BADGERS & Bovine TB : To Cull or Not to Cull………… As two Governments in the UK debate whether to kill badgers as part of their programmes to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (bTB), another farmer has been convicted of switching ear tags to save an infected pedigree animal. The Badger Trust repeats its demand made after the last switching scandal in April for all plans to kill badgers in England and Wales to be abandoned until the cattle industry and Defra have cleared up serious doubts about the scale of such crimes. Claims by agriculture industry organisations that only “some” farmers are involved are clearly optimistic with five counties in the Midlands and the South West of England and now Powys implicated. Defra’s sudden, massive and expensive response to the scandal of farmers switching ear tags to foil bovine TB (bTB) controls suggests these crimes are widespread rather than local. In view of the urgency vets offered their services free for six months to gather samples. The Badger Trust emphasises the possible outcomes: a diseased animal could infect other animals, some of these could be sold to other uninfected farms, a sick animal could then be sent to market and to shows to mix with many others and then be sold into another herd. Tuberculosis is not like influenza. It can remain dormant between tests that can be up to four years apart. The scale of these cattle-based problems vastly outweighs any possible contribution by badgers.

Bovine tuberculosis will continue to be difficult to eradicate without universal annual testing and tighter movement controls, despite the economic consequences. Killing badgers is not an alternative. Mr Jim Paice, the agriculture and food Minister’s reply is: “Our concern is that the 'suspicious' reactors were sent from different farms in different parts of the country (in the South West and Midlands), indicating that the suspected fraudulent behaviour is not restricted to one or two connected farm businesses. Because of the worrying findings from Gloucestershire, additional slaughterhouse surveys

MISHANDLED A BADGER CULL

COULD MAKE Bovine TB WORSE

Farms on the fringes of a culling

area are very likely to suffer

increased TB rates. Farmers will

want compensation for government

action that spreads bTB, this could

cost the government/tax payers

MILLIONS!!!!

Remember the badger is not the farmers enemy - foolish

action from the Government is!!!!

have been initiated in Cornwall, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Cheshire. We are closely monitoring the findings from these. We will also be identifying high risk herds to target AHVLA inspections where there is evidence of suspicious ear tag ordering”. Sir Harry Mount seriously oversimplified the complex background to the issue of killing badgers in the fight against bovine TB (bTB) (Independent, July 3). The article was patronising, assertions were unattributed and facts were wrong. A cull would not be “designed to halt TB in cows” but to try to remove a supposed wildlife reservoir of the disease as part of the eradication programme. Although the cattle industry and Mr Mount point to the 25,000 animals slaughtered each year because of bTB it keeps very quiet about vastly more than that number of cows being slaughtered annually because of mastitis and other farmyard related diseases. This is usually the result of over-breeding, careless milking or bad hygiene, but it does not carry the economic penalty of stopping a farm’s trade in live animals as with bTB. It is plain nonsense to claim that no other country has eradicated bTB without wildlife control. The UK itself did, at least to the extent that the cattle toll was reduced to 628 in 1979 from a pre-war level of 47,476 (the latter figure from the official 1961 MAFF report on the Area Eradication Scheme). The incidence was about 1,000 a year from 1970 to 1990. And the badger’s bite? Like any animal, including lapdogs, they will bite if cornered and alarmed. Otherwise, they only attack to defend territory from other badgers. Although they are carnivores they are primarily gatherers of food. They are built for rooting and digging, not for chasing prey.

The incidence of bTB in the UK fell by 15 percent over 2009 and 2010 according to Defra’s official annual returns.

The Badger Trust suggests that would have been ascribed to culling if the last government had allowed it. Instead, it was kept very, very, very quiet by those who strive to preserve an obstinate stance by achieving a pointless cull.

Supporters Against a

BADGER CULL

Sir David Attenborough ‘The evidence is that a badger cull on a scale or level of efficiency that seems feasible will not solve cattle farmers' problem – that problem is truly serious. Understandably, the feeling is that something must be done, but the evidence is that it should not be a badger cull.’

Simon King OBE ‘We are on the brink of witnessing a gross miscarriage of justice, where the victims are innocent and naïve and have no voice to speak for themselves. I refer to the proposed killing, or as some would prefer to use - ‘culling’ - of wild badgers, which is being contemplated by our Coalition Government and the Welsh Assembly. The scientific work looking into the link between wild badgers and Bovine TB in cattle in this country, conducted at great expense and with impartial participants, has left no doubt as to the inefficacy of a badger cull in the control of the disease in Britain. It would at best, be a complete waste of time and money, and at worst a travesty, killing hundreds of healthy wild badgers with no long term effect on the control and management of bovine TB. If the badger cull in England and in Wales goes ahead it will, like all the other culls that have gone before, prove nothing but the short sighted and politicised debate that continues to muddy an issue which should be looking at husbandry methods, vaccination, regional variants and livestock movement and management before looking for an innocent scapegoat to kill. I completely empathise with livestock farmers who have suffered the effects of the disease, and strongly urge that the proposed cull is declined and the same resources used to find a sustainable management plan to help ensure our dairy herds remain healthy and disease free into the future.’

Chris Packham, BBC Springwatch Presenter ‘Will there ever be a day in my lifetime when I can wake up and know that Badgers are Mustelids and not Scapegoats? The science has been done, the writing is on the wall, but still this lunacy goes on . . .’ Chris Packham, BBC Springwatch presenter, addressed a meeting of Pembrokeshire Against the Cull, held at Castell Malgwyn Hotel, Llechryd on Monday 21st February. He congratulated PAC supporters for their campaign to stop the Welsh Assembly Government’s attempt to implement a cull of badgers in North Pembrokeshire and parts of Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire and called on people to protect their local wildlife as part of the greater global conservation effort. He expressed his dismay that governments were ignoring the solid scientific evidence which showed that culling badgers was not the solution to bovine tb and indeed likely to make the situation worse. He highlighted the need for policy makers to keep abreast of recent developments particularly in the area of vaccination which he saw as the way to control Bovine tb. He expressed his concern that farmers were having an increasingly difficult time and called on the audience to rally round and support local farmers.

Michaela Strachan ‘The more I look at the world the more absurd I think everything is. Why have an expensive and lengthy scientific study on the link between badgers and bovine TB in cattle, which determined that culling badgers was not the answer, and then ignore it! We wag our fingers at African countries where farmers shoot leopards who kill their livestock and elephants who trample their crops and then we point that same finger at badgers and make them victims of a mass and unnecessary slaughter. We are so unbelievably hypocritical. I sympathise with farmers all over the world who have their livelihood threatened by wildlife but there has to be ways to combat the problem other than slaughter and in many countries farmers work hard at other solutions. In the badger case it's been proved that slaughter isn't the best way so why the heck are we doing it. It's just so so wrong. I try so hard to stay positive about humanity but when things like this happen it just fills me with despair.’

Simon Cowell MBE, Director WildLife Aid Foundation, WildLife SOS Presenter

Press Release - 6th July 2011 Wildlife Aid Foundation urges Cameron to reject "environmentally destructive and politically risky" badger cull With a decision expected from the Government this week on whether to proceed with a badger cull in England, the Wildlife Aid Foundation is calling on Prime Minister David Cameron and Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman to "put wildlife and the natural environment first" and not to sign the death warrant of thousands of innocent wild animals.

Going ahead with a cull of badgers in order to halt the spread of Bovine TB among cattle would be "clutching at straws", says Wildlife Aid Foundation director Simon Cowell MBE, and would most likely achieve no measurable benefit for England's farmers. "The scientific case for a badger cull is very shaky indeed, and for every study that recommends culling there are several that say it would be pointless and would do nothing to stop the spread of Bovine TB", says Cowell. "It would be environmentally destructive and politically risky."

The Wildlife Aid Foundation is urging David Cameron and Caroline Spelman not to repeat the mistake they made earlier this year when they put forward an environmentally-damaging and politically contentious scheme to sell off the nation's forests. In that case they eventually had to back down in the face of fierce public opposition and Simon Cowell believes that a go-ahead for a badger cull would inevitably produce the same result.

Cowell says: "The Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary must rule out a badger cull now, before it is too late. Otherwise they will end up embroiled in yet another messy political controversy, from which they will eventually - inevitably - have to retreat, though not before the senseless slaughter has begun and thousands of badgers have died. "The protection of the natural environment should be above politics and it does nobody any good to have politicians and conservationists at each other's throats over such a major issue as this ill-conceived and ultimately doomed badger cull. "The badger is a protected species under the law and in the circumstances it is disgraceful that any government should want to disregard this important legal protection by promoting a large-scale slaughter of these wonderful creatures. It is interesting that in Scotland they have achieved TB-free status through testing and without killing any badgers. If they can do it north of the border, they should be able to do the same thing in England too."

Joanna Lumley ‘We must not make badgers scapegoats for bovine TB.’

Jilly Cooper ‘We are joining against this senseless killing of badgers. Killing badgers is a senseless slaughter. We are supporting the robust science that shows that killing badgers will not resolve the Bovine TB problem in cattle. We implore everyone to join the fight against the culling of badgers.’

Brian May ‘Morality, Science and Common sense all tells us the same thing; it is utterly unacceptable to attempt to solve a man-made farming problem by killing our native badgers. Yet this is exactly what the present government is determined to do. We cannot allow this tragedy to happen.’

Alan Titchmarsh ‘I am supporting the Badger Protection League in their fight against killing badgers’

FACTS

1. The badger and it’s sett are protected by law because of the high number of badgers being persecuted by badger baiting, badger digging and deliberate interference with setts. Badgers were never an endangered species.

2. In 1990’s it was estimated that over 10,000 badgers a year were taken for sport. Sadly despite the

legislation afforded to them, it is now considered to be at the same level. 3. It is impossible to tell if a live badger is suffering from Bovine TB. This can only be confirmed once

they are dead, given a post mortem and body samples cultured.

4. All badgers have long claws. It is not a sign of the disease. 5. Badgers do not suffer when infected with Bovine TB. It is only in the final stages of the disease that

they will become ill. 6. Practically no animal in the wild dies without pain. That is nature. A badger with Bovine TB is more

likely to die from a road traffic accident than to die from the disease as a 6th (1,000 a week) of the population dies on our roads every year.

7. It is impossible to identify an ‘unhealthy sett’. Any badger culling will undoubtedly result in a

significant majority of healthy badgers being killed. 8. Killing badgers upsets their social behaviour causing them to roam further as naturally they are

confined by their own territorial boundaries. This is has been found to be associated with an increase of TB in cattle in areas around culling.

9. Southern Ireland have removed badgers from 30% of their land mass and Bovine TB in cattle is still

increasing. 10. A badger vaccine is now available and being tested. This is proving to be very successful. 11. Almost a fifth of the infected cattle (17%) are discovered at abattoirs having failed to be found by

regular testing of herds on the farm.

Badger Cull would be Reckless Gamble! Badger Trust A REPORT published recently by a panel of experts confirms that a badger cull would be a massively irresponsible gamble that could backfire on farmers and prove hugely unpopular with the public, says the Badger Trust. The Trust says: "The forecast possible reductions in bTB are small and spread over a huge time frame - nine years until 2020. They are also highly speculative, relying on a large-scale, sustained, simultaneous cull over a large area. They are also, damningly, based not on science but on guesswork. "The impact and efficacy of shooting free-running badgers - many of which will inevitably be wounded - is based not on hard proof but on supposition because shooting has never been tried before. Perturbation is known to have a major negative effect on culling effectiveness but the Government, in its haste to unload costs on to farmers, is ignoring that key fact. It was clear from the minutes of the DEFRA science meeting released on 4 July that one cannot reliably extrapolate from the RBCT results if one takes a significantly different approach to their methodology, as appears to be planned by DEFRA. Even following the RBCT methodology closely, the benefits are miniscule and the process is costly. The group concluded that vaccination was effective and had none of the negatives of culling." David Williams, chairman of the Badger Trust, said: "A decision to cull badgers could easily backfire, and will be widely condemned as inhumane. Jim Paice talks about a well managed science-led cull. The reality is that thousands of bTB-free badgers could die in a hail of bullets for at best comparatively small improvements in bTB spread over a nine year period lasting until 2020. Mishandled the cull could make bTB worse. "Ministers need to be reminded that a decision to cull would be subjecting a protected native species to a sustained shoot-to-kill slaughter likely to leave many wounded. It would be a massive unscientific gamble, hugely unpopular, that would demonstrate once and for all that the Government's consultation pledges--to create "a carefully managed science led cull"-- are meaningless spin from a minister who has been in farming for 40 years and the secretary of state who has worked for the NFU. Cattle testing must be improved, the majority of cattle are tested only once every 4 years and with a test which is at best only 80% accurate. This means that despite a 15% reduction over the last two years there were still an estimated several thousand cattle undetected and left to infect others. Is this why the Government won't publish the results of the consultation? Furthermore, despite assertions by the NFU for decades that badgers are responsible for spreading bTB, not all farmers share this belief although loyalty to their colleagues and fear of intimidation prevents them from speaking out. Their loyalty is misplaced when, as has been recently publicised, some farmers are switching ear tags, ignoring hygiene laws at markets and allowing cattle under restriction to be taken to shows, all practices which put their colleagues' livelihoods at risk. The Trust goes on to warn: The Cabinet should be very wary about an estimated 12-16 percent net reduction in bovine TB outbreaks after nine years (according to the panel of experts). It should first digest the following, from the same source: " . . . if culling is not conducted in a coordinated, sustained and simultaneous manner according to the minimum scientific criteria, then this could result in a smaller benefit or even a detrimental effect on confirmed cattle bTB incidence".

In the light of that, it should closely examine the reliability of advice about shooting free running badgers at night and the dangers to the public, pets and other wild animals associated with this untested, untried strategy with no guarantees of success. The Cabinet should demand proof based on experience that a cull would achieve a required minimum 70 percent kill synchronised in each area for 4 years. This means it would still be in operation when the next election is due. Ministers have listened too much to industries that resisted measures to control the disease over decades. The Government is in danger of earning the contempt of the scientific community and those who have taken time to understand its work.

Scotland achieved TB-free status by sustained and thorough pre-and post-movement testing but without killing badgers. The UK as a whole did the same thing after World War II and the farming industry spread the disease far and wide, not the badgers.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS IN CATTLE AND BADGERS: Q AND A FOR DECADES discussion and controversy has raged about bovine tuberculosis (bTB). For the Badger Trust it has sidelined other major issues—notably persecution—because of the insistence, led by farming unions that bTB will be solved only if badgers are slaughtered (culled is the word they prefer to use). Unperturbed by conclusive scientific evidence, the result of the near 10-year £50 million taxpayer-funded research programme by the Independent Scientific Group (the ISG) that killing large numbers of badgers would have no meaningful impact on the spread and control of this disease, they have continued to call for widespread “targeted” action. Badger Trust totally rejects this argument. But to put the issue into some context here we answer some of the points most frequently raised about bTB.

Q: What is bTB and how does it relate to the human version? A: TB in cattle is a debilitating, highly infectious and progressive respiratory infection, very similar to human TB, caused by the organism Mycobacterium Bovis (M. Bovis), which forms lesions or “tubercules” (hence the name) most often in the lungs. Clinical signs of the disease are rarely visible in the early stages so detection relies on routine screening using the tuberculin “live test”. Before milk was pasteurised bovine TB in humans was common and often fatal. Today it’s rare. The human form of TB is more usually caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis).

Q: What does bTB do to cattle? A: Grossly infected animals become emaciated, weak and lethargic and eventually die. But in countries with established test-and-slaughter eradication policies this doesn’t happen because the disease is detected in its relatively early stages. TB in warm-blooded mammals is a world-wide problem. Cattle are the main hosts—hence the name, bovine TB—but the disease affects many other mammals, from bison in Canada, to brush-tailed possum in New Zealand, buffalo in southern Africa and white-tailed deer in the United States.

Q: How do cattle catch TB? A: Principally from other cattle by breathing in bacilli expelled by infected animals as tiny aerosol droplets. It may also be caught through contamination of feeding and watering sites and from infected wildlife, including badgers and deer and possibly from other farmed animals such as deer and camelids (llamas, alpacas etc). The risk of disease spread is greatest in enclosed, poorly ventilated areas—notably over-wintering barns and sheds where cattle spend months confined together—but any contact between cattle, at shows and markets, for example, in livestock lorries or at single-fence farm boundaries where they can come into contact with other cattle are other obvious transmission points. On its website Defra says: “Cattle-to-cattle transmission is a serious cause of disease spread”. The Independent Scientific Group (ISG) in its final report describes cattle-to-cattle transmission as very important in high incidence areas and “the main cause of disease spread to new areas”. That said it’s worth adding that despite years of research, transmission routes (for example cattle to badger and badger to cattle) are still not properly understood.

Q: How do badgers catch TB? A: From each other, from cattle (probably through infected urine and faeces) and possibly from other infected farm animals and wildlife. Badgers spend most of their life below ground sharing the same air space, tunnels and chambers with other badgers, but decades of research at Woodchester Park (by what was the Central Science Laboratory, now part of Fera, the Food and Environment Research Agency) has shown that infected badgers and TB-free badgers often share the same setts. This might be explained by acquired immunity in a proportion of badgers or simply that badgers do not easily infect each other.

Q: So not all badgers are infected? A: Far from it. Most badgers are healthy. The Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) which form the basis of the ISG’s final report and recommendations showed that even in bTB hotspots less than one in seven badgers were infected and when road-killed badgers from seven hotspot counties were examined the figures were almost the same (15 per cent infected).

Q: What does TB do to badgers? A: The disease chiefly affects the lungs and kidneys. Infected animals lose weight and body condition and experience breathing problems. Though debilitating, bTB in badgers is rarely fatal. Generally, infected badgers do not show any signs of illness. Badgers suffering from the advanced stages of bTB become severely emaciated and as disease carriers are then described as excretors - this means they can potentially shed live bacilli. Levels of bTB in badgers in hotspot areas jumped sharply immediately following the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001-2002 when the routine bTB test and slaughter programme for cattle was stopped. So there’s good evidence to suggest controlling bTB in cattle will reduce bTB levels in badgers.

Q: Why is so much attention focused on badgers in the bTB debate and so little on other wildlife, including deer? A: That’s really a question for Defra and farming interests to answer. Badger Trust has always taken the view that the near obsession with the alleged role of badgers has distracted attention away from more important research and cattle management issues. As to the specific question: foxes, squirrels, rats and deer are among wildlife known to suffer from TB. But in 2008 Defra said two research projects had concluded that except for two species of deer the likelihood of other mammals (excluding badgers) being a significant source of infection to cattle was extremely low. It’s worth noting that all six species of deer in the UK suffer from TB.

Q: Why do so many farmers want to cull badgers? A: They argue that bTB won’t be beaten until all significant sources of the disease are tackled and to them that means killing wildlife, notably badgers. The National Farmers’ Union, a key source of information for many farmers, has been especially aggressive in calling for a cull of badgers. Everyone involved in the bTB debate, which has raged for decades, accepts that the disease can have a devastating impact on farmers. That’s not the issue. The debate is about the part played by badgers in spreading or maintaining TB in cattle, and whether slaughtering badgers --“culling” is an inappropriate description—is necessary to beat the disease. The Badger Trust has always argued that decisions must be based not on anecdotal evidence, certainly not on prejudice and rumour, but on science. The country invested the best part of £50 million in the culling trials conducted and analysed by the ISG. Its final report recommended a series of cattle-based measures which it said were likely to reverse the increasing trend in cattle disease incidence…and which in addition might also reduce disease in badgers. Yes, the ISG did say that “…badgers do contribute significantly to the disease in cattle” but it went on to say: “…it is unfortunate that agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.” Crucially in its summary findings and recommendations the ISG said: ”Given its high costs and

low benefits we therefore conclude that badger culling is unlikely to contribute usefully to the control of cattle TB in Britain, and recommend that TB control efforts focus on measures other than badger culling.”

Q: Farming Minister Jim Paice has said “there’s no country in the world that’s got rid of TB without addressing the problem in wildlife”. A: Let’s look at the facts. Here in the UK a bTB epidemic that began in the 1930s spiralled out of control and by 1960 was still infecting 16,000 of the UK’s cattle. It was brought under control and all but eradicated by the cattle-based controls. No badgers had been killed or implicated. Then in the last decades of the 20th century bTB began to increase again. The reasons were not clear. Farming organisations blamed badgers. But in fact the increase followed a marked relaxation of cattle testing, slaughter and movement controls introduced during the area-by-area eradication policy described above. The increase also coincided with the intensification of dairy farms and the growing trend towards large herds and over wintering them in sheds and barns. So to try to answer whether badgers were to blame the Government set up the Randomised Badger Culling Trial overseen by the ISG in the late 1990s. Thousands of badgers were killed in this project and as reported above the ISG concluded in 2007 that culling badgers would have no meaningful effect on the control of bTB and that farmers should concentrate on improved cattle controls. In the two years 2009 and 2010, there has been a 15% reduction in bTB due to improved testing of cattle, movement controls and improved cattle husbandry. This improvement has been achieved without any badgers being killed.

Q: The farming Press reports that large numbers of diseased badgers are dying in agony and that “culling” would end that misery and lead to healthy badgers living alongside healthy cattle.

A: Pure fiction. It is just a bit of clumsy public relations to try to justify a “cull”. There’s absolutely no evidence to support the claim that bTB is killing large numbers of badgers. As we’ve already said, TB in badgers is rarely fatal. Further, it is not possible to identify and kill only diseased badgers. Nor is it possible to identify and take out “diseased setts”. PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), a technique based on DNA, has been discounted as a tool which could do that. There are no other alternatives. A post mortem is required to reliably diagnose bTB in badgers. So a “cull” would be non-selective. Mostly healthy, non-infected badgers would die. How is that a route to “healthy badgers living alongside healthy cattle”?

Q: What about vaccination of badgers? A: An injectable vaccine for badgers has been licensed for use and development works is continuing to produce an oral bait vaccine. Badger Trust now strongly believes that an injectable vaccine, and ultimately an oral vaccine, provides a very positive way forward in the long-term control of this disease. The “silver bullet” remains a cattle vaccine which will not only protect cattle from the disease but will also allow the UK farming industry to export cattle to EU countries. A test is being developed which will differentiate between a vaccinated cow and an infected cow. This will require acceptance within the EU.

These are the facts, we all now need to make decisions based on these facts in a moralistic and

responsible way and not choose any option because it is a cheaper alternative!!!