Humaneness of MAFF’s Badger Despatch Procedures
3 Observations and discussion
3.1 In this section, data both from my own observations and from information provided to me by MAFF are discussed.
3.2 Badger despatch procedures
3.2.1 I accompanied a total of 11 teams of field staff on visits to trap sites (two teams on 25th May 1999, 18th January 2000 and 17th May, otherwise one on each day) and observed the badger despatches (a total of 22) made by the teams on those occasions (Tables 2 and 3).
| Date | Location | Number of despatches | Teams accompanied |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25th May 1999 | Hartland | 1 | 2 |
| 26th May 1999 | Hartland | 2 | 1 |
| 22nd Oct 1999 | Lanreath | 3 | 1 |
| 23rd Nov 1999 | Hartland | 2 | 1 |
| 30th Nov 1999 | Putford | 4 | 1 |
| 1st Dec 1999 | Putford | 2 | 1 |
| 18th Jan 2000 | Gloucestershire | 4 | 2 |
| 17th May 2000 | Wiltshire | 4 | 2 |
| Total | 22 | 11 |
3.2.2 In all these cases the location of the bullet entry and the direction of the shot were consistent with shooting through the brain and in all these cases, with the possible exception of one on the 17th May 2000, the despatches met the humane ideal of causing instant and permanent loss of consciousness until death occurred. In one case out of these twenty two, the fieldsman, on checking the animal immediately after shooting, suspected a corneal reflex and, on the basis of this, made a repeat shot. This animal showed extension of the forelimbs and immobility after the first shot and, in the opinion of the veterinary auditor who was present, was almost certainly unconscious, and likely to have died regardless of the second shot. I agree with this assessment but, in view of the suspected corneal reflex, consider that it is not possible to be certain of the complete absence of consciousness. An unconscious animal can have a corneal reflex, but it is hard to be certain of complete insensibility in the presence of this sign. Twenty one out of the twenty two were rendered instantly unconscious (as judged from immediate collapse followed by reflex movements consistent with absence of consciousness and by the absence of corneal reflex - see below) and there was no evidence that any of the animals regained consciousness before death.
3.2.3 Field staff confirmed death promptly and in accordance with the standard operating procedures (SOP) by checking the site of the bullet entry, the absence of breathing, and the absence of the corneal reflex. It should be noted, however, that defining the point of death is not entirely straightforward. In a very large majority if not all cases where the animals are shot through the brain in accordance with the SOP, the damage to this organ is likely to be consistent with permanent loss of consciousness from that moment. However, in animals in which it was possible to monitor heart beat, this was observed to continue for some minutes after shooting and, as described below, in some cases thoracic movements were observed which may, in some cases, have been due to recurrence of breathing suggesting the possibility that in some instances respiratory centres in the brainstem may have recovered to a degree following the initial stun caused by the bullet.
| Date | Area | Sex | Age | Behaviour score | Number of shots | Failure of firearm or ammunition | Injuries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25.5.99 | Hartland | M | <1yr | 4 - 5 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 26.5.99 | Hartland | M | ad | 2 | 1 | old bite wounds lower back | |
| 26.5.99 | Hartland | M | ad | 2 | 2 | none apparent | |
| 22.10.99 | Lanreath | M | ad | 2 | 1 | hair loss over left carpus | |
| 22.10.99 | Lanreath | M | ad | 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 22.10.99 | Lanreath | F | ad | 1 > 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 23.11.99 | Hartland | F | ad | 3 - 4 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 23.11.99 | Hartland | F | ad | 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 30.11.99 | Putford | F | sub-ad | 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 30.11.99 | Putford | F | sub-ad? | 1 > 2 | 2 | gun failed to fire until after adjustment | ? slight hair loss - medial carpals |
| 30.11.99 | Putford | M | sub-ad | 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 30.11.99 | Putford | F | sub-ad? | 1 > 2 | 2 | - | |
| 1.12.99 | Putford | M | ad | 3 > 4 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 1.12.99 | Putford | F | sub-ad | 3 | 1 | none apparent but animal muddy | |
| 18.1.2000 | Glos. | M | ad | 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 18.1.2000 | Glos. | M | ad | 2 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 18.1.2000 | Glos. | F | ad | 2 > 3 | 1 | none apparent | |
| 18.1.2000 | Glos. | F |
ad |
2 |
1 |
|
none apparent |
| 17.5.2000 |
Wiltshire |
M |
ad |
2 |
2 |
gun failed to fire - replacement brought |
none apparent |
| 17.5.2000 |
Wiltshire |
|
ad |
3 > 4 |
1 |
|
some abrasion dorsal snout and ventral forearms |
| 17.5.2000 |
Wiltshire |
M |
ad |
1 > 2 |
1 |
|
some hair loss on forelimbs |
| 17.5.2000 |
Wiltshire |
F |
ad |
1 > 2 |
1 |
|
none apparent |
3.2.4 In the three other cases (apart from that described in 3.2.2 above) in which a second shot was given (Table 3), this was because of a recurrence of breathing-like movements some time after the first shot (after 1 minute and 20 seconds in one case, 1 minute 21 seconds in another, and 4 minutes 40 seconds in the third case). Whether these movements were caused by recovery of some central control of respiratory function or whether they were reflex motions (last gasps) it is not possible to be certain, but I am sure that the field staffs’ decisions to shoot again were correct. The SOP requires animals to be confirmed dead before removal from the trap and, beyond specifying that ‘If after 20 seconds of a shot there is any uncertainty that a badger has been killed, another shot ...must be administered’ does not consider or provide any guidance about procedures if signs of possible recovery should recur at a later stage than this. The SOP needs to be amended in this respect as discussed below (see 3.2.11).
3.2.5 In the four cases in which a second shot was given, it appeared from observations of the site of entry and direction of the shot, that the path of the bullet may have passed through more rostral (more forward) parts of the brain. It is possible that, in these cases, although rendering the animals fully unconscious (with one possible exception), the bullet did not damage the respiratory control centres in the brainstem sufficiently to cause permanent loss of respiratory function. It seems extremely unlikely that, even if the movements observed were evidence of some recovery of respiratory control and even if another shot had not been given, the animals (again with one possible exception) could have recovered consciousness before death due to other complications of the severe brain damage and haemorrhage caused by the first shot. Nevertheless, several recommendations have been made about how the procedures could be further refined to preclude any possibility of recurrence of consciousness (see 3.2.14, 3.2.15, 3.3.9).
3.2.6 Verbal reports given to me on request by other MAFF staff presented a broadly similar picture concerning the proportion of animals shot twice. During discussions on 22nd October 1999, the Veterinary Advisor informed me that he had observed 15 despatches in the previous 2 days and that in 2 cases a second shot had been fired. At the same time, the Internal Auditor informed me that he had seen 11 despatches and in one of these cases a second shot had been fired. In all three cases in which a second shot had been fired the reason was because of signs of recurrence of breathing. The Veterinary Advisor also reported observing two other such cases but in both these cases all vital signs had ceased before a second shot had been given. In all these cases they had observed, the indications were that the animals had been rendered instantly unconscious and had not regained consciousness prior to death. On the same day, the Head of the Wildlife Unit informed me that he had observed 8 despatches in the three days from 20th to 22nd October 1999 and in three cases two shots had been fired. These internal auditors reported that they had been fully satisfied about the humaneness of all the despatches they had seen, and with the competence of the fieldsmen.
3.2.7 The reports from MAFF staff (see above: 3.2.6) indicate that in 6 out of 34 despatches observed by these internal MAFF auditing staff, at this culling site, a second shot had been given. This provides some support that the proportion I observed was not untypical and, conversely, that the proportion reported to me by the MAFF auditing staff was consistent with my observations. These reports also indicate that in 5 out of 26 despatches, recurrence of thoracic movements had been observed. This proportion is also similar to my observation of recurrence of breathing-like movements in 4 out of 18 despatches.
3.2.8 The Veterinary Auditor informed me that there was one case (at Lanreath) in which 3 shots were given. A second shot had been made because of recurrence of possible rhythmic breathing and a third after rhythmic breathing was again observed. The animal had not regained consciousness after the first shot.
3.2.9 In line with a recommendation I made following my first field visit, MAFF made provision subsequently for recording the number of shots used in each despatch so that the incidence of the need for follow-up shots and the reasons for them could be monitored.
3.2.10 In none of the 22 cases I observed was an animal mis-shot (shot outside the target area such that the bullet was unlikely to have passed through the brain) and in only one case (see 3.2.2) was there any doubt about the animal being rendered instantly unconscious. It was clear that the field staff take very great care to shoot accurately.
3.2.11 My observations (eg see 3.2.4 above) and discussions with fieldsmen and other MAFF staff during the 99/00 culling period led me to recommend some improvements to the SOP for humane despatch and to the technique used in the field. First, paragraph 9 in the section of the SOP on ‘checking that the badger is dead’ reads ‘If after 20 seconds of a shot there is any uncertainty that a badger has been killed, another shot ...must be administered’. I recommended that this should be changed to convey the meaning that if there is any uncertainty at any time that the badger has been killed, another shot must be administered without delay. This is because in the event that it should be apparent immediately that there was doubt about the efficacy of the first shot (say because the direction and position of the shot were such that the bullet may not have passed through the brain stem), then there would be no case for waiting 20 seconds, and because this advice applies equally if any doubt about the efficacy of the shot arises more than twenty seconds after the first shot.
3.2.12 As mentioned above, in a proportion of cases, evidence of return of thoracic movements was noted at some time, typically some 60-90 seconds after shooting, but sooner in the case in which the corneal reflex was noted. Data from my own observations and those from the Veterinary Advisor and Internal Auditor: see 3.2.4 to 3.2.7 above suggest this proportion was around 18% (based on 9 out of 48 cases reported in paragraph 3.2.7).
3.2.13 It is suggested above (para 3.2.5) that these observations may indicate that, in a proportion of cases, the path of the bullets did not immediately permanently disrupt the respiratory centres. Immediate irreversible disruption of the respiratory centre should be the aim so that any possibility of recurrence of breathing is precluded. It is possible that there is a tendency for a proportion of shots to pass rather too rostrally to ensure total disruption of respiratory control. The picture in the SOP showing the correct angle for the shot indicated the trajectory directed roughly towards the root of the spinal cord. It seems very likely that such a trajectory would instantly destroy respiratory control. Some shots I have observed appeared to be angled more vertically downwards and there may be a tendency, because of the difficulties imposed by shooting through the mesh of the trap of getting the optimum angle when the bullet entry is at the recommended spot, for bullets to pass further rostrally than ideal in a proportion of cases.
3.2.14 During some of the above field visits I have questioned fieldsmen about where they aim to place their shots. I understood from three to whom I spoke (all experienced individuals) that they preferred to aim further caudal (towards the back of the head) than the SOP indicates. One of these fieldsmen said that there was consensus among experienced fieldsmen to shoot thus. He considered that the bullet entry site indicated by the SOP was alright if the correct angle for the shot could also be achieved but that, if this angle could not be achieved because of the constraints of shooting through the mesh of the trap and the position of the badgers head, it was better to place the more vertical shot a little further caudally. Consistent with this, all the shots that I saw that appeared to be placed slightly caudal to that defined in the SOP, and directed more vertically, appeared to kill instantly and in none of these cases was there return of breathing-like movements.
3.2.15 I have suggested that illustrations of sectioned heads be obtained and used in training to describe accurately the position of the brain and the brainstem (the region which, among other things, controls respiratory function), to ensure that fieldsmen know the correct location and angle of shots, and understand the reason for these (see 3.9.1). Such pictures have been obtained and are, I understand, now being used for teaching. They should be used in refresher courses or seminars also.
3.2.16 The SOP lists fourchecks for confirmation of death: correct placement of shot assessed by the bullet entry position, absence of rhythmic breathing, absence of a corneal reflex, and dilation of the pupil (if it can be seen). However, it is perhaps possible that an animal could show the latter three signs initially but then recover to some extent if, for example, a sub-optimally placed shot resulted in an effective stun causing a deep level of anaesthesia but did not cause immediately fatal brain injury. Any risk that this could occur as a consequence of misinterpreting a deep level of anaesthesia as death, could be precluded by requiring that the checks undertaken to confirm death before the animal is removed from the trap, are repeated a few minutes later. The final confirmation should include also palpation to confirm cessation of heart beat.
3.3 Firearms and ammunition
3.3.1 The firearm used is an adapted single shot 0.22 target pistol which is fitted with a sound moderator. The ammunition is 0.22, 45-grain, low velocity, hollow-nosed, rim-fire bullets. Since the early 80s this has been the main equipment in use and it has been the only equipment in use from around the mid-80s onwards. The observations above indicate that, when used and functioning correctly, the equipment currently used is effective for the humane despatch of trapped badgers. The use of more destructive and/or repeat shot firearms would provide a greater degree of confidence and would be likely to provide a greater margin for operator error without the risk of compromising welfare. I understand that during the 80s various other firearms and ammunition were used and the present equipment came to be selected on the basis of its efficacy but also taking into consideration safety and quietness. The use of revolvers ceased for safety reasons around the mid 80s and also during the 80s the use of high velocity rounds ceased because of the danger of ricochets from bullets exiting the carcases. The use of .410 shotguns was also discontinued by the mid 80s because of concerns of possible human infection from shooting TB-infected badgers at close range and also because of the loud volume of the shots.
3.3.2 In one case out of the 22 badger despatches I observed the gun failed to fire until after the fieldsman had made some adjustment. In another case, a replacement gun had to be delivered because of failure to fire. The week the latter occurred (in May 2000), 4 gun failures were reported. This unusually high incidence of firearm failures was investigated promptly. The guns were examined by a gunsmith who advised that in 3 cases the problem was due to solidification of excess grease (applied during annual inspections) but in one case a round had failed to fire. However, I understand (see below), that generally the guns and ammunition used have a high-degree of reliability.
3.3.3 MAFF records the occurrence of both ammunition and gun failures. The data indicate that in 1999 there were 4 misfires (ammunition failures in which the bullets did not fire) out of a total of 844 shots fired by the team based at the centre of operations in the West Country. This total comprised all the shots fired during culls at Hartland, Putford, and Lanreath and also those used on ranges for practice. The corresponding statistic for the 1999 year recorded for the Ashton Down team was 1 misfire out of 115 shots (all of which were practice shots). These figures indicate an overall ammunition failure rate of 5/959, that is about 0.5%.
3.3.4 The Veterinary Advisor informed me that there was one case of a firearm jamming during 1999 and in this case the team involved promptly obtained a replacement weapon from a supervisor.
3.3.5 Field staff are responsible for the day to day maintenance of their firearms and for reporting any problems. Each firearm is individually numbered and all are sent to a gunsmith annually for routine maintenance and checks, and immediately if any problems occur.
3.3.6 One experienced fieldsman, when asked if he felt there were any improvements to be made to the firearm equipment, commented, if I understood him correctly, that occasional rounds lacked the ideal power, especially for large boars. I understood that his concerns were not that shots failed to render the animals immediately insensible but that occasional rounds might lack sufficient power for a one-shot kill. This view was not supported by the responses to questions addressed subsequently to other experienced field staff and, although it is possible that inadequate penetrative power could be a factor in some cases of suspected return to breathing, an alternative explanation is variation in bullet trajectory. Both factors may be important. I have recommended that assurances be sought from the manufacturer of the ammunition used as to the consistency of its power and also that a sample of heads be examined at post mortem to determine the path of the bullets (see 3.5.4).
3.3.7 There is a problem with the use of a single-shot firearm in that a repeat shot cannot be delivered immediately if the first was mis-placed (as could conceivably happen if an animal should move just as the trigger is squeezed) or if there are any doubts about complete absence of consciousness. A demonstration by an experienced fieldsman asked to prepare a gun for a shot as quickly as possible revealed that it takes about 20 seconds to do this.
3.3.8 Guns capable of delivering two or more shots would avoid a 20 or more second inter-shot interval if (as in the corneal reflex case) such an incident occurs. I strongly recommended to MAFF that repeat-shot guns should be used but have been advised that MAFF’s Security Officer, the State Veterinary Service Health and Safety Officer and the police are all in agreement that they would not approve the use of repeater firearms and that such safety issues are of major importance given the protest activity commonly faced by Wildlife Unit staff. I understand the very great importance of attention to safety but urge again, in view of the potential importance to welfare, that the use of two-shot guns is explored further. I believe that there are guns with separate magazine clips that can be engineered to take two rounds. These would allow gun and magazine to be kept separately at all times except when in use.
3.3.9 If, despite measures for more precise placement of shots, there should be further cases in which return to breathing is suspected, I strongly recommend that MAFF should look again at the use of more destructive firearms (eg double-barrelled .410 shotguns, or guns firing higher calibre or higher velocity rounds), and at ways of dealing with any health and safety issues, noise, or other disadvantages that might be associated with these; or if there is no way forward here, look at ways of stopping the heart or preventing circulation to the brain after shooting.
3.4 Trap injuries
3.4.1Although the humaneness of the trapping technique was outside the remit of this audit of the despatch procedure, an attempt was made on field visits to look for and note any injuries on the carcases post-despatch, which may have been caused by the traps. Injuries or possible injuries related to trapping were noted in 4 of the 18 animals I observed. Three had some hair loss with or without superficial abrasion on forelimbs, consistent with repeated scrabbling with that limb through the mesh of the trap and one animal had similar signs on the snout. Another animal was noted to have old wounds over the lower back consistent with badger bites (and unrelated to trapping). However, there is neither time nor facilities for careful examination of carcases post-despatch in the field and this task is better done at the time of the autopsy (see below).
3.5 Post mortem examinations
3.5.1 The day I observed post mortem examinations of despatched badgers, a new protocol was being used which required inspection for and recording of trap-related injuries. Such injuries had not been recorded before. Of the two animals examined, one (a non-pregnant, non-lactating sow) had hair loss and superficial erosion of the skin in dorsal and medial aspects of the left carpus, some hair loss at these sites on the right carpus, and also some abrasion of the dorsal surface of the snout. These lesions were consistent with protrusion through and rubbing on the mesh of the trap.
3.5.2 No such lesions were seen on the second animal (a boar) but I gathered that they are not uncommon in culled badgers. Although these lesions were not related to the actual despatch procedure, I drew attention to their occurrence, in case it is possible to take further steps to minimise the time between capture and despatch, or to improve trap design to reduce the chance of such injuries. I gather that there is some variation in the design of traps used and have suggested that prevalence of skin lesions or any other trap-related pathology should be compared between trap types and that this information should be used in selection of optimal trap design.
3.5.3 In the first of the two autopsies described above, the bullet was observed to have come to rest just under the skin in the midline just rostral to the larynx. In the second, the bullet lay just dorsal to the larynx. These positions suggest the angle of the shot was more vertical than that shown in the SOP. These soft-nosed bullets showed considerable mushrooming distortion and must clearly have caused massive trauma as they passed through the brain. I think it is safe to assume that this would have been associated with instantaneous and almost certainly irreversible loss of consciousness.
3.5.4 I have recommended that the path of the bullet through the brain should be checked in a sample of carcases to test the hypothesis that, in cases in which a follow up shot was needed because of the recurrence of breathing movements, the bullet may have passed further from the brainstem than in cases in which no follow-up shot was required.
3.5.5 It has not been possible to observe further post mortem examinations since carcase examinations were then suspended pending modifications to post mortem investigation facilities.
3.5.6 When the autopsies are undertaken, data on trap-related injuries will, I understand, be sent both to the Veterinary Advisor and the Data Manager for the trial. New recording forms are being produced to improve the structure of data reported on trap-related pathology. Because of the suspension of autopsies, no data are available at present.
3.6 Behaviour of trapped badgers
3.6.1 An attempt was made to score the intensity of activity of trapped badgers from when they were approached to the point when they were shot. On approach, most animals appeared remarkably calm and some appeared to be asleep (Table 3). In some cases earth was scratched away around the outside of the trap indicating that, although calm on approach, the animals had been active for some time after capture.
3.6.2 It is not unreasonable to suppose that being trapped is a greater welfare insult than the despatch procedure. Trapping may cause fear, discomfort, frustration, injury and stress over a period of several hours, whilst the despatch procedure renders animals immediately insensible. In many cases, badgers appeared to be asleep whilst approached by field staff and until a very few moments before being shot. The welfare of the trapping was outside the scope of this audit but nevertheless a recommendation was made that everything possible should continue to be done to ensure that traps are visited as early as possible in the morning, so that time spent in the traps is minimised. The field staff I discussed this with were noted to be conscientious about this matter.
3.6.3 I recommend that provision should be made for external audit of the trapping procedures and the welfare of badgers and non-target species caught in traps.
3.7 Capture of lactating female badgers
3.7.1 The sow badger that I saw trapped on 17th May 2000 was lactating. The SOP establishes a closed season between 1st February and 30th April (inclusive) when badgers are not trapped in order to minimise the risk of killing lactating sows with dependent cubs underground. The timing and duration of the closed season should be kept under close review in the light of data on the dates of capture of lactating sows. Audit of the welfare of trapping procedures (see above - 3.6.3) should include assessment of the welfare impact on animals which may be dependent on those trapped.
3.8 Non-target species
3.8.1 The humane killing or release of a total of 6 non-target animals was observed: 3 rooks, 1 pheasant and 2 grey squirrels (Table 4). Of these, one (rook) was found dead in the trap; two (a squirrel and a rook - Table 4) were judged by the field staff, correctly in my view, to be unfit for release and were humanely despatched each with a blow to the back of the head. The other three (rook, squirrel and pheasant) were apparently unharmed and, in accordance with the SOP, which requires that all non-target species should be released as quickly as possible provided they are not injured to an extent that would make it inhumane to release them, were promptly freed.
3.8.2 Records of catches of non-target animals are kept. I have recommended that, if not in place already, there should be some system for regular review of these results with a view to seeking improvements to design or operation of trapping systems where a need is indicated.
| Date | Area | Species | Condition when found in trap | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.5.99 | Hartland | Rook | Dead | Dead |
| 26.5.99 | Hartland | Rook | Alive (in same trap as above) but on release found to be unable to fly. It had had the trap string tangled around a leg. | Humanely despatched with a blow to the head |
| 26.5.99 | Hartland | Rook | Unharmed (in same trap as above) | Released and flew off |
| 23.11.99 | Hartland | Pheasant | Unharmed | Released |
| 30.11.99 | Putford | Grey squirrel | Unharmed | Released |
| 1.12.99 | Putford | Grey Squirrel | Injury to nose | Humanely despatched with blow to head. |
3.9 Staff training and examination in humane despatch
3.9.1 At the time of my visit to the regional centre in the West Country (15th September 1999), to learn about staff training and to attend trainee examinations, the elements of the training programme relevant to humane despatch included the following:
- teaching and training about firearms and ammunition;
- teaching and training in the correct use of firearms;
- teaching, using badger skulls and photographs, about correct positioning and angle of shots;
- teaching about humane despatch of non-target species;
- teaching about methods for confirmation of death.
3.9.2 The programme for the trainee field staff included attendance at a 5-day external course on the use of firearms which was supplemented, I gathered, by a further two weeks in- house training and firearms practice. At that time, approximately two days of the latter training was relevant to humane despatch (although there was no lecture specifically on the subject of humane despatch, as opposed to what might be called the efficiency of the procedures) and it involved small-group teaching using badger skulls and photographs as teaching aids. Trainee field staff are issued with the SOP documents for humane despatch at an early stage in their training.
3.9.3 Following this period of training, field staff are given an oral and practical test to assess their understanding and competence in the safe and humane use of firearms. The latter is assessed through questions in the oral exam on the following:
- identification of appropriate and inappropriate ammunition for humane despatch;
- the rationale for the properties of the ammunition used;
- procedure in case of a misfire;
- correct assembly and procedures for checking gun;
- correct positioning and angle of shot (using photographs);
- procedures for confirming death;
- procedures for repeat shot if death not confirmed.
3.9.4 The oral examination of each candidate lasted for about 20 minutes. It was run to a standard form and using a standard list of questions. Candidates were interviewed individually by the Head of the Wildlife Unit, and the Firearms Officer for the West Country centre of operations was in attendance. These two conferred after each candidate had been interviewed to reach a decision as to whether the candidate’s performance had been satisfactory. The second part of the exam involved candidates demonstrating practical competence in the handling and use of firearms and their ability to follow the correct procedures for humane despatch (by demonstrating procedures using an empty trap and a photograph of a badger’s head).
3.9.5 At the examinations I attended, 3 out of 4 candidates passed the oral part of the test, and 1 of 2 passed the practical. Those who failed to satisfy the examiners were referred with instructions about particular areas in which they needed to improve their knowledge or competence. In my opinion the examiners’ decisions were correct in all these cases.
3.9.6 After passing these examinations, trainee field staff have to demonstrate their competence by carrying out three humane despatches whilst under the observation of the Head of the Wildlife Unit or one of his deputies, before they are ‘signed off’ to undertake further despatches without supervision. Trainees are teamed with experienced field staff whilst gaining experience in this part of their work. The overview of field staff by the Veterinary Advisors and Internal Auditors provides a system for periodical re-assessment.
3.9.7 Arising from my observations and/or discussions with MAFF staff about training and examination procedures, I made several suggestions for minor improvements in these areas and these are listed below.
(i) That there would be advantage in having a teaching session or sessions specifically on humaneness. At the time of my enquiries, this subject was taught in amongst other aspects of firearms use. Inclusion of a teaching module on ‘Humaneness of despatch’ would help emphasise to trainee field staff the particular importance of this subject. In such a module, the minds of both teachers and trainees would be focussed on the issues relevant to humane despatch, and the various aspects of humane despatch that are at present covered in a more diffuse way during the training period, could be drawn together.
(ii) That it would be beneficial to set out in a formal way, the points to be covered in this part of the course and I recommended that these should include:
- principles of humane despatch using free bullet firearms
- the distinction between stunning and killing
- responses of animal when shot correctly*
- likely signs following an incorrectly placed shot
- signs of death and their recognition
- the SOP for despatch
(* I recommended that if this had not been recorded and documented, it should be)
(iii) That teaching (and examination of competence) about correct location and angle of shot would be facilitated by use of life-size 3-dimensional models of the target species. The limitation of the use of skulls for this purpose is that it is not easy to relate their features to external features (position of ears and eyes) and the limitation of photographs is that angles of shot cannot be readily demonstrated. At present, a photograph of a head on view is used in the practical exam and it is not possible to accurately judge the correct angle of shot using this.
(iv) That questions should be included in both oral and practical examinations on assessing fitness for release, dealing with, and humane despatch of, trapped non-target species. These subjects were not included in the exams at the time of my visit.
3.9.8 Following discussion about these points at our meeting at Tolworth on Friday 12th November, the Veterinary Advisor asked me if I believed that the aspects of the training course covering humane despatch would be best delivered by a veterinarian. My response was that this part of the course should be taught by a person (or persons) with appropriate expertise, and that a veterinary background would be likely to be an advantage at least for teaching those parts concerning the anatomical and physiological principles and the signs and checks of death.
3.10 Conduct of staff
3.10.1The field staff responsible for humane despatch of badgers (and when necessary other trapped animals) were well-aware that this task required great care. All those I met had an impressively professional and responsible attitude to making sure it was done humanely.
3.11 Management and internal auditing structures
3.11.1 MAFF has an internal system for monitoring the humaneness of the despatch procedures. The basic reporting structure for matters relevant to humaneness is: Field staff > Field Supervisors >Head of Unit > National Trials Manager. The person with overall responsibility for monitoring humaneness is the Veterinary Advisor, and the National Trials Manager informs the Veterinary Advisor of any concerns that his staff may raise. The Veterinary Advisor also makes visits to trial areas to inspect trapping and despatch procedures, and to discuss these with field staff first hand.
3.11.2 Debriefing meetings are held after each cull at which field staff can raise any concerns about procedures. In response to my recommendation that humaneness should be addressed specifically during training, I understand a new lecture has been included and, in this, field staff are instructed about the importance of feedback of any concerns regarding the humaneness of the trapping and despatch procedures.
3.11.3 Records of misfires are collected and sent to the Veterinary Advisor and records of the number of shots are entered on each carcase label. The latter information goes, with the carcase, to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and is also sent via the regional centre to both the Data Manager and to the Veterinary Advisor. As mentioned above, a system has recently been put in place requiring the Internal Auditors to investigate the circumstances of any repeat shots and report on this to the Veterinary Advisor.
3.11.4 Any cases of non-compliance with SOP that come to the attention of the Internal Auditors are reported in writing to the Heads of Unit and copied to the National Trials Manager and, if these are relevant to welfare, also to the Veterinary Advisor.
3.11.5 Records of trap-related injuries collected at autopsy are sent to both the Data Manager and also to the Veterinary Advisor.
3.11.6 The Veterinary Advisor reports on these issues to the National Trials Manager and in discussion with this person and others, gives consideration to changing the SOPs where indicated. Wider consultations are made where necessary both within and outside MAFF. There is also a nominated Veterinary Advisor to the trial in the Animal Welfare Division of MAFF who is informed of any welfare issues and from whom comment is invited.
3.11.7 Reports from the National Trials Manager, the Veterinary Advisor and the external auditor on matters pertaining to humaneness of the trial procedures are relayed to the Independent Group on Cattle TB, which is overseeing all aspects of the trial. I suggested that it would be advantageous for there to be an ethical review process specifically for keeping under review the ‘balance’ of welfare costs (to badgers and non-target species) and benefits (to cattle, badgers and humans) of the trial, and for regular consideration, in the light of new information yielded by the trial and the systems in place for humaneness auditing, of any ways in which welfare costs could be reduced (eg by looking for opportunities to further reduce the number of animals that need to be trapped, or by refining the capture and despatch techniques). It is clear that these matters have been very carefully considered and widely scrutinised in the setting up of the trial. Such ethical review processes are required for all research carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and, although this trial is exempt from this Act, there seems no reason why the principle of undertaking specific ethical review of welfare aspects is any less relevant here. I understand that a system for such review is now in place.
3.11.8 I suggest that, where difficult or contentious issues arise in relation to the humaneness of trapping and despatch, MAFF should consider organising expert workshops at which approaches to these issues could be discussed.
On to Overview 
Page last modified:
12 August 2003
Page published: 5 February 2003