View Full Version : Pembrokeshire Badger Cull
i saw this on the news this morning, it has been given the go ahead but no-body knows when it'll just happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/10199015.stm will give you the whole story,
a brief summary - farmers want the badgers culled as they fear TB being spread, people who oppose it feel its unnecessary and question the science behind the TB claim.
so, your thoughts?
(p.s i'm aware this is a emotive subject, however i want a good clean fight, all toys and dummies can be left at the door and collect on your way out :cool:)
I have the utmost respect for George Monbiot as a writer and journalist.
His expose of the Skye Bridge fiasco contributed to the campaign to drop the toll charges.
His take on the badger cull is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jun/17/pembrokeshire-badger-cull)
DEFRA suggest that:
"All general good practice helps to reduce the risk of animal diseases including bovine TB, for example: providing good ventilation in cattle housing, not overstocking cattle when housed (or at grass), following guidelines on cleansing and disinfecting and providing cattle with a balanced diet."
More advice can be obtained from DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth/managing-disease/bTb/reduce/index.htm) website
this is a link to the welsh consultation document regarding the cull
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/consultation/090603bovinetborderconsdocen.pdf
they appear to have explored other avenues before settling on a cull, i'm quite interested in the section about vaccination combined with a cull
3.7 A combined option, whereby badgers would be trapped, tested for bovine
TB and either destroyed or vaccinated according to their disease status is
not being considered further at this present time, as there are a number of
technical difficulties associated with this approach. Modeling has revealed
that it has significant potential to increase the number of cases of bovine
TB in cattle if perturbation occurs.
how would this have such potential to raise the number of cases? can anyone tell me?
The inhumane teatment of so many poor badgers is horiffic and wrong. this can never be justified. a study of badgers killed on the roads showed that 6 out of 7 tested negative for the disaese and that the culling (killing) actually increases TB infection in surounding cattle. The complete opposite of the desired effect. No virtue, no principle Xunzis old hpothesis (sp) comes to mind "the nature of man is evil" [evil] This is so sad.
DEFRA suggest that:
"All general good practice helps to reduce the risk of animal diseases including bovine TB, for example: providing good ventilation in cattle housing, not overstocking cattle when housed (or at grass), following guidelines on cleansing and disinfecting and providing cattle with a balanced diet."
More advice can be obtained from DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth/managing-disease/bTb/reduce/index.htm) website
Hygiene and a better diet = happier and healthier animals. :)
By the way good post!
The inhumane teatment of so many poor badgers is horiffic and wrong. this can never be justified. a study of badgers killed on the roads showed that 6 out of 7 tested negative for the disaese and that the culling (killing) actually increases TB infection in surounding cattle. The complete opposite of the desired effect. No virtue, no principle Xunzis old hpothesis (sp) comes to mind "the nature of man is evil" [evil] This is so sad.
do you know how big the study was? because what is being proposed in pembrokeshire is a massive operation if they decided to stick to the findings of this consulatation.
3.5 Following consideration of the above options the Minister is of the opinion
that a pro-active non-selective cull of badgers is necessary alongside
additional cattle measures within an IAPA. The intention is that a cull
would be co-ordinated and delivered/managed by Government. Badgers
would be culled by trapping and shooting (this would be the primary
method), trapping and lethal injection, or shooting without trapping; these
are considered to be the most effective and humane methods. Culling
methods that have been considered but discounted include poisoning,
gassing and the use of snares. To maximise the benefits, any culling
would have to be carried out competently and efficiently, in a co-ordinated
manner, covering a large area and sustained for at least four years. This
policy would initially be implemented in one area (the IAPA), and further
expansion would only be considered following evaluation.
for some extra reading i've added 2 links
http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/disease/bovinetuberculosis/?lang=en this is the welsh assembly website related to tb and the cull
http://www.pembrokeshireagainstthecull.org.uk/ this is a site set up by people who are against the cull
do you know how big the study was? because what is being proposed in pembrokeshire is a massive operation if they decided to stick to the findings of this consulatation.
3.5 Following consideration of the above options the Minister is of the opinion
that a pro-active non-selective cull of badgers is necessary alongside
additional cattle measures within an IAPA. The intention is that a cull
would be co-ordinated and delivered/managed by Government. Badgers
would be culled by trapping and shooting (this would be the primary
method), trapping and lethal injection, or shooting without trapping; these
are considered to be the most effective and humane methods. Culling
methods that have been considered but discounted include poisoning,
gassing and the use of snares. To maximise the benefits, any culling
would have to be carried out competently and efficiently, in a co-ordinated
manner, covering a large area and sustained for at least four years. This
policy would initially be implemented in one area (the IAPA), and further
expansion would only be considered following evaluation.
I hope this helps a bit ....
3. The findings of a study of badger road traffic deaths in 7 counties were published in August 2005. The study - conducted for Defra - found that 6 out of 7 badgers tested negative for the disease. It also showed that - even in those parts of the country worst affected by bovine TB - most badgers test negative for the disease and there was no clear correlation between the levels of TB in cattle and badgers. The ISG's report also found that on average only 12% of the badgers culled had TB (i.e. 88% didn't).
All this unecessary killing simply to produce more economicaly viable livestock for the slaghter houses! :~(
so it just doesnt add up then
i find it strange they didn't put more into the vaccinate and cull solution, that way only the 12% that were infected would be culled. (using pegasus numbers for examples sake)
although i suppose trapping, testing, vaccinating or culling adds to extra steps which i imagine is expensive :roll:
so it just doesnt add up then
i find it strange they didn't put more into the vaccinate and cull solution, that way only the 12% that were infected would be culled. (using pegasus numbers for examples sake)
although i suppose trapping, testing, vaccinating or culling adds to extra steps which i imagine is expensive :roll:
i agree. i think that consuklatation docs manipulate words and twist things about. i distrust thare model claim that is made without any supporting material. perhaps it comes down to money as you suggest?
i don't know if it is simply money because as they stated in their own document that to maximize the effectiveness of the cull it would have to be coordinated over a large area for at least 4 years. its not really a cheaper alternative? but that all depends on the effectiveness of the vaccine i suppose
The ISG's report also found that on average only 12% of the badgers culled had TB (i.e. 88% didn't).
12% is a lot! Imagine if 12% of people were carriers of HIV...
All this unecessary killing simply to produce more economicaly viable livestock for the slaghter houses! :~(
Along with safer meat and milk products for consumption. Paturization is a fantastic thing but occasionally bugs slip though this process.
I'm sitting on the fence with this one at the moment. I have seen papers in the past that seem to disprove that culling controls the spread among cattle, I've not seen research proving the opposite but I'm sure someone could point me in the right direction.
I would be for the mass vaccination of badgers approach but there is risk to the people doing the vaccination. There is also the problem that while captive (and they set the traps near farms to hit the ones nearest the cattle first) there is increased risk to the cattle due to exposure.
The other problem with mass vaccination is we don't know whether the problem is endemic or epidemic (well the animal version but that's just semantics) in the badger population. If the disease is endemic (neither rising nor falling but of a certain stable level) then vaccination could well work. If it is epidemic (on the rise) there is the risk that vaccination may not be done quick enough and animals may already be infected.
The problem with capture and release is that diagnosis of TB is notoriously difficult. Staining for the bacterium has limited sensitivity and the culture takes 2 weeks! If badgers were positive at gram stain they could be culled fairly soon, but if they were tested as negative the culture results would need to be in before release and possibly 35% of these cases could still be positive. That is an awful lot of badgers to house in the meantime. Housing them in itself will increase the likelihood of transmission. In fact look at it this way - how do we know that the negative badgers haven't been infected whilst captured - the vaccine has a natural lag before antibodies are produced? Is the animal vaccine like the human one in that you need a booster before considered full effective? To all the badgers to be truely negative we would have to hold the badgers for multiple testings - say 3 clear tests? Then there is the further problem that the disease could mutate when so many badgers are in close proximity. There is always the option of titre testing but how do we know if the badgers have had TB and recovered, are actually infected, or indeed have had an effective vaccine.
Also who will do the testing? TB is handled as a category 3 disease - culture needs to be done in a sealed room that is an airlock to the outside world, further to this it needs to be done in a cabinet with those huge gloves that are built in to protect people. The veterinary community just doesn't have the facilities to cope with the testing of hundreds of animals. Historically the NHS could have used it as a moneymaking scheme - almost every hospital had a category 3 room, but with savings came mergers and now the smaller laboratories don't have these facilities; they are all held in the big city teaching hospitals - and are now working to capacity. So who does the testing? Is it viable?
I'm not sure what the answer is but one thing is sure - we need to keep a check on TB. Less and less parents are vaccinating their children due to fear and also the BCG being seen as an uneccessary vaccine that children could be particularly susceptible. One thing we don't need is the situation where families are ripped apart while children, mothers and fathers are put in convelescent homes to recover :(
Edit - sorry for the essay. I'm looking with interest at this thread and the situation in RL. It is quite a serious thing and the solution will always be a difficult one :(
porshiepoo
07-Jun-10, 13:49
I really do not know enough about the subject of Badgers carrying TB and the possibility of Cattle being affected via them.
I would hope that thorough research has been carried out and proven without a doubt that there is a direct link between Badgers and TB affected cattle before any ideas of culling have been tossed about?
Even then I would hope that all other possible sources of infection have been investigated and ruled out?
I sincerely hope that this is not a knee jerk reaction to a 'possible' source of infection. Once the culling of Badger begins it is going to have a knock on effect UK wide and every farmer with a gun may react.
Seems to give a history...
'Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers'
http://www.badgerland.co.uk/education/politics/tuberculosis/bovine_tb_cattle_badgers.html
Seems to give a history...
'Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers'
http://www.badgerland.co.uk/education/politics/tuberculosis/bovine_tb_cattle_badgers.html
The summary of above link poses the question: Is TB passed from cattle to badger and not the other way around?
The summary of above link poses the question: Is TB passed from cattle to badger and not the other way around?
It is both ways - mycobacterium bovis is the organism in question and can now infect cows, humans and badgers. The site you linked makes quite scary reading - I knew that cattle TB was more pathogenic in humans but I didn't realise it came with a 50% death rate!! It is actually a more serious problem than I thought :(
Edit - I do think the site seems quite biased towards the financial aspect. One of the first sentences is about the 50% death rate yet they describe badger culls as not 'economic'. What about the lives saved though - surely that is of more value...
All types of mycobacterium cause tuberculosis or TB. In the 1930s there were 50,000 cases of human TB each year. 4000 of these were caused by Mycobacterium bovis, resulting in 2000 human deaths.
1985
The situation in the south-west still wasn't much better. In the early 1980s, each TB breakout had cost £5,700. However, when the Badgers were killed, the maximum saving was £1.9 million, but it cost MAFF (i.e. the taxpayers) £11.3 million. Thus Badger control is not economic.
On further review the 50% DR was in the 30s, current survival rates are 95% it seems
There is a poster at the botom of the link for anyone wishing to know the scientfic facts and data. Badgers and Bovine TB - Truth Behind The Myths and Lies
http://www.savethebadger.com/information.html
right, lots of conflicting info and some agreeing so, if you had to sort out the spread of TB and you had farmers wailing in one ear and protesters wailing in the other.
what would you do?
Shabbychic
07-Jun-10, 16:41
right, lots of conflicting info and some agreeing so, if you had to sort out the spread of TB and you had farmers wailing in one ear and protesters wailing in the other.
what would you do?
Find out the facts, and then find a solution, preferably without killing any animals in the process. :D
Find out the facts, and then find a solution, preferably without killing any animals in the process. :D
Problem is in the meantime animals are dying :(
Find out the facts, and then find a solution, preferably without killing any animals in the process. :D
and use.... logic.... well i dunno its risky, never been tried before.... [lol]
Quite enjoying reading around this topic. Found this on the CDFA website:
Cattle are the primary hosts for M. bovis, but other domesticated and wild
mammals can also be infected. Known maintenance hosts include brush–tailed opossums (and possibly ferrets) in New Zealand, badgers in the United Kingdom and Ireland, bison and elk in Canada, and kudu and African buffalo in southern Africa. White-tailed deer in the United States (Michigan) have been classified as maintenance hosts; however, some authors now believe this species may be a spillover host that maintains the organism only when its population density is high. Species reported to be spillover hosts include sheep, goats, horses, pigs, dogs, cats, ferrets, camels, llamas, many species of wild ruminants including deer and elk; elephants, rhinoceroses, foxes, coyotes, mink, primates, opossums, otters, seals, sea lions, hares, raccoons, bears, warthogs, large cats (including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs and lynx) and several species of rodents. Most mammals may be susceptible
It has been announced that "The Badger Trust" has mounted a legal challenge to the propsed culling of 1500 badgers in Wales and has been told that it can appeal against the judicial review that backed the Welsh Assembly Government's plans
More here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10270111.stm)
A cull on badgers in Pembrokeshire will not begin before the results of an appeal, the Welsh rural affairs minister has announced.
The decision was made after the Badger Trust was told it could appeal against the outcome of a judicial review that backed the assembly government's plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/10295531.stm
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.