RSPCA Campaign Against Badger Cull petition

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by hobble

Here is the link, although you may have missed it for this year as grants were awarded in March I think.
Worth checking out for next year though.
You will also need to check your catchment area.




Defra, UK - Farming - Environmental management water/csf/pdf/state-aid-capitalgrantsscheme2007.pdf -

The devil is in the detail !!!

A common problem with many people on this forum, the joker who suggested I get my fencing paid for by the government being one of them, is that people are singularly uninterested in facts.

To the link

If we are talking about watercourse fencing (CSF003 AppendixB) Sheep netting at £1.80 per M it is not really relevant is it to ALL fencing as suggested.

The whole point of this money is in sensitive water catchment areas to help prevent pollution.

As (surprise, surprise, being a money grabbing farmer) I was and am well aware that my farm is not within the scheme it is totally irrelevant.






So i am still waiting for some back up to Springers assurance that i get fencing paid for by the government.

I won't get a link because it is a lie.

And it is a shame people have to lie to try and win an argument.


Still, thanks for the link. at least you are interested Hobble.

Interesting bit about Badgers in the Observer magazine this morning !!!

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

And it is a shame people have to lie to try and win an argument.

Life is full of not inly liars, but also moral hypocrites as we all know.

Such is life.

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Life is full of not inly liars, but also moral hypocrites as we all know.

Such is life.

Springer throughout this thread you have made many assertions of "fact" and in several cases you have been asked to substantiate them by those of us who find these "facts" to be surprising, or in some cases, know them to be wrong.

You have also made much play on the subject of objectivity whilst consistenty making statements that are to say the least subjective.

You do not do any argument you may have any favours by issuing statements like those above. Whist DH may have been intemperate in his language both he and I have asked you to sustantiate your various statements re the support available to farmers and farming on several occasions, to which requests you have, as far as I can see, signally failed to respond.

Regards
mac

[stripee]

Yes,DH, in the Observer/guardian, the Super furries. The Wind in the Willows effect. Difference in w wales is there are far fewer Badgers.

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by muldonach

Springer throughout this thread you have made many assertions of "fact" and in several cases you have been asked to substantiate them by those of us who find these "facts" to be surprising, or in some cases, know them to be wrong.

You have also made much play on the subject of objectivity whilst consistenty making statements that are to say the least subjective.

You do not do any argument you may have any favours by issuing statements like those above. Whist DH may have been intemperate in his language both he and I have asked you to sustantiate your various statements re the support available to farmers and farming on several occasions, to which requests you have, as far as I can see, signally failed to respond.

Regards
mac

mac, that would normally be fair comment, and in principle I agree. However, if a person is automatically deemed to be a liar simply because they do not substantiate something, then the main issue here, that of blaming and culling Badgers, is in itself even more inexcusable due to the fact that no one in govt or farming is currently able to substantiate that either, before going ahead with it regardless.
But that's different of course. !! More hypocrisy ?????


However, to come back to your specific allegation....

Firstly you yourself have already substantiated my facts for me (so to call me a liar is untrue and by definition must make DH a liar himself. Your own verification of my statement to DH is here..

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

unless you are also a liar ??

so that now makes him the only one of the two of us who is guilty of currently unsubstatiated facts, as here...

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

where DH wrote....

"in 4 years time TB costs will take up 70% of DEFRA's budget."

considered as yet unsubstantiated by others as well as myself. Although I am always willing to be proven wrong.

so...I have provided my evidence to support my claim about you (as in "you the farmer") getting public financial support that no other small business gets - fencing and hedging are two examples of many). That clears me as not lying. Even better you have provided that corroboration for me.

And secondly, it is not in my nature to descend to calling someone a liar unless I can prove it (I have not done that anywhere on this thread that I am aware of), so I will resist in doing so back to DH. But not to put too fine a point on it, the burden of "putting your link where your mouth is" so to speak is now with DH to verify his last seemingly fantastic statement about DEFRA's budget. Now that you have verified my fencing statement for me.


I await with interest to see who is the liar here. I also await with interest to see whether DH calling ME a liar when he is now the only one with unsubstatiated claims is another example of the same hypocrisy from DH that he is guilty of with respect to what should be the real issue here, which is whether calling for a cull on Badgers is morally justifyable without being a hypocrit (which he seems to disagree with being called, but makes no defence to prove that he isn't)).

I would still prefer to be discussing that, but I haven't yet found anyone (apart from a very limited attempt from eeyor, who has any argument to defend their own position on the subject). Presumably that is why so many of the non-anticull people here are avoiding talking about it. Because many of them have no defence.

It is also why I still suggest that DH (along with others) is being morally hypocritical when he takes a subject which has many facets, picks on only one of them (wildlife), deliberately playing down the others and then worst of all discusses that one facet with a set of parameters which, if someone else were to enforce them on him, he would be outraged about.

I am not trying to insult DH, I am just calling a spade a spade. If he is unhappy with that label he is welcome to defend his position intellectually.
So far he has not done so.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

mac, that would normally be fair comment, and in principle I agree. However, if a person is automatically deemed to be a liar simply because they do not substantiate something, then the main issue here, that of blaming and culling Badgers, is in itself even more inexcusable due to the fact that no one in govt or farming is currently able to substantiate that either, before going ahead with it regardless.
But that's different of course. !! More hypocrisy ?????


However, to come back to your specific allegation....

Firstly you yourself have already substantiated my facts for me (so to call me a liar is untrue and by definition must make DH a liar himself. Your own verification of my statement to DH is here..

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

unless you are also a liar ??

so that now makes him the only one of the two of us who is guilty of currently unsubstatiated facts, as here...

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

where DH wrote....

"in 4 years time TB costs will take up 70% of DEFRA's budget."

considered as yet unsubstantiated by others as well as myself. Although I am always willing to be proven wrong.

so...I have provided my evidence to support my claim about you (as in "you the farmer") getting public financial support that no other small business gets - fencing and hedging are two examples of many). That clears me as not lying. Even better you have provided that corroboration for me.

And secondly, it is not in my nature to descend to calling someone a liar unless I can prove it (I have not done that anywhere on this thread that I am aware of), so I will resist in doing so back to DH. But not to put too fine a point on it, the burden of "putting your link where your mouth is" so to speak is now with DH to verify his last seemingly fantastic statement about DEFRA's budget. Now that you have verified my fencing statement for me.


I await with interest to see who is the liar here. I also await with interest to see whether DH calling ME a liar when he is now the only one with unsubstatiated claims is another example of the same hypocrisy from DH that he is guilty of with respect to what should be the real issue here, which is whether calling for a cull on Badgers is morally justifyable without being a hypocrit (which he seems to disagree with being called, but makes no defence to prove that he isn't)).

I would still prefer to be discussing that, but I haven't yet found anyone (apart from a very limited attempt from eeyor, who has any argument to defend their own position on the subject). Presumably that is why so many of the non-anticull people here are avoiding talking about it. Because many of them have no defence.

It is also why I still suggest that DH (along with others) is being morally hypocritical when he takes a subject which has many facets, picks on only one of them (wildlife), deliberately playing down the others and then worst of all discusses that one facet with a set of parameters which, if someone else were to enforce them on him, he would be outraged about.

I am not trying to insult DH, I am just calling a spade a spade. If he is unhappy with that label he is welcome to defend his position intellectually.
So far he has not done so.

So I have to provide a link and you don't ?!!!??!!!

What a cowardy custard !!!!

Still here goes....

"Witness: Lord Rooker, a Member of the House of Lords, Minister for Sustainable Food and Farming and Animal Health, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence.

Q537 Chairman: May I welcome to the Committee Lord Rooker, an old friend of our inquiries. He is the Minister for Sustainable Food and Farming and Animal Health. I know he has taken a particular interest in this inquiry, coming to some of our earlier evidence sessions. Minister, we are very grateful to you for the fact that you have followed closely the work of the Committee in this respect. I wonder if we could just try and put a little perspective onto the present state of matters connected with bovine TB and particularly the amount of money that the disease is currently costing the government. In chapter four of the document published in February 2004, entitled "Preparing for a New GB Strategy on Bovine TB" on page 23, your department published a projection indicating that by 2012/13 the disease could well be costing an annual expenditure of some £300 million. Does that number still remain the long term projection for Defra of the costs of bovine TB?

Lord Rooker: I would imagine that is the state of play because not a lot of work has been done. There were recommendations from the ISG as well which would cost a lot. It pre-ordains the fact that you have a policy to operate. That figure would have been produced on the basis probably of maybe the current situation, the current spread, but things change of course, levels of compensation, levels of research. Nevertheless, it is costing a fortune. It is the best part of £100 million a year now. It takes up 40 per cent of the Animal Health Agency's resources and it is growing. The disease is spreading. I would not argue about the figure that was projected quite a while ago for some time in front of us. It is a serious issue and it is costing a lot and it is going up."


Uncorrected Evidence 130

Now maybe you can help me...

I was thinking of putting up a fence to keep Badgers out. Apparently the Department for the Elimination of Food and Rural Affairs will pay for it.

Got a link ?

[stripee]

"I was thinking of putting up a fence to keep Badgers out." deerhunter
I was thinking of putting up a fence to keep Badgers in. Away from culling enthusiasts.
Anyone wanting to sign the RSPCA petition please follow the link in the first post

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

So I have to provide a link and you don't ?!!!??!!!

What a cowardy custard !!!!


Now maybe you can help me...

I was thinking of putting up a fence to keep Badgers out. Apparently the Department for the Elimination of Food and Rural Affairs will pay for it.

Got a link ?

Cowardly custard ????

No disrespect intended here DH, but can you please just confirm for me that I am not talking to a child ?
I am perfectly serious here.
Not that there is anything wrong if you are a child, you have as much right to be here as anyone, in fact I for one would welcome and encourage input from the younger generation, but it does help me to know how to pitch the tone of my posts if I know.
It's often impossible for me (or any of us) to know the age of others on the forum except by the things they say, and 'cowardly custard' is , in my experience something that a child would typically say rather than an adult. Although I accept that you may be an exception. You also run a farm which technically would suggest you are an adult (although that has been thrown open to debate given some of the mess ups in farming during recent years).

Only kidding about the last bit of course.

Seriously though, I can only go on the evidence that I see (i.e. your posts).

However, I will assume (until further notice) that you are over 18.

So....did you not read the post made your 'mate' mac ?
Or are you just more likely choosing to ignore/distorte it in the same manner you ignore/distorte your morally hypocritical relationship with many other individuals around you ?

Whichever it is, the evidence has been provided. I'm not linking to it again because there is no need. You can go back and read the first link if you haven't already. As to where mac got it from, ask him, he provided the statement.

As far as I am concerned you are simply clutching at straws to avoid discussing the real issue of why everything except you needs to be controlled. You have yet to provide ANY defence of that, you just keep talking about fencing.
Accept that my statement has been corroborated by someone who is a real farmer (not that there aren't others outside this forum who have already told me this anyway). Read the post again and deny that it is there, or is your reality with respect to that post as ill-conceived as your reality with regard to your relationship with nature appears to be.
The rest of us have all moved on - farmers get money for fencing; I say so, mac says so, and hobble also provided a link with details of money available to members of the farming community for the purposes of fencing. If you personally don't qualify for any of the current 'schemes', then I WOULD offer my sympathy except that it only makes you personally the same as every other small business owner outside farming (although of course there were days during the peak of CAP when fencing was much more encouraged than it is now). Anyway, get over it and stop avoiding having to defend your hypocrisy. My statement has been corroborated by several individuals in this thread, one of which links to DEFRA themselves (although admittedly they may have to change that once 70% of their budget goes on compensation - lol !! - still as yet uncorroborated by the way).
The bottom line is, you have now far had more evidence of my fencing claims that I yet have of ANY of the things I have asked for.

STILL looking forward to an attempt by you to prove that you are not an immoral hypocrite by the way (perhaps I should just attach that statement as a signature on every message I post to you, to save me typing it every time). It'll never happen because you can't do it, and we both know it.

BTW if mac is reading this, are you not going to post a message to DH, like you did to me, telling him that he has made several claims that are either untrue or unsubstatiated ??
It would be double standards not to treat us both the same, so this is your chance to prove whether you live by double standards or not. I think I can guess which it will be.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Or are you just more likely choosing to ignore/distorte it in the same manner you ignore/distorte your morally hypocritical relationship with many other individuals around you ?

Distorte ?

Is that with strawberry ?


A morally hypocritical relationship with many other individuals around me ?!???!

Ummmmmm dum de dum.

Let me seeee !

No. Got me.


Are those individuals Badgers ?

The Womens Institute ?

Can we go back to English ?

Or talk about fencing grants ?


Do you play a lot of playstation? Sim City? Grand theft auto ?

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

Distorte ?

Is that with strawberry ?


A morally hypocritical relationship with many other individuals around me ?!???!

Ummmmmm dum de dum.

Let me seeee !

No. Got me.


Are those individuals Badgers ?

The Womens Institute ?

Can we go back to English ?

Or talk about fencing grants ?


Do you play a lot of playstation? Sim City? Grand theft auto ?

Ahh yes. The continued dribblings of a moral failure. Thought so.

[muldonach]

mac, that would normally be fair comment, and in principle I agree. However, if a person is automatically deemed to be a liar simply because they do not substantiate something,

You have been asked many times for substantiation of sweeping statements you have made, as far as I can see you have never responded.

then the main issue here, that of blaming and culling badgers, is in itself even more inexcusable due to the fact that no one in govt or farming is currently able to substantiate that either, before going ahead with it regardless.
But that's different of course. !! More hypocrisy ?????

Sorry but that is nonsense, Krebs conculded that there is compelling evidence that Badgers can and do transmit TB to cattle and Bourne describes them as being a significant vector for the disease in certain areas.

However, to come back to your specific allegation....

Firstly you yourself have already substantiated my facts for me (so to call me a liar is untrue and by definition must make DH a liar himself. Your own verification of my statement to DH is here..

It most certainly is not - the statement you made was perfectly clear that every time a fence was put up public money was involved, that is hogwash. My post refuted that assetion, whilst acknowledging that in certain conditions public money may be available.

Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

so...I have provided my evidence to support my claim about you (as in "you the farmer") getting public financial support that no other small business gets - fencing and hedging are two examples of many). That clears me as not lying. Even better you have provided that corroboration for me.

You have provided nothing at all, rather you have taken a post of mine and tried to twist it to your own purpose, which does your argument and accuracy no favours. It is apparent that you have no reference source for this or any of the other incorrect statements you have bandied around.

And secondly, it is not in my nature to descend to calling someone a liar unless I can prove it (I have not done that anywhere on this thread that I am aware of), so I will resist in doing so back to DH. But not to put too fine a point on it, the burden of "putting your link where your mouth is" so to speak is now with DH to verify his last seemingly fantastic statement about DEFRA's budget. Now that you have verified my fencing statement for me.

I await with interest to see who is the liar here. I also await with interest to see whether DH calling ME a liar when he is now the only one with unsubstatiated claims is another example of the same hypocrisy from DH that he is guilty of with respect to what should be the real issue here, which is whether calling for a cull on Badgers is morally justifyable without being a hypocrit (which he seems to disagree with being called, but makes no defence to prove that he isn't)).

I would still prefer to be discussing that, but I haven't yet found anyone (apart from a very limited attempt from eeyor, who has any argument to defend their own position on the subject). Presumably that is why so many of the non-anticull people here are avoiding talking about it. Because many of them have no defence.

Actually I think you will find that proponents of culling are a bit thin on the ground around here. I also suspect that others, like myself, consider your arguments to be off topic and better suited to another thread altogether.

It is also why I still suggest that DH (along with others) is being morally hypocritical when he takes a subject which has many facets, picks on only one of them (wildlife), deliberately playing down the others and then worst of all discusses that one facet with a set of parameters which, if someone else were to enforce them on him, he would be outraged about.

Nobody is picking on one facet, the control of TB requires a multi faceted approach and I am not aware of anyone including DH ever propounding an argument that Badgers are the sole cause of Tb in cattle.

I am not trying to insult DH, I am just calling a spade a spade. If he is unhappy with that label he is welcome to defend his position intellectually.
So far he has not done so.

If you do not count terms such as "moral hypocrite" as being insulting then I fear you truly are in a parallel universe. Nor does personalising an argument in this way stimulate intellectual response.

regards
mac

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by muldonach

and Bourne describes them as being a significant vector for the disease in certain areas.

and then in the same paragraph goes on to point out that cattle-to-cattle transmission is the main cause of spread to new areas. And in the the following paragraph (13) Bourne says

It is unfortunate that agricultural and veterinary
leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary,
that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of Badger population
control. It is our hope that Defra will embrace new scientific findings, and communicate
these to stakeholders in ways that encourage acceptance and participation.

Bourne does NOT support Badger culling.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Ahh yes. The continued dribblings of a moral failure. Thought so.

A moral failure ?


Hmmmmmm

Because I breed animals for meat ?

Are you a member of the labour party ?

Your arguments are looking a little, how shall we say,.....shaky?

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Deerhunter

A moral failure ?


Hmmmmmm

Because I breed animals for meat ?

Are you a member of the labour party ?

Your arguments are looking a little, how shall we say,.....shaky?

We've been through all this before.
If you REALLY WANT to discuss my arguments intelligently then just let me know, but I suspect not.

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Ahh yes. The continued dribblings of a moral failure. Thought so.

And you want to discuss things intelligently and intellectually????????

regards
mac

[hobble]

Is it not time to beg to differ?

[matt_xyz]

please refrain from making personal comments and insinuations.

I'm sure this thread has run it's course but will keep it open for now just on the off chance that someone has a new point to make

Matt