Back

I have copied below a section from the reply written by David Fields, the vet who slaughtered my animals, to the RCVS. It is part of about five pages. I don't think that it is part of our court case, and as it is so gross and stupid, I wondered if you could put it on Warmwell, with an appropriate explanation - I'm afraid words fail me on this one! The question he was asked was by Penny Butler of the RCVS Professional Conduct Department was "Whether the animals were examined." Part of his reply is :

A full clinical examination of all the stock would have been extremely time consuming and stressful for both the family and, most importantly, the stock. To examine a sheep effectively for lesions of FMD requires in my opinion: handling and restraint, taking of the temperature, casting of the individual, cleaning of the feet of all mud and debris, thorough examination of all feet and the mouth. This is a procedure that could not be accomplished without stress and disturbance to the individual concerned, and could have caused actual harm to the heavily pregnant ewes present. Stock could have been examined for lesions of FMD after death.

So he killed them instead? Give me strength....and then the RCVS said "feel free, no problem here, we see no misconduct!"

Earlier on in his statement, Mr Fields says "I had spent the past three weeks in charge of the day-to-day running of the IP Unit in Exeter." i.e. this guy is an experienced vet. Shame on him. Imagine if he said that to someone about their pet dog! Is this the future under the Animal Health Bill I wonder?

best wishes Didi

Back