The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I have used Cymag in the past against rabbitts, very effective it was

Sounds like it was Natural England who messed things up by 'suddenly' discovering that there were far more badgers in the area than they thought. Imagine that; NE screwing up a badger cull....... :roll:

Cymag was good kit indeed.

I even knew some types that would use it for salmon, don't suppose it did the river much good though.

We've spotted the Achilles' Heel in your plans, oomans.

Money.

We're going to make it unaffordabubble for the Treasury to sanction the cull.

*Issues instructions to all badgers on how to claim refugess status, a council house, benefits, free cough lozenges on the NHS... *

dromia wrote:Cymag was good kit indeed.

I even knew some types that would use it for salmon, don't suppose it did the river much good though.

Totally de-oxygenates the water and kill the fish, then as that slug of water moves downstream it takes out more and more. The poachers take the first few but miss all the rest. It takes several miles before the river can support fish again.

Cymag no longer available as last manufacturer withdrew it partly due to problems with manufacturing issues at it's plant in Widnes, if I remember rightly. Now it would have to pass through European Biocides Directive if resurrected and that costs big bucks and would not be supported by other member states. I think only Turkey submitted it as one of their registered products and I don't know if it was supported. So that's out of the running.
Shame, as it was by far the safest product to use for controlling rats and rabbits below ground.
Now we only have Aluminium Phosphide tablets for that purpose ( and for moles). It is nowhere near as good in my experience, far more dangerous and produced abroad, I believe. It will never be considered for control of large mammals below ground as it is just not as good as Cymag in producing a volume of gas to fill a tunnel complex.
The control of larger mammals living below ground, in my personal experience, was always far more effective when properly conducted terrierwork was used.
But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

Jenks wrote:I have come to the conclusion that there was no point in carrying out a cull as was proposed. It simply didn't go far enough. Killing 70% of badgers in a given trial area How exactly could you determine that you had in fact destroyed 70% besides what about the surviving 30%, some of those would for certain be afflicted with bTB. The only realistic option was/is a 100% cull. This could have been carried out very quickly and efficiently by locating every Sett in the trial area. Then over a very short period Introduce CYMAG,* or similar product to each and every entrance/exit. Once a 100% cull was achieved, destroy/render the setts uninhabitable . Then for the period of the trial Farmers or land owners or their agents should be required to keep their land badger free, not difficult, unless Badgers no longer choose to live in Setts. This policy should once and for all establish the link between the spread of bTB and Badgers

A '100% cull' is not a cull...it's an extermination!

Also, no one is disputing a link between badgers and bTB...I would have thought it obvious...badgers can give cattle and other badgers bTB, and cattle can give badgers and other cattle bTB...and other animals can transmit it too...

targetman wrote:Perhaps now would be a good time to convince those useless idiots in Brussles that immunisation of cattle against BTB actually works.....just because they will not accept the test that confirms immunisation as opposed to contracted BTB is what this is all about......

Spot on!

Dougan wrote:

Jenks wrote:I have come to the conclusion that there was no point in carrying out a cull as was proposed. It simply didn't go far enough. Killing 70% of badgers in a given trial area How exactly could you determine that you had in fact destroyed 70% besides what about the surviving 30%, some of those would for certain be afflicted with bTB. The only realistic option was/is a 100% cull. This could have been carried out very quickly and efficiently by locating every Sett in the trial area. Then over a very short period Introduce CYMAG,* or similar product to each and every entrance/exit. Once a 100% cull was achieved, destroy/render the setts uninhabitable . Then for the period of the trial Farmers or land owners or their agents should be required to keep their land badger free, not difficult, unless Badgers no longer choose to live in Setts. This policy should once and for all establish the link between the spread of bTB and Badgers

A '100% cull' is not a cull...it's an extermination!

Also, no one is disputing a link between badgers and bTB...I would have thought it obvious...badgers can give cattle and other badgers bTB, and cattle can give badgers and other cattle bTB...and other animals can transmit it too...

Dougan...

A '100% cull' is not a cull...it's an extermination!

Not so! I am only advocating the killing all of the badgers in the trial area, not in the whole country. And then only for the duration of the trial period. I do not dislike Badgers, but as I say. If a trial of this kind is deemed necessary, then to make it work, that is to get any kind of meaningful data, you can't go at it 'Half arsed' . But don't worry it is unlikely to happen. To many bloody tree huggers would be upset.


Jenks