Rural battle lines are drawn as badger cull gets under way
The arguments, in Parliament and in court, are over. The badger cull is beginning. But, asks Philip Bowern, could we be looking at the start of a new battle in the countryside?
Not so long ago it was scenes of red-coated huntsmen and placard-waving demonstrators which symbolised deep-seated division in the countryside.
-
The long-running and highly controversial saga over the culling of badgers is entering a new and riskier phase
In the next few weeks, in Gloucestershire and Somerset, it could well be rifle-carrying marksmen facing hunt saboteurs trying to frustrate their efforts to reduce the badger population.
It is the last thing the police need right now, with resources already stretched by Government-imposed spending cuts. But the possibility of disruption is not a good reason to prevaricate further on the cull, which has been demanded for years by farmers who are collectively losing millions of pounds and valuable breeding stock to bovine TB every year.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
Standing in front of a horse in an effort to disrupt the hunt, as saboteurs did before the hunt ban, is clearly not without risk. Attempting to get between a rifleman and his quarry at night and in deep and remote woodland, however, is far more dangerous.
The practicalities of the badger cull demand very specific tactics, both because of the secrecy of the mammal in question and the need to make every kill humane. That ought to help reduce the likelihood of any clash with protesters, since locations will be remote, on private land and difficult to access, especially in darkness.
Yet the more extreme end of the badger protection lobby has already found – and published online – the names of the individuals who are applying for the first cull licences. The internet has made it very much easier to research locations, identify cull areas and alert supporters to where direct action is proposed. The results could be catastrophic.
The rules, laid down by Defra and Natural England, say that badgers will be shot, with rifles and shotguns, in an effort to reduce their populations in the cull areas by up to 70%.
The animal welfare lobby initially suggested country walkers could be at risk from stray bullets and the tourist industry would be devastated as campers and other outdoor lovers shunned the pilot cull areas. The National Farmers’ Union dismiss those fears as preposterous. The marksmen will be familiar with the terrain over which they will be carrying out the cull and will have taken a written examination and a practical shooting test. The regulations also specify the calibre of the rifle that must be used – at least a .22 centre fire – and the ammunition, which must be of 50 grain weight. That is powerful enough to kill a badger. But also powerful to maim – or even kill – a man.
The NFU said just a few weeks ago that no-one in the cull areas would notice anything untoward going on in the countryside as a result of the badger cull. “Fox shooting, deer culling and the control of vermin already go on across the Westcountry. Exactly the same weapons already in use will be used for the pilot badger cull. No-one will notice anything different at all,” a spokesman confidently predicted.
That is all true. Guns are safely used across the Westcountry for lawful purposes day and night through much of the year. But they are generally used in sparsely populated areas without the attention of animal rights protesters.
If the anti-cull groups do act on their pledge to engage in “direct action,” normally deserted areas of countryside could be populated by those intent on protecting badgers – at potential risk to themselves.
There is little doubt the cull will take place. Dealing with bovine TB is costing the nation around £100 million at the moment. Some £30 million goes on compensating farmers for cattle culled, with the rest spent on efforts to contain the disease. Although there is deep disagreement surrounding the science, one key fact stands out: no country in the world has successfully tackled bovine TB without dealing with the disease among wild animals. In Britain, virtually everyone agrees badgers – a protected species – are the main carrier in the wild.
Farmers argue the badger lobby groups – now receiving support from many celebrities opposed to the cull – are hypocrites. One farmer told the WMN: “There are rare breeds of cattle down to just a few hundred left, yet the animal welfare lobby is happy to see them culled when they contract TB. Badgers, on the other hand, which at the last count numbered between 350,000 and 400,000 in this country, must not be culled. It doesn’t make sense.”
For the marksmen the job will be difficult enough. Many will have agreed to take part in the cull – at some personal risk – because they believe reducing badger numbers is the best way to tackle bovine TB in the wild as well as in domestic cattle. Knowing that they might come up against demonstrators is only going to make that job more difficult and more dangerous. This long-running and highly controversial saga is entering a new and riskier phase.
Comments
by fischadler
Wednesday, September 19 2012, 9:19PM
“So much for DEFRA s idea that water is a barrier to badgers.
Tweet from Simon King:
"Some people suggest water is an effective barrier against badger movement. Wrong. I have seen and filmed badgers swimming often. "
Petition is approaching 60,000. No surrender. With heart in hand and sword and shield we'll guard each badgers sett.”
by Charlespk
Wednesday, September 19 2012, 8:38PM
“Email received December 30 2009
DEFRA and bovine TB
After some 30 years as a country vet for cattle mainly I feel entitled to comment.
When a vet surgeon is called out to treat a cow or a whole herd of cattle it is vital that he finds the real cause of the trouble. Quite often this is an infection by a species of bacterium, virus, a mycosis or when there are parasites involved. It is common that there is a mix or environmental influences e.g. a draught in the calf shed.
It is the skill and experience of a successful vet to find the real diagnose and to treat or eliminate the very cause.
Infections by bacteria are normally treated with antibiotics and disinfectants and subsequent preventing methods. If an infection is treated soon after starting success is most of the time quick and guaranteed.
Not so easy to treat are chronic infections. Bovine Tuberculosis ( bTB ) is in 99% of all cases a very chronic disease, mainly because of the extremely slow multiplying of these bacteria. Apart from bTB there are quite a number of other strains causing Tuberculosis like the human strain, the strain causing leprosy, the avian strain, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis ( Johns disease ) and others which are even harmless.
There are a lot of vaccines against all kind of infections on the market. They normally give quite reliable results if administered correctly and in healthy animals ( and humans ). For Tuberculosis the common vaccine is the BCG which was found some 80 years ago and has been used to vaccinate healthy babies mainly. . BCG does not prevent an infection like all other vaccines; it just keeps it from becoming generalized, thus reducing the risk that the bacteria are swept into various other organs followed by massive excretion ( coughing, urine, faeces, milk etc ). There is scientific evidence that the efficiency of BCG is not more than 50% and in a lot of countries it is therefore not used any longer.
Any animal, group or herd of with bTB is a focus and as long as such a focus is not eliminated it is a high risk for further infections. It is outrageous that these aspects are widely ignored by DEFRA for years now with absolutely no end in sight. In 2008 over 40,000 head of cattle reacting to bTB were slaughtered (10% annual increase to be expected ) and nobody knows how many 10,000s of badgers and their setts are infected. Thus the infection within this most relevant wildlife reservoir is permanently growing including all its risks of infecting further cattle, other farm animals, pets and humans.
Vaccinating badgers cannot be the solution for there are locally far too many badgers and setts infected and vaccinating cattle with BCG is in my view absolutely contraindicated for the only way of diagnosing bTB in cattle will be seriously compromised.
DEFRA thinks to manage to develop a DIVA test thus being able to differentiate between a skin reaction caused by bTB and the one caused by BCG. It is unclear if such a test ever will reach permission or Europeanwide approbation; however there is a high risk that some countries will decide at some stage that they are not interested in any English beef products any longer when it cannot be guaranteed that there is no bTB. The routine bTB skin test alone in many cases is unreliable enough ( inconclusive or even false negative results ) and the Gamma Interferon bloodtest - apart from being expensive - is quite often hampered by some other influences. There definitely is no need of another uncertainty in this whole issue.
It is horror for me to see how things are going the wrong way and every month some hundred more farms are starting suffering dramatically. It is not 5 minutes before noon to rethink this whole approach by DEFRA - politically steered as it is - NO it is half past noon and even with a quick U turn the future of battling bTB looks bleak.
Tuberculosis and DEFRA - a Political Tragedy?
Dr Ueli Zellweger MRCVS GST TVL
Somerset
Wednesday, September 19 2012, 7:4”
by mowsala
Wednesday, September 19 2012, 7:41PM
“"There are rare breeds of cattle down to just a few hundred left, yet the animal welfare lobby is happy to see them culled when they contract TB. Badgers, on the other hand, which at the last count numbered between 350,000 and 400,000 in this country, must not be culled. It doesn't make sense."
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone associated with animal welfare who is happy to see cattle culled as a result of TB. The problem is, the last trial cull -funded by taxpayers- found that culling badgers would at best result in a 16% reduction in bovine TB, and at worst, could actually spread the disease by disturbing badger populations and making them move about more. The scientist who managed the last study, Lord Krebs, described the upcoming cull as "crazy" (http://tinyurl.com/9kbbwtl).]
The clear solution is cattle vaccination, which can be done with current technology, but is currently prohibited, because vaccinated animals can be confused with infected ones. If only a few cows were vaccinated, this could be a problem, but if all were, the disease would be eradicated in just a few years. Cattle vaccination WILL prevent spread of the disease- in contrast to the badger cull, there is no scientific doubt about this. Farmers, do yourselves a favour and put the effort into lobbying for the solution that will actually work.”