This is a very interesting site. I know it states that it does not have the badger as its central theme I thought it was worth putting up this posting as we have learnt a lot of interesting facts recently that have convinced us that cattle vaccination is the only sensible way to go. My wife and I decided to go along to the open meeting organised on 15 Feb by a group called Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (PAC) in Newport, Pembrokeshire. As ex farmers and living near Newport, where the meeting was held, we had an interest in the subject. It seemed the meeting was mainly for those landowners who objected to badgers being culled on their land. There was a diverse mix of people attending and the large hall was packed out with many having to stand. The speakers had been chosen to represent politicians, landowners, badger groups, tourism and wildlife groups. It was a real shame that WAG's Rural Affairs Minister and Chief Vet declined an invitation to attend. Everyone attending seemed to be passionate about badgers and wanted the cull stopped. There was much said about legal challenges and what could be done by landowners. There were many questions from the floor. Despite the strong feelings of many, the meeting was chaired professionally and there was sensible debate and questioning. The two Assembly Ministers attending stated that everywhere they went people were against the cull but despite this WAG was intent on proceeding in May. We were amazed to hear that the Assembly Ministers attending had been offered, (but refused) police protection. It was very clear that the cost of this cull went way beyond all the direct costs and it is no wonder that such action has been reported as poor value for money. My wife and I were struck by the following 1. That there is apparently already a dispensation to allow the UK to introduce a vaccination to control TB in cattle. 2. Most of the badgers that would be culled were healthy. Those attending were adamant they would not allow the badgers on their land to be destroyed. 3. The UK badger, whilst belong the same species as that living elsewhere in Europe, acts very differently in that they live in close knit family groups. This is not the case abroad where many badgers were culled because it was originally thought (wrongly as it turned out) they carried rabies. By culling so many badgers from an area, will we be affecting the whole family structure of the unique UK badger? 4. The speaker who represented the tourism sector used the badgers on his land as a tourist attraction. He had already had cancelled bookings from tourists and letters expressing dismay at the proposals. 5. It was clear that this whole business could divide communities. 6. 95% of bTB cattle infections were as a direct result of cattle movement and some enlightening examples were provided.
When we were farming there were times when I felt annoyed with our local badger population; when they decided to eat crops or dig a sett extension in the middle of a hay field but our family spent a lot of time watching them in their family groups. I will never forget the joy on the faces of my children (and later my grandchildren) as they very quietly watched the young ones playing in the spring.
There is other legislation that needs changing. With the waste laws insisting on all carcasses from farms having to be carted away now, where is the food for the carrion eaters and what about all the road miles from transport? Farming is becoming too clinical and bureaucratic. It's about time we started to work with nature rather than against it. We won't know the real value of what we lose until its gone for good. I often wonder what real experience the powers that be that make all these decisions really have of the countryside!
Sally
8 Aug 2010, 3:14 PM
Email from GL received 06/08/10 regarding claims made by pro cull that badger numbers are spiraling out of control.
He tells us that Dr Derek Yalden of the Mammal trust 1999, stated in his book, History of British Mammals: "250,000 adult badgers in GB as a reliable figure." "It is estimated that 47,000 killed each year on the roads"
He gives the following explanation re possible factors, in the perception, that badger numbers have increased.
The average age of a farmer in Wales is about 60 so they all grew up during an era where lighting on farms was more or less non-existent. Tractors had feebly lights, torches were useless and farmers went to bed at 9 o’clock for early milking in the morning. Cattle food was expensive and often kept in steel bins. The countryside was dark. Today everything is different. Farms are often lit up with powerful floodlights. Work is carried out through the night (e.g. silage season) and million plus candlepower torches are common, sometimes fitted to guns! People drive around at night with strong headlights blazing in faster vehicles on faster roads. All this increased human nocturnal activity in the countryside has resulted in the myth that badgers are really common. The reality is that we are just seeing them more often as they are unable to hide away and are often attracted to farmyards by the lure of stored/dumped food.
Thomas (Guest)
22 Jul 2010, 6:39 PM
Some landowners living in the IAPA have received a letter from Elin Jones, dated 16 July and oddly addressed to 'Dear Customer' . She says:
'I am writing to keep you informed about the Intensive Action Pilot Area after the Court of Appeal judgement on the TB Eradication Order. At the hearing the judges raised concerns that the Order related to all of Wales rather than the Intensive Pilot Action Area. As a result I agreed to re-look at the Order in which case it was inevitable that it would be quashed. This also means that I will not appeal the Court's judgement. I am disappointed, particularly as the court recognises the serious impact that bovine TB is having in Wales and the need to tackle the disease. I know that many cattle farmers will also be disappointed by this decision. Likewise, some of you who felt strongly about removing badgers from your land will be pleased. I understand the stress and frustration felt by all of you. We still have to tackle bovine TB in the area. 64% of cattle herds in the Intensive Action Pilot Area have had at least one TB breakdown in the last six years. While we do need to address all sources of infection, we can make inroads into the desease and start to reduce the incidence through continuing to implement cattle measures that are in place. Therefore, as we review our options, I have decided that the additional cattle disease control measures introduced on the 1st May will continue as will the project to improve bio-security. I will now need to consider the judges' decision in detail before deciding on how to proceed with our wildlife control strategy. I will also take on board the issues that you have all raised with me over the past year. I will continue to keep you informed of any decision I take in the Intensive Action Pilot Area.'
Sally
15 Jul 2010, 3:03 PM
On the 13th July the Court of Appeal handed down judgment which concluded the the proposed badger cull for Wales was unlawful. The Badger Trust successfully argued that the High Court made an error of law in holding:
1. That the words 'substantially reduce' in section 21(2)(b) of the Animal Health Act 1981 meant simply any reduction in TB that was 'more than merely minor or trivial' 2. That, once it arose, the discretion to make an order under section 21(2) could lawfully be exercised without the Minister doing any balancing act to consider the harm involved (i.e. killing over 2,000 badgers) against the potential benefit (which the Minister‟s own model predicted to be a reduction in the rate of cattle herd breakdowns of just 0.3% of farms annually). 3. And, in addition (this third point was raised at the hearing following questions from one of the three judges and allowed to be included), the Trust argued that the Ministers erred in making an Order for the whole of Wales having only consulted on the basis of the Pembrokeshire IAPA and on the basis of evidence which, at best, supported culling in the IAPA only. The Welsh Ministers conceded the appeal by reference to this point and the court unanimously agreed that it rendered the Order unlawful notwithstanding their findings on the first two points.
In respect of 3 above paragraph 104 of the judgement is of particular significance:
'104. Moreover, if the contention of the Minister as to the possible extent of the area of an order made under section 21 were correct, Parliament would have authorised the making of a statutory instrument providing for the extinction of a protected species in the whole of England and Wales on account of a small reduction in the incidence of a disease. This is so unlikely and unreasonable an intention to attribute to Parliament that it cannot be right. I do not think that the importance of reducing the incidence of bovine TB affects this.'
Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Pill, one of the three judges who determined the appeal, sounded a warning to the Welsh Assembly Ministers when he said that [para 72]: “It is not open to the Welsh Assembly Government immediately to make a fresh Order in the same terms but covering only the IAPA [Intensive Action Pilot Area] and to proceed forthwith with a badger cull there.”
The Badger Trust is an organization of dedicated and passionate people working hard to protect the badger in the UK. It works with badger groups throughout the country and certainly punches well above its weight. To bring about this successful legal challenge to a government decision, with its high legal costs is no mean feat. More information and a copy of the judgment can be found on the Badger Trust website at http://www.badger.org.uk/Content/Home.asp
According to Pater Black's blog (one of the few Welsh Assembly Ministers who oppose the cull) on the ame day as the ruling Rural Affairs Minister, Elin Jones, rose in the chamber to answer an urgent question on this matter, during which she appears to have ruled out an appeal. http://peterblack.blogspot.com
See following websites for news reports regarding decision.
ON the 29th June, the day before the Appeal Court hearing in Cardiff challenging the proposed Pembrokeshire cull, members of the Pembrokeshire Against the Cull pressure group were in the Welsh capital presenting an open letter from landowners to First Minister, Carwyn Jones.
According to PAC's group spokesman, Michael Ritchie, 309 people representing 180 holdings, from smallholders to commercial farmers, have signed the letter. He says there are a total of 900 holdings within the cull area, but very little support for the cull apart from the larger farmers. This would appear to be significantly more than the 'handful of objectors' WAG claimed in its earlier assertions about widespread consultation and a far higher percentage than their notion of 'substantial'. Of course WAG could argue argue that these were not part of the consultation exercise what then that does not bode well for their consultation procedures.
The letter calls on the Assembly Government to postpone the cull pending a review of the latest scientific evidence, including availability of vaccine. It also wants the devolved administration to take account of the cull’s impact on community cohesion, the local economy and the image of Wales as a progressive nation.
Should the cull go ahead, the letter also calls for recognition of the right of conscientious objection and to allow objectors to opt their land out of the cull.
Sally
1 Jul 2010, 5:46 PM
How much are the current court proceedings going to cost the taxpayer? The appeal is being brought by the Badger Trust against the rejection of a judicial review in April of the decision to cull and is based on two points of much wider legal importance:
What is the correct statutory construction of the term 'eliminate or substantially reduce' disease as apparently required under legislation to justify the killing of large numbers of wild species; and
Whether the scale of the killing should be balanced against the expected benefit.
The appeal was heard on 30th June 2010 in Cardiff before Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Stanley. At the start of the day, there were two grounds of appeal by the Badger Trust to be considered. These were that the judge erred in law in holding:
1) That 'substantially reduce' in section 21 (2) (b) of the Animal Health Act 1981 meant simply a reduction that was 'more than merely minor or trivial' 2) That, once it arose, the discretion to make an order under section 21(2) could lawfully be exercised without considering the balance between the extent of the benefit in disease terms and the extent of the killing of wild animals required to achieve it. The following report is extracted from the newsletter published by Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (www.pembrokeshireagainstthecull.co.uk) on 1 July 2010.
'It wasn’t long before astute questioning and reasoning by the judges raised a major anomaly that they suggested could give rise to an application by the Badger Trust for a third ground of appeal! They saw that the Welsh Assembly Government has passed an Order which applies to the whole of Wales and is unlimited in time whereas the consultation and decision to cull, and evidence provided in support of them, was based on an intensive action pilot area (IAPA) of approx 300 square kilometres. With such an Order in place there will be no requirement to justify or consult on any further decisions taken to kill badgers, whether in a target area or across Wales as a whole. The judges were refreshingly direct in their approach and language – one of them pointing out that in effect the Order (which is only secondary legislation) permits the extinction of the badger in Wales and is unlimited in time. If this is set as a precedent in law, it could lead to the extinction of badgers in the UK.
One of the difficulties in dealing with grounds 1 and 2 was that the information the Minister based her decision on sometimes referred to 'an IAPA' and sometimes to all of Wales, and sometimes it was not clear which. For example, when the Order was drafted and passed was the expectation that there would be a 6 – 9% reduction in the rate of increase in bovine TB across Wales, or just within a defined pilot area?
So later in the day, David Wolfe, counsel for the Badger Trust, made an application for a third ground of appeal that 'the Minister erred in law in making an Order for all of Wales having consulted on the basis of an IAPA and on the basis of evidence which at most supported culling in an IAPA'. Mr Corner, counsel for the Welsh Ministers, argued that this should not be allowed as it had not been a specific ground in the judicial review – but said if it were to be allowed, and he could see the judges were minded to do so, he would need more time to prepare evidence. He asked for an additional two weeks. The judges asked what further evidence there could be as surely they already had before them all the evidence relating to the preparation of the Order and the Minister’s decision to cull. They pointed out that the Welsh Assembly had asked for an expedited hearing because they had said they must start culling as soon as possible – and the court had adjusted its schedule to enable a swift ruling. There was then a pantomime-like exchange with the judges asking the most simple and basic of questions such as, ‘are you ready to start culling?’, ‘what is your start date?’, ‘do you have a map of the cull area?’ – counsel repeatedly turning round to whisper with Dr Glossop and then being unable to provide an answer! One judge in an attempt to get some information asked in the most direct, and graphic, way possible if they actually had their traps and ammunition ready.
There were no real surprises in the arguments around the meaning of the term “substantially reduce” – with the Welsh Assembly still contending that it should be taken to mean anything more than trivial or insignificant. The arguments about the need to conduct a balancing exercise between the harm to badgers and the benefit to cows (in this particular instance) were more revealing, and very pertinent in the light of the third ground of appeal. Is it enough to ‘take into account’ the fact that many, many badgers will be killed when deciding on this course of action, without conducting any actual balancing exercise which includes some quantification of the numbers of badgers to be killed or harmed and related disbenefits against the number of cows to be saved and related benefits? Counsel for the Welsh Assembly did not produce any evidence that such an exercise had been carried out, nor that the number of badgers potentially affected by the Order had been known and factored into their consideration. But without such a balancing exercise, and with the low threshold for the meaning of ‘substantially reduce’ that WAG wishes to be accepted, it could mean, as one judge pointed out, that just one cow was saved at a cost of exterminating hundreds of badgers.
We left the court at the end of the day with a clear timeline set out by the judges for receiving submissions on the third ground of appeal and for handing down their decision. The Welsh Assembly are required to provide a written submission by the end of next Monday 5 July, the Badger Trust then have two days to respond - and the judges will hand down their decision on the following Monday 12 July in Cardiff.
The lasting impression of the day – the Welsh Assembly are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut – and more and more people are questioning such heavy handed practice, and just where it could lead to in future. The more the Minister’s reasons for deciding to cull badgers are examined in these judicial proceedings, the more unconvincing and lacking any integrity they are revealed to be.'
It is clear that Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (www.pembrokeshireagainstthecull.org.uk) is a highly effective group that is clearly encouraging an increasing number of people to oppose the plans for a compulsory cull of all badgers in Pembrokeshire. The more opposition to the proposals, the greater the costs will be for WAG. On the evening of the 14th June 2010 PAC organised an open meeting to discuss badger vaccination and civil liberties. The room was packed and I estimated there were probably some 400 people present, all of whom seemed to be against the cull.
Presentations were given by Dr Lizzie Wilberforce (Welsh Wildlife Trust), Dr Gavin Harper (PhD in Molecular Physical Chemistry and organic farmer), Dr Adrian Smallwood and Assembly Minister, Peter Black. Lizzie was clearly passionate about our largest remaining carnivore, wildlife in general and conservation. She confirmed that three of the Trust's nature reserves were in the cull area and started by showing a slide of a snared badger which had been left at the entrance of the Trust land. The Trust had stopped its badger watching sessions and there were ponies grazing the reserve rather than the usual buffalo which managed the wetland more effectively. As a result there was a loss of income and the Trust was also having to cope with a significant increase of staff time being taken up in dealing with the cull.
Gavin concentrated on how vaccination works and up to date information about the types of vaccine that were available. The injectable one was now licensed, and the oral option was likley to be available in 2014. He referred to the success of experiments vaccinating possums in New Zealand. He stressed that vaccination was not perfect and did not cure sick badgers but bearing in mind life expectancy, annual vaccination would bring increasing and adequate protection against infection. He advised that in the Badgers Found Dead Survey (2006) only 15% of badgers had been found to be infected with TB. He confirmed that no cost benefit analysis had been taken for the cull. Vaccination was a cheaper, and more publicly acceptable option. The real costs were unknown but all modelling had suggested that culling costs more than it saves.
Adrian concentrated on reports from the Welsh Assembly Government and its officers over the last few years, highlighting the disturbing frequency of contradictions. In fact it was clear that if Assembly Ministers (AMs) had read all the documents referred to, it was difficult to understand why the majority had opted for a cull. This questions was asked.
Peter commenced by answering the previous question. It had been a political decision. He explained that the democratic process meant that ministers would listen to the concerns of constituents. As a result of frequent and intense lobbying from farmers and their unions, when Elin Jones, the daughter of a farmer, was elected as Minister of Rural Affairs, she was able to persuade her colleagues to opt for the cull. There were only a small number of AMs that had opposed the cull. He went on on to talk about the civil liberty issues and how disappointed he was regarding the heavy handed approach of the Welsh Assembly Government. He was very concerned regarding the secrecy, intimidation and paranoia, 'It is not the democracy I am familiar with - I am horrified that people are being treated in this way ...'. There was evidence that those opposing the cull were under surveillance, videos showing the police/surveyors turning up to survey land had been removed from YouTube, posters had been taken down from shop windows, people had been stopped and searched under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Elderly and disabled residents had been intimidated through the unannounced appearance of masked contractors escorted by police officers on their land, who refused to allow the residents the opportunity to establish whether correct procedures were being followed by arresting them for obstruction. Those against the cull were being treated as animal rights' activists.
Interestingly, on writing about the meeting in his blog (http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/06/watching-watchers.html) he mentioned that the two police officers (who had attended a previous PAC meeting and assured the views of both 'sides' would be respected) had turned up at the meeting before being asked to leave as it transpired that they had parked their vehicle so that it faced the entrance to the car park with a camera facing outwards. Peter had asked the officers about the camera and they said that it was switched off but he did not feel very convinced about this, particularly as he had received several complaints from those who had attended previous PAC meetings and who had been stopped by police whilst driving at other times. It was clear that those opposed to the cull - ordinary law abiding citizens who were not breaking any laws - were now under surveillance.
The author and actor Jerome Flynn was also present. He had offered his support to PAC.
Sally
14 Jun 2010, 3:54 PM
The case study section of this website reveals the adverse effects of the government's existing bovine TB (bTB) eradication programme on the farming community. However, the policy is now starting to affect the wider community and not just the farming industry and cattle owners. In north Pembrokeshire preparations are underway for the compulsory cull of badgers as part of the ongoing programme to eradicate bovine TB. A significant number (WAG refuses to say how many) of farmers and landowners in the cull area do not want the badgers on their land culled. In previous culls people have been able to opt out but the Pembrokeshire cull is compulsory, even on nature reserves and protected wildlife habitat areas. Those against the cull have formed the Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (PAC)(Ref. 1) to peacefully protest and try and change the minds of the politicians and policy makers, as they believe that vaccination of badgers is a better option than slaughter. There are those who support the cull and the area has become divided on the issue with apparently adverse effects on communities and even families who may share different opinions.
It is clear that the majority of people at the well attended (between 50 and 200 people present at each) PAC meetings are ordinary, law abiding people who have become embroiled in this issue. Many enjoy having the badgers on their land, are concerned about the huge costs of the proposal and lack of scientific evidence to support it. Some are vegan and do not wish to support the dairy or meat industries.The majority would appear to support vaccination rather than a cull. However, it would now appear that these people are being treated as extreme activists and subjected to intolerable pressure from the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), with a heavy-handed approach from officials and the police (Ref. 2). Separate incidents on the same day in May raised grave concerns regarding WAG’s use of its new legal powers. In one incident four black hooded surveying contractors and police turned up at a farm where the only occupier at the time they arrived (without notice) was an elderly, disabled person who suffers from memory problems and high blood pressure. The family had specifically asked to be notified so they could avoid this happening and their requests were ignored. When the son of this person, Gavin Wheeler, a local farmer/landowner, arrived back shortly afterwards to find the police and contractors at his home and his father trembling with shock at the invasion, he was arrested for supposedly stealing three ID cards, despite the fact that he was given these cards to check. He was later released without charge or any further action. He said, 'I was just holding the cards, it was very obvious at the time. I had been 'given' them, after all. Also I was only given three cards although there were four contractors hiding in their car with their faces covered'. The contractors concerned were wearing balaclavas and there were no names on the ID cards. He has now made a formal complaint to the police and is trying to get his DNA and fingerprints removed from their database..
In a similar incident earlier the same day, several police vehicles, around twenty police officers, WAG officials and surveyors, again wearing black balaclavas to conceal their identities, arrived at the Brithdir low impact community at Cilgwyn. The number of police and officers who attended exceeded the number of civilians present. There was a similar issue regarding identity and the community members tried in vain to reason with the officers. Two were arrested for obstruction, but later released without charge. Another family was also visited and suffered similar treatment. An elderly, disabled lady from Abercych waited in all afternoon (with supporting friends) for the set surveyors who had arranged to come but did not arrive, although three police offices visited her the same morning. She believes this was because she sent a letter stating she did not agree with the cull. One Pembrokeshire resident, Felicia Ruperti, said, of the recent incident at Cilgwyn: “I felt very intimidated by the amount of police here today. We have been peaceful from the start and have not threatened anyone”. Police were also said to be stopping motorists nearby and searching them under anti-terrorist legislation (Ref. 3), which, in fact, may not even be legal (Ref. 4). Many now feel unable to publicly voice their objections due to the climate of fear and intimidation that currently exists in Pembrokeshire and the outlying areas. Is this just what WAG is aiming for? Landowners in Pembrokeshire can apparently now look forward to masked contractors turning up at any time during the day or night, with rifles, to set/check traps and shoot all captured badgers. The legal, human rights, public security and safety issues are being ignored.
Why the balaclava helmets? Are these surveyors ashamed of what they are doing? According to reports on the internet (Ref. 5) the company undertaking the surveying work is said to be Thomson Ecology, who we have contacted but has failed to respond. It claims to be the UK’s leading ecological consultant and one of their core values is scientific integrity – there is currently much doubt among the scientific community regarding the benefits of culling. Why would the surveyors wish to hide their identities. A statement from WAG’s Minister of Rural Affairs said the contractors felt personally intimidated and did not like being filmed. What about the landowners? What would have been the reaction if they had worn such headgear? We understand the contractors are not even local. Given the huge budget for the cull, presumably they are also being paid well for what they are doing. If the recent article (Ref. 6) in the Mail Online is to be believed, some are going to do very well out of the cull. The article claims a Pembrokeshire man was offered £150,000 a year for up to five years to kill and dispose of badgers!
The cost of the cull is estimated to be around £9 million pounds, excluding policing and indirect costs, yet surprisingly, no cost benefit analysis has been undertaken. Over a five-year period, all badgers from a 288km2 area will be caged and shot. Last year WAG introduced the TB Eradication (Wales) Order (Ref. 7), which gave it unprecedented powers, including ones giving it draconian rights of access to all land in order to survey sets, trap and shoot badgers. The Badger Trust challenged the TB Eradication Order by way of a judicial review. This tested the legality of the process, not the appropriateness of the decision to cull. WAG argued (Ref 8) that badger culling will reduce bovine TB in cattle by 6 - 9% (and that will apparently be for only two years following the five years duration of the cull). In April 2010 the Judge, Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, concluded that WAG did have discretionary powers to carry out the cull, but noted that it was for the Ministers, rather than the court, to undertake a balancing exercise between the costs and benefits of the proposed cull. The Badger Trust has sought leave to appeal against the judgement and was granted consent to do this in early June 2010 (Ref 9). The Badger Trust has argued that the Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, failed to correctly interpret section 21(2) of the Animal Health Act 1981, which provided that the cull must 'eliminate or substantially reduce' the incidence of TB in cattle. David Wolfe, the barrister acting for the Badger Trust trust, said that something more than a 'minor or trivial reduction' was required. He also challenged the suggestion that parliament could have intended to allow the slaughter of wild animals (the killing of which was normally a criminal offence) without the decision maker 'even needing to consider the balance in question'.The main arguments for the appeal are that the Welsh Assembly Government had not shown that a cull would 'eliminate or substantially reduce' the rate of TB infection, as the law meant it had to, and that ministers had a duty to weigh the harm to the badger population against the possible benefits to farmers, but had not done so. Despite this pending appeal, that may not be heard for several months, WAG was insisting it would proceed with the cull, until the public announcement on the 11th June when it was decided to suspend the cull as the hearing had been expedited to the end of June.
Even scientists and experts are undecided and arguing aongst themselves as to whether or not badger culls will work, and certainly no research has been undertaken into the cost effectiveness of such measures or indirect effects on other sectors. It must also be noted that culling removes all healthy animals too and the majority of badgers in the previous experimental culls have been found to be healthy. In view of these clearly regnised and accepted doubts one wonders why Elin Jones (the Minister for Rural Affairs) and the Welsh Assembly Government are labelling those landowners in the cumpulsory cull area in Pembrokeshire who are against the cull as disruptive and taking such a heavy handed approach to their peaceful protests. Elin Jones has engaged with the farming community but not with those who are opposed to the cull and one does wonder why no open public meeting has been organised to date. I strongly suspect, going by the well attended PAC meetings, (I understand she has declined invitations to attend their meetings) that there may well be more than just the 'small number of individuals' she and WAG claim are against the cull. Surely these people have a right to peacefully protest, particularly when there is even confusion amongst scientists and experts regarding the benefits and cost effectiveness of such a cull? It is the inflexible and zero tolerance approach adopted by WAG, and laid down by this body in law, which raises significant concerns regarding the future for us all (and for our wildlife). WAG would now appear to be using its new legal powers to stifle debate, prevent opposition and discourage peaceful protest. It must be asked - is such action legal?
Ref. 1 www.pembrokeshireagainstthecull.org.uk Ref. 2 http://peterblack.blogspot.com http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/06/badger-cull-what-minister-said-in.html www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/8173388 welsh_assembly_government_badger_survey_sparks_protest/?ref=mr Ref. 3 www.walesonline.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/country-farming-columnists/2010/06/01/it-s-a-sorry-state-when-state-uses-terror- laws-91466-26559507 http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-terrorist-legislation-used-in.html www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/Badger-cull-is-far-from.6355702.jp Ref. 4 www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/10/anti-terror-law-illegal-stop-search Ref. 5 Company silent on badger cull amid web warnings: www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/05/21/company-silent-on-badger-cull-amid-web-warnings-91466-26489995/ Ref. 6 A new, touchy-feely democracy? Try telling that to the badgers...: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1280598/liz-jones-a-new-touchy-feely-democracy-try-telling-badgers-.html Ref. 7 The Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009: http://tiny.cc/ht8q9 Ref. 8 This link includes all the legal documents presented at the initial judicial review, including the judgment, which upheld the order and the response from WAG: www.nfbg.org.uk/Content/Home.asp Ref. 9 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/09/badger-cull-legal-challenge
BrianF (Guest)
16 May 2010, 6:53 PM
Media reports state that the number of badgers expected to be killed in the cull will be around 1500 so if the cull is costing £10 million - and this apparently does not include any policing costs, legal costs or indirect costs for businesses of local trade is affected, the the cost to kill each badger is some £6666! Rather sickening if the science is against a total cull and there is a lot of public opposition. Even worse when you consider the imminent and, we are told, very harsh cuts that will soon be made in the public sector as a result of the financial crisis in the UK. Sounds a total waste of money to me.
Keith (Guest)
10 May 2010, 6:51 PM
11,000 have already been killed in areas of the UK since it became known that the badger could contract bTB and yet the disease has apparently continued to get worse! It would seem that in Wales, where I understand no badgers have yet been killed, signs are that bTB is declining so why is there any need to spend millions on a cull if the existing measures are working? Why not put this money instead into a bTB vaccination programme for cattle?
Janet (Guest)
8 May 2010, 1:57 PM
The NFU and some farmers are calling for a cull of badgers, not just in Wales but in England too, backed by some politicians and the Conservative party, despite the fact that science questions the benefits and there has been no cost benefit analysis undertaken. They question why it is only cattle that must be killed to eradicate bTB when badgers have been shown to get the disease too. However, cattle are only usually slaughtered if they fail the skin/blood tests (whole herds are only slaughtered if a high proportion of animals in the herd are positive to the tests). The aim with badger culls is to kill as many of the species in an area as is possible, with an aim to eradicate all - this WILL include a high percentage of healthy badgers. Do we really want to eradicate the badger, an indigenous species, from the British countryside? We are seeing species decline at an alarming rate, even those which were once common, and no-one knows the effects of such declines will have on the ecology of an area.
Sally (Guest)
30 Apr 2010, 7:45 PM
Even government reports have questioned whether the aim is to control or eradicate bTB. However, it would seem, that the current aim is to eradicate bTB in the UK - termed publicly as an eradication policy. However, according to the official definition, this terminology is not correct and it is really an elimination programme (Ref.1 defines this). If the governments, (WAG and DEFRA), cannot even get their basic terminology correct, then one has to wonder ... Eradication is the reduction of an infectious disease’s prevalence in the global human or animal host population to zero. It is sometimes confused with elimination, which describes either the reduction of an infectious disease's prevalence in a regional population to zero, or the reduction of the global prevalence to a negligible amount... 'Eradication: lessons from the past' - small pox is the only disease declared to be eliminated globally. 'In looking to the future, however, I believe it is critical that we should not be blinded to a range of new public health programme paradigms by staring too fixedly at the blinding beacon of a few eradication dreams' (R H Henderson).
Ref. 1 CONTEXT OF DISEASE ELIMINATION AND ERADICATION Ralph H. Henderson (Taylor CE, Waldman RJ. Designing eradication programs to strengthen pnmary health care In Dowdle WR. Hopkins DR. eds. The eradication of infectious disease: report of the Dahlem Workshop on the Eradication of Infectious Diseases Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 1998 145-155 Diseases. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 1998: 91-106).
Sally (Guest)
30 Apr 2010, 7:32 PM
The proposed badger cull (which will kill around 1000 - 1500 depending on which report you read) in Wales is to cost a staggering £10 million ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7962285.stm!) apparently to achieve just 6-9% reduction in bovine TB for only 2 years following the five years of the cull! Why has the Welsh Assembly Government not undertaken a cost benefit analysis to justify these costs? These costs apparently do include other measures but not any policing or indirect costs. Will farmers ultimately bear the brunt of such an unpopular and expensive cull that is not properly backed up by scientific evidence?
The UK is spending millions of pounds (now approaching £100 million annually) on bovine TB (bTB) and trying to 'eradicate' a disease where the risks are hypothetical. Even the World Health Organisation has stated that there is negligible risk to humans from bTB if milk is pasteurised and meat cooked. Around 85% of cattle and 82% of the human population are in areas where bovine TB is either only partially controlled or not controlled at all. With rapidly increasing globalisation and cattle movements, imports/exports, how can we ever expect to eradicate (see next post for comment on 'eradication') bTB permanently from the UK? Even the human form is on the increase, being brought in by people from abroad, coming here from areas where TB is endemic. Why are we spending so much money on trying to 'eradicate' bTB when there is financial crisis and jobs/services are to be cut from many areas which may well be of greater value to human and animal health? In fact there is probably far more risk to human health from the existing skin test for cattle. A farmer in Ireland died this month (April 2010) after being injured when cattle were being tested for bTB. A control, rather than eradication, programme for bTB would be cheaper, better for farmers and could be based on the existing BCG vaccine for cattle (pending the development of better vaccines). Of course it would need to be approved by the politicians, civil servants, farming unions, veterinary professions and EU - and here we hit the stumbling blocks ....
Sally (Guest)
2 Mar 2010, 5:25 PM
Peter Black (South Wales West) Assembly Minister asked Elin Jones, the Minister for Rural Affairs in Feb 2010: will the Minister confirm whether she is funding extra police officers in the North Pembrokeshire badger cull area for the period of the cull, and if so, how much will this cost and what extra provision is being funded. (WAQ55693)
Elin Jones: we want to ensure community confidence through continued reassurance to our communities within, and outside, the pilot area, before, during and after its implementation. To this end we have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Dyfed-Powys Police Authority to provide a framework that makes clear how we will work together in this regard, together with the roles and responsibilities of each organisation. This includes supporting an enhancement to the ‘neighbourhood policing team’ in the area to work with communities to provide this reassurance and a point of contact for people. This will be kept under review for the duration of the pilot area.
It is not our intention to disclose information relevant to the police tactics, staffing, training or budgets that are in place. These are operational policing matters which are the constitutional responsibility of the Chief Constable.
The cost of implementing a proactive culling strategy over five consecutive years within the pilot area is estimated to be £9,427,000. This figure includes costs agreed between the Welsh Assembly Government and Dyfed-Powys Police Authority in the Cost Recovery Agreement.
NOTE (added 3.4.10) According to the evidence submitted to the Badger Trust's judicial review in March 2010 the cull will achieve, at best, just a 6% reduction in the rate of increase of bovine TB, and even this small benefit is restricted to the 2 years after the five years of culling - thereafter rates return to previous levels. Apparently the research and modelling commissioned by WAG showed vaccination would be as effective as, and cheaper than, culling. So is the cull a waste of money - and at a time when the country is supposedly suffering a financial crisis with cuts forecast in many areas?
