No More Exploding Cows........

[R Nitelight]

Thursday April 19 10:05 AM ET
No More Exploding Cows in the Alps

VIENNA (Reuters) - The Austrian province of Vorarlberg will ban the practice of blowing up dead cows with explosives on its picture-postcard Alpine meadows, state television ORF said on Thursday.

The small, mountainous province nestling between Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Germany lives off tourism, and authorities were worried tourists might be put off by exploding cadavers and possible contamination of ground water.

About 20 head of cattle die on Vorarlberg's Alpine pastures each year -- either struck by lightning or falling down precipices. Because of the rugged terrain, helicopters usually have to be called in to remove the remains.

Given that hiring a helicopter costs about 15,000 schillings ($956) a trip, some farmers have opted to blow up their dead animals at a cost of 500 schillings ($32) with the help of demolition experts, who place explosives inside the cadavers.

The state of Vorarlberg takes on up to 80 percent of the transport costs, but locals are calling for 100 percent cover to stamp out the grisly practice, ORF said.

``I will put a stop to these blasts. I never even knew they were taking place,'' said Erich Schwaerzler, a member of local parliament in charge of environmental and agricultural issues.

 

[Ambrosious]

Nitelight

I once farted in the bathtub.

 

[R Nitelight]

Ambrosious

Once?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

This just in from Vorarlberg. During a press conference the villagers began jeering the local parlimentary leader Erich Schwaerzler. Here's a live feed:

"Moooooo! Mooooooo...!"

 

[nitengale]

I wonder if rubber necking in this area is a problem?

 

[OUTSIDER]

We just burn our's.....we're rather more understated about it here.

 

[Myrrdin]

Mmmmmmmm.

If we burn the buggers, the Health Authorities claim we're polluting the air.
(From satellite , two "hotspots" show up in Europe. One's an Italian volcano, the others the funeral pyres in Northern England.)
But if we bury them, the Environmental Agency, claim the water supplies will be affected.
So why not just get the RAF in and bomb them ?
"What ho Carruthers, Friesians at twelve o'clock." Dive, dive, dive!!!!

 

[OUTSIDER]

Hey why not get the RAF to use them "as" bomb's......dunno about you but the idea of a live diseased cow being dropped on me scares the crap outta me

 

[nitengale]

I think

Cow tipping would take on a whole new meaning if one had no idea which cow would explode when tipped.

Is cow tipping over rated??

 

[Ally C]

Animal Farm

Why not go the whole hog and genetically modify the cows so that they can fly? Pigs might ...

 

[Myrrdin]

It's hard enough getting bird shit off your wind shield.

 

[Ally C]

It's hard enough getting bird shit off your wind shield.

Yes, but my shares in the cork industry would be worth a fortune.

 

[Myrrdin]

Truth is stranger than fiction......

The (UK) Government may consider the use of napalm to burn the backlog of culled animals in the foot and mouth crisis, Environment Minister Michael Meacher has indicated.
His quote.
"There are environmental arguments in favour of using the chemical."

 

[Ally C]

Given that it's only about 20 head of cattle, the province in question must be really small if this is seen as a problem. I would have thought that in most cases (out of 20!) that nature would have taken its course just fine.

As for the post about napalm in Britain, well I think things are nearing their ridiculous conclusion to what has been a supreme display of incompetence. An interesting point raised in the local press has been to question the whereabouts of the usually extremely vocal and equally visual animal rights activists / campaigners. Conspicuous by their absence, considering the scale of the foot and mouth phenomenon. It can't be that they've been edited out of news reports, and the fact that Europeans are raising a puzzled look in Britain's direction at the lack of a concerted public outcry speaks volumes.

 

[Myrrdin]

The animal right activists are stuffed at the moment.

They can either campaign to save individual animals. Which they have done by blockading farms and preventing slaughtermen killing the healthy animals there. Which are being culled because of their proximity to an outbreak.
By doing this, they risk being blamed for preventing the control of the disease.

Or they can campaign for the health of animals as a whole, by eradicating the disease. Which means supporting the slaughter/burn policy.
Neither of the policies they like. So they're just sat on the fence keeping their heads down.

 

[Ally C]

Myrrdin

I mean those more vociferous activists - the kind who are quick to politicise animal research, but aren't nearly as visible during the foot and mouth goings on. Vaccination should have been used ages ago. It's ironic that South Africa is now exploiting meat markets in Europe which have been made available by Britain's policy of slaughter and burn (or bury). Foot and mouth is endemic in South Africa, and we're not talking about once every generation or two either. They have a policy of targeted vaccination which in some cases has contained the problem to one area of one farm. Quite a feat, given Britain's performance.

 

[Myrrdin]

http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/vaccination/keyfacts.asp

 

[Ally C]

Yes, but it works for other countries. When you consider the amount of vaccinations we're willing to take ourselves, it's intriguing that we're somewhat slow to afford animals the same protection (albeit for different diseases). I've heard the case for 'zero tolerance' by other countries with respect to trade, but I can't help wondering if too much stock (no pun!) is being placed on the current regime concerning foot and mouth vaccinations when concerned with selling meat to other countries. I'm not suggesting a departure from firm controls, just that when the infrequent spectre of foot and mouth manifests itself vaccination would be preferable to the funeral pyres, burials, danger of water contamination, loss of tourism revenues etc, etc. The cost of the present outbreak is still rising, and must surely offset 'other' costs which would be associated with acceptance of vaccination as a strategy.

 

[Myrrdin]

The point was, that under present EC law all F and M vaccinated stock must be slaughtered. as in the Dutch example from the MAFF link.
Quote.
In the Dutch outbreak the EC approved vaccination of animals within 2 km of the infected premises, on condition that there was intensive surveillance for FMD within a further 10 km radius and that all vaccinated animals were eventually destroyed.
So it's a case of a chance of your stock contracting the disease and being slaughtered. Or a certainty they will if you vaccinate.

A change of policy would need to be approved by all member states of the EC.
Advocates of vaccination say that the EC should be pressing third countries to allow exports of meat and dairy products from regions that use the marker vaccines. These would allow tests to confirm whether antibodies are present because of disease or vaccination.
Led by the United States, third countries are determined to maintain the international policy of official disease freedom as the basis for trade.

 

[Ally C]

I know, sorry that I'm not very clear, but I'm led by my heart rather than my head on this one. I'm in favour of a total rethink of current policies. Though it's maybe improper of me to pass judgement on government organisations and their infinite wisdom, it's worth pointing out that MAFF has a terrible record, and itsn't exactly respected by fishing and farming communities. It's all about money, with no thought for the fragile infrastructure of rural and coastal communities which rely on fishing and farming. The former has been used as a bargaining tool within the EC and beyond, the latter has been mismanaged time and again. The US maintains the lead in "disease freedom as the basis for trade"; thanks for the info Myrrdin, as I hadn't encountered that important fact.
Perhaps this disease is naturally occurring and our attempts to suppress it - though well meant (financial concerns aside for now) - are more of an 'unnatural' interference than vaccination might be? Is the disease a 'natural' phenomenon? If it is (and I'm lacking in details right now), then attempts to keep it in check are both unnecessary and might backfire in the long term.