About Me

My photo
"Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made."

Monday 20 February 2012

THE BADGER CULL: THE ANSWER SHOULD BE AS CLEAR AS BLACK AND WHITE. AN EXAMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROVERSIAL RECENT DECISION TO ALLOW THE TRIAL OF BADGER CULLS IN THE UK.

Abstract
The United Kingdom over the past decades has been at the forefront of protecting many varieties of animals. However this article considers a recent decision made by the government authorising a six week experiment permitting licensed farmers to shoot badgers in two trial areas to try and combat the issues with the transfer of Bovine tuberculosis (bTB). It has been suggested though, that the government should reconsider the way in which it wishes to deal with bTB crisis as there are wider implications relating to cost and public opinion. There’s also a huge backlashed from animal welfare campaigners with regards to the cull with many arguing vital scientific evidence, headed by Professor John Bourne and carried out by The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), is being ignored.


Keywords: Bovine Tuberculosis, Badger Cull, Scientific Evidence, Cost


Introduction
Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic, contagious disease which can affect all animals. Due to the seriousness of the disease, farmers take great care to minimise the risk of their cows catching it. Research shows that one cause of infection is through contact with infected badgers. Currently farmers can only try to stop contact between badgers and dairy cows, including 'badger-proofing' buildings and feed stores. However, in December 2011, the government, headed by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, backed plans to go ahead with six week trials, taking place in autumn 2012, allowing licensed marksmen to shoot badgers in two trial areas. This could lead to a wider cull across the country as part of efforts to tackle the bTB crisis. Conversely many people are against this arguing scientific evidence, costs and general animal welfare as vital reasons not to go ahead with the government plans.


Discussion
Bovine tuberculosis has been a growing issue in this country over the last decade. Results from 2010 show more than 28,000 cattle having the disease and of which 25,000 were slaughtered costing tax payers approximately £90million in compensation payments. The government has recently gone as far as to say that in ten years the compensation figures could reach £1billion.
However Kaminski (The Guardian 2011) argues it wasn't always like this and by 1970, bTB was almost eliminated completely with only about 1,000 cases seen in the UK. Eleven years of localised badger culling failed to reduce the toll further. The end of annual cattle testing in the mid-80s, and the effects of BSE and foot-and-mouth meant that testing was abandoned altogether at that time, meaning that many farms lost thousands of animals. Afterward there was a rush to restock the farms and regulations were relaxed. Cattle were regrettably moved all over the country which spread bTB drastically. These relaxations of the movement and testing regimes of the cattle themselves can be said to be to blame for the bTB situation in this country now, and not the badgers.
Badgers have been unfairly labelled as the main problem within the transfer bTB to cattle and already thousands have been killed, many of which were perfectly healthy. A scientific trial of badger culling was carried out by DEFRA and led by Professor John Bourne. It took over nine years and cost the taxpayers £49m. In the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RMCT), there was a ‘reactive’ culling strategy where badgers were removed from farms in which bTB outbreaks had occurred. This made bTB incidences rise by approximately 25% due to the perturbation effect, where disease spread is actually exacerbated by culling. This strategy was immediately abandoned. ‘Proactive’ culling was also used, where large areas were trapped once a year for five years, which reduced bTB incidence in cattle in culled areas by 25%. However this beneficial effect for cattle was offset by an increased incidence of the disease in surrounding unculled areas by the same amount. This leads to a greater spread of the disease to other badgers and the infection therefore becomes more widely dispersed.
The RMCT study is now being painstakingly ignored with the government backing the cull and somehow basing their support on the outcome of this trial. This is hard to comprehend for many as in June 2007 the Secretary of State received a letter in which DEFRA stated perfectly clear their findings from the trial which identified that while badgers are clearly a source of bTB, ‘careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.’ To most people this is perfectly clear, culling is not effective. Culling does not make the problem any better. So how have the government managed to interpret this in a way to support the badger cull?
In 2010 the government held a public consultation to discover public opinions about the cull.  The figures showed that, of those who responded, 69% would not want a cull and 31% were in favour of culling but alongside vaccination. This is the general trend in many other polls too. The public have made their opposition clear, 97% voted against in a 2007 poll for the Labour government and 90.9% against in a Guardian poll in July 2011. Even a poll by Countryfile, which largely has a farming audience, polled more than 60% against a cull. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the government's proposals (Harvey 2011).
It is argued by many that badgers are not the main reason for the outbreak of bTB. On the Isle of Man they have bTB in cattle; however they do not have many badgers. In Scotland they are not experiencing a bTB crisis like we are here in the UK and yet no badgers have been killed to achieve this. Ireland has a worse bTB crisis than we do and yet they have been killing badgers for years, in some cases causing extinction in some parts of the country. So it is easily argued that badgers are not the problem. The problem is most likely caused from cattle to cattle transfers. (Cheeseman 2011)
The RMCT has also tried to focus more on the cattle to cattle transfers, believing that this could be the main form of the diseases transfer. Their argument stated that cattle control could greatly reduce infection. Improved surveillance and more frequent as well as more reliable testing of the cattle could not only lead to a reduction of the disease in the cattle itself but also in the badgers. It is also contended that ways to keep badgers and cattle apart would be a better place to start trying to combat the problem rather than murdering many badgers, most of whom are not infected in the first place. In the past two years, improved cattle testing, biosecurity and movement controls in England have led to a 15% reduction in the rates of bTB infection. In Wales, during the same period, the number of cattle slaughtered because of bTB has fallen by 36% (Kaminski 2011).
There is no doubt that bTB is a disaster to the cattle, to the farmers, the taxpayer as well as to the badgers themselves. Yet only 11% of the badgers culled in the RBCT carried the disease. Professor John Bourne is adamant that localised culling would not control bTB and most worryingly could, in some cases, make it worse. DEFRA instead proposed vaccination of badgers in 2010 to see if this would reduce the spread of disease. However the government did not agree with this saying that it would take too much time and money.
Cost is seen as a main argument for many for the implementation of the badger cull. Tax payers pay large amounts of compensation to farmers for the loss of infected cattle. However if the cull goes ahead a dedicated team of skilled staff will incur costs of between four to five times more than the economic benefits gained inside a proactively culled area of 100km. It can also be seen that over eight years farmers will pay over £50million for the cull, the tax payers will pay approximately £40million and these costs do not include legal fees when the cull is challenged in the courts and the policing costs which will be incurred for any protests from wildlife and animal rights activists. The total then for the cull dwarfs the £20million that would have been put aside for vaccinations, yet the government still think vaccinations are too expensive.
Despite scientific evidence and the majority of public opinions being against the cull the government has still decided to go ahead with it. However many protests have already been voiced including Human Society International who are submitting a formal complaint to the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and state that the cull lacks legitimate purpose. In Wales, the cull was successfully delayed through legal challenges as it was argued the government acted unlawfully in interpreting section 21 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Many are hopeful that through legal action and protests the cull will be delayed and eventually stopped all together.


Animal Welfare Implications
Over the years, the UK Government have tried greatly to protect the welfare of animals. Badger legislation can be seen as unique as unlike most other wildlife legislation the primary concern here is the welfare of the badgers and not of conservation.  From badger baiting to possible badger culls it can be said that badgers have not had the easiest time. To try and stop badger baiting from occurring the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 was enforced and strengthened by the Protection of Badgers Act 1973 (and amended in 2002) and was then followed by the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There were initial problems with this Act due to the fact that badgers are not rare and therefore were slightly under protected. However the 1985 amendments reversed the burden of proof which solved many evidential problems. The Badger Act 1991 made it an offence to interfere with a badger sett giving even further protection to not just the badger but also their surroundings. This along with the Badgers (further protection) Act 1991 later became the Protection of Badgers Act 2002. These laws have been strengthened with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which makes enforcing all of these laws easier (Palmer 2011). However all of these laws now seem inadequate as they do not protect badgers from the cull and the inevitability of them being killed.


Conclusion
For me it seems the argument against the cull is about science and not sentiment, although for many it is both. I would suggest that the sensible and sustainable way forward is through vaccines, improved cattle testing, and better cattle biosecurity. It seems logical to question the sense of a disease control initiative that has been scientifically proven to actually spread the problem geographically and if I was a farmer on the edge of a proposed culling area, I would be extremely worried about the increased risk of cattle TB outbreaks that will result from the cull. It seems shameful that the government would consider and eventually back an initiative that might ultimately make the situation worse.


Bibliography
Brooman and Legge, 1997, ‘Law Relating to Animals’, Cavendish Publishing: London, UK
Colin T. Reid, 2010, ‘Wildlife reforms in Scotland’, Environmental Law Review
Craig Whelton, 2010, ‘Bats, badgers, beeching and bus-ways’, Scottish Planning and Environmental Law
Dr Chris Cheeseman, 15/03/11, ‘Culling badgers will make TB worse’, South Wales Evening Post
Fiona Harvey, 11/07/11, ‘Badger Culling is ineffective, says architect of 10-year-trial’, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/11/badger-culling-ineffective-krebs last accessed 11/01/12
Headed by Professor John Bourne, 2007, ‘Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence. A Science Base for a Sustainable Policy to Control TB in Cattle’
Julia Kaminski, August 2011, ‘Badger culls don’t stop tuberculosis in cattle- the evidence is clear’, The Guardian
Julian Palmer, 2001, ‘Animal Law’, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd; London, UK
The Badger Trust, http://www.nfbg.org.uk/Content/Home.asp

No comments:

Post a Comment