Importation of Live Stock

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 264, 4 August 1936, Page 11

Importation of Live Stock

Sir, —Your correspondent, etc., criticises in his letter published on July 31, the opinions of myself and others on the above subject. The reasons for the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain have ' been explained time and again. It is not surprising that some of these occur in localities remote from shipping ports, when it is known that quantities of fresh foodstuffs coming largely from infected countries are distributed daily throughout the British Isles. Had the policy adopted by the British authorities to control the disease been less drastic and spectacular, we should have heard little about foot-and-mouth, for the losses entailed are small by comparison with those directly and indirectly attributable to tuberculosis, Johne's disease, mastitis, abortion and swine fever —to mention only a few others. 1 ull value computed on an assessment made by a licensed valuer in consultation with the owner is paid in compen-arion an agreement to that, .effect being signed by the owner prior to the destruction of hit stock. .. ' Mr. Moore is on perfectly safe ground in offering to forfeit a certain sum, provided any valid reason is forthcoming iffsupport of the maintenance of the cm-'--' barge. No impartial tribunal could dei' . cide otherwise than in his favour since the arguments hitherto advanced to the contrary are based upon theoretical tentions to which no other importing country subscribes. With the exception perhaps of Mr. Moore, whom it is reasonable to suppose might, with hundreds of others, share in the benefits derived from lower costs and better facilities of importation, no one ■ else mentioned by your correspondent has anything to gain through this controversy which we have entered upon solely in the. interests of the Dominion. We. and other anti-embargoists, can at least claimsome success from our efforts to pierce the tough hide of the triple alliance com posed of ignorance, apathy and selfishness. Your correspondent’s sarcastic references to Mr. Webster and myself are uncalled for and quite beside the mark," and his statements that the stamping-out policy has, failed is absolutely inaccurate.. Foot-and-mouth can, in fact, be more readily controlled than, many other animal diseases of a more insidious nature. On three occasions during the last 20years, namely, in 1921, 1928 and 1931, the disease has appeared in Ireland. The outbreaks in 1921 and 192 S occurred in. Southern Ireland, and the outbreak in 1931 in Northern Ireland. Methods of control in Ireland correspond with those practised in Britain, and there has been no trace of disease in Ireland since the last-mentioned year. Further, there has been no outbreak in_Great Britain since'.

January 26 last. This evidence alone completely refutes your correspondent s contention. One would feel inclined, were it not for the vitally-important issues at stake to refrain from any further attempts to correct these constantly-recur-ring misstatements calculated to sustain popular prejudice and embarrass the Government faced with the unenviable task of removing an obstacle left on the pathbv its predecessor. The arrogance of the embargoists is. only equalled by their complacency and smug self-satisfaction, rendering them quite incapable of appreciating the drift which is taking place as the result of twelve repression of live stock Hu nortations.—l am. etc.. r REn? Masterton August 1. 1936.