News18 mins ago
Badger Cull
19 Answers
This poll is closed.
- No. It is not necessary. - 159 votes
- 70%
- Yes, they must be culled. - 69 votes
- 30%
Stats until: 22:14 Sat 26th Apr 2025 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2025. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
It is illegal to vaccinate cattle in the EU as there is no way to tell the difference between an infected animal and a vaccinated animal. To combat the problem Defra have invested £23 million in cattle vaccine and associated diagnostics R&D since 1998, and over the next 4 years have budgeted to spend a further £9.3 million.
Vaccinating badgers is not...
15:22 Sun 23rd Sep 2012
tambo, sadly greys are not indigenous
http:// www.woo dlands. ...rel- arrive- in-the- uk/
but culling them wont help either.
http://
but culling them wont help either.
I think that it is quite natural for species to cross territories whether it be intended or not. Woofie is correct about red squirrels Tambo. I agree that culling is a total waste of time, and also totally immoral in my opinion. Let nature take it's course. Left alone it levels itself out. Man insists on fighting nature but nature will ultimately win hopefully.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
It is feasible to inoculate badgers & there is a suitable vaccine available so why are the powers that be dragging their feet over this? It needs a bit of organisation! Gamekeepers, farmers etc in all badger inhabited areas may be sceptical, but surely it is worth the effort to try & reduce the number of cattle infected by tb. Stop agonising over it & get on & DO IT.
It takes about 18 months for a badger to die of TB. It's a long and painful disease for the badger. A sick badger is cast out of the set (having already infected others) and must live alone, without family, until it eventually dies.
I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps the vaccination route, which would be a long, expensive and less secure route.
Culling gives a short term result, but badgers from the surrounding un-culled areas would soon move back into the area defeating the object.
Like I said, I have no real answers other than the badgers will not win in the long term.
I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps the vaccination route, which would be a long, expensive and less secure route.
Culling gives a short term result, but badgers from the surrounding un-culled areas would soon move back into the area defeating the object.
Like I said, I have no real answers other than the badgers will not win in the long term.
The Irish conclusion:
Abstract
We examined the effect of varying levels of badger population control on the prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers in four counties of Ireland. In the ‘Removal’ and ‘Buffer’ areas, proactive culling was conducted to substantially reduce and subsequently maintain badger populations at a low level for five years. In the ‘Reference’ areas, localised reactive culling was conducted in association with herd breakdowns. The infection status of badgers was determined using bacteriology. A total of 2696 badgers were recruited into the study, and 19.0% were found to be infected with M. bovis. The two population control strategies had differing effects on the subsequent prevalence of tuberculosis in badger populations. Proactive culling led to a long term decrease in the prevalence of tuberculosis in the re-emergent populations. Although there was an overall decline in the disease prevalence, no consistent trend in disease prevalence as a result of reactive culling was observed.
That is from here:
http:// www.sci encedir ect.com /scienc e/artic le/pii/ S003452 8807002 767
Abstract
We examined the effect of varying levels of badger population control on the prevalence of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers in four counties of Ireland. In the ‘Removal’ and ‘Buffer’ areas, proactive culling was conducted to substantially reduce and subsequently maintain badger populations at a low level for five years. In the ‘Reference’ areas, localised reactive culling was conducted in association with herd breakdowns. The infection status of badgers was determined using bacteriology. A total of 2696 badgers were recruited into the study, and 19.0% were found to be infected with M. bovis. The two population control strategies had differing effects on the subsequent prevalence of tuberculosis in badger populations. Proactive culling led to a long term decrease in the prevalence of tuberculosis in the re-emergent populations. Although there was an overall decline in the disease prevalence, no consistent trend in disease prevalence as a result of reactive culling was observed.
That is from here:
http://