I've just heard on BBC news that the government has decided that there should not be a badger cull against the advice of the scientific survey, one of the reasons given for this being public opinion.  Is anyone surprised? 

 

Here is a copy of the story:

The government has decided against a cull of badgers in England to control TB in cattle, the BBC understands.

The policy announcement, which was due to be made next Monday, goes against the recommendations of the former Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King.

Last year, he told ministers that culling badgers could be effective in controlling the spread of the disease.

The decision has angered the National Farmers' Union, which claims cattle TB has already cost the industry millions.

In April a "targeted cull" of badgers was announced in Wales as part of a plan to eradicate TB in cattle. The Welsh Assembly Government's plan includes a one-off test of all cattle and a review of the compensation system.

NFU president, Peter Kendell, told BBC News that Westminster had "ducked the issue" and that the NFU would be organising a protest outside parliament next week.

He added that farmers in England would be "devastated" by the decision.

Some 4,000 herds were affected with TB in 2007, mainly in the south west of England, which was up nearly 18% on the previous year.

'Right decision'

The NFU claims that if left unchecked, the disease would cost the government £1bn in compensation and control measures.

But ministers have instead accepted the scientific arguments of the Independent Scientific Group on TB in Cattle.

The ISG's analysis - an earlier and much larger study than Sir David's - concluded that culling badgers would not be economic.

And the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has in the past also said that public acceptance would be a factor in determining the government's policy.

The decision was welcomed by the prominent scientist Lord Krebs. He designed the experiments on the effectiveness of badger culling for the ISG.

"If this report is true then Hilary Benn has made the right decision," he said.

The ISG's analysis showed that sustained culling over a large area for five or six years might have some effect, "but even that is not clear cut", according to Lord Krebs.

He said: "It's not practical to carry out that kind of scorched-earth cull over a prolonged period for a policy that may not even work."

According to Lord Krebs, the incidence of TB in cattle is increasing very slowly, and he believes that the disease could be bought under control through better surveillance and biosecurity.

The announcement is sure to be welcomed by badger groups, who have fought a campaign against a mass cull.

But the NFU's Mr Kendall said the disease was spreading at an "incredible" rate and needed to be dealt with.

"This is wiping out big chunks of UK farming and is ruining farming families and the rural economy. We need to take tough decisions. It's never popular but the farming industry will be devastated."

He added that the government was failing to show leadership.

"If we can't make difficult, disease-related decisions, based on science, we are in a mess," he said.

In May a report by badger groups claimed the "virtual extermination" of badgers in the Republic of Ireland had failed to stop the spread of bovine TB.

But the NFU accused the groups of being selective in their use of figures and argued that controlled, selective culling of wildlife around infected farms in the Republic had brought considerable success in reducing the incidence of the disease.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7489000.stm

Forgot to say - Hilary Benn is due to appear here at the Royal Show later today, so I am sure this will be the main topic of conversation. I guess he hinted as much that things might go this way when he told NFU conference in february that his fourth critieria for making a descision was "public acceptability". But if the decision is right, then I am sure it will be challenged in as many ways as possible. I am not sure if there is a legal avenue to follow - or whether there are ways to apply pressure in other ways. One of these will certainly be the cost sharing issue - Peter Kendall has said repeatedly (he told me again yesterday) that unless there is movement on a cull then the cost sharing plans are untenable.

Anyway keep an eye here and on the main news page and we'll bring you more later...

At least, I won a fiver from the wife who naively felt that the Labour Party wouldn't be influenced by the money they get from the animal rights lobby.

 

stockslave:

Is anyone surprised?

I've just been down to the stock sheds here at the Royal. There's no surprise but everyone is just so disappointed. They're also worried about what this is going to mean for the future of their business. It will be interesting to see what Hilary Benn has to say this afternoon...

Deep breaths, but here is the Badger Trust reaction:

The Badger Trust has welcomed a speculative story from the BBC[1] 

 that the Government plans to rule out a cull of badgers to control 

 bovine TB, on Monday 8 July.

 

 Trevor Lawson, for the Badger Trust, commented:

 

 "A decision against a badger cull would be the right decision, based 

 on sound science, which will allow farmers to move forwards in 

 tackling this disease.

 

 "There is no scientific, economic or practical case for culling 

 badgers to control bovine TB.  The most robust research, by the 

 Independent Scientific Group[2], concluded that culling can make no 

 'meaningful contribution' to TB control. No-one has presented a 

 robust case to challenge that view.

 

 "Professor Sir David King, who last year claimed that culling could 

 make a contribution[3], considered ten years-worth of evidence for 

 just a day with a less expert team.  And he failed to consider the 

 costs or practicalities of badger culling.

 

 "Attention must be focused on cattle, the main agents of the 

 disease.  The challenges are substantial.  We need better and more 

 frequent cattle testing.  The current test misses around one in three 

 infected animals.  Around 70 per cent of cattle are never tested for 

 TB in their lifetimes.  Animal Health [formerly the State Veterinary 

 Service] needs to record the disease on computers rather than on 

 paper and infected cattle need to be removed from farms in days 

 rather than in months."

This was entirely to be expected.  I just hope that the Welsh Assembly Government doesn't now waver in it's plan to implement a trial cull.

 

Here's an interesting comment from the BBC website: 

One reason I gave up farming cattle was the threat of TB. When diagnosed TB is like a long lingering death as all financial lifelines are cut to the farm. It has no timescale and a farm can be "closed" for years until tests are 100% clear. Cattle cannot be sold so there is no income and government aid is negligible. It is essential that TB is fully controlled by the cull of wild animals. If rabies came to the UK there would be no question of culling wild animals to protect the pet population.

John Sutcliffe, Lowick, Nr Ulverston
 

I suspect Mr Sutcliffe is quite right in his comments about rabies...

Here is what the RSPCA has to say about it:

"A Government decision not to embark on a badger cull in England, as reported today, will be the correct one for both badgers and cattle, says the RSPCA. "This would be the right decision based on compelling evidence, particularly because the most authoritative scientific research ever undertaken on the subject recommended against badger culling as an effective way of controlling TB,” said Dr Rob Atkinson, RSPCA Head of Wildlife Science. “Evidence indicates that the vast majority of badgers are not infected with TB. Our opposition to a badger cull is based on solid science not sentiment. The RSPCA cares as much about cattle welfare as badgers. We are keen to work with farmers and governments to find positive solutions to the challenge of TB in cattle."

 

But I have been talking to farmers who see it in a very different way:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Community/photos/nocull/default.aspx

I shall be fascinated to hear how the Government in its wisdom will eradicate TB by only culling cattle and utilising the usual "rigorous biosecurity". It may be half the story - but it is only half. Presumably an infected badger population will infect each other as well? Isn't the RSPCA interested in getting rid of TB in wild mammals?

Why is it publically acceptable for the Government to enter any farm and kill any domestic animal on it for whatever reason, against the wishes of its owner, but it is not publically acceptable to kill a diseased and suffering wild mammal? I like badgers but they are at the top of the food chain. There are undoubtedly now too many of them (the same could be said of humans!) Some form of control is necessary for their own wellbeing. They may be protected but you can't let them run riot.

For once I can say thank God I have sheep!

What is meant by cull anyway?  At first I thought it was an attempt to wipe them completely out.  If that is the case I can see that will never happen.

We went into the lobby of the Caledonian Mart in Stirling.  There was a map up showing the infected areas.  I presume that there are badgers outside of the infected areas as well??

 I would think if your badgers are anywhere close to ours in temperment, they have no natural enemies.  As with our raccoons, left unchecked the population will explode, bringing a whole host of other problems not just TB.  I make a further assumption there is no hunting of badgers at all(legally)?

 Given all the hoo haw the global food crisis is causing,and the fact your nation is not completely self sufficient in food production, it is alarming to me that your government lets the wishes of some well meaning but off base people determine public health policy.  You can test cows all you want, but if there is another carrier(and there absolutely has to be or you would have TB whipped by now) testing and getting rid of infected cows will do no good.  True leaders in government would explain that to the people of the UK.

I would have to think the majority of citizens of the UK eat meat, drink milk, and are not completely daft.  I wonder if a very small and very vocal minority has made everyone think there are more people on the side of the badger than there really are.  If badgers also are dying from TB, it would be in the best interest of the badger population as a whole to eradicate TB as well, perhaps the badger crowd needs to think about that.

almost certainly it aint gonna happen and we know if it did it would be waste of time. go to the Republic of Ireland and check out!

As with all pressure groups the Badger Trust is very focussed in the promotion of their hobby, this is espcially the case where the hobby has come to be believed as having a moral value.

Not until this body is starved of money will its attention be diverted away from, what for it, has become the purpose of their existance. Badgers have for them, become the Golden Calf Baal of the ancient Israelites. Science and persecution will not change them. Their cause has become the raison d' etre of their lives and not until this emotional response has been replaced by a bigger one (as Schopenhauer said) will they change.

Shortage of money is likely to evince one such emotional response as to change them.

This is why I never give money to animal causes except those directly assisting African farmers to make a living. All my spare money goes into care for our own stock.

 

 

 

 

Peter Wells:

All my spare money goes into care for our own stock.

Quite!

having sold all our sheep( prospects of individual id comparable to cattle on a moorland hill farm does not bear thinking about, to name but 1 reason) the intention was to buy more suckler cows,what the hell for !!!, the tabular valuation is government fraud at its finest,we are told that the figures relate to monthly market sales,when did you hear of any 2yo dairy heifers being sold for 826 in the last 5 months.

Thank god for the agri environment schemes. so  the government our worried about food and food prices?, they have a funny way of showing it. if the RSPCA and PETA etc are all proping up this lameduck shower of shites who go under the title of government of course they are going to stand int way of a few farmers with straw in the corner of their mouths, well after all which is more important, to have less badgers or have to many more deseased badgers ?, I have said it before and I will say it again,the only difference between English farmers and Zimbabwees farmers is that they have not actually started physically beating us or shooting us yet !

 

 

 

 

 

the aged clun:

I shall be fascinated to hear how the Government in its wisdom will eradicate TB by only culling cattle and utilising the usual "rigorous biosecurity". 

They will just keep killing cattle until there are non left

The rigorous biosecurity will cause many to throw the towel in

Whilst i put my hands up in admitting that i do support the Badgers Trust in their work, as i do RSPCA, i was taken in by their prejudiced "facts" and agreed with their response and actions until on a previous post the badger cull lobby (for want of a better name) facts were presented to me. Today is a sad day for british farming AND badgers in my humble opinion. 

Without culling diseased and suffering badgers how on earth do the Badgers Trust expect the disease to be wiped out? In my uneducated opinion as hypocritical as i may sound the Badgers Trust themselves are shooting themselves in the foot by not supporting the cull and in doing so protect future generations of badgers against TB.

There is world food shortage so why on earth are the B.T allowing this disease to spread and cause more cows and beef herds to be slaughtered needlesly , adding to the cost of the public for their sunday lunch roast beef. Do the public really understand what the score REALLY is?

It is sad but once again the British farmer loses out and is made to look the bad guy.

wont work. check out the irish trials.

by culling badgers it will worsen things.  You farmers just see your cattle (and so would i) but you must see past that.  EG how badgers would respond to c ulling.  Even with cattle all you need is one reactor anywhere and its gonna go boom again.!!!

yeoness:

by culling badgers it will worsen things.  You farmers just see your cattle (and so would i) but you must see past that.  EG how badgers would respond to c ulling.  Even with cattle all you need is one reactor anywhere and its gonna go boom again.!!!

So - how do you propose to eradicate the disease from both cattle and badgers? You have the means to check the cattle - although it sounds like a better test could be used. The badgers have the disease in some areas. Full stop. End of story. Leave those badgers and you will get resurgence. Perhaps more acceptable than culling (though a great deal slower) is some form of oral contraceptive in bait. Prevent the badgers in infected setts from breeding? Difficult to achieve perhaps but has the advantage of not dispersing the infected ones by disturbance and is less objectionable to the "Bunny-huggers". Maybe (as usual) I am three steps behind on this one and it has all been gone through and dismissed before.

Unfortunately, by concentrating on the badger side of the ISG final report, many have blindsided the ISG's seductive 'promise' of a 15 percent drop in cattle TB if their 'bio-security' measures were implemented.

That this most one sided of solutions had been tried before, with brutal and predictible conseqences which appear to have escaped them. We covered this with much help from two ex DVMs who had the misfortune to implement the measures, here:

 http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2007/07/condemned-to-repeat-past-mistakes.html

By concentrating on David King, again, many miss the point of the latest tranch of 'research' from the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, which was headed by a researcher to the ISG (Helen Jenkins) and supported by two members of the ISG (Rosie woodroffe and Christl Donnelly) . This tracked the Proactive zones for two years after culling ceased, and found substantially different - and improving results. The protocol of an 8 night hit and run cage trap foray, was also subtly qualified with the caveat - "culling as was carried out in the RBCT". The results showed a 60 per cent drop in cattle reactors within the zone, but also a drop of 30 per cent in the 2km zones around the edges of the zones as infected badgers were drawn out and dispatched.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2008/06/patience.html    and link to the paper http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/people/h.jenkins/

And the final point missed, is that b.Tuberculosis is not the common cold. It is a highly dangerous, often fatal zoonosis and it is a governmental responsibility to control it. EU and OIE dorectives spell it out quite clearly that even if it is entrenched in wildlife, its eradication must be carried out.

Turgid though the directive is, we will post it - or some of it - later today.

As one who has been through the turmoil of 'biosecurity'; kept a closed herd, had a farm with no cattle neighbours and good fencing, closed access to cattle feed and water where possible and totally failed to prevent a pernicious drip feed of Tb into the cattle from infected, desparately hungry and excluded-from-their-group badgers (eventually caught and dispatched by the RBCT)  I agree with the government's badger expert Dr. Chris Cheeseman who has told us on several occasions that such ideas are impossible. After describing the infectious load carried by badgers, how a sow will spread it to cubs and how an infected indiviudal can live and excrete, maintain body weight and breed for up to 8 years before finally being overcome by the disease, when asked by farmers, how to prevent infection of their cattle by these WMDs, his reply was blunt. "You can't " he said "You get rid of your cattle...."

So, government are not it seems, at present, going to sanction the eradication of tuberculosis  from an acknowledged and expanding wildlife reservoir of the diesease. Instead they are going to let the badgers die like this: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2007/03/one-cannot-tell-sick-badger.html

 

    

 

 

If culling is prohibited and non-conclusive should we not be trying anything to eliminate TB in both badgers and cattle. Was there not a theory that badgers became more likley to contract TB due to mineral deficiency? If so would it be possible to produce a lick that would be attractive to badgers? I know this is a long shot but these are desperate times.

if you are so adament yeoness perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to us thickos why the new government cd with 25(i think off top of head) measures to reduce tb in our herds have 23 (again approx) of these measures directed specificly at keeping badgers away from cattle, if you are so sure that it is cattle to cattle transmision every farmer should say a colective `non` to defra in relation to bio security,we have not sold cattle from last years crop of suckled calves and at present it looks like we will be carrying this years through the winter as well,just to apologies for my outbursts last night, but you have to understand that we as farmers are watching the whole thing go down the swanny !!!!,300+ vets all signed a petition last year to the government telling to get their finger out and authorise a cull, do they need to all go back to collage as well?, and you have the nerve to say as farmers all we are interested in is our cattle, what an inscolent arrogant statement to make, we have approx 100 deer on the place as well as other wildlife, unfortuantlly due to the badger trust/rspca or whoever it was who took infected badgers to Barons Down ( LACS sanctuary a dulverton) years ago and infected their deer which they were supplement feeding with a diet containig ad lib wormer,( badgers feeding from same) the tb spilled out into the neighbouring areas, read the British Deer society website(attached below) in relation to the secret meeting held in london(after 2001 fmd) between BDS LACS and otherbodies interested in the deers welfare on Exmoor, Chatham House rules (no minuites taken !!!!!)--as a result of this meeting it was readily agreed to cull a huge number of deer in the Haddeo region of Exmoor(local farmers were not aware of the decision until it was complete) to try and stop the spread of tb, unfortunatly the cat was out the bag as they say,attached below makes interesting reading, thus the reason the badger trust now claim deer and cattle as the main problem, they are not to happy to talk about the numbers of badgers dumped on exmoor and in the LACS sanctury in the past, I wonder why !!.it is a fact that government traps used in hotspot areas in the past were targeted by badger groups and the badgers were transported to `safe havens` now you do not need to be mastermind to work out where these twats rehomed them,hence the reason when tackled as MP for Taunton Jackie Ballard(staunch supproter of LACS) theatened neighbouring farmers and the farmers weekly and all press with leagle action during 1999/2000 if they pursued their claim to the then Minister Nick brown that barons down was the source of infection which was ruining the livelihoods of these farmers, unfortuantly the tb has spread all over exmoor, our farm succomed to tb for the first time in living memory 5 years ago and we have been under restrcition every year since.

 

TB and Exmoor Deer

   Project to collect material from culled red deer around Dulverton and from a population not contiguous with the Dulverton deerDeer to be divided into two categories from both sources 1] deer culled because of weakness, old age or infirmity 2] deer culled routinely in the course of deer management.Deer should be taken in late winter when environmental pressures are greatest [Jan-Mar]The alternative source should be as closely as possible matched to the Dulverton/Baronsdown habitat ie. Exmoor perimeter with mixed woodland and marginal grassland.Whole carcasses to be submitted to VLA Langford for complete pathological investigation.Deer from the two sources to be age and gender matched.Hunted [with hounds] deer should not be included.Results to be kept confidential within the three parties BDS, LACS & DEFRA] This draft project protocol was sent to Douglas Batchelor of LACS a month later as no reply had been received from Professor Harris. The receipt of the proposals was acknowledged but no further reply has been received by the Society in connection with the project, despite a further letter from Peter Green to Douglas Batchelor in January 2004. The proposed investigation was approved and encouraged by DEFRA; the VLA at Langford was willing to process the material.  During January 2004 further distressing reports were received of sick and thin deer from the area. One reliable source indicated that eight out of nine hinds culled in the area had widespread internal abscesses. A visit to the area by Peter Green confirmed that the deer were in no better condition than the previous year and that there was evidence of enteritis, weakness and emaciation. The Society was very disappointed by the failure of LACS to respond to the proposals for the agreed joint investigation and arrangements were made by BDS for a further collection of samples before the end of the hind season in February 2004. Local landowners and officers of the Exmoor Deer Management Society were very co-operative in the culling eight red deer on the land surrounding the LACS sanctuary at Baronsdown under the auspices of Hugh Rose, who conducted basic post mortem examinations before carcasses were submitted to VLA Langford for further examination and culture. The result of this collection was very disturbing indeed: Six calves were culled [two female, four male] - four had clearly visible lesionsTwo two-year-old hinds were culled – one had clearly visible lesionsAll the samples submitted for culture proved positive for bTB  These results have been sent to the LACS veterinary surgeon with a request to share data on any samples submitted from within the sanctuary. LACS has declined to exchange information.  2] The current situation The recent publication of the report ‘Bovine TB in deer’ [July 2004] by the National Federation of Badger Groups has once more focussed attention upon the possible role of deer in the bTB story. The BDS has strongly refuted the suggestion in the report that levels of bTB infection in deer may be high across the country and pointed out that deer are the only British wild mammal subject to such strict post mortem inspection on an annual basis. No other possible bTB vector has some 20% of the national population carefully eviscerated [gralloched] immediately after killing. It is inconceivable that widespread bTB remains undetected. BDS is confident that the level of bTB in the national wild deer herd is very low indeed. None the less, the Society recognises that there are a few “hot-spots” where the level of infection appears to be high in a limited local population. This is invariably the result of poor deer management at local level allowing gross overstocking of deer and of the aggregation of deer at feeding stations. In the woodlands to the north east of Dulverton the Society believes that deer numbers are excessively high, compared with other similar habitats on the perimeter of Exmoor. Published scientific work and experience with other outbreaks of bTB in deer indicate that a significant reduction in deer numbers, cessation of artificial feeding and targeted culling of sick deer will reduce the spread of infection and lead eventually to the elimination of infection. A co-ordinated deer management plan is essential if this is to be achieved and the Society believes that all local landowners have a part to play in this. There has been speculation that culling deer in the area would simply draw in other deer, which would then be vulnerable to infection; this has not been the case in other outbreaks of bTB, but success would depend upon a continuous deer management strategy and careful avoidance of the use of common feeding stations and unnatural deer congregation, especially during the winter. Without taking any position in the debate about hunting with hounds on Exmoor, BDS believes that a significant reduction in deer numbers should be achieved with minimum disturbance and that in the specific, local situation intensive rifle shooting by experienced deer managers is preferable as the initial means of culling. All deer culled should be subject to full post-mortem examination with submission of appropriate samples for laboratory analysis; this will provide empirical evidence of the level of infection and invaluable data for the management of any future outbreaks of bTB in wild deer. The British Deer Society is working strenuously to formulate a solution to the problems on Exmoor. We are in continuing discussion with DEFRA, with local landowners and with the Exmoor Deer Management Society, hopeful that LACS will join us in an endeavour to deal with the bTB problem. We trust that members will appreciate that it is not always possible to be liberal with information when detailed and delicate discussions are taking place, but we trust that members have confidence in the officers and representatives to pursue with integrity the interests of the deer and the membership. The motive of the Society in this matter has exclusively been one of welfare and of the health and vitality of the magnificent  Exmoor red deer herd;  by the time this article appears in print further efforts will hopefully have achieved real progress in this difficult situation. Peter Green Hon. Vet. Advisor   

 

the point of my earlier post was to hopefully make people aware that this desease has now thratens the very existance of what make exmoor exmoor, its herd of wild red deer, how ironic that the very same people who purrort to be the saviours(LACS/RSPCA/PETA etc etc) would rather have NO deer than hunted deer and it would also appear from reports written by the badger trust that they want to let anture take its course with infection within the badger population, well that really is a very scientific sensible approach is`nt it?

bonehead:

i do support the Badgers Trust in their work, as i do RSPCA, i was taken in by their prejudiced "facts"

Bonehead, you are a good minded young chap and we forgive you this mistake. You were taken in by a bunch of clever marketing people whose main function in life is to get money for their own employers out of well meaning people. They do this by ignoring any fact or feature that does not accord with the objective of the business which employs them. Many of these marketing people have previousely worked for the big brand companies and so are skilled at persuading the public to part with its money.

I have two friends who work in the Marketing functions of Oxfam and the NSPCC respectively and to them, it is a job like any other. If Daz or Mars were to come up with better offers they would go.All these animal charities are staffed by a mixture of professional and amateurs but it is the professionals who raise the real money and set the organisation's agenda.

Finally, as I have previously said on these forums, most of the big charities have changed their objectives over the years and whereas, for example, the RSPCA used to be about the prevention of cruelty its true objective nowadays has become the promotion of animal rights.

If you have any spare money to give to animal charities may I suggest that you consider the charities which involve helping Africans improve their dairy stock or even consider the chariities which give old working animals holidays or a natural life in their old age.

The best way to use spare cash on animals however, is to give your own stock the most natural life possible and to enjoy their products, eg. Eggs, meat etc.