Cuphandle so rightly complains about a farmer wanting to shoot black swans on his property because they are eating some of his crop.
The shooting borders on evil...and I think its the mentality and the greed.

Ive worked on farms and everything I saw on those farms was towards the dollar and certainly not to preserving the environment.

Here's a list of some of the things I saw...perhaps one day the federal government will step in a establish a Royal Commission for surely many farmers are part of the destruction of the world climate.

1. Ive seen pups drowned because the farmer was too lazy to find them homes
2. Ive seen farm dogs kicked and abused and starved even when the farmer depends on them
3. Ive seen run-off from feedlots pour down into creeks then on into town water supplies and create algae blooms in dams that people drink from...algae blooms that hang around for years and years and years
4. Ive seen farms that are nothing more than rubbish tips for old chemical drums, old cars, old tractors, old implements, farmhouse rubbish and trash
5. Ive known farmers to shoot protected species without permits.
One farmer I worked with had a wedgetail eagle in his freezer waiting to be taken for stuffing
6. Ive seen cattle and horses left to burn in the open sun because farmers were too lazy and too cheap to grow or erect shade to easy the suffering in summer.
Australias farmers need to be observed very closely.
Governments need access to their land for inspections.
Their land needs to be confiscated if they fail to maintain respect for it and the animal life on it.
Give twenty years... and this great, open, wonderful land will be lost to rising salt and pollution and the devastation of woodlands and animals and birdlife if something is not done.
Does Kevin Rudd PM have a plan?
We need to know what the farmers are doing right now.

You made some very interesting points. I was unaware that the farmers did those things. Actually I'm disgusted that the government has not already done something about this. Its funny because with the drought all farmers seem sincere and worried about their crops, their animals etc. I don't believe in animal cruelty and I believe anyone guilty of doing so should be reported.

Halo.
Not all farmers are like this, this we know.
Many do care.
Others are the hillbillie type who dont.
Many farms I believe are chemical dumps for partially filled, unwanted chemical drums that go into pits or have their contents tipped out into the holes then covered over.
A farm I worked on had the house rubbish tip right next to the creek that ran into the local dam (town population over 8,000).
What he put in the tip would receive run-off in rain and down into the creek it all went.
No government officials ever went to his farm and inspected to see if he was a good farmer.

Where are the farm inspectors?

He likewise frequently kicked the stuffing out of his barking dogs.
A bad man kicks a tied up dog because he's in a rotten mood.

Gibo

To many of us, farmers are a different species. Somehow they are conditioned and indifferent to the inhumane treatment they perpetrate on their livestock and any other species which gets in the way of the economic factor.

We can't forget the poultry farmer either and the battery hens - many of these critters have not a feather on them. Debeaked and pumped with antibiotics, their entire short miserable lives are spent in a cage where they can't even turn around. But who cares?

Then we have the turkey in Australia. They're bred so fat that their legs give way; too fat to mate so they are artificially inseminated. I'm told the turkeys try to run in terror but there's nowhere to hide.

Let's get on to cattle. Many of these too are artificially inseminated in a disgusting manner - bulls are cruelly electroejaculated or forced over a fake vagina. The female cow, fully conscious, can look forward to having her ovaries cut out before she too is released from a crush and sent packing.

On the brighter side this month, the RSPCA says a 17-month jail term for a Riverina man convicted of animal cruelty is a warning for all farmers.

Paul Matthew Hamilton was sentenced in Wagga Wagga local court yesterday on charges dating back to 2005 involving thousands of stock.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/15/2304043.htm

Of course we've not heard much about the pig farmer in WA who was caught out last year where his pigs were crammed into a pen so tightly they had to stand on top of each other, swimming in excrement and urine. They were so hungry they'd resorted to cannibalism.

Institutionalised, indescribable cruelty of livestock occurs every day in Australia so does the vandalising of our eco-systems by this industry but alas, 'good' men will say nothing Gibo.

Just what we needed - a bit of light relief!

This should be an entertaining gathering of frootloops, if anybody bites :)

Well said CJ. Though we shouldn't be surprised that the farms that gibo visits are populated by bizarre types.

It's just unfortunate this is given as a legitimate example.

The farmers-vs-the-environment argument is a tired, simple, and yes, stupid one. I've known more farmers who are at least part environmentalist than those who aren't.

Hi all

CJ Morgan and TRTL, I have two dogs, both of mixtures of the "working dog" breeds (Border Collie/Kelpie/Blue Heeler). One was dumped at the RSPCA. The other came from a litter of 8 puppies that an animal advocacy group found in the care of a man at a local folk festival, who reported that he had the puppies because the people who owned the mother had shot her because they were sheep farmers, and if he did not find homes for the puppies that day they would be drowned. We packed them all up, brought them back, bottle fed them every two hours, kept them together for their first 12 weeks, with veterinary care throughout, then found them (stringently vetted) homes.

Also in my household are a number of "spent" hens from a battery farm. When we brought them home, they had almost no feathers, they had raw skin and lesions, they did not know they could stand properly or spread their wings, and had never known fresh air and sunlight.

A friend of mine is an animal welfare inspector. This week, he has a dairy farmer on 112 cruelty charges and counting over the starvation deaths of countless cows and metres-long pits full of dead calves.

I have attended a court case where a sheep farmer starved to death 400 sheep, some down and so weak that crows had pecked out their eyes. 1,000 more on the same property were scored by a government veterinarian as "emaciated, near death". I couldn't believe it when I heard the sentence - a 28 day, wholly suspended term of imprisonment (no fine, no prohibition on keeping animals again).

Is that enough for you? I have more, and reporting facts that are a matter of public record does not make one a fruit-loop.

Nicky

”This should be an entertaining gathering of frootloops, if anybody bites :)”

Ad hominem abuse usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among a consortium on OLO, who endorse the inhumane treatment of livestock and are attempting to influence the poster base in their favour through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially since their own position is bereft of substance and is logically weaker than their opponents.

1......Spaying:

"Traditional spaying involves removal of the ovaries through an incision in the left flank or by passage spaying through an incision in the dorso-cranial aspect of the vagina.

"Flank spaying has been the predominant method used but results in hide damage and carcass trim and has been opposed by welfare groups. However in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Willis dropped-ovary technique.

"Compared to flank spaying, it has many advantages for the extensive cattle industry. These include higher numbers can be spayed per day (and) no hide damage or carcass trim." (AUSTRALIAN BRAHMAN BREEDERS’ ASSOCIATION LIMITED)

2......NSW DPI:

"Agriculture has created a highly simplified biodiversity for efficient production. Agricultural practice has reduced the genetic, species and ecosystem diversities by:

"Clearing trees and draining wetlands;

"Growing a limited range of crops, usually as monocultures;

"Raising a limited number of animal species, often unsuited to Australian soil conditions;

"Using chemicals to control species that threateen production output;

"Breeding selectively to reduce diversity within agricultural plant and animal species.

"Tree clearing has led to rising watertables and increasing salinity, and species decline due to habitat loss.

"Monoculture cropping systems have less resilience in combating disease and pests.

"Overgrazing by agricultural animals has resulted in soil erosion and compaction, and loss of native grass species.

"Chemical use has reduced species diversity and created insects and weeds resistant to commonly used chemicals.

"Selective breeding has reduced species resistance, adaptability and biodiversity."

Just a simple observation: we humans are omnivorores, which means we thrive on a diet including both meat and vegetables. In order for the meat to be made available, there must be animals killed.In order for the animals to be killed, there must be animals available. All that a farmer of animals does is to try to ensure that his stock is available to be killed. Anything else is extraneous to his purpose. He will do so in the most efficient way he can, which usually means ensuring his animals remain in a condition suitable for sale. Any farmer that allows his stock to deteriorate will soon be out of business, just as any other businessman who failed to properly look after his stock would be.

To suggest that farmers deliberately damage their stock is as risible as suggesting that I would deliberately leave my stock in the weather to deteriorate if I had an alternative.

Just as an aside, have any of the animal rights people here ever watched a genuine, traditional stone-age hunt? I grew up in PNG and I was fortunate to take part in just such an exercise when
I was about 13 or 14. The carnage inflicted on the animal (a pig) was quite dreadful and it was trussed to a pole and carried off to the village still alive, if badly wounded. It was dunked into a pot of boiling water, still alive, to soften the bristles for easier removal and then its throat was cut. There was much merriment over its struggles and screams when being boiled.

To put that in perspective, the people of that tribe had an infant mortality rate of nearly 50%. When you have a real struggle to survive, feeling bad about an animal isn't high on your list of priorities.

"A Royal Commission into farmers' practices...when please?"

Sounds like you haven't considered the logistics Gibo.

...and who's gonna pay for it?.

...and what do you think the RSPCA is for?.

...and the EPA?.

With you observing all these horrendous acts, why didn't you call any of them?. Doesn't that make you just as guilty as the farmer?.

CJMorgan,TLTR:
Myself and many others who support the humane treatment of animals of all types in this country should refuse to debate any issue with you when you are rude enough to classify us all as "frootloops"!.....however to allow you to categorize us as such, simply for your own sick type of entertainment, would simply be an indication that we are in fact wrong in the support of our issues!

Far from being wrong,... myself and other concerned members of this society can only offer an opinion about what we consider to be an important issue to both the welfare of the subject animals/birds and the future of the natural environment...."without it....we are all stuffed!"

A debate can only occur when sensible, reasonably well-mannered opinions are presented by genuinely concerned persons, therefor I am most disappointed to see your most childish comment indicating your lack of compassion or comprehension of the feelings of others who contribute to this forum!

Cuphandle, I've called gibo a fruitloop in the past, though given the saucer shenanigans and the fact he'd also called myself and others pedophiles simply for arguing against censorship, I'd say it's justified. Then there's the arguments based on 'prophecies'...

I don't recall where I called you a fruitloop, though if you could post a link I'd be obliged.

I've not insulted those who argue for animal rights. I've insulted some people who happen to argue for animal rights, because I disagree with their methods.

In much the same way as farmers appear to be being abused in their entirety on this thread, when in actuality I'm sure you realise it's only a group of fringe farmers who do such things - as Antiseptic has pointed out, it's not only cruel but bad business sense.

How about this - I'll agree not to make the cliche of saying all those who argue for animal rights are fruitloops and it's just a minority on the fringe, if you agree that most farmers are decent hardworking people, though there are some who do engage in unacceptable cruelty.

It just appears so often that many people are content to just attack farmers in their entirety.

I often suspect that this is based around a vegan attitude, that meat shouldn't be eaten, thus anyone who participates in meat eating is bad to a certain extent. Those who eat it are only a little bad, but those who are in the industry must be very bad.

Which is what fuels their attacks on farmers, which means exaggerating that minority into a majority.

Ask yourself - is this accurate? I suspect often it is. Given that most Australians do eat meat and feel no remorse for doing so, I tend to think it's those judging them who are on the fringe.

And yes. I'll judge those people who exaggerate harshly, just as they seem content to place themselves on a moral pedestal above the rest of Australian society.

Hi all

Cuphandle, thank you for putting it so succinctly. As a man of experience in farming matters, I'd suggest that you are better qualified to comment than anyone here. I, for one, appreciate the wisdom and insight you bring to these threads.

Antiseptic (in particular) and TRTL, what makes you think that it is an "either or" (caring about animals and caring about humans? Nor has anyone here stereotyped all farmers as being cruel.

That said, I would suggest that anyone involved in intensive pig farming, live exports and battery hen farming is knowingly and wantonly cruel. If the wider pubic were to see inside these operations, I believe that veganism/vegetarianism would skyrocket. And Linda McCartney said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, the world would become vegetarianism.

Antiseptic, did you find the appalling treatment of that pig acceptable, or should we in fact be outraged by it? There is nothing "extreme" about feeling sickened and horrified by such a story.

For the record, I have never attempted to force a vegan/vegetarian agenda upon anyone. My friends, colleagues and family know my feelings but do not feel in any way compromised by them. And I manage to thrive on a herbivorous diet, and have done so for years. The RSPCA is good for companion animals but largely lethargic about farm animals, and the EPA is pretty much lethargic about most things, I find. Furthermore, the RSPCA, which has the powers under POCTAA legislation in all jurisdictions, is a charity, and with the best will in the world lacks the means to properly enforce the legislation it is empowered with. POCTAA legislation is the only set of laws in the country largely enforced by a charity, and that is unconscionable.

Farmers are largely protected from cruelty charges under POCTAA legislation, because (voluntary) Codes of Practice exist, allowing them to do things that would attract prosecution were they done to a "companion" animal.

Nicky

A troubling scenario is emerging in regard to intensive farming. Feedlots and piggeries plan to 'greenwash' their industries by providing biogas to our fuel starved population. How they propose to collect these gases is just too hard to think about. Airtight covers over bubbling, toxic cess pools sucking out the methane maybe ....

Intensive pigs farms actually claim that their gas will be the greenest of all! Pigs, unlike ruminants, produce very little methane. Its when it is collected in effluent ponds that the bacteria get to work and produce it in abundance.

We may well be looking at a future with a new breed of farmer, beef and pork will just be a bi-product. As for the actual animals ....

Seems factory farming has a future after all.

Hi all

Nice to catch up again, PF. That is really a scary thought, because it gives the intensive pig farmers (and the others) ammunition for their perverted argument, doesn't it?

Cheers
Nicky

Given that people want to eat meat, someone has to supply the meat for them to eat. How would those opposed to intensive farming practises suggest that might be achieved other than by intensive farming?

I really don't see vegetarianism as an alternative for most people. My ex-wife was a dedicated vegetarian but, as she discovered, that diet is not adequate for a pregnant woman unless she does nothing but eat all day long -possibly not even then. While there is no question that we probably all eat far more meat than we need, we do better with some meat than with none.

Nicky, I found the experience of the pig hunt quite dreadful and I had already seen quite a bit of unthinking cruel treatment of animals within that culture. There is also a fair bit of cruelty toward people: life was very cheap at that time and place. OTOH, the pig had lead a full piggy life, never having been caged or constrained unlike the animals on farms. It lived very much the same lifestyle as the people who hunted it and was pretty much regarded as an equal by them. They regarded killing it in the way they did as both practical and of no consequence, since any of them could die horribly just as easily and with as little warning. There may have been some spiritual significance to the practise as well, but I'm not sure.

Do you regard those people as depraved and evil for behaving in that way? Some of the rhetoric coming from the "animal lobby" seems to try to paint farmers as such and they are far more scrupulous about their stock.

One of the big drivers of farming practices is public pressure. Farmers provide what the public will consume. This is a whole industry of course, as some areas of the country are only suitable for particular types of production. Profit is a consideration, as farmers run a business (this "bad" profit arguement sits at the opposite end of the scale to those whinging about handouts that farmers get due to lack of profits). Farmers however do not make huge profits. In a few years out of every 10 there will be a "big" year, but this is the high end of the average, and is usually offset by losses in some years. Farming is akin to gambling, as there is high reliance on factors outside of the farmers control, hence some of the attraction of intensive farming, as many more factors are controllable. Because profits are not significant careful consideration needs to be given to any activity undertaken or not. The public are not prepared to pay any more for their food or fibre - they can import them much cheaper from overseas where not only are animals and the environment exploited to a far worse extent than locally, but the human workforce is too.

None of this excuses deliberate cruelty. But it must also be remembered how far we've come. Back in the droughts in the 40's, hundreds of thousands of animals would have starved to death in a way that we now find abhorrent. Then, lack of transport meant that there was no alternative, particularly with tens of thousands of animals on single large properties, which meant even destroying the animals was a difficult task. Now we have good road transport and in most cases can either ship stock off to the abby's, out on agistment or bring feed in.

Lets keep a little perspective as to the realities of market demands, improving practices, potential alternatives, and also what nature is like. Humans are rarely more cruel than mother nature herself, but tend to be very good at forgetting this when we get on our high-horse.

What's happened to PALE&IF?. 'They'll' usually be all over this stuff like flies on shiznit...

I do not believe that “public pressure” has anything to do with the conscience (or lack thereof) of man’s inhumanity to other species. And why do livestock owners deny the suffering they inflict on their victims? Why do they influence captive and immoral governments, persuading them to ignore the objections of compassionate citizens who complain of the cruel methods in factory farming?

One must ask how morally retrograde is the agricultural and bioscientific institutes’ claims that nonhuman creatures have to be tortured and killed in the billions for the sake of health benefits to humans.

Even the almighty Nature never intended any animal's food source to be reduced to this... horrific bastardization of life. The industrialisation of animals - a blatant disregard of other living things and their rights.

Livestock owners in Australia do not provide anaesthesia or analgesics for surgical procedures. Procedures which include debeaking, castrations, ovarectomies, branding, tail docking, teeth filing, mulesing etc. These procedures are institutionalized and legal. Livestock owners remain insensitive to the pain they inflict on their victims.

No ends can justify such means. And who in Australia is heeding the advice of the United Nations FAO which urges all countries to drastically reduce their livestock numbers to salvage what’s left of the planet’s biodiversity? Certainly not the Australian Meat and Livestock (MLA) cabal who are actively promoting their product worldwide. This is the MLA who dumped 414,000 export animals overboard between 2000 and 2007.

And we remain in a delusive state believing there’s no problem letting animals suffer for one’s culinary pleasures.

In case posters suspect I’m a bleeding heart, allow me to say that if we could attenuate the suffering of the critters we eat, I'd have no problem with people who wish to eat dead rotting flesh on a daily basis.

Dickie, you had me until the 'dead rotting flesh.'

Honestly. Do you really think this emotive style of language wins people over?

By the same token, I could describe the rotting process that occurs to vegetables when they enter the stomach. Then think about how cabbage and beans produce so much noxious gas while passing into the bowels.
Or we could describe how the fertiliser used to grow plants is really rotting sh!t, with an awful smell.

Sure, it would be 'accurate.' But would it really? Or would it sound more like I'm attempting to denigrate another persons choice?

You claim not to have a problem with it, but your use of words belies that.

TRTL

You are known on this thread for arguing against the reasoning of those who object to animal cruelty.

And you are presumptious in suggesting that those people who object are vegetarians. This is an unethical and vacuous argument. I am not a vegetarian.

However, I am working towards a goal of not consuming meat for I can no longer support an industry that enormously augments disharmony, chaos, extreme cruelty, and environmental degradation.

If you are endeavouring to argue deductively, then your argument would need to be a little more plausible. You have ignored the substance of my argument by latching onto just three words from a post of 254 words - hardly a valid argument on your part - particularly when you selectively omitted the end of that sentence which stated: "on a daily basis."

The US justifies the slaughter and torture ("emotive" but factual) of nine billion animals per annum simply because they are addicted to eating meat "on a daily basis"- often three times a day.

The frequency of meat consumption was the basis for my argument and I suspect you understood that.

Australians too are similar in their meat consumption but I recall a recent media release which claimed that Australians are now the most obese on the planet.

And incidentally, my family and I ate chicken (free range) once a year, on Christmas Day. Very little meat was consumed and steak was never on the menu so to which good fortunes can I attribute my excellent health?

Like I said...

Hi all
Antiseptic and Country Gal, I suspect the wider community prefers not to know about the wretched lives the animals it eats have endured before ending up on their plate. But grab a hold of their cat or dog, and treat it the same way and they would be screaming for the RSPCA's instant attendance.

It is not especially about a vegetarian or vegan agenda. I know, for instance, that PF runs a welfare-friendly, ethical enterprise, and presumably is able to make a living from it (am I right, PF?) That would seem to indicate a strong case for a) free-range farming and b) truth in labelling. I'd personally like to see something like the warnings on cigarette packets - pictures of pigs in sow stalls and battery hens - on the packaging of these intensively-farmed products, and it would need to be monitored and enforced. That way, those in the community who do care can make an informed choice, but Minister Burke has apparently "knocked such a notion on the head."

There will always be an apathetic multitude, unfortunately, but we can at least keep working to get the right information out there. Surely, if we must slaughter these creatures to eat them (or put them to other abhorrent uses), the least we owe them is a humane life and a humane death. I think I have quoted the "Five Freedoms" before, but here they are again:-

# Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
# Freedom from Discomfort - providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
# Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
# Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind.
# Freedom from Fear and Distress - ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering”.

StG, I don't know about PALE, but its often cited websites appear to have "fallen over" as well, for anyone who is interested.

Cheers
Nicky

Dickie, check your teeth. Notice the canine's? Humans are designed to be omnivores. If you choose not to eat meat, then good luck to you, but I take issue with you denigrating a choice that biology has built into us - to eat meat as well as vegetable matter.

Nature will starve animals in the millions during flood and drought, although in modern countries humanity often intervenes. Nature burns to death animals caught in bushfires, although our modern fire-fighting techniques undoubtedly save millions more than would otherwise survive. A lion bringing down its prey isnt really a pretty sight. Sharks biting living fish in half isnt pleasant to watch. But this is nature and also the act of animals feeding themselves. At the end of the day we are only more sophisticated animals. We still have to feed ourselves and the process of doing so is usually no more pleasant than any other creature. However thanks to our intelligence and development, some of us are able to hide from the day to day realities of providing food sources. Particularly in Australia our urbanisation has been so great that many people in our cities have no contact with the production of the food and other consumables that they use.

Seems they have gone into kitchens Nicky .. very strange. Maybe RSPCA finally confiscated those computers. It was only a matter of time.

I little off topic but, has anyone heard the latest radio ads against intensively farmed pigs? Very well done.

Hi again all

Country Gal, I think you should perhaps note the difference in the development of canine teeth in dogs, for example, and humans. Human canine teeth are not at all developed. There are countless humans who are living proof that we do not need meat to survive.

PF, I sponsored some of the radio ads, and was very happy to see (hear?) them. Was I right about Burke and the "humane labelling" option? I thought I read somewhere that he basically decided it wasn't going to happen and if people cared enough they should do their own research (sucks, doesn't it?). I had thought HSI really got somewhere with that, with support from Voiceless.

You could well be right about those computers. I hear that anyone who ever made the mistake of contacting PALE, at their exhortation, to work for the Muslims for their slaughterhouses, had to almost leave the country to escape them. And disagreeing with them simply brought on "the lawyers".

Cheers
Nicky

Country Gal

Think of the gorilla.

Gorillas’ teeth as "canines" is confusing, because it wrongly implies "carnivore."

But the gorilla is vegetarian and eats mostly fruit and other vegetation and perhaps grubs and insects.

The two pointy teeth come in handy for ripping the skin off fruit, etc. to get at the inner part of it.

Their canines are used as weapons (against each other or predators) and also for crushing hard plant material like bamboo so large canine teeth are not always indicative of a carnivore.

The muscle mass and strength of a gorilla also proves false, the propaganda that we need to eat meat to obtain enough protein to build muscle.

"A lion bringing down its prey isnt really a pretty sight." No indeed not Country Gal but it is what I would describe as a "clean" kill.

The prey, prior to being devoured by a lion, would not have been incarcerated for its entire life, shackled, hog-tied, suspended from ceilings, stabbed, artificially inseminated, vivisected, castrated, beaten, debeaked or boiled alive.

Therefore, we can safely assume that the prey did have a life free from the terrors that modern-day farm animals experience.

Greetings PF. Long time no hear.

Dickie states:

"You are known on this thread for arguing against the reasoning of those who object to animal cruelty."

Yep. But I really am quite supportive of most efforts to remedy animal cruelty, whether you believe that or not. I think the RSPCA for instance, do one hell of a job under trying circumstances. I know people who've worked in the DNR and were incredibly devoted to animal welfare, working in service of native species and yes, were involved in pest control, though they were working on a variety of projects, all aimed at conservation.
Of course, people even tangentially involved in pest control often cop abuse. Some (I'll concede, not all) of whom make a habit of attacking those who have worked in the types of conservation they don't 'approve of'.
All too often, (again, not always) it's based on their suppositions and their own vegan-based morality and to hell with the more complex considerations, or respecting that people are involved with these things because they believe it's right.

I simply have issues with people who place themselves on a moral pedestal for whatever reason, and denigrate the choices made by others. I also dislike that when these attacks are made on farmers, very rarely are efforts made to state it's only a minority who engage in cruelty. More often it's fuelled by this holier-than-thou, take-no-prisoners, the-farmers-are-the-enemy vegan attitude.

The kind of attitude that uses phrases like 'rotting flesh.'

(Nicky, your point that it's not an either-or proposition is precisely what I'm saying and I agree wholeheartedly).

I object to comments such as the 'rotting flesh' one, because I view them has a not-so-subtle attack on the legitimate choices by Australia's omnivorous majority. Despite claims that you don't object to this, I don't believe you, because of this choice of words. Were you able to state that you disagree with meat-eaters, instead of the 'rotting flesh' commentary, I might be less critical. As it stands, it sounds like denigration to me.

So tar me as hostile to the cause of animal rights if you wish. I know otherwise.

Hey guys - can we please not get into the vegetarian/vegan argument that we have all been through SO many times with PALE? I don't know that it's necessarily about walking a higher moral ground either.

TRTL, I take on board what you've said, but Dickie's point is also valid; that predators in the wild kill (generally!) quickly and cleanly, and their "prey" have not usually been brutalized in their short, wretched lives. In that, I think the human species really is right up there. Dickie is also quite right about herbivorous animals also having canine shaped teeth, and while I acknowledge that the majority of Australians (including those who are members of animal advocacy groups) are meat eaters, my own view is that I don't need meat to be healthy. Having said that, my family, friends and colleagues are meat eaters.

I do think campaigns about intensive farming are both important and worthwhile. PF has explained in detail on other threads the benefits of free-range pig farming, and if we accept that this is true, then there can be no possible excuse for the intensive farming of pigs, who arguably suffer more than, say, dogs would in the same conditions because pigs are known to be more intelligent than dogs, as well as being highly sensitive and clean animals who are forced to live in appalling conditions in their own filth, unable to move.

Likewise battery hens and meat chickens. I have friends who have entered battery farms and filmed the conditions, and I have some hens who were rescued from these shocking places. The condition they were in when we got them home said it all.

Let's agree to disagree about meat eating, morality, and who has the best horror stories, and see what ideas can be found to address the real cruelty issues to farm animals. Then maybe we can move forward.

Cheers
Nicky

TRTL

"I also dislike that when these attacks are made on farmers, very rarely are efforts made to state it's only a minority who engage in cruelty."

I also dislike it when you constantly accuse others of attacking all farmers. I happen to have the utmost respect for free range farmers. These are farmers who have regard for the animals under their stewardship and have not succumbed to reaping obscene profits from intensive farming.

Unfortunately, TRTL, you refuse to acknowledge the facts. These are the facts I have placed on this thread and other threads which you have also refused to acknowledge.

Those facts relate to the surgical procedures I have advised on, which are standard procedures in Australia and are institutionalised and legal.

I reiterate, debeaking, castrations, ovarectomies, branding, tail docking, teeth filing, mulesing etc, without anaesthesia or analgesics are legal.

These facts can be confirmed by accessing any relevant government agency website and I object to your insidious undertones that they are a figment of my imagination.

Therefore, your claim that "very rarely are efforts made to state it's only a minority who engage in cruelty" is fallacious.

All intensively farmed livestock owners or their "skilled operators" perform these procedures (without the aid of a veterinarian) so please make an effort to explain how "it's only a minority who engage in cruelty."

And I see that several livestock barons hit the rich list for 2008. Business is flourishing for these people but the hard-working grain growers, endeavouring to "get blood from a stone," failed to get a mention.

Nicky: "Let's agree to disagree about meat eating, morality, and who has the best horror stories, and see what ideas can be found to address the real cruelty issues to farm animals."

Fair enough, Nicky. I've asked those who oppose intensive farming to make some suggestions toward that end and not much has come out of it. Remember that whatever suggestions are made must be economically competitive and they must not reduce the total amount of meat available to the Australian public. How do we maintain the price and availability without the intensive farming methods used and how do we maintain healthy livestock without the stock management practises that are in place for that farming? Let's not forget that no farmer is choosing to do things to animals for the fun of it, but that any of the practises you mention are a response to a known problem that occurs if steps are not taken to prevent it. If you want to change the practise, you must come up with an equally cost-effective way to address the underlying problem that it is a response to.

I'd like to think you and others can do just that, but it's not an easy task, simply because generations of farmers, acting with enlightened self-interest and the support of such organisations as CSIRO, have come up with methods that they consider best practise. Changing best practise means either being political and getting laws changed or coming up with something better. That's the challenge.

I should have known better than to engage with Dickie, given that he is an extremist, with no ability to take on board anything said by anyone who slightly disagrees with him.

Ok, a lion might have been a poor choice given its a neck-breaker, but I bet Dickie still would object to animals being slaughtered for human consumption by having their throat slit and neck broken, even though its the same as it would happen in nature. How about wild dogs attacking sheep (or native Australian animals) - they will rip out entrails and leave the poor animal to die slowly. What about blowflies, from which maggots will eat an animal from the inside out?

Do you also object to children being given vaccinations? They are painful, sometimes extremely so for days afterwards, and carry a risk of reaction and death. We've eradicated most of the really nasty childhood diseases now, so perhaps we should stop vaccinating our kids because of the pain and risk. I really cant see the difference between this and preventative precautions taken with livestock. Go back to the profit motive if you like. Farmers (apart from a few blithering idiots) are not going to stress their stock to the point where production falters. With wool production (seeing as mulesing is a hot topic), if you stress a sheep, it will die. It cannot then be sold for profit, or have its wool harvested. If you stress a wool sheep lightly its fleece will be affected with a tender spot, reducing the value of the clip significantly. Stress it while it is young and follicles still developing and you will have sub-standard production for its life.

Animals cannot survive the pollution and confinement of intensive farming without routine doses of antibiotics and other drugs. These animals are in a constant state of dying so it has become an accepted practice to just accept the costs of antibiotics and other medications as routine production expenses, rather than prevent disease in the first place. Of course it is impossible to prevent disease under intensive conditions as it is also impossible for the animals to reach their full potential without the interventions of hormones and growth promotants. How can an animal that cannot exercise naturally possibly build muscle?

Why do we confine them? Its just so much easier isnt it. It enables them to churn out carcasses as if it were an assembly line. The really stupid part about it, as is the case in the pork industry, they then go and market themselves as the 'cheap meat'. Sort of defeats the purpose if their reasons for that production system are to make them economically competitive.

I believe intensive farming is more about making life easier for the producer, note I say producer because what they do is not farming.

Factory farms or family farms? Its not even all about animal welfare. We eat this stuff.

Nicky - Burke seems loath to even touch the whole truth in labelling issue and prefers to leave it up to 'industry'.

Being aware of some the moves by industry currently under way, I am not filled with confidence that we will see any more truth in labelling at all. In fact, the opposite could happen. Industry have been given a licence to market themselves however they see fit. Lets see how they choose to define free range.

I doubt that HSI is about to give up on this issue either. http://www.humanechoice.com.au/news.html

Greetings to you too dickie. The waters seem a little calmer these days and the risk of ambush seemed a lot lower for some reason :)

PF, I'd much prefer to see family farms. Apart from a few morons (and these can be found in any sector of society) family farms are mostly tipped towards sustainability in the long-term. Treatment of animals tends to rank perhaps a little lower than general treatment of the environment, but still forms a part of overall custodianship and long-term profits.

My comments before about intensive farming still stand though. The main attraction for farmers is a much greater level of control of their operation, consistency of output and quality (though I would take a grass-fed steak over a feedlot steak any day of the week - much tastier). Given that so many factors in farming are traditionally uncontrollable, having a greater degree of control must be very attractive, particularly with constant public whining about farmers needing public assistance when adversely affected by factors outside their control. Its a hard industry to be in - people are dependant on you for their survival, but want to bitch and bicker about every move you make, without being prepared to make any changes or sacrifices themselves.

Country Gal, I'm sorry, but intensive pig, meat chicken and battery hen farming are egregiously cruel, and there can never be any justification for the wretched lives these creatures are forced to endure. If farmers are doing it tough, too bad - nothing justifies such cruelty, including the mutilations that Dickie has mentioned. I think these places should be open to the public, so they can see what they are choosing to buy and eat.

PF seems to be able to farm in a welfare friendly environment, and one which I would suggest would meet community expectations. It's about moral standards. No living creature should be "produced" under these atrocious intensive conditions, regardless of how much more "control" the "farmer" wants to have over the operation. If humane, sustainable farming is beyond these people, who are clearly impervious to the terrible suffering of these animals, I suggest that they should be doing something else.

PF, great website. What can we do about getting it more "out there"?

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky, you've still not told us how you propose farmers should meet your objectives to be "humane" and yet produce the same volume of end product at a similar cost to intensive farming. You continue to ignore me when I ask for specifics. Perhaps it has been discussed previously, but if so, I haven't seen it.

If you want the practise to be changed, you need to be specific as to how you want it changed. simply waving your arms and saying "it's bad" won't accomplish anything.

Antiseptic. To produce animals extensively, and on such a scale as they do, would not be possible under the current approach. eg massive piggeries carrying 30,000 sows - that could not be done on one farm. But, 300 family farms with 100 sows each? That would be easily managable. 300 families then producing an income and a diversifying their farm.

As for the question of cost. At present millions are poured into research on how to keep pigs alive in factory farms and how to make them grow as fast as possible under unnatural conditions. Some of that money should be diverted into research on how to grow the best marketable pig under extensive conditions. That said, free ranging means there are minimal expenses for medications and growth enhancers - a huge cost to the intensive industry, less deaths, a fraction of the need for resources like water and power.

Yes free range is more labour intensive than factory farming but when you consider that we currently have units with thousands of sows being managed by two people?? If you are going to farm these animals they deserve better. Intensive producers get lazy. ( another story)

40 years ago we produced pork mostly under extensive conditions on many farms. Today the numbers are not that different but the production method sure is. Yes, we produce a faster growing, super lean product - but who wants it? Give the consumers what they ask for. Put some of those millions into researching the best free range management systems.

Interesting the way this thread's developed. When it began as a blatant farmer-bashing exercise by one of OLO's religious nutters, I predicted it would become feeding frenzy of frootloops - but fortunately, with one or two notable exceptions, most posters have steered away from a generalised idiotic hatred of farmers towards a far more reasonable antipathy towards the worst of intensive livestock and poultry practices.

I agree that animal production that involves battery hen cages, indoor piggeries, feedlots etc is generally too cruel to be allowable. These practices are unnecessary to produce eggs, chicken meat, pork, beef etc, and only exist to increase the profits of the corporate farming sector.

However, this by no means implies that the majority of farmers are cruel towards their animals. Yes, some are and this minority should be prosecuted, but Gibo's call for a Royal Commission into farming practices is way over the top. Those who think they can achieve change in farming culture by vilifying farmers in general will achieve very little.

Country Gal:
Let us not lose sight of the fact that farming animals, crops, or any other product is ALL about making money! Any form of expenditure directed towards easing or avoiding pain to an animal/bird will reduce the final profitability of the particular industry!

I think that regardless of the so-called progress that we have made in "modernising" farming, we need to go back to a system of DNR Veterinarians available to carry out the neccesary "medical" necessities on animals across the country, and performed at a realistic price ( affordable to the farmer!.....not some exotic price that is currently charged by most of the private Vets!) I would envisage a very modest charge to cover the cost of materials, travelling and a small component towards the wages.

As an example of dubious farming methods, an aquaintance visited me during a "dry period" ( which later became the last drought in Queensland!) he chastised me for feeding my cattle, stating: "If you feed your cattle you will never make any money!" As the drought worsened I was purchasing $50 rolls of Silage and driving 100klms each day to feed the few remaining cattle, costing around $150 per day, ( John Howard had introduced his GST and wiped us from the Primary Producers list, because we weren`t turning over $50,000 of cattle per year!)

My aquaintance was right, however his cattle started dying, virtually starving to death! Reality dawned, I had no option than to sell my cows and calves to a friend in a better area, realising a decent price at the time, rather than eventually sacrificing them to the knackery if the situation didn`t improve!

The few remaining stock left on my property will probably die here as I refuse to continue playing the idiots game, and considering I bred them and spent a lot of time with them, I will NOT send them to be killed, nor will I gamble with nature, using livestock as "chips" to assist a Government backed Primary Industries system that seems intent on driving all the small farmers from the land!

If an intensive producer allowed themselves to step back and take the blinkers off, forget all the spin put out there by industry bodies, and studied their animals for a little while, and actually learnt a little on the natural behaviour of these animals - they would have to conclude that what they are doing is cruel. So many of these people are oblivious to what they are doing right down to the drugs they use. If it doesnt actually say antibiotic on the label, it says Tylan instead, they think its harmless. These are the people that will swear blind that there are no hormones etc used in the intensive industry!

We hear all the hype about how 'of course our farmers care about the welfare of their animals, the wouldnt produce if they didnt'. Its crap. Pigs for instance can only survive these concentration camps with the aid of antibiotics, sedatives, hormones etc. They are simply propped up to get them to their 22 weeks of age and out the door. How long do their breeding animals last? Maybe 2 litters and they break down. How stupid - sows dont reach their peek production until litters 3 or 4.

Dont know that we need a royal commission, just robust animal welfare legislation and some of these industries need to start listening to consumers. Their product is getting harder and harder to sell.

Anyone attending the conference on the Gold Coast?

Some two thirds of all antibiotic use in Australia is for consumer animals.

And the majority of lab testing is done on consumer animals in Australia.

These animals, subjected to testing and vivisection must endure living in cramped cages in fear for their lives.

And why not when many humans in recent decades – most as powerless as industrialized animals have been involuntarily used and abused as guinea pigs of science without a conscience?

Six million animals per year are subjected to testing and vivisection in Australian laboratories. That's twice as many animals subjected to these atrocities in the UK.

Country Gal,you state: “I should have known better than to engage with Dickie, given that he is an extremist, with no ability to take on board anything said by anyone who slightly disagrees with him.”

Have you and I previously engaged in debate? I think not. Despite your puerile insults, I apologise if I’ve failed to take your reasoning "on board."

What did you say again? Bush fires burning animals? Fifty percent of bush fires are caused by humans but where is the relevance to humans wantonly ill-treating animals?

I see you alluded to: “blowflies, from which maggots will eat an animal from the inside out?” Are you referring to Merino sheep? The sheep which are alien to these lands?

I have an “alien” animal too - a canine refugee, who is prone to fly-strike. He also has woolly pants which I carefully check each spring and autumn for fly-strike. Of course I could have him mulesed, which no compassionate person would object to since he would first be anaethetised to prevent him suffering.

“Do you also object to children being given vaccinations?” No, why do you ask and why do you remain off topic?

One definition of “extremist" Country Gal is: “one who takes extreme action.” Of that, I’m not guilty. My “extremism” extends only to the verbal and written, where I offer information which is on the public record. Your empty-headed defence of animal cruelty ( a mouthful of insults,) places you in a very dark place indeed.

"A Royal Commission into farmers' practices"

I suggest before any such "Royal Commission", with all the powers that entails we deal with the more important stuff like

A review of Taxation policies at State and Federal Level, its merit and the need for it.

Put the politicians on the spot first for diverting the wealth ordinary folk generate before distracting farmers from their efforts to support themselves and their families.

Hi all

Antiseptic, is the only reality for you the economics? Even if it is, you should take in what PF is saying; that if CAN be done and it can make money. To do it on the scale that the intensive farmers do is nothing more than greed, and as has been pointed out, the small, "traditional" farmers have been driven out. Does it concern anyone else that the drugs routinely fed to these animals you also are eating? That antibiotics will lose their efficacy to humans as a result? And note the cost of just keeping these animals alive in these atrocious conditions. Rather than re-affirming the economic argument, you should take on board what an expert here (PF, and Cuphandle, too) is saying.

CJ Morgan, who are your notable exceptions? I haven't been "farmer bashing", but I have been bashing cruel practices and will continue to do so. I went to a court hearing today of a dairy farmer currently facing 104 cruelty charges. Magistrates and prosecutors are grossly negligent in these matters; only four charges were dealt with today and were dismissed because the prosecution "failed to prove that the man was responsible for the animals (despite expert evidence by the Police). The local RSPCA inspector says he has to go back to the property to shoot dozens more dying cattle.

Other cases I have attended was one where a farmer starved to death 400 sheep, four being down and so weak the crows had pecked their eyes out; his remaining animals were scored by a government veterinarian as "emaciated, near death". Another starved to death dozens of cattle. The sentences? The first got a 28 day suspended sentence, the second a 30 day suspended sentences. No fines, no bans. The second was charged again with aggravated cruelty 9 days later, and got the 30 day sentence "re-imposed" (but still suspended) and an additional 28 days (suspended).

These are only the cases I know about. (To continue)

(Continued)

Another farmer I know of had a court order imposed prohibiting him from having more than 20 horses in 2005 (having staved so many to death), but ever since has had up to 60. No-one knew who was supposed to enforce the order so no-one did, and he continues to attract charges. He just doesn't turn up for court, and nothing happens.

Driving home, through snow country, I saw hundreds of newly shorn sheep, trying to find something to eat in bare paddocks. Says it all, doesn't it?

Nicky

Hi Nicky

Here's yet another recent example of animal neglect in Esperance WA:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23889473-2761,00.html

And it's to my shame as an Australian, that the following articles were taken from a Croatian website:

02/20/2005 AUSTRALIAN OUTBACK CATTLE ABANDONED, 500 DIE OF THIRST!

"Australian authorities took over a sprawling outback cattle property on Friday after its owners abandoned it, leaving 500 cattle to die of thirst and a further 2,500 struggling to survive without water in searing heat in a drought-stricken land.

"Animal welfare officials said the cattle on Windidda Station in Western Australia state were living in hellish conditions in reported temperatures of about 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) and with only two of 13 water pumps working.

"It's an absolute tragedy. The conditions were appalling. It's the worst case of animal neglect we have seen," Kelly Oversby from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Western Australia told Reuters on Friday." (Reuters)

I've yet to learn of any charges against the owners.

06/27/2005 AUSTRALIAN VIVISECTION: SACRIFICED FOR SCIENCE!

"Animals are being used increasingly in medical and scientific experiments - one every 69 seconds in Victoria - despite a national code of practice requiring researchers to reduce their use.

"Latest available figures show 488,808 animals - 1339 a day, or more than 55 an hour - were used in experiments in Victoria in 2003. This is above the long-term average of 449,000 and significantly higher than the 1997 figure of 324,308.Nearly 75 per cent of animals used in 2003 in Victoria were killed during or at the end of research.

"About 15 per cent were involved in non-invasive observational studies.Animal use in research will come under fresh scrutiny after the Senate this week decided to launch an inquiry into animal welfare laws and as National Health and Medical Research Council animal ethics chairwoman Elizabeth Grant told The Age that some researchers had become "complacent" about considering alternatives to animals.

"An Age investigation has found that animals are still involved in painful and stressful experiments."

Nicky: "Antiseptic, is the only reality for you the economics? Even if it is, you should take in what PF is saying; that if CAN be done and it can make money. To do it on the scale that the intensive farmers do is nothing more than greed,"

You may have noticed that we live in a capitalist society, which means that "greed is good". I remain unconvinced by PF's arguments, despite agreeing with both of you that intensive farming is nasty for the animals.

Now, instead of reiterating what we already know (intensive farming is bad for animals, good for profits), what about those suggestions for improving it? Unless you can come up with some compelling reason for the large producers to forego their profits in favour of PF's rural idyll, you won't get far that way, so you must provide them with an option that allows them to maintain their profits while treating animals more humanely.

Not an easy task, is it?

Nicky: << CJ Morgan, who are your notable exceptions? I haven't been "farmer bashing", but I have been bashing cruel practices and will continue to do so. >>

I guess I should have said 'one notable exception', but even you imply that most farmers are routinely cruel. I agree that cases like those you cite should be prosecuted, as would most farmers that I know.

"Unless you can come up with some compelling reason for the large producers to forego their profits in favour of PF's rural idyll, you won't get far that way, so you must provide them with an option that allows them to maintain their profits while treating animals more humanely."

Simple Antiseptic - I practice what I preach. The intensive pork industry is going out backwards and losing around $50 per head. I on the other hand run a free range operation providing a product to a market that is under supplied and getting a price that my product deserves.

Intensive farms are closing their doors, meanwhile my operation keeps expanding and I can sleep at night.

Hardly an idyll, more like a sound business strategy. Certainly not one that is forgoing any profits!

PF:"The intensive pork industry is going out backwards and losing around $50 per head. "

That's an extraordinary claim, PF. Why then do people continue to fund such a money-loser? Given that many such large operaions are the preserve of large corporations, why have the various shareholder's groups allowed such a thing to go on? Frankly, I'm skeptical. No doubt you'll be able to substantiate your claim, preferably by reference to actual balance sheets, rather than the website of some animal-rights group?

Please do take note, I'm not at all critical of your operation, in fact I admire what you're doing, but it's not easily applicable to the large-scale operations that are what is claimed to be the problem, is it?

Given that we have a rapidly-expanding population, which means that we need more food, do you really see your own operation as able to be sufficiently scaled up to compete economically and productively with the intensive ones? If so, how?

No Antiseptic, you find me quoting animal welfare groups. How about the CEO of Australian Pork Limited? The peak industry body in australia. http://www.australianpork.com.au/pages/images/Australian%20Pig%20Farmers%20on%20Brink%20of%20Ruin.pdf

I have explained in a previous post the direction I would like to see the pork industry go. For me, free range is the ultimate, but there are areas in between. There are other methods of farming pigs extensively that are far more animal welfare friendly than factory farms. Some are going that way now. Growing out pigs in eco shelters for example. Why not extend that practice to sows?

In my opinion, there is absolutely no need for sow stalls and farrowing crates other than enabling the producer to cram thousands of animals in a very small area and have them totally in their control. Farrowing crates DO NOT stop piglets being laid on. These are the cruelest issues with intensive production and some that could be changed if the industry would just get its head out of the sand. Instead, they want to hang on to the infrastructure they already have at all costs, even if it means losing money. It just doesnt make sense.

The demand for welfare friendly meat is huge. The demand of export for the product is huge. Whats wrong with these people?!

Since there’s not much going on in Morgan’s head, I advise that it would take a much more intelligent man than he to insult me - a snivelling little man who declared: “This should be an entertaining gathering of frootloops, if anybody bites :)”

Now he returns to the "gathering of frootloops" to protect his interests, ingratiating himself with some real farmers. We all know from his blatherings that he “lives in the same district as Country Gal.” We all know that he “lives and works with farmers.” We know that he conducts a regional business in a farming area. One CJ Morgan would not wish to reduce his profit margins – indeed not.

Antiseptic, You suggest:

“Now, instead of reiterating what we already know (intensive farming is bad for animals, good for profits), what about those suggestions for improving it?”

How do innocent parties “improve” animal cruelty? Well we can continue to vigorously inform the national and international communities of the atrocities perpetrated on animals by this industry in Australia, however, like the recidivist criminal, isn’t the industry responsible for its own misdeeds, misdeeds encouraged and condoned by immoral and ignorant governments?

Have the guilty offered any solutions Antiseptic?

In the meantime, we will seek solutions for improvements by advising Australians and the international community while the industry wallows in its ill-gotten gains. This is an industry which scoffs at and sabotages organic and free range farmers. In truth, the community are growing very aware of who the real “extremists” are.

Do we experience a little de ja vous when reading of the endeavours of past "extremists" who contributed to the closure of the whaling industry in Western Australia during the 70’s?:

“But the protest kept whaling on the international agenda, helped destabilise prices for whale goods and became an issue for Australia's December election.

“Opposition leader Gough Whitlam promised a moratorium while Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser promised an inquiry. By the time Fraser's inquiry recommended the cessation of whaling, the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company had closed.”

And “those who ignore history will be forced to repeat it.”

PF, the press release you quoted was from September last year, when all farmers were suffering from the terrible effects of a bad and sustained drought. I'm sure that there were press releases of a similar nature emanating from every producer's organisation in the country. One of the main whinges was in regard to imported product, which has been a hobby-horse of local producers for some time.

If an intensive producer chooses to move toward free range, how does he implement it? How does he move from a small-footprint, high-intensity operation to the reverse without incurring massive costs and risking huge losses in the process? The two forms of farming are altogether different, aren't they?

Dickie, if you want farmers to change their ways, you won't achieve it by running around hand-waving every time you're asked how to do it. Remember, the farmer doesn't necessarily agree with you that his practises are bad, so unless your alternative is viable, you're not going to be listened to.

dickie, you imply CJ Morgan is merely stating his opinions all the better to ingratiate himself with farmers, because his business is in a farmer area.

Aside from the fact gathering personal information on posters is about the ugliest tactic on OLO, the logic fails. Your implication he's doing it for business reasons is impractical and would require farmers he knows at a business level to be monitoring this.

Using those same details, a more convincing argument would be he actually knows more about rural areas than those who do not live and work with farmers.

Dickie, attacking the same personal details you picked would eliminate the vast majority of people who actually know about farming.

But as long as you can score some cheap points, what's the problem right?

To bring things back to topic, at least we're agreed it's not most doing these things.
I take on board comments about intensive animal farming. Sometimes it's ugly, though I don't think the average (note - average) cattle feedlot is the terrible place it's made out to be.

There are legal requirements.

Dunno about pig feedlots, and I'll concede battery hen operations often are hideous places, though I think more people are opting for free-range eggs.

It comes back to profitability.
Speak of the high profits of companies, but you'll find most farmers who run small feedlots have slim margins.
If their operation is cruel, then yes, action needs to be taken.

But often they're not. That acknowledgement is crucial, I'd not condone bankrupting a farmer simply because some prefer unrealistic standards for the animals.
This isn't condoning cruelty, it's realising there must be compromise on issues of profitability.

The mentality that farmers are the enemy, must change.
Regardless of halfhearted caveats, that's the attitude that's shining through here.

If there are genuinely profitable ways to make their operations more animal-friendly and profitable, they'll adopt them. It's more effective to make consumers discerning instead of focusing at the other end. When consumers generate demand for humanely treated produce, their needs are met.

It's about compromise. Who can and who can't.

"Dickie, if you want farmers to change their ways, you won't achieve it by running around hand-waving every time you're asked how to do it. Remember, the farmer doesn't necessarily agree with you that his practises are bad, so unless your alternative is viable, you're not going to be listened to."

Antiseptic

"Hand-waving" has resulted in firm action by the international community. I do agree with you that one cannot directly reason with an industry that views acts of cruelty (perpetrated on defenceless livestock,) as collateral damage.

The following article is in direct conflict to your opinion that "hand-waving" is futile and I have several other articles which report the loss of trade for Australia because of this nation's propensity to inflict cruelty on commercial animals.

March 28, 2008 02:16am
Article from: Herald Sun

"A MAJOR British clothing retailer has joined the growing international corporate boycott of Australian wool amid concerns about mulesing. Matalan, a discount chain with about 200 stores across Britain, agreed to the move after meeting with animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

"While Matalan has not bought wool from Australia in the past, it has adopted a policy against buying Australian wool from mulesed merinos.

"(We have) instructed our suppliers that they must not source Australian merino wool for any future orders (and) we will now include this as part of our auditing process," its technical and corporate purchasing director David Mellett said in an email to PETA.

"About 50 European retailers, including Swedish giant H&M, have introduced the policy, as well as US chains Timberland and Abercrombie & Fitch."

Mulesing, I believe, would be less painful than ovarectomies performed on cattle in Australia but the international community are not aware of this heinous procedure - at least not yet, so it will be more "hand-waving" from me!

"Aside from the fact gathering personal information on posters is about the ugliest tactic on OLO, the logic fails"

TRTL. I believe you're too obtuse to realise that I would not waste my time on "gathering personal information" on Morgan. However, I do have a retentive memory. I do read the contents of a thread and memorise much.

Nevertheless, one must endure those on OLO (like yourself and Morgan) who bear grudges against others - the losers, obsessed with stalking and flaming, ignoring the topic and manipulating the facts whilst abusing others.

A "get even" mindset and "the ugliest tactic on OLO."

Was it therapeutic for you, TRTL? Feel better now?

PF, you are trying to compare apples with oranges here, two quite
different markets.

One is pork the commodity, where price is the driving factor.
Australians seemingly just cannot compete with Americans, Canadians,
etc, on a global scale. The competitors are simply too large, too
cut throat, etc. They are also quite content to stare down the next
guy, to see who blinks first, forcing others out of business.

Net result is that our large scale producers are losing money, as
they are exposed to global market forces and competition.

What you are doing is niche marketing, a different market, not
purely based on price, as is the commodity market.

Yes, more affluent consumers will pay extra for guilt free pork.
Just as they will buy a Prius, to make an environmental statement.
You are essentially selling a story, a philosophy etc. A %
of the population will pay for that, a large % won't.

Its no different with free range chooks, free range eggs etc,
where consumers go to a supermarket and vote with their wallets.
They can choose the free range if they wish. By the numbers we
can deduce that the price market is one market, the niche market
is a small but different one, do not confuse the two.

Fact is that when it comes to price, your system simply cannot
compete. Focussing on niche, for those who are so inclined,
in that case makes perfect sense, but its not for everyone.
I can't see large corporations running humpies on the hill for
their pigs, as you do, for your niche market.

*"While Matalan has not bought wool from Australia in the past, it has adopted a policy against buying Australian wool from mulesed merinos.*

Hehe, fanatics like Dickie think that anyone but the highly gullible,
take this crap seriously? Its pure Peta propaganda, no more.

Fact is that most farmers are telling Peta to get stuffed and will
continue mulesing. As has been pointed out, when options are
offered that are viable, they will be used.

Yup - dickie confirms my observation that there's really only been one frootloop attracted to Gibo's silly thread. Fortunately the rest of us sane types conduct businesses or work and pay taxes so that she can receive the welfare benefit that allows her to engage in her loopy "hand-waving" instead of doing something productive.

Unfortunately, her tactics don't really do much other than alienate the primary producers whose practices she seeks to change.

What has changed since Sept Antiseptic? Back then they at least held hope that the productivity commission would stop imports, that didnt happen. The price of fuel has skyrocketed and grain prices certainly havent dropped. Who said the drought was over??

Yabby, let me enlighten you just a little. You are right about one thing, I am niche farmer and thats where I want to stay. Like I said, free range is the ultimate in pork and I target the top end of the market. As for your comment "I can't see large corporations running humpies on the hill for their pigs, as you do, for your niche market." you couldnt be more wrong. You ought to keep an eye out around WA as George Weston are seriously getting behind free range. I believe you wouldnt have to go far from your own front door to visit a large free range piggery. Take a look at Otway Pork or Westerns Plains, thousands of sows in rows and rows of huts (not humpies yabby), some of them even on hills!

These are all different ways of farming pigs, not necessarily free range, but far more welfare friendly than intensive sheds using crates and sow stalls.

"The competitors are simply too large, too cut throat, etc. They are also quite content to stare down the next guy, to see who blinks first, forcing others out of business."

The comeptitors and too well subsidised and dump their product here. Anyway, if this is the case and nothing can be done to stop it, why keep banging your head against the same brick wall and losing money?? Produce a product that cant be imported.

Hi all

Antiseptic, CJM and TRTL, quite apart from the fact that PF has very capably presented viable alternatives which apply to the pork industry and reinforced our awareness that the large corporations do in fact sacrifice any sort of basic morality in favour of greed, I fail to see why it is the responsibility of the general public to generate alternatives for these people. I take the argument back to the Five Freedoms. For me, it is that simple.

No animal deserves the wretched misery intensively farmed pigs, chickens and battery hens endure in their short lives. Is that too hard a concept for you? To give you a bit more perspective - the RSPCA Inspector at the court hearing I went to yesterday advises that he has to return to the same property next week to shoot a whole lot more ill, maggot ridden, dying cows and calves. Meanwhile the perpetrator can afford an expensive barrister.

Cattle feedlots that I have seen were crammed full of cattle with no room to move, no shelter from the weather extremes, and mired alternatively with dust or with mud depending on the season.

I wondered how long it would be before Yabby found his way here to join the "producers". Guys, no-one has said farmers are the "enemy". What we say is that as community awareness grows, so does the belief and commitment that these standards are unacceptable, and intensive farming will fall so far short of expectations that these people will have to take a long, hard look at how they do what they do.

Sow stalls are already banned in the UK, parts of the EU and Smithfield and Maple Leaf in the US and Canada respectively are voluntarily phasing them out. Do you think this has happened without some "flag waving"? Battery cages will go the same way, because people are becoming more and more aware. Some of us believe that, since the people involved in these atrocities cannot be made to do the right thing voluntarily, legislative force will come eventually to make them do it.

Nicky

*Like I said, free range is the ultimate in pork and I target the top end of the market.*

PF that is wonderful and I wish you well, as you know. But it remains
niche and will remain so. It will probably expand, but even then
will remain niche and not become mainstream production, until
consumers are prepared to pay the extra costs involved.

Running pigs in open straw based shelters is hardly free range,
but has been mainstream in the pig industry for years, as it
makes economic sense and the pigs love it. Plenty of pigs have
been produced that way and sold as commodity pigs. They still are.

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0003/72435/sub014.rtf

According to this submission however, processors are simply
importing the equivelant of around 50'000 pigs per week, to
turn into smallgoods etc. Your humpies might make you feel great,
but you are hardly making a dent in the market :)

Companies like Smithfield, process 27 million pigs a year.
Producing commodity pork is trying to compete with them,
Australian producers simply can't compete. A few might want to do
niche, others will simply close down and do something else. Let
the public eat imports, unless their costs are covered. Fair enough.

Yabby, you have just washed over anything I have said.

I described pigs raised in eco shelters as an alternative, not as free range. An alternative to the cruel practice of sow stalls and farrowing crates. At present, mostly grower pigs are turned out of these sheds, why not use them for group housing of sows also? Take at look at some of these pictures http://www.westernplainspork.com/gallery.asp thats not small scale we are seeing.

Smithfield run the cruelest, most environmentally damaging agricultural operation in the world. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

Any forward thinking pig producer would have no trouble marketing a clean, animal welfare friendly product against that.

You say compete or go bust. I say think outside the square.

PF, you continue to confuse two very different markets.

Westernplains, Otway and yourself are all aiming at the guilt free
niche market, where people pay extra. Quite different to the
commodity pork market, which is still by far the bulk of volume.

Thinking outside the square is great, I applaud it and promote it
all the time. But it will remain niche, not mainstream, as that
is how consumers vote with their wallets.

How Smithfield produce their pigs is irrelevant, as buyers frankly
don't care. They certainly know how to market pork, or they would
not sell 27 million pigs a year.

If the mainstream pig industry wants to invest research $, to find
ways of producing piglets without sow stalls, where cost per piglet
is no greater then the present system, well great, then they should
do it. But for those companies trying to compete in the commodity
market, which is most of the pig industry, the bottom line
matters as niche is a limited market. That is the reality.

I'm not saying its good or bad, I'm just saying, that is how it is.

Your system is great for you and great for a % of pig farmers who
want to do niche and can extract extra $ from consumers for providing
guilt free pork. Its great marketing and thinking outside the
square is all part of it. But its not the solution to the problems
that the Australian pig industry has, as it tries to compete with
global producers, who are extremely efficient and cut throat, in
what they do.

Its exactly the same in the chicken industry, where 3 suppliers
produce most of Australia's chickens. Most people buy on price,
on packaging, on convenience etc. The niche market is thriving,
as people buy free range etc, but its still only a small % of
the total chicken market. Guilt free marketing is a niche market
which only appeals to a limited %, as frankly the majority of
people don't care

Yabby, in the grand scheme of things, intensive farming is relatively new. Is it more that people just dont care, or they just dont know.

There have been many things in our culture that, in review, we as thinking, feeling human beings, have decided just were not the right things to do after all and change happened.

Intensive farming is only around 40- 50 years old, much like chemical farming. So many people still think that pigs are raised in sties and are oblivious to the existence of sow stalls or how this system of production really works. BTW we are learning quickly that chemical farming is not all that its cracked up to be either. Look at the growth of the organic market. The same will happen with intensive farming.

Granted, it will take time but we need to have a little more respect for the way our food is produced.

As for any arguement about price and tight budgets - pork is not a requirement of our diets. Let them eat cheap lamb (grass fed of course) I cant see anyone starving to death because they couldnt pay a fair price for pork.

More successful "hand waving" and more public scrutiny, a link which may interest you PF?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/little-lucy-threatens-pig-farmers-bacon-20080802-3ozx.html

Isnt that just so typical dickie, the are going to dispute wether or not a pig is as intelligent as a three year old... dont worry about the other issues (they have no answers any way)

It will be interesting to see what all the 'industry' news has to say.

For the record, I think this campaign is the best any welfare group has done. Usually I wish they had consulted with people that knew more about pig behaviour, but this one really hits the mark - brilliant!

PF, one of th reasons that producers are not quick to walk away from certain industries where at the moment losses are being sustained, is the level of capital investment that they made in the infrastructure. Unfortunately this is a side-effect of specialisation - its hard to just change overnight. Mostly the better option is to try to ride through the tought times until the profit margins improve. Not much different to riding through a drought - you dont just pack-up stumps at the first sign of the sun coming out. This perhaps supports your argument against instensive industries that require high capital investment from an economic view-point - if you cant convince someone on your moral views, then try hitting them with the economics!

Yabby is spot on when he talks about what is sought by most consumers. Sad fact of the matter is that a high percentage of the population cant afford to pay anymore for their groceries. Blame it on anything you like, but thats just the way it is. Those that can afford it and have the belief system to do so will buy organic or GM-free or free-range, but most of the population cant afford to add 10%+ to their weekly grocery bill.

Hi all
Country Gal, do you think it is about people not being able to afford it? I think it has more to do with public ignorance, and perhaps apathy really. PF, what would the price differential be? I have no idea, because I have no idea of meat prices.

I think public ignorance will be strongly countered by this campaign, but I think there HAS to be some truth in labelling come in. Interestingly, APL has said it hasn't got the funds to match Animals Australia's campaign. PF, what do you think they have done or said that isn't right - have you let them know, by any chance?

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky - the APL spin doctors are hard at work as usual. They cannot counter these ads full stop. There is no justification. They keep trying to deflect attention away from factory farming and AA keep bringing them into the spotlight. They are attempting to play the only card they have. Unfortunately it relies on people being aware of what has been happening in the pork industry re drought, grain prices, imports etc.

Well you know what? People could care less about all that than they do the welfare of the pigs. APL are trying to get the sympathy vote for intensive farmers and they will be pushing it up hill.

No money?? What a joke. Wonder how much they paid the consultant that came up with this strategy.

Andrew Spencer, CEO of APL (nothing more than a talking head) has yet again embarrassed members with his comments in the media. Good one Andrew - i sometimes wonder whos side you are on!

CountryGal - people are so ignorant when it comes to intensive animal production. Hopefully, as they learn the truth, and make change in their purchasing decisions either on animal welfare or human health grounds, they will be prepared to pay a fair price for their food. When that happens, farmers are far more likely to accept change and give the consumer what they want. Before you say, 'but some just cant afford it' the price currently being paid for pork is not sustainable and the industry will collapse if prices dont rise.

There are many alternatives to intensive production, not just free range, and if they should become the 'norm' I dont imagine pork would be that much more expensive - only if we get to stage were farmers are being paid a fair price to start with.

PF, you were asked a simple question: "what would the price difference be under your preferred production regime compared to intensive practises?"

Care to have a go at answering?

Hold on Antiseptic while I just whip out my crystal ball .....

PF, are you saying you have no idea of the cost differences between your preferred methods and that of the intensive farmers? That seems strange coming from one who has been saying repeatedly that intensive farmers are so inefficient they're going broke while you're making a profit. Does that mean your claims are just porky-pies in the sky?

Hi all
Antiseptic, one has to wonder if you have a distinct preference for intensive farming (and hence gross animal abuse). I cannot imagine that the price difference would be that substantial, and I think (thanks to some flag waving) the public is becoming more and more aware of animal cruelty.

I should have realized that my question to PF would require some degree of telepathy given that I would imagine that these prices would fluctuate almost daily. Sorry, PF!

As for APL's response, PF - I couldn't agree more. They couldn't have managed this worse than they have - thankfully for the animals! Do they still have that bizarre, paranoid "Animal Rights Watch" website?

As an example, three local Councils where I live have announced that they will no longer be using caged (hen) eggs in their catering, and at least one has banned circuses with exotic animals (after considerable flag waving and a "gorilla" swinging from a lamp post - it was brilliant)

Cheers
Nicky

Antiseptic - I meant no disrespect with my comment.

There are so many variables involved. At present, free range production (if thats what you refer to me as my preferred production regime) is more labour intensive, the pigs grower slower, one, because no hormones and growth promoters are use, and two, because no research money has been put into diets suitable for pigs that use a lot of energy doing what comes naturally.

I have at no time said that intensive farmers are inefficient. Despite all the research, genetics, medications etc, they are struggling to get a price they deserve for their product because they are unable to differentiate themselves.

This is my point, australian producer have an opportunity to fill an untapped market for welfare friendly, 'green' pork yet they choose to ignore it, largely because they have all this infrastructure in place and want to hang on to it at all costs.

If APL put some money into alternative methods of pig production we may see some outcomes that would reduce the costs of such methods and the price differential would not be that different I feel. (assuming we are talking a sustainable price to begin with)

Nicky:"I cannot imagine that the price difference would be that substantial"

I have a small timber milling business. We do things largely by hand, with some assistance from a forklift and crane truck. The mill I use is a Lucas, which has a small 27hp motor and is pushed through the log by hand. The best throughput I and my partner can achieve is about 10cubic meters of logs in a day. The cost per cubic meter is around $100 if we can achieve best throughput, which is fairly rare.

Down the road is a modern production mill that gets through about 10 cubic metres of logs every couple of minutes. They have several saws, including different saws for different parts of the process and they have a production line to take advantage of their machinery. Their staff number about 50. It costs them about $20 to mill a cubic meter plus the cost of servicing their debt . So, their efficiency is 5 times mine in terms of cost. What really tells the story, though, is their volume. They produce around 1000 times as much as I do, which I recognise is necessary to maintain the level of supply demanded. My operation cannot do that, no matter how much I want it to, so I supply to a specialist market that is willing to pay for the product I produce. I don't have to imagine any of that, it's a fact. I suspect the facts are similar in the farming game.

PF, thanks for that. I wasn't trying to be a smartarse and I appreciate your answer. There is a lot of confusion, emotion and misinformation peddled on these topics and it's nice to see some honesty and facts.

Hi all

So, Antiseptic, based on that principle, how do you make a quid? Do you fit a niche in some way?

Furthermore (until science tells us otherwise), "efficiencies", or "economies of scale vs "economies of size" of so-called factory farming are at the expense of, and compromise the welfare and well-being of millions of sentient beings (not timber), day in, day out, year in, year out. As PF points out - possibly the "efficiencies" may be false ones, given the amount they have to spend on drugs to keep the poor, wretched animals alive in these filthy environments.

As an example of what seems outrageous stupidity to me, an article in one of the farming journals (from one of the colder regions) contains a story of research into preparations to keep sheep which are newly shorn in the middle of winter from freezing to death. Would the simple answer not be not to shear the poor things in the middle of winter (just in time for snow, it was)

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky, we can check in those pigs for a private suite at the Hilton
if you wish, as long as the consumer wears it.

Last time I checked, Woolies earned around 76% return on capital,
banks, Telstra and others won't lift a finger below 20-25% returns.
Farming earns around 1% and if its any lower, well you can buy
your food from China in future.

So thats the bottom line, its up to consumers really. If people
want cheaper cheaper, effiency will be the key, or people are out
of the industry.

You are free to try to persuade people to pay for all the provisions
that you want provided for livestock, but the consumer has to pay
for them.

Any business will close, if it can't pay the bills. Of course
there is plenty of "certified organic" food from China available,
if that is what consumers prefer. Its not up to farmers, its up
to consumers.

Nicky, I fit in because the cost of milling is but a small part of the total cost of the product. I sell direct to the end-user and value-add by selective milling to produce the highest quality boards which will fetch the highest price. The large mills are looking just for throughput, as thay are mostly trying only to produce the lowest quality of boards - suitable for house framing and so on.

I won't bother with the rest of your emotive outburst. I'm not your enemy here, Nicky. All I'm trying to point out is that it's horses for courses. If you can come up with a way to produce the same volume of product with less cruelty at the same cost to the farmer, he'll adopt it, of that I'm sure.

Hi all
Antiseptic, there is nothing "emotive" about articulating the facts. The bottom line is that many farmers' practices do not meet community expectations. All intensive farming operations should be exposed to public scrutiny, and members of the public who unwittingly buy products from these people should be encouraged to see how what they buy is produced. As I said - wood is not a sentient, living creature being harmed by cruel practices. It is really quite simple. Campaigns like "Lucy speaks" are only the beginning. PF has got it right, and the bottom line is that this is CRUELTY and animal abuse we are talking about.

If they (the pigs and chickens and hens) were dogs and cats, the courts would be full of prosecutions. Why the distinction?

Cheers
Nicky

*If they (the pigs and chickens and hens) were dogs and cats, the courts would be full of prosecutions. Why the distinction?*

One has to wonder. There was an interesting story on 60 Minutes
tonight,

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=614389

about American women, who buy and keep Capuccin monkeys,
as replacement children. These monkeys are ripped off their
mothers, have their teeth removed, are dressed up, kept
and do little but sastify maternal instincts of their keepers.

The city pet brigade have alot to answer for, when they think
what really is best for their animals, which they claim to
love so much.

Nicky keeps dogs fed gourmet foods, these women keep monkeys,
perhaps they should look at themselves, before having a go at
farmers.

Pericles was clearly correct in his analysis!

Hi all

Yabby. you claim we cannot "tar all farmers with the one brush", Equally, you cannot do so with "city pet owners". My dogs - as are the pets of all my friends and colleagues, are perfectly fine. Nor is there anything wrong with their diet, according to their veterinarian (better than yours, I suspect). Their lives are simply different to those of your dogs, that's all.

Have you any comment to make on this, by any chance? Note that his defence was that this is "common practice".

"A former livestock transporter has been convicted of animal cruelty.
Greg Dawson was found guilty after a hearing at Fremantle Magistrates Court on Tuesday after he was filmed throwing sheep and using an electric prodder to the face of a sheep.

The incidents took place at the Port of Fremantle while Mr Dawson was loading the livestock vessel, MV Bader III.

"He was also filmed pulling the leg of another sheep....

“These sorts of crimes against animals are not easily detected given the vastness of Western Australia and the fact that livestock are not generally in the public eye,” she said.

LISA CALAUTTI

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=87090

Cheers
Nicky

*Their lives are simply different to those of your dogs, that's all.*

Nicky, you sound just like one of those women in the 60 Minutes
story

Yabby

I did not view Sixty Minutes tonight. You see, its lack of credible material mitigates my interest in this show.

However, what has monkey ownership to do with the cruelty inflicted on livestock by you and your industry?

Was the monkey's teeth removed without anaesthetic? Was it castrated without anaesthetic? Were its ovaries removed without anaesthetic? Was it transported by truck for thousands of kilometres without food and water? Was its backside hacked off without anaesthetic?

Was it electrically prodded onto the ships of death or did it have its eyes and flanks stabbed before succumbing to a heinous and sadistic fate in the land of the barbarians?

Has the monkey been force-fed antibiotics every day and a myriad of other hazardous pharmaceuticals? Is the monkey responsible for the recurrent outbreaks of salmonella and the new animal to human pathogens reported in the past 25 years, such as influenza and SARS? And what about the recurring infections of leptospirosis in Australians? You know, the infections your industry keeps quiet about? Are monkeys relevant to factory farming in Australia?

If your answer to the above questions is "No" then I suggest your post has no relevance here and as always, you intentionally remain off topic.

Dickie, as always, you are absolutely right (as always) - and exceptionally well put, as well. Yabby's best (only?) talent is throwing in "red herrings" to try and take the focus away from the topic. You will have noted that he failed to answer my question.

Cheers
Nicky

Ah Dickie, you comment without even viewing the programme or
reading the transcript, but ignorance has always been your
strong point.

I remind you of Nicky preaching to us about her 5 bible rules
of keeping animals, one of them being, that they should lead as
natural a lives as possible.

Dressing up monkeys in dresses, treating them as children, to cope
with motherly empty nester syndrome, etc, speaks more of distorted
hormonal influences, then have anything to do with treating
animals naturally.

How natural is it to feed animals gourmet foods?

At least my animals lead natural lives, unlike your pampered pets,
which seem to be there mainly to satisfy your own instincts
of unfullfilled love. So the pets cop it, if they like it or not.
That is hardly natural. Just like the monkey women in the 60 Minutes
story.

"At least my animals lead natural lives,"

Of course Yabby. I know how sentimental you are about your lovely sheep. I'm sure Nicky would agree with me too.

And look what I resurrected from my archives for you. I know you love to reminisce over your little ones - especially those who received international recognition.

Cheers

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:BftvbtCNFb4J:mad-cow.org/~tom/sheep_die.html+sheep+farming+damage+australia+environment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Dickie dear, you might as well have searched for the Titanic.
Fact is that boats can sink, no matter whom or what is on board.
Cars crash, you still drive in them, so do your dogs.

Red herrings like that little one, are not going to change the
fact that you people are being hypocrites, breaking your very own
rules about keeping animals.

*Have you any comment to make on this, by any chance? *

Nicky, you really are not the brightest. The above was your
question. If I did not answer, then clearly I have no comment
to make. I have heard of Graham Dawes but that is about it,
much as you seemingly have. If you have a question to put to him,
so ring him.

Great news, Siba ships have announced another 240 million$ to
be spent on two new ships! Thats on top of the other two smaller
ones, being completed right now in Indonesia. They should be ready
at the end of the year.

These two new ones will be built in the same shipyard as the Becrux
was, with animal welfare as having vital importance in their design.
Lots has been learned from operating the Becrux and how things could
be improved even further.

"These two new ones will be built in the same shipyard as the Becrux
was, with animal welfare as having vital importance in their design."

Is that so Yabby? Live exporters concerned with the welfare of animals? I think not.

August 13, 2008

"A coalition of live sheep importers and exporters has taken court action against the Federal Government, claiming it will lose millions of dollars from a decision to reduce stock numbers on vessels bound for the Middle East.

"The decision has meant thousands fewer sheep will be sent to various countries in nine voyages between May and October this year.

"On May 12, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service imposed additional space requirements on the relevant vessels to help manage heat stress in sheep exported to the region.

"They included an extra 10 or 15 per cent space for sheep carried on vessels with open, two-tiered decks.

"Solicitor Tim Cocks, for the companies, said outside court that they did not want damages or other compensation from the Government. He said they were seeking to retain the shipping capacities they had always enjoyed, rather than suffering the reduction.

"Sheep were to be transported via the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Israel and Jordan; and to Persian Gulf destinations Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait.

"The case is scheduled for mediation at the Federal Court in Western Australia on September 18."

"Rather than suffering the reduction?" Ah well they're only sheep after all.

No doubt, Yabby you will attend the mediation which is to be conducted in your state?

Furthermore, if live exporters are concerned over the welfare of export animals, why have they not objected to Rudd's decision to resume live exports to Egypt, a country notorious for its brutal treatment of Australian animals?

Oh sorry - I overlooked the fact that it was the livestock farmers who coerced the spineless Rudd government to resume trade with Egypt.

*Live exporters concerned with the welfare of animals? I think not.*

Its quite clear Dickie, that an ignoramus like yourself, does not
think very much!

Firstly you clearly never read the press statment related to the
two new vessels. Secondly it seems to have not even occured to you,
that shippers are paid for live animals, not dead ones.

It is in fact in the interests of shippers to deliver as many
healthy, happy, weight gaining animals as possible. Every sheep that
dies is a loss to the company concerned.

By the time these animals finally land on a boat, with all the
inspections, certifications, vet inspections , food costs, trucking,
etc, they are not cheap anymore.

Siba ships are well aware of this fact and are throwing 240 million
$ at it, a sum not to be sneezed at. Their boats are in fact used
by NZ and other countries, to ship breeding animals around the world.

But then as many point out, nothing that the live trade or farmers do,
will ever satisfy the vegan brigade like yourself. The fact that
farmers even make a living out of running livestock, is against your
philosophy.

One minute Nicky is complaining about old boats. When companies
decide to throw big money at new boats, you still complain.

Your poor husbands/boyfriends, having to put up with old nags
like you :) It seems that you simply enjoy complaining about
something..

Yabby, the difference between you and Dickie is that you haven't got an original thought in your head (whereas Dickie clearly researches the material she posts). You simply quote the dogma of Wellards, Siba Ships and LiveCorp.

If these savages pay only for live animals and not dead ones, with 40,000+ being "collateral damage", someone is losing money hand over fist (and I note that the figure rose between 2005 and 2006, and 2006 and 2007, despite less animals being shipped).

But dream on ...

Nicky

*If these savages pay only for live animals and not dead ones*

If? Sheesh, I thought that was basic common sense lol. You clearly
lack it dear :)

Yup, 40'000 sheep at 100 bucks is 4 million $ Clearly it pays to
provide them with good conditions, so that 99% will arrive just
fine, which they do.

In your eyes, we are all savages, we do evil things like eat meat :)

Yes we know that Dickie frantically wears out her google bar.
That has little to do with having some basic common sense or
an understanding of life

If 40,000+ dead animals a year is having regard for animal welfare, clearly they're not very good at it, and getting worse, according to the stats. And as I pointed out, Dickie at least does her research, whereas if you had an original thought it would be lonely.

Here's another quaint practice of sheep farmers - shearing in the dead of winter, in snow country. I read in one of the farming journals that "research" has gone into putting stuff on newly shorn sheep to stop them getting hypothermia. It doesn't take Einstein to observe that it they are not shorn in mid winter, they are unlikely to get hypothermia. Issues to do with lambing, I'm told, and the solution would be to crutch them before lambing, and shear them before the summer. But that's how dumb - and mean/greedy - these people are. They would rather risk the deaths of the animals than spend a few bucks having them crutched.

I would not describe everyone who eats meat as a savage - that would rule out of my life almost all my friends, colleagues and family (not to mention my dogs). But they deplore many farming practices, and live exports, intensive farming and long distance transports in particular.

No comment to make on Animals Australia's "Lucy Speaks" radio campaign? How disappointing.

Nicky

Hi Folks!
I feel that we have to rationalize this whole issue by simply analysing the salient facts:

The whole farming industry is about making money by supplying foodstuffs, meats and various other commodity items to satisfy an ever expanding market!

The methods and practises utilized are ultimately affected and determined by the final return to the grower/producer!

What the most important issue is here is the disparity in the profit margins between the producers and the whole chain of "handlers" on the way to the final presentation to the consumer!

What we really need to do is to curb the gross profiteering of the large Supermarket chains, ( and let us NOT forget some of the greedy little Butcher shops!) who continually post massive profit increases whilst at the same time bleating about the farmers, producers and other associated product handlers!

The farmer/producer is usaully the one who gets the lowest take from the product, even though he has put the most into it, whilst all the other "handlers" up the chain take their "tax" off the top, in most cases doing very little in return!

If we can EVER reduce this imbalance ( and it would take a very courageous Government to bring about this sort of change!) the increased, and more realistic profitability for the producer, would or should provide the incentive and/or opportunity for the implementation of more humane methods of handling and processing the animals involved!

Once again we should put the blame where it belongs:..."GREED IS GOOD!

*If 40,000+ dead animals a year is having regard for animal welfare, clearly they're not very good at it,*

Clearly they are very good at it, for 4 million arrive just fine.
You have clearly never in your life been a livestock producer,
or you would know, that if you own cattle or sheep, sometimes they
die of all sorts of causes. Lack of experience is your problem
Nicky. Vets, qualified industry people, farmers etc agree with
me and they know something about the industry. You shuffle your
reports, you have no actual experience. Sorry, but being a
doting grandmotherly type like Dickie, shuffling papers, just
does not do it.

Have you ever heard of snow combs? Do you know what they are
for? Has it ever occured to you that farmers shear and crutch
sheep when labour is available? Clearly not

Cuphandle, welcome back! Breaking the monopoly of the "Big Two" would seem to be one of the major issues here, and the ACCC typically failed to address that.

Yabby, as always - not good enough. 40,000+ dead animals (and rising) is not good enough, in anyone's (anyone normal, that is) language. And those who arrive "just fine" - I take it you haven't looked at all the film footage of the blind, lame animals, in Middle Eastern feedlots with their wool falling out. But they don't matter because they were able to be dragged (or thrown) off the ships. And yet again (sigh!) it's about what happens to them when they get there. Have you failed yet again to pick up on the fact that these countries are on-selling Australian animals to other countries, or butchering them and on-selling the meat? Who is making the big bucks here? Not the terminally stupid Australian live export farmer. They just follow the MLA/LiveCorp mantra.

Farmers crutch when there is labour available? Yeah, right. Not in my part of the world, nor yours, I am reliably informed.

Nicky

*Yabby, as always - not good enough. 40,000+ dead animals (and rising) is not good enough, in anyone's (anyone normal, that is) language*

99% success is good enough. Industry people know that, people who
have run sheep know that. If the odd sheep won't eat, so put it down.
Informed and experienced people know that, people like you, with
no experience, clearly don't. I can't help ignorance and nor can
the industry. That is why you are simply ignored by most. Go and
get yourself some experience in the industry, then we can discuss
things on a more informed basis.

*in Middle Eastern feedlots with their wool falling out*

No doubt some have their wool falling out. Ever heard of shedding
breeds? More and more of them are going on boats, including
some of mine.

*Who is making the big bucks here? *

If Fletcher is offering 20$ and the shippers 60$, then frankly
farmers are better off selling to the shippers. If you can't
figure that one out, there is no help for you.

*it's about what happens to them when they get there.*

Their throats are cut and they are eaten when they get there.
Just like the throats of sheep in Australia are cut every day
and they are eaten too.

Yabby

Nickys hit the nail on the head and cattle are no different.

Read what she said again and get it through your head that millions of animals dying in barbaric conditions will NOT be tolerated.
= Nicky said
Yabby, as always - not good enough. 40,000+ dead animals (and rising) is not good enough, in anyone's (anyone normal, that is) language. And those who arrive "just fine" - I take it you haven't looked at all the film footage of the blind, lame animals, in Middle Eastern feedlots with their wool falling out. But they don't matter because they were able to be dragged (or thrown) off the ships. And yet again (sigh!) it's about what happens to them when they get there. Have you failed yet again to pick up on the fact that these countries are on-selling Australian animals to other countries, or butchering them and on-selling the meat? Who is making the big bucks here? Not the terminally stupid Australian live export farmer. They just follow the MLA/LiveCorp mantra.)

WELL SAID!

You ask who is making the big bucks here? Not your little average Aussie farmer- its the middle man- the shipping agents like Elders and others. Many of these gaint companies who make political donations to keep the vile trade going at all costs - including at the cost of all our country towns being forced to close.

These low lives dont give a rats arse about Australia or Australian Farmers or Australian Animals and are mostly off shore companies taking our jobs to others depite the utter cruelty.
Isnt that right Kevin Rudd. Off to Church you go now to shpow the public what a weak spineless loeader you are IMO At least Howard did Lie to the public before the elections about live exports.
You can judge a nation by the way it treats its Animals Mr Rudd.
http://www.livexports.com/contacts.html

StG, I don't know about PALE, but its often cited websites appear to have "fallen over" as well, for anyone who is interested.

Cheers
Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 7:28:28 PM
Regarding your comments about pale on the 29th july when you knew very well we were away a few months.
The company RSPCA QLD were dealing with closed down and several sites simply dissapeared. It caused a great deal of work and effort to retore them.

I have refused to answer to you about the pale web site in the past because I felt your critisim was not meant in a constructive manner.

Regardless fyi a new the site has been waiting over a year until I can get time to help out. We have a wonderful helper who commenced who has bowl caner. I wanted her to have the project because its best for her to have something of interest and she also happens to be a very active animal lover.

Here is the site begining.

http://cmq86.wwwoz.com/

Prior to that our RSPCA QLD web master was to do it. He has over two hundred computers to take care of so its understable hes been too busy.Then Mohamedad was going to do a new site however time is all of our enermys.
Please remember we are only a small office with non paid helpers.

So heres a thought. If you really believe that a good site is so important then you are free to offer your assistance to our helper.


I am sure our lady would be absolutley delighted to have someone else to discuss the site with.
So there you go you have a free hand and I will pay for it.
Here is another site you are free to take over or assist with.

http://freerangefarmers.com/freerange/

In the mean time I am sure you will be pleased to see to old sites for the animals back up" including that bloody awful music" I think you called it.
http://www.livexports.com/
http://www.halakindmeats.com/

http://consciousevolution.com/onshu/view_signatures.php

Yes, I saw the sites had been restored. Unfortunately, I have never had anything to do with web design; I maintain a couple of sites but did not establish them. One thing you might want to research is that Job Futures, the Job Network agency, in some places runs Work for the Dole programs in which participants design, develop and maintain websites, under qualified supervision, free of charge to NFPs. Other Job Network agencies in your area may do the same.
Nicky

Nicky

Thanks for your advice. Unfortunately this is the Gold Coast and nobody wants to work.



We heard about this program several years ago.
We were told we had to be a NFP organization and have insurance etc. So we registered as a NFP and RSPCA Qld +did the insurance to cover the helpers.

Only 'one' actually turned up out of almost thirty (believe it or not)

Also you would appreciate if the person doesn’t really interest animals it’s not going to work. It can result in a great deal of time being lost that may have otherwise been spent at shopping centers etc...


We spoke with Durra frustrated about the time lost to interview people for nothing.

They said they were aware of it however, the Government decided that it would be an invasion of privacy to provide companies with the net work or job work providers details so you could report their none attendance.



The lady I mentioned in my last post is sincere in her efforts and dedicated. I am trying to find her some assistance and actually spoke to a few web masters today.

Apparently there are changes soon to the NFP organizations. I think we have pretty much decided to let ours go because that was the sole reason we went NFP in the first place.

As for live export I fear you will find the agreement will be to 'fly more out..... (that’s why we didn’t want # attending without us present.)

Other than the 'high profile people' taking livexports to the UN Its uphill.

Robert and friends suggested this. he said would need assistance with briefing and background because we are too young to have all the records and knowledge.
He contacted others but didnt get a promised return email.So there`s not really much else he can do in that regards .

Thanks Again for your advise

Nicky

Speaking of the world of internet and technology I would value your thoughts on this idea.

The Goggles zoom in maps and street details surely could be also used to zoom in on large stations to check condition of stock and see if they have feed water shelter etc


Why can’t we set up an Animal Welfare watch dog station in each state?
After all they use satellite for everything else.

It would take away the excuse that it’s a six day ride per station and impossible to police.
It could also be used in the outback where they trap wild goat’s camel’s horses etc.

Hi PALE

The local Job Futures agency that I know of does this from their own office - you provide them with the access details to your website and what updates you want, and they just do it. It isn't a matter of them actually working for you; they are working for the Job Network/Community Work Co-ordinator. They manage websites for a number of NFPs, and they are a-political; that is, without bias. Seeking to be a W4D provider in your own right would be far more complicated.

I haven't been involved in that sector for some time, but the CWCs in your area might be the Salvation Army, Business and Employment - organizations like that. They have the best of technology, certainly at Job Futures. And people do not have a choice about W4D.

With regard to your second question, that's beyond my technical expertise too, but have a look at Google Earth; that might be closer to what you're looking for. How you would monitor what happens in the locations you find might be a problem though.

Nicky

Nicky
Thanks but they don’t have that here. They only have work providers who are ‘supposed‘to find employment for people unemployed. In real life these agencies are paid more by not finding employment but that’s off track and another story. People go to Gold Coast Volunteers and pick a NFP. From their Gold Coast volunteers call the NFP and arrange an interview. The person comes and you commence training- usually a couple of hours. They then fill out your companies details and sent it to centre link to show they have honored their agreement.
*Then they are never seen or heard of again*
Naturally you do the normal thing and contact the people who sent them to you in the first place.
They say well that’s nothing to do with us. You say well who is their job net work provider? They say we can’t supply you with that because it’s a violation of their privacy.
By this time you have wasted three to four hours and you are spitting chips (especially if you have half a dozen of them)
There is nothing more frustrating! Of course they ALL tell you they really love animals just to make it worse. Gold Coast Volunteers once to us that a web master had been turning up every day for six months. When we informed them that was a lie they said they were duty bound to accept him at his word!! Very funny.
No Nicky we don’t get involved. Anyway its has to be said on the site that’s important and I have to do that in the first place then send it to our helper.
To be continue

The Salvation Army, doing something to help animals *naturally has its appeal but let’s not hold our breath.

. # And people do not have a choice about W4D. #

Actually it works like this. If they don’t turn up they are sent a letter and asked to explain why. All they have to day is get a Dr Certificate and they walk. Anyway who wants to chase people around who really don’t care? It’s useless.

#Google Earth; that might be closer to what you're looking for#

That’s what I was referring to.

. #How you would monitor what happens in the locations you find might be a problem though. #

I don’t know yet. Other than not giving it to DPI RSPCA or Federal Gov. Not RSPCA and either. Perhaps AA could ask RSPCA national to acknowledge AA and PACAT as an accepted Animal welfare org and we could get some funding for staff for them through MLA. After all they have plenty of our money.
However they would also need the independent advice of trained stock men- perhaps aboriginal before lodging a complaint. Maybe we could fund a helicopter and vet to do with the stockmen..

Let’s think about it.
Tar

The Salvation Army, doing something to help animals *naturally has its appeal but let’s not hold our breath.

. # And people do not have a choice about W4D. #

Actually it works like this. If they don’t turn up they are sent a letter and asked to explain why. All they have to day is get a Dr Certificate and they walk. Anyway who wants to chase people around who really don’t care? It’s useless.

#Google Earth; that might be closer to what you're looking for#

That’s what I was referring to.

. #How you would monitor what happens in the locations you find might be a problem though. #

I don’t know yet. Other than not giving it to DPI RSPCA or Federal Gov. Not RSPCA and either. Perhaps AA could ask RSPCA national to acknowledge AA and PAACT as an accepted Animal welfare org and we could get some funding for staff for them through MLA. After all they have plenty of our money.
However they would also need the independent advice of trained stock men- perhaps aboriginal before making a complaint. Maybe we could fund a helicopter and vet to do with the stockmen.

Let’s think about it.
Tar

Landline ran a great story on Tony Burke. Credit to Tony for
take the time to inform himself. He clearly understands the difference between animal welfare and animal rights, something
that many have a problem with.

Sounds like Kevin Rudd was wise to choose him as Minister for
Agriculture.

Gertrude, Google Earth does not show constant active satelite pictures
of the world, as you presume. Yes, there are pictures of most parts
of the planet, but they can be months old or years old. The technology has clearly confused you.

Yabby

Bugger' back to the drawing board.

Your correct technoogy confuses me. I even hate computers with a passion.

'However' they we are using all sorts of tech to monitor growth. I cant see why we can not have a national register for farmers where by the log how many head they have.

We could match that with all current data + known droughts and floods in a twenty year pattern.

Possibly we could get some extra help through heath departments under state and federal Governments.

We all know when areas are overstocked the animals run a higher risk of picking up disrease from soil and that can be passed onto people.

Your mob are doing some of this work in WA.

Addmitley they are not doing it for the reasons I have in mind. but as they say if you have got the technology then why not share it.=

http://www.pasturesfromspace.csiro.au/

Apparently Googels got pics of every street including cars and one bloke walking down the street in his undies- so the technogolys there they would just need to update it.

Thats going to cost a bit but would be a great weapon in the fight against terroism down the track for example.
We could practise on the farmers:)

Just think of the advantages if tourists or farmers get lost in the bush.
Wouldnt it be nice to know yabbs if you got lost out there the girls would be watching and ride out and rescue you:)

Or fly in in their helicopter. Hilarious

+ before you start I am just mucking about.

Now on a more serious note - Whats this about Landline and Tony Burke- Did I miss something

Yabby, of course, would think Tony Burke was the eighth wonder of the world because he preaches the gospel according to MLA. Put him on one of the bottom decks on the "Al Kuwait", the "Torrens" (recently detained YET again, in Darwin) or the "Maysora" (but not the "Becrux")for a four week voyage and see how he feels then, After that, put him on a truck in the Middle East for 12-14 hours in 45 degree heat, or tie him to the roof racks of a car, with his legs tied together, and drag him into a Middle Eastern slaugherhouse (without forgetting to beat him over the head all the way). His views after that, if he were able to speak, would be interesting, especially after his throat was cut.

PALE, I'm sure there is satellite technology out there but that's not my area of expertise. Whatever you tried to monitor in that way would, I expect, cost a small fortune. MLA's statistics may not be the most reliable, either. I was told the other day that LiveCorp/MLA's stats by "state of origin" say that no animals from Tasmania have been exported live (sheep since 2006 and cattle 2006-3007 from memory), yet the Tasmanian government says that, although it "doesn't know how many", 15,000-20,000 sheep from Tasmania have been exported out of Portland in Victoria, and the local rag down there, TasCountry, advertises continually for cattle for Mexico and that haven of animal welfare, China. Go figure! So much for NLIS regulations.

Cheers
Nicky

*Yabby, of course, would think Tony Burke was the eighth wonder of the world*

There we have it, right here on OLO. The exaggerations of an
extremist like Nicky, to try and make her point. Fact is that
Tony Burke is clearly a rational fellow, who bothers to inform
himself. If you watched the programme, then you would know that
he was off to Indonesia, to see for himself what happened to cattle
that are shipped there.

He also spent some days out in the bush, on the stations, to see
how those cattle are bred, etc. Unlike our paper shuffler Nicky,
who claims to know it all, by shuffling papers.

Its high time that you went and spent a bit of time in the country
Nicky, on some real farms, with real farmers and real animals,
to understand the industry a bit better.

Yabby, it is high time you went to the Middle East on the same sort of journey, under the same conditions, as I have recommended for Tony Burke, then YOU might have a clue what you are talking about.

Nicky

"He (Burke) also spent some days out in the bush, on the stations, to see how those cattle are bred, etc."

Please answer me Yabby. Did he witness an ovarectomy being performed on a fully conscious cow?

Dickie, you are free to watch Landline on Monday mornings, when
it is repeated on ABC, to see what he saw.

If he was concerned about any single procedure on farm, he would
have all the experts to call on for advice and informed comment.

Ill informed emotion and empathy are all very sweet, but not
very factual. There was recently a bloke on radio, discussing
the procedure that you are concerned about. He says that the cows
don't even flinch and he has performed thousands. Perhaps you
did more then that, when you gave birth.

I asked my livestock vet about your concerns and he says its not
an issue. He knows far more then you know about cattle.

You girls still have this problem of major empathy, but lack of
understanding when it comes to the difference between species.
Unlike pigs, you don't enjoy wallowing in mud. Unlike sheep,
you don't freely sleep in your own dung. The list goes on.

For heavens sake, Yabby, wake up to commercial reality! These people have a commercial interest in "livestock". What else are they going to say? And what about my suggestion for your next trip?

Nicky

For heavens sake Nicky, the only one with a biased opinion is
yourself, due to your flawed ideology. Fanatics will be fanatics,
money does not even come into it. You are much like a religious
fanatic, you just can't help yourself.

Lawyers, doctors, specialists of varying professions all
express professional opinions. That is their job. They simply
know a great deal more about their field of expertise, then
a lay person like yourself, who is driven by little but emotion
and ideology, but no understanding.

I am wise enough to pay some attention to what specialists in
their field have to say. Unlike you, who is a furball of
empathy with little experience or understanding.

Yabby + Nicky

I cant see why we cant use the Googles. Its pretty Good
check this out.
http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/1802010.jpg



I even got one up in the area I got some property and I can see quite clearly .

My point is its not impossible to do or update to daily.

Yabby said
He also spent some days out in the bush, on the stations, to see
how those cattle are bred.

Pale replies
Christ Yabby your not serious! But of course you are. Gee I hope his "advisor" went along to because let me tell you something he knows stuff all!

Stone the crows as much as I hated the others at least Vaile and a few of them were born in the bush with a farming background.

It just goes to show how irresponsible Rudd is puting people into a job as the Minister of anything with NO background especially agriculture.

Yabbs said
Unlike sheep,
you don't freely sleep in your own dung. The list goes on.

pale comments
They do that when they are cold if there is no protected area. I have a picture of how things used to be years ago .= big trees with girths the sizes of a car. Lots of shelter from bad weather shade in the summer.However some nutters decided the clear all the scrub and trees in their greed.

Yabby said
Fact is that
Tony Burke is clearly a rational fellow, who bothers to inform
himself. If you watched the programme, then you would know that
he was off to Indonesia, to see for himself what happened to cattle
that are shipped there.

Pale replies
Thats nice Yabby that he has decided he should "know something" ??.

These blokes know diddly squat about live stock.

I have fair idea what hes looking at in Indonesia which is WHY we didnt want Dr Wirthless getting involved without us - But I am not going there again because it sets Nicky off who thinks i am just being a smart arse or its a case of sour grapes.

Yabby, your "specialists" in their field are saying what they are paid to say because they have a commercial interest in the industry (as far too many politicians have in the live export trade. At the end of the day, it does not take a "specialist" to recognize cruelty when they see it.

So Burke is having a few nice little tours to find out what he is being paid to know - and listening only to vested interests. Excellent. We will now see his unbiased assessment of animal cruelty in the "livestock industries". Get real.

PALE, I looked at your link, but what you're after is "real time" images of what is going on at any point on the map. I don't know if such a medium exists, someone more wise with technology might.

Nicky

Nicky

It would certainly take someone with more It skills them I - Thats for sure. Still its got to be worth looking into.

Perhaps you could ask PETA to find someone etc..

This type of tracking animals was stronly supported by Muslim leaders RSPCA QLD in their Sub to Animal Welfare Senate Enquires- and on trucks.

They did request for all groups to work to support that.
However they requested they contact our office- so they you go- Not one enquiry into that or to support them to reopen plants in Australia with their assistance.

Its got to make you wonder really doesnt it.

I take it their excuse was they didnt like pale so bugger the animals and a very good progect.

Then you ask me why we work with RSPCA QLD?
You have got to be kidding!

PALE The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy conference is currently underway on the Gold Coast - did you attend?

That's a very good question, PF - PALE, did you attend? Bidda Jones did an excellent interview on the ABC Country Hour from the conference.

PALE, I am not in contact with PETA so cannot ask them anything like that. With regard to your senate submission, I did happen to read that, but it's more than likely that others would not have. It really was not relevant to the Bill itself, or the Explanatory Memoranda.

Also, other groups (if they did read that particular submission) may have decided that such a system was a) not workable and/or b) they would not want to operate anything under the control of PALE and its Muslim allies. If they were going to do it they are more than capable of doing it themselves without external interference of vested interests. We have been down this path SO MANY TIMES.

Whatever - no-one actually made it happen.

For your idea in this case, you probably need a smart teenager to tell you how to do it, they are far more technologically savvy. Or, as I suggested before, one of the Job Network agenices which deals with websites for NFPs may have some ideas.

Nicky

She presented an excellent speech at the conference, very brave and seemed to indicate that the RSPCA has had enough with the pace of progress.

Hi PF

Yes, in the interview I heard, she was very strong on sow stalls and battery cages, and threw a challenge to the public in terms of their acceptance of these methods. She touched on live exports but that interview didn't go into detail on that.

Were you there? I'd love to have been able to make it.

Cheers
Nicky

Pf

I couldnt attend personally however 'yes' our people were there.

I missed the ABC interview however. Sounds really interesting.
Something must have changed in the last 'six weeks'.

Last I spoke with Heather Neil she said this Government were the best chance to end live exports and were keen to do so?
I must have misunderstood Tony Burkes recent doc on Land Line.

Regardless the answer to live exports- and intensive farming is for more people with basic morals and good animal welfare policies like yourself PF.
Already 50% of real farmers are gone and been taken over by the big coperations.
I am sure you know the rest... More free Range Farmers and Abattoirs In Australia If we are ever to curb at least 'some of the cruelty.

RSPCA urges less compromise

The RSPCA today said it was time for animal welfare groups to be less compromising and to encourage more people to make their voices heard if animal welfare is going to improve in Australia.

...Dr Bidda Jones made the comments in her keynote address to the International Animal Welfare Conference, Gold Coast.

Dr Jones detailed the progress of three major animal welfare issues in Australia; battery farming, live exports and vertebrate pest management.

“When you look closely at these issues it becomes clear that the balance between a conciliatory and a confrontational approach has been weighted so far towards compromise - that little has been gained for Australian animals,” Dr Jones said.

“A decade ago science dictated that the 10.5 million egg laying hens living in battery cages suffered miserably throughout their lives.

"Consumers started voting with their wallets and today one in four people buy cage-free eggs.

“Despite the fact that 84pc of people agree with the scientists that battery cages are unacceptable, in 2007 there were one million more hens living in cages and they still had less space each than the size of an A4 piece of paper.

“History paints a similar picture of the live export and pest management issues.

"It’s a sad reality that ten years doesn’t seem to be enough to achieve a major goal in animal welfare.

“We have reached a stage where animal welfare is firmly on the agenda of governments and industries but while this is a good start, there is still a strong resistance to any meaningful change.

“Despite the high profile and public standing of organisations like the RSPCA, when it comes to policy-making, governments listen much more attentively to economic reasons than to ethical ones.

“There is room for optimism.

"Public perception is continuing to shift in favour of the positions put forward by animal welfare groups with a more informed and empowered consumer emerging.

“We need more consumers and members of the community to speak up and help the RSPCA force change to improve the treatment of animals in Australia.”

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/livestock/news/rspca-ready-to-belt-farmers/1259427.aspx

Nicky

The 'strategy' of the Aust Animal Welfare Strategy seems to be, lets get all the welfare groups, industry and scientists together in one place and sell it to the public and media as everyone working in harmony with a common goal - the betterment of animal welfare in australia.

How do those scientists fit such big brains into such narrow minds?

While the conference had many international speakers that explained at great length the demands for better welfare by consumers in their countries, the industry here seems to have taken the few 'why do we have to things the same way as other countries' They are going to continue to ignore the consumers here because 'they just do not understand the needs of industry' I hope its not long before that attitude comes around and bites them!

Hi PF

Excellent comment. Who from the animal welfare movement was there? I remember when submissions were called into the proposed "Standards" the "strategy" was represented by large numbers from the industry groups with minimal consultation from the animal welfare community.

Meanwhile, have a look at this - I'd be interested in your comments. Are your pigs "standard" breeds like these?

http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/livestock/pigs/goondi-pigs-living-free-easy-and-delivering-profits/1262739.aspx?src=enews

If more and more of this gets out there, and as the public becomes more and more aware (I find the supermarkets the most stubborn as well - they just look blank when you mention "free range". One "meat manager" said "we only buy pork products from local producers who comply with the code of practice". When I told him what the code of practice provides for he refused to discuss it any further).

Is it always going to a battle when the retailers are so resistant? What do we do about that? They don't even reply to letters any more.

Cheers
Nicky

Sadly this farm is not what it says it is. Farmonline also did a video of the interview
http://sl.farmonline.com.au/multimediaplayer.aspx?id=3248 Have a look and tell me if you still think he is free range. A much better alternative to intensive farming, but please, why misrepresent yourself.

AA, CIWF, Animal Welfare League, HSI, RSPCA, IFAW, WSPA,Voiceless, ACAC, Animal Aid, Aus Vets for Animal Welfare, Cat Protection Society, Vic Dog Rescue.

Everyone's favourite, Mr Hugh Wirth was also in attendance :)

I dont think any of them would have been impressed with the outcome, or lack of one, from this event.

The egg corporation guy would have been interesting. I dont think anyone told him animal welfare groups were invited! He named all of them on screen in his presentation as threats to the industry!

Hi PF

It's hard to see exactly what he's doing from that really. They don't appear to have the same freedom that your pigs do though. Did you do the RSPCA accreditation thing? If the other (they mention him as being one of two) one isn't you, who is it, and is it genuine? It's a bit sad that these people are getting that accreditation if they are not the real thing. Another argument for real truth in labelling? Maybe such accreditation would be better handled by HSI or CIWF.

Did the animal groups get much opportunity for real input at the conference? It looks like there was a very good representation. None of those groups are what could be described as "extreme".

Did you find yourself totally outnumbered by the intensive farming people? The egg industry representative must have felt like a right idiot - didn't he think that there would be at least some representation from the animal welfare movement, or did he just not care?

Thanks for the information. If you have the time would you be able to provide any more input for those of us who couldn't get there?

Cheers
Nicky

Here is an irresistible quote...

" Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.

Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them.This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer.

So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals.

Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out a card praying for 'Peace on Earth'. "

- C. David Coats (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)

Cheers all
Nicky