Help Stop the Badger Cull

Sent: 29 October 2009 22:56
To: Bates, Mick (Assembly Member)
Subject: Re: Badger cull

 

Dear Mr Bates,

Thank you for replying to my email. I am disappointed to conclude that you have apparently failed to see my point, namely that after spending a great deal of time and money investigating possible links between badgers and bTb, a serious group of independent scientists with no axe to grind failed dismally to do so - and in fact (please note that phrase) observed that a cull would be more likely to do harm than good in the cause of eradicating the disease. Their work was subjected to peer review and stood up to that scrutiny. We may reliably take it therefore that their conclusions are quite valid.

It is indeed sad to see cattle slaughtered because of disease, and I have considerable sympathy for farmers who face the plight (although I am not aware that they actually suffer financially, thanks to subsidies) but it is equally sad to see politicians (and you appear to be one of them) who, when their arguments are examined closely, seem mostly to be concerned with costs.

TB is found in many wild animals, but much less so than in cattle which are often kept in living conditions that are somewhat less favourable to good health than their wild cousins. Can you not see a link between cause and effect? You will also I am sure have been made aware of the many cases of adjacent herds that share 'infected' badger territory, and where one of the herds has bTb and the other not. Do you have any rational explanation for that? Could it be, do you think, that the flow of bTb is not from badger to cattle but the reverse? Have you actually asked yourself that question? I wonder. And are you to slaughter all bTb infected wildlife in the proposed area, or just the badgers - and if the latter, how do you suggest the 'reservoir' will be removed?

I am no extremist, just a respectable professional Engineer of advancing years who tries to make judgments based on all the evidence. I am afraid your email has all the hallmarks of having started with a decision, followed by a selective assembling of evidence to support that decision, rather than the other way round. I do wish that you and like minded colleagues would reconsider your position, based on all the evidence.

Regards,

[BBG Group member]

2009/10/29 Bates, Mick (Assembly Member) <Mick.Bates@wales.gov.uk>

Dear Mr XXXX,

 Thank you for your email regarding Bovine Tuberculosis and the Welsh Assembly Government’s eradication programme.  The Welsh Liberal Democrats have given our Assembly representatives a free vote on this issue on each occasion that Bovine TB has been debated in the chamber.  I have read your email with interest but on November 4th I will be voting against the proposed annulment of the Tuberculosis Eradication (Wales) Order 2009. 

 I do not take this issue lightly and have made my decision based on evidence that I have considered over a number of years.  Bovine TB is one of the biggest challenges facing rural Wales and I welcome the commitment by the Welsh Assembly Government to pursue an integrated programme for the eradication of TB across the country, which will include the slaughter of all cattle infected with TB, increased surveillance and testing, better biosecurity, reform of the compensation regime, as well as a trial cull.

In particular I strongly support the use of vaccinations as part of a holistic programme to eradicate TB from our cattle and wildlife.  However, any vaccination programme would not lead to a breakdown in the prevalence of TB in cattle herds for many years and would not provide a solution to tackling the reservoir of infection that currently exists in wildlife.  Significant research and testing would be required before it could be introduced, as well the need for legislative amendment at both UK and EU level, meaning that any benefits will not be evident for several years.  During this time the number of cattle slaughtered could exceed 50,000 animals a year, for which farmers and the taxpayer must foot the bill.

 The final report of the Bovine TB Advisory Group highlights that although vaccinations will play an important role, we must not expect rapid impact, and over-reliance on a future vaccination programme for both cattle and badgers ‘should not negate the urgent need for measures to tackle the problem now.’  In the meantime the prevalence of TB continues to rise.  In 1998 the number of cattle slaughtered for TB control purposes in Wales alone was 1046, in 2008 a total of 12,043 animals were slaughtered, a rise of over 1150%. Between 2007 and 2008 alone the number of cattle slaughtered rose by 52% and the prevalence increased by more than 30%.

 It is clear that measures to date have been unsuccessful, as over the past decade a raft of measures to control bTB have been introduced by the Welsh Government.  Cattle movements are subject to strict controls; all animals moving from a high-risk bTB area must be tested for bTB before moving, farms where bTB has been found are closed down and prevented from moving animals except to abattoirs and must undergo bTB testing every 60 days. Movements from farms that are overdue for routine bTB tests are frozen.  By comparison, bTB infected badgers can roam between farms, visiting as many as six farms in a single night.

 It is inappropriate to compare the English Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) with the proposed Welsh Intensive Action Pilot Area (IAPA).  Fundamentally, the IAPA in Pembrokeshire is designed with significant geographic boundaries, including the sea, an estuary, a major river and mountain range, which were not present during the RBCT.  Despite this, analyses of data collected during the RBCT actually demonstrate that reducing badger numbers by around 80% reduced incidences of bTB in cattle by an average of 23% during the culling period and in the years following the cull, cattle bTB had reduced by 54%. 

 The work of the RBCT therefore demonstrates that reducing badger numbers can have a significant and cumulative impact on rates of bTB, which will be greatly enhanced in a trial area with strong geographic boundaries, as exists in the Pembrokeshire IAPA.  As further evidence, during the Thornbury trial in Gloucestershire, intensive badger removal operations over an area of 100km2 between 1975 and 1982 were followed by a period of 10 years with no confirmed TB incidents amongst cattle and I hope that we will eventually see the same in Wales, so that cattle and wildlife no longer need to be culled.

 I have been saddened to meet many farmers who have watched their herd slaughtered due to TB.  Often cows that have been cared for since birth are forced to slaughter, families close to retirement left with a compensation scheme which cannot match the cash value of their animals and cannot replace what was lost - a lifetime of dedication and hard work devoted to the breeding of prime stock with an international reputation, all destroyed because TB found its way onto their ground.

 I understand that a cull of badgers is a deeply emotive topic but I do not see that my support for this programme compromises my passion for the environment or for Welsh wildlife.  Over 29,000 cattle were slaughtered last year across the UK due to TB and infected badgers suffer a slow and painful death due to the insidious and inflammatory nature of this disease.  Yet while thousands of cattle are killed each year, the control of badgers has so far remained unchecked.  The cost of compensation to farmers has risen from £1.8m in 2000/01 to £15.9m in 2007/08 and could exceed £80m by 2014. 

 There is a clear link between the prevalence of Bovine TB in badgers and cattle and stringent on farm measures to date have not been successful.  I believe that instead of ploughing money into compensation schemes we need to see a clear policy to eradicate TB across the UK which must address this disease in both cattle and badgers.  I support a trial cull in Wales which I hope will be free from the external interference of extremists that was present during the RBCT, so that we can produce meaningful results from this trial.  I am pleased to note that Defra allocated an additional £20million into the badger and cattle vaccine development programme and look forward to this being available in the future, but in the meantime I support action to tackle TB now, so that wildlife and cattle, whose suffering is so often neglected in this debate, can be rid of this horrific disease.

 Yours sincerely,

 Mick Bates

Welsh Liberal Democrat AM for Montgomeryshire

Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainability & Rural Affairs

National Assembly for Wales

AC Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru dros Sir Drefaldwyn

Gweinidog Amgylchedd, Cynaliadwyedd a Materion Cefn Gwlad yr Wrthblaid

Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

mick.bates@wales.gov.uk

Tel: 02920 898 340

Fax: 02920 821 871

 

---

From:
Sent: 29 October 2009 13:20
To:
Subject: Badger cull

29th October 2009

[BBG Group member name and address]

 Dear Sir or Madam

Please don’t vote for the badger cull in North Pembrokeshire.

Culling badgers has been proven not to work by the ISG who killed 11,000 badgers over 9 years at a cost of £35 million and concluded that ‘badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain’- F. J. Bourne June 2007.

Please don’t vote for this senseless, costly, disruptive and unpopular cull.

Yours sincerely

[BBG Group member name]