Does this happen, surely not, Police Chief's turning a blind eye to illegal for hunting?

[Orangehorse]

Up until the 1970s there was a TB eradication programme, government run. If there was a case of TB in a herd, all the badger setts for x distance were gassed and the badgers killed. Most of the UK cattle herd was TB free. At one stage the only TB cases were in a small area of Gloucestershire.

Then it was announced that gassing badger was considered inhumane and TB was obviously not really an issue for anyone any more so it all stopped. At some stage badgers became protected so it was illegal to kill them (I suspect but have no proof that some dairy farmers with a badger sett would ensure that they did not have badgers either).The only time that we ever did a TB test was if the neighbouring dairy farmer had a case and he used to buy in a lot of cows from the south west, calve them down and then sell them again, he was a bit of a dealer really.

It was always took all day to do the tests but we never had a case and it was a very rare occurance.

The numbers of herd breakdowns gradually increased over the years, spread outwards within the dairy herds. There are plenty of places in the UK where there are badgers, cattle but no TB to the east and south of the country and far north. But in the south-west counties where there are lots of dairy herds, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and in south wales, the case numbers grew and grew to the point where routine testing was introuced for more and more farms over a larger and larger area. It spread into Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Cheshire.

When a cows tests positive for TB it is taken away and slaughtered even in calf cows. That might represent 100 years of breeding history. There might be 1 or 2 cases or 1/3 of the herd (an organic herd lost over 100 of their cows out of 300 in one test). There is financial compensation for the value of the animal, but no compensation for loss of milk income nor any recognition of whether it is a pedigree animal, it is just a standard amount.

If there is a case of TB on the farm animals cannot be sold as stores to another farm until there have been clear tests. This means that a dairy herd will have to keep all their youngstock, rather than sell them on to other farmers which means housing and feeding them for months, until there have been 2 clear tests.

We have beef cattle, so of all farmers we are the least affected as we can sell our animals even if one has tested positive and has been taken away for slaughter. All animals are pre-movement tested before we buy them. We have to have a licence to buy and move animals onto the farm. We occasionally get letters saying that a herd we have bought from has had a positive TB test, so they come and test the animals we have bought. We have never had a positive case from any of these "cohorts."

So, do badgers give TB to cattle? Most vets believe it where else could it come from? Although they don't like to be quoted. It is not that contagious between cattle, otherwise a whole yard full of cattle would test positive instead of just one or two. We usually have more cases in the autumn after a summer at grass than in the spring after being in all day.

In cattle a TB lesion is encapsulated (read about them in James Herriot) and it is only when a cow is becoming ill with TB that it will spread the disease. Unlike Llamas that can spit TB in their breath. (Learned all that from a Ministry vet one day who was out to check that our vet was doing the job correctly). I think that Llamas do have to be tested, at least it was a proposal in one report.

Human TB is a different strain, but I read somewhere that 1/3 of child deaths in the Victorian era was caused by TB in the milk, before pasturisation.

It is very expensive for the government to have vets running round every day to test 100s of cattle. Since the cull started numbers and cases are reducing, work continues on a vaccine. At the moment the TB test can't distinguish between an infection and a vaccinated animal, hence that is not allowed in the EU although that is being worked on too.

I always wonder what would be the attitude if horses could get TB.

 

[shortstuff99]

Just to add the cull of badgers will now be phased out as a study found that 'frequent trading of cattle and poor biosecurity on farms was severely hampering efforts to tackle the crisis. The scientists said it was highly desirable to move from culling to vaccination of badgers.'

TB loves cramped indoor conditions, many cow herds are kept indoors for multiple months but yet everything is on the badgers?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-out-replaced-vaccinations-bovine-tb-england

 

[palo1]

They are different bacteria palo (M. bovis, v. M. tubercolosis)

It is noticeable how many fewer badgers I see here than the south west, even just counting the dead on the road ones. 15 years ago colleagues were experimentally vaccinating badgers but the biggest issue seemed to be people letting them out of the traps before bloods could be taken.

Now that is interesting esther and not something I was aware of at all. So why, then, forgive me for being confused, is there such an issue with badgers???

 

[palo1]

Just to add the cull of badgers will now be phased out as a study found that 'frequent trading of cattle and poor biosecurity on farms was severely hampering efforts to tackle the crisis. The scientists said it was highly desirable to move from culling to vaccination of badgers.'

TB loves cramped indoor conditions, many cow herds are kept indoors for multiple months but yet everything is on the badgers?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-out-replaced-vaccinations-bovine-tb-england

Yes. I think earlier in the thread I was wondering why badgers too have a disease of 'poverty' but perhaps if it is a different disease that isn't a pertinent question!

 

[ester]

bovis is badgers/cattle/dear etc.
tuberculosis is humans/poverty, I perhaps misunderstood what you meant by poverty in this instance? Other than badgers aren't really symptomatic so for them diseased might not be the right word.

It's a shame we don't seem to have gotten over the issue of discriminating between vaccinated and infected cattle really.

The biggest issue people had with culling was that if you have non-TB badgers on your land and someone shoots them, the risks increase of getting TB badgers on your land instead.

 

[TigerTail]

Badgers, cattle and bTB are an enormous part of my job so I am going to weigh in here!

It is proven scientific fact that badgers pass TB to cattle AND vica versa. The difficulty is cattle are confined to their farm, movements passported and tracked and therefore they and their owners are accountable for any disease spread. As Orangehorse correctly says any +ve cattle are shot, regardless of pregnancy status, and TB drives a huge amount of cost into cattle farming.

Badgers on the other hand roam between 5-7miles a night, excrete the bacteria from every orifice in every sneeze, pee, poo, wound etc. This is due to their unique pathology and is why they are the subject of the cull, as opposed to deer/voles who are terminal hosts. As in they carry it but do not excrete it commonly. A recent study by the University of Edinburgh concluded that badgers are ten times more likely to give TB to cattle than to catch it from them, Woodchester Park if anyone wants to google it.

The issue Esther raises about badgers moving around in cull zones is known as perturbation, and it stems from the early Krebs trials and how they were conducted. This theory has been disproven by ensuring that culls zones have a 'hard border' that badgers are unlikely to cross, thereby stopping reinfection of cattle/ badgers in a cull zone. The recently published Downs report is peer reviewed scientific evidence that culling badgers reduces TB incidents in cattle herds.

The Wildlife and Badger Trusts have been howling hysterically about their 'vaccination' programs, and that the culls cost taxpayer money. Culls are funded by farmers in every aspect, apart from policing - which is only necessary because of militant antis, usually with strong links to hunt sabs, causing criminal damage and threatening people.

The BCG injection which is being trialled in badgers so far shows NO evidence to suggest it can stop a clean badger getting TB or an already infected one passing it on. It may slow the progression of the disease down in the badger, which just means it lives longer to spread it to other badgers in its colony and to surrounding cattle, never mind the moral question of whether we should be purposefully allowing badgers to suffer. The WLT's are also only managing to vaccinate 30 odd a year, which is not even a drop in the ocean with regards their numbers and therefore the spread of disease.

Poverty - you cannot compare a human disease with an animal one, its utterly pointless as there are too many influential factors which are vastly different - pathology to start with! Since Badgers were, rightfully, protected from baiting, their numbers have imploded. This means they are fighting more for food, habitat, mates etc etc all of which contributes to spreading TB. They are decimating hedgehogs, ground nesting birds, bees and wasp nests in soil, and yet are publicised as being the cutest fluffiest thing ever that should be protected at all costs.

For those quoting the Guardian summary of the Governments response to the Godrey Report - please dont! It was the most badly reported upon topic last year as Ag goes, and boy is that saying something. Whilst Eustice said he would like to move away from culling, who wouldnt, he made very clear that culling would go on where epidemiologically necessary. In the Badger Act it even states that badgers can be culled for disease purposes, but no one likes to remember that little fact.

Balance is needed in all things, and sadly where our wildlife is concerned we are failing badly. The worst thing anyone did with TB was make it political and a populist politics game. Sadly now we have lost sight of science and evidence and it mostly seems to be about who can shout loudest with the most emotive tale who is heard - regardless on the impact of cattle and wildlife welfare, nevermind the much bigger picture of our trade status as a country post Brexit.

 

[GSD Woman]

Thank you Orange horse and TigerTail especially for explaining the whole badger TB cattle situation in the UK. The state where I live, Virginia, works to have TB cattle herds. Several years ago a farmer brought in some yearlings from a herd that had had been part of a herd where TB was present. The state vet had to trace and quarantine all exposed cattle and slaughter where necessary.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The Wildlife and Badger Trusts have been howling hysterically about their 'vaccination' programs, and that the culls cost taxpayer money.

Ok, so we know which side of the divide you’re on .

The issue Esther raises about badgers moving around in cull zones is known as perturbation, and it stems from the early Krebs trials and how they were conducted. This theory has been disproven by ensuring that culls zones have a 'hard border' that badgers are unlikely to cross, thereby stopping reinfection of cattle/ badgers in a cull zone.

What would constitute a ‘hard border’?

 

[shortstuff99]

Let's be honest at the end of the day humans don't need to eat cattle, but let's destroy a whole species that was here before us so that we can.

There are loads of studies that show the ineffectiveness of badger culling. They are a native part of the British ecosystem, they're not an invasive species marauding about the countryside.

 

[TigerTail]

Tiddlypom - my sarcasm is aimed entirely at supposed charities such as WLT/ Badger Trusts, who have CEO's on £100k plus salaries, merrily cull other species which threaten their localised projects but have entirely lost the plot where badgers are concerned. They have lied over and over again about the size of vaccination sites, how many badgers they've done, the cost of the cull to the taxpayer etc etc and I think it is appalling as the general public who don't see the goings on some of us do, believe every word they say and naively carry on funding them. The mental health damage individual trusts have done to some farmers is immeasurable - by writing to their neighbours, implying poor husbandry is the cause of bTB when it is not

Hard border - dual carriage way, river, railway. A piece of infrastructure which defines badger territories according to ecologists, rather than county boundaries on maps which oddly enough badgers can't read and adhere to!

Let's be honest at the end of the day humans don't need to eat cattle, but let's destroy a whole species that was here before us so that we can.

There are loads of studies that show the ineffectiveness of badger culling. They are a native part of the British ecosystem, they're not an invasive species marauding about the countryside.

1) The aim of culls is NOT to eradicate badgers. It is to reduce current numbers which will reduce the transmission of disease amongst them and thereby to cattle. It will also mean those remaining have better chance of finding food and habitat without entering the farm yard, on Englands finite soil.

2) Those studies have been superseded by the most recent which is the Downs report. Many previous studies were not peer reviewed, which Down's is, hence it being the blue print from a scientific perspective.

3) Badgers are native yes, so were wolves, lynx, bears etc. All their predators which we have got rid of as the most dominant species to ensure our survival eons ago. Without them being predated their numbers boom and therefore so does disease - we took away the balance of the ecosystem, culling is bringing it back.

 

[shortstuff99]

Tiddlypom - my sarcasm is aimed entirely at supposed charities such as WLT/ Badger Trusts, who have CEO's on £100k plus salaries, merrily cull other species which threaten their localised projects but have entirely lost the plot where badgers are concerned. They have lied over and over again about the size of vaccination sites, how many badgers they've done, the cost of the cull to the taxpayer etc etc and I think it is appalling as the general public who don't see the goings on some of us do, believe every word they say and naively carry on funding them. The mental health damage individual trusts have done to some farmers is immeasurable - by writing to their neighbours, implying poor husbandry is the cause of bTB when it is not

Hard border - dual carriage way, river, railway. A piece of infrastructure which defines badger territories according to ecologists, rather than county boundaries on maps which oddly enough badgers can't read and adhere to!



1) The aim of culls is NOT to eradicate badgers. It is to reduce current numbers which will reduce the transmission of disease amongst them and thereby to cattle. It will also mean those remaining have better chance of finding food and habitat without entering the farm yard, on Englands finite soil.

2) Those studies have been superseded by the most recent which is the Downs report. Many previous studies were not peer reviewed, which Down's is, hence it being the blue print from a scientific perspective.

3) Badgers are native yes, so were wolves, lynx, bears etc. All their predators which we have got rid of as the most dominant species to ensure our survival eons ago. Without them being predated their numbers boom and therefore so does disease - we took away the balance of the ecosystem, culling is bringing it back.

No there are plenty of peer reviewed that say it is ineffective. This one for example https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...s&oq=badger+cull+#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=d3dTFKCu5rwJ

Even without top predators badgers would find a natural balance within the ecosystem, humans don't have to cull them to control them. It's a preferred one but it's not a necessary one. It's a preferred narrative from farmers to push for culling as their livelihood is farming cattle. There is bias on both sides.

 

[suebou]

Let's be honest at the end of the day humans don't need to eat cattle, but let's destroy a whole species that was here before us so that we can.

There are loads of studies that show the ineffectiveness of badger culling. They are a native part of the British ecosystem, they're not an invasive species marauding about the countryside.

Unfortunately, they have no natural predators and the pressure on food supplies means we have allowed the virtual extermination of small rodents, insects and the like. Round here badgers have destroyed farmland, local wooded areas, as well as birds, insects and everything smaller than them! No need to destroy them but a bit of control wouldn’t go amiss!

 

[TigerTail]

Also for anyone under the impression badgers are harmless the below pic is the broken palate of a labrador that came across a badger in his yard and went towards it to say hello, as labs tend to. Twitter thread link for more detail

https://twitter.com/x/status/1304538256831324160

Predating hedgehogs

https://twitter.com/x/status/1272141052573605889

There is a wildlife cam one of a badger diving for moorhens but it wont load

 

[TigerTail]

No there are plenty of peer reviewed that say it is ineffective. This one for example https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=badger+cull+effectiveness&oq=badger+cull+#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=d3dTFKCu5rwJ

Even without top predators badgers would find a natural balance within the ecosystem, humans don't have to cull them to control them. It's a preferred one but it's not a necessary one. It's a preferred narrative from farmers to push for culling as their livelihood is farming cattle. There is bias on both sides.

The link sent me to a google search page with some scholarly articles listed? The ones I skimmed were all dated pre 2015 hence why I said earlier they have been superseded by the 2019 Downs Report. Also any study with Rosie Woodruffes name has lost an enormous amount of credibility in the last couple of years due to her joining in with the Badger Trust and refusing to give anyone any evidence of how her 'vaccinating' badgers via crowdfunding is going. Lots of fluffy words and videos but 0 evidence shown.

Suebou - absolutely - the culls aim for 70% of the population to get the infection figure below R, one we are familiar with since C19. Plenty left to carry on!

 

[shortstuff99]

The link sent me to a google search page with some scholarly articles listed? The ones I skimmed were all dated pre 2015 hence why I said earlier they have been superseded by the 2019 Downs Report. Also any study with Rosie Woodruffes name has lost an enormous amount of credibility in the last couple of years due to her joining in with the Badger Trust and refusing to give anyone any evidence of how her 'vaccinating' badgers via crowdfunding is going. Lots of fluffy words and videos but 0 evidence shown.

Suebou - absolutely - the culls aim for 70% of the population to get the infection figure below R, one we are familiar with since C19. Plenty left to carry on!

This was the study from 2018 so I would say pretty relevant.

Also no one has said that they are all cute and fluffy, but they deserve to not be killed just for humans to be able to eat meat. I've looked into claims about them decimating the wildlife before, and of all the studies I've looked at most say that they do not. That their diet is up to 80% earth worms and they will only take small mammals/birds if necessary. I think there are a lot more issues affecting British wildlife then too many badgers.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Also for anyone under the impression badgers are harmless the below pic is the broken palate of a labrador that came across a badger in his yard and went towards it to say hello, as labs tend to. Twitter thread link for more detail

I don’t think anyone thinks they are harmless? They are formidable beasts.

You are defending/advocating the badger cull rather aggressively. A more measured approach is more likely to win people round to your viewpoint. You aren’t doing your employers(?) many favours.

 

[GSD Woman]

This is all interesting. I just watched a "60 Minutes" segment on Grizzly bears in Montana. The bears destroy crops and livestock but are protected under federal law. Grizzlies are relocated if they are a danger to humans and killed if they keep coming back. Somehow my brain is linking this to the TB threat that badgers make to cattle in the UK.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

Also for anyone under the impression badgers are harmless the below pic is the broken palate of a labrador that came across a badger in his yard and went towards it to say hello, as labs tend to. Twitter thread link for more detail

https://twitter.com/x/status/1304538256831324160

Predating hedgehogs

https://twitter.com/x/status/1272141052573605889

There is a wildlife cam one of a badger diving for moorhens but it wont load

Not sure what the point of this post is in relation to the thread - of course a badger will defend itself when threatened! Just as any other animal would. I don't see any comments on here suggesting that badgers are harmless.

 

[palo1]

Badgers, cattle and bTB are an enormous part of my job so I am going to weigh in here!

It is proven scientific fact that badgers pass TB to cattle AND vica versa. The difficulty is cattle are confined to their farm, movements passported and tracked and therefore they and their owners are accountable for any disease spread. As Orangehorse correctly says any +ve cattle are shot, regardless of pregnancy status, and TB drives a huge amount of cost into cattle farming.

Badgers on the other hand roam between 5-7miles a night, excrete the bacteria from every orifice in every sneeze, pee, poo, wound etc. This is due to their unique pathology and is why they are the subject of the cull, as opposed to deer/voles who are terminal hosts. As in they carry it but do not excrete it commonly. A recent study by the University of Edinburgh concluded that badgers are ten times more likely to give TB to cattle than to catch it from them, Woodchester Park if anyone wants to google it.

The issue Esther raises about badgers moving around in cull zones is known as perturbation, and it stems from the early Krebs trials and how they were conducted. This theory has been disproven by ensuring that culls zones have a 'hard border' that badgers are unlikely to cross, thereby stopping reinfection of cattle/ badgers in a cull zone. The recently published Downs report is peer reviewed scientific evidence that culling badgers reduces TB incidents in cattle herds.

The Wildlife and Badger Trusts have been howling hysterically about their 'vaccination' programs, and that the culls cost taxpayer money. Culls are funded by farmers in every aspect, apart from policing - which is only necessary because of militant antis, usually with strong links to hunt sabs, causing criminal damage and threatening people.

The BCG injection which is being trialled in badgers so far shows NO evidence to suggest it can stop a clean badger getting TB or an already infected one passing it on. It may slow the progression of the disease down in the badger, which just means it lives longer to spread it to other badgers in its colony and to surrounding cattle, never mind the moral question of whether we should be purposefully allowing badgers to suffer. The WLT's are also only managing to vaccinate 30 odd a year, which is not even a drop in the ocean with regards their numbers and therefore the spread of disease.

Poverty - you cannot compare a human disease with an animal one, its utterly pointless as there are too many influential factors which are vastly different - pathology to start with! Since Badgers were, rightfully, protected from baiting, their numbers have imploded. This means they are fighting more for food, habitat, mates etc etc all of which contributes to spreading TB. They are decimating hedgehogs, ground nesting birds, bees and wasp nests in soil, and yet are publicised as being the cutest fluffiest thing ever that should be protected at all costs.

For those quoting the Guardian summary of the Governments response to the Godrey Report - please dont! It was the most badly reported upon topic last year as Ag goes, and boy is that saying something. Whilst Eustice said he would like to move away from culling, who wouldnt, he made very clear that culling would go on where epidemiologically necessary. In the Badger Act it even states that badgers can be culled for disease purposes, but no one likes to remember that little fact.

Balance is needed in all things, and sadly where our wildlife is concerned we are failing badly. The worst thing anyone did with TB was make it political and a populist politics game. Sadly now we have lost sight of science and evidence and it mostly seems to be about who can shout loudest with the most emotive tale who is heard - regardless on the impact of cattle and wildlife welfare, nevermind the much bigger picture of our trade status as a country post Brexit.

Apologies for my horrible highlighting here @TigerTail but this is what I meant by 'poverty'; overcrowding, food and territory stress etc. Thank you for making that clearer. It is horribly frustrating trying to explain to people that allowing any animal's numbers to outgrow their resources or to disturb the balance of predation etc results in poorer conditions for many other things within an ecosystem. Thank you for this post too

 

[Rowreach]

This is all interesting. I just watched a "60 Minutes" segment on Grizzly bears in Montana. The bears destroy crops and livestock but are protected under federal law. Grizzlies are relocated if they are a danger to humans and killed if they keep coming back. Somehow my brain is linking this to the TB threat that badgers make to cattle in the UK.

It's a lot easier to relocate a grizzly bear in a state the size of Montana in a country the size of the USA though, than it is to relocate badgers in, say, Surrey.

 

[Goldenstar]

I can guarantee that badger did not attack that dog unless it was cornered .
they always back away, we have badgers here I never let anyone go where they live it’s there haven they where before us and I hope they will be here after .
People would be better advised teaching their dogs not to chase wildlife rather than blaming the wild animal .

 

[ester]

This is all interesting. I just watched a "60 Minutes" segment on Grizzly bears in Montana. The bears destroy crops and livestock but are protected under federal law. Grizzlies are relocated if they are a danger to humans and killed if they keep coming back. Somehow my brain is linking this to the TB threat that badgers make to cattle in the UK.

Some friends across the pond once asked me if we had bears.
Badgers was the closest I could come up with

 

[Goldenstar]

I saw a wild bear once in Turkey wonderful I was happily in a car .

 

[Tiddlypom]

The BVA do not support the controlled shooting of badgers, which is the most common method used in the cull. They do currently support the less common cage trapping of badgers and their subsequent shooting.


BVA statement from October 2019, after publication of the Downs Report.

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/news-article/bva-responds-to-downs-study-on-badger-culling/

“BVA’s expert working group is currently considering all aspects of disease control looking at cattle testing, removal of reactors, compensation and control in other farmed animals as well as the culling and vaccination of badgers. The group will consider this additional evidence as we develop our new policy on bTB.

’We continue to support a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to tackling bTB, including the use of badger culling where there is a demonstrated need and where it is done safely, humanely and effectively as part of a comprehensive strategy. The best way of halting the spread of this devastating disease is enhancing our understanding of bTB and applying that evidence to the eradication process.”

 

[Rowreach]

Some friends across the pond once asked me if we had bears.
Badgers was the closest I could come up with

Somebody will probably suggest reintroducing them.

 

[Bob notacob]

It's a lot easier to relocate a grizzly bear in a state the size of Montana in a country the size of the USA though, than it is to relocate badgers in, say, Surrey.

Not in surrey please ,we have thousands of the feckers. I am keaping a tally of road kill ,Badgers v foxes, badgers are leading 3 to one . 20 years ago I had never seen a badger around here.

 

[emilylou]

Somebody will probably suggest reintroducing them.

I would love it if we could reintroduce bears, wolves and other historic native species and return Britain to the way it was years ago but the enormous changes to our land management and way of life that would be required to make it possible are just never going to happen on our small, overpopulated island.

The changes to Yellowstone after the reintroduction of wolves is fascinating.

But we are not a giant national park.