Protection of Badgers Act 1992
1 Taking, injuring or killing badgers.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, a badger.
(2)If, in any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above consisting of attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, there is evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that at the material time the accused was attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, he shall be presumed to have been attempting to kill, injure or take a badger unless the contrary is shown.
(3)A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he has in his possession or under his control any dead badger or any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger.
(4)A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above if he shows that—
(a)the badger had not been killed, or had been killed otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of the Badgers Act 1973; or
(b)the badger or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) and, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser had had no reason to believe that the badger had been killed in contravention of any of those provisions.
(5)If a person is found committing an offence under this section on any land it shall be lawful for the owner or occupier of the land, or any servant of the owner or occupier, or any constable, to require that person forthwith to quit the land and also to give his name and address; and if that person on being so required wilfully remains on the land or refuses to give his full name or address he is guilty of an offence.
10 Licences.
(2)A licence may be granted to any person by the appropriate Minister authorising him, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, but subject to compliance with any conditions specified in the licence—
(a)for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease, to kill or take badgers, or to interfere with a badger sett, within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified;
Parliament has, in my humble opinion and for a change, quite fairly managed to balance the desire to protect a species with the need for the country to carry on functioning economically.
Badger cull plans for England being unveiled
The government has set out plans to license farmers in England to shoot badgers on their land, with tens of thousands of animals potentially targeted. The government believes the badger cull is necessary to curb TB in cattle. Cattle TB cost the UK more than £100m last year.
The Krebs Trial found that the incidence of TB fell in cattle herds inside the culling zone, but rose outside, probably because killing badgers disrupted the animals’ social structures, making them range further and along less ordered trails in search of food and territory, bringing them into contact with more cattle.
The team concluded at that time that culling could not be an ingredient of an effective bovine TB control programme; and some of them, at least, say that is still the case. However, other observers point out that in the four years since the Krebs trial concluded, the “perturbation effect” has fallen away while some benefit appears to persist inside the culled zone.
Farmers don’t like badgers. Campaigners think that badgers are pretty. Instead of being seen to support one side or the other (Labour: pro-badger; Tories: pro-farmer) why don’t we do something revolutionary for this country and do a bit more research before we decide which mast to nail our colours to?