Memorandum submitted by Mrs M Miles (BTB
28)
CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
IN CATTLE IN HIGH INCIDENCE AREAS IN ENGLAND: BADGER CULLING
SUMMARY
Our support for culling in the light of our
experiences of our own closed herd breakdown together with our
answers to the questions posed in the consultation document.
OUR REPLIES
TO CONSULTATION
QUESTIONS
1. The Principle. We agree in principle
to the culling of badgers as part of a concerted approach to eradicate
bovine tuberculosis. Our support for culling is based to a large
extent on our own experiences in dealing with the disease in our
dairy herd as well as consideration of all the information in
the consultation document. We have had a closed herd for 40 years
but since October 2004 have lost 60% of our herd to bovine TB.
We live in an isolated position at the end of a peninsula, with
the sea on two sides and no Bovine TB on the immediate neighbouring
farms. Prior to our outbreak we observed dead and dying badgers
on our farm. We, our vets and the local SVS vets all agree that
our cattle are being re-infected from a reservoir of infection
in the badger population. We see no future either in our farm
business or in the cattle industry generally unless immediate
steps are taken to eradicate the disease in the wildlife.
2. Culling Policy Options. We do not consider
that any definite choice should be made at this stage between
the three options listed. All circumstances are different and
each case should be considered on its merits. It would be much
easier to make a choice if PCR technology, Electronic Nose, etc
could be used to identify where TB is present in the badger population
by identifying diseased setts. In our view the proposed sacking
of DEFRA staff experienced in badger control is a grave mistake.
These people should be retained to organise badger culling and
liaise with farmers.
3. General Cull. This method might be suitable
for a specific geographic area with natural boundaries such as
the Roseland Peninsula where we farm and which was historically
clear of TB until recent years. We are concerned that the details
of any application for a culling licence will be in the public
domain because of the Freedom of Information Act, and that this
may put farmers in danger from interference from animal rights
activists.
4. Participation. If a geographical area
is designated for clearance we do not consider that this will
be successful unless all landowners cooperate. If TB in badgers
is identified by methods outlined in 2 above then the law should
be used to force landowners to allow a cull.
5. Coverage over large areas. Farmers should
not be expected to shoulder the burden of a cull themselves. DEFRA
staff should be retained and cooperate with farmers to achieve
the best results. A blanket cull over a large area may not be
necessary if more specific testing of badgers is carried out as
already described.
6. Qualifying Disease History. Licences
to cull should be automatically granted to any farm with a confirmed
herd breakdown. This should be immediate and not after 24 months
under restrictions as suggested in some documents. In our experience
after 24 months there may be no cattle business to save. The extent
of the cull should again depend on circumstances and may involve
neighbouring farms even if apparently disease free. We cannot
stress enough the necessity for on farm identification of TB in
badgers and their setts, something that has been denied to us
so far. The technology exists to carry this out.
7. Criteria. Bio-security measures as a
condition of a culling licence should be sensible. While it is
possible to keep badgers out of cake stores etc it is not possible
to exclude them completely from yards, fields etc If we managed
at great expense to do so we could be accused of denying them
their normal feeding grounds and thus be accused of starving them
in contravention of the Badger Protection Act. Healthy badgers
are not normally a problem unless their numbers increase beyond
the natural food supply.
8. This will depend again on specific conditions
in any given area.
9. Ditto.
10. Methods of Culling.
11. Yes, or as individuals. Carbon monoxide
would appear to be the most appropriate and humane method.
12. Training should be available if required.
Written guidelines should be given to every licence holder.
13. By liaison with DEFRA staff on farm.
14. Yes, but provision must be made for
the use of artificial light, nightscopes, etc. Lamping is the
only way to do this as badgers are nocturnal and cannot be shot
in day time. At present lamping is against the terms of the Bern
Convention and the terms of Cross Compliance which would put farmers
in danger of losing their Single Farm Payments. This also applies
to gassing and a number of other methods of killing wildlife.
15. We are not happy with snaring as it
is indiscriminate and could catch other animals such as farm dogs,
cats, etc. Unless it can be demonstrated that this is a method
safe for other animals we would not like it used.
16. Ditto.
17. Ditto.
18. See item 13.
19. Ditto.
20. Cage Traps. We think that cage traps
can form a useful part of badger culling. Provision would have
to be made for farmers to legally use hand guns for shooting the
captured animal as use of other guns is too dangerous. The use
of cheap electronic signals to alert the farmer that a badger
has been trapped could be used. This will minimise stress to the
animal captured. If it is confirmed that a sett is infected we
see no reason to delay culling because of a "close season".
All occupants of diseased setts should be put down whatever their
age as they will all be subject to carrying the disease. To delay
the cull would seem pointless. We consider that badger carcases
should be collected by DEFRA for post mortem and incineration
at a rendering plant.
21. Monitoring. We believe that all setts
should be monitored using PCR technology at intervals, possibly
yearly together with the yearly cattle test. Setts should be kept
unoccupied until the disease has been eradicated
February 2006
| 
