icepick239 Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 I suppose Bryden Nicolson has his reasons, but he seems a real Titter to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 When starting a new thread, let's have some context, please. And maybe watch it with the personal remarks, eh? http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/09/17/fears-for-disease-free-status-as-farmer-defies-voluntary-schemes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter-amy Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 I just can't get my head round it at all His actions seem that of a man hell bent on bringing a world of trouble to all Shetland livestock producers. I count myself fortunate to be seperated from his holding by a good deal of water! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 it does seem a touch silly. we know about his history with them over his sheep. but to expose our sheep to a risk is a bit silly. imagine blue tongue up here with our rare midge population. it would be a pity for him to risk his animals to spite animal health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter-amy Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 It would be bad enough if it were only his animals at risk but that's not the case. If there were an outbreak on the back of this I would would expect it to be closely followed by a lynching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 While the man may seem to possess the un-erring ability to faa oot wi just about everybody he wirk's wi. I can have a certain amount of sympathy for some of his stances. When I was running livestock I avoided at all costs importing any, and had I still been involved with it, I would be doing the same yet. The health schemes, while well-meaning (I think), and beneficial in the bigger picture, I found to be decidedly patronising and not just a little insulting. Bottom line as I saw it, if you imported an animal, unless you stood on the pierhead and expressly forbid it to be touched, it was going to be grabbed and done god knows what with by god knows who. Just a little too much Communist philosophy coming across out of that for that for my liking. Yes, keeping local livestock as disease free is vitally important, and having some way on encouraging and monitoring it to be that way is equally important. A far greater level of goodwill towards any such scheme to achieve those ends could have been achieved though, had it used much more carrot and a lot less stick. There was no earlier attempt at anything, when this was first mooted, the plan was always "We'll grab whatever comes off the boat and take samples from it as we see fit, to run whatever tests on we see fit". The message that put across to any potential importer was that "We do not trust you to make sure whatever animal you buy is wholly disease free, nor do we trust you to to check out that it is/quarantine it as appropriate after you take delivery of it". This is not the way to go around winning friends! For the most part folk have, albeit begrudingly in some cases, gone along with it "for the greater good", or have been like I was, avoided importing livestock (which is a side-effect of the scheme that is potentially doing the opposite the scheme itself was supposed to do, improve the quality of local livestock), but it is no surprise someone somewhere has railed against jumping through all the hoops "they" hold up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter-amy Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 Never haveing imported any sheep / cattle myself i dont know about these hoops you speak of. If they are waiting at the dock for the animals that would suit me fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted September 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 I suppose Bryden Nicolson has his reasons, but he seems a real Titter to me When starting a new thread, let's have some context, please. And maybe watch it with the personal remarks, eh? http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/09/17/fears-for-disease-free-status-as-farmer-defies-voluntary-schemesSorry Fjool, I was in a hurry and forgot to enter the 'Link' - Tks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 The message that put across to any potential importer was that "We do not trust you to make sure whatever animal you buy is wholly disease free, nor do we trust you to to check out that it is/quarantine it as appropriate after you take delivery of it". This is not the way to go around winning friends! Exactly. Not to mention that these people are going through everyones stock, and then once imported, going from one farm/croft to another covering several in a day. So, if there is a disease on the go.... Now of course these people are professionals etc, but if you are a lifetime born and bred crofter confident in the cleanliness and safety of your own holding, i could be considered quite a risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter-amy Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 I don't think any amount of experience is going to tell you as much about an animals health as blood tests. If the trained profesionals are willing to do this for you at the dock and then come round to your holding for follow ups it sounds great and I'd be glad to get this kind of service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 If they are waiting at the dock for the animals that would suit me fine. It could be fine, unfortunately such schemes all too often open to low level abuse. If I've taken the time, trouble and expense of locating a breeder of high quality stock and purchased some of them in a private sale. Do I want everybody knowing where it came from, pawing over it and sticking hypodermics in it. Do I hell! Not saying that does happen by any means, just saying a scheme such as this one is wide open to it happening. On a more immediate and practical level, seeing your purchase come aff da boat, and having it whisked away from under your nose. And "you'll get it back when we're dun whatever we feel like doing with it", is not without its "schoolboy caught wi his haund in da sweetie bottle" feeling, which kinda gets folk's backs up a bit. The idea and intent of the scheme is sound, its just a pity it wasn't "sold" to the people on the end of the chain with persuasion and good PR rather than bull at the gate tactics. After all, few folk respond well to being "told what they have to do", and that is always how this scheme has come across, to me at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter-amy Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 Real life is seldom what we would hope for. All the time I curse for the red tape and paperwork involved in breeding a few animals to feed the family but always I try to remember that there has to be this legislation for as long as the 'weakest link' is also out there messing it up for the rest of us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 17, 2010 Report Share Posted September 17, 2010 ^^ At a guess I would think the story as printed in the "Times" is largely a red herring. Considering the time of year and what the person in question sells, I'm seeing it as just one more round of the internal politics of the local agricultural industry. In other words, the scheme is being used as a convenient tool in a long standing and ongoing game of chess. The real story is who tipped the "Times" off and why, I doubt they went fishing for something like this themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted September 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2010 Well somebody's 'Bullturdting" - please excuse the pun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patzel Posted September 18, 2010 Report Share Posted September 18, 2010 After outbreaks of whatever diseases in other places and countries I can understand why animals are tested after arrival.And because Shetland is so remote I think it's a unique chance to remain disease free, if tests are done properly. If we move up with our livestock (horses, working cow + ox and goats) I don't mind having them tested and I would expect the same of others. There is only one situation I can imagine where papers should do: this is, if quarantine can be done at home, also all tests carried out there and livestock is transported excluding any risk of exposure to diseases. If all this can be officially proved further testing on the pier should not be necessary. "Bottom line as I saw it, if you imported an animal, unless you stood on the pierhead and expressly forbid it to be touched, it was going to be grabbed and done god knows what with by god knows who." I would want to see anybody who grabs my cow... if I am not with her, no vet would ever come close enough to her to get a blood sample without risking his life... if I am with her she's as gentle as you can imagine... so I would always know who did what to her Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.