Memorandum submitted by B Hitchin (BTB
04)
Does the Consultation on the proposed badger
cull as a means of controlling TB in cattle address the two issues
below ?
A. SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY
B. PRACTICALITY and COST EFFECTIVENESS
A. SCIENTIFIC
VALIDITY
1. The rationale for a mass badger cull
relies heavily on the interim results of the KREBS/RBCT badger
culling trial (i). This found that extensive proactive culls reduced
cattle TB initially by 19% whereas, just outside the badger culling
area, cattle TB increased by 29% due to "perturbed"
badgers emigrating outwards just as the reactive cull increased
TB by 27%. This represents an impossible political nightmare—how
can it make things both better and worse?
2. In FACT there are two things wrong with
these views from Professor Bourne and the ISG team:
(a) Simply too few badgers were culled to
cause such an effect: out of 1,000 sq km in the 10 triplet areas,
only 357 with TB and, of those, only 127 with lesions which might
make them "superexcretors" which might infect cattle,
although how is unknown. Cattle need a minimum dose by ingestion
of 1 million bacilli, ie a calf would need to drink three cc of
badger urine with 300,000 bacilli per cc: wildly improbable!
(b) The very detailed statistics take absolutely
no account of the culling of TB reactor cattle which is the real
reason TB disappears amongst cattle. Britain had a text-book cattle
TB scheme into the 1970's in which cattle were removed by annual
testing before they reached the infectious stage with visible
lung lesions so curbing cattle-to-cattle spread. BSE then Foot
and Mouth both led to relaxing of cattle testing and movement
controls so allowing cattle TB to spread like wildfire. Pre and
Post-movement cattle testing is essential to stop spread of TB
into TB-free areas and from hot spots developing. The 30% increase
of cattle infections after FMD in reactive areas was before any
reactive culls happened. In addition the drop within proactive
areas is simply due to least slippage in testing and a rise in
cattle which has since begun to fall. These results show that
cattle measures "work" but have absolutely nothing to
do with culling a few badgers.
B. PRACTICALITY
AND COST
EFFECTIVENESS
3. Practicality is seriously in doubt. DEFRA
have already ruled out gassing and cage trapping (only 30-80%
effective). This leaves groups of farmers with bad herd breakdowns
applying for licences to snare, with bio-security strings attached.
4. Since 57% of farmers in West Cornwall
have refused culls, the chances of group licences being granted
are reduced. Who will have firearms licences? Farmers say they
want DEFRA to do the snaring and/or protect farmers from Animal
Rights Activists. Farmer DIY culls would be illegal under the
Badgers Act 1992 and contrary to the Berne Convention.
5. Badger culling might be cost effective
IF 80% of herd breakdowns are due to badgers, but work in Ulster
suggests the badger contribution might be 2.5% AT MOST. Each infectious
badger culled under the RBCT has cost £28,000 each!
6. The NFU Council had a stormy meeting
(ii) and agreed NO to reduced compensation and NO to pre-movement
testing unless they get a mass badger cull.
7. I put it to you, do the people of this
Country want to visit a SUBSIDISED loss-making "monotonous
intensive monoculture countryside" worked by tractors, OR
do they want the biodiversity of conserving our wildlife/environment
that would lead to Increased Environmental and Tourism opportunities?
REFERENCES: (i)
Krebs/RBCT—Nature & J. Applied Biology 14 December 2005.
(ii) NFU Council, January 2006, place mass
badger culls as a condition for reduced compensation and testing
of cattle prior to transportation.
(iii) Foot & Mouth inquiry www.royalsoc.ac.uk/inquiry/evidenceind h.htm/index.html
January 2006
| 
