Sheep Seizure Was Unjustified

Sheep Seizure Was Unjustified

I read with interest the front page story in the Herald which was critical of the Save our Sheep campaign. I was appalled by the inexcusable ignorance of the facts and issues expressed in the article and by sheep farmer Bill Nixon.

The facts are that the sheep in question are a special breed of sheep which have been bred in Belgium for their ability to produce quality milk in quantities far exceeding by many times the milk production of domestic sheep. The Beltex breed are the world's most heavily muscled breed and showed enormous potential for improving the lamb industry.

Larry Faillace, who was instrumental in importing the sheep, has a PhD in animal science and was meticulous in his research before importing the sheep to Vermont with the blessing of the USDA. Dr. Faillace and his wife Linda obtained feed records showing that the sheep to be imported had for generations never been fed on feed which contained animal byproducts, a practice which has led to the spread of "mad cow" disease in England and Europe.

The sheep imported to Vermont have been in quarantine for over four years and have never tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("BSE") (otherwise known as "mad cow" disease) or TSE, a sheep brain degenerative disease called "scrapie." It is also a scientific fact that there has never been a case where scrapie in sheep has crossed the "species barrier" and infected a cow thus causing "mad cow" disease.

In June of 1999, 72 sheep culled from the Greensboro flock were sent to the USDA for routine testing. Seven of the animals were tested using three different USDA tests. All of the USDA tests were negative.

A year later, frozen tissue from these same animals were sent to an outside lab in Staten Island where an experimental test was run by Dr. Richard Rubenstein. Dr. Rubenstein ignored basic scientific protocol, such as using negative controls, molecular weight markers, etc., and only re-ran the negative samples. When asked to confirm his test results, Rubenstein claimed he had "inadvertently disposed of the sample."

Based on these vague and inconclusive test results which were conducted in violation of the USDA’s own test protocols for BSE, the USDA decided to seize and destroy the sheep without giving the owners an opportunity to have the test results verified by certified reputable laboratories. The USDA also refused to have testing conducted on the sheep using the latest testing methods which have been developed in Europe to quickly isolate and identify BSE.

Every Vermonter is justifiably proud of the reputation that Vermont has for agricultural excellence. However, the issues here are much broader than the destruction of animals which may have a potential for disease. The real issue is the due process rights of the sheep owners to challenge and verify the testing before the seizure and destruction of their sheep by an overzealous government agency.

Recall that these sheep had been in quarantine, had never exhibited any clinical symptoms, tested negative on over 500 tests run by USDA, and pose absolutely no threat to humans or other animals. I wonder how Bill Nixon would feel if the USDA were to come onto his farm to seize and destroy his sheep and his reputation based on similar vague unsubstantiated suspicions?

The criticism of the Faillaces is misplaced and it is the USDA which should be the target of Mr. Nixon’s ire. It is the USDA which has damaged the image of Vermont agriculture and caused economic hardship for Vermont farmers with its irrational and overzealous actions. The whole purpose behind the importation of these sheep was to provide a means for the small family farm to realize a viable sustainable farming operation. This is a laudable goal and the Faillaces should be praised rather than condemned for their efforts.

Finally, I have come to know Larry and Linda Faillace personally as events unfolded. They are both bright, educated individuals who have demonstrated the highest ethical behavior and integrity. If Dr. Faillace thought there was any possibility that his sheep carried BSE, he would have been the first to have the sheep destroyed without waiting for government action.

What will be the final act in the sheep saga? The USDA has stated that it intends to conduct further testing on the sheep after they are destroyed. Will the test results ever be made public, thus vindicating the Faillaces? Will the anticipated negative test results get the same air and press time in the media as the seizure and destruction did? Stay tuned for further developments. This is a story that isn’t going to go away.

Bernie Lewis, Esq.

Randolph

____________