UPDATE JUNE 27th 2011

The Welsh Assembly has decided to postpone its decision to cull badgers in this area pending a re-appraisal of the science by an independent panel of experts. Here is the official response from PAC, website here.

Here are some previous previous statements from March 2011:

Pro-vaccination group Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (PAC) are extremely disappointed that The Minister of Rural Affairs Elin Jones has again ignored the science, sound economics, human rights issues and the views of the overwhelming majority of the public and has decided to proceed with a Badger Cull in North Pembrokeshire and parts of Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion. Her cynical timing of this announcement, just after the referendum, to bring the Order into force on 31stMarch, the final day of this Assembly, denies the public the opportunity to seek better Assembly representation of their views on this issue at the ballot box on May 5th.

Having presided over two flawed consultations, failure in the High Court and having spent significant sums of public money Elin Jones once again ignores the facts and chooses a policy which can only end in failure with damage to our communities and disappointment for our local farmers. The Minister has ignored the best scientific data available which says that "badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the control of cattle TB in Britain".Instead the Minister has accepted without question a submission from her officials which uses highly selective and erroneous information, to justify what appears to be a predetermined decision.

Vaccination is not included as an option despite being already available and in use for badgers, and will be available for cattle (including a suitable test) in the near future.

Tighter cattle controls biosecurity measures and vaccination of badgers and cattle are the way forward.
Since the introduction in 2008 of the stricter testing regime and subsequently improved cattle control measures, the number of cattle slaughtered in West Wales has been declining significantly. Figures for the first 10 months of 2010 show a 35% reduction compared with the same period in 2009.

The consultation questions were much criticised by respondents for being deliberately biased against those who objected to the proposal.
There were numerous questions put to The Office of the Chief Vet which went unanswered. This hindered the ability of some respondents to fully respond to the consultation.

The Submissions, consultation documents and public statements by the Minister gave no indication that the human rights aspects of the proposed badger cull have been considered.The Order paves the way for forced entry onto objectors' land, against the science and their own philosophical beliefs, and which is unnecessary even for a cull.

The financial evidence presented to the Minister was very limited, contained a significant arithmetical error and completely failed to show that a cull was economically viable. The conclusion of the most comprehensive scientific trial that the costs of badger culling greatly exceeded the economic benefitshas been completely ignored. The taxpayer is being made to spend £6m on an exercise which will at best save £4m in compensation and provide no long term benefits to the community or the farming Industry.

UPDATE November 3rd 2010

Reasons not to kill Badgers

We are in the middle of a consultation period, ending on the 17th December, set up by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to determine whether to go ahead with a planned 'cull' of all badgers within what they call the IAA - an area of 'intensive action' involving identifying all badger setts within the area, trapping the badgers and shooting them, whether or not they have bovine TB. The new order will also allow government contractors to shoot badgers not in traps. They will have the power to enter anyone's land, with or without the land owner's permission, at any time of day or night, and the cull would take place over five years. A further order could extend the cull to any area of Wales.This is one of the changes the WAG have made to the order that was in operation this Spring and which was ruled unlawful by the Appeal Court. The Minister for Rural Affairs, Ms Elin Jones, has decided not to take the route recommended in England by DEFRA, which is to allow farmers within designated areas to have the freedom to shoot badgers themselves, but to persevere with an almost identical plan to her original one. She hopes to have ironed out the glitches that caused Mk 1 to fail. Vaccination, although acknowledged as an option, is hardly mentioned.

Many people both locally and nationally are horrified that Ms Jones is attempting to go down this route - public meetings are being held, rallies are taking place, blogs are being created on the internet, and AM's are being questioned. I am a resident on the farm of Brithdir Mawr in Newport, inside the IAA, and this is my opinion on why this plan should be opposed by all of us.

Ethical

One hundred and fifty years ago, when Cardigan was the second busiest port on the west coast of Britain, it was not universally accepted that all humans had equal rights. Our ancestors shot the aborigines of the newly conquered Australia for fun. The natives of Tasmania were hunted down and wiped out because they would not be civilised. Attitudes towards animals were also unformed, cruel and immoral. The bears and wolves once native to this island are extinct. Travellers to the 'New World' had no qualms about shooting anything that moved. Settlers bound out west in the new railroads across the prairies shot indiscriminately into herds of buffalo from moving trains, for fun. Slowly do we learn not to abuse nature, and there are still many misconceptions in our attitudes. Until this twenty-first century scientists and biologists have continued to deny that animals think, have feelings, can discriminate, can be generous or can have individual differences. Now, books such as When Elephants Weep and Second Nature have documented in such detail scores of studies showing that animals have feelings, make choices and are all individual in character.
There is no doubt that badgers feel, choose, think and have emotions. They have lived on this island for hundreds of thousands of years. They were here before us. What right have we to kill them because we think it may make a difference to the number of cattle catching TB in our farms? Who do we think we are?
It is not even as if all the badgers in this area have TB. The only facts WAG give us in their consultation document are from a survey done in the winter 2005/2006 on road kill. The evidence from Pembrokeshire was that 15% of badgers showed positive for TB. If this figure still holds good, this means that 85% of all the badgers they are planning to shoot will be healthy! It is unthinkable that this plan could be carried out in this century, in this Year of Biodiversity.
And in a National Park! National Park Authorities have two statutory purposes, set out in the Environment Act 1995:

* to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park
* to promote opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of the special qualities of the National Park

What has your local councillor to say about the impact of a badger cull on these two purposes? The PCNP should oppose this cull.
One reason that the judges threw the order Mk1 out was that there was no evidence that Ms Jones had balanced the pain and suffering caused to badgers with the possible benefits. There is no evidence that she has done it this time.

Albert Einstein once defined Insanity as 'repeating the same actions but expecting different results'.

Legal and Human Rights

The words 'legal', 'legally' and 'lawful' were bandied about a lot this Spring in WAG press releases, but their actions turned out not to be lawful after all.
The Bern Convention is an international treaty, ratified by Britain, that outlaws the killing of protected species, which badgers are. It gives two main get-out clauses:
1. if the protected animals need culling as a matter of urgent Public Health. Bovine TB is not a public health threat. It is only of danger to humans, basically, if they are farm workers on infected farms or drink unpasteurised milk. Since it has been illegal to sell unpasteurised milk for over twenty years, the incidence of bovine TB in humans is negligible. The English consultation paper, currently active, puts the responsibility on farmers, working together in regions of a minimum of 150 sq kilometers. It is not an urgent issue of Public Health. 2. If there is no alternative to culling. Well, there is. A licensed injectable vaccine is now available for badgers, as is a new oral vaccine that can be taken by badgers near their setts. The evidence to the Minister includes a detailed research project looking at likely outcomes from culling, vaccinating, or doing nothing It is simply not true to argue that there is no alternative. (The alternative would be cheaper, too).
The plan to cull badgers is in breach of the Bern Convention and is illegal by international law. Ms Jones and Christiana Glossop, the Chief Vet, are trying to do a Tony Blair on us concerning international law. Don't buy it.

The plan may be illegal under English and Welsh law too, as in MK1 the Appeal Court ruled that the improvement in overall levels of bovine TB was estimated to be less than ten percent - less than a 'substantial' amount required by the Animal Health Act 1981 to make such an order with all its draconian clauses. So what has changed? The new document claims that the improvement will now be 22%, but give no proof. A Court of Appeal would probably question this and rule it illegal, too.

What about policing?

In May, 30 police officers in at least six vehicles converged on Brithdir Mawr in Newport to enforce the new order giving contractors access to any land within the order. The police were escorting a WAG official called Tom McCabe, who was trying to persuade the residents to allow two young men on their land to locate badger setts with GPS gadgets. Unfortunately, WAG officials had decided that the two contractors should wear black balaclavas, on the pretext that they were afraid of being recognised by animal rights protesters, who might be present and who might be violent. This was a silly myth that they used for several weeks. No animal rights protesters ever showed up, just residents. Two men were arrested for standing in front of the gate in protest that the proper guidelines had not been kept to. The leaflets that some people got from WAG insisted that all residents should ask for a contractor's identification card to compare the photo thereon with the contractor's face. But in practice the contractors were wearing balaclavas! Identification was impossible. On the same day Gavin Wheeler, a farmer from Nevern, was arrested, also for attempting to hold on to an identification card until satisfied that the contractor was genuine. The stand-off at Brithdir Mawr lasted for seven hours, and was filmed the whole time by several individuals and also, crucially, by S4C, whose cameras were present all day. At several points attempts were made by WAG officials to remove the team, and calls were made from high up in WAG to S4C to try to remove the film crew. S4C refused to go. Good for them. When, the next day, I put a two minute clip on YouTube of the moment when the contractors finally turned back on a pretext of not being able to see their GPS screen (!), it stayed up for a couple of hours and then was withdrawn. Another film of the incident was taken off after 24 hours. The next time I tried putting a short clip on YouTube it was up there for just one second - a program had been set up to withdraw whatever I put up, regardless of content. The authorities, with their 'Operation Cascade' as they called it, were way over the top and were grossly infringing our human rights. I asked the police and they assured me that it was nothing to do with them. What should be the role of the police in all this? They were assured that these invasions onto private property were legal, so they trusted WAG and did as they were told. Policemen take seriously their oath to the Queen to uphold the peace. Many of the 30 policemen in Operation Cascade (I just love the title!) showed on their faces that they had grave doubts about what they were being asked to do. It now turns out that it was illegal! Who pays for all this? We do, the taxpayers! Do the police have to do everything the WAG asks them to do? No they do not!

I would seriously recommend to every police officer, from the new community recruit to the Chief Superintendent, to ask themselves: 'This proposed action is contrary to international law and will probably turn out again to be illegal under national law; it is not ethical or moral, is a waste of time and money, is a gross infringement of human rights and will breach the peace. Do I have to go along with it?' When you have thought about it, organise a reply to the public consultation. This plan will be hell to police. Let's cut it off at the pass.

Political

On sustainability, WAG are working hard. They are seriously looking at the causes of climate change and are committed to a 3% per annum decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. All policies are being subjected to rigorous analysis for sustainability. This badger cull plan involves a fleet of 4 x 4 vehicles, visiting and revisiting every land holding in the IAA, carting brand new purpose-built metal traps about, new guns, ammunition, chemicals, causing waste disposal issues and costing millions. How sustainable is it? At a public meeting in Newport on sustainability I asked the minister Jane Davidson 'why does this cull plan seem to be immune from all considerations or public debate over sustainability?' Her answer was revealing - under the coalition One Wales agreement between Plaid Cymru and Labour, Plaid was given the Rural Affairs ministry (headed, of course, by Elin Jones) and a strong whip would be enforced to back up any policies in their manifesto. So many Labour AM's voted for a badger cull whether they liked it or not, (many would have preferred vaccination, although they were not given that option) and the badger cull is at present immune from normal assessments as to sustainability. When will this agreement expire? May 2011. When would the first shootings under this order start? Why, June, 2011, and go on for five years. Ms Elin Jones is trying to rush through this consultation and new order in the hope of binding future AM's into a five year programme of culling that is unethical, unscientific, contrary to international law, unpopular, probably illegal, socially divisive and that could well fail from public resistance or from the police failing to co-operate. So, if you are an AM seeking re-election next May or are a candidate in next year's election, may I suggest that you put pressure on the WAG now to drop it. It will be too late next year.

The science

No authority has tried carrying out a cull of badgers despite the objections of land owners, so this would be a first. In most trials that have been done, it is clear that badgers' society and lives are grossly disrupted, and many flee to areas outside the trial area. The result seems to be a decline in TB rates within the trial area but an increase outside the area. After a few years, unless TB is eradicated by other means, the rate would climb back to what it is now. At most, estimates for Cattle Herd Breakdowns are a long-term reduction of 5-8%. I am certainly inexpert in all this, but I have ploughed through a lot of the reports that were used in evidence to the WAG, including Badger Control Model for Wales Ð Trap-Test-Cull-Vaccinate Supplemental Report Ð 4th March 2009 , by D. Wilkinson and G.C. Smith, which looks very thoroughly at the effects of alternative strategies. It makes clear that vaccination would be just as effective on herd breakdown rates, without perturbing badgers, (which is a critical unknown). Oral vaccines, which are now available, would involve no badgers being trapped or culled, so would be a much cheaper policy and would involve no perturbation. It is clear that if WAG goes ahead with this scheme 1400 or more badgers would be killed pointlessly, and if too many badger groups are perturbed, it may even make the problem worse. It is no long term answer. The ISG report, set up to answer the question conclusively, failed to endorse culling badgers as effective or value for money. TB rates in cattle in Wales (and, specifically, this region still known as 'Dyfed") are already decreasing, owing to a more systematic approach to controlling the movement of cattle, keeping other animals from taking cattle feed, and other actions known as 'biosecurity'. It is now also clear that prize bulls on stud visits, farm cats, dogs and sheep can also carry bovine TB and pass it on, so the awareness of prevention in increasing. If you want to find out more, Google 'bovine TB' and prepare for a headache.

Social effects

The order would allow free access to persons with shotguns, wearing balaclavas so unidentifiable, at any time of day or night onto any land within the Intense Activity Area. This will negatively affect the health and well-being of everyone living in the countryside or planning to come here on holiday. Tourism brings in more money to this part of the world than does agriculture. If animal and human rights are systematically abused over five years tourism will suffer. The plans are dividing the community. If more 'Operations' in this area are planned, many people in this area will see no choice but to oppose them. I have talked to people who don't want to go to public meetings, but, when confronted with a metal trap on their land, will smash it. Simple. I am not recommending this. (In fact, just to state it, if this order becomes law, could be interpreted as an offence!). The draft order attempts to frighten people into compliance by making it an offence to obstruct the cull in any way. There are people who feel that this is such a misguided plan that they will take action in their own way to prevent it. The WAG will no doubt try again to prevent any of these operations from being filmed, but they cannot enforce this without totalitarian rules. I have promised the badgers living in the setts near us that I will do what it takes to prevent them being killed. It may not take direct action if enough of us raise our voices now. I don't want to spend next summer in prison with hundreds of other protesters. How much will that cost? Who would pay for it all? Who will pick my raspberries?

The way forward

First of all we must stop this plan dead in its tracks.
Everyone should send in a full reply to the consultation, preferably in hard copy via PAC, before December 17th. Information can be gained online via info@pembrokeshireagainstthecull.org.uk or by phoning 01239 805020. Forms can be had by phoning WAG or visiting Whole food shops in Cardigan, Newport, Fishguard or Crymych. Tell your AM what you feel, too. be creative. This must be stopped!

Next there should be a public debate on the causes of bovine TB and what is to be done. Three things occur to me:

1. A team should go to Scotland in a spirit of humility and scientific enquiry to find out how come Scotland is certified free of bovine TB without killing a single badger. What are they doing right?

2. In the 1950's, when bovine TB was at a low level but increasing, it was noticed that in every infected herd there are one or two cows that are immune. Would it not be a good idea to breed cattle immune to TB? The idea was dropped, but raised again this year at a bovine TB conference. The main finding was that it could be surprisingly feasible to breed bovine TB out of the cattle herd in Britain, and because of the fast turnaround in modern cattle breeding, might only take a few (under ten) years. This needs exploring right away.

3. It is probable that what we are witnessing in this epidemic of bovine TB is another symptom of the limits to growth. The more you treat animals as a means to ever-increasing production, the more things go wrong. The biggest causes of death in cattle are lameness or illnesses cased by attempting to breed a machine that will produce more and more meat or milk. It has been calculated that each day the strain on the average milker to produce the required amount of milk is the equivalent to a human having to run a marathon every day. Profits and costs may go up or down as lines on paper or a computer screen, but cows are animals with feelings and needs for relaxation and space. We are already at the overkill mark. In the same way that overfishing is killing the oceans, over-expansion of debt has floored the economy, and overuse of oil and coal have altered the atmosphere, it is now clear that the greenhouse gases produced by so many cattle is at unsustainable levels. In Wales this contribution to greenhouse gases has been calculated as 18%, one sixth, of total emissions, and so far Ms Jones has not said what she is going to do about it. Here is all the brand new Climate Change Strategy for Wales - Delivery Plan for Emission Reduction (Oct 2010) says :
' WA5 - Dairy and Red Meat Road Maps
This action is about putting into practice the Sustainable Development CommissionÕs advice about Òroad mappingÓ as a technique for analysing GHG emissions and water use across all stages of the food chain and producing an action plan to cut them.
This is an enabling intervention that will ensure that opportunities to reduce emissions are identified but it will not lead to direct reductions in emissions in and of itself. As a result its contribution to emission reduction cannot be quantified. '
Nonsense, isn't it?

To achieve targets for greenhouse emissions by 2030, Wales needs to reduce its herd of cows and cattle by 60 - 70%. This is a desperately high figure, and is as serious a prospect as fisheries towns like Hull had to face when fishing quotas were established, or the Valleys when the mines were shut. Elin Jones has reacted to this figure by stoutly saying that to reduce the herd by 70% would be admitting defeat, and that the Welsh dairy industry must compete with the rest of the world by innovation. One of her suggestions was the establishment of enormous farms housing several thousand cows at a time, with their methane captured and used as heating. (Ever tried capturing a cow's farts? How would you do that, exactly?) What would be the bovine TB risks in such imaginary monstrosities, one wonders? How could the fuel and feed costs be met as peak oil kicks in? The chances of such a series of untried, capital intensive animal prisons happening successfully in this green and pleasant land must be almost nil. So, if we are not to deny everything with our heads in the sand, it still leaves a requirement to reduce herds to meet climate change targets. My suggestion is to provide generous funding for any farmer whose herd shows TB positive to grow trees instead by diversifying into agro-forestry or forestry. Trees are carbon-negative - they take carbon from the air to grow and sequester it. Britain has the least forest for its area of all countries in Europe. The National Park would be the first body to gain as farms start to be replaced by forest. Wildlife would thrive instead of being driven back for the sake of commercial gain. And if it were espoused quickly enough and with creativity, it might help Wales meet its emission targets.

Please say no to this cull with all the means at your disposal. Urge vaccination for badgers and long-term solutions for the good farmers of this country. Thank you.
Tony Wrench Oct 31st 2010.

UPDATE July 13th:
Great news! The appeal by the Badger Trust has been upheld in the court of appeal. The cull will no longer take place. Here is a good report of the decision.

UPDATE June 11th:
Good news!
The badger cull has been put on hold pending the result of the appeal to the high court by the Badger Trust. The appeal is due to be held on June 30th.

Here is the BBC report.

Also, the song 'Brock' has re-appeared on YouTube, here.

UPDATE June 9th:
The most recent BBC report from last night - still not realising the strength of feeling in this area about this, nor taking on board the human rights or animal rights implications, but nevertheless useful:
by Richard Black, BBC environment correspondent.

June 6th - some recent news items on the cull - select the line, copy and paste into your browser:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/somerset/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8722000/8722660.stm
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/8203196.Questions_in_Senedd_over_badger_cull_clash/sened
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/country-farming-columnists/2010/06/01/badger-cull-v-100m-tb-bill-91466-26559450/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/10199015.stm

Today there was a picnic on the beach at which Charlie Sharp sang a song 'Brock'. Since YouTube now withdraw everything I put up, apparently, without saying why, here is an attempt to show it directly:

This is the text of a letter sent from Felicia, a member of the Brithdir Mawr community, to several local members of the Welsh Assembly on May 20th. It gives a good account of the badger cull developments. Since that day we have received no visits from WAG representatives, and we hope that they are rethinking their entire policy, since vaccination would be much kinder to the badgers and would cost less money. A good blog to read is that of Peter Black AM, Lib Democrat assembly member who opposes the cull. Here is Felicia's letter:

On Tuesday morning, a WAG official by the name of Thomas McCabe (ID HH00002) arrived with two masked men (dressed in black with balaclavas, ID numbers L2002059 and L2002009) on our land and entered into our gardens without making any prior appointment. This is in spite of the fact that I wrote to the governments' animal health department to request an appointment be made if WAG contractors come to us for a badger sett survey (see below my correspondence, to which I never received a reply) and in spite of a letter we received from him dated 16th of May 2010 which said: "You will be contacted prior to any surveying work being undertaken on your land".

In earlier correspondence from WAG dated 16th of April 2010 it says: "ALWAYS ask officials to produce their identification. You should not allow entry without seeing the identification card. If you are in any doubt, contact the IAPA Landowners helpline on 0800 4961439 to verify their identity."

We asked Mr McCabe to leave our property until we could ascertain his identity, and he walked to the top of our track. We filmed our discussions and asked him to produce identification for himself and the masked men. He showed us his ID, but refused to show us those of the masked men due to the fact that we were filming. I went back to the house and called the WAG landowners helpline, where I was informed that I was indeed entitled to check their IDs. I returned to the road and made this clear, and was then shown the IDs and wrote down the ID numbers. I told Mr McCabe that he was not welcome on our land until I had called the WAG helpline once again to verify these ID numbers. This was reiterated by my partner, Jamie Smith, approximately five minutes after I left the scene. They ignored him, and entered our land once again without waiting for me.

In the meantime, I spoke to a Miss Williams of the landowners helpline, who assured me that the ID numbers were correct. I informed her that I was unsure that I could identify the men properly due to the balaclavas. She said she would find out for me whether they needed to remove the balaclavas for proper identification and would call me back. A housemate of mine went up the track to inform Mr McCabe (who had already proceeded on to our land once again) that we were still awaiting a reply from WAG, and we request that he wait at the top of the track until our identification procedure was complete. At this point, two of our community members were arrested under the animal health act, presumably due to standing in front of our gate to prevent the men entering our land before proper identification procedures had been completed. They were taken away to Haverfordwest. Much later on in the day, they were released without charge.

Upon my return, which was immediately after I was called back by Miss Williams, I informed Mr. McCabe that I had been assured by Miss Williams that I must trust the policemen to identify the masked men. We made no attempt to prevent them from entering our land. However, I did ask Mr McCabe whether they had public liability insurance, which seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask of any contractors entering one's land. After he refused to respond to this questions, Mr McCabe returned back up the track with his contractors and the police officers without having been asked to do so by any of us.

From this point onwards, the end of our track turned into something from a movie. There were up to 24 policemen outside our property at one time, with six police vehicles at one time. During the course of the day, hundreds of police hours were wasted standing around outside our property, although Mr McCabe had been assured that we were perfectly peaceful, and no threats were made at any point.

What shocked us more than anything else was that Mr McCabe confirmed to us that masked men such as these contractors may return in the future onto our land, armed, unidentified, without our consent, in the middle of the night. We know they are after badgers, but surely this goes against our liberties? Would you not be scared to walk on your land at night if you had been told by a government official that you need not worry if you see armed men in balaclavas? Does this not leave us vulnerable to all sorts of other crimes? Is this not against human rights?

Although all the police constables on site that day were perfectly friendly and we knew that we had not done anything to contravene any laws, they were nonetheless intimidating. Some parked approximately 200m from our entrance, and Mr McCabe was constantly hiding away with them to discuss with them. What plans were they hatching? Why were they kept secret from us? Why were there so many of them? Why were our friends unlawfully arrested?

We were kept very ill informed all day long. When I asked a police constable (officer 964) how many officers were there in total, he made an (admittedly funny) joke about how it was like in that scene from The Life of Brian where they raid the flat. This could be seen as intimidation, and as making associations in our minds between that situation and ours, where no raid was legally warranted. I called the Powys police headquartes professionals standards department (tel 101, as given to me by the police boss that day, Steve Matchett) and was told that my concerns regarding the vast quantity of policemen, the wastage of public money and the fear and intimidation we felt were being taken seriously, and that I would be called back asap by a qualified representative. I never received that call.

I hope my detailed account of what happened will help you understand the terrible predicament we are now in. I scared one of my fellow community members stiff last night just because I went outside at night with a torch to hunt for slugs in our vegetable gardens. We do not wish to live in fear, and request that you confirm to us that we need not live in fear.

I do not wish to bore you with details of my opinions about this badger cull, but obviously you are aware that we are not just badger-hugging hippies with no idea of the science. It has been scientifically documented that neither a cull (England) or extermination (Ireland) result in a reduction in bovine TB cases, quite to the contrary. We feel that this whole issue is a political farce to keep the farmers happy, who are so desperate to have something done about the tragic amount of TB in their cattle that they are even willing to have something done that is totally scientifically unfounded and destructive to our native endangered wildlife. If you happen to have some genuine scientific interest in the matter, I would be more than happy to provide you with all the scientific papers you need to argue against this cull. My qualifications are exactly the same as those of the men in balaclavas who claimed to be ecologists. They looked ashamed of themselves,
one of them even nodded repeatedly when I spoke to them about the science behind this, and confronted them about the fact that they know this cull is scientifically unjustifiable. I understand that they simply want to keep their jobs in an ecological field, but they should not be forced by our government to act against their own better judgement.

I thank you for your time and consideration of my issues and look forward to hearing your detailed response.

Yours sincerey,

Felicia Ruperti

A video that I took of the last three minutes of the event, showing the balaclava'd men, in a police cordon, stopping down our drive, and returning to their car, was withdrawn from YouTube under pressure from persons unknown. Here is a small video of developments prior to that on the same day, May 18th 2010.

MAY 10th, 2010

This notice has appeared in two places on the footpath that goes through Brithdir Mawr, on May 10th 2010. We have received no information or requests of any kind from anyone about this.

The Welsh Assembly has decided to try to exterminate all badgers in this area, together with cattle control measures, to try to reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle. If it works they will extend the cull to the whole of Wales. Their decision is based on the same science that influenced the English government NOT to kill badgers but vaccinate instead.This is the text produced by seven of us living in this valley and read out to a loud supportive reception to a packed public meeting on 15th Feb.

We are deeply saddened and shocked by the decision to cull badgers. We feel strongly that we cannot co-operate with this action on grounds of conscience. For us, killing is not a solution; coming from a place of fear, it will only compound the lack of balance that already exists on the land. It will solve nothing and will have repercussions by further disrupting nature. We are all part of the web of life.

We are aware that many modern farmers have been subject to a series of policies that have dehumanised the farming process in a landscape that is already degraded and impoverished in places. A good look at the land around us reveals two attitudes at work. One controlling nature to maximise output, and the other working with nature to keep balance and to enhance biodiversity. The left hand of the Welsh Assembly Government seems to be promoting one thing while the right hand promotes the opposite.

If we do not live with love and respect for our companions in the natural world we risk exploiting them, and these consequences are becoming evident in some modern farms. If humans live crowded together in stressful conditions that are not conducive to happiness, with poor sanitation, we, too, suffer from disease.

It is now clear that we are at a turning point: whether we allow to persist a system that puts profit above balance, and is willing to kill innocent protected species to gain temporary respite from these systemic problems, or whether we take a stand in maintaining our integrity as stewards of a living landscape. There are other ways of dealing with bTB, and we are sure that there are other creative solutions.

This proposed killing programme is against morals, basic spiritual truths, and ethics. It is a step too far that we must not, and will not, take. We call upon the Welsh Assembly to stop the cull now, while there is still time.

Feb 2010. If you wish to find out more or join the campaign to stop the cull, click here

Emails to the relevant minister should be addressed to: correspondence.elin.jones@wales.gsi.gov.uk.

This cull is planned to last for four years. It will divide this community, set neighbour against neighbour, and result in a huge loss of respect for the Welsh Assembly, because so many people round here will just not take it lying down. Please pass this on in any way you can. Thanks.