Pericles, may I suggest that you read the report "Livestock's Long Shadow"?

Nicky

Pericles
Your comments are always worth a read and you have made some points as usual.
Regarding breeding of people it may not be illegal but somebody should do something- sensible.
World wide there are millions starving yet all we do is talk about sending some more milk or meat etc.
Thats stupid and a five year old could work out its useless.

With Global warming we must actually do something about the worlds situation.
I am personally very anti anybody having children if they cant afford to feed and educate them and somebody should have the guts to make it law.
( That includes unmarried Aussies with five kids to five different Dads as well.

I know you will all moan when I again point out that surley our church leaders of the world should get with it and promote birth control.

Regardless its discusting that people think animals should suffer just to feed them. kindness should be for all Gods Creatures.
Use them for meat and materials but at least have some common deceny and trust me live exports are one of the most barbic trades that has ever been dreamt up.
Did you know Frazor brought in the army when people even back them protesyed the cruelty of the live trade.

Robert

I dont have anything at all on that because I have been away.
Took it on face and to be really honest with you I am sick of reading reports.
Practile suggestions such as the one you made almost three years ago are of more benefit to the animals TBO .

Pedicles

Just a foot note before I am off to feed the horses. I was reading your comment again and thinking to myself. I wondered why you thought live exports a defensible target. I guessed it’s because like most you don’t have all the facts. That’s because the Australian Government has always kept the facts and figures hidden from the public and the barbaric cruelty as much as possible. Every feedlot that the Government assists in setting up via the foreign aid program is another diversion of jobs and value adding from the Australian economy and community. Its assistance that could have been used towards in many better and fairer ways.
Its not up to farmers, its up to consumers and if this Government and passed were not so corrupt and in bed with the industry that offers donations and votes to their gutless parties live animal exports would not continue.

The Red Beef Association paint a different story of live exports and our Governments have all but destroyed them along with this country quite apart from the unacceptable cruelty. It’s important to remember that when farmers protested about the cruelty of live exports in the beginning Keating called in the army and they got little support from the city folk who were off to the theatre and high tea parties.

The farmers are not to blame for live exports= We are = The people who turned their backs on the farmers and the animals a long time ago.
If you want to help animals then help the farmers by creating some compertition. Support the Australian Red beef Assoication.
Do not however tell people not to eat meat etc... that backfires terribly for the animals.

PALEIF, welcome back. I'm not certain on the live export angle. When the thread was first published I did a scan of web info about the project because the criticism didn't gel with what I've seen of other work by B&M's chrity donations. Almost all the criticsm seemed to come back to the one article referenced earlier in this thread and the author seems to link into vegan causes a bit as well.

My impression is that the livestock component is just a small part of a much larger program which tries to address many of the concerns (soil replenishment, distribution mechanisms etc). I didn't see any mention of live transport in the material describing the project components and no one seems to have offered any evidence here.

What did I suggest three years ago?

R0bert

Hi Robert
Just quickly and just for the record, I am not a member of any animal rights/welfare/conservation/vegan organization. I simply oppose long distance transport of animals (especially) for slaughter, and, in this case, where more effective means of aid could have been used with the Gates millions. Given that the veterinary care and infrastructure available to properly care for "gift" animals, I think this is a ridiculous notion ion anyone's language.

Cheers
Nicky
BTW, the last two posts from PALE look like they have been written by totally different people! And encouraging people to eat less meat obviously benefits the animals because there are less slaughtered, livestock farming is deleterious to the environment (as we know), and an excessively meat-based diet is carcinogenic (as we also know).

Nicky, I've still not seen anything credible that says that the program Bill and Melinda are sponsering will involve transporting animals. Much of your opposition seems to be on that point but you've not clarified how you know that will occur.

My impression of the overall body of work covered by this block of donations was that they were trying to cover all bases. What that means in terms of veterinary care and infrastructure to care for the animals I'm not certain. It appears to include elements of that stuff but I don't know how good it will be.

This aspect of the program seems to be mainly aimed at increasing the milk production of the poorest of farmers who currently get very little milk from existing cows and have no means to store it. Cross breeding using AI to give more productive livestock, facilities to store the milk for distribution (off farm but close enough to get the milk to the facilities). There is another program for soil replenshment and various other grants. I do think that they have taken plenty of steps to minimise the harm and the potential benefits to ease suffering are massive.

R0bert