Scrutable

The alpaca, not the Apache.

The court has given its final judgment. Geronimo the alpaca must be put down, because he has bovine tuberculosis.

David Allen Green very wisely identified himself as a "supporter of animal rights" in his last foray into animal rights. Wise because his previous foray led to a little bit of bad temper. And I should declare an interest that I was one of the two recipients of that bad temper.

So, animal rights is a contentious topic where it is hard to describe any practical position that is free from bias or hypocrisy, let us be quite clear. I do not claim any priority for my own particular biases and hypocrisies on the subject, and I hope others will be similarly polite. But like DAG I will record some of my own prejudices, so that we don't argue about those, and I won't argue about yours.

- I eat animals, including animals some people think are too cuddly to eat. I have eaten alpaca and would do so again. I'd like to find it in the shops, now that alpaca is getting reasonably common here. In the Andes, it is a domestic animal raised for meat and wool.
- I am happy to eat the deer my friend shoots with the consent of the landowner, here in the home counties. I am content it is a sustainable harvest of an edible animal, done in a relatively non-cruel way.
- I consider it cruel to hunt animals for purposes other than eating them, or eradicating them as pests, or in unnecessarily cruel ways. Fox-hunting strikes me as cruel both because you don't eat it, and even if you did, it would be an unnecessarily cruel method. Fishing fish you always intended to put back strikes me as cruel (though I keep my mouth shut when my brother enthuses about his latest fishing trip).
- Our family has a cat which catches a lot of voles, woodmice, rabbits, the occasional glis glis, rat, shrew, and also occasionally some common birds. I'd rather not have a cat and did warn the other family members this would likely ensue. But, maybe through having to get used to it, this doesn't really bother me. It would perhaps upset me more if it caught some less common animals.

Bovine tuberculosis is a serious disease of cattle, and it is economically damaging, as well as a health threat to humans and other animals. Vaccination of cattle against bovine TV is currently not our policy, because the available vaccine is imperfect, and apparently would not sufficiently reduce it.

Humans can catch BTB from cattle, and occasionally do so, and it is a serious disease, though currently a rare disease, of humans. Cats can catch it. In a significant minority of human cases of BTB in Britain, humans have caught it from their pet cats. The cats were not destroyed. Several of the cats detected to have BTB died of the disease. But there was an attempt at vetinarary care of these cats, and a minority have survived, though I don't know what their quality of life was afterwards.

Other animals known to catch it are badgers, deer (fallow deer are particularly prone to it), and, it would appear, alpacas. Tranmission goes in all directions. For example, in the case of badgers, they catch it from cows and from each other, cows catch it from badgers and each other.

Currently our policies in relation to testing various animals that can have BTB are as follows:

Cattle: Routinely tested whether they appear to have it or not. Destroyed if they have it.
Alpacas: Routinely tested whether they appear to have it or not. Destroyed if they have it.
Badgers: Tested only to determine the extent of infection in the population. Destroyed merely for existing in selected locations, on the grounds that they are a vector.
Humans: Tested only if they seem to be ill. Try to cure them if they have it.
Cats: Tested only if they seem to be ill, or to explain why humans have caught it. Try to cure them if they have it.
Wild deer: No routine testing or intervention.

It is under these rules that Geronimo must die. Though it can't have been terribly urgent as they have been arguing about it for quite a long time.

I brought this up mainly because I found it so inconsistent with the treatment of the cats that got it. Geronimo is a pet, not livestock. An alpaca can be livestock, as it mostly is in the Andes. Though given my difficulty finding alpaca steaks in the shops here, I think that's relatively uncommon in Britain. So he's a pet, like the cats. Although alpacas are kept out of doors, they are confined and it seems to be can be kept separate from cows more easily than cats, which wander where they like. Yet the alpacas are routinely tested, and destroyed if they have it. But the cats are only tested in case of suspicion, and treated rather than destroyed.

If he's a pet then he should be treated by a vet if the owner can afford it. If the owner can't afford it then it's most likely the poor baby will be put down - it's not like there's such a thing as Alpaca Rescue in the UK (if there is I'd be very impressed).

Alpacas are beautiful creatures and I'd hate for him to be killed, but I rather fancy the idea of alpaca steak because I do love exotic foods. I'm torn! Why do adorable animals have to be so bl..dy yummy!? I hate that we kill badgers for no good reason - they should absolutely be individually tested and only MURDERED if they have the disease since it can't be effectively treated in wild animals.

We have a decent record on animal rights here in the UK but so much more could be done.

nezumi wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:03 pm If he's a pet then he should be treated by a vet if the owner can afford it.

Sadly, it may be that he wasn't treated in time to for it to be curable. I think part of the story is that he was tested in New Zealand by a cheaper, less accurate, method and the disease was not detected at that stage. It was then imported to Britain and tested on arrival.

It may also be that English law doesn't provide for an attempt to cure them, because it takes some months, and they remain infectious during that period. Though part of the folly of the situation is that the legal battle took longer than that.

I can't really see the bad temper in the reply? He just didn't agree with your characterisation of his argument.

Stephanie wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 2:34 pm I can't really see the bad temper in the reply? He just didn't agree with your characterisation of his argument.

Mm. I'm also getting a bit tired of the man/nature dualism that underlies those sorts of arguments.

Stephanie wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 2:34 pm I can't really see the bad temper in the reply? He just didn't agree with your characterisation of his argument.

That's just what it looks like, doesn't it? The fact that even you fell for it shows what skilled rhetoric it was. Wiped the floor with me, as you can see in the audience reaction in subsequent comments, some of whose non sequiturs are much more obvious (and hilarious) than DAG's.

What I said was at base basically the same as what Andrew said, in his own very different words, especially in Andrew' s second comment. DAG's second response to Andrew was similarly rhetorical. Andrew says there is no logic in drawing any particular line between animals which are acceptable to eat and those which aren't. DAG responds with the non sequitur "So what do you think about cannibalism?" Except he disguises it as "What do you think of R vs Dudley and Stephens?" Doubtless the case is well-known among lawyers, but most of the rest of us have to look up if we can be bothered.

Using rhetorical methods to win arguments is not what I expect of St DAG, which is why I characterised it as bad temper. I came away reminding myself that it was unreasonable for me to expect my Great Hero to be a saint in everything, because real humans aren't saints, and carried on reading his excellent analysis on other topics.

But very quickly he greatly grew in my estimation. Because he published the subsequent post, where he owned up to precisely the biases Andrew and I had located.

I didn't fall for anything, I just don't hero worship bloggers

Is it churlish of me to think that people who are outraged about the death of an alpaca should probably not be eating meat? I mean, I eat meat but I also don't give a f.ck about geronimo

So according to various tabloids - Geronimo made a "final bid for freedom" before being "KILLED by hazmat-wearing Defra ‘hitmen’"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI9FIeD-Qok

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:47 pm Is it churlish of me to think that people who are outraged about the death of an alpaca should probably not be eating meat? I mean, I eat meat but I also don't give a f.ck about geronimo

I'm with you there. Unless the people who were outraged also offered to eat Geronimo after he was killed.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:47 pm Is it churlish of me to think that people who are outraged about the death of an alpaca should probably not be eating meat? I mean, I eat meat but I also don't give a f.ck about geronimo

Well, I don't eat humans but that doesn't mean I don't care if some of them die.

and I'm vegetarian and am happy to see put down any animal carrying a disease that can be communicated to humans (or, indeed, to lots of other animals)

shpalman wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:03 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:47 pm Is it churlish of me to think that people who are outraged about the death of an alpaca should probably not be eating meat? I mean, I eat meat but I also don't give a f.ck about geronimo

Well, I don't eat humans but that doesn't mean I don't care if some of them die.

Yebbut, EPD is talking about people who *do* eat meat, or in your case, humans.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:47 pm Is it churlish of me to think that people who are outraged about the death of an alpaca should probably not be eating meat? I mean, I eat meat but I also don't give a f.ck about geronimo

But you cared enough about the issue to post.

The reason I started this thread was the inconsistency between how a pet alpaca with BTB is being treated in comparison to a pet cat with BTB. A pet cat with BTB is in fact medically treated, not automatically put down. And also the treatment of wild deer with BTB, who are just ignored.

I also started this thread with an appeal for tolerance of other people's views on animal rights. There is a diversity of views on animal rights, and almost anyone's views can be made to look inconsistent. So you can perhaps appreciate, even if you don't agree with it, the reality that many people expect companion animals to treated differently from livestock, even if they are of the same species.

I'm not very sentimental about pets either. It wouldn't bother me too much if our cat was run over, except for the fact that it would be very upsetting to my other family members. And I would prefer not to eat a pet animal that was previously loved and has a name, even if it is a chicken or a sheep. A kind of real life version of that bit in Alice in Wonderland where Alice mustn't eat the pudding because she has been introduced to it.

I thought perhaps someone might think it relevant that the present government has mooted possible legislation to make illegal the consumption of dog and cat.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:47 pm Is it churlish of me to think that people who are outraged about the death of an alpaca should probably not be eating meat? I mean, I eat meat but I also don't give a f.ck about geronimo

Depends upon why they’re outraged.

I agree with you if the outrage is based on an objection to killing animals.

I really don't give a sh.t about Geronimo's fate.

I also rescued 3 abandoned, very young, kittens at the very start of Covid lockdown here. I still have them.

I'm not keen on scarce resources being used to support 'Pen' Farthings wasteful rescue of abandoned animals in Afghanistan.

I have principles. If you don't like them I have others.

The outrage it seems to me is about the issue of classification: A cat is a pet an alpaca is a farm animal, the law with regard to TB treats them differently, that this one had a name and was a pet blurs the issue in people's minds.

Alpacas and Llamas are very prone to TB.

If you had a pet sheep and there was a foot and mouth outbreak nearby, then bye bye Lambikins. Same goes for Vietnamese pot-bellied-pigs. Be careful what you choose as a pet.

While I can see that some people may object to the difference in treatment between animals classified as livestock that are kept as pets and animals that are classified as pets, it seems to me that given a line has to be drawn somewhere, it's a pretty reasonable place to draw it. The only other sensible place, I think, would be to treat all animals the same - ie treat pets the same way that livestock are treated, not the other way around. Drawing a line between livestock and livestock animals kept as pets would be a legal nightmare - how do you define the difference?

Reading this government guidance on TB in animals (pdf), it seems clear that additional action is taken where pets are diagnosed with TB to manage any possible onward infection - local livestock is tested, for example. While it is by no means explicit, I would not be surprised if those actions also included a requirement to keep any pets away from other animals until they are no longer infectious. It is also made pretty clear in the information that treating animals with TB is difficult and they give several reasons why it might not be a good idea - the general tone seems to be aiming to encourage euthanasia rather than treatment.


In Geronimo's case, the owner was claiming that the tests were not reliable and that Geronimo did not have TB. Has anyone seen anything to back up this assertion anywhere because everything I've seen suggests that this has no basis, that the tests done here were reliable, although the negative test done in NZ before she brought Geronimo back was a different type that is much less reliable.

On classifications and different quarantine health rules, I think the division is more by how similar the animal is to commercially valuable livestock in the area, and whether it can infect local herd livestock, than by whether it's a pet or not, or even whether that species is commonly kept as a pet.

If it can carry bovine TB in a cattle farming area, it'll probably be subject to livestock rules. A cat or dog is unlikely to carry diseases (or variants) specific to livestock, and so is lower risk. (Dogs and maybe cats are also traditional working farm animals, and so probably thought of differently to livestock)

As a vague analogy, here it's illegal to cultivate blackcurrants, even as a garden plant, because there's a parasite they can host that affects commercially valuable (a century ago) white pines.

dyqik wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:30 am A cat or dog is unlikely to carry diseases (or variants) specific to livestock, and so is lower risk.

Why do you think this? BTB is known to transmit freely back and forth between badgers and cattle, and badgers are much more closely related to dogs and cats than to cattle. When humans catch BTB, they mostly catch it from cattle, second most commonly from cats.

IvanV wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:30 am A cat or dog is unlikely to carry diseases (or variants) specific to livestock, and so is lower risk.

Why do you think this? BTB is known to transmit freely back and forth between badgers and cattle, and badgers are much more closely related to dogs and cats than to cattle. When humans catch BTB, they mostly catch it from cattle, second most commonly from cats.

I think that because dogs and cats are not as closely related to cows and sheep as other ruminants are. This remains true even if some diseases can be transmitted from dogs and cats to livestock. As the transmission to humans shows, that particular disease is good at crossing between species.

As a veggie who doesn't give a crap if other people eat meat.

I think if someone's pet pig got swine flu or something, a lot of people might still feel differently about the government ordering its destruction compared with a livestock pig.

And I mean a proper pet, not just a farm animal on your hippie smallholding you've given a jocular/sociopathic (delete avoiding to worldview) nickname like "Sausage" or "Christmas Dinner".

If the government should make kids cry by killing their pets, shouldn't they also just pre-emptively shut down intensive livestock farming on the grounds that it's breeding pandemics (and destroying the climate, wasting fertile cropland and usable water, and a major driver of biodiversity loss)? Surely making kids cry is worse than forcing folk to choose a different cheap sandwich?

My point was more that the rules are driven by commercial considerations as much as public health.