Badger cull in Wales

[GavinWheeler]

Actually, the "only 20 landowners objected" figure is .... well, let's be charitable and call it spin.

The claim is that during the visits to landowners in the cull area by animal health officers, 'only 20' objected to the cull. But at no point during those visits did the Animal Health Officers ask us if we were for or against the cull. Furthermore we (and many more than 20 other landowners that I know of) did explain our objections to the visiting AHO only to be told that that was outside the purpose of this visit. Certainly no note was made of our objection.

Our best guess is that this figure means that 20 landowners refused to sign the bit of paper at the end of the visit saying that the information we had given was accurate to the best of our knowledge and (in small writing) that we supported the WAG's attempt of eradicating TM.

A) yes of course I approve of WAG trying to eradicate TB - that doesn't mean that I support this cull
B) when questioned about this bit of paper, the AHO assured us that it definitely would not be taken as implying that we supported the cull, or would allow access to our land
C) a number of landowners have told us that they were either made to sign the bit of paper without reading it or were browbeaten into signing it regardless. One old lady told me that she had been informed that if she did not sign, she would then have no right to prevent WAG contractors coming onto her land.

I know of ~70 landowners who have put their names and holdings to a map of landowners in the cull area objecting to the cull, and there were at least as many again who said that they objected but were too worried about reprisals to put their name on the map.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Where are you getting all this?

See this page for how herd breakdowns are actually dealt with.

You have indicated your location as Sir Penfro (Wales) on this forum, but you are providing links to Defra (England only) on your references. If you follow the link to Wales on your suggested source of information you might find the following :

(a) Wales has stricter controls in bTB infection in cattle. It introduced the pre-movement on testing back in 2006, which England did not do until 2009. This has significant implication on whether a framer chooses to surrender a whole herd. (b) A two, tier policy exists in Wales high infection areas (like Penfro) and low infection areas (like Conwy). (c) In high infection areas the likelihood of cross contamination is also high, so a positive test is likely to indicate poorer prospects for the herd, especially in high infection rate areas. (d) As compensation is paid at the value of the animal at point of diagnosis, it would be most common for the farmer, rather to keep feeding the whole herd for an inevitable disaster, to surrender a herd.

May I point you in a more suitable direction for your information :

Responses to questions from PAC

These disclosures were conveniently made available by request to the Welsh Government, upon the request of an organisation called Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (PAC). It is wise to read the responses. It also answers you question : "Where are you getting all this ?"

[galanthus]

Originally Posted by danthekeeper

How could people boycott welsh dairy products with any real effect I have looked at the bottles of milk in my fridge and they don't say if it is welsh milk or not?

Presumably if badgers are removed the only thing to happen would be an explosion in the earth worm population since there is a train of thought that this benign creature only preys on worm

I've been boycotting welsh farm produce since the decision was taken several months ago. Most foods here are labelled local produce or 'welsh cheese', 'welsh milk' etc, I have also urged several friends and colleagues to do the same. This whole idea still enrages and saddens me

[danthekeeper]

Originally Posted by galanthus

I've been boycotting welsh farm produce since the decision was taken several months ago. Most foods here are labelled local produce or 'welsh cheese', 'welsh milk' etc, I have also urged several friends and colleagues to do the same. This whole idea still enrages and saddens me

I understand how this angers and saddens you and I do not intend to belittle that, I just don't imagine the average person will know how or understand why to boycott welsh dairy and I kind of think that this must penalize those farmers who don't agree with the cull.
Having read the links provided by the other contributers I have to say the whole debate is far to complex for me to fully understand but I feel sure the decision to cull wasn't taken lightly all that can be hoped is that it is conducted professionally and with thought to peoples views and sensitivities

[Ukwildlifeo]

There is possibly a silver lining to this cull - when it goes horribly wrong perhaps it will be enough to put the incoming government off doing it in England.

Then again it all went horribly wrong in Ireland but they are still trying it in Wales....

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Actually, the "only 20 landowners objected" figure is .... well, let's be charitable and call it spin.

All landowners are recorded on the Land Registry as title holders. All farmers of cattle throughout Wales are visited by Animal Health Officers on a regular basis. In the cull zone more so.

There was a period of many months which was the statutory consultation period, where objections were received, and 20 came from North Pembrokeshire. It could be argued that farmers were not aware of the cull proposals, but it's a bit of a strange argument as there has been extensive publicity about it, particularly during the consultation phase. Animal Health Officers cannot, and have no role in the consultation. This is the reason why AHOs did not ask questions about the cull. They're primary role is to the health of any livestock.

There are 1500 landowners on the land registry within the cull zone.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Our best guess is that this figure means that 20 landowners refused to sign the bit of paper at the end of the visit

That is an incorrect guess. The figure of 20 is the number who registered an objection during the consultation phase, either in writing, by email, or on the leaflet circulated widely by anti-cull organisations wishing to solicit objections.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

One old lady told me that she had been informed that if she did not sign, she would then have no right to prevent WAG contractors coming onto her land.

Correct. No-one, male or female, irrelevant of age, the right to prevent properly accredited staff coming onto land, whether to inspect animals or to carry out the law. The only time this has ever been a problem is where a landowner has attempted to prevent access due to keeping illegal animals, not complying with bTB testing of herds, or animals in distress/substandard conditions. They may face prosecution if they refuse to grant access.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

I know of ~70 landowners who have put their names and holdings to a map of landowners in the cull area objecting to the cull, and there were at least as many again who said that they objected but were too worried about reprisals to put their name on the map.

There are 1500 landowners on the land registry within the cull zone.

Obviously, many landowners, particularly the small ones, will not need to grant access, as it is only required where there are badgers. I do not know what 'reprisals' you are thinking of. I have never come across accredited vetinary staff who do 'reprisals'. The only thing that has come to my attention is a controlled explosion that was carried out by the army bomb disposal unit on a package left in Bush Street, Pembroke Dock, today. Anyone with information is asked to contact Dyfed Powys Police on 101. I would be extremely surprised if the Welsh Assembly Government claims responsibility.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

There is possibly a silver lining to this cull - when it goes horribly wrong perhaps it will be enough to put the incoming government off doing it in England.

Then again it all went horribly wrong in Ireland

Eh ? The rate of bTB in Ireland is considerably higher than in the UK, and remains so. However, the cull had a dramatic effect in Ireland by reducing very high levels of bTB infection from 42,000 in 2002 to 24,000 in 2007 - a reduction of 46%. The reason why Ireland still faces high rates is because they don't have the same stringent restrictions on cattle movement.

Here is the link...

bTB in Ireland
Page 149

What the Irish proved is that badger culls are very effective in reducing bTB in cattle, but they could be even more effective if restrictions on cattle movement is also employed. That is what is going to be done in Wales.

[Rob_D]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Whatever Parties voted for or against, the fact is the decision is political not scientific.

It's certainly not economic. I know the study results were already posted on the BBC site, but there's abit more on here.

Benefits of badger culling not long lasting for reducing cattle TB, says study

The average cost of an infected herd has been estimated to be £27,000, meaning badger culling would save £610,200. However, the cost of a badger cull over a 150 square kilometre area would be between £1.35 million and £2.14 million, using cage trapping, snaring or gassing.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

You have indicated your location as Sir Penfro (Wales) on this forum, but you are providing links to Defra (England only) on your references.

Again, your response suggests that you are not familiar with the subject. DEFRA is not 'England only' but continues to advise WAG policy, and as a farmer in the proposed cull area I am quite aware of the stricter controls in place in Wales. I am also quite aware that despite this your claim that the entire herd is culled if there is one reactor found is quite wrong, and the reality is much closer to the process described in the link I gave. Your claim won't even be correct when the even stricter cattle control measures are applied in the Intensive Action Pilot Area.

Many of your other claims are similarly shaky, despite the confidence with which you make your assertions.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

That is an incorrect guess. The figure of 20 is the number who registered an objection during the consultation phase, either in writing, by email, or on the leaflet circulated widely by anti-cull organisations wishing to solicit objections.

Again you make a very confident assertion that just doesn't match the facts. The figure of 20 Landowners expressing objections has been made very clearly in connection with the Animal Health visits undertaken as part of defining the IAPA. These visits, BTW, are nothing to do with the routine animal health inspections, as you imply.

e.g. from the question & answer document sent to all landowners in the area:
"We have undertaken visits to the majority of landowners in the area as part of our work defining the boundary. Of the nearly 1500 landowners visited, only seven refused to let us visit and just over 20 expressed their opposition to a cull."