Gloucesterhsire badger cull opponents gather for Coleford vigil

“GREAT NEWS, this now won't go ahead at all. the minister will go though... :-)”

“Apparently it is getting dark too early and colder that's why its been delayed, who would have thought it would get darker and colder at this time of year. I'd never have guessed.”

“Thank God that common-sense has prevailed (at least for the time being) and that this chap IS for turning. If this had happened in Mrs T's day there'd be blood on the meadows by now - and not just that of Mr Brock.”

“Dear Mr Cameron, If as we suspect you postpone this cull today we say thank you for the common sense, if you think we will have forgotten about it next year remember this.
For every Owen Patterson, we have Gavin Grant, for every Jan Rowe, we have Steve Jones, for every Defra and NFU we have Team Badger, for every scientist you have to post outdated science in the Telegraph we have 30 who'll publish the latest research in Nature, for every MP you have to vote for the cull, we have 1000 people who will petition against it, and for every hired gun in a field there are 10 people who'll peacefully walk public footpaths till they pack up and go home.
If you are taking time to review the science and the options, we'll be happy to sit with you and talk it through, we care about the cows as well as the badgers. If you are hoping we'll forget and you can sneak it through next year, you can't, GABS and the rest of Team Badger will be ready next year and the year after.”

“Rejoice!

http://tinyurl.com/8s6fj27”

“@daniboy72: You write: "What is unquestionably unacceptable is emotive drooling such as that of the RSPCA's Gavin Grant, who attempts to equate badgers and humans. "These creatures know fear, love and compassion," he says. No, they don't - or, if they do, so do rats, flies and bacteria, and we are thus all mass murderers."

Question: How do you know Gavin Grant isn't right in his assertion?

You write: "By the same token, if the kinship bonds and maternal and territorial impulses of badgers be 'love' or 'compassion', human emotions are no more than such reflex impulses and imperatives (as frequently argued by cynics, brutal totalitarians and sociopaths in justification of their atrocities), in which case empathy is silly and pointless."

Question: Why should attributing "the kinship bonds and maternal and territorial impulses of badgers" to "love' or 'compassion", invalidate human emotions and suggest that they "are no more than such reflex impulses and imperatives"? And why would that suggestion be wrong anyway?

All the current scientific research unequivocally finds that this cull will not work. The chosen method is of shooting badgers in the dark. The weapon of use is to be a 2.2 rifle which is totally inadequate for this purpose. The stated aim is to ensure a a quick and 'clean' death. In order to fulfill this aim, badgers will have to be shot through the heart since shooting them in the head is not a viable choice since their skulls are too tough for these bullets to penetrate.

To shoot to ensure a clean, quick kill by shooting through the heart means that badgers will have to be shot presenting their left flank, with their left foreleg pointing forward. This ensures that the heart target is not obscured by that leg. If the leg is pointing towards the rear the powerful shoulder blade will obscure the target area, meaning that the animal will be shot in the shoulder, be wounded and will run off to die a long and painful death.

May I also remind you that the aim of this foolish experiment is to slaughter 70% of the badgers within the designated cull zones. You say: "This trial is a pragmatist, empirical experiment." I say it is not. You further state: "Many may consider it misguided." Yes! I am one of the many. You also said: "I respect that view, but, being rational, am prepared to await its results."

Sorry to have to disillusion you but you are not being in the least rational about this ill-advised cull.”

“@ daniboy72

If one distills what you say in essence to "You may disagree, but to disagree with another's sincerely held view by means of threats and abuse is terrorism" I certainly agree with that sentiment and long before the connection was ever made by the press; thought the activities of some animal rights groups was indeed terrorism.

But lets not get carried away. There is little if any evidence of violence being perpetrated against pro-cull farmers. When you consider that the home address of the director of Gloscon is available on the internet through Google without accessing companies house records and yet there is no report of any threat near his home, the one place you might imagine as a target... then some of the carefully crafted NFU hysteria screaming about a connection between hunt sabs and anti-cull protestors falls a bit flat.

It is not terrorism to protest in person as well as in print. Its a long established democratic right. As long as people protest and limit themselves to that, why not?

As for "What is unquestionably unacceptable is emotive drooling such as that of the RSPCA's Gavin Grant, who attempts to equate badgers and humans..... and...Disneyesque anthropomorphism" Unless this is a 'Specsaver moment' and my eyes deceive me, is it not you engaged in the colourful language?

For a more hard nosed approach consider that over the weekend did more than 30 eminent animal disease experts sign a letter in The Observer, rejecting the idea of the science behind the cull. Signatories to the letter included Lord Robert May, a former government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society; Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, professor emeritus of zoology at Cambridge; Dr Chris Cheeseman, formerly Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA); Professor Johyn Bourne CBE, former chairman, Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB; and Professor Lord John Krebs, University of Oxford.

In a separate move, nine leading vets have written an open letter, headed by the Humane Society International (HSI) UK, to DEFRA and Natural England, calling for a stop to the planned cull.

The letter warns that free shooting of badgers "will inevitably result in the targeting of many pregnant sows and, if culling extends towards the end of the open season, could result in the shooting of lactating sows, leading to the starvation of dependent cubs."

Whatever you say, the idea about this experimental cull being an 'empirical experiment' is laughable when as Lord Krebs points out Defra wishes to cull 70% of the badges in the cull area, but has no idea how many are actually there are the start!”

“In children's literature and Disney films, there are villains who cackle as, for mere motiveless malignancy, they plot the eradication of innocent animals. There are also beasts who make jokes and philosophical statements, fall in love and form unlikely alliance to defeat these psychopathic baddies.

In real life, neither such phenomenon is known.

The impassioned rhetoric being used here is thus wholly irresponsible and out of place.

I have no doubt whatever that the anti-cull people are sincere in their opposition and wish nothing but the best for all species. They too must accept that the NFU and farmers in general are not engaging in the cull for their own perverted amusement (it might with some reason be argued that these, as animal husbandmen and women, care more for animals than those who once owned a hamster), but because they too sincerely believe that, for the sake of your checkout bills and the welfare of their herds, such a cull is necessary or, at least, worthy of trial.

You may disagree, but to disagree with another's sincerely held view by means of threats and abuse is terrorism, different only in degree from killing people because they believe in a different god or feel loyalty to another racial grouping.There are no villains here and no heroes.

There can, I think, be little doubt that such a cull will result in short-term benefit to badgers, who are grotesquely overcrowded and so in grave danger of the social meltdown and degradation and disease which invitably results from such overopulation. Whether the chosen method be correct, time and trial alone will tell. I too have my doubts, since, unlike deer-management, there is precious little selectivity in any means yet discovered whereby badger numbers may be controlled. I am willing, however, to learn.

What is unquestionably unacceptable is emotive drooling such as that of the RSPCA's Gavin Grant, who attempts to equate badgers and humans. "These creatures know fear, love and compassion," he says. No, they don't - or, if they do, so do rats, flies and bacteria, and we are thus all mass murderers.

By the same token, if the kinship bonds and maternal and territorial impulses of badgers be 'love' or 'compassion', human emotions are no more than such reflex impulses and imperatives (as frequently argued by cynics, brutal totalitarians and sociopaths in justification of their atrocities), in which case empathy is silly and pointless.

So the protector of animal rights demolishes by means of Disneyesque anthropomorphism all claims of human rights. Bad philosophy, Mr Grant (read Kant on the mutual dependency of rights and responsibilities), bad semantics, shoddy rhetoric, abysmal morality, fifth-rate natural history.

Human beings are responsible for the management of species whose predators they have destroyed. How best they should be managed is a technical problem, not an ethical one. This trial is a pragmtist, empirical experiment. Many may consider it misguided. I respect that view, but, being rational, am prepared to await its results.”

“Walk for the Badgers, Dunster in Somerset, on Tuesday 16 Oct:


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/373269_419842491415635_815023969_n.jpg”

“There was a fantastic 'Walk for the Badgers', in Dunster in Somerset on Tuesday 16 Oct.”