DunnoKev
Guest
Nope, it wasn't in hindsight.It was with full awareness of the facts - based on input from world class microbiologists, the FAO, BirdLife and other sources. It was presented in the media, argued in the legislature and common knowledge to all birders at the time.
The closures went on for six years by which time it had been crystal clear most of that time that the decision-makers concerned were being tossers and fuelling an unfounded fear of infection from wild birds rather than admit to incompetence.
It also meant that the reserve (run by WWF, who also opposed the closures) lost substantial revenue from visitors during the regulation three week closure for discovery of an infected bird within three kilometres of the site - a regulation devised incidentally to prevent contamination from one poultry farm to another, not to prevent people being infected by wild birds.
and if we're thinking of the same JC . . . He was without sin. Not much point in Him otherwise.
Cheers
Mike
Hi Mike,
Cheers for the fuller details. Mea culpa your desciption of the reserve staff took me somewhere else entirely
The interesting statement for me this time is 'argued in the legislature', which points to ongoing debate and a settling of alternative interpretations of the facts at the time. There's still nothing there that would make me consider tresspassing. But I'll give you I'm weird on this as I'm still one of the few who thinks that with our own F&M outbreak our Govt behaved appropriately *at the time*, even though hindsight now shows some of the actions were too draconian and would (probably) not be needed in a similar situation.
And yup we're on the same chap- he has got plenty, he's supposedly burdening all of ours. Its actions and consequences again ;-)