Defra's Badger Cull Consultation closes Monday

The Badger Crowd share some possible responses

Photo by Hans Veth on Unsplash

In April, Defra announced that the highly controversial month-long ‘public’ consultation on newly revised plans to continue the killing of badgers in England which they launched in March would be extended to 13 May.

At the time the consultation was first published we wrote that Protect the Wild would normally look at what the questions in a consultation like this mean and offer suggestions on how to answer them - but not this time. That’s because we were (and still are) convinced that the consultation is a sham. In a poll we set up 99% of respondents (1502 of you) agreed with us (see: POLL: Do you agree that Defra's Badger Cull Consultation is a sham?).

Not answering may seem negative, but our rationale was based on the flawed science used in the consultation, the fact that no option was listed to end the cull, and because we feel that the government had already decided the outcome (to continue killing badgers) and was not interested in responses from individuals anyway (it has already essentially said it will prioritise responses from ‘groups - ie the NFU).

We genuinely think there is next to no chance that the government will take any notice of responses from anyone opposed to the cull. However, a group we respect - the Badger Crowd, a grassroots support and fundraising coalition including Badger Groups and Trusts around the UK - have published their responses to the consultation and asked if we would like to share them.

The responses are in a post, “The Defra Badger Cull consultation on the ‘targeted badger intervention’ policy – where are the swerves?”. The post is typically detailed and very thorough and we recommend reading it. For the sake of brevity, though, we are (with their permission) posting a shortened version.

• Before starting answering the consultation note that to answer all the questions fully might take around fifteen minutes. There are 19 questions in all, but questions 1-4 are just asking about details of the respondent and about confidentiality.

• Note too that the Badger Crowd say explicitly that “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.”  

The consultation can be found at consult.defra.gov.uk/bovine-tb/bovine-tb-consultation-wildlife-cattle/consultation/intro/

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

Badger, Image from Shutterstock

“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 to 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 a 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 [an interactive tool mapping bTB outbreaks in England and Wales]?   

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?

1. 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.!

• (Edited for length, the full version of this article can be found on The Badger Crowd blog.)

Defra’s consultation is at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/bovine-tb/bovine-tb-consultation-wildlife-cattle/consultation/intro/. It closes 13 May 2024.

---

What are we doing to tackle the cull

We may not think this ‘consultation’ has any validity, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t actively fighting the cull:

• We have commissioned a series of powerful animations designed to highlight the cruelty and futility of the badger cull.

• Through our Equipment Fund we’re proud to have been providing trail cams and night vision optics to front-line groups taking direct action in the field to protect badgers.

• We’re syndicating the blog posts of the Badger Crowd – a team of specialised ecologists and scientists who focus on badgers and the cull.

• We created Protectors of the Wild, a free resource that looks in detail at the laws protecting badgers and other animals. Protectors explains what we can do if we see a wildlife crime taking place.

• And we are now calling on an incoming Labour government to honour its promise to stop the badger cull. Join over 15,000 other badger supporters and sign a letter to the Shadow Environment Secretary today!

---

ADOPT A BADGER AND SUPPORT US FURTHER

At Protect the Wild we are campaigning against badger persecution and the ongoing badger cull.

By adopting a badger with Protect the Wild you will help fund our efforts to protect badgers and help expose wildlife crimes committed against wild badger populations. 

As an adopter, not only will you be helping fund vital work, but you will also receive an exclusive Protect the Wild adoption pack including cuddly toy, glossy photo, and an information fact sheet.