farmers_are_our_greatest_asset,

Some pseudynom that FAOGA, and welcome to the thread.

I trust that you will be "our greatest asset" here without condescending to presume that all who protest have never been to farming country.

Rest assured, many of us are from the country - I from pastoral country.

Indeed I have witnessed hundreds of trucks passing my home, crammed to the hilt with sheep. I have witnessed the driver in 42 degree heat, take respite in his own home for some 2 hours during the day while the sheep remain incarcerated in a truck in the searing heat, prior to having to endure another 650 kilometres travel.

I have unwittingly witnessed my "lunch" being slaughtered - its throat cut in view of the guests. Clearly farmers become desensitised to this practice and my hosts had scant regard for my small children who were distressed for weeks.

Actually the topic of this thread is the long distance transport of live animals throughout Australia. Many livestock must endure trips up to 3,000 kilometres.

It appears that the new standards are not addressing welfare issues. Certainly they are unconcerned about the environmental issues.

Many of us also object to the ocean transport of live exports. Last year, over 40,000 dead and diseased animals were dumped overboard yet these animals were certified fit by a vet prior to loading.

The farmers who debate on these animal welfare sites refuse to acknowledge these concerns and go to enormous lengths to gag us.

Perhaps you will be different? Perhaps you will be good enough to give us your expert opinion on those very specific welfare issues.

Please keep in mind that the majority of these issues are documented and photographed and all are indeed factual.

nicky, my propaganda? I present the facts as I see them, I don't expect you to interpret them the same as I do - thats what makes us all different. What you are free to do is dispute the accuracy of any info in anyway you see fit. Don't simply opt to shoot the messenger.
Dazzle me with logic and reason, not emotion laden :"children watching impassively the bull being tortured and butchered" thats the stuff a true propagandist would admire.

"This sort of behaviour is entrenched in these countries" so your solution is to ignore it? It's ok as long as Aussie sheep die at home? Except here maybe:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/outcry-for-sheep-kill-escalation/2008/01/31/1201714153326.html

I think a withdrawl from live exports on the grounds of religious slaughter would serve only to further isolate these people from western practices in the face of religious intolerance. It changes the demeanor from impassiveness to defiance. Which do you think is easiest to influence, and do you think our chilled exports would be welcomed with open arms under a defiant scenario?

pelican, I apologise - I did indeed read your sentence incorrectly. I agree we can do better on animal welfare, but that doesn't mean it should only be within our shores. Nearly all the focus of live export protestors and media is now on the treatment at the other end, especially now that the WA Emmanuel case has practically ended the campaign focus on the journey itself. The call is to remove ourselves from that market, but that wouldn't be a win for the majority of animals that aren't Australian. At least the Aust govt intends to use it's leverage for welfare gains, in a proactive way, and are not simply ignoring the issue.
Millions of sheep, cattle, goats and camels will still be slaughtered in the middle east whether Aust live exports or not, any welfare influence large or small has to be a benefit to all the animals.

Rojo said

The call is to remove ourselves from that market, but that wouldn't be a win for the majority of animals that aren't Australian.

pale comments
Oh come on Rojoyabby cut your crap we are sick of your lies. Its an evil trade and its been exposed many times as just that.

What makes it even more evil is that its taken the jobs out of this country exporting our raw material in its most valuable form.

Rojo said
I think a withdrawl from live exports on the grounds of religious slaughter would serve only to further isolate these people from western practices in the face of religious intolerance.
Pale comments
Well it just goes to show what a idiot or a person of lies you are .

Your A either telling lies or B Such a twit you dont know the Muslim People have themselves been screaming that they DO NOT require Animals Alive for relgious purpose.

As you well know they have even gone to the extent of putting out media Rs telling the Government and media to state the 'truth and tell the 'real reason' for this cruel trade.

Would you like me to post this again from the Muslim Leaders telling us they except pre stun and chilled meat and - its all about the trade dollars of the low life meddle man shipping agent.?

The Government are paid HUGE donations by this vile industry to their parties and that is the only reason they have not demanded abattoirs be reopended.
The whole world is talking about Rudd and his lies pre election regarding live exports

Rojo

Every nation has its brutes – its sadists and Australia is deemed one of the cruellest nations on earth and yet you , in your state of cruel delusion, believe we are superior and can dictate to other countries on how to be "kind" to animals?

Australians are well aware why its meat industry feigns compassion when it insists that our animals be sacrificed by transporting them to the Middle East, to be further tortured by your cruel connections.

You and your Brothers-in-Sin feign ignorance as to the Prophet’s true instructions to Muslims on the treatment of other species:

“No advantages and no urgency of human needs would justify the kind of calculated violence that is being done these days against animals, especially through international trade of livestock and meat. One of the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad tells us: "If you must kill, kill without torture."

“Jabir told that God's Messenger forbade striking the face or branding on the face of animals....The same companion of the Holy Prophet reported him as saying, when an ass which had been branded in its face passed him by: "God curse the one who branded it."

"The Holy Prophet himself was once reprimanded by God for neglecting his horse, as the following Hadith tells us: "The Prophet was seen wiping the face of his horse with his gown (jullabiyah). When asked why he was doing that, he replied: 'Last night I had a reprimand from Allah regarding my horse for having neglected him.'

“The following Hadith forbids the disfiguration of the body of an animal.

"The Prophet said: "Do not clip the forelock of a horse, for a decency is attached to its forelock; nor its mane, for it protects it; nor its tail, for it is its fly-flap."

http://www.chai-online.org/en/compassion/islam/heritage_islam4_i.htm

There is no place here Rojo for your reasoning which is motivated by greed and vulgarity. You and the industry you defend have contributed to this nation's descent into a pit of depravity - violating all the laws of nature by breeding defenceless animals to meet a cruel and endless agony.

Nicky said

As far as these proposed standards go, the more individual submissions the better, but everyone must remember that they must address what is there; some of the submissions to the National Animal Welfare Bill proposed by Andrew Bartlett back in 2003 were really too non-specific and sought to address what wasn't there.

;That Bill probably didn't go far enough, and if people do want to comment on what is NOT provided for in these standards, it has to be done appropriately or they will "bin" the submission - it's easy for them to say that they did so because they did not address the relevant criteria.


We agree with Nickys comments that the bill didnt go far enough in 2003.

That is why Muslim Leaders and our organisation lodged this to the senate enquiry.

http://www.halakindmeats.com/submissions.html

Throughout this thread I will post some of the concerns and suggestions how to adress those concerns put forth by our Muslim friends RSPCA QLD and pale in a united effort.
The sub itself was lodged by the Muslim people and it was their first.

However there was no interest. Possibly as Nicky points out- hit the bin.
Well we think its trime to invite ordinaray people and not so ordinadry- to feel free to know their subs and efforts will be given serious consideration.


So we think what we should be doing is lobbying to allow public to make comments without following their rubbish rules.

Most ordinary people are not privy with Animal Welfare codes of practise, or should we say- the 'lack' of enforcable ones.
RSPCA have long insited animals are slaughtered as close to their origin as possible.
They oppose live exports. Please make your feelings known.

Hi all
There doesn't seem much point in dignifying Rojo's usual pro-live export propaganda with a response, beyond pointing out that a the bull in the photo I described had just been thrown from a truck, with his front legs hobbled, had his rear leg tendons slashed, then he was slashed to death in a street gutter in full view of the accurately described "impassive" children. That's not propganda, it's filmed, documented fact.

PALE, with all due respect, the HKM submission appeared to be promoting a private company with a financial stake in providing it. Further, the Bartlett bill did not seek to address matters of transport and slaughter in any great detail, which made the submission an over-arching comment, not one which addressed the Bill itself, its content and provisions, and the Explanatory Memoranda. That's the context in which it would have been read. Committees look for what the contents of submissions relate to, not broad statements about cruelty in general.

For example, we all know that any animal (including all the species to which these Standards relate) is going to suffer if it is deprived of water and food for 48 hours plus on a truck; there is no scientific standard that these people can lay claim to that would say otherwise. Also the use of electric prods, tail docking, ear-notching, mulesing; you cannot do these things to your cat or dog, so you should not be able to do them to other animals. We all onow that animals should not be slaughtered while they are conscious. There is a wealth of information out there to support these statements.

To have a submission seriously considered, it MUST address what it purports to address; that is, these particular standards, what is in them and wrong with them and why. It is not a forum for advancing private interests (others, particularly the vivisectionist institutions made the same mistake at the time), ot stating broad opinions.

I think that's why www.liveexportshame.com has gone to so much trouble to provide a guide, and some fairly expert comment.

Cheers
Nicky