Badger culling in Taunton area

By Zumerset_Gal | Friday, January 20, 2012, 19:27

Yesterday DEFRA announced there will be a test cull of badgers in west Somerset this August,according to reports this could be an area of Taunton Deane although they won't say exactly where becuse they don't want protestors causing problems.However the site still has to be passed for a license by Natural England before they can go ahead,it is the time of year when the sows give birth at the moment.

Honey the badger at the British Wildlife Centre © Copyright Peter Trimming and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

DEFRA state that the disease forced the slaughter of 25,000 cattle in

2010 alone and will cost taxpayers around £1 billion over the next ten

years if not effectively dealt with.

The thinking is that this will reduce the amount of bovine. tuberculosis in cattle,that badgers can carry,but it also found in deer and no one dreams of culling them. AND WE GET TO PAY FOR IT

This is such an immotive issue that has been going on decades,they have culled before and it didn't change anything.

I remember them doing one when I was still at school and my brother was involved in the research when he was at Uni,he said there was no proof that killing badgers would solve the problem.

WHICH CAME FIRST THE CATTLE OR THE BADGER?

There is one line of thought that cattle used to have natural immunity when they lived a healthier lifestyle,in small herds that were not over-milked and grazing on natural meadow where they ate many plants and herbs which helped their immune system and had plenty of fresh air. This makes alot of sense,how many times have you seen cows up to their knees in mud crammed in a yard waiting to be milked or fed, especially in winter? When people sufferedwith TB the main part of the cure was good food,and plenty of fresh air and rest.

They may be put in barns on straw but how soon is that sodden and steaming from their urine and dung,ideal for all kinds of vapour transmitted disease?

I read this little gem on the Badger Trust website:"The result of the near 10-year £50 million taxpayer-funded research programme by the Independent Scientific Group (the ISG) was that killing large numbers of badgers would have no meaningful impact on the spread and control of this disease .Its final report recommended a series of cattle-based measures which it said were likely to reverse the increasing trend in cattle disease incidence…and which in addition might also reduce disease in badgers.The Government set up the Randomised Badger Culling Trial overseen by the ISG in the late 1990s. In the two years 2009 and 2010, there has been a 15% reduction in bTB due to improved testing of cattle, movement controls and improved cattle husbandry. This improvement has been achieved without any badgers being killed.

"In the 1930s bTB spiralled out of control and by 1960 was still infecting 16,000 of the UK's cattle. It was brought under control and all but eradicated by the cattle-based controls. No badgers had been killed or implicated. Then in the last decades of the 20th century bTB began to increase again. The reasons were not clear. Farming organisations blamed badgers. But in fact the increase followed a marked relaxation of cattle testing, slaughter and movement controls introduced;during the area-by-area eradication policy described above. The increase also coincided with the intensification of dairy farms and the growing trend towards large herds and over wintering them in sheds and barns".

We sorted it out in humans by vaccination,why not cattle? Too expensive? How much are they going to spend on more research and culling?

Re-post Write a story

Ads by Google

Comments

Thank you for your input in the badger culling,very interesting.I am sure farmers have better things they cold be doing with that kind of money,if they have it to spare in the first place. I know many farmers who look after their animals with great care but there have been cases reported of ear tags being changed and the wrong ones going for slaughter,leaving TB infected animals on the farm.

By marion_TLocal at 09:45 on 31/01/12
Report
If the 2 pilot culls are deemed successful and humane the governments proposals are for 10 areas in year one, another 10 in year two, another 10 in year three and another 10 in year four, each of which lasts for four years, meaning over eight years 40 areas will be culled of 70% of their Badgers.

The costs of culling will be met by farmers who will pay £56m for surveying, culling and coordination. Taxpayers will pay at least £36m for licensing marksmen, training and monitoring, equalling £92m. This does not include legal costs if the cull is challenged in the courts, or policing costs for protests. Nor does it include the new survey proposed by government at a cost of £870,000. These amounts dwarf the £20m of government money available for vaccination research over the next five years.

The estimated number of badgers killed each year of the cull will be between 23,330 and 35,000. This along with the 50,000 badgers killed on the roads annually. We have the possibility of loosing 85.000 badgers each year of the cull.

Maybe its time to look for the solution without first blaming Badgers.

In contrast, the current official "test and cull" policy to deal with bovine TB in the UK has been most aptly described as "survival of the weakest". This is the process by which we slaughter any cow that shows signs of mounting an immune response to the TB pathogen, thus steadily removing those animals from the population that had the best chance of surviving infection.

If that policy sounds a little insane to you then you probably aren't a politician. As far as I can tell, the only context in which such madness appears to make sense is in the paradoxical world of international trade. As a member of the EU we are "obliged" to try and eradicate bovine TB whether or not it's possible or even makes sense. Oh, and we're not allowed to use vaccines either. If money is your thing then it's worth noting that we are spending £100 million each year trying to protect an export market (live cattle) worth about £3.3 million. Why can't cattle that are not being kept for sale aboard be vaccinated against this dreadful disease, which will then give them immunity? Reducing the amount of infected cattle within Geographic areas reducing cattle to cattle infection that accounts for 84% of TB outbreaks.

I believe it is also fair to mention 300'000 cattle are premature slaughtered every year for diseased and problems such as mastitis, low milk yield, infertility etc, 25,000 is a mere drop in the ocean when looked at in context.

So what's the solution? Well, if there is one it's a long way from where we are now. The independent group http://tinyurl.com/3esjcgt have the best summary of the current situation I have seen and a very sensible suggested way forward – I highly recommend you read their discussion paper. The main thing they point out is that bovine TB isn't really much of a problem in the first place and the "devastating effect" it is having on farmers is in reality not from the disease but from the misguided attempted control policy.

Information accessed from: - http://tinyurl.com/3esjcgt, bovinetb.co.uk, Badger Trust Home Page, save-me.org.uk, guardian.co.uk/environment.

By savebadgers at 21:50 on 30/01/12
Report
The test badger culls will be paid for by farmers not the tax payer

By marion_TLocal at 00:24 on 25/01/12
Report