The badger is not an endangered species and numbers have risen greatly
over the past couple of decades, yet in tackling the bovine TB problem
instead of working with DEFRA and farming organisations, certain
animal groups saw it as a “call to arms” – or rather a call to disarm
– creating division when common cause was required.
Yes there is scientific disagreement over the culling process, but it
was not as straightforward as some groups portrayed. Once again,
instead of looking at this problem through wildlife management eyes,
we get is this simplistic ‘kill or no kill’ choice offered to the
public. And what about the badgers that have TB also suffering? Or is
it as one anti-cull campaigner said, that wild animals die horrible
deaths in any case so why worry. How is this helping badgers?
Some people had reservations about the cull because shooting was the
method chosen, but why is it so controversial to cull infected badgers
when we cull over 600,000 healthy deer every year? Fine to kill
healthy deer, but not fine to kill diseased badgers? Why was shooting
foxes -presumably by anyone with a shotgun or rifle – advocated by the
anti-hunting groups when a ban was being debated, while the shooting
of badgers by expert marksmen is now cruel and barbaric? Or was it, as
a previous chief executive of the RSPCA claimed, that a wounded fox
doesn’t necessarily suffer. How can a body like the RSPCA have these
dual positions and remain credible?
All this from one man: http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/campaigns-hunting/james-barringtons-animal-welfare-blog
Good on you