Glis glis

This morning, I spotted a newspaper article entitled “Killer in the Countryside” which left me rather riled. It was in the Western Morning News and therefore rather biased towards farmers, but I was still incredulous at the tone and the title.

“He said the proportion of badgers infected with bovine TB varied from just four per cent in some areas to as much as forty per cent in others. But he said that the “inadequacy of diagnosis” meant that both these figures should probably be doubled - with badger infection in the worst areas reaching 80 per cent.”

…What is the point of carrying out research and killing hundreds of badgers if someone is going to say “well actually I want it to be a terrible situation, therefore I’m going to randomly double the highest figure I found”? Where is the scientific basis for that?? Anyway, as the article rather grudgingly admits towards the end (off the front page, of course), only a tiny percentage of these badgers are actually ill with the disease and therefore able to transmit it. 

I agree that ill badgers are able to pass on TB, but it’s the husbandry and transport of cattle that have led to the problem becoming so widespread. Countless peer-reviewed scientific journal articles have provided evidence that badgers are not a major factor in the disease, and indeed, the situation has even worsened in some areas where they have been culled.

Of course, the other grating factor in this whole business are that badgers are supposedly protected species. Destroying them (most of them perfectly healthy individuals) for the sake of minimal short-term profits (an intensive cull may reduce bovine TB by up to 20%) is really rather shameful.

I urge you to visit the Badgers Trust a group that promotes conservation of badgers and their habitats. Although I shy away from pre-written letters, there’s one on their site that is easy to edit to add your own personal view. Email DEFRA 
The relevant consultation document is here (a pdf, so will take a little time to load).

The Mammal Society’s response to the consultation is a lengthy but enlightening read, and a good overview of the position of current scientific research.