[hatless]

If there was good, clear evidence that culling badgers reduced bTB in cattle, the logic would be that culling should be continued perpetually to keep the badger population low. Perhaps more permanent measure might be taken. Setts could be destroyed, and barriers could be created (at the moment there are badger underpasses beneath some motorways and trunk roads, so they could be closed). The badger could lose its protected status and people could be encouraged to trap and shoot them - having specially licensed teams would be much too expensive in the long run.

And if this did reduce bTB outbreaks, but not eradicate it completely, then the obvious solution would be to exterminate the badger, at least from areas troubled by bTB, but presumably from neighbouring areas, too, and why not the whole country.

I think that would be an unacceptable price to pay. Some badgers setts are believed to be centuries, perhaps thousands of years old. We have co-existed in the past (we put up with high levels of bTB in the past), we should be able to do so today. But a successful result from the cull would be a strong argument for extermination.

I also fear that the problem has tipped some people into the unreasoning labeling of some animals as bad, as vermin or pests. We see this in relation to birds of prey, foxes and even otters, that there is a deeply ingrained attitude that says the only good fox, eagle, kite is a dead one. Irrespective of what difference these animals may actually make, they are seen as enemies, as vermin, and no pleasure is taken in their presence, only in their destruction.

I'm not saying anyone here thinks like this, but it is a familiar thought pattern in other contexts. Perhaps the badger is now being labelled as dirty and disease ridden and therefore unwelcome.