Have some of that Chris Packham

[Fallowfield]

Your ignorance is bliss. There would not be a farmer in the land who would object to the 1973 Act. But then there would not be any diseased badgers around as the act allows for there removal.

I don't think that's quite correct though.

It was an offence to kill a badger under the 73 Act. There was a defence that the killing was necessary to prevent spread of disease. But that had to be proved to the court. Under the 92 Act you can get a licence to kill a badger to prevent the spread of disease. I'd suggest if you can't get a licence under the 92 Act, you wouldn't have been able to persuade a court to accept your defence under the 73 Act.

That of course would be the reason a farmer would want to kill a badger, to prevent the risk of the sprad of TB, not out of concern for the badger's welfare. A court today just wouldn't accept the defence.

 

[renewablejohn]

I don't think that's quite correct though.

It was an offence to kill a badger under the 73 Act. There was a defence that the killing was necessary to prevent spread of disease. But that had to be proved to the court. Under the 92 Act you can get a licence to kill a badger to prevent the spread of disease. I'd suggest if you can't get a licence under the 92 Act, you wouldn't have been able to persuade a court to accept your defence under the 73 Act.

That of course would be the reason a farmer would want to kill a badger, to prevent the risk of the sprad of TB, not out of concern for the badger's welfare. A court today just wouldn't accept the defence.

There is no problem whatsoever proving to a court the need for killing badgers under the 1973 act. The problem has arisen in the 1992 act by making Natural England the authority for issuing the licences and there failure to comply with the 92 Act (10/9) by unreasonably witholding licences. Its Natural England again which is not fit for purpose.

 

[Fallowfield]

'There is no problem whatsoever proving to a court the need for killing badgers under the 1973 act.'


###
And what reason would you give to the court to justify killing the badger?

 

[renewablejohn]

'There is no problem whatsoever proving to a court the need for killing badgers under the 1973 act.'


###
And what reason would you give to the court to justify killing the badger?

Pretty good case if badger has tb and you have tb in your herd.

 

[Fallowfield]

Pretty good case if badger has tb and you have tb in your herd.

I'd suggest that the court would apply the same burden of proof in assessing that defence as NE would in considering a licence application for killing.

The world has moved on.

 

[Muddyroads]

With all due respect you might want to read up a bit on how eco systems work.

Could you explain what your definition of respect is, because I don't see any evidence of it so far from you?

 

[renewablejohn]

I'd suggest that the court would apply the same burden of proof in assessing that defence as NE would in considering a licence application for killing.

The world has moved on.

NE do not have to consider issuing a licence they are obliged to issue a licence as outlined in the 1992 act the fact that there not issuing the licences puts them in breach of the act. What part of the act do you not understand Natural England do not have the right to unreasonably withhold the issue of licences. Contaminated setts are easily identified by soil sample of badger latrines. Any contaminated setts should then be given licences to be destroyed. Quite simple really.

 

[Fallowfield]

'NE do not have to consider issuing a licence they are obliged to issue a licence'

##

I don't want to get involved in an arcane argument about statutory interpretation, but you're wrong.

'10Licences.
(1)A licence may be granted'

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/section/10

The word you have to focus on there is 'may'.

That means it's discretionary. If NE were obliged to issue a licence the word would be 'shall'.

 

[renewablejohn]

'NE do not have to consider issuing a licence they are obliged to issue a licence'

##

I don't want to get involved in an arcane argument about statutory interpretation, but you're wrong.

'10Licences.
(1)A licence may be granted'

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/section/10

The word you have to focus on there is 'may'.

That means it's discretionary. If NE were obliged to issue a licence the word would be 'shall'.

If you actually read the act the licence only has to be applied for whether it may be granted or not is immaterial but NE are not in a position to unreasonably with hold the issue of a licence. A proven tb contaminated latrine should be quite sufficient evidence for that licence to be granted by NE.

 

[Raider112]

I don't think that's quite correct though.

It was an offence to kill a badger under the 73 Act. There was a defence that the killing was necessary to prevent spread of disease. But that had to be proved to the court. Under the 92 Act you can get a licence to kill a badger to prevent the spread of disease. I'd suggest if you can't get a licence under the 92 Act, you wouldn't have been able to persuade a court to accept your defence under the 73 Act.

That of course would be the reason a farmer would want to kill a badger, to prevent the risk of the sprad of TB, not out of concern for the badger's welfare. A court today just wouldn't accept the defence.

For Gods sake, before 1992 badgers could be controlled but since then it's been almost impossible except under an official cull. You can dress it up any way you want but that is how it was. Every bloody subject you go onto your attitude stands out a mile, you sometimes have fair points but you spoil them with the holier than thou attitude.

 

[brigadoon]

With all due respect you might want to read up a bit on how eco systems work.

You might want to take some of your own advice and once you have finished reading have a think about how they work in the real world.

There is a relationship between predator and prey - when incoming predators such as increasing badger populations or introductions such as hedgehogs into Uist impact on existing prey populations they impact them negatively not positively.

It is quite correct to say that they will achieve a long term balance but that will be at a lower prey population than initially present hence the observation earlier in the thread that incoming otters had depressed the local population of water voles.

Ultimately the predator population will trend towards a lower than peak value as well once prey recruitment is depressed.

Ecosystems are finely balanced - one practical naturalist achieved control of field voles and stopped ongoing damage to an earth dam by moving a fencepost - and he did not come to that solution by reading about it.

 

[Lapwing]

A few years ago, I asked a chap from NE's wildlife licencing dept about the welfare aspects of not being able to euthanase the emaciated sick badgers we come across on the odd occasion. He sent me a copy of part if the act where it allows for exactly this scenario to relieve suffering. His advice was also that if one was in such a position it would be prudent to contact the police rural crime team and let them know what you had done in case anyone had seen you & reported it too. I suspect that doing all this through official channels would however open a can of worms regarding the correct disposal of the unfortunate beast.

 

[Pond digger]

A few years ago, I asked a chap from NE's wildlife licencing dept about the welfare aspects of not being able to euthanase the emaciated sick badgers we come across on the odd occasion. He sent me a copy of part if the act where it allows for exactly this scenario to relieve suffering. His advice was also that if one was in such a position it would be prudent to contact the police rural crime team and let them know what you had done in case anyone had seen you & reported it too. I suspect that doing all this through official channels would however open a can of worms regarding the correct disposal of the unfortunate beast.

Give it a go and report back.

 

[roscoe erf]

 

[Lapwing]

@Pond digger He also said their department was for licencing live animals, not dead ones. I can try to find his excerpt if you want to give it a go! Having heard a badger sneezing would apparently not be considered sufficient reason.

 

[yellow belly]

one Lincoln shire road cost the council over half a million pounds to repair after badgers dug under it they had to protect the badger so 2 years later they had to re build the road at further cost
they could not control the badger
the council have much more important need for the social care but badger protection takes priority

the badger is now common and can be see regularly just need to go out at the right time of day most parishes have hundreds they are decimating other wild life hedge hogs ground nesting birds bees worms they are also cause major structural damage by digging setts

 

[Henarar]

one Lincoln shire road cost the council over half a million pounds to repair after badgers dug under it they had to protect the badger so 2 years later they had to re build the road at further cost
they could not control the badger
the council have much more important need for the social care but badger protection takes priority

the badger is now common and can be see regularly just need to go out at the right time of day most parishes have hundreds they are decimating other wild life hedge hogs ground nesting birds bees worms they are also cause major structural damage by digging setts

yep but they look cute on telly, if they were ugly fecking things not many would give a stuff, but its a popular band waggon to jump on

 

[joe soapy]

Yes, it must surprise you. Where do you assume any loss of habits is lost to? Any habitat that is lost these days tends to be for roads and building development while habitats on farmland comes and goes over time and land rotation etc as it always has done but is actually gaining in area every year both by famers voluntarily leaving some less productive areas for economic reasons to benign neglect or to less intensive management, sometimes encouraged by some official schemes. Thousands of acres are under some kind of environmental schemes alone and tens of thousands of acres are just not farmed as intensively as they used to be for economic reasons.

Your ignorance of such matters is nothing short of astonishing, however personally I have met plenty of wallies in all walks of life so it's not so surprising really. The really ridiculous thing is that people like you have a voice these days and, to make an apt analogy with nature, birds of a feather flock together. You are wasting your time here though, because you are actually talking with people who are intelligent, have practical experience and who basically don't tolerate much shite.

i will post my appreciation

 

[joe soapy]

There is no problem whatsoever proving to a court the need for killing badgers under the 1973 act. The problem has arisen in the 1992 act by making Natural England the authority for issuing the licences and there failure to comply with the 92 Act (10/9) by unreasonably witholding licences. Its Natural England again which is not fit for purpose.

If you truly believe they are diseased you can act with impunity

 

[renewablejohn]

If you truly believe they are diseased you can act with impunity

This in my opinion is what needs to be clarified by Natural England. If the latrine for badgers of a given sett proves positive for tb then that should be good enough evidence for Natural England to issue a licence to cull all the inhabitants of that sett. So long as the testing is carried out by an approved testing agency then I cannot see how Natural England could object. If they did object then it should be a trial case to ascertain the procedure for culling infected animals. I would have thought the NFU CLA type people would have pushed for this already.