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?