To cull or not to cull is that the question?

Along with lots more questions.

The black and white stripy beasts and the now postponed cull not to mention bovine TB have been a hot topic and so far we've remained silent because, well, we're not really sure what to say.  But we all agree that something has to be done to tackle the problem - we're still not sure what that something is. 
I'm not going to go into all the stated arguments for or against the planned cull - we'd be here for ever.  If you want more detail have a look at CJS's archived news.

Having gone round in circles we don't have an answer, does anyone?

Here are a few of things we did manage to agree upon.
bTB is not good, for cattle or badger. 

A widespread apparently uncoordinated badger cull to combat bTB is not the best solution, especially one which seems so 'lackadaisical'. That the cull was given permission to proceed on estimated population numbers and without a starting baseline population count demonstrate a lack of scientific rigour. Demonstrated by the postponement at the eleventh hour because of the much higher than anticipated numbers meaning that the cull could not be completed within the timeframe, culling has to be complete by end of November.


We don't think the current policy of culling all cattle reactors is the right one, it seems to be the opposite of evolution, taking out the strong individuals and leaving the weaker ones (cattle can be exposed and develop an immunity without actually contracting the disease but the current test doesn't show this); more a survival of the weakest.

Modern dairy (and to some extent beef) cattle are little more than clones, the genetic pool is small and decreasing, proven bulls sire many more calves by AI than is naturally possible thereby increasing their genes in the pool, excluding others over time creating an ever decreasing availability of genetic material.  For production this is good giving guaranteed high yields, but for animal health it's a potential disaster; should a weakness to any disease become evident, without the genetic diversity of hybrid vigour offering resistant characteristics, chances are it will rage through the population at possibly pandemic speed.  In this time of non-existent profit margins it's not welcome to hear that perhaps a decrease in yield by introducing new genetic material from less productive animals would be of long term benefit by widening genetic diversity.

A solution to bTB in cattle is needed, our feeling is that vaccination is the way forward, now whether we need a new vaccine, a new tuberculin test or new laws is still up for discussion, whichever is fastest and easiest to achieve seems to be the consensus.

Badgers are territorial and generally don't move house very often, but a newly available food resource (ie an empty territory) may be sufficient enticement for territory expansion if not creation of a complete new sett resulting in greater badger population movement.
Badgers are cute but lethal (have you seen a hen house after a badger attack? much worse than a fox).
Being one of the few species that an unroll and eat them badgers have a detrimental affect on hedgehog populations as well as much of our other wildlife.
Badgers have few, if any, natural competitors or predators in the UK.

A few unresolved questions.
Yes, badgers can infect cattle and vice versa but are they the only agents of infection?
Which, if any, other species could be agents of infection? We've heard deer and rats mentioned but no evidence.

Is it possible that competition, change in food and overcrowding has led to a less healthy badger population resulting in  badgers that are more susceptible to infections?

Does the food badgers eat influence their susceptibility and infectiousness (the maize query)?

When vaccinating badgers how can you be sure all the individuals in the area have been vaccinated, how can you check whether the animal had already been inoculated? (and if you can check does anyone do so before inoculating again?)

How long does the badger vaccine (or any successful cattle) last?  It's reported that annual vaccinations will be required and of course vaccination doesn't work on any already infected animals.

Can we test badgers rather than cattle?  And if so could infected setts be culled rather than the proposed whole population reduction.

It is generally accepted that the cost of losing the UK's cattle export market (that's beasts, beef, milk etc) is prohibitively high, but what about in the short term?  Could we vaccinate cattle until the problem is brought under control, might it be a short term pain for long term gain?

Instead of the huge culls planned could the funding be better used in expediting the creation of cattle vaccines that are acceptable to exportation rules or into development of a new bTB test which can distinguish between vaccination and infection.

Here is where our opinion maybe diverges from many people.
There are too many badgers.
Now there's a statement! The badger was protected in law at a time when the population was low and badgers were being persecuted and baited towards extinction.  Since then they've done very well, the protection has worked, badger populations are now at very high levels in some areas. Consequently we feel that some form of population control would be advantageous: ideas ranged from hunting (would take out the weaker individuals) to selective removal of individuals (could keep a generally lower population) to selective removal of a whole tribe and their sett (for areas with an excessively high population).