The Whitehaven News September 7, 1905 Compulsory v. Voluntary Dipping

Compulsory v. Voluntary Dipping

The Whitehaven News - September 7, 1905

TO THE EDITOR. COMPULSORY VERSUS VOLUNTARY DIPPING. [To the Editor of the Whitehaven News]        Sir, - I am sorry that Mr. SHANKS in his reply to my last letter still pursues the same strain  that he adopted towards me in his former reply. He makes sweeping and vague accusations against me, of showing a want of dignity towards him, and a want of perspicuity in dealing with the subject under discussion. I beg to enter my strongest protest against such treatment. To level these charges at me without giving me the slightest chance of refuting them is most unfair. It is striking below the belt. If Mr. SHANKS will point out a single paragraph, or a single sentence, which he thinks shows a want of consideration towards him or is unduly personal, or is irrelevant to the point under discussion, If I cannot give him a reasonable explanation, I will undertake to make him the most honourable amends in my power.        Sir, I may be permitted to say, that no man can have a stronger aversion to the use of language of this kind than I have, but I feel I cannot allow the manner Mr. SHANKS has assumed towards me pass unnoticed. I assure nothing can be further from my mind than the desire to give him an undignified flooring.        I will now consider the points in his letter, seriatim. The first paragraph I think I have noticed sufficiently. The second needs no comment. Then follow paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. There is nothing in the first with which I disagree.        2nd, "Preventative measures and sanitary laws are never voluntarily observed by large classes of the community, &c." Into this sentence I venture to read what I consider to be it's true meaning, viz., preventative measures and sanitary laws are never voluntarily observed by a large class of farmers. If I am right, then, on behalf of the farmers of this district, I repudiate it. If I am wrong then I submit that the whole sentence is irrelevant to the discussion.        3rd, "Compulsory dipping cannot injure sheep &c." To this I reply that either compulsory or voluntarily dipping can certainly injure clean sheep. I have heard a butcher with large experience say, that a sheep was not fit to be killed for three weeks after being dipped. And why should a farmer be compelled to perform an operation which takes both labour and expense, and from which he can receive no benefit?        4th, "A farmer may dip when he likes and as often as he likes." To this I assent, I understand that this sentence is intended to be partly a reply to my question, which Mr. SHANKS proceeds to quote, viz., "Whether he himself or the officials of the Board of Agriculture, are more likely to know when his sheep need dipping." I must say that in the sentence alluded to, I cannot find the slightest semblance of an answer to this question. Surely the question is plain and intelligible, and I again ask Mr. SHANKS to give a manly and straightforward answer to it.        Then follows this astounding  sentence: "I say plainly that this has nothing to do with the compulsory dipping." I ask then, What has? I assert, without any fear of contradiction, from anyone who has the slightest practical knowledge of the subject, that knowing when to dip sheep in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the operation, is the most fundamental part of the whole business. Here follows another extraordinary sentence. "It could be arranged that the farmer would select his own time for dipping &c." If so, where then would the compulsion come in, and would the dipping be one iota more or less effective if witnessed by the President of the Board of Agriculture himself?        Mr. SHANKS then proceeds to cite, that may be termed the challenge in my letter, with the injunction "that everyone interested should take note," which I hope they will. I reply that the challenge is still open. He says that that is a tall order. I have no desire to quibble with his definition.        He asserts that I must have had a large experience with sheep scab. To this I assent. He next asserts that this is not a creditable position for any farmer to be in. I answer that I have yet to learn that there is anything discreditable in the way in which I gained my experience.        And to make this insinuation without having the slightest knowledge as to the circumstances, does no credit to Mr. SHANKS, and considering that he is so excessively thin in the skin himself, he ought not to try to prick other people.        A little further on we have the statement: "But before complete eradication can take place, dipping must be under official supervision." I have a good deal of official supervision, and it has almost invariably failed in it's object. I am prepared to give references to cases. And I consider, that where sheep feed on enclosed commons or large enclosures of rough mountain land, official supervision must necessarily prove almost a complete failure. The two last paragraph's in Mr. SHANKS's letter, I think, are covered by the first part of this letter.        In conclusion, I would ask Mr. SHANKS to remember that my sole object  in this correspondence, is to plead for liberty for the farmer to be allowed to manage his business with the least possible official interference, and that the original statement which I objected to was this, "I hope the time is not far distant, when the compulsory dipping order will include the whole country, dipping to take place at least twice a year." Now, I have no doubt that Mr. SHANKS would give the matter due consideration before making a sweeping proposition like this. I therefore ask him to kindly inform your readers how he proposes to carry the thing out. Seeing that the month of October is the time that farmers, "at least in the mountainous districts where sheep scab is most prevalent," usually dip, and also mark their sheep. Now the weather at this time of the year, is often very unfavourable for the purpose, and suitable days, few and far between, so that every sheep farmer likes to - and is justified in taking advantage of them when they come. I cannot comprehend how the work could be carried out under the proposed restrictions, without causing great annoyance and inconvenience to the farmers, and also causing many sheep to be dipped on the most unsuitable days, and so rendering the effect of the dipping almost nugatory. We have had some experience of this during the last dipping. But, no doubt, Mr. SHANKS will have a complete explanation ready, and I can assure him that sheep farmers will await it with keen interest.                                                                 J. B. BLAND. ******

 

< Prev		Next >