Geronimo.

[12gauge82]

I'm going to be controversial and say it depends. 

If it actually had TB it was the correct thing to do, if it didn't then it was wrong, imho of course. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

27 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm going to be controversial and say it depends. 

If it actually had TB it was the correct thing to do, if it didn't then it was wrong, imho of course. 

So it failed two tests, I have no doubt about the correctness of the outcome.

The absolutely awful behaviour of its owner was very disappointing too.

[39TDS]

6 hours ago, mossy835 said:

it was sad to have it put down,sad for the owner.it could have stayed on the farm out the way,

It wasn't out of the way though, the below is a pic of Geronimo being kept in isolation. For those that don't know, this is not isolation as the animals can touch each other and transmit TB. There is no legal requirement to test alpacas so the rest probably are not tested and are also probably infected (imo)

[12gauge82]

26 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

So it failed two tests, I have no doubt about the correctness of the outcome.

The absolutely awful behaviour of its owner was very disappointing too.

I'm definitely no expert on this so feel free to correct anything in my post that's not factual, but from what I've read, for an animal to appear perfectly healthy after testing positive 4 years ago would suggest it very unlikely to have TB, there's also alot of conflicting information around the accuracy of the tests. Also as the post above highlights, why has it been okay for it to be living there for the last 4 years near other animals, surely if its that greater risk, all the other animals should be destroyed to. 

If the government destroyed the animal due to political reasons, I.e because that's what they do to farmers cattle and they don't want to set a precedent, even though geronimo may not have had the desease, then I think its simply not good enough and very wrong. If however it was done to prevent the outbreak of TB that could spread then it was the right call. 

I'll be interested to hear the autopsy results. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

11 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm definitely no expert on this so feel free to correct anything in my post that's not factual, but from what I've read, for an animal to appear perfectly healthy after testing positive 4 years ago would suggest it very unlikely to have TB, there's also alot of conflicting information around the accuracy of the tests. Also as the post above highlights, why has it been okay for it to be living there for the last 4 years near other animals, surely if its that greater risk, all the other animals should be destroyed to. 

If the government destroyed the animal due to political reasons, I.e because that's what they do to farmers cattle and they don't want to set a precedent, even though geronimo may not have had the desease, then I think its simply not good enough and very wrong. If however it was done to prevent the outbreak of TB that could spread then it was the right call. 

I'll be interested to hear the autopsy results. 

Presumably because of government inaction with an element of Covid lockdown.

[39TDS]

More like the 4 year legal battle with various appeals. 

[clangerman]

as you won’t find a vet that will stake his life on the current test it tells you all you need to know 

[12gauge82]

4 hours ago, clangerman said:

as you won’t find a vet that will stake his life on the current test it tells you all you need to know 

In which case, I do think there's a difference between a pet and live stock. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

In which case, I do think there's a difference between a pet and live stock. 

Not in some peoples misguided views.

[bluesj]

6 hours ago, clangerman said:

as you won’t find a vet that will stake his life on the current test it tells you all you need to know 

Problem being the tests we have are what there is, so the alternative is? Not bother testing at all?

[WalkedUp]

It was not even a pet or livestock, it was just an ornament in a field. A farmer loses his living and possibly life’s work through TB if he loses his entire herd and bloodline. But it must be done to control the disease. I would have no hesitation in ordering the destruction of dangerous or diseased pets or ornamental animals. The public hysteria in this case once again disturbs me.

[Robden]

7 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm definitely no expert on this so feel free to correct anything in my post that's not factual, but from what I've read, for an animal to appear perfectly healthy after testing positive 4 years ago would suggest it very unlikely to have TB, there's also alot of conflicting information around the accuracy of the tests. Also as the post above highlights, why has it been okay for it to be living there for the last 4 years near other animals, surely if its that greater risk, all the other animals should be destroyed to. 

If the government destroyed the animal due to political reasons, I.e because that's what they do to farmers cattle and they don't want to set a precedent, even though geronimo may not have had the desease, then I think its simply not good enough and very wrong. If however it was done to prevent the outbreak of TB that could spread then it was the right call. 

I'll be interested to hear the autopsy results. 

Not likely to happen if the results were negative. Can you imagine the outcry if it didn't have TB, and all the previous animals destroyed due to unsafe testing??

[steve s×s]

7 hours ago, 39TDS said:

More like the 4 year legal battle with various appeals. 

This sounds feasible in today's sick setup creating work (laughable) for lawyers and all 

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, Robden said:

Not likely to happen if the results were negative. Can you imagine the outcry if it didn't have TB, and all the previous animals destroyed due to unsafe testing??

If its been killed and doesn't have TB I'd like to think it should shake the system up to do better. As walked up pointed out, farmers loose their entire herds over these tests and if they're not accurate, something needs to be done, maybe this will be the catalyst, or maybe it'll prove the tests are actually pretty good. 

5 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

It was not even a pet or livestock, it was just an ornament in a field. A farmer loses his living and possibly life’s work through TB if he loses his entire herd and bloodline. But it must be done to control the disease. I would have no hesitation in ordering the destruction of dangerous or diseased pets or ornamental animals. The public hysteria in this case once again disturbs me.

The thing is, to some people their pets are their family, while a farmer might face financial ruin due to loosing their herd, which is nearly as bad as it can get. Nothing can compare to loosing a family member. Now don't get me wrong, I don't understand the bond you can have with an alpaca, however I do understand different people have different views to myself. 

[Old farrier]

TB is a terrible thing transmissible to humans 

we have a test for livestock and if positive that’s it end of 

do we really want (pets) spreading it to cattle or deer 

the most important thing in the whole situation is given that the animal was imported  

where did it catch it and what did it catch it from and what has it passed it onto in the last 4 years 

its government/ministry policy along with mass culling in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak 

 

[bluesj]

Weather it shows signs of the at the pm or not doesn't really matter, it tested positive for the bacteria that cause tb twice! 

[old man]

9 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

It was not even a pet or livestock, it was just an ornament in a field. A farmer loses his living and possibly life’s work through TB if he loses his entire herd and bloodline. But it must be done to control the disease. I would have no hesitation in ordering the destruction of dangerous or diseased pets or ornamental animals. The public hysteria in this case once again disturbs me.

Yep, absolutely.

The test is what it is and should apply across the board?

Edited September 2, 2021 by old man

[D_shooter]

4 hours ago, bluesj said:

Weather it shows signs of the at the pm or not doesn't really matter, it tested positive for the bacteria that cause tb twice! 

I’ll go out on a limb here, if you had watched the “tests” as many times as I have (cattle) then you start to question how if at all, accurate it is. 
 

In the last 10+ years half of the animals we have had culled only around 70% have actually had TB. 
 

Although I am pro testing and pro destruction, hopefully there will be a better way of testing soon. 
 

We would NEVER have been able to get away keeping an animal for that length of time, why should they. Pet or not. 

[bluesj]

7 minutes ago, D_shooter said:

I’ll go out on a limb here, if you had watched the “tests” as many times as I have (cattle) then you start to question how if at all, accurate it is. 
 

In the last 10+ years half of the animals we have had culled only around 70% have actually had TB. 
 

Although I am pro testing and pro destruction, hopefully there will be a better way of testing soon. 
 

We would NEVER have been able to get away keeping an animal for that length of time, why should they. Pet or not. 

Totally agree the test isn't great, I've preped dozens of cattle for pm in the last few years and i think only 3 or 4 had any sort of lesions but that doesn't mean the rest didn't have tb but had not had it for log enough to show signs (also seen them in sheep and deer) but its better than not testing!

Hopefully the enferplex test trials will go well and we can take a step forward!

[D_shooter]

21 minutes ago, bluesj said:

Totally agree the test isn't great, I've preped dozens of cattle for pm in the last few years and i think only 3 or 4 had any sort of lesions but that doesn't mean the rest didn't have tb but had not had it for log enough to show signs (also seen them in sheep and deer) but its better than not testing!

Hopefully the enferplex test trials will go well and we can take a step forward!

Absolutely agree. 
 

People assume TB will kill an animal in a short period of time, this isn’t the case it will often take years and years. 
 

Time will tell, but for once I’m glad the Gov has taken a stand with someone that isn’t prepared to follow the laws after taking on such a “Pet”

[12gauge82]

Well if anything good at all comes out of it, I hope it's accurate tests, as the views on here about accuracy echo what I've been told by the livestock farmers I know. 

[Pushkin]

My concern is obviously about the possible outcome of the animal having spread TB to other animals and more importantly to humans. 

Considering the owner is a Vetrenarian Nurse and a breeder.  I would have concerns about her ability to a) do her  job and b) have a licence to breed the animals.

I bet her boss is very proud of his nurse and the stance she has taken.  Is she still employed in that capacity or is that just padding for the cause?

Absolutely the right route to have taken

 

[12gauge82]

8 hours ago, Pushkin said:

My concern is obviously about the possible outcome of the animal having spread TB to other animals and more importantly to humans. 

 

This is a good point and one of the reasons that made me question the decision to destroy geromino. The fact he was left for four years after testing positive made me wonder what the point was now, as if it was that much of a risk, surely it should have been done at the time. Like I said earlier if it was a political decision I think it wrong, if it was a genuine safety requirement then it was right. 

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

This is a good point and one of the reasons that made me question the decision to destroy geromino. The fact he was left for four years after testing positive made me wonder what the point was now, as if it was that much of a risk, surely it should have been done at the time. Like I said earlier if it was a political decision I think it wrong, if it was a genuine safety requirement then it was right. 

IIRC there has been a 4 year court case.

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

This is a good point and one of the reasons that made me question the decision to destroy geromino. The fact he was left for four years after testing positive made me wonder what the point was now, as if it was that much of a risk, surely it should have been done at the time. Like I said earlier if it was a political decision I think it wrong, if it was a genuine safety requirement then it was right. 

The owner has dragged it out, legal battle, getting a second test then as she is a vet she has fought it saying the tests were wrong and that the animal did not have TB. I doubt a farmer would get a 4 year grace period. Someone local to me lost a whole heard. First test came back with one positive, so blood tests done, that hit 40 more, then the next test again one positive, bloods came back on another 60. Then the third test took the rest... Think he was left with about 5 animals.

All that in a year, yet this animals been left for four ..