You are on page 1of 11

Owen Hydes OBE Badger Trust PO Box 708 East Grinstead RH19 2WN Tel: 08458 Fax: 02380

233896 Web: E-mail: 287878

8 December 2010
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs TBBC Mailbox C/O Nobel House 17 Smith Square LONDON SW1P 3JR Dear Sir/Madam Bovine Tuberculosis: The Government’s approach to tackling the disease and consultation on a badger control policy We write on behalf of Badger Trust. This is our formal response to the above consultation. We have carefully considered Defra’s consultation paper of September 2010 proposing to license farmers in England to kill badgers. We were grateful to be given the opportunity to discuss its contents at our recent meeting with David Calpin and his team on 27 October 2010. We were also grateful for his e-mailed reply of 19 November 2010 to the questions set out in our letter of 9 November 2010. We have carefully considered the reply to those questions. Summary of our position We are totally opposed to a badger cull in the light of the available scientific evidence. We urge Defra to reconsider its proposed policy of licensing farmers to cull badgers because in practice it will not deliver the estimated benefits and it will considerably increase the risk of perturbation effects. We urge Defra to consider a badger control policy based on vaccination of badgers using the currently licensed injectable vaccine and to urgently complete the development and licensing of an oral bait vaccine because this is likely to obtain majority public support and is the only sustainable long term solution to deal with TB in badgers. Badger Trust members would be willing to be trained to help Defra deliver such a policy. Furthermore, we urge Defra to commit to a policy of improving the methods of detecting TB in cattle, including better pre-movement testing and the introduction of post-movement testing, quicker removal of TB infected cattle, better farm husbandry and bio-security and rigorous monitoring and enforcement of testing, husbandry and bio-security rules. We also urge Defra to complete the development and licensing of a cattle vaccine and to urgently negotiate with the European Commission and the Member States to amend EU legislation to allow vaccination of cattle. A vaccination policy should in the longer term go a long way towards eradicating TB in both cattle and badgers.
Badger Trust registered in England, No. 5460677; Registered charity, No. 1111440. Printed on 100% recycled paper Badger Trust, PO Box 708, East Grinstead, RH19 2WN

Wounded badgers are likely to escape to their setts where they cannot be dispatched. Badger culling has never been previously undertaken in the way proposed and therefore it is impossible to know whether it will replicate the results in the ISG report but the likelihood is that the results will be worse for the reasons given in the next paragraph.The consultation is based on a number of erroneous assumptions which are referred to below. We contend that licensing farmers or their appointees to trap and shoot badgers and shoot free ranging badgers (shooting free ranging badgers will be the choice of farmers because it is expected to be much cheaper) will not be carefully managed because it will be impractical for all licensed farmers within a large cull area to simultaneously kill sufficient badgers over sufficient numbers of years. Defra is proposing what it says will be a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control and accepts the report (ref 1) of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) as authoritative and refers to it in the consultation paper. Furthermore. but would entail a substantial risk of increasing the incidence of cattle TB and spreading the disease in space. badgers are much more likely to be wounded rather than killed. page 14). page 170). Allowing farmers or their appointees to shoot free-ranging badgers over a large cull area at dusk and during the night is inherently dangerous. very easily disturbed and frightened. paragraph10. whether licences were issued to individual farmers or to groups” (ref 1. Badgers are likely to be difficult to shoot because they are low slung. and (ii) “we consider it likely that licensing farmers (or their appointees) to cull badgers would not only fail to achieve a beneficial effect. move quickly and do not look into spotlights so are difficult to see. Furthermore. We believe that the vast majority of the scientific community that has studied bovine TB and badgers does not support the proposed policy to license farmers to cull badgers.36. The scientific evidence used by Defra in the consultation papers to support the proposal is highly selective – Defra has largely ignored the scientific evidence in the ISG report that concludes that (i) ”badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of bovine TB in cattle” (ref 1. Therefore. monitoring or enforcement of licences. There is no direct experience or evidence of the effect of shooting free-ranging badgers on badger numbers. they will suffer greatly and so this proposed policy is totally inhumane. We contend that the proposal to license farmers to cull badgers is demonstrably not supported by the available science. All these points mean that the benefits of culling in the consultation papers have been overestimated and the negative effects of culling (the “perturbation” effect) have been underestimated. the proposals will not satisfy the statutory test permitting culling by licence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. We are also concerned that insufficient funding for Natural England (NE) will preclude effective control. . Further. Culling of badgers would not fall within section 10(2)(a) as being “for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease”. farmers will inevitably drop out when they realise that costs to them are much greater than estimated in the consultation papers. paragraph 9. General points We would like to make some general points before answering the specific questions posed by the consultation paper. other wildlife and pets. other shooters. it is unlikely that shooting free ranging badgers will achieve the rapid effective removal of badgers necessary to achieve the desired benefits in reduction of bovine TB and it carries a very serious risk of increasing the perturbation effects. It will involve a large number of shooters and consequent dangers to the public. Also they have thick layers of sub-cutaneous fat.

Farmers/landowners will pay the cost of this option. Badger Trust members would be willing to be trained to help Defra deliver such a policy. Badgers do not move large distances and stay within their own territory unless greatly disturbed as they would be if culling took place. Scotland is officially TB free yet no badgers have been culled in Scotland. So there will be no way of establishing the real effects of the policy. A key feature of any scientific based project is the ability to compare results of one measure against another.Badgers live in social groups. the only option we can support is based in part on option 5. This would involve vaccinating badgers with the currently licensed injectable vaccine and in the future with the oral bait vaccine when licensed (we understand that an oral bait formulation has been shown to be effective in captive badgers). Absolutely not for the reasons given below. Any reduction of bovine TB within the cull area may be due in part to culling badgers but it may also be due to the proposed changes in cattle controls and there will be no method of differentiating between the two controls. Each social group has its own territory which is defended from intruding badgers. Question 2: Do you agree with the preferred option? No. Badgers have been culled in Ireland but bovine TB remains a big problem . including better pre-movement testing and the introduction of post-movement testing. But it would also involve vaccinating cattle when the vaccine is available.the future intention is to replace culling with badger vaccination. . The only sustainable option for the long term eradication of bovine TB is to vaccinate badgers by injection initially and by using oral bait when developed and licensed and to vaccinate cattle using the vaccine which is expected to be available in 2012. quicker removal of TB infected cattle. Reponses to the specific questions Question 1: Comments are invited on the options costs and assumptions made in the Impact Assessment. Therefore. better farm husbandry and bio-security and rigorous enforcement of testing. If culling of badgers does take place. Defra’s preferred option is to license farmers/landowners to cull badgers by cage trapping and shooting and shooting free-ranging badgers and to allow vaccination of cage trapped badgers alone or in combination with culling. Our reasons for this view are outlined in the answers to the questions which follow below. Defra argue that the proposal to cull badgers is science-led. Defra plans no such comparison. husbandry and bio-security rules. Badger culling as proposed might reduce slightly the incidence of bovine TB within the cull area but is likely to substantially increase it immediately outside the cull area. Therefore clearly badgers are not responsible for the gradual geographical spreading of bovine TB from the South West of the country – there can be no doubt that movement of cattle are responsible for the geographic spread of bovine TB. In the meantime there must be improvements in the methods of detecting TB in cattle. We are opposed to any policy option that involves culling of badgers as we consider that the available scientific evidence does not support a cull and it will not solve the problem of TB in cattle. licensed and permitted by the EU together with much improved cattle controls.

opponents to the cull (Badger Trust does not condone illegal activities). For example Jenkins et al (ref 4) who stated that “It is important to note that the effects described here relate only to culling as conducted in the RBCT. Furthermore while it may be possible to get initial agreement from farmers occupying at least 70% of the area to cage trap and shoot badgers for at least 4 years. Despite this. In the consultation Defra has assumed that cage trapping and shooting badgers by farmers/landowners will achieve the same reduction in bovine TB as in the RBCT. • farmers/landowners or their appointees are unlikely to carry out the cull as efficiently and as coordinated and sustained as the professionally trained Defra teams employed in the RBCT. who might want to drop out after the cull has started. A lack of simultaneous culling is very likely to increase perturbation effects beyond the levels observed in the RBCT and consequently reduce the overall benefits of culling. and (3) it is sustained for several years. based on a report by the Game Conservancy Trust commissioned by Defra (ref 5). (2) it is carried out simultaneously over very large areas in a co-ordinated manner. large-scale. because of other pressing needs on the farm/land. we believe that there are many factors that will prevent this sustained culling from happening in practice. Scientists have concluded (refs 2 and 3) that culling of badgers can only reduce the incidence of TB in cattle when (1) it is implemented efficiently. Peer reviewed scientific papers have repeatedly drawn attention to the dangers of assuming that other forms of culling will achieve the same benefits as the RBCT. • difficulties in coordinating all participating farmers/landowners to cull simultaneously. We believe that farmers/landowners if given a choice will cull by shooting free-ranging badgers because the Defra estimated cost of this at £200/km 2/year is far cheaper than cage trapping and shooting at £2. • some farmers/landowners withdrawing because of the huge costs.e. i. simultaneous operations. There is no direct experience of evidence of shooting free-ranging badgers to achieve substantial reductions in badger populations. let us assume that farmers/landowners in at least 70% of a cull area of at least 150 km 2 agree to cage trap and shoot and are given a licence with the conditions indicated in the consultation paper. The conditions are based mainly on those used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) and set out in the ISG report (ref 1).We do not believe that farmers/landowners within a cull area will choose to cage trap and shoot badgers because of the prohibitive cost of £2. change of farm ownership or realizing that the benefits of TB reduction were less than anticipated. especially in the early years. The factors that preclude simultaneous and sustained culling include (even if Defra makes simultaneous culling a licence requirement): • difficulties in placing and baiting sufficient cages across a large cull area simultaneously. pressure from. However. and • bad weather or other unforeseen developments disrupting planned culling operations. Defra concludes that ”sighting frequency of badgers was sufficient to be an efficient form of badger control”. Defra’s proposed conditions for a licence have no requirement for the culls to be carried out simultaneously within the cull area. sustain culling for at least 4 years (such as a financial bond or an obligation to allow culling to continue on the land) or to stop the cull across the whole of the licensed area when an insufficient proportion of farmers/landowners wish to continue. repeated annually for five years and then halted”.500/km2/year. That same report . • disruption by and. deployment of cage traps by highly trained staff in coordinated.500/km2/year and the difficulties of executing it in a sustained and co-ordinated manner. There is no proposed mechanism in the consultation paper to ensure that participating farmers/landowners.

shooting is a technique likely to be employed by professional operators rather than by landowners and farmers with other demands on their time”. whether successful or not. However. For the reasons given above. the anti-social hours involved in night-shooting. This assumption has no foundation whatsoever as there is no experience or evidence of culling by shooting. page 55) expressed concern that a large number of cubs appeared to be missed by trapping operations and indicated that any culling procedure is likely to entail some risk of leaving cubs to starve when their mothers are killed.also noted “In view of the necessity for a centre-fire rifle and good quality telescopic sight. paragraph 5. the extra knowledge required to adjust technique to badgers. the cost of shooting free-ranging badgers using professional operators is likely to be much higher than Defra estimated and this is important because cost to farmers/landowners is likely to adversely influence culling being sustained over at least 4 years. the badgers will disappear down their setts and are unlikely to emerge again that night. licensed marksmen to cover all the setts. 8 and 9) are between 5 and 10 badgers/km 2. licensed marksmen required to achieve the removal rates proposed. In the consultation papers (Annex F. who have lots of experience of observing badgers at night. There could be around 150 participating farms with at least one badger sett per farm. We also believe that the Defra estimated cost of culling by shooting free-ranging badgers of £200/km2/year is a considerable underestimate for the first year of culling because of the number of expert. Defra assumes that shooting free-ranging badgers will achieve the same benefits of reduced TB in cattle as were achieved by cage trapping and shooting in the RBCT. We do not believe that over a minimum area of at least 150 km2 with at least 70% of the area participating in free-range shooting that it will be possible to achieve the removal rates of badgers as achieved in the RBCT. Therefore the available data suggests that shooting free-ranging badgers is likely to generate even smaller benefits than achieved in the RBCT and raises the possibility of overall detrimental effects. .65 and 2. Compared to the RBCT. This means that in typical TB affected areas encounter rates with badgers would be much lower than the GCT estimated and therefore the removal of badgers would be slower. the specialist knowledge required for all use of centrefire rifles. and other specialist equipment required. Also in subsequent cull years the costs will rise again because initial badger densities will be lower and badgers would be increasingly wary and secretive. we believe that shooting free-ranging badgers will achieve lower and slower badger removal rates than by cage trapping and shooting. Woodchester Park has a very high badger density of 28 badgers/km2 whereas typical badger densities in the TB affected areas of England (refs 7. Thus. shooting has to take place simultaneously over all the participating farms for several nights and this requires a large number of competent.66. The ISG (ref 1: paragraphs 2. It its report (ref 5) the Game Conservancy Trust (GCT) uses an example from Woodchester Park in Gloucestershire (ref 6) on culling badgers by shooting. this may result in a lower reduction in bovine TB within the cull area and an increase in bovine TB outside the cull area as a result of increased perturbation of badgers. Badger Trust members. We consider that shooting free-ranging badgers is likely to increase the number of cubs left to starve. know that badgers who are disturbed or frightened seek refuge in their setts and do not emerge again for hours if at all that night and they are also very cautious of emerging in subsequent nights. both reducing the rate of encounter. As soon a shot is fired. the requirement for a Fire-Arms Certificate. To be effective.51).

confirming the ISG’s conclusion. pages 117/8): “…few TB affected areas of Britain are bounded by geographical impediments to badger movement. We do not agree with many of the proposed licensing criteria for badger culling. Question 4: Do you agree with the proposed licensing criteria for culling and vaccination? No. Even if there was scientific justification. There have been no studies on the effect of badger vaccination on transmission of TB to cattle and although it is unlikely to have any detrimental effects on cattle.” If sufficient farmers/landowners obtain a licence to cage trap and shoot badgers. is the most appropriate way to operate a badger control policy? No. and shooting free-ranging badgers. The ISG concluded that (ref 1. we do not believe that it will be carried out effectively because of the difficulties of co-ordination so that it is carried out simultaneously across the cull area and continued for at least 4 years for the reasons given in the response to question 2 above.”. are entirely speculative. of issuing licences to farmers/landowners. estuaries and lakes or areas without badgers or cattle. any assumption about its potential benefits to cattle. including when applied to attempt to reduce perturbation effects.The consultation paper rejects badger vaccination as the sole badger control method and suggests a combination of vaccination and culling because it is claimed that badger vaccination could have a beneficial role in reducing the negative effects resulting from perturbation seen in culling. the area will have boundaries or buffers to mitigate any possible negative effects in neighbouring areas caused by perturbation of badgers’ social groups and increased disease transmission. licensing farmers/landowners would not be a reliable or satisfactory way of delivering a badger cull for the reasons given in our answer to question 2.88. Question 3: Do you agree that this approach. Culling by shooting free-ranging badgers will not be carried out effectively for similar reasons and this technique is likely to result in . It is very difficult to envisage how some of the licensing criteria can be met in practice. Culling will be permitted by cage-trapping and shooting. Therefore the risk of perturbation occurring on the boundary and immediately outside the cull areas is very high. in particular the following criteria: • “Where possible. This view has been supported by recently published information (ref 10).” The ISG postulated that only effective barriers to badger movement are large bodies of water such as the sea. and [as] creating such barriers is very difficult and expensive…. paragraph 5. An analysis of geographical barriers to badger movement in Wales (ref 11) found few suitable barriers in or around TB-affected areas. We believe there is no scientific justification for culling badgers. It is unlikely that sufficient farmers/landowners in a cull area will choose the option of combined culling and vaccination because vaccination of badgers by cage trapping and injection is costly. • “Culling will be carried out effectively and humanely by competent operators. absolutely not.

but not lead to local extinction. With many shooters operating over a cull area there are obvious dangers to members of the public. • “A commitment to sustaining culling over the area at least annually for a period of 4 years. Surveys of badger populations are normally carried out by skilled and experienced surveyors and even they cannot estimate badger populations precisely.” Whilst sufficient farmers/landowners may give this commitment initially we consider it highly unlikely that they will maintain it and carry out the cull simultaneously each year for 4 years for the reasons given in our response to question 2. very easily disturbed and frightened. Also they have thick layers of subcutaneous fat and therefore are much more likely to be wounded rather than killed outright. Furthermore there is no proposed mechanism in the consultation papers to ensure that culling is sustained over at least 70% of the area for 4 years. including the high costs they will incur. we do not believe that culling will be effective and we believe that shooting freeranging badgers is inhumane. Furthermore shooting free-ranging badgers at dusk or during the night is inherently dangerous. The reasons are set out in our answer to the second bullet point in question 4. Shooting free ranging badgers is inherently dangerous and inhumane. The number of badgers removed will be known if cage trapping only is used. with the consequence of lower reduction in cattle TB within the cull areas and higher increases in cattle TB outside the cull area because of the increased perturbation effects. other shooters and other wildlife and pets.lower badger removal rates. . There have already been a number of tragic accidents with the type of night shooting known as “lamping”. However. particularly if they are able to escape from a second shot for example by disappearing into their setts. Badgers are likely to be very difficult to shoot because they are low slung. if shooting free range badgers is used. Farmers/landowners do not have enough expertise and time to carry out complicated surveys of field signs to determine the population of badgers. only those shot dead will be counted and those wounded that subsequently die in their setts or elsewhere will not be counted. It will be impossible to ensure a clean humane outright kill with such shooting. It is likely that some wounded badgers that are unable to reach their setts will be discovered by members of the public causing them distress and creating adverse publicity. The consultation paper provides no monitoring of shooting free-ranging badgers. Wounded badgers will suffer greatly.” We do not believe it is possible to monitor culling levels effectively. • “Culling will achieve badger densities low enough to reduce TB transmission. Question 5: Do you agree that the proposed methods of culling are effective and humane? No. Since the number of badgers is not known initially. it is not possible to determine how many badgers need to be removed without leading to local extinction. move quickly and do not look into spotlights so are difficult to see.

in commenting on this research has said (ref 14) the Government should look again at its strategy [to cull badgers] and stated “I think this [vaccination] is extremely encouraging and gives us ground for believing we are on the right track. Vaccinating badgers immediately outside the cull area will not prevent the perturbation effect from diseased badgers moving from the cull area to outside the cull area. Vaccination of badgers reduces the incidence of TB in badgers and therefore reduces the chance of badgers transmitting TB to cattle. We consider that the long term solution to reducing TB in cattle is not to cull badgers but to vaccinate both badgers and cattle. . husbandry and bio-security rules. published by Defra in November 2010 (refs 12 and 13). Question 7: Should anything further be done to encourage the use of vaccination? Yes. It is a sustainable option. particularly its focus on mitigating the perturbation effects of culling? No. even though it looks likely to prove a more sustainable long-term option”. Defra should negotiate urgently with the European Commission and the other Member States to permit vaccination of cattle. We further understand that the main stumbling block to the use of a cattle vaccine is that it is not permitted under EU legislation. must become the badger control policy instead of culling. are very encouraging. Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed monitoring? No. We understand that the development of a cattle vaccine is progressing well and could be available in 2012. including better pre-movement testing and the introduction of post-movement testing. The results of the work carried out so far on the development of a badger vaccine. This should be coupled with improved methods of detecting TB in cattle. initially using the recently licensed injectable vaccine and in the future using a licensed oral bait vaccine. Now that a DIVA test to differentiate between a vaccinated cow and a TB infected cow is available (ref 15). Vaccination of badgers would not cause a perturbation effect.Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed use of vaccination. The consultation paper sets out 12 criteria that must be met before a licence could be issued. definitely. One of the authors of reference 13. There is no evidence that a combination of vaccination and culling will be beneficial or mitigate the perturbation effects of culling. quicker removal of TB infected cattle. they are focussing on that and see vaccination work as a distraction. These include the 4 criteria mentioned in our response to question 4. If some of those badgers have TB they could pass it on to other badgers and cattle. better farm husbandry and bio-security and rigorous enforcement of testing. Vaccination of badgers is likely to be acceptable to the general public whereas culling is not acceptable. Any culling of badgers causes perturbation where badgers that are not killed become stressed and move around within the cull area and immediately outside the cull area. Dr Chris Cheeseman. But because Defra is committed to culling. Vaccination of badgers. We consider that the monitoring proposals are totally inadequate It is proposed that licences to cull badgers will be issued to groups of farmers/landowners by Natural England (NE). a badger ecologist and former head of CSL’s (now FERA) Wildlife Disease Research Team.

all of which we consider cannot be met. We know from discussions that we have held with NE in the last two years that even currently they do not have sufficient resources to monitor or enforce the conditions of existing licences issued under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. which is a relevant consideration in relation to the UK’s obligations under the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife. particularly to ensure that the cull is co-ordinated. Defra will continue to monitor the incidence of TB in cattle within and immediately outside the cull area. because this is not a scientifically controlled cull there will be no way of determining from this monitoring whether any effect on the incidence of bovine TB is due to culling of badgers or any changes to cattle controls carried out at the same time. However. that NE will not have sufficient resources to assess compliance with these 12 criteria before a licence is issued. Members of the public will be in great danger when legitimately and innocently walking on footpaths in the cull areas each time shooting of free range badgers is taking place. in the light of stringent financial cutbacks in Defra and its agencies. For example the cattle of a non-participating farmer could be free from TB before a cull but could get TB during or following a cull because of the perturbation effect. This will be the only way to eventually eradicate bovine TB. we consider. carried out simultaneously (if that becomes a licence condition) and continued for at least 4 years by farmers/landowners of at least 70% of the area.and the criterion that constitutes question 5 (Do you agree that the proposed methods of culling are effective and humane?). Further. Once a licence has been issued we consider that NE will not have sufficient resources to monitor farmers’/landowners’ compliance with the licence conditions. Nonparticipating farmers/landowners and the public should have a right to this information as any culling activity could affect them. we do not consider it possible to effectively monitor culling efficiency in terms of whether a sufficient percentage of badgers have been removed and whether there has been local extinction of badgers. This should be supplemented with vaccination of badgers and vaccination of cattle as soon as this is possible. Yours sincerely Owen Hydes Chief Executive David Williams Chairman . Moreover. Conclusions The Defra preferred option of killing badgers should be abandoned and a policy of more accurate testing and strict cattle controls with improved husbandry and bio-security implemented and enforced rigorously. As mentioned in our response to question 4. the consultation papers are silent on whether non-participating farmers/landowners and the public within and immediately outside the cull area will be consulted and have the opportunity of commenting (objecting) to a licence application. which is the stated aim of these proposals. and if a licence is issued whether the actual conditions of the licence will be made public.

D. L. D. Ref 11: population dynamics and movement. http://www. A. PLOS One 5.References Ref 1: London 2008).. H. J. Ref 2: Meeting between the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser 13th December 2007. e9090 (2010).. 1663-1674 (2010). Ref 5: Game Conservancy et al: Comparative study on the consequences of culling badgers (Meles meles) on biometrics.htm. London 2007). C. 2009) http://wales. L. (Defra . 567-580 (2000).1098/rspb. 81-87 (2005). Ref 6: Hounsome. F.royalsocietypublishing.. Ref 8 : Cheeseman. An assessment of relative landscape isolation for badgers (Meles meles) within Wales. C.. et al: Population ecology and prevalence of tuberculosis in badgers in an area of Staffordshire. Ref 12: Defra News: Research reports on bovine tb in bagers published (Defra 2010).gov.2010. E. T. et al: The duration of the effects of repeated widespread badger culling on cattle tuberculosis following the cessation of culling. Journal of Animal Ecology density and prevalence of tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) in badgers (Meles meles) from four areas in south-west England. 2006). http://rspb. . 795-804 (1981). Biological Conservation 131. (Defra. et al: Biological hurdles to the control of TB in cattle: a test of two hypotheses concerning wildlife to explain the failure of control.A.defra. (Defra. et al: Bovine TB: the scientific evidence.defra. et al: An evaluation of distance sampling to estimate badger (Meles meles) abundance. http://www. Ref 3: Macdonald.1953. Ref 4: Jenkins. M. Shooting as a potential tool in badger population http://www.defra. 268-286 (2006).pdf. (Welsh Assembly Government. Molecular Ecology W. A. Ref 9: Ref 13: Chambers. et al: Using isolation-by-distance-based approaches to asses the barrier effect of linear landscape elements on badger (Meles meles) dispersal. 125-135 (1985). Ref 7: Cheeseman.pdf. Mammal Review 15. Journal of Zoology 266. Ref 10: Frantz. et al: Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccination reduces the severity and progression of tuberculosis in badgers (2010).. Journal of Applied Ecology 18. et al: The population structure. London.

Ref 14: Richard Black. Ref 15: Journal of Clinical Microbiology. Badger vaccine shows promise for tackling cattle TB. Science and Environment: BBC News.O. Sep 48(9). .uk/news/science-environment-11875056. 3176-3181(2010). A. et al: Development of a skin test for bovine tuberculosis for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals.