Memorandum submitted by Farmers' Union
of Wales (BTB 06)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Due to the lack of significant geographical
boundaries along large lengths of the England-Wales border, and
the trade that takes place between the two countries, the prevalence
of TB in England has a significant effect on the situation in
Wales, as do policies instigated in England. Any policies adopted
by DEFRA in England are therefore of direct consequence for Welsh
farmers and the FUW, and often lay the foundation for policies
later adopted in Wales.
The FUW firmly believes that bovine TB cannot
be controlled unless badger removal occurs in and around areas
where TB is a problem. Such action can be justified on the following
grounds:
1.1 TB annually results in the deaths of
tens of thousands of cattle, badgers, and deer. In the case of
cattle, the welfare implications are generally negligible due
to early diagnosis and slaughter, but the economic and social
effects are dire. In the case of deer and badgers, the deaths
caused by the advanced stages of TB are agonising. The current
epidemic must therefore be controlled on welfare, social, and
economic grounds; to allow TB to continue to spread would only
add to the human and animal suffering that TB causes.
1.2 Scientific evidence from around the
globe, not least from the recent Irish Four Area and English Randomised
Badger Culling trials, indicates that the removal of wildlife
reservoirs is an essential part of TB control.
1.3 The cattle controls currently in place
are based upon principles that have, in the absence of, or effective
action against, a wildlife reservoir previously been proven to
be effective in the UK.
1.4 The badger is not endangered in any
way, and removing badgers from TB affected areas would have no
significant affect on the predominance of the species in the UK.
It fact, it seems likely that badger removal could leave the number
of badgers in the UK at a higher level than in 1997, when the
Krebs report stated that "Badger removal operations are
not a threat to overall badger numbers"[1]1
1.5 It is the belief of the FUW that the
current objections amongst some regarding badger culling are not
based upon an objective analysis of the scientific evidence regarding
TB and the welfare and abundance of badgers, but on the perception
that badgers somehow occupy a higher status in the animal kingdom
than others, and should be protected at all costs.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Since 1996 the number of cattle compulsorily
slaughtered in the UK due to bovine TB has risen by some 700%
since, from 3,752 in 1996 to 29,585 in 2005. The number of cattle
compulsorily slaughtered in 1986 was 638, around 2% of the current
figure.
2.2 In 1980, the Zuckerman enquiry into
TB was conducted against a background where 28 new herds had tested
positive in Great Britain. In the year of the Dunnet TB enquiry,
1986, there were 32 herd breakdowns. In 2005 the total number
of new herd TB incidents was 3,514.
2.3 The current level of TB is higher than
it has been for many decades; in 2005 3.9% of herds were confirmed
as new herd TB incidents, whereas in 1962 the proportion of total
herds with reactors was less than 1.5%. There is now significant
concern that the European Union and the wider world will impose
further severe restrictions on the exportation of British meat
and dairy products due to the TB crisis, and that such action
would not only add to the current problems facing the rural economy,
but would also be severely detrimental to the image of Britain
at a time when the massive efforts made to restore Britain's image
in the wake of the BSE and FMD crises are coming to fruition.
2.4 While there has been in place a compensatory
system for those farmers who lose animals as a result of TB, that
system does not take into consideration either the total losses
experienced by farms, or the emotional impact TB has on farming
communities. The current TB crisis is therefore not only of serious
concern to the FUW because of the economic effects, but also due
to the social and emotional impact it is having on communities
and families.
2.5 In May 2005 the University of Exeter
reported that the value of cattle slaughtered was 66% of the total
cost of a breakdown on a beef farm and 65% of that on a dairy
farm, and that the emotional effects led to severe stresses on
communities and families[2]2.
The report concluded that:
". . . there is little disagreement that
the total cost of a TB incident generally exceeds payments for
the livestock slaughtered . . . there are significant economic
impacts which typically have to be borne by the farm business
concerned . . ."
"An outbreak of bovine TB can have a
serious effect on the farm business concerned and movement restrictions,
sometimes for extended periods, can make the impact much worse
than that of an outbreak of FMD. It is the longer lasting effects
which are the source of most of the damage done to the farming
industry by bovine TB. Where they apply . . . they typically result
in significant consequential effects on the economic performance
and growth of the farm business, and not infrequently are associated
with serious stress affecting at least some of the farmer, the
farm family and the farm staff".
2.6 Prior to 1973, farmers routinely controlled
badgers, just as any other pest, were badgers caused excessive
damage in terms of crop or pasture damage, lamb losses, etc. A
significant proportion of such control was carried out using firearms.
Since 1973 successive pieces of legislation, primarily designed
to prevent the abhorrent practice of badger baiting, have had
the effect of reducing the humane control of badgers, thus allowing
badger densities and numbers to increase without control, probably
for the first time in Britain's history.
2.7 In 1997, Professor Stephen Harris of
Bristol University concluded that, during the previous decade,
the number of annex setts in the UK had increased by 87%, subsidiary
setts by 54%, and outlying setts by 55%, whereas the number of
disused setts had declined by 41%. The experience of our members
has been of a continuing rise in badger numbers since Professor
Harris' survey.
2.8 The significant increase in badger numbers
during the last 30 years is indisputable, and we are not aware
of any bodies who do not accept that such growth has occurred.
2.9 There is now significant anecdotal and
scientific evidence that the increase in badger numbers has resulted
in the decline of the hedgehog, due to predation. The Mammals
Trust recently reported a 20% decline in hedgehog numbers over
the last four years, while in 2004 Defra funded researcher Richard
Young told the European Hedgehog Research Group that:[3]
3
"Surveys revealed negative correlations
between badger density and hedgehog abundance, predicting that
badgers can achieve sufficiently high densities to exclude hedgehogs
from rural habitats"
and that
". . . these results, combined with information
from previous research, show that high badger density can have
a major impact on hedgehogs in rural and even suburban habitats".
2.10 The findings of Dr Young are perfectly
in line with the observations of FUW members that badger and hedgehog
abundances are inversely linked, and that the proliferation of
badgers has led to hedgehogs becoming an extremely rare sight.
2.11 Many of our members have expressed
concern that, just as it took many decades for the elimination
of red squirrels by greys to become recognised by Government,
the hedgehog may similarly be in danger of becoming extremely
rare due to the growth in badger numbers.
3. TB CONTROLS
3.1 It is well established that disease
risks and the propensity for wildlife reservoirs to become established
are a positive function of population densities and numbers. The
badger population and density growth has naturally exacerbated
the potential for TB wildlife reservoirs to become established.
3.2 Since 1986, badger control measures
in response to TB incidents have gradually been stepped down,
and were finally abandoned in 1996. The gradual reduction in badger
control in diseased areas has been accompanied by an exponential
rise in the number of cattle culled due to TB (Appendix I). The
number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered in 2005 due to TB was
29,585, 28% more than in 2004.
3.3 The Farmers' Union of Wales have long
recognised the importance of controlling bovine tuberculosis (bTB)
in all significant species, those species being cattle, badgers,
and deer.
3.4 Previously successful TB control policies
have either involved the testing and culling of cattle in the
absence of a significant wildlife reservoir (ie when badger densities
were significantly lower than at present), or have been accompanied
by the efficient removal of wildlife susceptible to TB (such as
occurred during the 1970s and 1980s)
3.5 While some individuals and organisations
continue to claim that the role of badgers in TB transmission
is not relevant, the conclusions of both the RBC and Irish Four
Areas trials demonstrate beyond doubt that badgers play a major
role in the transmission of TB.
3.6 The perturbation effect that occurred
in areas surrounding the RBCT areas demonstrates beyond doubt
the significance of the role that badgers play in transmitting
TB; if badgers were not a significant factor, then perturbation
would not have occurred.
3.7 While the FUW have no objection to the
principle of using trapping as a method of badger control, it
is our belief that the inherent inefficiencies of trapping and
the disruption that pre-baiting and then setting traps causes
to badger populations made a significant contribution to perturbation.
3.8 The FUW does not believe that trapping
is in any way more humane than other possible methods of badger
control, and that it has traditionally been used simply for cosmetic
reasons, rather than any real benefits in terms of animal welfare.
3.9 As well as being remarkably inefficient,
trapping and then killing badgers is also phenomenally expensive,
with estimated costs per animal culled varying between £700
and £4,000.
3.10 As confirmed by the RBC and Irish Four
Areas trials, affects of all major TB vectors must be minimised
if the disease is to be controlled. Those vectors are, beyond
doubt:
3.11 Notwithstanding actions taken in the
RBCT areas, during the last 10 years only vectors (a) and (b)
have been addressed by the Government. It is therefore not surprising
that TB has increased at such a dramatic rate.
3.12 Given the widely accepted significant
increase in the badger population, it is the view of the FUW that
necessary culling in regions affected by TB would have an insignificant
affect on the UK badger population as a whole, and it is not unlikely
that the total number of badgers left after such a cull would
be higher than the number 10 years ago, when the Krebs Report
clarified that culling would not in any way an endanger the species1.
3.13 Since a cull would not have a significant
impact on the UK badger population as a whole, and would certainly
not endanger the species in any way, the FUW is firmly of the
opinion that the iconic nature of badgers severely impedes the
abilities of some to make objectively analyses of the scientific
evidence relating to badgers and TB. For example, despite the
fact that badgers outnumber deer many-fold in Wales, we are unaware
of any significant objections being made to the control of deer
for disease control purposes. In fact, Defra are actively encouraging
deer control. Similarly, Biodiversity Minister Jim Knight recently
stated in relation to grey squirrels that "we must control
them effectively now or there will be serious consequences".
3.14 The FUW is concerned that what we have
already described as the abhorrent practice of badger baiting
has disproportionately influenced the totally separate issue of
pest control by acceptable humane means.
3.15 Despite the widely accepted increase
in badger numbers, there exists an influential perception amongst
members of the general public that badgers are rare. This can
primarily be attributed to the large proportion of people living
in urban environments and the nocturnal nature of the badger.
Nevertheless, recent DEFRA funded research conducted by Reading
University revealed that 71% of the general public though wildlife
management was sometimes necessary, and 51% thought that there
could be fewer badgers as long as they did not become endangered.
3.16 Members of the FUW who routinely controlled
badgers prior to the 1973 Badger Protection Act can confirm that
badger control with rifles can be a highly efficient and humane
method of control. Allowing such a method to be practiced has
been one of the policies advocated by the FUW as a method of controlling
the wildlife reservoir.
3.17 The Government have advocated the use
of rifles as a humane way of controlling both deer and foxes;
species that make far more difficult targets for marksmen than
badgers.
4. THE FUW POSITION
REGARDING CULLING
4.1 The FUW accepts the view recently put
forward by the Independent Science Group[4]4
(ISG) that systematic and prolonged culling extending to large
areas could be expected to have an overall positive impact on
cattle and herd breakdown rates. It is worth noting that the 300
km2 figure referred to by the ISG would, in simplistic terms,
represent circular areas with radii in the region of only six
miles.
4.2 However, it is our understanding that
the views of the ISG are based upon culling being carried out
using the trapping method used in RBC trial areas. For the reasons
already given above, it seems likely that perturbation effects
could be reduced by using more efficient and less disruptive culling
methods.
4.3 Despite the 300 km2 area quoted by the
ISG, it is the view of the FUW that the area over which culling
action could be carried out in a way that minimises perturbation
effects could be far less than 300 km2 in smaller areas where
TB is a problem. For example, if a TB wildlife reservoir exists
in an area just one mile in diameter, we would anticipate that
culling over a three mile diameter would drastically reduce perturbation
effects.
4.4 We therefore believe that systematic
and prolonged culling should take place in "buffer-zones"
that surround TB affected areas, as well as within those areas,
in order to minimise perturbation effects.
4.5 In terms of the methods of culling,
the FUW believes that, in order to minimise costs and maximise
effectiveness, no suitable method should be excluded. Suitable
methods include shooting, snaring, and gassing using cyanide gas
or carbon monoxide. For the reasons already given above, trapping
should be avoided unless all other methods are deemed impractical.
4.6 Farmers and their agents, gamekeepers,
etc., within TB affected areas and buffer-zones should be licensed
and encouraged to contribute to culling in selected areas, while
ensuring that all culled animals are recorded and collected for
testing. However, the Government must also play a role in tackling
the disease reservoir, particularly given that the Government's
abandonment of all action against the wildlife reservoir has directly
resulted in the proliferation of TB.
4.7 Ministry staff should therefore be employed
in targeted areas where farmers are either unwilling or unable
to take appropriate action to control badgers. For example, where
necessary, Ministry employees or agents should be employed to
lamp badgers, lay snares, and gas setts in targeted areas.
4.8 The very nature of TB means that actions
to reduce the wildlife reservoir should be carried out over a
period of five to 10 years; a one-off cull would not be effective,
and is likely to lead to the re-infection of wildlife and problems
such as perturbation.
4.9 Action must also be taken to control
badgers in areas where TB incidents are low, but wildlife is suspected
to be the source of a problem; for example, where a TB positive
RTA badger has been picked up in a four year testing parish, or
where a single farm in a four year testing parish suffers breakdown
that are suspected to be linked to badgers.
4.10 Given the disruption caused in RBCT
areas by animal rights extremists (for example, the large proportion
of traps stolen), and the violent and destructive nature of some
individuals involved in animal rights activities, it is essential
that the relevant authorities protect the identities of all those
involved in a cull, while taking a robust attitude towards deterring,
dealing with, and prosecuting such extremists.
January 2006
1 1 Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers, Report
to The Rt Hon Dr Jack Cunningham MP by Professor John R Krebs
FRS and the Independent Scientific Review Group, 1997. Back
2
2 Sheppard, A, Turner, M, An Economic Impact Assessment of
Bovine Tuberculosis in South West England, Centre for Rural
Research, University of Exeter, 25 May 2005. Back
3
3 The effect of Badgers on hedgehog abundance and distribution,
Richard Young, Central Science Laboratory, Woodchester Park Research
Station, Proceedings of the 6th International Meeting of the
European Hedgehog Research Group, April 2004. Back
4
4 ISG Letter to stakeholders, 23 January 2006. Back
| 
