"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
[...]
Here's what you posted -

a) 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."


According to Brasier (and you) we don't move large numbers of animals
around the world for disease reasons.

I claimed we don't do it, but for other reasons.

You then turned round and claimed b)

we do in fact move large numbers of animals around the world, namely
NZ lamb to the Middle East.

Which I claim is for religious reasons and so not relevant.

I really don't understand this. I doubt if many NZ sheep farmers are
Muslims, and even if they were, they'd still be selling sheep for the
money: I call that economic reasons.

So which is it? Which of your previous claims do you still agree
with, a) or b)

Do we, or don't we, move large numbers of animals around the world?

To the best of my knowledge, _we_ don't. I said "people do".


But we don't anyway, do we ?
^^^
Even if we had the chance, you or me, I doubt if either of us
would start moving large numbers of animals around the world.

Or are you saying you personally would?

And that the only thing stopping you, are disease considerations ?


And the exact same applies to Brazier's audience on that occasion.

I very much doubt if many of those present had any intention of moving
large numbers of animals around the world. Even if given the chance.

So if that's what he meant, as you claim, then that was a rather
silly thing for him to say really, wasn't it?

....

When we do
move animals, there are controls.

....

Acording to Brazier, it's because there are controls that we don't
move animals.

" We don't move large numbers of animals around the world for
disease reasons"

What he is not saying there is that we do move animals around the world
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
subject to controls,

....

The question is whether comparable
controls should be applied to plant movements; or, if such controls are
already in place, whether they are adequately enforced.


....

That's an interesting question but it has no relation to what you quote
Brazier as saying. Which by analogy, is that we shouldn't move large
numbers of plants around the world for disease reasons.

....


but I confess that you do seem to have
been trying to close down the discussion rather than contribute to it.
I'm going to switch off if your reply doesn't follow a chain of
relevant reasoning I can follow.

....

You may do as you wish.

As to any "discussion", you have yet to supply one single argument or piece
of evidence provided either by Brazier, yourself, or anyone else as to why
the UK in 2005 should be particularly vulnerable to the importation of
foreign pathogens or pests. Any more so, than at any time in the past 500
years when she's been importing flora and fauna from around the Globe
with very few harmful consequences. With notable exceptions such
as New Zealand Flat Worms and elm bark beetles. Along with "unwelcome
"introductions such as grey squirrels to the U.K, and rabbits, cane toads,
and Europeans, to Australia. While if the New Zealand flatworm had been
palatable to European ground beetles and the like, then there'd have
been no problem in any case.

Given that we're appparently unable to import bananas without spiders
and other exotic fauna crawling out of them, and making their presence
known to supermarket shoppers - around one such "humorous" incident
per year according to the BBC News Website, I fail to see how any apparatus
can be put in place at reasonable expense, to protect the UK from the
importation of any as yet unrecognised pathogens and pests.



michael adams



--
Mike.