this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
40 points (95.5% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
387 readers
21 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
There is also a vaccine for cattle but DEFRA won't approve its use in this country.
I would be up for volunteer work vaccinating badgers.
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!