Food & Drink0 min ago
The Government has announced the Badger Cull, in Somerset and Gloucestershire has been delayed until next Year.
35 Answers
Apparently there isn't not enough time for the required number of badgers to be shot before winter sets in, so they will start next summer.
Not really a victory for those against the cull, although some people are saying in probably won't start again. Hmmm I wonder?
Not really a victory for those against the cull, although some people are saying in probably won't start again. Hmmm I wonder?
Answers
@JtP - I have not seen anyone claim that badgers are incapable of carrying TB. I have seen quite a bit of research to suggest that, of the likely vectors of TB transmission
15:09 Tue 23rd Oct 2012
Thatcherite, it's because British farmers lose numerous cattle every year to TB. There's a possible but unproven link to badgers on farmland carrying the disease, so the cull is supposed to prevent the disease from carrying.
This doesn't, however, take into account that TB could in fact be transmitted by any mammal, and not just badgers. Or that a cow that has the parasite liver fluke will not show up as a reactor when tuberculin tested, and therefore could be spreading the disease among its herd or to other animals in cattle markets.
And then there's the fact that most farmers are still pretty peed off with DEFRA over the way that the foot and mouth outbreak was handled, so this is a good way for DEFRA to prove that they do listen to farmers' concerns.
I could go on, but this is turning into a rant
This doesn't, however, take into account that TB could in fact be transmitted by any mammal, and not just badgers. Or that a cow that has the parasite liver fluke will not show up as a reactor when tuberculin tested, and therefore could be spreading the disease among its herd or to other animals in cattle markets.
And then there's the fact that most farmers are still pretty peed off with DEFRA over the way that the foot and mouth outbreak was handled, so this is a good way for DEFRA to prove that they do listen to farmers' concerns.
I could go on, but this is turning into a rant
Oh yes, and I forgot to mention that the government is under pressure from landowners to repeal the Hunting with Dogs Act, so that they can allow fox-hunting again. This is a very politically risky area for a government that only got into power via a coalition, and not one where they can afford to take chances. Much easier to curry favour with landowners by being seen to take an interest in the TB problem.
OK, I'm really going to go away and shut up now.
OK, I'm really going to go away and shut up now.
Well, the point is that the cull has been postponed, at least until the latter half of next year. During this pause, or u-turn, they can review again the science, which does not favour a farme organised cull of badgers as part of the eventual aim of obtaining a TB free herd.
Unless you can adequately determine the badger population in a nominated area, you cannot ensure you meet the target of a shooting cull, which is to kill more than 70% of the local population - only then does the cull even start to address this issue. Making such an accurate survey of badger numbers costs money and time - and it is principally the economy of the scheme that commended it to the government in the first place.
In the meanwhile, the counter claim is that badgers, by virtue of their numbers in comparison to cattle, are an irrelevance to the transmission of TB and that better biosecurity and less contravention of the existing system by farmers would work out much better.
The best solution should really be to vaccinate the cattle - the only reason we do not is because EU rules do not permit the cross-border sale of live animals with TB, and there is currently no way to distinguish between a positive result as a consequence of the immunization or because of a TB infection - but they are working on that.
Unless you can adequately determine the badger population in a nominated area, you cannot ensure you meet the target of a shooting cull, which is to kill more than 70% of the local population - only then does the cull even start to address this issue. Making such an accurate survey of badger numbers costs money and time - and it is principally the economy of the scheme that commended it to the government in the first place.
In the meanwhile, the counter claim is that badgers, by virtue of their numbers in comparison to cattle, are an irrelevance to the transmission of TB and that better biosecurity and less contravention of the existing system by farmers would work out much better.
The best solution should really be to vaccinate the cattle - the only reason we do not is because EU rules do not permit the cross-border sale of live animals with TB, and there is currently no way to distinguish between a positive result as a consequence of the immunization or because of a TB infection - but they are working on that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.