VOTE to SAVE Wildlife -Words from Brian May

 

I posted this on my groups because two Bristol 'wildlife' groups called it "campaigning" again and the rest...it never gets approved or disappears quickly. 

SHAME on you if you call yourself a naturalist or a wildlife lover and you just sit back and do not give a 🤬about the slaughtering to extinction of badgers and the killing of foxes that has set them for extinction or any of the many species of wildlife that are dying out as I write this because it is easier to sit on your ass and just watch TV or You Tube. 

ACT NOW or your children and grand children will only read about many species that are gone by the time they grow up.

The Bristol Green Party Total Lack of Interest in the Environment and Wildlife

  Well, it seems that I was right. Following the council election win by the Green Party at the start of May all of its councillors have gone back to being invisible and uncontactable.

Having given up I sent this email to the Green Party Head and Deputy Head of Bristol City Council:

"I have now tried getting in touch with your Green Party over local wildlife and environment issues since the 8^th May. Absolutely no responses.

A large group of people concerned with these issues changed from a Labour vote to help elect a Green run council under the foolish assumption you actually cared about these issues. After much discussion I can inform you that we have collectively decided to not vote Green Party in any future or national elections.

I cannot express just how disappointed I am in the Green Bristol City Council.

Terry Hooper"

I find that with wildlife death mounting up all over the area leaves me far less happy with very slow or no responses from those in authority.

The following was sent to Councillor Carla Denyer head of the Green party which is now in cntrol of Bristol City Council. Attached were copies of the 2023 and 2024 Fox and VBadger Death Registers:

Hello.

I submitted this to the former Mayor on three occasions but only just before the council elections did he respond to say "nothing we can do". My family going back to my grandparents voted Labour all of their lives as have I but along with a lot of other voters who were concerned about Labour's relentless disregard for the environment and wildlife issues decided that a Green vote would be the only choice. We are all hoping, whether people campaigning to save the Western Slopes or other green areas, or involved in wildlife work that the Green Party will step up and meet the challenges and stand with the people of Bristol to make the City a true example of environment and habitat protection.

For your convenience please find attached the Bristol Fox Deaths Register for 2023 as well as the Badger Deaths Register for 2023 maintained by the British Fox and Canid Study (f 1976) and the Bristol Badger Group (f 1994). In summary, for 2023 (and only animals given a location that could be found) some -I should point out that the total number of fox deaths listed herein are not all that died in 2023.

The total number of foxes killed on Bristol roads in 2023 was 257 and these include cubs, pregnant vixens and dog foxes.

The total known number of badgers killed in Bristol for 2023 was 53.

Our work now includes recording deaths of otters which totalled around 6 for 2023.

We do not keep a record of deer and other mammals/birds killed on Bristol roads but the number is high.

We know that for 2024 the total fox deaths up to 7th May stand at 83 and one of these was a heavily pregnant vixen. We have also just recorded the first otter death of 2024 at Lawrence Weston. Badger deaths up to 7th May stands at 36 and these include lactating sows meaning that cubs likely also died. Again, I will attach copies for your convenience.

One black spot for wild life deaths is the Hick's Gate stretch of road -deer, badgers, foxes etc. Saturday 27th January saw four fox deaths on this stretch of road.

For otter deaths we know that the major black spot is the Hartcliffe Way which sees the highest death rate. Looking through the registers you will note that certain areas always crop up and Downend is a particular black spot for foxes and badgers.

I am aware that it will cost, financially, but I would like Bristol City Council to consider the possibility of wildlife underpasses being installed in the main hot spots -Hick's Gate and Hartcliffe Way as the rate of wildlife death on these stretches is so high and otters and badgers are protected species. Perhaps "Wildlife Crossing" signs to alert drivers might also help.

We are currently looking at environmental crises and concentrating on wildlife areas but we are not looking at the animals themselves and how the impact of their deaths are affecting the environment -foxes as hunters are not wholly carnivorous but will catch and eat large numbers of rats and mice and in some cities around the world they are seen as far more effective than rodenticides(as are feral cats). If the numbers of foxes and badgers continue to drop then we will be seeing them, in the City, as rare and they took a long time to recover after 94% died off in the 1994/1995 mange outbreak.

So, please, give the idea of some type of underpass or overpass for wildlife serious consideration as in many parts of the world they have been adopted as essential.

I look forward to your responses when convenient.

Regards

Terry Hooper-Scharf

I have made a couple of attempts of contacting someone at the Green Party but that seems almost impossible by phone. It's far better to give all of the facts in writing and documents for a decision to be made.

Sadly, many of us who decided the mess of a Labour council had to go and so we switched our vote to the Greens. People have tried to raise several issues with the Greens but all note a very obvious absence of any representatives. I will not post the pithy comments made. As a second email seemed in order I again emailed Cllr Denyer attaching the first message:

"Hello. As I have not had a preliminary response to the email of 8th May I wondered whether there was someone appointed at the council who can handle the matters raised? Since writing the number of fox deaths in Bristol has risen to 100 and badger deaths stand at 37. This excludes deer and other animals (such as deer) killed in and around Bristol roads. At6 the very minimum some consideration should be given to "Warning Wildlife Crossing" notices on the main wildlife death spots. Some serious consideration needs to be given wildlife crossings whether over or under roads as at the current rate we are losing wildlife at an alarming rate and I would consider a new Green controlled council far better suited to handling this issue than the previous Labour controlled council."

Having at one time been a big supporter of the Green Party in Germany, perhaps I am expecting too much from a British Green Party? People are not even reporting deer they hit with their cars and we seriously need to take some action because wildlife killed by cars is getting out of hand.

Why did Natural England order a badger cull against its own scientific advice?

 As I have repeatedly stated for over two decades now the badger cull IS down to political corruption and this from the Badger Trust reveals the extent of the corruption for political ends and votes.

https://www.badgertrust.org.uk/post/why-did-natural-england-order-a-badger-cull-against-its-own-scientific-advice?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1DBmV9bnuSdIF6VVd3pqt6sxFJ_V7u21rMTRQHdRnvOGZiDgek-Ht8mgU_aem_AaR8Vl41gNj_2xMTkitSQwx2sjZnNHqvJdrdmt1medW7wW6ArWg3shoOThYcuJ7QMxkJaaT6ufiUlY4ql4KJVr7H

Badger Trust analyses the release of Natural England documents

Last week, we revealed that Natural England (NE) issued supplementary cull licences again this year against its own scientific advice.  

The confidential documents also revealed that Defra wanted to continue to pursue the cull to keep the farming industry onside despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness at reducing bTB in cattle.

Today, we release those documents to you in full so that you can read the exchange of information. We also share our analysis of the documents.  

Advice to Natural England’s Operations Team on Supplementary Badger Culling 2024

Advice to Natural England’s Operations Team on Supplementary Badger Culling 2024

.pdf

Download PDF • 316KB

In April, Natural England's Director of Science wrote in an internal letter to Natural England staff:

“Over the past few years, the balance of evidence has shifted. In my opinion it is now clear that badger vaccination can provide an effective alternative to SBC [supplementary badger cull]”

NE’s Director of Science also pointed out that cattle measures could be used to reduce bTB in cattle and give farmers control over the disease. He said this needed to be communicated more clearly and positively to the farming community:

“in my opinion, the evidence is clear that the steps that farmers and others have already taken, alongside continued on-farm biosecurity, management practices and other cattle measures, are likely to provide a long-lasting disease reduction benefit that will persist until other options for disease control can be implemented. Consequently, these farmers can avoid the considerable expense and inconvenience of undertaking the SBC [supplementary badger cull] without increasing the risk of their cattle suffering from bTB. This is good news for farmers, and I hope it can be clearly communicated as such.”

He also noted his disappointment that a recent paper by APHA scientists was being misquoted as leading to a 56% reduction in bTB due to badger culling, ignoring the other cattle-based measures that were being implemented:

“As I have said in previous advice, much greater effort is needed to raise awareness of the

disease reduction benefits of the alternatives to culling among the farmer community, in my

opinion. In this regard, it is disappointing that the recent publication by Birch et al. 2024 has

been widely reported as providing evidence that badger culling reduces the incidence of bTB

by 56%, when in fact the study shows the overall impact of implementing a range of bTB

control measures, not culling alone. Further research to establish the relative disease

reduction contributions of the different control measures is needed.”

Defra’s letter to Natural England 1 May 2024

2. Defra Letter to Natural England 1 May 2024

.pdf

Download PDF • 192KB

A letter from Defra to Natural England, dated 1st May, revealed that continuing the cull was part of a political strategy to maintain positive relationships and support from the farming industry on future disease control efforts:

“Changes need to be carefully timed and communicated, whilst balancing a range of potentially opposing views. Any abrupt changes to policy would seriously undermine our ability to engage constructively with the industry on future disease control interventions.”

This letter shows that the decision to allow the supplementary cull is not evidence-based.  Instead, it is politically motivated to continue to receive support from a particular sector of the industry lobby.

The letter also pursued several points unrelated to the scientific evidence they wanted Natural England to consider in deciding whether to allow supplementary cull licences this year.  

Several points referred to badger vaccination and the low confidence and uptake from the farming industry to successfully achieve this at the scale needed to make it successful. 

A significant barrier to badger vaccination uptake has been the strong anti-badger rhetoric that has been pursued for many years.  This, coupled with a resistance to pivoting away from killing badgers and focusing on cattle measures at a policy level, has continued to impact farming industry attitudes towards badgers:

“social research on farmer attitudes towards badger vaccination revealed that trust in

government is a critical factor to farmer receptiveness to the method [badger vaccination]”.

The documents reveal a policy that needs to offer farmers some form of badger control, whether culling or vaccination. However, this approach incorrectly focuses on badgers as the primary driver for the spread of bTB in cattle.  

With over 94% of bTB spread from cattle-cattle, the evidence points to a need for far more focus on better cattle measures, including more sensitive (reliable) testing, cattle vaccination and biosecurity, measures that can genuinely have a positive impact on permanently reducing bTB in cattle.  

Natural England letter to Defra 10 May 2024

3. Official Sensitive bTB Letter and decision 10 May 2024

.pdf

Download PDF • 262KB

On 10th May, Natural England responded to the letter through its Chief Executive, ignoring its own scientific review against the supplementary cull licences.  It gave what we believe to be inappropriate weight to political pressure from Defra and granted the licences.  Natural England did, however, emphasise its view that alternatives to culling are available:

“We believe there is now sound evidence that badger vaccination can be considered as an alternative to supplementary culling in localised areas and that more targeted interventions may also offer a further alternative in the future.”

Natural England went on to say: 

“We ask however that Defra and APHA now prioritise progress in further assessment, planning for delivery and industry engagement to build confidence around the implementation of alternatives by 2026, when culling will end as the primary mechanism for disease reduction. Our position is that we should not be culling protected species for any longer than is necessary to achieve the policy aims of eradicating this disease.”

However, when answering the question, ‘will the conservation status of the species be harmed?’, we believe that Natural England is being overly optimistic in their response:

“While SBC [Supplementary Badger Cull] licences aim to maintain badger populations at a lower level following intensive culls, there is good evidence that populations will survive prolonged culling and are expected to recover following licensed culling. The SBC methodology is specifically designed to prevent local extinctions, with regular reviews in place to ensure numbers are sustainable.”

There are no population models or reliable monitoring in place that we know of that can back up this claim.

From Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that Badger Trust has conducted, we know the cull companies that kill badgers are the same organisations responsible for ensuring badgers don’t face local extinction.  This places a huge bias on the reliability of the data, and if the species can survive prolonged culling.  This is, in part, what has led us to conduct our own monitoring through our State of the Badger research project. 

We also know from local reports that localised extinction events of badgers are already occurring. This is further backed up by the fact that last year many areas could not find enough badgers to kill.

Natural England’s cull consultation response April 2024

4. NE response - badger cull consultation April 2024

.pdf

Download PDF • 43KB

We also reviewed Natural England’s response to the recent government consultation on targeted badger intervention policy.  Natural England correctly identified the need for greater emphasis on cattle biosecurity measures:

“we recommend that scope to effectively address any risk to cattle posed by TB in badgers by using vaccination and / or biosecurity measures is assessed before resorting to culling. The present plan, as described in paragraph 5.8, implies that the policy objective (to secure disease control benefits by reducing the potential for infectious contacts between badgers and cattle in cluster areas) will be achieved solely by culling. It is our advice that vaccination and / or biosecurity measures should be considered as alternatives to culling”.

They continued to highlight the science and show that other measures are sufficient to reduce bTB in cattle, without culling badgers:

“Vaccination and biosecurity in combination, especially following recent culling under the Badger Control Policy, may therefore be sufficient to reduce the contribution to TB infection made by badgers without further culling.’

And, they pointedly declared that cattle measures must be a condition of badger culling, implying that badger culling alone will not work at reducing bTB in cattle:

“We anticipate that where culling is approved, the effective application of reasonable biosecurity measures will be a requirement to further reduce the risk of infectious contacts, as well as vigorous application of cattle measures.”

They also emphasised that all wildlife can spread bTB to cattle, and without cattle measures in place, culling badgers would have little effect:

“At present, the policy appears to assume that badgers are the only source of infection risk to cattle from wildlife.”

Like us, Natural England also highlighted the gaps and lack of information in the consultation.

Badger Trust believes it’s now time for Defra and Natural England to come clean and admit that badger culling is a politically driven policy and not based on scientific evidence. 

Nature is under threat like never before, and 230,000 dead badgers in 11 years is the price paid for this horrendous and ineffective policy.  The badger cull has to end with immediate effect.