Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "The Badger cull and the RSPCA"

The following is taken from the current edition of the RSPCA Members'
Watchdog Newsletter, which can be found at:

http://www.webtribe.net/w/woofer/watchdog.htm

THE SOCIETY AND THE BADGER CULL

In the summer of '98 the government announced that it was about to adopt
the recommendations of the Krebs report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle
and Badgers published in Dec. '97. This report was the result of an
inquiry set up by the previous government. Over the next five years (at
the end of which it would be proven beyond any doubt whether or not
badgers were at the root of Bovine TB) this would involve the killing
under MAZFF licence of approximately 12,500 badgers starting in the West
Country and on the Welsh border. The regions affected were to be
arranged in "triplets" or triangles, the three points of these named
proactive, reactive and control areas: at the first point every badger
was to be killed, at the second killing would take place only if badgers
had access to farms where TB outbreaks occurred, and at the third there
would be no killing. The total area involved over the five years would
be 2000 square kilometres. Badgers were to be trapped in cages and shot.
Experiments were also to be carried out with padded leg-cuffs, a "humane"
version of the leg-hold trap, to catch the trap-shy.

As a member of a badger group and Campaign Co-ordinator of an RSPCA
branch I was horrified. How would it be possible to kill badgers in such
numbers without cruelty not to mention the appalling waste of wildlife?
About 80% of these badgers would be healthy. It was probable too that
the numbers of badgers killed would be higher than predicted by MAFF:
The National Federation of Badger groups said 20,000 - and Care for the
Wild 225 - 30,000. It depended on badger population densities. There
was to be a closed period from 1 Feb. to 30 April for cub-rearing, but
NFBG insisted that this would be too short and that many cubs would die
of starvation underground. Both NFBC and CFTW pointed out that many
other possible causes of Bovine TB should be investigated before
resorting to slaughter and the League Against Cruel Sports said that they
could not approve the culling of animals to prove a hypothesis. PAL (the
political wing of IFAW) also opposed the cull. Other avenues of
investigation suggested by NFBG were high stocking densities of cattle,
poor quality grazing and a lack of trace elements in the bovine diet.
They also recommended routing testing to prevent cattle spreading TB from
one herd to another on sale and better animals husbandry, particularly a
reduction in stress, a notable cause of susceptibility to the disease.
They pressed for research into a vaccine. CFIW also emphasised the need
for more frequent testing (once a year instead of once in 3 years) and
pointed out that the test was only 75% effective, so some infected
animals slipped through the net. They drew attention to research in
Ulster, which had shown that up to 70% of infected herds became infected
from other cattle. Why, they asked, was TB decreasing prior to 1970,
when no badgers were being killed? And why had so much slaughter in the
past 25 years not brought about a reduction in TB? MAFF's own study at
Woodchester Park had show the spread of TB in badgers to be minimal and
pointed to a good immune system. CFIW also remarked on lack of trace
elements and are running a trial on a farm involving the addition of
selenium to the bovine diet. Both organisations recommended research
into other wildlife as well. In Nov. '98 NFBG took MAFF before the
standing committee of the Bern Convention, a wildlife treaty drawn up in
1979 to which Britain was a signatory, and they were found in breach of
the treaty; though a year later, after constant pressure and by suing
questionable methods, they succeeded in reversing this decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT WAS THE RSPCA DOING DURING ALL THIS? As Campaign Co-ordinator I was
in the habit of checking through the Action Line columns in Animal Life
to discover the issues on which the branch should campaign. We wrote
letters, as directed, to government ministers, to Brussels, to
ambassadors, but where was any request that we should campaign against
the badger cull? I combed through the Autumn '98 number, followed by
those of winter and spring '99, but found not a word to suggest action on
this matter. I became increasingly perplexed, so, in May '99, having
received the election addresses for the Council election in June, I wrote
to all six candidates to ask if they would oppose the cull. They all
replied, but not all were in the know. Enough were: it transpired to my
shock, horror and amazement that the Society was GOING ALONG with the
cull!! The line taken was that RSPCA cared a bout all animals, i.e.
cattle as well as badgers. They would try to make sure that the method
of killing was humane and were opposed to the use of leg-cuffs. One of
the candidates sent me a news-sheet issued on 27 April '99. It began
"The RSPCA is urging the government to adopt recommendations published
today by the Agriculture Select Committee to make the UK badger culling
trial more humane and effective." He also sent Wildlife Snippets for May
'99 which reported "In a separate development MAFF have announced that
they are taking action to appoint an independent auditor to assess the
humaneness of the method of killing badgers used by the ministry's staff
and the proper application of the procedures." This was due to RSPCA
pressure, he said. THREE CHEERS! Congratulations and jubilations! I
SIMPLY COULD NOT BELIEVE IT and, still stunned in mid-June I composed a
letter of resignation and sent it to Horsham.

Another hope expressed in the news-sheet of April 27 was that the
"culling trial" would "be completed humanely, within a reasonable
timescale and that the results would be statistically valid." Are these
goals likely to be achieved? MAFF now expects the trial to run for seven
years, not five. From the start NFBG and others warned that the
experiment would not work out on the ground, and it has run into
innumerable problems: farmers killing badgers illegally in the (no-
killing) control areas, interference with traps, non-compliance with the
cull on the part of landowners including the RSPC, the Woodland Trust and
the Wildlife Trusts. At an early stage the Health and Safety Executive
banned post mortem examinations of badgers until facilities were
improved, fearing operatives might become infected, so numerous badger
corpses are in cold storage - most of them healthy, of course. MAFF has
also had difficulty in recruiting staff and MAFF has found the landscape
difficult! Even English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales
(government bodies) expressed doubt about MAFF's ability to carry out the
fieldwork to a tight schedule. All these problems and more were listed
in a report published in February of this year by the Independent
Scientific Group on Cattle TB.

It looks unlikely that the results will be worth anything if and when
they are finally produced, but the killing continues. In May cubs were
starving to death again except for one found wandering almost dead, near
Devizes, which has been nursed back to health by Pauling Kidner of Secret
World. This cruelty goes on with the approval of the RSPCA. WHAT ARE
THE VIEWS OF THE MEMBERSHIP? Many are in blissful ignorance: specially
looking I have come across five active members who knew nothing about
this policy. "They're not supporting that!!" one of them said
incredulously.

The two documents mentioned may have been tabled by branch Secretaries at
committee meetings, but absolutely nothing has appeared in Animal Life.
THE MEMBERSHIP IS IN THE DARK.
Mary Shorter
---------------------------------------------
Scapegoating the badger

Here in West Cornwall, the Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF) is preparing
for the experimental badger cull (The culling fields, July 5), hiding
traps in the hedgerows with a view to starting shooting - at close range
through the bars of t he trap - in the very near future.

We are all playing our part in the fight to save the badgers, from
carrying banners in the streets of St. Just, through hasty telephone
calls when Maff Land-Rovers have been spotted driving around the fields,
to direct action to disable badger traps.

Your article states that the National Farmers' Union intends to run a
campaign in the autumn to persuade people that they can catch TB directly
from badgers, although there is as yet still no proof that badgers even
transmit it to cattle. This seems not so much spin as a blatant untruth
and could backfire in that the pro-badger lobby will undoubtedly promote
fresh publicity about the connection between cattle and human disease,
from dairy allergies to CJD.

Jane Rosendale, St Buryan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Dobson

http://www.freespeech.org/rspca-animadversion

http://www.webtribe.net/a/animadversion