Abstract
The Badger Cull is a Government proposal which intends a mass killing of Badgers throughout England and Wales. The reason for this is that Badgers are the main carriers of Bovine Tuberculosis and are spreading it to the cattle. More than 25,000 cattle were slaughtered due to the disease last year alone. This is causing many problems for farmers and the tax payer, it is estimated that TB is cost steadily increasing and is estimated to cost a billion pound over a period of ten years if the disease isn’t stopped. This article suggests that the culling of badgers is a questionable method of preventing the spread of TB amongst cattle, due to the implications of perturbation and the amount it will cost, and how the government should find another way to reduce the spread of TB, through such methods as vaccinations, and cattle movement.
Key Words: Badger Cull, Tuberculosis, Animal Welfare.
Introduction
Autumn of 2012 marks a dark time for badgers throughout England as UK Government has now given the badger culling trials the go ahead. The environment secretary has said that culling trials will take place in two areas of England. The Government claim that the culling of tens of thousands of badgers will help to control the spread of TB amongst cattle, despite much evidence that culling can be ineffective. It has been said that not only does localised badger culling fail to control but also seems to increase TB incidence in cattle. (Donnelly and Others 2003) It was also said that ‘incomplete removal of badgers during localized badger trials had, at best, no effect, at worst an increase.’ (Carter and Others 2007)
Discussion
The Badger, for many years now, has been one of the most protected animals in British wildlife. Unlike rabbits, or foxes up until recently, it is illegal to kill or harm a badger under The Badgers Act 1973, yet for three decades, badges have been culled by the British government, seemingly to no avail. In order to tackle the increasing problem of Bovine Tuberculosis amongst cattle, it is important to tackle to disease in badgers. Over the past thirty years, thousands of badgers have been slaughtered in an attempt to tackle the disease. The largest case of these culls was the randomised badger culling trial, which took place over a period of 10 years and was conducted by the Independent Scientific Group, led by Lord Krebbs. During these trials badgers were trapped in cages and then shot.
The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), has now disbanded and concluded that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain. In the randomised badger culling trials, it was found that only 11 percent of the badgers that were culled were actually infected with TB, the British Government suspended the trials in 2003 because of its failure to reduce the incidence of cattle TB, the trial showed that that culling could be expected to help very little. The main reason for the failure, was perturbation. This is where the social patterns of badges are disturbed, causing them to leave their setts and move to a different area. In the randomized badger culling trials, it was found that there was a 23% reduction of TB inside proactive culling areas, but a 25% increase of TB in a 2km surrounding area. (Carter and Others 2007) The results show that the culling of badgers only makes the spread of TB worse and does not contain the disease; instead, it encourages the movement of badgers. (Woodruff and Others 2005) In order to effectively prevent perturbation, the cull would have to take place over a very large area so that badgers cannot move unnoticed between areas.
Experts brought in by DEFRA have said that the cull will reduce TB in cattle by 15 and 16 percent, leaving 85 percent of cattle still infected. (The Independent) Lead scientist of the randomised badger culling trials, Lord Krebbs, condemns the idea, believing that the expected reduction is too small to be worth it. Not only this, but during the randomised badger culling trials, the badgers were caged before being shot, free shooting has never been tested so the Government figures may not be correct, there may be an even smaller percent of reduction. Not only this, but the idea of placing farmers in charge of the cull is a dangerous one, if farmers get bored of culling, due to lack of results, or if the ownership of the culled land changes, then an increase of TB would be very likely.
It is suggested that cattle movement testing is a much more effective way of dealing with the disease. Cattle movement testing is simply the process whereby, when cattle is moved between herds, they should be tested pre-movement to ensure that they are free of disease, and therefore do not spread it to un-diseased herds. This method had been noted to help reduce the incidence of TB amongst cattle, however, it does not eliminate the spread of the disease completely. The National Trust, in a letter to the Government, suggested that the government tried using the method of cattle moving, and put the success of Northern Ireland down to pre-movement testing and a good system of cattle movement. (House of Commons, 2007-08) It has been said that it is ‘simply confirmed that badger culling will never be a solution to the problem of bovine TB. This makes it vital that DEFRA focuses its energies on controlling the movement of infected livestock.’ (Kavanagh 2006)
It is said that trapping and catching the badgers will cost too much, as will injecting vaccinations. Oral bait, has not yet been developed, it is expected to be ready by around 2015. Yet DEFRA have revealed that only £250,000 a year will be invested into research for badger vaccinations, whilst millions will be spent on killing them (DEFRA 2011) Ideally, the Government should concentrate on developing cattle vaccinations but there are EU regulations in place, which may take years to change. However, if more money and time was spent on these alternatives, rather than the cull, they may be achieved sooner than expected.
Parliament themselves have questioned the implications of attempting to wipe out an entire species of animal, they claim that culls, resulting in a long term removal of badgers would be opposed by English Nature, the Government agency which works to preserve the natural environment, and say that even the temporary removal of badgers would have a significant ‘conservation concern.’ (House of Commons 2006) Badgers will not be caged when they are shot, and as the culling will take place at night, it is more than likely that the badgers will be wounded rather than killed, and will suffer a slow, drawn out death. It has been said that ‘it is often difficult to distinguish the body from an average background. In fact, recognition of the badger is typically as a shapeless lump that is distinguished from the background chiefly by the ring of shadow created by the lamp...’ (RSPCA response to DEFRA consultation) This difficulty in identifying the badgers body will almost definitely result in wounding rather than a quick and painless death.
Farmers have to pay the costs of the cull, this initially sounds good for tax payers, but it will still end up costing the Government millions, so much that the cost will outweigh the benefits. Cost more than TB. The cost of policing will be very high as many of the public are opposed to the cull, two thirds of people openly condemn the cull and in a survey of 100 people, it was found that the single most preferred treatment of badgers was no culling at all (White and Whiting 2000) Animal rights activists are angry at the Governments decision and it is expected that many people will try to interfere with the cull to prevent it happening. DEFRA have stated that it will be impossible for the culling locations to be kept a secret from the public as local people need to be consulted before the cull begins. It has been decided that the cull will have to take place after the Olympics due to police resources being overstretched. It could cost up to 20 million just for policing costs alone over a period of four years. It will cost up to £4 million just for the two trials alone. (The Telegraph, 2012) Government figures suggest that they will have to pay out £1.4 million in each cull area, and only get £1.16 million back. It is not about protecting wildlife, it is all about money.
Conclusion
David Cameron has claimed that he wants his Government to be the ‘greenest ever government’ yet he is happy to go along with the cull, which will contribute to the destruction of wildlife. It has been said that the plan to cull badgers in England shows the new government does not respect scientific advice (Nature 2010) There is a wealth of evidence to show that culling simply does not go far enough to prevent the incidence of TB amongst cattle, yet the Government are determined to go ahead with this controversial plan. Millions of pounds will be spent and thousands of badgers will be slaughtered for such a small, 16% reduction of the disease amongst cattle. Many groups have asked the government to focus their time and money on other alternatives, such as vaccinations. It seems that the cull is simply in place as the Government are keen to appear to be acting upon the situation immediately, Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman has stated that ‘we cannot just do nothing’(The Telegraph, 2011), even though it has been said that ‘government-implemented, culling appears to be less effective at controlling cattle TB than no (legal) culling at all.’ (Woodruff and Others 2005), therefore, doing nothing, would be the preferable option. Leading scientists have condemned the idea and the majority of the public have expressed upset at the idea, yet for now, it seems that it is to go ahead.
.
References
RSPCA response to DEFRA consultation, Bovine Tuberculosis: The Government’s approach to tackling the disease and consultation on a badger control policy, found at:
http://www.rspca.org.uk
The Independent (2011) ‘Caroline Spelman fires starting gun on badger cull’, found at: http://www.independent.co.uk
DEFRA, 2011, Update on measures to tackle bovine TB, found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk
Woodruff and Others 2005: WOODRUFF.R & OTHERS (2005) Effects of culling on badger Meles meles spatial organization: implications for the control of bovine tuberculosis, Journal of Applied Ecology Vol: 43 pp1-10
MACDONALD.D.W, RIORDAN.P & MATTHEWS.F (2006) Biological hurdles to the control of TB in cattle: A test of two hypotheses concerning wildlife to explain the failure of control, Biological conservation vol 131 p: 268-286
Carter and Others 2007: CARTER.S.P & Others (2007) Culling-induced social perturbation in Eurasian badgers Meles meles and the management of TB in cattle: an analysis of a critical problem in applied ecology The Royal Society Vol: 274 pp2769-2777
White and Whiting 2000: White.p.c.l & Whiting.S.J 2000 Public attitudes towards badger culling to control bovine tuberculosis in cattle Vetinary record Vol 147 pp179-184
House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Bovine TB: Badger Culling, Sixth Report of session 2005-06 Vol 2
House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Badgers and Cattle TB: The final report of the independent scientific group on cattle TB. Fourth report on session 2007-08 Vol 2
Donnelly and Others 2003: Donnelly.C.A & Others 2003, Impact of localised badger culling on tuberculosis incidence on British cattle, Nature, Vol:426 pp 834-837
Kavanagh 2006: Kavanagh.D, A Country Pillow Book (2006 Dram B\ooks)
Nature 2010: Nature (2010) International Weekly Journal of Science, Vol: 467
The Telegraph, 2011, Badger Cull; The doubts remain, found at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
The Telegraph 2012, Cull of thousands of badgers will be 'difficult to police' warns David Cameron, found at:
No comments:
Post a Comment