From the little I've heard about it I believe they are capturing and injecting them before relasing them back into the wild.
I don't know any other details but i'm sure the information is out there somewhere if anyone here is interested enough to seek it out. Apologies if this has been mentioned in the thread previously, I've quickly scanned it to see but may have missed it.

 

[Becs]

In a way this is worse. So because British farmers are being undercut by foreign beef farmers operating less humane farming practices, that, in some way would make excusable farmers and traders circumnavigating a vaccination program, leaving the only alternative a badger cull. So, poor animal welfare standards abroad mean a badger cull here. I'm not sure I buy the theory that harsh economics justifies the cull anyway. First, why would farmers want to circumnavigate the vaccination programme? Is it that expensive? Is the only test of TB a blood test? Don't cattle with TB show any other symptoms, coughing for example? Secondly, farmers, like just about every other business, are always under economic pressure. We can't leave everything to economic forces to solve. On a world wide scale, unrestrained economic forces are leading to the destruction of rainforests, fisheries and the extinction of any carnivore more than a foot long. Also, I just do not believe that no suitable cattle vaccine could have been developed by now if it had been made a priority.

I think you've misunderstood me. What I wrote was an explanation of one of the reasons farmers are facing financial difficulty in this country which is obviously not a direct justification for killing badgers. Controlling TB is another challenge they face which is perhaps made more urgent in the eyes of the farmers because of the other difficulties they face (poor prices for their meat, rising fuel and feed costs etc etc).

The current test for TB is a bit like the heaf test humans get (the 6 needle thing we all got at school). The cattle are injected into the skin of the neck with a modified form of the bacteria that causes TB and their immune reaction is then assessed by measuring the size of the welt that develops. They then get classed as negative, positive or inconclusive. Any animal testing positive (a "reactor") is destroyed and any herd with positive animals is placed under movement restriction (and therefore cannot send their animals to slaughter or sell them). This can also happen if an animal repeatedly comes up as inconclusive. There is also a blood test for gamma interferon that can be used in conjunction with the skin test in inconclusive animals. The frequency of this routine testing depends on the incidence of TB in the area (ranges from every 1 year to every 4). Once a herd has a reactor they are repeatedly tested, and further reactors are culled until the whole herd tests negative several times before the movement restrictions are lifted.

The problem is that vaccinated animals would also test "positive" with both tests. Therefore if someone was able to fake the ID method chosen to identify vaccinated animals they could pass off reactors as vaccinated and avoid the financial loss that follows having a reactor. I'm not saying farmers would necessarily do this but the system has to be such that this cannot happen. Much as I would love to believe that all farmers are honest, when facing financial ruin by having persistent reactors people will resort to desperate measures, as reported in the article below from the DEFRA website:

"Evidence is emerging that some cattle farmers in the South West and Midlands may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags. That means they may have been retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place" http://www.defra.gov...ttle-bovine-tb/

It is not as simple as developing a vaccine (there is one already), they have to develop a vaccine that induces the correct immune response to protect the cattle from TB but one that doesn't react to the modified form of the bug that is used in the skin test. From my basic knowledge of immunology it is my understanding that this is not possible at present.

 

[Becs]

They are running a badger vaccination trial around where I live at the moment. From the little I've heard about it I believe they are capturing and injecting them before relasing them back into the wild.
I don't know any other details but i'm sure the information is out there somewhere if anyone here is interested enough to seek it out. Apologies if this has been mentioned in the thread previously, I've quickly scanned it to see but may have missed it.

I really hope this works.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

In a way this is worse. So because British farmers are being undercut by foreign beef farmers operating less humane farming practices, that, in some way would make excusable farmers and traders circumnavigating a vaccination program, leaving the only alternative a badger cull. So, poor animal welfare standards abroad mean a badger cull here. I'm not sure I buy the theory that harsh economics justifies the cull anyway. First, why would farmers want to circumnavigate the vaccination programme? Is it that expensive? Is the only test of TB a blood test? Don't cattle with TB show any other symptoms, coughing for example? Secondly, farmers, like just about every other business, are always under economic pressure. We can't leave everything to economic forces to solve. On a world wide scale, unrestrained economic forces are leading to the destruction of rainforests, fisheries and the extinction of any carnivore more than a foot long. Also, I just do not believe that no suitable cattle vaccine could have been developed by now if it had been made a priority.

Amen. Very well said.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I think you've misunderstood me. What I wrote was an explanation of one of the reasons farmers are facing financial difficulty in this country which is obviously not a direct justification for killing badgers. Controlling TB is another challenge they face which is perhaps made more urgent in the eyes of the farmers because of the other difficulties they face (poor prices for their meat, rising fuel and feed costs etc etc).

The current test for TB is a bit like the heaf test humans get (the 6 needle thing we all got at school). The cattle are injected into the skin of the neck with a modified form of the bacteria that causes TB and their immune reaction is then assessed by measuring the size of the welt that develops. They then get classed as negative, positive or inconclusive. Any animal testing positive (a "reactor") is destroyed and any herd with positive animals is placed under movement restriction (and therefore cannot send their animals to slaughter or sell them). This can also happen if an animal repeatedly comes up as inconclusive. There is also a blood test for gamma interferon that can be used in conjunction with the skin test in inconclusive animals. The frequency of this routine testing depends on the incidence of TB in the area (ranges from every 1 year to every 4). Once a herd has a reactor they are repeatedly tested, and further reactors are culled until the whole herd tests negative several times before the movement restrictions are lifted.

The problem is that vaccinated animals would also test "positive" with both tests. Therefore if someone was able to fake the ID method chosen to identify vaccinated animals they could pass off reactors as vaccinated and avoid the financial loss that follows having a reactor. I'm not saying farmers would necessarily do this but the system has to be such that this cannot happen. Much as I would love to believe that all farmers are honest, when facing financial ruin by having persistent reactors people will resort to desperate measures, as reported in the article below from the DEFRA website:

"Evidence is emerging that some cattle farmers in the South West and Midlands may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags. That means they may have been retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place" http://www.defra.gov...ttle-bovine-tb/

It is not as simple as developing a vaccine (there is one already), they have to develop a vaccine that induces the correct immune response to protect the cattle from TB but one that doesn't react to the modified form of the bug that is used in the skin test. From my basic knowledge of immunology it is my understanding that this is not possible at present.

don't all cattle have to have a "passport" now. They have to be registered within 48 hours of birth. Tags in ears I believe. Not too hard then to note the number of the animal that has been vaccinated.

 

[Becs]

don't all cattle have to have a "passport" now. They have to be registered within 48 hours of birth. Tags in ears I believe. Not too hard then to note the number of the animal that has been vaccinated.

I will repeat:

"Evidence is emerging that some cattle farmers in the South West and Midlands may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags. That means they may have been retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place" http://www.defra.gov...ttle-bovine-tb/


I'm pretty sure the world leading immunologists, epidemiologists and disease control experts at DEFRA have thought of and discounted all of your well-researched suggestions.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I will repeat:

"Evidence is emerging that some cattle farmers in the South West and Midlands may have been illegally swapping cattle ear tags. That means they may have been retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive animals to slaughter in their place" http://www.defra.gov...ttle-bovine-tb/


I'm pretty sure the world leading immunologists, epidemiologists and disease control experts at DEFRA have thought of and discounted all of your well-researched suggestions.

Sorry I missed that post It does suggest however that the farmers are less interested in finding a solution to the problem than it first appears.

 

[Becs]

Sorry I missed that post It does suggest however that the farmers are less interested in finding a solution to the problem than it first appears.

You quoted it! Like I have said before they are desperate. I'm not condoning that behaviour but I can't imagine how stressful it would be to be in the situation where you have reactor after reactor and basically go under and lose your whole livelihood.

Can you at least understand why they would be behind a cull if they perceive as a potential solution to this problem, even if you don't agree with it?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You quoted it! Like I have said before they are desperate. I'm not condoning that behaviour but I can't imagine how stressful it would be to be in the situation where you have reactor after reactor and basically go under and lose your whole livelihood.

I am obviously having a bad day. I apologies for the stupidity. I am very glad you do not condone the behaviour and I can understand what it is like to see your world falling apart - I have been there (albeit in different circumstances). That part I struggle with is this.

Say the cull goes ahead and for argument sake 99.9% or badgers are killed. The cattle still need to be tested yes? If the vaccinations are not being carried out then will it not be harder for a farmer to hide the infected cattle through means of faking results? That seems a reason for Defra to want a cull but not the Farmers. It seems to me the vaccination fraud is their friend. This is at odds with the posts that suggest the farmers want the cull and do not want vaccinations.

Oh bikes are so much simpler than real life - they are logical machines.

 

[Becs]

Say the cull goes ahead and for argument sake 99.9% or badgers are killed. The cattle still need to be tested yes? If the vaccinations are not being carried out then will it not be harder for a farmer to hide the infected cattle through means of faking results? That seems a reason for Defra to want a cull but not the Farmers. It seems to me the vaccination fraud is their friend. This is at odds with the posts that suggest the farmers want the cull and do not want vaccinations.

I think you are missing the point a bit. Farmers want a solution, the only one on offer atm is a badger cull, if the badger vaccination trial works then hopefully DEFRA will pursue that instead. There is a huge amount of information on the DEFRA website if you want to know more about it, and Farmers Weekly will give you their perspective.