Is culling badgers really going to solve the farmers' problems? After some 15 years of argument and debate, Defra, on the instructions of politicians, is expected to make a cull announcement very soon. Will the politicians get it right? It is expected that syndicates of farmers will be permitted to hire marksmen to shoot badgers on sight, at their own expense, to help counter the alleged spread of bovine TB, especially in the West Country.
 
But for many culling is not an acceptable option and the vast majority of public opinion is against culling. Now Lord John Kreb, the leading government adviser who wrote the initial report on badgers and TB in 1997 has made his views know. On 11 July 2011 he announced that he was against any culling proposals. So, here we have another expert who would appear to know what he is talking about and willing to make his views known. He has clearly said that he does not think culling is 'an effective policy'. What he says seems to make perfect sense, but will the Government take notice? He follows several experts in coming out against culling.
 
He said trials had shown that a cull would only reduce the amount of TB in cattle by something in the region of 12 to 16%. "So you leave 85% of the problem still there, and having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers, it just doesn't seem to me to be an effective way of dealing with the disease," he said.
 
According to the Independent article, 'The remarks from Lord Krebs, now principal of Jesus College, Oxford, raise the political stakes enormously in what is already a potential minefield for the Prime Minister, who has trouble enough on his plate with the phone-hacking scandal without alienating large numbers of animal- lovers. Lord Krebs' remarks are embarrassing because the Government has said it will be led by the science. It was as a result of the Krebs report, which said that there was no doubt that wild badgers did carry TB and did pass it on to cattle, that the Government set up the badger-culling trials, which lasted for more than seven years.'
Apparently Lord Krebs said he recommended the trials because it was not known whether a cull would be effective or cost-effective, and his view of the issue was only formulated once he had seen the results. While the trials showed culling did have an effect if it was done on a large scale, it was a relatively small one, he said. Asked if he thought a badger cull would be a mistake, he said: "Yes."
He said: "To me the story is pretty straightforward. If you've got a measure that affects 15% of the problem, then you don't focus on that. You focus on something else."
 
Interestingly Farming Today included a piece about meat from reactors going into the food chain. It said that the carcasses from reactors and inconclusives were sold into the food chain, with the Government receiving the income from these. Carcasses with lesions could legally enter the food chain for human consumption once the area affected was removed and there was negligible risk to human health, even if lesions remained in the meat, as cooking destroyed the bacteria. Surprisingly Defra has only just started keeping figures regarding this area. The programme also referred to the fact that there was negligible risk to humans from bovine TB now most milk is pasteurised so again we ask, why all the fuss about bovine TB?
 
Information from http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/badger-cull-to-prevent-tb-in-cattle-a-mistake-says-key-scientist-2312104.html
 
Radio 4 Farming Today broadcast 12/7/11

Elin Jones AM, the Minister for Rural Affairs in the last Welsh Assembly acknowledges that she lost votes due to her TB eradication policy:
 
“I know that I have lost a significant number of votes in this election due to my TB eradication policy and I faced a concerted campaign to oust me as the local AM by local anti-cull activists. However, this was never a one-issue referendum and I’m pleased that the people of Ceredigion recognised this and re-elected me on the basis of my hard work on their behalf”. (From Tivyside Online.)
 
A Pembrokeshire Against the Cull supporter sent us this analysis of the results in Elin Jones’ constituency (email 7/5/11):
 
Compared with 2007 – the last election
 
Elin Jones Plaid lost 2798 votes i.e. 19% of her 2007 total.
Lost 7.9% share of the vote – 49% - 41%
National loss to Plaid was 3.1%. Elin Jones loss was 7.9% so had a significantly greater swing against HER than Plaid had Nationally.
 
Liz Evans Lib Dem anti- cull held onto the Lib Dem vote – down 0.9%, down about 4% nationally.
 
Labour and Greens both anti cull, picked up 4058 votes compared with 1530 in 2007 (Greens didn’t stand in 2007).
 
Looked at another way: Pro cull vote 12020
Anti cull vote 17056
 
The analyser concludes ‘ the PAC campaign in Ceredigion had some effect’ and this was acknowledged by Elin Jones (see her quote above).
 
I wonder how many votes Elin Jones lost Plaid throughout Wales?
 
The 17000 respondents to the badger cull consultation who were completely ignored by Elin Jones (as they were in the earlier consultation) are the type of people who would turn up to vote but hardly likely to vote Plaid when their voices were not listened to.

Badger Trust Press Release dated 27/4/11 states that campaigners against badger culling in Wales have uncovered a serious omission in a speech by the Rural Affairs Minister in the Welsh Assembly. Mrs Elin Jones said the number of herds affected in the area covered by the culling order had increased by 44 percent but failed to add that the number of individual cattle from those herds slaughtered was halved from 1725 in 2008 to 850 in 2010. This followed the imposition of stringent cattle measures and (of course) was achieved without any badgers being culled. Pembrokeshire Against the Cull obtained these unpublished figures under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
The Minister told the Senedd in March only that there were 79 new TB breakdowns last year compared with 55 in 2009. She went on to mention total compensation paid, without explaining that compensation is for animals, not herds. The compensation bill for the Intensive Action Area (IAA) could, on this basis, have been reduced by up to half over the period.
 
The new low figure for cattle slaughtered is well on to the way to the level (749) it was in 2006 -- but still with no badgers killed.
 
 

---

Here we go again, the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), is set to waste thousands of pounds again with another judicial review called for from the Badger Trust (with support from the Pembrokeshire Against the Cull landowners) on the cards!
 
A letter before action has been sent by the Trust's solicitors, Bindmans, with a view to legal proceedings commencing in the High Court if the WAG refuses to revoke its Order to destroy badgers. The WAG proposes to kill badgers as part of its bovine tuberculosis (bTB) eradication programme.
 
In the Trust’s formal letter before action to the WAG (full text at www.badgertrust.org.uk) it sets out why it considers that the High Court should strike down the Order made on March 9th 2011 by the Rural Affairs Minister, Elin Jones.
 
The Badger Trust says;'The last two years have seen a significant fall in the number of cattle slaughtered because of bTB. If badger destruction had been allowed two years ago by the last government it would have been presumed that the reason was culling rather the range of effective cattle-based measures now in force. Fortunately, in 2010, the Court of Appeal struck down the last culling proposals so we had a chance to see reduction by cattle-focussed means take effect. The number of cattle slaughtered has fallen during the last two years by 45% in Dyfed, which includes the intensive action area where badger destruction is proposed.
It is our duty to pursue all legal means to protect the badger. Yet again the Trust is challenging the legality of a decision by the WAG. The members of Britain’s Badger Groups and our generous and loyal supporters look to us to secure the welfare of the badger in line with our objectives as a charity acting in the public interest'.
 
Pembrokeshire Against the Cull has stated; “We have been working closely with the Badger Trust and their legal team and fully support their decision to proceed with this action. We particularly welcome the inclusion of civil rights aspects which have been of great concern to our supporters. The Welsh Assembly Government appears so far to have ignored the concerns about human rights and public safety raised by so many in the consultation and has offered no justification for taking such disproportionate powers and actions. We recently started a fund specifically to support a possible legal challenge and will be working to ensure we play our part in bringing this challenge to a successful conclusion.”
 

---

The results of the formal public consultation was a phenomenal 13,421 responses which were received by WAG by the closing date. It is clear from WAG's own analysis that the majority was opposed to culling - in fact only 2,110 responses actively argued that badger culling was justified. The Countryside Council for Wales, WAG's statutory consultee on conservation issues, said "vaccination, in conjunction with appropriate cattle herd management and effective testing regimes, is the most appropriate long term strategy for managing bTB in cattle".
 
Despite this most AMs voted to proceed with the cull! It is appalling that the public consultation exercise can be disregarded in this way. That is democracy for you!
 
WAG can apparently send a CD of all the comments and responses but I have yet to receive mine!

Despite the successful appeal last year by the Badger Trust which halted WAG's plans for a trial badger cull, the Minister for Rural Affairs (Elin Jones) created the 'Badger (Control Area) (Wales) Order 2011' order which again proposes a similar cull in North Pembrokeshire. On 23/3/11 a motion to annul this order was defeated - 8 votes for and 42 against, with no abstentions. I watched it live and was shocked at the arrogant and downright rude behaviour of some of the pro cull AMs. It was also interesting to see how little attention some seemed to pay to the speakers, particularly when those for the motion were speaking. I totally agree with the following extract from a PAC newsletter; 'One notable moment in the proceedings - for all the wrong reasons - was a boorish intervention from Rhodri Glyn Thomas. Irene James AM said that she had received more letters on this subject from more people in a short time than ever before - to which he shouted 'Not from Wales!' She put him straight - telling him they most definitely were from Wales, and from people living in the area. As people have since written to us - how arrogant and dismissive of the public some of these AMs are. Awards for most disingenuous statement goes to the several pro culling AMs who asserted that we must cull badgers in order to protect and safeguard our wildlife! And what of the Assembly Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, Paul Davies? He sat silent throughout - not an utterance. What are we to conclude from that? Our elected representative doesn't participate in a debate specific to his constituency on the most controversial topic and policy which will impact hugely on local people? Has he nothing to say on anyone's behalf?'

Caroline Spelman’s Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference held on the 4-6th Jan 2011
 
Caroline Spelman, speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference in January 2011 made a number of false claims regarding the status of bovine TB in GB.
She stated that:
 
“Although 40,000 cattle were culled last year [2010] because of bovine TB,”
 
and she referred to bTB as
 
“advancing relentlessly throughout various regions,”
 
Both of these statements are incorrect and will give a false picture of the situation.
 
 
DEFRA County Animal Statistics-GB Total, available on DEFRA’s website state:
 
Total number of animals slaughtered in under bovine TB control measures in
 
2008 = 39,973
 
2009 = 36322
 
2010 = The Jan-Sept Provisonal statistics (the only ones available at the moment) indicate that the final figure for 2010 is very likely to be somewhere around 33,000.
 
These figures show a strong improvement over the last two years and do not substanciate the minister’s statement.
 
 
Either she is ignorant of the facts or her advisors have mis-informed her.
Whichever is the case an apology should be made.

An interesting report 'Intractable Policy Failure: The Case of Bovine TB and Badgers'. Source: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Volume 11, Number 4, November 2009 , pp. 557-573(17):http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/bjpi/2009/00000011/00000004/art00001
 
Abstract
The failure to eliminate bovine TB from the English and Welsh cattle herd represents a long-term intractable policy failure. Cattle-to-cattle transmission of the disease has been underemphasised in the debate compared with transmission from badgers despite a contested evidence base. Archival evidence shows that mythical constructions of the badger have shaped the policy debate. Relevant evidence was incomplete and contested; alternative framings of the policy problem were polarised and difficult to reconcile; and this rendered normal techniques of stakeholder management through co-option and mediation of little assistance.
 
Also another interesting report dated September 2010, 'Economic Impact Assessment of Bovine Tuberculosis in the South West of England' by
Allan Butler, Matt Lobley and Michael Winter CRPR Research Paper No 30. One of concluding remarks includes 'Finally, in addition to economic losses, bTB is imposing considerable costs on the personal well-being of many farm households and also raises profound livestock welfare issues. (para 10, iv) thereby yet more proof that the policy is not working, bearing in mind that two of the three main aims of the policy are 'to protect public health' and 'to make sure that cattle do not suffer becuase of bTB'.

Interesting post from Celia Thomas at www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/081110/wales___response_to_iain_mccarthy_on_wales_badger_cull_.aspx
 
I would like to point out the economics of the Welsh Cull.
 
Within the IAA area £12.9 million has been paid out in compensation since 2004. Using the best figures given, Elin Jones hopes to achieve a reduction of 28% this includes culling (22%) and apparently a further reduction due to the cattle measures now in place. 28% of £12.9 is £3.64 million. The cost of the cull without policing is set at £9 million. Good house keeping Elin! For a cull we don't want and regulations that could blight the area for an unlimited time!
 
 

 
Comment from Ruth - email dated 27 August 2010
I don't feel able to comment on analysis of the political reasons for failure of policy. There seems to me to have been an awful lot of badger behaviour work etc and badger input, but essentially little modern microbiology. The tools for studying microbiology of mycobacteria are changing fast and I am not sure that the most modern techniques have been applied and integrated into the badger and cattle studies on the situation in the field. When I heard Prof Wellington talk at the CLA several years ago after a presentation from a senior badger behaviourist from Woodchester at the same meeting it was striking that there seemed to be little understanding and interchange between the two, the implications of the microbiology findings she made unappreciated, shoulders shrigged in response. I think there are fundamental problems at the very heart of understanding the M bovis epidemic on all sides. I don't think there is enough information to make a reasonable decision for policy based on microbiology and there seems to be no will to get the microbiology that might now be got.
 

Email from GL received 5/8/10 refers to the project undertaken by Warwick University. He highlights the following from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/gld/results:
 
Revised Nov 2nd 2009
 
[c]
Throughout the final year of the project we will put our results and findings on to this page. Note that there is a sub-page that contains links to the presentations that we have made.
 
Policy Failure
 
Professor Wyn Grant completed a piece of research based on material within the National Archives. He was originally seeking to understand how endemic cattle diseases have been treated within government, but made two discoveries. First, that bovine tuberculosis is virtually the only endemic disease mentioned in any of the papers. Second, that the handling of bovine tuberculosis as a political issue has been characterised by policy failure. This second finding has been written into an article for the British Journal of Politics and International Relations (2009, 11, 557-573), and the abstract is reproduced here.
The failure to eliminate bovine TB from the English and Welsh cattle herd represents a long-term intractable policy failure. Cattle-to-cattle transmission of the disease has been underemphasised in the debate compared with transmission from badgers despite a contested evidence base. Archival evidence shows that mythical constructions of the badger have shaped the policy debate. Relevant evidence was incomplete and contested; alternative framings of the policy problem were polarised and difficult to reconcile; and this rendered normal techniques of stakeholder management through co-option and mediation of little assistance.
Warwick University 2009

G Laurens sent this letter to Carwyn James as he is concerned he is giving out misleading information.
 
 
 
First Minister,
National Assembly of Wales.
 
Dear Mr C.Jones,
 
You have been reported in the Irish Times Wed, July 14th 2010 as stating:
 
Welsh first minister Carwyn Jones said bovine TB rates are rising: “We will consider the implications of the judgement, but what’s absolutely clear is that we cannot allow a situation to persist where TB increases year on year in Wales.”
 
This statement, which I also saw on BBC Wales is misleading and likely to inflame an already bad situation.
 
For your information.
 
There were 1610 less animals slaughtered in 2009 as a result of the bovine TB programme in Wales than there were in 2008. This is in spite of 404,174 more cattle tested in 2009 than in 2008. These are all DEFRA's own statistics. In the light of this and many other aspects/statistics that show a decline in prevelance of TB in Wales it is wrong to say that TB rates are rising and increasing year on year.
 
This is becoming a mantra to alarm farmers and the general public in order to justify killing badgers.
 
The figures for this year look very encouraging for GB as a whole. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/stats/documents/10/march10gb.pdf
 
If you visit the link and look at the last two columns of the data that compare the first three months of last year with the first three months of this year you will see significant improvements are being made.
Elimination of TB from cattle will only be effected through rigorous cattle measures as recommended by the ISG and the examples of Australia and Scotland
 
I have included a quote from Professor Bourne below, fully referenced. Could it be that Elin Jones was the senior politician he was referring to?
 
Professor John Bourne states in the Veterinary Record May 3, 2008: 1.
 
‘I think the most interesting observation was made to me by a senior politician who said, “fine John we accept your science, but we have to offer the farmers a carrot. And the only carrot we can possibly give them is culling badgers”.’
 
"Professor Bourne went on to argue that if culling was done in the way the EFRA committee specified there would be only a few areas in which it could be done and its impact would be trivial."
 
1. AVTRW looks at the science of TB
Vet Rec. 2008 162: 571-572.
 

---

An interesting extract from the introduction to DEFRA's Structural Reform Plan (http://engage.defra.gov.uk/reform-plan) implies that power is being out into the hands of people and communities. However, the existing bovine TB policy does not fit in with many of the actions proposed, so maybe we can now encourage change.
 
' Structural Reform Plans are the key tool of the Coalition Government for making departments accountable for the implementation of the reforms set out in the Coalition Agreement. They replace the old, top-down systems of targets and central micromanagement. The reforms set out in each department’s SRP are designed to turn government on its head, taking power away from Whitehall and putting it into the hands of people and communities. Once these reforms are in place, people themselves will have the power to improve our country and our public services, through the mechanisms of local democratic accountability, competition, choice, and social action.
 
The reform plans set out in this document are consistent with and form part of the Department’s contribution to the Spending Review. All departmental spending is subject to the Spending Review.
 
We have adopted a cautious view of the timescales for delivering all legislative measures due to the unpredictability of pressures on Parliamentary time.'