Officials at the National Trust say they do not plan to cooperate with the forthcoming badger cull in Wales and others that may follow in England, potentially creating a significant hurdle for the government.

In a move likely to infuriate some farmers, leaders of the 3.5 million-member organisation, which owns and manages large tracts of land, say they do not believe there is a scientific case for killing badgers in hotspot areas of cattle TB.

The trust will not cooperate in culls unless governments in Cardiff and London back programmes with legal force, an action that may provoke a public outcry. It has always been cautious about outright opposition to culls and cooperated in trials in south-west England between 1998 and 2005, angering other green groups. But its officials are now stiffening resistance, while recognising that this may cause difficulties with scores of tenant farmers.

Read the rest of The Guardian's story here

Just picked this up from the papers. I guess this could real problems because the National Trusts does own so much land. I suspect there will be some pretty strong comments coming back from some of its tenants!

The article goes on to say that the trust has nearly 100,000 acres in the south west of the country which means if they don't take part ina  cull the thing will be a joke. I'd like to know how they justify this stance.

if the government says a cull is a good idea then who are they to stand in the way.

Matthew Naylor makesa a good point about the choice of picture used by the Guardian in his blog. I've reproduced it here:

I know that one shouldn't stereotype people but the action (or inaction) by the National Trust is all so predictable. This predictability however, means that I can easily determine which of the zillions of charitable bodies to support or not, as the case may be.

I often wonder how it is that some people, who are in themselves quite rational and civilised, can change into narrow minded bigots once they join a quango or any similar organisation purporting to act in the public interest?

These people have been only too willing to use the law, or get the law amended, to further their causes in the past.  It should now be used against them to enforce this trial.  No doubt they will cry "persecution" but so be it.

I suppose the type of people who support the National Trust dont mind cows contracting TB and being slaughtered or children contracting this terrible illness,( and I speak as one who once was a sufferer) just so long as we dont have to cull those cute looking badgers. Shame on them I say.

Dik

Badgers  have no natural enimeys in the UK other than people and with the elimination of there preditors a long time ago the population has climed out of controle enevitobaley this will have to be done not just from the TB prospective but from an overpopulation perspective as well maybe when the badgers on the Nathonal trust land start to starve to death they will decide that they have to do somthing. The onley real reason they are not coporating in my view is that they do not wont to piss the people off who give them large amounts of money. Thats my $0.02

Peter,

      I agree wholeheartedly they wont get a penny from me and I shall denigrate them wherever I can. I should also like to add that although these look in the Mirror Demi Gods have a lot to say now but if they do try and withhold access the  "Trust" whose Trustees control it would be subject to Court Orders and if not adhered to the Trustees could be prosecuted and further be personally liable for any Damages.There are a lot of Big Talkers but when their necks are on the line there are a lot of Turncoats.

I don't really understand it either. 

If a cow gets TB you slaughter it, why not the same with badgers?

Surely the badgers suffer and culling those with it will reduce it in badgers? I think that a reduction of TB in cattle will only be achieved by strong cattle movement measures and testing AND the control of wildlife including badgers deer etc that can catch it. 

I must admit I thought TB had died out in this country along with Polio and Smallpox, but the lunchtime local news had an item about thirty schoolgirls contracting TB in Birmingham. No mention of badgers, though.

The RSPCA had a letter about this issue in Sunday's observer:

Badger culling is a colossal mistake

The RSPCA did not oppose a cull of badgers suspected of causing bovine tuberculosis in cattle ('Super furry animal or cattle-killing, TB-ridden vermin?' Observer Magazine, last week). Our position was based on science, not sentiment. The government set up the Independent Scientific Group on TB in cattle (ISG) to cull badgers and measure the effects. The RSPCA recognised the need for robust, authoritative scientific evidence. Ten years on, at a cost of £34m and the lives of over 11,000 badgers, the group concluded that 'badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain'. Yet there are still calls for a cull.

Farmers' concern about the increase of TB in herds is entirely understandable. But this makes it all the more crucial to focus efforts on disease control methods which will work - not to start killing badgers and risk increasing the spread of the disease. It would be a colossal mistake for cattle, farmers and badgers - and an outrageous waste of time, resources and badgers' lives. The RSPCA is keen to work with farmers and governments to find positive, effective solutions. The scientific group advised that 'the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.' The society has called for financial assistance to farmers to carry out such measures.
John Avizienius
Deputy Head of Farm Animal Science
RSPCA
Southwater, West Sussex

So how do they explain the increasing incidence of the disease in cats, camelids, etc.?  Don't tell me there are loads of evil farmers transporting disease-ridden cattle around the place with kitties strapped to their faces, or alpacas?

Badger Culling,

    Should the British people be subject to such abuse of Office as this Labour Government has carried out and do Charitties have to take sides in Political argument while supported by Public Subscription.The ISG did not say that "Badger Culling can make no Meaningful contribution to Cattle TB control" the Chairman said that under the Parameters set by the Minister "Badger culling --------------- etc.The submissions from the people carrying out the Cull expressed their views to the Select Committee on these parameters and how badly it affected the operation and its outcome.Quite the opposite to the Thornbury and Irish Culls which showed 85 -90% drop in Reactors in the Cattle Herd after.

  Once again a sad reflection on the type of person in Politics today.

paddington bear:

I thought TB had died out in this country

Two points

1. Human TB is increasing in the UK particularly amongst people who come from places in the world where TB is endemic. This problem could be much reduced if visitors from those countries were tested prior to entry to the UK.

2. As to the National Trust, it is one of those organisations such as the RSPCA whose original aims have been somewhat altered from prevention of something deemed undesirable to the promotion of something deemed desirable. In other words the organisation has moved from being a reactor to something to having a pro-active stance.

A subtle shift I grant you but, these subtle shifts invariable lead to major changes. In the case of the RSPCA, subtle shifts over the past twenty years has led to its focus moving from preventing cruelty to animals to a promotion of animal rights. Whereas, in the case of the National Trust it is subtlety shifting from preserving National Heritage to promotion of a Tourism Agenda. In this particular case of badger culling it is the tourist agenda (and associated money) which is driving its decision rather than a desire to preserve our heritage.