If proved negative then those who not only ordered the destruction but those who did the tests should be struck off/removed their respective organisations before they make any more errors of judgment.
Why the hell couldn’t they have tested for TB in the first place, why??
They tested twice and the test came back positive .
Poor little chap.
No.
First the “latest test” you mention was in fact a post-mortem examination by veterinary patholgists.
Again: " the initial post-mortem examination … found a number of TB-like lesions".
The TB test is designed to identify infection and if as has been said it provided a positive result it would suggest that, since TB-like lesions have been found, the test worked in identifying a case of Tuberculosis infection.
Only pathology can confirm that and (as my earlier link says) results can take many months.
I absolutely agree with your sentiment, however:
Testing imported livestock for the presence of disease is mandatory in the UK in order to prevent spread of disease.
When importing any animal (livestock especially as alpacas are along with sheep; goats etc.) you by implication accept the risk of infection upon testing as they arrive in the country.
If you’re not prepared to accept the risk that they might have or even be suspected of a disease you should not be importing them.
I’m not going to apologise for being blunt because it really is as straightforward as that.
1 Like
@Zaphod , lesions in the lungs can be detected by non lethal means, we do
it to humans every day ??
However to do it to a fairly large animal can be difficult and is not viable
for large numbers of animals? Thats why cows etc are put down instead!
But this was an individual animal treated more as a pet than a product !!
And l feel the owner should have been given the option to try the non lethal
method first at her own expense ??
If common sense had prevailed then this “storm in a tea cup” would never have
arisen !!
Donkeyman! 
I quite agree that if commonsense had prevailed etc. but as I say above: you don’t import an animal knowing there are risks involved and then repeatedly try to evade your responsibilities.
As for “lesions in the lungs can be detected by non lethal means, we do it to humans every day ??” well that may be so but it is of no relevance here.
I’m pretty sure that a team of veterinary pathologists are quite capable of determining what looks like TB and what doesn’t, just as human pathologists are capable of determining disease in humans post mortem.
Trying to negate or otherwise discount their findings strikes me as being either deliberately deceitful or plain ignorant.
(That’s not a"dig" at you BTW but just me explaining the reality of this entire situation.)
This particular “storm” however is of course the fault of the owner and of our media who appear greedy for publicity.
Well so far it looks like the tests were in fact correct and that this beast did indeed have tuberculosis.
If confirmed IMHO this owner should be made responsible for any extra costs involved as the result of her actions.
You and I should not be paying for the teams who traipsed backwards and forwards trying to do their lawful work regarding this Alpacca; it was at the owner’s insistence.
Make her pay.
1 Like
@Zaphod l disagree with your dismissal of the points l raised above Zaphod
especially your view that it is preferrable in this particular case to follow
the lethal option of a post mortem over the more expensive but possible
non lethal option funded by the owner !!
What objection could possibly be raised to this as the results of such methods
are available almost instantaneously without the weeks long delays you are
talking about ??
I am beginning to think you argue for the sake of argueing 
Donkeyman!
1 Like
In short, if she paid for them then none whatsoever.
Believe it or not agreement is not compulsory.
But as a polite reminder I will ask that you be wary of provoking disagreement, or have you really not learned yet?
When I am answering honestly and completely I do not expect a quarrelsome response as with “I am beginning to think you argue for the sake of argueing”.
1 Like
@Zaphod , IN SHORT IF SHE PAYED FOR THEM !!
As l posted in one of my earlier posts !!
I rest my case!
Donkeyman! 
Have I asked you to? 
Do calm down Zaphod.
Why on earth did she import an alpaca from New Zealand ?
Its not like there arent any here.
Show me where I said that I had asked you?
I am perfectly calm thank you as opposed to you maybe who apparently felt a need to reply to something which I did not ask of you.
The point is: why did she import one and then decide she didn’t like the laws about importing animals?
It’s a bit late for that once you’ve gone ahead and brought one here.
1 Like
If he’d been tested previously and was shown to be positive (which is the reason for killing him) then why now are they saying he was negative?
Thankyou, yes looking back I see, I was going by the thread title
It’s okay.
There is quite a bit to wade through after all.
1 Like
I already showed you.
It might be nice if you got off your high horse and rested your legs awhile.
It might be nice for other visitors if - instead of bickering and trying to pick a fight - you acted in an adult manner and discussed the topic instead.
Have a good day.
1 Like
I was NOT trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else, and neither do I care for the way you talk down to others for no reason. We used to call it manners once.
So you have a good day too.
1 Like