The post is from Steve Backshall who is a wildlife presenter for BBC, probably best known for his work on the children's show 'Deadly 60' (a great show not just for kids!!). He has a great understanding of our wildlife and clearly has researched in depth to understand the full extent of the badger cull.
Do take the time to read - it is really very enlightening.
I
am doing my best not to base my reaction to the badger cull on
childhood nights sat by our local setts praying for a black and white
face to emerge, or on the joy every time I find a thick guard hair
clinging to low-slung barbed wire, that bear-like pawprint in my
local woods, the Christmas morning excitement of looking through my
camera traps or a greasy latrine of beetle bits. My passion for
having something truly wild, yet rarely seen in our countryside makes
me emotional and therefore biased. For this reason, neither I, nor
any farmer whose livelihood depends on cattle should be making this
decision. Instead, we must rely on science. Good, solid, impartial,
means-tested science.
We all have a vested interest in the correct and long-term solution of this problem. In 2007 when Krebs was completed; 'The cost to the taxpayer of the TB controls, including testing, compensation, badger control and related activities is currently about £16 million a year'. 'The cost to farmers with infected cattle averaged about £8700 a year'. More recent reports suggest that in 2012 about £100million of public money was paid to farmers in compensation for destruction of infected cattle.
Under pressure from lobbyists, Conservative politicians such as environment secretary Owen Paterson are now looking away from the Krebs report for justification, so they can claim 'the science' supports the cull. He refers to 'Other countries, where a cull has had results'. More specifically to The Republic of Ireland, where the period of the cull coincided with a reduction of BTB. However, he ignores the fact that what was effectively the control, done across the border in N.Ireland in the same time period achieved comparable results without a single badger being killed. The other two countries he refers to are Australia and New Zealand. Two countries with entirely different biomes, which DO NOT HAVE BADGERS. Results were achieved in NZ by culling invasive possums and ferrets. This is NOT RELEVANT science. The independent Krebs report with data compiled from 1973-2007, completed in this country with our farms and our animals, paid for by British taxpayers is totally specific to OUR countryside, and is the only science that should be referred to. Anyone who queries its independence should note that the study culled over 21,000 badgers, many by gassing setts. It was led by an eminent Oxford professor and was carried out despite strong public opinion against it.
These are some of the facts represented in the report verbatim. (M.bovis is Bovine TB).
The sum of evidence strongly supports the view that, in Britain, badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. MAFF investigations detected M. bovis in the following species other than badgers: moles, foxes, mink, rats, wild deer; red, roe, fallow and sika and ferrets. (infection rate in ferrets is 3.85%, compared to 4.05% in badgers). Although the prevalence of M. bovis in the sampled badgers is higher than in the other sampled species, the sample suffers from unquantifiable biases. Farmed deer are highly susceptible to M. bovis.
Removing badgers from an established population is likely to affect the behaviour of the remaining animals, and these changes may influence the transmission of M. bovis between badgers or from badgers to cattle. In undisturbed populations, the rate at which male badgers disperse between social groups is highest at low density (Woodroffe et al.
1995). Reducing population density through badger control may therefore lead to more frequent dispersal, increasing the rate at which M. bovis is transmitted between groups. Such perturbation might have an important effect upon the spatial dynamics of M. bovis.
The effect of badger removal on transmission is likely to be greatest when social groups( are disrupted rather than removed entirely. Studies of dispersal behaviour suggest that if a badger removal operation reduced a group to members of a single sex, for example, the remaining animals might leave the territory, or others might move in from elsewhere to re-form a breeding group. Movement of animals between territories, and the resultant fighting over breeding positions, are both Iikely to increase the transmission of M. bovis.
Small-scale badger removals may not substantially reduce contact between cattle and infected badgers because partial removal of social groups causes disruptions in territorial and dispersal behaviour. Altered territorial behaviour may increase the risk of transmission to cattle, since urine and faeces are deposited directly onto pasture rather than being concentrated in latrines on territory borders. Furthermore, changes in dispersal behaviour might lead to spread of the disease among the remaining badgers.
The conclusion of the Krebs report is this:
We need an experimental comparison of the impact of a small number of simple husbandry techniques. Husbandry may well play an important role as part of the long-term solution. In the long run, the best prospect for control of bovine TB is to develop a vaccine for cattle. We recommend that the development of a cattle vaccine and an associated diagnostic test to distinguish infected from vaccinated cattle shouId be a high priority for MAFF's long-term research strategy. A badger vaccine, although posing greater technical problems in terms of both development and delivery, should also be kept as an option.
NB. Something really important which is being overlooked; This present cull; 70% of badgers in the study area to number around 5000animals is being done NOT to impact on BTB or achieve any data on transmission, but to assess what methods of killing the animals is most humane. This science has been done already, over larger areas, with bigger study groups, and better controls. This is not science, it is appeasement.
If you, like so many others, want to make your voice heard and tell the governement that this is NOT what we want then please sign the petition here:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257
We all have a vested interest in the correct and long-term solution of this problem. In 2007 when Krebs was completed; 'The cost to the taxpayer of the TB controls, including testing, compensation, badger control and related activities is currently about £16 million a year'. 'The cost to farmers with infected cattle averaged about £8700 a year'. More recent reports suggest that in 2012 about £100million of public money was paid to farmers in compensation for destruction of infected cattle.
Under pressure from lobbyists, Conservative politicians such as environment secretary Owen Paterson are now looking away from the Krebs report for justification, so they can claim 'the science' supports the cull. He refers to 'Other countries, where a cull has had results'. More specifically to The Republic of Ireland, where the period of the cull coincided with a reduction of BTB. However, he ignores the fact that what was effectively the control, done across the border in N.Ireland in the same time period achieved comparable results without a single badger being killed. The other two countries he refers to are Australia and New Zealand. Two countries with entirely different biomes, which DO NOT HAVE BADGERS. Results were achieved in NZ by culling invasive possums and ferrets. This is NOT RELEVANT science. The independent Krebs report with data compiled from 1973-2007, completed in this country with our farms and our animals, paid for by British taxpayers is totally specific to OUR countryside, and is the only science that should be referred to. Anyone who queries its independence should note that the study culled over 21,000 badgers, many by gassing setts. It was led by an eminent Oxford professor and was carried out despite strong public opinion against it.
These are some of the facts represented in the report verbatim. (M.bovis is Bovine TB).
The sum of evidence strongly supports the view that, in Britain, badgers are a significant source of infection in cattle. MAFF investigations detected M. bovis in the following species other than badgers: moles, foxes, mink, rats, wild deer; red, roe, fallow and sika and ferrets. (infection rate in ferrets is 3.85%, compared to 4.05% in badgers). Although the prevalence of M. bovis in the sampled badgers is higher than in the other sampled species, the sample suffers from unquantifiable biases. Farmed deer are highly susceptible to M. bovis.
Removing badgers from an established population is likely to affect the behaviour of the remaining animals, and these changes may influence the transmission of M. bovis between badgers or from badgers to cattle. In undisturbed populations, the rate at which male badgers disperse between social groups is highest at low density (Woodroffe et al.
1995). Reducing population density through badger control may therefore lead to more frequent dispersal, increasing the rate at which M. bovis is transmitted between groups. Such perturbation might have an important effect upon the spatial dynamics of M. bovis.
The effect of badger removal on transmission is likely to be greatest when social groups( are disrupted rather than removed entirely. Studies of dispersal behaviour suggest that if a badger removal operation reduced a group to members of a single sex, for example, the remaining animals might leave the territory, or others might move in from elsewhere to re-form a breeding group. Movement of animals between territories, and the resultant fighting over breeding positions, are both Iikely to increase the transmission of M. bovis.
Small-scale badger removals may not substantially reduce contact between cattle and infected badgers because partial removal of social groups causes disruptions in territorial and dispersal behaviour. Altered territorial behaviour may increase the risk of transmission to cattle, since urine and faeces are deposited directly onto pasture rather than being concentrated in latrines on territory borders. Furthermore, changes in dispersal behaviour might lead to spread of the disease among the remaining badgers.
The conclusion of the Krebs report is this:
We need an experimental comparison of the impact of a small number of simple husbandry techniques. Husbandry may well play an important role as part of the long-term solution. In the long run, the best prospect for control of bovine TB is to develop a vaccine for cattle. We recommend that the development of a cattle vaccine and an associated diagnostic test to distinguish infected from vaccinated cattle shouId be a high priority for MAFF's long-term research strategy. A badger vaccine, although posing greater technical problems in terms of both development and delivery, should also be kept as an option.
NB. Something really important which is being overlooked; This present cull; 70% of badgers in the study area to number around 5000animals is being done NOT to impact on BTB or achieve any data on transmission, but to assess what methods of killing the animals is most humane. This science has been done already, over larger areas, with bigger study groups, and better controls. This is not science, it is appeasement.
If you, like so many others, want to make your voice heard and tell the governement that this is NOT what we want then please sign the petition here:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257
No comments:
Post a Comment