Badger cull blow could see off Gloucestershire beef farmer

“This is a REAL mess.
Problem is, the public are against a cull, not because of any scientific evidence either way, but because they don't know how to explain the complexities of a national scandal to their children.
In fact, if they had to even start to explain that those lovely cows, sheep and pigs that they say at the city farm gallopng around freely, are EXACTLY what goes into their meals during the week, they would all turn veggie overnight, rather than upset their little darlings.
At least the Badger Trust has come out and said it's NOT because of sentimentality that they are against it, but because an attempt at a virtual wipe out in the hot-spots will actually show an increase in ten years time.
And while it pains me to agree with Tim, he's right, you can't vaccinate an infected badger.”

“Following the debate in the HOC -Surely it is as black and white as the badger- a cull , as well as being wholly unacceptable to the general public-just will not work and could actually make the whole BTB problem worse. Now is the time for investing in all the ways we can find long-term solutions-vaccine for badgers/cattle, improved animal husbandry and bio-security-to benefit farmers and their livestock as well as the environment and eco-system. Will that happen? well democracy should speak loud and clear-the voice of the people and the House has spoken-you can't have it both ways -either we live in a democracy or we don't. Never mind obstinate hissy fits by the "expert" Mr Paterson-you didn't get your own way-sense has pre-vailed. Drop the cull completely and let's get on with helping our dairy industry!!”

“Tim I meant to add that there is evidence that vaccination of badgers in the wild may have slowed or even halted the progression of disease.

What you also have to take on board is that badgers are just one mammal in that eco system that can become a resovoir for the disease. Deer are another example. Exactly how much of our wildlife has to be wiped out before the futility of this approach is recognised? Indeed what of its effect on tourism and other allied industries?

Culling is bad news for farmers, it simply does not work. Culling is bad news for tourism and its definitely bad news for tax-payers.”

“Tim please do some basic reading before you pontificate. Surely your browser is able to access Google?

You can vaccinate badgers. They set traps and while they are in cages vaccinate them.

Chambers et al (2010) showed the BCG vaccination of free-living badgers reduced the incidence of positive serological test results by 73.8%. BadgerBCG alone is not the solution to bTB, but it does have an immediate effect with no associated negative impact.

If you had listened to todays debate in the house, or simply relied on Google you would have discovered that the Badger culling policy does not work because not only the science is flawed, but its basic premise of being able to isolate culling zones is impossible. Worse after nine years if govt figures were correct there would still be 84% of the infection out there. This farce is being paid for by you and me. The farmers contribution though substantial is a drop in the ocean compared to the tax payers.

Still this debate seems to have created one milestone.... your conversion to believing in subsidies and handouts (to farmers that is). Can we look forward to you pleading for subsidies and handouts for others?”

“I love the way the Badgerists are so blinkered to the facts and how you CAN'T vaccinate an infected badger!”

“Farmers will be in a better position when the public backs them against exploitative milk producers and supermarkets. A realistic price for each litre of milk produced should be a minimum demand.

Although I am against the cull, I fully support all farmers who blockaded the milk producers premises. Even now the price is insufficient to make the dairy industry sustainable. If this government cared half as much for winning the farmers a fair deal as they do about saving face of the cull reversal many problems would be solved.

I'm all for cheap milk but not at the price of losing our farming industry and being dependent on French milk, a lot of which goes into our cuppas anyway.”

“because we couldn't suddenly start producing enough soya milk

well jim, thats what these poor farmer should be doing”

“MPs have voted against the government's policy of culling badgers in two pilot schemes in England. In a non-binding vote, MPs rejected the policy by 147 votes to 28, calling instead for vaccination, improved testing and bio security.

I watched that debate and it was interesting to see how the schism between pro and no cull protagonists did not follow party lines. Obviously the government had to support its own policy but it was obvious that individual MP's had investigated the evidence for and against before deciding what stance to take. Some of the facts that emerged underline how flawed the cull argument is:

* It will take NINE years to achieve a 16% reduction in bovine TB leaving 84% of the problem in place.
* Even if you kill every badger the soil can retain TB for up to two years.
* That the killing of badgers will disrupt the local ecology causing not just badgers but all wildlife to evacuate an area in which culling is being carried out. Consequently the optimum period for culling is five days to avoid such an evacuation, NOT the six weeks this cull was to run for. We would lose wildlife, possibly never to return with the resulting damage to our tourism industry.
* The cull is meant to be discreet, using rivers and roads to isolate culling areas; except….. badgers successfully cross roads at night and can swim rivers and canals.

One could go on and on but culling could never have solved beef farmer David Barton's problem.

One last but often overlooked fact… with all the hysteria calling for a cull…Bovine TB is the cause of just 10% of cows being slaughtered… other causes such as lameness are even higher in the league tables. Why this focus on the 10%?

With MPs rejecting the policy by 147 votes to 28, the public at large overwhelmingly against culling as well as scientific opinion and an election approaching… it would not come as a surprise if the government didn't find a face saving reason not to cull in 2013.”

“Those against the cull EVER proceeding won their case today in parliament toady. Will the goverment still go ahead and not abide by that vote?
We will see, rememeber, we ARE supposed to be living in a democracy!”

“a great example of farmers trying to hoodwink us with cries of destitution and pity - it's a national strategy of misdirection - next they will say they are an ethnic group and need more rights to outrageous measures. At best, if the unlikely and unscientific figures were to be believed he could have expected a long term benefit of 15%, so 6 head of cattle. At best. Not likely. And I imagine he is hamming up the figures, because his pathetic suggestion that this tiny measure will necessitate the need for him to give up his business is clearly rubbish. I bet you this man is still in business in a years time, and this is just the usual political rhetoric flannel we have come to expect. There is another way - and it is being shown in wales. Vaccinate, and stop looking for the easy low cost way at the cost of the lives of thousands of what are, and should remain, protected animals.”