*Many countries are reluctant to import from that country.*

Err Dickie, according to one article that you posted, despite some
FMD in some isolated regions, 180 countries still bought 2.7 million
tonnes of beef from Brazil. They are the largest beef exporter
in the world and actively sell in the ME.

So back under the rock you crawl :)

Sheep? China has more sheep then Australia. They sell both mutton,
lamb and live to the ME. Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, etc etc, all run
goats, sheep, cattle. Africa is a large place, then Asia. The
ME has money, they will buy what they want and won't be blackmailed
by you lot.

250'000 cattle in meat terms Dickie, is about the same as 2.5
million sheep. Brazil has 160+ million cattle.

"So back under the rock you crawl:)"

Thank you so much Yabby. May I again offer you that one way air ticket back to the Old Dart? That would be much more comfortable then the 10 shilling cattle ship you arrived on from the Motherland. But as you rightfully said: "It's not a perfect world" and I, the fourth of six generations to have lived in rural Western Australia, must occasionally endure the loudmouth, swaggering braggarts who arrive here to pompously dictate to Aussies on how to suck eggs.

And by coincidence, that was a friend of mine you abused the other day. He related the story to me about taking his kids through unknown hillbilly territory in WA:

'Daddy, Daddy, What is that man doing ?'

'Well, I'm not exactly sure, my angels..'

'Oh, But Daddy, we want to know' chorused the children.

So 'Daddy' parks up, and calls down to a hillbilly called Yabby, bent over a sheep.

'I say, Country Yokel-Type person, are you shearing that sheep ?'

The Yokel replies 'Whaatt D'Yer Zay, M'boy ?'

'I said, are you shearing that sheep ?'

To which the the yokel Yabby shouts, 'No - bugger off and find yer own !'

nicky, Of course AA and whoever else bothers to go to the ME are "doing it for the animals", and not to deliberately stir religious intolerance. The simple issue is that the excuse AA now pushes for the ending live exports is the "barbaric" slaughter at the other end. Either AA is tolerant of halal slaughter or it isn't. It's quite plain it isn't, but instead of improving the standard of game they want to take the bat and ball home.

Put yourself in the other sides shoes, here you are slaughtering the sheep in the name of Allah as you have been instructed through time and tradition, and some organisation labels you barbaric. Barbaric for doing what you believe is right.
Explain how that would not be offensive, and how they should actually be thankful live exports are banned.

When you say brutalizing, you are conveying that they enjoy inflicting pain, or get their kicks out of shedding blood. I don't see it that way, they are just going about life as their parents did and their parents before them. Sure it could be better.
I'm supportive of any attempt to improve slaughter methods, I don't see banning live exports being anything other than detrimental to that goal.

The big issue is that Animals Australia (if it's anything like peta) doesn't want people to eat meat period. It's a conflict of interest when it comes to really improving slaughter practices.

cont'd

Well Dickie, Edward de Bono wisely pointed out that the mind
works by association, its not so good at rational processes.

Sounds to me like you need a pet sheep there to keep you
company. We provide ram lambs for very lonely little old
ladies, at a fee of course!

That side of the business has been quite profitable, far
better money then putting them on a boat. You are free to
hire one, for your pleasure/companionship. We are always
open for business.

The whale question is an interesting observation. My guess is along the lines of appeal. Beached sharks don't get the same treatment: http://www.manlydaily.com.au/article/2008/04/03/9505_news.html

The long life span, the freedom whales enjoy and their sheer size elicits admiration amongst we humans. That and relative rarity.
Of course having said that, for some nations whale is still part of the menu.

When we eat farmed animals, we eat those whose destiny is to be food, whose life comes to an end quickly and efficiently(not asphyxiating and dessicating on a beach), and are not rare by any stretch of the imagination.
You see it as suffering, others see it as life with purpose.

My turn: Why do animal activists see a lion with jaws clamped around an antelopes throat after a heart-pumping highly stressful and injurious chase(for the antelope mainly) as perfectly fine "because it's nature", yet can't accept that people would choose to eat meat that has been slaughtered with comparativly little trauma? Even though it is perfectly natural for humans to eat meat too.

paleif, I'm sorry you can't grasp my comments on AA etc, it's nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not the best communicator of my thoughts, so it's my fault too.

I haven't posted for a while, but have been reading the thread. What is really unhelpful is the slanging match that seems to be going on.

As for persons with 'vested interests' putting forward their point of view and experiences, surely that is a good thing when addressing an issue of concern? All who contribute on this thread have vested interests. Even if only as a consumer.

I am not a vegetarian. I enjoy my steak. Nevertheless, I am not OK with eating meat from animals that have be inhumanely treated. An argument that maintaining high standards means meat becoming more expensive instead ever more cheaper, is not rational. I'd say that the vast majority of people, of whatever philosophical belief, would prefer to eat smaller cuts of meat if eating it can be done in good conscience.

Australia is well overdue with classifying meat to signify the farming practices like with eggs.

None of the arguments for live export are in any way convincing. Just because somebody supposedly much worse than us is willing to continue selling life meat stock does not make it right. It is just not necessary in this day and age to cart life animals on excessively long journeys over a long time anymore.

It is a red herring to imply that it will be construed as being against Islamic religious practices. Not every argument can simply be reduced to pro- or anti-Islam. Here in Australia we obviously have the capacity to provide kosher or halal meat.

This argument is against butchering practices that do not comply with particular requirements and subjecting animals to excessively long journeys in necessarily very confined spaces. Why would farmers or meat eaters not be on the same page here with Animal Welfare lobbyists?

Requirements and standards for religious reasons are no more relevant or deserving of respect than those expected by meat eaters like myself, farmers who are proud of their product or Animal Welfare lobbyists.