Badger Cull

Your chance to discuss or ask questions about any wildlife/nature/environmental issues.

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Tombstone » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:06 pm

Eryri said" 4...The quote ‘a badger cull will not meaningfully contribute to the control of bovine TB’ from the ISG report is often miss-quoted in it's truncated form. The correct quote from the ISG report starts with 'including consideration of an economic assessment, badger cull will not meaningfully contribute to the control of bovine TB’.
You appear to have also mis quoted: This is doing no good for your "credibility quotient"
Here it is
ISG Overall conclusion (Chapter 10 - p181)

"10.92 Our overall conclusion is that after careful consideration of all the RBCT and other
data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, that badger culling cannot
meaningfully contribute to the control of cattle TB in Britain.
10.93 We further conclude from the scientific evidence available, that the rigorous
application of heightened control measures directly targeting cattle will reverse the yearon-
year increase in the incidence of cattle TB and halt the geographical spread of the
disease."
Tombstone
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby dolmen » Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:27 am

To be fair page 14 of the ISG report does include:
9. After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.


But yes, Eryri is making a clear error in trying to 'correct' others on this point.
dolmen
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:17 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Eryri » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:20 pm

dolmen wrote:
If you are claiming that there is a significant difference between the number of cattle slaughtered as reactors and the figure given in the disclosure, you really do need to back that assertion with hard evidence. The data requested was "the number of animals slaughtered under bovine TB control measures" and I think you'll find you are pretty much alone in thinking that the TBIS database is an inaccurate source for this figure.



There is a significant 'lag' in the statistic on 'compensation' as that of 'slaughtered'. This is because of the way in which compensation in Wales is awarded. The compensation award can take many months to conclude, as in Wales it is tied to the cattle testing regime. If the animal has recently been tested, it attracts the full rate, however, a testing lag on 60days, 50% of compensation value, 90days from test. 25% of compensation value. It also depends on breed and pedigree of the destroyed animal. The FoI request you quote actually tells you the number of animals where the compensation process has been finalised for 2010 as at February 2011. It is approximately half the number that were actually slaughtered. It is why the FoI request was worded (by the good doctor-smallholder) to deliberately solicit the reduced figure.

I am not alone in identifying this discrepancy, Defra attach a cautionary note to the statistic pointing out this fact. There is a difference in the compensation regime in Wales where It is linked to compliance on movement controls and the testing regime.

dolmen wrote:
The claim that not all cattle slaughtered as reactors attract compensation is also an extraordinary one - if any significant number of cattle were being slaughtered without any compensation, they would have heard the farmers' howls of complaint in New York! :D Nor is there any reason why that would influence the IAA more than the rest of Dyfed.



Not only does any cow slaughtered with bTB in Wales that has not undergone, or booked, a reactor test will attreact NO compensation. The farmer will actually recieve a prosecution under the cattle control order legislation. The queue for this is at Carmarthen magistrates court.
Eryri
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Eryri » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:24 pm

dolmen wrote: but of course total compensation paid is at best an approximate measure of the numbers of cattle slaughtered.


No. That is not true.
The sum payable in compensation for each animal (by class) slaughtered, has actually been reduced in Wales.
Eryri
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Eryri » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:31 pm

dolmen wrote:
So the 'trial' in Gloucester is in fact more of a pilot scheme - building up a force of trained lay vaccinators, and working out the logistics of widespread vaccination. Other trials are also being run by the Gloucester Wildlife Trust and by the National Trust - and a private company is already offering vaccination services, I have no idea how many clients they have.



You may wish to note that while the National Trust (and the wildlife trust) in Gloucestershire is conducting a vaccination trial, It is also conducting a cull of wild boar in the Forest of Dean.
Eryri
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Eryri » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:44 pm

dolmen wrote:
How is it known? Please give a reference. If anything lower levels of roadkill badgers in the IAA would indicate a lower badger population there.



The reference can be seen in the form of road signs on the A55 erected by the Highways Agency Wales. They are signs of a badger in a red triangle, with the caption "Danger Badgers - Perygl mochyn daear. It's an accident blackspot for motorists who hit the badgers on the road. No such warning signs exist on the lanes around Crymych inside the IAA. It is blindingly obvious that the number of badgers killed on the road is proportionate to the proximity of main trunk roads. volume of traffic, and the speed of the vehicles. We do not have 'suicide badgers' in Wales. They are mainly found dead as a result of impact with road vehicles. This is not a measure of badger density, more like a measure of speed camera density.
Eryri
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Eryri » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:58 pm

dolmen wrote:So there were far fewer actual positive reactors in the IAA in 2010 (as shown above) but an increase in new herd breakdowns. So less TB, but more scattered.


EXACTLY !!

There is no (or negligible) cross contamination between herds as a result of movement controls and rigorous pre-movement testing. The reduction in positive reactors within a herd is a measure of good bio-security controls, and swift slaughter of an infected animal. Farmers should be commended for this.

However, as there is NEW outbreaks in herds that are isolated by movement controls, they are being infected by some other vector.
Hint : Badgers.
Eryri
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Tombstone » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:41 pm

Could the new outbreaks be due to any or all of the following:
1.The practice of Ear tag swapping by some farmers,(see recent court case in Wales)
2.Poor biosecurity at Carmarthen ,Cardigan and Whitland markets (see recent newspaper articles)
3."false negatives " left in herds resulting from limitations of the skin test.(Defra)
Any others?
Tombstone
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby Eryri » Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:59 pm

I have been asked to provide evidence relating to 'badger population density' and also 'prevalence of bTB in badgers', in Wales.
Here are the links..
http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/disease/bovinetuberculosis/researchandevidence/badgerdensities/?lang=en
http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/publications/110304annex2en.pdf
I have also include the IAA map for the proposed badger cull. This perfectly illustrates the 'perturbation boundaries' of the Irish Sea, Teifi estuary, and Preseli mountains.
;)

Note : Farmers wear anoraks as an occupational requirement.
:lol:
Eryri
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: Badger Cull

Postby heather » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:19 pm

Hi all,

Sorry - I'm going to have to temporarily lock this discussion while we sort out a few issues.

Please remember that this is a website provided free of charge and we cannot carry any posts that may be legally jeopardising.

Please do feel free to post on other topics. I hope you continue to enjoy the BBC Wildlife Magazine website.

Thanks,
Heather
heather
Site Admin
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:30 am

Previous

Return to Wildlife Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron