FMD Current Topic

Editorial - Foot & Mouth Disease and Access to the Countryside

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"-
Cumbria FMD Inquiry Report 2002

When on outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is confirmed it is essential that the movement of all livestock is stopped and that the countryside is closed to the public (1). As the size and nature of the outbreak becomes established and an informed risk assessment carried out, it is clearly important to open up the countryside as soon as it is wise to do so without risking further spread of the disease.

Clearly there is great political pressure from the tourist industry and politicians to open up the countryside and there is a risk that in trying to achieve this the biological facts may be misrepresented. Also such organisations as the Scottish Landowners Federation (whose members include a very wide spectrum of landowners including very large ones whose main interest is tourism and sport) are keen to project a popular image to the public at large in the face of past criticisms on other matters. However, it is fact that the FMD virus is one of the most infectious known and that it was not possible to establish the mode of spread in the majority of cases in the UK 2001 outbreak.

The following two items reflect this conflict of interest and the interpretation put on these biological facts.

The Scottish Landowners Federation on their public domain website (www.slf.org.uk) state their case for rapidly opening up the countryside after an outbreak has been identified. They support this with a copy of an open letter from the Scottish Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Lifelong Learning & Gaelic Meridian Court. To read both these statements click here.
The Cumbria FMD Inquiry Report makes a much more guarded stance, emphasising that the risk from walkers and other members of the public may be small but is not zero (2), and stresses that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of spread by walkers and others. The Report also provides the statistic that in the vast majority of cases (80-90% for different parts of the country) the mode of transmission of FMD from one farm to another was unknown (3).

The Deputy Minister makes categorical statements about how FMD virus may be spread without producing any evidence. He ignores the fact that many paths and rights of way currently go through farm steadings and such paths may well go from one farm to another, even in open countryside. He also ignores the fact that sheep and other livestock on open countryside do not disperse themselves evenly throughout the terrain which may be extensive, but may well congregate in areas looking for food or shelter. As an after thought he adds the comment that deer are not a risk unless they contact domestic livestock. The sight of wild deer in the same fields as domestic livestock is of course commonplace, especially where hill land meets lower in-bye land.

The difference between the two statements is that the former is not based on any apparent attempt to analyse the risk, but appears to be mainly politically motivated. The Cumbria Report (and of course Cumbria is an area where walking in the countryside is a major activity) is much more circumspect and realistic. It takes the view that in the face of so much that is unknown as to the manner of spread of FMD, it is not appropriate to draw the conclusion that walking in the countryside carries no significant risk of spreading FMD.

The problem of politically motivated edicts emanating from a section of the Scottish Parliament that would not even appear to be directly related to SEERAD is that another Department of the Scottish Parliament contradicts it by bringing out a Consultation Paper in March 2002 entitled "Animal Health & Biosecurity: Protecting Scotland’s Interests” (4) which recommends:

Avoid contacts between vehicles and livestock
This may be impossible to implement when feeding out-wintered livestock on the hill. This period may extend to 7 months of the year and may cover a wide range of temperatures and soil conditions while waiting for sufficient grass to grow. Remember that the UK 2001 FMD outbreak was first detected in the month of February and spread extensively and rapidly in March and April.

Discourage anyone coming onto your farm with dirty clothes or footwear
How is the farmer supposed to do that in the face of Scotland’s Land Reform Bill with its open access proposals for all?

Provide cleaning and disinfectant materials for all visitors/workers and consider offering protective clothing
How is one supposed to do that if the farm can be accessed by the public from many directions, even if they do keep to set paths? Do disinfectant footpads or baths work?

Do not let visitors enter buildings where animals are kept or touch livestock or feedstuffs
It is not possible to make farmsteads secure. It is not possible to have staff permanently in attendance to monitor any curious passer-by. Where rights of way in Scotland already exist there is apparently nothing the farmer can do to stop walkers going through the farm stead where livestock are housed. In the case of “closed” herds (and particularly “closed” pedigree herds) the livestock may be accustomed to being handled and may even seek out walkers out of curiosity. How is the farmer realistically supposed to control this?

Recreational users of farmland are advised to start the walk wearing clean foot wear and clothing
By the time the recreational user has gone from farm to farm his/her footwear and clothing may be far from clean. How is the farmer supposed to know where the recreational user has been or what his/her activity has been?

Recreational users are devised not feed animals (even with left over sandwiches)
It is well known that the British public are bad at leaving litter around. Most farmers who have fields next to roads or have recreational users on their land have a problem with litter, including left over food. So poor are import controls, who needs pig swill to spread foot and mouth disease when left over food from virtually any international source can be left on the farm?

The trouble with the “Animal Health and Biosecurity - Protecting Scotland’s Interests” Consultative Document is that the proposals have no teeth. There is to be little or no monitoring or policing of the public’s behaviour - that being presumably left to a remote, but nevertheless euphemistically referred to as local, Access Forum. The same severe limitations as the proposals in the Land Reform Bill (Scotland) as far as access to the countryside is concerned. So the farmer is left to be the unpaid policeman.

In drawing up this Consultative Document on Animal Health and Biosecurity clearly the Scottish Executive ignored the advice of an experienced veterinarian who warned the Scottish administration away back in 1999 of the dangers to animal welfare of advocating open access to farmland (5). His words are as true today as they were then.

What annoys many farmers who strive to achieve quality in their livestock husbandry (including animal welfare) is the double standards imposed by the Scottish Executive. Multiple rules for the farmer that can be strictly imposed with severe penalties, but weak recommendations based on wishful thinking and virtually no controls and or penalties for the public who wish to take their recreation for free on farmland.

James Irvine

References

1. RSE FMD Inquiry Report, Paragraphs 74 & 198. (Download report [pdf]).

2. Cumbria FMD Inquiry Report pp 60-61. (View extract)

3. Cumbria FMD Inquiry Report pp 37-38. (View extract)

4. Animal Health and Biosecurity Protecting Scotland’s Interests: A Code of Recommendations for Farmers, Recreational Users and Utility Workers. Consultation Paper. (Full Text | Download PDF).

5. Raeside, T. (2002). LandCare Scotland. (View article [pdf])

MENU

FMD Current Topic

Editorial - Foot & Mouth Disease and Access to the Countryside

References