Skip to main content

A badger cull is needless slaughter

 “Badger hates Society, and invitations, and dinner, and all that sort of thing.” ― Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows. 

News that the badger cull in the United Kingdom could be extended this year is disturbing.  Farmers are convinced that badgers transmit TB to cattle and the UK government have sanctioned culling to appease that concern.  Last year, about 35,000 badgers were killed but the Badger Trust said a leaked document showed plans to cull up to about 64,500 this year.   If this is so, then it seems odd given that a vaccine would be the better strategy.  

Yet, the best way of dealing with TB spread in cattle is through a vaccine.  Evidence that culling works in preventing the spread of TB is scant, while data suggests that culling increases the spread of badgers, as they increase their home range.  Thus, culling is likely to enhance rather than reduce the risk of TB spread to cattle.  

Badgers are like we humans.  They are not always socially agreeable.   Badgers tend to strut their own stuff when it comes to foraging for food.   But don't let that fool you.  Badgers are very much social creatures.  They are communicating all the time,  silently with their scent or with their grunts and coos and kackles.   They leave their scent everywhere, but it is not accidental.  It tightens the bond of their social group, their clan.  They also communicate through sounds and body language.  Their vocal repertoire is quite complex, with at least sixteen distinct sounds, from a purr, wail, chitter, right through to a grunt.  What each means would be contextual. Snorts, for example, are used when they are startled or surprised and are most commonly elicited when one badger is surprised by another.  "Don't creep up on me like that, you startled me!"

Badger image Vincent van Zalinge

Much of this communication, particularly through the sense of smell lies behind the spread of a clan as a result of the culling.  A study published last year found that home range could increase by as much 61 per cent as a result of the cull.  Culling is a blunt instrument that is unlikely to achieve its objective other than to appease farmers who are convinced that their problem lies with the badgers, rather than husbandry. 

As Lord John Krebs, emeritus professor at the University of Oxford, commented last year: “This research shows how important it is to find out about badger behaviour. It shows that culling badgers can cause surviving individuals in an area to move around more, and as a result, they could come into contact with infected cattle and help to spread TB. The ill-thought-out plan to control TB by killing badgers could therefore backfire.”

Dr Ray Noble is a Chartered Biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology, writing extensively on agency in living systems.  He is also a novelist.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't