random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
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.

...

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed
importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

....

Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons.

It would obviously be more economic for them to import frozen carcasses
which had been slaughtered at source by non-Halal methods.

Which is why it's a particularly misleading example. Either way.

As without the trade in frozen carcasses, the Australian and New Zealand
meat trade probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

....


The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant
imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it
isn't.

Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing.

....

So why was it necessary for Professot Brasier to mention the export of
animals at all ?

....

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the
movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally
irellevant.

It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that
such controls are possible.

....

There is no analogy, because the reasons why people don't move
large numbers of animals around the world has nothing to do with
their deciding against doing so for reasons of disease control.

And so the purported analogy is totaly misleading.

Muslims in the Middle East are more than happy to import large
numbers of live sheep, regardless of any health issues, because
they have specific religious requirements.

Until such time as people are prohibited from importing herds of
cattle or whatever into the U.K - and accept such a prohibition
without protest, we have no way of knowing whether such controls
are possible or not. Insofar as Britains "draconian" rabies
regulations are concerned

/quote

http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...0313/pets.html

For those who campaigned to change what former Hong Kong Governor
Chris Patten called preposterous rules, Feb. 28 was a historic day.
It was particularly satisfying for Lady Fretwell, the wife of Britain's
former ambassador to Paris, who since 1996 has spearheaded the Passports
for Pets campaign. Her cause was given a poignant boost in its first year,
when two dogs died in quarantine and their high-profile owners made a fuss

quote

Maybe if Chris Patten or Lady Fretwell got into livestock dealing
in a big way there's no telling what could happen.

....

of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much
moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the
prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either.

....

Since when has anyone ever died from an infestation of lilly beetles
or cane toads ?

The conditions you cited inflict real distress and actual suffering.

....


[...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini
on.asp

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

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster
than I can run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more
extreme
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

....

Killer fungi.

Indeed.


michael adams

....






--
Mike.