Letter: A badger cull which aims to tackle the spread of bovine TB will be ineffective, expensive and inhumane

It is neither my style nor wish to get drawn into a war of words. However, given the tone and the assertions made, it is important to clarify the main points he raises.

The fact is there is much robust debate by our finest scientific minds over the data around this highly emotive subject. Cool heads are essential if we are to establish how best to proceed.

For example, Mr Hogan’s conjuring of trained and efficient ‘Day of the Jackal’ style marksmen cleanly dispatching badgers with a single bullet that guarantees a quick death would raise a hollow laugh among the experts in the British Veterinary Association – a point I shall return to later.

Maintaining strident ‘traditional’ positions in this debate makes for great rallying cries but if the outworking of those methods does not actually offer the best protection to cattle – and crucially to farmers’ livelihoods – then doing so will ultimately only let down those they seek to help.

Let me make this clear: as an animal welfare charity, the USPCA works tirelessly to protect all animals. Of course, we are opposed to the culling of badgers, but we would never jeopardise the safety of cattle. We are confident the science supports us in this.

That is why it is essential farmers here are informed about the experiences of Wales/Republic of Ireland. Dialling down the noise and allowing them to read through the evidence for themselves is vital. We want to ensure their livestock has the very best protection – and we do not believe the cull will provide that.

So let me address his first point of the AFBI study. The overall conclusion is that cattle were found to be responsible for almost all of the transmission in that area. The assertion that the extremely small amount of transmission attributed to badgers could be amplified to ~52% is currently no more than a hypothesis (which Mr Hogan acknowledges), based on unreliable estimates with extremely wide confidence intervals.

Mr Hogan suggests that the study area may not be typical and the findings cannot be extrapolated to other areas. The study area was chosen precisely because it had a relatively high badger density as well as a high incidence of cattle TB. As Mr Hogan knows, these are the exact criteria used to select potential badger culling areas in Northern Ireland. The AFBI study was the perfect petri dish to discover what role badgers might play in the transmission of the disease.

Prior to the release of the findings and given the position of those in favour of a cull, it is fair to assume many would have had their fingers firmly pointed at badgers playing a leading role in disease transmission. Yet, the findings reached a different conclusion, that cattle were the main driver of infection. However, even with the scientific evidence pointing to a negligible role for badgers, the entrenched position and obsession with badgers remain.

He also references the prevalence rates of TB in Wales and England, stating that it was important to take a long-term view of trends. New incidence rates are accepted as the main measure and the government statistic I quoted in the original article (USPCA chief warns of ‘biggest animal welfare tragedy’ if proposed badger cull goes ahead, August 22) was taking a long-term view between the two jurisdictions. Wales has rejected badger culling and yet they have made enviable progress in the race against bTB. This is a statement of fact, it was not “cherry-picking”.

Mr Hogan would give the impression that the evidence on badger culling is unequivocal. It is not. It remains inconclusive and heavily contested.

The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) in England, the largest and most robust badger culling trial ever, culled around 10,000 badgers at a cost of £49 million. Reporting the trial’s results, the Independent Scientific Group concluded: “Badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better.

“The rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.”

A more recent peer-reviewed paper found no disease benefit from the current culls in England.

Badger culling is not supported by the wider scientific community. More than 30 eminent animal disease experts, including a former government chief scientist, signed an open letter to The Observer describing the cull as a “costly distraction”.

Many renowned individual scientists have spoken out against badger culling:

Professor Lord Krebs (former government adviser on badger culling): "The cull policy is ‘mindless’ … the scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case."

I also want to speak about the position in the Republic of Ireland. It is true that bovine TB in cattle has been falling steadily there, but the evidence does not support the claim this decline is due to badger culling. BTb started to fall when new cattle measures, including more effective herd testing, were introduced in 2000 under the government’s Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. By the time the current culling programme was rolled out in 2004, bovine TB in cattle had already fallen by 25%. Twenty years of culling has failed to eradicate bTB in the Republic.

We do agree on one point, that culling is emotive. I firmly believe and stand by my assertion that free-shooting is cruel and inhumane. However, I am not alone in this view. The British Veterinary Association (BVA) removed its support for this type of culling in 2015, based on the grounds that it is inhumane.

I am far from reassured by Mr Hogan’s platitudes regarding the humaneness of free shooting for which he provides no evidence. He says “the reality of the culls in England is that only shooters that are trained and monitored are permitted to operate”. Clearly, this has not prevented the extreme suffering caused by free shooting. Indeed, the evidence that does exist, provided by the government-appointed Independent Expert Panel (IEP), is damning. IEP Chair Professor Ranald Munro described thousands of badgers as “having suffered immense pain at a minimum”, adding “There is a huge issue of suffering in these badgers”.

If free-shooting was humane, the BVA would not have removed its support. Mr Hogan chose not to highlight it can take up to 14mins for badgers to die through this type of culling. So yes, I do decry this type of culling and make no apologies for it. It raises fundamental ethical questions about choosing this method of culling when more humane options are on the table.

The reference to the cost to the public purse is hugely important. It already costs the public purse £50 million a year, and now DAERA is prepared to sign a blank cheque to implement a badger cull. There is neither a time limit nor a limit on the number of badgers that will be killed. This is at a time when there are significant pressures on the public purse. The government is currently stopping and cutting funding to programmes and projects across health and education that do make a difference. A badger cull will be expensive, ineffective, and inhumane.

A concluding point I am confident Mr Hogan, and I will jointly agree on. We both want to see this disease eradicated from cattle. There were 17,319 TB reactors slaughtered in Northern Ireland in 2022 and 7,560 slaughtered in the first half of this year.

This is a major animal welfare concern for the USPCA. However, the answer is not a badger cull. The problem and solution rests with cattle and farming practices. I understand this is an unpopular view amongst the wider farming community and those in power who are in favour of a cull. However, it is based on evidence and fact.

Mark Drakeford First Minster of Wales recently commented: “If I’ve learnt anything about TB (bovine tuberculosis) it's that there is no point in just trying to trade statistics about it, because for every statistic that you will quote, there will be a counter statistic that can be [stated] and the science behind it is disputed as well…”

He has remained steadfast in his position on a badger cull. His progressive leadership in protecting and supporting cattle and badger welfare is one I deeply admire and wish for in Northern Ireland.

Nora Smith, chief executive, USPCA