Policy paper

Summary of 2019 badger control operations

Published 27 March 2020

Applies to England

Natural England Chief Scientist’s advice on the outcome of badger control operations

Effectiveness of industry-led culling

The outcome of this year’s operations indicates that industry-led badger control continues to deliver the level of effectiveness required by the policy to be confident of achieving disease control benefits:

• New areas licensed in 2019 (Areas 33 to 43) effectively applied lessons learned from badger control operations in previous years to make a successful start to their operations. All 11 areas applied an appropriate level of targeted effort across their respective areas to achieve their minimum number.
• All 28 areas in their 2nd to 4th years (Areas 4 to 31) applied an appropriate level of targeted effort to maintain the population at a reduced level.
• Areas were set a minimum number to achieve by Day 42 of their cull. Three areas (Area 15, 16, and 27) met this number and received an updated minimum number to reflect their continuation beyond 42 days. These areas finished marginally below their continuation period minimum number, however they deployed the required level of effort and delivered an effective cull.

As in previous years, minimum and maximum numbers were updated as initial estimates of badger abundance were refined by actual circumstances observed in the field once badger control operations were underway. This being necessary despite the widespread use of sett surveys to provide field evidence of the size of the badger population.

Safety of operations

Operations across all areas were carried out to a high standard of public safety. No significant incidents affecting public safety were reported in relation to the use of firearms.

Humaneness of controlled shooting

Contractors continued to show high levels of discipline and compliance with the Best Practice Guide. The level of accuracy of controlled shooting continued to compare favourably with the range of outcomes when other control activities, currently accepted by society, have been assessed.

Dr Tim Hill
Chief Scientist, Natural England

UK Chief Veterinary Officer’s advice and conclusions on disease control benefits

In 2019, I have continued to provide oversight and advice on disease control of the operations for all 40 existing cull areas (Areas 4 to 43). My advice for Areas 1 to 3 who are currently undertaking licensed Supplementary Badger Control will be released separately.

Along with Natural England’s Chief Scientist, we have concluded that all existing cull areas have delivered the level of effectiveness required to be confident of achieving disease control benefits, including Areas 33 to 43 who began culling this year. Areas 4 to 11 concluded their fourth year of control operations and will be eligible to apply for a Supplementary Badger Control licence in 2020. In order for the remaining cull areas to maximise disease control benefits, they should continue culling to maintain the level of reduction in the badger population for the duration of their licences (1 year for Areas 11 to 21, 2 years for Areas 22 to 31, 3 years for Areas 33 to 43).

Based on the results of surveillance of culled badgers carried out in 2018^{[footnote 1]}, I recommended that culling should take place for a second year in Area 32-Cumbria and I continued my responsibility of monitoring the operations in this area. This year, Area 32 applied an appropriate level of targeted effort and sett coverage across the extended 2019 cull area and so are considered to have achieved a successful second year of culling. APHA has again carried out disease surveillance operations and results of this will be available in due course. This data will continue to inform the type of disease control operation to be carried out in subsequent years.

In October 2019 we saw the publication of a peer-reviewed academic study on the effect of badger culling (Downs et al. (2019) Nature Scientific Reports^{[footnote 2]}). The report builds on the work by Brunton et al. (2017)^{[footnote 3]} and shows a statistically significant decline in bTB herd incidence in the first two cull areas: a 66% reduction in OTF-W TB incidence rates in Area 1-Gloucestershire and a 37% reduction in Area 2-Somerset over the 4 years of intensive badger culling, relative to similar comparison areas where no culling took place The study also looked at the first two years of culling in Area 3-Dorset which showed no change yet in TB incidence. These results were consistent with the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and show that a culling policy implemented by the farming industry can result in statistically significant reductions in the incidence of cattle TB. The paper showed no increase in incidence outside the three cull areas, which was unexpected based on what had been predicted due to the perturbation effect. I anticipate existing areas to see similar benefits of reduced disease incidence in cattle over their licence periods.

Christine Middlemiss
UK Chief Veterinary Officer

Background

On 11 September 2019, Defra announced^{[footnote 4]} that as part of the government’s 25-year strategy to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and protect the livelihoods of dairy and beef farmers, Natural England had licensed and authorised Badger Disease Control operations across 40 areas in Avon, Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumbria, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Wiltshire, and Worcestershire.

Badger control operations, lasting at least 6 weeks, took place in each area, between 2 September and 27 October 2019. This document sets out the outcomes from those areas.

Effectiveness

Estimates of the badger population in each control area were supplied by Defra for the purpose of giving advice to Natural England on setting the minimum and maximum number of badgers to be removed in the licences. The estimates, methodologies and rationale used were published in September 2019^{[footnote 5]}.

As in previous years, Natural England monitored the progress in each control area closely. The levels of contractor shooting effort, number of cage-traps set and number of badgers removed were recorded on a daily basis in all accessible land parcels. This provided Natural England with regular information on the amount of effort deployed by each control company and its spatial distribution. This enabled a detailed assessment of the progress that each control company was making towards achieving their minimum and maximum numbers, and allowed Natural England to assess whether resources were being effectively deployed across all accessible land.

Updating minimum and maximum numbers

As set out in Section D of Defra’s advice to Natural England, numbers were reviewed as operations progressed to assess whether the badger population in each control area was higher or lower than the initial estimate suggested. Based on an assessment of the data on Day 28 in 32 control areas, Defra advised Natural England to adjust the minimum and maximum numbers upwards in six control areas and downwards in the other 26 control areas to better reflect the evidence of badger abundance. Details of the calculations can be found in Annex A1.

Progress towards minimum and maximum numbers

In 2019, 37 control areas achieved their minimum number and did not exceed their maximum number, see Table 1. The remaining 3 areas (Areas 15, 16 and 27) achieved their Day 42 minimum number, and finished only marginally below their final minimum number, which was adjusted following continuation beyond 42 days (see Annex A1). The remaining area (Area 32 – Cumbria) did not receive minimum and maximum numbers as these are of less utility in the Low Risk Area given the aim of preventing disease spreading within wildlife and aid eradication of disease.

Table 1: Number of badgers removed by Areas 4 to 43 during 2019 badger control operations.

Area	Updated minimum number	Updated maximum number	Total number of badgers removed	Number removed by controlled shooting	Number removed by cage-trapping
Area 4 – Cornwall	0	142	140	86	54
Area 5 – Cornwall	0	276	84	71	13
Area 6 – Devon	208	1087	308	194	114
Area 7 – Devon	0	290	147	110	37
Area 8 – Dorset	377	1586	563	493	70
Area 9 – Gloucestershire	282	1181	575	522	53
Area 10 – Herefordshire	94	362	193	190	3
Area 11 – Cheshire*	205	278	226	187	39
Area 12 – Devon*	503	683	521	348	173
Area 13 – Devon*	296	402	309	81	228
Area 14 – Devon*	279	378	321	236	85
Area 15 – Devon*	213	289	203	101	102
Area 16 – Dorset*	1230	1668	1228	1020	208
Area 17 – Somerset*	427	579	445	384	61
Area 18 – Somerset	170	230	191	155	36
Area 19 – Wiltshire	597	811	645	530	115
Area 20 – Wiltshire*	559	758	583	430	153
Area 21 – Wiltshire	417	566	443	334	109
Area 22 – Cornwall*	977	1325	1092	643	449
Area 23 – Devon*	1140	1546	1158	744	414
Area 24 – Devon*	253	343	278	140	138
Area 25 – Devon*	261	354	305	167	138
Area 26 – Devon*	370	501	434	328	106
Area 27 – Devon*	98	133	96	50	46
Area 28 – Devon	150	204	157	69	88
Area 29 – Gloucestershire	756	1026	854	591	263
Area 30 – Somerset*	1262	1712	1435	1263	172
Area 31 – Staffordshire*	1425	1934	1660	1375	285
Area 32 – Cumbria	N/A	N/A	317	116	201
Area 33 – Avon	962	1306	1084	676	408
Area 34 – Cheshire*	1247	1692	1440	1110	330
Area 35 – Cornwall*	2642	3585	3000	1448	1552
Area 36 – Staffordshire*	839	1139	1039	838	201
Area 37 – Devon*	1504	2040	1636	886	750
Area 38 – Devon*	1706	2315	2068	1279	789
Area 39 – Dorset	735	997	744	440	304
Area 40 – Herefordshire*	1937	2628	2131	1607	524
Area 41 – Staffordshire*	1420	1928	1611	983	628
Area 42 – Wiltshire*	3144	4266	3568	2942	626
Area 43 – Wiltshire	1434	1947	1485	1230	255

Minimum and maximum numbers for areas marked with an * include an additional increase of 1.5% per operational day given continuation in those areas beyond 42 days, see Annex A1.

More data on these areas can be found in Annex A2. Natural England will use the data on effort levels and numbers of badgers removed to inform its requirements for future badger control operations.

Accuracy of controlled shooting

Shooting accuracy was used as a proxy measure for ‘humaneness’ and was assessed using observations from Natural England Monitors of badgers being shot at under controlled shooting conditions.

Summary of controlled shooting observations

Monitors observed 149 badgers being shot at using controlled shooting, of which 11 appeared to be missed and 6 appeared to be hit but were not retrieved. In such cases, the use of firearms carries an element of risk with regard to the wounding of individual animals. While the contractor has control over the condition of the firearm, ammunition used, zeroing of the rifle and shooting technique, once the trigger is released, external parameters outside of the contractor’s control come into play. Wounding can result for a number of reasons, with movement of the target species simultaneously with trigger release being the most common.

The non-retrieval rate observed in 2019 (11.4%, 95% confidence interval 7.1%–17.2%^{[footnote 6]}) is similar to that observed during the operations in the last seven years.

As with 2016 and 2017, post-mortem examination of badgers removed by controlled shooting would only have been carried out by exception in Areas 4 to 43. This year none were requested.

More details on compliance monitoring conducted during badger control operations can be found in Annex B.

Safety of the operations

Operations in all 40 control areas were carried out to a high standard of public safety. All existing badger control companies’ contractors continued to receive training prior to the commencement of operations in 2019, on the requirements of the published Best Practice Guides^{[footnote 7]}, lessons learned and safety training.

In relation to the use of firearms in all 40 control areas, no significant incidents affecting public safety were reported. Contractors continued to show high levels of discipline and adherence to the Best Practice Guides, see Annex B.

Conclusions

The results from 2019 indicate that all 40 badger control companies have delivered the level of badger removal required to be confident of disease control benefits and that the operations were carried out to a high standard of public safety.

The levels of controlled shooting accuracy achieved in this year’s operations were similar to those in the previous six years. The likelihood of suffering in badgers is comparable with the range of outcomes reported when other control activities, currently accepted by society, have been assessed. Licensed control companies will need to continue to ensure that their contractors receive rigorous training to maintain high standards of effectiveness, humaneness and safety.

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-surveillance-in-wildlife-in-england/tb-surveillance-in-badgers-during-year-1-badger-control-operations-in-eastern-cumbria-low-risk-area-2018 ↩

2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49957-6 ↩

3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3254. ↩

4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-authorisation-for-badger-control-in-2019. ↩

5. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-to-natural-england-on-setting-minimum-and-maximum-numbers-of-badgers-to-be-controlled-in-2019. ↩

6. Estimates of confidence intervals for proportions were produced using a “Modified Jeffries interval” (Brown and others, 2001). ↩

7. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-shooting-of-badgers-in-the-field-under-licence-to-prevent-the-spread-of-bovine-tb-in-cattle–2; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cage-trapping-and-dispatch-of-badgers-under-licence-to-prevent-the-spread-of-bovine-tb-in-cattle. ↩