There are two main issues surrounding the imminent badger cull.

Firstly, is it right that the cull of infected badgers goes ahead? And secondly, should innocent people be threatened with violence if a democratic decision is taken but disliked by a minority of individuals who have vowed revenge?

The answer to the first question is a resounding Yes; to the second, a resounding No.

For decades bovine TB has wreaked havoc on the UK dairy industry raising costs and threatening jobs and livelihoods, as well as jeopardising food safety.

It is a problem that needs to be solved urgently: the incidence rate of bovine TB in cattle in England and Wales has been rising for 25 years and has worsened since the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak.

And it is a problem that is spreading: the area now affected has spread from isolated pockets in the late 1980s to cover large areas of the West and South West of England and Wales.

It is a problem that is costing more to manage each year: in 2009, more than 25,000 cattle were slaughtered for TB in England alone at a cost to the Government of more than £63 million, a cost borne by the taxpayer.

And it is a problem that is spreading to other animals including pigs, domestic cats and even rare instances in humans.

The UK Government's decision on whether to allow badger culling to curb cattle TB in England is currently delayed.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is expected to announce a limited cull at any day, even though the latest government figures suggest that numbers of cows infected with tuberculosis in England and Wales fell slightly last year, which campaigners say makes the case for culling more difficult.

When launching the consultation on bovine TB in September last year Jim Paice, Minister for Agriculture and Food recognised the urgency of the problem when he said: "Bovine TB is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses and families... we can't go on like this."

In other words, the evidence for a cull is overwhelming.

But there can be no argument made to support the threats of violence against those who take part in the cull.

The Government's interpretation of the scientific background is that to be effective, culling would have to be done over large areas with as many landowners as possible taking part in a co-ordinated way, and must be sustained regularly for five years.

And this could expose farmers who take part in the cull to the threats of violence and damage made by extremists.

Already, the National Farmers' Union has been in discussion with Defra about concerns its 250 local offices may be attacked and some farmers have asked for anonymity, but this is difficult to be the case because of licensing requirements.

When the cull goes ahead every effort must be made to protect those who take part and swift justice given to those who make threats.