Badger cull to go ahead!?

[Digit]

It will be ponitless as it will not stop BTB

It's not intended to, you seem to have a different take on the subject these people. Please read section one.


http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm...rts-110404.pdf

Roy.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Digit

It will be ponitless as it will not stop BTB

It's not intended to, you seem to have a different take on the subject these people. Please read section one.


http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm...rts-110404.pdf

Roy.

Don't just read section one, read and consider all nine statements in the link - and then consider the factors that weren't considered in the meeting (such as economic viability, and moral issues).

The "overall beneficial effect" referred to in section one of the link is a reduction of bTB cases in cattle by around 25% (so 75% of bTB cases remain despite the cull), seen in areas where cull trials have taken place.
For there to be "a significant effect on national disease occurence", at least 70% of all Badgers would have to be culled over an area covering at least 39,000 square kilometers (about 16% of the UK - which includes pretty much all the areas with the highest density of Badgers). Despite repeated claims that eradication is not the aim, for a cull to be effective the intention would have to be to remove as many as can be realistically achieved within the cull area (ie. try and eradicate them, but accept that some will slip the net). Cull would then presumably have to be repeated regularly to maintain Badgers at the lowest densities possibly.
...And the estimated net effect of all this culling effort and expense is not even certain to be a reduction in bTB cases in cattle of as much as 25% (estimates quoted in the link suggest that a net reduction of something like between 12.4% and 16% might be the result - with the effect on the UK Badger population entirely unknown.

It is completely unreasonable to consider only the bits that you want to see (ie. Badger culls = a reduction in bTB in cattle).
The question is, whether the cost of such action - and the decimation of the Badger population - is really worthwhile when the expected net reduction in bTB is relatively small.
What should be being looked into is how to combat the other 75% of bTB cases (especially as any measures taken may well also prevent the 25% that a widespread Badger cull might help with).

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Digit

it was proposed in 1997.

Agreed, I wasn't aware that that was a matter of dispute.

I glad to see that the date of the Kreb Report isn't under dispute - but you seem to be dodging the actual matter of disagreement.
From what I have seen you still seem to be of the opinion that (1) the Kreb Report originally suggested that culling was a valid control method for bTB (it didn't), and (2) Lord Kreb has not changed his mind by now saying that culling will not work while remaining within acceptable economic and moral restraints (after considering the results of trials which have taken place since 1997).

Originally Posted by Digit

Note (in particular) footnote 1, which says that factors such as the economic viability, and moral implications, of culling were not discussed.

Neither would have I expected it to be. Those matters would be for DEFRA to consider, and as far as I recall krebs was not briefed to so comment.

See above post.

Originally Posted by Digit

how many trials have been conducted looking at potential biosecurity measures?


None that I am aware of. It was left for the industry and individual farmers to examine that. Which of course may well have happened, I don't know and thus do not comment. But I can't see many famers taking such suggestions as per troughs very seriously.

So if you think that farmers aren't likely to take suggested biosecurity measure seriously, without them even being trialed, would you consider that farmers are really doing all that they can to combat bTB (-or is it really just easier to use Badgers as a scapegoat)?
Personally I would like to think that farmers would be prepared to at least try other measures - although it would no doubt need farmers unions to support trials (instead of just calling for Badger culls), and any trials may need to be funded by DEFRA so that the farmers are only expected to pay for measures that have been shown to work.
Where could funding for trials come from? Perhaps there is some research funding available - or has it now all been put aside to pay for culls?

Originally Posted by Digit

The research budget needs to be spent finding a workable solution that will eventually reduce the per annum costs

I suggest you direct that question at DEFRA as they oversee the expenditure.

Spending money on culling is believed to be effective by some, including groups like the farmers unions who pressurise the government to take this kind of action. This doesn't mean that it is an effective use of available funding though.

I can see that (IMO) you don't seem prepared to look at the "whole picture" though, and I'm certainly not prepared to accept your suggestions that culling has been shown to be effective, has been supported by those who have overseen the studies (including Lord Kreb), and will somehow help the UK Badger population - so perhaps we should just call it quits?

[tigertom]

Originally Posted by Digit

It will be ponitless as it will not stop BTB

It's not intended to, you seem to have a different take on the subject these people. Please read section one.


http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm...rts-110404.pdf

Roy.

Have done and read the rest seems even more pointless to me now. If or when this cull dos go ahead it will not get rid of the BTB problem, and end result will be calls from the farmers for more culls then more when they dont work. The farmers need to start looking at the way they manage there farms befor calling for culls on badgers cos if they get there way it will not stop there, some anglering clubs and fishery owners already keeping eye out to see what dos happen with badgers, for use in there own campaigns

[Digit]

So if you think that farmers aren't likely to take suggested biosecurity measure seriously, without them even being trialed, would you consider that farmers are really doing all that they can to combat bTB (-or is it really just easier to use Badgers as a scapegoat)?

Have they not been tested? Also as you pointed out one suggestion was a cattle vaccine. One wuold hope that Krebs et al would know tht is a non-starter whilst we are a member of the EU, thus a pointless suggestion.

Personally I would like to think that farmers would be prepared to at least try other measures

Do you know that they haven't, or is this just guess work on your behalf?

This doesn't mean that it is an effective use of available funding though.

Hence the new trials of course.

It is completely unreasonable to consider only the bits that you want to see

It is indeed, thus I read all of the reports as you suggested in your previous post. Also if I had wanted Pete to read only those parts that you seem to think I only want read I would not have posted the link, only a summary. I hope you see the difference.

Where could funding for trials come from? Perhaps there is some research funding available - or has it now all been put aside to pay for culls?


With farmers paying for the cull here in Wales is there any expense to DEFRA? Ask DEFRA.

(estimates quoted in the link suggest that a net reduction of something like between 12.4% and 16% might be the result

As quoted by his Lordship in the Guardian, and if his Lordship were to present a report to me couched in those term it would be returned to him with a suggestion as to what he might do with it as scientifically it is as useless as his 'develope a cattle vaccine' idea.

Roy.

[Digit]

Have done and read the rest seems even more pointless to me now. If or when this cull dos go ahead it will not get rid of the BTB problem, and end result will be calls from the farmers for more culls then more when they dont work. The farmers need to start looking at the way they manage there farms befor calling for culls on badgers cos if they get there way it will not stop there, some anglering clubs and fishery owners already keeping eye out to see what dos happen with badgers, for use in there own campaigns

In other words you are right DEFRA and their consultants are wrong. I should have expected it.
Out of curiosity, if this latest cull results in DEFRA stating that any culls are totally pointless, that they serve no purpose, that reducing badger numbers doesn't help, will you still believe that their reports are pointless I wonder?

Roy.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Digit

In other words you are right DEFRA and their consultants are wrong. I should have expected it.
Out of curiosity, if this latest cull results in DEFRA stating that any culls are totally pointless, that they serve no purpose, that reducing badger numbers doesn't help, will you still believe that their reports are pointless I wonder?

But, as has been pointed out, DEFRA do not necessarily take action solely because their advisors suggest that it is something that will help. Other methods (such as the vaccine that you say is "a non starter" and "a pointless suggestion" are not yet ready to be used yet, and they (and the government) want to be seen to be doing more right now to appease groups like the farmers unions - and don't forget that Lord Kreb is one of the consultants, and he has more or less said that further culling "trials" are a waste of money.

It is also worth noting that, based on your statements about vaccines, you quite clearly think that DEFRA does indeed support "pointless" bovine TB research:

The Government will work with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to continue to promote good biosecurity and provide advice and support to farmers, as well as investing £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible.

(Taken from this DEFRA posting from July 19th - just over a week ago).

My opinion? There have already been enough culling trials to show what culling on its own can achieve (the reduction of up to about 25% of bTB cases that DEFRA expects from these potential trials). Once other measures are in place, it may be worth conducting further culling trials to see if the two (or more) methods help when used together, but at present I see these only as something to appease groups (eg. farmers unions) and individuals who are pressing for immediate action.

Originally Posted by Digit

So if you think that farmers aren't likely to take suggested biosecurity measure seriously, without them even being trialed, would you consider that farmers are really doing all that they can to combat bTB (-or is it really just easier to use Badgers as a scapegoat)?

Have they not been tested? Also as you pointed out one suggestion was a cattle vaccine. One wuold hope that Krebs et al would know tht is a non-starter whilst we are a member of the EU, thus a pointless suggestion.

You seem to be in a minority with the opinion that a cattle vaccine is pointless - see above (+recommendations of other studies, and posts from others on this thread).

Originally Posted by Digit

Personally I would like to think that farmers would be prepared to at least try other measures

Do you know that they haven't, or is this just guess work on your behalf?

As I'm sure that you well know, this was a direct response to your statement with regards to biosecurity measures, which was "But I can't see many famers taking such suggestions as per troughs very seriously.
".
So; (1) no, I don't know whether other measure have been tried by farmers (although I haven't seen anything published that indicates that such measures have been investigated scientifically) - and (2) yes, I am guessing when I say that I think farmers would be prepared to try other measures (rather than suggesting that they wouldn't take the possibility of such measures seriously). I would like to think that farmers will do all that they can to address the bTB issue.

Originally Posted by Digit

This doesn't mean that it is an effective use of available funding though.

Hence the new trials of course.

It was partly the "trials" that I was talking about.
Realistically are these going to provide new information if they go ahead? From what I can see they are unlikely to add anything to what we know - which means that they would not be an efficient use of available funding (and that is true regardless of whether the money comes from the government, or from individual farmers).

Originally Posted by Digit

It is completely unreasonable to consider only the bits that you want to see

It is indeed, thus I read all of the reports as you suggested in your previous post. Also if I had wanted Pete to read only those parts that you seem to think I only want read I would not have posted the link, only a summary. I hope you see the difference.

Your arguments do seem heavily weighted towards the fact that previous culls have shown there to be some reduction in bTB cases in cattle in the cull areas without really considering other factors though.
Measures that will only reduce the incidence of a disease by around 25% are not an effective means of control - so efforts need to be concentrating elsewhere rather than repeating the same "experiments".

Originally Posted by Digit

(estimates quoted in the link suggest that a net reduction of something like between 12.4% and 16% might be the result

As quoted by his Lordship in the Guardian, and if his Lordship were to present a report to me couched in those term it would be returned to him with a suggestion as to what he might do with it as scientifically it is as useless as his 'develope a cattle vaccine' idea.

But these are the figures mentioned in the DEFRA document detailing the conclusions of the meeting that you suggested should be read to support your view on culling.
So how many of the conclusions in that document are you saying are "scientifically useless"? The estimates are based on the same scientific data as the rest of the conclusions.










Incidentely, although you haven't answered it, my earlier post should have read:
"From what I have seen you still seem to be of the opinion that (1) the Kreb Report originally suggested that culling was a valid control method for bTB (it didn't), and (2) Lord Kreb has now changed his mind by now saying that culling will not work while remaining within acceptable economic and moral restraints (after considering the results of trials which have taken place since 1997).(He hasn't because he never said that culling would work).
(Bold parts changed/added).

[Digit]

RW, let's get one thing straight! A vaccine cannot be used in this country as things stand, thus to use your own comments about using research funds to no advantage, it's a non starter, OK?

Once other measures are in place, it may be worth conducting further culling trials to see if the two (or more) methods help when used together, but at present I see these only as something to appease groups (eg. farmers unions) and individuals who are pressing for immediate action.


Do you know for certain that other measures are not in place? Do you understand why a cull trial is about to start here, the reasoning behind the decision?

Please explain the logic/cost effectiveness of developing a vaccine that the EU won't permit us to use under present terms?

"But I can't see many famers taking such suggestions as per troughs very seriously.

Absolutely! That was to point out that useless advice is likely to result in little action. At no point did I suggest that no action should be taken, simply that silly statements are of no help, I stand by that, the same goes for the vaccine. If we can't use it why waste money developing it?

I would like to think that farmers will do all that they can to address the bTB issue.

Any evidence to suggest that thry don't? Or is just your opinion?

Realistically are these going to provide new information if they go ahead?

I don't know. Unlike yourself I am not prejudging the issue.

so efforts need to be concentrating elsewhere rather than repeating the same "experiments".

You seem unaware that the cull process here in Wales is not a repeat of any previous experiments. The parameters have been changed.

So how many of the conclusions in that document are you saying are "scientifically useless"?


Just the one I mentioned, if I had meant more I would have detailed them, and I repeat that as stated that is scientific nonsense.
At this stage I am not explaining why in the hope you might consider what exactly that statement in the Guardian actually tells us.

That last part I'm not wasting any more time going over, plus as I said, protest all you wish, the cull proceeds, and frankly I doubt that you are in any position to challenge the professionals on this. Also as I said to Pete, would you challenge DEFRA if they supported you?

Roy.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Digit

RW, let's get one thing straight! A vaccine cannot be used in this country as things stand, thus to use your own comments about using research funds to no advantage, it's a non starter, OK?
.
.
.
Please explain the logic/cost effectiveness of developing a vaccine that the EU won't permit us to use under present terms?
.
.
.
the same goes for the vaccine. If we can't use it why waste money developing it?

Sorry, I thought that the logic behind developing a vaccine was obvious - an effective vaccine will protect cattle from bovine TB regardless of the source of the infection (regardless of whether it is from Badgers, other cattle, deer, infected feed etc).
As for EU law, this is not something that is put in place and then remains fixed for all eternity, laws can be (and are) changed. At present the main reaso why cattle vaccines for bovine TB are not allowed seems to be because there is currently no test that will differentiate between vaccinated cattle and infected cattle, which would mean that bTB could be spread by moving infected cattle with vaccinated ones (the current bTB test will show both reacting, and the current vaccine is only about 70% effective so vaccinated cattle can still get bTB). The aim is to develop both a more effective vaccine and a DIVA (Differentiate Infected from Vaccinated Animlas) test - and then get the vaccine passed for use within the EU.

Originally Posted by Digit

Once other measures are in place, it may be worth conducting further culling trials to see if the two (or more) methods help when used together, but at present I see these only as something to appease groups (eg. farmers unions) and individuals who are pressing for immediate action.


Do you know for certain that other measures are not in place?
.
.
.
"But I can't see many famers taking such suggestions as per troughs very seriously.

Absolutely! That was to point out that useless advice is likely to result in little action. At no point did I suggest that no action should be taken, simply that silly statements are of no help, I stand by that
.
.
.
I would like to think that farmers will do all that they can to address the bTB issue.

Any evidence to suggest that thry don't? Or is just your opinion?

In actual fact I know that progress has been made in advancing other measures in an attempt to reduce the levels of bTB in the UK (and in Wales in particular).
The Welsh Agricultural Government has made attempts to tighten biosecurity measures by increasing bTB testing and using measures that keep cattle on adjacent farms, and cattle and wild animals, apart (including advising farmers to take action to keep Badgers away from cattle feed and feeding troughs - so it seems that such measures are being taken seriously).
It has been suggested that recent falls in the incidence of bTB in Wales can be attributed to these improved bio-security measures (I seem to remember seeing a drop of 28% quoted for 2010). This is without any culling having taken place. It would seem sensible to me to properly monitor and evaluate any effect that these measures on their own might be having before introducing culling as well - going ahead with a cull now would mean that if a further drop in bTB cases was seen it may be difficult to say whether it was because of (1) the biosecurity measures on their own, (2) the culling, or (3) a combination of the two working together.

I don't know where you get the idea that I have said farmers will not try these sort of measures to try and combat bTB from.
I wasn't the one who said that I didn't think many farmers would take suggestions of this type seriously.

Originally Posted by Digit

Do you understand why a cull trial is about to start here, the reasoning behind the decision?
.
.
.
Realistically are these going to provide new information if they go ahead?

I don't know. Unlike yourself I am not prejudging the issue.
.
.
.
so efforts need to be concentrating elsewhere rather than repeating the same "experiments".

You seem unaware that the cull process here in Wales is not a repeat of any previous experiments. The parameters have been changed.

Yes, I am aware of the reasons behind the cull proposals: primarily that it is believed that for effective control, and eventually hoped for eradication of bTB in cattle, all potential avenues of transmission need to be tackled, including bTB in the "wildlife reservoir".

However, although I have already said that I accept that effective control measures may include culling, I have seen nothing to suggest to me that trials such as those planned in Wales will do anything to advance current knowledge and help with an effective, and workable, strategy to combat the disease.
Are the parameters planned for use in Wales really so different from previous trials? Personally I can't see any reason to believe that they are.

Originally Posted by Digit

So how many of the conclusions in that document are you saying are "scientifically useless"?


Just the one I mentioned, if I had meant more I would have detailed them, and I repeat that as stated that is scientific nonsense.
At this stage I am not explaining why in the hope you might consider what exactly that statement in the Guardian actually tells us.

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what you think "the statement" does, or doesn't tell us - and I don't see why it is so relevant if Lord Kreb quoted it in the Guardian (it's the fact that it was included as a footnote in the conclusions of the DEFRA meeting that seems more relevant to me).

Originally Posted by Digit

plus as I said, protest all you wish, the cull proceeds, and frankly I doubt that you are in any position to challenge the professionals on this. Also as I said to Pete, would you challenge DEFRA if they supported you?

Whether or not the cull proceeds makes no difference as to whether or not I can express my opinions on the decision here, or elsewhere. My main intention here is to give an opposing side to the debate, so that anyone reading this thread didn't conclude that your opinion was the only one.

It is worth noting though that public opinion can, and sometimes does, chance government policy, and no I obviously wouldn't challenge DEFRA (or anyone else) who supported my opinion (would anyone?). I would always be happy to reject parts of their argument if I felt that the facts didn't fit though, and I am always prepared to concede to someone with an opposing view if they can present a strong enough case.

Now as for "the cull proceeds"; actually it doesn't(not in Wales anyway). Much to the disgust of some farming groups, any culling trials in Wales are currently on hold, and the WAG is in the process of forming a panel to conduct a review of the science behind the plans and other TB control measures, and how (or if) the culling trials proceed will depend on the conclusions reached. This means that if culling trials do take place in Wales there probably is a good chance that they will be carried out in a way that might produce worthwhile data.

[STYRBJORN]

There are several issues getting conflated here. There is the moral question, whether we are ever justified in killing other species for our own benefit. I regard that as a non-issue. Are we justified in killing other species for our indirect benefit? In the particular case here, does killing badgers reduce the incidence of bTB to a significant degree? Does it "work"? This, I think, is the question at issue for most posters to this thread. If it were clearly to be shown that reducing the badger population would reduce the incidence of bTB to a great extent, I think that many people would, reluctantly, teeth gritted, accept it as necessary.

However, it occurs to me that there is another sense to the question "Will it work?" Many, in my experience most, stock farmers exercise a zero tolerance policy towards foxes. On stock farms, foxes are killed "on sight", in much the way that badgers will be killed under the proposed culling regime. Since the passing of the HWD Act, the rural fox population has fallen from C240.000 to C 220,000. The population has now stabilised at this lower level. This seems to suggest that culling badgers in limited areas will not "work" because the unculled areas will provide a reserve population which will "top-up" the culled areas. The logical response is obvious. Wipe the stripey bastrids out completely. Never mind a vaccine, develop a badger specific virus! Meles meles myxomatosis! Of course, it didn't work for rabbits . . .

Cynic? Me? Aziff.