Wildlife group critical of badger cull plans
Government plans to cull badgers were today criticised by the Shropshire Wildlife Trust, which labelled the move ‘counter-productive’.
A trial cull of thousands of badgers will go ahead over the coming weeks in Somerset and Gloucestershire after the Court of Appeal rejected a legal challenge from wildlife supporters.
The decision has been welcomed by Shropshire’s farming union leader as the best way to fight the rise of tuberculosis in cattle, which cost taxpayers £100 million last year.
North Shropshire MP and new Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has also backed the move, saying it is the only way the issue could be addressed until a vaccine is developed.
Farmers say bovine TB is the biggest threat to the beef and dairy industries and they blame badgers for spreading the disease.
But Helen Trotman, of Shropshire Wildlife Trust, said the cull could lead to an increase in disease.
“Culling is likely to be counter-productive and could even result in an increase, as infected badgers disperse from settled communities, panicked by shooting,” she said.
She said the wildlife trust was ‘deeply conscious’ of the hardship suffered by farmers affected by bovine TB in their cattle herds but said several trusts, including Shropshire, were exploring ways of controlling the disease.
The trust will start a five-year programme of badger vaccination on one of its nature reserves in the north of the county this autumn, alongside a similar project just over the border run by Cheshire Wildlife Trust.
“Our work will be monitored by the Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency to assess its effectiveness. Through this project, we hope to make a real contribution to solving the problem of bTB based on scientific principles,” she said.
“We believe strategic use of badger vaccination could play a significant role in creating a firebreak.
“Our project will provide local benefit, while the willingness of other landowners to trial vaccination will extend the possibilities of controlling the spread of this disease.”
Comments for: "Wildlife group critical of badger cull plans "
Rob, Telford
Given that Defra have already stated that a "small minority" of farmers have engaged in eartag fraud, i.e., swapping eartags from infected animals with those from elderly/less productive but non-infected cattle, can we expect to see Owen Paterson and the NFU campaigning for the culling of farmers who are found guilty of this practice?...I won't hold my breath.
hedgehog
We should cull those who swap tags with those who interfere with the cull and threaten violence on others involved in it.
Badger
Don't expect Owen Paterson to say anything other than the Farmers want to hear, after all vaccciation would cost farmers money.
All you hear is bleating farmers the do not care about wildlife, Badgers were around long before they were.
Katherine de Gama
As a Shrewsbury resident who has some land in Gloucestershire I, and my friends, will will be boycotting all dairy and bovine products until the cull is abandoned and cattle vaccinated. We have members of Occupy in our garden. Good for them.
dodge
Farmers can bleat all day long about how much they care for their animals but the truth is they don't. Animals are given feeds to maximise milk production with little thought to how this is affecting their immune systems. The use of artificial insemination and selective breading has reduced the gene pool to such an extent that cows have become susceptible to developing all manor of illnesses bTB, mastitis, mad cow disease, anaplasmosis, calf scours, BVD, IBR the list is endless. The greed of farmers has become so that now there is pressure to introduce genetically modified breeds into the mix! Where is that going to lead us?
Farmers have created all of these problems and they are blaming the wildlife. They need to take a step back and look at what they are doing, because from where I'm standing it looks bloody grim!
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257
hedgehog
Spoken like a true animal rights thug , have you left anything off the list . BADGERS carry and SUFFER from tb . Keep the cows in sheds and and keep the disease carriers away, after all its you the public that needs cheap food . Using your theories reap what YOU sow.
elder
why arn't the cows vaccinated?
steveib
The cull didnt work in Ireland where the communities are far more rural so they could be far more ruthless so why should it work here .If you want to protest buy milk from the co.op they only use organic herds and dont go on holiday to areas where the cull is to take place in my case we will go caravaning else where.
Carrie
How is dodge a 'nasty animal rights thug'?
Get back to your farm hedgehog, and stop grabbing my tax dollars with your greasy subsidies.
...AND LEAVE THE BADGERS ALONE.
hedgehog
Didn't say nasty , but thug was wrong word . Keep your subsidies and will go back to my house not farm.
Huw Peach
Government scientific adviser, Professor Lord John Krebs, led the 1990s scientific review, which found that badgers could pass on TB to cattle.
He ordered trial culls, which were then carried out.
A few days ago Krebs said the results of the trials showed that culling was "not an effective policy" and would be a mistake.
What if Owen Paterson's policy is successful in killing off huge numbers of badgers, and then there is no change after the killing, and cattle continue to die of TB?
who are we mortals to sit in judgement and select one creatures life in preference to another.This if nothing else is immoral and wrong.It is a naked abuse of the power of the food chain.which breeds and cultivates excessive abuse in every aspect; having little or no regard to life and all that is good within the whole ethos of life. The welfare of all animals should be paramount and all involved should hold counsel as to their deeds and the consequences thereof.Immunize or let nature take its course
Huw Peach
Could someone who supports the cull please deal with the question I asked?
If a government scientific adviser, who ordered trial culls in the 1990s, thinks those culls were not effective in reducing TB in cattle, then what exactly are the reasons for ignoring his evidence?
This is a radical step with major implications for the biodiversity of our country.
What happened to evidence-based policy?