badger cull lawful

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

"Dead through natural perturbation"? Are you sure you actually understand the terms such as 'shedding' and 'perturbation'? This is not the first time you have used them in very odd contexts.

Dienyddio anianol. I mean death by nature. No, I don't know the correct term in English, but YOU know what I mean. By 'shedding' I mean that the 'alerted' white blood cells in the badger immune system attaches to the bacteria and is processed to the kidneys, to be excreted as urine. It's also the process where virulent bacteria in badger urine on cow pats/pasture is ingested into cattle.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Any landowner can refuse access.

Not under the draconian Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009 - under this Order, as interpreted by WAG, anyone they 'authorise' can come onto anyone's land anywhere in Wales without permission, and can bring whatever or whoever they "deem necessary" with them. Any interference or obstruction is a criminal offence - that would include slinging them off your land.

That's in principle - at one point I gather they did say that if denied access they would go off and get a warrant, but the Order doesn't even stipulate that they should have to do that.

They can even force the occupier or anyone they think to be under the control of the occupier to help them.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

I've normally seen 4 or 5 years as the average life expectancy of a badger - Dr Glossop, when I saw her last year, insisted that it was nearer 10 years, but I still think she must have been confusing the average life expectancy with the maximum. However I can see that your plan to incinerate the badgers would shorten their life expectancy!

I don't think Dr Glossop, the Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales, is confused.

I think she fully understands the relationship between the density of wild population and life expectancy. Most badgers die of natural causes when the population reaches a saturation point determined by the food availability in the environment. This is 4 to 5 years on average but in areas of high badger density, the average falls to 3 years. The process of culling allows the life expectancy of the remaining population to increase as there is more food and greater territory for badger communities to survive. This can approach 10 years. A much higher life expectancy will occur until the wild population, again grows to saturation point. There is of course, an obvious opportunity here. Immunity through vaccination is not inherited through the generations, indeed, it may be suppressed. The effectiveness of vaccination, should it be successful, may well be enhanced by culling, as the average age of the badger population will increase, and a greater proportion of these will have been vaccinated. Something that Defra in England may wish to consider.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

The process of culling allows the life expectancy of the remaining population to increase as there is more food and greater territory for badger communities to survive. This can approach 10 years.

What? Seriously, this is a vaguely possible but totally new assertion to me. I know badgers can live ten years or more - in captivity I've heard of one claimed to have lived 19 years. Other than Dr Glossop I've not heard 10 years as an estimate of average life expectancy in the wild.

However the claim that lower populations leads to longer average life expectancy in the wild population is both novel and interesting - but unfortunately comes from someone with a history of bizarre assertions.

So - do you have a source or supporting evidence for this claim?

On the other hand this might be an opportune time to mention one of the cool things about badgers - they regulate their birth rate according to the availability of food. The sow will mate, the fertilized egg will develop to the blastocyst stage (a small hollow clump of undifferentiated cells) but will not actually implant in the wall of the uterus and develop into an embryo until the right time of year to be born in January - March. The blastocyst can hang around for as long as 10 months, compared to a gestation period (after implantation) of only 7 or so weeks.

During this period, if the sow is ever short of food, the blastocyst can be eliminated - I'm not sure if it is excreted or absorbed or what. The end result (apart from badgers being able to enjoy nookie when convenient rather than when conception is timely) is that in times of plenty the badger family will have plenty of cubs, but in times of famine maybe only the alpha sow will have two or three cubs.

So I'm a bit dubious about the claim that life expectancy varies according to food supply. A sudden shortage (e.g. last winter) can lead to starving badgers, but otherwise the population will regulate itself to the food supply by reducing birth rate, not starvation of adults.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Immunity through vaccination is not inherited through the generations, indeed, it may be suppressed.

Well, immunity can be inherited especially if you accept 'inherited' to include immunity passed on through the mother's milk, although I have seen the claim that vaccination can suppress immunity in the next generation. But I had thought that report was discredited - and no I don't have a citation.

So again, any supporting evidence?

The idea that killing adult badgers (leading to more cubs being born) will increase the average age of badgers is, at face value, absurd. Likewise the idea that increasing life expectancy of badgers (meaning that infected badgers won't die off as quickly to be replaced by vaccinated ones) will be a good thing for TB control is also counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase the proportion of vaccinated badgers, wouldn't it be easier to vaccinate any badgers you catch rather than killing them?

[FungiJohn]

Time I think to close this thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

John