# Badger Cull Wales SHELVED!!



## Pirate7 (Apr 7, 2008)

Hi Guys, Just read this and thought it was appropriate to post! 


Read some great news earlier on the LACS website:

The Welsh assembly have seen sense and have shelved the thought of a badger cull. 



> *Decision is a victory for ‘common sense and compassion’*
> 
> Plans to move forward with a badger cull in parts of Wales have today been shelved by the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay, following an announcement from the environment minister that a review of the evidence will take place.
> 
> ...


League Against Cruel Sports - News

For those who don't know, science has proved that culling badgers doesn't work, to keep the control of bTB. In the 70's when there was one in the UK they found that bTB actually increased in the areas where there was no cull, so it made the situation worse. 

This is a mega win for all animal lovers & of course badgers themselves in Wales!! :2thumb:

Lets hope this is the start of something good for the British wildlife and there won't be any repealing of the hunting act.

HURRAH FOR JUSTICE FOR BRITISH WILDLIFE! :2thumb:


----------



## Rhys_Scfc (Nov 25, 2010)

What idiot thought shooting ALL badgers would help in any way... :whip:


----------



## kettykev (May 15, 2009)

Pirate7 said:


> In the 70's when there was one in the UK they found that bTB actually increased in the areas where there was no cull, so it made the situation worse.


In the 70's there was one what?
Maybe you could also explain the concept of perturbation


----------



## Caz (May 24, 2007)

TB will be rife in the hills again this year with all those badgers roaming free..


----------



## hotspur2 (Sep 26, 2010)

good to see british wildlife that cant help themselves have a voice that will stop the pointless killing of one of the most beautifull british mammals . :2thumb:


----------



## fergie (Oct 27, 2007)

Caz said:


> TB will be rife in the hills again this year with all those badgers roaming free..


Are you a voice of authority on this matter? If so can you please divulge where you conducted your studies and what your findings were.


----------



## Pirate7 (Apr 7, 2008)

Apologies for not replying sooner. Been rather busy last couple of weeks!



Rhys_Scfc said:


> What idiot thought shooting ALL badgers would help in any way... :whip:


Lol, no idea. 



kettykev said:


> In the 70's there was one what?
> Maybe you could also explain the concept of perturbation


Sorry!.. In the 60/70's the government tired out a badger cull, gassing the dens. What the government didn't realise is how big their dens actually are, and the gas didn't reach the depths of the dens... Though that is near here nor there. Badgers being intelligent animals moved out of the culling zones, even the ones with bTB, so therefore the bTB outbreak rose due to the larger compact distribution of badgers. 
Though, it's not only the badgers fault. Not that i disagree with what farmers do they are also the problem, there needs to be a common ground to meet for wildlife and man. Do i know this? Unfortunately not yet. 

My take on the perturbation effect is the number of infected animals moving out of the subject areas into either un-effected land or effected land thus making the situation worse as there are more badgers with bTB in the area. 




hotspur2 said:


> good to see british wildlife that cant help themselves have a voice that will stop the pointless killing of one of the most beautifull british mammals . :2thumb:


:2thumb: Agreed!



Caz said:


> TB will be rife in the hills again this year with all those badgers roaming free..





fergie said:


> Are you a voice of authority on this matter? If so can you please divulge where you conducted your studies and what your findings were.


Indeed - I would love to know this too...Caz what are your views on the scientific evidence below? 



> Sadly, cattle TB is now out of control, rising by _c_. 20% a year, and back to 1960s levels. Unfortunately attention has focused to such an extent on badgers that many now seemingly do not understand how TB works in cattle and why annual testing and movement bans are the answer: they brought cattle TB down to tiny southwest hot-spots by the mid-1970s without any badger culling (Hancox 2000, 2002, 2003).
> _HANCOX M (2004). Badger culling does not control cattle TB. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 142, pp 251-252._


In 1998 Krebs and the Independent Science Group tried a randomised badger culling. In 2006 the ISG/Krebs trial was stoped early becuase of a suspected pertubation effect. 
TB in cattle - Blowey - 2010 - Livestock - Wiley Online Library



> The Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT), which the Trust supported, revealed that removal of badgers in cull areas reduced the incidence of BtB breakdowns by 20 - 25%, leaving up to 75% that was attributable to cattle to cattle transmission.
> Bourne et al. 2007, Bovine TB: the scientific evidence. Defra
> www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/pdf/final_report.pdf


Thus meaning most of the transmissions are due to cattle to cattle. 



> Although culling reduced badger numbers in the treatment areas, it also prompted more extensive ranging behaviour by the individuals that avoided capture and by those living in adjacent unculled areas where density was only marginally reduced. Increased contact among roaming badgers and cattle provides a parsimonious explanation for the associated increases in TB infection observed in badgers in culled areas and in cattle on adjacent land.
> C.A. Donnelly _et al._, Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on cattle tuberculosis, _Nature_ *439* (2006), pp. 843–846.


^^ Just one of the many scientific explanations that when you cull, outside the culling areas bTB increases.


----------



## kettykev (May 15, 2009)

The Krebs trial was performed in three "styles", culling badgers throughout an area, culling badgers on infected farms and survey/ monitoring only on the other area. The trial was stopped in the infected farms area due to the effects of pertubation.Badgers are very territorial and will even kill other badgers from other social groups, as badgers were removed from an area the social structure broke down allowing other badgers to come in or move out. This led to stress and fighting with infections due to bites.The rates of TB infection in the cattle around the edge of the trial area began to rise and so it was stopped.This rise can thus be attributed to the badgers.


----------



## Pirate7 (Apr 7, 2008)

kettykev said:


> The Krebs trial was performed in three "styles", culling badgers throughout an area, culling badgers on infected farms and survey/ monitoring only on the other area. The trial was stopped in the infected farms area due to the effects of pertubation.Badgers are very territorial and will even kill other badgers from other social groups, as badgers were removed from an area the social structure broke down allowing other badgers to come in or move out. This led to stress and fighting with infections due to bites.The rates of TB infection in the cattle around the edge of the trial area began to rise and so it was stopped.This rise can thus be attributed to the badgers.


Thank you, I knew there was something i had forgotten... But it's not just the badgers who are to 'blame'. It's not their fault farmers have moved into their territory and destroyed their habitats displaced familys and now intensive farming has increased. Humans fault. Not Badgers nor Cattle.


----------



## JustJordan (Jul 2, 2008)

I thought it was agree'd to go ahead today, or so it said on the news!


----------



## Pirate7 (Apr 7, 2008)

JustJordan said:


> I thought it was agree'd to go ahead today, or so it said on the news!


Unfortunately, that's true.. In England they are going ahead with it. :bash: Wales are clear from the cruelty.


----------



## Jazzy B Bunny (Jun 21, 2007)

Can they not just vaccinate the badgers? Surely its more humane


----------



## JustJordan (Jul 2, 2008)

Pirate7 said:


> Unfortunately, that's true.. In England they are going ahead with it. :bash: Wales are clear from the cruelty.


Actually this isnt the case any more. Thanks to England's approval, Welsh farmers have created a stir and the case will be re assessed in the future as a result.



Jazzy B Bunny said:


> Can they not just vaccinate the badgers? Surely its more humane


The National Trust did for a while, and it proved to be far more effective yet not cost effective and not as easy as quick shot or 'gasses'. 
As said the culls do not seem to work, or not so for at least 2 years.
TB through badgers will never be rid of through culling unless every single badger is killed, thus leading to extinction. 
England is under going a years trial, hopefully it wont be too late and they will see that its a waste of time and resources.


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

At best a short term solution will be sustained while badger populations are devastated. Its a waste of money that could be ploughed back into research to find an actual solution! Before the badger populations are recovered TB will be back in cattle herds, farmers will be shouting at the government, the government will be spinning a yarn and the scientific community will only be able to say "I told you so"! This sort of disregard for science when it suits is crippling in any context. Sickening!

Anyone know of a decent opposition to this cull? Petition etc?


----------



## kerrithsoden (Dec 6, 2009)

If you farm cattle than you have to accept the risk of some of your livestock contracting Bovine TB, just as I as a driver accept that when I drive on the roads I may have an accident. The only difference is I dont go round killing women drivers because its cheaper than car insurance! (no offence ladies)

The idea of bullets being cheaper than vaccines is a cop out! The fate of an entire species should not be in the balance because of money, what about the rats and the deer that carry TB

Living on a beef cattle farm I feel for every farmer who loses money over this disease. To see the stress my landlord goes through every time his cattle are checked is horrible.

At the same time I feel for the pub landlords whose customers are at home drinking cheap tesco beer.

I feel for the taxi firm owners whose petrol prices are soaring

In conclusion there are problems facing ALL business types... The solution is most definitely not to put a bullet in the problem!


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

kerrithsoden said:


> If you farm cattle than you have to accept the risk of some of your livestock contracting Bovine TB, just as I as a driver accept that when I drive on the roads I may have an accident. The only difference is I dont go round killing women drivers because its cheaper than car insurance! (no offence ladies)
> 
> The idea of bullets being cheaper than vaccines is a cop out! The fate of an entire species should not be in the balance because of money, what about the rats and the deer that carry TB
> 
> ...


You raise an interesting point. It is well known that farmers have had a bad time of it financially over the past couple of decades. I would argue, if they had not, TB would be not such a formidable bacterium. 

This is however a classic case of the angry mob and the government coming together to majorly cock up! Farmers stick together for the most part and they represent a large industry. David Cameron is thinking short term, only a few year until the next election after all!


----------



## kerrithsoden (Dec 6, 2009)

there is only one species which needs a culling....homosapien


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

kerrithsoden said:


> If you farm cattle than you have to accept the risk of some of your livestock contracting Bovine TB, just as I as a driver accept that when I drive on the roads I may have an accident. The only difference is I dont go round killing women drivers because its cheaper than car insurance! (no offence ladies)
> 
> The idea of bullets being cheaper than vaccines is a cop out! The fate of an entire species should not be in the balance because of money, what about the rats and the deer that carry TB
> 
> ...


Why is it, whenever issues like this are discussed the analogies are always pointlessly ridiculous?
You don't go round killing women drivers because it's illegal and you would very soon be caught or shot yourself.

The fate of an entire species is not in the balance, Badgers are very common now and are causing a lot of other problems, such as damage to the land structure and attacking/ eating domestic animals and game.
As to "what about the rats and deer?" Well, it is legal to control these species and it does happen. 
The badger has had protection for a very good reason, they became very scarce, now (at least in my neck of the woods) they are everywhere and I see no reason why numbers shouldn't be controlled. And to all those who will pop up in threads like these and shout "humans are the problem, too many people taking too many resources" well I totally agree with you and please let me know when you're going to "off" yourself as I'd like to send flowers as a mark of my utmost respect to your ultimate sacrifice.


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

snakewhisperer said:


> Why is it, whenever issues like this are discussed the analogies are always pointlessly ridiculous?
> You don't go round killing women drivers because it's illegal and you would very soon be caught or shot yourself.
> 
> The fate of an entire species is not in the balance, Badgers are very common now and are causing a lot of other problems, such as damage to the land structure and attacking/ eating domestic animals and game.
> ...


The problem is no cogent argument against current scientific opinion has been made. The major trials cited above actually suggested culling will intensify problems due to dispersal of animals from close nit family groups. Human wildlife conflict needs to be tackled in a more intelligent way, here that appears not to be culling!


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

Gaboon said:


> The problem is no cogent argument against current scientific opinion has been made. The major trials cited above actually suggested culling will intensify problems due to dispersal of animals from close nit family groups. Human wildlife conflict needs to be tackled in a more intelligent way, here that appears not to be culling!


As I said, there is probably a bit more to wanting a badger cull than TB. That will be the public and legitimate (depending on evidence/research etc.) reason but when a combine drops into a badger catacomb under a field and causes 20 grands worth of damage or a gamekeeper finds yet another pen of young pheasant cleaned out, then people want a few culled before they become as popular as rats and a few individuals start taking the law into their own hands. (That does occasionally happen anyway from what I hear.)


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

snakewhisperer said:


> As I said, there is probably a bit more to wanting a badger cull than TB. That will be the public and legitimate (depending on evidence/research etc.) reason but when a combine drops into a badger catacomb under a field and causes 20 grands worth of damage or a gamekeeper finds yet another pen of young pheasant cleaned out, then people want a few culled before they become as popular as rats and a few individuals start taking the law into their own hands. (That does occasionally happen anyway from what I hear.)


Whatever the reasons are for the cull research still shows TB will spread as animals disperse. So a short term respite may well give way to a larger backlash. Not to mention that backlash including all the other problems you have mentioned, as new sets are established e.t.c. I am not for one moment suggesting killing animals should be out of the question when dealing with human wildlife conflict but a cull of this species carrying this disease is just plain daft.


----------



## kerrithsoden (Dec 6, 2009)

snakewhisperer said:


> Why is it, whenever issues like this are discussed the analogies are always pointlessly ridiculous?
> You don't go round killing women drivers because it's illegal and you would very soon be caught or shot yourself.
> 
> The fate of an entire species is not in the balance, Badgers are very common now and are causing a lot of other problems, such as damage to the land structure and attacking/ eating domestic animals and game.
> ...


Apologies, this was my crap attempt at humour!

Regardless of the status of badgers as a species it is a tragedy to kill them needlessly for the sake of money.

It boils down to bullets being cheaper than vaccines. The money used for the cull should be put towards the research of an ACTUAL solution.


----------



## Jazzy B Bunny (Jun 21, 2007)

If you kill off local populations, they will move and infect currently unaffected areas. This cull is going to do nothing.


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

Jazzy B Bunny said:


> If you kill off local populations, they will move and infect currently unaffected areas. This cull is going to do nothing.


Dead badgers don't tend to move that far!


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

snakewhisperer said:


> Dead badgers don't tend to move that far!


But the badgers inevitably not killed and left behind will roam for miles in search of new groups.


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

Gaboon said:


> But the badgers inevitably not killed and left behind will roam for miles in search of new groups.


Why inevitably? Do you know how the cull. Will be managed? Will it be reduction of set members or reduction of entire sets?


----------



## kettykev (May 15, 2009)

Badgers do live in setts but move between other setts, they live in social groups with the territory having a main sett and then smaller setts around it. There is no point tagetting individual setts, you have to remove the entire social group.
Before uninformed people start bogging this topic down with mentions of gassing, I would like to add that this was stopped 30 years ago after experiments at Porton down proved that the cyanide gas used did not work effectively on badgers compared to other species.


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

snakewhisperer said:


> Why inevitably? Do you know how the cull. Will be managed? Will it be reduction of set members or reduction of entire sets?


No I don't think the finer points have been mad public, however given the fact chemicals and gasses will not be used for reasons such as secondary poisoning and just plain insufficiency or potential further environmental damage (e.g. waterways pollution, non-target species deaths) its fairly safe to assume any method used will not be 100% efficient. That is to say any government scheme (any such scheme for that matter) _should_ abide by strict protocol to ensure minimal unnecessary environmental damage.


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

Government considering badger air strikes Madness!


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

Gaboon said:


> Government considering badger air strikes Madness!


I've heard they're prepared for this and will be operating a strict blackout policy.....albeit with a white stripe....


----------



## Elina (Jul 22, 2009)

"Apparently DEFRA secretary Caroline Spelman has given the thumbs up to allow between 50,000-90,000 Badgers to be culled over a four year period at 40 allocated sites.The culling will be carried out by both Farmers and Landowners and any who do not wish to cull will have their Badgers lured away from their land and culled..Appears DEFRA are pros too!!"

Read this on the Fox watch facebook group.
-
Elina


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

There does appear to be a review of the studies including re-anlysis that suggested TB incidence and badger dispersal correlation is in fact short term, not visa versa. In English I think this means using clever modelling systems they have predicted a surge in TB prevalence will give way to a spell of dropping TB prevalence. At the moment only the abstract is available so its hard to know how confident this prediction is. This hasn't stopped DEFRA suggesting the study has "busted the myth" of dispersal and increased prevalence.

Predictive modelling methods are slippery and they themselves are under ongoing review, so to base a decision like this on one method of such analysis is at best a little risky. There will ALWAYS be uncertainty. 

I am not saying they are categorically wrong, all evidence must be given its respective merit on a unique basis, be it theoretical or practical. 

Here is the Defra "myth busted" page and the paper I suspect they are drawing references from. The dates don't match but Defra could have had access to data before Kelly and More (2011) went to press. I am not meaning to suggest collusion (that's a given and would only digress things) Defra is a the agency for rural affairs and its only right they should have unprecedented access to relevant information. A am suggesting however that a poor representation of research is presented bellow.

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I NEED CORRECTING 

Bovine TB and badger culling

Interestingly Defra makes reference to "monitoring" yet the abstract below indicates re-analysis has suggested 

Kelly and More (Aug 2011) Spatial clustering of TB-infected cattle herds prior to and following proactive badger removal.

"Abstract: SUMMARYBovine tuberculosis (TB) is primarily a disease of cattle. In both Ireland and the UK, badgers (Meles meles) are an important wildlife reservoir of infection. This paper examined the hypothesis that TB is spatially correlated in cattle herds, established the range of correlation and the effect, if any, of proactive badger removal on this. We also re-analysed data from the Four Area Project in Ireland, a large-scale intervention study aimed at assessing the effect of proactive badger culling on bovine TB incidence in cattle herds, taking possible spatial correlation into account. We established that infected herds are spatially correlated (the scale of spatial correlation is presented), but at a scale that varies with time and in different areas. Spatial correlation persists following proactive badger removal."​


----------

