The Forum > General Discussion > What are People Against Live Exports about?
What are People Against Live Exports about?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- ...
- 13
- 14
- 15
-
- All
Posted by Wizard, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 1:38:52 AM
| |
Yes wenny, Glenyce did well on Landline didnt she? All the respected animal welfare groups were invited to comment ... I agree, it was a great farm featured :) Not a metal bar in sight! Organic too.
As to your comment about overstocking being the cause for death of animals during drought? Just one lonely ewe is still going to die a horrible death in a paddock of dust and no water. Your arguements against live exports seem to be just for the sake of arguement. Posted by PF, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 5:57:10 AM
| |
Wizard, that article was only the first of five that was published
in the Countryman in July-August. The Countryman is not freely available online for all to read, but they subsequently agreed to let Wellard publish the series on their website, so you can read the rest of them, if you are really interested. That should answer your many questions. http://www.wellardgroup.com.au/media_centre/media_releases.phtml Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 8:32:39 AM
| |
Wizard..welcome to the thread..you ask some excellent questions..Id like to know the answers too..so I intend to get as much as I can and hopefully enlighten myself and if it helps you thats great.
Keep posting..we need fair and balanced input on this topic as not a lot of that happens on Live Export issues on this forum..certain posters dominate the topic and its all very onesided. Welcome again.:) Posted by taurus29, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:31:56 AM
| |
Yabby. I have been reading those articles. Thanks for the links. One titled, “just look after the cargo Clinton” Just that heading makes you stop and think. The arguments I have read on this forum seem to infer that that the exporters just don’t care about how many sheep die, but isn’t it in their best interest that there are minimal mortalities? I would like to believe that anyway.
Wizard, I think you need to look a the bigger picture. A trained eye can spot problems with sheep in an instant. Because sheep are usually found in large flocks, it is something all farmers get used to. I doubt that this would be the first inspection ever made of the sheep either. The would have to have been inspected at saleyards, feedlots etc. I cant imagine why they would want to load unhealthy sheep can you? There was a comment about ‘loads of room’ also that there were a lot of empty pens. So it would stand to reason that a larger shipment would be housed in those? ‘Economic relief for the farmer’ goes hand in hand with a better alternative for the sheep than dying horribly in the paddock. And before you accuse me of ‘jumping ship’ I am trying to look at all sides here and find out what improvements have been made. Yabby, is there any info on what is being done to improve slaughter conditions? Posted by PF, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:16:58 PM
| |
Pigfarmer(PF) there is nothing wrong with jumping ship..it only means you are trying to be better informed and more balanced in your approach, that has to be a good thing.
Blind allegiance is pure folly. Posted by rachel06, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 1:58:31 PM
|
Why does live export bring a higher return than carcass?
Why can't vets speak out about the live export trade?
Isn't the reason animals of whatever variety die in the paddock in drought conditions is because the farms are over stocked?
Didn't the Landline article pointed out that live export was providing some economic relief for the farmers rather than relief from sufferring for the beasts?