"the 457 Temporary Visa programme is alive and well in WA and the inclusion of the meat slaughtering industry into the WA programme should be imminent,"

Hehe, so I was correct of course! The 457 visa programme is not
working in the meat industry at the present time, as I stated.
Thanks Dickie!

Next we have the issue of meatworks. A number of applications in
the pipeline in WA, held up by State Govt red tape. Perhaps they
should have paid Burke and Grill, to actually get some results with
the present Govt in WA.

Next we have the issue of price. WA farmers should not be expected to
sell their livestock below world parity prices, in order to fill
processors and State Govt coffers. Farmers don't want subsidies,
they just don't want to get screwed by city slickers, as is now
the case. The live trade keeps the meat processing industry honest.

Processors, if they have the capacity and labour, are free to bid
on livestock, as are live exporters. State Govts are free to remove
their punitive taxes, if they choose. Its high time that farmers
stopped having to subsidise city slickers like Dickie, who clearly
dislikes us.

And exactly how often does Dickie think cows have their ovaries removed? If this sad plodder had been anywhere near a farm without a paper bag over his head he would understand that the general idea is for cows to keep having calves so there will be more cattle to sell.

Yet Dickie thinks farmers are all out there with nothing better to do than dream up new reasons to "incarcerate" animals in a crush and carry out major surgery on a significant part of their net worth.

This guy has the brain functions of a psychopath. It is all in his head and he wants the rest of the community to screw farmers as a particularly misdirected form of paliative treatment.

Fester

You’re right that a key difference between Singer and the Nazis is that the Nazis considered it the natural order for the strong and superior to destroy the weak and inferior. Furthermore, they extended this to conclude that strong races had the right to destroy the weak and inferior, and indeed a duty to do so if those inferior races posed a threat or impediment. This is a revolting and absurd position which I’m sure Singer would repudiate totally.

As I said, I don’t agree with those who argue the moral equivalence of the two positions, but there is similarity.

Both positions hold to a hierarchy of life values in which some humans lives are more valuable than others and may be destroyed by those others if the benefits are deemed to outweigh the suffering imposed. The key difference – and I’ll admit a crucial one – is the benchmark they use to determine who sits where in that hierarchy. In Singer’s case, it’s sentience, in the Nazis’ case racial and physical purity. Of the two I much prefer Singer’s position, but I don’t much like either.

One problem with this utilitarian approach is that what begins as a kind-hearted effort to elevate concern for animals to the level of concern for humans risks degenerating into treating (some) humans no better than animals.

Incidentally, the Nazis introduced some of the earliest and strongest laws protecting animal rights.

"My worry with the utilitarian approach is ...that it can (lead to) gross abuses of human rights endorsed if a greater good is expected to result."

True. Especially when the 'greater good' is rather problematic. We are getting into Mirky waters now.

Perseus, I am with you on the ovaries thing for cattle. I grew up in grazing country and I've never heard of it. You keep the cows for breeding, or sell to others for breeding, you sell the steers for meat. Heifers bring a lot less than steers at sale, so it doesnt make economic sense to sell them unless you are overstocked.

I also agree with you on the nature argument. Whilst I dont believe in inflicting cruelty and pain for the sake of it, people need to recognise that nature is cruel. Those idiots in PETA have obviously never seen a sheep die from being eaten inside out by maggots. Probably never seen a kangaroo starve in a drought either, or dead fish strewn up an empty river bed, or burned wildlife after a bushfire. Goodness me, surely only humans could possibly be THAT nasty to animals!

Nicky, as for using dogs to hunt rabbits, rabbits are a noxious animal in this country, and should be eradicated by any method. A relatively quick kill by a dog is much more humane than poisoning. But perhaps you missed my point - if you intend to eat the meat, shoot the animal quickly and cleanly, otherwise it stresses and turns the meat tough. Please, do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write before flipping out.

And still no-one has provided any solid evidence of this so-called cruelty. Wild claims abound but the substantiation always never shows up.

It is actually official policy of PETA to release all domestic animals so they can live "in natural harmony". How they will manage the boost in road kill, and how they will stop the cats eating the budgies, the dogs eating the cats and then hanging around the playgrounds when the cats run out is never explained.

In a democracy every person has a right to express a view no matter how unreasonable that view may be. But the moment they attempt to implement that unreason in policy they come up against the greatest intellectual achievement of mankind. That is, government is entirely subject to the will of reasonable men and women. Whenever there is a value call to be made, the courts and government must defer to the opinions of reasonable men and women in command of the facts.

And leaves the PETA nutters right out in the cold.