# Badger Cull hit by Legal Challenge



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Badger Trusts attempt to end Governments 'feudal' attitude to wildlife. Im not a religious person but for the sake of our badgers & indeed all our wildlife I am praying they succeed.

Badger cull hit by legal challenge | Environment | theguardian.com

,


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I hope so too, this Government are sadists I am sure, but I think Cameron has a very stubborn attitude and will not give in under any circumstance if he can help it, I just think he doesn't like to be beat, horrible man,


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Badger Trusts attempt to end Governments 'feudal' attitude to wildlife. Im not a religious person but for the sake of our badgers & indeed all our wildlife I am praying they succeed.
> 
> Badger cull hit by legal challenge | Environment | theguardian.com
> 
> ,


I hope it does get somewhere and helps. Whatever the outcome at least they are making a stand to be heard for the Badgers. The day we all turn a blind eye, and just believe what we are told and don't question or don't stand up and be counted or at least some will be a very sad day and the total end of humanity.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

fingers crossed then.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.badger.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/944_S4.pdf

About time someone did something other than spout hot air and propaganda


----------



## ReikiSaker (Oct 21, 2013)

Fingers crossed!! They haven't even got the proof that badgers are passing tb to cattle!!


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Very good news indeed, did anyone see on FB the squirrels that had been killed in the Badger cull area and hung on trees, absolutely disgusting
LLOKED LIKE A THREAT OR A WARNING TO THE SABS


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Roll on the next election.

Lets hope we still have some wildlife left by then...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> http://www.badger.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/944_S4.pdf
> 
> About time someone did something other than spout hot air and propaganda


hot air & propaganda along with blatant LIES is all the pro cull set have Rona The antis shouldn't be using those tactics not when they have the science & morality on their side.

The Badger Trust have been to court quite a few times to try to prevent the cull, for such a small charity they have been amazing, a lot of antis are trying to support them by donating and/or becoming members The Badger Trust: Member Benefits

Lets just pray they get a judge with integrity if it does go to the high court this time.



jaycee05 said:


> Very good news indeed, did anyone see on FB the squirrels that had been killed in the Badger cull area and hung on trees, absolutely disgusting
> LLOKED LIKE A THREAT OR A WARNING TO THE SABS


I saw that, apparently there were 30 hung squirrels - its like being back in medieval times


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Even more pressure on Paterson to abandon the cull. Yesterday Natural Englands science expert broke ranks and called for the cull to be stopped badger immediately

Prof David Macdonald warns extending duration 'would make the outcome even less predictable and even more unpromising.
Stop badger cull immediately, says Natural England science expert | Environment | The Guardian

Today the Natural Trust start to ask questions >> National Trust puts pressure on Owen Paterson over badger cull | Environment | The Guardian

& Brian May calls for Praterson to resign :thumbup:

Brian's Soapbox October 2013

In the words of Councillor Rigby > Momentum now firmly against badger cull - coalition MPs, national newspapers, scientists, the public all calling for an end to this shambles.


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

i agree with mr may, owen should resign, from the start everything he has said has been one contradiction after another. Those supporting the cull are now dwindling and taking a step back (well some if not most). I love how so many people said it was a farce from the start and are now being proven right. 

up yours patterson :dita:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Badger Trusts attempt to end Governments 'feudal' attitude to wildlife. Im not a religious person but for the sake of our badgers & indeed all our wildlife I am praying they succeed.
> 
> Badger cull hit by legal challenge | Environment | theguardian.com
> 
> ,


sure we can 'convert' you to a believer if you prayers are answered Noush!

Let us all pray that they are 
xx


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

the extensions been granted

Natural England has today confirmed it has granted a licence to enable badger culling to be continued in the west Gloucestershire pilot area for eight weeks.

Natural England received an application to extend the cull in west Gloucestershire following confirmation that, during the six-week period covered by the original licence, the licensee had been able to cull 30% of the badger population. The Governments bovine tuberculosis (bTB) policy seeks to reduce the spread of bTB in cattle through intensive culling over a four-year period to remove at least 70% of the badger population in defined areas. Where numbers fall short of that target licensees are required to present additional proposals to Natural England of how the target can be met.

In carrying out its licensing role and assessing the new licence application in Gloucestershire, Natural England has had regard to guidance from Government derived from the bTB control policy and supplementary advice from Defra's Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser. This advice concludes that extending the cull would help to reduce the spread of bTB in cattle; failure to extend would raise the risk of increasing bTB through perturbation.

Under the original licence 708 badgers were culled during a six-week period which ended last week. The new licence specifies that a minimum number of 540 and a maximum number of 940 badgers can be culled in order to deliver disease control benefits. The new licence runs from today until 18 December inclusive and supplements the original four-year licence granted in October last year. As the close season for cage trapping and shooting begins on 1 December, only controlled shooting will be permitted from 1-18 December.

Natural England - Authorisation of extension to badger control licence in west Gloucestershire


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Unbelievable :mad2::mad2:


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

rona said:


> Unbelievable :mad2::mad2:


i honestly thought it wouldn't have been approved


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Just found this its a document by DEFRA dated 14th December 2011 to Natural England Preventing the spread of Bovine TB

Full document is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/69464/pb13692-bovinetb-guidance-ne.pdf

Im totally confused Noush especially on some points below from the document, because if this is December 2011 as it appears to be it seems vaccinations and other things that haven't been done was suggested.

This guidance outlines what is required in order for any cull of badgers to be effective, safe and humane.

*The Governments policy is to allow controlled culling and vaccination of badgers in areas of high incidence of bovine TB in cattle* in a carefully regulated way for the purpose of controlling the spread of the disease, in accordance with the requirements set out below.1

The Government does not want to see culling continuing for any longer than necessary. Four years after the first culling licence has been granted, the Government will review the policy and advise Natural England whether further culling licences should be granted. Natural England should continue with normal licensing operations until it receives this advice. (Existing licences will remain valid for the term for which they were originally granted).

*The aim of vaccination in combination with controlled culling* is to mitigate the potential for disease spread in areas within or surrounding the control areas, where culling is not taking place.* This could reduce the risk of badgers transmitting the disease to cattle and, over time, may reduce the prevalence of disease in the badger population.*

10.
Further, applicants must satisfy Natural England that they are able to deliver an effective cull in line with this policy and have arrangements in place to achieve this. To deliver an effective cull, the following requirements must be met.
a.
Culling must be co-ordinated on accessible land across the entire control area.
b.
Culling must be sustained, which means it must be carried out annually (but not in closed seasons) for the duration of the licence (minimum of 4 years). The killing/taking of badgers must be limited to a six-week cull period specified in each licence. Culling will not be permitted during the following closed seasons:
i.
1 December to 31 May for cage-trapping and shooting badgers;
ii.
1 February to 31 May for controlled shooting; and
iii.
1 December to 30 April for cage-trapping and vaccination.

Culling must remove a minimum number of badgers in each year as specified below:
i.
in the first year of culling, a minimum number of badgers must be removed during an intensive cull which must be carried out throughout the land to which there is access, over a period of not more than six consecutive weeks. This minimum number should be set at a level that in Natural Englands judgement should reduce the estimated badger population of the application area by at least 70%;

a minimum number of badgers must also be removed in subsequent years of culling through an intensive six-week cull which must be carried out throughout the land to which there is access. This minimum number should be set at a level that in Natural Englands judgement should maintain the badger population at the reduced level required to be achieved through culling in the first year.

11.
Further, applicants must satisfy Natural England that they are able to deliver the cull as safely and humanely as possible. The following requirements must be met in that respect.
a.
In order to ensure humaneness, only two culling methods will be permitted (which can be used in combination, or as single control methods):
i.
cage-trapping followed by shooting; and
ii.
controlled shooting.
b.
Those licensed to kill badgers must be able to demonstrate a level of competence appropriate to the method they will be licensed to use. Successful completion of a training course approved by Government will be taken as proof of competence.
c.
Culling must be in line with the Best Practice Guidance.
d.
All badger carcases must be disposed of in line with Animal By-Products Regulation 1069/2009/EC.

Vaccination Policy Requirements
14.
*An injectable vaccine for badgers is available for use under veterinary prescription (called BadgerBCG).* Under existing legislation it is possible to apply to Natural England for a licence to trap badgers for the purpose of vaccination, provided the vaccinating will be carried out by someone who is sufficiently competent (either a trained and accredited lay vaccinator or a practising vet with access to personnel with adequate trapping experience). The ability to apply for licences to vaccinate badgers will continue and is not limited to areas where cattle undergo annual testing for TB.
15.
*Vaccination can take place as the sole disease control measure, or it can be used in combination with culling,* for example as a buffer for areas where vaccination may help reduce the risks to vulnerable livestock of increased TB incidence,* both within and surrounding a control area, as a result of perturbation of the local badger population.*

16.
Where the use of vaccination in combination with culling is proposed, the following best practice is recommended:
a.
where vaccination is to be used as a buffer, it should be used at active badger setts found on, or adjacent to, land where vulnerable livestock are present and which fall within 2km of the edge of a control area;
b.
*vaccination should take place at least 4 weeks prior to culling to allow immunity to develop in uninfected vaccinated animals;
c.
to mitigate any ongoing perturbation effect and begin to build up herd immunity, vaccination should be carried out annually, continuing for at least the same length of time as any culling on adjacent land; and
d.*
where culling and vaccination are taking place on adjacent land, applicants should take reasonable steps to negotiate an agreed approach to badger control operations along the relevant boundary with that landowner/occupier.

There is a lot more in the full document, but unless Im missing something, it seems that they have acknowledged that vaccination would play a part and also there is likely to be perturbation.

Yet on the declaration on their site of the extension of the cull they say this.

In carrying out its licensing role and assessing the new licence application in Gloucestershire, Natural England has had regard to guidance from Government derived from the bTB control policy and supplementary advice from Defra's Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser.* This advice concludes that extending the cull would help to reduce the spread of bTB in cattle; failure to extend would raise the risk of increasing bTB through perturbation. *

From what I can see though I may be wrong, they are not doing any vaccinations as advised to them as per Defra above.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Typical - won't invest any cash in keeping a herd healthy, but are happy to butcher innocent animals (because there is no evidence that badgers Do spread bovine TB).

Shouldn't be allowed even to suggest a cull if they aren't fulfilling their part of the agreement.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

lostbear said:


> Typical - won't invest any cash in keeping a herd healthy, but are happy to butcher innocent animals (because there is no evidence that badgers Do spread bovine TB).
> 
> Shouldn't be allowed even to suggest a cull if they aren't fulfilling their part of the agreement.


According to Patterson the reason for the fail on the cull numbers wise is that the "Badgers moved the goal posts" seems if anyone moved the goal posts it certainly wasn't the badgers.

The Game conservancy trust did a report to Defra in August 2006, warning about the difficulties and problems that could arise in just shooting the badgers and that its not the same or as easy as shooting other species for various reasons. Still they went ahead and then say not enough Badgers were shot in the initial cull time hence the need for an extension. Like everything else they cant seem to get their house in order and get anything right.

Re: Competition to Shoot a Badger in cull zones!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by lennythecloud View Post

Most badgers shot for the cull will die before they hit the ground. I don't agree with the cull but I don't understand why it's considered inhumane and outrageous by some who apply lower standards to the animals they eat.

The Game Conservency Trust did a report in Aug 2006 Shooting a potential tool in Badger Population control, which makes some interesting points.

6)
Although death by shooting is in most cases overwhelming and rapid, shooting carries some risk of causing suffering if animals are shot and wounded but cannot be dispatched quickly. The actual level of this risk for shooting as applied to badgers is unknown, but it is unlikely to be worse than in established deer or fox shooting practices, provided operator competence is assured.

7)
Badger anatomy differs significantly from deer or fox anatomy, requiring that operators must be well aware of the differences if they are to maintain the level of humaneness referred to above.

In detection, badgers present a number of important differences from foxes. Unlike foxes, badgers caught in the spotlamp beam rarely respond by looking directly at the spotlamp, unless they are at close range (<30 m). The first cue picked up by the observer is therefore rarely reflected light from the eyes, but more commonly the overall bulk or the facial markings of the animal. The black and white facial stripes are very distinctive when the animal is facing the observer, but under a spotlamp will be subordinated by light reflected from the eyes. In other orientations, and especially when the badger is foraging with the head down, the facial markings are not as striking under the lamp as might be expected. The fur on the rest of the body is a grizzled grey colour of average tone (a measure of light from the body fur almost exactly approximates that from an average grey card with 18% reflectance used as a mid-tone in photography). As a result, it is often difficult to distinguish the body from an average background. In fact, recognition of the badger as a potential target under a spotlamp, is typically of a shapeless lump that is distinguished from the background chiefly by the ring of shadow created by the lamp. This penumbra is accentuated by the fact that the outer parts of the body hairs are black with white tips.
Compared with a fox, a badger has shorter legs, and its body is broader but shallower. It can be half hidden by a depression as shallow as tramlines (tractor wheelings) in stubble.

3.1.1.
General principles of humane shooting
By reputation (among e.g. hunters, trappers, wildlife biologists, vets, and even rural policemen), all the family Mustelidae - of which the badger is a member - are tenacious of life and difficult to kill. This is probably due to a combination of features: a thick hide, very robust yet elastic skeletal structure, and robust skulls. The aim of good shooting practice would naturally be to ensure that in the vast majority of cases death is rapid, and therefore humane. This requires appropriate firearms and ammunition, considered placement of the shot, and reliable marksmanship.

The anatomy of the badger  discussed below, section 3.1.2  is a marked departure from that of the deer or fox, and an appreciation of the differences would be essential to achieve a humane outcome in shooting this species. It is clear that a degree of specialist knowledge is required, and that an ignorant shooter could make a number of fundamental mistakes, with serious adverse welfare consequences for the badger. Anatomy also has a bearing on what firearms and ammunition can be considered suitable for the humane shooting of badgers.

3.1.2.
General considerations of badgers as targets
Badgers are medium-sized carnivores, with adult males (mean 11.6 kg, range 9.1-16.7 kg) appreciably larger than females (mean 10.1 kg, range 6.6-13.9 kg)1. Length (head and body) is males 75 cm (range 69-80 cm) and females 72 m (range 67-79 cm). In relative terms, the badger has a strong musculature and robust skeleton. The rib-cage containing its vital organs presents a vertically shallow target, but is relatively broad, so that the target area is slightly larger when the shot is taken from an elevated position.
An important consideration taken into account by the study of fox shooting by Fox et al. (2005a), and in shooting appraisal for the DSC qualification, is that the target area for a killing shot is not delineated as would be the bulls-eye on a competition target, rather its position within the outline of the animal must be judged by eye. The indistinct outline of the badger under a spotlamp, and its variable height depending on whether it is in foraging or walking posture, would clearly require good judgement on the part of the shooter.

In adult badgers, and especially in males, the cranium carries a deep sagittal crest to which the powerful jaw muscles are attached. In profile, the brain itself measures about 5 x 6 cm. Although accurately placed head shots are regarded as optimally humane, they are generally considered risky in deer shooting except at unusually close range. The target area is well indicated in the badger thanks to the facial stripes and ear position, but the target itself (the brain) is small (5-6 cm diameter). The risk of a disabling but not immediately fatal injury to the jaw, nasal structures, or neck muscles makes the attempt at a head shot unreasonable in most circumstances (but see sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.8).
The neck of a badger is comparatively long, but an effective neck shot requires an accurate shot to the spine. The bony processes on a badgers neck vertebrae are much shorter than on a deer, hence the target area for a neck shot is a line ca. 2.5 cm thick. The risk of non-fatal injury seems too risky to make a neck shot acceptable in any circumstances.

significant difference between foxes and deer on the one hand, and badgers on the other, is that the badgers neck and shoulders are extremely well-muscled (Fig. 2). As a result, the rib-cage is appreciably further back than might be anticipated. The dip in the profile of the badgers back in fact indicates the rear of the shoulders. The heart, and the correct point of aim (see Figure 4), lie below and slightly posterior to this. The posture of the badger will alter height of the rib-cage above the ground, strengthening the need for familiarity with the shape of a badger and for careful judgement.

The operator may also need to be aware that because of the anterior slant of the shoulder blades, the elbow travels somewhat further back than in deer or fox. Consequently, when the lower part of the fore-leg nearest the observer is in an upright position (i.e. when the animals weight is directly over the pad, and just before the leg is picked up to bring it forward), the heart/lung target area will be obscured by a robustly bony limb (Fig. 3). This may affect projectile penetration in the case of shotguns (section 3.1.5.3), but advice taken suggests that it is unlikely to affect
lethality in the case of centre-fire rifles of .22 calibre and upwards (section 3.1.5.2). The heavy fringe of fur on the fore-leg may nevertheless demand extra care on the part of the operator to identify the point of aim correctly.

The actual document is 38 pages long, and a lot more involved, going by this the shooting of badgers is a lot more involved and specialist then shooting foxes and deer and other animals so as for most Badgers being shot and dying before they hit the ground I personally wouldn't bank on it.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/badger-gct0806.pdf


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I do wonder what they are sneaking through whilst using this as a distraction to both sides of this issue. 

Some other horrendous building plan on a National park???

Another Kowtow to those in Brussels and selling our own farmers down the river???


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DT said:


> sure we can 'convert' you to a believer if you prayers are answered Noush!
> 
> Let us all pray that they are
> xx


Well i'm 100% atheist now!:mad5:



RockRomantic said:


> i honestly thought it wouldn't have been approved


I'm absolutely gutted. I was so upset when the news broke I didn't have heart to update the thread, thank you for doing it RR xx



Sled dog hotel said:


> Just found this its a document by DEFRA dated 14th December 2011 to Natural England Preventing the spread of Bovine TB
> 
> Full document is here
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/69464/pb13692-bovinetb-guidance-ne.pdf
> ...


Thank you very much for finding this one aswell SDH. I think we're all confused SDH they pretty much dismiss vaccinating badgers now. Nothing at all adds up, they just seem to be making it up as they go along. Its a complete & utter shambles but they are so arrogant they don't even seem to care how bad it looks, Paterson even said the culls have been a success  This isn't about controlling bTB imo - this is all about badger eradication!.

Just look at this off your document aswell , they ignore their own criteria when ever it suits >> _ The killing/taking of badgers must be limited to a six-week cull period specified in each licence. Culling will not be permitted during the following closed seasons:
i.
1 December to 31 May for cage-trapping and shooting badgers;
ii.
1 February to 31 May for controlled shooting; and
iii.
1 December to 30 April for cage-trapping and vaccination _

'Cull must be limited to 6 weeks' - they have added a 3 week extension in Somerset - and now the *8 week* extension in Gloucestershire *14 weeks culling!* Its like starting from scratch & then some:mad5:

'Culling will not be permitted during the closed seasons -Glos cull takes it up to the 18th of December - 18 days over the flaming closed season!!



Sled dog hotel said:


> According to Patterson the reason for the fail on the cull numbers wise is that the "Badgers moved the goal posts" seems if anyone moved the goal posts it certainly wasn't the badgers.
> 
> The Game conservancy trust did a report to Defra in August 2006, warning about the difficulties and problems that could arise in just shooting the badgers and that its not the same or as easy as shooting other species for various reasons. Still they went ahead and then say not enough Badgers were shot in the initial cull time hence the need for an extension. Like everything else they cant seem to get their house in order and get anything right.
> 
> ...


Nor would I, and Defra know many will/have suffered, this is why they still refuse to submit the unredacted humanness report to HSI!

This is a very good summary in the ecologist >> The Badger Cull: forget TB and humane killing; the enemy is Defra - comment - The Ecologist

,


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rona said:


> I do wonder what they are sneaking through whilst using this as a distraction to both sides of this issue.
> 
> Some other horrendous building plan on a National park???
> 
> Another Kowtow to those in Brussels and selling our own farmers down the river???


Funny you should say that about kow towing to Brussells and the EU Rona.

Unless Ive got it wrong they get money from the EU for it.

Cant seem to C&P but its on the link.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/eradication/programme2013/2012_761_eu_en.pdf

Other details are on here.

EUROPA - Animal Health & Welfare - Animal Diseases - Eradication, control and monitoring programmes


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Well i'm 100% atheist now!:mad5:
> 
> I'm absolutely gutted. I was so upset when the news broke I didn't have heart to update the thread, thank you for doing it RR xx
> 
> ...


Think David Attenborough sums it up in your new sig, Noush.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> I do wonder what they are sneaking through whilst using this as a distraction to both sides of this issue.


This, for one:

MPs push to relax law on fox hunting | The Times


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> I do wonder what they are sneaking through whilst using this as a distraction to both sides of this issue.
> 
> Some other horrendous building plan on a National park???
> 
> Another Kowtow to those in Brussels and selling our own farmers down the river???


Building in National Parks is another Paterson brainwave! Abusing biodiversity offsetting scheme. Hard to believe this crook is our 'Environment' Secretary :sneaky2:



Sled dog hotel said:


> Think David Attenborough sums it up in your new sig, Noush.


and here we have proof from Paterson himself(as if we needed it!) that he doesn't listen to science SDH > Badger cull minister claims no absolute right on scientific advice | Western Morning News



Spellweaver said:


> This, for one:
> 
> MPs push to relax law on fox hunting | The Times


For sure! & did you know that when badger were culled in the RBCT experiment there was a 50% rise in the fox population!

Just look at this Val>> The

and they call foxes 'sly'!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> and here we have proof from Paterson himself(as if we needed it!) that he doesn't listen to science SDH > Badger cull minister claims no absolute right on scientific advice | Western Morning News
> 
> !


Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has argued there is "no absolute right" when being given scientific advice, and that it is the politician's job to "make the call".

Based on one study alone then no there may not be an absolute right, but when there are a lot of different studies and scientific opinions by specialists that all say a lot of the same things and agree on important points in common then common sense should tell you that there is something right somewhere.

Mr Paterson also underlined how the rural economy is his top priority  with the environment in second. His comments come amid criticism for downgrading the role of the Farming Minister in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Sounds about right economy ie I assume money is his top priority, the environment his second. Has it not occurred to him that its the environment and environmental issues is what supports the rural economy In the first place.

He said: "Exports are a key part of our first priority here, which is to grow the rural economy. Our second priority is to improve the environment, and the other two are to protect the country from animal disease and protect the country from plant disease."

Strikes me Exports ie Money is the main priority and to hell with everything else, Environment and environmental affairs comes a poor second.
Had to laugh about the other trailing two in order of priority ,seeing as how all this is supposed to be about bovine TB and the cull in the name of so called reducing spread in his list of priorities according to the above statement its well down his list.

Badger cull minister claims "no absolute right" on scientific advice | Western Morning News

Don't know about controlled shooting of Badgers, the arrogant so and sos doing a great job on his own of shooting himself in his own foot.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has argued there is "no absolute right" when being given scientific advice, and that it is the politician's job to "make the call".
> 
> Based on one study alone then no there may not be an absolute right, but when there are a lot of different studies and scientific opinions by specialists that all say a lot of the same things and agree on important points in common then common sense should tell you that there is something right somewhere.
> 
> ...


Spot on( along with slaughtering wildlife) the only thing Paterson cares about is money. As someone said the other day- Whenever we hear Owen Paterson speak, one question springs to mind - 'who benefits?

They have just struck deal with China & Russia, China want our Dairy & Russia I believe want live exports, the Govt and NFU don't want to jeopardise this huge market, so this is why they arent pressing ahead with cattle vaccination because vaccinating for tb could do just this!

Paterson is a flat earther he cherry picks the science that suits his agendas, he knows better than the experts when their science doesn't fit his ideology! To dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus that culling wont work, including the most extensive, expensive, peer reviewed experiment into badgers & btb shows just how arrogant he is. Hes a very dangerous ideologist, defra is now no longer fit for purpose, they should remove the 'e' it certainly not there to serve the environment anymore, just as Natural England no longer protects wildlife. 3 farmers sit on Natural Englands board.

Here is NE respose to the Badger Trusts legal letter, its very threatening imo, and note how they say haven't 'extended the licences- these are NEW ones

http://www.badgertrust.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/947_S4.pdf

he Badger Trust solicitors have today 23rd
October 2013, received the following response from the 
solicitors acting for Natural England: 
Dear Sirs,

Proposed claimant: Badger Trust 
Proposed defendants: Natural England and Secretary of State for Defra 
1. I refer to your letter dated 18th October 2013 at 18.02 which purports to be a pre-action protocol letter asserting that it would be unlawful for Natural England to grant a licence to cull badgers in Gloucestershire for a further period this year. 
2. You also assume that it will be the Board of Natural England that will determine the application that has been made for this licence and you ask them to consider this letter in making their decision. In fact licensing decisions are not a matter for the Natural England Board. As an operational matter, the decision whether or not to grant a wildlife licence has been delegated to wildlife advisers. However, in accordance with our normal policy for a decision of this nature, the decision has been escalated, in this case, to the Executive Director Science Evidence and Advice. Where licences are of a controversial nature for whatever reason, however, it is normal practice for decisions to be taken by the Director Regulation in consultation with the Executive, and occasionally, the Board, as appropriate. I confirm that a copy of your letter has been shared with the relevant Director, Executive Directors, the Chief Executive and the Board and that they have been consulted on the question of whether to grant a licence to extend the badger cull in Gloucestershire. 
3. Your letter does not set out any grounds of challenge to which Natural England can substantively respond. It does however rest on a fundamental confusion between (a) the purpose of the licence that has been granted in terms of disease control; and (b) its use as a pilot to consider whether controlled shooting has been safe, humane and effective in reducing the badger population by 70% in a six week period.

4. As you state in your letter, and as is expressed in Defras policy1, the purpose of the pilots 
was to consider whether controlled shooting has been safe, humane and effective in 
reducing the badger population by 70% in a six week period. These issues are to be 
considered by an independent expert panel. 
5. But the purpose for which the licences were granted in Gloucestershire and West 
Somerset is disease control. Thus it is incorrect to characterise the cull as being for 6 weeks 
only. What Defras policy actually states (para 5.1) is:

1 The Governments Policy on Bovine Tb and Badger Control in England  December 2011 
2 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 does not contain a power to amend licences accordingly if the period of culling in year 1 is to be extended a new licence which permits culling for a further period in year 1 only is required. 
The scientific evidence for this policy shows clearly that in order to achieve a net reduction in the number of new confirmed TB herd incidents, culling must be done on a sufficient scale, in a widespread, coordinated and efficiently way, and over a sustained period of at least four years. (my emphasis) 
It is the case that the period this year for undertaking the first annual cull as authorised by Natural England has expired (and that is why an application for a new licence has been made2). But it is not correct (as you state on page 5 of your letter) that the current licence has run out or expired. It has not, and culling will proceed next year under the same licence. In fact the cull must continue for at least a further 3 years, and the licences that have been granted reflect that, in order to achieve the reduction in bovine TB anticipated. 
6. The question for Natural England is whether to grant a further licence to cull in Gloucestershire this year given that the cull that has taken place has not achieved a reduction of 70% of the badger population in the six period specified for the annual cull. 
7. There is no reason to assume, as your letter does, that the grant of any such licence will frustrate the purpose of the pilot in determining whether or not controlled shooting has been safe, humane and effective in reducing the badger population by 70% in a six week period. 
The Panel will make that determination on the evidence available to it. The fact they have not reported is irrelevant. Even if the Panel had found that controlled shooting was ineffective, which it has not done, that would not make either the cull or the granting of a further unlawful licence.

8. The purpose of the requirement for a 6-week limit to the licensed period of culling was to ensure that every effort would be made to achieve the objective of reaching the minimum number to be culled within the six weeks. At no point has it been said by Defra or by the CVO that, if culling did not achieve the objective of reaching the specified minimum number within the six-week period of the annual cull, then culling would never be permitted to 
continue

Indeed it would be irrational to have done so, given that the purpose of granting the licence was to reduce bovine TB, if a further licence would achieve a greater reduction in bovine TB. In fact very considerable efforts were made to ensure that, if the objective was not achieved in the six week period specified for the annual cull, the fundamental objective of securing a sufficient level of population reduction could be achieved. You are incorrect to state that the agreement with the licence holder to address any shortfall is inconsistent with the Guidance to Natural England and the policy. In fact it was written in full knowledge of the Guidance and the Policy and it was put in place to recognise that real life does not always accord with what was intended. 
9. In determining the current application, Natural England, as the licensing body, will consider not only the current policy and guidance but also the scientific and policy advice it has. 
10. With our letter dated October 17th 2013 we provided to you a copy of the letter written to Natural England dated 10th October 2013 setting out the Secretary of States views on extending the cull. That letter was not limited to the Somerset pilot. We have also received specific advice from Mr Gibbens, the Chief Vet, in relation to Gloucester. A copy of that advice is enclosed. Natural England will take account of both the Chief Vets advice and the Secretary of States views in determining whether to grant a licence to extend the cull in Gloucestershire.

Information and Documents 
11. You have requested certain documentation in your letter I have set out below my response to that request using your own numbering system for ease of reference: 
1. Natural England has had no dialogue with the independent monitoring panel. It is not the function of the Panel to consider whether or not a further licence to extend the cull this year should be granted. 
2. Natural England has had no dialogue with either the TBSAB or the SAC. 
3. I attach a copy of the invite, agenda and the documents that were provided to the Board prior to a meeting on 17th October, before your letter was received. A copy of your letter before action was provided to the Board on 21st October. A further meeting of the Board was held today. The minutes are not yet available. Natural England has not had any dialogue with its Science Advisory Council on the question of the grant of the licence. 
4. Natural England is not obliged to consult the Independent Panel, the TBSAB or the Scientific Advisory Committee. It considers that it is in a position to reach a reasonable decision in the light of information and advice available to it. 
5. You have already received a copy of the CVO advice relating to the Somerset pilot. A copy of the CVO advice relating to the Gloucestershire pilot is attached.


----------

