Is There Negative Local Authority Kick-back On Wildlife Work? YES

 I was asked if I wasn't worried that I might get kick-back from the council over what I do?

I have had the council harassing me for years and since I started the Fox Deaths Project (which Bristol City Council stated they would assist in) and rodenticide use was mentioned...and the council allowing people on its allotments to use rodenticide despite other tenant complaints I have certainly had "kick-back".

Since I started on the wildlife corridors the harassment has picked up. Of course, nothing in writing but utter silence on every issue and a sudden "we need to remind you of your tenancy agreement" and not one single outstanding repair has been carried out in 7 years....?

About 8 years ago, after I made a formal complaint about council contractors ripping up a roadside hedgerow that had nesting birds in it as well as destroying crow nests in trees, two council officials (one was head of the department) visited and told me that every tree in my garden would need cutting down and that where I lived was "due for demolition in the next three years" anyway. The "nasty one" was trying to intimidate with aggressive pointing at me and raising his voice until I explained that he had better lower his tone and explained where I would be placing his finger if he continued..oh, and flower pots in the garden were a health and safety issue so needed removal. Long story short I got a full written apology from head of estate management over their harassing behaviour and pointing out that everything they had said was untrue.

A month later they tried it again. Pro wildlife and conservation has made me an enemy of the council since the 1990s so I get used to it! But we should be working together but those lucrative contracts....

I was once told that two badges I wear "will get you in trouble one day!"

Too late

I mention all of this as I think it worth showing how nasty Bristol City Council ("champions for the environment") can get and the dirty tricks they employ and get away with -like promising to leave green spaces alone and then trying to slip through construction on those sites -money talks.

Oh and because I used to be handed sick and injured pigeons the anti-wildlife folk left little messages. A dead crow one time and this at my front gate one morning

Here is what Danic Priest wrote on the Change.org petition:

Yew Tree Farm is Bristol’s last working farm and a designated site of nature conservation interest. Sadly on Thursday February 22nd, contractors have ravaged the landscape, slashing through ancient hedgerows and trampling species-rich meadows. The desecration witnessed is an affront to nature. This wildlife haven faces further desecration as Bristol City Council plows forward with plans to extend the South Bristol Cemetery onto these protected fields.

 Despite the outcry from Avon Wildlife Trust and the discovery of dormice, a legally protected species, the relentless march of destruction persists. 

We stand at a crossroads where the preservation of Yew Tree Farm's ecological tapestry hangs in the balance. Join us in demanding an immediate stop to the wanton destruction of Yew Tree Farm before more irreparable harm befalls this natural treasure.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-destruction-of-yew-tree-farm

Do not expect an easy ride if you get into wildlife work and always expect more negative than positive.

Anti-worm drug used by farmers on livestock detected in Scottish red foxes, Vulpes vulpes

I've waited for a response to some questions I asked about this report (September 2023)but I just ain't important enough to talk to! Farmers moan and groan about how various (natural) wildlife 'affect' them but no one bothers with what farmers are doing top wildlife.

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/anti-worm-drug-used-farmers-livestock-detected-scottish-red-foxes-vulpes-vulpes-2023-09-07_en

Issue 608: Red foxes are ingesting closantel, a veterinary drug. A study suggests that it is useful to monitor red foxes for veterinary residues in the environment as they are at risk of developing drug-resistant parasites.

Contamination of the environment by veterinary medicines is a concern because of its impact on wild animals and because of the possible development of drug-resistant parasites. At present there is a lack of information on the residues of veterinary drugs in wildlife, as only birds of prey are used to monitor levels of environmental contamination.

Wildlife found dead in the UK are usually collected and examined for sources of poisoning, such as pesticides. Birds of prey, due to their position in the food chain and conservation importance, are frequently the subject of these examinations. However, collecting poisoned animals introduces a significant sampling bias, and the true extent of a toxic pollutant in the environment may not be known. Additional monitoring of species that are abundant in the environment, sampled using a less biased approach, could provide useful additional information about environmental chemical exposure.

The researchers of this study chose to focus on foxes as the sentinel species for monitoring veterinary drug residues, as they are culled for pest control, making carcasses readily available. In addition, the researchers suggest that the varied diet of the European red fox, a top predator occupying a diverse range of habitats, exposes them to many toxic substances.

Environmental pollution by pharmaceuticals, including veterinary medicines, is an emerging global threat, which is being considered as a policy issue under the UN’s Strategic Approach to International Chemical Managemen 

(SAICM). The European Commission also views the pollution of waters and soils with pharmaceutical residues as an emerging environmental problem, and endorses a ‘One Health’ strategy to address global health challenges, acknowledging the deep interconnectedness of animal, environmental and human health.

Monitoring wildlife for environmental veterinary medicine residues enables contamination routes to be investigated to mitigate impacts and reduce the risk of parasites developing drug resistance.

The researchers took tissue samples from 118 livers of foxes shot for pest control purposes, between 2014 and 2019. The liver samples were analysed for the presence of 18 veterinary medicines, including 16 anthelmintic – anti-worm – agents and two metabolites used on farm livestock. closantel, an anthelmintic drug, was detected in 18 of the fox samples tested, with concentrations ranging from 6.5 micrograms per kilogram (μgkg−1) to 1 383 μgkg−1.  However, most samples containing the drug ranged from 20 < 100 μgkg−1.

The researchers highlight that the frequency (over 15%) and level of closantel drug residue found in the liver samples raises concerns about the method of the foxes’ exposure, as well as the impact on wild animals and the environment. A number of potential routes for foxes to ingest the drug were discussed in the study, including eating treated livestock, eating the faeces of treated herbivores, eating contaminated rodents, or drinking water containing the drug or the urine of a treated animal.

The researchers note that the levels of drugs they found in Scottish foxes varied greatly, which could be related to the time since ingestion, but also to the amount of the drug initially ingested. Some foxes may benefit from the drug treating parasites within them, suggest the researchers; however, an exposure to low levels of the drug could lead to parasites becoming resistant to closantel.

Parasite resistance to closantel, the researchers note, is not currently widely recorded, but has been detected in Barber’s pole worm (Haemonchus contortus) and liver fluke (Fasciola hepatica). The fact that foxes are being contaminated may also indicate that other species are being exposed to this drug.

The study concludes that the contamination pathway of closantel and its impact on foxes, other wildlife and the environment warrants further investigation. Meanwhile, foxes may be considered for use in future monitoring to improve risk assessment of veterinary drugs on wildlife.

Further Information:

1. The EU Veterinary medicines Directive 2001/82/EC requires monitoring of veterinary residues in live animals and animal products that are food items. However, environmental risk assessments (ERA) presently don’t consider metabolites of veterinary drugs, and the persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) test may not be triggered for all new products, meaning that longer term environmental effects could be missed1. The high-profile case of veterinary drug diclofenac potentially poisoning rare European vultures and eagles if they consume treated cow carcasses, flagged the risk that veterinary drug residues can pose to wildlife in Europe.

Footnotes:

1. See: Lyons, G. (2014) Pharmaceuticals in the environment: A growing threat to our tap water and wildlife. A CHEM Trust report. Available from: https://www.chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/CHEM-Trust-Pharma-Dec14.pdf

Source:

Giergiel, M., Campbell, S., Giela, A., Sharp, E., Casali, F., Śniegocki, T., Sell, B., and Jedziniak, P. (2023). Residues of an anthelmintic veterinary drug (closantel) detected in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Scotland. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 253: 114651. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114651

To cite this article/service:“Science for Environment Policy”: European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service, edited by the Science Communication Unit, The University of the West of England, Bristol.

Notes on content:

The contents and views included in Science for Environment Policy are based on independent, peer reviewed research and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission. Please note that this article is a summary of only one study. Other studies may come to other conclusions.

Details

Publication date

7 September 2023

Author

Directorate-General for Environment

EU Environment newsletter

Three Times Ignored By Ecological Warriors of Bristol City Council and the Mayor so... Update 13 03 2024

I have to report that while the City Mayor and council are trying to snatch up green spaces and allowing or instructing its contractors to carry out environmental damage, neither has had the time to respond to four emails and thus reveal themselves to not be interested in the environment.

It seems contractor money and wildlife habitat destruction is how Mr Rees and the current Labour council will be remembered. Greed over rides financial rewards.

*******************************************************************

 sent Mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees 25 02 2024

Hello.

I contacted your office re the above in January and at the beginning of this month since Bristol City Council is allegedly taking a lead in environment problems and that large mammals, a vital part of the ecosystem of the City, are dying at an alarming rate on our roads would, I thought, have been a matter at least worthy of a polite response rather than simple automatic "message received" emails.

We are having badgers -a protected species as well as otters, a protected species, and foxes which even the British Trust for Ornithology believe should now be Red Listed dying daily. Three otters since January, 4 badgers and 44 foxes. 

I would at least expect a considered reply to my original email and as a voter surely my elected representatives should respond?  Bristol City Council has bragged about its ecological stance and in this matter it could make a difference but it seems totally disinterested.

Would you please consider what I wrote and respond along with any thoughts on t6he matter of over and under passes for wildlife on our roads?

Signed

Terry Hooper-Scharf

 

Farmers breached bovine TB rules -psst! Let's blame the badgers!

 Remember when farmers violated foot and mouth regulations and BSE regulations/restrictions. bTB outbreak? Blame the badgers...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vj3x9532vo

IMAGE SOURCE,STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Image caption,

The three farmers breached cattle identification and movement rules aimed at preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis

Richard Price

BBC News, West Midlands

Published
23 February 2024

Eleven farms were placed under restrictions after three men breached rules aimed at preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis.

The three farmers have been given suspended prison sentences after the farms were told they could not move animals until officials were satisfied they were clear from the disease, Staffordshire County Council said.

Sean Landy, 48, from Madeley, pleaded guilty to three charges of fraud and dishonestly stating his cattle had been tested prior to being sold at cattle markets.

Mark Oulton, 53, from Barthomley Road, Audley, and Christopher Armstrong, 46, of Limekiln Farm, Kidsgrove, both pleaded guilty to failing to report cattle movements and the deaths of cattle.

Animal health officers said Oulton and Armstrong moved cattle on multiple dates throughout 2020, without completing the necessary records.

They each had cattle at Pear Tree Farm in Audley – which was previously farmed by Landy.

Landy had vacated the farm earlier in the year and had sold his cattle via three livestock markets across England and Wales, according to the council.

They said Landy gave false dates, and stated the animals had tested negative for bovine tuberculosis, when in fact the tests had never taken place.

IMAGE SOURCE,STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Image caption,

Disease control restrictions were put in place at 11 farms as a result of the men's actions

At their sentencing on Thursday at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, Landy was given a 14-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £1,355.

He was also ordered to undertake 100 hours unpaid work and to pay 11 farmers £200 each in compensation for losses they had been exposed to as a result of his actions.

Oulton was sentenced to 48 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.

He was also placed under a curfew for 26 weeks between the hours of 9pm and 5am.

Armstrong was sentenced to 58 weeks in prison, suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.

Victoria Wilson, cabinet member with responsibility for trading standards, said: “Animal diseases such as bovine tuberculosis cost farmers and taxpayers huge amounts of money and can have a devastating effect on herds that have been built up over many generations.

“Landy’s actions were reckless and it is only right that those farmers affected by his decision to move cattle without the required tests are compensated."

Hepatitis In Wild Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) A Brief Note

  I was putting this together just as news that one fox has just been put down after contracting hepatitis. In the UK canine hepatitis  in dogs can be a severe disease, and whilst most dogs will recover, the fatality rate can be as high as 30%. Unvaccinated and young puppies have the highest risk, which is why it's so important to vaccinate your dog from an early age.

Vet Rec

. 2016 Apr 23;178(17):421. doi: 10.1136/vr.103559. Epub 2016 Mar 21.

Infectious canine hepatitis in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in wildlife rescue centres in the UK

D Walker , E Abbondati , A L Cox , G B B Mitchell , R Pizzi , C P Sharp , A W Philbey

"Outbreaks of infectious canine hepatitis are described in red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes) at two wildlife rescue centres in the UK. Disease occurred in two-month-old to four-month-old juvenile foxes, which were held in small enclosures in groups of three to eight animals. The foxes died or were euthanased after a short clinical course, sometimes including neurological signs and jaundice, with a high case fatality rate.

"Four red foxes submitted for postmortem examination had enlarged, congested livers, with rounded borders and mild accentuation of the lobular pattern.

"On histological examination, there was random, multifocal to massive hepatic necrosis, along with multifocal vasculitis in the central nervous system (CNS) and mild, multifocal glomerulonephritis.

"Intranuclear inclusion bodies, typical of canine adenovirus type 1 (CAV-1) infection, were present in hepatocytes, vascular endothelial cells in the CNS, renal glomeruli and renal tubular epithelial cells. CAV-1 was detected in tissues from affected foxes by PCR and sequencing.

"Congregation of juvenile foxes in wildlife rescue centres is likely to be a risk factor for transmission of CAV-1. Preventive measures in wildlife centres should be implemented to prevent the spread of the virus among conspecifics and to other susceptible species."

And in 2010 paper:

Infectious canine hepatitis in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the United Kingdom

H Thompson 1, A M O'Keeffe, J C M Lewis, L R Stocker, M K Laurenson, A W Philbey

Affiliations expand

PMID: 20097890 DOI: 10.1136/vr.b4763

Abstract:"The pathological findings are described in three cases of infectious canine hepatitis in free-ranging red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in England. The foxes died after short periods of clinical illness. Mild jaundice and hepatic congestion were evident grossly. On histopathological examination, intranuclear inclusion bodies were visible in hepatocytes, in association with hepatocyte dissociation and necrosis, as well as in renal glomeruli, renal tubular epithelial cells and vascular endothelial cells.

"Canine adenovirus type 1 (CAV-1) was isolated from all three foxes.

"In a serological study, antibodies to CAV-1 were detected in tissue fluid extracts taken from 11 of 58 (19 per cent) frozen red fox carcases from England and Scotland."

Image taken from Naturally Acquired Infectious Canine Hepatitis in Two Captive Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) Puppies Journal of Comparative Pathology Volume 186, July 2021, Pages 62-68

While the Bristol Fox Deaths Project has so far not encountered cases of adenovirus (“running rampant in UK foxes” -but not in one of 60+ foxes we have submitted) we have found babesia, leptospirosis and various other health issues. Although the two rescue outbreaks were in Kent the recent one reported to me is in Scotland.  It will be interesting to see whether anything similar  occurs and that is if anyone lets us know!

Badger Survey? Not For Me

 It seems that I need to make my as well as a few others' decision to not take part in the Badger Trust Survey to find setts.  

Firstly, I have nothing personal against the Trust but being honest they have pushed for an end to the badger cull and many other things and I have signed their petitions and...nothing. I know after over forty years that you can have a petition signed to overflowing and the response will be that "The House has a full roster of items for this Parliamentary session" and the rest of the response is that the petition will be considered later. That is, to put it crudely, a "piss off not interested".

You can get anti-snaring, anti-trail hunting and anything else fully signed or even thousands more signatures than required and the same thing.  They did the same with the Brexit petition which has still never been discussed and neither has the anti-snaring petition and numerous others. It's a joke.

I am not a member of the Badger Trust because I do not feel the need to pay £50 to be registered so that I and the Bristol Badger Group can go on doing what it has been doing since 1994 but be placed on a member group map.

When it comes to a national survey to list badger setts I refuse to take part. Again, I have no idea who would handle the data gathered and saying everyone must sign a non Disclosure agreement means nothing. Who handles and collates and puts the data on computer? Who sees the data because if you state fact you will need to back it up and that means disclosing information. As a signee of the PAWS -Partners Against Wildlife Crime- I saw how that was twisted and changed whenever DEFRA felt like it. The one reason I signed off of it was because I was told "You give us copies of all your records, maps and other data or else"

There is no such thing as 100% security and although it would be interesting to see what remains of badgers in England it would also highlight how many badgers/setts there are and that is useful to the cull -read the various posts on this blog about that.

After forty years I can tell anyone interested that wildlife conservation is a war. We are seeing 200,000 foxes and badgers killed on the road each year and you'll find a blog post about wildlife road deaths: We know that there are shooters that kill many foxes

https://foxwildcatwolverineproject.blogspot.com/2024/01/how-many-animals-killed-on-uk-roads.html

We know that there are shooters that kill many foxes and other wildlife (including badgers) for 'fun' each week. We know there is snaring going on. And much more. Even the British Trust for Ornithology have stated that foxes may need to be Red Listed. 

I keep a rough location of badger setts in case a lactating sow is found dead and cubs need to be rescued and that information is given to me under strict confidentiality and trust and that is important -far more important than a survey that I know other badger people will not take part in.

Until the cull stops and full protection is given to badgers I do not intend to even roughly outline where a sett is. Snaring was made illegal in Wales but it is still going on. To me the safety of wildlife is far more important and that is why I do not cooperate with these things.

Badgers and foxes are heading for extinction, otters are being killed and we are fighting without the support of the public where 52,000 sign a petition to rescue a 'lonely sheep' while the death of 250,000 badgers does not get an eye lash to move.

Wildlife Over/Underpasses -Should we just ignore all the dying wildlife?

 

On a more local matter although the road deaths issue is national. Another badger and another fox death on the black spot known as Hick's Gate.

I have sent a response to Dan Norris's email:

"Hello.

"Thank you for your response.

"I have today received another fox and badger death report from the Hicks Gate stretch of road. The current number of foxes listed killed so far this year is 41 -in the start of cub season so vixens dying results in cubs dying. We have four badger deaths and, again, in cub season.

"People looking at the “issues” is fine but it calls for action as 250,000 badgers have already been culled in the UK and 100,000 per year are killed on the roads and even the British Trust for Ornithology is calling for the fox to be Red Listed now as it suffers similar road deaths each year as well as ‘sport’ shooting and snaring. The financial cost of wildlife corridors should not be the stumbling block. Species extinction is the problem and if we can help by even reducing road deaths then the environment and eco system reliant on these animals will not suffer.

"Apologies but recording death after death on an almost daily basis I see the urgency in resolving some of the problems.

Regards

Terry

British Fox and Canids Study ((f 1977)"

Countdown to extinction of this species has begun -WHERE are all the celebrities helping protest?

 Over half the UK badger population -estimated at 250,000- have already been killed off on top of that 100,000 on UK roads each year and then illegal killing.

 This will probably mean badgers will only be found in safer urban areas in 20 years.

This is basically to get one small group donating to funds and on their side -the farmers.

 Badgers are now doomed and DEFRA does not care. 

The government does not care. 

People don't care 

Where are the major protests?? 

If this was discussed in a Tik Tok video clip it would be viral.

 And people claim I can come off as "a little intense"

Photo by Vincent van Zalinge on Unsplash

https://protectthewild.substack.com/p/government-set-to-announce-all-badgers?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1809746&post_id=141816794&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=25dcdy&utm_medium=email

The government is likely to make an announcement that it is to cull 100% of badgers in specific areas of England from 2026.

Back in early 2023, we wrote about Defra's plan, but it was yet to be officially announced. Now the Independent has stated that the news is likely to become official within the next couple of days, during the National Farmers Union (NFU) conference. The event runs from 20 to 21 February. It is unsurprising that the announcement will be made then - after all, the NFU was reported to have had "undue influence" on the government's decision to cull badgers back in 2012.

The current model of 'intensive culling' should be ending in 2026. Under this murderous scheme, 70% of badger populations can be shot in different 'cull zones' throughout England. But under the new rules, this figure will increase to 100%. The policy of murdering 100% of badgers in one localised area is known as ‘epidemiological culling‘ (EC). The government is likely to state that 100% of badgers can only be culled in "exceptional circumstances". But what does it mean by this?

The Badger Crowd - a grassroots support and fundraising coalition in the UK - has stated:

"It seems likely that to qualify as exceptional, a farm or defined area will need to have found a dead badger within an unknown distance which has tested positive for bovine TB or have been found with the same strain of bTB present in the local cattle. However, this proves nothing as the directionality of transmission is not known. You could cull badgers anywhere on this basis. It is not rational. We know that once a strain is introduced by cattle it can rapidly pollute the countryside with TB bacteria for considerable distance."

 

Bad science

Protect the Wild has written a number of times about the bad science that dictates the government's stance on the cull. Defra previously told us:

“The evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) which ran from 1997 to 2005, indicates that badgers are a significant source of TB in areas with a high incidence of TB in cattle.”

Experts have exposed that particular trial as unsafe science, with a number of crucial flaws to it. Instead, there have been reliable reports that the government has conveniently ignored - so influenced is it by the farming lobby. One such report, which was published in May 2023, and was authored by independent researchers, veterinarians, and epidemiologists – argues that continuing plans to cull badgers are devised in “a culture of flawed government veterinary beliefs", and have no meaningful impact on combating bovine TB (bTB) in cows. The authors state:

“Much if not all the evidence relating to badgers as the source of infection is anecdotal and is therefore subject to unconscious or other bias. Evidence relating to infected badgers is usually completely lacking, beyond their known presence in the area, whereas evidence relating to cattle is more likely to be robust, having been derived from genotyping, cattle movement records and cattle testing.”

The report states that cow-to-cow infection is the most likely cause of bTB, and that:

"cattle movements are the main or sole driver of distribution and spread of bovine tuberculosis into new areas.”

It is, of course, convenient for the farming lobby to blame the defenceless badger for the spread of disease. As long as it has a scapegoat the farming industry doesn't have to change its own industrial farming methods.

Annihilation

More than half of England's badger population has now been killed since the cull began in 2013. It is estimated that more than 260,000 have already lost their lives. It is unclear how devastating the effects of the new policy will be on the total number of badgers in the country, but a number of areas are already facing local badger extinctions.

• The badger is one of the UK’s most protected mammals. But as Defra looks set to give the go-ahead this week to annihilate badgers - rather than looking at the systematic causes of bTB - without a change in government (the Labour Party has promised to end the badger cull if elected) the outlook for one of the UK's most loved and most protected mammals looks very bleak indeed.