Kill Kill Kill.

Humans have perfected the art of slaughter when it suits our perceived ideals.

Can we not respect other creatures?

Can we not treat other species with compassion and mercy?

Do we always have to kill because of no other justifiable reason other than we can?

Now Tesco is trying to make a virtue out of its decision to "source all its beef in the UK". It failed to add just like Marks & Spencer & Waitrose have been doing for years.

Let's hope that a realistic price above the cost of production is paid. Hard working farmers deserve a decent living just like everyone else.

people are moving away from milk to healthier plant based options. its about time this unethical industry came crashing down. There will be no tears from me. Good riddance!

If locally owned, Newcastle Emlyn could probably make their owners a lot of money. But when you have a relatively small milk business owned in one country, operating globally, with hugely well rewarded staff and owners winging across the globe, there's not so great a chance for financial success. Welsh farmers should get together and make a sensible offer, and then do what the plant and it's workforce does so well, making top quality products - but now with their own exclusive label. Local products such as Llanboidy cheese foiund a ready high priced market - and this can be done on a bigger scale. Meanwhile, keep reading Practical Farm Ideas!

This is sad. It's like we're being paid handsomely for a politicians ill thought out and inefficient ideological crop. Like others, though, I have been forced into accepting some of this stuff on my land purely for the money it brings in. I'd much rather turbines were eradicated, though, and that my region simply had a new nuclear power station. UKIP for me then.

How can saving the planet and getting paid generously for it be a bad thing? You only have to look at the billions they cost and Fukishima in Japan to see that nuclear is a bad idea.

Is it not illegal to trap and then release. I thought foxes and grey squirrels were classed as vermin?

Either way it is cruel to dump urban foxes in the country. They will be bewildered not having the skills to hunt and will then become a menace and end up getting shot by the farmers.

So Mr Gent claims to be able to recognise a displaced urban fox by its "bewildered" expression... is he a qualified fox psychologist? Surely if, as this article states, rats are the fox's natural prey, then these foxes can actually do humans a big favour in our rat-infested urban areas, thereby doing away with the need to employ human "pest" controllers and their horrific poisons.

I live in the city and I can assure you, the fox is no problem at all. There has been a lot of scaremongering going on in the media, and we all know who is behind this nonsense. As for these so-called attacks on children, where is the evidence ? The parents of the twins in Hackney refused to have a bite anaylst examine the kids, inspite of it being suggested in order to get their opponents to 'back off'. There were NO tests done at the hospital, that is a fact. They also refused DNA testing when a wildlife organization offered help to prove what they wee saying was true and so in turn would stop threats made to them. Really, one does not have to be Einstein to work this out. As for the latest accusation, the mother couldn't even tell the same story twice; the account changed by the day. She claims the 'fox' got in through a broken back door, awaiting repair, yet the housing association released a statement to say the door had been fixed two weeks earlier and there were no more requests for repair !! People will invent stories, not to protect a family dog, but to protect themselves from the authorities and all it would entail to be accused of gross neglect of your kids. Beleive these daft stories if you must, but while your at it, say hello to the faeries for me.

WHY do all these papers, keep on printing LIES. The attack on the 14 week old baby in dartford in 2002, turned out to be a german shepherd, DOG ATTACK, NOT FOX ATTACK, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. People in the area, were so DISGUSTED with Foxes getting the blamE, the family had to leave the area. The Dog ATTACKED the child NOT ONCE BUT TWICE. Also the Hackney ALLEDGED FOX ATTACK, YES THAT IS RIGHT ALLEDGED NEVER PROVEN, NO FOX ATTACK EVER IS., JUST HEARSAY. I understand from a wildlife sanctuary heard via thier contacts, the twins were attacked by a DOG, that was at thier bar b q. The family were advised by a hackney detective to let a wildlife expert carry out DNA testing on the twins bite marks, the family said NO, WHY IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE. The detective also said, to let the media know the results, again the parents said NO, WHY WHEN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE. Now baby Denny in south London, you say the baby was dragged from his bedroom. The story changed, baby Denny was apparently, according to the Mother left UNATTENDED on the sofa, propped up by a quilt while she went upstairs to tidy up. This time it was the front door that was open, father had just left NEVER noticed the front door was still open, the house would have been FREEZING as it was on the 6th of February, 2013. Phoenix Housing say they repaired the broken door on the 24th January, 2013.,2 weeks before this ALLEDGED FOX ATTACK, and they also say they had NO further calls outs, from the family concerning this broken door. Mother said she went upstairs, she heard a thud/cry, came back down the stairs, baby Denny was being dragged of the sofa, the Fox APPARENTLY was SWINGIING THE 4 WEEK OLD BABY AROUND, BY THE ARM, THAT WAS DOWN THE FOXES THROAT. BABY DENNY'S HEAD WAS REPEATEDLY HITTING OF THE HARD, VERY HARD DOOR FRAME/WALL, YET THE ONLY MINOR, VERY MINOR INJURIES TO BABY DENNY'S FACE, WAS A FEW MINOR VERY MINOR ABRASIONS. IF THAT HAD HAPPENED TO BABY DENNY A FOUR WEEK OLD BABY'S HEAD IS VERY VUNARABLE UNLIKE AN ADULT. I BELIEVE THOSE INJURIES WOULD HAVE PROOVED FATAL, TOO BABY DENNY. I LIKE MANY OTHER'S STILL BELIEVE THIS WAS A DOMESTIC DOG ATTACK, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, NO EVIDENCE, NO PROOF, JUST HEARSAY,.. SO WHY DO YOU PRINT STORIES, THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN. FOXES ARE NOT A DANGER, BUT SO HUMAN BEINGS, MOST DEFINATELY. JUST LIKE THE HACKNEY COUPLE, BABY DENNY'S PARENTS, HAVE VANISHED & THEY HAVE BEEN RE-HOUSED, JUST LIKE THEY WANTED. STOP BLAMING THE FOXES WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF...FOX LOVER..

FIRSTLY ALL THESE ALLEDGED FOX ATTACKS HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN PROVEN, JUST HEARSAY..

Just like RoddyBywater says, I live in the city and have NO problems at all with Foxes, in fact they are a pleasure too watch. All these people that claim a Fox has come into thier house and ATTACKED thier babies are covering up for really ATTACKED the twins in Hackney & Baby Denny in South London..

Mid-season control can be achieved by accurate weed wiping after 1st cut silage - the docks always get going well before the grass.

Im sure the lawsuits will follow including the facts that most horses in the US are drugged with brute, wormers,and steriods. USDA,FARM BUREAU,AG,AVMA, and the AAEP all knew this but remain silent so that criminals and irresponsible people could profit selling horses for slaughter in Mexico and Canada..

""This is doublespeak for watering down the EU's already weak GM regulatory system to the level of the almost non-existent regulation in the US" said Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source."

Right on, Claire Robinson. There is little or no regulatory oversight in the US on GMOs. Due to Monsanto and the chemical/"agricultural" mafia, the American people are being force fed GMOs. Even as I write this, GMOs and its "inputs" appear to be destroying everything they touch in America: the soil, the water, the air, crops, the science, the portions of the academic community beholden to GE research, and the political structures which should oversee the regulation of this high school science fair technology.

And like Monsanto, the WTO has to be one of the most evil organizations on the planet. BTW, the regulatory agencies of the EU should be massively investigated.

We have an obesity and mental health crisis on our hands people are STARVING FOR NUTRITION !!!
We can not feed the populations on poisoned dead soil with genetically modified foods!
Tons upon tons of nutritional gold is sitting in landfills all over the globe.
WE MUST FEED OUR LAND !
We can not keep taking and taking and not give back. we must collect food waste to feed our lands so the food we take into our bodies contain the vital essential nutrients our bodies need. Our bodies were not designed to deal with chemical fertilizers, pesticides and chemically made vitamins and minerals ! We have already established what pesticides have done to the bees brains , what about our brains and that of our children's. Cancer is rife and to let this *what i feel is tantamount to genocide*carry on is a crime against the whole of humanity.......Monsanto and their ilk are nutritionally starving and poisoning your countries people and lands WAKE UP !! it is not all about the profits , hang on or is it? There are swathes of money to be saved on medical bills of your country if your people are getting the proper nutrition. There is gold in landfills Just screaming to be collected. Once food is collected and rotted down our lands get fed the soil becomes health vibrant and filled with NATURAL NUTRIENTS that our bodies were designed to take full benefit ergo: HEALTH OF A NATION . Once the soils are well mulched they will retain much more moisture needing less water in times of drought. when the food is rotting down the gasses that it produces can be turned into energy. I am just an ordinary bipolar woman with virtually zip education, if I can figure this simple equation out what the hell are we paying the European union for or our over educated pompous politicians for ??? STOP THE MADNESS !

Calling Europe's regulatory system for GM crops is laughable. It's the most strictly regulated system in the world. And as for the public health risks proposed, there has not been a single case of human illness or death due to GM foods reported since their introduction almost 20 years ago.

Refusing to accept technology and change is going to leave you stranded in out of date, inefficient farming processes and destroy the environment you claim to be trying so hard to save.

The evidence is growing that GM technology is inefficient. The most efficient and balanced system is nature itself. Humankind's failure to understand and work with nature has led to 'band-aid' technologies - temporary quick fixes that often promise much and deliver little. And that is how the evidence is now stacking with GMOs. As for illnesses, relevant data would include generational statistics. As a parent I would not feed my kids stuff that has not been completely tested. Although I am not directly equating the two, my generation saw too many thalidomide cases to ignore the risks. I do not refuse to accept change but supporters of GMO are now being asked to accept change based on the emerging results.

Jack R., who do you work for?! You are a complete and utter dolt if you believe that. Why don't you educate yourself! The film Genetic Roulette by Dr. Jeffrey M. Smith might change your mind, unless you have been bought, that is!

The evidence is growing that GM is an inefficient farming process. The US Farmers Weekly says that one of the biggest problems U.S. farmers have experienced with GM seed is resistance. When GM seeds were first introduced, biotech engineers said it would be 40 years before resistance would develop; but pests such as corn rootworm have instead developed a resistance to GM crops in as few as 14 years.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039158_farmers_GMOs_crop_yields.html#ixzz2LNRIUcUt

Jack R. When are you going to wake up to the fact that it is actually industrial high-input fossil-fuel dependent agriculture that is out of date, being totally out of sync with what's happening with natural resource depletion and climate change, and massively inefficient when it takes 10 units of non-renewable energy to produce 1 unit of food energy? The future of agricultural technology change is going to be about innovation in ecological agriculture, like this: http://m.guardiannews.com/global-development/2013/feb/16/india-rice-farmers-revolution

And have you noticed that Really Big Business is getting fed up with the GMO industry creating more problems than it solves, and failing to keep consumers onside? Time to sell those shares, or get a proper job.

Please join us on facebook at the Bono and Monsanto Forum for Conscious Debate and Discovery to AT LEAST TRY to organize Bono fans to do an intervention and pull him back from the dark side.

This is a dangerous and utterly suicidal turn of events. If this deregulation takes place we may as well put a gun to our heads. This is not a democratically reached decision. The people have not been consulted. The democratic will of the people must be adhered to ootherwise we are living in a dictatorship of the fascist sort. Until the people have decided what they want there can not be any further integration of trade standards and deals.
The WTO is a criminal organisation and they should be charged with crimes against humanity for the harm they have brought to bear upon the innocent people in developing nations via pernicious and exploitation based legislation which only favours he rich fat cats.

Shoppers can no longer trust many supermarkets but they can trust British meat."


You better think again some of this horsemeat came from America where horses were hauled to Canda and mexico for slaughter and horses from America do NOT need passports and are drugged with brute, steriods, wormers, etc... I see many lawsuits in the making.. The only way to stop this is to stop slaughtering American Horses now..

An excellent article Trevor well written and very informative. I hope this is passed to the 'ill informed' officials who think that by tinkering with a few issues we can stop hens pecking each other.

The amount of tip taken off a beak of a hen is so small I am convinced that the average person would not be able to tell the difference. It is painless and done at chick stage. If readers google beak trimming and see some of the horrific images shown it is no wonder it raises emotions. These are not representative of beak trimming and should be condemned. However if those same readers were to look at the horrific images from birds that have been subjected to cannibalism from other birds they would soon change their minds.

This data may have something to do with a decision made by Sainsburys recently which was to use British Egg Products in their Italian meals. As I understand the eggs were exported to Italy (from France) used in their Italian pasta dishes and then imported back to the UK.

Give them an inch and they want to take a mile. First it was enriched colonies for hens, and now, that's not good enough for the "animal rights"-led *true believers*, who really think that NO animal use would be better. The last paragraph of the article about is pure propaganda BIG LIES. We've had free range hens, and not only are they less efficient (they hide their eggs all over the place), but it's hard to completely keep them free from predators. At night they are up in coops, so they are fine, but during the day, ground and flying predators hunt them, no matter how careful one is.

Prof Atkins' analysis is yet more confirmation of what's been long known by the UK's leading scientists, animal health experts and those who've studied the development of bTB problems in cattle.

To summarise, the spread of bTB in cattle has been created by earlier inadequate controls on cattle movement and can be halted by the tighter cattle movement controls now in force.

Cattle vaccination is a new and powerful tool, to be used ASAP.

Badgers have been scapegoated as the cause of cattle bTB, in spite of no evidence at all whether cattle infect badgers or the other way round.

As vaccinating badgers against bTB works and won't be delayed by the need to gain EU permission to use the vaccine, we may soon have the bizarre situation where WILD badgers are 100% protected against bTB and DOMESTICATED cattle are not.

"If our analysis showing the lack of disease persistence in medium and low density badger populations is correct..."

If you can find an area with medium and low density badger populations in England and Wales then congratulations - you will probably find bTB incidences are already low there for precisely that reason - Scotland and Anglesey are good examples. But the reality is that badger population densities are now vast, with some individual farms having ten setts or more.

It may also be worth Prof. Atkins reading up on the latest results from the RBCT trials rather than paraphrasing the 2007 rhetoric which has now been proved to be wrong: The ISG claimed that "badger culling was unlikely to be effective for the future control of bTB" yet their own trials resulted in ... better future control of bTB in culling areas.

There is now a desperate effort to stop a cull by some scientists because their own advice against culling will be shown to have cost the nation millions and caused the deaths of scores of thousands of cattle.

@ Brockspreader

Re "There is now a desperate effort to stop a cull by some scientists because their own advice against culling will be shown to have cost the nation millions and caused the deaths of scores of thousands of cattle" ...

A vicious slur on scientists, for which you've no evidence.

Science depends on the well-informed, meticulous gathering of appropriate evidence, its assessment and the fair and accurate reporting of research discoveries. Scientists have a respect for data that sadly isn't often shared by many other members of the population.

We need more money put into immunisation, it's no good killing all our native badgers, besides it's called BOVINE TB, not badger tb. So leave the badger alone.

"A desparate attempt by scientists to disrail the cull", are you completely insane, they are SCIENTISTS that is their job, and no they are not all wrong, YOU ARE WRONG!!

Pro cull types are absolute morons, complete idiots, you have lost the argument and the CA are resorting to ridiculous stories in the Telegraph and Mail to try and drum up support for their pathetic cull.

Famers are NOT all for the cull, farmers can do much better than listen to the CA. Paterson is merely a front for the CA and the big landowners.

This is madess, farmers can do better without a cull!

It has been suggested that a cull will make badgers move further afield, which seems logical, and that IF they are responsible for bovine tb, which is debateable, it will be spread over a wider area then, making it much worse.

"My research suggests that extending the policy elsewhere may neither be justified nor particularly effective."
Of course it's not justified, it's never been justified hence why it was never proposed in the first place. Badger culling has only been proposed in areas where TB is endemic in the badger species, something he himself says; "may have a part to play alongside other measures."

"The search for an adequate TB vaccine for cattle continues, but badgers can be vaccinated now to help prevent the spread of TB as an alternative to culling."
Cattle vaccination is unfortunately at least 10 years away. Badgers can indeed be vaccinated but, that is on the scientific strenght that it does them no harm (not that it does them any good). We are still not in a place where it is possible to describe vaccination as a solution because it has of yet not be show to build the all important herd immunity (something that maybe more likely to be achieved in application with culling). Research continues, of which I believe there are very few against but, in the mean time culling (which is scientifically proven) will continue to be used as a part of the TB erradiation programme.

"We are still not in a place where it is possible to describe vaccination as a solution because it has of yet not be show to build the all important herd immunity" ...

Other UK human and animal vaccination programmes (eg against polio) point to herd immunity being securely established once 80% target population is vaccinated.

Considerable progress has already been made in rolling out the badger vaccination programme - herd immunity hasn't yet been established but it's getting much closer. The costs of vaccinating badgers are coming down considerably, they can now be as low as £12 per animal.

There are already sufficient pools of vaccinated, TB resistant badgers to create quarantine areas stopping the disease spreading amongst a number of badger populations. There's progress towards enlarging these individual quarantine areas so that they cover the whole of the UK's cattle bTB hotspots.

Vaccinate 70% badgers and you've probably got so close to herd immunity as to end TB in badgers.

By contrast, if you EVER manage to slaughter 70% badgers in an area, it's estimated that at the end of 9 years the best result is you MAY have reduced cattle bTB by 15%. The scientists also warn it's quite possible slaughtering badgers will actually increase cattle bTB.

Whichever way you look at it, the badger cull programme is stupid and counter-productive.

The difference between science and farming folklore is that science is still TRUE whether you BELIEVE in it or not!
DEFRA's own figures show that a cull MIGHT at their most wildly and unscientifically optimistic only marginally slow the growth of bTB. DEFRA's 'new' non-simultaneous free-shooting is based not on sound science but on desperate guesswork and has been assessed as a 'recipe for perturbation' i.e. it WILL CAUSE bTB TO SPREAD! It also remains to be seen whether it will be proven to be inhumane as part of the 'trial'.
So realistically badger culling would most probably do nothing to help bTB or make the situation worse! DEFRA has also stated that a cull is GUARANTEED TO BE UNECONOMIC for farmers - yet some farmers & Owen patterson still put their folklore faith in it and are willing to also waste £millions of taxpayers money on policing & monitoring.
By using the bTB skin test (less than 80% reliable & suitable for use only as a herd test!) & through chronic non-compliance; farmers and DEFRA have systematically destroyed natural immunity to bTB in cattle through decades of false positives. They have reinfected their own herds and spread bTB to others through decades of false negatives plus unrestricted movement during restocking after Foot&Mouth, plus an unquantified amount of fraud which has necessitated the introduction & additional undisclosed costs to taxpayers of DNA testing.
Time to join the overwhelming majority of OBJECTIVE scientists backed by the MANDATE of both public opinion and MPs (147 to 28 AGAINST a cull). 'First do no harm' so cancel the culls and accelerate development of the DIVA test, cattle VACCINATION and EU/UK law change! By all means expand the ongoing, increasingly effective, badger vaccination programmes. Why is the Welsh badger vaccination proving so effective? Because badgers still retain natural immunity to bTB as it originated as and remains primarily a CATTLE disease and that immunity has not YET been destroyed through indiscriminate culling!

I cant believe all the fuss, badgers have no positive economic benefit for the countryside, nor does most wildlife. If there there were no badgers only a few weird looking drug crazed hippies from pop groups and little old cat ladies would care. My grandfather bulldozed the badger sets on our land in the 1950s---they have never recolonised our land despite the nearby national Trust protecting sets. Thank goodness we have Patterson and Benyon ,we will all soon be able to get back to hunting and perhaps we can have badgers delisted and put on the quarry list and find some use for them.

Facts :
169,000+ people have signed a government e petition against the cull.
90% + of the general public are against the cull.
Parliament voted against the cull by 147 to 28.
The majority of scientific opinion is against the cull.
Paterson has to be the worst environment minister ever, supporting weird policies like fracking and GM crops. He is pro hunting, anti gay and a climate change denier. He has handled the horsemeat crisis very badly, looking like a rabbit in the headlights most of the time.
Sanctions will be taken aganst farmers who pursue this policy which wont work and is doomed to fail.

@ Sheepfarmer

You're being deeply ironic, right?

You're presenting yourself as a "Colonel Blimp" of a farmer - arrogant, unthinking and out of touch with the world beyond your farm. This can't be a true picture of what you really think, surely?

My point about vaccination was clearly aimed at application of the BCG within the badger species. It's disappointing to be taken out of context like this but, demonstrates the lack of scientific evidence behind the failing BCG vaccine. Vaccination still has a long way to go, it will take time to establish whether herd immunity within this application is even possible to achieve bare alone to achieve it. It's interesting the costs you quote (taking out all the costs). The simple fact is that badger culling is expensive, the Welsh government and Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust both did it for over £600 a badger.
http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/vaccination.html
Whilst the vaccine dose itself might be considered "cheap" there are many associated costs that come with it. It's expensive but, we need to be realists when considering the options of tackling the endemic problem of TB in the badger species. It's seems odd then to see that people talk about the economic aspects of culling and include the police costs. Let us not forget the police are there because of the extremist nature of some of the opposition against culling. Tackling TB in the badger species has never been considered economical and hence the disease has spread throughout the badger species. 10's of thousands of dead badgers, 100’s of thousands of dead cattle at a cost of £3 billion, who still wants to try and claim any rational or moral ground talking about economics?

It's important to remember when it comes to vaccination of badgers it’s unlikely to give lifelong immunity. Badgers (and new cubs) will need to be caught repeatedly over many years before we will even know it has a chance of working, there is certainly a long way to go. Whilst I most certainly do support the furthering of vaccination research without the scientific weight behind it we are talking about faith. Just because we run scientific research doesn't mean it will work, just look at MVA85A.

If one was to vaccinate 70% of badgers within the hotspot areas, with a vaccine that can protect around 70%, of which at most 70% would be TB free then you are looking at protecting around 35%. This is a long way off the success rates that have been seen or are required for successful vaccination policies. So the question that needs to be answered is can this over years be used to build up herd immunity i.e. if we achieve 35% in the first year can we improve on this further over several years. It's not going to happen overnight, it will take years and there is no guarantee of success. Scientific process is followed for a reason, it's so that we do not lose control of the disease. Unfortunately there is not easy way to speed up the research or the scientific breakthroughs that are required. They will take time and with that must come patience.

Then we go again with the lopsided cake and eat it attitude towards badger culling. If free-shooting does not work then cage trapping will be deployed, just as in the vaccination trial. So the idea that vaccination definitely will and badger culling probably won’t reach 70% capture rates is complete nonsense.

Unfortunately because of how the figures have been presented people are getting them confused as to what they are. Let me be very clear about this, it's an average not a maximum or something seen at the end of year 9. It’s an average over the entire term. This includes the high level of perturbation seen in the early years and the longer term large reductions in TB which resulted in a net benefit equivalent to 16% over 9 years. This is more of a legal figure that demonstrates badger culling does make a significant contribution to the reduction of TB. It’s important to remember this is not all that badgers contribute to the level of TB (because it includes the negative aspects of perturbation). It was specifically stated early on in the RBCT that such a figure would not be possible to calculate (due to the political limitations placed on the study).

Whilst there are risk with culling, the "might make it worse" is a term that was more directed towards different policy options. I realise have two different types of culling can be confusing but, care needs to be taken in understanding the difference in reactive and proactive culling. Proactive culling was proven to give these large reductions. Reactive culling was abandoned in the RBCT and hence became a perfect recipe for perturbation. However, more rigid application of reactive badger culling (as recommended by Krebbs) in Ireland has yielded TB reductions which have brought TB down to generational lows.

There's a lot spun against the internationally recognised skin test. A skin test used in less rigorous applications that has cleared many nations from TB. It's interesting this talk about use as a herd test, because whilst in certain countries it is used as this, this is also coupled with wide scale wildlife culling, something they are against. It's odd how one wants one side of the equation to be ruthlessly and rigorously addressed and the other side left with no controls. It's also important to note that just because a cow has reacted and has been slaughtered showing no visible signs of TB (as is most often the case) doesn't mean that the cow didn't have it. Surely the fact that the test is picking up so many early cases demonstrates that it's working and hence a large indication towards the direction of transmission.

The Conservatives promised a badger cull in their manifesto, the Lib Dems promised scientific action on the badger species with a certain senior Lib Dem agricultural Minister pretty much spelling out a cull. These parties were elected into power and took this policy further with two public consultations. They most certainly do have a mandate and have certainly followed the democratic, scientific and legal process. Hence why badger culling will be going ahead.

Thanks for a nicely argued and informative post, Blake.

"The Conservatives promised a badger cull in their manifesto, the Lib Dems promised scientific action on the badger species ... They most certainly do have a mandate".

Parliament voted AGAINST the badger cull. A Parliamentary vote trumps a party manifesto.

As an aside, political parties rarely seem to respect their own manifestos, treating them as "sales brochures" rather than commitments to the voters (a good example being Cameron's "no top down re-organisation of the NHS").

"It's seems odd then to see that people talk about the economic aspects of culling and include the police costs"...

Police costs have to be included in the cull equation because:-

(a) with around 90% public opposed to it, there'll be massive protests (lawful and unlawful) against it; the police have to protect both sides against the other - risks being particularly high as the cullers will have guns and most confrontations will be in the dark

(b) the badger cull programme proposed presents an exceptional level of risk to third parties. There'll be no advance warning of the areas where shooting is to happen, putting late evening and early morning walkers and their dogs at risk - previous "cull areas" have been criss-crossed by footpaths.

Police costs will be huge. Police PLANNING for the Gloucestershire cull area cost over £1M; actually doing the policing would have cost millions more of tax-payers' money for a project they oppose.

"If one was to vaccinate 70% of badgers within the hotspot areas, with a vaccine that can protect around 70% ...then you are looking at protecting around 35%."

No, you're looking at protecting a very much higher percentage than that, because of the quarantine effect. A successfully vaccinated badger can't pass on TB to another badger. Vaccinate around 70% and you've got herd immunity near as dammit.

You've also reduced the risk of TB being passed down the badger generations - you haven't eliminated the risk entirely because TB is endemic in the environment.

Hope to get back to you later on the other points you've raised - I should really get on with work now!

24 yrs of data shows that intense badger cull substantially reduced/eliminated persistent bovine TB across 104 square kilometres.

http://www.bovinetb.info/gassing.php

It was a non-binding vote after a very poor debate in which only a minority of MP’s voted. I certainly do not believe that this is grounds for a trump card.

a) I have yet to see credible figures to suggest anti-cull support is anywhere near as high as 90%. As can be seen in my link if you are against badger culling and believe in vaccination then do that; Support vaccination. Wildlife Trusts are queuing up to deliver it but, need support. I will also like to point out that that just because you don’t like a policy it does not give you the right to participate in illegal activities or justify them. Hence why I refuse to believe police costs should be associated with the costs of culling. Anyone planning extremist activities needs to take responsibility for themselves. There is also the question why they would want to disrupt culling in the first place. Disruption of badger culling increases perturbation. So their actions will not save badgers but, result in greater badger and cattle death. Anyone involved in these disruptive activities will have badger death and suffering on their hands. Why would you do this when there are perfectly legal activities that support what you believe in available?

b) Free shooting goes on throughout the countryside every night of the summer. Just because the sights will be turned on badgers doesn’t make it any more dangerous.

And on the police, they are paid to be impartial and uphold the law. The idea that they support or oppose badger culling is nonsense.

“No, you're looking at protecting a very much higher percentage than that…”
Over time maybe and this is what must be trialed and is not know but, intitially you can't hope for more than 35%.

@ blake

"It was a non-binding [parliamentary] vote [to ban the badger cull] after a very poor debate in which only a minority of MP’s voted."

When Parliament votes - and votes overwhelmingly - against a course of action a democratic government SHOULD respect that decision.

If it wants the decision rescinded then it's up to government to ask for a new vote and try to persuade a majority of MPs to support them.

The government has no mandate now for its proposed badger cull. Having been voted down once, it hasn't dared to ask for a new parliamentary vote to legitimise its action - presumably because it fears a second defeat.


"I have yet to see credible figures to suggest anti-cull support is anywhere near as high as 90%."

All the polls I've seen over a number of years point to a minimum of two-thirds of the population being against badger culling when this is only raised as a theoretical possibility (see polls provided by companies that conduct national polling exercises - they're quoted by DEFRA).

As the threat of an actual badger cull comes closer, the percentage of the public against such action rises to 90% and beyond 90%.

Some local polls indicate 99% public opposition to the badger cull (the quality of these is questionable).

At least one poll has identified that country folk are even more opposed to the cull than "townies".

Clearly the most credible polls are those conducted by the national polling organisations. What all the polls show, however, is that the badger cull programme is massively unpopular with the voters.

"I will also like to point out that that just because you don’t like a policy it does not give you the right to participate in illegal activities ... Hence why I refuse to believe police costs should be associated with the costs of culling".

It's perfectly fair to associate police costs with the costs of culling. The cull creates the need to send in huge numbers of police for months at a time to safeguard human life (the masses of lawful protesters, the armed badger killers and the relatively small numbers of unlawful protesters) in high risk situations.

@ blake

"Over time maybe and this is what must be trialed and is not know but, intitially you can't hope for more than 35%."

I think you CAN argue from other animal and human vaccination programmes where the combination of successfully vaccinating much of the target population plus the benefits of the quarantine effect have effectively controlled other diseases.

Distemper amongst dogs (once common) is now an exceptionally rare disease, for example, even though there are significant numbers of puppies and dogs that are not vaccinated and / or that do not receive booster injections.

This cull will also reverse all the goodwill and faith that is being shown to British farmers in the wake of the horsemeat scandal. Their sales can drop suddenly again when we all boycott them and either go veggie or chose to buy from elsewhere. DEFRA and farmers will not only be shooting badgers but themselves ..... In the foot!

What a complete waste of money and what is even worse is that it does not even make sense. Unfortunately, it would appear that Owen Patterson is out to please rather than base decisions on science.

The democratic and legal process has been followed. I find it odd that you keep asserting that a non-binding vote in parliament in which little over a quarter of MP's voted should posthumously become binding and be considered “overwhelming”. Hence why your "no mandate" argument holds no water as this is not a strong enough argument or vote to override the mandate the government received from the public.

The most credible poll was that of HSI UK in which the results were as follows;
In favour: 31%
No opinion: 29%
Against: 40%
Considering how easy it is to spin the case of the endemic nature of TB in the badger species, I would hardly say this demonstrates an overwhelming public majority against badger culling either. A lot of the polls you quote get passed around the anti-cull twitter crowd at which point the survey gets spammed by anti-cull votes. Hence why you get your 90%+ results. I certainly do not consider this reliable and hence why it has no bearing on developing policy.

"At least one poll has identified that country folk are even more opposed to the cull than "townies""
This was a BBC poll which used a cold calling telephone survey that was carried out a couple of weeks after the case of Adam Hensen’s death threats was revealed. Considering it's the folk in the countryside that are more likely to be involved in a badger cull I would not advise anyone to answer such a cold call in support of badger culling. Especially since this is the same tactic being used by many extremists in order to target farmers.

I fail to see how protesting suddenly becomes a culling cost. Legal protests are a perfectly acceptable activity in any democracy but, its costs are associated with themselves and democracy. Legal protests will not increase the costs of culling badgers. It's a very unbalanced argument you present when you won’t accept the associated costs with vaccination (i.e in actually deploying the vaccination) and then expect the police cost (policing you, i.e. costs you create) to be included in the cost of a cull.

However, there will also be police costs due to that of illegal activities to protect these extremists from themselves and others. These people must take responsibility for themselves. In which you lead me onto another point that you failed to address. There are legal alternatives and proactive ways in order to voice your discontent, and as I pointed out successful disruption of badger culling will not help the badgers. I fail to see therefore a rational need for such protests to be carried out in this way. Therefore anyone taking part in such protests much takes responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

You keep repeating the idea of high risk. Can you please explain to me if everyone acts legally and responsibly how it suddenly becomes “high risk”? This scare tactic is not going to work. As I have pointed out, free shooting goes on every night of the summer. How does it suddenly become more dangerous now the sights are pointed at badgers?

"I think you CAN argue from other animal and human vaccination programmes where the combination of successfully vaccinating much of the target population plus the benefits of the quarantine effect have effectively controlled other diseases."
I do not believe this is a valid argument into ensuring success, and certainly does not hold weight as scientific proof that vaccinating badgers with the BCG is going to work. The success of other vaccination programs lies in gaining access to and vaccinating younger subjects before they have had exposure to the contagion. The problem with vaccinating badgers is that we cannot easily achieve this, and coupled with the weaknesses of the ever weakening BCG vaccination makes this exceedingly difficult. Hence why we are still not at a stage to call it a solution bare alone scientifically proven.

@TeamBadger Jeffery,
It’s disappointing to see such a misleading comment. The Horsemeat scandal just like the banking crisis demonstrates the problems in globalised markets and how we play our part in them. As is generally the case, the UK market is strong and shows remarkable honesty. It’s only when we open up to imports of international products (where we expect the same sense of fair play to take place) that we have problems. You say goodwill and faith shown to British farmers but, what are you accusing us of? It’s not goodwill or faith, its trust. The British consumer can trust the British farmer because we have a world beating farming system with strong and thoroughly enforced regulation.

As for public disapproval, you keep saying this will have a knock on effect to the consumer. But, I believe that this is more wishful thinking. You say sales can drop again highlighting the fact that you yourself are;
a) Not likely a customer
b) Have nothing to lose
You bring nothing to this debate other than threats of what you will make other people believe. The consumer is not as stupid as Team Badger believes. They are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

The democratic and legal process has been followed. I find it odd that you keep asserting that a non-binding vote in parliament in which little over a quarter of MP's voted should posthumously become binding and be considered “overwhelming”. Hence why your "no mandate" argument holds no water as this is not a strong enough argument or vote to override the mandate the government received from the public.

The most credible poll was that of HSI UK in which the results were as follows;
In favour: 31%
No opinion: 29%
Against: 40%
Considering how easy it is to spin the case of the endemic nature of TB in the badger species, I would hardly say this demonstrates an overwhelming public majority against badger culling either. A lot of the polls you quote get passed around the anti-cull twitter crowd at which point the survey gets spammed by anti-cull votes. Hence why you get your 90%+ results. I certainly do not consider this reliable and hence why it has no bearing on developing policy.

"At least one poll has identified that country folk are even more opposed to the cull than "townies""
This was a BBC poll which used a cold calling telephone survey that was carried out a couple of weeks after the case of Adam Hensen’s death threats was revealed. Considering it's the folk in the countryside that are more likely to be involved in a badger cull I would not advise anyone to answer such a cold call in support of badger culling. Especially since this is the same tactic being used by many extremists in order to target farmers.

I fail to see how protesting suddenly becomes a culling cost. Legal protests are a perfectly acceptable activity in any democracy but, its costs are associated with themselves and democracy. Legal protests will not increase the costs of culling badgers. It's a very unbalanced argument you present when you won’t accept the associated costs with vaccination (i.e in actually deploying the vaccination) and then expect the police cost (policing you, i.e. costs you create) to be included in the cost of a cull.

However, there will also be police costs due to that of illegal activities to protect these extremists from themselves and others. These people must take responsibility for themselves. In which you lead me onto another point that you failed to address. There are legal alternatives and proactive ways in order to voice your discontent, and as I pointed out successful disruption of badger culling will not help the badgers. I fail to see therefore a rational need for such protests to be carried out in this way. Therefore anyone taking part in such protests much takes responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

You keep repeating the idea of high risk. Can you please explain to me if everyone acts legally and responsibly how it suddenly becomes “high risk”? This scare tactic is not going to work. As I have pointed out, free shooting goes on every night of the summer. How does it suddenly become more dangerous now the sights are pointed at badgers?

"I think you CAN argue from other animal and human vaccination programmes where the combination of successfully vaccinating much of the target population plus the benefits of the quarantine effect have effectively controlled other diseases."
I do not believe this is a valid argument into ensuring success, and certainly does not hold weight as scientific proof that vaccinating badgers with the BCG is going to work. The success of other vaccination programs lies in gaining access to and vaccinating younger subjects before they have had exposure to the contagion. The problem with vaccinating badgers is that we cannot easily achieve this, and coupled with the weaknesses of the ever weakening BCG vaccination makes this exceedingly difficult. Hence why we are still not at a stage to call it a solution bare alone scientifically proven.

@TeamBadger Jeffery,
It’s disappointing to see such a misleading comment. The Horsemeat scandal just like the banking crisis demonstrates the problems in globalised markets and how we play our part in them. As is generally the case, the UK market is strong and shows remarkable honesty. It’s only when we open up to imports of international products (where we expect the same sense of fair play to take place) that we have problems. You say goodwill and faith shown to British farmers but, what are you accusing us of? It’s not goodwill or faith, its trust. The British consumer can trust the British farmer because we have a world beating farming system with strong and thoroughly enforced regulation.

As for public disapproval, you keep saying this will have a knock on effect to the consumer. But, I believe that this is more wishful thinking. You say sales can drop again highlighting the fact that you yourself are;
a) Not likely a customer
b) Have nothing to lose
You bring nothing to this debate other than threats of what you will make other people believe. The consumer is not as stupid as Team Badger believes. They are perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

The R$PCA has been allowed to get way too big for its britches and influence UK societal issues in excessive amounts, to the detriment of *humans* in an effort to curb the use of animals [that's "animal rights" rather than "animal welfare"]. The American A$PCA and H$U$ would LOVE to have the influence here that the R$PCA has in the U.K., but fortunately the "animal rights" groups have significant opposition here by many who realize that animal rights is a sociopathic philosophy and that AR is NOT the same as animal welfare.