Geronimo.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

IIRC there has been a 4 year court case.

Yes I'm aware of that, but since they've destroyed the animal due to safety, how long is too long? 4 years, 6 years, 10 years, an alpacas expected lifespan? 

After 4 years it seems to make little difference if it was allowed to live, especially looking at the proximity it was allowed to live next to other animals and people. 

It all makes me wonder if it was a politically motivated destruction rather than a safety issue and if it was, that's a very slippery slope for the government to go down. 

[old man]

17 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Yes I'm aware of that, but since they've destroyed the animal due to safety, how long is too long? 4 years, 6 years, 10 years, an alpacas expected lifespan? 

After 4 years it seems to make little difference if it was allowed to live, especially looking at the proximity it was allowed to live next to other animals and people. 

It all makes me wonder if it was a politically motivated destruction rather than a safety issue and if it was, that's a very slippery slope for the government to go down. 

Governments love slippery slopes? They allow for all sorts of manoeuvres and sly exit strategies? Coupled with incompetence, well teflon exits?

[CharlieT]

54 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

It all makes me wonder if it was a politically motivated destruction rather than a safety issue and if it was, that's a very slippery slope for the government to go down. 

I don't see how it can be political in any way shape or form. 

The animal tested positive and as such the law of the land states it must be destroyed.

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

all makes me wonder if it was a politically motivated destruction rather than a safety issue and if it was, that's a very slippery slope for the government to go down. 

I think is just she ran out of legal avenues.  May have done so sooner had not covid shut/slowed things down for 18 months.  I now hope the rest of her beasts are on regular test.

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

I don't see how it can be political in any way shape or form. 

The animal tested positive and as such the law of the land states it must be destroyed.

If so, surely due to safety and other farmers it should have been destroyed immediately. 

Looking at this case, which I'll add before I saw I had no knowledge at all other than TB testing took place, but it seems to me many farmers are having their herds as well as their livelihoods ruined due to inaccurate tests that aren't all that reliable. If that's the case it's simply an unacceptable method of dealing with TB and a better way needs to be found. If not then geronimo should have been destroyed immediately. 

[CharlieT]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

If so, surely due to safety and other farmers it should have been destroyed immediately. 

Looking at this case, which I'll add before I saw I had no knowledge at all other than TB testing took place, but it seems to me many farmers are having their herds as well as their livelihoods ruined due to inaccurate tests that aren't all that reliable. If that's the case it's simply an unacceptable method of dealing with TB and a better way needs to be found. If not then geronimo should have been destroyed immediately. 

It's the best that's currently available for live animals and to be truthful is acceptably accurate.

There is more chance of a false negative than a false positive with around 20% - 25% of false negatives, whereas real world practical results show that only 1 in 5000 is a false positive.

The current testing regime where the whole herd is tested gives a good indication of bTB prevalence in the herd, which is why the whole herd is put under restriction with repeat testing thus enabling further testing to pick up any false negatives. 

The only reason this particular animal avoided being killed straight away was because the owner used the legal system, a bit like Mr Packham and the GL fiasco. 

[Dave-G]

Having allegedly had TB for four years might be worthy of closer examination than usual.

[bluesj]

The reason it took 4 years is because the owner dragged it through the courts if she hadn't to would have all been over and done in 2 weeks. Alpacas are normally slaughtered on farm, cattle will be taken to an abattoir  unless they can't travel the they are slaughtered on farm but you need the agreement of the owner. If you turn up on a farm to shoot a cow or any thing else and the owner says no you can't all of a sudden you are possibly committing armed trespass!

I've been involved in a few jobs that didn't go as expected, most of the time after a few days to cool off and an explanation of how things will most likely go if it has to go to court permission is given but also had a couple where police had to be involved. Although the law of the land says that if an animal tests positive to bTB it has to be slaughtered there are other laws that kick in if the owner does not play ball! 

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, CharlieT said:

It's the best that's currently available for live animals and to be truthful is acceptably accurate.

There is more chance of a false negative than a false positive with around 20% - 25% of false negatives, whereas real world practical results show that only 1 in 5000 is a false positive.

The current testing regime where the whole herd is tested gives a good indication of bTB prevalence in the herd, which is why the whole herd is put under restriction with repeat testing thus enabling further testing to pick up any false negatives. 

The only reason this particular animal avoided being killed straight away was because the owner used the legal system, a bit like Mr Packham and the GL fiasco. 

Interesting, I was told they were inaccurate but like I said earlier im no expert and relying on what people tell me. 

2 hours ago, bluesj said:

The reason it took 4 years is because the owner dragged it through the courts if she hadn't to would have all been over and done in 2 weeks. Alpacas are normally slaughtered on farm, cattle will be taken to an abattoir  unless they can't travel the they are slaughtered on farm but you need the agreement of the owner. If you turn up on a farm to shoot a cow or any thing else and the owner says no you can't all of a sudden you are possibly committing armed trespass!

I've been involved in a few jobs that didn't go as expected, most of the time after a few days to cool off and an explanation of how things will most likely go if it has to go to court permission is given but also had a couple where police had to be involved. Although the law of the land says that if an animal tests positive to bTB it has to be slaughtered there are other laws that kick in if the owner does not play ball! 

Yeah I got that, but that in itself makes the system a farse, it almost makes it pointless destroying an animal if the system allows you to delay it for 4 years whilst the presumably infected animal is kept in close proximity and is allowed to infect other animals with tb. Why not delay it 5 years, or even better make it 10 and it should have died of natural causes by then!

[Saltings]

two so called inaccurate  tests         same result      it may be infected or it could be a carrier      human tb has been eradiated in the uk and Ireland   for years   and i have known people of my dads age neighbour as children had tb and never got over it until death     a carrier goes on       however       now on the rise  in humans             alpacas are notorious for   btb       despite quarantine allegations      not quarantined     a pen next door    wire fence   pure faceake bbul****e   its air bourn  kill one to save others  or now kill all    dew to time wastage   stupid does as stupid does 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Saltings

[Mice!]

On 01/09/2021 at 13:56, chrisjpainter said:

I suspect this is going to be a pretty once sided result...

Right. Two tests for TB, it's sad, but it's a death sentence. Farmers don't care any less for their cows just because there are more of them, so why should a glorified stretched sheep be able to dodge the rules, just because it's more of a pet than stock?

The owners made the whole process far more stressful for themselves and the animal.

I only read about this in the paper today, seems ridiculous it's been allowed to go on so long.

I'm also surprised that the test isn't great for TB given how much it can effect a farmer and there livestock. 

[clangerman]

so with the preliminary report showing NO tb and alpacas with tb having growths in their chest and lungs which the animal does NOT have some very red faces await the ministry and a large compo claim for tax payers no doubt 

[JohnfromUK]

13 minutes ago, clangerman said:

so with the preliminary report showing NO tb and alpacas with tb having growths in their chest and lungs which the animal does NOT have some very red faces await the ministry and a large compo claim for tax payers no doubt 

Not according to the (local) paper in Gloucestershire today; "Today, Defra officials confirmed that early results show the animal did have signs of TB."

The owner has disputed this, but DEFRA stated; "Defra has rejected this assertion and stated that experienced veterinary pathologists completed the initial postmortem examination and found a number of "TB-like lesions".

Edited September 8, 2021 by JohnfromUK

[Pushkin]

• Members
• •  2.1k

Posted 4 minutes ago

so with the preliminary report showing NO tb and alpacas with tb having growths in their chest and lungs which the animal does NOT have some very red faces await the ministry and a large compo claim for tax payers no dou

Clangerman, where did you get the preliminary report from - and do you have a link for it?

 

Pushkin

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Pushkin said:

•  
• Members
• •  2.1k

 

Posted 4 minutes ago

so with the preliminary report showing NO tb and alpacas with tb having growths in their chest and lungs which the animal does NOT have some very red faces await the ministry and a large compo claim for tax payers no dou

Clangerman, where did you get the preliminary report from - and do you have a link for it?

 

Pushkin

This is what I read

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/geronimo-alpaca-not-bovine-tuberculosis-5888262

[clangerman]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not according to the (local) paper in Gloucestershire today; "Today, Defra officials confirmed that early results show the animal did have signs of TB."

The owner has disputed this, but DEFRA stated; "Defra has rejected this assertion and stated that experienced veterinary pathologists completed the initial postmortem examination and found a number of "TB-like lesions".

strange that’s what i just watched on the local htv news they can’t both be right 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, clangerman said:

strange that’s what i just watched on the local htv news they can’t both be right 

That's our wonderful press for you!  I have no idea which is right either, but two tests (some time apart I believe) both positive seems a good starting point for a positive at postmortem.

I'm sure DEFRA didn't want the initial tests to be positive - they had nothing to gain - and a whole lot of aggravation to face, but the tests are what they are.

[clangerman]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

That's our wonderful press for you!  I have no idea which is right either, but two tests (some time apart I believe) both positive seems a good starting point for a positive at postmortem.

I'm sure DEFRA didn't want the initial tests to be positive - they had nothing to gain - and a whole lot of aggravation to face, but the tests are what they are.

i think the owner knew full well the animal is clear she and the vet were far to confident from day one just shows how bogus the media are with opposite versions my money is on htv calling it correct 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, clangerman said:

knew full well the animal is clear she and the vet were far to confident from day one

Forgetting the post mortem where there seem to be mixed up reports -two completely separate tests, both positive - and she knew the animal was clear?  How does she 'know' - does she have divine insight?

I''m sure it's what she wanted of course - but how can she know both tests were wrong?

There is another report here  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58490510

[Pushkin]

I know and understand what it is like when an animal that you hold dear to you has to be put down for the overall safety and protection of other people and animals, And I feel this lady has become fully obsessed with her animal.  What perhaps hasn't helped her cope with it is the tribal follower-ons who consider her case a just cause to fight the establishment with.  In the same manner as they consider it a just cause to preach they're anti shooting beliefs against most of us on this site and to the greater hunting and shooting in this wonderful country.  Either the lady has got loads of money available on her own or has been backed up by other organisations similar to those I mention above.  Packham has already been involved and that man is a total waste of space. But so many take him for a practicing qualified specialist when in actual fact he has no formal qualification in this respect.  However, back to the lady concerned.  I hope she finds peace and that she comes to understand that it is not about her and the animal, it is about the greater good for all.  Better safe than sorry I say.

Pushkin

[clangerman]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Forgetting the post mortem where there seem to be mixed up reports -two completely separate tests, both positive - and she knew the animal was clear?  How does she 'know' - does she have divine insight?

I''m sure it's what she wanted of course - but how can she know both tests were wrong?

beyond me just always had gut feeling she was not being straight be interesting to see where it goes one certainty  someone is going to be embarrassed 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, clangerman said:

beyond me just always had gut feeling she was not being straight be interesting to see where it goes one certainty  someone is going to be embarrassed 

It looks (from the BBC report) the final 'growth cultures' from the postmortem will take a while.  It is certainly eating plenty of man hours (and so money).

7 minutes ago, Pushkin said:

I hope she finds peace and that she comes to understand that it is not about her and the animal, it is about the greater good for all.  Better safe than sorry I say.

Agreed

[WalkedUp]

Doesn’t really matter to me if it had it or not, the rule was if it tests positive it is destroyed. I am happy for beef and dairy farmers if it leads to more publicity and more accurate testing in future. 

[Rewulf]

A lot  of animal rights groups, and bunny boiling hugging groups , started publishing fake news reports within days, that...

A. Geronimo was still alive at ' a DEFRA 'facility'  (Alpaca Gitmo ?)

B. The post mortem was negative for bTB.

The point of all this BS was to keep the story alive and on the front pages , which worked to an extent, because as anyone with half a brain will know , once that positive diagnosis comes through , this story dies a natural death.
The animal rights brigade will then have to move on to their next target, bTB badgers or something, and how the cull isnt working, and everyone who works in farming is a murdering pig.

[12gauge82]

I think the crucial point in this case is whether geromino had btb, or not. If it didn't it will hopefully have implications for how btb is tested for and dealt with in future as it will have exposed how ineffective the current system is.