“Jake_Blake is trying to convince us that the government's own report (Independent Scientific Group) on the badger cull is flawed and out of date. This report is the result of a 10 year study and has been cited by no less than three animal/wildlife organisations.

Here is what The Mammal Society has to say on the subject (December 2011): "A badger cull in England is unscientific, unlikely to lower the incidence of Bovine TB in cattle, and may even exterminate badgers from local areas, potentially placing the UK Government in breach of international wildlife law, says The Mammal Society.

The Mammal Society - which is the only organisation involved in the study and conservation of all British mammals - believes the Government should examine the emerging evidence from a badger study in Ireland showing that individual animals move greater distances than the Government has allowed for in its control zones. These movements have the potential to completely undermine the policy, with badgers needlessly paying the ultimate price.

Marina Pacheco is the Mammal Society's chief executive. She said: "Everyone is eager to help the livestock industry control this devastating disease, but we believe today's announcement only offers farmers false hope.

"The Government has based its culling policy on flawed science, while proper research seems to have been disregarded in the lurch towards a policy fix. Perhaps this is not a surprise as the advice of an Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB has also been ignored."

The Mammal Society recently invited scientists from across Europe to discuss the issue at a recent colloquium [note]. Emerging research from County Kilkenny, in Ireland, has revealed that badgers can move as far as 7.5km between setts, with average movements being 1.4km: far greater distances than the two km buffer zones recommended by the government. [note]

Other studies into the movements of badgers have revealed that animals are likely to wander more widely in areas where culling is taking place: the so-called perturbation effect. The Mammal Society believes that wandering animals have the potential to spread Bovine TB beyond control zones, effectively undermining the policy.

The Mammal Society believes the best hope for reducing bovine TB lies in badger and even cattle vaccination. Marina Pacheco added: "Shooting badgers is not a magic bullet for preventing TB transmission, and it will also be a divisive issue within rural communities. A vaccination programme, if proven effective, offers considerable potential and a much more publicly-acceptable way of tackling this issue."

The badger is protected under Appendix III of The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention). In respect of badgers, this Council of Europe legislation – to which the UK is a signatory – prohibits the killing of animals to a point capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations.

Marina Pacheco added: "Recent events have shown that David Cameron is willing to adopt an isolated stance. But an ill-considered badger cull risks disquiet from the electorate and censure from other nations." http://tinyurl.com/7d2l3ug”

“DEFRA is calling for a 70% cull of badgers, the preferred method id "Free Shooting" which will require the use of licensed gun users, i.e. Rifle and Shooting clubs. I see why there seems to be so much support for the cull which is opposed to all of the advice and recommendations to the contrary when it comes to finding something to shoot at!

The Mammal Society is surprised that, following the successful field trial and the production of a full consultation document, the proposed strategy of vaccinating badgers across some of the worst TB-affected areas in the country was drastically reduced from six areas to a single area earlier this year.

This work was well supported by experts working in the area, and would offer a unique opportunity to control bTB in cattle whilst also improving the health of native wildlife. The vaccination strategy would not result in social disruption to badger populations and therefore would avoid the perturbation effects.

In summary, The Mammal Society does not agree with the Government's proposed approach because it is not supported by the substantial body of science provided by the Government's own Independent Scientific Group.
http://tinyurl.com/6u67l5h”

“John_Blake you sound like some blood thirsty thug just looking for an excuse to go out and start slaughtering wildlife.

Your comments are nothing more than pro-cull propoganda based on supposition and innuendo with no foundation is real science.

Lets leave the badgers alone and shoot all the cattle instead shall we? That would solve the problem.”

“@Jake_Blake, I have noticed that you have commented on this subject on several forums, including the Farmers Guardian. It would seem to me that you are personally involved with the plans to cull the species and have much to lose personally if it fails to go ahead.

I am afraid I lost the thread of your argument after re-reading my own posts which you have included as the body of text for your own argument. The layout of this web page tends to give the impression that I am reading my own post so I skip to the next comment.

When (and if) the cull is completed and farmers become complacent about Bovine TB, which will lead to an even greater spread of the disease, questions will then be asked why vaccination was never introduced.

DEFRA is actually to carry out a new survey on the badger population, but they will be carrying out a cull before this survey! Any survey should be carried out first.

The Wildlife Trust's observations and monitoring of badger setts and regional populations, shows a decline in population, this has yet to be disproved! Bring on the survey, even though this will cost around £80,000 it would be better than eradicating badgers from whole regions of our country.

The cull will not involve testing for infected badgers, it will kill badgers indiscriminately, and the very fact that "free shooting" is the chosen method of culling, leads me to believe this is more about sport than a practical necessity.

When we consider the plight of such creatures as the Otter and the Peregrine Falcon, which were almost hunted to extinction or poisoned because of poor farming methods and a belief that they were costing farmers their livelihoods, we really must question the motives behind any attempt to cull or control any species of native animal.”

“"The report took 10 years to compile and took the culling of 11,000 badgers to complete. Such work cannot be denied as being conclusive. The so called discrediting "evidence" against the report, is not the result of such intensive and detailed studies."
[] These are continuing analysis and results of the same intensity based on the RBCT work. The RBCT just as science does not stop at a defined date, it is the continuing pursuit of knowledge based on evidence and within that conclusions are subject to change.

"The latest surveys show that there are a quarter of a million badgers in the UK, unevenly distributed across the country. The effects of persecution and changing land use mean that they have almost disappeared from some areas. http://tinyurl.com/7zxry7w"
[] The government has recently commissioned a survey into the population of the badgers species. Before that there has been no 'latest survey' for nearly 15 years.

"The bovine tuberculosis bacteria are able to survive for long periods of time outside its host, where there is a lack of direct sunlight. In favourable conditions where it is warm and moist, M. bovis can still infect cows. In addition, it can survive in faeces and water sources.

Nothing has been said of the disease being picked up by a farmer on a visit to anther farm in an infected area and bringing the infection back on his boots. Hikers, rabbits, deer, etc etc can carry the disease, would you suggest a cull of humans to prevent the spread?"
[] So one minute you're against a badger cull in order to halt the massive contribution badgers play in TB transmission, the next you say we should want the trigger pulled on anything that could potentially transmit TB. This is not a rational position to take and hence why it is not one supported by anyone.

"Vaccination of both cattle and the badger population would be the most cost effective way of dealing with the disease, although cattle immunisation would be the cheapest option."
[] I have previously explained the problems with cattle vaccination and we currently do not have evidence to suggest that vaccination will have the desired effect on the badger population. We all hope it does but, the vaccination trials will take 5-10 years in order to determine this.

"I can see the poor unfortunate farmer being "demonised" by the popular press as the badger is one of the children's favourite wild animals, appearing in thousands of children's books. Oh that nasty farmer Giles shooting poor Berty Badger! It will be a field day for the animal welfare protesters and for the politicians who will cite this as a major political blunder by politicians who are cynically aiming for the farmers' vote."
[] Once this cull is successful and TB in badgers is finally controlled there will be questions asked of those blocking the cull and why they campaigned so long and so hard in order to allow TB to spread in the badger population. In the 80's it was only thousands of badgers to be culled in order to control the disease, now we're looking at 10's of thousands. How many more badgers must suffer because of the 'animal rights charities' anthropomorphism.”

“"More than 80% of badgers tested for TB have tested negative. The vast majority of the remainder, although infected, were not infectious (in other words, not capable of spreading the disease). Only a very small percentage were found to be infectious."
[] Testing badgers for TB still remains very difficult. If there was a reliable test then it would make all of this easier but, there isn't. Even post mortem analysis of badgers can be ineffective as seen in the road traffic surveys and RBCT where the techniques used missed at least half of all infections.

"The fact that badgers with bovine TB have been found in areas where cattle also have the disease proves nothing, as there is no way of telling which species was the source of infection. Given that badgers often forage around cow pats, it is more likely that badgers were infected by cattle rather than the other way around."
[] No, it works both ways. Badgers have been found in areas with TB where the cattle haven't got TB and cattle are exported to areas where badgers haven't got TB. The problem is we can control and eliminate the spread from cattle which is the minority of the cases but, we can't control or eliminate the spread when badgers spread it within the hotspot areas which accounts for the majority of cases.

"It is known that the TB test used on cattle is not completely accurate; some cattle with TB are not detected by the test and so escape slaughter. These animals can then transmit the disease to other cattle. As long as this hidden reservoir of disease exists in the cattle population, bovine TB can never be wiped out."
[] There are two TB tests, both are internationally accepted at being good tests. Whilst no test is perfect the risk of repeated failure in order to create a hidden reservoir is extremely unlikely. If there was a hidden reservoir in the cattle population then there would be a much higher case of identification at slaughter.

"During the Foot and Mouth epidemic, cattle TB tests were suspended, and many cattle were kept together indoors. This enabled infected animals to become infectious and to pass TB onto others.
When TB tests resumed after Foot and Mouth restrictions were lifted, they revealed large increases in the number of cattle with the disease. Ahn increase which clearly was NOT linked to badgers.
In addition, farmers who lost cattle to the Foot and Mouth slaughter bought in replacement animals from elsewhere, and in many cases these cattle were not tested for TB beforehand. As a result, cattle infected with TB were moved around the country - and so TB has been spread to areas where it has been absent for many years, such as County Durham and parts of Scotland."
[] We know TB increased because of FMD. Naturally there would be seen a large increase in the disease due to lack of testing and yes this would also increase the likelihood of cattle to spread TB into the badger population. However, you cannot categorically say that this was not linked to badgers. Badgers are frequent visitors to the farmyard. And without cows in the fields the ideal conditions to catch earthworms are gone. This would have the effect of exacerbating the need of the badgers increasing the frequency of night time visits and the distance they would travel.
[] However after FMD when TB was moved around the country TB testing resumed. This was of great effect in eradicating TB from the previously clean regions however, in already established hotspots TB continued to rise.”

“"there has never been any 100% proof that the badger is the cause .more likely cattle infect badgers .how come cattle and badgers live side by side in scotland and ireland .yet there is no tb .i think someone should look at what conditions our cattle are kept in and what they are fed on ..personally after watching a bbc programe i no longer eat beef ,they are injected antibiotics when young .that cause other problems ,thay are causing deaths in humans ,but the environment agency spokesperson said /at pressent theres not been enough deaths to cause concern ./do we cull humans that have tb ./no yet they infect others ,and there are many coming into the uk with tb from the far east countries ,my mother worked on the tb ward in leicester"
[] The badgers ability to spread TB to cattle is something not even the Badger Trust will deny.
[] Ireland - has a TB problem. However, they have been able to reduce the level of TB to it's lowest level in generations thanks to reactive culling.
[] In the South of England "where the badger population has already been decimated" the density of badgers is much higher than that of Ireland.
[] Scotland – Is proof that the cattle control systems works because, when there is an outbreak in Scotland the cattle controls work in controlling the disease. This also demonstrates that it's unlikely for cattle to shed enough bacterium in order to introduce TB to the badger populations. Hence why the same effect is seen in northern England when outbreaks occur there and even to a certain extent within the hotspot areas.
[] Animals are only allowed to be injected with antibiotics when they are of ill health. To use antibiotics for anything but, this reason is illegal. As for passing it onto the human food chain, their products are not allowed to enter the food chain until the effects of the antibiotics has warn of and hence no risk to human consumption. The link between animal antibiotics usage and human antimicrobial resistance has been overestimated and in many cases assumed, the big problem in this theory is that the infection travels the wrong way, from hospital to farm.
[] No, we don't cull humans with TB but, as you know we give them a long course of antibiotics, something which you're against for animals. These antibiotics are considered vital to the survival of the human species and are therefore only allowed to be used on humans.”

“A cull IS needed.
A cull of ignirant farmers who blame anytrhing and everything, except themselves.
A sheep dies ...........foxes must have killed it.
A cow gets TB ..........it's the badgers fault.
Theres a foot & mouth outbreak ...........it's ramblers who spread it.

Fact - we have at least 3 badger setts on the family farm, we have cattle, we have NEVER had a case of TB. Why? Because we don't bring cattle onto the farm, every one there we bred.

Fact - we have foxes on the farm, we have banned fox hunters on our land for 60 years, andwe've never lost a lamb to foxes.

Fact - I don't farm, but my brothers do, and they are determined to protect our land and the animals that live on it.”

“The article says that the culls will be in southern England, yet this is the area where the badger population has already been decimated.

@ WelshInvader, you certainly seem to have done your homework on this subject! You make some very valid and interesting points, thank you!

I believe the Badgers Trust will be able to come up with a legal challenge, given all the facts available that prove beyond any doubt that a badger cull will not help reduce the spread of Bovine TB.”

“Jake_Blake, "And the RSPCA clinging onto a 5 year old conclusions that have been shown to be false", this is nonsense the report took 10 years to compile and took the culling of 11,000 badgers to complete. Such work cannot be denied as being conclusive. The so called discrediting "evidence" against the report, is not the result of such intensive and detailed studies.
Jake_Blake wrote "stop scaremongering. This has never been about extinction of a species".

Fact:
Badgers (Meles meles) have lived in Britain for at least 250,000 years. The latest surveys show that there are a quarter of a million badgers in the UK, unevenly distributed across the country. The effects of persecution and changing land use mean that they have almost disappeared from some areas. http://tinyurl.com/7zxry7w

The main issue with a badger cull is that it does not take into account the fact that healthy, uninfected badger populations will be killed. The DEFRA report does not show that any effort is being made to test the population for Bovine TB.

What the report does say is that badgers from infected area will move into the areas where the healthy badger population has been eradicated.

Persecution by badger baiters who kill badgers for 'fun', and by gamekeepers who sometimes kill badgers in the belief that they damage livestock, has decimated the badger populations in some areas, particularly South Yorkshire. In Essex, badger populations have declined as a result of agricultural intensification. (Wild Life Trust) http://tinyurl.com/7zxry7w

The bovine tuberculosis bacteria are able to survive for long periods of time outside its host, where there is a lack of direct sunlight. In favourable conditions where it is warm and moist, M. bovis can still infect cows. In addition, it can survive in faeces and water sources.

Nothing has been said of the disease being picked up by a farmer on a visit to anther farm in an infected area and bringing the infection back on his boots. Hikers, rabbits, deer, etc etc can carry the disease, would you suggest a cull of humans to prevent the spread?
Vaccination of both cattle and the badger population would be the most cost effective way of dealing with the disease, although cattle immunisation would be the cheapest option.

The only saving factors for badgers are, 1) that licences are required, and these cost money, and 2) The government will not be offering financial help to pay for the cull. (On page 12 of Annex F of the report)
3) it still remains a criminal offence to kill a badger without being licensed, and a prison sentence is the likely outcome of the actions.

"The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) consolidated and improved previous legislation. It is an offence to kill, injure or take a badger, or to damage or interfere with a sett unless a licence is obtained from a statutory authority".

The ultimate irony is that the badger is used as the symbol of the Wild Life Trust, supposedly a demonstration of the British concern and care for our wild life.

I can see the poor unfortunate farmer being "demonised" by the popular press as the badger is one of the children's favourite wild animals, appearing in thousands of children's books. Oh that nasty farmer Giles shooting poor Berty Badger! It will be a field day for the animal welfare protesters and for the politicians who will cite this as a major political blunder by politicians who are cynically aiming for the farmers' vote.”