Badger cull in Wales

[ZeusS]

2010 has been declared the International Year of Biodiversity. The Welsh Assembly Government is celebrating this by giving the go ahead for the extermination of as many badgers as possible in an area around Pembrokeshire in an effort to eradicate the infamous bovine TB. Is the badger being used as a scapegoat? Removing this much loved mammal from large areas of the countryside is not even likely to be a quick fix or sustainable solution for farmers. The scientific evidence is against this cull and the high costs would suggest it is not value for money. Thousands of mainly healthy badgers have already been killed in research and culls. The scientific evidence and public opinion appear to be against a mass cull. Over the last decade or so badgers seem to have occupied a disproportionate amount of time and resources at the expense of a more sustainable, lasting solution. We should be aware that badgers are not the only species that can get bTB. An unpopular cull, which is not properly backed up by reliable scientific evidence, is bad publicity for farmers and may even have serious implications for tourism and food industries if an angry public decide on boycotts. Surely the draconian powers of entry needed for the mass culling is a serious infringement of basic human rights and civil liberties, thereby creating a dangerous precedent?

Despite a compulsory testing regime for some fifty years, we are told bTB is now endemic in many areas of the UK. However, this is based solely on the results of a skin test for cattle that has not really changed since it was originally developed and that many now believe may not be as reliable as is claimed. For example, just how accurate and up to date is the scientific data behind the claims of its sensitivity and positive productive values and why is this information not available to cattle owners on request? A high percentage of cattle slaughtered have no evidence of disease and whilst reasons are given for this, they seem weak and open to challenge - many farmers are not happy with the explanations given when they see what look like perfectly cattle destroyed. How many of those cattle slaughtered as reactors and inconclusive reactors would have gone on to live a healthy life? The skin test indicates that an animal has mounted an immune response capable of recognising M bovis and does not conclude actual infection. This means that those cattle, which test as reactors or inconclusive reactors, are likely to have been exposed to M bovis bacteria at some point in their lives (or been vaccinated!) and it is not actually known how many of these are infectious or would go on to get clinical symptoms, yet they are hastened to their deaths at the taxpayers’ expense. It is interesting to note that despite the claims that the disease is now out of control, few people ever contract the disease - even farmers, testers, vets, abattoir workers etc who are in regular and close contact of supposedly infected animals - and many farming families drink their own milk raw, before it is pasteurized. In fact it is generally accepted that nowadays bTB poses negligible risk to human health and clinical signs are still rarely seen in cattle.
The existing policy is all about maintaining TB free status and protecting exports. It is concerned mainly with meeting targets and deadlines, not protecting human or animal health and welfare. Whilst the government ministers and bureaucrats are busy claiming how successful the TB Health Check Wales has been, the very significant costs for those adversely affected, have been largely ignored. They do not take into account the intolerable burden for many farming families, particularly those that experience herd breakdowns, the constant testing (a very time consuming process for which the farmer is not reimbursed), the severe stress of the whole process, the emotional loss of cattle and welfare issues involved, the businesses that suffer, the financial consequences of being on stop for long periods of time, the increased health and safety implications from increased cattle handling, the inflexible bureaucracy and the need for expensive equipment. It would probably not be tolerated in any other sector but most farmers are held to ransom because of fear of financial penalties. Are there now too many vested interest groups keen to see the existing system continue for as long as possibleIt will be the continued intolerable bureaucracy and constant skin testing that kills off the dairy industry, not disease.

The bacterium that causes bTB is endemic in the environment so is it realistic to expect that the disease will ever be completely eradicated? The human form of Tb has been controlled adequately for decades, so why, after so many years and millions of taxpayers’ money already spent, is there still no vaccination programme agreed for bTB? As the two diseases are so closely linked surely the efficacy of such a programme would be similar to the claims made for the existing, unreliable and very time consuming skin test system? Surely the best way forward is for a vaccination programme for cattle to start without further delay and for farmers and unions to be campaigning strongly for this and the necessary change in EU legislation to facilitate? Interestingly the human form of TB is actually on the increase in the UK, brought by people coming in from infected areas abroad. Despite this the previous national vaccination programme has been discontinued for most children. This has received far less attention than bTB.

[stripee]

The landowners in West Wales now have letters informing them they are within the pilot area which has been enlarged from 200 to 288 km. It covers much of the National Park and nature reserves. The next step is the sett survey. Then at the end of April, the killing and trapping will commence. It will last for 12-14 weeks into the summer holidays, and be repeated for five years.
Please do not forget the badgers of Wales and the people of North Pembrokeshire who are in very many cases, including many farmers, totally opposed to this pointless cull. If the Welsh Assembly succeed here then badger culls in England could follow.

Save The Badger

[Stinky Bob]

Vaccination of Badgers in 6 x 300 sq km target areas in England should start this summer according to Defra, lets hope the trials are succesful.

[darrenm]

the proposed cost of this test cull is also insane but i suppose that never stops people who are going to make money out of from worrying.

Wonder if they will also cull all the deer in the test area too? and close any public footpaths down just in case someone carries it on their clothing or boots?

[paulthomas]

The Badger Trust have applied for judicial review. I'm sure they'd welcome donations to help with the legal battle.

[Eryri]

ZeusS raises same very important questions, the most important being is the amount of money already been spent and the development of a vaccination for badgers.

There has been a number of pilot vaccination programmes of carrier species (the main one is badger in Britain). The oral vaccination program was a failure for a number of reasons, (a) the 'pool' population of badgers was found to be too high in relation to the number of badgers successfully vaccinated, (b) there are a number of different strains of M.Bovis and the vaccination target was found to be elusive, (c) successfully vaccinated badgers do not become immune, unlike a virus vaccine, the goal is to temporarily stimulate the immune system of the host carrier to 'shed' the bacteria more easily, but this has the effect of replacing the targeted strain with a strain which does not exhibit the same stimulus on the badgers immune system.

In both case of 'culling' and 'vaccination' there is a direct relationship between the density of the carrier population in relation to the density of the agricultural species (cattle) and the opportunities for transmission.

Since the previous pilot studies, work has been successful in developing a more sophisticated injectable vaccination. Defra (the government body in England) plan to do pilot studies of this injecatable vaccine in the summer of 2010. The areas selected for this study were specifically selected where existing carrier (badger) populations are low, and the corresponding agricultural species (dairy cattle) spend long periods indoors, allowing the cattle to be monitored and the propensity of transmission to be measured.

The issue with the decision in Wales to select Penfro/Ceredigion as a cull zone is that (a) bTB infection and transmission rates between species here is highest, (b) natural boundaries exist to minimise carrier migration such as mountains and the sea, (c) cattle population is almost wholly outdoor husbandry and an area where stricter movement controls can be implemented and (d) the superior results that the Department of Agriculture in Wales have achieved in bTB reactor testing on existing hurds.

I think the claim that most farmers and landowners in the Penfro/Ceredigion area are against the cull is nonsense. While there have been some arable farmers in South Pembrokeshire being quite vocal, allied with some vegetarian groups, the vast majority of farmers in the area are fully supportive of the cull. Far from being shocked to find their land to be included in the cull zone, they have been involved in the consultation exercise throughout the process. Whether the cull is right or wrong, that's another matter. It will definitely reduce the transmission on bTB to cattle in that area, as we know that vaccination is never 100% effective, but we do know that 100% of dead badges don't cross-contaminate. A reduction in badger population density will reduce cross contaminiation as long as any cross contamination in cattle is prevented and migration of badger is prevented.

There are other culls taking place in Wales, most as a method of protecting endangered species, or assisting the development of a more natural and sustainable environment. The badger, however, looks cuddly and cute, and easily used as a platform of people to campaign on who may well have a diverse agenda.

[danthekeeper]

Sorry if this has been covered in other threads but why can't cattle be vaccinated they are a lot easier to find,catch and inject than badgers?

[Ukwildlifeo]

Looks there is another reason to not cull badgers
BBC News - Badger culls 'not cost-effective'

Turns out its not a finicial sensible or viable option. Mind you it wins votes for Plaid Cymru which shows the cull is about politics and NOT science and actually solving the problem.

[Stinky Bob]

Originally Posted by danthekeeper

Sorry if this has been covered in other threads but why can't cattle be vaccinated they are a lot easier to find,catch and inject than badgers?

See Eurasian badger (Meles meles): Badger Culling - Background on Bovine TB, basically it says that it would interfere with the current TB tests for cattle and they wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether the cow had TB or it was TB vaccinated.


Wouldn't micro chipping help in this case or is the cost prohibitive (or some other reason), they (DEFRA) obviously would have thought of this.

[danthekeeper]

Thanks stinky bob

It would seem that a better/different test or vaccination is needed so that cattle can be vaccinated.

Has a cull been tried before in another area (Ireland?) and proved to be ineffective?