For those unaware Richard Drax is a descendant of slavers and has refused to apologize or pay reparations despite calls from Barbados. I wouldn't listen to a word the cunt says.
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
32 points (97.1% liked)
UK Nature and Environment
408 readers
89 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 autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A few years ago. One of London universities released a list of people paid out for losing a slave when the uk abolished slavery.
The data shoked people. Becausebit made it pretty clear. It would be pretty difficult to find anyone who's family was in the UK at that time. Who was not descended from someone who owned slaves.
Not by any means just the very wealthy. By that point in the UK. Lower middle class poeple were buying slaves they never saw. And renting them to plantations in other territories.
Slave ownership was treated very much like buying rental houses is now. With companies specialised in managing them abroad. And everyone with any spare money investing it in slaves while having no direct contact with the slaves or the people renting them.
Where could I find this list please?
OK 20m was paid out. Loan was finally paid of in 2015.
The bamk of England has records for about 8m in 15000 transactions. Will link below.
But the London uni has most of the rest in there library. Its accessible but takes some time. It is published somewhere online.
The reason we don't see it all in the bank of England. Well things don't change much.
A whole industry sprung up to manage encouraging small investors to claim. So the docs are scattered among 1000s of different company books. Etc.
Sounds like conservative MPs need a cull.
I want to say something cutting and ironic, but it feels like trivialising with comedy something that needs to be dealt with severely. This is madness.
What if we kept fewer cows, away from the badgers?
"Away from badgers" is the trick.
If we are going to keep cows at all - and even if we don't eat them, they have a role to play in conservation grazing, and we could end up losing whole communities of wild plants and invertebrates in the UK without that grazing - then we would want them to be on good grassland - which is exactly the kind of habitat that badgers love, since they spend a good deal of time eating worms that are abundant in good grassland.
Fencing the badgers out? See here for the issues with that.
Keeping cattle in walled feedlots or similar? Hellish for the cattle and you still lose the benefits of conservation grazing.
If cows are used for conservation grazing, isn't the problem of them getting TB non existent? The problem is people catching TB from cows through milk and close contact, not cows catching TB from badgers.
Theoretically. And if we abolished farming of cows. Sure that might be possible.
But logically 2 issues.
1 ) current laws require cow herd owners to test for TB if it is discovered in the area. And destroy the whole herd if one is found.
- While many small farms keep cows to graze conservation land. Eg my tiny narrowboat is moored by such land now. So I can see a sign to this effect.
Cows still represent a cost to keep. So all those farmers will also tend to sell dairy to help fund the conservation land.
This also leads to the question that in some future where vegan laws or will prevents farming cows. How will motivation to fund keeping healthy cows be handled.
It's probably not too great for the cows themselves, but yes, it wouldn't be an issue for people.
However, the original point was the suggestion that cattle could be kept separate from badgers, and my response was just concerning the difficulty with that - no matter what the circumstances.
What a shitshow of a headline, story, source and comments.
The headline leads one to believe he's an indiscriminate animal killing monster. He's calling for culling to create healthy populations. Now I have zero idea what that looks like in the UK. But neither am I giving a vegan website much credibility for fairness in reporting this.
As to the badger cull, they post both sides. Good on them! Haven't read those articles, but the sources seem fair enough. (We're one of the few US states with zero badgers, what do I know?)
As to beavers, yeah, they can indeed tear shit up. There's a dam down the road from my camp, and it's glorious! Totally changed the landscape (several acres) and raised biodiversity, you can tell by hanging around and investigating. One small example; There are wild pitcher plants where there otherwise would be none, and those are endangered here.
Probably not so glorious depending on the intent for that land... I'd gladly turn over my couple of acres of swamp to beavers to make a pond and a creek, maybe not if I relied on that land for food and income.
The headline leads one to believe he’s an indiscriminate animal killing monster.
He is being indiscriminate. He literally said that "all wild animals have to be culled". There are tens of thousands of species in the UK. There are maybe only a handful of these species where you could possibly argue that culling is required (when ignoring viable alternative solutions).
Now I have zero idea what that looks like in the UK.
It concerns me greatly how easily you trust Drax and how confidently you speak regarding this topic despite knowing nothing about what healthy populations of wildlife in the UK look like.
Drax owns thousands of acres of farmland, he has a vested interest in protecting livestock over wildlife. That alone should make all of us skeptical about anything he says.
He’s calling for culling to create healthy populations.
The primary reason we're culling badgers is because of the issues they cause to the owners of livestock. It's nothing to do with creating a healthy population of badgers.
Drax says that deer need to be culled because otherwise the health of deer will deteriorate. That's nonesense. Deer are culled because they destroy vegetataion, especially young sapling trees, which is only a problem because we have systematically elimiated all large land predators in the UK over the course of hundreds of years (e.g. wolves, lynx, bears).
If it was about creating healthy populations of wildlife then it would be much more effective to reintroduce these large land predators back into the UK instead of culling. But it's never been about creating healthy populations of wildlife, it's about making as much money possible through farming. Therefore reintroducing large land predators is absolutely not an option for livestock owners because large land predators will also prey on livestock.
Badgers in the UK spread TB to farmers cows. They are also protected.
The issue as far as farmers are concerned.. is it is impossible to prevent badgers entering the cows enclosure. As they tend to need large fields. Yet if badgers have TB. And treat fields as bears do woods.
Is spreads to the cows. And the law is pretty strict. If one cow is found to have TB. While heard must be destroyed.
Culling is only allowed when significant TB is in the area. Otherwise as I say. The badgers is protected.
If a farmer has a badgers set on his/her land. They are not legally allowed to do anything to harm the area.
Nothing this prick says makes any sense at all. But he is likely trying to appeal to scared desperate farmers with a genuine problem.