Letter in response to Ramsgate sheep incident
Always with an aim of fair and frank reporting, Farming Monthly National received the below letter in response to a story previously published here on the website and we have decided to publish this in full.
Always with an aim of fair and frank reporting, Farming Monthly National received the below letter in response to a story previously published here on the website and we have decided to publish this in full. The story certainly seems to have hit a nerve and has stirred many feelings – we’re sure that the debate will continue.
Dear Sir/Madame’
My family and I have read your monthly magazine for many years and on the whole found it informative and usually accurate. However last month I read with some disquiet the article from the NFU about the report on the incident at Ramsgate port on the 12th September last year when 46 sheep had to be euthanised at the port.
I have some interest with the local farming community and I also have reasons to be at the port on occasions. On this particular day I was at the port and as an observer witnessed the fiasco that took place. The NFU article does not tell the truth and I find people who are so involved in farming being so uneducated on the procedures that occurred.
Firstly, the lorry was know to the AHVLA inspectors as a high risk vehicle as it had already received two previous warning notices over the three week period prior to this day. The faults found were not minor and resulted in Kent Trading Standards condemning the vehicle when they were eventually called. AHVLA were going to use this vehicle to move the animals before Trading Standards arrived. The RSPCA did express their concerns and when the AHVAL vet arrived he said the vehicle could not be used and said the RSPCA were justified in expressing their concerns.
There was no replacement vehicle ready even though AHVLA was supposed to have contingency plans and other hauliers in the area refused to help. The RSPCA had already told the authorities that there was a lack of facilities at the port in case of an emergency but now such an emergency had occurred and a decision had to be made. An area was identified for unloading by AHVLA but they failed to realise, and port staff never told them that there was a covered drain in this area. This drain subsequently collapsed under the weight of the animals resulting in several sheep falling into this drain. 3 drowned but the RSPCA, as far as I could see at great danger to themselves, managed to save a further 4 animals.
It now became apparent that there were several with broken limbs that had been caused on the vehicle but also a large number of the animals had advanced foot rot with lesions, something that does not happen on a four hour journey from where they had been loaded.
The two female RSPCA inspectors were asked by their vet who had now arrived to join the AHVLA vet if they would slaughter the injured animals as they were trained in this.
They agreed and used the Pith method. This as the NFU should know involved a captive bolt to the forehead followed by a steel rod up the nostrils to scatter the brain. I queried why this had to be done and was told that the captive bolt does not always kill the animal and they can recover. In a slaughterhouse they usually cut the animal’s throat but in these conditions there would have been too much blood. Even so a certain amount of blood comes down the nose and as the dead animals were thrown onto the pile this blood splattered over the bodies and walls of the small area. Each animal was taken out of sight of the others before it was killed so where the idea that they were all done in front ofone another is beyond me.
To add to this fraught situation one of the ‘stockmen’ actually relinquished all responsibility for his animals after he had tried to pull one of the sheep with a broken leg through the slats of his vehicle to stop AHVLA unloading the rest and finding all the injured animals.
I had to leave at this point due to family commitments but was told later that evening the animals were still in the port and I was later told the ‘replacement’ transporter didn’t arrive till lam in the morning and instead of taking the remaining animals to this lairage that is supposed to be 25 miles from the port it took them back to Kettering in Northamptonshire, a journey of over 150 miles. It is my understanding the two drivers were arrested and that there is an ongoing court case brought by Trading Standards against them and the company.
In the NFU report I see none of this that I witnessed and believe the RSPCA inspectors behaved professionally throughout this terrible cacophony of incidents. I also believe they did right in bringing this to the eyes of the general public and the farming community. I know that my friends in the farming industry were appalled by what I saw and find the NFU statement a mere cover up to ensure the animals are exported live no matter what the consequences.
Yours sincerely
V. Davey (Mrs)
