Badger cull in Wales

[Eryri]

Yes, Gavin, I've read all of what I've quoted, including point 4.28 above.

May I ask if you consider

.............the that bit of Penfro/Ceredigion that meets the Irish sea to be 'Coastline' ?
.............the Teifi estuary to be a 'major river' ?


I would also point out that if you reduce the population of badger by 70% and that any rise in prevalence of bTB is 'absent' from those badgers remaining. What conclusions do you draw ?

[Eryri]

Isg......

Originally Posted by eryri

4.28 the effect of proactive culling on m. Bovis prevalence was particularly marked in trial areas where geographical conditions meant that badgers could easily recolonise the cleared area; the rise was much smaller, or absent, where coastline, major rivers or motorways blocked immigration routes around a high proportion of the trial area boundary.

[hatless]

Eryri said

If you are not convinced by the cull reducing the infection rates amongst badgers, please refer to the previous culls in Ireland and England (links previously posted on this discussion thread) where a dramatic and measured infection rate amongst badgers during the cull, took place.

I couldn't find the links, and I'm perplexed to see that the extensive quote you posted today shows the opposite of what you've been claiming.

I see no logical reason why culling would reduce infection, unless badgers are wiped out or virtually wiped out, and I don't yet see any evidence for it.

[Cotham Marble]

[quote=Eryri;604689] Perhaps Cotham Marble could suggest which ?/QUOTE]

OK my apologies for imputing you have a political Party connection – however your behaviour on WAB hardly fits someone whose interests revolve around a shared discussion of the health of UK Wildlife. As of today you’ve made 72 posts since 11th February, virtually all of them on this one thread about killing wildlife; you have made nearly half of all the replies on this one thread and you've done so in a typical ‘rebuttal style’. I’m not implying you have broken any of WAB’s posting rules but if you think your behaviour is going to win friends, then you are wrong. And if you aren’t interested in achieving some common ground – aren’t you simply using WAB as an arena to fight a battle that belongs elsewhere ?

CM

[Eryri]

CM....

I have friends who agree with the cull and come friends who disagree with the cull. My main interest as a contributor to WAB, is to put the alternative point of view. Personally, I think that a cull is justifiable in this instance. I suppose it's possible to have a discussion against the cull on the various 'animal liberation' forums, and to have a discussion in favour of the cull on the 'farming' forums. The great thing about WAB, is that such issues can be discussed in a fraternal and constructive way. I've learnt alot, myself, about the science, the history and development of this issue, and looked up read and understood the various studies and reports. Obviously, there are some people on both sides of this debate that have entrenched views, but if the outcome of this discussion is better understanding of each others point of view, than that's good. WAB is the place to have this discussion.



On the issue of party politics, I find there is no 'traditional' party divide on this. What I find locally, is that the Conservative Party in Wales are not in direct challenge to Labour in their traditional areas in South Wales, and are most supportive of the cull, presumably in the hope of picking up votes from rural areas off the Liberals and Plaid. In rural parts of Wales there are heartlands of Wales which are Plaid, and parts of Wales which are Liberal heartlands. Plaid, however, actually get most of their votes from the industrial areas, and the Liberals have one seat in the middle of Cardiff. I think it's wrong to say any of the four main political parties voted for the cull to 'satisfy the farmers'. However, I think in the area directly effected by the cull, Preseli and Ceredigion, the main party challengers for these seats in the election are all pro-cull. It actually surprised me that those against the cull are suggesting such tactics as boycotting Welsh produce, or demonising organic farming, as I suspect this will certainly alienate their cause.



Note : I recently, and a discussion on another forum on the issue, and found that the badger group concerned had not translated their literature/website into the Welsh language, absolutely essential in an area which was predominantly Welsh speaking. I translated their material for them, even though I did not agree with what was being said. You don't have to agree to respect each others views.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Yes, Gavin, I've read all of what I've quoted, including point 4.28 above.

Which implies that at best the cull will have no effect on prevalence in badgers. At worst it will increase prevalence, especially as the IAPA is not particularly well isolated. The coast is the best boundary, the Teifi is a decent river but with a number of bridges across it, and the other boundaries are pathetic. Many, as I pointed out, are no boundaries whatsoever to badgers, they just have no cattle so will not produce inconvenient statistics of herd breakdowns.

Originally Posted by Eryri

I would also point out that if you reduce the population of badger by 70% and that any rise in prevalence of bTB is 'absent' from those badgers remaining. What conclusions do you draw ?

I don't have to draw conclusions - we have empirical data. The Imperial study showed across all the RBCT cull areas, including those with good boundaries, that a badger cull has at best a small and transient effect on bovine TB in cattle with no long term benefit, and at best no effect on the prevalence in badgers.

[ZeusS]

What I find of greatest concern about this whole issue is that so many people fail to question the basics of the whole bTB programme, despite its huge cost to taxpayers. As cattle owners personally affected as a family by bTB policy, I have studied this subject fairly intensively over the last 2 years and read tomes on the subject. There are far more questions than answers (see Bovine TB: Questioning the Existing Policy) - many of these are fundamentals and if they cannot be answered then the existing policy is suspect. There are, of course, sectors that have significant financial interests in seeing the existing regime continue. However, we have now got to the stage where the detrimental affects on both humans and animals as a result of existing policy are far worse than any risk of the disease itself. It has been refreshing to see that scientists are beginning to question policy. ‘Public Health and bovine tuberculosis – what’s all the fuss about’ is a recently published report by Dr Paul R Torgerson and Professor David J Torgenson. It is a very well researched and referenced, concluding that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy and there is little evidence either for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. It suggests that such evidence is required; otherwise there is little justification for the large sums of money spent on bTB control in the UK. We already have reports that conclude culling of badgers is not good value for money and yet financial analysis of the existing programme has not been assessed - despite the huge costs to the taxpayer. A radical re-think is needed.

[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.

[Rob_D]

The killing badgers might reduce bTB if it were continuous and over a large area. I get the feeling it's not even a remotely cost effective method of controlling the disease. Even if it were, fundamentally, it is not acceptable to me to eliminate a native species from large areas of Britain for this reason.

We have to find other ways to deal with this problem. It speaks volumes that the NFU, FUW, Welsh Assembly etc and other pro-cull advocates don't seem concerned enough about bTB to be lobbying for implementation of the National Audit Office recommendations that could reduce the impacts of this disease in a cost-effective manner. They should be marching on DEFRA to make changes to Animal Health policy & practices shouldn't they? Instead they just want to focus attention on Badgers.

The health of livestock and honeybees in England This was published a year ago. What has been done to meet these recommendations? I suspect the answer is not much.

Furthermore, repeating the badger cull trials in Wales is completely pointless. At best, it will tell us nothing new, at worst it will tell us nothing.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Albert Einstein

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by Rob_D

The killing badgers might reduce bTB if it were continuous and over a large area. I get the feeling it's not even a remotely cost effective method of controlling the disease. Even if it were, fundamentally, it is not acceptable to me to eliminate a native species from large areas of Britain for this reason.

I agree.

This is why the badger cull in Wales is not continuous over a large area, but over a specific five year period in a particular area with boundaries which stop significant badger migration. Culling is not cost effective over a large area, only in hotspots like the one piloted in Wales. It's not acceptable to eliminate a species, which is why the process of culling is used to reduce numbers in the infection pool, which does not eliminate a species.

Anyone against the DEFRA deer cull in Cumbria to stop bTB, or is this just a badger/Welsh thing ?