Shambo the 'sacred' bullock

[Francis]

I see today that the monks at Skanda Vale have refused entry to the vets who had come to remove Shambo. They're claiming that to take and kill the bullock would make a mockery of the Hindu religion, and are calling on Hindus to come to their aid

I just wondered what people thought - is this about the freedom to practice your religion whatever the impact on anyone else or animal health etc. Should exceptions be made and what would happen if they were made?

Should I be able say pigs and wild boar are sacred to me and have them exempt from any rules? What if Bernard Mathews thought that turkeys under 10 weeks old were sacred to his religion - although obviously once they were a bit older they would become an abomination to his god and should be killed and eaten!

[arth_frown]

I thought they had won the court case for the bull to live?

[littleraven]

Yes, I heard this on the radio this morning. I definately recall a news piece that said they haid won. I take it the authorities appealed and won in turn?

My personal feeling is that as long as the animal is isolated from other animals, and indeed this is proven (some sort of licence?) so as to prevent the spread of illness to other animals, what's the problem?

[Francis]

Yeah DEFRA took it to a higher court and won.

I don't believe you could really isolate Shambo such that their was no health risk - his having contact with humans that had contact with other cattle would pose a risk, and how could you truly demonstrate credibly that that was being avoided?

I think my point is more about the rights of recognised large religions and smaller less accepted ones. How many adherents does a religion need before we think about allowing exceptions from the law of the land, so as not to risk offense or appearing to show a lack of respect?

As I understand it Hinduism isn't really a 'centralised' religion with any specific dogma and really just referred to the non-abrahimic spirituality of a geographical area. Hinduism was the name it acquired as a catch-all by the British?

Should I be able to expect my religious views to be respected above the law of the land by the state? Perhaps not if it's just me- but how many believers need a spirituality have to be above the law for fear of the state demonstrate a lack of respect?

And if its a matter of the number of people who believe a certain way - then is it about exceptions being made out of respect for a groups religious views, or the state's fear of the cost and implications of offending a group?

[Tegernacus]

yeah, they did win, but it was overturned by the Assembly Government, eager to curtail any spread of the disease in what is an agricultural area. They argue that there is no tested treatment for Bovine TB, so there is no way of knowing if treating the animal would actually cure it.

good overview:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambo

According to some, the monks are blowing this up out of all proportion:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6917226.stm

Basically that the Hindu council or whoever is turning a local public/animal welfare issue into an attack on their very religion.

I'm with LR, as long as the animal is in kept in isolation from surrounding livestock, then I don't see the problem. Unless the disease is making the animal suffer, in which case keeping it alive isn't very ethical, whatever your religion.

[Craig]

I'm afraid the Welsh Assembly Government decided to make an example of the Monks and took it to the Court of Appeal. After all we can't have the law being applied with any common sense now do we?

It's the same stupidity that led to millions of animals being unnecessarily slaughtered during the Foot and Mouth 'epidemic'. A TB infected bullock will never get to full weight, but might live it's entire life relatively symptom free - which means the farmer won't make as much money out of it... ho hum.

I'm only surprised that they haven't proclaimed an exclusion zone and slaughtered every mammal within five miles.

I do wonder if the tens of thousands of pounds that the Assembly has wasted on this little exercise could have been better spent on keeping a few village schools or post offices open instead...?

[Craig]

aliguana said:

They argue that there is no tested treatment for Bovine TB, so there is no way of knowing if treating the animal would actually cure it.

Actually there are some treatments, but no-one has tried to get them approved as the cost of treating the animal is more than the profit you would make from its carcase. Thus no Agri-Pharmaceutical company wants to go through the approval system with its associated costs.

[Tegernacus]

Thing is, the Assembly is probably under pressure from the farmers in the area, who are panicing and probably over-reacting (don't know, I'm not a vet). Farming is big business, so the farmers views take president over a few monks. Sad, but thats the way of the world.

[Brochfael]

The monks believe that the bovine TB tests are unreliable and that Shambo may be only a carrier of the disease if at all. I have been to Skanda Vale on several occasions and find it a remarkable place. The Hindu rituals have a fantastic atmosphere (especially the goddess ones). Personally I have some sympathy for the community's attitude especially if the tests are unreliable. I am also highly suspicious at the courts. One finds in favour of Skanda Vale, this is then overturned but this court refuses to allow Skanda Vale to take it to the Law Lords.

Sounds rather political to me but then I can be somewhat cynical.

I wonder if anyone has found a way in which the bullock can be dealt with in keeping with Hindu theology.

[Blackbird]

I feel sorry for the monks - I saw this story on the telly, and Shambo is obviously much loved by them.

However dubious testing might be, it's a huge risk to let even a suspected TB infected animal live. It would be almost impossible to prevent the spread of infection even if Shambo is kept isolated. It's a real shame.

I would think that there must be some precedent in the Hindu religion(s?) for the slaughter of temple animals. After all, it's not uncommon for animals to become sick or injured.

[Tegernacus]

afaik the religion simply puts a taboo on the slaughter of the animal for meat (and the consequent eating, of course).

[Francis]

brochfael said:

The monks believe that the bovine TB tests are unreliable and that Shambo may be only a carrier of the disease if at all.

The skin reactor test that Shambo had a positive test to gives about 3 false positives per 2000 tests - i.e. gives the right result 99.85% or the time. I agree with the monks that they should be able to pay at their expense for a bronchioscopy by a vet and further immunological test to see if Shambo's skin test was a false positive. And if he's clear then he should live.

The thing is though if he has either symptoms of the disease or is just a carrier it amounts to the same thing- he puts other animals at risk. Humans can catch Bovine TB but it is uncommon- they can though act as carriers for it so how do you isolate Shambo?

Tegernacus you say farmers in the area are over reacting and panicking - its not because of what they feel is sensible and rational about TB but because of the law that will apply to them if it spreads to their herd.

Craig wrote:
"A TB infected bullock will never get to full weight, but might live it's entire life relatively symptom free - which means the farmer won't make as much money out of it... ho hum."

Craig at last I get to disagree with you- I was genuinely worried it might never happen!

Farmers know full well that bovine TB in otherwise healthy well kept animals is typically a background condition. These days because of the thirty month scheme (legacy of BSE) the cost of bovine TB to the farmer in terms of reduced carcass weight would be nothing compared to the cost of the law requiring all animals that test positive to be destroyed. Yes they get compensation - but the price they get is what the value of the carcass would have been when the animal is killed not what it would have been worth when it was ready for market- actually it's not quite even that. SOunds fair enough, but remember farming is seasonal. If you have the bullocks/heifers you were finishing testing positive and killed in December then there's no stock you can buy till late spring to make that compensation money start working for you.

It''s like any "crop" it's worth nothing until it's ripe. (I'm making an economic point not a moral one)

Very few western stock farms are "Big business" Tegernacus. And why are farmers always reviled when they try and make some money.

People always seem to feel that the laws relating to farming are made by farmers- it's usually urban based people that make these laws panicking about what THEY see as health risks- Do you think farmers wanted to have to dip their sheep in organophosphates for instance? These sorts of regulations are all about the over sanitised urban view of life not the farming one.

It's not a question of farming greed - it's a question of making a living in the face of ridiculous legislation, that leaves farmers having to jump through hoops to keep the law-makers happy, and then finding the general public blaming them for it.

Farmers wouldn't panic about a bit of TB in their herds if it didn't mean they had to slaughter them straight away because of the rules/laws.

Rant over!!

[littleraven]

aliguana said:

afaik the religion simply puts a taboo on the slaughter of the animal for meat (and the consequent eating, of course).

Did someone say 'sacrifice' ..... ?

[Francis]

You realise of course that we're all just talking bullocks....

Sorry

[littleraven]

The 'most beautifully ironic comment of the day award' goes to the Assembly official who has stated his concern for the well being of Shambo because all the chanting and drumming might be upsetting him.

[Tegernacus]

Francis - I wasn't commenting on the motives/feelings of farmers, thats outside my bailiwick. But I've seen comments on the news like "The National Farmers Union in Wales says no bull should be exempt from the strict rules designed to stop the spread of bovine TB." So I dunno.

[Craig]

As badgers are now off the hook, how soon before the NFU campaigns for the culling of Hindu Monks? Anything but look at their own practices...

[Francis]

I'm just making the point that farmers know full well that TB isn't the end of the world - if it wasn't for the legisaltion surrounding it. They worry about the spread of TB not because of TB itself but because of what the law requires if animals in their herd test positive for it. Laws they didn't ask for or want.

As for badgers - well badgers aren't really off the hook. Badgers Are a source of infection. It's just that there currently is no acceptable way of controlling the disease in badgers. IF you try and cull them then unless you get 100% of the animals from infected setts you actually accelerate the spread of the disease, as the remaining badgers travel long distances looking for somewhere else to live- thus spreading the disease. Plus it could never work because too many landowners would refuse to have the badgers on their land culled (me for one!)- and it would require an act of parliament to force them.

The 90%+ cause for the spread of TB is the movement of cows. No-one argues with this! The practice that causes most problems is shipping around the country to get premium prices for certain breeds if it can be claimed they were raised in certain locations. i.e. Pedigree Angus Bullocks raised in Kent taken to Aberdeenshire for the last 14 days of their lives so they can be sold as Aberdeen Angus etc.

Anyway this wasn't the part of the topic I was hoping to talk about!!! I feel like I'm back on the old Awen list sticking up for farmers- who I still feel ought to be the main other group in society pagans would have the highest affinity with - instead of the outdated view of them as destroyers of the countryside- once true (out of greed for only a Tiny minorty)?

I was hoping to see what people thought about the rights/expectations of minority religous groups when this conflicted with the law. To what extent should tolerance, respect be held against the law legislated for by the democratically represented majority?

i.e. Halal food appalls me. Not to stun (or even attempt to -yes I know it doesn't always work) the animals before slaughter- seems barbaric to me. Is it out of respect for those peoples religion, or fear of what they would do if we didn't let them do everything their silly book says they have to do? Halal meat production is I'm told technically illegal for example- but we let it pass....

Blessings

Stephen
P.S. Yes I know it looks like hypocricy for me not to want badgers on my land killed (are they my Shamboesque "sacred" animal -but like I said it was the way society treats the oposing views of minority religions that I was interested in- I just can't help the relfex that kicks in to defend farmers positions to pagans!!)

[Tegernacus]

no need to get defensive here, we're not all veggie anti-farmers

Ultimately, everyone in this country must abide by the laws of the land. No religious, ethnic or political group is immune. For example, we don't have an Abbey with Vatican-like state immunity, with its own laws. If a Mosque is told they can't preach hate, they than have to abide by that. I may want to put people's heads on poles outside my house, but thats against the law of the land, obviously

If a sacred animal falls into these laws, however bureaucratic, then they can't be exempt really. Or rather, they CAN, but they need to get that exemption into law first, not try to claim it after. Good think is, the monks made a brilliant stand, they got law and judges on their side, they almost set a precedent as far as "sacred animals" goes, it was only overturned at the last minute by the Welsh Assembly for whatever political motive they were pursuing.

And to be fair, the police etc WERE sensitive to the religious views of the monks. Even the TV coverage was pro-Shambo. Shame really, their animal may be gone, but I think the Hindu faith/Monks won in the end. They won the moral victory. They won respect.