Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Welsh ASSembly V Skanda Vale

Once again, we have small-minded officials deciding to exercise their powers by slaughtering more animals at Skanda Vale. Animals who were NOT suffering, nor were they a threat to others.
They rely on an outdated test to see if animals are reactors to "TB", a test that is at best open to interpretation, and at worst very unreliable.
As for the comments by Farmers' Union of Wales president Gareth Vaughan, he really ought to shut up, until he has learnt enough about it not to appear as a completely ignorant oaf.

What is also a surprise is that the vets go along with this. The last part of the veterinary oath reads:
"I promise above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct, and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"
How, I ask, can they balance their sworn oath with the policy of killing healthy animals who show no sign of disease and are patently NOT suffering?
Furthermore, what is the point of being a vet if you regard slaughter as the appropriate response to a curable illness in an animal?
Finally, on this topic, and with regard to the recent Foot & Mouth outbreak, I would ask the vets:
What is the point of being a vet if you regard slaughter as an appropriate response to no illness whatsoever in an animal?
The above is relevant in view of the fact that we can vaccinate against F&M?

No comments: