Memorandum submitted by the Royal College
of Veterinary Surgeons
RANDOMISED BADGER
CULLING TRIAL
The decision was not entirely surprising. RCVS
has not seen the evidence on which it was based, but if the reactive
cull was associated with a significant rise in the incidence of
tuberculosis in cattle in the areas concerned it would have been
difficult for Ministers to justify continuing it. There was always
a possibility that it would make matters worse, by encouraging
the movement of badgers. The reactive cull was in any case similar
to the interim strategy adopted following Professor Dunnet's review
of 1986, which did not stem the rise in herd breakdowns (see Krebs
Report, paragraphs 1.4.14-1.4.20).
RCVS suggests that the Committee may wish to
invite Ministers to clarify what they now see as the purpose of
the trial. The first report of the Independent Scientific Group
in July 1998 advised that it should test two strategies. Proactive
culling would aim "to cull as large a proportion of badgers
resident within the treatment area as possible, and to prevent
recolonisation by further culling on a regular basis". Reactive
culling would entail removing badgers only from social groups
associated with a breakdown. The badger population in other trial
areas was to be surveyed, without culling, as an experimental
control to enable the results of the two strategies to be measured.
Against this background, it seems to us that two main questions
arise.
First, does the abandonment of the reactive
cull in the trial imply that reactive culling as a possible future
control strategy has been rejected? Or do Ministers still see
some form of reactive culling as a possible option, even though
the particular version of that strategy which was tested in the
trial was found to be counterproductive?
Secondly, what policy option is the continuing
proactive cull intended to test? The declared object is to remove
as many badgers as possible within an area where there has been
a breakdown, and to keep it free of badgers thereafter so far
as possible. Applying this regime within selected areas, while
carrying out limited or no culling in other areas, was a rational
way to gauge the likely effect of different control measures.
Now, however, that the trial of reactive culling has been abandoned
it is less clear what future control strategy the trial is meant
to test. If it had shown that the reactive cull was associated
with a reduced incidence of the disease this could have formed
the basis of a strategy with some realistic prospect of general
acceptance. But what would a long-term strategy based on proactive
culling entail? In practice it does not remove all badgers. A
policy based on proactive culling would have to define how widely
it was to be applied round the centre of an outbreak, for how
long it was to be sustained and what size of continuing badger
population was to be accepted.
In raising these questions RCVS does not mean
to cast doubt on the need to complete the trial in the remaining
areas. Clearly it is important to press on with it and extract
as much information as possible on the effects of different forms
of culling. The results of the current work on the effects of
culling in the Republic of Ireland should also be examined. In
the view of RCVS, however, the discontinuation of the trial of
the reactive cull makes it all the more urgent for Ministers to
investigate and debate other control options now.
27 November 2003
| 
