Heather

As incorrectly advised by another poster, free range pork, lamb or beef is not available at "your nearest Coles or Woolies store everyday." I can assure you I have made many enquiries throughout my village of some 30,000 residents and no-one has ever seen anything free-range with the exception of eggs and a few chickens (if your quick enough.)

However, back to the subject "Taking a stand for all animals."

I have endeavoured to send this thread to all addresses on my computer so that they too may see for themselves, the views and attitudes of proponents for animal cruelty and the zealotry they display for the status quo to continue.

I shall approach my local MP's and any candidates as soon they put their hand up prior to the next state and federal election.

I shall present them with graphic printed details and written information on the legalalised, heinous treatment of factory farmed animals in Australia and I shall scrutinise the recipients' responses very carefully. Many friends (who perhaps are not as passionate) have agreed to this proposal.

I have already resigned from a political party and that's just the start of it. Political parties are very reluctant to lose any members and I do believe I have more than adequately assisted my political party in the past.

These planned actions are just a few of which I intend to implement.

I trust all fair-minded people will consider doing the same thing.

Dickie, I remind you that virtually the whole lamb and most of
the beef industry, are in fact free range industries by nature.

Sheep and lambs are not run in factories, but out in paddocks.
pastures etc, where they spend most of their lives. Perhaps
the lamb industry should put little stickers on those packets
with "free range" in bright letters on there, so that you
become aware of it.

Most of those cattle feedlots in Queensland, where animals
are finished, are for specific markets such as Japan and
Korea, where premiums are paid for these animals. It costs
a great deal of money to feedlot ruminants, so nobody does
it unless its specifically demanded by consumers.

The chicken and pork industries are a little different.
But once again those industries are driven by consumer demand.
Supermarkets will stock what consumers request. I always
buy free range chicken and since I've asked a few times
specifically for it, when it was not available, its now
available at my local Coles store, 90% of the time. If
its not there, I don't buy chicken. All very simple.

The same applies to battery eggs, its up to consumers to
choose.

As to pork, free range pigs are in fact produced in WA,
they are simply not labelled as such. Clearly those producers
should start to differentiate their products and label them
accordingly. You as a consumer should have no hesitation
to pay a premium, for the extra labour involved. If enough
people ask for free range, thats what supermarkets will carry
and thats what farmers will produce. All very simple.

Puzzling. When I state that I found the Live Animal trade exposed on 60 minutes disturbing and outrageous my comment is chucked in the sin bin.

Dear Graham while keeping an eye on things be sure to cast your balanced assessment across some of the earlier posts from Dickie & supporters. Plainly offensive comments were not limited to one individual. You are a bit late and appear to be somewhat biased.

Be sure and show this reference material to the politicians Dickie. Peter Singer the guru of Animal Lib. No shouting, it is a headline, get it? Will this be a profitable genre for Animal Rights lawyers?

NO HEAVY PETTING
Author(s): CATHY YOUNG Date: April 11, 2001 Page: A19 Section: Op-Ed
THE LATEST ANIMAL RIGHTS CONTROVERSY IS NOT ABOUT ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION, FUR COATS, OR THE SLAUGHTER OF FARM ANIMALS IN EUROPE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE. IT'S ABOUT THE MORALITY OF SEX BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ANIMALS.
Admittedly, bestiality is hardly a burning issue. But it's being discussed in editorials in the Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, thanks to an essay by controversial philosopher Peter Singer in the online magazine Nerve, titled "Heavy Petting."
Singer, author of the 1979 book "Animal Liberation," argues that our revulsion at human-animal coupling is as irrational as the old prohibitions on homosexuality and that the persistence of this taboo attests to "our desire to differentiate ourselves . . . from animals.
Singer scoffs at the belief that humans have a unique spiritual nature or moral stature. To him, "we are animals," which means that inter-species sex "ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings" and is not wrong unless it involves violence to the animal.
Singer's essay has been roundly denounced. Interestingly, however, many of his critics suggest that what makes sexual activity with animals immoral is not that it degrades humans but that it exploits animals: Since animals cannot give meaningful consent to sex, bestiality is akin to pedophilia

Dickie, I know you will loath to admit it, but Yabby is absolutely right. As long as demand for humanely produced meat is low, factory farming will continue. Politicians are'nt the answer, educating consumers is.

It is my business, dealing with this issue, and the majority of australians are still oblivious to how much of their food is produced.

The answer seems pretty simple to me, if we are able to make informed decisions, and that results in not buying factory farmed meat, change will be inevitable.

Such an argument, however persuasive, raises inevitable questions about other human uses of animals (isn't being butchered worse than being sexually abused?)
It also poses problems for animal rights advocates: If animals can have sex with each other but not with people, that means drawing a clear line between humanity and other species and denying the moral autonomy of animals.
Surprisingly few commentators have challenged Singer's dubious basic premise: that human beings have no special status or worth and that "species ism" is a prejudice not much different from racism. This premise is shared by the animal rights movement, even if Singer's endorsement of bestiality generally is not. But the notion of moral equality between humans and animals is pernicious even if it's not extended to the bedroom.
As philosopher Tibor Machan argues in a 1991 essay on animal rights, human beings have rights because they are "moral agents," capable of distinguishing and choosing between right and wrong. There is, writes Machan, "no valid intellectual place for rights in the nonhuman world . . . in which moral responsibility is for all practical purposes absent."
Yes, some animals can exhibit caring behaviors, such as helping an injured fellow beast, that animal rights activists invoke as evidence of morality; but no one really expects animals to respect the rights of other living things.
I'd like to see Singer persuading wolves not to mistreat sheep. Gary Francione, an animal-rights legal theorist, does feed his dogs a vegan diet, free of all animal products; but it's rather ironic that a champion of animal rights would use his human power to coerce animals into something so unnatural.
Indeed, Machan points out, most animal rights advocates "never urge animals to behave morally" or propose that animals be held responsible for moral wrongs. This is evident in Singer's discussion of an incident in which a woman visiting an orangutan rehabilitation camp was forcibly grabbed by an aroused male ape, and the female primatologist who ran the camp told her not to worry since it wouldn't hurt her. (The animal lost interest before anything serious happened.

Hi Dickie,
Yes, the denials of what is occurring must end! Barbaric practices endured during transport, in saleyards & in slaughterhouses are, provably, beyond dipute! Moreover, one only has to ask any butcher how 'free range' animals are killed to know that 'free range' has no meaning re what an animal endured at 'the end' of his or her life.

It's no quick end! Some stop at saleyards after a long truck journey deprived of even water, to prevent urinating & slipping in that on the rough journey, so I'm told. I have heard from reliable sources that some slow animals are simply thrown off the trucks! Some suffer broken legs in the gaps between the slats on the ramps. There may be another long truck journey ahead of them and for some a terrible sea journey & more cruelty at slaughter. Even the more local slaughterhouses are still shocking. There is reported evdience that some animals are skinned while alive and conscious and strung upside down, when the compulsory 'stunning' has been 'inadequate'!

On your point about approaching politicians, I actually did write to Julia Guillard after I heard her say that her new portfolio would encompass "fairness" in Australian Society generally, not only, the narrower, "fairness for workers" interpretation of her portfolio. I thought it would be great if she could do something about the "unfairness" (gross understatement there!) to animals in our society. I received no reply I am sad to say!

The right political force could address the totality of unfairness in the "animal who are factory farmed, transported & slaughtered" industry. This encompasses de-humanised workers, drivers and farmers who are not (financially or otherwise) rewarded for humane behaviour, including a, proved, environmentally-friendliness associated with that. There's a whole new industry (& employement opportunity) waiting to be intensively developed in vegan 'meat' substitutes. The right advertising/public re-educating campaign would be a start!

I would be very interested to further exchange ideas re 'how we ordinary citizens might (try to) wake up the political consiousness' in these matters. I can be contacted via my care2 website http://my.care2.com/sentient_being