Sorry haven't read the link, just thinking outloud I guess..

This is from the Badger Trust's website, from September 2011:

http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/_Attac...ces/589_S4.pdf

It's a very long document but here are some excerpts:

We note that this is not a public consultation and that only listed stakeholders have been invited to comment. There are more stakeholders associated with the agricultural and shooting industry than the protection of wildlife and it is a cause for concern that this will inevitably lead to a bias in the consultation in favour of the Defra proposal. We also note that some key wildlife stakeholders have been omitted, such as the Mammal Society and League Against Cruel Sports. This clearly creates further bias in favour of culling. We consider this situation to be unsatisfactory.

3. We note that your letter and the consultation paper is in effect the original 2010 consultation proposal with a number of changes to take account of issues raised in the
2010 consultation. Given that:

 nearly 70% of the 2010 consultees were opposed to a badger cull

 a similar percentage was opposed to a badger cull in a randomised BBC poll

just over 90% were opposed to a badger cull in a Guardian newspaper poll

 eminent scientists and wildlife experts, including Lord Krebs, Professor Bourne and his Independent Scientific Group (ISG) team, Sir David Attenborough, Bill Oddie and
Chris Packham have all opposed the proposed cull on scientific grounds because it will not deliver a meaningful reduction in bovine TB;

and Defra‘s own wildlife advisory agency, Natural England, identified as a primary regulatory and monitoring organisation in the Defra proposal, has publicly stated that it has little confidence in the proposals
.
4. It is extraordinary in these circumstances, faced by such widespread opposition, and so little, if any, independent authoritative support, that Defra continues to say "Having carefully considered the large number of responses to the public consultation, we remain strongly minded to proceed with a policy of badger control [euphemism for slaughter] as part of a package of measures to address bovine TB".

This shows a shameful disregard for public opinion and independently evaluated science and is patently a political sop to the powerful farming industry.



Summary of our position

5. We remain totally opposed to any badger cull, including the two proposed pilot trials of "controlled shooting", in the light of the available scientific evidence. The Defra proposals, particularly the pilot trials, are based not on peer reviewed science but on a number of unjustified, speculative assumptions. For this reason they will not deliver a meaningful reduction in bovine TB and may exacerbate the perturbation effect. Therefore we urge
Defra to reconsider its proposed policy of licensing farmers to cull badgers.

6. Instead, we urge Defra to consider a badger control policy based on vaccination of badgers using the currently licensed injectable vaccine and we further call on it to
urgently complete the development and licensing of an oral bait vaccine. Such a move is likely to obtain universal public support and is widely accepted as the only sustainable long-term solution to deal with TB in badgers.

As evidence of our belief in this alternative solution, several Badger Trust members have successfully completed the Fera training course to vaccinate badgers. Badger Trust also aims to carry out a trial vaccination
programme. We are currently negotiating with a small number of landowners, including farmers, to carry out vaccination of badgers on their land. This will supplement the vaccination programmes being carried out by the National Trust in Devon and the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust.

We also urge Defra to complete the development and licensing of a cattle vaccine and to negotiate with the European Commission and the Member States as a matter of urgency to amend EU legislation to allow vaccination of
cattle. There is wide acceptance that a vaccination policy should go a long way towards eradicating TB in both cattle and badgers and is the only sustainable long term solution.


Under point 7

In the Intensive Action Area of West Wales where
there has been rigorous application and enforcement of cattle control measures the number of cattle slaughtered due to bovine TB has reduced by 44% in 2010 compared to 2009 without a single badger being culled. The conclusion that this is in large part directly due to the Welsh Assembly‘s new measures is highly persuasive and therefore we urge Defra to commit to a much wider and more rigorous policy which must include: improving the methods of detecting TB in cattle; better pre-movement
testing; the introduction of post-movement testing; quicker removal of TB infected cattle; and a regulatory regime which enforces better farm husbandry and biosecurity. This has to go hand in hand with a sustained and active campaign to catch and prosecute those who flagrantly breach the rules.



And the latest letter:
http://www.nfbg.org.uk/_Attachments/...ces/623_S4.pdf

Badger Trust Q&A on bovine TB


http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/_Attac...ces/534_S4.pdf

Good posts Lucky Star

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

Well, it seemed suitable in the circumstances!!

It is something that I feel very passionate about ... I get what you are saying, but I just do not think that we have the right, moral or practical, to take on such a pointless task.

Culling badgers is not the answer. You would have to exterminate every single badger and every single any other animal that may be spreading TB, and that is impossible - again both physically and morally.

A far better idea would be to breed cattle resistant to TB, which cannot be rocket science.

You said it!

Here's another one, The Wildlife Trusts, who carried out a badger vaccination programme:


http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/badgers-and-bovineTB

http://www.gloucestershirewildlifetr...ults-published

No We have massive amounts of land to run herds of cattle, they're not kept indoors, infact it's extremely rare for a cow to see the inside of a barn unless she's sick or having trouble calving. I think we just dont have it here, I dont think the US has it either. It's a European disease that (thankfully) hasn't migrated here, successfully.

Only reason i wondered is because here a company is planning on keeping dairy herds inside large buildings and being fed an artificial diet because apparently it makes them produce more milk.However,this is deemed cruel because the only time they'll see daylight is when they've come to the end of their milk producting life and off to the slaughterhouse.

The cause for TB being rife is us humans because we now have a real taste for meat so its mass produced and therefore the disease also gets multiplied.Without checking data i would bet that it wasnt no way near as rampant before WW2 because meat was seen as a luxury addition to a meal while now its something else on your plate.The amount of fast food places dont help either.

Milk too-so many things have milk as an ingredient and it has to come from somewhere.