 19 January 2012 - DEFRA have now selected two locations in England for the highly controversial trial culls. One pilot area is West Somerset / Taunton Deane and the other is West Gloucestereshire / Tewkesbury / Forest of Dean / Malvern Hills / Wychavon (Worcestershire). Farmers and landowners in the two areas are now expected to apply to Natural England as a group for a licence to take part in the six-week trials.
It’s highly possible that some will refuse to become involved because of the huge public outcry this decision will spark involving animal advocates, activists, wildlife groups and concerned members of the public. If the trial culls do go ahead, they are to be overseen by an independent panel of experts who would monitor and evaluate the pilot culling.
Mary Creagh, shadow environment secretary, warned: “For a cull to work it has to be cost-effective, humane and reduce bovine TB......The Government’s plans will achieve none of those things. This big society badger cull will cost farmers more than it saves them, put a huge strain on police, and will spread bovine TB in the short term as badgers move out of cull areas.......“At the end of the cull, 84% of the TB problem will still remain.”
DEFRA Give Green Light to Badger Massacre!
Announcement 14 December 2011: Culling, the only option available according to Caroline Spelman!
The Secretary of State presented mass slaughter as the only option available saying that approved vaccines were years away. This sets the government on course for a showdown with animal rights protestors all over the country. Her decision to approve culls in two trial areas goes against a mountain of powerful scientific evidence that proves shooting badgers will have little impact in controlling TB among cattle herds. Not only that, it's also inhumane and not cost-effective. But it does please the farmers!
Naturewatch Campaign Strategy:
In light of this announcement, Naturewatch is currently looking at its options and will be putting together a campaign. One thing you can be sure of, it won't be in the form of a petition as the government certainly hasn’t paid any attention whatsoever to the strength of public feeling clearly demonstrated by 65,000 petition signatures against a cull, presented as part of the public consultation which ended in September 2011.
If you would like to be kept up to date with developments, please check our website regularly and register your interest in getting involved by sending an email to Caroline
Naturewatch supports the call for the Government to focus its resources on the only humane approach:
The priority should be on preventing the transmission of the disease on farms through improved bio security to keep cattle and badgers apart, including measures to keep badgers out of farm buildings and feed stores, limiting the transfer of TB between cattle, and making swift progress towards producing fully functional vaccines for both badgers (oral) and cattle.
Defra says it's in the process of developing an oral vaccine for badgers but claims it's unlikely to be available before 2015. Bearing in mind that bTB has been around for many years, it would appear there seems to be a lack of political will! Believe it or not, Naturewatch has learned that just two months after coming into office, Caroline Spelman cancelled five out of the six vaccination trials started y the Labour government. This sends a very clear message: she’d already made up her mind to go ahead with a cull regardless!
In the meantime, the Government is making an extra £250,000 available each year for vaccinating badgers against TB, but the animals need to be trapped to enable the vaccine to be administered by injection (BCG) as an oral vaccine isn't yet available. An oral vaccine for badgers would be far cheaper because it could be incorporated into tasty snacks for the badgers and scattered around setts. In tandem with completing development of a cattle vaccine, the government needs to secure change to EU regulation to permit its commercial deployment so that trade would not be affected. It's interesting to note that in 2009 scientists in New Zealand successfully developed an oral vaccine to eradicate TB from possums.
 It's not the first time Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has got it wrong: It was only in February 2011 she backed down from controversial plans to sell 258,000 hectares of state-owned woodland in England saying: “I am sorry, we got this one wrong.” The strength of public feeling against a badger cull is equally strong, which is why DEFRA will more than likely not attempt to commence any pilot cull until after the Olympics, to ensure there is sufficient policing capacity! Did you know that the farmers are being expected pay for the cull, not the government:
DEFRA estimates the cost to farmers will be £1.4m within each 350sq km cull zone, though the National Farmers Union (NFU) predicts it could be lower. Badger control licences would be issued by Natural England to groups of farmers and landlowners unders the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to carry out culling at their own expense.
How irresponsible is this! Shooting badgers (however well controlled!) in the dark as they run free at night will result in thousands of badgers being maimed and injured rather than being killed and also wipe out huge numbers of healthy animals. If the farmers are paying, of course they will take shortcuts at every opportunity to cut down their costs as it's a huge sum of money for farmers to find at a time when they are facing rising fuel costs etc. We have no doubt that not investing in the services of trained marksmen will be the obvious costcutter. The shooting of badgers will be taking place on private land so who's going to know!
Although some farmers will adhere to the guidelines set down, many will simply take the law into their own hands - as many have already! This will effectively open the doors to increased levels of badger persecution and encourage vigilante groups to get out there at night and shoot badgers at will.
Farmers that adhere to the legal guidelines will end up out of pocket:
On page 12 of Annex F attached to the consultation document is this line: "For farmers in cull area, monetised costs exceed expected monetised benefits." Put simply, farmers will end up out of pocket. Currently, farmers are compensated for most of their losses due to bTB, but the government won't be paying for any cull.
 Powerful scientific evidence against cull:
It was a Conservative government that initiated the Kreb’s Trials (Randomised Badger Culling Trial – RBCT) - the world’s biggest ever scientific study into the issue. The Independent Scientific Group (ISG) spent over £50 million on a massive pilot cull of badgers over 10 years, between 1997 and 2007, to decide that culling is not the solution.
The trial showed that bTB in the culling area was only marginally reduced. Outside the culling area, it actually rose, a result of perturbation. Removing a reservoir might seem like a logical approach to disease management, but there is a fundamental aspect of badger ecology that results in culling making the problem worse when put into practise. Badgers stay largely within their social territory. Disruption, through culling, causes perturbation meaning that previously stable groups split up and badgers move into adjacent territories, carrying TB to other farms and increasing incidence in herds on the edge of the target zone.
Over almost a decade of research and trial, the ISG concluded that one farmer’s gain from culling would more than likely result in adjoining farmers’ losses - diseased badgers run away from the killing fields infecting new areas. The final conclusion of this massive trial was that “culling can make no meaningful contribution to the reduction of bTB.”
Inevitable legal challenge now cull authorised:
As the government has already spent over £50 million and nearly a decade on the Krebs Trial to decide that culling wasn’t worth it. Their decision to go against the findings will more than likely undergo a judicial inquiry.
Lack of confidence in government decision:
In July 2011, Lord Krebs, who conducted the RBCT, said: “The trial evidence should be interpreted as an argument against culling. If you cull intensively for at least 4 years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle by 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to cull a huge number of animals.” (Not high enough to justify a widespread cull.)
Natural England, the Government body responsible for licensing culls, has stated that it has a “low level of confidence” that Defra’s plans will yield results.
English Nature, the Government’s own official wildlife advisers – pointed out to ministers, culls in the Seventies and Nineties “proved ineffective at preventing a rising incidence of the disease in cattle”.
Caroline Lucas, Green party, said: "The go-ahead for a barbaric slaughter of badgers shows a shocking disregard for animal welfare – and flies in the face of scientific evidence on the spread of the disease as 80% of bovine TB transmission is thought to be caused by cattle-to-cattle infection. Given it is a respiratory disease, this high rate can be attributed to the trend towards intensive dairy farming, in which cattle are kept in crowded conditions."....... "I'd like to see the Government investing in vaccination and reducing the spread of cattle to cattle disease, rather than undertaking a programme of mass slaughter that lacks any scientific credibility."
Even the Government’s own risk assessment on a badger cull raises concerns about the impact of free shooting: “If a different culling strategy to that conducted in the Random Badger Cull Trial is used the effect on TB incidence and the degree of the resulting perturbation is uncertain”.
- Defra consultation on badger control policy, Veterinary Risk Assessment (annex E, para 5), September 2010.
More indisputable evidence that adds weight to argument against cull:
In 1970 bTB was almost edradicated – there were only about 1,000 cases. Eleven years of localised badger culling failed to reduce the toll further. The end of annual cattle testing in the mid-80s, and the devastating effects of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, when testing was abandoned altogether, meant that many farms lost thousands of animals, and afterward there was a rush to restock. Regulations were relaxed, so cattle were bought and sold and, crucially, moved all over the country. Bovine TB was back and we believe that it was these relaxations of the movement of cattle and testing regimes, not badgers, that were to blame.
If cattle are responsible for increasing infection rates, how have cattle remained free of bTB in Scotland, where no badgers have been killed?
Why do they have bTB in the Isle of Man, where there are no badgers?
Bovine TB in Ireland:
Northern Ireland is the only region in GB and Ireland not to have culled badgers. It’s also the only region to have achieved a sustained fall in bTB infection in cattle,. The incidence of the disease has falled from 10.2% to 5.43% since 2002. The success in Northern Ireland has been achieved using bio-security measures implemented by the Deptartment of Agriculture and Rural Development with the co-operation of the farming community. These measures focus on a robust bTB testing programme in cattle, as well as strict controls on their movement to reduce opportunity for infection. By contrast, the Republic of Ireland has suffered a 13% increase of bTB since badger culling was intensified over the same period.
Tighter controls in Wales bring incidents down:
Stringent testing and movement controls in Wales have resulted in incidents of cattle TB down 37% in Dyfed during the first seven months of 2011. Wales, as a whole saw a 28% fall over the same period. This reduction in Dyfed is too big and too rapid to be ignored - and this was achieved without a single badger being culled. bTB figures for England show a provisional 6% increase for the same period, which indicates how effective the more stringent testing and movement controls have been in Wales.
It’s what the farming press isn’t saying that’s important:
Statistics about the number of cattle slaughtered because of bTB, and the enormous cost to farmers and the taxpayer, have been highly publicised - 25,000 cattle in 2010 costing £95m in testing and compensation. But the other causes of premature slaughter are never mentioned:
• In 2009, 120,000 cattle were slaughtered because they were infertile.
• In 2008, 75,000 were slaughtered because they were ‘not in calf’; 50,000 because of mastitis; 25,000 because of lameness; and 7,000 because they were ‘low yield’. Not to mention the male dairy calves that are killed at birth because they are ‘unprofitable’.
These figures put into perspective the 30,000 with bTB slaughtered in 2010. Several factors, including bad luck and bad husbandry, are the reasons cattle are slaughtered prematurely, but they don’t get a mention in the farming press because they are not caused by wildlife. Farmers receive no compensation for these animals - they accept the losses as an unfortunate part of their livelihood – there is no one to blame.
What is Bovine TB:
Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a chronic airborne respiratory disease and it can take years to develop. Due to the slow progression of infection, the clinical signs of bTB, such as weakness, coughing and loss of weight, are now rarely seen in cattle in GB. The Government’s compulsory testing and slaughter programme ensures that most cattle herds are tested for bTB at least every 4 years. This identifies most infected cattle before the disease is apparent. Bovine TB is difficult to diagnose, with no one test being 100% accurate. The disease can lie dormant in infected cattle bypassing testing programmes. Moreover, significant numbers of ‘positive reactor cattle’ show no disease even after slaughter and post mortem.
Proposed Trial Cull - If it went ahead:
- Would commence in early autumn 2012 over a 6-week period - after the Olympics to ensure sufficient policing capacity!
- The two trial cull areas expected to be around 300 sq km, double the minimum area required for licences to be granted.
- Two trial culls expected to cost £500,000 each and be paid for by the Home Office and Defra.
- Although culling can be done by cage trapping and shooting, and/or controlled shooting, obviously farmers will go for the cheaper option of simply shooting the badgers.
- If deemed 'successful', farmers would be expected to group together to form limited companies and apply for 4-year licences. The company would be responsible for administering the cull, including hiring and training contractors.
- Each licence would cover a minimum area of 150 sq km over at least four years and be limited to six weeks in each area each year (outside closed season: Dec 1 - May 31 for both trapping and controlled shooting).
- Badger populations would have to be reduced by 70 percent in each cull zone.
Read Naturewatch Press Release here
Please check the website regularly to keep up to date with our campaign plans to help stop the proposed cull. Please register your interest in getting involved by sending an email to Caroline |