# Does this happen, surely not, Police Chief's turning a blind eye to illegal for hunting?



## Judgemental (21 September 2020)

*Police chiefs routinely turn blind eye to illegal fox-hunting as hunts go unchecked, report claims*









 






 © Provided by The Independent
Police forces around England regularly ignore reports of illegal fox-hunting and fail to bring charges even when they are handed overwhelming evidence, a hard-hitting report claims.
Some chief constables and senior officers routinely turn a blind eye to fox hunts, while certain police on the ground often appear biased towards hunts or show no interest in accusations that the law has been broken, according to the document.
Anti-blood sport campaigners have complained for years that police repeatedly dismiss reports of illegal activity, fail to follow up complaints and are slow to attend when called out to wildlife crime – if they attend at all.
Now, what is believed to be the first ever report on enforcement of the 2004 fox-hunting ban alleges widespread failures by authorities to take action, even when people monitoring hunt activities provided video evidence that they say shows trained hounds chasing the wild animals.
The investigators, from the Action Against Foxhunting (AAF) group, compiled police responses to more than 80 incidents reported during the 2019-20 winter hunting season.
Their report, Counting the Crimes, seen exclusively by _The Independent_, says many officers appear to have very little understanding of the hunting ban, and a lack of training means many cannot recognise illegal hunting.
However, a number of police officers appear to support hunts, and some – even including the occasional wildlife crime officer – ride with them, it is claimed.
The 2004 Hunting Act made it illegal to chase wild mammals with dogs in England and Wales, but hunts insist they act within the law, following artificially laid scent trails.
In an introduction to the report, Richard Barradale Smith, a retired officer who was at the centre of a high-profile investigation in Herefordshire last year, condemns “the catastrophic failure of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in dealing with hunting and hunting-related crimes that take place every week across our country”.
He writes: “The systemic failure in dealing with hunting crimes since the hunting act came into force has been deliberate.
“The legislation introduced was designed to make the act virtually unenforceable, and successive chief constables/senior officers across the country have chosen to turn a blind eye to it ever since. This places many frontline officers sent to deal with those incidents in an impossible position.
“The claims of any force that they take animal cruelty seriously have to be questioned when illegal hunting takes place under their noses and with their knowledge, every week.”
Relations between police and hunt monitors or saboteurs are strained in many areas, with hunt opponents claiming they are often treated as the criminals because they are watching or videoing events.
Dozens of cases documented in the report include fox killings; roads being blocked by hunts; hounds running into private gardens and frightening kept animals; hunters reportedly trying to intimidate “wildlife guardians” and hunt supporters playing loud music and obstructing filming of suspected illegal activity.
In the 81 cases recorded by the group, nobody was prosecuted, and calls to police from the public with complaints about hunts went unreturned.
In October, a pack of hounds invaded a smallholding, running through groups of goats, sheep and pigs, scattering them, trampling on vegetables and breaking fences. Surrey Police took more than an hour to respond to the 999 call, and took a statement but allegedly did not want to see the damage. “There was no follow-up action against the hunt. The owners of the smallholding concluded the police were not interested”, the document states.
Another example given is: “At the Boxing Day protest in Blandford, a hunter crossed the road to push an elderly protester into the gutter. When she got up, she asked the police officer if he could take action. He told her to stand aside. Later, the lady saw a police officer shaking hands with the person who had pushed her over.
“She reported the incident to the police and gave a statement. She had a witness and photographs of the assailant. The police dropped the case saying that they could not identify the assailant. By not taking action, and failing to help the victim, the police prevented this criminal from being prosecuted. AAF believes this was deliberate.”
During the year, several incidents were reported of hunters calling the police, falsely claiming they had seen “frontline wildlife guardians” (FWGs) with handguns.
Police searched the monitors but found no guns. “AAF understands that police must act if they receive calls of this nature. However, the police’s prompt attendance for these calls is not matched by prompt attendance for a call from an FWG. This happens whatever the call is – about illegal hunting or intimidation and violence,” the document states.
Among other proposals, AAF is calling for all police officers to be open about any personal interest in hunting and that those who back it to be barred from investigating hunt incidents.
Mr Barradale Smith, who said he was the victim of a smear campaign for investigating cruelty claims, adds: “Please do not for one minute attribute those failures to lack of resources/funding/training or any other excuse that a police force may attempt to use. It simply isn’t true.”
In 2018 the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) with the College of Policing issued revised guidelines on hunting to police forces in Britain but Action Against Foxhunting says many officers appear unaware of them.

_The Independent _also asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to comment but it did not respond by the time of publication.
Edited to comply with H and H's 1000 character limit


----------



## emilylou (21 September 2020)

I think its probably a combination of under staffing and lots of false witnesses from the anti's side. There is lots of fabricated evidence from the anti's side presented to the police (edited footage, false allegations etc.) that I imagine its difficult to determine when a situation is genuine and does requires police attention, thus more often than not no action is taken as it is considered a civil dispute.

It's not just hunting related issues that receive a slower than desired response from the police, all calls are prioritized and not all are classed as urgent. e.g. a theft would not receive an urgent response. Obviously someone carrying firearms is going to receive a quicker response than a call about someone (the hunt) trespassing, just as the police would attend quickly if they were told members of the hunt were carrying firearms in a threatening manner.

Of course the hunt is going temporarily to block a road if passing through or crossing, and attempt to obstruct non-consented filming from anti's, just as any person would protest to being filmed by a stranger or a cycle race provides a temporary road obstruction to other users. While inconvenient to others, these actions are not crimes.

I'm not excusing any of the genuine crimes committed or poor behavior demonstrated by the hunting community, because, yes, poor behavior is shown from both sides and both sides should act better. But this article is written to anger and divide, as most articles published in newspapers about hunting are designed to do.
Most of the time when police attend a hunt their main job is keeping the peace and listening to enraged anti's who would like the hunt to be stopped whether the activity is legal or not, and quite often, the police do have more pressing things to do.


----------



## Parrotperson (21 September 2020)

let's just say the police have better things to do than police hunting. and the hunts know it. QED.


----------



## meleeka (21 September 2020)

In my experience the police turn a blind eye to most things these days, so hardly surprising.  A friends husband was beaten unconscious and was told by a police officer that they don’t actually investigate crime anymore, unless it serious.  If the evidence is clear they’ll prosecute, but they won’t go looking for it.


----------



## Henry02 (21 September 2020)

I wouldn’t trust any kind of story such as this one that comes out of a newspaper.

comments such as “some police officers even ride out with hunts” show what point they are trying to make... 

Police officers and other member of the public are able to take part in the legal pastimes of their choice


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 September 2020)

Henry02 said:



			Police officers and other member of the public are able to take part in the *legal* pastimes of their choice
		
Click to expand...

Indeed they are .

Two packs out of three that hunt regularly in Cheshire have bowed in to the inevitable after being closely monitored and sabbed (by different groups). They had previously insisted that they were trail hunting (they weren't).

Last season was a refreshing change for us locals after they went legit. I think the record beforehand was 9 police cars and a police helicopter out at once, and that was near me the season before last.

The third pack seems to be hanging on to the old ways for as long as it can. I’m glad that I don’t live in their country, it is not great for residents to be caught up in it. However, I think that further Covid restrictions will soon stop any further hunting this season.


----------



## dotty1 (21 September 2020)

Certainly happens in my area......roads constantly blocked, blatantly chasing foxes complete with video evidence, rampaging through private land and gardens. The police have attended many times but nothing ever comes of it.
Whilst we all have to stick to the rule of 6.... there were approximately 100 mounted followers out on Saturday.....and many foot and car followers.....with this virus picking up again, it can't go on much longer


----------



## Shay (21 September 2020)

I started to reply... then I realized who OP is.

OK.  Probably enough said.  Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 September 2020)

Yes, he/she is probably a troll, but there are some valid points there.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (21 September 2020)

Shay said:



			I started to reply... then I realized who OP is.

OK.  Probably enough said.  Don't feed the trolls.
		
Click to expand...

In this case though, the OP has just pasted a newspaper article, so not really trolling.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 September 2020)

dotty1 said:



			Whilst we all have to stick to the rule of 6.... there were approximately 100 mounted followers out on Saturday.....and many foot and car followers.....with this virus picking up again, it can't go on much longer
		
Click to expand...

I have asked my local pack to send me a link to their Covid protocols. They are going to send it to me, apparently.

Every pack should have one, so making it available to interested parties shouldn’t be an issue.


----------



## emilylou (22 September 2020)

.


----------



## Michen (22 September 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			I have asked my local pack to send me a link to their Covid protocols. They are going to send it to me, apparently.

Every pack should have one, so making it available to interested parties shouldn’t be an issue.
		
Click to expand...

Do you hunt? Or just asking for it anyway?


----------



## Pinkvboots (22 September 2020)

dotty1 said:



			Certainly happens in my area......roads constantly blocked, blatantly chasing foxes complete with video evidence, rampaging through private land and gardens. The police have attended many times but nothing ever comes of it.
Whilst we all have to stick to the rule of 6.... there were approximately 100 mounted followers out on Saturday.....and many foot and car followers.....with this virus picking up again, it can't go on much longer
		
Click to expand...

Yes but it will because there is no one to stop it, there are and always will be people not sticking to the rule of 6, it's a ridiculous rule anyway and almost impossible to enforce.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 September 2020)

Michen said:



			Do you hunt? Or just asking for it anyway?
		
Click to expand...

Used to, regularly, but all pre ban.

They fetch up right outside my house and land several times a season. We get the hunt proper + an often large travelling circus of car and foot followers etc, so indeed I am curious and somewhat wary as to how they will be managing things. The usual field would be considerably >30.

Hopefully the promised link to their risk assessed Covid protocols will be reassuring .


----------



## Shay (24 September 2020)

The template is available through the hunting office and the coutryside alliance.  Packs vary of course but for us each risk assessment is unique to the day. Copies are held centrally and hard copies carried by the feild master, the mounted covid marshall and the unmounted covid marshall available for presentation to the police and / or HSE. Or anyone else who reasonably asks!

Tbh I suspect lawful hunting is going to be one of the safer and most checked activities.  Far better than going to a city centre bar in the evening!


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 September 2020)

From the Hunting Office website. Each day does indeed require its own Event Delivery Plan, and it would be much safer to publish that on line rather than to expect interested parties to be handed a hard copy to be studied on the day. Though a hard copy should still be carried as back up.

So any pack that is taking the guidelines seriously will have no issues in reassuring the local community that they are adhering to those guidelines by publishing them for anyone to view .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/36-...nd-update.html?highlight=WyJjb3JvbmF2aXJ1cyJd


_We can therefore confirm that Autumn Hunting activities can continue as per the guidelines issued by the Hunting Office on 24th August with some slight changes. *The main change is that any pack wishing to organise Hunting activities for more than 6 mounted followers and / or a group of more than 6 foot followers, must do so in accordance with the Covid-19 Secure Guidelines, a Covid-19 Risk Assessment must be done and an Event Delivery Plan should be completed for every days Hunting.*_

_Organisers should be very clear about the expectations of attendees at hunt activities. *The Hunt must show respect and sensitivity towards the local community and ensure that every practicable protocol is followed to avoid the possible transmission of Covid-19.*_

_Hunts must assert the necessary authority to ensure that all those in attendance respect and adhere to the regulations and guidelines. There must be very clear instructions for all those in attendance to follow, this should be done by way of clear signage at the premises as well as clear instructions and procedures communicated beforehand._


----------



## Michen (24 September 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			From the Hunting Office website. Each day does indeed require its own Event Delivery Plan, and it would be much safer to publish that on line rather than to expect interested parties to be handed a hard copy to be studied on the day. Though a hard copy should still be carried as back up.

So any pack that is taking the guidelines seriously will have no issues in reassuring the local community that they are adhering to those guidelines by publishing them for anyone to view .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/36-...nd-update.html?highlight=WyJjb3JvbmF2aXJ1cyJd


_We can therefore confirm that Autumn Hunting activities can continue as per the guidelines issued by the Hunting Office on 24th August with some slight changes. *The main change is that any pack wishing to organise Hunting activities for more than 6 mounted followers and / or a group of more than 6 foot followers, must do so in accordance with the Covid-19 Secure Guidelines, a Covid-19 Risk Assessment must be done and an Event Delivery Plan should be completed for every days Hunting.*_

_Organisers should be very clear about the expectations of attendees at hunt activities. *The Hunt must show respect and sensitivity towards the local community and ensure that every practicable protocol is followed to avoid the possible transmission of Covid-19.*_

_Hunts must assert the necessary authority to ensure that all those in attendance respect and adhere to the regulations and guidelines. There must be very clear instructions for all those in attendance to follow, this should be done by way of clear signage at the premises as well as clear instructions and procedures communicated beforehand._

Click to expand...

Tbh it sounds like your interest is more in catching hunts out or doing something wrong. I’m not sure why this is such an interest if you used to hunt.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 September 2020)

Why so defensive? If they are not doing anything wrong and are following guidelines, then there‘s no problem surely?

I don't want to ‘catch them out’, I just want them to stick to the guidelines.


----------



## Michen (24 September 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Why so defensive? If they are not doing anything wrong and are following guidelines, then there‘s no problem surely?

I don't want to ‘catch them out’, I just want them to stick to the guidelines.
		
Click to expand...

I’m not defensive at all. I’m just curious to know why you have such a vested interest in making sure they stick to guidelines (and as far as I know my local packs are). Does the same interest apply to shooting for example?


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 September 2020)

No shooting round here, so can’t comment on that.

When you have been lied to for many years that a pack was trail hunting, when it clearly wasn’t, then you have reason be wary of any assurances that they may give you on other matters.


----------



## Judgemental (24 September 2020)

BeckyFlowers said:



			In this case though, the OP has just pasted a newspaper article, so not really trolling.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you


----------



## Dobiegirl (24 September 2020)

Of course illegal hunting is going on, around here our local hunt is notorious for it, they have been through our land, through my friends woods so obviously not following a trail, all the while being followed by terrier men. Badgers and fox dens have been blocked and no one bothers to go around unblocking them except for local farmers and sabs. Drones are now widely used so not difficult to get video evidence anymore and its all passed on to the police who dont take it any further. At one time there was a woman who was a police officer who used to hunt, whether she still does or not I dont know. 

Whether you support hunting or not the fact is its  illegal, by taking part you are breaking the law.


----------



## palo1 (24 September 2020)

Dobiegirl said:



			Of course illegal hunting is going on, around here our local hunt is notorious for it, they have been through our land, through my friends woods so obviously not following a trail, all the while being followed by terrier men. Badgers and fox dens have been blocked and no one bothers to go around unblocking them except for local farmers and sabs. Drones are now widely used so not difficult to get video evidence anymore and its all passed on to the police who dont take it any further. At one time there was a woman who was a police officer who used to hunt, whether she still does or not I dont know.

Whether you support hunting or not the fact is its  illegal, by taking part you are breaking the law.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry to say this but you are wrong about participating in illegal hunting meaning that you are breaking the law. The law is quite clear that the person hunting the hounds and any formal and identified staff with him are responsible in that situation.  The field may be entirely in the wrong morally if they are participating knowingly in illegal hunting but they are not responsible for it so are not breaking the law.  I don't believe that there is any law that relates to that particular situation though potentially being complicit in animal cruelty may have some legal relevance.


----------



## GSD Woman (8 October 2020)

Blocking dens makes my blood boil.  And why would anyone hunt English badgers?  Someone should install North American badgers around those hunts.  Our badgers will Ef you up.
Several of my friends hunt, I never had the chance, and they say that a kill is unusual. Also, our huntsmen have been known to set out food for foxes on very hard winters.


----------



## Orangehorse (8 October 2020)

Badgers are not hunted.  They are protected, so it is an offence to kill them, without a licence.Badgers are, however, believed to be involved with the transfer of Bovine TB to cattle, and there are programmes where badgers are trapped and shot to remove the infection route.

TB is a serious disease and costs the country many £million for animal and human health and results in the early death of many cattle in the prime of life.

I saw the most beautiful fox yesterday - he was a lovely dark red colour and his coat was shining in the autumn sunshine.  He was picking his way in a leisurely fashion through a small area of woodland (probably been looking at the Duck Supper for tonight) when he suddenly saw me on my horse. He stopped, had a good look and ran off.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 October 2020)

Badgers are simultaneously a protected species and also, in these parts, are actively being culled by licensed individuals as part of the control of the spread of Bovine TB. There are understandably high feelings running about this among people who are used to protecting badgers.

_Sixty per cent of the badgers culled in England last autumn were killed by controlled shooting, a method deemed ‘inhumane’ by the BVA.

Figures released by Defra in December showed that 19,274 badgers were culled between 6 September and 28 October 2017, with 11,638 (60.4 per cent) of these being culled by controlled shooting and 7636 (39.6 per cent) by cage trapping and shooting._


----------



## GSD Woman (9 October 2020)

I know I'm getting off topic but is there proof of badgers spreading TB?  In the US certain states are certified to be TB free in regards to cattle. It is a big tracking job for the state veterinary office.


----------



## palo1 (9 October 2020)

GSD Woman said:



			I know I'm getting off topic but is there proof of badgers spreading TB?  In the US certain states are certified to be TB free in regards to cattle. It is a big tracking job for the state veterinary office.
		
Click to expand...

Well it is a bit contentious but yes, there is considerable evidence of badgers spreading TB (or at least being effective carriers of disease). However so are deer and other cattle and possibly other species.  I have always wondered why we are not looking at things from the other end; why does a very well adapted native animal like the badger have a disease of 'poverty' (ie poor conditions, poor health) when we don't directly engage with them?  I fear that the potential issues of considering environmental problems as the prime cause of TB in any species would be too difficult for any government or organisation to accept and take on board though that is just my opinion of course.  Sorry if this is a bit off topic!


----------



## ester (9 October 2020)

They are different bacteria palo (M. bovis, v. M. tubercolosis)

It is noticeable how many fewer badgers I see here than the south west, even just counting the dead on the road ones. 15 years ago colleagues were experimentally vaccinating badgers but the biggest issue seemed to be people letting them out of the traps before bloods could be taken.


----------



## Orangehorse (10 October 2020)

Up until the 1970s there was a TB eradication programme, government run.  If there was a case of TB in a herd, all the badger setts for x distance were gassed and the badgers killed.  Most of the UK cattle herd was TB free.  At one stage the only TB cases were in a small area of Gloucestershire.

Then it was announced that gassing badger was considered inhumane and TB was obviously not really an issue for anyone any more so it all stopped.  At some stage badgers became protected so it was illegal to kill them (I suspect but have no proof that some dairy farmers with a badger sett would ensure that they did not have badgers either).The only time that we ever did a TB test was if the neighbouring dairy farmer had a case and he used to buy in a lot of cows from the south west, calve them down and then sell them again, he was a bit of a dealer really.

It was always took all day to do the tests but we never had a case and it was a very rare occurance.

The numbers of herd breakdowns gradually increased over the years, spread outwards within the dairy herds.  There are plenty of places in the UK where there are badgers, cattle but no TB to the east and south of the country and far north. But in the south-west counties where there are lots of dairy herds, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and in south wales, the case numbers grew and grew to the point where routine testing was introuced for more and more farms over a larger and larger area.  It spread into Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Cheshire.

When a cows tests positive for TB it is taken away and slaughtered even in calf cows.  That might represent 100 years of breeding history.  There might be 1 or 2 cases or 1/3 of the herd (an organic herd lost over 100 of their cows out of 300 in one test).  There is financial compensation for the value of the animal, but no compensation for loss of milk income nor any recognition of whether it is a pedigree animal, it is just a standard amount.

If there is a case of TB on the farm animals cannot be sold as stores to another farm until there have been clear tests.  This means that a dairy herd will have to keep all their youngstock, rather than sell them on to other farmers which means housing and feeding them for months, until there have been 2 clear tests.

We have beef cattle, so of all farmers we are the least affected as we can sell our animals even if one has tested positive and has been taken away for slaughter.  All animals are pre-movement tested before we buy them.  We have to have a licence to buy and move animals onto the farm.  We occasionally get letters saying that a herd we have bought from has had a positive TB test, so they come and test the animals we have bought.  We have never had a positive case from any of these "cohorts."

So, do badgers give TB to cattle?  Most vets believe it where else could it come from?  Although they don't like to be quoted.  It is not that contagious between cattle, otherwise a whole yard full of cattle would test positive instead of just one or two.  We usually have more cases in the autumn after a summer at grass than in the spring after being in all day.  

In cattle a TB lesion is encapsulated (read about them in James Herriot) and it is only when a cow is becoming ill with TB that it will spread the disease.  Unlike Llamas that can spit TB in their breath.  (Learned all that from a Ministry vet one day who was out to check that our vet was doing the job correctly).  I think that Llamas do have to be tested, at least it was a proposal in one report.

Human TB is a different strain, but I read somewhere that 1/3 of child deaths in the Victorian era was caused by TB in the milk, before pasturisation.

It is very expensive for the government to have vets running round every day to test 100s of cattle.  Since the cull started numbers and cases are reducing, work continues on a vaccine.  At the moment the TB test can't distinguish between an infection and a vaccinated animal, hence that is not allowed in the EU although that is being worked on too.

I always wonder what would be the attitude if horses could get TB.


----------



## shortstuff99 (10 October 2020)

Just to add the cull of badgers will now be phased out as a study found that 'frequent trading of cattle and poor biosecurity on farms was severely hampering efforts to tackle the crisis. The scientists said it was highly desirable to move from culling to vaccination of badgers.'

TB loves cramped indoor conditions, many cow herds are kept indoors for multiple months but yet everything is on the badgers?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-out-replaced-vaccinations-bovine-tb-england


----------



## palo1 (10 October 2020)

ester said:



			They are different bacteria palo (M. bovis, v. M. tubercolosis)

It is noticeable how many fewer badgers I see here than the south west, even just counting the dead on the road ones. 15 years ago colleagues were experimentally vaccinating badgers but the biggest issue seemed to be people letting them out of the traps before bloods could be taken.
		
Click to expand...

Now that is interesting esther and not something I was aware of at all.  So why, then, forgive me for being confused, is there such an issue with badgers???


----------



## palo1 (10 October 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			Just to add the cull of badgers will now be phased out as a study found that 'frequent trading of cattle and poor biosecurity on farms was severely hampering efforts to tackle the crisis. The scientists said it was highly desirable to move from culling to vaccination of badgers.'

TB loves cramped indoor conditions, many cow herds are kept indoors for multiple months but yet everything is on the badgers?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-out-replaced-vaccinations-bovine-tb-england

Click to expand...

Yes.  I think earlier in the thread I was wondering why badgers too have a disease of 'poverty' but perhaps if it is a different disease that isn't a pertinent question!


----------



## ester (10 October 2020)

bovis is badgers/cattle/dear etc. 
tuberculosis is humans/poverty, I perhaps misunderstood what you meant by poverty in this instance? Other than badgers aren't really symptomatic so for them diseased might not be the right word. 

It's a shame we don't seem to have gotten over the issue of discriminating between vaccinated and infected cattle really. 

The biggest issue people had with culling was that if you have non-TB badgers on your land and someone shoots them, the risks increase of getting TB badgers on your land instead.


----------



## TigerTail (11 October 2020)

Badgers, cattle and bTB are an enormous part of my job so I am going to weigh in here!

It is proven scientific fact that badgers pass TB to cattle AND vica versa. The difficulty is cattle are confined to their farm, movements passported and tracked and therefore they and their owners are accountable for any disease spread. As Orangehorse correctly says any +ve cattle are shot, regardless of pregnancy status, and TB drives a huge amount of cost into cattle farming.

Badgers on the other hand roam between 5-7miles a night, excrete the bacteria from every orifice in every sneeze, pee, poo, wound etc. This is due to their unique pathology and is why they are the subject of the cull, as opposed to deer/voles who are terminal hosts. As in they carry it but do not excrete it commonly. A recent study by the University of Edinburgh concluded that badgers are ten times more likely to give TB to cattle than to catch it from them, Woodchester Park if anyone wants to google it. 

The issue Esther raises about badgers moving around in cull zones is known as perturbation, and it stems from the early Krebs trials and how they were conducted. This theory has been disproven by ensuring that culls zones have a 'hard border' that badgers are unlikely to cross, thereby stopping reinfection of cattle/ badgers in a cull zone.  The recently published Downs report is peer reviewed scientific evidence that culling badgers reduces TB incidents in cattle herds.

The Wildlife and Badger Trusts have been howling hysterically about their 'vaccination' programs, and that the culls cost taxpayer money. Culls are funded by farmers in every aspect, apart from policing - which is only necessary because of militant antis, usually with strong links to hunt sabs, causing criminal damage and threatening people. 

The BCG injection which is being trialled in badgers so far shows NO evidence to suggest it can stop a clean badger getting TB or an already infected one passing it on. It may slow the progression of the disease down in the badger, which just means it lives longer to spread it to other badgers in its colony and to surrounding cattle, never mind the moral question of whether we should be purposefully allowing badgers to suffer. The WLT's are also only managing to vaccinate 30 odd a year, which is not even a drop in the ocean with regards their numbers and therefore the spread of disease.

Poverty - you cannot compare a human disease with an animal one, its utterly pointless as there are too many influential factors which are vastly different - pathology to start with! Since Badgers were, rightfully, protected from baiting, their numbers have imploded. This means they are fighting more for food, habitat, mates etc etc all of which contributes to spreading TB. They are decimating hedgehogs, ground nesting birds, bees and wasp nests in soil, and yet are publicised as being the cutest fluffiest thing ever that should be protected at all costs.

For those quoting the Guardian summary of the Governments response to the Godrey Report - please dont! It was the most badly reported upon topic last year as Ag goes, and boy is that saying something. Whilst Eustice said he would like to move away from culling, who wouldnt, he made very clear that culling would go on where epidemiologically necessary. In the Badger Act it even states that badgers can be culled for disease purposes, but no one likes to remember that little fact.

Balance is needed in all things, and sadly where our wildlife is concerned we are failing badly. The worst thing anyone did with TB was make it political and a populist politics game. Sadly now we have lost sight of science and evidence and it mostly seems to be about who can shout loudest with the most emotive tale who is heard - regardless on the impact of cattle and wildlife welfare, nevermind the much bigger picture of our trade status as a country post Brexit.


----------



## GSD Woman (11 October 2020)

Thank you Orange horse and TigerTail especially for explaining the whole badger TB cattle situation in the UK.  The state where I live, Virginia, works to have TB cattle herds.  Several years ago a farmer brought in some yearlings from a herd that had had been part of a herd where TB was present.  The state vet had to trace and quarantine all exposed cattle and slaughter where necessary.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 October 2020)

TigerTail said:



			The Wildlife and Badger Trusts have been howling hysterically about their 'vaccination' programs, and that the culls cost taxpayer money.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, so we know which side of the divide you’re on .



TigerTail said:



			The issue Esther raises about badgers moving around in cull zones is known as perturbation, and it stems from the early Krebs trials and how they were conducted. This theory has been disproven by ensuring that culls zones have a 'hard border' that badgers are unlikely to cross, thereby stopping reinfection of cattle/ badgers in a cull zone.
		
Click to expand...

What would constitute a ‘hard border’?


----------



## shortstuff99 (11 October 2020)

Let's be honest at the end of the day humans don't need to eat cattle, but let's destroy a whole species that was here before us so that we can.

There are loads of studies that show the ineffectiveness of badger culling. They are a native part of the British ecosystem, they're not an invasive species marauding about the countryside.


----------



## TigerTail (11 October 2020)

Tiddlypom - my sarcasm is aimed entirely at supposed charities such as WLT/ Badger Trusts, who have CEO's on £100k plus salaries, merrily cull other species which threaten their localised projects but have entirely lost the plot where badgers are concerned. They have lied over and over again about the size of vaccination sites, how many badgers they've done, the cost of the cull to the taxpayer etc etc and I think it is appalling as the general public who don't see the goings on some of us do, believe every word they say and naively carry on funding them. The mental health damage individual trusts have done to some farmers is immeasurable - by writing to their neighbours, implying poor husbandry is the cause of bTB when it is not 

Hard border - dual carriage way, river, railway. A piece of infrastructure which defines badger territories according to ecologists, rather than county boundaries on maps which oddly enough badgers can't read and adhere to!



shortstuff99 said:



			Let's be honest at the end of the day humans don't need to eat cattle, but let's destroy a whole species that was here before us so that we can.

There are loads of studies that show the ineffectiveness of badger culling. They are a native part of the British ecosystem, they're not an invasive species marauding about the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

1) The aim of culls is NOT to eradicate badgers. It is to reduce current numbers which will reduce the transmission of disease amongst them and thereby to cattle. It will also mean those remaining have better chance of finding food and habitat without entering the farm yard, on Englands finite soil.

2) Those studies have been superseded by the most recent which is the Downs report. Many previous studies were not peer reviewed, which Down's is, hence it being the blue print from a scientific perspective.

3) Badgers are native yes, so were wolves, lynx, bears etc. All their predators which we have got rid of as the most dominant species to ensure our survival eons ago. Without them being predated their numbers boom and therefore so does disease - we took away the balance of the ecosystem, culling is bringing it back.


----------



## shortstuff99 (11 October 2020)

TigerTail said:



			Tiddlypom - my sarcasm is aimed entirely at supposed charities such as WLT/ Badger Trusts, who have CEO's on £100k plus salaries, merrily cull other species which threaten their localised projects but have entirely lost the plot where badgers are concerned. They have lied over and over again about the size of vaccination sites, how many badgers they've done, the cost of the cull to the taxpayer etc etc and I think it is appalling as the general public who don't see the goings on some of us do, believe every word they say and naively carry on funding them. The mental health damage individual trusts have done to some farmers is immeasurable - by writing to their neighbours, implying poor husbandry is the cause of bTB when it is not 

Hard border - dual carriage way, river, railway. A piece of infrastructure which defines badger territories according to ecologists, rather than county boundaries on maps which oddly enough badgers can't read and adhere to!



1) The aim of culls is NOT to eradicate badgers. It is to reduce current numbers which will reduce the transmission of disease amongst them and thereby to cattle. It will also mean those remaining have better chance of finding food and habitat without entering the farm yard, on Englands finite soil.

2) Those studies have been superseded by the most recent which is the Downs report. Many previous studies were not peer reviewed, which Down's is, hence it being the blue print from a scientific perspective.

3) Badgers are native yes, so were wolves, lynx, bears etc. All their predators which we have got rid of as the most dominant species to ensure our survival eons ago. Without them being predated their numbers boom and therefore so does disease - we took away the balance of the ecosystem, culling is bringing it back.
		
Click to expand...

No there are plenty of peer reviewed that say it is ineffective. This one for example https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...s&oq=badger+cull+#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=d3dTFKCu5rwJ

Even without top predators badgers would find a natural balance within the ecosystem, humans don't have to cull them to control them. It's a preferred one but it's not a necessary one. It's a preferred narrative from farmers to push for culling as their livelihood is farming cattle. There is bias on both sides.


----------



## suebou (11 October 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			Let's be honest at the end of the day humans don't need to eat cattle, but let's destroy a whole species that was here before us so that we can.

There are loads of studies that show the ineffectiveness of badger culling. They are a native part of the British ecosystem, they're not an invasive species marauding about the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they have no natural predators and the pressure on food supplies means we have allowed the virtual extermination of small rodents, insects and the like. Round here badgers have destroyed farmland, local wooded areas, as well as birds, insects and everything smaller than them! No need to destroy them but a bit of control wouldn’t go amiss!


----------



## TigerTail (11 October 2020)

Also for anyone under the impression badgers are harmless the below pic is the broken palate of a labrador that came across a badger in his yard and went towards it to say hello, as labs tend to. Twitter thread link for more detail

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304538256831324160
Predating hedgehogs

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272141052573605889
There is a wildlife cam one of a badger diving for moorhens but it wont load


----------



## TigerTail (11 October 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			No there are plenty of peer reviewed that say it is ineffective. This one for example https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=badger+cull+effectiveness&oq=badger+cull+#d=gs_qabs&u=#p=d3dTFKCu5rwJ

Even without top predators badgers would find a natural balance within the ecosystem, humans don't have to cull them to control them. It's a preferred one but it's not a necessary one. It's a preferred narrative from farmers to push for culling as their livelihood is farming cattle. There is bias on both sides.
		
Click to expand...

The link sent me to a google search page with some scholarly articles listed? The ones I skimmed were all dated  pre 2015 hence why I said earlier they have been superseded by the 2019 Downs Report. Also any study with Rosie Woodruffes name has lost an enormous amount of credibility in the last couple of years due to her joining in with the Badger Trust and refusing to give anyone any evidence of how her 'vaccinating' badgers via crowdfunding is going. Lots of fluffy words and videos but 0 evidence shown.

Suebou - absolutely - the culls aim for 70% of the population to get the infection figure below R, one we are familiar with since C19. Plenty left to carry on!


----------



## shortstuff99 (11 October 2020)

TigerTail said:



			The link sent me to a google search page with some scholarly articles listed? The ones I skimmed were all dated  pre 2015 hence why I said earlier they have been superseded by the 2019 Downs Report. Also any study with Rosie Woodruffes name has lost an enormous amount of credibility in the last couple of years due to her joining in with the Badger Trust and refusing to give anyone any evidence of how her 'vaccinating' badgers via crowdfunding is going. Lots of fluffy words and videos but 0 evidence shown.

Suebou - absolutely - the culls aim for 70% of the population to get the infection figure below R, one we are familiar with since C19. Plenty left to carry on!
		
Click to expand...

This was the study from 2018 so I would say pretty relevant.

Also no one has said that they are all cute and fluffy, but they deserve to not be killed just for humans to be able to eat meat. I've looked into claims about them decimating the wildlife before, and of all the studies I've looked at most say that they do not. That their diet is up to 80% earth worms and they will only take small mammals/birds if necessary. I think there are a lot more issues affecting British wildlife then too many badgers.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 October 2020)

TigerTail said:



			Also for anyone under the impression badgers are harmless the below pic is the broken palate of a labrador that came across a badger in his yard and went towards it to say hello, as labs tend to. Twitter thread link for more detail
		
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone thinks they are harmless? They are formidable beasts.

You are defending/advocating the badger cull rather aggressively. A more measured approach is more likely to win people round to your viewpoint. You aren’t doing your employers(?) many favours.


----------



## GSD Woman (12 October 2020)

This is all interesting.  I just watched a "60 Minutes" segment on Grizzly bears in Montana.  The bears destroy crops and livestock but are protected under federal law.  Grizzlies are relocated if they are a danger to humans and killed if they keep coming back.  Somehow my brain is linking this to the TB threat that badgers make to cattle in the UK.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (12 October 2020)

TigerTail said:



			Also for anyone under the impression badgers are harmless the below pic is the broken palate of a labrador that came across a badger in his yard and went towards it to say hello, as labs tend to. Twitter thread link for more detail

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304538256831324160
Predating hedgehogs

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272141052573605889
There is a wildlife cam one of a badger diving for moorhens but it wont load
		
Click to expand...

Not sure what the point of this post is in relation to the thread - of course a badger will defend itself when threatened!  Just as any other animal would.  I don't see any comments on here suggesting that badgers are harmless.


----------



## palo1 (12 October 2020)

TigerTail said:



			Badgers, cattle and bTB are an enormous part of my job so I am going to weigh in here!

It is proven scientific fact that badgers pass TB to cattle AND vica versa. The difficulty is cattle are confined to their farm, movements passported and tracked and therefore they and their owners are accountable for any disease spread. As Orangehorse correctly says any +ve cattle are shot, regardless of pregnancy status, and TB drives a huge amount of cost into cattle farming.

Badgers on the other hand roam between 5-7miles a night, excrete the bacteria from every orifice in every sneeze, pee, poo, wound etc. This is due to their unique pathology and is why they are the subject of the cull, as opposed to deer/voles who are terminal hosts. As in they carry it but do not excrete it commonly. A recent study by the University of Edinburgh concluded that badgers are ten times more likely to give TB to cattle than to catch it from them, Woodchester Park if anyone wants to google it.

The issue Esther raises about badgers moving around in cull zones is known as perturbation, and it stems from the early Krebs trials and how they were conducted. This theory has been disproven by ensuring that culls zones have a 'hard border' that badgers are unlikely to cross, thereby stopping reinfection of cattle/ badgers in a cull zone.  The recently published Downs report is peer reviewed scientific evidence that culling badgers reduces TB incidents in cattle herds.

The Wildlife and Badger Trusts have been howling hysterically about their 'vaccination' programs, and that the culls cost taxpayer money. Culls are funded by farmers in every aspect, apart from policing - which is only necessary because of militant antis, usually with strong links to hunt sabs, causing criminal damage and threatening people.

The BCG injection which is being trialled in badgers so far shows NO evidence to suggest it can stop a clean badger getting TB or an already infected one passing it on. It may slow the progression of the disease down in the badger, which just means it lives longer to spread it to other badgers in its colony and to surrounding cattle, never mind the moral question of whether we should be purposefully allowing badgers to suffer. The WLT's are also only managing to vaccinate 30 odd a year, which is not even a drop in the ocean with regards their numbers and therefore the spread of disease.

*Poverty - you cannot compare a human disease with an animal one, its utterly pointless as there are too many influential factors which are vastly different - pathology to start with! Since Badgers were, rightfully, protected from baiting, their numbers have imploded. This means they are fighting more for food, habitat, mates etc etc all of which contributes to spreading TB. They are decimating hedgehogs, ground nesting birds, bees and wasp nests in soil, and yet are publicised as being the cutest fluffiest thing ever that should be protected at all costs.*

For those quoting the Guardian summary of the Governments response to the Godrey Report - please dont! It was the most badly reported upon topic last year as Ag goes, and boy is that saying something. Whilst Eustice said he would like to move away from culling, who wouldnt, he made very clear that culling would go on where epidemiologically necessary. In the Badger Act it even states that badgers can be culled for disease purposes, but no one likes to remember that little fact.

Balance is needed in all things, and sadly where our wildlife is concerned we are failing badly. The worst thing anyone did with TB was make it political and a populist politics game. Sadly now we have lost sight of science and evidence and it mostly seems to be about who can shout loudest with the most emotive tale who is heard - regardless on the impact of cattle and wildlife welfare, nevermind the much bigger picture of our trade status as a country post Brexit.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies for my horrible highlighting here @TigerTail but this is what I meant by 'poverty'; overcrowding, food and territory stress etc. Thank you for making that clearer.  It is horribly frustrating trying to explain to people that allowing any animal's numbers to outgrow their resources or to disturb the balance of predation etc results in poorer conditions for many other things within an ecosystem.  Thank you for this post too


----------



## Rowreach (12 October 2020)

GSD Woman said:



			This is all interesting.  I just watched a "60 Minutes" segment on Grizzly bears in Montana.  The bears destroy crops and livestock but are protected under federal law.  Grizzlies are relocated if they are a danger to humans and killed if they keep coming back.  Somehow my brain is linking this to the TB threat that badgers make to cattle in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to relocate a grizzly bear in a state the size of Montana in a country the size of the USA though, than it is to relocate badgers in, say, Surrey.


----------



## Goldenstar (12 October 2020)

I can guarantee that badger did not attack that dog unless it was cornered .
they always back away, we have badgers here I never let anyone go where they live it’s there haven they where before us and I hope they will be here after .
People would be better advised teaching their dogs not to chase wildlife rather than blaming the wild animal .


----------



## ester (12 October 2020)

GSD Woman said:



			This is all interesting.  I just watched a "60 Minutes" segment on Grizzly bears in Montana.  The bears destroy crops and livestock but are protected under federal law.  Grizzlies are relocated if they are a danger to humans and killed if they keep coming back.  Somehow my brain is linking this to the TB threat that badgers make to cattle in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Some friends across the pond once asked me if we had bears. 
Badgers was the closest I could come up with


----------



## Goldenstar (12 October 2020)

I saw a wild bear once in Turkey wonderful I was happily in a car .


----------



## Tiddlypom (12 October 2020)

The BVA do not support the controlled shooting of badgers,  which is the most common method used in the cull. They do currently support the less common cage trapping of badgers and their subsequent shooting.


BVA statement from October 2019, after publication of the Downs Report.

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/news-article/bva-responds-to-downs-study-on-badger-culling/

“_BVA’s expert working group is currently considering all aspects of disease control looking at cattle testing, removal of reactors, compensation and control in other farmed animals as well as the culling and vaccination of badgers. The group will consider this additional evidence as we develop our new policy on bTB._

_’We continue to support a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to tackling bTB, including the use of badger culling where there is a demonstrated need and where it is done safely, *humanely* and effectively as part of a comprehensive strategy. The best way of halting the spread of this devastating disease is enhancing our understanding of bTB and applying that evidence to the eradication process.”_


----------



## Rowreach (12 October 2020)

ester said:



			Some friends across the pond once asked me if we had bears.
Badgers was the closest I could come up with 

Click to expand...

Somebody will probably suggest reintroducing them.


----------



## Bob notacob (12 October 2020)

Rowreach said:



			It's a lot easier to relocate a grizzly bear in a state the size of Montana in a country the size of the USA though, than it is to relocate badgers in, say, Surrey.
		
Click to expand...

Not in surrey please ,we have thousands of the feckers. I am keaping a tally of road kill ,Badgers v foxes, badgers are leading 3 to one . 20 years ago I had never seen a badger around here.


----------



## emilylou (13 October 2020)

Rowreach said:



			Somebody will probably suggest reintroducing them.
		
Click to expand...

I would love it if we could reintroduce bears, wolves and other historic native species and return Britain to the way it was years ago but the enormous changes to our land management and way of life that would be required to make it possible are just never going to happen on our small, overpopulated island.

The changes to Yellowstone after the reintroduction of wolves is fascinating. 



 But we are not a giant national park.


----------

