Tag Archives: cull

Will the badger cull cost the Tories the election? It certainly should! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




We are now just under 50 days from a general election and the badger cull issue has taken centre stage in a wider debate about wildlife protection and animal welfare, which could help decide the outcome.

The Labour Party have even put the badger on the front of their wildlife protection and animal welfare manifesto, as they make a clear election commitment to stop both the pilot culls and a wider national roll out of the policy should they form a Government.

With a recent MORI poll showing that badger culling was the 5th most common issue of complaint to MPs in 2014, both MP’s and prospective candidates know the disastrous policy is political poison on the door step during the election campaign. However, David Cameron is now stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to killing badgers.

Despite recently telling first time voters on Sky News that the badger cull is “probably the most unpopular policy for which I am responsible”, he cannot afford to lose the votes – and money – of landowners and farmers by dumping the policy this side of the election.

The answer? Easy! Let Liz Truss take the flak

So he’s playing for time by letting his Environment Secretary Liz Truss hold out the possibility of an extension of the policy should the Tories form another Government after 7th May, without making any concrete commitment on how this will be achieved.

On 3rd March after almost six months of avoidance and delay and a personal intervention from the Prime Minister, Liz Truss finally sat down with members of the Badger Trust Board to have a frank and open discussion on the badger cull policy.

Just how sensitive the badger cull issue has become was clear from the start, when Liz Truss suggested our discussions should remain private and off the record. This request was ludicrous in view of the level of public interest in our meeting and the fact that both the BBC and ITV News were waiting on the steps of DEFRA’s offices, to interview me the minute I left the building.

The meeting did not deliver any surprise U-turn on killing badgers, but it was noticeable how lacking in confidence and isolated the Secretary of State appeared when it came to defending the disastrous cull policy.

Despite trotting out the now familiar statements about following the advice of her Chief Vet Nigel Gibbens, on the need to control the spread of TB in wildlife as well as cattle, it was clear her heart was not really in it.

Nigel Gibbens, the UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer, was also very noticeable by his absence from the meeting, which sent a clear message that he is unwilling to enter into any further political controversy on the failed culling policy, this side of the General Election.

Policy in paralysis

And despite statements made at the NFU annual conference a few weeks week before, the Secretary of State was unable to give any clear commitment on a national roll out of the policy should the Conservatives form a Government after 7th May.

Bold statements from her predecessor about a 25-year cull rolled out to 40 new areas of England by 2020 were not repeated. With over £15 million being spent on just 2 years of culling in Somerset and Gloucestershire alone, this came as no great surprise.

The fact that Natural England are also considering revoking the Gloucestershire cull licence due to major failures in meeting cull targets, is also no doubt causing a major political headache for the Secretary of State.

The NFU sense the Government is losing its appetite for badger culling and this explains why their President Meurig Raymond, was willing to risk the reputation of the NFU by backing claims by livestock vet Roger Blowey that culling badgers in Gloucestershire has significantly lowered TB in cattle, without any supporting independent scientific evidence.

These claims also fly in the face of public statements from Nigel Gibbens, that any lowering of TB rates in cattle is down to tightening of cattle TB testing and movement controls, not badger culling or vaccination.

Owen Paterson might have been willing to throw caution to the wind to back the NFU’s claims on social media. But Truss knows she would be risking what little is left of DEFRA’s reputation for science based policy making, if she followed his example.

Badger cull has failed tax payers, farmers and wildlife

The level of incompetence, negligence and deceit surrounding the badger cull policy is staggering. The policy has cost huge amounts of public money, free shooting the killing method being tested has proved a disastrous failure, none of the badgers killed have been tested for TB, cull targets have been missed and many badgers have died long painful deaths.

What makes all this worse is that the Government together with the NFU developed a risk register for the badger cull policy in secret in 2010, which accurately foresaw all these failures. However this document was hidden from public view and was only released after a two year fight in the High Court, with the Badger Trust and the Information Commissioner joining forces against the Government on freedom of information grounds.

The badger cull policy has driven a wedge between the public and farming industry, led to a significant increase in the illegal persecution of badgers and proved a dangerous distraction from the need for more effective TB cattle testing systems and the introduction of a TB cattle vaccine.

Playing politics with wildlife has proved a dangerous game with no clear winners. The badger cull policy has failed tax payers, farmers and our wildlife and the vast majority of the public, MPs and scientists with expertise in animal health and disease control, now believe it should come to an end.

However the badger cull was a political policy agreed by David Cameron prior to the 2010 election to help win votes from the farming and landowning community.

Despite its catastrophic failure the Prime Minister is holding on to the wreckage for his political life and he will keep playing the badger blame game, as he needs every vote to remain in office after 7th May.

 

 

Dominic Dyer is CEO of the Badger Trust & Policy Advisor for Care for the Wild.

 




391303

Fail – 2014 badger cull didn’t kill enough badgers to be effective Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




In the flurry of the holiday season, many people will have missed the government’s verdict on the 2014 badger culls, published on December 18 (but not The Ecologist).

Farmers’ representatives have branded these recent culls “successful“, and environment secretary Liz Truss claims that they show how culling “can work to reduce disease“, confirming her plan to extend this controversial approach across western England.

Cattle farmers have suffered terribly as a result of bovine tuberculosis (TB). Many are desperate, and would welcome a cull of badgers, which research (including my own) has shown to be a source of infection for cattle. Sadly, a closer look at the evidence suggests that the 2014 culls bring little hope of succour.

Despite the environment secretary’s optimism, there is so far no evidence that these pilot culls have reduced disease.

The government has commissioned research to estimate the impacts of pilot badger culling on cattle TB but no results have been published to date, nor are any benefits anticipated so soon after the start of the annual culls. Culled badgers have not even been tested for TB.

Since changes in cattle TB take so long to emerge, in the short-term the government measures culling success in terms of reduced badger numbers. This is an appropriate measure because, perversely, killing too few badgers increases cattle TB rather than reducing it.

The effects of badger culling

In a randomised controlled trial conducted in 1998-2007, cattle TB was consistently elevated where culling reduced indices of badger numbers by 10-35%. By contrast, nearby farms saw gradual reductions in cattle TB where large-scale culling reduced the same indices by 69-73%.

To achieve similar benefits (and to avoid increasing cattle TB), the 2013-4 culls were intended to reduce badger numbers by at least 70%.

The first two culls, conducted in 2013, clearly failed to achieve this aim. Government scientists, overseen by an independent expert panel, estimated the reduction in numbers by identifying individual badgers from hair entangled in barbed wire traps.

They estimated that between 37% and 51% of badgers were killed in the Somerset cull zone, with between 43% and 56% killed in Gloucestershire.

For the second year of culling, the government discarded both independent oversight and the hair trapping method which had revealed the first year’s failures.

Before the 2014 culls commenced, the government’s planned monitoring methods were so inadequate that I warned: “any future claim that the 2014 culls have reduced badger numbers sufficiently to control TB will be completely baseless.”

The claims – and the numbers

Although ministers and farming representatives do indeed now claim success, the numbers tell a different story. There are no published estimates of the percent reductions achieved by the 2014 culls.

Instead, claims of success are based on the number of badgers killed in Somerset, which reached the minimum target required by the culling licence (the Gloucestershire cull spectacularly failed to meet its target, killing just 274 badgers against a target of 615).

Yet the Somerset target was derived from the lower bound on the range of possible badger numbers, rather than from the best estimate. If the estimation method was accurate, there would be a 97.5% chance that the true population size was greater than this lower bound, and hence that the target was too low.

Despite having met this target, statistically it is still far more likely than not that the 2014 Somerset culls failed to reduce badger numbers by 70% as planned.

Simple calculations provide further evidence of ineffective culling in Somerset. Government scientists estimate that, before any culling took place, the Somerset zone contained between 1,876 and 2,584 badgers. The total number of badgers killed (341 last year plus 955 in 2013) comprises just 69% of the lowest estimate.

Taking into account the fact that births and immigration would have increased badger numbers between the two culls, the population cannot have been reduced by “at least 70%” if the government’s population estimates were correct.

How many more ‘victories’ like this can the NFU afford to win?

Government documents describe Somerset’s low target as “precautionary”. But from the perspective of disease control – the justification for killing otherwise protected wildlife – it risked worsening cattle TB and was hence the opposite of precautionary.

With separate maximum targets in place to avoid killing too many badgers, the only risk reduced by a low target was the risk of a cherished project being branded a failure. Failing to reduce badger populations sufficiently risks exacerbating cattle TB, potentially making a bad situation worse.

Farming leaders have managed to press forward with badger culling in the face of scientific consensus, legal challenge, public opinion and a groundswell of protest.

In future they may look back on such victories as Pyrrhic: one more such victory might undo the farmers they strive to support.

 

 

Rosie Woodroffe is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Zoology, Senior Research Fellow at the Zoological Society of London and Visiting Professor at Imperial College, London. A biologist developing tools to foster coexistence of people and wildlife, she is undertaking field projects on badgers in Cornwall and African wild dogs and cheetahs in Kenya.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




389200

2014 badger cull failed – but the cull goes on Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Government today has released the results of the 2014 badger culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset.

In West Gloucestershire the cull was an outright failure. To be consider ‘effective’, the cull needed to kill at least 615 badgers, and no more than 1091. In fact, just 274 were killed – less than half of the minimum figure.

Defra today blamed the failure on the “challenges of extensive unlawful protest and intimidation” in Gloucestershire – an admission that may only encourage badger groups opposing the cull.

In West Somerset the cull killed 341 badgers – just within the specified range of 316 – 785.

But in fact, badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe has  dismissed the targets as having been in effect fixed at dangerously low levels to make them easier to meet. 

“The targets are all rubbish because they are based on rubbish data. In Somerset they set themselves an unbelievably easy target”, she told the Guardian in October. “It was not set in line with their aim – to kill at least 70% of badgers. They have completely thrown that out.”

Spread of bovine TB could actually be increased

The danger is that if too few badgers are killed, populations are disrupted causing increased badger movements, and more spreading of bovine TB among badgers and cattle. To prevent that the aim is to kill 70% of the population.

The badger population was estimated by counting the number of setts in the area, then multiplying it by the estimated number of badgers per sett. In Somerset, that led to a minimum cull number between 316 and 1,776 badgers – of which Defra chose the lowest possible figure.

It’s therefore highly likely that the 341 badgers killed in the Somerset cull is well under the 70% threshold for effectiveness and will serve only to disrupt badger society and increase the spread of bovine TB.

“In a clear attempt to bury bad news over Christmas, the report paints a picture of a disastrous policy which has clearly failed on scientific, economic and humaneness grounds”, said Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Badger Trust.

Gloucestershire cull should not continue unless more effective

Nigel Gibbens, chief veterinary officer at Defra, said: “Given the level of badger population reduction estimated in the Somerset cull area in 2014, the benefits of reducing the disease in cattle over the planned four-year cull can be expected to be realised there.”

However he issued a stark warning over the Cloucestershire cull: “Given the lower level of badger population reduction in the Gloucestershire cull area over the past two years, the benefits of reducing the disease in cattle may not be realised there.”

And he added that culling should continue in Gloucestershire in 2015 only if there are “reasonable grounds for confidence that it can be carried out more effectively”.

He also conceded that there was “room for disagreement” over the humaneness of the culling, with some badgers surviving in agony for five minutes after being shot.

Environment secretary Liz Truss insisted: “The chief vet’s advice is that the results of this year’s cull in Somerset show they can be effective. That is why I am determined to continue with a comprehensive strategy that includes culling.”

Bring an end to this cruel policy!

But Dyer disagrees: “Despite spending millions of pounds of tax payers money the DEFRA Chief Veterinary Officer admits for the first time today that the badger cull is failing. It’s now time for the Government to admit it has got it wrong and bring an end to this disastrous cruel policy once and for all.

“It should now follow the example of Wales and introduce annual TB testing for cattle combined with tighter bio security and cattle control movements, with compliance linked to CAP single payments for farmers.

“This policy has delivered a 48% drop in the number of cattle slaughtered for TB in Wales in the last 5 years without killing any badgers at all.”

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




382026

Badger cubs to be shot in new ‘summer cull’ plan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Badger cubs will be shot under plans to shift the controversial cull to early summer in 2015, the Guardian has learned.

The badger culls, aimed at curbing tuberculosis in cattle, have so far taken place in the autumn and have repeatedly missed their minimum kill targets.

Cubs are easier to catch and shoot and are more numerous in early summer, making it more likely an earlier cull will hit its target.

But scientists have warned killing cubs rather than adults has less effect on cutting TB, while animal campaigners condemned the plan as “appallingly crude and desperate”.

The National Farmers Union (NFU), which speaks for the culling companies, said government licences permit culling to begin any time from June. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the timing of the culls was a decision for the culling companies.

Summer cull to begin as early as June 2015

Badger cubs are born underground in February and first emerge in April. While the cubs and their parents legally cannot be culled until the start of June, it is legal to shoot them under licence afterwards.

The cullers intend to start in June or July 2015, according to Guardian sources. However, leading badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe, at the Zoological Society of London, said:

“They may well catch more badgers if they cull in June, because young cubs are naïve and easy to trap. But many of cubs die in their first year, especially in dry summers. So killing 100 badgers in June wouldn’t reduce the badger population as much as killing 100 badgers in November.

“Also, cubs are much less likely to have TB, so killing cubs would not have the same effect on reducing disease as killing adults.”

Woodroffe was a key member of an earlier landmark and decade-long culling trial which found that TB in cattle could actually be made worse if the badger population was not heavily reduced, as surviving but disturbed badgers spread the disease more widely.

“An earlier cull would seem to be more about trying to achieve a target number of badgers killed, rather than controlling TB. It’s more like meeting the letter of the law, rather than the spirit”, said Woodroffe.

She believes the cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire, judged in April not to be effective or humane, should stop immediately.

NFU: the cull must go on

The NFU disagrees. “The NFU remains convinced the current pilot culls will help deliver a reduction of TB in cattle and it is vital that they are allowed to be successfully completed so they can achieve the maximum benefit”, said a spokesman.

“We also remain committed to seeing badger culling rolled out to other areas where TB is endemic to help control and eradicate this terrible disease, which continues to devastate the lives of farming families.”

The Conservatives are understood to want a roll-out, but have been opposed by their LibDem coalition partners. The NFU spokesman added:

“The terms of the existing four-year licences mean that culling can begin from 1 June. This has always been the case. We are not aware that any decision has been made as yet about the timings of next year’s cull.”

Claire Bass, executive director of the Humane Society International / UK said: “If true, an earlier cull would be an appallingly crude and desperate tactic to boost the number of badgers killed to create a veneer of success in an otherwise failed and discredited badger cull policy.

“Not only is it a moral outrage to allow marksmen to take pot shots at baby badgers simply to provide a larger body count, but it makes even less scientific sense than the current strategy, as the likelihood of cubs carrying the disease is even lower than adults.”

The earlier landmark culling trial found 12% of adult badgers had TB but only 8% of cubs.

A Defra spokesman said: “England has the highest levels of bovine TB in Europe which is why we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to make England free of the disease, including cattle measures, vaccinations and culling badgers where TB is rife.

“The licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire allow culling to commence any time from 1 June, which was based on the advice of wildlife experts.”

 

 

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

This article originally appeared on the Guardian. It is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




388016

Badger cubs to be shot in new ‘summer cull’ plan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Badger cubs will be shot under plans to shift the controversial cull to early summer in 2015, the Guardian has learned.

The badger culls, aimed at curbing tuberculosis in cattle, have so far taken place in the autumn and have repeatedly missed their minimum kill targets.

Cubs are easier to catch and shoot and are more numerous in early summer, making it more likely an earlier cull will hit its target.

But scientists have warned killing cubs rather than adults has less effect on cutting TB, while animal campaigners condemned the plan as “appallingly crude and desperate”.

The National Farmers Union (NFU), which speaks for the culling companies, said government licences permit culling to begin any time from June. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the timing of the culls was a decision for the culling companies.

Summer cull to begin as early as June 2015

Badger cubs are born underground in February and first emerge in April. While the cubs and their parents legally cannot be culled until the start of June, it is legal to shoot them under licence afterwards.

The cullers intend to start in June or July 2015, according to Guardian sources. However, leading badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe, at the Zoological Society of London, said:

“They may well catch more badgers if they cull in June, because young cubs are naïve and easy to trap. But many of cubs die in their first year, especially in dry summers. So killing 100 badgers in June wouldn’t reduce the badger population as much as killing 100 badgers in November.

“Also, cubs are much less likely to have TB, so killing cubs would not have the same effect on reducing disease as killing adults.”

Woodroffe was a key member of an earlier landmark and decade-long culling trial which found that TB in cattle could actually be made worse if the badger population was not heavily reduced, as surviving but disturbed badgers spread the disease more widely.

“An earlier cull would seem to be more about trying to achieve a target number of badgers killed, rather than controlling TB. It’s more like meeting the letter of the law, rather than the spirit”, said Woodroffe.

She believes the cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire, judged in April not to be effective or humane, should stop immediately.

NFU: the cull must go on

The NFU disagrees. “The NFU remains convinced the current pilot culls will help deliver a reduction of TB in cattle and it is vital that they are allowed to be successfully completed so they can achieve the maximum benefit”, said a spokesman.

“We also remain committed to seeing badger culling rolled out to other areas where TB is endemic to help control and eradicate this terrible disease, which continues to devastate the lives of farming families.”

The Conservatives are understood to want a roll-out, but have been opposed by their LibDem coalition partners. The NFU spokesman added:

“The terms of the existing four-year licences mean that culling can begin from 1 June. This has always been the case. We are not aware that any decision has been made as yet about the timings of next year’s cull.”

Claire Bass, executive director of the Humane Society International / UK said: “If true, an earlier cull would be an appallingly crude and desperate tactic to boost the number of badgers killed to create a veneer of success in an otherwise failed and discredited badger cull policy.

“Not only is it a moral outrage to allow marksmen to take pot shots at baby badgers simply to provide a larger body count, but it makes even less scientific sense than the current strategy, as the likelihood of cubs carrying the disease is even lower than adults.”

The earlier landmark culling trial found 12% of adult badgers had TB but only 8% of cubs.

A Defra spokesman said: “England has the highest levels of bovine TB in Europe which is why we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to make England free of the disease, including cattle measures, vaccinations and culling badgers where TB is rife.

“The licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire allow culling to commence any time from 1 June, which was based on the advice of wildlife experts.”

 

 

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

This article originally appeared on the Guardian. It is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




388016

Badger cubs to be shot in new ‘summer cull’ plan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Badger cubs will be shot under plans to shift the controversial cull to early summer in 2015, the Guardian has learned.

The badger culls, aimed at curbing tuberculosis in cattle, have so far taken place in the autumn and have repeatedly missed their minimum kill targets.

Cubs are easier to catch and shoot and are more numerous in early summer, making it more likely an earlier cull will hit its target.

But scientists have warned killing cubs rather than adults has less effect on cutting TB, while animal campaigners condemned the plan as “appallingly crude and desperate”.

The National Farmers Union (NFU), which speaks for the culling companies, said government licences permit culling to begin any time from June. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the timing of the culls was a decision for the culling companies.

Summer cull to begin as early as June 2015

Badger cubs are born underground in February and first emerge in April. While the cubs and their parents legally cannot be culled until the start of June, it is legal to shoot them under licence afterwards.

The cullers intend to start in June or July 2015, according to Guardian sources. However, leading badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe, at the Zoological Society of London, said:

“They may well catch more badgers if they cull in June, because young cubs are naïve and easy to trap. But many of cubs die in their first year, especially in dry summers. So killing 100 badgers in June wouldn’t reduce the badger population as much as killing 100 badgers in November.

“Also, cubs are much less likely to have TB, so killing cubs would not have the same effect on reducing disease as killing adults.”

Woodroffe was a key member of an earlier landmark and decade-long culling trial which found that TB in cattle could actually be made worse if the badger population was not heavily reduced, as surviving but disturbed badgers spread the disease more widely.

“An earlier cull would seem to be more about trying to achieve a target number of badgers killed, rather than controlling TB. It’s more like meeting the letter of the law, rather than the spirit”, said Woodroffe.

She believes the cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire, judged in April not to be effective or humane, should stop immediately.

NFU: the cull must go on

The NFU disagrees. “The NFU remains convinced the current pilot culls will help deliver a reduction of TB in cattle and it is vital that they are allowed to be successfully completed so they can achieve the maximum benefit”, said a spokesman.

“We also remain committed to seeing badger culling rolled out to other areas where TB is endemic to help control and eradicate this terrible disease, which continues to devastate the lives of farming families.”

The Conservatives are understood to want a roll-out, but have been opposed by their LibDem coalition partners. The NFU spokesman added:

“The terms of the existing four-year licences mean that culling can begin from 1 June. This has always been the case. We are not aware that any decision has been made as yet about the timings of next year’s cull.”

Claire Bass, executive director of the Humane Society International / UK said: “If true, an earlier cull would be an appallingly crude and desperate tactic to boost the number of badgers killed to create a veneer of success in an otherwise failed and discredited badger cull policy.

“Not only is it a moral outrage to allow marksmen to take pot shots at baby badgers simply to provide a larger body count, but it makes even less scientific sense than the current strategy, as the likelihood of cubs carrying the disease is even lower than adults.”

The earlier landmark culling trial found 12% of adult badgers had TB but only 8% of cubs.

A Defra spokesman said: “England has the highest levels of bovine TB in Europe which is why we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to make England free of the disease, including cattle measures, vaccinations and culling badgers where TB is rife.

“The licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire allow culling to commence any time from 1 June, which was based on the advice of wildlife experts.”

 

 

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

This article originally appeared on the Guardian. It is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




388016

Badger cubs to be shot in new ‘summer cull’ plan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Badger cubs will be shot under plans to shift the controversial cull to early summer in 2015, the Guardian has learned.

The badger culls, aimed at curbing tuberculosis in cattle, have so far taken place in the autumn and have repeatedly missed their minimum kill targets.

Cubs are easier to catch and shoot and are more numerous in early summer, making it more likely an earlier cull will hit its target.

But scientists have warned killing cubs rather than adults has less effect on cutting TB, while animal campaigners condemned the plan as “appallingly crude and desperate”.

The National Farmers Union (NFU), which speaks for the culling companies, said government licences permit culling to begin any time from June. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the timing of the culls was a decision for the culling companies.

Summer cull to begin as early as June 2015

Badger cubs are born underground in February and first emerge in April. While the cubs and their parents legally cannot be culled until the start of June, it is legal to shoot them under licence afterwards.

The cullers intend to start in June or July 2015, according to Guardian sources. However, leading badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe, at the Zoological Society of London, said:

“They may well catch more badgers if they cull in June, because young cubs are naïve and easy to trap. But many of cubs die in their first year, especially in dry summers. So killing 100 badgers in June wouldn’t reduce the badger population as much as killing 100 badgers in November.

“Also, cubs are much less likely to have TB, so killing cubs would not have the same effect on reducing disease as killing adults.”

Woodroffe was a key member of an earlier landmark and decade-long culling trial which found that TB in cattle could actually be made worse if the badger population was not heavily reduced, as surviving but disturbed badgers spread the disease more widely.

“An earlier cull would seem to be more about trying to achieve a target number of badgers killed, rather than controlling TB. It’s more like meeting the letter of the law, rather than the spirit”, said Woodroffe.

She believes the cull pilots in Somerset and Gloucestershire, judged in April not to be effective or humane, should stop immediately.

NFU: the cull must go on

The NFU disagrees. “The NFU remains convinced the current pilot culls will help deliver a reduction of TB in cattle and it is vital that they are allowed to be successfully completed so they can achieve the maximum benefit”, said a spokesman.

“We also remain committed to seeing badger culling rolled out to other areas where TB is endemic to help control and eradicate this terrible disease, which continues to devastate the lives of farming families.”

The Conservatives are understood to want a roll-out, but have been opposed by their LibDem coalition partners. The NFU spokesman added:

“The terms of the existing four-year licences mean that culling can begin from 1 June. This has always been the case. We are not aware that any decision has been made as yet about the timings of next year’s cull.”

Claire Bass, executive director of the Humane Society International / UK said: “If true, an earlier cull would be an appallingly crude and desperate tactic to boost the number of badgers killed to create a veneer of success in an otherwise failed and discredited badger cull policy.

“Not only is it a moral outrage to allow marksmen to take pot shots at baby badgers simply to provide a larger body count, but it makes even less scientific sense than the current strategy, as the likelihood of cubs carrying the disease is even lower than adults.”

The earlier landmark culling trial found 12% of adult badgers had TB but only 8% of cubs.

A Defra spokesman said: “England has the highest levels of bovine TB in Europe which is why we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to make England free of the disease, including cattle measures, vaccinations and culling badgers where TB is rife.

“The licences in Somerset and Gloucestershire allow culling to commence any time from 1 June, which was based on the advice of wildlife experts.”

 

 

Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian.

This article originally appeared on the Guardian. It is republished with thanks via the Guardian Environment Network.

 




388016

Unlawful, ineffective, toxic: the badger cull must end – vaccination is the answer Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




After a full day’s hearing in the Court of Appeal yesterday, we are back there today making our case to three senior judges that the Government’s failure to re-appoint its expert panel to oversee the 2014 badger cull makes the exercise unlawful.

Without such a Panel, we argue, there can be no proper independent assessment of the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of the culling operation – something that would be needed before any lawful decision could be taken to continue with further culls around the country.

Lord Justice Davis has indicated to us that judgment will be handed down without unnecessary delay, and we keenly await the outcome. And as we do so, let’s take stock of where we are, how we got there, and what the future holds.

A catastrophic policy failure

The late Edward Kennedy once said “Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy and deceit is poison in its veins.” These words resonate with me when it comes to discussing the disastrous badger cull policy which has done so much to undermine the reputation of our political system over the past few years.

Of all the controversial policies this coalition Government has implemented, the badger cull stands out for one reason, it is based largely on a web of deceit which has been spun by the Prime Minister, Owen Paterson and his replacement as DEFRA Secretary of State Liz Truss.

The badger cull was never about science or indeed effective disease control, it was a desperate attempt by David Cameron to shore up support for the Tory Party in rural communities ahead of the 2010 election, by ensuring strong support for pro badger cull Tory candidates from the National Farmers Union and Countryside Alliance.

The policy could only be delivered by a politician who was closely aligned to both these organisations and comfortable to spin a web of deceit and misinformation to MPs, media and wider public.

Caroline Spelman was not this type of politician, but Owen Paterson was perfect for the job. From his first day in office, he made it clear to his senior officials that the cull policy was to be implemented no matter what the costs or opposition from conservation and wildlife groups.

He put his civil servants to work developing a pro cull propaganda machine to paint a highly inaccurate picture of the scale and cost of the bovine TB crisis and the need to eradicate badgers to get it under control.

Blame the badgers!

To start with DEFRA did all it could to blame badgers as being the prime cause of TB in cattle. In fact the vast majority of TB infections are between cattle, which are often housed in large numbers in sheds and moved around the country (over 13 million a year) with poor biosecurity, control movements and TB testing regimes.

In reality the poor badger has been the victim of industrial pollution on a huge scale from the most intensive livestock industry in Europe.

It’s the cattle which have infected the badgers with TB. And despite claims from Owen Paterson that the transmission rate from badgers to cattle is 50% (figure based on a mathematical model), the true level of TB transmission is likely to be in the region of 5%.

We were then told by DEFRA that bovine TB is the biggest crisis facing the UK farming industry and unless we kill badgers it will end up costing the tax payer over £1 billion in the next decade.

In reality the level of compensation paid to farmers for cattle prematurely slaughtered due to TB runs to around £40 million a year, over £20 million of which was recovered by the treasury as a result of the sale of TB meat into the food chain in 2013, without labelling or traceability.

Over the last year these costs have started to decline as the number of cattle slaughtered for TB has dropped by almost 10%, as a result of tighter biosecurity, control movements and TB testing systems forced on the UK Government by the European Commission.

Spread false fears

Owen Paterson also made it a key goal to demonise badgers by spreading false fears over the level of TB within the badger population, by regularly talking in the media of super excreters exploding with disease and infecting cattle at a rapid rate.

In reality of over 11,000 badgers killed in the Randomised Badger Cull by the last Labour Government, only 1.65% fell into this category.

A further 15% had low level TB, which would not impact on the health of the badger during its short lifetime, or make it a major risk of disease spread to other badgers or cattle.

This is the key reason why DEFRA has not tested any of the badgers killed during the pilot culls for TB: they know the results would show a very low level of disease, which would not justify their plans to eradicate large numbers of this protected species from many parts of the country.

In Wales where thousands of badgers have now been vaccinated against TB during the past three years, not a single one has needed to be removed and euthanised because they were visibly sick with TB lesions, despite being in a TB hotspot area.

Attempting to undermine Wales’s successful policies

Then we come to the cost justification for badger culling over badger vaccination. In the run up to the badger culls in 2013, Owen Paterson did all he could to undermine the Welsh government badger vaccination programme on both cost and effectiveness and grounds.

He claimed that free shooting of badgers at night would be the most effective and humane way of removing large number of badgers at a much lower cost than trapping and vaccination.

However, we have now learned from Freedom of Information Requests that in the initial 6 weeks of the pilot culls in 2013, only 24% of the estimated badger population in Gloucestershire and Somerset were killed by free shooting.

The vast majority of badgers killed in both pilot culls were by government employed trap teams, with higher costs than the Welsh government vaccination programme. Which brings us to the key issue of the overall costs of the pilot culls and a national rollout programme for badger culling.

An England-wide badger cull could cost taxpayers £800 million

On 6 January 2014, Care for Wild released a report based on Freedom of Information Requests, Parliamentary Questions and leaked documents, which estimated an overall cost for the pilot culls of £7.3 million or over £4,000 per dead badger.

In the days that followed, these estimates were backed up by the BBC and the police, who confirmed their costs for the badger cull pilots, exceeded £2.5 million alone.

Any justification that was left for the disastrous badger cull was blown apart by these huge costs.

It is now widely accepted that a 4 year badger cull in Gloucester and Somerset would cost in the region of £20 million, but would only deliver around £2.5 million benefit to the tax payer in terms of reducing the spread of bovine TB.

If – as Owen Paterson boasted to the Sunday Times in 2013 – badger culling was rolled out to 40 new areas of England over the next 4 years, the overall cost could exceed £800 million.

David Cameron’s gamble to appoint Owen Paterson as Environment Secretary to deliver the badger cull blew up in his face. He had no choice but to sack him in his recent Cabinet reshuffle as he had become political poison in the party.

In replacing Paterson, the Prime Minister had the opportunity to appoint a new DEFRA Secretary of State who listens to public concerns on protecting wildlife, puts science not politics back at the heart of DEFRA policy making and finds a new way forward in tackling bovine TB, which protects both the future of our wildlife and farming industry.

However, he chose to appoint the inexperienced Liz Truss who has continued on the path of pushing ahead with the disastrous badger cull policy, in the face of huge opposition without any independent monitoring.

An increasingly toxic issue

A recent Mori Poll confirmed that opposition to badger culling was the 5th most common cause for complaint to MPs during the past 12 months, ahead of issues such as education, childcare and taxes.

Over the past 12 months tens of thousands of people have marched against the badger culls in 25 towns and cities across the country, in what has become the largest rolling wildlife protection campaign in Europe.

Over 300,000 people signed a petition against the policy, two debates have taken place in Parliament and the lack of independent monitoring for the cull has been subject to a Judicial Review challenge by the Badger Trust, which went before the Court of Appeal on the 9 October.

The Labour Party can see where public opinion is going on this issue and have made a clear commitment to stop the pilot badger culls and any national rollout should it form a government in May 2015.

The Liberal Democrats have also made it clear they no longer want to be associated with a national badger culling policy, unless it can be proven to effective on scientific, humaneness and safety grounds.

At the Conservative Party conference, a mood of rebellion

Killing badgers has become so sensitive within the Tory Party that David Cameron advised Liz Truss to avoid mentioning the badger cull policy at all in her first speech to the Tory Conference in Birmingham.

But delegates entering the conference hall still had to run the gauntlet of anti- badger cull protesters at the start of the conference.

On the fringe Tory MP’s such as Anne Main were calling on David Cameron to accept that badger culling has no scientific, economic or animal welfare justification and will make no significant contribution to lowering bovine TB.

Looking to the next election, many Tory MPs admit to being increasingly concerned by how badly badger culling goes down with their constituents.

Its time David Cameron realised that British people are uniquely caring and compassionate towards wildlife and will not allow a protected species such as badgers be destroyed due to backroom deals with landowning and farming interests.

He should now dust off his plans for the Big Society which still has merit and make badger vaccination a key Big Society Project.

Thousands of people are willing to volunteer to be trained as lay vaccinators and work with farmers and landowners to vaccinate badgers across the country to reduce the spread of the disease in both badgers and cattle.

This will not only prove a more popular policy with voters, but it will the right thing to do for farmers, tax payers and the future of our precious wildlife.

 

 

Dominic Dyer is CEO of the Badger Trust & Policy Advisor Care for the Wild.

 

 




383895

Badger cull fail – government throws science on the scrapheap Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is expected to cost British taxpayers nearly £100m in 2014. Scientific evidence is a vital weapon in the fight to protect cattle from TB.

Why, then, has the government just fought and won a legal battle to avoid consulting independent scientists on its most high-profile TB control effort?

Wild badgers play a role in transmitting TB to cattle, and culling badgers seems an obvious solution. A new round of badger culls is about to start, but it is risky.

A complex interaction between badger behaviour and TB transmission means that the results of culling could, depending on various factors, increase TB levels, instead of reducing them. To add to that, badger culling is expensive.

An expert scientific body was appointed – and quite right too

This is why, in 2013, the government started a pilot that it hoped would be give them a cheap and effective way to control cattle TB. Farmers, rather than government, would pay for the culling. And, rather than being cage-trapped, badgers would be shot in the wild.

This pilot was started in just two areas – and for good reason: the whole approach was untested, and the stakes were high. Marksmen shooting at night might endanger public safety.

Shooting free-ranging badgers might cause suffering. And, worst of all for the aims of the approach, failing to kill enough badgers, fast enough, would worsen the cattle TB situation that the culls were intended to control.

In the face of such uncertainty, the government adopted a commonly used approach. It appointed an Independent Expert Panel to assess the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of the pilot project. The expectation was that this panel’s conclusions would reflect scientific evidence, whether or not they supported government policy.

What the IEP found – ineffective and inhumane

The Independent Expert Panel found that farmer-led culling was far from effective. Tasked with killing at least 70% of the local badgers within a six-week period, cull teams only managed to kill between 28% and 48%.

Culling periods were extended, but still the total kill rose to just 31-56%, according to government figures. Unless more badgers could be killed, and faster, farmer-led culling risked worsening the problem it was intended to solve.

The 2013 culls also failed to meet their targets for animal welfare. Between 7.4% and 22.8% of badgers were still alive five minutes after being shot and were assumed to have experienced “marked pain”.

Despite facing these failures, the government decided to repeat culls in the same areas in 2014. If effectiveness and humaneness could be improved sufficiently, culling might be extended to more areas in 2015. If not, the government might need to reconsider their policy.

One would think, then, that measuring effectiveness and humaneness would be a central goal of 2014’s culls.

IEP advice comprehensively ignored

The Independent Expert Panel, together with government scientists, selected the most accurate and precise ways to estimate the effectiveness and humaneness of the 2013 culls.

Measuring effectiveness is challenging because – being nocturnal and shy – badgers are hard to count. The panel overcame this problem by using genetic ‘fingerprints’ to identify badgers from hair snagged on barbed wire.

They measured humaneness primarily through independent observers recording the time that shot badgers took to die.

The panel recommended that the same approaches be used for subsequent culls. But the government rejected this recommendation.

This year there will be no attempt to count badgers in the cull areas, either before or after the culls. The time badgers take to die will not be recorded. There will be no oversight by independent scientists.

Instead, the effectiveness of the culls which start tonight will be judged using a method so utterly inadequate it was barely considered in 2013.

Key data will be collected by marksmen themselves: people with a vested interest in the cull being designated “effective” and “humane”, who in 2013 collected data so unreliable it was considered unusable by the panel.

Available information suggests that any future claim that the 2014 culls have reduced badger numbers sufficiently to control TB will be completely baseless.

Failing to collect evidence will make the 2014 a fiasco

Why the change in approach? Government cites cost, and hired some expensive lawyers to defend its position when the Badger Trust sought, and eventually lost, a judicial review of the decision to scrap independent scientific oversight of this year’s culls.

Yet the cost of pushing forward with an ineffective culling policy would far outweigh the cost of properly assessing effectiveness and humaneness.

Government has repeatedly referred to its programme of badger culling as “science-led“. One would expect a science-led policy to entail gathering reliable information on management outcomes, and using this and other evidence to inform future decisions.

Choosing – against formal expert advice – to collect inconsistent, inadequate and potentially biased data is an insult to evidence-based policymaking.

When ineffective culling can make a bad situation worse, failing to collect the evidence needed to evaluate future policy fails farmers, taxpayers and wildlife.

 

 

Rosie Woodroffe is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Zoology. She gratefully acknowledges research funding from Defra.

More about the badger cull on The Ecologist.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 




383895

Defying reality – Natural England authorises ‘unlawful’ cull Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




You have to hand it to Natural England. Their timing of their authorisation for 2014 badger cull was nothing short of extraordinary.

It comes just as the High Court ponders its judgment on the legality of the cull, following a Judicial Review hearing last week called by the Badger Trust.

It also pre-empts the outcome of a criminal investigation by Gloucestershire Police following serious revelations by a whistle-blowing monitor employed by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA).

As reported on 14th August by The Ecologist, the monitor revealed that last year’s pilot badger culls were not only badly organised – they were also full of dishonesty on the part of all those setting up and running the culls, and criminal behaviour on the part of the contractors doing the killing, seriously threatening the safety of the public.

Why the 2014 cull is unlawful

The Badger Trust set out a powerful case in the High Court last week, on 21st August, that any further culling must have independent monitoring and assessment, and would be unlawful in its absence.

This service was provided in the 2013 cull by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) – but Defra decided against asking them back this year. Instead, Defra has stated it will proceed with the culls without them, and that “lessons have been learned” – so no more monitoring is necessary.

How much time the Defra barrister had to present its defence is not clear. The hearing was scheduled to take a day and as this was just before a Bank Holiday weekend, no one would want it to run over time, including the man who has to decide on the case, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker.

During the morning session, it was clear that the Trust’s barrister was making extensive use of Defra’s own documentation on the culls. Was there anything left for Defra to use in its defence? And could any other facts affect the judgment that will come in due course? As it happened, yes.

The whistle blower report raises serious questions – and a criminal investigation

The very day after the High Court hearing the news was released that Gloucester Police were setting up a criminal investigation, following the claims made by the whistle-blower, more details of which are gradually being released.

If anything should demand proper independent monitoring, it is surely the kind of behaviour that the monitor reported to Defra, which appears to have taken little or no action over the claims.

The Badger Trust had written to Environment Secretary Liz Truss when the whistle-blower report first came out. Like everyone, they want some answers:

“As you will be aware, this article was based on information provided by a whistle blower who worked as a cull monitor for AHVLA during the 2013 pilot culls. It raises serious concerns about the behaviour of both badger cullers and AHVLA contractors, which call into question the safety of the cull as well as the monitoring of its effectiveness.

“We would be grateful if you could confirm if you were aware of these allegations and identify what steps Defra took at the time this information was provided to investigate, including whether it was passed to the Independent Expert Panel for consideration? Please also confirm what measures have been put in place to prevent any such occurrences happening again?”

The Trust is still waiting for answers, but Gloucester Police are finally taking some action over the public safety issue. What took them so long?

Only protestors were arrested – but none charged

Gloucester Against Badger Shooting (GABS) sent them a ‘specimen’ list of 26 incidents of wrongdoing by culling contractors in January.

The list details trespass, physical harassment of protesters (including at least one case of bodily injury) by contractors, and several firearms offences and gun licence infringements. Many of these were reported at the time of the offence to the police.

Gloucester Police did make 39 arrests during the cull, all of them involving protesters, none of whom ended up in court. The same unbalanced policing occurred in Somerset.

Were any contractors in either county arrested, questioned and charged? Not as far as we know. And serious questions have to be asked. As Dominic Dyer of the Badger Trust says:

“The AHVLA monitor provided a full report on the serious public safety breaches by the cull contractor to Defra in January and met with Defra officials to discuss its key findings.

“Did Owen Paterson see this report and if so why did he not bring it to the attention of the Independent Expert Panel and Parliament? Was it covered up to ensure the pilot culls could continue despite the serious risk to public safety?”

Anti-cull campaigners have often said that they feel the police were very uninformed over what contractors could or couldn’t do, what constituted ‘crimes’ and ‘offences’ and when they could, for instance, make arrests.

But as The Ecologist has made clear, this is a serious public safety issue, and one that needs to be urgently addressed before any more culling takes place.

SABC – police and Natural England must review the evidence

In their press release about the criminal investigation, Somerset Against the Badger Cull (SABC) say they are now asking both Avon and Somerset Police and Natural England to “review all the video, audio and written recordings from the AHVLA monitors from last year.” They feel, as many do, that the government is not to be trusted over the safety issue.

SABC “congratulates Gloucestershire police in taking this matter seriously and urges Avon and Somerset Constabulary to apply the same rigour before shooters such as these are let loose in our countryside again.”

Avon & Somerset have already announced that in future culls representatives of the National Farmers Union and the culling company HNV Associates Ltd will not be present in the police control room, something that caused outrage when it became known.

But it was one more sign that the setting up of the culls had been a shambles; that the people involved were poorly trained; that no proper safety assessments had been done; and very that little thought had been given to the role the police were expected to fulfil.

The police have failed – so far

The police are there to prevent crime, to investigate wrongdoing and arrest the perpetrators, and to protect the public from criminal behaviour.

They had been given so little information that they were unable to perform any of these duties during the cull. Adding to the problem they had received the impression (from both Defra, the NFU and the contracting companies) that anything the contractors did was lawful.

The second phase of the badger culls was supposed to have started this week. Things are on hold. The culls cannot be policed because of the NATO summit in Newport, which will require 9,000 of their officers to be on duty.

And will the government be foolhardy enough to go ahead without waiting for the result of the Judicial Review? Given their sheer arrogance, they may go ahead. But a wise man or woman, which the government apparently lacks, would wait.

And now Natural England gives the go-ahead

Surely now, before any further badger culling takes place, the issue of public safety must be faced and addressed by the government.

To have irresponsible gunmen, using high-powered rifles with bullets that can travel up to a mile with lethal effect and with little apparent knowledge of either our wildlife or the terrain within which they are operating, arrogantly bumbling out of control in the dark is simply not to be allowed.

Under such circumstances the police cannot ensure public safety and they need to make that clear to the government before someone gets shot.

And now that Natural England has issued its authorisations for the 2014 culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire, that could be sooner than we thought.

NE insists that Defra and the AHVLA have developed a robust monitoring regime. They appear not to have noticed that the whistle-blower was employed by the AHVLA.

To announce this just after the whistle-blower revelations; while the Judicial Review judgment is still to come; and when the police investigation has only just started demonstrates all too clearly how keen Natural England, Defra and their affiliates are to kill, regardless.

It’s enough to make me weep.

 

 

Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer who writes for The Ecologist on the badger cull and other environmental subjects.

See her other articles for The Ecologist.

 

 




379182