badger cull

NFU story 3. Another classic example of a bad news and divisive issue affecting people’s perceptions of rural England. Owen Patterson is going to make sure the badger cull sticks this summer. Government persists in saying this must happen but has still not simply explained to the national majority exactly why. I suspect for most people earnest drives to do things like this seem like hearing the middle of a passionate argument, without fully understanding the justification for the views given. Once we start to get pictures of piles of dead badgers in the press I suspect there will be some earnest reflection on how well the justification for the policy has been communicated. I dont have a closed mind to this issue personally, I know it is complicated, but I along with millions of others would like to fully understand the options and decisions. As this article reports at the NFU conference:

Mr Paterson said: ”Bovine TB is spreading at an alarming rate and causing real devastation to our beef and dairy industry. ” 

He said Natural England issued authorisation letters which confirmed culling could proceed this summer, as an important step towards taking the action needed to tackle the spread of TB in wildlife.

“I am determined that there are no further delays this year. That is why we have taken the sensible step with the farming industry to elect a reserve area that can be called upon should anything happen to prevent culling in Somerset or Gloucester.

“These pilot culls are just one part of our approach to control and eradicate this dreadful disease.”

The move was welcomed by National Farmers’ Union president Peter Kendall who said it would have been easy for the Environment Secretary to let TB slip down the list of priorities after last year’s delay.

He backed Mr Paterson for working to ensure that the pilots were up and running this summer and that there would be a full roll-out of the cull next year.

The move was criticised by Labour, which has consistently opposed a badger cull.

Shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh said: “The Government is pressing ahead with a badger cull despite 150 000 people signing a petition against it last year and scientists warning against this ‘untested and risky approach’.”

The latest installment in the badger cull story. This issue is not going away for a long time potentially creating lots of negative press for the wider farming community. The article below suggests something of a country file conspiracy (weird thought) although there is no getting away from the results of a vote encompassing over 100,000 viewers.

With the cull in West Somerset and West Gloucestershire only weeks away, the Corporation has found itself facing questions about its impartiality in a debate which has triggered strong feelings on both sides.

The photograph of the badger taken by Dave Foker, a viewer, made the shortlist of 12 in a competition to choose pictures for the 2013 calendar to represent a programme with a regular audience of more than five million viewers.

Viewers, who were asked to choose which of the shots should be used for the calendar cover.

While they chose the badger, the judges – including the presenter John Craven – preferred a picture of a rainbow.

One farmer, David Minish, turned to twitter to voice his distaste at the choice. “The cover of your new calendar is unfortunately themed. As cute as badgers may be to your viewers TB is destroying lives.”

Jan Rowe, a farmer running Gloscon, the company which will carry out the shooting in Gloucestershire questioned the wisdom of choosing the picture.

“Given the circumstances and the current situation, I would have thought it was marginally provocative,” he said.

“If it was a staggeringly beautiful picture, I would understand. But if there was an underlying motive behind the choice, I would have a grumble.”

Mike Henson was also unimpressed. “I think that Badger Is dead and stuffed. Badgers just don’t walk down country lanes in the sunshine!”

Adam Quinney, the vice president of the National Farmers Union, was also surprised. “It did raise an eyebrow that they had chosen it, though it is a good picture.

“Of course we are not anti badger, we are anti TB.”

However the choice was hailed by those opposing the cull which could eventually see as many as 100,000 animals killed as part of a drive to prevent bovine TB spreading to cattle herds.

As I have predicted in recent weeks things are building, as this story demonstrates, to a crescendo around the badger question and the Police are already beginning to feel worn out

Police officers could become exhausted because they cannot book any more leave this year as a result of the imminent badger cull, it has been claimed.

Gloucestershire Police said it would not be authorising any further time off before January in anticipation of expected clashes between farmers, marksmen and animal rights activists.

But the Gloucestershire Police Federation said it was concerned officers could become tired, which could lead to mistakes and accidents.

Chairman Tracy De Young told the Gloucestershire Echo: “Officers are becoming increasingly fatigued due to the lack of rest.

“We are concerned that as fatigue takes hold, mistakes will be made and accidents will occur.

“Officers will continue to do their very best for the communities we serve, but I am afraid that this will lead to a reduced service, a dip in performance and could lead to increased levels of complaints.”

She added that officers had also been unable to book leave this summer due to London 2012 and there was already an increase in sickness.

I have to admit to the cunning underpinning this story appealing to me. It tells us:

Natural England issued a licence for farmers to shoot badgers in West Gloucestershire last week. A cull in West Somerset is expected to get the go-ahead this week.

Farmers argue that the cull will stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis, a cattle disease that is carried by badgers.

However the policy has caused public outcry. Brian May, the former guitar player with Queen and animal rights activist, has called on consumers to boycott milk from the farms involved.

Now Gavin Grant, the Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, has called for ‘badger-friendly’ labels on milk.

He said the labels could be displayed on dairy products that are guaranteed not to be from farms where the cull is being carried out.

I can see however how such an approach is deeply flawed from a practical perspective whilst being a publicity masterstroke. What about farmers in the geographies concerned who aren’t involved in the cull? What about the arguments in favour of the cull? Although I think the reasons advanced on Farming Today this morning were not well argued and patronisingly put by MP they featured.

This story will colour views of rural England as a place mired in strife for weeks and months to come. Is the fuss being created a good reason to discontinue plans for the cull in its own right? If not, as with many rural story lines, should the arguments not be much better rehearsed?

The battle lines are drawn. I suspect months of controversial and difficult news for rural England as this article tells us:

A challenge to culls which will kill thousands of badgers has failed at the Court of Appeal. The Badger Trust had attacked Mr Justice Ouseley’s decision in July to uphold government proposals for two pilot culls to tackle tuberculosis in cattle: one in West Gloucestershire and the other in West Somerset.

The Trust says that killing badgers will make no meaningful contribution to tackling the disease, which has been described as the most pressing animal health problem in the UK. It claims that the scheme could lead to 40,000 animals being “pointlessly killed” over the next four years

I predicted last year there would be many tears before bedtime before the controversial issue of badger culling was concluded. It has now stimulated direct action from badger supporters. These sort of stories perpetuate the myth of the countryside as a backwards and heartless place, where farmers put profit over compassion. We all know this is bunkum but neither, it seems to me in this case, is the evidence for culling as the solution completely unequivocal. This is a complex and horrible issue and I fear it will have an ongoing role in dividing opinions unhelpfully about who should really exercise stewardship over our rural land mass. The article tells us:

“A government plan to slaughter thousands of the country’s best-loved wild animals was always going to be controversial. But the long-awaited badger cull, aimed at stopping the spread of tuberculosis in cattle, now looks set to provoke a campaign of direct action by animal rights activists not seen since the heyday of the fox hunt saboteurs.

Yesterday it emerged that activists working for an organisation called the Coalition of Badger Action Groups (CBAG), have publicised the names, addresses and telephone numbers of farmers involved in organising a trial of the cull due to begin in the West Country this autumn. Followers of the group were urged to contact the farmers to “let them know” their views on the cull.

Although activists said their intention was not to “harass” the people targeted, farmers say they have been “intimidated and frightened” by the move. One of the addresses belonged to a Bed and Breakfast managed by the wife of a farmer involved. Her mobile phone number was also published.”

Farmers tell me that there is no real alternative to killing thousands of badgers. There are clearly different views in some parts of the animal welfare community. The two quotes which follow set out the battle lines.

“Bovine TB is a chronic and insidious disease which is having a devastating impact on farmers. Unless further action is taken now it will continue to get worse,” Spelman said. “There is great strength of feeling on this issue and no one wants to see badgers culled. But at present there is no satisfactory alternative.” She said farmers, who will pay part of the cost of the culls, would have to apply to Natural England for licences and the marksmen used would require special shooting permits.

“Badger culling has become a costly distraction from the important business of controlling cattle TB. The culling is expected to achieve, at best, a 16% reduction in cattle TB,” said Rosie Woodroffe, a badger ecologist at the Institute of Zoology in London and who worked for decade on the largest ever UK study of badger culling. “It is likely to cost farmers more than they save, and there is a serious concern that such culling will make cattle TB worse rather than better.”

I have never fully understood when it comes to challenges such as TB and for that matter foot and mouth, why (particularly in view of it being a practice in other countries) vaccination is never seriously considered. Perhaps I am too much of a “townie” What I do know, is, that issues like this demonstrate, lest any of us should forget it, that in the often ruthless world of food and farming there is little, if no room, for sentiment.

This article brings us up to speed with progress on this, the most controversial animal welfare issue in the countryside since fox hunting. it explains:

“Under the plans, farmers will be allowed to come together in syndicates to organise culls, at their own expense, over substantial areas of at least 150 squares kilometres, and lasting at least four years. The aim will be to cull at least 70 per cent of the badgers in a given area; the killing will be done by specially trained marksmen with high-powered rifles.

After further discussions on the licensing arrangements over the next few weeks, two pilot schemes next summer will test that the shooting method is effective, humane and safe for the public, and if it is given the go-ahead by an independent panel, widespread culling could begin next year or possibly in 2013.”

Lets hope we can focus on the rounded pros and cons of the issues here and not get hung up on a badger vs farmers dialogue which emasculates the real arguments on both sides of the debate. There is an interesting wider theme here about the relationship between farming and conservation and just what the countryside is for. It has a still wider application stretching from food and farming through rural affordable housing, to the justifications for green belt.

It exposes the issues at the heart of our bucolic image of the countryside setting out the practical tensions between the countryside “of the mind” and the tough practicalities of living and working in rural England.

A badger cull in Wales to curb tuberculosis in cattle could finally be launched, according to this article in The Guardian.

The controversial cull was delayed last year after wildlife campaigners won a legal battle over previous plans, but rural affairs minister Elin Jones has always intended to press ahead – mainly in north Pembrokeshire – despite recognising what she called the “genuine concern” of opponents.

About 1,400 of the estimated 35,000 badgers in Wales are likely to be trapped and shot by contractors, the government has said previously, while insisting population levels would recover. TB-infected badgers are seen as prime conduits for TB in cattle, prompting Queen guitarist Brian May to attack “an apparently insatiable lust to take revenge” on the animals” .

All of this reminds us that rural England (and Wales for that matter) is as much a place for tough choices as a rural idyll. I was in West Wales today talking through the development of Pembrokeshire Produce Direct – a really innovative supply chain initiative – and I was actually talking to a local producer about the impact of West Wales as a cattle TB hotspot on the viability of his business, so it was interesting to get home and read this.

What are your views on the pros and cons of the intended cull? And while you are thinking about this, it is worth speculating on how many badgers are killed by traffic each year?