Badger cull does not make it open season

“Walkingtonman... It is well known that extreme activities such as shooting provide an adrenalin rush, which in turn can lead to an itchy trigger finger. If you couple this with newly qualified (deer shhoting level 1) licence holders, the temptation may be to shoot first and rationalise later.

In a recent 'Fieldsports Britain' video on YouTube, a shooter staking deer at twilight warns of the need for good optics when a dog walker, not walking on any recognised public path, unexpectedly crosses his sights and only avoids being accidentally sniped because of the bright blue top they were wearing.

What if it was a bit darker, or the gun sight a bit dirtier, or the walker was wearing less defined clothing?

Also there will be the unofficial freeshooters and lampers that will take the granting by government of shooting badgers [in two specific areas] as excuse to do a spot of sport shooting themselves and the risks to the public definitely increase.

Take this article from 2004 that gives two such incidences, one resulting in death...

"There are also reports, from Essex and elsewhere, of lampers shooting near roads. Two weeks ago, a boy of 12 walking his dog was shot in the head at Castleford, West Yorkshire. Just days before, Byron Evans, aged 13, was shot dead by lampers near Totnes in Devon, and in April, Trevor Lawson, a wildlife journalist out watching badgers and barn owls in Buckinghamshire, was shot and seriously injured by Anthony Burns, who was lamping."

source: http://tinyurl.com/c5klhph

Yes, I believe there is potential "for accidents to happen".”

“Does anyone actually believe that," however careful the marksmen are, accidents are bound to happen when other animals, domestic pets and people are targeted in error."

What kind of imbecile would target a person when tasked with shooting badgers?

I have no strong opinions either way regards the badger cull, but I object to people writing articles that use scaremongering and made up facts to try and scare people into taking their side.

Please explain why "accidents are bound to happen"?”

“This ConDem government has consistently stated that the badger cull is "science led"; well "the Science" has just dumped it.

Letter to appear in The Observer, Sunday, October 14th, 2012:
source: null

"Bovine tuberculosis is a serious problem for UK farmers, deserving the highest standard of evidence-based management. The government's TB-control policy for England includes licensing farmers to cull badgers. As scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, we believe the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it.

Even if such increases do not materialise, the government predicts only limited benefits, insufficient to offset the costs for either farmers or taxpayers. Unfortunately, the imminent pilot culls are too small and too short term to measure the impacts of licensed culling on cattle TB before a wider roll-out of the approach. The necessarily stringent licensing conditions mean that many TB-affected areas of England will remain ineligible for such culling. We are concerned that badger culling risks becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control.

We recognise the importance of eradicating bovine TB and agree that this will require tackling the disease in badgers. Unfortunately, culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication. We therefore urge the government to reconsider its strategy.

Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS
University of Cambridge and president of the Zoological Society of London, and 30 others

Professor Mike Begon, University of Liverpool ;
Professor Tim Blackburn, Zoological Society of London ;
Professor John Bourne CBE, former Chairman, Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB;
Professor William Sutherland, University of Cambridge;
Professor Terry Burke, University of Sheffield;
Dr Chris Cheeseman, formerly Food & Environment Research Agency;
Professor Sarah Cleaveland, University of Glasgow;
Professor Tim Clutton Brock FRS, University of Cambridge ;
Professor Andrew Dobson, Princeton University;
Dr Matthew Fisher, Imperial College London;
Dr Trent Garner, Zoological Society of London;
Professor Stephen Harris, University of Bristol;
Professor Daniel Haydon, University of Glasgow;
Professor Peter Hudson FRS, Pennsylvania State University;
Professor Kate Jones, University College London;
Professor Matt Keeling, University of Warwick;
Professor Richard Kock, Royal Veterinary College;
Professor Lord Krebs Kt FRS, University of Oxford;
Dr Karen Laurenson, Frankfurt Zoological Society;
Professor Sir John Lawton CBE FRS, former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council;
Professor Simon Levin, Princeton University;
Professor Georgina Mace FRS, University College London;
Professor Jonna Mazet, University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine;
Professor Lord May OM AC Kt FRS, University of Oxford;
Professor Graham Medley, University of Warwick;
Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland, Imperial College London;
Professor Denis Mollison, former Independent Scientific Auditor to the Randomised Badger Culling Trial;
Professor Pej Rohani, University of Michigan;
Dr Tony Sainsbury, Zoological Society of London;
Professor Claudio Sillero, University of Oxford;
Professor Rosie Woodroffe, Zoological Society of London”

“The success of vaccinating cattle will be influenced by limited effectiveness, low sensitivity of the DIVA test, and high financial cost.

If there has been no advances with the DIVA test since the following report was published in 2010

http://tinyurl.com/8pr45b5

the DIVA test has a relative sensitivity range of 77.0% to 86.5% at corresponding specificity levels of 100.0% to 77.6%.

I interpret this to mean that in using the DIVA test there will be a trade off between sensitivity (the ability to detect infected animals) and specificity (the ability to avoid condemning healthy animals) which I guess applies to all test methods. I interpret these specific results to mean that in order to avoid condemning any healthy animal, 23 out of 100 infected animals will be missed when using the DIVA test on vaccinated animals.

If I have interpreted this correctly, even though the vaccine may give protection to about 60% of cattle vaccinated, missing 23 out of 100 infected animals after vaccination is not something to get very excited about - particularly when the cost of both vaccination and DIVA testing is considered.

So DIVA testing is not the panacea which the press is making out. Consideration also should be given to the effectiveness of the vaccine and cost of both testing and additional DIVA testing which will be on top of the skin test. Testing already is comparable to compensation paid to farmers each year. If vaccination and DIVA testing comes on stream, existing testing costs are likely to be small in comparison.

So no E_Badger, it is not particularly good news. In fact the DIVA test is not news at all since it has been around for at least 4 years according to the following report which describes a meeting held in 2008 which discusses it.

http://tinyurl.com/99wx6bz”

“Hello ssimples, I see the perturbation effect from the South-West ThisIs forums has already started...

You are correct vaccinating one of many species that host the disease is not the answer of stopping infection with bTB, but neither is removing one species from the environment. If farmers really do want 0% mortality (which lets face it is an impossibility regardless of profitable desirability) to bTB then they have to vaccinate source and inject the cow. But both you and I know - because we have had this debate before - that the EU are blocking the use of a cattle vaccine due to the problems with the existing skin test not being able to identify between bTB infection and bTB vaccination.

However, GOOD NEWS, a 'diva' test exists and it's British, which can make the distinction.

Not only that a cattle vaccine under trial in South Africa also exists. Currently 40-50% efficacy in a stressed wild animal population but expected to have greater effect in the more placid and less stress domesticated cow.

Did I mention that the figure of 34,000 destruction of animals due to bTB being bandied and promoted by the NFU is actually 0.5% of the national beef/dairy herd.

Or that articles have been published in the broadsheets recently from farmers in the culling "hot" zones of Gloucestershire and Somerset that have never had an outbreak of bTB and have gone further by stating that improvement in biosecurity measures can halt the spread of the disease altogether - all without killing a single badger.

Even Owen Paterson cannot decide from his comments whether the two cull zones are "trial areas" - in which case DEFRA is dismissing the previous scientific evidence from the previous ten year Krebbs trial which stated that culling badgers will not stop the spread of bTB; or whether the two zones are just to prove the effectiveness of shooting badgers at night as a method of population control.

The lastest EC inspectorate sent over to see what european money ear-marked (pun LOL) for assisting reduction in levels of bTB was being spent on, found that basic biosecurity measures were not in place for cattle movements across countruy and that farmers were illegally swapping ear-tags (recently published in the Guardian) all of which promotes the spread of bTB.

Badgers do not have to be culled killed or otherwise controlled.

if you would like to register you objection to the unnessary killing of badgers, please sign the petition via www. teambadger .org

PS. Can we expect the infamous pro-cull tag-team of Charlespk and 2ladybugs to follow?”

“Badger vaccination in the absence of culling in areas where TB is endemic in badgers is certainly not the answer. It will be impractical to inject badgers over a wide enough area to have national impact and, unlike cattle, badgers in the wild cannot be vaccinated at a very young age when they are most receptive to the vaccine. This is because they do not emerge from their setts until they are at least 6 weeks old. Even cattle when vaccinated at 4 to 6 weeks old only show protection in about 60% of cases.

Saying that badger vaccination is the answer is very misleading and irresponsible.

Regarding existing cattle measures, the skin test is a very effective way of cleaning up bovine TB in cattle in view of the way in which TB levels were reduced in Cumbria post Foot and Mouth. In fact today most parishes in Cumbria are only tested once every 4 years. This illustrates how well cattle measures work in the absence of a wildlife vector and why it is so important to tackle the wildlife vector. Timescales and the very poor prospects for vaccination will allow the disease in wildlife to fester and this is why the EU are so peeved with Wales for switching from culling to vaccination.

http://tinyurl.com/8esb3cd

Vocal anti-cull campaigners really need to take on board what happened in Cumbria where there is a dense population of dairy cattle. They were very forward in pointing out how infection had spread to Cumbria, via the buying in of untested cattle to replace slaughtered stock after half the cattle which existing in 2000 were slaughtered by Foot and Mouth in 2001, but then went very quiet regarding how the infection was cleared up.”