As Defra considers the evidence gathered during the public consultation period, which followed Defra chief Caroline Spelman’s July announcement that she was “strongly minded” to carry out a badger cull as part of the government’s strategy for reducing the devastating effects of bovine TB in England, a renewed wave of criticism over the plans under consideration has arisen. image expired

The Labour party, which strongly opposes the cull, has said that, under current plans, culling will reduce herd breakdowns by only 2.5 per cent, as opposed to the 16 per cent reduction the government purport, but will cost the farmers locked into agreements to finance four year culling programmes "hundreds of thousands of pounds".

Speaking in the Commons yesterday, Shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh revealed that official figures show only 5 fewer herd breakdowns a year could be expected in each cull area. The government’s plans have principally been criticised for putting too high a burden on farmers, who would have to finance killing badgers on their land, and over the methodology of shooting free-running badgers, which is untested and, badger experts claim, would be inhumane as scoring a clean kill would be extremely difficult.

Many cull opponents see vaccination for cattle and badgers as preferable; vaccination trials are underway on National Trust land in the South West and in Gloucester, where the local Wildlife Trust reported this week that it was “delighted with the results” of its trial. The government drastically cut the number of vaccination programmes in the UK when it came to power; Defra defended this decision by claiming it can get enough information from the one remaining field trial.

The British Veterinary Association, which strongly supports cull proposals, this week dismissed the conclusions drawn from a pilot vaccination carried out by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust as "unrealistic at best and spin at worst."

Shadow environment secretary poses awkward questions in Parliament

In Parliament, Mary Creagh challenged Defra ministers, "In a parliamentary written answer to me on 5th September you said the science showed your badger cull would lead to five fewer herd breakdowns per year in each cull area. Last year there were over 2,025 confirmed herd breakdowns in England.

"So even with 10 cull areas after 2013, the cull would prevent just 50 herd breakdowns a year, a reduction of just 2.5 per cent in actual herd breakdowns. Yet the cost to farmers in cull areas will run to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. Why should they bother?"

In response, agriculture minister Jim Paice acknowledged culling would be "expensive" for farmers who pursue it, but said the industry desperately wanted “something to be done” to reduce bTB in England. He said the government intended to fund the rest of its “large package of measures” intended to combat the disease.

Earlier in the month, Ms Spelman and home secretary Theresa May clashed over claims by May that, should a cull take place concurrently with the Olympics next year, “scarce resources" could be overstretched in terms of policing protests which would certainly ensue. Defra is currently in talks with the Association of Chief Police Officers over the implications of the cull.

Badger trust questions increase pressure

Badger Trust Chair David Williams wrote to Defra Secretary Caroline Spelman at the end of last month to contest answers which the trust felt were presumptuous and indefinite supplied by the department’s chief vet in response to questions on the 38 Degrees campaign website. David Gibbens said he intended to “show the facts that ministers have based their proposals on”, however, Williams said the vet’s answers amounted little more than “a number of blind assumptions.”

The Badger Trust chair attacked statements made by Gibbens, including his supposition that

"There is no evidence to suggest that the results would be any different" between untested free-shooting and the trap and shoot method which was used in the Krebs trials, on which much of Defra’s evidence is based.

Mr Williams demanded clarification over several issues covered on the campaign website, stating, “Some of these answers have caused grave concern to the Badger Trust... The answers were woefully lacking in specific detail and were almost insulting to those who had taken the trouble to pose the questions.”