Print
Send by email
DiscussAs reported on Thursday, a petition in favour of the culling of badgers has received 1,000 signatures.
Now, Sir David claims that culling could be effective in areas that are contained, such as motorways. However, a study published in June by The Independent Scientific Group concluded that targeting one site would cause badgers to flee to other farms.
'Together with five well-respected experts,' said Sir David, 'I have assessed the ISG report and other research relating to badgers and TB in cattle. It is clear that badgers are a continuing source of infection for cattle and could account for 40% of cattle breakdowns in some areas.'
He continued: 'Cattle controls remain essential but I consider that, in certain circumstances and under strict conditions, badger removal can reduce the overall incidence of TB in cattle.'
TB facts (from the National Farmers' Union):
- Number of new TB outbreaks in 2007, up to August: 2,677
- Number of new TB outbreaks at the same point in 2006: 2,190
- This represents a 22% increase
- 7.7% of cattle tested for TB in 2007 tested positive
- 6.48% of cattle tested for TB in 2006 tested positive
- This represents an 18% increase
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has welcomed the report.
Subscriptions
NFU Deputy President Meurig Raymond said: 'What is the point in putting in place all sorts of costly and disruptive measures to reduce the spread of disease between cattle if you do nothing to prevent it getting into the cattle in the first place? We are not in the least bit surprised at the Chief Scientist's conclusions.'
David Fursdon, President of the Country, Land and Business Association (CLA), concurred, saying: 'The Independent Scientific Group's report, conducted by Prof John Bourne, was never truly independent, hamstrung as it was by its political mandate, which eliminated full consideration of wildlife control which has already been seen to be effective elsewhere.'
Mr Fursdon concluded by saying: 'The CLA would urge Ministers to act quickly and resolutely on Sir David King's recommendations.'
However, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the issue was 'extremely difficult', with no decisions imminent.
Also, Professor John Bourne, author of the ISG report, said Sir David's recommendations were not consistent with the scientific findings of his report but were 'consistent with the political need to do something about it'.
Dr Richard Yarnell of the Badger Trust echoed Professor Bourne's view, saying that this was a 'shameful political fix'. He does not believe that culling badgers will prevent the spread of TB.
Do you agree with Sir David? To join the badger cull debate, use the comment box below, or email us at clonews@ipcmedia.com
Comments
Robbo
October 25 12:58
Proper controls of movement and husbandry of the cattle would produce better results but obviously cost the "poor" Farmer more.
F & M cost the industry dearly, mainly because of disease spread by poor housekeeping, unhygenic transport and slak methods from all concerned.
Badger culling cannot, without eradication of the entire species, remove the instances of Bovine TB.
Not that long ago in earth life time we had Bubonic Plaque associated with Rats. No one culled them.
The government can't even control MRSA in Hospitals so what chance have they got with a wildlife species?
Leave the badgers be....... Concentrate on the methods in Farming and improve the transport control, husbandry and local environment with more grants for the "Poor" Farmers.
After all, someone has to pay for the new 4 wheel drive for the poor sods!
Nigel Robertson
October 23 14:15
LordOfRuin
October 23 14:09
Tell you what, why don't we turn the whole country into a factory farm, with seperate pens for the produce?
Blimey, I'm sounding like a silly activist. Which isn't so. It's just that I read recently that the experimentation into the culling was showing that culling does not work. In fact, it was the same body of scientist that work for the government that said this, and now, seeing as that wont please farmers, surprise surprise, they've changed their minds.
If science wasn't going to be used to make the decision, why embarrass themselves by doing it?