THE GOVERNMENT has decided that there must be a badger cull.
It has been warned — in the words of David Macdonald, director of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University — that “culling badgers at anything like an acceptable rate is likely to lead to more cattle tuberculosis rather than less”. But unless a public outcry makes the carnage politically impossible, the slaughter will go ahead as soon as the bogus 12-week consultation period is over. The Prince of Wales — with land in the South West where cattle tuberculosis is particularly virulent — has persuaded Tony Blair that it is necessary.
Of course, Clarence House as usual refused to comment on “conversations between the Prince and the Prime Minister” and, asked to set out Highgrove’s attitude to culling, replied that the Prince of Wales has “never said anything in public” on the subject. Offered the chance to deny the allegation of royal intervention, Downing Street was equally coy. But dissidents within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) — horrified by the way in which the decision has been taken — have no doubt about why thousands of badgers are to be slaughtered. The heir apparent thinks that he knows best.
The folly of Defra’s decision is emphasised by consternation among the department’s own advisory panel, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB — men and women who supervised the inquiry into the spread of the disease. John Bourne, the ISG chairman, is emphatic. Unless we copy the Irish example and wipe out the badger population over entire countries or even regions, “culling would do more harm than good”. And he wonders if Britain is ready to see the badger population exterminated — even on Duchy of Cornwall land where the Prince of Wales farms. Some holiday brochures advertise seeing badgers as one of their attractions.
Professor Bourne made his position clear — no doubt forcibly — when he met ministers on September 29. As a result of that meeting he assumed that his committee’s unequivocal conclusions had been understood and accepted. But the mood of ministers changed. The Defra statement that announced the 12-week consultation period was, Professor Bourne says, “misleading about our evidence”. Politics — and pressure from high places — have taken precedence over both science and compassion in the search for a solution to a recognised problem.
More and more cattle are contracting tuberculosis. And nobody doubts that badgers are one, but only one, of the ways in which the disease is spread. Farmers insist that “something must be done” without knowing what. Culling is not the only possible line of attack, but despite their effects all have their drawbacks. Limitations on cattle movements are unpopular. Proposals for improved animal husbandry are offensive. More intense testing is inconvenient. The Government’s plan to cut compensation is unacceptable. Some Defra officers — backed by Defra veterinary surgeons — hit on a badger cull as proof that the department took the problem seriously. Rational objections to what is little more than a public relations exercise were swept aside in support for the idea from Highgrove House.
Professor Macdonald explains why any cull, short of annihilation, will increase cattle tuberculosis. Badgers, he says, are “conspicuously social and gregarious animals”. They do not hunt in packs or regularly suckle each other’s young. But they live happily together. A cull — by its nature incomplete — “would have a profound effect on the lifestyle of survivors. It might well cause changes in their immune systems which make them less resistant to disease. With their society in turmoil, bereaved badgers would almost certainly traverse the country far and wide, infecting more badgers and more cattle.” Professor Macdonald, the originator of the theory, calls it “the perturbation hypothesis”.
Do not dismiss it as part of the anthropomorphic fallacy, more appropriate to The Wind in the Willows than a Defra policy document. It is the conclusion of a hard-headed scientist of international distinction. What is more, it is supported by the evidence. The report that the ISG submitted to Defra was unequivocal. A one-fifth reduction in a culled area was matched by a 27 per cent increase outside its boundaries. In short, it might — only might — be possible to cut back cattle tuberculosis on (say) Duchy of Cornwall land. But to the north and south, other farmers would suffer the consequences.
Ben Bradshaw, the Defra minister with the ironic title of Under-Secretary for Conservation, told the House of Commons that international experience made clear that “intense culling over large areas can be effective”. Effective for whom? And how large does the area have to be? No doubt the international experience on which Mr Bradshaw relied was Ireland, where thousands of acres, often bounded by the sea, are completely cleared by gassing, poisoning and a ghastly slow death by snaring. The result of the slaughter would, at best, be cattle tuberculosis moved from one part of the country to another.
It seems inconceivable that Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary — a clever woman who understands the countryside — can be party to such pointless, indeed dangerous, cruelty. She has many things on her mind. But the time has come for her to take charge. Let her remind the National Farmers’ Union, the veterinary surgeons of her own department and, if necessary, the Prince of Wales, of the firm view expressed to me this week by Rosie Woodroffe, another member of her department’s ISG: “Where there is a native species in its natural habitat, culling has never been known to produce an overall reduction in disease,” said Dr Woodroffe. It will certainly not make things better and might well make them worse. To kill tens of thousands of badgers in vain would be an outrage.
E-mail your comments on this article using the form below
Please explore all options before embarking on this horrific proposal. I for one will never buy Duchy products again - this is not what I call compassionate farming. Sandra Waters, Cranbrook
French farmers seem to have little trouble with TB so perhaps the large number of cattle we breed in this country spread the disease themselves. If people were vegetarian then cattle breeding for profit would end. Prince Charles should keep his nose out of politics and get on with his privileged life. And Tony Blair is just appeasing the farming community who, let's face it, are no friends of Labour. The pair of them should take a running jump and leave our badgers alone. Jean Bennington, Prestatyn
