On Wednesday, Defra announced their next slow pace towards a large amount of badger-bothering. What they said wasn’t very much and wasn’t very clear.
It seems that some time in the autumn, that’s autumn 2012, there will be a six-week trial of farmer-led badger killing in two ‘pilot’ areas of southwest England which are yet to be identified (or maybe yet to be disclosed).
A science-led badger cull was in the Conservative manifesto and so none of us can really complain that we weren’t told about it, unlike unfair cuts to environmental budgets, attacks on the Habitats Regulations and neglect of species conservation.
The arguments for and against this way forward are well known and not surprisingly everyone stuck to their guns (well the landowners and farmers are the ones with the guns in this case) as follows: CLA, NFU, Wildlife Trusts, RSPB, Badger Trust. The National Trust don’t seem to have reacted at all to this announcement (as far as I can see) – perhaps they are hibernating?
It comes as no surprise that the Paice, sorry, pace, is so slow as the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has already told Defra that they can’t have any police to watch over these events in deepest Devon?, Somerset?, wherever, until after the Olympics are over and today we heard that the Games will have 13,500 troops to keep the peace.
This government is very keen on pilots. So what might these pilots assess? We are told that they will be ‘closely managed and monitored’ to examine how ‘safe, effective and humane’ it is to allow land-owners to shoot badgers.
I’ve been trying to imagine what these pilots will look like and how they will be run – and I’m not sure I know (because we haven’t been told). You’d imagine a pilot would test the general applicability and feasibility of a course of action and so the two pilot areas have to be generally similar to the average bovine TB area and the actions taken there have to be generally replicable elewhere. So I am wondering whether these pilots should be ‘closely managed’ – maybe not if you can’t closely manage all the other sites to which you roll out these measures if they prove to be… Prove to be what?
What is the monitoring that will be done? Presumably we will get a badger body count and a count of any other injuries to man or untargetted beast – is that the measure of safety? Will we be told how many infected and uninfected badgers were killed – is that the measure of effectiveness? Will we be told how many badgers were injured but escaped unkilled – perhaps that is the measure of humanity? Will bovine TB incidence be measured in the pilot areas and, importantly, in the nearby surrounding areas – perhaps that is the measure of effectiveness?
And a crucial question for any pilot is ‘how will its results be used to inform future action?’. What looks like success and what would that mean for future bovine TB control? And what is failure and what happens then? Defra has not spelled out the answers to these questions and so the end-game is terribly unclear. This is playing for time rather than making a decision. And its playing politics rather than solving a problem.
Given that these pilots, if they ever happen, will take place half way through the term of this government, and given that this was a manifesto commitment by the Conservative Party (where are the LibDems in this – after all a lot of SW England is LibDem territory?) we might have expected some clearer answers and more of an announcement on Wednesday. And both sides of the badger debate should be asking the types of question posed by me above because the answers are particularly germane to the future of badgers and the effectiveness of bovine TB eradication.
Slow Paice, very slow.
[registration_form]
This is a classic case of making the political policy up then scramble around to find some dubious science to back it up.
I only worry once a year when the vet comes along. I have pleanty of badgers and enjoy them along with all the other animals that may harbour diseases.
The one area which does hardly ever gets discussed is animal health. It is the same in humans stick loads in a barn their resillience will be low and therefore susceptability to disease. Have healthy resillient animals and I am sure cases will go down. I talk to the vets and they all say the same.
The science shows that killing badgers only will have a very minor effect if done properly. Allowing farmers to kill badgers and relying on all of them to sign up will have little effect as it will not cover all the ground.
I for one will not be signing up, weak politics by a weak Government lobbied by the few for the few
Cowboy – thank you. How many fellow farmers feel the same as you do you think?
Mark – not sure how many share my views, as you can tell from my views I am not a ‘traditional’ farmer.
If you remove badgers and bovine TB incidence decreases, then how can this be related to presence or absence of badgers in a scientific way. I don’t believe it can.
I wonder what would happen if they remove badgers and the incidence of bovine TB increases!.
Adam Henshaw on countryfile suggested that some of the older hardier breeds of cattle have more built in resistance to TB and maybe this should be the route followed ie. selective breeding primarily for TB resistance and not so much concentration on inbreeding for massive milk production.
Cowboy/Mark – I would suggest that a number of farmers share your views, or at least a fair number of farmers that I talk to do. I think the problem is that some farmers are frightened to speak out (unlike Cowboy) in case of upsetting their peers of perhaps even the ‘perceived’ wisdom and guidance of the NFU.
Seumus – interesting, thank you.
Can pro-wildlife lobby not also push for a parallel pilot of really strict and high-tech biosecurity coupled with much more strict (and adhered to) cattle movement restrictions – in and out – in test areas?
One point not being mentioned is that test and slaughter selects for non-reactor cattle. So the tests are getting ever more unreliable, and ever more cattle are hiding TB, as time goes on.
BTW Cheers to Cowboy – we need to hear from more farmers opposed to NFU almighty.
Jamie – Welcome! That has always been asked for but it tends to be overshadowed by the arguments over culling.
Mark, That last comment does sum it up for me, to a lay person all the arguments are about culling with very few about reduction of BTb. I am sure that in scientific corridors somewhere those arguments take place but they are not obvious to the rest of us.
Bob – some of these things are in th Government announcement but not with as much prominence as culling of course.
Mark,
Leaving the bTB science argument aside the lines about badgers “injured but escaped unkilled” and “injuries to man or untargetted beasts” are unworthy. What research does the RSPB publish on wounding rates on the thousands of deer and foxes culled on its reserves? Those involved in shooting badgers will have to have BDS level 1 + specific training relating to badgers before their licences are amended to allow them to take part in the cull. This is a far higher standard than required to carry out culling of any other British mammal.
For what it’s worth the trials won’t be effective simply because the restrictions will not allow the areas to acheive a meaningful cull. Lamping is not nearly as effective with badgers as it is with foxes because badgers can’t be ‘called in’ as foxes can. They’ll do well to get a 25% cull in 6 weeks.
tim
Tim – hi! Thanks for your comment. Nothing unworthy at all about the questions I asked – what are the things then that will be monitored in these pilots? I cannot answer for the RSPB so you’d better ask them. But it’s interesting that you don’t think the cull will be effective. So why are CLA and NFU backing it so strongly?
No deer culling when you were at Sandy then? Why suggest there is a welfare issue in shooting badgers under the trial regime when hundreds of thousands of other mammals are shot in the same way, but with less regulation and no evidence of welfare problems unless you are just looking for any reason to oppose the trials? In fairness it is mostly the AR groups jumping on the badger bandwagon who are focussing on this. I remember the dreaded Prof Harris stating unequivocally that there were ‘no wounded foxes in the countryside’ when AR groups were challenged over their claim that hunting with hounds was less humane than shooting foxes. Yet now his friends at LACS are claiming shooting badgers has massive welfare consequences.
On effectiveness i think the farming/ landowning groups a) are so desperate they would accept anything b) have little practical experience.
Badgers are much easier to trap than foxes, and much harder to lamp. A cull based on cage trapping and/or snaring (remote alarmed etc.) with shooting used as an additional method especially when surveying cull areas could be rapidly successful if there is a proper initial survey and setts are immediately stopped or destroyed once they become unused. Shooting by itself over the short period of these trials will merely depress the population in the short term.
Tim
Tim – it was in fact Defra who said that they are going to monitor the humaneness of the pilot projects – I was wondering what they were going to monitor. Are you suggesting that there is no animal welfare aspect of allowing free-shooting of badgers/ oI presume not but maybe you are. What, then, does one monitor?
An interesting blog Mark, some good points being raised by yourself and others.
Like Seamus, I would say that a fair proportion of the farmers that I speak to about this issue are less than convinced about the merits of culling and many see improved and pro-active animal health planning as offering a more effective, long-term solution.
I suspect that many of the farmers that are not pro-culling tend not to speak out on this issue as it is such an emotive subject and they are clearly sensitive to the fact that many of their friends and neighbours have had their livelihoods suffer as a result of bTB. Some do not speak out due to apathy and farming is no different to other industry in this respect.
Interestingly a number of farmers have told me that even if badger culling was proven to be an effective means of controlling bTB, they would not support it as they fear that the resultant negative PR would be far more damaging to their business than bTB.
Joe W – thank you – I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Joe W’s comments really strike a chord for me – I’m sitting here wondering what even £250m of the £1 billion mrs Spelman is talking about spent on biosecurity ect might achieve ? I’m not surprised farmers worried about the cull are staying quiet – like some of the countryside alliance activities there is a real feeling of pressure against anyone stepping out of line. And I am sure they are right to be very worried about what bthis is going to do for the image of farming.
Ever since the badger thing blew up with the Krebs trials it’s been clear that attention has been diverted from the real issues – badgers have done far, far more damage deflecting effort from really tackling TB than they ever have infecting cattle.
Can certainly for once answer the question of how many farmers feel the same as Cowboy.It is all those with clean herds and Badgers on the farm.These will not sign up and would be crazy to do so.
My guess is farmers are split just like everyone else on this subject,lets face it farmers with clean herds and Badgers on that farm then it becomes a complete family issue and not many wives and children would be pro culling.
These discussions just highlight what a massive problem this is and while being personally pro Badger lots of farmers due to nothing being done are almost on the point of getting out of cattle farming as if B T B gets into there herd it is the last straw
Dennis – thank you.
Such a relief to know that there is at least ONE farmer who does not hate badgers and seems to understand the relationship between healthy husbandry, land and animals. Interesting that Cowboys vet seems not to tow the party line either – the Government are always saying that vets are solidly behind a badger cull.
Mark – the Badger Trust will be responding. They are taking legal advice before doing so.
It is such a tragedy that this Government threw Benn’s vaccination trials into the bin. So many Governments have ‘invested’ vast sums into badgers and bTB – virtually all of it a complete waste. Had this money been spent on controlling the disease in cattle we wouldn’t be where we are today.
Three aspects of this issue rarely get mentioned but I feel are important. 1] the skin test is, I believe, 60-80% accurate so everytime a herd is tested there is a moderate possibility that some animals that have the disease will not be found and these can/will go on to ‘re-infect’ the herd. There is a gamma interferon blood test which is accurate – but ‘too’ expensive; 2] a big part of the hang-up over producing/using a vaccine for cattle is that the UK would not be able to export vaccinated cattle to Europe. This regulation could be amended but doing so is ‘too’ expensive and c] the only way to identify a bTB infected badger is by post-mortem – are farmers going to pay for this expensive procedure.
All conservationists should be very worried about the badger cull policy – it epitomizes Government thinking. They are distorting the science and often they are not telling the truth.
Stella – thank you for a well-informed comment.
Does anyone ever test farm dogs and cats? Both are carrier species for bTB with easy/unrestricted access to cattle.
Both species outnumber badgers enormously – only c350000 badgers in the UK – about the same as the human population of Leicester.
Badgers = easy scapegoat to appease certain sections of the rural community
David – I see that you are right – it hadn’t occurred to me that dogs and cats could be involved. I wonder how much if any testing there is – and how many dogs travel between farms with their farmers? I assume that the low profile for this subject means that it is not thought to be in any way significant but maybe someone out there could tell us more?
David your comments on cats and dogs playing a role in the transmission of bTB although technicaly feasable is extremely unlikely to be statisticaly significant.
One has to consider the transmission routes that the mycobacterium is taken in by its new host during infection. One also has to look at the levels of disease “Shedding” from infected hosts. Both of these elements put badgers as firm favourites, with deer a lagging second. Althogh it is fair to say that the disease has been found in just about every british mammal, ultimately it is how these animals interact ,if at all with cattle that make them a potential risk.
Stella —-think that a very hurtful comment about one farmer who doesn’t hate Badgers,think you have not much evidence or contact with lots of farmers to insinuate all the rest hate them.Logic tells me that farmers in general are very tolerant of Badgers because a large proportion do like them and otherwise on farms getting infected farmers would have simply got rid of them on their land.
would you if you have a pet allow a diseased animal in your garden that is likely
to be the cause of your pet being destroyed.
Sadly comments like yours undoubtedly mean that anyone reading it except farmers who know different will believe you while you are a million miles from the truth.
Mark —I do not like comments being censured or anything and have always admired how you publish almost all comments but it would have been nice if you know that lots of farmers do like Badgers you had pointed that out in your reply.
Indeed I would be interested if you think Farmers in general do hate Badgers because from my experience of farmers all my life but of course mostly the same big group we are probably split almost exactly like the ordinary person and there are plenty of those who hate Badgers.
Stella’s comment is annoying to a farmer who has dug Badger Sett entrances clear after hunt has blocked them all supposedly legal at that time according to police and of course the RSPCA do not want to get involved.
Dennis – not sure you have been fair there. Stella only said that she was pleased that there was at least one farmer who does not hate badgers. She didn’t say he was the only one or anything like it. We, the public, do hear a lot more from individual farmers about how they would like to cull badgers than we hear from farmers who wouldn’t – as the comments on this blog show. It does appear to be an argument between pro-cull farmers and anti-cull non-farmers. I don’t see much argument within the farming community about it and so i agree with Stella that it is good to see the range of farmers’ views on the subject. I certainly don’t think that all farmers hate badgers – but it does appear that the farmers who have doubts about badger-culling are in a minority or are being very quiet on the subject.
Thank you Mark and pleased to hear your views on farmers ref Badgers and would agree with them,my suggestion would be that farmers are considered hunting,shooting and-anti Badgers by ordinary citizens and those who are prepared to be different to that type tend to keep their heads down,only a few prepared to stand up for what is their right.However of course when they know they are in the company of people who will stick up for what they believe in we learn their true leanings.
One problem that is really only relevant to farmers is that we desperately need a solution and my guess would be by choice if we could have evidence it would probably work then the first choice would be vaccine.
I know that would not be100% of farmers but most farmers have wives and children who would not normally want killing also of course majority of livestock farmers pride themselves on providing new lives in their stock which without those we would be destitute.Think that follows through in lots of other animals that is never taken up by outsiders but if one farmer shoots a pheasant then he represents all of us.As a example when calves were worthless just a £1 or £2 each which by the time they had drank a few gallons of milk meant we were out of pocket the press had features of them being shot which was the economic route but we never saw anything about those in the vast majority who stayed up late to save a new born calf.
Unfortunately it is easy to pigeon hole a complete group of people.
Livestock farmers tend to enjoy and get pleasure out of new life and I would be very disappointed if they did not feel the same way about Badgers and of course the only exception I would hope that is different is when anything increases to such numbers that they need controlling and on that point even conservation bodies agree.Seriously hope I am just not completely wrong but the fact that in general farmers have not harmed Badgers tends to back this up as compared to Hen Harriers England has a flourishing number of Badgers.In fact I have to say that I really admire those farmers who have had their herd infected and the Badgers in all cases seem to have been untouched.
It seems that people have lost sight of the issue here. TB used to be a public health risk. Then came pasteurisation. It’s no-longer a risk, so why are we wasting valuable resources tackling a non-issue?
Tim – welcome and thank you for your comment. I guess it’s because it is still an economic and animal welfare issue – both cattle and badgers being animals.
Ok, lets consider animal welfare – most cattle go to the slaughterhouse at the end of their productive lives, long before their TB infections develop into a serious illness. So cattle don’t suffer. Badger’s will likely suffer as will other mammals with TB, but I’m not sure how killing them is good for their welfare.
That leaves an economic reason then. What is it?
This has all the makings of a classic case of ‘the emperor’s new clothes’. I hope not, but I’m yet to see evidence to suggest otherwise, and it’s the truth that matters – always!
Tim —surely if we do not tackle it it will end up endemic and cattle farmers will turn to other farming,that may not bother you but it would lots of people and the balance of payments,may spread to pets at some stage that would certainly be a worry.
Please consider how traumatic it is to have animals slaughtered,something that people wrongly assume does not matter as they would be slaughtered at some stage anyway.Assure you we like to keep them in good health for as we see it a reasonable life while in our care.
Hi Dennis
It would appear to be endemic already in the SW England, the West Midlands and Wales already . And physical symptoms of TB are still very rarely seen in any animal. And the pets argument isn’t supported by farm cats/dogs catching TB on infected farms.
Still can’t see a problem, but my mind is open to hard evidence. Anyone got any?
It seems cattle are being slaughtered for no apparent reason, causing farmers a great deal of trauma. Perhaps we should ask why.
If no-one can give a solid reason other than FUD, then Houston, we have a problem.