.
Today the proposed site is Manhattan, Kansas, which happens to be smack dab in the heart of cattle country. Posted below is some more recent news from R-CALF USA about the Plum Island animal disease research facility and the foolish idea of building a new research facility, not only on the main land but in an agricultural area with a dense population of livestock. To listen to a short audio clip from R-CALF about this, Click Here.
.
For me as a farmer and a resident of the state in which our government wants to locate this facility it is in my humble opinion that I don't care how much money is thrown at this issue or how many D.C. bigwigs swear by its safety while they sit behind their desks far away from America's farms and ranches and the people that could be affected by this decision; the fact of the matter is nobody can 100% guarantee there won't be an accident. One of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in Britain was from a research facility. Here is another news article about FMD outbreaks in the UK. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-08-04.asp
I do understand this could bring money and some jobs to our state, but even as bad as Kansas needs the jobs it just is not worth the risk. Someone has to draw the line somewhere about just what we as a country are willing to risk for an extra buck or an extra job. If you feel like I do, I encourage you to contact your US Senators through http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and tell them to draw a line for our farmers and ranchers by improving or building their new facility on Plum Island where it has been for years and denying funding specifically for plans to relocate Plum Island animal research facility to the mainland. I do believe animal disease research is very important and should be fully funded but only in a logical place like Plum Island, not a stone's throw from many of America's farms, ranches and feedlots.
to Deny Funding for NBAF on
Washington, D.C. –
“Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed to establish a National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Kansas where research would be conducted on such highly contagious livestock diseases as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia,” the letter states. “As you begin to conference the FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we urge you to deny funding for the NBAF project.”
R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a
“Only the
“The House of Representatives acknowledged the dangers of placing a research facility in the heartland and it authorized no funding for the NBAF in
Other signers on the letter included: Cattle Producers of Washington; Center for Rural Affairs; Colorado Independent CattleGrowers’ Association; Dakota Resource Council; Dakota Rural Action; Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance; Food & Water Watch; Independent Beef Association of North Dakota; Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska; Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming; Kansas Cattlemen’s Association; Kansas Farmers Union; Mississippi Livestock Markets Association; Missouri's Best Beef, Inc.; National Farmers Union; Nebraska Farmers Union; New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; Oregon Livestock Producers Association; Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Mo.; South Dakota Stockgrowers Association; The CJD Foundation; Western Organization of Resource Councils; and, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association.
# # #
10 comments:
Popped in from SITS! I know this is a serious topic, but I love that picture!
Thanks for sharing!
Amy
http://goatpod2.wordpress.com
I read about this in the paper as well and erm, putting a facility like that in tornado alley. Uh, what ARE they thinking?!
As someone who works in animal research I can only say that the protection from an outbreak is only as strong as the regulations that are in place to stop the occurence of an outbreak. In reality the regulations and laws regarding the prevention of outbreaks from high level facilities are so stringent that only gross misconduct and deliberate actions would lead to a serious outbreak in the general cattle population. These animals are not in a pasture situation and never have contact with external animals, pests, or people that could spread the disease. I would hate to see funding stopped on such an important issue because of irrational fears that an outbreak could happen. If fears like that were always allowed to dictate the direction of research then no one would ever research tuberculosis or flu or AIDS because of fear of a possible outbreak.
Thanks for commenting Pricilla, that is a point that has been brought up before.
Hi Rose, thank you for commenting. I really appreciate your point of view, especially since you do have experience in animal research.
You have some very valid points but I do have to disagree that concern over an animal disease getting out of the facility is not irrational because it has happened before. It has happened in England and according to the information from R-CALF it has happened on Plum Island, though I could be wrong about that one. (and that is the reason the England outbreak was the only one brought up in this post) So hardly irrational when this has happened in the past with other research facilities.
I also think you might have misunderstood that I do NOT want all funding for animal disease research to be stopped. Heck no I don't, this is very important research and deserves to be fully funded...ON PLUM ISLAND. I believe the facilities at Plum Island should be upgraded if not an entire new facility build on the island, but certainly not on the mainland, in the middle of the country, in tornado alley in one of the most livestock densely populated areas of the country.
Just to be clear I do NOT believe funding for important disease research should be stopped but I DO believe state grants and moneys to move the facility to the heart of cattle country should be stopped dead in its tracks and I probably should have been more clear on that point in my post. Thank you.
This site, http://www.nbafblog.com/, makes a good case for why research should be conducted in Kansas.
I knew about the island, and I knew what types of things they were researching at the facility, and how disasterous it would be if it were ever moved inland...and here we are talking about it. It seems to never end, the odd decisions that are made.
When the government steps in, when there is an outbreak, we lose control of testing and the destroying of our animals. And, being that we have not had an outbreak, why do anything to even come close to putting us in a huge risk factor? It does not make sense to me.
Thank you for the link Anonymous, I wish you would have signed your name so I could thank you in person.
I read quite a bit of that blog and while I do appreciate that this will be a state of the art facility it nags in my mind that the facility in Britain was probably also proclaimed to be one at one time also. I also certainly appreciate that KS could use the 36 million that will be put into this project. There is no denying that.
I do continue to question the wisdom in bringing for example Foot-and-Mouth disease to the mainland of a country that has been free of it since 1929. I have not changed my mind yet, especially considering that in 2001 the UK killed more than seven million sheep and cattle to gain control of a FMD outbreak. What an economic disaster for that country. I will however certainly read more on your blog. Thank you very much for the information.
For anyone interested in learning more about FMD here is a link.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/fs_foot_mouth_disease07.pdf
Thank you Mary for your comment! I am also trying to make sense of this proposal.
These people are not dealing with reality. It doesn't make sense.
Post a Comment