The badger cull has no sound scientific, economic or moral basis

18th September, 2012 3:00 pm

As a proud member of the Forest of Dean community, a tax payer, and someone who lives in the country and is both concerned about the problems of dairy farmers including the prevalence of TB and about our wildlife, I am angry by the government’s decision to begin the pilot to cull badgers in West Gloucestershire.

TB is a terrible disease which results in the slaughter of cows and has a serious impact on a farm’s profitability and viability. It must be dealt with, but why don’t Ministers follow the scientific advice rather than embarking on an ineffective, costly cull that will decimate our badger population?

The cull has no sound scientific, economic or moral basis. Leading scientists and experts are against it, many farmers are against it, and international conservation organisations are against it. As also is my Party, which commissioned the largest scientific project into the effects: the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. So why is the government pressing ahead with the free shooting of moving badgers – something that has never been trialled?

Killing badgers has no proven lasting effect on the eradication of TB. A cull could lead to the spread of the disease as badgers flee the cull zones into surrounding farmland. In response to a Parliamentary Question from my friend and colleague, Mary Creagh MP, DEFRA conceded that at least 50% of cattle herd breakdowns are caused by cattle to cattle contact.

We are told that approval for a vaccine for cattle is imminent but we know that there is a problem in relation to the European Union. I am a firm supporter of the EU but I recognise that it needs real reform and that some of its policies need challenging. This is one of them. The government should be in Brussels arguing for the vaccination of cattle not slaughtering badgers. There is also vaccine for badgers which is being used in Gloucestershire and which seems to be effective, although it can only be part of the solution.

Last Friday evening I attended an excellent, packed meeting in the Forest of Dean organised by Gloucestershire Against Badger Shooting (GABS). One of the speakers had spent his life as a livestock manager and he spoke of the need for biosecurity and improved animal husbandry. It made sense.  Why aren’t Ministers listening to him along with scientists like Lord Krebs, one of the government’s most respected advisers?

We are told that that this is just a pilot and that more scientific work is being done. The pilot will be deemed to be a success if more than 70% of badgers in the area are eradicated. But who can say how many badgers there are in an area and how will DEFRA know when 70% have been killed?

For most people who live in the Forest, this is not just a pilot. It will decimate our badger population, it will be costly, and it will be potentially dangerous to citizens walking in or around the Forest at night. Most importantly, it will not provide a much needed solution to the problem of TB which leads to the slaughter of cows and penury for farmers. It will also be a burden on our hard pressed police force which will have to find around £2m to police the cull.

The Forest of Dean District Council this week, on the initiative of the Labour Group, has a special meeting to discuss the cull where I hope they resolve that no badgers should be shot on council land. I would urge all local authorities in pilot areas to do likewise, I am sure that the vast majority of people whom they represent will be against this crazy cull.

I would also urge all those who share my concern to look at the Team Badger website and to sign the e-petition on the Downing Street website to ensure, at the very least, that there is a proper debate at Parliament.

Baroness Jan Royall of Blaisdon is Labour’s Leader in the Lords and lives in the Forest of Dean. This post was first published at the Labour Lords blog

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • This cull is like an atavistic eruption – things aren’t going well so we’ll kill/sacrifice something.

  • If we hadn’t let things get out of control, there would have been no need to even consider this. However, for a variety of reasons, Bovine TB a was allowed to increase. 

    The first question should be “Do we want to control Bovine TB at all?” If the answer is yes, then the different interest groups should show how their preferred solution works, not just shout at the other solutions.

  • Serbitar

    The only real long-term solution is vaccination of both badgers and cattle. Rabies has largely been eliminated in France after orally immunising foxes and other relevant wildlife with recombinant rabies vaccine (V-RG) aerially distributed in bait form. Much more research into similar techniques as far as badgers go is urgently warranted which, coupled with some form of licensing to inoculate cattle against bovine TB, would rid the United Kingdom of this scourge permanently and non-destructively.

    A cull of 70% of the badger population, mostly healthy animals, is inhumane, unscientific and possibly counter-productive. (How will the shooters carrying out culls going to know when to stop? How can they possibly know when seven out of ten badgers in any given area and no more have been slaughtered?) In some areas where culls have taken place bovine TB spread faster. The proposed culls are disgraceful reactions to a terrible problem that can only be solved by the application of science not by the bullet and the gun.

  • Pingback: Environmation Saturation | Ecological Pie()

Latest

  • Comment Featured Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Back in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s government came close to writing off Merseyside. There was a serious conversation about leaving our city and its neighbours to ‘managed decline’ and the tender mercies of her economic shock therapy. As her Chancellor at the time, Geoffrey Howe, patronisingly put it: ‘We must not expend all our limited resources in trying to make water flow uphill.’ We’ve come a long way since then. Since 2010, Labour has had the privilege of running Liverpool […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Andy Burnham is LabourList readers’ favourite to become the Labour candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Shadow Home Secretary announced his candidacy last week, and is up against Ivan Lewis and Tony Lloyd to go into next year’s election. Of those who voted in our survey, 45 per cent opted for Burnham, who came second in last year’s leadership election. Tony Lloyd finished some way behind with 22 per cent, while Ivan Lewis received the support of 12 per cent […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It is often described as the sharing economy. It sounds very cuddly. All of us on a patchwork sofa, sharing a nice cup of tea… Or it’s the gig economy – because Uber drivers are all creative artists enjoying their freedom to perform… I prefer to call it the new intermediaries economy. Not as cuddly or cool but more accurate. When you get into an Uber cab the driver is not sharing her car with you, she is selling you […]

    Read more →
  • Europe News Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Tony Blair has weighed in on the debate over Brexit, warning that leaving the European Union would hit living standards and hit the poorest in society most. The former Prime Minister appears to make an appeal to Labour supporters – seen as an important swing demographic in the vote – in two interventions today. While Blair is a divisive, and even simply unpopular, figure in the modern Labour Party, there are hopes that he is still seen as a political “big beast” and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Labour will need to win over the socially conservative voters of today in win in 2020 – but flag waving will not make up for a lack of credible policy on welfare and spending and a real understanding of the hardship faced by working people throughout the country. Widely reported research by Jon Cruddas this week suggested that since 2005, voters that were sympathetic to more socially conservative ideas have been increasingly more likely to select UKIP over Labour on […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit