I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the Badger cull. It
is not supported by scientific evidence, and even if it were, it would only be
in support of a little cost cutting for the dairy industry, which produces unnecessary
luxury products for mass consumption. Farmers and their allies claim that the
wholesale slaughter with rifles of one of our best loved wild animals will
reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by a mere 16%, and will not reduce the
incidence of infertility, mastitis, exhaustion, foot problems, being male, or any
of the other factors which cause vast numbers of Dairy cows to be slaughtered
and discarded on a daily basis. Indeed, the incidence of mastitis, a crippling
disease of cows’ udders caused by industrial milking practices, and preventable
simply by milking the cows slightly less often, makes any claim that dairy
farmers feel some form of concern for their animals welfare seem rather absurd.
The Tories do a good line in cutting their support for industry, and if the subsidies paid to dairy farmers were indeed of any concern to them, I have no doubt our ruling party would treat the farmers in an even handed way, in accordance with the way they have treated industries in the past which have cost them too much. They would simply cut the subsidies and abandon the industry, and its employees to their fate, like the miners, the steel workers or the railway conductors. Even the cost of Bovine TB to central government and the taxpayer does not add up to a coherent, pro-cull argument, especially as they receive compensation when their cows come down with any number of diseases, and 16% of those with bovine TB is a miniscule fraction of the current dead cow kitty. No, expense makes no argument for the culling of badgers.
Scientific evidence on the subject has been somewhat dubious, but the Krebs trial revealed culling badgers as a strategy to reduce the incidence of bovine TB is likely to be extremely problematic and may indeed lead to an increase in bTB as the badgers flee their home ranges, taking the disease with them. Science makes no argument for the culling of badgers.
The only conceivable reason I can think of that one might support the badger cull is straightforward, but strikes me as a little daft. It is the will of the dairy farmers and dairy farmers are cute. We see them on adverts, with their cloth caps and gruff, rural accents, their purported love of good beer, their charming cloth caps and cheque shirts, their eye smiles and grass chewing. They are in our children’s books, helping deliver baby lambs and growing turnips, standing over a spade with a charming smile and a piece of grass hanging out of their mouths. Their supposed heroism defined in wartime “dig for victory” posters, again with the spade, bright eyes turned to the sky. Farming is part of our history and our culture, and townies have formed quite a sentimental attachment to their image of the “poor beleaguered British farmer.” Walking through his field in the dawn light, he cuts a romantic figure, lonely, badly dressed, out there in the elements. He is, townies like to image, a pleasant character, who cares for his animals and frequents the local pub, where he sits with his dog by the fireplace, keeping the real ale industry alive. Ignorant of the countryside, the townies want to do what he says for sentimental reasons. His care for his livestock is embodied by mastitis and bovine TB and cramped conditions, in which malformed cows drag their udders along the concrete floor of their sheds. He has sprayed our wild flower meadows and replanted them with imported rye grass for no reason other than rye grass can be turned into milk quicker, and because the government gave him taxpayers money to do so. Farming rakes in public money from central government and the EU, and the ‘beleaguered’ farmer is laughing all the way to the bank with his dead badger, cloth cap and massive subsidy, even as the injured coal miner has to reapply for his disability living allowance.
The cuteness of the dairy farmer is the only
explanation of why we would consider doing something like this for him. Imagine
if the oil industry asked us to cull Puffins because they give them a bad image
when they end up covered in oil? Or
whales because there is a theoretical risk of ship collision? They would be
ridiculed, and rightly so, although our society is far more dependent on oil
than it is on milk. Imagine if the glass
making industry called for a cull on Birds of Prey because they sometimes
damage windows on collision with them? Or the forestry industry culled blue
tits because of some hitherto unknown side effect of their tree-nesting habits?
That’d be ridiculous, because none of these industries have as cute a
figurehead as the dairy industry does. The Tories do a good line in cutting their support for industry, and if the subsidies paid to dairy farmers were indeed of any concern to them, I have no doubt our ruling party would treat the farmers in an even handed way, in accordance with the way they have treated industries in the past which have cost them too much. They would simply cut the subsidies and abandon the industry, and its employees to their fate, like the miners, the steel workers or the railway conductors. Even the cost of Bovine TB to central government and the taxpayer does not add up to a coherent, pro-cull argument, especially as they receive compensation when their cows come down with any number of diseases, and 16% of those with bovine TB is a miniscule fraction of the current dead cow kitty. No, expense makes no argument for the culling of badgers.
Scientific evidence on the subject has been somewhat dubious, but the Krebs trial revealed culling badgers as a strategy to reduce the incidence of bovine TB is likely to be extremely problematic and may indeed lead to an increase in bTB as the badgers flee their home ranges, taking the disease with them. Science makes no argument for the culling of badgers.
The only conceivable reason I can think of that one might support the badger cull is straightforward, but strikes me as a little daft. It is the will of the dairy farmers and dairy farmers are cute. We see them on adverts, with their cloth caps and gruff, rural accents, their purported love of good beer, their charming cloth caps and cheque shirts, their eye smiles and grass chewing. They are in our children’s books, helping deliver baby lambs and growing turnips, standing over a spade with a charming smile and a piece of grass hanging out of their mouths. Their supposed heroism defined in wartime “dig for victory” posters, again with the spade, bright eyes turned to the sky. Farming is part of our history and our culture, and townies have formed quite a sentimental attachment to their image of the “poor beleaguered British farmer.” Walking through his field in the dawn light, he cuts a romantic figure, lonely, badly dressed, out there in the elements. He is, townies like to image, a pleasant character, who cares for his animals and frequents the local pub, where he sits with his dog by the fireplace, keeping the real ale industry alive. Ignorant of the countryside, the townies want to do what he says for sentimental reasons. His care for his livestock is embodied by mastitis and bovine TB and cramped conditions, in which malformed cows drag their udders along the concrete floor of their sheds. He has sprayed our wild flower meadows and replanted them with imported rye grass for no reason other than rye grass can be turned into milk quicker, and because the government gave him taxpayers money to do so. Farming rakes in public money from central government and the EU, and the ‘beleaguered’ farmer is laughing all the way to the bank with his dead badger, cloth cap and massive subsidy, even as the injured coal miner has to reapply for his disability living allowance.
Townies need to wake up to the reality of the countryside and abandon their preconceptions, our wildlife is at stake!
No comments:
Post a Comment