Uneasy lull in badger cull battle

 
Badger Whether or not badgers should be culled has been a controversial issues

Related Stories

Until next summer at least, badgers - and those engaged in seemingly endless wrangling over whether the animals should be culled - live to fight another day.

The Environment Secretary Owen Paterson is adamant that his eleventh hour postponement of the cull is just that and it will still go ahead - albeit a year later than originally planned.

However, senior figures on the pro-cull side of the argument have already concluded that last week's decision has lengthened the odds on a cull ever happening at all.

According to Mr Paterson, postponing the cull had become inevitable due a combination of unforeseen factors.

The weather had been atrociously bad over the summer, it was too late in the year to embark on culling, and badger numbers were double those previously anticipated.

Nobody would stake very much on being able to predict the weather with confidence. But, given the evidence of recent years, the likelihood was always that this summer would be on the wet side.

As for it being the wrong time of year, the decision to delay the pilot culls until the autumn (to get the Olympics and associated policing commitments out of the way) was made long ago.

The issue of badger numbers is crucial. Farmers in the cull zones are required to kill 70% of the animals. Suddenly discovering there are twice as many badgers as you'd previously planned for clearly causes a big problem.

This third factor was clearly the deal breaker. The question is whether the government could and should have cracked on and counted its badgers a bit sooner.

Ben Bradshaw, former Labour Defra minister, is in no doubt.

"You would think the very basic thing of getting the number of badgers in an area right is something they would be able to do," he said.

"I'm afraid this is just another example of this shambolic government".

'Not enough time'

A Labour MP who opposes culling is hardly an unbiased commentator.

Unfortunately for the government, though, one of the key figures actually organising the cull in Gloucestershire seems to agree with him.

"If we'd known four or five weeks ago - or even longer - that we had that number of badgers to deal with, we would have had time to look at how those figures were arrived at, challenge them if necessary, and indeed put in place the resources necessary to deal with it", said Jan Rowe.

"But we just did not have time in the last 10 days to make a decision whether to go or not."

The government had spent two long years determined to get every detail of the cull right.

In particular, it was understandably anxious to do everything in its power to fight off the inevitable challenge in the courts.

Badger protest, 21 Oct The cull has become a political hot potato, sparking vociferous arguments on both sides

Ironically, it breezed through all the legal intricacies only to fall at the final hurdle because it didn't know how many badgers there were.

Forced to halt the plans for time being, the environment secretary at least appeared to have one trump card up his sleeve. Mr Paterson was able to stand up in the Commons and reveal that the National Farmers' Union had actually asked him to postpone the cull.

Almost immediately rumours circulated that ministers had expended considerable effort trying to get the NFU on side ahead of the announcement.

It soon emerged, though, that these efforts were aimed at persuading the farmers to go aheadwith the cull this autumn. According to one well-placed source, the prime minister himself was personally furious that the farmers had forced a delay.

Judging by Jan Rowe's comments, the farmers felt the government's bad planning had placed them in an impossible position.

Having lobbied so long for a cull, the last thing they would want to do is embark on a pilot which they knew was doomed to fail from the outset.

Whether any of this has damaged the farmers' future bargaining power with the government remains to be seen.

All of the above pre-empted a backbench debate on badger culling which had previously been tabled for last Thursday.

Although the sense of urgency had obviously disappeared, nearly a third of MPs still turned out to debate the pros and cons.

Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP for Totnes, warned that the "celebrity status" of the badger was distorting the debate.

"I would say that we are getting a focus on a single species and I think that's unhelpful", she said.

Foxes, deer and rabbits

She went on to pose the familiar question: "Is a badger more important than a cow?" (Cattle are, of course, culled in large numbers as part of the present TB controls).

A more interesting question though, might be to ask whether a badger is more important than a fox, say - or a deer or a rabbit.

If any of these other abundant wild mammals were the principal wildlife reservoir for TB, farmers would just quietly (and legally) get on with shooting them.

We can be sure of this because all of these animals are routinely shot at the moment - either as pests, to eat or simply to manage population sizes.

However, there are no campaigns, no petitions, no protesters dressing up as deer or foxes, no parliamentary debates and certainly no £50m 10-year scientific investigations standing between any of these animals and the marksman's bullet.

Some animals are definitely more equal than other as far as the law is concerned.

Badgers are not just a protected species, they have an entire Act of Parliament devoted exclusively to them.

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 was not introduced because badger numbers were under threat but simply as a response to the (already) illegal sport of badger baiting.

It is illegal to bait (set dogs on) or cruelly abuse any of the other animals I've mentioned - but that hasn't automatically led a to ban on shooting them as well.

If badgers do enjoy celebrity status Dr Wollaston may largely have her Conservative predecessors - who passed the Proection of Badgers Act 1992 - to thank for it.

 
Martyn Oates, Political editor, South West Article written by Martyn Oates Martyn Oates Political editor, South West

Who paved way for NHS regional pay?

MPs debate which government opened the doors to the proposed regional pay in the NHS.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 20.

    David Heath (Tory Lib Dem), the farming minister insisted that a cull was necessary to save the lives of thousands of cattle. Now the famous NFU line: “Grown men and myself have sat round the table and cried," he said. "The impact that slaughtering a herd has on farmers and their families is devastating”.
    The fact that the EU will compensate farmers for every loss does not make it less sad.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    I object to the use of the word cull used in this instance. Cull implies a selective reduction in numbers, both of which are untrue in this case. What is intended is a non selective wholesale massacre.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    Nobody needs to drink milk or consume dairy products - so its actually all pointless. Milk is baby food and not meant for adults! Swap to soya milk, dairy free margarine and cheese - much healthier for you, releases dairy animals such as cows and goats from slavery, releases land to grow food for people instead of farm animals - and is so much better for the planet!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 17.

    The fact of the matter is that as the trial was set for Somerset (a place dear to my heart), and as the area of Somerset and exmoor are a haven for red deer, TB is infected them as well as other speicies. Another problem is the shooting of badgers is when the first shots are fired they will panic and run dispersing any badgers that are infected and spreading TB. Quite frankly I think its mad.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    What all ofthis misses out is that Bovinr TB is passed from cow to cow and also other wildlife. Badgers are infected by TB as a sideffect.
    These proposals also competely ignore, or act against, the reccommendations of the "Krebs trial" specifically set up at huge govt expense to investigate the best way to approach the problem of Bovine TB in badgers.
    The problem isn't with badgers but with cows.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    There are startign to rumours of TB in sheep and Llamas in lots of areas int eh Forest of Dean and Wales. If thats true then forget badger culling....

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 14.

    Hopefully the milk industry is using the time to be able to market and sell badger friendly milk should a cull go ahead. Otherwise I will be looking for other alternatives. I won't be buying milk from areas where badgers have been massacred.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    "I have a friend who farms on Exmoor whose herd has gone down with TB, without a badger on the farm and with no new stock bought in. The answer was TB in the wild red deer population."

    http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=117

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 12.

    @Catherine Megan Russell, we will not know anymore than we do now because the vaccine for cattle is not get up and running and neither is the vaccine for badgers. That is the whole problem!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    A vaccine to prevent TB has been developed for badgers, a vaccine to prevent TB has been developed for people and a vaccine to prevent TB has been developed for cattle. Now the badger cull in Gloucestershire has been delayed until next summer we will know for definite that if there if a decline in bovine TB it is because of the vaccination programme.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 10.

    The badger cull is a ridiculous farce, politically motivated by the pro hunting group who seem to permeate the government, Science has proved it wont work, public opinion is against it, parliament voted against it after a lengthy debate and yet Owen Paterson is blinkered in his view that it should go ahead. What does that tell you about the intelligence of the people running this country?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 9.

    If this government have their way, they will sell off the forests, chop down all the ash ( probably will), kill the badgers, build on all the green belt, build new airports and runways, yes the greenest government indeed!

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 8.

    The lull wouldn't be uneasy if the pro cull lobby just accepted that the cull was set up to be not very succesful at best on a purely theoretical basis, and in that the methodology chosen to undertake it wouldn't even achieve the poxy benefits that it was theoretically capable of......

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 7.

    the reason that badgers are protected is to save them from the disgusting badger baiting that would happen if they were not. Also the indiscriminate shooting of badgers, has been proved to make Tb in cattle worse. Badgers live in small family groups and when one is shot the others dispers from thier home range, and take any disease they may be carrying to new, uninfected areas,

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 6.

    The farmers had realised what most MPs hadn't, that the one and only measure of success of the pilot cull was reaching the magic 70%. Nothing to do with reducing TB at all. The cull company themselves had to estimate the numbers, and, guess what, they estimated low, purely to make the nominal 70% success level easier. But faced with actual counts the NFU had no choice but to pull the cull.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 5.

    I among many others told the Government via the Consultation they would have to do a survey of badger numbers before they could establish the number to be shot. Their failure to do so until it was too late is just anothe example of the incompetence of this administration.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 4.

    Wildlife experts such as Chris Cheeseman say the survival of badgers shows the health of wildlife in our countryside because they are at the top of the food chain. We should be celebrating this success, not carping about there being 'too many'.
    It may be a side issue alongside the terrible cuts being inflicted by cuts to local services, but it is symptomatic of this idiotic government's policy.

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 3.

    Some reports suggest that a 70% reduction in Badger numbers would result in a 20% drop in TB cases at best.

    If this is the case then it would be a pretty piss-poor return on a massacre.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 2.

    As I see there are 2 questions:

    1 Is a cull going to be effective .. do we have the science to indicate either way?

    2 Why are some species more equal than others? I would suggest there is a certain amount of anthropomorphism attached to some species..

    Really the bottom line should be WELFARE .. all beings should have the right to Welfare. However Rights and Welfare are not the same thing.

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.