This is the response of the Mid Derbyshire Badger Group to the Agriculture Select Committee Press Notice No 41 issued on 4 November 1998 requesting views on the four points raised by the Government's implementation of recommendations contained in the Krebs Report.

  I am writing on behalf of the Group, representing the views of its 180 members. I have chaired the Group for nine years and am also a trustee of the National Federation of Badger Groups. Our group is one of over 85 groups affiliated to the NFBG in this country.

  The geographical area which our group oversees includes the western border to Derbyshire which abuts the Staffordshire moorlands area which is one of the most recent areas to experience a cluster of TB breakdowns in cattle herds. We have been involved in a great deal of discussion and debate over the issue with the Derbyshire NFU.

  Firstly, we wholeheartedly endorse the submisions sent to the Agriculture Committee by Dr Elaine King, giving the views of the NFBG.

  Our greatest concern is that implementation of the culling experiment has effectively meant that once again huge amounts of money are being funnelled into control measures instead of furthering areas of research, also suggested in the report. In para 7.13.2, the Review Group concludes that nine times as much money is spent on TB control (£16 million a year) as is spent on TB research (£1.7 million a year). It then recommends that the Government should review the amounts spent in absolute terms and consider whether this allocation of resources between the two elements is correct.

  Regarding the implementation of an experimental comparison of different husbandry methods we would wish to commend to the Agriculture Committee a document drawn up by the NFBG. It is entitled "Guidelines on Badgers and Husbandry Methods". It is in draft form at the moment and is with Alan Taylor of MAFF's Animal Health Section for his consideration. It was drawn up following discussions between NFBG trustees, badger group members, interested farmers and officials of the NFU. These discussions were held under the auspices of the NFBG Badgers and Farming Advisory Group Working Party.

  It was however naive to believe that attention or funding would be focused on the development and research into better husbandry methods once killing badgers remained on the agenda. It is clear that farmers, whatever the outcome of the experiment, will consider that killing badgers is the way forward, despite all the failings of that strategy so far.

  Professor Krebs' Review Team found the evidence that badgers are a significant source of infection compelling because their terms of reference forced them to focus on badgers. It is a great pity that they could not have addressed the problem in cattle holistically—looking at every aspect of the disease, rather than focusing largely on badgers. Professor Krebs had a once and for all opportunity to ensure that proper research was finally instigated which may well have brought a positive way of dealing with the problem of TB in cattle herds. He couldn't resist pandering to elements in the farming lobby and once again all we really have to show for his efforts is still more badger killing which is unlikely to provide a long term solution to the problem.

  The culling experiment, if it gets fully underway, is likely to encounter all sorts of problems, interference with traps, refusal of many landowners to participate and illegal persecution of badgers in the areas not designated for the proactive element of the experiment.

  We have experienced high levels of badger persecution in our area, with groups of individuals engaging variously in badger digging and lamping activities, using both dogs and firearms.

  Our information is that some farmers have encouraged these activities on their land. We have direct experience of some incidents and have knowledge of others from our conversations with farmers.

  The implementation of the culling experiment serves to reinforce farmers' beliefs that have been fostered and encouraged by MAFF since the early 1970's that badgers are the sole problem. If it continues as it is with no emphasis being given to further research or proper implementation of good husbandry methods, then farmers will see no good reason to put themselves to additional financial costs or work load when clearly, as they see it, simply ridding their land of badgers will provide a simple solution to their problems with no effort on their part at all. It will merely encourage them to turn a blind eye to others who are all too willing to expand their "sporting" activities with little risk of prosecution for the farmer.

  Like it or not, the culling experiment has the potential to encourage an illegal campaign which could have disastrous effects on the badger population. It fosters anti-badger feeling, even in areas which historically have had no TB problems whatsoever. We know that there is a huge groundswell of public opinion that wishes to see the badger protected and safe in the British countryside.

14 January 1999