Humaneness of MAFF’s Badger Despatch Procedures
4. Overview
From the sample of despatches I observed, and my discussions with MAFF staff, it is apparent that in almost all, if not all, cases the despatch procedures used meet the humane ideal of painlessly causing instant death, or permanent loss of consciousness until death.
Field staff demonstrated a very responsible, professional, skilful and humane approach to their work.
I am satisfied that welfare considerations have been taken very seriously in the planning and conduct of the despatch procedures.
The recommendations I have made, regarding despatch procedures and equipment, are aimed at making any chances of causing suffering still more remote.
It is not at all easy to think of any practical alternative techniques that could be used for despatch of trapped badgers which would be more humane than shooting.
MAFF has demonstrated a readiness to consider any suggestions and recommendations for improvements in procedures to ensure welfare, and has already acted upon a number of these (see below).
5 Summary of recommendations
5.1 A list of the recommendations from the preceding sections are presented below. The section from which they are abstracted is given in brackets.
5.2 At an early stage during the audit I recommended that provision should be made for recording the number of shots used in each despatch, so that the incidence and reasons for follow-up shots could be monitored (3.2.9).
These data are now recorded and relayed to the Veterinary Auditor
5.3 Wording in the SOP should be changed from: ‘If after 20 seconds of a shot there is any uncertainty that a badger has been killed, another shot ...must be administered’ to convey the meaning that if there is uncertainty at any time that the badger has been killed, another shot must be administered without delay (3.2.11).
5.4 Photographs of sectioned heads should be prepared and used in training and refresher courses to describe the position of the brain and the brainstem to ensure that fieldsmen know the correct location and angle of shots and understand the reason for these (3.2.15).
Such pictures have been obtained and are, I understand, now being used for teaching.
5.5 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 (3.3.9).
5.6 The checks undertaken to confirm death before the animal is removed from the trap should be repeated a few minutes later. The final confirmation of death should also include palpation to confirm cessation of heart beat (3.2.16).
5.7 Assurances should be sought from the manufacturer of the ammunition used, as to the consistency of its power (3.3.6).
I understand the manufacturers have been approached about this.
5.8 Guns capable of delivering two or more shots would be greatly preferable, so that repeat shots could be made, when necessary, without the delay of re-loading. I understand the very great importance of attention to safety but strongly urge, in view of the potential importance to welfare, that the use of two-shot guns is explored further (3.3.8).
5.9 The path of the bullet should be examined in a sample of carcases to test the hypothesis that those given follow-up shots because of recurrence of breathing were those in which the bullet did not pass through or very near the brainstem (3.5.4).
5.10 There should be a teaching session or sessions specifically on welfare considerations including: 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 (3.9.7).
5.11 For the above, the reflex body movements that occur when an animal is shot correctly should be carefully observed and documented and this information used in training (3.9.7).
I understand that, for training purposes, a video has been made.
5.12 Teaching (and examination of competence) about correct location and angle of shot would be improved by use of life-size 3-dimensional models of the target species (3.9.7).
5.13 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 (3.9.7).
5.14 The teaching of welfare aspects of despatch should be taught by a person (or persons) with appropriate expertise, and 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 (3.9.8).
5.15 Although the welfare of trapping was outside the scope of this audit, I have also made some recommendations concerning this (listed below).
5.15.1 Data on the incidence and nature of trap-related pathology should be analysed in relation to type of trap used with a view to refining trap design (3.5.2).
5.15.2 Everything possible should be done to ensure that traps are visited as early as possible in the morning, so that the time animals spend in the traps is minimised (3.6.2).
5.15.3 Provision should be made for external audit of the trapping procedures and the welfare of badgers and non-target species caught in traps (3.6.3).
5.15.4 The timing and duration of the closed season should be kept under review and audit of the welfare of trapping procedures (see above) should include assessment of the welfare impact on animals which may be dependent on those trapped (3.7.1).
5.15.5 Records of the trapping of non-target species should be reviewed regularly with a view to seeking improvements to design or operation of trapping systems where a need is indicated (3.8.2).
5.16 There should be an ethical review process for keeping under review the ‘balance’ of welfare costs (to badgers and non-target species) and the benefits of the trial (to cattle, humans and badgers), and for regular consideration of any ways in which welfare costs could be reduced (3.11.7).
I understand that the Independent Group on Cattle TB has established a system for such review.
5.17 I have suggested 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 (3.11.8).
Page last modified:
12 August 2003
Page published: 5 February 2003