A fact from Badger culling in the United Kingdom appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 July 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the "in the United Kingdom" part of the title necessary? Obviously this article only concerns the UK, but so does badger culling itself (as I understand it). Isn't badger culling like, say, Trafalgar Square in that it's a UK-specific topic so no further clarification in the title is necessary? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
"As with all vaccination, the Badger BCG is only effective on animals that do not already have the disease, and it can only be delivered by injection." Neither is true.
Rabies vaccine is routinely used after infection by the virus, and the Sabin vaccine for polio is one example of a vaccine not delivered by injection. Another is the current nasal-spray influenza vaccine. Can a knowledgeable person replace the above with a sentence about the actual badger BCG, instead of this doubly incorrect statement? Thanks.
Might be worth mentioning that human BCG doesn't work particularly well--in some places it doesn't work at all. The article doesn't mention whether the badger version is effective. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 04:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a source for how (in)effective the badger BCG might be. I'd be interested to read such a source if you do?— S Marshall T/ C 11:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/news/title_327270_en.html
An editor has twice removed the section on cat to human transmission of bTB. I will not edit war but would appreciate other editors commenting on this removal. The section on cats is important for several reasons. First, people need to be educated that badgers are not the only route of bTB transmission, despite this often being implied as a reason for culling here in the UK. Many people do not know there are other vectors, especially our own domestic pets. Second, it has been suggested somewhere, that the cats may have caught the disease from infected cattle or badgers. Again, this is essential to understanding the reasons and how sensible the cull is. Third, cat to human transmission is general background on the disease/reason for badger culling, and should therefore be included.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The aim for the cull is to reduce bTB in cattle,and reducing the risk to humans is argument I have never heard of from goverment.The primary aims boil down to saving money,cows and conserving nature, none of which have anything to do with cats. HamishDS ( talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we agree to stop moving the text on cat transmission around until we have agreed whether it should be in or out? This discussion was started to prevent edit-warring about putting the text in or out. We don't want to start an edit-war on where it goes... Hamish's move was a valid attempt to keep the info but move it out the section "Arguments against culling", but perhaps gave it too much prominence. I'm still unsure about if the text on cat transmission actually belongs in this article (but S Marshall's comment about some discussion of the vectors is valid), but putting that aside, I'll repeat what I said before that it does not belong in a section entitled "Arguments against culling" or "Concerns about culling" - there is nothing in the quoted reference that makes any reference to the culling, and no-one on the anti-cull side has used cat transmission as an argument against the cull (presumably because the known size of the cat reservoir is pretty small).
The validity of the science behind the trials is a complicated issue because the scientific community is not of one mind, and the two sides tend to pick and choose which scientists they believe, so any discussion of that would descend to the kind of he-said-she-said that plagues Wikipedia's coverage of these controversial topics. I think that might be better avoided.
A fact that I would love to include, if I could find a reliable source that takes note of it, is that we've culled between 30 and 40 cattle for every badger.— S Marshall T/ C 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@ User:S Marshall Hi. I'm afraid I disagree with your removal of many sub/headings. Some of these I feel are extremely important, such as highlighting there are carriers other than badgers. I also think vaccination of cattle and vaccination of badgers should be under separate headings.DrChrissy (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
With this extract...
"The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI2006/168) was overturned when the High Court decided the Order was unlawful; in the test case, farmers had been receiving compensation payments of around £1,000 on animals valued at over £3,000, but in extreme cases the discrepancy between animal value and compensation paid was over one thousand percent. This case was itself overturned on appeal in 2009.[1][2]"
I cannot work out what the final situation is regarding compensation - ie what level of compensation are farmers now receiving? (Does it correspond to the animal's value? (And who is deciding what that value is?)). Also, what did "The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI2006/168)" say in the first place? And does "This case was itself overturned on appeal in 2009." mean that that Order now stands? FrankSier ( talk) 11:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2009 legal wrangles were collectively called the "Partridge Farms case", because they concerned a farmer called David Partridge who farmed and presumably still farms at Ennerleigh Farm near the town of Tiverton in Devon. Mr Partridge had lost about 110 cattle over the course of four years from 2002 to 2006, from a herd of about 900, being healthy animals compulsorily destroyed under bovine TB control regulations, so the cost to him had been considerable. His lawyers argued that he should be compensated according to the healthy value of the animal, i.e. what it would bring at market if it had not been diagnosed with bovine TB. The government's lawyers argued that he should be compensated according to its value after the diagnosis, which is its salvage value (i.e. a great deal lower). When all was said and done the government won; it successfully argued that farmers should have a significant financial incentive to use all the latest methods to keep their herds free of bTB.
Does this help?— S Marshall T/ C 16:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The basic fact is that badgers are the primary spreaders of this disease. They are animals that are protected by law and humans have long since wiped out their natural predators. Since the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 their numbers have doubled and then doubled again. They can eat almost anything; although about half their diet is earthworms they also like the fodder given to farmyard animals and will burrow and raid for it. They range very widely from their setts and they spray infected urine everywhere. In fact, if they were insects we'd be exterminating them very cheerfully and efficiently indeed. But they're undeniably cute so we don't. The only good answers involve developing effective vaccines for badgers or cattle, or ideally both.— S Marshall T/ C 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
For those of us in the UK, we have just ended another series of the BBC programme Autumnwatch. During this series, they used a very high quality Infra red camera to film nature at night. I was struck (actually gobsmacked) at the very close proximity of a wide range of species going about their usual behaviour. In one piece of video, there were Sika deer, 2 badgers, a fox and a rabbit all in the same frame, i.e. all within a few metres of each other! The close proximity of the deer and badgers obviously has implications for the spread and transmission of bTB (and possibly the fox). Can this information be introduced into the article? My own suspicion is that it is OR, because there was no specific mention of this on the programme. It would be great to find an RS on "grazing distances" or something like that. DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The disease can be transmitted in several ways; for example, it can be spread in exhaled air, sputum, urine, faeces and pus, so the disease can be transmitted by direct contact, contact with the excreta of an infected animal, or inhalation of aerosols, depending on the species involved.I hope you like the Theory of mind in animals article. It is a difficult one to work on sometimes because the controls in the studies need to be so careful and many editors (and researchers!) quickly over-extend the findings and conclusions. DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Badger culling in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A fact from Badger culling in the United Kingdom appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 July 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the "in the United Kingdom" part of the title necessary? Obviously this article only concerns the UK, but so does badger culling itself (as I understand it). Isn't badger culling like, say, Trafalgar Square in that it's a UK-specific topic so no further clarification in the title is necessary? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 21:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
"As with all vaccination, the Badger BCG is only effective on animals that do not already have the disease, and it can only be delivered by injection." Neither is true.
Rabies vaccine is routinely used after infection by the virus, and the Sabin vaccine for polio is one example of a vaccine not delivered by injection. Another is the current nasal-spray influenza vaccine. Can a knowledgeable person replace the above with a sentence about the actual badger BCG, instead of this doubly incorrect statement? Thanks.
Might be worth mentioning that human BCG doesn't work particularly well--in some places it doesn't work at all. The article doesn't mention whether the badger version is effective. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 04:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a source for how (in)effective the badger BCG might be. I'd be interested to read such a source if you do?— S Marshall T/ C 11:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/news/title_327270_en.html
An editor has twice removed the section on cat to human transmission of bTB. I will not edit war but would appreciate other editors commenting on this removal. The section on cats is important for several reasons. First, people need to be educated that badgers are not the only route of bTB transmission, despite this often being implied as a reason for culling here in the UK. Many people do not know there are other vectors, especially our own domestic pets. Second, it has been suggested somewhere, that the cats may have caught the disease from infected cattle or badgers. Again, this is essential to understanding the reasons and how sensible the cull is. Third, cat to human transmission is general background on the disease/reason for badger culling, and should therefore be included.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The aim for the cull is to reduce bTB in cattle,and reducing the risk to humans is argument I have never heard of from goverment.The primary aims boil down to saving money,cows and conserving nature, none of which have anything to do with cats. HamishDS ( talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we agree to stop moving the text on cat transmission around until we have agreed whether it should be in or out? This discussion was started to prevent edit-warring about putting the text in or out. We don't want to start an edit-war on where it goes... Hamish's move was a valid attempt to keep the info but move it out the section "Arguments against culling", but perhaps gave it too much prominence. I'm still unsure about if the text on cat transmission actually belongs in this article (but S Marshall's comment about some discussion of the vectors is valid), but putting that aside, I'll repeat what I said before that it does not belong in a section entitled "Arguments against culling" or "Concerns about culling" - there is nothing in the quoted reference that makes any reference to the culling, and no-one on the anti-cull side has used cat transmission as an argument against the cull (presumably because the known size of the cat reservoir is pretty small).
The validity of the science behind the trials is a complicated issue because the scientific community is not of one mind, and the two sides tend to pick and choose which scientists they believe, so any discussion of that would descend to the kind of he-said-she-said that plagues Wikipedia's coverage of these controversial topics. I think that might be better avoided.
A fact that I would love to include, if I could find a reliable source that takes note of it, is that we've culled between 30 and 40 cattle for every badger.— S Marshall T/ C 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@ User:S Marshall Hi. I'm afraid I disagree with your removal of many sub/headings. Some of these I feel are extremely important, such as highlighting there are carriers other than badgers. I also think vaccination of cattle and vaccination of badgers should be under separate headings.DrChrissy (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
With this extract...
"The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI2006/168) was overturned when the High Court decided the Order was unlawful; in the test case, farmers had been receiving compensation payments of around £1,000 on animals valued at over £3,000, but in extreme cases the discrepancy between animal value and compensation paid was over one thousand percent. This case was itself overturned on appeal in 2009.[1][2]"
I cannot work out what the final situation is regarding compensation - ie what level of compensation are farmers now receiving? (Does it correspond to the animal's value? (And who is deciding what that value is?)). Also, what did "The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI2006/168)" say in the first place? And does "This case was itself overturned on appeal in 2009." mean that that Order now stands? FrankSier ( talk) 11:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2009 legal wrangles were collectively called the "Partridge Farms case", because they concerned a farmer called David Partridge who farmed and presumably still farms at Ennerleigh Farm near the town of Tiverton in Devon. Mr Partridge had lost about 110 cattle over the course of four years from 2002 to 2006, from a herd of about 900, being healthy animals compulsorily destroyed under bovine TB control regulations, so the cost to him had been considerable. His lawyers argued that he should be compensated according to the healthy value of the animal, i.e. what it would bring at market if it had not been diagnosed with bovine TB. The government's lawyers argued that he should be compensated according to its value after the diagnosis, which is its salvage value (i.e. a great deal lower). When all was said and done the government won; it successfully argued that farmers should have a significant financial incentive to use all the latest methods to keep their herds free of bTB.
Does this help?— S Marshall T/ C 16:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The basic fact is that badgers are the primary spreaders of this disease. They are animals that are protected by law and humans have long since wiped out their natural predators. Since the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 their numbers have doubled and then doubled again. They can eat almost anything; although about half their diet is earthworms they also like the fodder given to farmyard animals and will burrow and raid for it. They range very widely from their setts and they spray infected urine everywhere. In fact, if they were insects we'd be exterminating them very cheerfully and efficiently indeed. But they're undeniably cute so we don't. The only good answers involve developing effective vaccines for badgers or cattle, or ideally both.— S Marshall T/ C 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
For those of us in the UK, we have just ended another series of the BBC programme Autumnwatch. During this series, they used a very high quality Infra red camera to film nature at night. I was struck (actually gobsmacked) at the very close proximity of a wide range of species going about their usual behaviour. In one piece of video, there were Sika deer, 2 badgers, a fox and a rabbit all in the same frame, i.e. all within a few metres of each other! The close proximity of the deer and badgers obviously has implications for the spread and transmission of bTB (and possibly the fox). Can this information be introduced into the article? My own suspicion is that it is OR, because there was no specific mention of this on the programme. It would be great to find an RS on "grazing distances" or something like that. DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The disease can be transmitted in several ways; for example, it can be spread in exhaled air, sputum, urine, faeces and pus, so the disease can be transmitted by direct contact, contact with the excreta of an infected animal, or inhalation of aerosols, depending on the species involved.I hope you like the Theory of mind in animals article. It is a difficult one to work on sometimes because the controls in the studies need to be so careful and many editors (and researchers!) quickly over-extend the findings and conclusions. DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Badger culling in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)