Disastrous policy of culling badgers
Why do governments make disastrous decisions against the best expert evidence?
The Labour Party's policy to cull cattle in the foot-and-mouth outbreak a few years ago was against the advice of scientists to immunise. It was very upsetting and had terrible consequences for so many businesses, although several farmers benefited by being well compensated.
Now with badger culling, It seems the farmers get their way again against rational and expert evidence, no matter if healthy animals suffer by indiscriminate shooting, causing more distress to so many animal-loving people.
Why don't the expert advice and opinions of the majority of the general public have any effect?
I wonder if there was a poll what percentage would say this cull is wrong. I believe it would be a large majority.
Another disastrous policy, however should prevent this government from another term in office; no comfort of course to thousands of dead and suffering badger and their young.
John Williams
St Davids Hill, Exeter
3 Comments
by Graham, Sheffield
Thursday, October 07 2010, 8:15PM
“National trust have recognised that an incomplete cull would result from the government's ridiculously unscientific plans. They have failed to recognise their strength - that in some areas they could stop culls which do not satisfy the requirement of completeness.”
by Francis Kirkham, Crediton
Thursday, October 07 2010, 10:13AM
“I should clarify one point made in my last post - The National Trust, who until recently were against a badger cull, have recently declared that they would not stand in the way of their tenants participating because they recognize that badgers represent a significant pool of infection and that for a cull to be effective it will have to be as near complete as possible over large areas. This change of stance followed a recent meeting to which the NT were called by Farming Minister Jim Paice.”
by Francis Kirkham, Crediton
Thursday, October 07 2010, 9:51AM
“The majority of the British public would no doubt agree that culling badgers is wrong. And they would be right, but not on sentimental grounds. As John Williams points out, expert evidence, based upon a £50m ten year research project showed that culling would not be effective. Further interpretations of the results suggest that for a cull to be effective it would have to achieve a very high kill rate ( probably 80 percent plus), and over a very large area, to be worthwhile. Many landowners would not take part in a cull unless compelled to do so - for example Nature conservation organizations (who own significant blocks of land) and many individual farmers and landowners. Both the Soil Association and the national Trust are against culling, although the latter have said they wouldn't ban their tenants from participating, and some individual organic farmers (probably a small minority) are for culling.
So how can a farmer-led cull be effective? It could be disastrously ineffective, actually leading to an overall increase in bovine TB because of the effect that an incomplete cull will have on the roaming behaviour of the remaining badgers.
To place a badger cull in the hands of farmers may well be the worst of all possible solutions.”