Johnny Depp's Dogs

[MARYROSE02]

Absolutely right and we all know how Aussies love their paperwork lol. That idiot Barnaby Joyce is an embarrassment.

 

Barnaby Joyce did not personally introduce the laws. I'm not a scientist but I presume there is a reason for Australia having such strict quarantine laws, also including the laws between states in Australia itself. I presume also that you think that whenever Foot and Mouth breaks out in the UK, the UK Government completely overeacts with pointless paperwork and bureaucracy? I remember, living in the New Forest, seeing the restrictions everywhere, on every cattle grid, and not being able to set foot onto fields or into woods.

[newjez]

I agree with you, there is no need for animals to go into quarantine whatsoever, it is totally outdated and unnecessary. However these dogs were smuggled in on a private jet by somebody who presumably didn't think the rules applied to movie stars and accordingly, the paperwork was not checked.

 

Because he didn't want to put them through quarantine? Isn't that self fulfilling?

[MARYROSE02]

The problem is many of the procedures are outdated and downright antiquated. Dogs going TO the UK now are vaccinated against rabies then tested for the presence of antibodies, if they pass then they are zero risk and are allowed straight in after a vet check.

I have said before that if you bring a pair of shoes in your container and customs find them they want them cleaned if they find a hint of dirt on them, fair enough you say but nobody ever looks at shoes at airports so really what is the point ? Many of the procedures are so they can be seen to be doing something.

 

Why doesn't the UK government do away with HMRC? Pointless organisation. Waste of time and money and paperwork. Not needed in the modern world.

[Bungo]

Because he didn't want to put them through quarantine? Isn't that self fulfilling?

 

I don't understand what you mean? Isn't what self fulfilling?

[Bungo]

Barnaby Joyce did not personally introduce the laws. I'm not a scientist but I presume there is a reason for Australia having such strict quarantine laws, also including the laws between states in Australia itself. I presume also that you think that whenever Foot and Mouth breaks out in the UK, the UK Government completely overeacts with pointless paperwork and bureaucracy? I remember, living in the New Forest, seeing the restrictions everywhere, on every cattle grid, and not being able to set foot onto fields or into woods.

 

It is good that Australia has strict controls over the import of animals, but the actual quarantine itself, for pets that have been proven to be rabies free, is completely unnecessary.

[Guest]

Regardles of whether people think the quarantine laws are antiquated or unecessary they are what's required. It doesn't change the fact that the dogs here have not had the necessary checks etc. The law has been broken and as so they should face the full force as any ordinary person would. Personally i think the protections put in place are spot on. There's a reason Australia is free from these diseases lets keep it that way.

[Bobj]

Absolutely right and we all know how Aussies love their paperwork lol. That idiot Barnaby Joyce is an embarrassment.

 

 

Ya gotta laugh...

 

What is being done?

 

Very little. The British Government has hidden the facts and fiddled the evidence at every stage of the investigation into mad cow disease. It has told expert scientists, including it's own advisors, to keep quiet in case the hugely profitable meat industry suffers. In May 1988, the government set up The Southwood Committee to examine the risks of BSE to both animal and human health. Extraordinarily, it had no experts on spongiform encephalopathies and none were consulted. Although experts in their own areas, none of the members of the Southwood Committee had done any research into spongiform diseases. A month after the first meeting, the Government, on the advice of the committee, ordered the compulsory slaughter and destruction of carcasses of all affected cattle. It was already too late. Between the date of the first known case of BSE in late 1986 and the middle of 1988, at least 600 obviously diseased cows (plus an unknown number of animals not yet obviously ill) had been slaughtered and their meat had found its way onto supermarket shelves. Half the normal price of carcasses was paid in compensation, which encouraged farmers not to report suspect cattle. The real extent of the problem remained unknown.

The second recommendation of the Southwood Committee was to set up another committee to do more research, which simply admitted that the problem was too big. The next meeting of the committee was five months later, some indication of how serious the Government regarded the problem.

The report admitted that spongiform encephalopathies are a danger to humans and stated: 'With the very long incubation period of spongiform encephalopathies in humans, it may be a decade or more before complete reassurance can be given.' The Southwood Committee went on to say how they thought the disease was passed on, saying that eating was low down on the list of possible reasons. While admitting that all cows had got the disease by eating, they were suggesting one rule for cattle and another for humans. It was easy for a cow to get BSE through eating but very difficult for humans to get CJD by doing the same.

Two other general conclusions of the Southwood report were that the risk of vertical transmission of BSE (passing the disease from mother to calf) was non-existent (since proved incorrect) and that cattle would prove to be a 'dead-end host', which means the disease would stop at cows and not infect other species. This introduces the revolutionary biological concept of a non-infectious infection. Cattle are not a dead-end host. BSE has been spread to other species and this was known at the time of the report. The Southwood report stated that '...if our assessment of these likelihoods (of possible human infection) are incorrect, the implications would be extremely serious.' Their assessments have been shown to be incorrect. We do have a terrible crisis on our hands.

 

The link:

http://www.mad-cow.org/lacey.html

 

Cheers, Bobj.

[MARYROSE02]

Ya gotta laugh...

 

What is being done?

 

Very little. The British Government has hidden the facts and fiddled the evidence at every stage of the investigation into mad cow disease. It has told expert scientists, including it's own advisors, to keep quiet in case the hugely profitable meat industry suffers. In May 1988, the government set up The Southwood Committee to examine the risks of BSE to both animal and human health. Extraordinarily, it had no experts on spongiform encephalopathies and none were consulted. Although experts in their own areas, none of the members of the Southwood Committee had done any research into spongiform diseases. A month after the first meeting, the Government, on the advice of the committee, ordered the compulsory slaughter and destruction of carcasses of all affected cattle. It was already too late. Between the date of the first known case of BSE in late 1986 and the middle of 1988, at least 600 obviously diseased cows (plus an unknown number of animals not yet obviously ill) had been slaughtered and their meat had found its way onto supermarket shelves. Half the normal price of carcasses was paid in compensation, which encouraged farmers not to report suspect cattle. The real extent of the problem remained unknown.

The second recommendation of the Southwood Committee was to set up another committee to do more research, which simply admitted that the problem was too big. The next meeting of the committee was five months later, some indication of how serious the Government regarded the problem.

The report admitted that spongiform encephalopathies are a danger to humans and stated: 'With the very long incubation period of spongiform encephalopathies in humans, it may be a decade or more before complete reassurance can be given.' The Southwood Committee went on to say how they thought the disease was passed on, saying that eating was low down on the list of possible reasons. While admitting that all cows had got the disease by eating, they were suggesting one rule for cattle and another for humans. It was easy for a cow to get BSE through eating but very difficult for humans to get CJD by doing the same.

Two other general conclusions of the Southwood report were that the risk of vertical transmission of BSE (passing the disease from mother to calf) was non-existent (since proved incorrect) and that cattle would prove to be a 'dead-end host', which means the disease would stop at cows and not infect other species. This introduces the revolutionary biological concept of a non-infectious infection. Cattle are not a dead-end host. BSE has been spread to other species and this was known at the time of the report. The Southwood report stated that '...if our assessment of these likelihoods (of possible human infection) are incorrect, the implications would be extremely serious.' Their assessments have been shown to be incorrect. We do have a terrible crisis on our hands.

 

The link:

http://www.mad-cow.org/lacey.html

 

Cheers, Bobj.

Nothing much about the 21 Century there. 19C perhaps.

[Mike@Bonbeach]

Regardles of whether people think the quarantine laws are antiquated or unecessary they are what's required. It doesn't change the fact that the dogs here have not had the necessary checks etc. The law has been broken and as so they should face the full force as any ordinary person would. Personally i think the protections put in place are spot on. There's a reason Australia is free from these diseases lets keep it that way.

 

Yes, I wonder how much (if at all) he will be fined, after all if you can and do get fined for inadvertently bringing in a piece of fruit at the airports, surely what he has done warrants a greater penalty. I don't think Barnaby Joyce went far enough. The dogs should have been seized immediately, put in quarantine and a substantial fine imposed, the salon where they were taken should have been closed down, thoroughly fumigated or whatever was needed and itself quarantined for the regulatory period and Depp made to compensate the owners.

You see these programs on television about border security and how serious the staff take the job, surely that's not just for the cameras.

[newjez]

Yes, I wonder how much (if at all) he will be fined, after all if you can and do get fined for inadvertently bringing in a piece of fruit at the airports, surely what he has done warrants a greater penalty. I don't think Barnaby Joyce went far enough. The dogs should have been seized immediately, put in quarantine and a substantial fine imposed, the salon where they were taken should have been closed down, thoroughly fumigated or whatever was needed and itself quarantined for the regulatory period and Depp made to compensate the owners.

You see these programs on television about border security and how serious the staff take the job, surely that's not just for the cameras.

 

Exactly. Either they are serious or they are not. He should try taking drugs into Bali and see how he gets on.

[bristolman]

Regardles of whether people think the quarantine laws are antiquated or unecessary they are what's required. It doesn't change the fact that the dogs here have not had the necessary checks etc. The law has been broken and as so they should face the full force as any ordinary person would. Personally i think the protections put in place are spot on. There's a reason Australia is free from these diseases lets keep it that way.

 

The fact remains that Australia would be just as free from rabies if they implemented the system used in many other countries, vaccinate and check then no need for lengthy quarantine.

[FTA]

Exactly. Either they are serious or they are not. He should try taking drugs into Bali and see how he gets on.

Yeah, he'd probably get an OAM!

[MARYROSE02]

The fact remains that Australia would be just as free from rabies if they implemented the system used in many other countries, vaccinate and check then no need for lengthy quarantine.

The fact remains that Australia is not just free of rabies but other nasty diseases because we are so vigilant unlike "many other countries."

[bristolman]

The fact remains that Australia is not just free of rabies but other nasty diseases because we are so vigilant unlike "many other countries."

 

I honestly think it comes down to isolation rather than vigilance, remember there are also diseases we see in Australia that we rarely see in 'many other countries'. Things like Lyssavirus, a form of rabies and Hendra virus both of which have caused deaths. What I am saying is rabies can be stopped from entering without the need for lengthy expensive quarantine.

[MARYROSE02]

I honestly think it comes down to isolation rather than vigilance, remember there are also diseases we see in Australia that we rarely see in 'many other countries'. Things like Lyssavirus, a form of rabies and Hendra virus both of which have caused deaths. What I am saying is rabies can be stopped from entering without the need for lengthy expensive quarantine.

 

So you mean that it would be in Australia's interests to adopt other countries' quarantine practices? Why? 'To bring Australia into the 21st century?'

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/legislation/compliance/laws-role

[MARYROSE02]

I see that Australia has never suffered from 'Foot and Mouth' disease, unlike '21st century Britain.'

 

[h=2]Background[/h]Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious animal disease that would have severe consequences were it to be introduced into Australia. There have been a number of outbreaks in FMD-free countries that have had large socio-economic impacts. The 2001 outbreak in the United Kingdom caused losses of more than 8 billion pounds (approximately $AUD 19 billion).

More recently, outbreaks have continued to be seen in free countries. FMD occurred again in the United Kingdom in 2007, while Taiwan ROC reported several outbreaks beginning in February 2009. In 2010 both Japan and the Republic of Korea experienced large FMD outbreaks which required extensive programs to control. The 2010–11 Korean outbreak is estimated to have cost the government some 3 trillion won (about $US 2.7 billion).

Australia estimates that a small FMD outbreak , controlled in 3 months, could cost around $AUD 7.1 billion, while a large 12 month outbreak would cost $AUD 16 billion.

To manage the risk, both government and industry engage in significant prevention, planning and preparedness. Beyond its borders, Australia has invested heavily in building the capacity of countries in the region to combat diseases, including support for the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) Southeast Asia and China FMD Campaign (SEACFMD). This project involves the coordinated control of FMD by eleven countries in the Southeast Asia region. However, FMD remains endemic in most of these eleven countries. Australia also maintains a strong biosecurity program at the border to manage FMD risks, and also undertakes extensive planning and preparedness activities to ensure that should an incursion occur, the disease can be contained and controlled as quickly as possible.

[bristolman]

So you mean that it would be in Australia's interests to adopt other countries' quarantine practices? Why? 'To bring Australia into the 21st century?'

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/legislation/compliance/laws-role

 

I'm not sure what the link was for ? Yes, if there are far less costly and effective alternatives then why not ? There really is no need for lengthy quarantine in this day and age as long as some basic procedures are followed. All countries need to move with the times.

[MARYROSE02]

'Moving with the times' seems to mean that Australia should return to 'The Dark Ages' to 'keep up' with the UK. We don't have Foot and Mouth, we don't have Mad Cow Disease. I am perfectly happy with Australia's present quarantine laws.

[bristolman]

I see that Australia has never suffered from 'Foot and Mouth' disease, unlike '21st century Britain.'

 

Background

 

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious animal disease that would have severe consequences were it to be introduced into Australia. There have been a number of outbreaks in FMD-free countries that have had large socio-economic impacts. The 2001 outbreak in the United Kingdom caused losses of more than 8 billion pounds (approximately $AUD 19 billion).

More recently, outbreaks have continued to be seen in free countries. FMD occurred again in the United Kingdom in 2007, while Taiwan ROC reported several outbreaks beginning in February 2009. In 2010 both Japan and the Republic of Korea experienced large FMD outbreaks which required extensive programs to control. The 2010–11 Korean outbreak is estimated to have cost the government some 3 trillion won (about $US 2.7 billion).

Australia estimates that a small FMD outbreak , controlled in 3 months, could cost around $AUD 7.1 billion, while a large 12 month outbreak would cost $AUD 16 billion.

To manage the risk, both government and industry engage in significant prevention, planning and preparedness. Beyond its borders, Australia has invested heavily in building the capacity of countries in the region to combat diseases, including support for the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) Southeast Asia and China FMD Campaign (SEACFMD). This project involves the coordinated control of FMD by eleven countries in the Southeast Asia region. However, FMD remains endemic in most of these eleven countries. Australia also maintains a strong biosecurity program at the border to manage FMD risks, and also undertakes extensive planning and preparedness activities to ensure that should an incursion occur, the disease can be contained and controlled as quickly as possible.

 

Again I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make ? Aren't we talking about bringing dogs into Australia ? There are no steps in place to stop a possible outbreak of a variety of diseases, just bring it in on your shoes through the airport. As I said I don't think it is so much down to vigilance but isolation and a big lump of luck.

[bristolman]

'Moving with the times' seems to mean that Australia should return to 'The Dark Ages' to 'keep up' with the UK. We don't have Foot and Mouth, we don't have Mad Cow Disease. I am perfectly happy with Australia's present quarantine laws.

 

This has nothing to do with the UK, times have changed. Why would it mean a return to the dark ages, that is bizarre ??

[MARYROSE02]

This has nothing to do with the UK, times have changed. Why would it mean a return to the dark ages, that is bizarre ??

 

If it has nothing to do with the UK, then why are you comparing Australia's quarantine laws unfavourably to the UK and other countries?

 

The bottom line is that Australia's quarantine laws work. We don't suffer the sort of animal borne diseases that the rest of the world do. End of.

[bristolman]

If it has nothing to do with the UK, then why are you comparing Australia's quarantine laws unfavourably to the UK and other countries?

 

The bottom line is that Australia's quarantine laws work. We don't suffer the sort of animal borne diseases that the rest of the world do. End of.

 

Fair enough, you win ☺

[bobby122]

I am in the process of paying $10,000 to get my dog to Australia, why should Johnny Depp be above the rules that everyone else has to abide by?

[Guest]

The fact remains that Australia would be just as free from rabies if they implemented the system used in many other countries, vaccinate and check then no need for lengthy quarantine.

I would hardly call ten days lengthy (for dogs coming from UK) Yes some countries are longer but it's down to the risk from country to country. Quite frankly the system in Australia clearly works so why change it?

[newjez]

I would hardly call ten days lengthy (for dogs coming from UK) Yes some countries are longer but it's down to the risk from country to country. Quite frankly the system in Australia clearly works so why change it?

 

 

And the incubation period for rabies is?