A quirky look at wildlife. To be taken with a pinch of
salt, but with more than a grain of truth!

Those of you who follow my scribblings will know that I am a huge badger fan, being privileged to have them visit me in my garden of their own free will.

So you will understand why I am confused and angry that once again the threat of 'culling' has raised its ugly head. Prof David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the government, has recommended badger culling to control bovine TB in cattle. This in spite of a Govt. report published in June of this year, saying precisely the opposite.

I need someone to explain how in the UK on the one hand, we can have laws which make it a serious offence to disturb badgers' setts, indulge in badger baiting or digging, which brings substantial penalties of a £5,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment.

Yet on the other hand our Government has sanctioned the killing of some 11,000 badgers in the name of research, and apparently is now thinking about 'culling' large numbers in a feeble attempt to eliminate BTB (Bovine Tuberculosis) in cattle.

The killing of 11,000 badgers over a period of ten years or so brought a conclusion by the Independent Scientific Group that the 'culling' of badgers had no significant effect on the incidence of BTB in cattle.

You will note that I put 'culling' in inverted commas - some of the dictionary definitions of a cull being:

• cull - remove animal from herd: to remove an animal, especially a sick or weak one, from a herd or flock
• something without value: something regarded as worthless, especially an unwanted or inferior animal removed from a herd.
• In veterinary medicine - reduction of animal numbers: a reduction of the numbers of an animal population achieved by killing some of its members.

Now, I have no argument with culling sick animals for the greater good of either the same species or another.

Except in this case, it is impossible to tell, without a blood test, whether a badger is suffering from bTB, so trapping, gassing, snaring, shooting, poisoning or any other method is bound to be indiscriminate, difficult, costly and ineffective. It has been shown that badgers that survive a 'cull' simply move to another area, possibly taking the disease with them.

However, tests on cattle show that gamma interferon testing can detect the infection very early before the animals show any sign of the disease. Only very tiny amounts of the bacteria can constitute a risk. More testing now is showing up more cattle with the disease, so without testing, just how many are moved, carrying the problem with them?

I have great sympathy with farmers on many subjects but this is a case where I think they are merely taking the easy option. Blame the badgers - when it has been proven in the past that testing and monitoring of cattle can reduce the disease to miniscule proportions. The Government, too, is bowing to political pressure against their own experts' advice.

Close confinement of cattle, poor feeding and insufficient monitoring are much more likely to be the reason the disease spreads. Movement of cattle without testing, poor fencing and bad practice in the spreading of slurry on fields further increases the risk. Bought-in feed from other farms, together with the movement of vehicles etc. through slurry, spreads the disease still further. Any perceived risk from badgers could be reduced by better maintenance of buildings and fences.

Further problems come from cattle returning home unsold from markets. Close monitoring and control of movement of infected livestock is much more likely to bring results, as in the past, but this is no doubt expensive and time-consuming.

I note that the ten-year scientific research involving 11,000 badgers cost £50 million! It seems to me that 'our' money could have been better spent testing cattle!

So, I would ask - where is the sense in cruel, indiscriminate killing of innocent animals which will be hugely expensive and difficult, if it achieves nothing. As far back as 1972 MAFF (now DEFRA) reported that bTB in cattle is usually contracted from other infected cattle and the environment they have infected.

Wholesale killing of cattle was carried out during the major Foot and Mouth crisis in 2001. Vaccination would have saved millions of cattle from being slaughtered, most of them perfectly healthy. Not to mention many other animals killed as a result of the panic measures.

It was called a 'contiguous cull', contiguous meaning very precisely 'something touching, or being in contact' with the disease. In no way did this apply to much of the cattle and livestock then, and it doesn't to badgers now.

Whilst foot and mouth caused havoc, it is interesting to find, that when cattle from areas without foot and mouth were used to re-stock F & M-affected farms, without prior bTB testing, the cases of bTB increased considerably in the re-stocked areas.

It was particularly noticeable in Staffordshire, where only one small case of bTB had occurred in a period of 10 years. Post F & M bTB appeared in a number of parishes where re-stocking had taken place. Had badgers been the source, the infection would have been directly connected to badger activity, but that was not the case.

Have we learnt nothing in the ensuing years? Why is it, that innocent animals must be killed just because they are an inconvenience to humankind?

I base my reactions not on an emotional response to the threat to our nocturnal friends, but on the scientific information available to anyone who is interested enough to read it.

Some 47,000 people voted in a Government poll on the subject of culling, and over 95% voted against. I hope that more people will make themselves aware of the issues and speak out.

Detailed information can be gleaned from the Badger Trust website with further links for those who are interested. Further information can also be found here: Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence is available from the ISG website and from Defra publications (quoting
reference PB12634) telephone 08459 556000.

Further information about the ISG, their work and published papers is also available on their website.

I am thankful, that in my area there appears to be no problem with bTB, but in the current climate, can I be confident that this will remain the case? I do hope so. These animals are private, inoffensive creatures, going about their lives unbeknown to most people and do not deserve the vilification heaped upon them.

Websailor's Wacky Wildlife
World Archive

Websailor

01.11.07 Front Page

Back Issue Page