I am so sorry for your friends, I can only imagine what they have gone through, and must still be going through

Fingers crossed that the others come back clear.

I've mixed feelings on this, I have heard about one cull before, I don't know all the ins and outs, but the level of cows who got TB didn't change after the cull had taken place, it kind of seems like a witch hunt, if it was based on more info, and the badgers were tested to determine whether they were passing it on, and was proved that it is happening then I would be more behind it, but until then I'm on the fence, I'm sure if I was a farmer though I'd want to do all I can to protect my cattle.

Scientists do NOT support this because there is no concrete evidence that it is badgers to blame!!

Deer can carry it, for god sake cattle carry it.

Trust you to wheep with joy Borderdawn.

Everyone weep for the cattle farmers. British wildlife suffers.

Until Scientific evidence proves beyond a doubt then I am sorry, this horrific blaming and culling of a british mammal makes me sick. It didn't work in Ireland when they had the trials there. In fact incidents of Bovine TB ROSE higher.

I've done a bit of digging on this, trying to find out some more things about badger culling, and seeing if it actually helps anything, and it seems that its not cost affective, and is not a affective way of stopping the disease in the long term.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...e-tuberculosis

This one is three years old, but intresting I think,

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0702...s070212-2.html

And this, its by a badger protection group, but still intresting in this case I feel,

http://badger-killers.co.uk/n_ireland.html

Although I tried to clink on the link in that site, and my computer wouldn't allow it, maybe someone else's might?

But it appears from that, that badger culling is not affective, has anyone got anything that proves otherwise, as it may be intresting to read both sides of this argument.

That is interesting Chaz.

I found this in favour of a cull, but who is right? It is a very sensitive subject all round.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...scientist.html

And this ...

http://www.farmingmonthly.co.uk/the-...dger-cull.html

(it won't let me cut and paste from this page.)

I think both sides need to be working towards having a healthy cattle and badger population living alongside each other, as one of the articles says.

However, with the high emotion that surrounds such a cull (as well as the £££ lost in compensation to farmers) will anyone ever be independent enough to make the right decision?

I think that this is one of the things were no-one really knows the right answer, or who to listen too, as this is a native creature, which if I'm right is protected in areas? Then its going to cause lots of emotion as to what is the right thing, but it seems that people are either on the side that of the farmers, or the badgers to begin with, maybe we need a scientist from else where who might be more non-biased it would be nice to be able to control bTB without a cull, and it would be ideal for badgers and cows to be able to live happily next to each other without the disease looming over their heads.

Sorry for being thick, but how is reducing a population size going to eradicate a disease?

It is thought that the badgers can carry the disease so they can transport it from one area to the other, where-ever they go, add in males that are looking for females so moving around, that area can increase, thats what I get anyway, but its also why its thought that a cull may increase the diesease as the badgers terrioty increases, as there is less competition, or the badgers move from the danger zone to the outside of the cull zone, as the badgers who are affected/carry it could move elsewhere and take the disease with them.