Badger cull flaws work 
of activists

I WRITE in response to Mark Casci’s article on the badger cull (“Farmers urged to tell their side of TB cull story”, Yorkshire Post, October 3).

The most recent study into badger culling, the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, is often cited by anti-cull campaigners as proof that culling badgers would be ineffective.

They say that culling is ineffective because of peturbation, which is where badgers move into the vacuum created by culling, which in theory can actually spread bovine TB even further. It should be noted that this particular study has some major flaws. For example, much of the culling was done in mid winter, which is the least successful time for trapping badgers.

The trial was also interrupted by the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, and was complicated further by the resulting disruption to TB testing. However, one of the biggest flaws with the trial was interference by animal rights activists. About 57 per cent of the traps used in the trial were interfered with, and 12 per cent were removed completely. The traps which were removed are likely to have contained trapped badgers, and these were most likely released elsewhere.

This would certainly have some impact on perturbation and on the results of the trial.

The Randomised Badger Culling Trial had some major flaws, so whenever animal rights activists claim that badger culling is ineffective, be sure to take their claims with a pinch of salt.

From: Andre Menache, Stillington Road, Easingwold, York.

AS a veterinary surgeon, I am dismayed that there is a very real prospect that this Government will pursue a cull of badgers.

The Government’s own scientific evidence clearly indicates that badger culling 
can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.

Dairy farmers should instead support the long-term restructuring and de-intensification of the dairy industry to better support the health and welfare of cattle, as well as that of small farmers and consumers.

This would go some way to help to ensure a more natural, less pressured life for the dairy cow.

Not learning the lessons

From: Trev Bromby, Sculcoates Lane, Hull.

AT one time there was a standing joke about the three biggest lies in the world. “It’s in the post” is one, “I’ll pay you back on Friday” is another and I forget the third.

Well, we can add to that the tired old Government rhetoric: “Lessons will be learnt” and certainly a Social Services favourite.

We hear more and more about the Social Services’ uselessness and ineptitude – there is a thesaurus of negatives to describe them.

A school is aware of a teacher liaising with a pupil yet nothing is done. The authorities are aware of a paedophile ring but nothing is done, as usual.

But fear not: “Lessons will be learned.” I think not.

Help to keep families close

From: Samantha Holland, shop manager, Scope, Goodramgate, York.

THE Paralympics got everyone thinking about disability in a positive way but many readers may not realise that families with disabled children face huge challenges in everyday life.

Many families have to fight long and complicated battles just to find an appropriate school or therapy for their disabled child and often the support can only be found far away from their home.

The impact on family life cannot be underestimated. Families are unable to spend quality time together and may even miss occasions such as birthdays.

At Scope, we believe all families with disabled children should get the support they need through local services.

We are launching a campaign called Keep us Close to put pressure on the Government to make the changes that will stop families having to fight for services or travel long distances, but we need your help.

We’re asking the residents of York to come into the Scope 
shop before October 21 and 
sign our petition cards to 
help families with disabled children get the support 
they need.

Chewing over the ‘park’

From: David F Chambers, Sladeburn Drive, Northallerton.

MY brother, who, unlike me, has never strayed far from our London origins, called on a rare weekend visit, and with my son and daughter-in-law we went for lunch at a local hostelry. My brother asked for the Sunday roast, and the charming waitress said: “Is that beef or park?”

He looked to me for help and I explained that in this part of the world when they say “park” they mean “pork”.

On the other hand, if you venture a little further north, when they say “pork” they mean “park”. My brother, shaken, said: “Beef, please.”