I don't know enough about it to really comment, but it sounds sensible Steve.

Probably yet another case of man screwing up the balance of nature

Sadly, the vaccination route for badgers is not really viable either, tests have shown that the vaccine may not be effective in mature animals, and so it would mean digging out cubs from their setts, while they are young enough to vaccinate, which is just not viable.

This is a link to defra's information on bovine TB, the cost to the economy is phenomenal:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarimoor
You may as well just destroy the cattle, it becomes impossible to tell the difference between an infected beast, and one that's been vaccinated, all these questions are on the website link


However if you start now as you mean to go on & vaccinate new calves, keep records etc then eventually long term cattle will be protected & be in no danger of contracting the disease

Sadly it will always come down to what is cost effective

It is down to cost, and at the end of that, it's you and me that would foot the bill. So which ever route the government took, and it could be any government, not just this one, the move would be unpopular. This is perhaps the cheapest route, not possibly the most effective either in terms of curing the disease, but it benefits all round. The explosion in badger numbers in some areas has had a detrimental effect, unbalancing the number of various species. The other routes that would preserve all badger numbers, just simply aren't viable, and are they really best overall for the environment, not an easy question to answer. Also worth noting, is that other options for producing a tb free population of badgers would be much more easily achieved with a smaller population to start from.

Slightly off topic, but I was dismayed to see the daft story of the Exmoor Emperor rearing it's head again, in the form of a stuffed stags head in a hotel in Scotland. The photographer who made the stag famous, and therefore pretty much sticking a price on his head, said that they thought it was definitely Emperor. Other experienced deer stalkers compared the antlers, and thought that it wasn't likely to be him, because of the shapes of the various tines. However, yet again, the incorrect *facts* reared their head, about the largest mammal in Britain, when it is known and has been widely circulated he was nowhere near the largest stag in Britain. And out of over 250,000 deer that are culled each year, why one earth such furore over one stag? I'm sure there are 100's of such stags, all as impressive, and all making their worthwhile contribution to the gene pool before becoming a viable culling option.

It was recently admitted by all sides that the culling of red deer is beneficial to the population overall, it keeps numbers at a viable level for the environment they live in, provides a good source of meat, some of which is exported, and income for many landowners/estates in the form of stalking, part of which will fund further conservation work. For those in any doubt, the cull numbers are issued and landowners have no option, otherwise they will be culled in any case, and in a less orderly fashion.

Just for interest, badgers are in fact quite edible, so for those who pehaps don't agree with the cull because the end product is wasted, it needn't be. I've never tried it, but who knows if it came along.

Many conservationists would disagree with you,


I think man works extremely hard to keep the balance of nature healthy .

My initial post was in reply to Tarimoor about the culling of animal populations in general, not particularly about Badgers. As others have mentioned, culling animals that have no natural predators is not pointless, it's necessary not only to prevent suffering (animals starving to death due to over population etc) but also to try and redress the unbalance caused by Humans many moons ago and allowing other species to thrive as well.

I don't think culling Badgers is the most effective way to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle longterm, but it appears in the short term, to be the best solution. I'd also be quite happy to try Badger so the animal doesn't go to waste.

Possibly ... but only after the horse has bolted.

Thank goodness there are many sensible, level headed conservationists to pick up the pieces ... but they wouldn't need to if man hadn't screwed up in the first place.

It would be pointless in the case of badgers, because it would be absolutely impossible to cull every single badger - indeed, the word "cull" implies that you do not kill every animal, just reduce the numbers. What would be the point of that? The reduced numbers of badgers merely carry on spreading TB. it only needs ONE badger, just one badger, to spread TB to a pedigree herd.

I wouldn't be averse to eating badger either. As an omnivore, I guess it would be very similiar to eating wild boar which is extremely delicious. As you say, waste is terrible, and although I am totally against the killing of badgers, I certainly would not mind eating badger meat, or giving it my dogs, rather than see it go to waste.

A hundred badgers wandering around, are more likely than ten badgers wandering around, to spread a disesae far and wide. It's simple statistics.

That is true, but still you cannot deny that just ONE badger can infect a herd.

It is just nonsense to attempt to control TB by culling badgers, and I would say that whatever the likely cause of the spread of TB was.