|
Post by zeldalithgow on Oct 13, 2012 13:36:56 GMT -1
"Actually it has been properly and scientifically surveyed by the government. Ragwort is DECREASING in the Uk"
That can not be true how come I see more and more ragwort every year if it is decreasing
ulenamx what link do you have with that web site, and what qualifications do you have to be so sure that what the web site says is true, after all one can't believe everythig one reads
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 14:04:48 GMT -1
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 14:26:37 GMT -1
what fools. the ragwort problem is getting worse and worse each year. I agree, a response would be very appropriate. Most people probably have no idea how nasty ragwort is. How do you know that is it sa nasty as you believe? What proper scientific information have you read on this issue as opposed to just reading magazines and newspapers? I think, if you got to know this group, you'd understand that some of us have first-hand experience of ragwort poisoning in horses. It is seriously debilitating and, in advanced cases, life threatening and with no cure. Whilst we are aware that a horse has to ingest a quantity of the plant before symptoms show, it has to be remembered that the effect builds up over time and that by the time symptoms present the damage is already done. It is also more toxic to young animals - and many members here breed ponies. Certainly I don't need statistics on paper to inform me that ragwort is more prevalent in the area where I live. The roadsides and fields are full of it. If it isn't controlled, yes it will spread. If it is dried in hay - which for many of us is a winter staple - it is even more toxic. Are you disputing this? Is it indigenous to the UK? What evidence can you offer for this? Simply making an assertion using capital letters isn't enough I'm afraid. You see - we don't believe all we read, and certainly not from someone who just appears on our board with no introduction. What response would you give to NFK Dumpling's questions regarding the 2003 Control of Ragwort Act and the reliance of pollinators on ragwort? Can you provide us with evidence that those of us who spend hours and hours of backbreaking time digging this weed out of our fields in order to safeguard our horses' health are wasting our time and could have been out enjoying our animals instead of sweating over the results of recalcitrant landowners' neglect of their duty under the 2003 Act?
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 14:33:47 GMT -1
Cross posted with you ulenamx! I've just had a look at your Buglife website and it is quite clear that you're as passionate about your bugs as we are about our horses! I think all we horse owners ask is that landowners control ragwort. That doesn't mean eradicate it - just control it where it impacts on grazing animals. The 2003 Act support us in this.
|
|
|
Post by zeldalithgow on Oct 13, 2012 14:38:54 GMT -1
Well said Sue, you're far better with words than I am
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 14:46:19 GMT -1
It's my job, Zelda :-)
I love a good debate......but I think in this case, and having had an albeit brief scan of the Buglife site and some of the linked articles and academic papers, we won't get very far with ulenamx.
He's probably - as I type - digging out the evidence I asked for. I fear he is also on a losing wicket in trying to defend this plant against horse owners!
|
|
|
Post by harveydales on Oct 13, 2012 14:53:44 GMT -1
I'm afraid I haven't the time right now to give a full reply but will do so later.
Firstly, yes I am fully aware that it is Oxford Ragwort which is the non-native and suposedly spread by escaping from the Oxford Botanical Gardens whereas the other Ragwort species are native to the UK, but no less toxic. I am a qualified Plant Scientist with an honours degree and worked in research for many years (am now retired) and certainly don't believe everything on the internet including the many "myths exposed" type sites. I prefer to rely on the in depth research carried out by reputable scientists such as those at the University of Liverpool. I do not intend to allow my horses to graze on Ragwort infested fields or hay if I can help it. Of course I don't advocate irradicating plant or animal species but I won't be allowing Ragwort to grow in my or neighbouring fields. I can't see why this should be a problem to any one.
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 14:56:56 GMT -1
Way to go Pam!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 15:32:03 GMT -1
OK then. I directly challenge you for your proof. This is the kind of scientific proof that I want. You say you have data from the University of Liverpool. This is what you need to provide. Proper published research, published in proper peer reviewed journals, FROM THAT UNIVERSITY, where you say all this wonderful research is going on. This research will be required to show that ragwort is killing a large number of horses in the UK. You say there is "in depth research" then I challenge you to show that this scientific research exists and that it is properly published. I'll save you the trouble. There is very little peer reviewed research on ragwort published there and none of it will show what I am asking. You've been reading the horsey press not the scientific journals which are the proper sources of information. You CAN ask them for their number of recorded cases of treated ragwort poisoning as several people have done under the Freedom of Information Act. This will tell you that for the five year period from 2005 to 2010 they did not record treating a single case of ragwort poisoning. NOT ONE CASE! I should also warn you that the claims of large numbers of horse deaths have been subjected to scrutiny by the Advertising Standards Authority, who are of course entirely independent, and that a number of adverts were stopped as a result. See Ragwort The sense and the nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 15:45:54 GMT -1
Who are you ulenamx? Your post comes across as quite aggressive. The use of capital letters to make your point can come across as shouting - especially in the context of the way in which you present the rest of your text.
Be warned - whilst we are up for an open and reasoned debate, the moderators will not allow anyone to remain as a member if they behave in an intimidating manner.
What exactly is your point? That we're wrong to be concerned for our horses and work to minimise the risks of ragwort poisoning by seeking the correct application of the 2003 Act and eradicating the weed from our pastures by whatever means we see fit?
I'm afraid that rather than winning people to your point of view your language may put backs up and alienate your audience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 15:49:03 GMT -1
There is no duty under the 2003 Act. That is a myth.
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 15:53:19 GMT -1
Explain why that is a myth.
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 15:57:36 GMT -1
This is the duty I refer to. Where is the myth in that?
"Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in this Act referred to as “the Minister”) is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 16:43:06 GMT -1
This is the duty I refer to. Where is the myth in that? "Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in this Act referred to as “the Minister”) is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading." What duty?That isn't the 2003 Act for a start. Just look at that text. It says the Minister "may" do something not that s/he has to, or there is a duty. If there were a duty it would say so in the act. Isn't this rather aggressive? Constantly posting challenges with incorrect information instead of checking things properly first. You were wrong about ragwort not being a native plant and you are quite simply wrong about this. There is nothing in the legislation that places an automatic duty to do anything. You may be ordered to control ragwort but as Matt Shardlow quite correctly said in his letter without such an order there is no duty to do anything. There is a myth that there is an automatic duty to control ragwort. It was one of the things that the Advertising Standards Authority dealt with they banned a BHS leaflet. And this is to make the point again, not part of the 2003 act
|
|
|
Post by SuzieP on Oct 13, 2012 17:02:15 GMT -1
Oh dear! You're really not helping your case.....
|
|