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

No need to respond, I can imagine. :lol:

Don't worry squirrel, our scouts up around Dromia's place have him under 24/7 surveillance. We'll post about all his little peccadilloes as and when it's appropriate

Still no-one has enlightened us as to why the farmers can pick the tax-payer's pocket when their stock dies. Everyone else* has to be competent at what they do and / or take out insurance... :roll:





* Bar the bankers of course...

dromia wrote:No need to respond, I can imagine. :lol:

The response going round my head wasn't fit for public consumption - I'll tell you at the Trafalgar...when your missus is out of ear-shot

Also I don't want all this larking around (can't help feeling I was 'hijacked' last night :P ) to detract from the seriousness of the issue...for example what I said to Milisa about the possible new test...which would certainly change this argument...

meles meles wrote:Still no-one has enlightened us as to why the farmers can pick the tax-payer's pocket when their stock dies. Everyone else has to be competent at what they do and / or take out insurance... :roll:

I can see two sides to this - when you read what the farmer (article posted by Christel) said about water troughs and hygiene, then there are certainly some farmers who are being negligent...and that's something that should be dealt with before even considering a cull...

...on the other hand - due to the influence of supermarkets and pricing (another issue that needs sorting), it is very difficult for smaller farmers (no excuse for large factory farms) to actually make a profit, especially if they need to hire staff or invest in equipment so everything is done properly....and while a lot businesses manufacture things we don't need purely for profit, we all need food...which in some ways blurs the line between business and public service...

Dougan wrote: due to the influence of supermarkets and pricing (another issue that needs sorting), it is very difficult for smaller farmers (no excuse for large factory farms) to actually make a profit.

Yes, that's the point. Sort out the root cause of the problem rather than pandering to the fat agrocats.

The disease is called Bovine TB for a reason. It's a disease of cattle that also affects us innocent cute and cuddly folk. Surely the cattle ought to be culled instead ?

meles meles wrote:

Dougan wrote: due to the influence of supermarkets and pricing (another issue that needs sorting), it is very difficult for smaller farmers (no excuse for large factory farms) to actually make a profit.

Yes, that's the point. Sort out the root cause of the problem rather than pandering to the fat agrocats.

The disease is called Bovine TB for a reason. It's a disease of cattle that also affects us innocent cute and cuddly folk. Surely the cattle ought to be culled instead ?

MM.

Surely the cattle ought to be culled instead ?

Oh but they are, thousands of them every year. React to the test and they are slaughtered. How many diseased badgers are killed? NONE. Quite absurd.


Jenks

meles meles wrote:Don't worry squirrel, our scouts up around Dromia's place have him under 24/7 surveillance. We'll post about all his little peccadilloes as and when it's appropriate

Still no-one has enlightened us as to why the farmers can pick the tax-payer's pocket when their stock dies. Everyone else* has to be competent at what they do and / or take out insurance... :roll:





* Bar the bankers of course...

MM.

Still no-one has enlightened us as to why the farmers can pick the tax-payer's pocket when their stock dies.

It could be because of the fact that a proven contributor to spreading the disease enjoys protected status under the law. Whilst under the law they, the farmers are obliged to slaughter any of their herd that reacts to the bTB tests. Perhaps the situation regarding compensation could be looked at again once all* the badgers around a Dairy Farm were killed and the herd was 100% bTB free. T the moment they are being asked to farm efficiently with one arm tied behind their backs. The idea of taking out insurance against the risk of cattle having to be destroyed under current circumstances is risable.


* I recognise that it would be difficult to kill all the badgers in a given area but it should be possible. For a start Destroy all the Setts in the trial area, and render them uninhabitable for future use. Constant vigilance for new sign of badger activity in the area and deal with it immediately. Remember this would be a trial in a clearly defined area and for a specified number of years.

Jenks

Jenks wrote:

meles meles wrote:

Dougan wrote: due to the influence of supermarkets and pricing (another issue that needs sorting), it is very difficult for smaller farmers (no excuse for large factory farms) to actually make a profit.

Yes, that's the point. Sort out the root cause of the problem rather than pandering to the fat agrocats.

The disease is called Bovine TB for a reason. It's a disease of cattle that also affects us innocent cute and cuddly folk. Surely the cattle ought to be culled instead ?

MM.

Surely the cattle ought to be culled instead ?

Oh but they are, thousands of them every year. React to the test and they are slaughtered. How many diseased badgers are killed? NONE. Quite absurd.


Jenks

Yes the slaughtering of the cattle is absurd; especially as it's just because cattle can't be vaccinated, due to then not being able to test them...

Jenks wrote: I recognise that it would be difficult to kill all the badgers in a given area but it should be possible. For a start Destroy all the Setts in the trial area, and render them uninhabitable for future use. Constant vigilance for new sign of badger activity in the area and deal with it immediately. Remember this would be a trial in a clearly defined area and for a specified number of years.

Jenks

Or...get a move on with the new possible bTB test

Interesting read..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... Grant.html


Jenks