19th March 2013
The British Veterinary Zoological Society has added its voice to the massive weight of scientific and public opposition to the Coalition’s proposed badger cull, just weeks after Professor Peter Atkins, of Durham University’s Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience, concluded that a widespread badger cull will not solve the problem of tuberculosis in cattle [1].
“The Coalition still attempts to claim that the cull is based on science. But they are at odds with almost every strand of independent scientific advice,” said David Williams chairman of the Badger Trust.
“Public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed and outspoken opposition is certain to increase hugely once the abhorrence and the futility of the night-time slaughter becomes apparent.”
Commenting on the disclosure that the BVZS, in a formal statement of policy on its website [2] has said it “does not believe there is currently scientific evidence to suggest that a targeted cull of badgers can contribute positively to the overall control of bTB in cattle”
Mr Williams asked:
“How much longer can the Coalition pretend they have science on their side. Month by month that claim is shown up for what it is –deceptive make-believe. They cherry pick bits of the 2007 final report of the Independent Scientific Group and ignore its key conclusions that cattle management, not badger slaughter, is the way to beat bTB”.
That message was reinforced on October 14 of last year, he says, when more than 30 leading scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, announced publicly in a letter to the Observer —
“We believe the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it” and they concluded “…culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication. We therefore
urge the government to reconsider its strategy”.
Said Mr Williams–
“Opposition has come from all quarters: Natural England, the Government’s own agency, initially expressed its reservations; the Conservative Party’s Bow Group, representing all aspects of Conservative opinion, issued a paper urging the Coalition Government to reconsider plans; and in the Commons in a debate resulting from an E-petition –which has so far attracted over 177,000 signatures- where MPs opposed the cull by 147 votes to 28. The E-petition reinforces the decisive public opposition so clearly expressed in the response to the Government’s initial consultation document and the continuing campaign by all the major wildlife and animal protection organisations, collectively representing millions of people.”
Mr Williams added:
“The Coalition constantly defends itself by saying it can’t stand by and do nothing. But it has contributed massively to the problem by delaying much-needed improvements in cattle management. It emphasises the need for biosecurity but doesn’t enforce it, largely ignores evidence that the skin test is allowing a significant level of disease in cattle to go undetected, and is now prepared to give the green light to the slaughter of thousands of mostly healthy, disease-free badgers not to reduce bTB but simply to try to justify an untried, unscientific slaughter method. “It should call off the cull, give the new cattle measures a chance to take effect, and back a targeted programme of badger vaccination. But most importantly the Coalition government should provide the political will to give impetus to cattle vaccination, which has to be the only ultimate solution.”
NOTES
(1) Durham University News http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=16831
(2) BVZS says it believes that there is a need to control the spread of tuberculosis (bTB, Mycobacterium bovis infection) in both cattle and wildlife and continues: “The weight of scientific evidence currently available suggests that this is best achieved through:
* Cattle management methods both on individual farms and through control of movements between farms
* Biosecurity to limit badger cattle interactions * Badger vaccination, and when made available cattle vaccination.
A link to the statement can be found here.