A European Badger (Picture: BadgerHero/Wikipedia)
A Bristol MP has vowed to fight the government’s decision to allow the culling of badgers in two pilot areas in the UK to combat bovine TB.
Kerry McCarthy, the Bristol East MP, said the decision was not “science-led”, adding the environment secretary appeared to have made up her mind on a cull regardless of “the science, its effectiveness, humaneness or cost”.
Conservative minister Caroline Spelman told Parliament a vaccine for the disease would take too long to develop and it was difficult to administer to wild badgers, which needed to be trapped first. Culling could reduce the incidence of bovine TB – which has blighted farms in the South West and is spreading towards the Midlands – by 10%, she suggested.
Farmers and landowners will be invited to bid to run the trials. They will then be responsible for training marksmen to kill the badgers. Mrs Spelman said the pilot scheme would be judged on its “effectiveness, humaneness and safety”.
But Ms McCarthy said that while the disease, which is believed to be spread by badgers to cattle, caused “distress to farmers and local communities in affected areas”, vaccination programmes had been cut by the government within weeks of coming to office.
“I completely oppose the Government’s plans to allow farmers to apply for licences to shoot badgers on their land, in a bid to curb bovine TB,” she said.
“Bovine TB is a terrible disease that costs us £90 million a year in testing and compensation for farmers, and causes distress to farmers and local communities in affected areas. But the licensed free shooting of badgers will not help, as it is not science-led. The policy of free shooting has never been properly tested before, yet the Government will make a decision after just six weeks whether to roll the policy out more widely.
“I believe that the only viable option, as well as the most humane, is a vaccination programme. The Secretary of State presented culling as the only option available, saying that approved vaccines were ‘years away’. But if she had really considered this option, she would not have cancelled five out of the six vaccination trials started by Labour, just two months after coming into office.
“It appears she has made up her mind to go ahead with this policy – regardless of the science, its effectiveness, humanness or cost.”
The farmers’ union and vets’ leaders welcomed the move, saying it was “undisputed science” that killing badgers was effective but that controlled shooting had to be tested as a method.
But the Humane Society International said it would submit a formal complaint to the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. It said the cull lacked “legitimate purpose”, posed a significant threat to badger populations and that ministers had failed to examine alternatives.
Just like to say well said and done Kerry McCarthy MP. Sadly I doubt that the government are listening to the alternatives though.
Conservative minister Caroline Spelman told Parliament a vaccine for the disease would take too long to develop and it was difficult to administer to wild badgers…
Pardon my ignorance, but as it's cattle that are the main victims of bovine TB (the clue's in the name), wouldn't the government do better to develop a TB vaccine for administration to cattle?
As it is, I feel ashamed by the government's attitude to a so-called protected species. It's only protected as long as it doesn't interfere with the greater priority of making money, particularly as in the government's twisted logic, ammunition to shoot badgers is cheaper than developing an effective vaccine.
As I understand it, administering the vaccine to cattle would affect their value in terms of meat/milk – hence the reason why the vaccine is targeted at badgers
Exactly the same 'excuse' is given by Defra for not administering a vaccine to cloven-hoofed beasts for foot and mouth disease. However, European farmers do administer a foot and mouth vaccine to their beasts.
According to DEFRA, breaking EU law by vaccinating domestic cattle could include reputational damage, loss of EU funding for the UK's TB eradication programme(€27m in 2010), loss of exports to the EU in both live cattle (negligible) and cattle products (£375m in 2010) and infraction proceedings for which the minimum penalty is now set at €10m.
In response to the following follow-up enquiry to DEFRA
Would you by any chance be able to give any insight into whether or not the loss of EU trade in cattle products is likely to be partial or 100%?
the response was
Intra-Community trade of bovine animals and products is harmonized across the European Union, so we could expect any ban to apply to trade with all other Member states.
Ah an easy soundbite but a lack of a real alternative. No suprise really.