Betty Badger (AKA Mary Barton) has stood outside Defra offices in Marsham Street every Thursday for over 7 years now. She has done it in all weathers, sometimes unbearably hot, sometimes soaking wet, sometimes freezing cold.
She is doing it to protest at the ongoing badger cull that has now killed over 230,000 badgers. She is doing it to raise awareness of the issue, and to make sure that this dreadful policy does not become considered as acceptable. Because it’s not. She is doing it to make sure that the Defra employees who go in and out of the building are reminded that their badger cull policy, that they oversee, is causing huge suffering and depletion of native wildlife. She does it because she is so distraught about it, that she can’t NOT do it.
Sometime she gets words of encouragement, sometimes she gets verbal abuse. Occasionally she gets physical abuse. Sometimes passing Defra employees reveal their complete ignorance of the science of bovine TB and badger culling by their comments to Betty. Occasionally a civil servant will approach Betty say “ I can’t talk to you because I would get into trouble, but thank you Betty for doing this and please carry on”
She has secured meetings with each Secretary of State for the Environment during her vigil (except for Therese Coffey), who have for the most part listened politely, but insisted the badger cull is the ‘right thing’ and pressed on with it.
Last year, as the political tide turned, she had a meeting with the Shadow Minister for Defra, Daniel Zeichner. He made positive noises, suggesting Labour would aim to get rid of bovine TB without culling badgers (not shown to work), but using cattle measures (known to work). He advised her that with Labour in government, Betty could have her Thursdays back: she wouldn’t need to stand outside Defra any more.
But here we are……..Betty is still outside Defra after all. Natural England have released information under Freedom of Information saying that up to 28 thousand badgers will be targeted this year. And this is despite the statement in the Labour Manifesto that culling badgers is ‘ineffective’ and will end.
Betty has read the science and thinks badgers have been framed.
On Thursday 18th July, as Keir Starmer visited Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, the Oxfordshire Badger Group (OBG) presented a petition, with over 50,000 signatures to Oxford University School of Biology in central Oxford.
OBG called on Oxford University to own what it called “YOUR FLAWED SCIENCE” and asked them to “SPEAK OUT AGAINST BADGER EXTERMINATION.”
OBG press statements say that Oxford University is the birthplace of the Badger Culls. Scientists from Oxford, with others, designed, conducted and analysed data from the original Randomised Badger Culling Trial (1998-2005). It is the findings from this trial that DEFRA has used to claim that badgers have a substantial role in spreading bovine TB (bTB), and to justify killing badgers on an industrial scale. Since 2013, over 230,000 badgers have been slaughtered, most of them completely healthy adults and cubs. Cull zones now cover much of the west and central England. Badger populations are reported to be close to local extinction in some areas. Over 60% of Oxfordshire is covered by various cull areas, along with neighbouring counties, infected in more recent years by careless cattle movements.
Oxfordshire Badger Group say it has been pleading with Oxford scientists over the past year to use their influence in the badger cull debate. But the School of Biological Sciences has declined to engage in meaningful way, snubbing any chance of a serious dialogue.
OBG representatives said:
“We ask them to speak out against the misuse of their research. Keeping silent on one of the major animal welfare issues of the day is not scientifically principled. It allows DEFRA and Natural England to ignore new evidence and keep on culling regardless. Their silence is deadly for badgers, does not help farmers or cattle and is condemned by many members of the public. Our petition and open letter “Oxford University’s Scientists Must Speak Out Against Badger Extermination” now has over 50,000 signatures.”
The university scientists have said in correspondence that they have ‘no appetite’ to revisit the RBCT in the light of new evidence. They refuse to engage in what they see as a political rather than a scientific debate, which it is not – it is a scientific debate. Yet this is a pivotal moment. DEFRA are considering moving to ‘targeted culling’ with no credible evidence other that its’ pilot cull in Cumbria has failed.
The new Labour government manifesto states that badger culling is ‘ineffective’, yet is still allowing it to continue, even as government-funded scientific evidence against culling piles up. DEFRA’s own scientists analysed the overall impact of implementing a range of bTB control measures (cattle measures and badger culling combined). They did not find clear evidence to link culling badgers to a reduction in bovine TB (see section on Birch et al here). Yet the paper by Birch was widely and incorrectly reported as showing that culling badgers had reduced the incidence of bTB by 56%.
In April 2024, Natural England’s Director of Science advised against issuing supplementary cull (SBC) licences stating “Over the past few years, the balance of evidence has shifted….” and “….. farmers can avoid the considerable expense and inconvenience of undertaking the SBC without increasing the risk of their cattle suffering from bTB”. Officials overruled this advice and badgers are now being killed over the summer (including we believe Oxfordshire Cull Zone 49 which already had completed 4 years of intensive culling).
Professor David MacDonald reviewed the evidence base for the current cull policy for the Badger Trust in November 2023. He concluded “in 2023, much as in 2007, it is hard to see that killing badgers will make a meaningful contribution”. Sadly, his fellow scientists have chosen not to support this narrative.
The RBCT was a politically charged, high profile research project that ran for 8 years and cost UK taxpayers ~£49 million. Perhaps the worst transgression in science is when you don’t admit that you are fallable. If you do admit oversights or mistakes, you are a good scientist. Badger Crowd supports OBG in calling for Oxford Scientists to pursue scientific rigour in acknowledging the new understanding of the science that has developed over the last few years and that changes the narrative. We ask that they join us in calling for an immediate end to the badger cull as they did in 2012 before it started and in 2015 before it was rolled out. Why not now, at the time when they predicted it would fail?
Eileen Anderson OBG Trustee said:
“It is horrible knowing that innocent badgers are being killed across Oxfordshire, in contradiction to the science and with so little concern for their lives or the survival of a native mammal.”
Linda Ward OBG Trustee said:
“The scientists were reluctant to openly challenge the former Conservative governments pro-cull policy. But to continue to keep silent in the face of the emerging new evidence would be inexcusable and call their scientific integrity into question. In my view they need to either publicly defend their RBCT or accept that it’s findings are flawed.”
Julia Hammett Chair of Trustees said:
“Oxford University’s research has enabled the cattle industry to kill 230,000 badgers. DEFRA is openly ignoring the scientific evidence that culling is not associated with a measurable reduction in bTB. The eminent scientists who led the RBCT must demand that the government returns to robust, evidence based policies.”
Please speak up Oxford University. It’s well past time to stop the cruel, wasteful useless badger cull.
In 2019, when Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party, their manifesto stated clearly that, if elected, badger culling would stop. Labour under the leadership of Keir Starmer had a less clear position on badger culling, until Reform UK split the Conservative vote, and in the recent election manifesto it was said that Labour would “work with farmers and scientists on measures to eradicate Bovine TB, protecting livelihoods, so that we can end the ineffective badger cull”.
How will Labour work with farmers and scientists?
Since the election, Steve Reed, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Daniel Zeichner, the new Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have been busy making their presence felt amongst the farming community. They seem to have been rubbing shoulders every other day with the NFU for the last two weeks, and yesterday (18th July) were at the National Farmers’ Union Summer Reception in Parliament in front of dozens of MPs, where Zeichner said:
“And I know the culling debate is a really, really hard one. Very, very contentious. Huge passion on both sides of the argument. But let me tell you, the Secretary of State has been clear: the current round of licences will be honoured. I absolutely believe we’re only going to eradicate bovine TB by working closely and constructively together to use all the science and everything that we’ve got to beat it. We are going to beat it. I tell you, I’ve already said to the department, that is my top priority. So, you have my assurance.”
So who will be working closely and constructively together? Zeichner is fulfilling his commitment to meet with industry representatives. How about meeting with the scientists? And other stakeholders shut out by Government for a decade or more? He may be talking to the scientists who have spent the last 20 odd years presenting work from their own Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) as the best evidence of the role of badgers in bovine TB, but they are definitely not talking to published scientists who have found that culling badgers has no role in the management of bovine TB in cattle (Langton et al 2022 and Torgerson et al 2024).
Are Labour taking ‘evidence’ from only one side of the debate and filtered through the lenses of civil servants? The civil servants seem to be doubling down to keep uncertain and flawed science that they have propped up for two decades. Will Labour keep in place the really dreadful Bovine TB Partnership that is made up largely of those with the commercial interests of farming and cattle vets, to advise on badger culling. Mostly not scientists. With a new scientific paper out this week (here) that shows that there were no measurable effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle in the RBCT, will there be better thinking from Labour? Will they drop the unscientific inference (from Birch et al.) regarding the 56% reduction in breakdowns (2013-2020) being due to badger culling rather than from cattle testing? (See what Professor David MacDonald says about this here). If they will not stop culling now, with yet more science suggesting badger culling is ineffective, then when will they, and can the law let them?
Ineffective badger cull?
It was heartening to see in Labour’s manifesto that they agree that the badger cull is ineffective. It would have been good to see a little more detail on why this is their view. We would like to hear more on this. But surely, if culling is ineffective, it is illegal under Section 10 of the Protection of Badger Act 1992? Culling badgers would only be permitted under licence if it could prevent the spread of disease – which it cannot if it is ineffective? So is Labour talking in riddles, or poised to backtrack and go back on its first manifesto pledge? We are about to find out.
We can end the ineffective badger cull?
‘We can end’ the ineffective badger culls’ they say, but when? Millions of people voted Labour because they hoped and believed that Labour would end the culls on coming into power. Why wouldn’t they, they are ineffective? Or do they believe they are effective, as Defra Vet Christine Middlemiss has been telling them, with the fake ‘56%’ nonsense that is now under legal challenge. Newly published science shows that there can be no measurable benefit from continuing culling. They cannot be continuing them because of contractual obligation to culling companies, because the Derbyshire cull that was cancelled in 2019 was legally challenged by the NFU, but the judge found that the government had a legal entitlement to make a political decision about culling. So they could make a political decision, and a scientific one, to stop all culling straight away if they wanted to. So why don’t they? This is now the big question that they need to answer next week before they pack up from Parliament for the summer.
This website has been reporting on the legal challenges to the badger culling policy and licences, and the science that has supposedly supported it since 2019. Over that time, there have been many jaw-dropping moments; government interference in peer-reviewed science, government scientists getting their data wrong in published letters, Natural England claiming that culling has no effect on ecosystems and then desperately covering their tracks in the courts. The list goes on, and the story that has unfolded remains truly shocking.
Professor Paul Torgerson, Chair, Veterinary Epidemiology, University of Zurich
But an even more dramatic sequel to this long-running saga is the new scientific paper published this week in Scientific Reports by Professor Paul Torgerson and colleagues including Badger Crowd’s Tom Langton. We will be posting a video presentation that will put this new work into context and demonstrate the massive impact that it should now have on Government bovine TB policy.
Why is this new study so important?
Because the government badger cull policy rests all but entirely on the conclusions from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). It is the science that DEFRA has used in court to defend their decisions to experiment with culling. The study is the original peer-reviewed science that claims badger culling can reduce bTB in cattle; many subsequent studies are derivative from it, use the same flawed methodology, or suffer heavily from confirmation bias. I.e. they are subjective opinion that fails to prove that culling badgers causes disease reduction. However, benefits are claimed from culling when any benefits are, in reality likely from cattle measures. This is because such benefits are “predicted” from the results of the RBCT.
What does the new study say?
The new study re-examines data from the RBCT experiment using a range of statistical models. It concludes that most standard analytical options did not show any evidence to support an effect of badger culling on bovine TB in cattle. The statistical model selected for use in the original study in 2006 was one of the few models that did show an effect from badger culling. However, various criteria suggest that the original model was not an optimal model compared to other analytical options then available. The most likely explanation for the difference in result from the different analyses is that the RBCT proactive cull analysis ‘overfitted’ the data and used a non-standard method to control for disease exposure. The result is that the original model had a poor predictive value, i.e. it was not useful in predicting the results of badger culling. The more appropriate models in the latest study strongly suggest that badger culling does not bring about the disease reduction reported.
How might the RBCT scientists defend their decisions?
The RBCT was a pre-planned analysis i.e. data was analysed in the way they said it would be before they started the trial, so it can’t be questioned. This is not the case. There was a loosely described plan to compare rates of disease between culled and unculled areas. Their published analysis in fact compared counts of disease between culled and unculled areas. Would the conclusion of the RBCT analysis have been different if incidence rates had been analysed correctly? Yes it would. Even if the data had been analysed according to any ‘pre-plan’, this would not preclude subsequent re-analysis using correct and more appropriate methods, except you might not do it if you believed rates had been used as was suggested in the paper.
There is nothing wrong with using the model to calculate the number of herds (exposure). There may be circumstances in which a model may be sensibly used to calculate exposure. However, the original model used suggests that bTB herd incidents (a standard measure of new disease) is independent of the number of herds in a study area. That is, if the number of herds in an area is doubled, the incidence does not change. This is not credible. Not least because the RBCT report (Table 5.4) showed that breakdowns doubled in cull and control areas over the period of study.
You are just model dredging; i.e. you are just picking out the model that says what you want. The new study re-examined RBCT data using a range of statistical models (22 in total). Most of these show no evidence to support an effect of badger culling on bTB in cattle. The statistical model chosen by the RBCT study was one of the few models that did show an effect, but when tested in an accredited way, it is not an optimal model. The new paper is not guilty of “model dredging”, it is the result of an attempt to find a robust analytical method that could support the claims of the RBCT
Why has this not been picked up before?
It does seem remarkable that the original RBCT a) got through peer review, and b) has not been challenged since. One reason might be the rather casual use of the words ‘rate’ and ‘count’ in the original paper, which implies that rate has been used in the model, whereas in fact an epidemiologically non-standard method was used to calculate a rate. Supplementary information in the original paper showed standard calculated ‘rates’ and the assumption could have been made that these were what was used in the model. They were not.
Interestingly, in the journal Biostatistics in 2010, two authors of the 2006 paper discussed approaches to using a range of statistical methods on a data set to compare their performance, and the choosing of a planned statistical approach that best complimented the subject matter. They proposed that selection of a specific statistical approach may involve ’subtle considerations about the interplay between subject-matter and statistical aspects and the detailed nature of the data and its compilation.’ And with respect to the peer-review of results, they contend quite boldly: ‘the suggestion of requiring independent replication of specific statistical analyses as a general check before publication seems not merely unnecessary but a misuse of relatively scarce expertise.’
This may go some way towards understanding how problems with the original analysis were not picked up for such a long time. And it goes some way to explaining why there is such a reproducibility crisis in science.
Badger Crowd can today reveal a letter from Natural England, stating that despite the sickening killing of over 230,000 badgers since 2013, the Natural England Board intends to continue with the failed and ineffective badger culls across England over the next two years. This despite the change to a Labour Government. In its years in opposition, Labour pledged to end the badger culls. But instead, around 100 adult and young badgers on average will be shot every day between now and January 2025 under the direction of the NE Board who control the plans.
Steve Reed, new Environment Secretary for Labour has inherited the disastrous badger culling legacy
This was revealed in a letter repeating much of the material provided in a freedom of information release in May showing how Defra want to keep culling to appease the livestock industry and because they think badger culling ‘works’. This is despite the complete lack of supporting evidence, and with strong evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the new government called the badger culling policy ‘ineffective’ in its manifesto.
This is almost as ludicrous as the claim in 2013 that helped to start badger culling in the first place, i.e. that half of cattle-to-cattle breakdowns originate from badger infections – one of the great mysteriously uncontested travesties of modern veterinary epidemiology. It is based on flawed opinion and flawed analysis, promoted by government scientists and contractors to support government policy. The result has been to support the vested interests that have dominated for two decades. But there was a clear-out at the political level on Thursday night in the 2024 General election.
While dozens of pro-blood sport MPs have lost their positions, entrenched civil servants are no doubt striving to bolster positions they have defended against public interest as a result of tribal behaviour (see here and here), by using the fear-factor that has characterised bovine TB policy.
Notably, Natural England speculate in their letter on how long it might take Defra to gear up for badger vaccination – another cattle disease reduction folly – and talk about a supposed gap between hypothetical benefit effects that have not been shown to exist. Tainted science, based on poor advice.
These plans to continue culling are now under legal scrutiny. Badger Crowd calls on the new government to stand up and be counted on its promises, and not duped by the range of bad advice, information and opinions floating around from those with a conflict of interest and confused stakeholders. It’s time for the badger culls to stop
This week yet more legal action is underway, seeking to end the failed badger culls. A Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol Letter was sent to Natural England by the Badger Trust and Wild Justice, challenging the issue and authorisation of 26 supplementary badger culling licences in mid-May of this year. This follows the shocking content of Freedom of Information releases obtained in May showing communications between DEFRA and Natural England since April of this year.
This action adds to two other ongoing judicial challenge applications, one of which was lodged today in the High Court, in relation to the recent consultation on the future of ‘badger control policy’ by Defra. This challenge claims that the Defra Consultation to introduce 100% badger culls (of a kind trialled in Cumbria since 2018), under control of the Defra Chief Vet, was unfair when it misrepresented scientific fact about badger culling efficacy to consultees. Other flaws are also highlighted in the challenge.
So how will things play out in the days and weeks to come?
Opinion polls now suggest a Labour government may be in place on Friday 5th July with a substantial majority of MPs in Parliament. Those following the history of badger culling could have expected that a swift and decisive end to the cull would be implemented with an incoming Labour government. A number of Labour MP’s and Shadow Ministers have stated that this is Labour’s intention in recent years. The Labour Manifesto launched last month stated that the badger culls have been “ineffective”, something that makes culling unlawful under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, confirming that position.
However, last week Shadow Environment Minister Stephen Reed, who has recently been in meetings with the National Farmers Union, threw a surprise question mark over this on BBC Farming Today by saying there would be no ’hard stop’ to badger culling. The implication is that culling could continue for a further two years under existing licenses for Intensive, Supplementary and Low Risk Area culling in England. A terrible prospect for killing protected wildlife with its known inefficiency. How could that be possible?
Dynamics for new Government making the right decisions next week?
There are currently three legal actions underway.
Challenge 1. from Stephen Akrill. Seeking permission for Judicial Review at the Court of Appeal.
A legal challenge against badger culling in England was made in a personal capacity by Stephen Akrill from Derbyshire, against the Secretary of State (S/S) for Defra Steven Barclay. With a Judicial Review claim lodged on 14th November 2023, Barclay’s second day in office, Akrill is challenging the historic decision of SSEFRA from 2012 to issue licences to kill badgers under section 10(2) (a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The claim is that the S/S has acted upon flawed scientific advice that badger culling could influence the spread of disease. Akrill is seeking a quashing order to revoke all licences for badger culls issued by the Secretary of State. With a request to stay extant licences issued by the Secretary of State to kill badgers in 2024, pending the outcome of his application for Judicial Review.
This was the latest JR concerning badger culling since the judgement in Northern Ireland earlier this year where DAERA were ruled to have consulted unlawfully on a plan to mass-shoot badgers, and where detailed justifications were wrongly withheld. In short, this new JR claim contends that there is inadequate evidence to indicate that culling badgers can influence the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. The RBCT experiment was done under Crown immunity despite the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This, argues Akrill, did not make any subsequent act of killing badgers lawful. While the 2006 RBCT paper was called the established science, Akrill’s argument also is that scientific protocol dictates that science only becomes ‘established science’ once it is shown to be reproducible, not simply because it has been published. This is the science reproducibility argument.
At the Court of Appeal in London in mid-May, Akrill argued that culling badgers by industry without clear reason, and effectively as an experiment, was potentially a criminal offence. Akrill gave two recent examples where evidence suggested non-reproducibility of the RBCT experiment and suggested that the industry led culls had been unlawful from the start of in 2012. Thus, he claims the rolling offence was an error on the part of the decision maker each time culling had occurred, as decided by the S/S, and so remains unlawful.
A related argument was that scientific opinion does not constitute science – specifically it does not overrule the basic premise that science should be reproducible to be safe. On that basis, the Defra CSA and CVO opinion on recent evidence is not sufficient for the S/S to base decisions on. The case continues, and now due to the snap election, will apply to the incoming Government.
Challenge 2. from Tom Langton supported by Badger Crowd and Protect the Wild. Challenge to the March 14th consultation on targeted culling.
A PAP response was received from Defra in mid-June and the case application was lodged at the High Court today, 3rd July. It challenges the fairness of the consultation on three Grounds:
1) that it made misleading claims preventing intelligent consideration 2) that it omitted key information on ecological impacts and 3) it omitted information on the likely economic benefits of the proposed policy.
The government’s position has shifted from saying badger culling caused the disease benefit in cattle, to one where they think it helped, but the detail is fuzzy and not backed by evidence. This is not a good position for the government who needed to come up with some evidence that killing 230,000 badgers (and counting) was worthwhile. They have failed to do this due to weak analysis and are now called out for exaggerating to the public.
Challenge 3. from Badger Trust and Wild Justice. Challenge to the authorisation and reauthorisation of Supplementary Badger Cull (SBC) licences.
The pre-action letter challenges the SBC licences that aim to shoot thousands more badgers from 1st June 2024 and in the next six months of the new Parliament. Also next year between June 2025 and January 2026. This is more and more ineffective culling of tens of thousands of mainly completely healthy badgers for no good purpose.
Based on the information obtained by Tom Langton from Natural England this May, Badger Trust and Wild Justice have together sent a pre-action protocol letter to Natural England and the Secretary of State for Defra to stop the supplementary badger culls continuing. This year, as usual, the supplementary culls started on 1 June. The challenge aims to stop the cull immediately because the advice of Natural England’s own Director of Science (not to cull badgers) was wrongly overruled. The action could lead to the two organisations applying for a full Judicial Review. Natural England has been given until 15 July 2024 to respond and to halt the 26 supplementary culls.
The view is that Natural England, led by Tony Juniper and the Natural England Board, were wrong to overrule Director of Science at NE Peter Brotherton, who felt SBC could no longer be justified. Release of crucial information showed how a Defra official had pressurised NE with advice from Animal And Plant Agency’s Christine Middlemiss (the Chief Veterinary Officer), to carry on culling in order to meet cull company and livestock industry expectations, and to sustain the so-called benefits that Defra have failed to show exist. The fundamental reasoning behind the decision was inadequate and unlawful.
Why a ‘hard stop’ to badger culling is actually warranted now
The time is right to bring an end to all badger culling. As things stand, Natural England may also maintain its plans to continue to ‘cull by stealth’ this year (as it has done for several years) using ‘cull extensions’ to kill more and more badgers over hundreds of square kms, by secretly expanding the edges of existing cull areas. Further, in mid-August 2024, just six weeks away from now, over 20 further areas of 4-year culls could be re-authorised by Natural England for the autumn bloodbath to continue.
Scientific analysis has shown these intensive culls to be ineffective. There is no better time for a full-stop, and a new policy to be formed with a change of approach.
What about industry objection to culling ending?
Back in 2019, the government took a decision to stop the first Derbyshire badger cull before it started due to inadequate preparation on the distance standoff between badger culling and badger vaccination areas, that had not been properly thought through. NE paid compensation to the cull company involved for late notification of that decision. However, when NFU took High Court legal action against the government over the decision, the judge indicated that the government had a political prerogative to take such a decision.
A decision to cancel the culls in 2024 would surely follow the same outlook. And in any case, compensation paid to farmers for loss of set-up costs would be less than the cost of government spending on managing ineffective culls. It would ultimately be a logical, cost-saving decision preventing waste and cruelty.
While the new government might be wary of not doing what some pro-cull rural voters want before an election, there are many more voters (rural and non-rural) who oppose culling, and who will support bringing it to an end. It is true that badger culling retains heavy support amongst niche livestock sectors, fuelled by government misinformation as to its value. The new NFU President has re-iterated his views on the need for badger culling to continue. But this support is misplaced, a result of a relentless campaign of poor information aimed at blaming for badgers for a significant role in the spread of bovine TB, based on weak and misquoted science. The position of Labour on the science of badgers and bTB is likely to consolidate with investigations into maladministration since 2010, and that is what should follow the decision to end badger culling for good very soon. In which case these costly legal actions need not proceed.
On 18th June, the BBC ran a story about Rishi Sunak on the election trail at an event In North Devon, where he was asked a question about his intentions concerning badger culling, should he remain Prime Minister.
Badger culling was not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, but he laid his cards on the table, answering “culls have to be part of the solution”. The BBC wrote, “Mr Sunak said bTB outbreaks are at their lowest in 20 years and “part of that is because of the success of the badger culls.” The statement was confirmed by a video tape released by Farmers Guardian on the same day.
Sunak went on to say that “badger culls have brought down TB by just over 50%. That shows that the culls are working.” This despite the ink being hardly dry on a legal letter from Defra admitting that decline in TB cannot be attributed to badger culling and that not too much should be read into the Secretary of State saying so in the foreword of the recent consultation! This is a key point in the legal challenge that will move forwards shortly.
The current Government badger culling is based on the APHA’s publication Birch et al. (2024), published February this year. However, Mr Sunak is wrong to attribute reduction of disease incidence to badger culling. The new publication does not do this. Authors of Birch acknowledge (on careful reading) that the overall result cannot be attributed to badger culling: all disease measures implemented, including extensive testing, were analysed together. Crucially the expected comparison of culled and unculled areas was missing making the study of low or arguably no inference, given there was also some key missing information and over-simplifications. It is more likely that the cattle measures are causing reduction in disease than badger culling, because decline began well before culling was rolled out and in response to the introduction of annual SICCT testing in 2010. Other cattle-based measures were also introduced alongside culling.
Likewise, the BBC which has extensive ‘previous’ with mis-reporting of the badger culls, was wrong to state (again presumably from Birch et al) that badger culling cut bTB breakdowns by 56% after four years. A 56% reduction cannot be attributed to badger culling, as explained above, because that study was not designed to and was incapable of asking that question.
Mr Sunak said the Conservatives were “the only party at this election” committed to maintaining the cull. If this is the case, his seems to be the only party prepared to consistently misinterpret the science and misinform others about it.
Today the I News has mentioned what Labour might do, claiming culling might not be ended this year and also misquoting the Birch paper – you can see what a good job the government have done on fooling the media – good evidence for the legal challenge to the Consultation.
The outlet teased:
“i understands a Labour government will not interfere with existing contracts to carry out culling“
and that a Labour spokesman said:“
“The next Labour Government is committing to ending the badger cull and eradicating TB. We will work with farmers and scientists to introduce a TB eradication package rolling out vaccination, herd management and biosecurity programs to protect farmers’ livelihoods so we can end the killing of badgers.”
Is this a row-back on the earlier statement about the cull being ineffective? Difficult to say without clear evidence. What can be said is that a letter was sent today to Natural England and Defra asking for the the May licences and authorisations to be immediately revoked and for intensive culling to be ended too. After all, if they are ineffective as stated last week, they are unlawful.
As demonstrated by the above, a vote for Labour now looks in the very best interest of farmers, cows, badgers, and all the other wild and domestic animals that develop bovine tuberculosis.
Why? Because a Labour Party source quoted in the Daily Telegraph last week has confirmed that a ‘new Bovine TB eradication package’ would be developed by Labour if they win the upcoming General Election. It will prioritise eradicating bovine TB through vaccinations, herd management and biosecurity.
Last week they called the badger culls ineffective, based on published peer reviewed scientific evidence. This is a vital key step forwards. It signals the likely dropping of the current DEFRA policy consultation proposals which are not to phase out badger culling as previously indicated by the 2020 policy. There should now be a fresh plan following the General Election, that Labour are strong favourites to win with a working majority. Labour’s reported statement that they are confident about ending the badger culls will come into sharp focus on day-one of their term in office, as an ‘ineffective cull’ is unlawful under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, and Labour is “..confident that we can end the cull..” . This is sending strong signals to supporters who will expecting prompt action from 5th July.
Sadly, the farming industry has misread the published science. Their public statements, like those of Defra Ministers, suggest that the recent APHA study shows badger culling brought bovine TB down. This has not been shown. The study incorrectly describes gamma testing and other test tightening that occurred alongside badger culling during the key four year period described. It was actually an analysis of a policy of extensive cattle measures and badger culling combined; the effect of badger culling alone was not measured due to the type of analysis used, which was a very weak one. The result of all the misleading coverage in the farming press, is that most farmers have been misinformed about badger cull efficacy..
Prompt action towards a scientifically sound and effective new bTB policy will be needed, as the legal challenge of DEFRA’s seriously flawed March 14th policy Consultation will be in full swing by the first day of the new parliament. This will be a considerable task.
Legal communications with Defra in recent days confirm this potential. Defra say: “… it is unlikely that any decision would be made in relation to the proposals contained in the Consultation until early August 2024 at the earliest. Furthermore, the fact of a general election gives rise to the possibility that there will be changes in Ministers or government and that currently proposed policies may be revisited in any event.”
So the civil servants, many of whom have stuck loyally to political masters in the face of crumbling evidence on badger cull efficacy, are already preparing for change if the current Conservative government fails to be re-elected.
An ineffective badger cull should lead to the recall of supplementary culling licences recently issued by Natural England, and a curtailment of the final years of intensive culling (that would otherwise end in 2025/6). But Labour will have a dilemma, because the farming sector representatives such as the NFU may have said they will challenge that legally. However, the Derbyshire cull area postponement case in 2019 suggests that would be futile. If the new policy was judged to be a political decision backed up by the latest science, it would stand little chance.
Hopefully this July can see a new broom sweep away the vested interests in the BTB Partnership and get the right people working on real solutions to end the ruinously expensive polices we have seen since 2010. Saving public money, saving heartache, saving lives, stopping cruelty.
Furthermore, data suggests that 80 per cent of rural communities want an end to the rural hooliganism of trail hunting where badger setts and other burrows used by badgers are blocked or assaulted by out of control dogs
In March Rishi Sunak seemed intent on killing all the badgers by giving sweeping powers and a very free hand to the Chief Veterinary Officer to cull up to 100% of badgers in areas she deemed appropriate. Now he has now called a General Election for July 4th , which means that Parliament will be prorogued tomorrow, 24 May, and dissolved on 30th May. The public will vote 25 working days later. Government actions are limited during the election campaign ‘pre-election period’ that was previously known as ‘purdah’. The shut-down helps to ensure that public money is not used to support campaigning by the political party in power, and to maintain the impartiality of the civil service.
This could be good news for bovine TB control and badgers if the outcome is that the government does not let the National Farmers Union dominate and dictate its actions, as it has for so long.
30th May is also the date by which DEFRA must respond to the Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter issued on 16th May that was supported and funded by The Badger Crowd. We should soon learn what Defra intends to do in response. What are their options? And what will the government that takes over in six weeks’ time be likely to do?
Defra could accept that the consultation was botched and shut it down by doing nothing. The PAP letter gives them the option to withdraw the proposals or to reconsult, which would now be after the election. This is likely to mean that it would now receive a new political steer. The PAP letter also asks that no future proposals are decided before a legal challenge is disposed of – i.e. dismissed or heard in a court trial.
Defra could accept that the consultation was rushed out too hastily without proper consideration, just in case of an early general election and so needs a total rethink. Alternatively, they could try to rush a formal response through next week, so that the principle of ‘targeted culling’ is established before a change of government. They could either keep Natural England licensing or continue to re-badge the NE Bristol licensing office as one of Defra’s own. However, this now looks like a very tall order in the limited time available.
What will the Lib Dems do? Like Labour they will be looking to take back and win over seats in the southwest, in areas where livestock farming dominates the landscape. Not making badger culling a big election issue looks likely to remain important to both political parties, and both are likely to remain tight-lipped. Labour has previously pledged to scrap badger culling, and are the party most likely to hold power next.
Whoever wins the election will be responsible for the bigger challenge of putting in place the appropriate cattle-based measures that will drive down the disease that is embedded in chronic cattle herds. This will have to involve tough restrictions that will cause the beef and dairy to contract. This is something the NFU have resisted and put off, while at the same time holding out a hand for compensation. It’s no easy choice for whoever wins the election. Scrapping badger culling should be an easy decision, but what will really count is making the necessary changes to testing using the expertise pioneered by Dick Sibley in Devon. That might mean scrapping the ineffective BTB Partnership and setting up something that understands the science of the problem, and how to address the problems without reverting to the lay-beliefs of many rural cattle vets, based upon dogma and misinformation from government.
The winning government might also instigate a rapid review of bovine TB control needs early on. Whatever happens next, the actions of Badger Crowd have again been highly effective. Legal letters sent to Defra on 19th and 28th March demanded an extra 3 weeks of consultation time, which gave the legal team time to submit the PAP challenging the legality of the consultation. All of the three legal challenges supported by Badger Crowd since 2017 have been accepted for trial by the High Court, and it would be great if a fourth substantive hearing is now not needed. This would allow time and resources to be better spent, redeployed protecting badgers and dealing with bovine disease in meaningful ways.
Yet again we can dare to find optimism for the future. Let’s hope that it won’t be dashed as it has been so often over the last ten years. The science is clear that badger culling does not work and plays no role in reducing infections in cattle herds. It has to stop. It must stop.
Tom Langton who has figure headed the legal challenges since 2017 said:
“This looks very much more than the beginning of the end. We have fought hard for seven years to highlight the legal and scientific case against badger culling, with breakthroughs more recently, and exposure of actions that are not in the public interest. Of great concern has been the ‘tribal’ behaviour of civil servants and wilful blindness that shows hallmarks of both the blood transfusion and post office scandals. Yet ‘badger blame’ has been ongoing for 50 years now. Thanks to better understanding of the issues involved, we can now start to see the mistakes and misjudgements of the past. The new government will need to focus on how to lower the rates of transmission of bovine TB, much as was done with Covid-19 in humans. This will bring tough times for the beef and dairy industry, but it has to be done to interrupt the dependency on public subsidy, stop the wide range of collateral damage to rural life and the environment that it has caused in recent decades, and finally see progress in eliminating this horrible infection”.
Thanks, and good wishes to all who have supported the Badger Crowd fight against badger culling.
A pre-action protocol letter regarding proposals to evolve the badger control policy was sent to Defra on Thursday 16th May following closure of their extended consultation period on plans to continue badger culling using a so-called ‘targeted’ approach.
Badger Crowd has had sight of the letter sent by lawyers to Defra that challenges aspects of the consultation that ran 14th March – 13 May 2024, as unfair. A large number of problems are identified including:
Misleading and inadequate information regarding badger culling efficacy
Failure to provide information on ecological impacts of the policy
No meaningful information on economic impacts of the policy
The action is being taken by conservation ecologist Tom Langton who since 2017 has been given permission for and completed three previous judicial reviews (JR’s) supported by Badger Trusts and Groups, wildlife charities and caring individuals. These JR’s have exposed details of the badger culls that have been vital for public understanding of the rationale behind and operational decisions surrounding badger culling, although only preventing culling in a few nature reserve areas to-date. As a professional scientist and with others, he has published since 2019, details of badger culling efficacy and bovine TB trends in England. One of these publications in particular, Langton, Jones and McGill, March 2022 in Veterinary Record, is directly refuted by two government scientists in the recent consultation, but yet again without any supporting evidence. The Government agency APHA have published a paper in front of the new consultation that is weak; it lacks any comparison between culled and unculled areas and states that there is no way to tell whether badger culling is having an effect on measured levels of disease. Despite this, wording in the abstract of the same paper, both as a preprint and as published, has led the Secretary of State and the Defra Minister to make unsubstantiated claims before (since 2022) and within the consultation, saying that APHA data shows badger culling works. This is a very basic misreading of the available published and peer-reviewed science.
Tom Langton said:
“It is with deep disappointment that Defra forces us back towards the courts to seek redress on the ‘badger control policy’, because the current consultation has created a confusion that surrounds safe and informed consideration of the best course of action for bovine TB control in cattle. Defra has not learnt from mistakes of the past and wants to u-turn the 2020 policy that aimed to phase-out badger culling. It wants to award sweeping powers to the Chief Vet to decide when and where to cull, and how many more dead badgers to add to the 230,000 mostly healthy adults and cubs already killed since 2013. This they achieve by simple misinterpretation of science and by implementing further countrywide operations that are veiled in secrecy.
Much of the confusion and misinformation in the consultation obscured public consideration of critically important matters such as rationale, ecological impacts, economic benefit and animal welfare considerations, to a point where it was simply not fit for purpose. Many of the consultations 19 questions and comment opportunities were likewise cloaked in ambiguity, to the point where response was dependent on assumptions and interpretations, so wide as to make collective and comparative analysis of them meaningless. The consultation options were narrow and miscast, appearing to be aimed at quickly pushing though a single, pre-planned approach to keep on killing badgers. This was a construction by a Ministry desperate to use public funds to support a demand that Defra has itself fostered, by blaming badgers as a key part of bovine TB epidemiology for decades, but based on flimsy evidence. The muddled thinking and bad policy needs to stop right now.
On behalf of badgers, cows and farmers I implore Defra to recognise that this consultation was flawed and should be set aside in favour of more detailed and coherent review of current needs, with new planning towards approaches that can be successful.”
The challenge asks Defra to withdraw its proposals or to reconsult in an adequate way. Meanwhile the request to Defra is that they confirm no decision will be made on consultation responses before the challenge and complaints are fully heard and concluded.
The Defra consultation on more badger culling ends on Monday 13th May 2024, at midnight. Since it was launched on 14th March there has been increasing incredulity over how sketchy and confused it is. It is a classic example of how not to consult with the public over an extremely important decision on how to tackle a complex disease epidemic.
The problems are largely of Defra’s own making, with the scientific aspects of the issue particularly poorly handled. Questionable management of the bTB policy is exemplified by the ‘BTB Partnership’. This was was set up under the 2020 ‘Next Steps’ policy, after the Derbyshire badger cull licence was put on hold for a year in 2019 by Boris Johnson who fought off the NFU and announced a move to phase out badger culling.
The BTB Partnership was set up as a group of largely cherry-picked farmers and vets, most of them it would seem wedded to badger culling, and ‘hired and fired’ by Defra who also control the agenda, with secrecy over its work, reporting and outputs. There is a blog about the shambolic Partnership here. Not surprisingly, it recommends more badger culling and tries to row back on actions that might inconvenience the beef and dairy industries, thus preventing the industry contraction that must inevitably come, but that could have been so much smaller, if done earlier.
The main problem with the consultation is that it blurts out its intention without actually consulting. It’s a bit like asking what colour your new car should be, and do you need a sunroof? But the bigger questions have already been fixed; make, model, engine size, fuel type, all decided for you. You are being asked questions about the trimmings.
So, the consultation is not at an early stage, not at a stage where the various options are reviewed and described, with a sound build up to a presentation of the top range of possible alternatives and asking you about which path to take. Instead, Bang!, this is what you get. And it is being handled in a similar way to previous bTB consultations only this time it is much, much worse. It looks sloppily written and rushed. Rumour has it the NFU wanted to get it in place before the general election, although it is not actually needed in 2024. The problem for Defra is that views, or perhaps expectations on the government consultation process have been changing, and this kind of approach is no longer acceptable. Witness last October the judgement in Northern Ireland that found the badger culling proposals unacceptable. Why wasn’t the lesson heeded you have to ask?
Looking specifically at factual issues, the ‘elephant in the room’ is the discovery over the last ten years that all but a few of (SICCT) test reactors are infected. With few false positives this makes any narrative that the herd status OTFW (officially bTB Free Withdrawn) is the yardstick for eradication (or better expressed, elimination), very old thinking.
This has some unfortunate consequences, not least for the now challenged RBCT (Randomised Badger Culling Trial) which actually found no effect of badger culling when all reactors (OTFS (Officially bTB Free Suspended) and OTFW are taken into account. This should have led to Defra reviewing their approach, but ‘stick to plan’ is the order from somewhere – the farming industry? It doesn’t make sense. And it isn’t mentioned at all in the consultation. Neither is the increased frustration and louder and louder complaints by vets and test developers that the current policy is unviable and useless. Not fit for purpode. It follows the failed trend of the Republic of Ireland who have culled badgers for over 20 years. The consultation seeks endorsement without adequately, or in many cases at all, explaining its rationale and alternatives.
Further, the consultation is not adequate in explaining the progress and new development of badger vaccination and cattle vaccination. With badger vaccination, DEFRA now pull back, saying its efficacy is unknown, much as the Godfray Review did in 2018. There is no enthusiasm for it from the farmers either. They have been told since 2022 that badger culling works and a new generation of advocates for culling have developed, bringing sentiments of badger hatred to new highs on social media.
How has this happened? Well by a series of announcements, interviews and parliamentary statements by Secretaries of State and Ministers since 2022, based upon a combination of staff at Defra and its agencies telling people that badger culling works. This continued until just before the start of the consultation on the back of unpublished data, uncheckable analyses and inference trying to transmute association to causation. Same old.
The new Secretary of State in Defra’s revolving doors of sackings and appointments is Steve Barclay. No one in cabinet wants to do the Defra job. You have to deal with climate change, flooding, sewage and farm waste in rivers and on beaches and wangle ways around protecting nature as a flurry of screamingly bad diseases flourish with industrial farming. So Barclay sets out the consultation, claiming a figure of 56% decline in herd breakdowns after four years of culling, based on the ‘before and after’ APHA paper (Birch et al published Feb 28 this year), with absolutely none of the controls of a scientific study checking causation. There is no comparison of culled areas with unculled areas. There is a blog about the problems of Birch et al. preprint here.
Using words from a rather flaky abstract, designed to please, Barclay mis-quotes and misrepresents what the paper actually says, no doubt incorrectly briefed by the hapless APHA who are desperate to find a way out of the 2020 policy car-crash and not to call the last decade out as one huge mistake. Barclay follows other politicians, Eustice, Coffey, Spencer, Douglas Miller who have groomed the farming industry to believe what they want to hear i.e. that but for the badgers the cows would be clear of bovine TB. What is irrefutable is that the influence of badger culling on bovine TB in cattle herds is unclear.
Defra seem to have gone out of their way to bias consultee’s opinion in front of their consultation. Some observers thought it had been put on hold, with the hope of a new Parliament sorting out the mess in a years’ time. The consultation fails to distinguish between the scientific opinions of a handful of Defra staff who have spent the last decade blaming badgers, and what the published science actually says and means. Not to do so is not just worrying, it is unfair and unlawful.
Why did they drop a weak bit of analysis (Birch et al. 2024 ) just in front of the consultation and weaponise it to try to force a return to mass culling? Results from Cumbria, south of Penrith, showed that cluster culling was a sham in Area 32, and cattle measures had resolved bTB in all but chronic herds before the first of the 1115 mostly healthy badgers were shot, from 2018.The independent report “A Bovine Tuberculosis Policy Conundrum in 2023” demonstrates this clearly, and the follow-up addendum produced in April 2024 confirms it.
The failure of their ‘epi-cull’ or ‘cluster-cull’ trial is too uncomfortable for them and doesn’t fit with their ‘keep to plan’ strategy, so they pretend it hasn’t happened? Then they delay the economic evaluation until later because it looks like everything done to date has been done at a financial loss, but can be fudged in four years’ time?
The confusion and lack of technical reporting on cattle vaccination, and the need for enhanced testing according to the learning from Gatcombe farm in Devon has not been mentioned at all – no options provided. Airbrushed out.
The consultation normalises the least humane option for shooting badgers without going through the difficult considerations behind that decision. This is extraordinary, given the shift to free shooting over cage shooting for cull companies that have had praise heaped upon them with offers to make their killing easier..
The executive powers that would be passed to the Chief Vet and the appointed BTB Partnership for day-to-day decisions looks like an unrepresentative, unaccountable closed shop. Methods for identifying where badgers would be culled are unformed and justified using the unsuccessful Low Risk Area model (see here andhere) and the unproven intensive culling results (see here,here and here). Why was the consultation not held back until these problems had been addressed? Answer, because the trials have failed. Why does this consultation even exist if this key point is not absolutely clear for all to consider? As APHA said in 2023, there are now more questions than answers.
This consultation is an abomination. Following the failed DEARA consultation in 2023 it is unprofessional and embarrassing. We should know who is responsible for it. It is so far away from the interests of the public and industry that it must be stopped.
Responses to consultation questions: some thoughts:
Q7. Should there be an annual cap on the number of clusters that can be licensed to undertake badger culling?
If you answer Yes, you may be accepting that the policy is fine as long as it is limited to x number of culls per year. Don’t be misled by this trick question. It does not offer the alternative of knowing that no targeted culling should be done.
Q8. What other factors should be taken into consideration in defining a cluster under the targeted badger intervention policy?
If you suggest new factors, this may imply that you agree with the other factors suggested.
Q10. & Q11. To what extent do you agree or disagree there should be a separation of Natural England’s statutory conservation advice from licensing decisions?
These are tricky. At face value it might suggest that you are being asked if NE need no longer fulfil its statutory nature conservation role. But that is very unlikely to happen without a change in law. What it might be asking is whether you think NE should stop licensing culls in order to distance its advice on badger culling ecological impacts from the authorisation of killing badgers, which would be a very good thing. However the question is very general and vague. Perhaps the question supposes culling should continue (which it should not), so does agreeing to it endorse the act of culling? NE should never have taken on the role of licensing culling, it was the worst decision in its history and has seen rampant killings of around 230,000 badgers since 2013. The next question, 11, deals with whether cull licensing should go to Defra, (to join with vaccination permissions), to which the answer should be no because culling should stop. So Natural England who are just told to get on with it without question should stop and it shouldn’t go to Defra? It would seem sensible not answer these ones on the grounds of confusion. Defra would love to keep licensing with NE as it gives culling the respectability of endorsement by a conservation body. Be careful how you answer this one because the question isn’t clear. It could trick people into supporting keeping badger culling responsibility with NE. It is not clear if you can use question 12 to explain your views if you have not answered questions 10 and 11 however. What a muddle.
Q12. Please give reasons for your answers to this section (optional)
Here you could make the point that Question 10 is faulty. The question does not reflect the text of the consultation adequately. Natural England, in preparing impact assessments free of charge for cull companies and being instructed by Defra to issue licences, has lost its supposed independent role. NE has taken direction from and rubber-stamped Defra and the CVO’s instructions to issue licences, and for the NE Chief Scientist to describe culls as successful whether or not minimum cull targets are met. And on an uncorroborated assumption that Defra’s badger culling policy has an disease benefit, which it has consistently failed to show.
Q13. Do you have any comments on the Information for Applicants at Annex B for carrying out the culling part of a targeted badger intervention policy? (optional)
This information is inappropriate given the unfair nature of the consultation.
Q15. Should animal level bTB risk information be published on ibTB?
Yes
Q16. Please give reasons for your answer (optional).
Any information on disease risk should be publicly available.
Q17. To what extent do you agree or disagree it would be helpful to share information on where herd owners source their stock from?
Strongly agree
Q18. Please give reasons for your answer (optional).
Any information on disease risk should be publicly available.
Q19. Do you have any other comments? (optional)
Here is your chance to offer your full view.
This consultation is an utter shambles and should be withdrawn. It is thrown together, unfair and misleads on multiple counts. It avoids providing essential background facts and leads those answering questions into endorsing ill-described proposals. This consultation will be challenged and measures are already in place for that to happen.
Badger Cull Consultation extended by 3 weeks to 13 May
At around 5.00pm yesterday (19th April) Badger Crowd was sent Defra’s ‘stakeholder’ message that the badger cull consultation has been extended by 3 weeks. Due to end on Monday 22nd April, it will now finish on 13th May. One legal letter was sent to Defra on 19th March and then two on the 28th March this year, stating specifically that the 5 week consultation period was too short and that an 8 week period would be appropriate. Defra consultations are often eight weeks long.
Although a three week time extension has been granted, the three week delay in responding to the letter and agreeing it means this still does not provide an adequate response time. Defra just doesn’t get it.
One of the letters also pointed out the misinformation and lack of detail on aspects of the consultation document. Two long letters were also received from Defra yesterday (19th) and are now under the legal microscope.
Legal pressure from our friends at Badger Trust and Wild Justice, together with their ‘survey monkey’ poll of respondents, illustrates problems with interpretation of the consultation. Extra time will give Defra more time to reflect on how muddled their consultation truly is.
Other voluntary groups are still considering what advice to provide to individuals wanting to write to Defra about the consultation, and we will report further on this as it is made available. It is still difficult to advise on the best way to complete the consultation, because of the lack of information provided, its limited scope, the misleading content including wrong use of science and the wording of the questions which does not allow adequately for views to be expressed.
Defra’s consultation is a mess and they know we know it’s a mess. They know it’s a big mess. Thanks again to the 700 of you who have joined the Badger Crowd and are supporting the fight for justice for badgers.
As demonstrated by the above, a vote for Labour now looks in the very best interest of farmers, cows, badgers, and all the other wild and domestic animals that develop bovine tuberculosis.
In March Rishi Sunak seemed intent on 
The Defra consultation on more badger culling ends on Monday 13th May 2024, at midnight. Since it was launched on 14th March there has been increasing incredulity over how sketchy and confused it is. It is a classic example of how not to consult with the public over an extremely important decision on how to tackle a complex disease epidemic.
The BTB Partnership was set up as a group of largely cherry-picked farmers and vets, most of them it would seem wedded to badger culling, and ‘hired and fired’ by Defra who also control the agenda, with secrecy over its work, reporting and outputs. There is a blog about the shambolic Partnership 
The new Secretary of State in Defra’s revolving doors of sackings and appointments is Steve Barclay. No one in cabinet wants to do the Defra job. You have to deal with climate change, flooding, sewage and farm waste in rivers and on beaches and wangle ways around protecting nature as a flurry of screamingly bad diseases flourish with industrial farming. So Barclay sets out the consultation, claiming a figure of 56% decline in herd breakdowns after four years of culling, based on the ‘before and after’ APHA paper (Birch et al published Feb 28 this year), with absolutely none of the controls of a scientific study checking causation. There is no comparison of culled areas with unculled areas. There is a blog about the problems of Birch et al. preprint 
Why did they drop a weak bit of analysis (Birch et al. 2024 ) just in front of the consultation and weaponise it to try to force a return to mass culling? Results from Cumbria, south of Penrith, showed that cluster culling was a sham in Area 32, and cattle measures had resolved bTB in all but chronic herds before the first of the 1115 mostly healthy badgers were shot, from 2018.The independent report “
The confusion and lack of technical reporting on cattle vaccination, and the need for enhanced testing according to the learning from Gatcombe farm in Devon has not been mentioned at all – no options provided. Airbrushed out.
