Is Britain really “a nation of animal lovers”?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:38 am

Between them, British people own 7.7 million cats and 6.6 million dogs. If you include one million budgerigars, 18 million goldfish, and countless other creatures such as rabbits and hamsters, then 49% of the population (about 30 million people) own a pet.

Britain was the first country to have a society that campaigned for animal welfare (now called the RSPCA) that led to changes in the law. Anna Sewell's book ‘Black Beauty’ was a serious work criticising the welfare of horses and led to the spread of concerns regarding the care of animals to other parts of the world, especially the US. These days we have a host of animal charities, many working for animal welfare abroad (such as the Brooke Hospital), and many earning huge incomes while charities caring for people struggle to raise enough to keep going. To people from many other countries this seems absolutely bizarre and it appears that we are obsessed with animals.

Whenever an animal appears in a news story the response is huge. You may recall Sefton, the drummer horse seriously injured in the Hyde Park bombings; although people were injured, the news and public interest focused on him and his recovery. Then there were the Tamworth piglets which escaped from an abattoir and went to an animal sanctuary; anywhere else they would have gone back for slaughter as soon as they were caught, and would probably never have even made the news.

However, although there are many millions of animal lovers in Britain who provide their pets with the absolute best of care, how can we honestly describe this nation as an animal loving one when there are so many cruelty cases each year, and when dogs are abandoned after being received as unwanted Christmas presents?

Fortunately, the last government did care about animal welfare. Labour’s achievements were:-
To ban fox hunting, hare coursing, hare hunting and stag hunting.
To ban fur farming and worked in Europe to ban imports of cat and dog fur into the EU.
To ban driftnet fishing which helps protect dolphins, turtles, sea birds and other animals.
To ban the testing of cosmetics, toiletries, alcohol and tobacco on animals.
To refuse to license any testing on great apes (such as chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas).
To establish the National Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research, which provides research into alternatives to animal testing.
To secure better welfare standards at a European level for battery hens and meat chickens.
To tighten up the rules on the transport of live animals across Europe.
To secure an EU-wide ban on the trade in seal fur.
To increase prison sentences for wildlife crime.
To introduce pet passports, allowing people to take their pets abroad in the EU without the need for quarantine.

With the passing of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, Labour put into law the most comprehensive piece of animal welfare legislation for nearly a century. The act introduced a new duty of care on people to ensure the needs of any animal for which they are responsible, while creating a new offence of failing to provide for the needs of an animal in your care. The new laws place more emphasis on owners and keepers who now need to understand their responsibilities and take all reasonable steps to provide for the needs of their animals.

So what is the Tory policy on animal welfare? If they ever get a majority in Parliament, they want to repeal the ban on hunting with dogs, so that wild animals can be terrified, chased and ripped to pieces for the pleasure of the psychos who consider that to be a sport.

If you’re an animal lover, please visit our games board and play “free kibble for hungry dogs”.

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:33 pm

What a strange question. Many people absolutely adore roast chicken, pork crackling, spring lamb and sirloin steak.

Just so long as we are not reminded too forcefully of their origin.

by witchfinder Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:09 pm

How many people look at the subject of animal welfare with a common sense or logical approach. ?

For example, we have people who own, operate and run horse sancturies, and there are people who campaign to stop the slaughter of horses for meat.

These people look upon the Belgians, French, and others as barbaric because its part of their culture to eat horse meat, yet almost all of these same people think absolutely nothing of eating pork, beef or lamb, so whats the difference between killing a horse to eat, and killing a year old lamb to eat. ?

Then there are those who campaign against Jewish or Islamic slaughter of cattle and sheep, because ( so they claim ) we ought to be killing these animals "humanely" Very Happy

Humanely ? - Have you ever had had 2 amps of electricity passed through your head, it bloody well hurts - there is no such thing as humane slaughter, it simply dosent exist.

by ROB Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:25 pm

witchfinder wrote:
How many people look at the subject of animal welfare with a common sense or logical approach. ?

Witchfinder,

You’ve raised a pertinent question. “The Arms Of An Angel” is one of my least favorite songs because of its association with an illogically emotional mind set regarding animals. Pretty song, inappropriately focused.

witchfinder wrote:
For example, we have people who own, operate and run horse sancturies, and there are people who campaign to stop the slaughter of horses for meat.

These people look upon the Belgians, French, and others as barbaric because its part of their culture to eat horse meat, yet almost all of these same people think absolutely nothing of eating pork, beef or lamb, so whats the difference between killing a horse to eat, and killing a year old lamb to eat. ?

I’m among “others.” Several years ago, in Portland, Oregon, I acquired a taste for horsemeat while eating with a friend, an former US soldier who was stationed in Germany, and his German wife. The main course was what I thought was beef stew. When offered “seconds”, I enthusiastically accepted.

After dinner, while we “kicked back” in their living room, my friend asked how I liked the stew meat. I allowed as how the beef was lean and delicious. That’s when he said, “That wasn’t beef, that was horse.” His wife was grinning like a Cheshire cat while he said this.

Of course, it turned out that they bamboozled me intentionally because they knew that, with my American sensibilities, I would have turned my nose up at the thought of eating horse. But since then, I’ve been hooked. My Friend “Flicka” wasn’t my friend. But because of the influence of horse lovers, selling horse for human consumption is illegal in the area in which I now live.

witchfinder wrote:
Then there are those who campaign against Jewish or Islamic slaughter of cattle and sheep, because ( so they claim ) we ought to be killing these animals "humanely"

Humanely ? - Have you ever had had 2 amps of electricity passed through your head, it bloody well hurts - there is no such thing as humane slaughter, it simply dosent exist.

There is no economical way to slaughter animals painlessly, but it can be done as painlessly as possible. I’m not as familiar with kosher and halal as Jews and Muslims, but at least one prominent Jew in America USV, Dennis Prager, has publicly avowed on his nationwide syndicated radio program to never again eat veal. He feels that because of the manner in which calves which are slaughtered for veal are raised, veal is inherently no-kosher. Prager's “take” on kosher is that it includes raising and slaughtering animals in such a way as to cause the animal the least amount of distress as is practically possible. I believe that to be humane.

Contrast a quick slaughter with the fate of wild herbivores in Southern Africa who are unfortunate enough to be brought down by wild dogs. Because of their relatively small size, wild dogs eat their prey hurriedly, before the animal has died, tearing chunks of flesh from its midsection as it wails in pain. This is necessary for the dogs’ survival; the sight, sound, and smell of fresh prey attracts lions and hyenas, which will readily kill wild dog to take over the kill.

The natural world is a harsh place. Slaughtering by humans, in contrast, can be much more humane.

by jackthelad Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:56 pm

Quote
These people look upon the Belgians, French, and others as barbaric because its part of their culture to eat horse meat, yet almost all of these same people think absolutely nothing of eating pork, beef or lamb, so whats the difference between killing a horse to eat, and killing a year old lamb to eat. ?

The difference is very simple, we don't use cows, pigs and sheep to ride around on. Horses have many other uses, work horse, plough horses, dray horses, war horse and the pony express would have been in shit street without the horse. The smoke signal was handy for short distances, and the tom tom's, but couldn't beat the pony express for efficiency. We have a lot to be grateful to the noble horse, how could they have done the Charge of the Liight Brigade without the horse. We do not rely on the horse so much now, horse racing, and leisure activitys like horse riding and show jumping seems to be the main use of the horse. Getting people to eat a horse (i know people say i am so hungry i could eat a horse, but they don't mean it litterally) it would be like asking people to eat their pet cat or dog.

The question was, are the British a nation of animal lovers, i would say yes, so far as horses, cats, dogs, and little animals you keep in a cage go. I don't think we are cruel to the animals bred for food, but you will always find a few who over step the mark. Because some people commit murder does not make the rest murderers, so if one is cruel to an animal, does not make the rest of us cruel.
If i had to kill an animal for food, i would quickly become a vegitarian, i am a sensitive soul, wouldn't hurt a fly, well maybe the odd wasp.

by witchfinder Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:14 pm

Good post RockOnBrother

I suppose we all have our own standards as to what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable when it comes to the treatment of animals, for me personaly I draw the line at what I would term as been "Unnecessary cruelty" but on the understanding that humans are allowed to eat meat.

I agree with Mr Prager and I too will not eat veal because I just happen to think that animals ought to have a reasonable and decent life before been killed for meat, also, a large proportion of the veal trade involves keeping animals in crates, keeping them in the dark.

I will not buy Pate Fois Gras because much of the French trade is cruel, there are people who defend the force feeding of Geese, they say that force feeding is not cruel - RUBBISH.

I will not even go into a restaurant which has Pate Fois Gras on the menu

I dont have any problem with those people that eat dogs, as in places like Vietnam or China, and I see nothing wrong in eating Guinea Pigs ( Cavies ).
If you want to eat an animal then kill it as swiftly as possible and without any unnecessary cruelty.

by witchfinder Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Jackthelad

The Hindus wont eat cows for the same reasons you state regarding horses, in places like India the cow provides milk, it carries and hauls goods and produce, it ploughs the fields, it provides rich fertilizer and fuel for fires, the cow is a great provider.

Sheep provide us with wool, which at one time was the only material available to keep us warm without actualy killing an animal.

In an ideal world we would all be vegetarians, and in actual fact I dont realy think than not eating meat would bother me that much, I eat little red meat, virtualy no beef at all, infact I realy dont understand what all the fuss is about regarding steak.

by ROB Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:01 pm

Witchfinder,

My cousin served in Vietnam, along the coast. He doesn’t like soy sauce. He won’t even allow soy sauce in his house. After years of my wondering why, he finally told me this tale.

He saw two dogs during his time in Vietnam. Going left field for a moment, understand that he stayed out of Saigon on purpose, spending his R&R in Sydney (he loves Australia and Aussie Sheilas), so he wasn’t around many areas in Vietnam that weren’t military enclaves.

Back on track, one dog he saw kinda sorta “belonged” to his company. The dog adopted the American soldiers, hung out in their camp, and sometimes would go out on patrol with them. The dog growled and snarled at any and all Vietnamese; since most VC and NVA were Vietnamese, he was an excellent watchdog.

The other dog? While walking on the beach one day, he saw a Vietnamese woman bar-b-que-ing meat on a rotisserie over an open fire, basting it with ample amounts of soy sauce as it turned. He asked her what was on the fire, and she said “Daw.” He repeated the question, and she repeated “Daw! Daw!” He finally realized that she was saying “dog.” He hasn’t tasted soy sauce since.

by jackthelad Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:23 pm

Just wondered, the British won't, or are reluctant to eat horse, has Witchfinder say's Hindu's won't eat their sacred cow, does the Arab eat camel, and if not, and were made too, would they get the hump.

Rock, says of a friend, he hasn't eaten soy sauce since, what, not even on a hotdog.
Something i would like to ask the Americans, what goes into their hotdogs, and if not dog, what.

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:27 pm

The Hindus wont eat cows for the same reasons you state regarding horses, in places like India the cow provides milk, it carries and hauls goods and produce, it ploughs the fields, it provides rich fertilizer and fuel for fires, the cow is a great provider.

I'm glad someone else knows this. I don't know how many times in my life I've had to patiently explain to westerners that Indians don't eat beef not because we worship cows, but because they are far more useful for other reasons - and there are A LOT of poor Indians who do not have nice big freezers in which to store an entire cow. I often asked them, "Well, would you eat your work truck? Because that's what it would amount to."

Now, as for the topic at hand, there is a simple reason why we don't bat an eyelash about eating a cow but would go crazy if we learned dog meat was on our plate. The reason is cannibalism. Yep, that's right, cannibalism. Creatures like dogs, cats, and horses have become very much a part of us, a part of the human experience. The are our companions, our friends, and our family members just as surely as any human. The origins of this go back a very long way, but these animals have always been more useful as work animals than as food. Dogs are good protectors, their big sniffers can track missing livestock or even lost children, assist in hunting, and some breeds can double as a cowboy. Dogs, being pack animals, are ferociously loyal, as well, making them excellent workers. Cats are good at keeping the farmstead rodent-free; even today a lot of farms have an abundance of cats because they will get rid of mice in the grain, rabbits gnawing on vegetables in the garden, and crows pecking at the corn. Horses, well, their uses are long and varied.

The point is, when one works along side an animal for thousands of years, a bond will develop. That is inevitable. When we shifted from an agrarian to an industrial economy, we did not abandon our animal friends but instead took them in as pets, and here we are with an indelible bond between human and dog, human and cat, human and horse. I also believe that eating one of these animals, for most of us, would be akin to betraying that animal. It would be impossible for me to look into a dog's eyes, eyes filled with trust, and club it over the head for food (unless maybe I was on the verge of starvation). Pets are like our children, and they are wholly dependent on us.

There are plenty of animals that really don't give anything back the way cats, dogs, and horses do. Fish, most rodents, and reptiles are also popular pets even though they are neither loyal or useful. All of them would escape if they could and never look back. Yet they are still popular pets, mostly because people simply want to own them. But, over time, bonds develop even between these animals (even if the bond is very one-sided). I have a friend who owned a savannah monitor lizard ... just this week the lizard died and she cried off and on for two solid days! I couldn't fathom how she could feel such a sense of loss over an animal that simply sat in a cage and barely moved. But there it was, nevertheless.

Perhaps if our culture had developed the same close working relationship with cows as the Indians did, we would all have cows tied up in our back yards instead of dogs, and dogs would be on the menu. But that's not how it turned out.

by astra Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:41 pm

It would be impossible for me to look into a dog's eyes, eyes filled with trust,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6SU-MvR8_M&feature=player_detailpage

indeed!!!

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:15 pm

indeed!!!

Yep, and that's just how many people view their animals - four-legged friends! Eating one would be akin to cannibalism.

I am still always amazed and in awe of the numerous stories where a dog or cat was accidentally left behind during a move - and the animal will travel hundreds, even thousands, of miles to wind up on the doorstep of their owners. How they tracked them over such a long distance is completely mind-blowing all by itself, but the amount of dedication and determination showed by these animals to return to their families is unfathomable.

by astra Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:34 pm

I have only had the fellow on the left for 10 weeks - time seems to fly!

Yet when we are out, and he catches a scent and wanders off, the look of anguish, concern and behaviour of loss (I hide behind a bush to make him keep an eye on those around him) is apparent even to the most rabid animal hater!

AND to say that dogs and cats cannot communicate, well people who spout this are losing so much by being so unobservant and 'pig' minded! (appologies to all the piggies in the world!)

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:54 pm

AND to say that dogs and cats cannot communicate, well people who spout this are losing so much by being so unobservant and 'pig' minded! (appologies to all the piggies in the world!)

Absolutely! In fact, a cat only "meows" for humans. It is a message meant only for us. Cats do not communicate with other cats by meowing.

I think many of us underestimate the compassion these animals have. Yeah, they're just stupid animals ... uh huh ... but I'll never forget the week I was laid up in bed with horrible bronchitis. My cat, who usually just wants to roam around outside, spent that entire week curled up at my feet or next to my arm, leaving my side only to eat and use the litter box. Never once did she meow to be let out or hang around by the door. She didn't even do her usual cat patrols around the house. She stayed with me night and day. I know that my cat knew I was sick and she stayed to give me the comfort of her presence, communicating to me, "I'm here for you." When I recovered, she reverted to her normal behavior.

by astra Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:09 pm

I had 2 canine pals new year 2009, Axel, a GSD and Sheba, a Leardahl (Belgian Shepherd)

I had the sore gut - I mean sore. Both dogs were interested in the end of my Sternum, pushing their noses against it. Sometimes this was painful, sometimes VERY relieving. May 2010, I had the operation for the big C. Doctor - GP was treating me for Gastro Enteritis and Gastric Colic - OK you trust them don't you? I did, to my eternal folly and here I is. The dogs were telling me something was not right!

Like the story of the Cat in the care home, who would ONLY lay on the bed of someone who was going to die that night! The story is in the papers somewhere.

OSCAR

OSCAR AND BUCKWHEAT

by **Ivan** Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:50 am

Please do not give dogs any Christmas pudding, mince pies, fruit cake or chocolate, as they are all potentially fatal to our canine friends. Raisins can cause kidney failure in some dogs, even if only a very few are eaten, so even a small slice of Christmas cake or just one mince pie, can be dangerous. Chocolate is a well known poison for dogs, so please keep advent calendars containing chocolate out of their reach.

Antifreeze is another problem for pets at this time of the year. It’s sweet tasting, and cats or dogs may lick it up from puddles. The active ingredient, ethylene glycol, is very toxic to dogs, and even more so to cats, causing life threatening kidney failure. If your pet drinks antifreeze, initially it may appear drunk, and may vomit or drink excessively. It may then seem to recover for a short time before becoming weak and dehydrated. There is an antidote if it’s caught early enough.

Pets can easily get caught up in all the excitement of Christmas, and a common accident can be swallowing decorations and toys. Sparkly tree decorations and tinsel can be irresistible to playful cats and dogs, but if they end up swallowing them, they can cause a blockage which may require surgery. Pets may be tempted to chew fairy lights, risking electrocution, and baubles can also be a hazard if they break, causing nasty cuts to paws. Please ensure that decorations are hung safely out of the way of pets.

by Shirina Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:47 am

The dog we had when I was a lot younger used to get into the stringy tinsel decorations. We tried to keep him away from the stuff, but this dog was so incredibly smart and an insatiable problem-solver that he still managed to get into it. We always knew when he did when we had to pull out strings of tinsel hanging from his butt. It wasn't a pretty sight.

by ROB Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:16 pm

The outside temperature was 20 degrees Fahrenheit, -7 degrees Celsius. A light snow/ice/sleet covered the ground. A cold breeze, maybe five mph, was blowing from the northwest

Brownie’s doghouse faced east. He was lying with his backside in, a collar around his neck, chained to the doghouse. A few yards away there was an open garage; the opening faced south.

I watched this through a window as I was putting on cold weather gear to go out, unchain Brownie, and lead him to the garage, which because its opening faced south, afforded protection from the breeze. Brownie placed his front paws on either side of his neck, wiggled, and pushed the collar over his head. He stood up, shook himself, slowly walked over to the garage, entered, walked to a table at the back of the garage, jumped up so that his front paws were on the table, grabbed an old coat by its collar with his teeth, dragged it down from the table unto the floor, pulled it out straight, let go, walked around to the tail end of the coat, got down on his belly, wiggled up into the coat so that the shoulders of the coat were aligned with his shoulders, and stood up wearing the coat.

Apparently he wasn’t satisfied with the fit, because he then dropped back down on his belly, wiggled out of the coat, and, repeating the same process, put the coat on again.

He stood up the second time, and apparently satisfied, walked over to a corner where his old blankets awaited him, turned around, lay down, and went to sleep wearing the coat.

by oftenwrong Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:17 pm

Among the highest earners in Britain are veterinary surgeons, which may provide an answer to the question.

by jackthelad Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:46 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Among the highest earners in Britain are veterinary surgeons, which may provide an answer to the question.

That doesn't prove the British are animal lovers, just that vets are bloody highway men, with or without a horse.

We have enclosed garden, we are very close to a country estate where they are always having pheasant shoots at the week end. We had a large cock pheasant in the garden most of the day, it was marching backwards and forwards as if it was looking for a way out. The wife was concerned it might be injured and couldn't fly, well it wasn't deaf, an hour after the guns had stopped shooting it flew away. So it could not regard all humans as evil or it wouldn't have thought it was safe, must have known we don't have a cat or dog too.

by Shirina Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:13 pm

He stood up the second time, and apparently satisfied, walked over to ...

After all of that, I was seriously expecting the end of this sentence to be something like, "... the fridge, pulled out a beer, cracked open the can, and started dealing out a hand of poker."

by ROB Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:26 pm

Shirina,

Knowing Brownie, his real name by the way, I wouldn’t have put it past him if there had been something in it for him. He was double-digit age when he put on the coat. I wasn’t around when he was younger; my cousin “swears” that the following is true.

Brownie knew the dog catcher and his truck, I guess by sound, smell, and sight. Whenever the dogcatcher’s truck turned into the neighborhood, Brownie would let himself out of my aunt’s backyard by nosing up the latch, sneak through the bushes and high grass until he was close to the truck, emerge, bark at the dogcatcher, wait until the dogcatcher started chasing him, and run back into the bushes and high grass.

This went on long enough that then dogcatcher knew Brownie and where Brownie lived, so sometimes the dogcatcher would drive to my aunt’s house to confront her about her loose dog.

My aunt would say, “Brownie’s not loose. He’s in the backyard where he’s supposed to be”, whereupon she and the dogcatcher would go around back to see Brownie, with an innocent look on his face, in the backyard. Brownie, of course, had let himself back in just like he had let himself out.

I wouldn’t have believed thus story if I hadn’t seen Brownie put on a coat.

by Penderyn Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:48 pm

Love animals? Some men prefer women, and vice versa particularly here in Cymru - I can't really speak for England. Incidentally, on the horse-eating point, horses don't eat us, so fair's fair.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:12 pm

Horses are loved - and those which are lesser examples of that ilk seem to be especially favoured.

After all, why else would a considerable number of folk go into bookmakers and expend so much cash on those beasts which are less fleet of hoof than the more accomplished of the breed...? Shocked

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:28 pm

If people only ever bet on winning horses, there's no Business Plan for a Bookie.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:41 pm

As some wit once said : " I gave all my money to sick animals. But I didn't know they were sick when I backed them..." Smile

by bobby Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:55 pm

I am not a vegitarian, in fact I like to exersize my canine teeth every now and then, with a nice bit of meat. I personally couldnt slaughter an animal so the way I look at it is. I restore classic cars for some people who can not do it for themselves, and others kill the animals for me to eat, which as said I could not do. Each to their own.
Mind you there are some so called Humans, I'm sure I could assist on their way to hell.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:10 pm

Shame there aren't any taxidermists preserving the current crop of Politicians for posterity.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:28 pm

Eric Pickles would take all the efforts of a whole Conference of taxidermists - who would, nonetheless, probably gladly form a queue for the opportunity...

by ROB Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:05 pm

I love animals... fried, roasted, and bar-b-qued. Horse is exceptional grilled medium rare.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:31 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:I love animals... fried, roasted, and bar-b-qued. Horse is exceptional grilled medium rare.

http://theprimalchallenge.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/eat-a-horse.jpg?w=640&h=361

by polyglide Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:45 pm

Humans are the most diverse creatures on earth regarding their feelings for animals.

Cat lovers may kick a dog up the backside for obvious reasons, the dog does not like the cat.

This can be multiplied many times over by using different senarios.

One mans meat etc.,

Man has been a hunter since records began and mainly for food, not for fun.

You can have different views as to wether in this day and age it is acceptable to hunt for fun and see the demise of any animal that may not be used in an acceptable manner following its death, it depends entirely on the beliefs of the person involved.

However, if you ban one blood sport you should ban them all.

Hare coursing has been banned and yet falconry which is exactly the same but using different animals has not,why not?.

We live in a very mixed up world and to be concerned about the welfare of animals may to some feel of no importance but if we fail to do so what might the next thing be we start not caring about.?

by **Ivan** Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:10 pm

I’ve received an email from Mary Creagh, the Shadow Environment Secretary, about the badger cull which started this weekend. On 17 September, our Tory-dominated government issued the first licence to allow the shooting of badgers in England. Labour believes that decision is bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife. It’s bad for farmers, as the cull will cost them more than it saves, it’s bad for taxpayers, as we will be picking up the policing bill, and bad for wildlife as it could wipe out badgers completely in cull areas. Mary Creagh argues that the cull will put a huge strain on the police and will spread bovine TB in the short term as badgers are disturbed.

Lord Krebs, the top scientist whose study the government is relying on to justify the cull, has called it “a crazy scheme”. He said that after the government's environment advisory body, Natural England, issued a culling licence to a consortium of landowners in West Gloucestershire. The cull is intended to control the spread of TB in cattle, and a second licence is being issued to farmers in West Somerset. The aim of the pilot schemes is to assess the effectiveness of the government's plan to slow down the spread of TB in cattle in England. (The Welsh Assembly has opted for a system of vaccination, and Scotland is officially TB-free.)

The plan is based on the results of a nine-year trial which showed that the spread of the disease could be slowed slightly if more than 70% of badgers in an area could be eradicated. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says the action is necessary to protect cattle from bovine TB, which leads to the slaughter of thousands of cattle each year. However, according to Sir Robert Watson, a former science adviser to Defra, culling alone will not solve the problem, and Lord Krebs says that these pilot studies make no sense, claiming that Defra, which is administering the scheme, has no way of knowing how many badgers there are in an area, so will not know when they've killed 70% of them. He added: "I would go down the vaccination and biosecurity route rather than this crazy scheme that may deliver very small advantage, may deliver none.”

Animal welfare and wildlife campaigners have opposed the cull, which will allow wild badgers to be shot when they come out at night. A flaw in the government’s badger culling policy means expert shots licensed to kill badgers do not have legal authority to dispatch the animals if they escape underground in agony. Badly wounded badgers could be left bleeding to death in their setts while marksmen have to apply for licences to put them out of their misery because of the Protection of Badgers Act of 1992. Robbie Marsland, UK director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), said: “A permit would be unlikely to arrive before either the badger has died a long, agonising death or has fled to other areas, very possibly spreading TB to other animals. A stressed and injured badger carrying the TB bacteria is actually more likely to develop the disease in its most infectious form.”

Badger Trust spokesman Jack Reedy said: “We have a conflict between the brutal, ill-advised culling policy and a law designed to protect this species.” The RSPCA, which is also opposed to the cull, issued this statement: “The success of the cull will partly be judged on the examination of carcasses retrieved by the marksmen to see if their shooting causes unnecessary suffering. If a badger is shot cleanly, it will be easy to collect and so the only carcasses submitted for examination may be those badgers that are shot cleanly. So the cull may be seen as a success in terms of having little impact on animal suffering because those animals that will suffer the most will probably never be found.”

The culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset will be monitored by an independent group for a period of six weeks. If the body is satisfied that the culls are effective and humane, it will advise ministers to continue the trials for four years. The culls are intended to reduce TB in cattle by some 16% over nine years in the immediate area.

If you want to join the network of Labour Party supporters fighting the cull, please do so here:-
http://www.labour.org.uk/supporters?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101946+Badger+Cull+Tue+18th+Sep+2012&tmtid=101946-3572-3572-2-1413-403227-12580

Brian May, the Queen guitarist, has compared his anti-badger culling campaign to Nelson Mandela's struggle against apartheid. His Stop the Badger Cull e-petition needs 100,000 signatures to force the government to hold a Commons debate. If you wish to sign it, please do so here:-
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257

Sources used in this posting:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19623931

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/347664/Badger-cull-to-leave-injured-bleeding-to-death-

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:05 pm

extract: spread of the disease could be slowed slightly if more than 70% of badgers in an area could be eradicated

Nobody knows how many badgers currently inhabit the area specified, so how will they know when they've reached the target of culling 70% ?

by **astradt1** Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:20 pm

When has not knowing the end result stopped this government from setting out and following a policy?

by **Ivan** Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:50 pm

Once again a British government has chosen to seek the best possible scientific advice and then ignore it.

"The licensed killing of badgers in parts of Gloucestershire and Somerset could achieve a number of things. It could further advertise the unwelcome existence of bovine tuberculosis in British dairy herds. It could polarise opinion in the countryside and unite political opposition everywhere else. It could cost the farmers involved more than they could gain. It will almost certainly provoke active protest and put even more pressure on already hard-pressed police forces. What it will almost certainly not do is limit bovine tuberculosis, even in the target zones of Gloucestershire and Somerset."

For the full article:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/badger-cull-editorial

by bobby Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:14 pm

OW Said: so how will they know when they've reached the target of culling 70% ?

The answer is simple, You like them up like a load of US Marines and get them to count off, when their population has reduced to the target number, you stop killing them.

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:00 pm

Sanity rules. Someone's realised there are far more badgers than they at first thought, so the cull is now being postponed until next year.

The public protest may also have been a factor, but will never be acknowledged.

by **Ivan** Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:58 pm

Has Gavin Grant been nobbled? It’s only a few weeks since Grant, the chief executive of the RSPCA, brought a successful prosecution of Cameron’s local hunt in the Cotswolds for illegal foxhunting. The RSPCA was attacked for spending £326,000 in legal costs in bringing the prosecution. Grant has also attacked the government over the badger cull.

Any attempt to make the arrogant foxhunting fraternity obey the law is bound to bring all sorts crawling out of the woodwork. The executive chairman of the Countryside Alliance called the RSPCA “sinister and nasty” and asked his members to stop donating to the charity. However, those who give to the RSPCA have always done so in the knowledge that it prosecutes those who cause suffering to animals, as it has since it was founded in 1824. Animal welfare legislation exists to protect animals from cruelty. The RSPCA brings prosecutions against those who break those laws, which include the Hunting Act of 2004.

Now Grant has resigned from the RSPCA suddenly and with immediate effect “for health reasons”. It is of course possible that that is the reason for his resignation. It is also possible that he has been nobbled for daring to stand up to the Tories and their friends in high places. Another possibility is that it could be an embarrassment for the Windsor family, many of whom (notably Charles, his son William and Harry Hewitt) are enthusiastic supporters of cruelty to foxes and murdering wild animals for pleasure, when a society with ‘royal’ in its title prosecutes people with similar bad tastes to them.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/rspca-chief-executive-gavin-grant-steps-down

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:14 pm

Meddle with the British Establishment at your peril. Particularly when it is "at play".

by Sponsored content