Badger culling in the United Kingdom
DEFRA compensates farmers for culled cattle, paying between £82 (for a young calf) and £1,543 (for a breeding bull), with higher values for pedigree animals, ranging up to £5,267.
[10] Prior to the 2012/13 badger cull, the government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) stated that badger control was needed because "...we still need to tackle TB in order to support high standards of animal health and welfare, to promote sustainable beef and dairy sectors, to meet EU legal and trade requirements and to reduce the cost and burden on farmers and taxpayers.
DEFRA compensates farmers for culled cattle, paying between £82 (for a young calf) and £1,543 (for a breeding bull), with higher values for pedigree animals, ranging up to £5,267.
[18] The risk of humans contracting bTB from milk is extremely low if certain precautions are taken, and scientists have argued that badger culling is unnecessary.
[26] Under the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the culling of badgers is only permitted as part of a bTB reduction strategy if no satisfactory alternative exists.
[45] In summary, the report argued that it would be more cost effective to improve cattle control measures, with zoning and supervision of herds, than it would be to cull badgers.
[10] In 2007, the final results of the trials, conducted by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, were submitted to David Miliband, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
According to the report: Detailed evaluation of RBCT and other scientific data highlight the limitations of badger culling as a control measure for cattle TB.
While many other approaches to culling can be considered, available data suggest that none is likely to generate benefits substantially greater than those recorded in the RBCT, and many are likely to cause detrimental effects.
The report also stated that the financial costs of culling an idealized 150 km2 area would exceed the savings achieved through reduced bTB by factors of 2,0 to 3.5.
The incoming DEFRA Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, began her Bovine TB Eradication Programme for England, which she described as "a science-led cull of badgers in the worst-affected areas".
A DEFRA statement,[55] published in October 2012, stated, "The aim of this monitoring is to test the assumption that controlled shooting is a humane culling technique."
[57] I wish there was some other practical way of dealing with this, but we can’t escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in areas worst affected by bovine TB.
On 19 July 2011, Caroline Spelman, then the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced the government response to the consultation.
However, the Secretary of State for Environment, Owen Paterson, announced in a statement to Parliament on 23 October 2012 that a cull would be postponed until 2013[58] with a wide range of reasons given.
[70] Farming Minister David Heath admitted in correspondence with Lord Krebs that the cull would "not be able to statistically determine either the effectiveness (in terms of badgers removed) or humaneness of controlled shooting".
The best informed independent scientific experts agree that culling on a large, long-term, scale will yield modest benefits, and that it is likely to make things worse before they get better.
[76] The Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) concluded, "the form and duration of badger social perturbation is still poorly understood and significant changes to our assumption may alter the order of preference [of the proposed options].
Culling also risks being ineffective or making the disease situation worse, if it is conducted partially (because of low compliance) or ineffectually (because of disruption or poor co-ordination) or it is stopped early (because of licensing issues).
[78] The British Veterinary Association say that data collected from research in other countries suggest that the control of the disease in farms has only been successfully carried out by dealing with both cattle and wild reservoirs of infection.
[79] In practice it is very difficult to quantify the contribution any wildlife reservoir has to the spread of bovine tuberculosis, since culling is usually carried out alongside cattle control measures (using "all the tools in the tool box" approach): "From Australian experience, government has learnt that elimination of a wildlife host (feral water buffalo) needs to be followed by a long and extensive programme of cattle testing, slaughter, movement control, and public awareness campaigns before bTB is eventually eradicated.
In both Australia and New Zealand, government was dealing with feral reservoirs of bTB rather than indigenous wildlife species, as is the case with the badger in this country" Wilsmore, A.J.
He also suggests that domestic pets will be at risk in the cull areas, as some farmers will mistake black and white cats and dogs for badgers.
He is reported as saying that a huge number of badgers would have to be killed to make a difference and while it is cheap and easy to exterminate animals in the early days of a cull, it gets harder and more expensive as time goes on.
On 20 May 2014, the Badger Trust applied for a judicial review of this policy in the High Court, claiming that Paterson unlawfully failed to put into place an independent expert panel to oversee the process.
[85] In response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Humane Society International (HSI) UK, DEFRA said that for nearly a year, it had been conducting initial investigations into carbon monoxide gas dispersal in badger sett-like structures.
[86] In June 2015, the National Trust, one of the largest landowners in the UK, stated it would not be allowing badger cullers onto their land until the results of all 4 years of pilot trials were known.
The police were called and the saboteurs pointed out that under government guidelines, trapped badgers should be released if a risk of interference from a third party existed.
Gloucestershire police confirmed the standoff, which it said was resolved peacefully – adding the decision to release the badger was made by a contractor working for the cull operator.
"[92] On 26 June 2024, Steve Reed (Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) said the Labour Party would no longer be looking to end the badger cull immediately if they win the upcoming General Election.
