Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on May 27, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports
News & Reports BOVINE TB
Pilot badger culls to continue – but no wider roll out ‘THE purpose of the pilots was to test our assumptions about safety, efficacy and humaneness of controlled shooting. This has now been completed through the high-quality information generated that will enable us to plan how we proceed in controlling this wildlife reservoir of bovine TB effectively, humanely and safely.’ So says the Government in its response to the report by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) on the safety, efficacy and humaneness of the two pilot badger culls conducted in Somerset and Gloucestershire last year. The IEP’s report, containing recommendations for how the culls might be improved, and the Government’s response to it, were published simultaneously on April 3. At the same time, Defra also published its strategy for achieving Officially Bovine TB-Free status for England (see p 367). Speaking in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State at Defra, Owen Paterson, said that the pilot culls would continue, but that, at present, there would be no wider roll out of the culling strategy. ‘The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place,’ he said. ‘We will work with Natural England and the industry to implement the changes. The cull companies will adapt their operational plans to ensure better consistency of coverage in the cull areas. They will incorporate more extensive training and real-time monitoring of cull effectiveness and humaneness by Natural England. We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas. ‘The four-year culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire are pilots and we always expected to learn lessons from them,’ Mr Paterson said. ‘It is crucial we get this right. That is why we are taking a responsible approach, accepting recommendations from experts to make the pilots better.’
‘The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place . . . We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas’ – Owen Paterson Mr Paterson also announced that a ‘comprehensive, farm-level risk management programme’ would be trialled throughout the cull areas over the next three years. The programme would be available to all farmers and would provide bespoke assessments and advice on how to protect their cattle.
IEP’s findings
The IEP’s report makes clear that the panel believes that the pilot culls failed in terms of efficacy and humaneness. ‘We concluded, from the data provided, that controlled shooting alone (or in combination with cage trapping) did not deliver the level of culling set by government,’ said Ranald Munro, chairman of the IEP, in a letter to Mr Paterson, which was published as part of the report. Professor Munro continued: ‘Shooting accuracy varied among contractors and resulted in a number of badgers taking longer than five minutes to die, others being hit but not retrieved, and some possibly being missed altogether. In the context of the pilot culls, we consider that the total number of these events should be less than 5 per cent of the badgers at which shots were taken. We are confident that this was not achieved.’ However, the panel says it is confident that controlled shooting can be carried out safely, even in the context of activity by protestors, provided that best practice guidance is followed. The panel notes that the stated purpose of the pilot culls was to test the
effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. However, it reports that, some weeks after the beginning of the culls, it learned that cage trapping had been employed on a large scale throughout both culls. ‘Cage trapping was not used as a secondary means to cull additional animals towards the end of the pilots but was implemented within two days of the beginning of the cull in Somerset and by day 3 in Gloucestershire,’ it says. ‘In the Somerset area, more than half of the badgers removed during the pilot culls were cage trapped.’ It describes the decision to use cage trapping on this scale as ‘unfortunate’, saying that the effectiveness of the culls as a whole does not reflect the effectiveness of controlled shooting as a method of badger control.
‘Shooting accuracy varied among contractors and resulted in a number of badgers taking longer than five minutes to die, others being hit but not retrieved, and some possibly being missed altogether. In the context of the pilot culls, we consider that the total number of these events should be less than 5 per cent of the badgers at which shots were taken. We are confident that this was not achieved’ – Independent Expert Panel Also, it says, from a scientific point of view, cage trapping constituted a confounding variable, making it harder to assess the effectiveness of controlled shooting. Nevertheless, the panel says that the protocols agreed for the initial six-week period of the two culls were statistically robust and that the data gathered by the AHVLA over the period were appropriate to allow it to formulate its advice. Regarding the effectiveness of the culls, the IEP calculates that controlled shooting alone removed less than 24.8 per cent of the pre-cull badger population in the Somerset cull area, and less than 37.1 per cent of the pre-cull population in the Gloucestershire cull area. When combined with cage trapping, the IEP calculates that controlled April 12, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 365
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on May 27, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports shooting removed less than 48.1 per cent of the pre-cull population of badgers in Somerset and less than 39.1 per cent of the pre-cull population in Gloucestershire. The aim of both culls had been to remove 70 per cent of the badger populations in both areas. The IEP’s report discusses some of the issues that might have arisen during calculations of the pre-cull badger populations and explains how they might have influenced the outcome. The IEP concludes that there are various possible reasons why the pilot culls failed to meet their targets for reducing badger populations, but notes that the data needed to allow it to properly assess the relative importance of these factors are lacking. However, it states: ‘It seems likely that noncompliance, heterogeneous spatial coverage by contractors of compliant land, variability in contractor effort or ability and protestor activity were all contributory factors.’ Turning to the humaneness of the culls, the IEP says its analysis concentrated on the number of animals affected and the likelihood of an animal experiencing pain as a consequence of shooting. It concludes that, on the basis of information available to it, ‘It is extremely likely that up to 52 per cent of badgers would have died rapidly, within 10 seconds of being shot.’ However, it adds: ‘It is extremely likely that between 7.4 per cent and 22.8 per cent of badgers that were shot at were still alive after five minutes, and therefore at risk of experiencing marked pain. We are concerned at the potential for suffering that these figures imply.’ In terms of the safety of the culls, the IEP says that incidents involving confrontation between cull operators and protestors did have potential safety implications for both sides and some cases required a police response. However, it concludes, ‘In the light of the police reports we are confident
that controlled shooting, when carried out in accordance with Best Practice Guidance, poses no threat to public safety even in the presence of local protest.’ Discussing the implications of its findings for a wider roll out of a culling strategy, the panel says: ‘If culling is continued in the pilot areas, or in the event of roll-out to additional areas, standards of effectiveness and humaneness must be improved. Continuation of monitoring, of both effectiveness and humaneness, is necessary to demonstrate that improvements have been achieved. In addition, such monitoring should be independently audited.’ It adds that there should also be closer monitoring of the adherence of contractors to all of the conditions under which their culling licences are granted.
Government’s response
The IEP makes a number of recommendations in its report, and, in its response, the Government sets out how it intends to act on these. Regarding the effectiveness of the culls, the Government says that it recognises that even when a combination of cage trapping and shooting was used, the desired 70 per cent level of badger removal was not achieved in the first year of the culls. ‘However,’ it says, ‘this is only the start of a four-year culling programme.’ It notes that ‘progress in removal levels during the randomised badger culling trials was variable each year’ and says that the longer-term outcome should be focused on. The Government says it also learned that the methods available for estimating badger populations are imprecise and that a number of combined approaches need to be deployed to arrive at an overall assessment of effectiveness.
BVA statement On publication of the IEP’s report and the full bovine TB strategy for England, the BVA put out a statement saying that it would consider the IEP’s report in consultation with its members before commenting in detail. However, the BVA President, Robin Hargreaves, said that it was regrettable that Defra had announced its decision on the way forward without consulting key stakeholders, including the BVA. ‘To date, BVA has supported the use of targeted, humane badger culling in carefully selected areas as part of a comprehensive approach to tackling bovine TB,’ said Mr Hargreaves. ‘But we have made it clear that we can only support badger culling if the method used is humane, safe and effective. That
is why BVA called for controlled shooting to be tested and critically evaluated against these criteria by an independent group of experts.’ He added: ‘We broadly supported the draft bovine TB strategy when it was published in August last year, particularly the targeted measures in high incidence and edge areas. ‘Regardless of our future response to the findings of the IEP, we will only be able to eradicate bovine TB if we tackle the disease in the wildlife reservoir as well as cattle.’ The IEP’s report will be considered by the BVA’s Veterinary Policy Group and Ethics and Welfare Group, which will make policy recommendations to the BVA Council.
On the humaneness of the culls, the Government says that it must be recognised that shooting as practised under field conditions cannot be expected to deliver the same level of precision as achieved in more controlled environments, such as in slaughterhouses or laboratories. Also, it says, the shooting of badgers needs to be placed in context with the shooting of other wildlife species, where shooting is considered normal practice and is not subject to the same level of scrutiny and control. ‘The observations and postmortems show that, when shot accurately, death is rapid and we are confident that this was the case with the vast majority of badgers culled,’ it says. However, the Government recognises that there were a number of circumstances where shots were apparently missed and the outcome for the badger was uncertain. It says that these events need to be reduced and that it will work with cull companies to ensure that the training and assessment of contractors is enhanced to ensure that accuracy is improved. In implementing the recommendations made by the IEP, the Government says that the need to continue monitoring the effectiveness of the culls and the accuracy of the shooting has to be balanced against the costs of carrying out detailed field work and postmortem examinations. ‘Monitoring effectiveness and humaneness of the cull will continue in an appropriate and cost-effective way, building on the quality of the research carried out in the pilots. We will work with Natural England to require better data collection by the cull companies to evaluate progress and improve effectiveness, for example by better targeting areas where badgers remain, and take steps to ensure sufficient effort is deployed to cull all the known badger groups in defined areas. Similarly, we will implement monitoring of the accuracy of controlled shooting that will be sufficiently rigorous to identify issues of concern so that timely interventions can be made if necessary.’ It concludes: ‘As in any complex operation, there are always lessons to be learned and the panel’s report offers useful insights to be taken into account in planning for this year’s culls.’ n The IEP’s report is available at www.gov. uk/government/publications/pilot-badgerculls-in-somerset-and-gloucestershire-reportby-the-independent-expert-panel The Government’s response to the report is available at www. gov.uk/government/publications/ pilot-badger-culls-in-somerset-andgloucestershire-defra-response-to-the-reportby-the-independent-expert-panel doi: 10.1136/vr.g2653
366 | Veterinary Record | April 12, 2014
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on May 27, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Pilot badger culls to continue − but no wider roll out Veterinary Record 2014 174: 365-366
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2653 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/15/365
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
News & Reports
News & Reports BOVINE TB
Pilot badger culls to continue – but no wider roll out ‘THE purpose of the pilots was to test our assumptions about safety, efficacy and humaneness of controlled shooting. This has now been completed through the high-quality information generated that will enable us to plan how we proceed in controlling this wildlife reservoir of bovine TB effectively, humanely and safely.’ So says the Government in its response to the report by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) on the safety, efficacy and humaneness of the two pilot badger culls conducted in Somerset and Gloucestershire last year. The IEP’s report, containing recommendations for how the culls might be improved, and the Government’s response to it, were published simultaneously on April 3. At the same time, Defra also published its strategy for achieving Officially Bovine TB-Free status for England (see p 367). Speaking in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State at Defra, Owen Paterson, said that the pilot culls would continue, but that, at present, there would be no wider roll out of the culling strategy. ‘The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place,’ he said. ‘We will work with Natural England and the industry to implement the changes. The cull companies will adapt their operational plans to ensure better consistency of coverage in the cull areas. They will incorporate more extensive training and real-time monitoring of cull effectiveness and humaneness by Natural England. We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas. ‘The four-year culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire are pilots and we always expected to learn lessons from them,’ Mr Paterson said. ‘It is crucial we get this right. That is why we are taking a responsible approach, accepting recommendations from experts to make the pilots better.’
‘The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place . . . We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas’ – Owen Paterson Mr Paterson also announced that a ‘comprehensive, farm-level risk management programme’ would be trialled throughout the cull areas over the next three years. The programme would be available to all farmers and would provide bespoke assessments and advice on how to protect their cattle.
IEP’s findings
The IEP’s report makes clear that the panel believes that the pilot culls failed in terms of efficacy and humaneness. ‘We concluded, from the data provided, that controlled shooting alone (or in combination with cage trapping) did not deliver the level of culling set by government,’ said Ranald Munro, chairman of the IEP, in a letter to Mr Paterson, which was published as part of the report. Professor Munro continued: ‘Shooting accuracy varied among contractors and resulted in a number of badgers taking longer than five minutes to die, others being hit but not retrieved, and some possibly being missed altogether. In the context of the pilot culls, we consider that the total number of these events should be less than 5 per cent of the badgers at which shots were taken. We are confident that this was not achieved.’ However, the panel says it is confident that controlled shooting can be carried out safely, even in the context of activity by protestors, provided that best practice guidance is followed. The panel notes that the stated purpose of the pilot culls was to test the
effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. However, it reports that, some weeks after the beginning of the culls, it learned that cage trapping had been employed on a large scale throughout both culls. ‘Cage trapping was not used as a secondary means to cull additional animals towards the end of the pilots but was implemented within two days of the beginning of the cull in Somerset and by day 3 in Gloucestershire,’ it says. ‘In the Somerset area, more than half of the badgers removed during the pilot culls were cage trapped.’ It describes the decision to use cage trapping on this scale as ‘unfortunate’, saying that the effectiveness of the culls as a whole does not reflect the effectiveness of controlled shooting as a method of badger control.
‘Shooting accuracy varied among contractors and resulted in a number of badgers taking longer than five minutes to die, others being hit but not retrieved, and some possibly being missed altogether. In the context of the pilot culls, we consider that the total number of these events should be less than 5 per cent of the badgers at which shots were taken. We are confident that this was not achieved’ – Independent Expert Panel Also, it says, from a scientific point of view, cage trapping constituted a confounding variable, making it harder to assess the effectiveness of controlled shooting. Nevertheless, the panel says that the protocols agreed for the initial six-week period of the two culls were statistically robust and that the data gathered by the AHVLA over the period were appropriate to allow it to formulate its advice. Regarding the effectiveness of the culls, the IEP calculates that controlled shooting alone removed less than 24.8 per cent of the pre-cull badger population in the Somerset cull area, and less than 37.1 per cent of the pre-cull population in the Gloucestershire cull area. When combined with cage trapping, the IEP calculates that controlled April 12, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 365
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on May 27, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
News & Reports shooting removed less than 48.1 per cent of the pre-cull population of badgers in Somerset and less than 39.1 per cent of the pre-cull population in Gloucestershire. The aim of both culls had been to remove 70 per cent of the badger populations in both areas. The IEP’s report discusses some of the issues that might have arisen during calculations of the pre-cull badger populations and explains how they might have influenced the outcome. The IEP concludes that there are various possible reasons why the pilot culls failed to meet their targets for reducing badger populations, but notes that the data needed to allow it to properly assess the relative importance of these factors are lacking. However, it states: ‘It seems likely that noncompliance, heterogeneous spatial coverage by contractors of compliant land, variability in contractor effort or ability and protestor activity were all contributory factors.’ Turning to the humaneness of the culls, the IEP says its analysis concentrated on the number of animals affected and the likelihood of an animal experiencing pain as a consequence of shooting. It concludes that, on the basis of information available to it, ‘It is extremely likely that up to 52 per cent of badgers would have died rapidly, within 10 seconds of being shot.’ However, it adds: ‘It is extremely likely that between 7.4 per cent and 22.8 per cent of badgers that were shot at were still alive after five minutes, and therefore at risk of experiencing marked pain. We are concerned at the potential for suffering that these figures imply.’ In terms of the safety of the culls, the IEP says that incidents involving confrontation between cull operators and protestors did have potential safety implications for both sides and some cases required a police response. However, it concludes, ‘In the light of the police reports we are confident
that controlled shooting, when carried out in accordance with Best Practice Guidance, poses no threat to public safety even in the presence of local protest.’ Discussing the implications of its findings for a wider roll out of a culling strategy, the panel says: ‘If culling is continued in the pilot areas, or in the event of roll-out to additional areas, standards of effectiveness and humaneness must be improved. Continuation of monitoring, of both effectiveness and humaneness, is necessary to demonstrate that improvements have been achieved. In addition, such monitoring should be independently audited.’ It adds that there should also be closer monitoring of the adherence of contractors to all of the conditions under which their culling licences are granted.
Government’s response
The IEP makes a number of recommendations in its report, and, in its response, the Government sets out how it intends to act on these. Regarding the effectiveness of the culls, the Government says that it recognises that even when a combination of cage trapping and shooting was used, the desired 70 per cent level of badger removal was not achieved in the first year of the culls. ‘However,’ it says, ‘this is only the start of a four-year culling programme.’ It notes that ‘progress in removal levels during the randomised badger culling trials was variable each year’ and says that the longer-term outcome should be focused on. The Government says it also learned that the methods available for estimating badger populations are imprecise and that a number of combined approaches need to be deployed to arrive at an overall assessment of effectiveness.
BVA statement On publication of the IEP’s report and the full bovine TB strategy for England, the BVA put out a statement saying that it would consider the IEP’s report in consultation with its members before commenting in detail. However, the BVA President, Robin Hargreaves, said that it was regrettable that Defra had announced its decision on the way forward without consulting key stakeholders, including the BVA. ‘To date, BVA has supported the use of targeted, humane badger culling in carefully selected areas as part of a comprehensive approach to tackling bovine TB,’ said Mr Hargreaves. ‘But we have made it clear that we can only support badger culling if the method used is humane, safe and effective. That
is why BVA called for controlled shooting to be tested and critically evaluated against these criteria by an independent group of experts.’ He added: ‘We broadly supported the draft bovine TB strategy when it was published in August last year, particularly the targeted measures in high incidence and edge areas. ‘Regardless of our future response to the findings of the IEP, we will only be able to eradicate bovine TB if we tackle the disease in the wildlife reservoir as well as cattle.’ The IEP’s report will be considered by the BVA’s Veterinary Policy Group and Ethics and Welfare Group, which will make policy recommendations to the BVA Council.
On the humaneness of the culls, the Government says that it must be recognised that shooting as practised under field conditions cannot be expected to deliver the same level of precision as achieved in more controlled environments, such as in slaughterhouses or laboratories. Also, it says, the shooting of badgers needs to be placed in context with the shooting of other wildlife species, where shooting is considered normal practice and is not subject to the same level of scrutiny and control. ‘The observations and postmortems show that, when shot accurately, death is rapid and we are confident that this was the case with the vast majority of badgers culled,’ it says. However, the Government recognises that there were a number of circumstances where shots were apparently missed and the outcome for the badger was uncertain. It says that these events need to be reduced and that it will work with cull companies to ensure that the training and assessment of contractors is enhanced to ensure that accuracy is improved. In implementing the recommendations made by the IEP, the Government says that the need to continue monitoring the effectiveness of the culls and the accuracy of the shooting has to be balanced against the costs of carrying out detailed field work and postmortem examinations. ‘Monitoring effectiveness and humaneness of the cull will continue in an appropriate and cost-effective way, building on the quality of the research carried out in the pilots. We will work with Natural England to require better data collection by the cull companies to evaluate progress and improve effectiveness, for example by better targeting areas where badgers remain, and take steps to ensure sufficient effort is deployed to cull all the known badger groups in defined areas. Similarly, we will implement monitoring of the accuracy of controlled shooting that will be sufficiently rigorous to identify issues of concern so that timely interventions can be made if necessary.’ It concludes: ‘As in any complex operation, there are always lessons to be learned and the panel’s report offers useful insights to be taken into account in planning for this year’s culls.’ n The IEP’s report is available at www.gov. uk/government/publications/pilot-badgerculls-in-somerset-and-gloucestershire-reportby-the-independent-expert-panel The Government’s response to the report is available at www. gov.uk/government/publications/ pilot-badger-culls-in-somerset-andgloucestershire-defra-response-to-the-reportby-the-independent-expert-panel doi: 10.1136/vr.g2653
366 | Veterinary Record | April 12, 2014
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on May 27, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Pilot badger culls to continue − but no wider roll out Veterinary Record 2014 174: 365-366
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2653 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/15/365
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
