We are but, and only, another animal species.
Different perhaps but certainly never better.
In fact as the only animal species actively destroying its own Environment for its own self gratification we are probably worse that other animal species.
To think otherwise is arrogance.

the voiceless babies being slaughtered in mothers womb would be a worthy cause for Ruth to take up.

Um, so (I understand this is how sentences are started now) "We are not talking about enshrining in law rights that would seek to protect an antelope being killed by a lion". Well for heavens sake I think we should! The author should take any Lion available to task for this, let's face it, horrendous breach of the antelope's rights!
After that particular conference is dealt with she can knock on my door.
I have more to say but there is a delicious bit of roast pork awaiting my verdict, thank you your worship.

Born an omnivore I do enjoy eating tasty animals. It is the natural way and yummy.

Seafood, especially shellfish, is my speciality in the kitchen.

I do like the challenge that land game animals present though: wild duck pot pie with button mushrooms and wine, and roo vindaloo extra hot and healthy (multiculturalism that works).

Tomorrow I need some capers to go with the veal, tomatoes and huge Kalamata olives in the fridge. Dinner guests get emotional about that, I find.

*Thus, when one talks about animal use for human benefit, one must talk about how these animals suffer.*

Depends what you call suffering. Farm animals do far better when they are happy, content, healthy and growing fast. Suffering causes stress, which would go against good farming practise. I run a few sheep and I like to think that they will only have one bad day in their lives and they won't really know what happened on that day. They will suffer far less than many humans in the old peoples home, gasping until their last breath.

Now if we all became vegans, all these animals would have no life at all, so I don't think they would really be keen on that option.

You seem to have no problem with suffering in nature, which is huge. Nobody does anything when kangaroos starve to death, or die of thirst. What about the wild dogs ripping all sorts of animals to bits?

Fact is that my livestock lead happy lives, far better than in nature, protected from diseases and things like wild dogs. They also don't need to suffer in the old peoples homes, as so many humans do.

I guess this small gaggle of comment, typifies the broad range of opinions towards animals. It is difficult to argue against the slaughter of animal groups, for human consumption, for which the suppliers of these animals, farmers, are essential .
No reason though, that suppliers of these animals are not responsible for humane treatment of all aspects of the farmed animals. and the environment in which they are cared for, and should have paramount consideration in all respects.

But the harvesting of wild animals unseen, is what concerns me. I would consider the current trend towards furnishing the needs of individuals in China in particular, with an estimated hundred million slaughtered sharks PA, harvested entirely for their fins which are used in a soup dish, in order to conform to the vagaries of a cultural fantasy, supposedly to increase the Chinese male masculinity, as evidence of a profound lack of concern , not only for the future of these aquatic beasts, but the future impact this unnecessary culling will inflict on the survival of the planet, through profound changes to the natural balance of our oceans.

Ateday gets the prize for the biggest inferiority complex, believing he/she is no better than an animal.

The author says that farmers are "permitted" to do "cruel things" to animals, but doesn't elaborate on what those cruel things are. I don't believe there is any permission given in Australia for anyone to be cruel to animals. There is no doubt there are people who are cruel to animals, and when they are detected, they are prosecuted by via perfectly good laws. Animal "rights" are just a load of tosh. Animals should be well-treated, cruelty should be punished; but the author and her friends are dreaming.

I think farmers do an honorable and respectable job putting food on other peoples plates.

It seems you have an issue with the treatment of chickens.
Did you know that farmers must raise these chickens for 6 weeks (sometimes less) before it ends up on your plate?
Did you know the farmers get less than a dollar a bird so that everyone can get a nice roast chook for under 8bucks at Coles and Woolies?

You want to blame the farmer, but they are being squeezed by everyone, till of course they put a gun in their mouth and squeeze the trigger on that.

And if you are worried about Mastitis, why don't you look into Monsanto Bovine Growth Hormone and what it does to every single milk producing cow that is injected with it.

I enjoy a piece of venison backsteak. and once eaten you'll never eat beefsteak again? Moreover, mum could create the most delicious and tender roast bunny that you'll ever taste and wild pork takes some beating if you know how to prepare the carcass?

And while roasting a Sunday roast in the oven replete with crackling. A traditional maori hangi takes some beating for melt in the mouth meals!

Naturally none of these alluded to feral animals suffered as carefully placed projectiles destroyed their tiny minds.

We are omnivores and rightly so, given that's the only reason we survived as a species, or indeed get enough, essential for our sanity, vitamin B12 and as the best source of essential iron. And beats the hell out of having to eat a bucket of broccoli every day to maintain a bare and necessary minimum of dietary elemental iron.

Yes emotions are important, inasmuch as we leave them out of constructive debate, rather than be ruled entirely by them!

[The green response to mining a dead reef?] Imagine applying the same over the top emotional response to inhumanely chomped on down (while still alive?) oysters, (we should shoot them furst Hillbilly) a more than useful source of many essential dietary minerals.

And given that is so, humane treatment of farmed animals will alway trump doing otherwise, which as a husbandry model just imposes unnecessary stress, which n turn creates tough meat more suitable for shoe leather than the plate!
Alan B.

Inner city nonsense.

Alan B.,

I can get quite emotional over venison back straps too. This way,

http://www.realtree.com/timber-2-table/bacon-wrapped-venison-loin-with-mushrooms-and-red-wine-sauce

I do enjoy my old-fashioned, slow-cooked venison, roo or goat casserole in the not so old-fashioned Bedourie camp oven (great gear). Beaut, leads you back to camp.

What is good is the trend towards cooking shows where game is used. Great for children in highly suburban Oz.

Flagging country towns can do a lot of business if the game appetite and traditions of hunting for the table of our grandparents, or parents in the case of many migrants, were revived and they should be.

Let the grey nomads take their 'squirrel guns' (.22) to those rabbits (and any fox that appears) to help out farmers and put some tasty bunny in the pot to give the potatoes some flavour.

Honestly, why do the Greens and animal welfare activists -'animal welfare'?, they are joking - push for expensive contractor chopper drops of 1080 poisoned carrots to cause magnificent animals like deer to die in excruciating pain and be left to rot in the bush?

They are game, first class protein and should be recognised as such.

This strikes me as very much a "first-world" issue, designed to make work for people with an overload of emotional baggage, but little understanding of how life treats the vast majority of the seven-plus billion humans on this planet.

If the same amount of energy and expense were directed at improving the lot of a bunch of hungry and thirsty people somewhere in the less fashionable parts of the world, I'd be much more impressed.

We must be a very rich country indeed to spend time and money (I assume there is a government department somewhere that is paying Ms Hatten's wages) on such pointless activities.

I wonder whether she keeps a pet? Animal cruelty, much?

The author is correct as far as hurting and killing animals is morally wrong.

And yes, Runner, killing human babies is also morally wrong.

This however, doesn't authorise the state, one of the least moral bodies in existence, to impose itself as kind of a "moral guardian", enforcing moral codes over the people who live in "its" territory.

Both the author and the churches are more than welcome to put forward their moral convictions in every possible forum in order to try and peacefully convince others of their views, as well as to use other non-violent methods (including naming-and-shaming and boycotts) against the perpetrators. However, using the brute force of the state and its laws is immoral in itself, so there it must stop.