Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by League Against Cruel Sports (BTB 25)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  The League Against Cruel Sports considers that the scientific evidence shows overwhelmingly that badger culling should not be used as a strategy for the control of bovine Tuberculosis. Indeed, it is clear from the studies discussed in this document that culling can in fact serve to make a bad situation worse. The League is particularly concerned about the suggested use of snares as a culling technique, due to their cruel and indiscriminate nature. We urge the Government to focus its efforts on decreasing cattle to cattle transmission of bovine TB, and to steer well clear of an uneconomic and harmful badger culling strategy.

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The League Against Cruel Sports is a campaigning organisation dedicated to ending suffering and killing of animals in the name of "sport". Throughout our 80 year history we have also been committed to the protection of British wildlife from cruelty, and are particularly active in regard to the plight of badgers. The League played a key role in campaigning successfully for badger protection legislation in the 1980s and 90s. Today, we campaign for a total ban on the use of snares, to which badgers often fall victim, and have closely followed the debate on badgers and bovine Tuberculosis. Our in depth knowledge of the subject area gives us the expertise to comment on the principles addressed in the consultation, as well as to discuss whether snares should be used in the event of a cull.

THE PRINCIPLE

  2.  In March 2005, the Government committed to "ensuring its policies on bTB are recognised as being soundly based on scientific evidence".[5] In May 2005, scientists at Oxford University published evidence to show that Cattle movements "substantially and consistently outweigh" all other factors (including badgers) in predicting outbreaks of bTB. [6]In December 2005 the Independent Scientific Group, commissioned by DEFRA to investigate the influence of proactive culling on the number of TB breakdowns in cattle, published interim analyses which showed that not only did intense proactive culling only manage to reduce TB incidence within the culling area by 19% but it actually increased it by 29% in a 2km ring around the zone. [7]Culling badgers made the situation worse. The reasons for this were made clear in a study published at the same time, which reported that culling disrupts badger territories making survivors roam more widely than usual. [8]

  3.  Of further concern is the fact that it takes badger social structures almost a decade to stablise after disturbance, [9]meaning that negative effects to both badger welfare and the control of TB are likely to continue for years after culling.

ECONOMY

  4.  Evidence cited in the consultation document supports the idea that badgers make a contribution to cattle infection, but openly recognises the contribution they make is not known. Nevertheless, the Partial Regulatory Impact Assesment published alongside the consultation document assumes that "about half of all confirmed TB incidents arise from badger-to-cattle transmission and that these can be reduced in proportion to the reduction in badger population" (annex B, paragraph 48). What is made less clear is how vulnerable the RIA is to changes in this assumption. If, as suggested by evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trials, the actual figure was lower than 50%, it is hard to see how any badger culling strategy could ever be cost effective. This concern has been voiced by ISG economist Professor John McInerney, who said "There are much more economically effective activities you can try before you take this automatic jump into badger culling".[10]

INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

  5.  Are the international examples referred to in the consultation transferable? While the consultation document cites a literature review of international evidence as demonstrating that "some form of intervention in the wildlife domain is necessary if bovine TB in cattle is to be controlled", it neglects to mention that this study concludes that there is evidence "for transmission from herd to herd not involving badgers, both locally and over long distances. This, together with experiences from other countries, emphasises the need for effective and comprehensive control measures within the cattle population". The report goes on to recommend research into strategies other than badger culling.

SNARING

  6.  In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the executive summary of the consultation document, the need for any culling policy to be "humane" is clearly recognised. The League Against Cruel Sports considers it impossible to cull "humanely" through the use of snares. Additionally, snaring involves a threat to other animals due to its indiscriminate nature.

  7.  The consultation document states that body snares would be used to capture and hold badgers. We are particularly concerned that a badger caught around the body will be able to reach its head around to chew at the snare wire, which can cause horrific mouth injuries. Regardless of whether the snare catches around the neck or body, there remain significant problems with snaring.

  8.  A badger caught in a snare will naturally struggle to free itself. Badgers are powerful animals, and these attempts can tangle the snare, sometimes causing it to lock tightly around the animal. According to the report of the independent working group on snares, animals caught in snares can suffer:

      (a)  stress of restraint including frustration, anxiety and rage;

      (b)  fear of predation or capture;

      (c)  thirst, hunger and exposure;

      (d)  stress of capture and handling before despatch[11];

  9.  The longer a badger is caught in a snare, the more potential there is for serious injury. Badgers caught in snares have been known to literally "fall in half" after sustaining wounds and pressure necrosis damage from snares. [12]Short snare inspection intervals may reduce the length of time for the suffering described above, but to make the restraint "humane", snares would have to be constantly monitored, which would have a major impact on the cost benefit analysis—making snaring even less economic than it is already.

  10.  The capture of non-target animals is always a major problem with snaring. The partial regulatory impact assessment states that snaring would occur "primarily" at sett entrances (paragraph 35). Clearly it is intended that some snaring may occur away from sett entrances, therefore meaning that non badger captures will take place. It is worth noting that in regard to fox snaring, the independent working group on snares found that even with best practice it is very difficult to reduce the overall proportion of non-target animals caught in snares to below 40% in some environments. [13]Non-target animals caught in body snares include foxes and small deer, particularly muntjac. [14]

  11.  Non target captures may also be an issue in snares set at badger sett entrances. Foxes commonly make their homes in badger setts, [15]and would therefore be at risk from snares set there.

  12.  The release of incorrectly snared animals cannot be done safely, as non-target animals which "seem fine" may in fact have very serious injuries, such as pressure necrosis wounds, which do not become apparent for up to seven days after release. Les Stocker MBE HonAssocRCVS, (founder of the Wildlife Hospital Trust, St Tiggywinkles, Europe's first and the world's busiest wildlife teaching hospital, and author of Practical wildlife care (Blackwell Publishing, second edition 2005), the standard reference on treating wildlife casualties) has expressed similar concerns on this issue.

ALTERNATIVES

  13.  Paragraph 112 of the regulatory impact assessment states that if there were a decision not to permit culling, this would lead to an increased enforcement requirement for the State Veterinary Service in relation to cattle surveillance and control measures for bTB, particularly pre movement testing. This suggests recognition that there is an alternative to culling, and that involves tighter controls on cattle.

  14.  At the recent London Zoological scientific debate on badgers and bovine TB, deputy chair of the ISG and Head of Statistical Epidemiology at Imperial College London, Professor Christl Donnelly, spoke on alternatives to culling badgers. [16]She stated that decreasing the mean rate of cattle movement between herds would decrease the transmission of bTB, and that if test sensitivity could be increased, even if only in a modest way, this could be sufficient to turn the current increase in TB incidents in cattle into a decrease. Professor Donnelly went on to say that modelling has shown a similar reversal in trend could be achieved by increasing testing frequencies from every 12 months to every 10 months.

  15.  In addition to better, more frequent testing, there are husbandry interventions that could improve the current TB situation in this country. These include limiting wildlife access to feed, and keeping cattle away from badger setts. Biosecurity measures such as the isolation of newly purchased cattle, and the avoidance of nose to nose contact between cattle of different herds could also reduce transmission. The cost of these measures for farmers could be addressed by Government grants, as suggested in the 2005 Badger Trust Bovine TB Strategy.

RURAL ECONOMY

  16.  The Regulatory Impact Assesment places no economic value on wildlife, biodiversity and public enjoyment of the countryside, all of which would be compromised by any culling of badgers, and the associated impact on the biodiversity of the countryside. The economic assessment of the costs and benefits takes no account of these wider issues. The potential for impact on the rural economy caused by changes in visitor patterns (such as during the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak[17]), has not been considered, and neither has the impact of the negative publicity on farmers and Government departments involved in any cull.

SUMMARY

  17.  The scientific evidence on bovine TB points clearly to a policy that must address cattle movements, and should on no account involve culling badgers. The extent to which badgers contribute to cattle infection is not known, and culling trials have increased the disease in areas around cull sites. However, the Government continues, through their recent consultation, to give the impression that the way to solve the bTB crisis is culling badgers. We hope that the Government will heed the ISG's recent advice that the consultation is "inaccurate in important respects",[18] and abandon it in order to focus on the key issue: cattle to cattle transmission.

February 2006




5   Government strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine TB in Great Britain page 36, March 2005. Back

6   Gilbert et al, 2005 Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain, Nature 435, 491-496. Back

7   7 Donnelly, C et al (December 2005) Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle, Letters, NatureBack

8   Woodroffe, R et al (December 2005) Effects of culling on badger Meles meles spatial organisation: implications for the control of bovine tuberculosis, Journal of applied ecologyBack

9   Cheeseman, C L, Mallinson, P J, Ryan, J and Wilesmith, J W (1993) In Hayden, T J (ed) The Badger, 78-93. Dublin. Royal Irish Academy. As cited by Bovine TB strategy, Badger Trust, December 2005. Back

10   Farming Today, BBC Radio 4, 26/1/06. Back

11   Report of the Independent Working Group on Snares, August 2005, page 50. Back

12   Les Stocker MBE HonAssocRCVS, St Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital, Personal Correspondence. Back

13   Report of the Independent Working Group on Snares, August 2005, page 55. Back

14   Les Stocker MBE HonAssocRCVS, St Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital, Personal Correspondence. Back

15   Professor Stephen Harris, School of Biological Sciences, Bristol University-Personal Correspondence. Back

16   London Zoo, 24 January 2006. Back

17   See for example The Report of the Rural Task force: Tackling the Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease on the Rural Economy DEFRA October 2001. Back

18   Letter from the ISG to Ben Bradshaw MP, 20 January 2006, as included in Badger Trust press release "Minister Challenged over Science Errors", 24 January 2006. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 15 March 2006