cull, kul, v.t. to gather; to select; to pick out and destroy, as inferior members of a group, e.g. of seals, deer. — n. an unsuitable animal eliminated from a flock or herd [Fr. cuellir, to gather — L. colligere — col-, together, legere, to gather]

It’s been a bad few days for wildlife. Hot on the heels of South Africa’s announcement that it is to raise a 1995 ban on killing elephants, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has just published its report on badgers and bovine tubercolosis, recommending limited culling of badgers in selected areas.

These are very different scenarios, of course. Compared with other regions of Africa, the elephant population in South Africa is booming, having reached 18,000, including more than 12,500 in Kruger National Park, one of the country’s major tourist attractions. There are serious concerns over the effect this success story is having on other species and habitats. The reintroduction of culling is a conservation decision, which actually goes against economic concerns such as the impact on tourism. The UK’s vendetta against the badger, however, is purely economic, driven by prolonged pressure from the farming industry based on dubious evidence of badgers’ role in transmitting bovine TB to herds.

What both culls have in common is their misuse of the word ‘cull’. As the definition above suggests, it has connotations of selection and precision, a scientific ‘pruning’ of individual animals to improve the health of the population as a whole. This sanitises the fact that both ‘culls’ will be indiscriminate slaughter on a disgusting scale. Elephants are usually culled by shooting entire herds. This is presented as the most humane option, on the grounds that elephants are social animals who mourn their dead and whose young need to be taught social behavior by adults in order to survive. The badger report fails to shut the door completely on gassing as a kill option, which is just about as indiscriminate and unselective as you can get. To their credit, the committee admits concern that disorganised culling could make matters worse. However, their way around this is a co-ordinated cull covering a large area, sustained for at least four years. Again, no precision, just killing all badgers in the area, young or old, weak or strong, sick or healthy.

Perhaps if I start a badger farm, I can ‘badger’ the government into approving a cull of cattle herds to prevent them infecting my cuddly charges with their foul disease. It is, after all, cattle tuberculosis. Farmers should put their own affairs in order before decimating wildlife.

L.A. Times: ‘South Africa to resume killing elephants’ [registration required]

‘Badgers and cattle TB: the final report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB’

The Scotsman newspaper tells us that a £6 million, 5-year study is to be launched to investigate how warmer winters and summers, and the changing lengths of seasons, affect crop yields. It is hoped that the research, led by scientists at Edinburgh University, will lead to the development of crops that can withstand the predicted effects of global warming.

‘Search for stronger crops’

Some might say that we already have the means to do this. Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, certainly thinks so. In a BBC interview, Sir David said GM crops will be essential to deal with an ever-growing population and diminishing water supplies. “Have we got the technology to deliver that? Absolutely – it is called GM technology,” he said.

‘Science chief backs GM technology’

[slideshare id=32915&doc=sustainable-food-lab-6679&w=425]

Thousands of badgers will be gassed or snared if the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) gets its way. Until the 1980′s, gassing of badger setts was routinely employed as a means of controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB). British farmers and successive UK governments have long believed that TB was spread by badgers and infecting the national dairy herd. Badgers are protected in the UK by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. They may not be killed, nor their setts interfered with, except on license from the government, the only exception being for TB control.

On June 18th, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) published its Final Report, Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence, after nearly ten years work. In a press release, the ISG stated:

“… no practicable method of badger culling can reduce the incidence of cattle TB to any meaningful extent, and several culling approaches may make matters worse. The ISG also conclude that rigidly applied control measures targeted at cattle can reverse the rising incidence of disease, and halt its geographical spread”.

Despite compelling scientific evidence that badger culling is useless and in some scenarios worse than useless, and we’d be better off controlling TB through the cattle herds, the farming community is still calling for the elimination of badger populations. Although the work of gassing, snaring or shooting would have to be done under licences issued by the government, wildlife groups fear that this will be unpoliceable and result in widespread cruelty and suffering. Gassing is an indiscriminate killing method that affects many other wildlife species.

The Black and White Campaign website has more details on the issues. Please sign their online petition.

In recent weeks The Coffee House has reported on the phenomenon of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) , which has seen large-scale disappearances of honey bees across the US and lately in Europe. If the problem continues to spread, there are massive implications for crop pollination and agricultural production. New theories on the causes of CCD are put forward on a regular basis. The latest contributions to the debate suggest that modern beekeeping practices may be to blame.

Sharon Labchuk is a longtime environmental activist and part-time organic beekeeper from Prince Edward Island. In a widely circulated email, as reported by the Organic Consumers Association, she wrote:

“I’m on an organic beekeeping list of about 1,000 people, mostly Americans, and no one in the organic beekeeping world, including commercial beekeepers, is reporting colony collapse on this list. The problem with the big commercial guys is that they put pesticides in their hives to fumigate for varroa mites, and they feed antibiotics to the bees. They also haul the hives by truck all over the place to make more money with pollination services, which stresses the colonies.”

The Bush Bees web site reports that it is common practice among commercial beekeepers to run hives with cells much larger than are found in nature. Bees bred in these hives can be up to half as big again as is natural. By reverting to a ‘normal’ cell size, incidence of varroa mites has been virtually eliminated.

“Who should be surprised that the major media reports forget to tell us that the dying bees are actually hyper-bred varieties that we coax into a larger than normal body size? It sounds just like the beef industry. And have we here a solution to the vanishing bee problem?”

We’ve been pushing bees too hard, says Dr. Peter Kevan, an associate professor of environmental biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, in an interview for CBC. We’re starving them out by feeding them artificially and moving them great distances. Given the stress commercial bees are under, Kevan suggests CCD might be caused by parasitic mites, or long cold winters, or long wet springs, or pesticides, or GM crops. Maybe it’s all of the above…

Ring or Buzz? , The Vanishing Bee