Badger cull in Wales

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

No no, Eryri, that won't do at all. Whether you are culling or vaccinating, the cage needs to be cleaned. The only person to dispute that is a certain Eryri who claims that each cage is only used once and is then incinerated.

But in response to my comment that "when vaccinating there is no need to remove the body, run a post-mortem, incinerate the body[...]" you very clearly claimed that "the cost of the cage, removal and incineration is the same" [whether vaccinating or culling.]

And unfortunately this is just one of many many very confident, assertive and false claims you have made.

For example:

that vaccination is twice as expensive as culling
that one positive reactor in a herd means the entire herd must be culled
that oral vaccination does not work
that 98% of landowners in the cull area have "expressed a wish to grant access" (so why do they need the right to force entry??)

Gavin,
Thank you for your considerable (bordering on saint like) patient efforts in pursuing the discussion here, your contributions have made this thread into a repository of the most detailed demolition of the WAG position.

CM

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

£20 million spent on the vaccine seems a bit much, but £20 million in the first quarter of this year seems way over the top. I know you're not good at this sort of thing, but could you give a reference for that claim?

The £20m was announced by to the Westminster pParliament by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Rural Affairs in England on 7th July 2008. It was to contract the development and supply of a badger vaccine which was awarded to Statens Serum Institut in Denmark. Quite correctly, the payment was made on the issue of a Veterinary Medicines Directorate license, which was done on 24th March 2010.

A further £18million is contracted in relation to supply. That's £38million on the vaccine. There is one location of 100sqkm near Stroud where it will be used. That gives a cost of £38,000 per sqkm for the vaccine cost alone. This has not been included in the figures you have quoted as the 'cost of vaccination'.

I therefore completely refute your suggestion that culling is more expensive than vaccination. It is only true if you consider that the cost of vaccination excludes the cost of a vaccine, bizarre, or what ?

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

that vaccination is twice as expensive as culling

It is, at least twice as expensive if you include the cost of the vaccine in the cost of vaccination.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

that one positive reactor in a herd means the entire herd must be culled

Quoted slightly out of context. But the movement controls which result, means that maintaining the herd becomes uneconomic, so in almost all cases the herd is surrendered/disposed of.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

that oral vaccination does not work

If it works, why bother to spend £38million on an injectable vaccine ?

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

that 98% of landowners in the cull area have "expressed a wish to grant access" (so why do they need the right to force entry??)

No forced entry is required for 98% of landowners. It's the 2% which needs this provision. All most all of this 2% is made up of around 33 registered as "landowners" in one small co-operative plot at the Brithdir Mawr commune next door to Gavin.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

The £20m was announced by to the Westminster pParliament by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Rural Affairs in England on 7th July 2008.

Ah, so it was not all spent in the first quarter of this year. That makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Eryri

I therefore completely refute your suggestion that culling is more expensive than vaccination. It is only true if you consider that the cost of vaccination excludes the cost of a vaccine, bizarre, or what ?

Your contention is only true if you include the cost of developing the vaccine in the first use of the vaccine (and subsequent uses also? after all you seem to want to write up that expense to both the BVDP in England and any use of the vaccine in Wales) but do not include the cost of the RBCT trials on which the Welsh cull is based in the cost of culling. i.e. if you indulge in blatant hypocrisy to push up the perceived cost of vaccination.

My contention only requires that you accept that WAG and DEFRA are NOT conspiring to hide the true cost of vaccination.

At this point you are only fooling yourself - if that. Everyone can see that you are just frantically trying to twist the figures to justify your ridiculous claims.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

It is, at least twice as expensive if you include the cost of the vaccine in the cost of vaccination.

.. and do not include the cost of developing the cull.

Also, note that the WAG and DEFRA figures do include the cost of the vaccine, it is the cost of developing the vaccine that is (as most sane people do) ignored in the cost of deploying the vaccine now that it is developed.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Quoted slightly out of context.

Anyone can verify the context for themselves here. Your exact words were:
"At present, if a any cow tests positive, all cows in the herd are destroyed."

Anyone involved in the industry knows that this is false. At most, if a farmer were on the point of selling up anyway a single reactor might be the tipping point, but to suggest that an entire herd will be slaughtered solely due to one reactor is laughable.

Originally Posted by Eryri

But the movement controls which result, means that maintaining the herd becomes uneconomic, so in almost all cases the herd is surrendered/disposed of.

So you can substantiate a single case of an entire herd being disposed of due solely to one reactor, can you?

Originally Posted by Eryri

If it works, why bother to spend £38million on an injectable vaccine ?

I see the cost of the vaccine has gone up since your last post!

I've already answered this by pointing out that the injectable vaccine is available NOW, at least four years before the oral one will be.

You, on the other hand, haven't answered my question of why the UK and Ireland would be wasting money on developing the oral vaccine if it doesn't work. Nor have you substantiated your claim that it does not work.

Originally Posted by Eryri

No forced entry is required for 98% of landowners. It's the 2% which needs this provision.

The RBCT trials did not require forced entry, and they only had the cooperation of ~70% of landowners. Back in January, WAG claimed (last page) that they only needed 60% access, and that that is what the powers of forced entry would be used for.

Now they (or Eryri, at least) is claiming that they already have access to 98% of the land. In which case the use of powers of forced entry to gain access to the final 2% is clearly unjustified and over the top.

Originally Posted by Eryri

All most all of this 2% is made up of around 33 registered as "landowners" in one small co-operative plot at the Brithdir Mawr commune next door to Gavin.

And you have evidence for this assertion, do you?

No, of course not.

On Tuesday 29th June we handed WAG the first draft of an Open Letter signed by 309 landowners representing 180 holdings affected by the cull, asking WAG to reconsider the cull. Only one person from Brithdir Mawr signed the letter. I think that works out as roughly 20% of holdings in the area, and we are still getting new signatures coming in.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

My contention only requires that you accept that WAG and DEFRA are NOT conspiring to hide the true cost of vaccination.

Payment was made in March 2010, as Hilary Benn assured parliament that should any vaccine tender did not get a license, public money would be protected. FoI requests on this resulted in 'commercial sensitivity' as a reason for Defra not releasing the figures.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

The RBCT trials did not require forced entry, and they only had the cooperation of ~70% of landowners.

In the peer review of the RBCT trails, this was identified as a reason why 'perturbation' effect could not be substantiated, was because within the trail areas there were landowners who refused culling and it was infected badgers within these areas which re-infected areas within the cull zones. In essence it was 'chaotic'.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Now they (or Eryri, at least) is claiming that they already have access to 98% of the land.

No. It's not 98% of land. It's 98% of landowners. The provision does not include residential property. Discrepancy arises when there are 'yurts' on communal land, such as at Brithdir Mawr. This was the 'technical' reason why the survey was abandoned on the day, at this location, when 3 people were arrested for obstruction.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

And you have evidence for this assertion, do you?
No, of course not.

thatroundhouse

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

thatroundhouse

How does Tony's site prove your assertion that:

• only 2% of landowners object to the cull
• "All most all of this 2% is made up of around 33 registered as "landowners" in one small co-operative plot at the Brithdir Mawr commune next door to Gavin."

Taking into account the open letter recently delivered to WAG, to which I referred previously?