Badger cull

[Tetenterre]

Latest post of the previous page:

I think there's a lot to be said for this perspective on the issue!

[Nick]

What I cannot understand is that there is no bovine TB in Scotland yet we have badgers too. Has anyone looked at why this should be? I've asked loads of friends (including those involved in farming) and they can't tell me. I'm sure our TB-free badgers don't respect the border with England and likewise the English badgers, Scotlands border.

Dunno the answer for sure, getreal, but it could be simply that bovine TB has not yet spread as far as bonny Scotland. How long has bovine TB been in England? Anyone know?

[Dave B]

Good question, Nick, this is interesting.

But you have to download it first.

[Nick]

Before I start, let me state that I would much prefer that no cull takes place if that is at all practical.

The cull seems to be a no win situation because if it works, they will move to the next area and kill another 1500 Badgers, if it does not work then 1500 Badgers have been murdered for nothing.

Apparently, £50 million has been spent on researching this problem. We should have some data and evidence from so much research, surel?! From what I understand, the research suggests that badgers are indeed responsible for some TB. Culling badgers would therefore have an effect in reducing the spread, so long as at least 70% are culled in a given area. There is also an opposite effect, in that other badgers, potentially TB carriers will spread into areas vacated by culled badgers, so reducing the effectiveness, but not eliminating it.

Vaccination of cattle could be a potential solution, but unfortunately, it is banned by the EU, because it is impossible to distinguish between meat from a vaccinated animal from that of an infected animal. Dunno about vaccinating badgers.... More thought required in this area, methinks...

Farmers should budget for the loss of animals and ofset funds towards BTB prevention.

Hmmm... not sure of the precise details but I think at the moment Defra pays compensation to farmers for the 36,000 cattle slaughtered per annum because of TB. I doubt it would be feasable for farmers to budget individually, or even through individual insurance, for TB losses, because of the uneven spread of TB and the possibility of having a large proportion of ones herd affected.

Farmers are, however, being asked to finance the cull. Apparently, the estimate of badger population has been increased substantially, so with it the costs, which have yet to be agreed to by the farmers, hwence the postponement, as 70% must be culled for it to be affective.

[Dave B]

How many years worth of TB affected cows would that 50 million pay for I wonder?

There have been cases in the past where the research & administration costs more than the problem.

Not saying this is such!

[Nick]

Wot? Another Tory U-turn?

Nope, more spin from the Grauniad. You would complain if they didn't change their mind if new evidence arises. And maybe Krebs is right. But the badger cull is not a political question, and to spin it that way is pathetic. There is no political advantage in killing badgers, and the trial was initiated by the Labour government. Let's keep cheap-shot gibes out of it. And that ought to go for the Opposition too, but they really can't resist it, can they? Pathetic.

[Lifelinking]

Seeing this thread late on, I think the solution is to drink badger milk.

[Alan H]

[Alan H]

Nope, more spin from the Grauniad. You would complain if they didn't change their mind if new evidence arises. And maybe Krebs is right. But the badger cull is not a political question, and to spin it that way is pathetic. There is no political advantage in killing badgers, and the trial was initiated by the Labour government. Let's keep cheap-shot gibes out of it. And that ought to go for the Opposition too, but they really can't resist it, can they? Pathetic.

Being adamant that a decision taken was the right one, ploughing ahead with it, then putting the brakes on, delaying it, looks like a U-turn to me. Yes, they may decide to re-start it next year (we will need to wait and see), but it smacks of incompetence in the first place. Primarily, the scientific advice was against it; they seemed to have either no idea of the costs and no control over them; and it then transpired that even though they declared they needed to cull 70%, they had no idea what it was 70% of, so after it was announced it was about to go ahead, they had to stop to count them; they didn't know how many guns or police resources would be needed; they allowed the process to drag on until a time when it was too late to start before winter. As that world-renowned source of ultra-reliable and unbiased journalism (ie the Torygraph) states:

Once the culls in West Somerset and West Gloucestershire were approved, Natural England took far too long to sign off on the plans and personnel. The police also took their time amending the firearms licences of those involved. And Defra’s decision to conduct a full survey of badger numbers only at the last minute was a classic instance of poor planning: by the time it had shown that the cull would take far more effort than had been thought, it was too late to do anything.

Of course, the opponents (and there will be protesters as well - the Government are right about that at least) are likely to be left-wing, green, animal-rights supporting socialist, scrounging layabouts, whereas the farmers who wanted the cull are more likely to be Tory voters.

Even the Torygraph - while it doesn't think it's a U-turn (but does think it's a big blunder and "another embarrassing bungle, one that will only increase the Government's reputation for incompetence") - seems to agree:

It all adds to a growing impression that this is a back-of-an-envelope policy drawn up to make it look as if the Government was doing something about the genuine scourge of bovine TB in order to pacify outraged farmers.

What were you saying about it not being a political question?

[Lifelinking]

Very well said Alan

[Fia]

+1

[Nick]

Being adamant that a decision taken was the right one, ploughing ahead with it, then putting the brakes on, delaying it, looks like a U-turn to me.

Then it seems you have failed to understand the situation. There has been no change in the decision that the badger cull is the right one. So no U-turn. The problem is, that the situation is a dynamic one, with most of its constituent parts independent of Government, though still part of your beloved public sector.

To call it a U-turn is just political spin. The Labour opposition, however, given that they were going to adopt exactly the same policy have indeed made a complete U-turn by opposing it. They even have a petition on their web-site. What is screamingly missing from any part of their web-site or any part of their narative is how they think the bovine TB problem should be addressed. After 15 years and £50 million, they remain cowardly and spectacularly mute. This just dog-whistle politics. Pathetic.

No-one wants badgers killed just for the sake of it. If it were just a question of appealing to the electorate, then not a badger would be touched. But as even the Labour party, when in government, accepted, that was unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.

Yes, they may decide to re-start it next year (we will need to wait and see), but it smacks of incompetence in the first place.

Funnily enough, government isn't easy. As for incompetence, such accusations don't really get us any further forward. Maybe we should accuse the Labour Party of incompetence for entrusting their policy review to a manwho can't even cope with getting an MOT and insurance for his car. Actually, that has nothing to do with whether the cull is the right answer or not.

Primarily, the scientific advice was against it;

Hmmm... dunno about that. Some is, some isn't. As yet, I don't know myself quite what to think.

they seemed to have either no idea of the costs and no control over them;

Not really. The costs were to be met by the farmers. It was the revision in the estimate of the number of badgers which changed things. And I see no evidence that the anti's had any better idea of numbers than the government did.

and it then transpired that even though they declared they needed to cull 70%, they had no idea what it was 70% of,

In terms of the effectiveness of a cull, or vaccinations, or other such matters, it is the percentage which is important, not necessarily absolute numbers.

so after it was announced it was about to go ahead, they had to stop to count them; they didn't know how many guns or police resources would be needed;

So much for the £50 million and ten years reearch under Labour....

they allowed the process to drag on until a time when it was too late to start before winter.

So the government should assume even more power, should it...? And why not castigate Labour for taking 10 years, rather than the Coalition missing their target by a few months?

As that world-renowned source of ultra-reliable and unbiased journalism (ie the Torygraph) states:

Once the culls in West Somerset and West Gloucestershire were approved, Natural England took far too long to sign off on the plans and personnel. The police also took their time amending the firearms licences of those involved. And Defra’s decision to conduct a full survey of badger numbers only at the last minute was a classic instance of poor planning: by the time it had shown that the cull would take far more effort than had been thought, it was too late to do anything.

And all this would be different under Labour how, exactly?

Of course, the opponents (and there will be protesters as well - the Government are right about that at least) are likely to be left-wing, green, animal-rights supporting socialist, scrounging layabouts, whereas the farmers who wanted the cull are more likely to be Tory voters.

If it were down to votes, the Tories would have binned it the day the arrived in office. Fortunately, they accept their responsibilities, which is not apparent on the benches opposite.

Even the Torygraph - while it doesn't think it's a U-turn (but does think it's a big blunder and "another embarrassing bungle, one that will only increase the Government's reputation for incompetence") - seems to agree:

It all adds to a growing impression that this is a back-of-an-envelope policy drawn up to make it look as if the Government was doing something about the genuine scourge of bovine TB in order to pacify outraged farmers.

We can all quote-mine:

With the project put back to next summer, animal rights activists are rejoicing – not least at having convinced the credulous that a sensible plan to put disease-ridden animals out of their misery is a crime tantamount to the slaughter of the firstborn.

and

Yet as Mr Paterson pointed out, the alternatives are thin on the ground: for all the cost of a cull, it is dwarfed by the millions of pounds of damage that TB-infected badgers do when they transfer the disease to cattle. As the badger population soars, the situation grows ever more serious.

Labour's solution? Do nothing.

What were you saying about it not being a political question?

I was saying you are treting it as a political question, when it is nnot; it is a question of how to seal with an increasingly serious problem of bovine TB. Further information is available
here. This is a matter for science, not dog-whistle politics.

[Alan H]

Being adamant that a decision taken was the right one, ploughing ahead with it, then putting the brakes on, delaying it, looks like a U-turn to me.

Then it seems you have failed to understand the situation. There has been no change in the decision that the badger cull is the right one. So no U-turn.

There has been a change in the decision to go ahead with the badger cull now. Whether or not they decide to re-start the process again next year, remains to be seen.

The problem is, that the situation is a dynamic one, with most of its constituent parts independent of Government, though still part of your beloved public sector.

Isn't someone in charge here?

No-one wants badgers killed just for the sake of it. If it were just a question of appealing to the electorate, then not a badger would be touched. But as even the Labour party, when in government, accepted, that was unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.

I didn't say it was all about appealing to the electorate; just one part of it.

Yes, they may decide to re-start it next year (we will need to wait and see), but it smacks of incompetence in the first place.

Funnily enough, government isn't easy. As for incompetence, such accusations don't really get us any further forward. Maybe we should accuse the Labour Party of incompetence for entrusting their policy review to a manwho can't even cope with getting an MOT and insurance for his car. Actually, that has nothing to do with whether the cull is the right answer or not.

Quite possibly, but nothing to do with the Government's change of plan.

Primarily, the scientific advice was against it;

Hmmm... dunno about that. Some is, some isn't. As yet, I don't know myself quite what to think.

Which bit isn't?

they seemed to have either no idea of the costs and no control over them;

Not really. The costs were to be met by the farmers. It was the revision in the estimate of the number of badgers which changed things. And I see no evidence that the anti's had any better idea of numbers than the government did.

Red herring. Whether the 'opposition' knew what the number was has nothing to do with expecting the Government (whose policy it is) to have a good grasp of the numbers before starting to implement a cull.

and it then transpired that even though they declared they needed to cull 70%, they had no idea what it was 70% of,

In terms of the effectiveness of a cull, or vaccinations, or other such matters, it is the percentage which is important, not necessarily absolute numbers.

Red herring. While that is true, you need to know the numbers so you can work out the costs and manpower required to kill them. The Government still doesn't.

so after it was announced it was about to go ahead, they had to stop to count them; they didn't know how many guns or police resources would be needed;

So much for the £50 million and ten years reearch under Labour....

Were the Tories relying on Labour research? If not, then what a previous administration did is irrelevant to the current situation. It's a tu quoque fallacy.

they allowed the process to drag on until a time when it was too late to start before winter.

So the government should assume even more power, should it...? And why not castigate Labour for taking 10 years, rather than the Coalition missing their target by a few months?

OK. If that is correct (and I've no idea if it is), then Labour should have been admonished for it. Now, ignoring that tu quoque, let's get back to the current Government's plans...

As that world-renowned source of ultra-reliable and unbiased journalism (ie the Torygraph) states:

Once the culls in West Somerset and West Gloucestershire were approved, Natural England took far too long to sign off on the plans and personnel. The police also took their time amending the firearms licences of those involved. And Defra’s decision to conduct a full survey of badger numbers only at the last minute was a classic instance of poor planning: by the time it had shown that the cull would take far more effort than had been thought, it was too late to do anything.

And all this would be different under Labour how, exactly?

No idea; and irrelevant.

Of course, the opponents (and there will be protesters as well - the Government are right about that at least) are likely to be left-wing, green, animal-rights supporting socialist, scrounging layabouts, whereas the farmers who wanted the cull are more likely to be Tory voters.

If it were down to votes, the Tories would have binned it the day the arrived in office. Fortunately, they accept their responsibilities, which is not apparent on the benches opposite.

LOL!

The scientific evidence seems to be firmly against the effectiveness of a cull - do you have contrary scientific evidence?

[Dave B]

[Alan H]

It's a fruitless discussion. The cull has been stopped; we need to wait to see whether it is ever resurrected.

[Dave B]

It's a fruitless discussion. The cull has been stopped; we need to wait to see whether it is ever resurrected.

This is in some ways true but behind any situation like this there is always the politics, the competence (or otherwise) with which the whole thing has been handled and so forth.

The ash tree situation is another facet of these problems - are these people competent to make decisions that affect the lives of people or the environment of this country? What are their motives? How far do they look ahead? Do they count the potential for votes first then make policy on what they find? Do they make decisions based on ideology or on pragmatism? Do they listen to the experts who advise them? Do they chose those experts on an objective basis?

I'm just an old cynic - through experience.

[Alan H]

It's a fruitless discussion. The cull has been stopped; we need to wait to see whether it is ever resurrected.

This is in some ways true but behind any situation like this there is always the politics, the competence (or otherwise) with which the whole thing has been handled and so forth.

Indeed.

The ash tree situation is another facet of these problems - are these people competent to make decisions that affect the lives of people or the environment of this country? What are their motives? How far do they look ahead? Do they count the potential for votes first then make policy on what they find? Do they make decisions based on ideology or on pragmatism? Do they listen to the experts who advise them? Do they chose those experts on an objective basis?

I'm just an old cynic - through experience.

Ditto.

[rana]

While I agree that politics (Our Elected MPs) account for decision making, the people speak out for any wrong decisions regardless of Left or Right wing.
We have not found a cure for Cancer, the Bubonic Plague just collapsed, many diseases are present that we have no cure for. Maybe if farmers had taken more care, take BSE for instance, I was appalled to learn what some of our farmers were feeding herbivours; Game wardens wanted to shoot Buzzards for taking a very small amount of poults, when hundreds were jaywaliking on our roads and getting killed by vehicles.
Just because we have no immediate cure to the BTB problem, does not mean we should initiate a mass murder of badgers to see if that works, when clearly it wont.
The NFU and Government should carry on trying to tackle the problem, and maybe take some advice from Scottish Farmers, who clearly farm in a more healthy and environmentally friendly way

[Nick]

It's a fruitless discussion. The cull has been stopped; we need to wait to see whether it is ever resurrected.

Hmmm... we still have bovine TB, which seems likely to spread to other species too. Hardly a time to just sit and wait, I'd have thought...

[Nick]

Just because we have no immediate cure to the BTB problem, does not mean we should initiate a mass murder of badgers to see if that works, when clearly it wont.

It won't cure it, but it may reduce it. It may be the best (or least worse) solution available.

The NFU and Government should carry on trying to tackle the problem,

unless of course, they are not allowed to follw their research with any action.

and maybe take some advice from Scottish Farmers, who clearly farm in a more healthy and environmentally friendly way

Errr.... why? It could easily be no more than geographical advantage, or is it red hair, salty porridge and chilly knees.....?

We could take advice from continental farmers, who apparently don't have the same problems. What's their secret? The badger is not protected and they shoot them.

[rana]

Perhaps your right Nick, we certainly shouldnt wait even though the problem has been around for years. Lets start right away, and shoot peoples pet cats, foxes, deer, hedgehogs, weasels, stoats, squirrels, and sleeping Badgers along with dog walkers, protesters, and shooters, silly enough to be roaming in the woods at night. If that doesn't work nothing will.