michael adams wrote:
correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

(I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply
may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.)

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death,[...etc...]

I meant that.

as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants
either."

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may
be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ.

The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around
the
world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of
demand. Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe.
So -

b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor
Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large
numbers for disease reasons?

To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to
strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime
frontiers. In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.


It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer*'s
livelihood
depends,
among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As
professionals
like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters
should the need ever arise.

Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists' livelihoods
depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's
generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I think
once again of MRSA and MMR.

...


Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a
paper
on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong;
but
that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary
dismissal
by minor verbal debating points.

...

And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an
antidote
to triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to
" a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of
mentions
of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually
provide
a link to the talk in question ? To wit -

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617

That isn't the original, but only the _Independent_ article. See
below.


Maybe Professor Brewer *, who you appear to find yourself in
agreement
with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the
paper
he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference
there
to our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for
disease reasons" ?

See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between the
biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is
perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular
conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate.
[...]

I'm surprised and a little disappointed by what I take to be your
tone here. I asked a question, at the same time making it explicit
that I didn't know the answer. I used the expressions "I wonder if"
and "perhaps minor risk". I didn't refer to the _Independent_
article, because newspaper pieces, even from "broadsheets", aren't
first-hand evidence. I didn't have a reference to the original paper,
and I still haven't found one. Here, though, from long before the
conference, is a brief summary of his own and Brasier's positions
from the Master of Katz Cambridge in the RHS's _Plantsman_:
http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publi...05/opinion.asp

_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.

--
Mike.