badger cull lawful

[Rob_D]

From the FERA FAQ's on Badger vaccine.

7. Will vaccinated badgers excrete BCG, which could subsequently sensitise cattle to the skin test?

Injectable BCG safety studies under Good Laboratory Practice have been carried out, in which badgers were given at least 10 times the dose that will be used in the deployment project. From these studies, there is no evidence that BCG is shed from vaccinated badgers and so would therefore not be expected to compromise the use of the tuberculin skin test in cattle.

Would be strange indeed for the experts to be making such statements if there were any evidence to the contrary.

From the FERA press release 30 March 2010.

The Badger Vaccine Deployment Project is funded by Defra and is being run by Fera. It will involve trapping and vaccinating badgers, for five years, in six areas from the worst affected parts of Staffordshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Devon Vaccination will commence in summer 2010.

Of course, plans do change, but without any evidence to the contrary, it looks to me like they're going ahead soon. What new reason has just emerged to change their minds in the last month? FERA do seem to be very happy to tell people what is going on.

I have no doubt that there will be some real challenges with vaccination of badgers, but to me all this looks promising.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Only a minority of landowners (~100 so far, accoding to WAG) have risked arrest by refusing access in the face of WAG's draconian threats. Does this mean that you are happy with such threats being made in the first place?

That's not true. There are a very small number of landowners who have not responded, but the vast majority of this is where the landowner is 'absent' or there is an irregularity in the records of the land registry. These include smallholdings where the property is changing from agricultural use to non-agricultural use, such as residential property, or holiday lets, or where ownership is part of a solvency settlement. There are also instances where land is part of an ongoing settlement of a will where the owner has died, or the legal process for title over land has not yet been settled. To argue that these are instances of 'farmers objecting to the cull' is rather silly. There is no 'risk of arrest' in these instances.

[Eryri]

"7. Will vaccinated badgers excrete BCG, which could subsequently sensitise cattle to the skin test?

Injectable BCG safety studies under Good Laboratory Practice have been carried out, in which badgers were given at least 10 times the dose that will be used in the deployment project. From these studies, there is no evidence that BCG is shed from vaccinated badgers and so would therefore not be expected to compromise the use of the tuberculin skin test in cattle."

Thanks for the info Rob.

Evidently this indicate that testing on caged wild badgers in the labs is being conducted.

It does not say, however, how, over what time period, a badger who already is infected with the virulent bTB strain, in the wild, is then injected with the BCG 'sheds' the virulent bacteria. The BCG stimulates the badgers immune system and this would suggest more rapid shedding, and subsequent temporary immunity. An trapped and injected badger will be 'disturbed' and may well cause more contamination. A badger does not become a 'non-carrier' after immediately after vaccination, and the evidence from the last cull in Staffordshire indicated that the disturbance of badger setts was the main cause of increased infection, causing migration of badgers not culled. Logically, those badgers not vaccinated in any vaccination process in the wild, will undergo the same disturbance.

Perhaps the 'test vaccinations' being done this summer in England is to quantify these factors ?

[muldonach]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Muldonach,
If you don't wish to state your arguments, noone will force you to.

But if you state your opinions about what is being forced down my throat and the throats of those like me in the IAPA who object to the cull, and then you refuse to justify your arguments and display ignorance on the subject, then I, like you, feel free to state my opinion of your statements.

Yes, I could 'do a search' to try to work out your arguments from your posting history. Or you could 'do a search' to educate yourself about basics such as the availability here, today, of a vaccine for badgers, or how the cull will be taking place.

But if you want to criticize me for not knowing has been posted here in the past, then are offended that I don't respect your ignorance of the subject you are talking about, you really are being hypocritical. Especially when you criticize world experts such as the ISG members, on a subject on which you seem to be very poorly informed.

In short, you are free to post opinion without supporting evidence or argument. But likewise I am free to criticize you for doing so. Whether, as you say, you wish to hear it or not.

The reason I have chosen not to debate with you is twofold:-

Firstly as already stated the ins and outs of the RBCT report has been well debated in various threads.

Secondly any thread on culling of any description has a tendency to revisit and repeat arguments already debated, a factor various posters have commented on in the past, and I would prefer not to go down that route.

I don't believe I have criticised you in any way -and my comments refer to both the strengths and weaknesses of the Bourne report - which indeed I have studied in its entirety, just not yesterday.

There are many cogent arguments against the policy and practice of culling badgers. The Bourne report provides a good deal of evidence to suggest that it is unlikely to be cost effective but it is not the conclusive proof that you seem to consider it - were it so then it would be universally accepted.

Cheers
mac

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by muldonach

The reason I have chosen not to debate with you is twofold:-

Well, mac, the odd thing (from my point of view) is that you apparently have chosen to debate with me, but have limited that debate to stating your opinion that the world experts are wrong and that you can't be bothered to explain why. Even to the point of spending far more effort on explaining why you won't explain than the explanation would have taken - assuming you could just post a link to the relevant thread, or cut-and paste a relevant section.

Which is fine, but just as you are free to post opinions without supporting argument, I am free to reply. And, yes, even to get a little sarcastic in response to snide remarks such as "I am also sorry that my lack of expertise disappoints you but since it is a public forum I will continue to voice my opinion whether you wish to hear it or not."

(In case it's not obvious your 'lack of expertise' doesn't 'disappoint' me. But I think it is perfectly appropriate to point out that you apparently lack expertise and refuse to give arguments, yet are setting yourself up against world experts who have given detailed peer-reviewed arguments and data!)

I would also point out that while some of what I said may be old hat to you, you were clearly not aware of the availability, here and now, of a vaccine for badgers. The Jenkins article also can't be very old hat, as it only came out in February. Why not choose to debate the new points and ignore the old?

Originally Posted by muldonach

The Bourne report provides a good deal of evidence to suggest that it is unlikely to be cost effective but it is not the conclusive proof that you seem to consider it - were it so then it would be universally accepted.

That's a very optimistic statement - it would take a lot more than scientific consensus to make lobbies such as the NFU or FUW back down from pushing for a cull.

Science rarely has 'conclusive' proof - but the Bourne report and the follow-up studies I have cited are enough to convince the scientists that culling is not worth considering unless radically new data comes along. See, for example, the statement made by Robbie McDonald, Head of FERA's Wildlife and Emerging Diseases Programme, who has been advising WAG on the cull, that "culling badgers will make bTB worse and that farmers need to start backing the vaccination programme".

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

That's not true. There are a very small number of landowners who have not responded, but the vast majority of this is where the landowner is 'absent' or there is an irregularity in the records of the land registry.

Evidence for all this? Or are you making it up again, as in this post which you retracted the moment evidence was supplied?

Don't get me wrong - you were right and courageous to retract it, and it is fine to be passionate about your beliefs (even those which are obviously wrong ) but you are prone to making wild assertions based on heaven knows what. This looks like one of them.

I was referring to clear references in the local and farming press that WAG says 'only' 100 landowners have refused access. I personally know enough people who have done so to find that figure more than believable, even given WAG's tendency to 'adjust' inconvenient figures in this debate.

So, could you give evidence that these 100 are in fact what you claim? Or any of the evidence I asked for in this post?

Or evidence for your claim that one positive reactor in a herd means the whole herd has to be slaughtered?

Or that after vaccinating badgers, the 'body' still has to be removed and incinerated? Or that the cage also has to be incinerated after use, whether a badger was caught or not?

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

Evidently this indicate that testing on caged wild badgers in the labs is being conducted.

And found none of the effects you claimed. Do you now accept that no such effects occur?

Originally Posted by Eryri

It does not say, however, how, over what time period, a badger who already is infected with the virulent bTB strain, in the wild, is then injected with the BCG 'sheds' the virulent bacteria. The BCG stimulates the badgers immune system and this would suggest more rapid shedding, and subsequent temporary immunity.

This makes no sense. Vaccinating an infected badger would have no effect, as far as we know. One dutch vet suggested that it would stimulate infected badgers to shed more bacteria, but when challenged he was unable to provide any scientific basis for that claim. As for 'temporary immunity' - what does that mean in an infected animal?

Originally Posted by Eryri

A badger does not become a 'non-carrier' after immediately after vaccination, and the evidence from the last cull in Staffordshire indicated that the disturbance of badger setts was the main cause of increased infection, causing migration of badgers not culled. Logically, those badgers not vaccinated in any vaccination process in the wild, will undergo the same disturbance.

What?

You think that vaccination will cause perturbation? And only among the badgers not vaccinated?

Originally Posted by Eryri

Perhaps the 'test vaccinations' being done this summer in England is to quantify these factors ?

Or perhaps it is for the stated purpose of identifying any logistical or other technical hitches in the vaccination process, and producing a reservoir of trained contractors to carry out vaccination.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

I was referring to clear references in the local and farming press that WAG says 'only' 100 landowners have refused access. I personally know enough people who have done so to find that figure more than believable, even given WAG's tendency to 'adjust' inconvenient figures in this debate.

There are 1500 land owners in the cull area. To suggest that the Welsh government have manipulated the figure of 100 refusers is bizarre. The figure was published after a FoI request by a member of the 'Pembrokeshire Against the Cull' campaign group. The land records are that compiled by the 'Land Registry' and the Welsh Government do not have authority over this body, in order to 'adjust the figures'. The process has already been examined by a judicial review and it was found to be legally correct.

Badger Cull Lawful

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Or perhaps it is for the stated purpose of identifying any logistical or other technical hitches in the vaccination process, and producing a reservoir of trained contractors to carry out vaccination.

Defra in England wrote to Elin Jones the Rural affairs Minister for Wales, (January 2010) to enquire her views on the proposal in England to use non-vet staff to conduct the vaccination process in the English study areas. I don't know what your definition of a 'trained contractor' is, but I don't think that you average 'temp' falls under this category. Obviously, a cull involves the use of a legally held fire arm, which would set a minimum standard, however, the vaccination non-vet temps in England will evidently NOT be a 'reservoir of trained contractors'.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

As for 'temporary immunity' - what does that mean in an infected animal?

The vaccine being tested works by injecting a less virulent form of the infection, stimulating the immune system of the badger to be more able to fight off the virulent form of the infection. Once this temporary boost has taken place the badgers immune system reverts to the normal defences. This is why most such vaccinations in humans require boosters. Another problem with the 'five year vaccination study' is that the average life expectancy of a badger in the wild is only three years, which means that for the final year of the vaccination project, most of the badgers vaccinated in the first year would be dead though natural perturbation.

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

There are 1500 land owners in the cull area. To suggest that the Welsh government have manipulated the figure of 100 refusers is bizarre. The figure was published after a FoI request by a member of the 'Pembrokeshire Against the Cull' campaign group. The land records are that compiled by the 'Land Registry' and the Welsh Government do not have authority over this body, in order to 'adjust the figures'. The process has already been examined by a judicial review and it was found to be legally correct.

An interesting grab-bag of misstatements, assertions and irrelevant facts. Does this mean that no, you do not have any evidence to support your assertion that the 100 landowners were merely 'absent'? After all, you quote an article that is very clear that they are refusing access.

Note that during the judicial review WAG insisted that 6% was a 'substantial reduction - 6% being the overall reduction in herd breakdowns they predict averaged over the 5 years of the cull + 2 years afterwards when there is still some effect from the cull. So by their definition 100 out of 1500 landowners would be a 'substantial' proportion who are willing to risk arrest to oppose the cull. And they still haven't finished the sett surveys and have left us 'problem cases' until the last, so the final figure should be higher!

Otherwise: I merely referred to the way that WAG have spun the figures they release before. e.g. They originally claimed that only 7 landowners voiced any objection to the cull during the animal health officer visits last year, then raised the figure to 20 then 40. We have good evidence that the real figure was much higher - after all, do you really think those risking arrest now said nothing then?

Originally Posted by Eryri

Defra in England wrote to Elin Jones the Rural affairs Minister for Wales, (January 2010) to enquire her views on the proposal in England to use non-vet staff to conduct the vaccination process in the English study areas.

So? How is DEFRA's letter relevant? Or were you intending to refer back to this later on and forgot?

Originally Posted by Eryri

I don't know what your definition of a 'trained contractor' is, but I don't think that you average 'temp' falls under this category.

A 'trained contractor' is someone who has been trained in a task (in this case to trap and vaccinate badgers) and is available to to carry out that task on a contractor basis. Not a slippery concept, surely?

Originally Posted by Eryri

Obviously, a cull involves the use of a legally held fire arm, which would set a minimum standard, however, the vaccination non-vet temps in England will evidently NOT be a 'reservoir of trained contractors'.

Why not, and what on earth is the relevance of the cull using firearms? Or, in Eryri-land, do the contractors shoot the badgers after vaccinating them and before incinerating them and the metal cage?

There is no need to use vets to trap and vaccinate badgers, and doing so would just add needless cost.

Originally Posted by Eryri

The vaccine being tested works by injecting a less virulent form of the infection, stimulating the immune system of the badger to be more able to fight off the virulent form of the infection. Once this temporary boost has taken place the badgers immune system reverts to the normal defences. This is why most such vaccinations in humans require boosters.

How does any of this explain what you mean by an infected badger having 'temporary immunity' after being vaccinated?

Note - like a cull, vaccination would take place once every year for at least five years. If that's what you mean by 'booster' injections, that is also a non-problem.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Another problem with the 'five year vaccination study' is that the average life expectancy of a badger in the wild is only three years, which means that for the final year of the vaccination project, most of the badgers vaccinated in the first year would be dead though natural perturbation.

"Dead through natural perturbation"? Are you sure you actually understand the terms such as 'shedding' and 'perturbation'? This is not the first time you have used them in very odd contexts. It might explain your weird assertion that vaccination would cause 'perturbation' among the non-vaccinated badgers.. actually, no it couldn't.

I've normally seen 4 or 5 years as the average life expectancy of a badger - Dr Glossop, when I saw her last year, insisted that it was nearer 10 years, but I still think she must have been confusing the average life expectancy with the maximum. However I can see that your plan to incinerate the badgers would shorten their life expectancy!

Still, how is this a problem (the life expectancy, not the incineration)? If anything it means that all the infected badgers that were present at the start of the vaccination will be dead, and only those badgers who were infected before getting vaccinated would still be carrying the disease.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

those risking arrest

Any landowner can refuse access. If this happens, the vet can go to the magistrates court to obtain right of access. Only when this is done is a police officer is required to accompany vet staff. The only likely arrest is under a public order offence, or obstruction in the execution of a court warrant. This usually happens with rogue farmers who refuse access for cattle testing.