Badger cull now planned for England

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by pressld2

It is not necessary to vaccinate 100% to eradicate a disease. Small pox has been completely removed from all human populations but not one single country ever achieved 100% vaccination.

It's also possible that immunity may be passed on to new born cubs via their mother's milk, particularly if the vaccination is a live one. (Does anyone know if it is?) This is one of the reasons that human mothers are encouraged to breast-feed.

We will have to await the results of the trials to know just how effective or otherwise vaccination may be. With culling we don't have to wait. We've already got the results and they tell us very clearly, however much people try to spin them, that culling makes matters worse not better.

Dave P.

True. It is not necessary to conduct 100% vaccination to eradicate the disease, in the same way as it is not necessary to cull 100% to eradicate the disease.There is however, a massive difference with human vaccination where the subject population is co-operative, measurable and knows whether or not they have been vaccinated. Very different from a 'wild species'.

Smallpox is a virus. A more accurate comparison is bubonic plague, which is a bacteria with animal related vectors. Anyone for a rat cull ?

What concerns me about vaccination deployment project is that there is no plans (at least from the Defra statements and costing) to chip and monitor vaccinated badgers. £18million has been spent of developing the badger vaccine, yet a chip similar to that used to uniquely identify a domestic dog, is not being used. At the very least it would enhance the 'badgers found dead' survey on the efficacy of the vaccination programme. It could even provide valuable data on migration both into and out of the vaccination area, and badger mortality.

I disagree with sweeping statements that we know everything about culling. Natural boundaries were found to have a significant effect on the effects of perturbation, and all data on culling, most of which was conducted in areas of lower population density, was collected prior to the introduction of bio-security measures and cattle movement controls.

Culling 'can' make matters worse, but it 'can' make matters better. It depends on other vectors, mitigating perturbation, and who how where and when the cull is conducted.

Good question about passing on the mild infection (and thereby a degree of immunity) via mothers milk. I suspect that if this was found during the clinical trails the results would have been published, but I cannot find any such claim.

[Eryri]

CULLING WORKS !!!

"In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull to 2 July 2010 (the post-trial period), the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 34.1% lower (95% CI: 23.0% to 43.6% lower) than in survey-only areas, and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 5.6% lower (95% CI: 31.0% lower to 29.1% higher) than outside survey-only areas."

The Duration of the Effects of Repeated Widespread Badger Culling on Cattle Tuberculosis Following the Cessation of Culling.

[pressld2]

From the same document...

"The post-trial results must, of course, be considered in the context of the smaller reduction seen inside proactive trial areas and the increased incidence seen outside proactive trial areas in the period from the end of the initial proactive cull until one year after the last proactive cull in each triplet. From the start of the RBCT to 2 July 2010, incidence of confirmed breakdowns in proactive culling areas was 28.3% lower (95% CI: 20.9% to 35.0% lower) than in survey-only areas. In areas up to 2km outside the trial area boundary of proactive culling areas, incidence of confirmed breakdowns was 9.0% higher (95% CI: 15.5% lower to 40.7% higher) than in areas up to 2km outside survey-only areas."

If you want to trawl through the scientific literature picking out the bits that support your theory and ignoring all the rest then you can 'prove' anything at all.

Dave P.

[PMG]

Originally Posted by pressld2

From the same document...

"The post-trial results must, of course, be considered in the context of the smaller reduction seen inside proactive trial areas and the increased incidence seen outside proactive trial areas in the period from the end of the initial proactive cull until one year after the last proactive cull in each triplet. From the start of the RBCT to 2 July 2010, incidence of confirmed breakdowns in proactive culling areas was 28.3% lower (95% CI: 20.9% to 35.0% lower) than in survey-only areas. In areas up to 2km outside the trial area boundary of proactive culling areas, incidence of confirmed breakdowns was 9.0% higher (95% CI: 15.5% lower to 40.7% higher) than in areas up to 2km outside survey-only areas."

If you want to trawl through the scientific literature picking out the bits that support your theory and ignoring all the rest then you can 'prove' anything at all.

Dave P.

The only thing 'proven' here is that some folks want badgers killed and others don't want badgers killed.

As I see it farming as a job, livlihood, way of life, career, calling, something your family may have done for years down the generations is not different to any other work. Work and jobs are failing in this reccession - whether this is a genuine reccession or a financially engineered one makes no difference to the end result - people are losing their work, careers are going down the pan and for the folks this is happening to its a catastrophe but the explanation is the same - tighten your belts there's a rough ride coming and if you get caught up in it then its tough but unavoidable - thats what we are being told by a government - who as usual gets into power and then immediately stops listening to the public who put them there, plus ignoring the promises they made (equates to lies they told) in order to get elected. Farming gets grants and protections that other parts of the working world don't - no matter how important these other jobs are to the community world trade etc. And because farmers are providing food they are deemed more important than other areas of work ....... so important that they can demand a living creature can be killed in order for their farming livlihood to continue. Keep telling the public that culling works and trying to get folks to believe it without letting them know that this killing is done in a barbaric way is wrong. Perhaps a lot of people faced with a choice of eating meat and drinking milk and badgers are killed in the areas where this husbandry is badly affected by btb and stopping eating meat and drinking milk so that badgers are not required to be killed, may just opt for the latter .........

Pauline

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by pressld2

In areas up to 2km outside the trial area boundary of proactive culling areas, incidence of confirmed breakdowns was 9.0% higher (95% CI: 15.5% lower to 40.7% higher) than in areas up to 2km outside survey-only areas."

If you want to trawl through the scientific literature picking out the bits that support your theory and ignoring all the rest then you can 'prove' anything at all.

Dave P.

Yes. I agree.

May I point out that the increase in bTB incidence outside the cull area is as a result of perturbation, and it's effect only exists while culling takes place, most in the first year of cull. I do not, however, foresee and increase in badger or cattle infection up to 2km outside most of the IAPA in Penfro/Ceredigion, as there are no badgers or cattle in the Teifi estuary or living in the Irish sea, and no badgers on the upper reaches of the Presili. The data actually illustrates the effect of natural boundaries of a cull area.

[STYRBJORN]

Oh sod it. Let's start eating badgers.

Ric

[Digit]

None of which alters the simple fact that culling badgers spreads TB wider than leaving them be does.

May I point out that the leaving them alone bit is only valid if Badgers cease to spread naturally?
That statement is also a tacit agreement that Badgers do in fact spread the disease.
Further, it is support for extending the area of any cull is it not?
Earlier an observation was made about the cost of compensation to farmers, I have posted in the past that these debates always seem to focus on the Badger, with people upset about killing them.
Could we hear it for the cattle?
Tubercolosis is a pretty rotten way to die.

Roy.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Digit

May I point out that the leaving them alone bit is only valid if Badgers cease to spread naturally?

I disagree Roy. If you leave them alone the level of badger to cattle transmission will stay the same. The evidence from the RBCT is that if you cull them the level of badger to cattle transmission will increase overall. Yes it will reduce for a period within the area of the cull but will increase outside of it and the net result is a higher incidence of bTB.

Originally Posted by Digit

That statement is also a tacit agreement that Badgers do in fact spread the disease.

Nothing tacit about it. I have never denied that badger to cattle transmission occurs. I don't recall ever seeing a post on WAB by any other member that denies it either. However, the best scientific estimate is that it accounts for at most 10% of cattle infections. So, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, even if we totally eradicated all badgers from the British Isles we would still be left with 90% of the bTB we have today. 90% of the cattle currently dying an unpleasant death from bTB would still do so. 90% of the compensation currently being paid to farmers would still be paid.

Please remember Roy, that I'm not arguing in favour of the status quo. I'm suggesting that we should be following strategies to combat bTB that might have a positive effect instead of pursuing ones we can be reasonably certain will only make matters worse. It remains to be seen what the results of the trial will be but badger vaccination might be effective. But even if it is, badger to cattle transmission is still only 10% of the problem. Our efforts (and cash) would be far better spent on tackling the other 90%. If you look at the figures published by DEFRA for the incidence of bTB in the first four months of this year compared with the same period last year you will clearly see that restrictions on the movement of cattle are having a significant effect without a single badger being destroyed. A 14% reduction in herd breakdowns - higher than they hoped to achieve with the cull.

Fewer cattle with bTB = fewer cattle to badger transmissions = fewer badger to cattle transmissions.

It is possible to make serious inroads into the levels of bTB and it may even be possible to eradicate the disease. But the science suggests that both of these things will be easier to achieve if we don't cull than if we do.

Dave P.

[Digit]

If you leave them alone the level of badger to cattle transmission will stay the same.

Not if their numbers continue to increase, unless you are claiming that numbers don't count in transmission.

The evidence from the RBCT is that if you cull them the level of badger to cattle transmission will increase overall.

Because fleeing Badgers carry the disease with them.

Yes it will reduce for a period within the area of the cull but will increase outside of it and the net result is a higher incidence of bTB.


So you extend the cull area to include all Badgers.

I have never denied that badger to cattle transmission occurs.

Agreed, but many do and quote Krebs figures for outside the cull area whilst ignoring the figures for inside the cull area.

Sorry Dave but your figures might work on a computer but not on the local farms, we have had farm stock wiped out, replaced by new animals, tested clean and re infected.
Till recently DEFRA displayed a graph of the rise in Badger numbers against cattle infection numbers, the curves were near identical. I would like to know why they no longer show it as well.
But as I pointed out months ago what ever our feelings the cull will proceed. I have also expressed puzzlement in the past as to why people express such concern for Badgers whilst ignoring the plight of the cattle, and the fact that vastly greater numbers of other animals are culled without a murmer.
We have had people collecting money to fight the cull here and when approached about the cull of Deer expressed no interst at all.
I remain puzzled.

Roy.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Digit

If you leave them alone the level of badger to cattle transmission will stay the same.

Not if their numbers continue to increase, unless you are claiming that numbers don't count in transmission.

Not claiming that at all. And yet bTB is in decline, both in Wales and Great Britain as a whole - a seven per cent drop in each of the last two years. Not huge but it's moving in the right direction. And in areas where there are serious and rigidly enforced restrictions on cattle movements the drop is even larger. All without killing badgers. Scotland is certified free of the disease, again without killing badgers.

The problem with badgers is that they move between farms. So if they visit a farm with infected cattle they can pick up the disease and carry it to a farm with healthy cattle and infect them. But it is estimated that 88% of infections are caused by cattle to cattle transmission. If we can fix that - and we can, by more rigourous testing and greater controls on movement - then there will be fewer badgers infected by cattle and fewer infected badgers to pass the disease on to "clean" herds. The remaining pool of infection within the badger population can be dealt with by vaccination, although this will take time. About the same amount of time as the proposed cull.

Originally Posted by Digit

The evidence from the RBCT is that if you cull them the level of badger to cattle transmission will increase overall.

Because fleeing Badgers carry the disease with them.

Yes, exactly.

Originally Posted by Digit

Yes it will reduce for a period within the area of the cull but will increase outside of it and the net result is a higher incidence of bTB.


So you extend the cull area to include all Badgers.

But if we apply that logic then it quickly stops being a cull and starts being extermination.

Originally Posted by Digit

Till recently DEFRA displayed a graph of the rise in Badger numbers against cattle infection numbers, the curves were near identical. I would like to know why they no longer show it as well.

I don't know but like I said above there has been a 7% drop in bTB in each of the last two years and I don't believe there has been a drop in the badger population. In which case the curves will no longer match.

Originally Posted by Digit

But as I pointed out months ago what ever our feelings the cull will proceed. I have also expressed puzzlement in the past as to why people express such concern for Badgers whilst ignoring the plight of the cattle, and the fact that vastly greater numbers of other animals are culled without a murmer.
We have had people collecting money to fight the cull here and when approached about the cull of Deer expressed no interst at all.
I remain puzzled.

I tried to answer that point in a previous post but am happy to try again. I think the puzzlement stems from an assumption that anyone who opposes culling badgers must be a "fluffy-bunny hugger" who is automatically opposed to killing anything. This is not true, at least not for all of us.

To my mind, before a cull is undertaken we need to answer three questions:

1. Is there a genuine problem that needs to be addressed?
2. Will culling make a significant contribution to addressing the problem?
3. Are there alternatives that would be as, or more, effective?

So lets apply those three questions first to deer and then to badgers.

Deer:

1. Yes, there is a genuine problem. In the absence of natural predators the population grows larger than the habitat can support which leads to deer spreading into unsuitable habitat which is bad for both them and the environment. They also damage crops.
2. Yes, culling will make a difference as it will decrease the population. The downside is we'll have to keep doing it every year.
3. No, there aren't any practical alternatives. Reintroduction of wolves might be possible in the Highlands but would not be popular with the people living there, particularly the sheep farmers. Elsewhere in the UK it's a non-starter. There has been talk of introducing contraceptives in feed but this remains impractical at present and there would also be serious environmental concerns and worries about the hormones entering the human food chain.

Conclusion: It's not nice but it needs to be done.

Badgers:

1. Yes, there is a genuine problem. bTB is costing the country millions of pounds and needs to be tackled. But badgers are at best only 10% of this problem.
2. No, culling will not make a difference and the best scientific evidence available is that it will make the problem worse, not better.
3. Until very recently the answer was no, but today it is maybe. The vaccine that is now available for badgers has not, as far as I know, been extensively trialled in real world conditions. That needs to be done before we can answer this question definitively but the signs are encouraging.

Conclusion: Culling is an expensive waste of time.

Dave P.