Donate SIGN UP

Badger Cull, Year 2

Avatar Image
boxtops | 00:20 Mon 01st Sep 2014 | Animals & Nature
12 Answers
I'm sad to see this has been approved for a second year, without independent monitoring


1 to 12 of 12rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by boxtops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clearly didn't work in year one so they will repeat until they get it right.
The last one was an unmitigated shambles and fell woefully short of its targets. Extended from 6 weeks to a further 8 it still only reached 40%, when the target was 70%, at a subsequent cost of over £4,100 per badger:

To me its an excuse to give to gung-ho tooting ex-fox hunters something to shoot at. Disgusted, nothing as yet being proven they even carry any disease (more than any other animals in nature) ...and these dick-heads couldn't hit side of a barn a leave them injured.
Question Author
Have there been any changes in concrete evidence that less badgers = less bovine TB? I think not.
Question Author
Thanks Chris - fingers crossed :-)

Let's hope they'll be a bit of this again, seemed to help last time!
Shooting our beautiful native badger - shocking !!!

Baldric, I don't understand that cartoon.....
Badgers moving the goalposts to fox the authorities and the hunt.

"Badgers moving the Goalposts"
Oh I see now, thanks.
I partly agree with arksided but think it's the excuse of 'working' men and roughnecks who go out and cull badgers for the fun of the shoot not ex foxhunters/toffs. I was angered by some of the ABers who defended it last time it was discussed (my views personally were totally dismissed) so I'll steer clear of it this time from now on.

1 to 12 of 12rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Badger Cull, Year 2

Answer Question >>