Excellent topic Nicky - I had no idea that Australia was exporting puppies. Given that so many animals don't do well here, I think exporting them to uncertain futures to be reprehensible.

While I do eat meat, I try to 'source' meat from butchers who are supplied by ethical farmers; free range, humane slaughtering (if that's not an oxymoron). I also do the odd bit of volunteer work at animal shelters when I am able.

Question for Pericles: Do you regard Guide Dogs for blind people as slaves?

I do know that my two rescue cats regard me as their slave.

Now a question for Yabby: Why do you get so emotional and personally insulting on animal welfare threads? I have begun to think that you 'doth protest too much.'

*Nicky is not objecting to people eating chickens*

Ah Dickie, there we have your mistake up front. Nicky is a committed
vegan and in the past has included people chopping chickens heads
off, so that they can be eaten, as "brutalising". Hence my comment
about semantics here.

*And what happens to an animal after death is of no concern.*

I'm glad you finally see my point, for neither do I care what
happens to my dead carcass one day, nor would a chicken or sheep.

*humans cannot just take from these creatures without giving them something in return.*

In many circumstances they do, which has been my point all along.
Livestock are fed throught droughts, those suffering are put down,
those with worms are treated etc. In nature they are not so
fortunate, they die slowly and miserably.

"Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush"

Err Dickie, frankly there are more intelligent and more informed
people to turn to for information, then Bush's speechwriter.
Besides, you are comparing apples and oranges. Did I ever say
that I approve of American factory farming? Or European factory
farming?

My point all along has been that extensive grazing can be done
quite sustainably, with benefits to both livestock and humans.
The fact that we limit the population and land up eating some of
the livestock, has benefits to them, as well as us, for its far
kinder then dying of hunger through overpopulation, as happens
in nature. But first you have to understand nature, and Darwin's
Origin of Species is a great place to start.

Petition and news about the Peanut case, everyone.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=36602960671&ref=ts

Cheers
Nicky

No, Fractelle, I don't consider guide dogs for the blind to be in the same category as dogs-for-pets.

Nor working dogs - sheepdogs etc. - for that matter

But I think you already knew that.

I simply believe that it is extremely cruel and self-indulgent to think that we are entitled to keep animals in captivity for our personal amusement.

Further, I think it is somewhat two-faced of self-described "animal lovers" to believe that it is somehow OK, and an entirely separate problem from all other forms of cruelty.

Incidentally, I have never understood the appeal of keeping cats, birds, fish or any other living creature for personal entertainment either.

"Awwwwww, isn't he cute?"

No, madam. It is merely cruel, and demeans you as a human being.

I don't actually expect any response to the questions I posed earlier:

- what is the ethical distinction between dogs being owned by people for the span of their natural life, and slavery?

- what is the ethical distinction between dogs being bred for such enslavement, and for their meat?

- what is the difference between treating animals badly in Australia, and exporting them so that they can be ill-treated abroad?

- given that Nicky sees "indiscriminate breeding of dogs-for-pets" as bad, where should the line of "discrimination" be drawn?

As I said, I can't see there will be a lot of enthusiasm to get to grips with these.

But it might just be a good exercise, for at least one of the so-called "animal-lovers", to take a shot at an answer or two.

Pericles, sheep dogs and guide dogs are more 'enslaved' than any other dogs. They are expected to 'perform' at the will of their 'owners'. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't answer your questions, simply because to the first one, I simply don't know, the second one follows on from the first (but I renew my objection to how dogs are bred, raised and slaughtered in Asian countries, Australian livestock fare marginally better than that so long as they are not pigs of chickens), and third question - of course there is no difference. But animals sent to Asia and the Middle East can expect infinite cruelty, whereas in Australia there is at least minimal legislation and scrutiny (as badly enforced as it is).

Yabby, I thought Matthew Scully's writings would be beyond your comprehension. I rest my case.

Nicky

To a point, Nicky.

>>Pericles, sheep dogs and guide dogs are more 'enslaved' than any other dogs.<<

Philosophically, working dogs are indeed equivalent to the plantation slaves.

However, because they have a purpose and a value (all that training) there is a very good chance they will receive better care and attention than a household pet.

The parallel of dogs-as-pets in the antebellum South would be keeping slaves as playthings. Slaves whose continued existence depended on how well they amused their "master".

Chilling concept, n'est-ce pas?

What is abhorrent to me, as I have tried hard to explain, is the completely pointless and self-indulgent practice of "keeping a pet".

At least you are honest in that you cannot distinguish between the morality involved in owning a pet, and that of enslavement, and the ethical difference between enslavement and killing for food.

But if you do have some spare moments, I strongly recommend that you contemplate these ideas.

Because right at this moment, there appears to be no ethical consistency at all in your selection of exported puppies as an animal cruelty "cause".