Memorandum submitted by The Family Farmers'
Association
(Formerly The Small Farmers' Association)
(BTB 01)
COMMENTS ON
DEFRA'S
CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
"CONTROLLING THE
SPREAD OF
BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
IN CATTLE
IN HIGH
INCIDENCE AREAS
IN ENGLAND:
BADGER CULLING"
1. This paper asks a lot of questions, many
of which are too technical for an ordinary person to answer. The
main question: "Should badgers be culled?" merits a
resounding "Yes". The government has now accepted that
it may be necessary to cull badgers if TB is to be controlled.
This was more or less accepted in 1997 and as a result the Randomised
Badger Culling Trial was started. Eight years later, only partly
as a result of the RBCT, the government is suggesting that it
might be a good idea to cull badgers in TB "hotspots".
2. It is to be hoped that this consultation
paper is not the start of a long period of discussion in which
there is no action taken. There is little or nothing in the paper
about the enormous amount of human, not to mention cattle, misery
caused by the increasing incidence of TB in cattle. The monetary
cost is discussed at length in the RIA and it is plain that the
cost to government is great. The cost to farmers, net of the compensation
paid to them, is not made entirely clear in the paper. (Some research
has indicated that some farmers have gained financially from TB.
But in serious breakdowns, the cost to the farmer can also be
great.)
3. The first part of the paper details the
history and current situation in the long saga of badgers and
TB. It concludes that there should be "a balanced approach
that tackles the reservoir of infection in badgers as well as
in cattle". But, the general public, as well as farmers,
should be involved in determining what action to take.
4. Given that respondents agree that culling
is desirable, they are asked to choose between three options as
to actual method and organisation of the cull. Basically these
are licensing individuals to cull, organising a cull over a large
area, or a targeted cull based on affected farms. There are then
a series of technical questions, such as the criteria to define
farmers eligible for licences, how to choose the areas to cull,
actual methods and possible training in culling procedures. There
are three questions on the technique of body snares, but it seems
highly unlikely that farmers will wish to try and cull their badgers
by this time consuming method which is not even practicable.
5. Asking these questions may be useful.
But what would be much more useful would be to talk to the farmers
who already have experience of eliminating all the badgers on
their farm, or otherwise reducing their numbers. There is growing
anecdotal evidence that more and more farmers are taking matters
into their own hands and "dealing with" their badgers.
General opinion is that this results in an end to the TB problem
on a farm where badgers are wholly or partially removed. Further
general opinion is that if you have no TB, you should let your
badgers well alone and not disturb them, so there does not seem
to be any danger that this farmer action will kill badgers unnecessarily.
6. So my response to Defra was that they
should declare an amnesty and find out from farmers who are clearing
out their badgers just how they are doing it, and how effective
it is in ending their TB breakdowns. The information could be
collected quite quickly and the best methods put into use immediately.
Experience could soon be gained as to the finer details of the
most effective and humane methods.
7. Farmer opinion strongly endorses Defra's
slight preference for gassing. It is considered to be both the
most humane and the most effective. If carried out efficiently
it removes complete setts without disturbing the whole of the
local badger population, which can lead to spread of disease.
It also uses far less man power. Some farmers have a great knowledge
of badgers and their habits. If their advice can be taken, and
then Defra, acting on this, can organise gassing in the most effective
way, culling could, hopefully, have a dramatic effect on the bovine
TB situation. It is believed that when a sett is rendered vacant
by gassing, it is diseased badgers, turned out of their home setts,
that will colonise the empty sett. Repeat gassing of re-used setts
is thus likely to target diseased badgers.
8. The consultation paper contains some
sensible suggestions. Perhaps the best is that the policy should
be flexible, so that it can be adjusted as necessary. The main
thing is to get started on action before bovine TB is any more
widespread than it is now, more cattle are killed and more farming
families driven to despair. Practice and experience will guide
developing expertise in culling.
9. Two other matters are mentioned: compensation
and pre-movement testing.
10. The proposal to compensate farmers for
cattle compulsorily slaughtered according to a set table of valuations
based on current market prices seems vicious. When an animal is
forcibly removed, one should be entitled to true compensation
for the value of that animal to that farming business. The market
value of the animal is irrelevant, as one cannot go out and buy
a replacement if there is TB in the area. In the case of home
bred closed herds a bought in cow is much inferior to one raised
on the premises. The consequential loss from the loss of a young
cow with its productive life before it can be great. I have not
seen the actual table, but I understand that, although youngstock
now have many age bands, all cows will have the same price tag—young
or old, highly productive or not—which is manifestly stupid.
11. Farmers feel very bitter that government,
having done absolutely nothing to solve the TB problem during
the many years of the RBCT, is now imposing additional financial
penalties on them. The heartache of losing cattle to TB, plus
the difficulties of frequent testing, is enough to bear.
12. As for pre-movement testing, one can
understand that this may help to reduce new outbreaks of TB. But
the expense will fall very heavily on farmers whose income is
from young animals sold for breeding or fattening. Except, perhaps,
in the case of expensive pedigree cattle, these are likely to
be farmers whose income is already minimal. They simply will not
be able to afford the testing. Many of them will be upland farmers,
who desperately need more support, not less, if only for the sake
of the tourist industry, whose raw materials they care for. If
the State wants an attractive landscape to encourage tourism,
it will have to pay for the pre-movement testing.
January 2006
| 
