Showing posts with label wales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wales. Show all posts

Friday, 14 March 2014

Foster Watch #5 - Don Foster Abstains on Latest Badger Cull Vote

FOSTER WATCH
is a series of posts following Bath MP Foster, who is now Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government. Details of Don's voting record can be found at http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40062&showall=yes#divisions



Back in August 2013, Don told the Bath Chronicle that he was 'pressured' into voting for the badger cull, having been told by the former Liberal Democrat Chief Whip that he had to 'toe the party line', and that preferred choice would be to abstain (see here for full article). Of course, now Don is the Lib Dem Chief Whip, and it's now his job to make MPs vote against their wishes.

This week the badger cull was debated yet again in parliament, and yet again the pro-culllers lost the debate - 219 to 1, although unfortunately this vote is non-binding and won't by itself stop future culls. However, some pro-cull MPs chose to abstain, because the report on last year's cull has yet to be published. Don chose to abstain, and then sent the following e-mail to his anti-cull constituents:
"Morning, 
Thank you for contacting me regarding the vote in the House of Commons on 13 March regarding the possible extension of badger culls nationwide. 
As you may be aware, I decided to abstain from voting on this motion and I would like to take this opportunity to explain the reasoning behind my decision. I chose to abstain as I acknowledge and agree that the trials that took place had numerous shortcomings in terms of cost, humaneness and achieving targets.
However, I did not chose to vote for the motion as I believe that we should not side line the issue of bovine TB, but instead endeavor to quickly develop viable alternatives to tackle bovine TB.
Originally, I voted in favour of the trials taking place as bovine TB is a terrible disease that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of cattle every year. Around 28,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2012 alone as a bovine TB control measure. It is estimated that we could be paying as much as £1 billion over the next decade if we do nothing to stop the spread of this disease.
Badgers and cattle transmit bovine TB between each other – the scientific evidence to support this link is now beyond dispute. It is equally clear that no other country has managed to make significant progress on bovine TB without tackling how the disease is spread by wild animals. It was for this reason I voted in favour of two badger cull pilots going ahead this year.
However, since the trials started it has become clear that they were not being completely successful and because of this I could not agree to a national roll-out of further cull trials unless I was convinced of the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of these initial trials.
The trials have not reached the target of removing 70% of the badger population, with initial estimates suggesting the trials reduced the badger population by over 30% in the Gloucestershire and around 60% in the Somerset.
It is due to these short comings that I support developing a viable alternative to badger culling. However, at the moment this alternative does not exist as the option of vaccinating badgers, requires them to be trapped and vaccinated on a yearly basis, which I sure you will agree is logistically problematic. The current vaccine available is only around 70% effective, this poses further problems when you consider that in disease hotspots it is estimated that a third of badgers will have bovine TB.
For this reason, it is clear that we need to advance and accelerate work in developing a viable alternative and I am grateful for the work being done by the Wildlife Trust to advance this alternative. The Government is also investing £11.7 million in vaccine development over the next three years.
Furthermore, George Eustice, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, delivered a statement at the end of the debate yesterday. You can read this at the following link http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140313/debtext/140313-0004.htm and scroll to 4:45PM.
I hope that this is helpful in explaining my position on the issue of badger culls. Please do not hesitate to contact me further on this matter on any other.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Don"
Well, where do we start with that? Obviously Don has forgotten that he was pressured into voting for it and attempted to make up an excuse for voting in favour of it. TB declined by 3.4% in cattle between 2012 and 2013 without badger culling - Defra's figures are wrong. Vaccination has been shown to work in Wales - TB has declined by 24% as a result far more than than the 16% reduction that even the government admits that a badger cull could deliver (see here for reference). Last year it was calculated by badger expert Professor Rosie Woodroffe (no stranger to badger culling, as she was involved in the last badger cull, but like all good scientists has accepted that her findings showed that it would make 'no meaningful contribution' to tackling the problem) that the cost of badger vaccination would be £2,250 per square kilometre per year, and that the cost of culling, including the cost of policing, would be £2429 per square kilometre per year (reference). Furthermore, the charity Care for the Wild estimated the cost per badger in last year's cull was £4121 (reference) and in January Biocensus reported that the cost per square kilometre was £12857, with just £3913 per square kilometre for vaccinations in Wales (reference). Vaccination could potentially be even cheaper as we know that there's a lot of potential volunteers who would be willing to help with vaccinating badgers for free (several of our friends recently attended badger handling courses, and many more people across the country have attended similar courses), if it meant a complete end to culls.

Don correctly states that "no other country has managed to make significant progress on bovine TB without tackling how the disease is spread by wild animals", however he neglects to mention that so country has ever solved the problem by culling either. Last year's cull failed to meet the target of killing 70% of badgers in the cull zones, and, which could potentially make the TB problem in these areas worse due to the peturbation effect caused by fleeing badgers (reference). Lastly, as no badgers were tested for TB in last year's cull, there's no way of knowing how many badgers were carrying the disease in the first place. The cull was never going to work, and farmers are being conned. The choice between vaccination and culling is a no-brainer - vaccination is cheaper, delivers better results than culling, and will help to build bridges between farmers and badgerists, not create divisions. Don appears to be on the fence with this issue - e-mail him the facts here: donfoster@parliament.uk

For more on the badger cull, here's our in-depth look at the issues: http://standingstonesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-badger-cull-what-you-need-to-know.html

For more on Don Foster, the Foster Watch home page is here: http://standingstonesblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.html


Friday, 20 July 2012

The Badger Cull - The Facts, Alternatives and How to Help Stop It

NOTE: A longer and more in-depth version of this article has also been published here: http://standingstonesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-badger-cull-what-you-need-to-know.html

Last week, the proposed badger cull was declared legal, despite a challenge from the Badger Trust.


There's a badger sett not far from where I live. Often I see them out in the evening searching for food and in the summer there are often young badger cubs playing on the edge of the fields. I have a great fondness for these creatures, and naturally wouldn't want to see them butchered. But regardless of that, there are several other reasons why I oppose the badger cull.

What's the problem?

If you haven't heard already, badgers carry Bovine Tuberculosis (TB), and the disease can be passed to cattle (and likewise, cattle can pass the disease to badgers). In 2011, 34,191 cattle were slaughtered due to TB - there is no denying that this disease impacts on the livelihood of cattle farmers (although those of us that don't consume cow products may argue that most, if not all, cattle farming is unethical, unsustainable and unenvironmentally friendly, but I'll leave that issue for another day). Government compensation per cow ranges from £98 to £4,913 depending on the age, breed and sex of the cow - that's your taxes. Understandably, many farmers are concerned that having badgers on their land is a major threat to their herd and their business. Eradication of badgers would seem like a logical method of preventing the spread of Bovine TB.

How is TB transmitted?

In 2005, scientists at Oxford University found that cattle-to-cattle transmissions of TB "substantially and consistently outweigh" all other factors. 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 shows. Cows are, of course, tested for TB - however Defra estimates that the test only detects around 80% of infected cattle. 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 test. 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.

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 is unreliable, with only around a 40-50% success rate, and therefore only targeting infected setts would be expensive and unreliable.

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 TB. However, following two studies indicating the relatively high incidences of 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."

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.”

What's the problem with culling?

Springwatch presenter Chris Packham, speaking to The Telegraph, opposes the cull and said "...their death would most likely be in vain as scientific studies suggest that culling them could increase the risk of transmission to bovine cattle rather than reduce it." Wildlife documentary legend David Attenborough echoed these concerns in The Guardian - "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." The evidence for this claim comes from studies, including the RBCT, that suggest that culling increases dispersal in badgers, infecting the areas on the edge of the cull area. This leaflet produced by the Wildlife Trusts explains the reasoning behind this.

In the 1990s, Lord Krebs conducted a long-term study on the effectiveness of badger culling, and his initial report can be found here. Back in 1997, Lord Krebs 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." 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." The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) was undertaken between 1998 and 2005 and the final report can be found here. This 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."

In summary, the government's own advisors have admitted that culling won't completely solve the problem, and that vaccination has potential, although it is untested.

How are they intending to cull? 

Two methods will be used - shooting badgers in the field and cage trapping followed by shooting. Full details of the methods they intend to employ can be found here.

Where are they intending to cull?

For security reasons, the exact location of the cull areas have not been disclosed. In January, the BBC reported that the locations would be around Tewkesbury and the Foreset of Dean in Gloucestershire, and in the Taunton Deane area of Somerset.

So what's the alternative to the cull?

The Welsh Government has scrapped plans for a cull and has now embarked on a badger vaccination programme. To date, 430 badgers have been vaccinated. The Cheshire Wildlife Trust has also begun a 5-year vaccination programme. Badgers are trapped and injected with the vaccine and then set free again - with the benefit of being immune to TB. 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.

In the meantime, 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. 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.

Who is opposing the cull?

A poll conducted by the BBC suggests that 63% of the population are opposed to the cull. A wide variety of scientists, celebrities and organisations have come forth to oppose the cull. As previously mentioned, Lord Krebs, David Attenborough and Chris Packham have been outspoken against the cull. Queen guitarist Brian May is also passionately opposed. 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 an organisation I was not previously familiar with, Conservatives Against Fox Hunting.

The Stroud 100 group has "sealed off" 1,000 acres of land in Gloucestershire by getting landowners to declare their land a no-cull area.

Both the Green Party and the Labour Party have voiced their opposition to the cull.

The National Trust's position can be found here. Relevant extracts are as follows: "Where a comprehensive package of measures is in place, and where the scientific criteria for a successful cull can be met, we would not object to a humane and effective cull of badgers taking place on our land. Research shows this can help reduce the spread of the disease... Effective vaccination of badgers and cattle is an additional tool for tackling bovine TB in the long term, which is why we have launched a vaccination programme for badgers on one of our estates."

What can I do to help oppose the cull?
Please contact Standing Stone's Blog if you have any details or news of future campaigns, protests or petitions against the badger cull - standingstonesblog [at] hotmail.co.uk