badgers and bTB

[tom]

Three new important papers on badgers from Steve Carter and colleagues, my one tweet summery of each summery:
(I’ve not yet read any of them in full ):

"badgers important source of bTB in cattle, cubs four times more likely to be infected when living with infected females" http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8873832 …

"infected badgers spend more time away from sett, control of disease may be helped by targeting these" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00265-012-1467-4 …

"direct contact between badgers and cattle quite rare, indirect contacts more important in transmission of disease" http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8874216 …

[daven]

Is there an actual written law/policy on the protection of these things, or is it more that the animal rights clowns have folks scared? The way you folks talk about them, the population must be higher than here and they can be hunted here almost 6 months out of the year here. Just curious.....

[RED BULL]

No, they're a protected species by law.

[daven]

No, they're a protected species by law.

Are the exceptions below that allow you to protect crops, stock, and property no longer in place? Or are they on a BS website?


Exceptions from s. 1.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, a person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) above by reason of—
(a)killing or taking, or attempting to kill or take, a badger; or
(b)injuring a badger in the course of taking it or attempting to kill or take it,
if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
(2)The defence provided by subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any action taken at any time if it had become apparent, before that time, that the action would prove necessary for the purpose there mentioned and either—
(a)a licence under section 10 below authorising that action had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after that fact had become apparent; or
(b)an application for such a licence had been determined.


Exceptions from s. 3.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, a person is not guilty of an offence under section 3 above if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
(2)Subsection (2) of section 7 above applies to the defence in subsection (1) above as it applies to the defence in subsection (1) of that section.
(3)A person is not guilty of an offence under section 3(a), (c) or (e) above if he shows that his action was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided.
[F1(4)A person is not guilty of an offence under section 3(a), (c) or (e) above by reason of obstructing any entrance of a badger sett for the purpose of hunting foxes with hounds if he—
(a)takes no action other than obstructing such entrances;
(b)does not dig into the tops or sides of the entrances;
(c)complies with subsection (5) below as to the materials used for obstructing the entrances and with subsection (6) below as to how and when they are to be placed and removed; and
(d)is acting with the authority of the owner or occupier of the land and the authority of a recognised Hunt.
(5)The materials used shall be only—
(a)untainted straw or hay, or leaf-litter, bracken or loose soil; or
(b)a bundle of sticks or faggots, or paper sacks either empty or filled with untainted straw or hay or leaf-litter, bracken or loose soil.
(6)The materials shall not be packed hard into the entrances and—
(a)if they are of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above, they shall not be placed in the entrances except on the day of the hunt or after midday on the preceding day;
(b)if they are of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, they shall not be placed in the entrances except on the day of the hunt and shall be removed on the same day.
(7)A person is not guilty of an offence under section 3(a), (c) or (e) above by reason of his hounds marking at a badger sett provided they are withdrawn as soon as reasonably practicable.
(8)Each recognised Hunt shall keep a register of the persons authorised to act under subsection (4) above.
(9)In this section “recognised Hunt� means a Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs.]

[Balwenlady]

For Dave N in Germany,
Very simplified explanation - short version.....
Badgers and their setts are protected by law.
The original protection orders were put on (in part) because of a horrific history of persecution e.g. Badger baiting - making dogs fight badgers in awful to-the-death fights. Shameful. Which nobody wants.
They were not protected because they were in small numbers, or in danger of dying out in this country or anything.
Unfortunately, in an effort to prevent animal cruelty, the farmers who were used to controlling the population now find themselves with their hands tied, and no way of protecting their livestock.
There was an original Badger Act in 1973, which was revised to be the Badger (further protection) Act in 1991, and a new Protection of Badgers Act was introduced in 1992 which consolidated and improved the two previous acts, augmenting their protection again.
So, as you can see, badgers have been protected for a long time now, and their numbers have boomed, with catestrophic results.
BTW, hunting foxes with dogs is also illegal in this country now.

To Tom,
"direct contact between badgers and cattle quite rare, indirect contacts more important in transmission of disease"
This is the same conclusion that the scientists investigating the current outbreak in Bavaria have come to - although in their case they are dealing with deer spreading the disease to cattle.
See this article http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/vs/2012/245138/

[daven]

For Dave N in Germany,
Very simplified explanation - short version.....
Badgers and their setts are protected by law.
The original protection orders were put on (in part) because of a horrific history of persecution e.g. Badger baiting - making dogs fight badgers in awful to-the-death fights. Shameful. Which nobody wants.
They were not protected because they were in small numbers, or in danger of dying out in this country or anything.
Unfortunately, in an effort to prevent animal cruelty, the farmers who were used to controlling the population now find themselves with their hands tied, and no way of protecting their livestock.
There was an original Badger Act in 1973, which was revised to be the Badger (further protection) Act in 1991, and a new Protection of Badgers Act was introduced in 1992 which consolidated and improved the two previous acts, augmenting their protection again.
So, as you can see, badgers have been protected for a long time now, and their numbers have boomed, with catestrophic results.
BTW, hunting foxes with dogs is also illegal in this country now.

/

I just looked at the website I saw again... I guess those were "proposed" exceptions......

good luck.....

[Joyce]

The really stupid thing is that badgers are still baited by the non-law abiding, some of whom end up in court, which probably prompted the super protection in the first place - it's the law abiding that are penalised as usual.
Simplest and cheapest solution would be to remove super-protection and uphold the original anti-cruelty laws.

[Right-arm fast]

Simplest and cheapest solution would be to remove super-protection and uphold the original anti-cruelty laws.

Definitely, and possibly increase the penalty for cruelty such as baiting or interfering with badgers for any other purpose than culling by the owner of the land they are on.

[Filthyfarmer]

The really stupid thing is that badgers are still baited by the non-law abiding, some of whom end up in court, which probably prompted the super protection in the first place - it's the law abiding that are penalised as usual.
Simplest and cheapest solution would be to remove super-protection and uphold the original anti-cruelty laws.

All the act has done is make it easier for the scum to find them. They were once special, now their are too many sets to keep an eye on or to care much about.

[C.J]

Definitely, and possibly increase the penalty for cruelty such as baiting or interfering with badgers for any other purpose than culling by the owner of the land they are on.

Surely the Hunting Act covers badger baiting so no new legistation is needed.


Europe and our government need to persuade Natural England to issue some disease control licences.


Natural England are responsible for 20 years of suffering.

[tom]

Europe and our government need to persuade Natural England to issue some disease control licences ...

... better still would be to take Section 10 disease control licences out of the hands of Natural England and to the vets at AHVLA.

[matthew]

... better still would be to take Section 10 disease control licences out of the hands of Natural England and to the vets at AHVLA.

+1
And even better would be to remove the moratorium on Section 10 which was put on the Act in 1997, and still remains.
Not that a £1m bung from the Political Animal Lobby had anything to do with it, of course.

[bottg]

That middle paper was interesting as it suggests that bTB infection changes host behaviour encouraging them to wander further afield. One of the main objections to the cull is that disruption leads to spreading. If that paper above is right, it may not be the cull that spreads them, rather the disease itself.
In which case, a cull could actually be targeted to those badgers that wander further from their setts?

[essexpete]

Reading the other threads on here, related to species protection, the whole system is crazy as we all know but will it or can it ever be reverted to where common sense prevails. I doubt it unless something adversely affects vast numbers of voting town dwellers.

[Joyce]

Reading the other threads on here, related to species protection, the whole system is crazy as we all know but will it or can it ever be reverted to where common sense prevails.

Common sense was outlawed long ago - hunger or human disease might bring it back, but soon will be lost for good as more live in this virtual world

[matthew]

Reading the other threads on here, related to species protection, the whole system is crazy as we all know but will it or can it ever be reverted to where common sense prevails. I doubt it unless something adversely affects vast numbers of voting town dwellers.

You mean like their pets coughing m.bovis all over the carpet and their children?
Already happening.
TB is slow burn.

[Joyce]

There are of course diseases of wildlife that actually kill them and so reduce numbers.

[Joyce]

You mean like their pets coughing m.bovis all over the carpet and their children?
Already happening.
TB is slow burn.

No wonder the pre BCG screening of humans has stopped.

[Joyce]

This is how the results of research get twisted by badgerists, any twits out there to put him right?

Davo moel_bryn
@moel_bryn

Badger to cattle TB infections are rare, says research - Farming UK news: http://www.
farminguk.com/News/Badger-to-cattle-TB-infections-are-rare-says-research_25257.html#.UVLl1t9Xg3A.twitter
… - #tbfree
#badgercull #teambadger


http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/.../54470.article
snip
“This suggests that indirect contacts might be more important than direct contacts in terms of disease transmission at pasture,” a paper on the research, published in the Cambridge University Press, concluded

FWI have written this up in a slightly different way.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/27/03/...eet39-says.htm

and maybe nearer the original?
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8874216

[matthew]

We knew about 'indirect contact' a decade or more ago.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...nd-repeat.html

... and have done bugger all about it. You can't shrink wrap grass yet.

[Tizzard-the-Wizzard]

That middle paper was interesting as it suggests that bTB infection changes host behaviour encouraging them to wander further afield. One of the main objections to the cull is that disruption leads to spreading. If that paper above is right, it may not be the cull that spreads them, rather the disease itself.
In which case, a cull could actually be targeted to those badgers that wander further from their setts?

Badgers with bTB are kicked out of the sett by the other badgers as a means of survival for the majority.
They then wander around spreading the disease and because they are so enfeebled they gravitate to the cows feed troughs because they are too weak to forage normally, rooting up worms or eating hedgehogs.
I have seen one in the middle of the day wandering round without a clue.

[Joyce]

We knew about 'indirect contact' a decade or more ago.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...nd-repeat.html

... and have done bugger all about it. You can't shrink wrap grass yet.

I was telling OH about this tonight and wondering WHY we still have to pay for "research" into the already known facts
esp when it then goes on to be distorted in media articles and the distortions passed on by twits .
Talk about Chinese Whispers [are you allowed to say that these days?]

[matthew]

Badgers with bTB are kicked out of the sett by the other badgers as a means of survival for the majority.
They then wander around spreading the disease and because they are so enfeebled they gravitate to the cows feed troughs because they are too weak to forage normally, rooting up worms or eating hedgehogs.
I have seen one in the middle of the day wandering round without a clue.

Yup. Research confirmed that too. In 2003 / 04.

We talked about it here:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...out-again.html

and this is the relevant PQ:

23rd March 2004: Column 684W
Mr Paterson;
... what is meant by a 'super-excreter' in respect of badger infected by TB and whether badgers so described exhibit atypical behavioural characteristics." [158375]

The answer to that question was that 'super excreters' was a term given to badgers in the advanced stage of disease progression. And their behaviour, in 2004, was described thus:

"Research conducted by the Central Science Laboratory has identified behavioural differences between badgers excreting M.bovis, and uninfected animals. Badgers excreting M.bovis had larger home ranges and were more likely to inhabit farm buildings."

[tom]

Badger to cattle TB infections are rare, says research - Farming UK news: http://www.farminguk.com/News/Badger-to-cattle-TB-infections-are-rare-says-research_25257.html

I'm pleased to say Steve Carter has said on Twitter that is a very misleading headline on FarmingUK
[and not the first one on there undermining support for the badger cull - who is writing them?]

[Joyce]

I'm pleased to say Steve Carter has said on Twitter that is a very misleading headline on FarmingUK
[and not the first one on there undermining support for the badger cull - who is writing them?]

I've also posted on FWi for a similar reason!

[PostHarvest]

WHY we still have to pay for "research" into the already known facts
?]

I know this is off topic, but I've been wondering this myself - There seem to be loads of researchers looking into methane emissions from livestock. Drayton EHF had a team looking into the subject in the mid 1980's, where did all that data go?

[matthew]

I know this is off topic, but I've been wondering this myself - There seem to be loads of researchers looking into methane emissions from livestock. Drayton EHF had a team looking into the subject in the mid 1980's, where did all that data go?

Do you really need to ask

Hot air.

[matthew]

I don't know if this the right thread to post an update on Dianne but here goes:

http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...niversary.html

After 9 months of chemotherapy, she has a fist sized white patch on one lung, with a black hole in its centre.

[Joyce]

I'm pleased to say Steve Carter has said on Twitter that is a very misleading headline on FarmingUK
[and not the first one on there undermining support for the badger cull - who is writing them?]

The article and comment from a clued up reader is truly terrible!

http://www.farminguk.com/News/Badger...rch_25257.html

and bears little resemblance to the original report:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8874216

[matthew]

Interestingly, more 'research' using radio transponders was published in 2009. That came to the opposite conclusion. And bear in mind that any collar is strapped around the neck of the wearer - not to its nose. Cue 'more research?'.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.co.uk/2009/...-official.html