Sunday, August 01, 2004

"Our badgers would therefore starve and die in considerable numbers"

No apologies for returning to Ben Bradshaw's naive and novel solution to keeping badgers and cattle apart. (see Fence 'em Out Fence 'em In & Biogarbage -- on this site)

A letter published in Farmers Guardian July 30th., from a Welsh farmer was scathing in its description of the implications of our Ben's 'desk top' bio security measures, and their effect on its wildlife target which he so obviously values.

"The implication (of electric fences) seems to be that although the farmer is not allowed to (directly) kill a badger, the latter should not come into contact with grazing cattle, so it would be just fine to deprive badgers of the opportunity to forage, albeit thereby starving them to death. Problem (perhaps) solved."

The writer described his farm in West Wales as having boundary banks containing badgers between almost every pasture field. "If I were to fence off these areas, then there is effectively nowhere else for them (badgers) to go, except maybe our neighbours' fields. Problem displaced, but certainly not solved."

"So if our many badgers were successfully confined (at great expense) to their territorial banks they would therefore starve and die in great numbers. Animal welfare has to take wildlife welfare into account ."

Well said. We couldn't have put it better.

Elaine King of the NFBG is reportedly very keen on Bradshaw's brand of 'bio security', with Bourne of the ISG equally supportive. Do they understand the reality?
Starved badgers?

No comments: