Badger Culling In Britain

Print   

02 Nov 2017

Disclaimer:
This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

To say that badger culling is a controversial issue in Britain is an understatement. Increasingly over the past 200 years, the existence of the animal has been by and large been determined by man's attitude towards them as opposed to their ability to adapt to the changing conditions of the environment around them (Ernest 1977, p.271). The most recent issue that has arisen in Britain concerning badgers is that of bovine Tuberculosis (TB). The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) produced a report (MAFF 1994, p.1) that denotes in 1992 there were a total of 197 breakdowns of cattle herds in Britain which significantly increased to 320 in 1993. As will be discussed, there is scientific evidence to demonstrate that there is a direct link between bovine TB in badgers which directly affects disease in cattle, meaning the cattle have to be killed. This is clearly then a contested issue, with many parties are involved: the Government is needed to make policies, farmers are directly affected due to cattle loss, scientific evidence is needed, conservationists and charities are naturally concerned for the welfare for the animals. This essay will discuss the badger cull in Britain in reference to many of the groups concerned to determine the likelihood of the future of the badger.

Background and Scientific Evidence

Naturally to understand the issue fully, it is important to give an account of the background issues surrounding badgers in Britain in relation to scientific evidence. The first case of bovine TB in badgers was diagnosed in 1971 in which a dead badger found in Gloucestershire was examined and found to have died of an advanced from of the disease (Ernest 1977, p.258). As Muirhead and Burn (1974, p. 528) discovered after this first case, there was a clear connection between infected badgers and the infected cattle. This data suggested that the connection meant that the badgers were a significant pool of tuberculosis which causes a problem for farmers and their cattle. Tuberculosis can be spread in various ways (for example biting) so the risk of infection is relatively high for both badgers and cattle which means that over the past century and more, bovine TB has showed no signs of disappearing from badgers in Britain; this has showed in statistics. For example, Ernest (1977, p.259) depicts that over 30 years from 1946, reliable data estimated 18% of all cattle in Britain and up to 35% of all cows were infected with bovine TB.

Studies have been undertaken to see whether the badger is the cause of the bovine TB in cattle. The South-West of England demonstrated a 0.091% of reactors to bovine TB in cattle after a slaughtering of reactors to the TB test which was higher than the rest of Britain, leading to a suspicion that other wildlife may be responsible for the disease. Animals such as foxes, rats, moles, weasels and various birds were tested of which 10 animals from 1344 showed a positive result to the TB test yet none of which were progressive, meaning they were not infected. This scientific study then shows that badgers are likely to be passing on the disease as opposed to other animals. The reasons for which are:

Firstly, and most obviously, under experimental conditions infected badgers have been proven to transmit the disease both to other badgers and cows which has not been proven by any other infected animal. Secondly, cases have demonstrated that many of the cows that have contracted the disease have been reared with other disease free cattle but have been exposed to grazing pastures which are significant distances away from the disease free farm. Finally, in studying these factors, statistics show that there is a strong correlation between the areas where herds breakdown and areas where high numbers of badgers are present which are known to have diseased specimens. It must be noted too however that despite the evidence showing that there is a strong relation between badgers infecting cattle, there are also instances of study that demonstrate that in some areas, even though there are known diseased badgers, there is still no breakdown in the cattle.

Studies show that the infection may spread through a badgers faeces and urine, creating a greater risk of infection, This may cause the grass to be contaminated and this is how cattle can become infected. It was found that the majority of bovine TB infected badgers are in the South-West of England and in 1992, 121 new herds were reported to be infected with the disease (MAFF, 1994, p.3). In 1993, 205 badgers were found to be infected with bovine TB in the South-West of the country, compared to 0 in the entire of the rest of the country.

The scientific evidence given denotes clearly that the badgers in Britain are contractors of the bovine TB disease and have been proven to spread it to cattle herds in the country. Evidence suggests that the main areas of issue are in the South-West of England showing a great need to focus on this area. The sections that follow demonstrate the views and actions of the different parties involved with the proposed culling of badgers in Britain today.

British Farmers

It is imperative to start the discussion with farmers around Britain. It is undeniably clear that cattle farmers are directly impacted by the disease as their cattle has to be slaughtered to prevent the disease spreading any further. As Harvey (2013) discusses, Owen Paterson the environment secretary in Britain spoke at a conference for the National Farmers' Union (NFU) about bovine TB. He called the disease one of the greatest challenges that Britain faces in the current environment. He notes that in 2011 alone, over 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in relation to the disease and in the past decade has cost taxpayers half a billion pounds. This is predicted to double in the next 10 years if the disease is untreated or not dealt with in the correct manner. Following the mass killings of cattle, many farmers were compensated but many did not see this as enough. Drastic plans were made and in 2012, there was a proposed controlled cull of badgers in the South-West of England. This was postponed due to evidence suggesting that there were almost twice the number of badgers than were originally thought and the notion was also opposed by many (as will be discussed).

The issue is clearly then extremely juxtaposed even amongst farmers. It can be argued that much of the debate from farmers comes not from their own experience but from the data presented to them by other parties; for instance scientific research and Government actions may influence the way in which farmers react to the issue. To expand, the Government has been accused by Lord John Krebs, the scientist who was behind a ten year badger cull trial, that the Government has picked statistics and twisted them to fit their own agenda for those who are for the badger cull to go ahead. He believes the cull should not go ahead and accuses the Government of convincing farmers to think that the cull is a positive process when in fact it may be more damaging to farmers. He argues that the President of the NFU Peter Kendall will come under heavy fire from farmers in the next few years as he believes bovine TB will fail to disappear even if the cull goes ahead.

The issue remains however that farmers want something drastic to be done to prevent any more cattle being infected and the proposed cull seems to be the quickest route for them to take. While work is in progress for a vaccine, it has been noted that this will take years to develop. It can be seen then why so many farmers are for the badger cull in Britain. In response to protesters that farmers just want to kill badgers outright, Peter Kendall stated that no farmer wants to kill any badger but this cull is one of the tools that must be used in order to stop bovine TB making its way across the country and affecting a devastating amount of cattle in Britain.

The British Government

The main voice for the government in the issue here is Owen Paterson, the Environment secretary. The government is clearly a key factor in this process and will be referred to throughout but there are a few points that are worth noting. As it stands, the cull is set to take place in June 2013, giving rise that the government is pro-cull. Paterson states that the spread of bovine TB is worrying as it is causing devastation to the beef and dairy industry. Naturally, the decision to go ahead has come under sever scrutiny (which has already caused the cull to be postponed once) and therefore it has been repeatedly noted that there will be no more delays in the process, much to the dismay of other parties involved.

The cull has been approved by the Natural Agency which will mean the cull will last for six weeks starting on June 2013 and be repeated for four years. It has been stated that everything in the governments power has been done in order to try and prevent the spread in bovine TB which has included new controls on cattle being moved from area to area, increasing the amount of tests on herds to check how many are infected and work on a vaccine is still in process. Over £15 million has been put into research into a vaccine but as noted, this will be a lengthy process and is not useful in the short term for British farmers. This clearly then is not enough and the cull will go ahead Paterson states.

It should be noted that not all MPs of the government are for the cull which is interesting. In 2012, the cull was abandoned as it was voted 147 to 28 against which is an overwhelming statistic. Furthermore, recently Mary Creagh, who is second in command to Peterson is also against the cull. She believes that is not based upon and scientific evidence is simply a way for the government to use a short term solution to a problem that should be dealt with more effectively.

Scientific Arguments

Previously, the scientific evidence has been presented yet this does not demonstrate how the evidence has been interpreted and shown to the government and other bodies. While the findings did show that badgers were part of the problem causing bovine TB in cattlein British farms, Professor John Bourne argues that ministers in within the government have not gone far enough to find alternatives to the cull. He argues that instead, there should be much more strict measure in order to stop cows spreading the disease to other cows rather than to focus on badgers. It is argued that the same process was attempted in the 1960's in England and all but wiped out the disease, proving that this was an effective way of combating the disease. This is known as biosecuity, which effectively argues that it is in fact the cows that spread the disease as opposed to the badgers.

Vaccination has been previously mentioned in Government policy but seems to have failed to make a major impact over the proposed cull. Robert May, a leading scientist states that the abandoned cull in Wales was overturned by the vote for a vaccine instead. The only issue is the commitment to take forward the vaccine. This may be due to a level of uncertainty in the vaccine or it could be due to the fact that a vaccine would cost a significant amount more than a cull would be. Either way the vaccination process does not have as much backing as a vaccination despite the evidence given.

Sir John Beddington, the chief scientist for the government has also stated that he does not back the proposed cull which is extremely significant in the contemporary debate which proposes a state of confusion towards why the cull has been backed so fiercely. The cull, which may wipe out over 100,000 badgers has been rejected by many of Britain's leading scientists. John Krebs has argued that once again the government has chosen data that they feel will support themselves. A further phenomenal factor is that over 30 leading animal disease experts have sent a letter to the Observer describing their strong view that the cull is mindless and a distraction from long term problems.

Charity

The mains actors involved in the badger cull have of course already been noted. Government involvement, farmers themselves and the scientists that provide the hard evidence are undoubtedly the three key bodies involved. There are clearly however, other important parties that have attempted to make an impact on the decisions that have been made in recent years. What is most interesting to note is that there is no active organisation voting for the badger cull. This instantly gives credit toward the general opinion toward the cull. In light of this there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that the majority of people involved are against the cull and leaves an interesting thought for the future. Particular charities are involved in trying to persuade both the public and Government against the cull.

For example the RSPCA has been a significant charity in persuading people to vote no toward the cull. The official petition has reached over 210,000 signatures and is still rising. The charity argues that despite overwhelming evidence and opposition from both parliamentary persons and scientists the government are foolishly still going ahead with the cull. Chief Executive Gavin Grant states that the answer of bovine TB is not through a cull and may have a reverse effect on wildlife and actually cause more harm to farm animals. The charity has been involved in many different protests and promotion to the public. The same can be said of Care for the Wild. This charity, also against the cull, has attempted to actively change the way organic food companies buy their food. The charity is trying to boycott farms that are not clearly anti-cull by steering companies away from buying their produce which not only promotes the anti-cull situation but actively changes farmers attitudes toward the issue. This is quite controversial as it means some farms may become anti-cull just to keep business when in reality it may not represent their views as a whole, creating a clouded view on the matter. This evidence must be taken in the knowledge that the charities are clearly against the cull that is put forward in June 2013 and therefore, while relevant, is certainly biased in their view points. This contrasts to scientific evidence which is based upon facts and figures but does take into account that the charities have also considered the evidence given.

Public Response

The badger cull has been a hugely controversial issue and this is clearly demonstrated through the public eyes. Through government communication, media coverage and charity protests, the contested issue has spread to all corners of the British isles. As has been discussed, over 210,000 British people have signed the petition against the badger cull which is a vast amount of people demonstrating that they wish to keep the badger in the country.

It has been discussed that Owen Paterson has strongly stated that the cull not be delayed any further than June of 2013 which was welcomed by some yet also caused a number of public protests also. The protests echoed the voices of scientific and charity efforts to demonstrate that the cull is not the way forward in terms of tackling bovine TB in cattle. The public protests urged tighter controls on biosecurity. The issue here is that it is sending a message to farmers that they need to change the way they farm which will clearly not go down well with many British farmers.

It has been noted that the government has chosen to ignore the scientific evidence against the cull but it now also seems that they are choosing to ignore the views of a great number of the public. There have been efforts in public protests that demonstrate a cull cannot tackle bovine TB alone and does in fact need to be combined with other efforts. For example in New Zealand in the 1990's a cull that was combined with restricting cattle movements (as has been suggested) reduced herd numbers infected from 1700 to under 100.

Conclusion

Badger culling is clearly not a simple for and against argument. Take farmers for example, while it can be argued that many farmers in the South-West of England are for the cull of badgers due to their loss of cattle, there are other farmers that are against the cull. For farmers that do not rear cattle herds, badgers are actually a positive form of wildlife that eat pests that would otherwise harm their crops. Scientific results show that while badgers do carry and transmit the bovine TB disease, it is in fact the cattle themselves that transmit the disease more so and need to be restricted in their movements.

Vaccination research is set to continue, but though the lengthy process of cancelling and restarting the cull, much time has been lost. The government has cancelled five badger vaccine trials so far. Instead the cull has been favoured which has been branded as an excuse to fulfill the short term need so farmers rather than see the long term process that could save many more animals.

What is clear is the cull is set to continue in June 2013 despite protest, petitions and scientific warnings that the cull will be ineffective. Only time will tell whether this cull will be effective for both British wildlife and farm animals



rev

Our Service Portfolio

jb

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.

whatsapp

Do not panic, you are at the right place

jb

Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.

Get 20% Discount, Now
£19 £14/ Per Page
14 days delivery time

Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.

Get An Instant Quote

ORDER TODAY!

Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.

Get a Free Quote Order Now