I've been reading these posts and this is some of the most entertaining back and fourth I've ever read. Ever seen Abbott and Costello's 'Who's on First' sketch?

Yabby, The Gryphon, Col Rouge, Cowboy Joe, etc.. = Abbott

Dickie, MOS, Heather, etc.. = Costello

It is funny on stage, but the fact that there are real life people like Costello is even funnier!

Heather your post on Sunday, 11 February 2007 1:42:33 AM where you said "animals are better suited to being our spiritual teachers-of-humility than they are to being our food" I fell off my chair laughing. Fair dinkum, what animals do you take spiritual lessons from? Even you'd have to admit that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people would rather have a steak on their plate than receive spiritual advice from a cow. Come on, be serious and you'll find more people take you serious. Do you really believe that everyone is wrong and that the .00001% of true vegans are right?

MOS, You need to admit that you're for the eating of farmed animals after your comment posted Sunday, 24 December 2006 7:12:50 AM where you say "In years gone by, a cow kept by a village family which had its milk gently taken and was finally killed and eaten after a fairly long life had a vastly better life than today’s factory farmed animals. We’ve lost touch with the animals and have let producers think they can do pretty much what they like in order to reduce the price to us and their profits. We need to tell them now that what they are doing is completely unacceptable."

You're point was that if farmers did it like they used to, it would be okay right?

cont...

Dickie, mate you've an argumentative style of a teenager. Packed with emotion and containing no substance. When logically confronted with an argument, change the subject and avoid facing reality. Some friendly advice: Answer the questions posed to you, stay focused on the issue at hand and you may get some result albeit not the result you want. Here's an example of what I mean from your post:

-
Cowboy Joe asks: "Dickie please define cruelty to us so we can focus."

I'm completely at a loss as to how to explain the definition of cruelty to a gentleman who seemingly is of mature age and asks a question befitting of one's two year old child.

Posted by dickie, Sunday, 24 December 2006 12:28:57 PM
-

"Cruelty" is a relative term. what is cruel to one may not be to another and Cowboy Joe (and the rest of us) simply would like you to draw a line in the sand so we can debate that on it's merits. Are you not answering the question because you can't or are you simply afraid to?

The thing is, it doesn't matter now as you've already proven yourself the liar that you are. Not a liar, you say? My favourite of your posts to this thread reads "End of posts for Dickie" - Posted by dickie, Friday, 5 January 2007 11:10:18 PM" yet three short weeks later we get "Posted by dickie, Friday, 26 January 2007 11:32:25 AM". Point proven, and if you lie about something as simple as that, well how can we believe one word you type in the future? Easy question to answer, we can't and won't so your opinions are deemed moot from hence forward.

So can someone else who thinks there is such a thing as 'animal cruelty' please define it so this discussion can continue? I'll start: "It is cruel to starve a feral animal to death but it is not cruel to shoot one in the head and use it as food." Agree/Disagree, but tell us why, draw your line and stick with the subject.

PF

You have interpreted my post incorrectly. I am not attacking you and you should not presume that my questions (unanswered) are personal.

I do believe you are sincere in your endeavours to practise farming methods humanely.

Though I am surprised that you appear unaware of flank spaying since it is you who is the farmer.

www.brahman.com.au will assist with this information for starters where they advise that flank spaying is the traditional method of which I have explained in a previous post. Perhaps those who make a living by torturing animals would be interested in the state of the art Willis dropped ovary technique?

This method is where the "skilled" operator shoves his hand up the back end of a heifer or cow and cuts the animal's ovaries off. I presume they are left inside the cow, hence the description "dropped."

And anaesthetic is not mandatory, as anticipated.

And I see we have more of the chattering classes joining this debate. Thank you Radrage for your polite words. They are certainly less offensive then the abusive language you have placed on your website titled "Peta Sucks."

I notice that your many fans have failed to sign off -not a signature anywhere. I do believe that you are the author of everyone of them.

Your website is sponsored by Plaza Suites Griffith (or is that Gryphon?)Street Coolangatta.

I trust all those of a more delicate disposition will contact Plaza Suites and object to this company sponsoring such a foul website and one would certainly think twice before holidaying in their apartments.

And Radrage, welcome to OLO. I notice you have only two posts - both of them on this thread. I do believe we've met before.

Dickie, I thought I did answer your questions. As for the Wills dropped ovary technique – seems to only be a requirement of cattle shipped for live export out of Northern Australia. While I agree that it should not happen, a majority of cows and heifer in this country are used as breeders so therefore this procedure would hardly make sense would it? I have never heard of cattle being flank spayed here, there is absolutely no need. You make it sound like a standard procedure performed on all farms.

Sorry, there was one question I didn’t answer. Yes, I do have debeaked chickens.
I usually buy a bunch from a caged operation and they live out the rest of their lives as happy free range, albeit beakless, chooks

Yabby
Below are three separate date excerpts, during 2005, from my local newspaper on cruelty at the local saleyards: (just a portion of available information, but there’s too little space here).

1.”…Council CEO…admitted that the council did not comply with the code of practice for saleyards, "… nearly every other saleyards doesn't comply with the code either," he said...”

2."… 50,000 sheep are at the saleyards I can't look at them all…”[the salesyard manager said]…[he] said meetings had been held with stakeholders to try and change their "culture of indifference"…"This has been going on for many years and it is difficult to change the mind-set…" he said…[The RSPCA Chief Inspector] said, "It is also very difficult to prosecute stakeholders under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act," …”

3.”…Saleyards manager… who checked the sheep Saturday night after being contacted by police, denied the sheep were distressed…He said the lack of water was due to troughs being turned off on weekends in case they leaked… The RSPCA was unavailable to comment.”

# And, in 2006, this excerpt from ABC News Online (on the saleyards in my local area):
“…The RSPCA's chief inspector … says he has recently been handed a videotape, allegedly depicting new cases of animal cruelty at the yards."… very disturbing footage on that video that we are investigating," he said."We get a lot of complaints about saleyards recently in general, not just [this local area]… and … it's coming from the general public."…”

+, incidentally, there’s also been more footage on the news, tonight, about (Victorian) Sheep being cruelly treated in the Middle East.

So, let’s all have the humanity and the humility, here, (and, to those who think otherwise, yes, you CAN learn this ‘humility=an aspect of spirituality’ from the animals themselves if only you will realize it) to acknowledge that (institutionalized) CRUELTY to animals EXISTS.

To those who, genuinely, debate ‘whether cruelty exists” start a thread for that issue! The issue raised by the original article in THIS thread, is: "is the solution to an acknowledged cruelty to certain animals to be found in Animal Law?"

Heather, if there is a problem in one particular saleyard, in
one particular State, thats a long way from being a problem in
a whole industry. In the saleyards which I occasionally visit,
a sheep only has to show the slightest limp, its immediately
condemned as NCV, due to animal welfare laws. In fact the WA
Govt has just appointed another 6 inspectors, to police saleyards
and other places where stock are handled.

But as I have pointed out, only a small % of livestock ever see
saleyards. Overall, if you look at the big picture, it is in the
interest of both farmers and processors to look after animals.

Most farmers that I know, actually care about their animals. But
exceptions will be found in every facet of human behaviour.
Some people get married, then beat their spouse etc. That does
not make marriage per se evil, some humans just get it wrong.

Thats why we have laws, as we in WA have animal welfare laws.
Those laws are enforced to various degrees. But that applies to
any laws. I see animal welfare laws as no different to any others.

Perhaps that is not the case in your saleyards or your State.

I'm just getting slightly peed off by a heap of vegans, trying
to promote the concept that farmers are evil creatures and that
the only solution is veganism. I think thats utter nonsense and
if I look at the big picture around me, and I'm right in the middle
of it, not living in some city, most animals are well cared for
and treated humanely. Yes there are exceptions, as with anything
in life.