7/29/2019 Response to Badger culling issue

1/2

Response to a text

Dear Sir,

Upon educating myself on the topic of badger culling it appears that two very different bodies of debate

have arisen. The National Farmers union and Defra secretary of state have both put forward some very

important arguments concerning the legality of badger culling in the United Kingdom.

There is no simple solution to bovine tuberculosis. I feel that it is absolutely necessary that action istaken against TB. Pilot culling is and will be for a sustained period of time; the most effective way of

reducing the chances of a badger infecting farmers cattle. Use of a vaccine to combat the effects of

tuberculosis would take a prolonged amount of time, as well as the vaccine being costly, the method of

injecting a badger would be a logistical challenge; yet we have no way of identifying if a badger has

become a host to TB, to worsen the devastating effects on cattle the current vaccine for TB chemically

clashes with a widely used vaccine BCG therefore making it increasingly more difficult for another vaccine

to be developed in a short period of time. My view is that Defra makes a valid and serious argument in

that a scientific approach to the topic re-enforces their side of the argument with scientific evidence as to

why their proposal should be fulfilled.

I would also support the National Farmers Union in the aspects of humanity- the use of fire arms is not aselective process upon marksmen deciding which badger is allowed to live and which is assumed to have

TB, therefore any healthy badgers would be seen as a collateral damage and ignored, it is an inhumane

method and would disturb many citizens of the public community. Many members of the farmers union

do believe that culling would make matters worse in areas of the country influencing more disease to

thrive, I do support that culling can make matters worse as it can damage the ecology and environment in

which many other creatures live in. However on the note of the National Farmers Union I would like to

add that I feel that their side of the argument could be biased due to the NFU being a RSPCA based union

therefore would treat any form of animal cruelty with great aggression and try to enforce that something

is done to stop the cruelty continuing.

Defra adds that a use of hard boundaries would be beneficial. I think that the use of boundaries could beseen as a more humane method however over fifty thousand badgers constitute road kill per year, some

would therefore view this as an equally inhumane procedure to put in place, the primary advantage of

using this method would be that badgers would be prevented from spreading disease to other areas of

the United Kingdom.

My overall opinion would rest with Defras decision on carrying on with badger culling to date however

taking into account that the vaccine, if developed, could become a viable alternative, Defras body of

argument does agree that a vaccine if developed and was logistically analysed as to how it would be

administered into the majority of badgers ensuring that even a host which previously administering a

dose to would not give any effect if not worsen the badgers TB; would eradicate the bovine tuberculosis

from the organism. I do feel that although the National Farmers Union may have made some interesting

points as to why we should stop the culling they have unfortunately not fully addressed how they would

introduce a newer more beneficial method of combating the virus, backing their proposal with scientific

evidence showing how and why this would be a better alternative in the future.

I would like to extend my gratitude for taking to the time to read my response to the ongoing problem, I

hope that a suitable solution is found in the near future.

Yours Faithfully,

Usmaan Khan

7/29/2019 Response to Badger culling issue

2/2

Response to a text