How much money is being ploughed into compensation for the farmers? For a naturally occurring situation? Do landowners near the sea get compensation if cliffs collapse or if any other reasonably predictable natural occurance happens? If the equivalent of the money paid out as compensation was put into research into prevention I'd be happier. I do not know the figures though, the cynic in me suspects that the research and development budget is considerably smaller than the compensation budget for the same problem.
I am perplexed by the whole compensation scenario. Why can't farmers take out insurance for this eventuality? If I as a tax payer am having to fork out for the compensation I'd like to be reassured that the farmers are trying their hardest to ensure that their herds are protected. But if the commercial 'answer' is to kill off an indigenous species then that is not an acceptable answer to many, myself included. If it means that additional money needs to be spent then it should be transferred to the end user- i.e. the consumer. I use commercial milk, it's cheap and convenient but if I had to pay more for it due to the additional costs to the farming industry for the research into acceptable ways of prevention of bovine TB then so be it. And if the cost was too high I'd buy less milk I suppose.