Environment Secretary Owen Paterson this morning told MPs that the Gloucestershire pilot cull had only eliminated 30 percent of the local badger population, falling way short of its 70 percent target . The 70 percent figure was set by Defra's scientific advisors who said anything lower than this would be unlikely to have the desired effect on bovine TB in the trial zones (the impact on TB incidence is not currently being tested in either cull zone).

image expired

Paterson updated MPs in a written ministerial statement on Thursday morning. Last week he revealed that 59 percent of badgers in the Somerset trial area had been killed.

As was the case in Somerset, Defra estimates completed immediately prior to the cull suggested badger populations in the Gloucestershire cull zone had fallen to 2,350 compared 3,400 last summer. Over the course of the six week pilot cull, 708 badgers were killed by markspeople in Gloucestershire (around 30 percent of the newly estimated local population, 20 percent of the higher previous estimate).

Cull licensing body Natural England has granted a 50 percent extension to the Somerset pilot; shooting will now continue until 1st November. The Gloucestershire cull company has also applied for an extension after its initial six week pilot came to an end this week.  

Paterson updates MPs

Delivering the immediate results of the Gloucestershire trial, Paterson said, "In view of this [shortfall], the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) has advised that the period of culling this year should be extended to achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in Gloucestershire." He added, "The early indications are that, as in Somerset, the pilot in Gloucestershire has been safe and humane."

The humaneness, effectiveness and safety of culling will be reviewed by an independent panel of experts, once both trials have come to an end. Defra has said this panel's judgement will inform its policy going forward, but Paterson has keenly suggested culling could be rolled out to new areas as early as 2014 and concerns have been raised over the government's refusal to discuss the standards by which its chosen criteria will be assessed.

In his statement today, the environment secretary tried to pre-empt the scathing analysis that met his announcement last Wednesday (9th October), when he told BBC's Justin Leigh "the badgers moved the goalposts" in Somerset. He was responding to Leigh's criticisms that the culls have become "ridiculous" and the government is manipulating evidence in an effort to make them appear more successful.

Mr Paterson said on Thursday, "The pilots held this year are the first stage in a planned four-year cull. Three of the areas of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial also had a slow start. These areas saw an increase in the numbers of badgers removed in subsequent years and went on to contribute to overall disease benefits." However, the architects of the RBCT have disavowed the government's 'big society' cull in no uncertain terms.

Surveys find public united in opposition to culling

In a study conducted by the Humane Society and published yesterday, members of the public were asked 'Regardless of whether or not you supported the badger cull, do you think it has been a success or failure?' 51 percent of those polled disagreed with the Defra Secretary's assertions that culling has successful. Only 15 percent said they agreed with Mr Paterson.

A separate poll commissioned by the League against cruel sports revealed that over half the electorate see the way a parliamentary candidate views the badger cull as important. The survey found that 3:1 of those polled are in favour of vaccination over culling irrespective of where they live; in rural areas, a higher proportion of those polled supported the abandonment of culling than in either the urban or town and fringe groups.

The public perception of the cull risks worsening further still if Defra is forced to reintroduce gassing of badgers as a means of dispatching the animals; Paterson has admitted that Defra is conducting desk-based research into gassing, which was made illegal in 1982 on the basis that it is inhumane. Almost 60 percent of those polled in the HSI-commissioned survey said they opposed gassing badgers (compared to 21 percent support).

Defra's recent announcements that badger population estimates in both cull zones had changed for the third time in less than a year has attracted scrutiny over the past week (estimates point to a reduction of around 1,000 badgers in each cull zone between autumn 2012 and summer 2013). Although some, including the Badger Trust, suggest this reduction could be a cynical means of casting culling in a more favourable light, other groups claim the reductions could be telling a more sinister story.

Owen Paterson said last week that the last minute changes to population estimates announced in his Somerset cull update were likely to be the result of weather, lack of food or disease. However, Dominic Dyer of Care for the Wild and investigators with Sky news have uncovered evidence of illegal persecution and unsanctioned gassing of badgers by farmers. Some groups of farmers are thought to have banded together when trial culls due to start in October 2012 were postponed at the eleventh hour, leading former shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh to observe that the government's unpopular policy would be "kicked into the long grass" over the winter. An investigative report by Sky's Isabel Webster found evidence of 14 such DIY gassing 'trials' in the south west alone.  

A Defra spokesperson told Farming Online, "We have no evidence of any illegal culling activity. If anyone suspects that illegal culling is taking place they should present the evidence to the police." The spokesperson would not comment on the effect this could have on falling badger population estimates.

Nevertheless, although Defra officials are still unwilling to discuss the issue, in November 2012 a wildlife protection police officer working on Operation Meles told Farming Online that badger persecution had been raised to the level of wildlife crime priority in England. Wildlife groups have said Defra's conduct has effectively declared 'open season' on badgers.

As early as 2011 BBC reporters had spoken to farmers involved in badger gassing, suggesting illegal wildlife persecution is a widespread and deep-rooted problem, and one the government is still failing to address.

Farmers in Devon told BBC's Nick Ravenscroft that they had engaged in illegal, reactive culling after TB appeared "on most farms in the area". An unnamed farmer told Ravenscroft, "You have an old petrol engine, you put a pipe down the hole… you have the engine running, once all the holes are completely blocked up you run the engine and that puts the badger to sleep underground." The farmer added, "I was present when this was done. I actually didn't take part in it. Farmers are law abiding citizens but at this point in time, through lack of action and lack of help from governments they are being driven to take this action… it's about survival. Survival of business."

Speaking at the time, Jack Reedy of the Badger Trust dismissed the farmers' claims that the illegal killing is merciful as "unsustainable assertions." He continued, "It's all very well to say it's humane, but how do you know? If you've got a seriously affected badger dying an agonising death underground then you've no idea what's going on." The government's 2005 review of lethal methods for badger control examined a wide range of gasses and means of delivery and dismissed them as inefficient and inhumane.

Mark Jones, executive director of Humane Society International UK, commented on the situation on Thursday, "The pilot badger culls have been an embarrassing failure for DEFRA. DEFRA's own studies have already rejected gassing as inhumane and impractical, and it is in any event prohibited under the Bern Convention."

"It's high time Mr Paterson started listening to somebody other than the National Farmers' Union and heeded instead the views of independent scientists, wildlife experts and the public at large. The sooner DEFRA abandons this disastrous badger cull policy, the sooner we can focus on more effective, humane and science-led approaches to the tackling TB in cattle."

Badger culling ineffective means of tackling bTB

Although recent research has shown that badgers could be significant contributors to bovine TB, its authors said there is a huge margin of uncertainty and added that less than 6 percent of direct transmission of bovine TB to cattle is thought to be from badgers, suggesting cattle-based measures would have a greater effect on bTB incidence than culling badgers..

Commenting on illegal persecution of badgers, Professor John Bourne, who led the influential Randomised Badger Culling Trials, said, "The individual farmer could gain as a result of [illegal reactive killing] but the net effect would be spread of the disease in the area around the farm. We've clearly shown in the trials that… reactive culling – and for farmers to cull badgers themselves would be no different from reactive culling – does increase the incidence of bovine TB."

Lord John Krebs, renowned zoologist and architect of the RBCT trials added that, following the methodology used in the decade-long trials, "the best estimate we have is that after nine and a half years within the areas where badgers have been killed you will get a reduction of something in the region of 12 to 16 percent in the number of cases of tb in cattle. This leaves something between eight or nine out of ten cases of bTB in cattle still there. It doesn't solve the majority of the problem."

"That is why the ISG concluded that killing badgers isn't an effective policy. I agree with that. The science does not stack up and say that going ahead to kill badgers will help the problem in any serious way."