It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by obilesk
reply to post by Furbs
Um, excuse me?
I live in Michigan. Have most of my life. What governmental agencies do in my home state is my concern, same as anyone who lives here.
And maybe I'm wrong to think that eradicating domesticated animals is overkill when regulating could avoid the destruction of a family's livelihood while at the same time preventing the problems associated with wild pigs and other animals.
But I feel, in a country by the people for the people, there should be a public discourse when it comes to laws that may negatively affect private individuals. I guess that makes me crazy or something.
Is that too much to ask? Or should we just sit back and let things happen with no opportunity for discussion?
Originally posted by SNutley
If you would bother reading the Michigan law, you would see that it is speaking of WILD hogs and boars.
40.4 Additional prohibited species.
(1) Possession of the following live species, including a hybrid or genetic variant of the species, an
egg or offspring of the species or of a hybrid or genetically engineered variant, is prohibited:
(a) New Zealand mud snail (potamopyrgus antipodarum).
(b) Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback,
eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not
intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production.
(c) The department shall consult with staff from the Michigan department of agriculture on the
development of a phased compliance protocol for the implementation of this section.”
Notice where it says it excludes domestic hog production???
Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by hawkiye
Would love your take on how someone merely posting what the law actually says is wrong.edit on 28-3-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)
UNQUANTIFIABLE BUT REAL SOCIAL COSTS
The Productivity Commission of the Australian Government (2002) has identified the social impacts of severe disease outbreaks and they include the following from lower livestock prices and FMD control measures.
-Financial losses cause attendant social and mental stresses for farmers, their families, neighbors, suppliers, and communities.
-Elimination of livestock as part of disease control would prove traumatic for farmers and their families who’s whole lives are invested in the animals.
-Quarantine and buffer control areas would result in the loss of control for livestock owners in the operation of their farms and their daily lives. This would add to feelings of anxiety, grief, hopelessness, anger, and frustration.
-Emergency service personnel may face extraordinary pressures because of the long hours and shared trauma from implementing eradication activities and enforcing quarantines.
-Disruption a family routines and school and cancellation of recreational activities would increase travel times and reduction in normal social interactions.
-Stress would increase health and mental disorders, suicide and alcohol and drug abuse.