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
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
TBFree
England, http://www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/
The
Badger Trust, http://www.nfbg.org.uk/Content/Home.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment