I've been at the CLA Game Fair today - always an interesting event!
I met lots of old friends and some people I wouldn't exactly class as friends but are quite interesting.
We had a small reception on our stand which was well attended - including two Defra Ministers, Mr Paice and Mr Benyon. Our Chief Executive, Mike Clarke spoke about Futurescapes and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust's relatively new Chairman, Ian Coghill, made an excellent speech which majored on collaboration. Ian would, himself, be a very easy person with whom to collaborate.
I was on a panel which was supposed to discuss whether the government's priority should be fox-hunting, badger culling or bird conservation!It was a discussion about badgers!
Because the Minister Mr Paice was on the panel we learned quite a lot - I think I helped to tease out the information. The government will consult in the autumn on the way forward. This will include a review of the science and an approach which will, it seems, include some culling, some vaccination and some controls on cattle movements. The costs of any culling will largely be met by the farming industry.
I think the RSPB can welcome this approach. This issue is very contentious - that much was clear in the room and each time I mention badgers on this blog. To set out the thinking and the science must be a good idea. I am sure that Mr Paice is keen to see some badger culling go ahead, but at least the government is sticking to its election manifesto pledge to be led by science (it seems) and at least there will be a consultation before a decision. We await the consultation with interest.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Hi Meconopsis – you raise the subject of which scientists you should trust -
Professor Bourne – boss of the ISG - was quite open with the EFRAcom, as to WHO STEERED his 'trial' and how:
• "We repeatedly say "culling, as conducted in the trial." It is important [that] we do say that. Those limitations were not imposed by ourselves. They were imposed by politicians."
"At the end of the day I think you have to accept that it is the price society puts on a badger. [ ] In this country there is a price on a badger and on badger welfare".
"Whatever has driven that I do not know but the fact is that a price has been put on the badger in this country which related to the way we were able to carry out our scientific work. That is exactly what we report".
At the time - a CLA representative Mr. Rooney, himself a scientist, expressed his displeasure at Bourne's description of 'political science' most forcefully:
• Perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that I was brought up as a scientist; it was not in this discipline, but scientific principles hold, whatever the discipline. One of the things that I was taught was that, in designing an experiment to try to address an issue or a problem, you may not like the results, but you accept them.
• I find it deeply shocking that responsible scientists should have been prepared to undertake a research study having been told at the outset that there is a conclusion that they are not allowed to reach.
• I find that utterly disgraceful".
Mark – as RSPB Conservation Director – will be very aware of ‘political science’ and may even have experienced it first hand in the “Bird flu” days.
He who pays the piper calls the tune
I just hope that the RSPB (via Mark) sees the light and is brave enough to at least publicly change its policy / campaign on 'granting access on RSPB' land if asked to by any badger culling project.
Otherwise it may be viewed as the latest act of Greenpeace vandalism:-
BBC website
• Campaign group Greenpeace claimed it had shut off the fuel supplies to all stations in the city. The oil company said about 20 had been closed.
• BP said activists stopped the flow of fuel by flipping safety switches on forecourts, then removing them to prevent the filling stations reopening.
• A BP spokesman said the fuel stations would be reopened as soon as it was safe to do so. He described the stunt as "an irresponsible and childish act which is interfering with safety systems".
To a cattle farmer / owner such as I – I see no difference in the charities’ ‘actions’ – one is ‘active’ the other is ‘passive’ – the net result in both instances is negative and destructive and does harm.
It’s too soon to suggest that the RSPB distances itself from a fellow member of the LINK Wildlife & Countryside Group – that’s another fight for another day – but it’s Board may discuss the matter in the context of its policy regarding bTB in wildlife.
Which Scientist do you go with ? The one from the Badger trust or the one from the farming side ?
All this talk of cost. Local folk can do the work for next to nothing if given the green light to go ahead.
I will go with the farming guys as they have the knowlage.
Well seems I ought to say what I mean when saying nothing being done,what is happening without doubt is that the disease is almost out of control and I cannot see any progress while everyone pussyfoots around like headless chickens with no progress at all.Could not see any other country messing around in this manner.Sorry as you are obviously better educated than me but think you are completely wrong to say that farming community delayed vaccine by seeing culling as the answer as I believe scientists should not or would not take any notice of that and try as hard as possible to produce a vaccine as a matter of urgency.Most farmers and vets do believe that Badgers are a big cause and as we can control cattle movements we cannot the Badger but for certain many farmers or even most would not want to cull badgers for any other reason than the spread of disease or they would do it on the quiet as easy as pie.My phrase nothing been done definitely did not mean no culling been done as I have repeatedly said that we farmed with Badgers on the farm for 28 years.There just has to be a solution but no one grasps the nettle while it is easy to invade Arab countries killing lots of innocent people and lots of troops killed and more seriously injured pumping money left right and centre with head of M I 5 retired or similar saying we have worsened the terrorist threat it is impossible to get the government to tackle a serious issue at home.If you scientists cannot agree that culling will solve the problem and some do some don't then I personally think there just has to be another answer however difficult.Must repeat cannot think most people including farmers want a cull if another way,for certain I am in that position
Mark – you said ‘keep the comments coming’
People and organisations such as the RSPB wish to follow the science and assume that the RBCT (trials) were spot-on and the operation, findings and conclusions were scientifically sound – this assumption is a long way from the truth – so I include details of a report submitted to the EFRA committee by a senior member of the Wildlife team with over 12 years experience who operated the RBCT and he says:
1. BRO's (Badger removals) worked well when the land being culled was made fully available. (We would guess he is referring to the drastic reduction made to areas avaible for BRO's from 7km down to 1 km and then only on land cattle had grazed)
2. Where (problem) badgers were totally removed from a farm, that farm after reactor cattle had been culled, often stayed clear of Tb for up to 10 years.
3. We stayed on farms for up to three months to ensure ALL badgers were caught - unlike the Krebs 8 days per year trapping regime.
4. You do not need large scale trapping for it to be effective, if the culling is robust from the start.
5. Krebs had too many anomolies and weaknesses in the strategy for it to be successful. It took us four years to steer away from trapping setts that had been interfered with by Animal Rights Activists, to be able to trap badgers anywhere, in order to eliminate them. That was only one of a raft of operational problems we faced and had to endure.
6. Limited trapping - eight days per year with Krebs - has little effect if carried out late in the year. The effect being that areas went almost two years without an effective cull. (In some cases three, or not at all)
7. The costs for a future culling policy must NOT be based on Krebs costings.
Krebs was ridiculously expensive for what it delivered.
8. ...... 'Professionals' should remain involved …. to ensure that animal welfare and humaneness remain number one priority.
9. Compulsory entry onto farms is a must. Krebs has proven that wide scale non co operation does make it nigh on impossible to operate effectively.
10. The Krebs Reactive strategy ended prematurely in my opinion. The results used also showed us that in areas we had never operated in (J2 and H1 which had a very limited cull) also displayed the same increase in bTb outside of the areas. That has to be another logical reason for the increase, as it is clearly not badger- culling related. This point has yet to be satisfactorily answered.
11. The combined knowledge of the staff involved in all the previous culling strategies has never been utilised or sought when putting together a Policy.
.............. Scientists do not have all the answers and most certainly Krebs doesn't. The Trial has far too many flaws in it to be trusted to produce meaningful evidence. I know what happened on the ground - the scientists only have the results which we provided them with to work with. I know that those results could and should have been much better and useful than they currently are.
Nobody - and I do mean nobody, working on the Trial at grass roots level has ever believed that operating under the too strict and inflexible regime that Krebs put in place could work successfully. All common sense answers to everyday problems were too often ignored because "things had to carried out scientifically" to mean anything. The whole basis of Krebs was to remove badgers off the ground. For the first four years, that effort was farcical due to restrictions placed upon us. Repeated requests to change operating methods were ignored. With that in mind, how much weight do we give the ISG report, detailing their 'robust' findings to the Minister?
If it were down to me and my staff, very little."
Thus the final report was built on sand.
Where Prof Krebs said "100% culling" - the RBCT actually achieved between a pathetic 20% and "try harder" 75% and recently the latest reports are stating that even the previous minimal culling exercise is still reaping benefits with "significant decreases in bTB in cattle" (Professor Christl Donnelly)
Hi Mark – you asked “could explain how cases of bTB crop up at great distances from the 'core' areas. They seem to be clear examples of where transmission is very unlikely to have been from wildlife”
Mark – it is Nature’s way to protect the badger’s Social Group – which is maintained within a geographical area with latrines / scent marking spots etc.
But it is also Nature’s way to protect the Group by excluding the very sick badgers - those known as “super-excreters” or “dispersers”.
‘Super-excreters’ are kicked out of the Group and become ‘loners’ and may even ‘hole up’ in single hole setts or even a farm building. They move on and wander from one Social Group to the next - usually fighting (and spreading TB on their way) - until they are in a 'free' uninhabited area.
These 'super-excreters' will have tuberculosis in several organs, and capable of excreting huge amounts of infectious material from all of them, which is then available to any mammal unlucky enough to trip over it.
It may be useful to point out that when a badger's kidneys are affected by TB (and this is a common site for lesions) he is capable of excreting up to 300,000 cfu (colony forming units) of bacteria in just 1ml of urine.
Badgers are incontinent and will void this indiscriminately across grassland, at 30ml a squirt. It is also used as scent markers and as a 'fright / flight' defence if startled.
About 50 bacteria is enough to provoke a 'reaction' in a tested cow. And she is shot.