Jump to content

Talk:Badger culling in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move to badger culling?

[edit]

Is the "in the United Kingdom" part of the title necessary? Obviously this article only concerns the UK, but so does badger culling itself (as I understand it). Isn't badger culling like, say, Trafalgar Square in that it's a UK-specific topic so no further clarification in the title is necessary? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there have been culls of badgers in other European countries (but generally due to rabies concerns &c rather than bovine TB). There will be fewer anglophone sources on this, but sources do exist. For instance: [1] bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A general article on badger culling is a larger scope than I envisaged when I wrote this! I always intended a focused article of limited geographical scope and political sensitivity, and I used only British sources.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that the UK cull is notable in its own right and it's distinct from previous culls in other European countries. If somebody else wants to write another article on badger culling generally, feel free, but I already have too much on my to-do list! bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if we're sure that badger culling happens in other countries then this article should stay where it is. My main concern was that typing "badger culling" into the search box yields no immediate result: do people think it'd be appropriate to redirect it here? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be reasonable to direct here, I think; the redirect could always be retargeted if/when a broader article is written. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccination: description wrong

[edit]

"As with all vaccination, the Badger BCG is only effective on animals that do not already have the disease, and it can only be delivered by injection." Neither is true.

Rabies vaccine is routinely used after infection by the virus, and the Sabin vaccine for polio is one example of a vaccine not delivered by injection. Another is the current nasal-spray influenza vaccine. Can a knowledgeable person replace the above with a sentence about the actual badger BCG, instead of this doubly incorrect statement? Thanks.

Might be worth mentioning that human BCG doesn't work particularly well--in some places it doesn't work at all. The article doesn't mention whether the badger version is effective. IAmNitpicking (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for that suggestion. I have removed "As with all vaccination". I believe that the only authorised delivery method for this particular vaccine is vaccination by a trained person, so the current phrasing seems accurate?

    I don't have a source for how (in)effective the badger BCG might be. I'd be interested to read such a source if you do?—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source for future reference

[edit]

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/news/title_327270_en.html

removal of cat transmission

[edit]

An editor has twice removed the section on cat to human transmission of bTB. I will not edit war but would appreciate other editors commenting on this removal. The section on cats is important for several reasons. First, people need to be educated that badgers are not the only route of bTB transmission, despite this often being implied as a reason for culling here in the UK. Many people do not know there are other vectors, especially our own domestic pets. Second, it has been suggested somewhere, that the cats may have caught the disease from infected cattle or badgers. Again, this is essential to understanding the reasons and how sensible the cull is. Third, cat to human transmission is general background on the disease/reason for badger culling, and should therefore be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, a declaration of interest, I am opposed to the badger cull in the UK and a cat lover. I also found the fact that domestic cats can be vectors for bTB interesting and informative.
Having said all that, I'm not at all sure that the section on cat to human transmission actually belongs in this article. It certainly does belong in Mycobacterium bovis in the UK (and it would also be a improvement to this article, Badger culling in the United Kingdom, if it pointed directly to the specific section on the disease in the UK). This article, Badger culling in the United Kingdom, already mentions the other vectors (non-bovine livestock, wild life, and domestic pets) in the lead section and at the top of "Arguments against culling". The disputed section is part of the section "Arguments against culling". As far as I am aware, none of bodies opposed to the cull (Badger Trust & RSPCA) have used cat to human transmission as argument against the cull (unlike fallow deer, which may well be a maintenance host for the disease, and which has been used as an argument against the cull). Nothing in the referenced BBC article points to cat to human transmission being an argument against the cull, and also quotes an expert as saying "It's important to remember that this was a very unusual cluster of TB in domestic cats." Robevans123 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The large animal charities sometimes make political decisions about what information they release or issues they become involved in. For example, have you ever seen an article published by the RSPCB on bettery hens? So, we should not always look to these organisations for verification.
I take on board that cat-to-human transmission is rare, but it is a verifiable fact and therefore permissible in Wikipedia. The cat-to-human transmission may not be a reason "against" culling but it indicates that the reasoning of culling only badgers to prevent humans contracting the disease is flawed. There is, to my memory, no mention of culling other animals to prevent the spread. I originally divided this sub-section into "Wildlife" and "Domestic animals". I did this partly to emphasise the surprising finding of the cat-to-human transmission. My style of writing is to split into sub-sections - if others disagree with this, then please merge the sections.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for removing the comments regarding domestic cats was clearly posted when I made the edit-"no evidence of cat to cattle bTB transmission so is irrelevant to article,or should at least be in a different subtitle".The fact that cats can (In extremely rare cases) spread M.Bovis to humans is noteworthy,but in no way a valid argument against badger culling.Furthermore the likelihood of cattle and cat interactions or use of the piece of land is virtually non-existent and the spread of TB between these animals has never been documented.If you want to undo my edits then that's fine but at least justify why you are doing it. HamishDS (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new section ("Overview of bTB") and placed the cat transmission section into it.It's a shame that your default response to a dispute is to undo rather than solve the problem logically.HamishDS (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, the sentences on cats are completely out of place in an overview section, especially given the rarity (first instance of being recorded). This seems especially the case when we already have a sub-section titled "other carriers". Perhaps the "Reasons against culling" should be changed to "concerns about culling" and the cats reintroduced into the "other carriers" section"
Personally I think it shouldn't be in the article,as it doesn't have anything to to with the badger cull or transmission of bTB between one species to cattle.The only reason I kept it in was to please all parties.Even if the section was renamed to "concerns about culling" Cats have never transmitted bTB to cattle,so isn't helpful to the reader,but just "muddies the water" over the facts.HamishDS (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have made that point but other editors have disagreed about the relevance. Moving the "cats" section to a completely new incongrous section and forcing it into the article is not helpful. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an authenticated transmission of deer to cattle, so using your logic, we should not mention deer in the article either. You seem to be a little focussed on the idea that the badger cull is to prevent transmission to cattle. The ultimate aim is to prevent badgers transmitting it to cattle who might transmit it to humans. So, any information on vectors of transmission to humans (including cats) belongs in this article.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reinforce my argument - this is a quote from the article "Culling is a method used in parts of the UK to reduce the number of badgers and thereby reduce the incidence and spread of bTB that might infect humans."
But it has been shown by DEFRA that Bovine TB exists ,in small numbers, in deer.DEFRA have also advised that "deer stalkers and managers should take the disease risk into account when establishing any management programmes" as they believe that transmission happens between the two species,no such comments for cats.

The aim for the cull is to reduce bTB in cattle,and reducing the risk to humans is argument I have never heard of from goverment.The primary aims boil down to saving money,cows and conserving nature, none of which have anything to do with cats.HamishDS (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Basically, we're slaughtering literally hundreds of thousands of cattle because of bTB, and it's costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune. It's also breaking farmers' hearts (which is why there's a pro-cull lobby). The agricultural community thinks cattle are no less important than badgers, and for the record, I agree with them. I see the need for the cull, even though I don't particularly like it. Trying to stop bTB in humans is not something that anyone who understands the issues is very concerned about. However, it's a common concern for people who don't, so I agree that a discussion of the vectors for bTB in humans is relevant here.—S Marshall T/C 10:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to stop moving the text on cat transmission around until we have agreed whether it should be in or out? This discussion was started to prevent edit-warring about putting the text in or out. We don't want to start an edit-war on where it goes... Hamish's move was a valid attempt to keep the info but move it out the section "Arguments against culling", but perhaps gave it too much prominence. I'm still unsure about if the text on cat transmission actually belongs in this article (but S Marshall's comment about some discussion of the vectors is valid), but putting that aside, I'll repeat what I said before that it does not belong in a section entitled "Arguments against culling" or "Concerns about culling" - there is nothing in the quoted reference that makes any reference to the culling, and no-one on the anti-cull side has used cat transmission as an argument against the cull (presumably because the known size of the cat reservoir is pretty small).

  • BTW the mention of deers does belong in the section "Arguments against culling" because, as I understand it, the argument is that there is no point in dealing with one reservoir of the disease if you're not doing anything about another significant reservoir.
  • I'm actually surprised that there isn't more in the "Arguments against culling" section about the scientific validity of the cull - it was promoted as a scientific trial, but the opponents have claimed that its not been done very scientifically and that the govenment agencies have been secretive about the result. I think there is also an argument that other alternatives (such as vaccination) have not yet been fully explored. I need to do a bit more research and reference hunting, but I'll try to address these issues.
  • I've just realised that the section "Disease" (or at least some parts of it) would actually be better in a background section like "bovine TB in the UK" (which could include a mention of the vectors including cat transmission) maybe just before or after the "Status of badgers section".
  • HamishDS's comment about public health not being part of the government's argument is also valid - the first bullet point in the section "Arguments for culling" needs some editing to reflect what is actually said in the source.
  • S Marshall's comment about the effect farmers is also valid - the section on "Individual farms" covers the fact that there is compensation, and that it is only partial, but a reference to the emotional effect on farmers may be useful - possibly [2]? Actually, I'm not sure if this would actually belong in this section because it is part "Arguments for culling". I don't know if the NFU (or other bodies) have argued the emotional impact (as against the financial impact) as an argument for culling. Maybe there a case for a background section on this as well. Robevans123 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I haven't included anything about the emotional effect on farmers of having their herds decimated to protect wildlife, is that I didn't have a source. Or at least, no source of similar calibre to the ones I used to start the article ---- but that NFU online one looks quite tolerable, and I'd suggest using it.

    The validity of the science behind the trials is a complicated issue because the scientific community is not of one mind, and the two sides tend to pick and choose which scientists they believe, so any discussion of that would descend to the kind of he-said-she-said that plagues Wikipedia's coverage of these controversial topics. I think that might be better avoided.

    A fact that I would love to include, if I could find a reliable source that takes note of it, is that we've culled between 30 and 40 cattle for every badger.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject of sources does anybody one know of any German or French records of badger kills,as I would like to link this to their low levels of bTB as with the idea of how a "complete strategy" is needed to combat bTB. Or sources of the recent drop in bTB in the cull areas from 34% to 11%.I also think the Idea of a "background of bTB" or "bTB in the UK" section would be more helpful and a good place for the cat bit (as the cull is stopping M.Bovis getting TO cattle so the Cow to Human transmission is not a valid argument against the cull)HamishDS (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the cull is stopping bTB getting to cattle! Defra are not monitoring bTB in the cull areas. The primary reason for culling this year and last year is to test the "humaneness" of free shooting...not the efficacy of eliminating bTB.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the aim but is an effect. The incidence rate of bTB fell,just like it did in the (highly flawed) RBCT trials,which is noteworthy within the article. HamishDS (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of headings

[edit]

@User:S Marshall Hi. I'm afraid I disagree with your removal of many sub/headings. Some of these I feel are extremely important, such as highlighting there are carriers other than badgers. I also think vaccination of cattle and vaccination of badgers should be under separate headings.DrChrissy (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed: compensation situation in section 'Cost of bTB'

[edit]

With this extract...

"The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI2006/168) was overturned when the High Court decided the Order was unlawful; in the test case, farmers had been receiving compensation payments of around £1,000 on animals valued at over £3,000, but in extreme cases the discrepancy between animal value and compensation paid was over one thousand percent. This case was itself overturned on appeal in 2009.[1][2]"

I cannot work out what the final situation is regarding compensation - ie what level of compensation are farmers now receiving? (Does it correspond to the animal's value? (And who is deciding what that value is?)). Also, what did "The Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 (SI2006/168)" say in the first place? And does "This case was itself overturned on appeal in 2009." mean that that Order now stands? FrankSier (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under the Cattle Compensation Order, compensation is paid according to the market value of an animal of its pedigree, sex and age. It's recalculated every month based on recent sales data, and you can see the levels of compensation payable now (as of March 2016) here.

    The 2009 legal wrangles were collectively called the "Partridge Farms case", because they concerned a farmer called David Partridge who farmed and presumably still farms at Ennerleigh Farm near the town of Tiverton in Devon. Mr Partridge had lost about 110 cattle over the course of four years from 2002 to 2006, from a herd of about 900, being healthy animals compulsorily destroyed under bovine TB control regulations, so the cost to him had been considerable. His lawyers argued that he should be compensated according to the healthy value of the animal, i.e. what it would bring at market if it had not been diagnosed with bovine TB. The government's lawyers argued that he should be compensated according to its value after the diagnosis, which is its salvage value (i.e. a great deal lower). When all was said and done the government won; it successfully argued that farmers should have a significant financial incentive to use all the latest methods to keep their herds free of bTB.

    Does this help?—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that gives some extra useful info, but what I was hoping is that someone would clarify the article itself. Even with this extra info I do not feel I understand the situation sufficiently to clarify the article myself.
Investigating further I see that there is a reference already in the article that mentions the Partridge Farms case, and I am copying just the URL from that reference here (the original reference is at the end the section I have quoted above): http://www.guildhallchambers.co.uk/uploads/docs/section9/AgriculturalLawUpdate_WB_BurgesSalmon_100909.pdf
That pdf mentions not only the value of the healthy animal and the value of the diseased animal, but some intermediate value, the "table value". I also do not know what stage in the legal argument that this pdf represents. FrankSier (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "table value" is the value according to the published compensation tables; I linked the current table above. From my personal knowledge, I can tell you that that .pdf represents the farthest stage that has been reported in the agricultural legal press as of today, so if anything's changed it's very recent. I suspect that Mr Partridge was refused leave to appeal and that was the end of it. I could not write this in the article because I couldn't provide a source to back it up.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... although I have been able to find a page of Hansard here which, while wearisomely political as Hansard often is, at least serves to indicate how little has changed for farmers since the Partridge Farms case. There has been no published research of any value since about 2012 and the British public are quite deeply divided about it.

The basic fact is that badgers are the primary spreaders of this disease. They are animals that are protected by law and humans have long since wiped out their natural predators. Since the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 their numbers have doubled and then doubled again. They can eat almost anything; although about half their diet is earthworms they also like the fodder given to farmyard animals and will burrow and raid for it. They range very widely from their setts and they spray infected urine everywhere. In fact, if they were insects we'd be exterminating them very cheerfully and efficiently indeed. But they're undeniably cute so we don't. The only good answers involve developing effective vaccines for badgers or cattle, or ideally both.—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity of deer and badgers - Autumnwatch

[edit]

For those of us in the UK, we have just ended another series of the BBC programme Autumnwatch. During this series, they used a very high quality Infra red camera to film nature at night. I was struck (actually gobsmacked) at the very close proximity of a wide range of species going about their usual behaviour. In one piece of video, there were Sika deer, 2 badgers, a fox and a rabbit all in the same frame, i.e. all within a few metres of each other! The close proximity of the deer and badgers obviously has implications for the spread and transmission of bTB (and possibly the fox). Can this information be introduced into the article? My own suspicion is that it is OR, because there was no specific mention of this on the programme. It would be great to find an RS on "grazing distances" or something like that. DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an interesting behaviour, but I'm not sure it does have implications. The disease is primarily spread by contact with body fluids. Badgers range over a very wide area, because the earthworms that make up more than half their diet aren't very nutritious, so they have to find and eat lots and lots of them every night. The badgers mark their territory by spraying it with urine, so one tuberculous badger can produce very widespread puddles of pungent urine in a single night. Other animals sniff the urine and catch the disease. I understood that that's the main vector. Mind you, I'm not in any way an expert, just an interested amateur.—S Marshall T/C 21:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I am trying to make is that if the deer are grazing in close proximity to the badgers, it seems more likely they will ingest contaminated badger urine or saliva. The deer may then become a reservoir for the bTB and subsequently eliminate their own contaminated urine to re-infect or infect badgers that graze in close proximity. I get the feeling that the grazing proximity of these multiple species has been underestimated in the past. This is important because it is believed bTB survives for only a short period when exposed to air - obviously, a closer proximity of grazing means there is greater probability of encountering viable contaminated material. DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drat it, I can't find the silly thing. All I can find is my note of what I read: Mammal Review 10:4, 151-162 (1980) published by the Mammal Society. There's a review of parasites and infectious diseases of badgers by Martin Hancox. I don't suppose you have access to that?—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I used to have a paper copy but I can't find it.  :( Your earlier posts made me think about lice and ticks, whether they carry the disease between badgers and deer. I suppose I have to admit that I can't help you establish the connection but it was certainly interesting to think about. By the way, I've just come across your article on theory of mind in animals, which has also intrigued me. Strange how editors intersect sometimes.  :)—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • To the best of my knowledge, lice and ticks are not involved in the transmission of bTB. Our bTB article states The disease can be transmitted in several ways; for example, it can be spread in exhaled air, sputum, urine, faeces and pus, so the disease can be transmitted by direct contact, contact with the excreta of an infected animal, or inhalation of aerosols, depending on the species involved. I hope you like the Theory of mind in animals article. It is a difficult one to work on sometimes because the controls in the studies need to be so careful and many editors (and researchers!) quickly over-extend the findings and conclusions. DrChrissy (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Badger culling in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Badger_culling_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1205605225"