Badger cull in Wales

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by hatless

This does not represent support for a cull, but overwhelming opposition to a cull. It represents marginal support for management that doesn't involve killing badgers, such as by means of contraception, but the survey makes it clear there's no appetite for killing badgers.

As I said...

Originally Posted by Eryri

there would be a majority of the order of 70% against the cull if a referendum covered the whole of the UK

The point I am making about referendums is that where you draw the boundary as a catchment area effects the result. Even if you limit the area where the badger cull is taking place you would get a different result between including those who own property in the area and those who are registered to vote in the area, as there is a high proportion of holiday home ownership, people are registered to vote elsewhere.

Why should someone in London decide what happens in communities in West Wales ?

I was not aware that farmers in Pembrokeshire were consulted in the referendum by the Greater London Authority over powers covering green belt and parkland. That was restricted to voters registered in London boroughs. As is powers over Transport for London. People elsewhere may have an opinion over badger culling as I have an opinion over ticket prices on the tube.

My point is that Londoners elect their politicians to represent their communities, and people in Wales have elections to decide what happens in communities in Wales.

[GavinWheeler]

As someone living in the area, and talking to people in the street about the cull, I have to say that Eryri's predictions about what result a referendum would give sound way out of line. Apart from anything else letters in the paper or to local AMs have been overwhelmingly against a cull.

More to the point, the choice is not between a cull or doing nothing, but between a cull or vaccination of badgers. According to WAG's own figures vaccination and culling are equally effective, but culling is significantly more expensive, more socially divisive, has been rejected by the leading scientists in the field, is very restricted in where and how it can be carried out, and runs a significant risk of making matters worse for cattle, not better. I could go on but the basic points are summarised here.

So, sure, lets have a referendum between a cull and vaccination.

[Eryri]

Gavin - Thanks for highlighting the Welsh Government's consideration of the comparison of vaccination v culling strategy. You do realise, the Badger Trust are in the High Court today arguing on appeal that the Welsh Government did not consider these options. Evidently they did.

-------------------------

You should note that the conclusion of the modelling in the data link is that :

"At the other extreme, when perturbation did not occur, the CHB rate was reduced marginally more with a trap-test-cull/vaccinate strategy than it was with either a cull-only or a vaccinate-only strategy, but the differences between those three strategies in terms of CHB rates was minimal and it is doubtful whether any such differences would be detectable in the field."

This suggests the best option is a dual vaccinate AND cull programme. The Welsh Government has stated that once a workable vaccination is available it will be used as part of the cull.

As you know perturbation is not universal and depends on the boundaries of the cull area, and fragmentation of farms with movement of livestock. The cull area in Wales is specifically selected with boundaries to reduce perturbation. Furthermore, the Data suggests that even if perturbation exists but there is no scientific evidence of 'causality' to infection rates or infection pool. Indeed, it could be argued that poor cattle movement control is responsible for re-infection rates as the badger population increases when culling is stopped.

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Eryri

The point I am making about referendums is that where you draw the boundary as a catchment area effects the result.

This is true of course. However, the correct boundary for decision making is already well defined here, or should be. The welsh government was voted in by the welsh people to serve the interests of the welsh people. No one would seriously suggest that any other issue for political debate needs boundaries (budgetary policies, schools, healthcare etc, etc). They may be implemented locally,but they are decided nationally.
AMs are obvously there to serve their voters. They asked their voters during their election campaigns about how they could best serve them if put in to power, just ask the same people again now on this very specific issue.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Why should someone in London decide what happens in communities in West Wales ?

I agree with you. However, just as a point of principle, why should someone (I didn't vote for) in Cardiff (not that different from London as far as I'm concerned) decide what happens to badgers on my land in West Wales? This is a problem affecting a national industry, funded nationally..it should therefore be national decision. If I am paying for something I expect to have some say in what's done with my money.

In other words, at the moment we already have a "boundary" were the decision is being made, but sadly it is just one building in Cardiff (not that much closer than London !!) which, for all we know, may be carrying out a policy that responds to the needs of a tiny fraction of the people they pledged to serve, whilst ignoring the majority of others.

Here's another way of looking at this...

This whole badger-cull thing is an agricultural problem (i.e. badgers existed in the uk for thousands of years without bTB until agriculture spread it to them).

If we compare it to every other agricultural issue we find that everything else is considered by our govt to be a national concern. We don't for example say that because most milk production takes place in west wales only the people of west wales should pay the subsidies for it, the whole nation pays (in fact not even just the whole welsh nation but the whole of the uk, even the whole of europe).

Pro-cullers (who let's be honest are mostly farmers) say on the one hand that their financial arrangements are everyone's 'problem', then on the other hand say that how they deal with a national population of wildlife, managed on behalf of the nation, by a govt elected by the whole nation, is only for them to decide...

the words "having the penny and the bun" come to mind here !

Ultimately, we will never really know *what* the people of any boundary think becasue no-one is officially asking them.
My question remains...why is this ?

The govt clearly want this cull. If they thought the nation who elected them agreed with them, they wouldn't hesitate to ask them because publishing the response would mean "game over" for the minority of the anti-cull dissenters. So the fact that they're not asking can only imply one thing....the answer wouldn't suit their pro-cull agenda.

Most of their "employers" (the people of wales) do not want a cull and they know it.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Apart from anything else letters in the paper or to local AMs have been overwhelmingly against a cull.

Not according to Elin Jones AM and Paul Davies AM who are elected from the community involved. The Pembrokeshire Against the Cull campaign group actually complains in their literature that the NFU and FUW orchestrated a letter writing campaign to AMs resulting in an overwhelming number of items of correspondance in FAVOUR of the cull.

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Not according to Elin Jones AM and Paul Davies AM who are elected from the community involved. The Pembrokeshire Against the Cull campaign group actually complains in their literature that the NFU and FUW orchestrated a letter writing campaign to AMs resulting in an overwhelming number of items of correspondance in FAVOUR of the cull.

First rule of politics. if you know everyone really is on your side, invite them all to say so for themselves; if you know they are NOT on your side but need to get your priorities across anyway, just pretend that they're on your side and hope that you never need to prove it.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by Springer5

(schools, healthcare etc, etc). They may be implemented locally,but they are decided nationally.

Schools in Wales are controlled by the Unitary Local Authority, who decide the budget, and have powers to vary council tax which makes up 25% of spending. The only 'national' overrule has been the schools issue in Cardiff, where the Welsh Government 'called in' the proposals, wrongly, in my view.

On 'health' there is accusations of postcode lottery as local health boards make different decisions in different areas. The same problem exists in England.

Originally Posted by Springer5

However, just as a point of principle, why should someone (I didn't vote for) in Cardiff (not that different from London as far as I'm concerned) decide what happens to badgers on my land in West Wales?

All the AMs representing west Wales are elected from West Wales, they only sit in Cardiff. You have a vote. All AMs elected from west Wales (except one in Swansea) are in favour of a cull. All other AMs opposed to the cull are in fact from Cardiff or close by.

Originally Posted by Springer5

We don't for example say that because most milk production takes place in west wales only the people of west wales should pay the subsidies for it, the whole nation pays (in fact not even just the whole welsh nation but the whole of the uk, even the whole of europe).

Unlike in England, the majority of milk production is not subsidised directly. Headage payment for beef and volume payment for milk is being stopped. Also, the single farm payment scheme is being phased out, to be replaced with environmental schemes such as TriGlas and TirGofal. The 'budget' for this is not via Westminster, it is funded through the European CAP, the treasury only act as a banking facility on behalf of the Department of Rural Affairs in Wales. Perhaps Gavin could share his views on this, as his herd suggests he should have gone over to an enviro-scheme.

Originally Posted by Springer5

Ultimately, we will never really know *what* the people of any boundary think becasue no-one is officially asking them.
My question remains...why is this ?

Because the Welsh Government do not have the powers to hold a referendum on the issue. This is a 'reserved matter' held by Westminster. There is, as of this week, power to hold a referendum on housing matters, as the LCO (Legislative Competence Order) has been granted. The powers to do similar things by the rural affairs minister (and other areas of devolved policy) will be included in the referendum next year.

I take it you will be voting YES in the referendum to have these powers.

[Springer5]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Schools in Wales are controlled by the Unitary Local Authority, who decide the budget, and have powers to vary council tax which makes up 25% of spending. The only 'national' overrule has been the schools issue in Cardiff, where the Welsh Government 'called in' the proposals, wrongly, in my view.

On 'health' there is accusations of postcode lottery as local health boards make different decisions in different areas. The same problem exists in England.

So put another way...on the scools issue the other 75% of the funding (by far the greater part) is national...on the health issue there are indeed postcode lotteries. However, all the governments have stated that they would prefer to aportion healthcare on a uniform national basis..it may not be happening yet...but that is the goal. Why are the basger cull issues not being given the same aspirations ?

Originally Posted by Eryri

All other AMs opposed to the cull are in fact from Cardiff or close by.

but they represent the rest of wales (a far larger population than that of just west wales, and who are being denied a say in....

a) something they are funding
b) something that is being decided in an assembly which belongs as much to them as to the smaller population of west wales

so without knwoing the opinions of that broader electorate (who are making all this possible in the first place with their money) democracy is not being carried out.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Because the Welsh Government do not have the powers to hold a referendum on the issue.

Can you provide a reference for this one please. I have never heard this before. I'd like to read more. Thanks

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Not according to Elin Jones AM and Paul Davies AM who are elected from the community involved.

Actually Paul Davies and other AMs elected to the area were the ones who told us that the correspondence they had received on this issue was split roughly 70:30 against the cull. To be fair they added that those opposed to an established policy are generally more vocal than those in favour, but the bias in expressed opinions is clearly against the cull.

Again anecdotal evidence from my experience talking to people on the street: even those initially in favour of a cull, once told that a vaccine is available, cheaper, less controversial and likely to be as effective, tend to say that should be the preferred option - even if that is sometimes phrased in terms such as "that can't possibly be true otherwise why would WAG be going ahead with a cull???"

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Gavin - Thanks for highlighting the Welsh Government's consideration of the comparison of vaccination v culling strategy. You do realise, the Badger Trust are in the High Court today arguing on appeal that the Welsh Government did not consider these options.

Rubbish. I don't support the judicial review that much, as it is based on procedure and I don't see that as being as being an especially important factor. If the cull were genuinely justified by the science and the only way to combat a serious disease I would support it even if the Order were written in crayon on used toilet paper. Given that the cull is an idiotic knee-jerk reaction that flies in the face of the scientific advice I would oppose it even if the Order were delivered by choirs of angels on scrolls of Unicorn-skin parchment.

However, since you raise the issue, yesterday's hearing was based on two points only:

1) was the wording of the Animal Health Act that the Minister must be satisfied "that destruction of wild members of that or those species in that area is necessary in order to eliminate, or substantially reduce the incidence of, that disease in animals of any kind in the area" satisfied if culling were merely one way to produce a 6% reduction in bovine TB

2) could the Minister lawfully exercise this right without considering the balance between the extent of the benefit in disease terms and the extent of the killing of wild animals required to achieve it.

No mention is made of whether they considered vaccination.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Evidently they did.

Yet their own evidence shows that vaccination is as effective, cheaper and does not run the risk of spreading the disease. So how do they justify their decision to cull rather than vaccinate?

Originally Posted by Eryri

You should note that the conclusion of the modelling in the data link is that :

"At the other extreme, when perturbation did not occur, the CHB rate was reduced marginally more with a trap-test-cull/vaccinate strategy than it was with either a cull-only or a vaccinate-only strategy, but the differences between those three strategies in terms of CHB rates was minimal and it is doubtful whether any such differences would be detectable in the field."

This suggests the best option is a dual vaccinate AND cull programme.

IF no perturbation occurs. Given the dog's dinner they have made of the Sett survey so far, i think that is very unlikely. I personally would support a genuinely "targeted cull" (as opposed to an indiscriminate slaughter called a "targeted cull" because it sounds better) where we vaccinated the entire region then culled setts that we knew to be infected. However the RBCT 'reactive cull' element showed clearly that such a trial would have to be conducted scientifically, with controls and measures to verify just what effect the cull was having, not Dr Glossop's mix of several different measures in the same area so noone could ever show what effect the cull might have had.

Originally Posted by Eryri

As you know perturbation is not universal and depends on the boundaries of the cull area, and fragmentation of farms with movement of livestock. The cull area in Wales is specifically selected with boundaries to reduce perturbation.

I know that that is the claim. I also know that the scientists disagree - most of the 'boundary' is just sheep farming or wooded area, and even the northern border at the Teifi is compromised by the fact that several farms north of the Teifi are included in the cull.

I also know that the RBCT showed that the effect on cattle was consistent across all the areas, including those with 'hard boundaries' - the only real difference was that culling in areas with hard boundaries showed a lower increase in TB in badgers as a result of the cull.

(my emphasis added throughout)