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:

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.