Geronimo the alpaca killed as legal row ends

soundb0y said:
Its more than possible to grow attachment to an animal you are raising for food but still understand what needs to be done.

I was pretty upset seeing my 4 pigs go into the abattoir, but they were always going to be butchered for meat, and what the hell would I do with 4 full size giant pigs down the line.

I cry my tears into sausage sandwiches.
Click to expand...
How much bacon and sausages did you get from them?

I bet you got some cracking gammon too.
 
robfosters said:
Seriously? Even the loin joints?
Click to expand...
No. Had about 1500 sausages, 8 loins, 8 shoulder, 8 legs, load of belly etc etc.

Johno please? said:
I dunno, not raise them in the first place? Maybe you need sit down and have a think about your juxtaposition.
Click to expand...

So just go to the supermarket and buy some factory farmed euro imported pork instead? Because I still want to eat pork.
 
soundb0y said:
No. Had about 1500 sausages, 8 loins, 8 shoulder, 8 legs, load of belly etc etc.



So just go to the supermarket and buy some factory farmed euro imported pork instead? Because I still want to eat pork.
Click to expand...
Phew, little relieved gotta say.

Do you have kids? If so, how did they cope with seeing their Peppas come back cryvacced?
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
Phew, little relieved gotta say.


Do you have kids? If so, how did they cope with seeing their Peppas come back cryvacced?
Click to expand...

I wasnt sure if the last post was a gammon joke or not!

I do now but didnt when we had them. I think its important to teach them early about these sorts of things and to try and normalise it. Obviously they need to learn the difference between the cat and dog and livestock, but also learn to treat them with respect while understanding the purpose for which they are there.
Will be the same with game shooting. If we go off pheasant or duck shooting then will always have roast pheasant the next sunday and make up a load of goujons, sausages, a big pie etc. Obviously were not kidding anyone pretending to eat everything that gets shot but we do make a lot more effort than some.
 
Minusorange said:
Who cares ? It should be about the welfare of the animal and the danger posed to other animals
Click to expand...


So after that you test a 4th time right?

The law is the mere suspicion is enough. You have to see how they don't want to make it so every farmer could fight for every cow endlessly while the disease spreads
 
Minusorange said:
There's obviously a legal issue also if it can drag on for 4 years, they either should have allowed one final test before destruction to satisfy the owner and then had the animal euthanised in a less stressful way or had destroyed it 4 years ago after the last test turned up positive instead again in a non stressful way that put the animals welfare first
Click to expand...
If they had tried to do it 4 years ago, it would have resulted in the same thing, the overly protective owner with her loony friends trying to stop it, and so the animal would still have been taken away in a horse box.
 
Since everyone keeps relating this to pets.


How about how the situation would be handled with a dangerous dog needing destroyed?


2 unprovoked attacks on humans as our positive tests

Would you say it was the government fault or the owners fault for distress if instead of sitting nicely with the dog while the vet put it to sleep vs rounding up a bunch of thier mates to try to block them and letting he dog run loose?
 
Can't believe how long the owners have managed to drag this out for, and how much attention it has got in the media. Of all the different causes in the country that could have been given media attention, we went for an infectious alpaca

After the many headlines and news announcements my understanding is that the story basically seems to boil down to the owners, Chris Packham, and a minority of scientists saying the tests might possibly not have been accurate vs the majority saying it probably was accurate. End result being much wasted taxpayer money and unnecessary hassle for everyone involved.
 
Tefal said:
Since everyone keeps relating this to pets.


How about how the situation would be handled with a dangerous dog needing destroyed?


2 unprovoked attacks on humans as our positive tests

Would you say it was the government fault or the owners fault for distress if instead of sitting nicely with the dog while the vet put it to sleep vs rounding up a bunch of thier mates to try to block them and letting he dog run loose?
Click to expand...
Pets that get TB are usually put down as well. This occurs every year. There are no drugs in the UK that can be used to treat animals for TB and that is the only way to possibly cure an animal with the disease. The known drugs out there for this (not approved for use) are known to cause suffering in the animals which is why they usually put them down.
 
Longbow said:
If they had tried to do it 4 years ago, it would have resulted in the same thing, the overly protective owner with her loony friends trying to stop it, and so the animal would still have been taken away in a horse box.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think the fact that she was able to drag it on for 4 years clinging to hope was a factor for the distress caused to the animal. If the law was set where you couldn't appeal maybe the owner would have resigned herself to the fate of the animal and been more cooperative resulting in a less stressful death for it

Tefal said:
So after that you test a 4th time right?

The law is the mere suspicion is enough. You have to see how they don't want to make it so every farmer could fight for every cow endlessly while the disease spreads
Click to expand...

In that instance after 4 years I think a final test wouldn't have done any harm. The problem is the law if one can drag it out for 4 years, as I say above perhaps the law needs changing
 
Minusorange said:
I disagree, I think the fact that she was able to drag it on for 4 years clinging to hope was a factor for the distress caused to the animal. If the law was set where you couldn't appeal maybe the owner would have resigned herself to the fate of the animal and been more cooperative resulting in a less stressful death for it
Click to expand...
How was that a factor for distress? The Alpaca didn't know anything for 4 years.

How would the owner have accepted the fate if there was no appeal process, vs having an appeal process which she lost and still wouldn't accept it. Either way she wouldn't accept it.
 
I think Llamas are classified as livestock rather than as pets? So different rules apply I imagine. I guess this is what happens when you cross that line farmers regularly give up their livestock to the slaughterhouse and try not to get emotionally attached i.e. they're just livestock though a lot struggle somewhat with that. When it becomes a pet theres going to be trouble.

The govt's livestock laws are pretty draconian rather than vaccinate against foot & mouth its destroy entire herds same with TB decimate the badger population locally despite the fact they're a protected species.

delta0 said:
Pets that get TB are usually put down as well. This occurs every year. There are no drugs in the UK that can be used to treat animals for TB and that is the only way to possibly cure an animal with the disease. The known drugs out there for this (not approved for use) are known to cause suffering in the animals which is why they usually put them down.
Click to expand...

Ah.
 
Minusorange said:
In that instance after 4 years I think a final test wouldn't have done any harm. The problem is the law if one can drag it out for 4 years, as I say above perhaps the law needs changing
Click to expand...

Yes destroy the animal immediately after test number 1 no appeals would sove things.

Which is usualy how sensible animal management is conducted.

I don't think the law was designed with this kind of lunacy in mind.

A larger farm couldn't survive without being able to sell its produce, this tiny farm could limp along like that but couldn't survive its expensive stud being destroyed.


So the laws usual method of persuasion (you can't sell anything from the animals) didn't work and we had this weird situation emerge
 
Wonder if they'll carve a revision of the law in stone at the expense of all the professional farmers just in case another casual livestock owner causes drama in the future.

Opting for an indefinitely locked up farm with a TB positive animal instead of voluntarily calling in the vet is an outcome that never crossed their minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom