Hi all

TRTL, do we KNOW that? Clearly considerable investment has gone into coming up with the baits in the form in which they are used now, one step further surely cannot be impossible. We don't know how much it would cost; perhaps the way to find that out would be to try and get such information from the CSIRO. I understand that some talks were held with animal welfare organizations that were quite positive about this as the best of the worst options. I think we all recognize the harm that wild dogs and other like animals do, but it seems wrong that they have to suffer so terribly for struggling to survive.

I think that a whole lot of research goes on that is possibly borderline unnecessary, certainly it has been identified that the same experiments can be carried out in multiple institutions in different states simply because there is no database that cross-references them. I find that appalling. Also research on animals is carried out to "prove" the same experiment that has been carried out before - that is equally shameful.

There must be better ways of doing what we do. And I don't think that is a radical view, either.

Nicky

TRTL
Not so really. The companies involved do and can recieve grants from both State and Federal Governments. They have a duty to improve methods as better alternatives are found.
The Government are far too joined at the hip with one or two companies when it comes to supply .
Open the compertion if these blokes wont work with known improvements.
They have known about saffron for several years since we raised it with them.
All sorts of promises were made and fained interest but nobody has taken things a step futher and tried to reproduce a gentic eqaul.
Nobody is pushing it or following up on this information either.

We certainly cant afford to produce an alternative but the larger groups could if they really wanted to.
These are the sorts of things I would like to see PETA and others actually get involved by investing in.
It would make such a big difference to Animal Welfare but so far we have not been able to raise any interest.

Have a Good Night Everyone

Hi all

I would suggest that it is the RSPCA who should be pushing this, and using some of its accumulated, invested funds for this purpose. It is reportedly the wealthiest of all the charities behind the churches.

No other local animal advocacy groups have that sort of money at their disposal, and I don't think their ethical policies would be encouraging experimentation that could be harmful to the subject animals. The RSPCA has no such philosophies about the use of anumals "provided it is done humanely".

PALE, if you have any scientific data proving your claims about saffron I suggest you post them here.

Nicky

Contd......

The livestock industry are largely responsible for the destruction of native habitats - "bomb and destroy!" Not to be deterred by this trivia, they remain the most vociferous proponents of the use of 1080.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has issued a disturbing reports:

“Today, an estimated 80 percent of growth in the livestock sector comes from industrial production systems. Owing to those shifts, the report says, livestock are entering into direct competition for scarce land, water and other natural resources

“The sheer quantity of animals being raised for human consumption also poses a threat of the Earth's biodiversity. Livestock account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the land area they now occupy was once habitat for wildlife.

In 306 of the 825 terrestrial eco-regions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, livestock are identified as "a current threat", while 23 of Conservation International's 35 "global hotspots for biodiversity" (WA is one) - characterized by serious levels of habitat loss - are affected by livestock production.

“livestock holders who emit waste into waterways or release ammonia into the atmosphere should pay for the damage. Applying the "polluter pays" principle should not present insurmountable problems for offenders, given the burgeoning demand for livestock products.”

Australia produces enough food and crops to feed a hundred million people. However, the Meat and Livestock industry are vigorously spending taxpayers’ money overseas, seeking new countries in which to flog and expand their live export production.

This is in direct conflict with all scientific reports on the state of the planet's biodiversity. However, growing more meat in this country appears to be regarded as a mere peccadillo by an industry out of control. Clearly the ecological ramifications are not a concern.

Mr Watts, head of WAFarmers wool sector declared PETA should fund an alternative" to mulesing.

I would recommend the enforcement of the "polluter pays" principle to ensure that the live export industry fulfills its moral and ethical obligation to fund the new 1080 alternative.

http://www.eurekalert.org/images/release_graphics/pdf/EH5.pdf