APPENDIX 18
Memorandum submitted by Elizabeth Turner
(P18)
1. I would like to make a number of crucial
points relating to the Krebs badger culling trial to be taken
into account in the government's new inquiry into badgers and
bovine tuberculosis.
2. I consider that there has been an absence
of explanation or justification for the continuance of the trial
in the face of extremely important and relevant factors that influence
the scientific validity of the Krebs experiment.
3. The greatest of these is the interruption
of both the culling trial and the TB cattle testing regime by
the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
4. Most crucially, the much greater incidence
in bovine TB following the cessation of TB cattle testing in this
period indicates that in fact the accurate and rigorous testing
of cattle is essential for control of TB, without which the disease
increases. This raises two important points, firstly this infers
that cattle related measures reduce bovine TB, rather than killing
badgers, supporting the fact that bovine TB is a cattle disease
and should be treated as such. Secondly, if the cattle testing
program has shown to be so important, surely it is crucial that
the cattle test is accurate. In this case funds and resources
should be directed towards this as a priority, in order to avoid
infected cattle remaining in the field to re-infect the herd.
Equally crucial is the fact that cattle were cooped up in sheds
during foot and mouth disease, in conditions that typically allow
TB to thrive and spread. This again infers cattle to cattle transmission
at a time when contact with badgers would have been minimal. The
considerable rise in bovine TB during this time is a fact that
surely cannot be ignored when considering the causes of bTB.
5. The Krebs trial has of course also been
severely complicated by the interruption of foot and mouth disease.
In that period scientists have no idea how badger populations
were changing or how the incidence of TB changed, either in badgers
or cattle. With the rise in bovine TB that occurred, the potential
for cattle to cattle transmission as well as cattle to badger
transmission inevitably became higher, particularly once movement
restrictions were lifted. This potential for spread of the disease
would have been exacerbated by the backlog in cattle tests and
the inaccuracy of the test. Any subsequent results indicating
the level of TB in badgers therefore become meaningless with so
many variables. As a result, the trial was at that point rendered
a farce, as reported in the New Scientist in March 2002.
In view of this, why did scientists and government not undertake
a serious review of the TB control strategy rather than simply
resuming the badger killing as if nothing had changed? It was
clear that the experiment was severely compromised and at the
same time the importance of controlling TB in cattle was highlighted.
Instead of controlling bTB at that stage through continued movement
restrictions, farmers were allowed to re-stock with cattle that
may have been infected with TB because of the backlog of tests
and unreliability of the test. It was business as usual, with
cattle to cattle transmission a high risk and resumption of killing
badgers despite the lack of meaning in any further trial results.
6. The high cost of continuing the trial
both in economic terms and in the loss of life, is clearly unjustified
when so many questions remained unanswered over the meaning of
results, the reliability of cattle tests and the role of cattle
to cattle transmission. The trial should therefore cease immediately.
7. I consider most strongly that resources
would be much better spent on finding a cattle vaccine and a reliable
cattle test than the further slaughter of badgers. I would also
like to request that the government announce the escalating cost
of the badger culling trial to taxpayers. It was reported in November
2000 in the Western Morning News that the cost of killing
every badger was £7,000. Has this remained the same or increased?
The government should be justifying such expenditure to the taxpayer
with sound scientific information.
8. It is my belief that such scientific
support for the trial is simply not there. Prior to foot and mouth
disease, there were already significant variables that effected
the trial: refusal of landowners to allow the cull, inefficiency
of killing operations, killing of badgers by farmers in no cull
areas, interference by protesters and other factors. We are given
to understand that all these variables and then the interruption
by foot and mouth disease could be accounted for by statistics.
However, no explanation has been forthcoming as to exactly how
such manipulation of figures can be justified, to both the public
and politicians and still represent meaningful results. When challenged
at a meeting of the West Cornwall Badger Group in 2001, John Bourne
was unable to explain this to the audience in simple terms. Statistics
are of course not simple but if politicians are to understand
the issues in basic terms in order to make decisions and the public
are to be satisfied over expenditure of taxes, this is unsatisfactory.
9. In reality, the latest findings in science
are indicating that natural ecosystems are not necessarily quantifiable
by simply isolating certain factors of that ecosystem, as if in
a laboratory. In other words, considering solely badgers and TB
in a complicated and interacting ecosystem is not likely to provide
predictable results. The study of the sciences of complexity in
fact indicate that unpredictable and unforeseen consequences arise
in ecosystems due to other variables that have not been accounted
for. This clearly applies to the badger trial in view of the variables
and inconsistencies already pointed out above and also the restricted
scope of the trial. Krebs' terms of reference were to focus solely
on badgers and he admitted he had neither the time or expertise
to consider other alternatives. The latest findings in science
indicate that this is a severely flawed approach and therefore
such isolated data are likely to be rendered meaningless.
10. I would like to raise some further important
questions. What attention has been given to the discovery that
TB can remain in the soil longer than originally thought? This
is clearly an important source of re-infection to cattle herds.
11. The latest triplet in the south-west
appears to be adjacent to two other triplets, ie east Cornwall
and Putford. The government has not to date indicated what are
the likely effects on badgers and the ecosystem of eradicating
large areas of badgers. Initially the areas of eradication were
declared to be 100 km2 however now that three triplets are concentrated
in the region around the Devon and Cornwall border, this could
effectively raise the area of eradication to 300 km2. This wholesale
slaughter of thousands of animals in one region may effect the
genetic variability of the badger population and also have effects
on the rest of the ecosystem. Have these factors been considered
at all by the government?
12. Lastly I would like to focus on the
welfare of badgers during the culling trial. Since the cull resumed
in May 2002, the weather has often been severe at times of killing.
On contacting DEFRA, mixed responses have been received. In May
2002 during the cull in west Cornwall, there was heavy and persistent
rain together with strong winds. Badger cubs just weeks old were
found in traps completely drenched and covered in mud. The response
from DEFRA was that flooding was the only consideration regarding
continuation of trapping. Despite this, traps were found in muddy
and flooded ditches. In October 2002, the weather was again severe
during the cull in west Devon. On consulting DEFRA again, the
response from Dawn Woodward quoting from the regulations was "Both
temperature and wind chill must be taken into account. Long range
weather forecasts should be used to assist in the planning of
trapping exercises particularly during the run-up to the closed
season". Clearly this was a wholly different response to
that in May but perhaps closer to the truth. However at that time
despite gale force winds, heavy rain, storm warnings and flooding,
culling continued in the area, which was a clear breach of DEFRA
regulations. Once again in December 2002, the weather was severe,
this time sub zero temperatures and a significant wind chill factor.
Trapping was suspended for one night when media interest focused
on the weather but the cull resumed the following night, for several
days and the following week despite the same sub zero temperatures.
Again, this is a clear breach of DEFRA regulations.
13. A further point on welfare, although
the killing procedure has been investigated, the welfare of badgers
overnight and for daylight hours until DEFRA operatives return
to shoot badgers, has never been investigated. Badgers often injure
themselves trying to dig out of the cage traps causing unacceptable
animal suffering.
14. The last point on welfare relates to
the closed season, which was reduced for the Krebs trial from
six to three months. The Western Morning News reported
in November 2002 that a tiny orphaned badger cub was found by
a farmer in a field on 31 January. This illustrates that the current
closed season of February to April is inadequate. Badgers born
at this time in culling areas are being orphaned underground and
starve to death while their lactating mothers become trapped and
then shot in DEFRA's cages. Pregnant sows are also being killed,
as are few week old cubs in May. This reduction of the closed
season simply for the purposes of this Krebs experiment is totally
unacceptable and inadequate to prevent unnecessary suffering of
cubs and pregnant or lactating sows.
15. These welfare issues should be made
public, as are the issues currently on hunting and as were the
facts relating to fur farming in Britain which was recently outlawed.
However for some reason, the badger cull has not received the
same attention either by scientists, politicians or the media.
Similarly the issues surrounding the validity of continuing the
trial should be more transparent to the public.
16. I believe the trial is now futile and
meaningless in view of the issues that I have raised and that
there is no justification for such loss of wildlife and welfare
problems. I would appreciate the above points being taken into
account and fully addressed in the government's current inquiry
and I would also request a detailed response the points raised.
17. I look forward to a response and I am
also communicating my concerns to MPs in areas where the Krebs
trial is taking place.
31 January 2003
| 
