Badger Trust chairman David Williams said the decision would be challenged on the basis that it is not ‘underpinned by robust scientific evidence.’We assume that he refers to the ISG's 'robust' scientific evidence rather than anything prior to 1997, or after 2007?
The charity said badgers cannot be killed unless, under the Animal Health Act, it is to ‘eliminate or substantially reduce the spread of disease’ and was ‘both necessary and the most appropriate way but without causing undue suffering’.
True. And the present unchallenged, and possibly unlawful moratorium on this part of the Protection of Badgers Act, has done nothing for the health and welfare of badgers which the Trust pretend to support, but let that pass.
Farmers Guardian has the story.
Referring to the Independent Scientific Group’s 2007 report on badger culling, the Badger Trust claimed any benefits would be ‘at best very marginal’, while the cost would be ‘substantial’. And of course in that sweeping statement, they have deliberately missed the crucial evidence given by the diminutive professor to the EFRA committee on many occasions, when he said (quite forcefully) that culling badgers "In the way in which it was done in the
Even the WLU operatives and managers, overseeing the diminutive professor's (political) instructions piled in with their own experiences of this 'robust' type of science.
And the Badger Trust seems to have blindsided the follow up
on the trial, completed last year by some members of the original ISG, which showed even with protocol as badly skewed as this, a drop of 60 percent in cattle TB across all the proactive cull zones, with a corresponding drop of 30 percent in the 'edge' zones was eventually achieved. But that was after Bourne published his report and so is politically and conveniently pigeon holed. Out of sight.