I refer to the Badger Discussion.
If the RSPCA is busy collecting petitioners against the culling of Badgers, who is speaking for the silent victims of this tragedy?
Who speaks for the thousands of cattle "humanely" slaughtered every year when they show positive for BTV?
Who is aware that the corollary of every extra Badger is a small decline in Hedgehogs, Ground Nesting Birds, Wasps nests, Bumble-bees, Stag-beetle larvae and earthworms to name but a few? Badgers eat whatever comes to hand and its not just worms.
Who speaks for these less-cuddly creatures?
Have they no voice, no champion in this debate? Are they not worthy of consideration too?
Its all to easy to be against some positive human act that might, just might, be cruel in its implementation and yet ignore the greater cruelty arising from neglecting or ignoring a wider issue.
The RSPCA has subtracted Badgers from a much wider issue, taken them out of an eco-system and made them a totem and a meme. One uncharitably suspects at times as much to drive their membership and fundraising as to help the Badgers cause.
In doing this they do wildlife in general a great dis-service because they disconnect the connectedness and inter-relatedness of all that happens in the countryside and people are mislead into simply thinking that more is better and that these are no-cost options.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The RSPCA and the RSPB have figured out how to grab the headlines and the funds with great pictures and bios of cuddly mammals and fierce raptors all suffering at the hands of unscrupulous countryside dwellers.
Yet it was these same countryside dwellers that preserved our wildlife, generation after generation and that is why we've still got it. Suddenly, they aren't to be trusted to keep things in balance?
And the rest of the wildlife? The plain, the dull, the ugly, the slimy creatures have no such champions, no such funded lobbyists and no chance if our wildlife law is going to be driven by what is photogenic rather than what is important to our ecology as a whole.
The wildlife and ecology we have today, we have in spite of what we did in the past as well as because of what we did in the past. I'm all for conserving it but please, don't start letting special interest groups tell you what to think and what is important because they are only looking at or interested in some bits of the jigsaw.
Look at the whole picture and go and see for yourself
Views: 30
Replies
Very well put -
I think the sociological definition of the problem is described as an Ethno-centric view of the problem, Basically one cultural view seeing a problem it would never normally encounter, through its own eyes, and dealing with it in a way that suits its cultural sensitivities.
This clashes with the view and behaviour of people who live and deal with the problem day in day out and have adapted and learnt to deal with it, through their own ways.
Well said Dave - nice to hear someone speak out for a more balanced view.
I think if you have read any of my posts, then it should be quite clear that I am interested in all parts of the jigsaw from the smallest to the biggest, whether beautiful or 'ugly'.
I would like to say that my concerns for badgers and the method of the cull is something I think - not what the RSPCA have told me to think. Methods used in the past were the trapping of badgers and killing them. Putting aside whether you agree with a cull or not this is a humane way of doing things. My opinion is that shooting them 'in the wild' on the scale that is being proposed is not.
I would agree that there are things that both they and the RSPB have done in the past which I've felt was hypocritical and against what they are both supposed to stand for.
Jenny, I wasn't having a dig at you. Any honestly held belief or point of view is a valid contribution to the debate.
My beef is with organisations that filter out the shades of grey and try to present everything in oversimplified black and white.
By presenting a very narrow and partial view of the truth, they are, in effect, creating a lie and using donated funds to propagate it.
If we as a country are going to make a decision about wildlife management with regard to Badgers, it ought to be based upon a true and fair view of the situation.
That is not going to happen when wildlife charities start to become poltical lobbyists focussing on special interest segments of the wider wildlife picture.
If you want some idea of the wildlife cost of an artificially high level of predators in the environment, have a look at the Lotka Volterra equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation
If you aren't up on the hard sums, it basically shows that every increase in predator numbers is matched by a corresponding decrease in prey populations.
Removing mankind as a Badger predator (except by RTA) has had an impact and my worry is that the wildlife cost of that impact was neglected when the decision to protect Badgers was taken and continues to be neglected.
There are some oft quoted studies by the "pro" lobby that show that Badgers eat only worms but the more respected ones show them to be omnivorous and opportunistic.
Sorry David but I think you're allowing the pendulum to swing too far the other way.
The RSPB, RSPCA, BBC Wildlife magazine and every other wildlife journal you read is stuffed full of bugs and creepy crawlies. There's a massive effort to get readers to appreciate ALL aspects of our fragile wildlife. I get the magazines and have done for years and I subscribe to several conservation organsiations so I'm confident in saying this. The RSPB has long had a policy of developing ecosystems as a whole and not concentraing on bird species alone. Unbeliveable though it may seem, these organisations employ highly educated ecologists who know what they are doing. I perosnally know many people within the RSPB and the BTO and I know how passionate they are about ALL forms of wildlife.
The badger debate is interesting because the evidence is still less factual than anecdotal. In fact it's possible that cattle give badgers TB in some places! One things for sure though, much of the public actually supports a badger cull so the conservation organisations are not courting their memberships favour by opposing it, they are potentially losing members. That rather flys in the face of the argument you are presenting.
I've lived in rural Leicestershire and Warwickshire all my life and I've been wildlife mad since I could open my eyes. I'm also nearly 50 so I vividly remember the lack of badgers 40 years ago. In fact if we found a road kill we would call the museaum and somebody would come out and record the event - it was a way of collating information on a very rare animal.
Now of course they are everywhere but that is despite the 'custodians of the countryside's' best efforts not because of them.
Yes badgers are omnivorous but they are also slow moving and half blind. They are not a major predator like a fox. Their main diet is insects, from worms through to wasps nests but they do also take hedgehogs and baby rabbits. Whether the increase in badgers is responsible for hedgehog decline I can't say.
The main reason for the loss of all our wildlife species from house sparrows to Turtle doves is a loss of habitat. It's pretty much as simple as that and that is firmly at the door of the previously mentioned 'custodians'. Our farm has been in a higher level stewardship scheme for 3 years now and we now attract far more wildlife (we've even had an Osprey on our 2 hectare lake!) and the farm doesn't lose money. The subsidies are targeted and well-managed but unsurprisingly the HLS scheme is still pretty unusual amongst farmers.
The fact is that the vast majority of landowners do not understand wildlife or the impact they're activities have on wildlife. One example - why do they cut their hedges and destroy the berry harvest weeks before the annual influx of winter thrushes from Scandanavia? My father in law is a typical farmer and got involved with the stewardship scheme because it made financial sense! It's only since I've been monitoring results and making a point of showing him how much good he's doing that he's taking ownership of the project and really starting to appreciate the difference he's making.
So I would, with respect, suggest that some of your points are more emotive than factual
very well said David we are talking about badgers not pumas,in fact house cats kill more wildlife than badgers.
if you want too stop the spread of tb stop shipping live stock from one end of the country too another, funny how the tb rates dropped during foot and mouth when live stock could not be moved,culls have done nothing too stop the spread of tb Fact.
how has the isle of man got bovine tb with no badgers? there is always a tipping point with wild life when there are too many they decline through lack of food ect ,I dont think we need too be killing every animal farmers and game keepers dont like.
"So I would, with respect, suggest that some of your points are more emotive than factual"
et tu Brute...
The equations though are good science and removed from such emotive positions.
I applaud your conservation efforts nonetheless whilst respectfully disagreeing with your overview.
Both overviews are simplistic in the extreme to be fair. I think we'll have to agree to disagree!