Countdown to extinction?

Countdown to extinction?

On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week
'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill
badgers.

Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our
response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a
'protected' native wildlife species.

Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts
have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public
response
can prevent the killing.

Just a few moments of your time can make a difference

Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information.

It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to
support the badgers at this critical time.
Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help.

On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you

Roger

egroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peninsulabadgers/
website: http://www.cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk

In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes
>Countdown to extinction?
>
>On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week
>'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill
>badgers.
>
>Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our
>response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a
>'protected' native wildlife species.
>
>Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts
>have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public
>response
>can prevent the killing.
>
>Just a few moments of your time can make a difference
>
>Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information.
>
>It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to
>support the badgers at this critical time.
>Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help.
>
>On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you
>
You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?"

However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on
your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger
population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at
around 300,000."

Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about
the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack
by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could?

--
Malcolm

"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0$xM5VS3XCtDFwah@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes
> >Countdown to extinction?
> >
> >On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week
> >'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill
> >badgers.
> >
> >Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our
> >response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a
> >'protected' native wildlife species.
> >
> >Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts
> >have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public
> >response
> >can prevent the killing.
> >
> >Just a few moments of your time can make a difference
> >
> >Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information.
> >
> >It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to
> >support the badgers at this critical time.
> >Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help.
> >
> >On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you
> >
> You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?"
>
> However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on
> your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger
> population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at
> around 300,000."
>
> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about
> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack
> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could?
>

Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about the
extinction of local badger populations?

"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1135938417.3229.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0$xM5VS3XCtDFwah@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>> sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes
>> >Countdown to extinction?
>> >
>> >On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week
>> >'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill
>> >badgers.
>> >
>> >Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our
>> >response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a
>> >'protected' native wildlife species.
>> >
>> >Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts
>> >have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public
>> >response
>> >can prevent the killing.
>> >
>> >Just a few moments of your time can make a difference
>> >
>> >Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information.
>> >
>> >It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to
>> >support the badgers at this critical time.
>> >Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help.
>> >
>> >On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you
>> >
>> You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?"
>>
>> However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on
>> your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger
>> population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at
>> around 300,000."
>>
>> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about
>> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack
>> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could?
>>
>
> Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about
> the
> extinction of local badger populations?

That's the main idea of this stupidity :-(

Craven

In article <1135938417.3229.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, BAC
<casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
>
>"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0$xM5VS3XCtDFwah@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>> sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes
>> >Countdown to extinction?
>> >
>> >On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week
>> >'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill
>> >badgers.
>> >
>> >Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our
>> >response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a
>> >'protected' native wildlife species.
>> >
>> >Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts
>> >have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public
>> >response
>> >can prevent the killing.
>> >
>> >Just a few moments of your time can make a difference
>> >
>> >Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information.
>> >
>> >It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to
>> >support the badgers at this critical time.
>> >Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help.
>> >
>> >On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you
>> >
>> You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?"
>>
>> However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on
>> your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger
>> population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at
>> around 300,000."
>>
>> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about
>> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack
>> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could?
>>
>
>Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about the
>extinction of local badger populations?
>
Perhaps he was, but perhaps he wasn't. He should make it clear either
way. The word 'extinction' has a tendency to be over-used in an alarmist
fashion, IMO, with the danger that it's important true meaning gets
debased.

--
Malcolm

In message <jpKpMjWbNVtDFwoN@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about
>>> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack
>>> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could?
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about the
>>extinction of local badger populations?
>>
>Perhaps he was, but perhaps he wasn't. He should make it clear either
>way. The word 'extinction' has a tendency to be over-used in an
>alarmist fashion, IMO, with the danger that it's important true meaning
>gets debased.

This seemed like a good thread for farmers to avoid, however.....

The State Veterinary Service have just issued details of TB testing
intervals for holdings with cattle. In the South East we are on 36 month
intervals whereas large parts of Wales and the West country are on 12
months.

I have no idea if there is a simple correlation between herd TB
breakdowns and Badger numbers but I would expect to find lower
populations of both Badgers and cattle outside the hotspot areas.

As read the OPs call to arms is alarmist in that there is no likelihood
of any culling or change to protected status outside the areas
mentioned.

The red bits on the map are about 1/6 of the area covered by England and
Wales so not a simple job if culling is the only answer.

Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult?

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote...
> Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult?

As far as I know it isn't - the problem is purely the export market. I was
discussing this with a vet only a couple of weeks ago and he told me that
bovine TB isn't a serious human health problem and that vaccines are
available but that they interfere with current turberculine tests so that
you can't prove whether a positive has resulted from infection or immunity,
which prevents certification for foreign markets where vaccination is not
adopted.

I was also talking to a dairy farmer back in the summer, when I was getting
permission for a bat survey on her property, and she was describing the
terrible problems caused by badger related TB, which was quite a culture
shock to someone coming from a conservation background! Interesting thing
was that she was very fond of badgers but just wanted SOMETHING to be done
by government - badger cull, bovine vaccination or vaccination of badgers
.... anything to address the problem - at the moment dairy farmers are let
down by everybody and have their backs firmly against the wall. One
indeterminate TB test result and they are stuck with calves to feed that
they just can't sell and can rapidly face bankrupcy!

The Krebs trial is obviously seriously flawed to anyone with any experience
of scientific experimentation but something has to be done about the problem
so negative campaigning is totally pointless and opponents really need to
push for valid alternative solutions to the problem - perhaps such as
compulsory European-wide bovine vaccination for TB if this is feasible.

David

Tim Lamb wrote:
> Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult?

Isn't it just the usual reason that once vaccinated you can no longer test
for the presence of antibodies to indicate whether they have the disease or
not?

Mike.
--
If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee.

In message <dp8t9n$97t$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mike Coon
<mjcoon@?.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Tim Lamb wrote:
>> Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult?
>
>
>Isn't it just the usual reason that once vaccinated you can no longer test
>for the presence of antibodies to indicate whether they have the disease or
>not?

Oh.

There has been an extensive discussion on aspects of killing Badgers and
likely effects on bTB in uk.business.agriculture. Still ongoing if you
care to join in.

regards
>
>
>
>Mike.

--
Tim Lamb

David Lee wrote:
> I was also talking to a dairy farmer back in the summer, when I was
> getting permission for a bat survey on her property, and she was
> describing the terrible problems caused by badger related TB, which
> was quite a culture shock to someone coming from a conservation
> background!

If you were to join your local badger group then you would be bombarded with
badger/farmer conflict news and would not find any one exposure such a
shock! But I have to say that I have never met a dairy farmer face-to-face
and am in Berkshire where I am told that, despite our badger population,
there is no bovine TB.

Now if the TB problem was with rats and not badgers...

Mike.
--
If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee.

"Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpKpMjWbNVtDFwoN@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <1135938417.3229.0@doris.uk.clara.net>, BAC
> <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes
> >
<snip>

> >>
> >> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about
> >> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack
> >> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could?
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about
the
> >extinction of local badger populations?
> >
> Perhaps he was, but perhaps he wasn't. He should make it clear either
> way. The word 'extinction' has a tendency to be over-used in an alarmist
> fashion, IMO, with the danger that it's important true meaning gets
> debased.
>

I think one merely needs to interpret the term according to the context in
which it is used. In this case, as you said, it was obvious the cull
proposed could not bring about the extinction of the badger (species). The
extermination of every single badger in the UK would only bring about the
extinction of the species if it were extant only in the UK, i.e. if the UK
included all of its range. Further, as the cull proposed is not even
intended to kill every badger in the UK, it could not bring about the
extinction of the species, even if its range were restricted to the UK.

Hence, IMO, it was pretty obvious that the OP must have been referring to
local extinctions, i.e. extinctions of local populations of badgers.

I agree there is a tendency to perhaps overuse the term 'extinction' in
attempts to garner support for protectionist measures, but that's just human
nature at work:-)

Happy New Year.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 at 09:53:10 in uk.rec.natural-history BAC wrote:
>
[...]
>
>I think one merely needs to interpret the term according to the context in
>which it is used. In this case, as you said, it was obvious the cull
>proposed could not bring about the extinction of the badger (species). The
>extermination of every single badger in the UK would only bring about the
>extinction of the species if it were extant only in the UK, i.e. if the UK
>included all of its range. Further, as the cull proposed is not even
>intended to kill every badger in the UK, it could not bring about the
>extinction of the species, even if its range were restricted to the UK.
>
>Hence, IMO, it was pretty obvious that the OP must have been referring to
>local extinctions, i.e. extinctions of local populations of badgers.
>
>I agree there is a tendency to perhaps overuse the term 'extinction' in
>attempts to garner support for protectionist measures, but that's just human
>nature at work:-)
>
Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..?

--
Nogood Boyo

"Nogood Boyo" <NogoodBoyo@bwllfa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vNtl1bALwPuDFwyh@ynystawe.demon.co.uk...
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 at 09:53:10 in uk.rec.natural-history BAC wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> >I think one merely needs to interpret the term according to the context
in
> >which it is used. In this case, as you said, it was obvious the cull
> >proposed could not bring about the extinction of the badger (species).
The
> >extermination of every single badger in the UK would only bring about the
> >extinction of the species if it were extant only in the UK, i.e. if the
UK
> >included all of its range. Further, as the cull proposed is not even
> >intended to kill every badger in the UK, it could not bring about the
> >extinction of the species, even if its range were restricted to the UK.
> >
> >Hence, IMO, it was pretty obvious that the OP must have been referring to
> >local extinctions, i.e. extinctions of local populations of badgers.
> >
> >I agree there is a tendency to perhaps overuse the term 'extinction' in
> >attempts to garner support for protectionist measures, but that's just
human
> >nature at work:-)
> >
> Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..?
>

Just as Malcolm criticised the choice of 'extinction' on the grounds it
could be said to be a sloppy and possible misleading use of a term with a
more precise meaning, some bright spark would probably deplore the use of
'decimation' on the grounds that although it is now in common use to mean
'destroy a large proportion of', the original military usage was 'to kill or
remove one in every ten of' - which wasn't the intention of the proposed
cull :-)

Personally, I think the chap should be free to use whatever term he
considers most appropriate - people reading on from the heading would be
unlikely to mistake the true meaning, IMO.

Nogood Boyo wrote...
> Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..?

No one should ever just say decimate, since the word is now totally
meaningless! Popular understanding seems to be that it is synonymous with
devastate, whereas in reality it means killing a small proportion of exactly
10 percent - in the case of badger "control" the difference in definition is
more than a little significant!

David

"David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:fo-dnVOhmbGAkCTeRVnytQ@eclipse.net.uk...
> Nogood Boyo wrote...
> > Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..?
>
> No one should ever just say decimate, since the word is now totally
> meaningless! Popular understanding seems to be that it is synonymous with
> devastate, whereas in reality it means killing a small proportion of
exactly
> 10 percent - in the case of badger "control" the difference in definition
is
> more than a little significant!
>
> David
>
>

Thanks for that :-)

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 at 11:23:09 in uk.rec.natural-history David Lee
wrote:
>Nogood Boyo wrote...
>> Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..?
>
>No one should ever just say decimate, since the word is now totally
>meaningless! Popular understanding seems to be that it is synonymous with
>devastate, whereas in reality it means killing a small proportion of exactly
>10 percent - in the case of badger "control" the difference in definition is
>more than a little significant!
>
:-) Quite... Just my little joke...

--
Nogood Boyo

	#1
sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk	Countdown to extinction? Countdown to extinction? On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week 'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill badgers. Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a 'protected' native wildlife species. Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public response can prevent the killing. Just a few moments of your time can make a difference Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information. It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to support the badgers at this critical time. Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help. On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you Roger egroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peninsulabadgers/ website: http://www.cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk

	#2
Malcolm	Re: Countdown to extinction? In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes >Countdown to extinction? > >On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week >'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill >badgers. > >Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our >response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a >'protected' native wildlife species. > >Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts >have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public >response >can prevent the killing. > >Just a few moments of your time can make a difference > >Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information. > >It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to >support the badgers at this critical time. >Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help. > >On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you > You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?" However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at around 300,000." Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could? -- Malcolm

	#3
BAC	Re: Countdown to extinction? "Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:0$xM5VS3XCtDFwah@indaal.demon.co.uk... > > In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, > sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes > >Countdown to extinction? > > > >On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week > >'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill > >badgers. > > > >Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our > >response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a > >'protected' native wildlife species. > > > >Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts > >have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public > >response > >can prevent the killing. > > > >Just a few moments of your time can make a difference > > > >Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information. > > > >It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to > >support the badgers at this critical time. > >Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help. > > > >On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you > > > You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?" > > However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on > your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger > population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at > around 300,000." > > Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about > the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack > by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could? > Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about the extinction of local badger populations?

	#4
Craven	Re: Countdown to extinction? "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1135938417.3229.0@doris.uk.clara.net... > > "Malcolm" <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:0$xM5VS3XCtDFwah@indaal.demon.co.uk... >> >> In article <1135874060.962901.275780@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, >> sett@cornwallbadgergroup.org.uk writes >> >Countdown to extinction? >> > >> >On 15th December 2005 the British Government announced a twelve week >> >'public consultation period' to consider whether and how to kill >> >badgers. >> > >> >Many people consider that this consultation is a sham to soften our >> >response to what has already been decided - a mass slaughter of a >> >'protected' native wildlife species. >> > >> >Leading organisations including the RSPCA and the Wildlife Trusts >> >have already voiced their opposition, but only a massive public >> >response >> >can prevent the killing. >> > >> >Just a few moments of your time can make a difference >> > >> >Please visit www.stopthecull.info for more information. >> > >> >It would also be helpful if you would encourage everyone you know to >> >support the badgers at this critical time. >> >Please forward this e-mail to anyone who may care enough to help. >> > >> >On behalf of Britain's badgers - thank you >> > >> You've headed this "Countdown to extinction?" >> >> However, the Badger Trust's webpage, which can be reached from a link on >> your website, states: "Current estimates suggest that Britain's badger >> population has grown over the last decade or so, and now stands at >> around 300,000." >> >> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about >> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack >> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could? >> > > Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about > the > extinction of local badger populations? That's the main idea of this stupidity :-( Craven

	#6
Tim Lamb	Re: Countdown to extinction? In message <jpKpMjWbNVtDFwoN@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm <Malcolm@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes > >>> Very obviously, the cull being suggested could not possibly bring about >>> the "extinction" of the badger, so why lay yourself open to easy attack >>> by farmers who want the cull by suggesting that it could? >>> >> >>Perhaps the OP was speculating that the cull or culls might bring about the >>extinction of local badger populations? >> >Perhaps he was, but perhaps he wasn't. He should make it clear either >way. The word 'extinction' has a tendency to be over-used in an >alarmist fashion, IMO, with the danger that it's important true meaning >gets debased. This seemed like a good thread for farmers to avoid, however..... The State Veterinary Service have just issued details of TB testing intervals for holdings with cattle. In the South East we are on 36 month intervals whereas large parts of Wales and the West country are on 12 months. I have no idea if there is a simple correlation between herd TB breakdowns and Badger numbers but I would expect to find lower populations of both Badgers and cattle outside the hotspot areas. As read the OPs call to arms is alarmist in that there is no likelihood of any culling or change to protected status outside the areas mentioned. The red bits on the map are about 1/6 of the area covered by England and Wales so not a simple job if culling is the only answer. Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult? regards > -- Tim Lamb

	#7
David Lee	Re: Countdown to extinction? Tim Lamb wrote... > Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult? As far as I know it isn't - the problem is purely the export market. I was discussing this with a vet only a couple of weeks ago and he told me that bovine TB isn't a serious human health problem and that vaccines are available but that they interfere with current turberculine tests so that you can't prove whether a positive has resulted from infection or immunity, which prevents certification for foreign markets where vaccination is not adopted. I was also talking to a dairy farmer back in the summer, when I was getting permission for a bat survey on her property, and she was describing the terrible problems caused by badger related TB, which was quite a culture shock to someone coming from a conservation background! Interesting thing was that she was very fond of badgers but just wanted SOMETHING to be done by government - badger cull, bovine vaccination or vaccination of badgers .... anything to address the problem - at the moment dairy farmers are let down by everybody and have their backs firmly against the wall. One indeterminate TB test result and they are stuck with calves to feed that they just can't sell and can rapidly face bankrupcy! The Krebs trial is obviously seriously flawed to anyone with any experience of scientific experimentation but something has to be done about the problem so negative campaigning is totally pointless and opponents really need to push for valid alternative solutions to the problem - perhaps such as compulsory European-wide bovine vaccination for TB if this is feasible. David

	#8
Mike Coon	Re: Countdown to extinction? Tim Lamb wrote: > Why is a vaccine for cattle so difficult? Isn't it just the usual reason that once vaccinated you can no longer test for the presence of antibodies to indicate whether they have the disease or not? Mike. -- If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee.

	#10
Mike Coon	Re: Countdown to extinction? David Lee wrote: > I was also talking to a dairy farmer back in the summer, when I was > getting permission for a bat survey on her property, and she was > describing the terrible problems caused by badger related TB, which > was quite a culture shock to someone coming from a conservation > background! If you were to join your local badger group then you would be bombarded with badger/farmer conflict news and would not find any one exposure such a shock! But I have to say that I have never met a dairy farmer face-to-face and am in Berkshire where I am told that, despite our badger population, there is no bovine TB. Now if the TB problem was with rats and not badgers... Mike. -- If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee.

	#12
Nogood Boyo	Re: Countdown to extinction? On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 at 09:53:10 in uk.rec.natural-history BAC wrote: > [...] > >I think one merely needs to interpret the term according to the context in >which it is used. In this case, as you said, it was obvious the cull >proposed could not bring about the extinction of the badger (species). The >extermination of every single badger in the UK would only bring about the >extinction of the species if it were extant only in the UK, i.e. if the UK >included all of its range. Further, as the cull proposed is not even >intended to kill every badger in the UK, it could not bring about the >extinction of the species, even if its range were restricted to the UK. > >Hence, IMO, it was pretty obvious that the OP must have been referring to >local extinctions, i.e. extinctions of local populations of badgers. > >I agree there is a tendency to perhaps overuse the term 'extinction' in >attempts to garner support for protectionist measures, but that's just human >nature at work:-) > Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..? -- Nogood Boyo

	#13
BAC	Re: Countdown to extinction? "Nogood Boyo" <NogoodBoyo@bwllfa.co.uk> wrote in message news:vNtl1bALwPuDFwyh@ynystawe.demon.co.uk... > On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 at 09:53:10 in uk.rec.natural-history BAC wrote: > > > [...] > > > >I think one merely needs to interpret the term according to the context in > >which it is used. In this case, as you said, it was obvious the cull > >proposed could not bring about the extinction of the badger (species). The > >extermination of every single badger in the UK would only bring about the > >extinction of the species if it were extant only in the UK, i.e. if the UK > >included all of its range. Further, as the cull proposed is not even > >intended to kill every badger in the UK, it could not bring about the > >extinction of the species, even if its range were restricted to the UK. > > > >Hence, IMO, it was pretty obvious that the OP must have been referring to > >local extinctions, i.e. extinctions of local populations of badgers. > > > >I agree there is a tendency to perhaps overuse the term 'extinction' in > >attempts to garner support for protectionist measures, but that's just human > >nature at work:-) > > > Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..? > Just as Malcolm criticised the choice of 'extinction' on the grounds it could be said to be a sloppy and possible misleading use of a term with a more precise meaning, some bright spark would probably deplore the use of 'decimation' on the grounds that although it is now in common use to mean 'destroy a large proportion of', the original military usage was 'to kill or remove one in every ten of' - which wasn't the intention of the proposed cull :-) Personally, I think the chap should be free to use whatever term he considers most appropriate - people reading on from the heading would be unlikely to mistake the true meaning, IMO.

	#14
David Lee	Re: Countdown to extinction? Nogood Boyo wrote... > Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..? No one should ever just say decimate, since the word is now totally meaningless! Popular understanding seems to be that it is synonymous with devastate, whereas in reality it means killing a small proportion of exactly 10 percent - in the case of badger "control" the difference in definition is more than a little significant! David

	#15
BAC	Re: Countdown to extinction? "David Lee" <davidlee_malvern@dont.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fo-dnVOhmbGAkCTeRVnytQ@eclipse.net.uk... > Nogood Boyo wrote... > > Perhaps he should have just said "decimate"..? > > No one should ever just say decimate, since the word is now totally > meaningless! Popular understanding seems to be that it is synonymous with > devastate, whereas in reality it means killing a small proportion of exactly > 10 percent - in the case of badger "control" the difference in definition is > more than a little significant! > > David > > Thanks for that :-)