Badger cull, would you avoid Welsh produce

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

I never offered one on 'how'. Never claimed to be able to, just on the fact that it happens. How is your business and of no interest to me. Your the farmer.

I thought you wrote this on the 14th April

"every time you put up a fence on your fields we pay part"


First you are telling me what a terrible business I run and now you are not interested !!!

I think you need a rest.

[Deerhunter]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Talking of 'links' DH. There have been claims made to me that you have links to one or more organisations which have been in trouble for breaking the law in the past with regard to hunting.

I will obviously never say who told me this. That doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned.

However, I wondered if you would care to refute that, or like my own claims on your lack of morality, will you stay silent so that I must take your silence as an admission of your guilt.

It would be interesting to know the level of 'person' (I am gradually using the word more and more loosely) I am dealing with here. If (yes IF !!!!) it's true then it may explain your lack of willingness to try to defend your seemingly immoral behaviour. Or I suppose the 3rd option is that you could start on about fencing yet again in order to avoid my question, but don't bother with that option because I've rested my case and having nothing else to say on it. Indeed there is nothing else TO be said on it.

I can find out either way by asking friends in your area to check the local newspaper archives, which I will do if you don't respond, but it would be quicker if you were to confirm or deny it directly.
I will try to take your word for whichever is the case (although your moral record so far does de-value your 'word' somewhat).

Was there a question in all that ?

Its not the X - files honey !!!!

Oh no !!

Not the friends in my area !!

Heylp ! heylp ! Help a poor damsel in distress !!!


It is true, I thought it would never come out ! But it looks like I can escape my past no more !!

Woe is me !!

It is true. I once manned the barbecue at the Cutcombe Gymkhana.

Put me on the sausage offenders register and I will come quietly !!!!



Anyway, back to reality.......you said farming in Tb hotspots should be cleaned up.



I said.....how ?


Over to you.....

[muldonach]

The actual quote is "every time". So every time fencing needs to be put up there is public money that can be applied for for doing so. As you say, clear and unequivocal.

If the grant you had was 50% , how does that differ from my statement which used the word 'part', or is 50% not 'part' any more ?

The meaning of your statement was I suggest totally clear - that every time any farmer puts a fence up he gets public money to do so - and that I am afraid is wildly incorrect

Which 'other statements' are 'equally incorrect'

.

All of the ones quoted in that paragraph

The ones about fencing, or the ones about the real issue you are trying to smokescreen about farmers such as youself and DH being imorral hypocrites with respect to other life around you ?

Why have you both gone so quiet on that front ?

Never actually entered into the discussion since it is miles off topic for the thread and does not interest me in the slightest - and by the way I am not a farmer although I do own some farmland. I think I have been pretty consistent throughout this and other threads that I don't actually have problem with killing things so don't quite see where the hypocrite charge comes from. If you want to argue that the life of a badger (or other animals, insects or whatever) is equivalent to that of a human then I suggest you consider starting a suitable thread.

Is it because it's easier for you to try to defend where your fencing money comes from rather than whether you are in effect behaving morally no better than the badgers you are discussing ?

So many important questions and all you can talk about is the nth degree detail of fencing. I'm not suprised farming is 'struggling' if this is what you are hung up on.

Actually no - we go on about fencing because it is a specific example of a number of sweeping statements you have made, which I regard as of questionable veracity and which you have been asked to corroborate, in no case have you responded so far`as I can see.

I have no comments on the moral position, or attitude of badgers I'm afraid. As regards the morals of killing animals wild or otherwise, I eat meat on a regular basis and regularly kill animals to do so. If, in order to protect cattle from an infectious disease it is necessary, and effective, to kill another animal then that causes me no problems either.

And why are you not sending the same message to DH regarding his uncorroborated claims....

- compensation claims taking 70% of DEFRA's budget ?

Because by the time I read the erroneous post he had been corrected and acknowledged his mistake. An example you could I suggest, usefully follow.

I now consider that I have provided sufficient grounds to back up the essence of my earlier claims and do not need to provide yet more.

Then I fear that the moderators must have removed it - because it is not on this thread(as far as I can see).

By contrast your assertiones that my claims of moral hypocrsiy are untrue have not had ANY evidnece to substantiate them . It is well and truly your turn to provide even a glimmer of evidence alongside the relatively large amount that I (and you !) have provided.

Even the anecdotal evidence alone (ignoring the DEFRA link posted by hobble for a moment) is way in excess of ANYTHING you have provided to refute my moral hypocrisy claims. Ican by now only accpt that my assertions must be true due to the lack of any denial.

I don't remember engaging in any debate on moral hypocrisy actually, I dont see anything morally wrong or hypocritical in seeking to protect domestic stock from an infectious disease.


Cheers
mac

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Springer5

I never offered one on 'how'. Never claimed to be able to, just on the fact that it happens. How is your business and of no interest to me. Your the farmer.

If the "how" is his business and of no interest then why on earth are you lecturing on animal husbandry? And`if you are not able to offer a reference for the information requested then what are you basing your statements on?

Cheers
mac

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Talking of 'links' DH. There have been claims made to me that you have links to one or more organisations which have been in trouble for breaking the law in the past with regard to hunting.

I will obviously never say who told me this. That doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned.

However, I wondered if you would care to refute that, or like my own claims on your lack of morality, will you stay silent so that I must take your silence as an admission of your guilt.

It would be interesting to know the level of 'person' (I am gradually using the word more and more loosely) I am dealing with here. If (yes IF !!!!) it's true then it may explain your lack of willingness to try to defend your seemingly immoral behaviour. Or I suppose the 3rd option is that you could start on about fencing yet again in order to avoid my question, but don't bother with that option because I've rested my case and having nothing else to say on it. Indeed there is nothing else TO be said on it.

I can find out either way by asking friends in your area to check the local newspaper archives, which I will do if you don't respond, but it would be quicker if you were to confirm or deny it directly.
I will try to take your word for whichever is the case (although your moral record so far does de-value your 'word' somewhat).

And just what on earth does this add to your argument springer? It certainly does not reflect well on the level of the person who wrote it IMHO

mac

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by muldonach

As regards the morals of killing animals wild or otherwise, I eat meat on a regular basis and regularly kill animals to do so. If, in order to protect cattle from an infectious disease it is necessary, and effective, to kill another animal then that causes me no problems either.

I dont see anything morally wrong or hypocritical in seeking to protect domestic stock from an infectious disease.

On what basis do you choose to give the life of domestic livestock priority over the wildlife ? You do appear to be doing so in your statement.

What about if there was a need to kill more domestic cattle to protect the wildlife ? After all many believe it was the domestic cattle who gave it to the wildlife first.

What's your justification for discussing ONLY culling the wildlife ?

That is not being discussed, and you are as guilty of ignoring the concept as anyone. Is looking at domestic cattle with the same attitude as wildlife too objective for you ?
The evidence of your posts so far suggests it is.

[muldonach]

[quote=Springer5;271525]

On what basis do you choose to give the life of domestic livestock priority over the wildlife ? You do appear to be doing so in your statement.

There is no such priority - the domestic stock are certainly going to die most of them sooner rather than later.

What about if there was a need to kill more domestic cattle to protect the wildlife ? After all many believe it was the domestic cattle who gave it to the wildlife first.

What's your justification for discussing ONLY culling the wildlife ?

It has been cross party policy for many years that all bovine TB reactors are compulsorily culled. Nobody is discussing ONLY culling wildlfe - my undertanding is that pre-movement testing became compulsory in England and Wales a little while ago and that the Welsh Assembly propose a 100% test in conjunction with the proposed badger cull

That is not being discussed, and you are as guilty of ignoring the concept as anyone. Is looking at domestic cattle with the same attitude as wildlife too objective for you ?
The evidence of your posts so far suggests it is.

Would you expect a flour mill to tolerate rats? The evidence of your posts so far suggests you would.

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by Springer5

- compensation claims taking 70% of DEFRA's budget ?

Compensation dropped from £40.4 million in fiscal year 2005-2006 to £24.5 million in 2006-2007. Details in Hansard..

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by muldonach

There is no such priority - the domestic stock are certainly going to die most of them sooner rather than later.

So instead of killing one species as normal (cattle), what is being advocated is killing more (badgers plus possibly others, then the cattle as normal as well).
You accept the concept of killing the badgers, so that you can save cattle from infection as you put it, then later the cattle that you have 'saved' get killed anyway.

So the moral imperative of which you say you are not corrupt is being broken not once but several times.

Originally Posted by muldonach

Would you expect a flour mill to tolerate rats? The evidence of your posts so far suggests you would.

The rats have to tolerate the miller. Can you be sure of a difference between them? I'd love to here what it is.

If you can't then that is what I mean when I accuse you (and others with the same attitude) of having double standards.
A miller in the presence of rats is ok, but rats in the presence of a miller isn't ?

[Springer5]

[quote=muldonach;271545]

Originally Posted by Springer5

Would you expect a flour mill to tolerate rats? The evidence of your posts so far suggests you would.

Also, it's not really a suitable analogy because it is mostly a one-way problem whereas with the cattle/wildlife bTB issue is probably much more two-sided. Even so it's a fair question in its own right.

If the rat 'problem' can be dealt with in such a way that no suffering is caused for anyone then that is the ideal soultion for everyone, of course.

However, I admit that is rarely the case (it's not a perfect world), in which case the only way of dealing with the problem whilst mainting your (I mean the miller's) morality and minimising net suffering is to tolerate the rats whilst minimising the impact each party has on the other as much as not causing anyone suffering will permit.

The bottom line is that to fail to apply a moral solution would make the miller as morally bankrupt as the rats, in which case - for those of us who do live by a moral code - he would seen as morally no different from the rats he considers should not be tolerated, which means his argument for himself being tolerated by the rest of society is, morally, non-existent, by his own rules.