Shambo the Bull update
Dialogs June 23rd, 2007Apparently Shambo the Bull (the at-risk from slaughter or TB) Hindu Temple Bull is alive and well, at least for now.
Following Welsh Assembly elections a new agricultural minister is considering the appeal.
International Zoological Veterinarian David Taylor has investigated the bull and is sympathetic to the temples claims. In particular he criticises the subjective nature of the Bovine TB skin tests that can give false-negative readings often caused by how much pressure the Vet is applying to the Calipers, a differential of less than a millimetre is enough to dramatically alter the readings. (So I am informed).
Furthermore the eminent vet has stated that he is not even convinced the Bull has bovine TB and that if it has it is certainly not untreatable, and describes the slaughter of an otherwise healthy bull as scandalous. A video of an interview with David Taylor can be found here.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I know I am just as guilty for one sided reporting, but you only seem to acknowledge voices that agree with your position. Perhaps we can both strive to report both sides of a point.. (unless quoting a news item which should have balance anyway).
“Farmers say they have sympathy for a “sacred” bullock facing slaughter, but still feel the animal must be put down.” BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6653291.stm
AC1
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I think it was in the interests of equal reporting that I posted this in the first place.
My original post on Shambo then became a dialog.
I think its fair to say that you do not hold the same views as David Taylor on this one, but the important point in reporting this is that there is professional opinion from a scientific source that is opposed to the slaughter. This is not just a Hindu, or a ‘life-is-sacred’ new age animal sympathiser, this is a professional with nearly 50 years experience and the founder of an internationally renowned vetenerian association.
And on the side of balanced reporting, the BBC south-wales article that you posted, came from May 14th 2007.
David Taylor’s vetenirary opinions were reported on June 15th 2007.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
In other words I think we balance each other out. From our previous dialog we both know where the other stands on this matter.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“And on the side of balanced reporting, the BBC south-wales article that you posted, came from May 14th 2007.” I can’t tell what you are suggesting here. The date is last month. Does that imply something? I did not post the farmer’s union comment because I thought it was, on its own, barely relevant. When you reopened the issue, it became relevant.
“David Taylor’s vetenirary opinions were reported on June 15th 2007.” I think this has minimal interest to this blog. I posted the story as a trade off between two groups rights. A vets opinion that there is a way around the issue is not really relevant to the blog (even, or especially if he is correct).
“In other words I think we balance each other out.” I would say that we get a balance between our perspectives. That probably still comes out as different from mainstream views, but thats the point really.
AC1
June 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Can I ask you, if this bull was owned by a farmer, tested positive for TB and the farmer objected to its slaughter (basically a secular parallel to this case):
a) would have the bull been put down by now, 7 weeks after the slaughter notice?
b) should the bull have been put down?
Short answers appreciated.
AC1
June 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I hardly think it relevent to be nitpicking over this. The balance that we bring to each other is evident by the original Shambo post. I made representations for the bull not to be slaughtered, you made representations that it should.
Nothing has changed regards our opinions. I merely posted the update as certain developments had occured. David Taylor offered his professional support, David Milliband the Secretary of State for Agriculture has also expressed his support (although as it is in Wales it is a devolved matter and out of his hands) and Wales has just elected a new assembly.
I’m sure if you re-read the post you will agree that it is an update and not an example (and not intended as an example) of one sided reporting.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
The secular equivalent
If the cow had tested positive for TB using extensive blood tests and not the subjective tests used over here then my argument would be:
a) pending appeal, possibly not.
b)if full tests indicated a positive result and the danger of cross-infection was real then yes.
In this case there is a body of vetinary opinion that says that the risk is “less than zero”.
For a secular case look at Harriet the Cow website that I referred to in the original Shambo postings.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Ok we agree if a bull has bTB and there is a risk of infection, it should be slaughtered. That is the central issue in my opinion. In fact we are in agreement.
The two assumptions are controversial but they are outside the context of this blog.
AC1
June 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Yes on that we are in agreement.
On the validity of the tests thus far performed and the dubious status of ‘suspected carrier’ (a status that does not exist if full blood tests are taken) we seem to be in disagreement.
We also seem to be in disagreement with the assertion that it is possible for an infected bull isolated from the herd to be succesfully and humanely treated. This is where we detach, I have sympathy with the Temples claims (supported by vet David Taylor) that it would be possible and desireable to treat the animal without recourse to slaughter.
Where no other option is available or is viable and where there is definitive proof that the Bull is infected and is not merely suspected then (alas) the law of the land must be followed and the bull slaughtered.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
[...] Cardiff, the High Court ruled that killing Shambo the Bull was a breach of its owners human rights and that the Welsh Assembly acted unlawfully in issuing the [...]