Author: Kristin Stone

Badgers are among the most iconic of the UK’s wild mammals, but their future is under threat from official plans to slaughter them en masse in a misguided attempt to control tuberculosis in cattle.

Measuring up to a meter long, weighing in at 7-14 kg, and with a distinctive black and white striped face, the European badger (Meles meles) is a striking and distinctive denizen of the British countryside.

Largely nocturnal by nature, badgers are social animals, and typically live in clans of six to eight individuals, although up to 35 have been recorded in large setts. It is estimated that the UK is home to around 40,000 clans, comprising a total of 300,000 badgers. They are most common in the south and west and inhabit predominantly rural areas, although urban badgers are an increasingly common sight, particularly along the south coast and in some southern towns and cities.

Badgers are protected under EU and UK legislation, specifically by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

Bovine tuberculosis

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is a serious chronic infectious disease of cattle caused by the bacterium Mycobacterum bovis. It has been a problem for British cattle farmers since the 1930s, and spiralled out of control in the latter part of the 20th century. Associated statutory cattle testing, compensation to farmers and government-led surveillance and research currently cost UK taxpayers around £100 million each year.

Direct transmission between cattle is the most common way for the disease to be spread, although a number of wild animal species are also at risk from it. Badgers seem to be particularly susceptible. In the worst bTB-affected areas in southwest England and west Wales, up to one in seven badgers may be infected.

Since the first bTB-positive badger was officially discovered in the 1970s, debate has raged over whether badgers are a significant source of the disease for cattle. Various, largely uncoordinated badger slaughter programmes were undertaken during the following decades, but the problem of bTB in cattle continued.

Timeline

1998: In order to try and evaluate the role of badgers in the spread of bTB, the Ministry of Agriculture commissioned the largest field trial ever undertaken to investigate an infectious disease of wildlife, the so-called ‘Randomised Badger Culling Trial’ (RBCT), in 1998. The trial, which was interrupted by the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, lasted for 10 years and cost taxpayers approximately £50 million.

2007: In its final report in 2007, the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) charged with evaluating the results of the RBCT concluded that ‘badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain’, and in subsequent peer-reviewed scientific publications, members of the ISG found that ‘reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended’. The ISG identified weaknesses in cattle TB testing, and the movement of cattle, as being the major factors contributing to the spread of bTB.

In response to these findings, the Labour government of the time announced that it had no plans to reintroduce badger slaughter.

2008, 2010: Stricter controls on cattle movement and testing were introduced in 2008 and have resulted in significant reductions in the numbers of cattle culled and herds under movement restriction, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ own figures. This improvement has taken place without a single badger being slaughtered. Welsh Assembly plans for the mass slaughter of badgers in west Wales were halted on legal grounds following an appeal by the Badger Trust in July 2010.

2010: However, the incoming UK Coalition government set out to re-examine the issue, publishing plans for landowner-led mass slaughter of badgers in high-risk areas of England, which it put out for public consultation in late 2010. The Welsh Assembly published similar proposals for an ‘Intensive Action Area’ in west Wales, and also launched a public consultation.

Completed in December 2010, the results of the Welsh consultation were not widely publicised, although the vast majority of respondents expressed their opposition to badger slaughter. At the time of this writing in July 2011, the results of the consultation in England, also completed in December 2010, have not been disclosed.

2011: In spite of the consultation results, the Welsh Assembly passed legislation in March 2011 to allow the mass slaughter of badgers in the Intensive Action Area, although following the elections of April 2011, the incoming government has indicated that the decision will be subject to a review process.

If these proposals go ahead, it could mean the slaughter of tens of thousands of badgers, most of which will not be infected with bTB, and represent no risk to anything. The methods of slaughter proposed include the shooting of free-running badgers, which could result in unclean kills and injuries, with severe consequences for animal welfare.

2012: In January, the Westminster government announced pilot zones for the slaughter of badgers in parts of England.

HSI/UK submitted a formal complaint to the Bern Convention and held an event at the House of Commons in February.

There was good news from Wales in March, when John Griffiths, Welsh Assembly Minister for Environment and Economic Development, announced that plans to kill badgers, proposed by the previous government, had been scrapped in favour of a five-year vaccination scheme.

In October, the government announced a postponement of the culls, confirming they would go ahead in both pilot areas in 2013.

2013: In March, Natural England issued authorisation to two companies, one each in Somerset and Gloucestershire, to undertake a six-week programme of badger culling to commence from 1 June onwards.

The cull in Somerset began in late August. The cull company applied for a three-week extension and this was granted, allowing the killing to continue until 1 November. In total 940 badgers were killed.

In Gloucestershire, shooting began in early September. An extension, of 8 weeks, was granted by Natural England on 23 October but that was later revoked, three weeks before it was due to end, on 30 November. In total 921 badgers were killed.

Members of the Independent Expert Panel analysed data from the first six weeks of the culling in order to consider the effectiveness (ability to kill 70 per cent of badgers in the cull zone); the humaneness (suffering of individual badgers shot during the cull); and the safety of so-called “controlled” shooting (the killing of free roaming badgers at night).

2014: In February we revealed that reports from Natural England’s own observers detailed badger suffering and breaches of biosecurity measures during the culls.

Politicians called on the government to halt the cull during a debate in parliament.

In April, the Independent Expert Panel released its report, revealing that the culls had failed on both effectiveness and humaneness.

At the same time, the Secretary of State announced that although culling would not be rolled out to additional areas of England, the two pilot culls, in Gloucestershire and Somerset, would be allowed to continue.

2015: An licence was issued for an additional cull zone, in Dorset. Culling started in that county in September 2015.

2016: In February, the government announced it was considering 29 new applications for badger culling licences, covering nine counties of England: Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Somerset, Wiltshire and Worcestershire.
If permission is granted, this could result in the deaths of tens of thousands of healthy badgers.

Opposition to plans for killing badgers

HSI opposes the mass slaughter of badgers as a control measure for bTB, on the grounds that such action compromises the welfare and conservation of badgers, which are a protected species, and is not supported as an effective method by the available scientific evidence or public opinion.

HSI recognizes that bTB causes suffering to both cattle and farmers, and imposes a large economic burden on the taxpayer. It urges the government to explore all humane means of controlling the disease; in particular, the introduction of further controls on the testing and movement of cattle, investigation and elimination of illegal practices designed to avoid cattle controls, and further research into the efficacy of vaccination programmes for both cattle and badgers.

Update: On 6 June 2013, the Council of the European Union completed the final step to close loopholes in EU shark finning ban. By adopting a “fins naturally attached” policy without exception, the EU has now effectively ended the practice of shark finning by EU vessels.

HSI is delighted that this multi-year campaign goal has been successfully achieved. We will continue to work to reduce the demand for shark fins and encourage the introduction legislation to stop the practice of shark finning in other countries around the world.

Although 27 countries and the European Union now ban shark finning, the current EU legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003), introduced in 2003, is  one of the weakest in the world, with gaping loopholes that allow the practice of shark finning to continue.

The EU Regulation allows a special permit to be granted for the on-board removal of fins from carcasses, whilst stipulating a specific weight ratio between the separated fins and carcasses when landed at port, making the assessment of compliance with finning bans difficult.

A fins-attached policy

Humane Society International believes that the EU must adopt a fins-attached policy without exception. This is the only option if shark finning is to be stopped. In addition, enacting such regulations will greatly enhance the EU’s ability to adopt meaningful shark conservation measures.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has recommended that sharks be landed with their fins attached, and ten countries have adopted “fins-attached” regulations. Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Germany, Oman, Panama, the United Kingdom and the United States require that sharks must be landed with their fins still attached to the carcass.

Progress is being made

In 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to strengthen the EU shark finning legislation and  progress is being made.

On 16th December 2010, the European Parliament  adopted a Resolution on shark finning that called on the European Commission to deliver a proposal to prohibit the removal of shark fins on-board vessels. This Resolution was passed after 423 MEPs signed Written Declaration 71/2010 on strengthening the EU ban on shark finning.

In March 2011, HSI called on the European Commission to prohibit the removal of shark fins on board vessels without exception.

In November 2011, the European Commission adopted a strong draft legislative proposal on shark finning. The new legislation would ensure that all sharks caught by EU vessels anywhere in the world must be landed with their fins naturally attached to their carcasses, without exception.

On 19 March 2012, the Council of the European Union adopted a general approach supporting the Commission’s proposal to close the loopholes in the current EU shark finning legislation by ensuring that all sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached without exception. It is believed that Spain and Portugal were the only EU Member States to raise objections to the Commission’s proposal.

In the European Parliament, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted overwhelmingly in favour of a robust opinion supporting the Commission’s proposal in April 2012.

On 19 September 2012, the  Fisheries Committee voted on a draft report, which sought to maintain the status quo by continuing to permit the removal of shark fins on board freezer vessels. Although the Committee voted in favour of the Commission’s proposal to delete the derogations from the legislation to ensure that all sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached, the report contains serious discrepancies that need to be rectified at the Plenary vote.

On 22 Novemeber 2012, the European Parliament voted to strengthen protection for sharks against the cruel and unsustainable practice of shark finning by closing loopholes in the current EU legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003). MEPs supported the European Commission’s proposal for a fins naturally attached policy without exception by 566-47. It is anticipated that the Parliament’s co-legislators, the Council of the European Union, will also adopt the Commisssion’s proposal.

Learn more

• What is Shark Finning and Why is it Harmful? [PDF]
• Why Does the EU Need a New Shark Finning Regulation? [PDF]
• Fins-Attached Shark Landings: Costa Rica Versus Spain [PDF]

You can help protect sharks

• Take our No Shark Fin pledge

With summer upon us, Humane Society International reminds people to start thinking about how the warm weather will impact pets. Whether taking a walk, a drive or just hanging out in the backyard, there are extra precautions that people can take to keep their four-legged family members happy and safe.

Beat the heat  

• Never leave a pet unattended in the car on a warm or sunny day. Cars quickly heat up to a dangerous temperature, even with the window slightly open.
•  When taking a dog for a walk on a hot day, plan for shorter walks midday, when temperatures peak, and longer walks in the morning and evening when it’s cooler. Hot sidewalks can burn the pads on a dog’s paws, so walk on the grass when possible. 
• Never leave a dog outdoors unattended on a chain or tether. Long-term chaining during the hot summer months can result in countless insect bites, dehydration and heat stroke. Even short-term unattended tethering can pose risks such as theft or attacks by people or animals. 

Safety first 

• The summer months are the peak season for dog bites because so many kids and dogs are playing outside. Training, socialization and dog spaying or neutering a dog can reduce the risk of dog bites. Kids can learn to stay safe through good manners around pets and humane education.
• Be sure to keep pets up-to-date on their vaccinations and preventative medications. Fleas and ticks stay busy in warm weather and summer is also the prime time for heartworms. Check with a veterinarian about the best way to keep pets healthy. Consulte con un veterinario acerca de la mejor forma de mantener a las mascotas sanas.
• Keep cats indoors to keep them safe. Cars, other pets and wild animals can all pose risks to cats’ safety. By providing playtime, cat trees and other enrichment, a cat will be happy and content to stay indoors.
• Beware of cocoa mulch and other gardening products. Cocoa mulch can be deadly if ingested and has an appetizing scent to some animals. Pesticides, fertilizers and other harsh chemicals can also be quickly fatal if ingested. 
• When driving with pets, be sure to keep them properly restrained and inside the vehicle. Special seatbelts and secured carriers can protect pets during accidents and prevent them from distracting the driver. The back of a pick-up truck is never a safe place for a pet to ride.

Don’t forget about the little guys

• Pet rabbits should be kept indoors because they don’t tolerate heat well. Keeping a rabbit indoors will also provide protection from predators who might try to attack a rabbit in an outdoor hutch.
• Be mindful of pets around our wild neighbors. When going for walks or playing in a fenced yard, don’t allow pets to harass birds, rabbits, squirrels or other wild animals.

Humane Society International campaigns throughout the United Kingdom and Europe to raise awareness of the cruel and unnecessary fur trade.

Every year, more than 50 million animals are raised and slaughtered on industrial factory farms or trapped in the wild so that their pelts can be turned into frivolous fashion items.

Few people comprehend the true scale of the suffering and death of wild animals for fur garments, or realise that a purchase of fur or fur trim supports the continued existence of such a brutal industry.

Fur labelling

HSI is campaigning for a system of labelling that would require manufacturers to clearly state if an item contained real fur. Aside from the important ethical concerns involved, some people are allergic to real animal fur.

Working with politicians, HSI is supporting a labelling system that would ensure manufacturers have to clearly state if an item contained real fur – allowing compassionate consumers to choose not to support a cruel and unnecessary industry.  Laws have already been introduced in several states in the United States requiring all real fur and fur-trimmed clothing to carry a label. In May 2011 the European Union adopted a new Regulation requiring the mandatory labelling of animal fur.

More than 220 UK Members of Parliament have signed an Early Day Motion supporting the introduction of clear labelling of garments made of real fur.  

Fur farming in Europe

After a long campaign, fur farming was banned in the UK in 2000.

Elsewhere in Europe, HSI UK is working closely with politicians to improve the welfare of animals raised and slaughtered on factory farms for their fur.

Considered in May/June 2009, a European Commission proposal for a Council Regulation to update the existing directive on the protection of animals at the time of killing resulted in some progress on better treatment of animals on EU fur farms.

HSI continues to work towards securing an end to the cruel and unnecessary fur trade.

Securing a ban on cat and dog fur in Europe

On 19 June 2007, the European Parliament voted unanimously to ban cat and dog fur from being imported, exported and traded in European Union countries. The ban took effect on 1 January 2009.

This decision marked the culmination of an eight-year campaign by the Humane Society International, working closely with Members of the European Union and Members of Parliament in the UK.

The European Union is one of the world’s largest producers of factory farmed fur. In 2015 alone, around 42.6 million mink, 2.7million foxes, 155,000 raccoon dogs, and 206,000 chinchillas were killed for fur in the EU.

More than a dozen countries across the EU have full or partial bans on fur farming. However fur farming can still be found in countries such as Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands and Poland.

Animal welfare problems

The main species farmed in Europe are mink and fox, and these are still essentially wild animals.

As the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) concluded in its 2001 report, “The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production”:

“…these species, in comparison with other farm animals, have been subjected to relatively little active selection, except with respect to fur characteristics. There has thus been only a limited amount of selection for tameness and adaptability to captive environments.”

Mink and fox are carnivores, predators and highly inquisitive, active animals, with complex social lives. Unlike most other types of farm animals, who tend to be flock or herd species, mink are solitary by nature. Mink and fox are territorial and, in the wild, go to great lengths to defend their territories. These animals are unsuited to farming conditions and especially intensive breeding and rearing in confinement.

Kept in small, wire cages, animals on fur farms have been found to exhibit stereotypical behaviour. Footage from investigations of fur farms situated in the European Union, such as Denmark, Finland, Poland, France and Czech Republic, suggests that such abnormal behaviours, such as pacing along the cage wall, repetitive circling/nodding of the head, etc.) as well as self-mutilation (i.e. sucking or biting of the animal’s tail fur, or other parts of their pelts) are prevalent on EU fur factory farms.

Killing methods for fur animals

The methods used to kill fur animals also leave much to be desired.

Mink, for example, are generally gassed to death after being placed one after the other in killing boxes.Carbon monoxide (either pure source or associated with other gases) is the most widely used technique for killing mink. EU legislation continues to permit the use of gas produced from engine exhaust, despite scientific evidence which shows that even filtered exhaust gases induce unconsciousness in mink more slowly than pure CO, while first provoking excitation and convulsions.

EU legislation also continues to allow the use of carbon dioxide as a manner of killing mink. The aversiveness of carbon dioxide and the practical difficulties in achieving reliable high concentration of gas in the killing chamber make CO2 an unpalatable and unacceptable method for killing mink in groups. Semi-aquatic and highly evolved physiologically to hold their breath, mink are able to detect a lack of oxygen in their blood and are prone to hypoxia, which means that they can suffer particularly during gassing.

Finally, anal electrocution is also a permitted means of killing animals on factory fur farms and is used primarily to kill foxes. However, electrocution requires considerable restraint, and use of electrodes inserted into orifices. If cardiac arrest is caused without first inducing unconsciousness, there is potential for the animal to experience severe pain and distress.

Fur farming legislation in the EU

There is no specific EU legislation providing detailed animal welfare requirements for the keeping of animals for fur production.

Fur factory farms are covered by Council Directive 98/58/EC, which lays down the general minimum requirements for the protection of all animals kept for farming purposes. According to this Directive, EU Member States may maintain or apply stricter provisions than those laid down in this legislation, thus creating the possibility for individual countries to restrict or prohibit the keeping of animals for fur production.

Humane Society International/UK works internationally to bring an end to the brutal spectacle of bullfighting.

Every year, approximately 250,000 bulls are killed in bullfights.

At bullfights, the audience cheers as sentient animals are taunted, injured, and often killed. Veterinarians, zoologists and ex-matadors themselves agree that bulls are submitted to unnecessary stress and suffering both in and out of the ring.

There are only a few countries throughout the world where this practice still takes place: Spain, France, Portugal, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador.

Bullfighting is already banned by law in many countries, including Argentina, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Italy and the United Kingdom. 

Although legal in both Spain and Mexico, some Spanish cities, such as Calonge, Tossa de Mar, Vilamacolum and La Vajol, as well as Mexican city Jalopa, have independently outlawed the practice of bullfighting and, in 2012, historic legislation came into force after politicians voted to ban the outdated tradition in the Spanish region of Catalonia.

Bullfighting and other public displays of animal cruelty as entertainment debase society as a whole.

Government support

Do you think it is right for the government to support bullfighting and other public displays of animal cruelty as entertainment?

In Spain, the city of A Coruña reportedly provides financial subsidies to the bullfighting industry. Humane Society International (HSI) opposes all government support and promotion of bullfighting.