Quote:
Originally Posted by Brains  Also from the final RBCT report:
the total financial benefit of reduced TB breakdowns was costed at £313,200 per 100Km2 (@ £27K per breakdown) whereas the cost of culling was £1,425,000 per Km2, assuming 75% land access and a five year cull (pg 158) - a ratio of over 4:1 cost:benefit. Even if gassing rather than cage trapping was used, the cost:benefit would be 3:1 (based on a cost of £2,400/Km2 for gassing). This does not include edge effects. If you include those, the cost-benefit is much much worse. Thus it makes no economic sense. It would be much cheaper to compensate farmers properly and to deal with the disease in cattle.
Also - the Dunnet report showed the costs of culling (gassing) in the 1970s-1980s to be £10m for a benefit of £2m - a 5:1 ratio. Thus the cost of culling seems to greatly outweigh the benefits. |
Thanks Brains, I was aware of the absolute figures quoted by Bourne but had not picked up on the ratios. In fairness can I point out that he puts the costs of a farmer licencing scheme at £1000 per Km2 per year? His calculations still indicate that this has a net negative effect but he assumes that the effects of peturbation will persist.
My own impression is that £1000 per Km2 per year is on the high side given the possible synergies of checking traps/snares along with early morning stock checks and other possible combinations. I still think however it is for the pro-cull lobby to provide a realistic cost/benefit analysis before any cull should be sanctioned.
The problem on the other hand of course is - can the disease be eradicated, or brought down to levels acceptable in cattle whilst diseased
Badgers remain on the same ground? If so how?
Regards
mac