Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 1999
DR ELAINE
KING, MRS
JANE FRY
AND MR
MICHAEL NASH
300. The same is true of the incidence of
TB in badgers?
(Dr King) Figures on the incidence of TB in badgers
come from post mortem figures. Most of them are biased,
from the point of view that they come from TB areas where badgers
are being removed. The Ministry of Agriculture used to sample
road casualty badgers over the whole of the country, but that
stopped in 1989 because it was considered to be too expensive.
I understand that the Government is going to be resuming sampling
road casualties but only in the TB areas and we obviously welcome
that. We need more information on TB in the national badger population.
As Mrs Fry has indicated, there are certain areas of the country
where there is TB in cattle but not in the badgers; and, similarly,
there is TB in the badgers but it has never been in the cattle.
We really need to understand the epidemiology of the disease in
badgers and in cattle, and having road casualty figures will help
us to do that. We have figures from road casualty samples up to
1989; we have got a limited number from road casualties collected
in TB areas recently, where MAFF has been doing limited sampling
of road casualty badgers; and then we have got all the badgers
that have been killed by the Ministry of Agriculture; but it is
a biased sample because they have been taken where there have
been herd breakdowns in cattle. If there is no TB in the cattle
they have not looked at the badgers, so the figures are biased.
That is largely where these data have come from; and also the
research that MAFF has done at the Badger Research Unit in Gloucestershire,
where they looked at the disease in a naturally infected population
of badgers—they have not culled or controlled them in any
way. They removed some of them in the '70s in one corner but,
apart from that, they sample the badgers four times a year; they
take faeces, urine, blood, pus from wounds, tracheal aspirates,
and look to see if they have got TB and then they can get an idea
of what TB is doing in the population of badgers that have not
been interfered with.
301. Are you concerned about the health
of badgers?
(Dr King) From my experience TB is not a welfare problem
for badgers. I worked at Woodchester Park, at the MAFF Badger
Research Unit in Gloucestershire, and very few badgers were infected,
and of those an even smaller number were infectious—I think
there were about two. By "infectious" I mean actively
excreting bacteria. Most of them were able to contain the disease
quite easily. They do not show clinical symptoms; they are not
sick in the conventional sense and they are not able to infect
another animal. To be honest, I think an infected animal is far
more likely to be run over before it ever suffers clinical symptoms
and actually suffers from TB. I do not think it is a welfare issue
for badgers. We have to see this in the badger population as a
disease which is endemic. It obviously does not affect badger
numbers in a detrimental way, because badgers are generally quite
successful in areas where there is TB in the badger population.
We have to see it in the context of other diseases perhaps in
wildlife. We do not want a sterile countryside. We should not
necessarily feel if badgers have got TB it is wrong; it is only
a problem if it is affecting livestock, domestic animals or human
health and then it is an issue. If you are thinking about just
the welfare of badgers I do not think it is an issue.
302. We have got a problem and we have got
badgers that have TB and so we have set up a scientific trial
to have a look at the methods of transmission. Can we go on to
talk about the scientific basis of the trial, of which you are
very critical. You say there are major flaws in the experiment.
Could you substantiate what those major flaws are?
(Dr King) One of the problems, as I mentioned earlier,
is there is no scientifically validated method for estimating
badger densities. For example, the Krebs report and the Bourne
report said that badger numbers needed to be estimated in the
trial, and I would assume it so they could make an estimate of
the proportion of badgers they have managed to kill.
303. You have used some evidence in the
past to give us, in your evidence, the size of the badger population.
You must have an interest also in counting badgers, to see exactly
how many there are on the ground?
(Dr King) I think it would be important to have the
information. The point is there is not a method available. It
means in the trial there is no way of calculating how many badgers
are in the area before MAFF actually goes in to kill them. We
cannot calculate culling efficiencies at all. If we see a reduction
or increase in TB in cattle, we cannot link that to a culling
efficiency; we cannot link it to the proportions of badgers that
have been removed in that area, because we do not know how many
there were to start with just because we know how many we have
killed. That is a major problem of not being able to work out
badger densities.
(Mrs Fry) There is another aspect to that, inasmuch
as it is quite difficult to tell if farmers are interfering with
the sett in "no cull" areas. From experience from within
my group I have found when setts are dug and there is interference
with the setts if a badger is left you will suddenly find field
signs increase significantly; you will find dung all around. If
you were just going in and looking at the badger signs you would
assume there was a very healthy group there; but it seems when
there is any disturbance, or when they have lost members of their
social group, field sign activity increases. It is going to be
very difficult to tell if, in a no culling area, there has been
significant interference or not.
304. If interference is going to be a problem
in the trial, would it not be helpful (if we want a solution to
this really complex problem) if badger groups helped to assist
the scientific trial, rather than objecting to it? That way we
can overcome some of the difficulties you have mentioned and we
could solve the problem?
(Mrs Fry) We have been trying to assist, inasmuch
as we have (as part of the Federation) formed a badger and farming
advisory group, and we have been trying to get practical measures
forward that both sides can agree on. Some farmers have come up
to me and said that a couple of years ago we would not have been
in the same room discussing these problems between ourselves.
Those meetings have been successful. We have also had open meetings
where we have had farmers come with badger group people to discuss
the problems. As for putting forward suggestions and helping to
advance the problems, together with the farming advisory group
we have written to the Government asking to put the latest TB
test on cattle passports, for example. They have also helped devise
a leaflet, which is not only giving advice and keeping the two
species apart, but is also helping with other badger damage. In
those aspects we have been trying to back the trial.
305. That is what Krebs does. Krebs does
take an holistic approach to this complex problem, and he does
talk about the whole issue of husbandry and looking at other areas?
(Mrs Fry) Yes.
306. So you are quite happy about this holistic
approach. One thing which is a discrepancy between what the Forest
of Dean Badger Patrol are stating in the design of the culling
trial, they are saying it is valid in broad terms as a scientific
project, while the NFBG opposes that on a number of grounds, including
scientific. Could you explain why there is a discrepancy with
why the Forest of Dean Badger Patrol state the trial is valid
in broad terms, but the Badger Federation says not?
(Mrs Fry) We felt on paper the fact it was a randomised
trial with controls was a scientific approach, but we felt in
workability terms that was another issue. We have not called workability
problems, if you like, scientific problems. We have tried to separate
the two.
307. You think it is scientifically robust;
you think its implementation may have problems?
(Mrs Fry) Absolutely. The only one that might cross
the barrier is the business of being able to tell badger numbers
from field signs. Whether that is workability or scientific, I
do not know. Our main problem with it was the fact about landowners
not letting MAFF on their land, killing in no cull areas, interference
with traps, and the fact the timescale had already slipped. Those
are the sort of things we are calling workability.
308. The scientific robustness you are happy
about?
(Mrs Fry) Other than the field signs, that is the
Patrol's view.
(Dr King) We have mentioned other issues. For example,
the trial started on 2nd December and yet a lot of the important
parts of the trial had not been implemented. There were not any
independent external auditors, which should have been put in place
from the start; so there were no welfare checks. There were no
checks on the ability of the people doing the survey work.
309. That is not the scientific basis, that
is the implementation.
(Dr King) It is important so far as the science is
concerned. It was also recommenced by Krebs and Bourne that other
wildlife are examined in the trial; that they calculate population
density and that they look at the prevalence of disease in those
animals. That, again, has not been put in place yet and that will
affect the science.
Chairman
310. We have to move on. These trials are
happening, they are going ahead, they are a reality on the ground;
the only thing that threatens them is non-compliance and a lack
of resource from MAFF. Would you not be better advised to say,
"Let's make these damn things work", because if you
do not the risk is they will drag on and on for longer, more badgers
will be killed, defeating your own objectives to protect the badger?
(Dr King) I maintain that the trial is practically
unworkable. We do not believe it is going to have robust results.
311. That is an interesting argument but
the trial is happening, the trial has begun. The next triplet
is identified in the Forest of Dean area; there will be four more
triplets identified this year. If they do not deliver plausible
results they will be dragged on and on and more badgers will die,
and badger groups could have a share in the blame for those extra
deaths.
(Dr King) I would disagree with that entirely. The
problem is that the Ministry of Agriculture has told farmers for
so long that badgers give TB to cattle. They largely think it
is a pretty clear-cut case. Farmers are killing badgers illegally.
312. Are you advising compliance to your
members? What advice do you give to your members?
(Dr King) We have advised they take no action which
is illegal. We do not condone any illegal activity whatsoever.
If people are removing traps or releasing badgers from traps that
is nothing to do with the NFBG. Badger groups are not doing that
at all. The important point for us is that we provide factual,
objective scientific information.
313. You have lost the argument. The trials
are happening; that was before Krebs. We are now in a situation
that the trials are there. Should you not be actively advising
compliance to farmers who shoot badgers in the control areas and
to animal rights activists in the active areas?
(Mrs Fry) We are not saying to farmers you should
go out and shoot badgers.
314. If one side decide not to comply the
other side think it has a right not to comply too.
(Mrs Fry) We always say at every open meeting that
we do not condone any active or direct action. We are very against
farmers killing badgers from the welfare aspects. What we want
to see are the husbandry issues being looked at.
Chairman: We will come to that later.
Mr Mitchell
315. That is no good, standing there piously
saying we are not going to condone or condemn it. It would be
more sensible, given the fact it is going ahead, to throw yourselves
behind it, and clear up the problem once and for all at a fairly
minimal cost to badgers?
(Dr King) I do not see it makes any difference whether
the trial has started.
316. With your cooperation it might be a
more successful experiment?
(Dr King) I do not believe the NFBG's support really
makes a great deal of difference. There are still problems with
the trial whether we support it or not. We believe very strongly
that the trial is not the way forward. Whether it has started
or not makes no difference, we would continue to take that view.
One of the problems we have had, is that we have asked the expert
group quite a few questions—many of which have been answered—but
we are still not satisfied about the statistical strength of the
trial. We have asked questions and a lot have been refused, so
that is part of the problem. We cannot support a trial when a
lot of information we require has not been provided to us.
317. What is your position, are you trying
to invalidate the thing before it has finished?
(Dr King) No, not at all. If badgers are going to
be killed there has to be some hope of success, inasmuch as there
will be a result which will be useful and meaningful and will
then eventually contribute to future policy in controlling TB
in cattle. We do not believe the trial will do that.
318. Your advance quibbles about the trial
do not preclude the possibility that it will come up with a meaningful
conclusion?
(Dr King) We do not think it is likely to come up
with a meaningful conclusion.
319. You do want to damn it before it starts?
(Dr King) Based on the information that is available,
we do not believe the trial will give us the results that will
give us the future policy.
| 
