the_stig 6,614 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 COMMON SENCE SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE as the people who goven this county have struck it out thier mind set !!!!! we had 2 female dog walkers getting on our case a few week back over us a ratting a dyke --i asked what would they do if they where in there gardens -- she said dykes are there natural habitat and they should be left i pointed out they damage farmers crops and she lauged at me and said because i lived in a town i did`nt know what i was talking about and should learn they live and let live in the countryside .. cookie nearly pissed himself when i told her to foook off .. bully not like me mate i shy away from trouble but this time it had to be said Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 COMMON SENCE SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE as the people who goven this county have struck it out thier mind set !!!!! we had 2 female dog walkers getting on our case a few week back over us a ratting a dyke --i asked what would they do if they where in there gardens -- she said dykes are there natural habitat and they should be left i pointed out they damage farmers crops and she lauged at me and said because i lived in a town i did`nt know what i was talking about and should learn they live and let live in the countryside .. cookie nearly pissed himself when i told her to foook off .. bully not like me mate i shy away from trouble but this time it had to be said did you say please and thank you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gonetoearth 5,144 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Were they dykes or you were ratting on one Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenny14 656 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 I caught a bit of the report on the news last night, and I heard them say 'they found that there are far more badgers than they thought'. Well I don't know the full story (does anyone?) but it's apparently being claimed that surveys to establish Badger numbers in the cull areas were carried out 5 years ago. I do think I know the protocol as I carry out ecological surveys the same as must surely have been required for this, and I find it hard to believe that a license would be granted based on 5 year old data for any work affecting a protected species (never mind culling). So call it a u-turn, cop out or whatever, but one thing's for sure, there's far more to all this than they're letting on. Put them on the general license, with certain restrictions, and I'm pretty sure the many problems including TB, that are now being caused by Badgers will be reduced dramatically. never worked with defra , or the enviroment agency then put them on the general licence clued up arnt you I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there but if you're asking have I worked with those agencies, then the answer is yes, those and Natural England, week in week out, that's why I'm very familiar with what's required before they'll even consider granting licenses or consents . And to clarify my last sentence, that's just my own personal view - a simple and logical solution to a long running problem regarding a species which is currently afforded full legal protection, but in reality is far from in need of it . You Work with or for unnatural england whos only wish is to fence of every field ,marsh, and wood in england you state you know what licenses and consents are reqired the come out with put them on the general licence. Yes ill end it there When I state 'working with' Natural England, I mean that I regularly submit license and consent applications to them and other relevant agencies, both for myself and more regularly for customers. I'm also often contacted by these agencies with requests to provide information and data in order for them to process applications. Having done this for many years I'm painfully aware of the drawn out procedures and the ammount of red tape that's required for someone to gain permission to carry out any activity that might impact on a protected species. Just because I do this as a means of income and because I'm legally required to, doesn't mean that I agree with their stance on anything. far from it in many cases. My opinion on putting Badgers on the general license, with conditions, is just that - an opinion. I have little confidence that it'll ever happen, but a lot of confidence that it would provide a cost effective solution to the problems that Badgers are causing, and in many ways would actually be beneficial for badgers as a species. . Thank you for your answer and i agree Quote Link to post Share on other sites
earth-thrower 490 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) We're being governed by people who have NEVER felt grass beneath their feet, they're all pen pushers and suits with a loud voice. Why didn't they ask someone who works in the countryside how many badgers there are? Not rely on scientists or "experts" for the same thing. Just carry on with your own business I've listened to a few debates on this and expert opinion is that culling is likely to spread the disease because breaking up family groups of badgers will only spread the TB further afield I'm not persuaded that culling will eradicate the problem.Statistics given from previous times suggests not. I tend to agree with the last part of your statement, Inan. Edited October 25, 2012 by earth-thrower Quote Link to post Share on other sites
earth-thrower 490 Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Bovine tb seems to be endemic among british cows,therefore it is primarily a disease of cattle.Badger culling may only be part of the solution,tackling the cattle to cattle transmission effectively,i feel, is even more important. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.