"I can’t understand
how anybody who’s looked at the science would say this is a good idea”
– Professor John
Krebs, architect of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial
Unless you’ve been living in a sett for the last year, you
have probably heard a lot of talk about the proposed badger cull, which will
begin in the Taunton Deane area of West Somerset and around Tewkesbury in
Gloucestershire (and potentially in Dorset) on 1st June 2013. After many months of
reading, protesting, letter writing and conversing with scientists and animal
rights activists, I have attempted to condense all of the available information
into one readable article, complete with references for those that want to dig
a little deeper into the issue. And so today, on the eve the cull, I present the case against this sick, unscientific, undemocratic and unjust crime against nature...
What's the problem?
Badgers, like many other wild animals, carry Bovine
Tuberculosis (bTB). The disease can be passed between wild animals and cattle,
and from cattle to wild animals. In 2011, approximately 26,000 cattle were
slaughtered due to BTB1 - there is no denying that
this disease impacts on the livelihood of cattle farmers. Government
compensation per cow ranges from £98 to £4,9132 depending on the age, breed
and sex of the cow – and that's your taxes, if you pay them. Understandably,
many farmers are concerned that having badgers on their land is a major threat
to their herd and their business. Eradication of badgers therefore at first
glance seems like a logical method of preventing the spread of Bovine TB, and a
harsh, but necessary, measure if we are to continue dairy farming in this
country. However, things are not so straightforward.
Is bTB the biggest threat to cattle?
Given the coverage in the media, you would be forgiven for
thinking that bTB was the biggest threat to cattle, however bTB is far from
being the biggest reason for slaughtering dairy cattle in Britain. In 2011, mastitis accounted for 17.54%, lameness accounted for 9.36%,
old age accounted for 6.39%, calving injury accounted for 4.41%, accidents and
trauma accounted for 4.38%, and all infectious diseases accounted for just
3.23% of slaughtered cattle3. The elephant in the room is that diseases such as mastitis
and lameness kill far more cattle than bTB, with mastitis costing the dairy
industry in excess of £168 million a year4.
How is TB transmitted?
The exact route of transmission between badgers and cattle
has not been proven. As David Williams, Chair of The Badger Trust put it -
“Until the science is clear, we should not be making the badger a scapegoat.
Remember DDT, myxomatosis and Thalidomide. We thought we knew that these were
scientific certainties but they were disastrous. We should be wary for the
future”5.
Cattle are herd dwelling animals that live closely together,
and are generally kept in enclosures (fields, barns, etc.) and therefore spread
of bTB between cattle is quick. In 2005, scientists at Oxford University found
that cattle-to-cattle transmissions of bTB “consistently outperform
environmental, topographic and other anthropogenic variables as the main
predictor of disease occurrence”6. Cattle catch the disease
from breathing in air from the lungs of other cattle, particularly in
poorly-ventilated spaces such as barns. The disease may be brought into the
herd from new cows, shared breeding bulls and coming into contact with infected
cows at markets and shows7. Cows are, of course, tested
for bTB - however DEFRA estimates that the test only detects around 80% of
infected cattle8. Furthermore, a team from
Liverpool University has found that the presence of a common fluke that
parasitises the liver of cattle can reduce the chances of TB being detected by
the test9. This fluke has increased
dramatically in numbers over the last 15 years, the same period that has seen a
large increase in incidences of TB in cattle.
Direct interactions between cattle and badgers are very rare10. It is thought that TB is
transmitted from badgers to cattle primarily via urine and dung left in fields,
and laboratory studies have shown that cattle can catch the disease from
infected badgers under controlled conditions, albeit in an enclosed
environment. Testing for infected setts has around a 40-50% success rate, and
therefore only targeting infected setts would be expensive and unreliable11.
In a stable and undisturbed badger population, there is
little movement and infected animals remain isolated. However, if badgers are
removed, other badgers move into the area, bringing any diseases they have with
them. When culling occurs, there is a small reduction in bTB within the cull
zone, however on the edge of the cull zone there is an increase due to badger
dispersal (the “perturbation effect”)12,13.
Badgers can pass bTB to cattle, however cattle can pass TB to
badgers also14. bTB is also an issue where
badgers are not present, including the Isle of Man and parts of Scotland15, and so they are not
necessarily a factor in the spread of the disease.
Badgers are not the only wild animals that carry TB. Deer
carry TB and tend to wander much further than badgers. Fallow and red deer in
particular have high incidences of the disease. Foxes, squirrels and rats also
carry TB16. However, following two
studies indicating the relatively high incidences of TB in deer, Defra
concluded that they are unlikely to pass the disease onto cattle. The Badger
Trust responded: "This statement is plainly nonsense to those of us who
have watched wild deer grazing alongside cattle at pasture."17
A Bit of History
In 1934, at least 40% of dairy cows in Great Britain were
reported to be infected with Bovine TB18. In 1947 the Government began
a programme of comparative testing of
cattle for bovine TB and slaughtering infected cattle to try and control the
problem, which became compulsory in 1950 and reduced the number of bovine TB
cases to a very low level by 1960, and by the mid-1960s cases of bovine TB in
cattle were confined to a few areas of south-west England, and remained at low
levels in other areas until the early 1990s19. TB incidences in cattle are
far lower now than the in the 1930s. There was no badger cull back then -
measures to reduce incidences of cattle-to-cattle transmission were responsible
for the dramatic reduction in TB.
Badgers were first linked to bTB in 1971, and shortly
afterwards farmers were issued licences to cull them. Between 1975 and 1981,
badgers were gassed in their setts using hydrogen cyanide and from 1986 to 1998
culling occurred only on land used by tuberculin-positive cattle20. The effectiveness of
previous strategies was unknown because they were not compared with each other
or a strategy of no culling. Pro-cull advocates often point to the cull
undertaken in Thornbury between 1975-81 as there was a slight reduction in bTB
in cattle in the area, however this was not conceived as a scientific
experiment and more research was required to evaluate the effectiveness and the
cost-effectiveness of a cull11. A large-scale trial badger
cull was implemented in 1998 by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on
Cattle TB. Early results showed a consistent (around 27%) increase in bTB in
cattle where culling had taken place, which is likely to be due to higher rates
of badger dispersal in these areas21. Following the trial, the ISG
stated in their report “while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB,
careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling
can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed,
some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than
better. Second, weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle
themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in
all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the
main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising
incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the
rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone”13.
The recent rise in bTB in cattle has, in part, been
attributed to relaxation of cattle testing following the mass slaughter moved
all over the country, infecting other herds and potentially the local badger
populations. A return to testing and biosecurity has already seen a decrease in
the rate of infection, despite stories of farmers swapping cattle tags to keep infected
valuable animals on their farms22
Why is the cull going ahead?
Despite this country’s top scientists and wildlife experts repeatedly
finding that the cull won’t make much of a difference and that there are other
avenues worth exploring, the cull will still be going ahead. Professor John
Bourne has the answer: "I think the most interesting observation was made
to me by a senior politician who said, 'Fine John, we accept your science, but
we have to offer the farmers a carrot. And the only carrot we can possibly give
them is culling badgers'."12
So if killing badgers isn’t the answer, what is?
It is estimated that only 15% of badgers carry bTB13, and therefore around 85% of
badgers killed during the cull would not have posed any threat to cattle
whatsoever. Back in 1997, Lord Krebs (the architect of the RBCT) supported the
development of a vaccination for cattle - "We recommend that the best
prospect for control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine.
This is a long-term policy and success cannot be guaranteed. But the potential
benefits are substantial and we consider this should be a high priority"11. In 2011, speaking to The
Guardian, he re-stated his view that development of a vaccine should be a priority
and called for "biosecurity measures" to reduce incidences of cattle
coming into contact with badgers and other sources of TB, and from passing the
disease between cattle. He also put into context the pointlessness of the cull
- "You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net
benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem
still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of
badgers. It doesn't seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease"23.The Randomised Badger Culling
Trial (RBCT), undertaken between 1998 and 2005 report stated "While
endorsing the need for continued research on vaccine development, we recognise
that substantial obstacles need to be overcome in developing an effective vaccine
and therefore advise that vaccination, of either cattle or badgers, should be
considered only as a longer term option" and also "...there were
insufficient data on the efficacy of [vaccines] in badgers to assess whether or
not it represented a viable vaccine candidate"13.
Badger culling has been trialled and shown not to work.
Vaccination is a potential alternative that us only just beginning to be
explored. The Welsh Government has scrapped plans for a cull and has now
embarked on a badger vaccination programme using the BCG vaccination - now that
a proper attempt at this is being carried out, it would be very wise to wait
and see what the results are before going for a destructive method that is not
even recommended by top scientists, who are not averse to killing badgers
themselves, if they thought it would make a difference. Other vaccination
schemes are currently being trialled by conservation groups such as The
National Trust and The Wildlife Trusts. Badgers are trapped and injected with
the vaccine and then set free again. Although it is far too early to tell how
effective this will be, if Lord Krebs is right, it would make sense to put off
the cull until we some results from Wales. Continued research into a vaccine
for cattle would be a sensible use of time and money.
The BCG vaccination has been shown to be 56-64% effective in
cattle24, however it is not currently
used due to EU regulations. Until recently, it was impossible to tell the
difference between an infected and a vaccinated cow, a DIVA (Differentiation of
Infected from Vaccinated Animals) test, which can tell the difference, has
recently been developed and is awaiting validation before an attempt to change
the law can be made. Rather than lobbying for a cull that simply won’t work, it
is difficult to understand why farmers are not putting their efforts into
lobbying for vaccination research and a change in the law. The scientists and
other cull opponents would almost certainly join them if it meant an end to killing
badgers.
In a recent letter to Veterinary Times, six veterinary
surgeons recommended the simultaneous vaccination of cattle and badgers as the
best approach25. They also drew attention to
the issue of selective breeding of cattle for human purposes, which has
effectively halted co-evolution with bTB. Cows with any resistance to bTB are
slaughtered, as until recently there was no way of telling the difference
between an infected and an immune cow. Welfare of cattle, including the
conditions that adult cattle are subjected to and the lack of normal relationships
between cows and calves could affect the health of cattle and make them more
susceptible to bTB. They concluded that the dairy industry itself is at fault,
and the solution lies in long-term restructuring and de-intensification of the
industry.
Biosecurity measures would limit the spread of the disease
in cattle, such as putting up badger-proof fences, keeping cattle in smaller
sheds and improving ventilation, as well as more rigorous testing. Farm manager
Steve Jones, who is against the cull, agrees that poor farm management, lax
biosecurity and low standards of animal welfare, as well as slow responses to
tackling bTB are the major problems, not the badgers. He maintains that farms
should have quarantine areas for infected cattle, water troughs (sometimes shared
by badgers) should be cleaned regularly and made badger-proof and that animal
welfare should be prioritised. A recent
study suggests that managing farms for conservation can reduce the risk of
transmission of TB from cattle to badgers, and makes some recommendations for
farming practices, in particular an increase in hedgerows and a reduction of
hedgerow gaps, which were found to be significant factors26. Julian Drewe of the Royal
Veterinary College found that indirect contact between badgers and cattle
occurs frequently, as cows have often been recorded at badger latrines. As
badgers use the same latrines year after year, the simple act of fencing off
the latrines will help to prevent this indirect contact10,27.
Who is opposing the cull?
A poll conducted by the BBC in 2011 suggested that 63% of
the population are opposed to the cull28, and a Guardian poll put this
figure at 91%29.
A wide variety of scientists, celebrities and organisations
have come forth to oppose the cull. Scientists include Lord Krebs, the
architect of the ISG cull trial, and Professor John Bourne, who led the cull
trial. These are experts in their field who are not averse to killing badgers
if it made a difference, and they stand by their finding “badger culling can make
no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”13 Thousands of badgers were
killed in order to obtain that result.
Wildlife and animal rights organisations against the cull
include The Badger Trust, RSPCA, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, League Against Cruel
Sports, Badger Watch and Rescue, Humane Society International, Network for
Animals, Viva and Conservatives Against Fox Hunting. Both the Green Party and
the Labour Party have also voiced their opposition to the cull.
A campaign such as this is likely to attract the backing of
a few celebrities. But by celebrities, I don't just mean the usual brigade that
jump on the animal rights/environment bandwagon for a bit of publicity
(although doubtless there are a few of these amongst them). Many of the most
prominently outspoken celebrities involved are famed and respected for their
wildlife knowledge - I'm talking about the likes of David Attenborough, Chris
Packham, Michaela Strachan, Simon King and Bill Oddie here30 – natural history experts in
their own right, whose views are not to be taken lightly.
For several generations, the public has entrusted David
Attenborough to inform about wildlife, and there’s no reason to stop listening
to him now: "You may think that culling is the answer and it sounds easy
to start with but it can very well make things much worse… Survivors will carry
the disease into areas that have hitherto been unaffected. There's good
scientific research available to show that culling badgers can make things
worse and not better."31
Of course, Queen Guitarist Brian May is at the forefront of
the campaign. But aside from his noodling guitar solos, he’s a respected
scientist in his own right (in astronomy) and has been campaigning on animal
rights issues for years.
Direct Action to date
Demonstrations outside supermarkets that have stated that
they will continue to sell milk from the cull zones have been among the most
visible elements of action taken so far, along with highly publicised marches
and walks around the cull zones. Web-based activism has also played a large role,
with numerous anti-cull Facebook groups and Twitter accounts sharing news
items, scientific reports, petitions, details of protests and boycotts and
collecting a large number of followers, to whom news and information of
forthcoming direct actions can now easily reach. As has been seen in recent
years with the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movement and other protest groups and
campaigns, this can draw out large numbers of people.
Activists have been out in the cull zones flyposting, sett
surveying (so as to locate areas to focus direct action later on), tying black
and white ribbons around trees on cull zone land to let farmers know they’ve
been around and searching for signs of pre-baiting (typically peanuts left out
for badgers). Activists have also been photographing evidence of bad practice
or illegal activity on farms within the cull zones and making them public over
the internet. In particular, the welfare of pheasants reared for shooting has
been a major target32.
Disruption has been caused to the studies of the number of badgers within the cull
zones. Recent studies have suggested that the number of badgers in the cull
zones is much lower than thought, slashing the number of badgers thought to be
in an area by around a third, however the Coalition of Badger Action Groups
have claimed that this was due to activists removing hair samples from the hair
traps. Therefore the number of badgers is unknown, making it difficult to set
targets33.
Call this a democracy?
The badger cull is perhaps one of the finest case studies of
recent times to point those who claim we live in a democracy to. Firstly, this
is a Conservative Party policy, that is being implemented, a party so weak and
unpopular that they failed to win the last election without the help of the
even more unpopular Liberal Democrats, who are either far too weak or unwilling
to stand up and put a stop to it. A badger cull was mentioned in the
Conservative Party manifesto, but not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Secondly, there’s the opinion polls – all of
which show that if this policy went to a vote it would certainly be consigned
to the dustbin of failed policies and never be brought up again. Unfortunately,
the nearest thing to a vote we get on this policy is the much-hyped e-petition
service, where anyone can start a petition and if it gets enough signatures and
the backing of an MP, it can trigger a debate in parliament. The badger cull is
so deeply unpopular amongst the general public that it succeeded in doing both,
being among the first e-petitions to reach the critical number of signatures and
gained the backing of Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. Owen Paterson left the
debate in disgust early on, most likely as he was afraid of the humiliation would
have faced. Our elected representatives then battled for hours before taking a
non-binding vote – with 147 MPs voting against the cull and 28 voting for it.
However, despite this victory, the vote did not put a stop to the cull. On this
issue, on every level, it has been shown that the so-called democracy we live
in and promote (often violently) around the world is a complete shambles.
A call to arms
The badgers cannot defend themselves against the guns. The
farmers in support of the cull are being sold a white elephant by a government
that is unwilling to tackle the real issues. Every possible legal method of
defeating the cull before it starts has been tried, and despite every battle
having been won by opponents – from the science to public opinion and winning
over our MPs – Mr Paterson and the NFU appear to have won the war. All hope is,
however, not lost. The following options are still left open to us:
1. Consumer boycotts – The majority of milk from the cull
zones are sold in supermarkets. Of the big supermarkets, the Co-op, Waitrose
and Marks and Spencer have stated that they do not sell milk from the cull
zones. Yeo Valley milk is also not from the cullzones. Sainsbury’s and Tesco
have been the focus of recent protests and have not yet backed down. The
company that supplies Asda and Starbucks has responded to the pressure and has
now stopped sourcing milk from a farm in the cull zone. Cow’s milk is not a
requirement for a healthy diet, and there are alternatives, such as goat’s
milk, soya milk, rice milk, oat milk etc. If enough people stop buying their
milk then the farmers who are allowing the cull to go ahead may need to
reconsider. For starters, you could try sending these suggested tweets:
http://lizziethebadger.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/the-govt-didnt-listen-but-maybe-the-supermarkets-will/
or sending messages to all of the big supermarkets via this link
http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1736&ea.campaign.id=16398&ea.tracking.id=website
2. Direct Action – People will be out in the fields at night
doing all they can to stop badgers being shot. As many people as possible are
needed. No-one is expected to stand in front of a gun, but we can still make
things as difficult as possible for the shooters. Not all badgers will be
saved, but the more people who come out, the more expensive this will be, and
the chances of shooters hitting the target numbers of shot badgers will be
reduced. Direct action is being organised by Stop the Cull
http://badger-killers.co.uk/ and
various Hunt Sabs groups – to find your local one visit
http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/get-involved/localgroups
3. Promote alternatives. Although the farmers are
responsible for paying for the cull and allowing access onto their land, it is
arguably not entirely their fault that they are being sold something that will
not work - this lies with the NFU and Defra, who are strong positions to
influence their opinions. There are alternatives, and if the science and/or
threats of direct action are enough to make them reconsider, we need to be
there to help them tackle the problem in other ways.
4. If you haven’t already, sign the petition. Although the
debate in parliament has taken place, the more signatures we get on the
official petition, the more pressure we will put on them.
5. Boycott milk from the cull zones. The Co-operative, Marks
and Spencer and Yeo Valley have stated that they do not source from the cull
zones. To date, most other supermarkets, including Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Asda,
have stated that they will not stop sourcing from the cull zones. There are
also initiatives to boycott the dairy industry altogether.
6. Demonstrate. Many local animal rights groups have been
organising demonstrations across the country, often outside supermarkets
selling milk from the cull zones. If there isn’t one near you, in these days of
social media it is not difficult to set up an event and promote it. There is a
national march on 1st June starting at at Millbank, near Tate
Britain, London, SW1P 4RG at 12pm.
Although the main focus of the campaign against the cull is
protecting the badgers from being unnecessarily shot, this campaign has now
gone far beyond that. As well as the animal welfare issue, this is also about
science versus speculation, people versus government and democracy versus
authoritarianism. When the government has chosen to ignore the findings of top
specialists, the opinion of the vast majority of the public and the votes of the
majority of our elected representatives, it is only right that this matter be
taken into our own hands.
