UK Nature and Environment

426 readers

79 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our winter banner is a shot of Shotley marshes, Suffolk by GreyShuck.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Government officials ignore scientific evidence to allow unnecessary killings of wild animals: 'I can find no justification' (www.thecooldown.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

England has continued to issue permits allowing people to kill badgers to protect cattle from disease, despite local extinctions and scientific evidence stating that badger culling is not the best way to protect bovines. What's happening?

The Guardian reported that it accessed leaked documents showing that England's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued 17 new licenses in June that allow people to kill badgers. The publication explains that badger culling has been used in the country for years to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis to cattle and has led to local extinctions.

However, scientific reports have shown that culling badgers is not the most effective way to stop the spread of this disease, and DEFRA's decision overrules the advice of its own scientific adviser, Peter Brotherton, director of science for Natural England.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I don't defend the hunters themselves, I agree killing exotic species for fun is terrible.

I do defend the countries that have a regulated exotic hunting industry though. People will kill these animals regardless, and having an organized and legal avenue to do so has positive benefits, even though that doesn't make sense at first. Many species are saved, as people will spend a ton of money to kill something fancy (again, this is crazy to me) and rather than giving money to poachers, the money goes to conservationists. Why do conservationists let people kill the animal they're trying to save? Because they keep track of how many animals there are and only allow a certain number to be hunted. They take the money from that, and use that to fund their conservation. Where else would they be getting money to do the conservation? It is a steady and reliable source of money to fund the protection of animals. These crazy rich people know if they shoot all the endangered whatevers, then they can't do it anymore, so they just pay the money and get a plush experience instead of risking something illegal and having a difficult and uncomfortable time.

Think of it like illicit drugs. People will do it anyway. If it's legal, it can be monitored, it can be done much more safely, and profits can go to getting people with drug problems help, for example. Yes, people are still doing drugs, which we could debate all day long if that's ok or not, but the system as a whole is better because we actually know what it going on and can work with known, factual data, as opposed to guessing what is going on.

I hope that was helpful and non-controversial. I don't promote the process, but I do see it as a net positive, the same as I don't support heroin, but support safe injection sites and needle exchanges as I see those as a positive alternative to not having those things.