Is there any peer reviewed published research that studied if this was effective and the best available option. This sounds like the Namibians clubbing baby seals because they eat their fish supply.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
390 readers
105 users here now
General Instance Rules:
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
- No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
- Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
- Do not spam or abuse network features.
Community Specific Rules:
- Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
- Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.
Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.
Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is there any peer reviewed published research that studied if this was effective and the best available option.
Recently, this study found that although culling does reduce cattle infection in the immediate area, it seems to increase infection in surrounding areas - due to displaced badgers spreading it - which is exactly what everyone opposing the culls predicted way back when they started.
There's also a humane alternative that we know does work - catching and vaccinating badgers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/06/badger-vaccination-cull-eradicate-bovine-tuberculosis-btb-farmers-cornwall-study-zsl-aoe
I would be up for volunteer work vaccinating badgers.
There is also a vaccine for cattle but DEFRA won't approve its use in this country.
the 230,000 that have been killed since licensed culling was introduced in 2013
That's an absolute shit ton of animals. Imagine the infrastructure, human resources, costs, energy use, all that. We're not talking about catch-and-release of a few hundred acres here.
Call 'em 30lbs. each, close enough. The 40,000 they intend to cull this year adds up to 1,200,000 pounds of live, angry animal. Quite a chore!
Humans are part of nature too and there are species for which humans have been their main predator for thousands of years and that makes humans the predator required to keep a balance in their population, seals and deers (no matter how cute they are) being two examples in Canada.
Anticosti island shows what happens without any population control, deers had to start eating coniferous trees and you can have tens of thousands dying of sickness or starvation in a single year.
What you are saying is technically true. Humans are keeping numbers of animals down by culling them. But humans are also keeping numbers of animals up to make money from them. There would be no bovine TB if people weren't breeding millions of cows, keeping them in confined spaces and transporting them all over the place.
Sure, that's a separate debate though, I'm just saying that what's happening with badgers and Namibian seals might actually be necessary.
Like I keep saying: this continues to be about avoiding the root cause of bovine TB, which is factory farming.