Lets not make war here, animal welfare is something most of us have looked at.
But surely PETA is pulling our leg?
Calling fish sea kittens we just have to ask how can anyone take them seriously?
I am forever at war with political correctness, it is a blanket thrown over truth to try to hide it.
But this is madness, never again will I bother with this group.
If the thread gets into print lets keep it calm.

Why should it matter how you call them? a fish is a fish is a fish, and it is simply wrong to take its life, just as it is wrong to kill any other form of life (so far as it does not threaten to your own life).

As for PETA, I don't understand what possibly you have against this nice organization that displays for us beautiful naked young ladies in cages - enjoy it while you can!

Belly

I don't think PETA is serious about a name change. The sea kitten idea is purely a gimmick to catch our atttention and get us thinking about the animal cruelty entailed in fishing.

It's certainly caught our attention, but as for its real message cutting through, I have my doubts. Its cause hasn't been helped by the general attitude of ridicule with which it's been reported in the media.

I know fishing is very much part of our recreational culture but it is cruel. I think it really is time to consider the pain suffered by a fish as it's reeled in with a hook embedded in its gullet, while we beam with pleasure at our own cleverness and enjoy bonding with friends and family in the great outdoors.

I've seen it suggested, quite plausibly too I think, that the timing of this story hints at a deliberate beat-up, put out into the media by the Opposition, the National Party or the farming lobby - in an effort to discredit PETA just as it's achieving great success with its anti-Mulesing campaign.

Grass Kittens.

Yes.. we must STOP the merciless slaughter of the many vulnerable and innocent grasses and other forms of life which grow in the ground...

ITS GENOCIDE! How DARE people interrupt the pleasant and happy lives of various plants and other things happily growing in mother earth!

If people want food.. then let them eat what science can produde through it's use of chemicals.. after all.. we are like 90% water no?

We all know water doesn't have a sensory system.. and the various other chemicals which make up our physical bodies can easily be synthesized and placed in a little pill we can all consume each day.

NO MORE PLANT MURDER!

VEGETARIANISM IS MURRRRRRDER...

Polycarp,

Your claim that "vegetarianism is murder" is inaccurate - what you probably meant is that eating plants is murder: vegetarianism is not about what one eats, but merely about what one avoids eating, eg. corpses of dead animals.

Now whether chopping grasses is murder or not is an open question: we cannot answer it without the subjective experience of being grass ourselves, otherwise we can only speculate. Let me present here just one such speculation, one possible model:

We have plenty of evidence that mammals have feelings. They can be in great pain when their own body is injured. They can also have pain when a close friend/relative is hurt.

We do not have similar evidence about individual insects. Yet insects seem to care about the fate of their swarm. Insects tend to behave quite like our own body cells, caring not for themselves, but for a greater whole. Killing an ant is therefore akin to wounding an individual rather than killing him/her.

When we get down to plants, especially those that can split and break off into shoots rather than procreating distinctly as animals do, the possibility of individual pain seems to be even more remote. It is still likely that plants feel or care about something, but that is probably an even greater whole - maybe their whole species rather than an individual stem. If this is the case, then plucking a plant is relatively just a minor injury (so long as we do not cause extensive damage to a significant proportion of a particular plant species).

Accordingly, it is a matter of degree: while it is ideally best to not injure anything, causing a minor injury is better than causing a major one, which is still better than murdering a conscious individual.

Angels do not damage plants (some even claim that there is a special angel in charge of each plant species - I haven't seen any, so I cannot comment). I am not an angel, but at least I don't need to give up on morality altogether and be counted amongst the worst of humans.

I fish, well I once did, work and the death of my fishing mate have seen me only dream about fishing.
But the sea is one of humanity's biggest food sources, it always will be.
sea kittens, come it is madness, funny but mad.
PETA let sheep die a horrible death, camp outside fast food chains,
But reality has a part to play in life we must eat.
PETA are a huge joke fish and sea life is the only food for much of the world.

Howdy Belly

Is PETA pulling our leg?

Either that or they’ve lost their marbles!

Oh the poor kittens (those naïve little do-gooders at PETA I mean). So misguided they are.

Their sea kitten campaign is not going to go down well
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/sea-kitten-peta.html

What about this: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/index.asp (:>0

Apart from attempting to give fish a more appealing image, I don’t get the purpose of this campaign.

I don’t see how this campaign fits with PETA’s mission statement: http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp

It seems that PETA has stepped outside of its pretty tightly defined agenda of dealing directly with the mistreatment of animals.

Well, if it is willing to do that, may I suggest that its best course of action is to fight strongly for sustainability. That is, for the balance between humanity and environment, so that the continuously increasing rate of environmental alienation, including fishing and other wild harvesting, and all the death and misery for animals that goes with it, is at least prevented from continuously worsening.

Hi Yuyutsu

I was just making a point :)

It's all a matter of degree.

If you put some roundup on a plant...it dies. If you just put a little bit.. a dilute solution the leaves go yellow and it becomes sick.

Some plants manifest an amazing level of intelligence. Ask yourself this? "How can a passionfruit or other climbing plant KNOW which side of it the nearest support is?"

If the answer is 'chemical signals' then I suggest that with animals also it's all just about 'chemical signals'.. we know this to be the case with ants and bees etc.. why not plants?

PETA are just trying to impose eastern mystical religions on us by stealth. I can imagine half of PETA personell have done the pilgrimage to Katmandu or somewhere or spent time in an ashram in India and been infected by the spiritual darkness therein.

If animals feel 'pain'..why is this neccessarily a bad thing? If there is no God..no heaven..no hell.. sheesh..it doesn't matter in the end WHAT we do to anything else. Only the Law can stop us..
Which of course leads to the nub of this issue.. LAW=POWER and those who can change/control the law..have POWER...over others.

So..perhaps PETA people are just egomaniacs who want to control us all?

I reject utterly the idea that some pack of morons like Peta can decide for me by LAW that I can't catch a fish just because it might hurt them....the fish's pain keep me and my family alive... go figure :)

The complete stupidity and hypocricy of PETA is seen in the fact that nature itself causes pain.. the existence of predators.

I'll bet that PETA has some part of their agenda which tries to convert Dogs and Cats into vegetarians...

http://www.vnv.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=61

Morons.... absolute morons.

To each his own, as they say...

Save the Sea Kittens
Save the baby seals
Save the whales
Save the bears
Save the forests

But what about...

"War is not healthy for children
and other living things?"

Wouldn't that be a good place to start?

Belly

"PETA let sheep die a horrible death.."

If you're going to attempt to further discredit PETA with this sort of slander, Belly, you need at the very least to provide some evidence.

Belly and Ludwig

May I suggest, with the greatest of respect, boys, that your powers of empathy are not very well developed.

"Imagine reaching for an apple on a tree and having your hand suddenly impaled by a metal hook that drags you—the whole weight of your body pulling on that one hand—out of the air and into an atmosphere in which you cannot breathe. This is what fish experience when they are hooked for “sport.”

Many people grow up fishing without ever considering the terror and suffering that fish endure when they’re impaled by a hook and pulled out of the water. Recreational anglers rarely stop to contemplate that fish are complex and intelligent individuals. In fact, if anglers treated cats, dogs, cows, or pigs the way they treat fish, they would be thrown in prison on charges of cruelty to animals. Even when anglers put fish back in the water after torturing them, many of the fish die from their stress and injuries. A 2006 study conducted during and after a Wisconsin fishing tournament found that hundreds of fish who were caught and released had died within a few days."

http://www.fishinghurts.com/Angling.asp

Ludwig

"It seems that PETA has stepped outside of its pretty tightly defined agenda of dealing directly with the mistreatment of animals."

Don't fish count as animals in your book, Ludwig?

Truthfully... I dont think it does any harm to teach young folk to love Creation and desire and strive to preserve it.

If we kill everything off, then whats left?

You and I... and then we die.

I love PETA, they do what I believe all dingbat organizations and associations should do.

They should honestly promote the nature of their cause(s)

And in that promotion they will display their stupidity.

For us all to ridicule, as we as free individuals, see fit.

Far better a PETA loon, carrying a banner and parading outside city-hall, than an entryist beavering away inside city hall, quietly eating away at the processes of democracy in the name of their particular malevolence (the ex-FBI agent, Robert Hanssen springs to mind).

Ah, Bronwyn “Many people grow up fishing without ever considering the terror and suffering that fish endure when they’re impaled by a hook and pulled out of the water.”

It is called “food chains”.

When PETA takes on the task and responsibility for turning all the great whites into vegetarians or vegans then I will believe they are “sincere” in their views on “fishy hurt”

but until that time I will just assume they are merely spewing forth the usual hypocritical crap that fill most half-wired activists, desperately in search of a life.

And I certainly want to be there when PETA do start teaching great whites how to grow mungo beans so they can forego their traditional diet.

I am particularly looking forward to the bit where some righteous PETA activist tries to point a finger of admonishment at the shark for the sharks murderous practices and the shark replies….

Bronwyn, I think that PETA should stick to matters of obvious and unnecessary animal cruelty....and address sustainability, as every environmental organisation should. Extending their agenda into the realms of normal fishing activities is badly overstepping the mark.

Of course fish are hurt by line fishing. They’re also hurt by net fishing. And fish-farmed fish are hurt or stressed when harvested. We can’t escape that.

What is PETA trying to achieve here. Are they trying to stop or greatly reduce recreational or commercial line fishing or just make people think of fish in a different way, in the hope that a different attitude will make some people think twice before going fishing? Can you tell us Bronwyn?

I guess you would agree that an organisation like PETA should be putting a whole lot of energy (at least half of all their effort) into sustainability, for the reasons I outlined in my last post?

Foxy

Further to your comments:

What about;

‘The grossly unsustainable path that humanity is on is not heathy for other living things’

Wouldn’t that be a good thing for PETA to be involved with?

*a fish is a fish is a fish, and it is simply wrong to take its life, just as it is wrong to kill any other form of life*

Yuyu, that is simply your opinion and no more. To you it is most
likely a feelgood thing, but at the same time you are trying
to ignore nature, which means that there is a foodchain.

Even when you fall off the proverbial perch, other species will
chew you up and spit you out :)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-the-cats-away-rabbits-devastate-island-sanctuary/2009/01/13/1231608708301.html

is what can happen when predator species are removed, huge
environmental degredation.

Fact is that if we risk living, then we risk dying at any time.
That is life!

As to suffering, there is another way of looking at things. When
people or other species die of old age, alot of the time its not
quick, its blimming slow, can take months or years of suffering.
Now the Catholic Church tell us that suffering is noble, so
we torture people to their last breath. Give me a death that
is all over in a minute or two, or five, rather then drag it
out for months. Are you now suggesting that as fish get older,
before they die, they don't suffer?

This whole debate boils down to the feelgood factor which ignores
nature.

The sheer lunacy... idiocy... moronic...intelligence challenged... dimwittedness, dumb and dumberness.... of PETA asounds me.

""Imagine reaching for an apple on a tree and having your hand suddenly impaled by a metal hook that drags you—the whole weight of your body pulling on that one hand"

ERRRR duh... Lets revisit that:

"Imagine having just given birth to your new fawn.. you lick it clean, you cherish it.. you shower it with affection.. you delight in all it's new life quirks... THEN SUDDENLY a pack of hyena's come over the RIP IT TO PIECES and EAT IT!

"THAT" is the natural world of animals.

Trying to connect human sentimentality to Animals.. specially FISH.. qualifies PETA for the loony bin as few things can.

A-GAIN.. I'll reiterate.. they are simply trying to impose Eastern Mysticism and religious views on us by stealth.

THE DANGER of idiots like PETA is that when you put a lot of morons together and organize them.. they can actually have an impact.

Next time we have a Roo cull.. let's include a 100% cull of Peta members.

anyone fancy some sea kitten and chips? Oh, and don't forget the tomato (plant/fruit kitten) sauce

Yes it’s a gimmick - top marks to PETA (who are also conservationists) for drawing attention to the plight of our marine life. Man, the largest predator on the planet has a penchant to blow up whales, bludgeon seals to death, boil lobster alive and salivate over their catch while fish are slowly gasping their last breath with a hook in their mouths.

Man constantly cheats and lies to authorities while exceeding fish catches without a thought for sustainability. Man, breeding like rabbits, is responsible for many many mass fish deaths occurring around the world.

Marine life is poisoned beyond an edible state by man but are eventually eaten too by ignorant humans. Mass fish deaths have resulted in mass sea bird deaths around the planet and almost three-quarters of Australia's migratory and resident shorebirds have disappeared over the past 25 years. Now there are some 200 dead zones in our oceans where life in any form cannot survive.

The media have selectively latched onto PETA’s “sea kitten” announcement to back Australia’s livestock industry who had pledged to phase out mulesing by 2010 (joke!) In yesterday’s West, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association were given a half page column to defame PALE, while other letters I am aware of, which have been submitted to the West, in defence of these tortured animals, were not published.

Remember this Polycarp?:

“Even I, have said in my heart with regard to the sons of mankind that the true God is going to select them, that they may see that they themselves are beasts. For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.” (Ecclesiastes)

Only man kills for greed; only man kills for fun!

This is why the terrorists hate us!

Awww....gawd......! In last post "PALE" should read PETA.

Apologies.

Dickie

Just read your post and didn't even pick up on the PALE mistake. I knew the point you were making anyway, and was admiring as usual the succinct and pithy manner in which you make your case.

Ludwig

"What is PETA trying to achieve here. ... Can you tell us Bronwyn?"

I'm not a member of PETA and not privvy to the details of the campaign. Certainly, what I'm taking from it is that we should all try a little harder to avoid cruelty to fish. For me, this means looking for alternatives to recreational fishing, both line and spear, and there are many, and being mindful also of the cruelty involved in keeping fish in small tanks.

It also extends to issues of trawling and by-catch being left to die, and then there's fish farming. I'm not knowledgeable about the actual practices involved, but the current case in our area of two-headed fish emanting from a local fish farm, is quite possibly the tip of the iceberg as to what's really going on in some of these factory farming situations.

"I guess you would agree that an organisation like PETA should be putting a whole lot of energy ... into sustainability, for the reasons I outlined in my last post?"

Yes, I do, Ludwig, and as pointed out by Dickie that is very much part of PETA's brief. There are many sustainability issues to consider in regards to fishing and hopefully this campaign will raise their profile too.

I live in a coastal area and I don't know of any of the numerous fish shops here that aren't routinely selling endangered species. The average man on the street cannot differentiate between those that are in good supply and those that aren't. As well, there are many areas in the world now, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, where the mercury content of the fish puts them at levels unsafe for human consumption. Again, the average Joe Blow wouldn't know if the fish he's tucking into is adding to cumulative mercury levels which will eventually compromise his health, or not

Dear Ludwig,

If full-scale nuclear war ever occurred,
there would be nothing left to sustain.

Such a war would shatter the existing world
order, and reshape whatever human history might
be left.

I wish animal organisations like PETA would be more realistic. Next, we can't walk outside because that would endanger the ant-kittens.

People want to eat meat and fish, it's a fact.

I would support a campaign against UNNECESSARY killing of animals, for example as a sport.
I would also support unnecessary cruelty against animals such as ritual slaughtering such as Halal slaughter without stunning, intensive farming or battery farming, and live exports.

I used to be a vegetarian for about 10 years but never lost the craving for meat.
I now am a moderate meat eater but don't eat seafood at all and I buy free-range meat, chicken and produce whenever I can.

Unfortunately, as one poster (I think Ludwig) pointed out, there is no cruelty-free way of catching fish.

People should be able to enjoy their seafood without feeling guilty about the fish's suffering.

Let's just get the message out that killing fish -or any kind of animal- for fun, sport or recreation is simply unnecessary, wasteful and cruel.

pfff, sea kittens. People are happy to kill rats indescriminately, and I've never seen an organisation like this interested in saving rats. People kill rats and then don't even eat them in this country.

I think that if we were supposed to be vegetarian, why are animals made out of meat? Huh, answer that one!

Glad you support the push for sustainability Bronwyn [ I knew you did anyway (:>) ].

“…as pointed out by Dickie that is very much part of PETA's brief.”

I don’t see anything in Dickie’s comments that support PETA’s involvement in sustainability. So I went browsing around their website and…..nup…nothing there to indicate any such action (:>(

Their mission statement http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp lists four main areas of action and examples of secondary issues. Nothing comes remotely near any attempt to balance humanity and the natural environment or to counter the constantly increasing harvest of animals for human consumption or the fact that there will be less and less consideration for animal welfare as the human populace becomes more desperate to feed itself.

Like so many other environmental organisations, they are just turning a blind eye to the big causal factors and expecting someone else to deal with it. They are just dealing with little side issues and symptoms, some of which have merit in the short term, but which amount to a tiny fraction of the impact they could have if they put half of all their energy into the overriding issues…in conjunction with other environmental organisations. What a terrible shame that they don't!

I very strongly feel that instead of this silly sea kitten campaign, they should be showing themselves as being a holistic organisation by directly addressing the ever-worsening balance of humanity and the natural environment.

Dickie, can you shine any more light on PETA’s sustainability efforts, or lack thereof?
.

“I would support a campaign against UNNECESSARY killing of animals, for example as a sport…ritual slaughtering such as Halal slaughter without stunning, intensive farming or battery farming, and live exports.

Yes Celivia. I support PETA’s crusade for the elimination of this sort of thing. Um…..I presume PETA is fighting against all of this type of stuff?

Ant-kittens. Oh dear! What about all the mozzie-kittens I’ve murdered this morning ( :< /

No one would be having this absurd discussion if they understood the simple fact that animals have been given to us by God to eat if we choose. There is no excuse for cruelty but also no excuse for stupidity. This earth worshiping religion is as silly as Hinduism that teaches that you might be eating your grandmother if you eat a cow. The root of this thinking comes from unscientific dogma (evolution).

dickie, "Only humans kill for greed,only humans kill for fun"

Wish you had informed the fox that killed all my chooks a while back and only took one away.

Have you not seen a cat play with a mouse or teach its young how to kill a baby rabbit. I once saw a video of a Cheeta that maimed a young antelope and took hours to teach its youg how to kill, not nice but nature. Why do killer whales toss seals around for hours until they die? could be for fun. Wildlife shows never show the near misses from predators,i.e. the ones that escape with wounds and die a week or so later from injuries or blood poisioning.

Those that agree with PETAs campaign about sheep mulsing have never seen or treated a flyblown sheep. Mulsing prevents the majority of flystrike where animals are literaly being slowly eaten alive by maggots.

Should we do away with all germicides, pesticides, fungicides, spermicides, anti-biotics and sterilizers after all they kill living organisms. We could put up with people, and animals, dieing from disease nits,lice,ticks,fleas and all internal and external parasites.

Ludwig,
"I very strongly feel that instead of this silly sea kitten campaign, they should be showing themselves as being a holistic organisation by directly addressing the ever-worsening balance of humanity and the natural environment."

Not badly stated for a mozzie-kitten murderer.
Oh dear, I think I killed some germ-kittens when I cleaned the loo this morning.

Houellebecq,
that's hilarious!

Should rat-kittens have rights, too?
What about the parasites sitting on the butt of a fly?
Where do we draw the line?

Banjo,
"Those that agree with PETAs campaign about sheep mulsing have never seen or treated a flyblown sheep."
Exactly, sometimes I wonder how much these over-the-top libbers actually KNOW about animals and about alternatives.
Or perhaps they think that blow-fly kittens should have a place to go?

Runner, that God gave us animals is not actually a 'fact'

Hi Polycarp,

I am personally unimpressed by those PETA people. If indeed half of them went on pilgrimage to ashrams, then they learned nothing from their sojourn to the Himalayas.

There is a principle of non-violence. It is part of the Hindu tradition, but does not in fact depend on this or that culture. I know of nobody that follows this principle completely, including those that preach it, yet it remains a distant goal to aspire towards.

Non-violence is always about oneself, one's actions, one's speech, even one's thoughts, it is never about telling others what to do or what not to do (which is a subtle form of violence in itself)!

It is the common mistake of the "New Age" movement, assuming that a new age is dawning whereby the ways of nature are going to change. Sorry, but nature is not about to change its course. Nature, both human nature and animal nature, includes predation, even cruelty - nobody can change whole societies, let alone whole species.

While overall nature cannot be changed, one can still strive to improve one's own nature, bit by bit escaping the cycle of violence and pain. I recommend this to those who had enough of this world and its nature and now wish to go beyond it, but would never recommend it to, let alone try to force it upon, those who see themselves as part of this world and want to stay here.

Yabby:
While I generally agree with you, I am not ignoring nature and its foodchain. I am well aware of it, but have no desire to remain part of it, and so I am on my gradual way out. Yes, it feels good, it feels great - to me, but it probably wouldn't feel the same to you if you are not yet ready to leave this world and its nature.

Bronwyn

Thank you for the kind words and the interesting information you provided on the mutant fish. Health officials are now concerned about diseases emerging in factory farmed fish. Nevertheless, like the contaminated meat we purchase, farmed fish is still prettily displayed in supermarkets for human consumption.

Ludwig

Those of us who have researched extensively (many for decades) on the drastic environmental impacts of farming commercial animals (billions of them) would know that PETA are conservationists by default, which of course leads to sustainability.

In the US alone, with a population of some three hundred and fifty million, 9 billion chickens are slaughtered each year for human consumption.

PETA supports genuine conservation groups and often alludes to the environmental degradation caused by the livestock industry.

Are you suggesting that PETA, predominantly an animal welfare institute, should change its logo to “Conservationists” and ignore the plight of animals?

Why are you suggesting this when there are hundreds of environmental groups on the planet and far fewer groups seeking protection for animals which are subjected to man’s abominable and egregious exploitation? An exploitation which has trashed the planet’s biodiversity, destroyed our lands, polluted our air and our oceans and is the cause of many human and animal diseases, with more zoonotic pathogens emerging?

In less than three decades, no fewer than 2.5 million of Australia’s dioxin laden, commercial animals have been dumped in our fragile oceans, contaminating marine life. That does not include the live ones dumped overboard, seen frantically swimming to a watery grave. These animals are diseased but still alive, disposed of to avoid inspection on berthing. But that is not the subject of this thread.

“Like so many other environmental organisations, they are just turning a blind eye to the big causal factors and expecting someone else to deal with it.” Dear me Ludwig. That is an extremely naïve statement when the UN and the IPCC have declared that livestock are one of the greatest causes of environmental destruction on the planet.

Worse, they're significantly responsible for the emerging Sixth Extinction!

http://blog.peta.org.uk/tag/environment

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=144

http://blog.peta.org/archives/environment/

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=97941

http://www.thebeefsite.com/news/21613/meat-tax-will-protect-the-environment-says-peta

http://blog.peta.org.uk/tag/environment

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/get_back_in_the_car_vegetarian_ipcc_chairman_rajendra_pachauri_says_less_meat_will_slow_global_warming_more

Sorry Dickie and Bronwyn I hold different opinions to you both PETA at least should understand this is childish.
It is also counter productive, winning people to a cause is an art, it should not be left in the hands of those who do not understand this.
Yes Foxy war and the deaths of any one are dreadful, but we are not talking about that.
This campaign has its roots in the idea if we call fish kittens it will be harder for us to kill them.
We kill cat fish, maybe this idiot idea came from there?
Bronwyn I know, not think, sheep do die or suffer from fly strike, being blown by flys maggots eating them.
We will both breed the need out of them and find alternatives for current mulsing.
But how many from PETA have had their hands on sheep affected this way?
Look closely at the billions of dollars spent on advertising, to sell products and ideas.
How many Friends has this campaign bought to PETA?
Is it not likely more joined me in laughing at them?
Ludwig keep on seeking sustainability it is the right path but find better allies than PETA.

Sea kittens be damned Belly, after spending 6 months on a catless island where bird and reptile life flourished in the absence of cats I'm for banning the moggie from our shores.

I hear that quolls make an affectionate and entertaining pet, somewhere between a cat and a dog in temperament, and in need of support.

"Those that agree with PETAs campaign about sheep mulsing have never seen or treated a flyblown sheep. Mulsing prevents the majority of flystrike where animals are literaly being slowly eaten alive by maggots."

Hi Banjo

I'm from the country Brother - pastoral lands. Ever heard of anaesthetic? I'm afraid Farmer Brown hasn't either?

So what's this about nature?

We're debating about homo-sapiens here. You know the species with the highest intellect and the most sentient species of all? The guardians of Mother Earth?

So Banjo, where do you live?

I'd love to come around and cut off your backside without anaesthetic. What about I cut off your testicles? Of course, I'd have to hogtie you so you don't run away but I don't know how to tie the knot. Do you?

Hey I know. Why I don't burn off your beak like they do with battery hens?

Then again, since we're talking about fish, howzabout I bludgeon you senseless eh? Or I could throw you in a pot of boiling water. Mmmm....A tasty meal for my dog yeah, that's for sure.

Nah, I think I'll just harpoon you Banjo. You know those harpoons that detonate on contact? Baaarooooooommm! Blimey what a mess!

*I am well aware of it, but have no desire to remain part of it, and so I am on my gradual way out.*

Fair enough, whatever floats your boat, but I accept nature,
accept birth and death as part of the cycle of life. I accept the
role of predator species in keeping a balance.

*I'm from the country Brother - pastoral lands. Ever heard of anaesthetic?*

Dickie, looking out of your housewifely window in a country town,
gives you no knowledge about livestock. Once sitting in a plane with
a pastoralist, does not really help you either.

Ever heard of Trisolfen? The female farmer who invented it, is now
on the board of AWI, as farmers voted to do what was the kindest
thing for their livestock, not listen to some nutcase organisation
like Peta, who in their ignorance, might have caused huge
cruelty, if their threats were taken seriously by farmers.

There would of course be good reaons why Peta pull these stunts.
The internet means that people can soon find their website and
virtually every time, be hit with a plea for a donation. I gather
that the true believers give them over 20 million $ a year, so
making a racket in the press to draw attention to themselves,
would show up in the Peta coffers, with more millions pouring
in.

The net has given a voice to us all, we are free to say what we like but only a few are likely to come on board PETAs ship.
Man still is a hunter gatherer, we can not say that is not true, some fish for sport some must fish for food.
Look at Dickie's post, heart on sleeve for sure but how can harpooning people have got a run?
Political correctness is a fraud on us all, letting minority's press their views on us all.
Cattle feel pain, fish feel pain, maybe every thing man eats does.
A human being starving to death surely feels pain.
PETA put a pen in the hands of some one so out of touch with reality laughter was always going to be the only result.

Dear Yuyutsu...I'm a bit worried about a charismatic figure and a bowl of cool aide with you dear :) or.. a different but equally charismatic figure who speaks about a 'mother ship' that we will all join when we cross the threshold from this life to the next...

Scary stuff indeed.

Oh..Hinduism means non violence? can you give me some chapters and verses from relevant scriptures for that? I'd love to bounce them off the Hindu's in Orissa province India who are persecuting, murdering, raping and burning Christians there now.

Personally, I've never been a fan of even animal on animal violence.. it's taken me quite a ride to get to the point where I can accept it.

blessings.

Dear Polycarp,

You need not worry about me and those mother-ships: I've been there, done that, and grown older since.

Since you ask, I will gladly give you ammunition against those calling themselves "Hindus" but act to the contrary:

Non-violence, "Ahimsa" in Sanskrit, is the very first principle of Yoga.

Yoga (which is in the center of Hinduism) traditionally consists of 8 steps, but is mostly known in the west for its 3rd step - Asana (posture), including all those incredible body stretches and twists.

Less known are the first and second pre-requisite steps - Yama and Niyama: Yama (=restraint) consists of 5 negative things to avoid and Niyama consists of 5 positive things to observe (quite an interesting parallel to the 10 commandments...). The first thing to avoid, the first and foremost Yama is Ahimsa, or non-violence (look-up "ahimsa" in the wikipedia).

The Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali, chapter 2, verse 35 promises: "When there is natural firmness in non-violence all hostility comes to an end in its very presence. Conflict ceases in such a mind."

Peace and blessings.

dickie,
No we are not debating human activity, we are commenting on PETAs ridiculous aim to change the image of fish from cold to warm, fuzzy and cuddly animals. PETA has copped a lot of ridicule and rightly so as it really demonstrates just how impractical those are that are part of PETA. To me PETA stands for:-

People Eat Tasty Animals. That aint gonna change!

dickie quote. "I'm from the country brother-pastoral lands". The key word here has to be from. If that is correct then country no longer applies as you show none of the practical attitudes of country people. I disagree with Yabby. My bet is that, if from pastoral country, you were shunted off to a city boarding school at an early age. After your school years you probably weren't too bad, but doing art courses at Uni has dispelled any remaining practicality. You may even be a career student and associate with the rent-a-crowd mob that demos at every drop of the hat. Trying to hold the high moral ground by harping about how terrible meat eaters are.

It is unbelievable that anyone that has seen a flyblown sheep could endorse Peta's campaign against Mulesing. If you do then you completely lack compassion. Mulesing may cause some short term pain and discomfort, but gives life long protection for fly strike. Its a bit like a person suffering from Chemo and Radiation treatment because there are long term benefits if the cancer is knocked out.

The examples of nature were to show you just how incorrect and silly your remark was,that only humans kill for greed and fun. Obviously you cannot comprehend that so here's another example. Try dealing with the aftermath of dogs attacking a mob of sheep and then repeat, that only humans kill for fun.

You really should consider Ludwigs suggestion that more animals will be saved if we find ways of reducing the worlds population.

Dieing by explosive harpoon holds no fear for me,sound fairly instant. Better that than cancer, stroke or some debilitating disease.

Belly, you began this thread by suggesting we not make war here, and yet you yourself have done just that every step of the way. The basic premise of the campaign in question has been completely misinterpreted. You've ending up presiding over a thread where uninformed ignorance and ridicule is the order of the day and the topic at hand has been left largely unaddressed.

As pointed out already by Dickie and myself, this campaign is unashamedly and deliberately a novel and light-hearted ploy to highlight a serious issue. PETA learnt long ago that earnest appeals to people's better natures will remain largely ignored. That's why it's hit on this gimmick and, as far as gaining attention, it's been hugely successful, as many of PETA's campaigns are.

As for the message, it's aimed very much at the next generation. You only have to explore the website to determine that. And hopefully, in that respect, it will also be successful. The adult assumption most of us grew up with, that the pain threshold of fish is unimportant, isn't yet entrenched in most young people.

This campaign is not aimed at fishing per se. It's aimed at recreational fishing. It's highlighting the cruelty we inflict on harmless intelligent creatures in the name of sport and the fact that there is just no need for it, there being plenty of other ways to enjoy time spent along rivers, lakes and the ocean.

I'm still waiting to see a logical defence of the practice of recreational fishing which is what this debate is supposed to be about. Instead of resorting to cheap and easy ridicule, perhaps we could have an impassioned and reasoned case as to why we should be allowed to drag fish around with hooks in their gullets in order that we experience the fleeting exhilaration of conquering nature.

To be continued.

Continued

The mission statement of the campaign puts all of the above clearly into perspective. Belly, as instigator of the thread, should have at the very least referred to it. Seeing as he hasn't, I will belatedly include it for you all to read. That way you might begin to understand the true nature and intention of this particular campaign.

"Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?"

It’s a marketing angle, no more or no less ridiculous than any of the others with which we’re bombarded daily. Its aim is to capture an audience.

Now that we’re done with attacking the messenger and its modus operandi, perhaps we could start addressing the message.

“Look at Dickie's post, heart on sleeve for sure but how can harpooning people have got a run?” Belly. How does harpooning non-humans get a run? And Belly, discovering spell-check does not bring wisdom.

You are here to ridicule the good works of PETA. You also state in your original post: “But this is madness, never again will I bother with this group.” Oh but you do Belly – with a mad vengeance. You’re here to promote the egregious treatment of non-humans. You attempt to portray PETA as idiots, however, let’s be truthful and expose the real idiots:

The MLA’s commercial, promoting meat, using Sam Neil is laughable. Neil assures us that we must eat meat to develop a larger brain, thus an enhanced intellect. How comical since famous vegetarians (of which I am neither famous nor vegetarian) include Isaac Newton, Einstein, Gandhi, Darwin, Tolstoy, Da Vinci, Socrates, Plato, Shelley, GB Shaw, etc.

Non-humans with the greatest physical strength, who are vegetarian, include the gorilla and the elephant.

Even Polycarp’s God made us vegetarian. The intestines of non-vegetarian animals are short, which quickly rids the animal of the rotting flesh it’s consumed. Human intestines are long. Enzymes required to digest meat are not seen in humans.

Despite the grave health risks, non-humans continue to provide food for humans. For that reason alone, we owe them a merciful life and a merciful death.

Infamous liars I know:

1. In Tuesday’s West, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association declared: “Had they (PETA) properly checked with Australian wool producers they would understand that there is currently no viable alternative to mulesing…”

2. Yabby (PGA member:) “Ever heard of Trisolfen? The female farmer who invented it, is on the board of AWI, as farmers voted to do what was the kindest thing for their livestock, not listen to some nutcase organisation like Peta, who in their ignorance……,”

When lying to the public, members of the PGA should better collude!

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=3&ContentID=116200

Aw…… come on Banjo. What are you, man or mouse!!? How about you Belly? A bit of your own medicine eh? Any other takers?

*It’s a marketing angle*

That is the problem Bronwyn, they are basically a bunch of spin
merchants. Never mind if the information is accurate, as long as
it serves the purpose, they will publish, even if mistakes are pointed out
to them. You seem to have double standards. You want honesty and
accuracy from companies and Govts, but with Peta you seem to
have another standard.

*The MLA’s commercial, promoting meat, using Sam Neil is laughable.*

Err Dickie dear, the man is a comic. The reason they use him is
because when they do, they can measure lamb sales going up significantly.
The two lamb chops that you might have eaten,
simply don't matter. Results matter, as in sales through the
butcher shops.

*include Isaac Newton, Einstein,*

I once decided to check out this claim, for its repeated parrot
fashion on the various veggie websites. I started with Einstein.
It turned out that he died shortly after becoming fully vegetarian.
So much for spin!

*Even Polycarp’s God made us vegetarian*

Rubbish. We are much like our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos.
We are omnivores, our digestive system can handle both. A short
gut is what carnivores have.

*Yabby (PGA member:) *

Actually not so Dickie. I am a free spirit, not a member of any
farmer organisation, but I know alot of people involved with them.

The West article was about another company which had a gun put to
their heads by Peta over wool. Its hardly an issue, as people
switch to meat sheep, they are far more profitable. Fact is wool
is destined to become a niche industry, as consumer tastes have
changed and it has been going on for 15 years or so now.

Women used to stay at home and handwash all those woolens. Not
any more. Consumers prefer cotton and oil based clothing.

For those farmers who remain in wool production,
Trisolfen combined with mulesing will remain, until somebody comes
up with a better option, which nobody has so far.

Do forgive me Banjo for I did not notice your most recent post.

You have a very vivid imagination as to my background. Is this how rumours start? Totally fallacious statements placed on debate forums? Six generations of my family have resided in pastoral and grazing country in Australia. Why do you persist on telling me how to suck eggs?

Yabby, (a blow-in from the Old Dart)and an expert on all matters known to man, who also has a penchant to violate truth, unwittingly and consistently quotes Darwin, a vegetarian!

“Try dealing with the aftermath of dogs attacking a mob of sheep and repeat, that only humans kill for fun.”

Unfortunately Banjo, slow learners or those with a greedy or cruel agenda, fail to acknowledge that these hungry dogs are a result of human action, not least farmers who permit their dogs to go feral.

Nor are these sheep endemic to Australia. They too are blow-ins and their impact on our native life and vegetation has been catastrophic.

You will need to find another scapegoat to justify your promotion of animal cruelty for it is you who wears the lepers’ bell.

With regards to my offers to perform a few surgical procedures, I advise that on reflection, I do not offer you a choice. I offer you the same privileges you grant to defenceless non-humans, which are precisely nil!

Your age, your sensibilities, your gender, your religion, your orphaned children, your inability to suffer extreme pain will be of no consequence. Happily, unlike our marine and terrestrial life, killing you off does not endanger the species!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/07/2460440.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/wa/content/2006/s2296478.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/16/2139576.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/08/12/1436395.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6904249.stm

http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/index.html

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=3&ContentID=108710

And for the unenlightened, I offer these words of great wisdom:

“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

Now what may I expect from the unenlightened? More sneering, more ridicule, more carnage?

Yabby

"That is the problem Bronwyn, they are basically a bunch of spin merchants. Never mind if the information is accurate, as long as it serves the purpose, they will publish, even if mistakes are pointed out to them."

How about we debate the issue at hand, Yabby? Instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims about PETA’s use of spin and misinformation, perhaps you can actually name some of the inaccuracies in the information it’s provided in this particular campaign. Maybe then we can start to conduct an intelligent debate on the issue in question. And maybe too you might like to present the case for the opposing view, that is, that people have every right to hook and spear fish in the name of sport and recreation. You can be persuasive at times. Have a go at that one. You'll be the first here to do so if you do.

Talking of spin and misinformation, Yabby, is there an alternative to Mulesing, or isn’t there? As pointed out by Dickie, farming bodies are so eager to discredit PETA that they can’t even present a rational and united position. The right hand doesn’t appear to know what the left is thinking, let alone saying. If you’re going to accuse PETA of spreading misinformation, Yabby, you should by rights have your own house in order first.

"Dickie, looking out of your housewifely window ..."

What was the intention of using the word 'housewifely', Yabby?

I know you choose your words carefully, so what was your reason for choosing this one? Apart from a feeble and misguided attempt at deliberate put-down, I certainly can't see any other reason.

*What was the intention of using the word 'housewifely', Yabby?*

Bronwyn, in the past, the truth has come out about Dickie's
practical knowledge and experience about sheep and farming. Zilch.

Living in a mining town, where some pastoralists run a few
sheep, does not constitute experience. She told us what she
knew. She'd looked out of her window as the sheep trucks rolled
by, she had even sat in a pastoralists plane and was invited to
dinner one night. That hardly qualifies Dickie to know much
about mulesing and blowflies, or the sheep industry.

As to Peta's spin, if they use spin and lies in one campaign,
its highly likely that they will do the same in another campaign.
Any organisation which distorts the truth so purposefully,
in my book lacks any kind of credibility.

As it happens, I happen to know a great deal about mulesing,
blowflies etc, from 30 years of firsthand experience. I'm
also in daily contact with a great many farmers, so have a pretty
good idea what they are thinking and why. All Peta have
achieved so far is to insult Australian farmers with distortions
of the truth.

Why on earth should every farmer have the same opinion? Some
farm leaders have their own ideas about the issue, but I know
what most practical farmers on the ground think and plan to do.
The old AWI board found out the hard way, what farmers thought,
but then many of them were not even farmers

Celivia,

'Runner, that God gave us animals is not actually a 'fact''

I grant you that Celivia however it is by far the most rational conclusion. Their is no other rational explanation short of pseudo science.

Bronwyn, Dickie, my regards did you ever think I could keep you two happy?
Poor Nicky has tried yet again to get an animal rights thread started, without luck.
I make no war here I do laugh at PETA, the world does.
And so they should, why do you think animal rights threads are not bringing interested posters?
I think the attack the messenger style is boring people.
I laugh at PETA because it is dumb to try to rename fish, to constantly ignore we need sea food to survive.
I am sickened by the fly blown suffering sheep victims of a group claiming to be animal rights supporters.

“Those of us who have researched extensively … on the drastic environmental impacts of farming commercial animals … would know that PETA are conservationists by default….

Dickie, of course they are conservationists.

“…which of course leads to sustainability.”

No, not necessarily by any means.

All the conservation of endangered species, natural habitats, etc and environmentalism related to farming animals or whatever won’t lead to sustainability if the human population and consequent increasing resource consumption and waste production just continue to grow.

Conservationist and environmentalist are not necessarily sustainabilityists.

“Are you suggesting that PETA, predominantly an animal welfare institute, should change its logo to “Conservationists” and ignore the plight of animals?”

Of course not. In my second post I wrote;

“… I think that PETA should stick to matters of obvious and unnecessary animal cruelty....and address sustainability, as every environmental organisation should “

and

“… an organisation like PETA should be putting a whole lot of energy (at least half of all their effort) into sustainability…”

Regarding PETA’s anti-meat campaign at your first link: http://blog.peta.org.uk/tag/environment;
I don’t see a mention anywhere of the need to reduce the constantly increasing demand for meat caused by a rapidly growing population. PETA appears to be totally happy with the continuously rapidly worsening balance between humanity and nature. They’re certainly not taking a holistic approach to this issue…and consequently they ain’t addressing it with sustainability in mind.

The rest of your links give me the same impression. Crikey, if we eat less meat, the environment will be healthier and we’ll be healthier and greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced….all else being equal. Except that not all else is equal. The number of consumers is rapidly increasing, to the extent that it will greatly reduce any gains won by PETA in their vegetarianism campaign if not cancel out or completely overwhelm it…and yet PETA is apparently having NOTHING to say about this aspect of environmentalism.

They’re not holistic. They’re not sustainability-oriented.

Hello Everybody.

*Next time we have a Roo cull... let's include a 100% cull of Peta members.*
Posted by Polycarp,
I see the see the words of our ‘Good Christian.’

Perhaps PALE can arrange to pray with you one Sunday 'after Church We could take a nice quite stroll in that park where you kick dogs.

I am just wondering what all the Fuss is about PETA adopting the same views as the RSPCA. There are many RSPCA comments along with professors over the years about fish feeling pain. Of course they do. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
As well public fishing creates much suffering to our birds and other animals. Not to mention ourselves and kids as they are stabbed in the foot by left over hooks. Plastic bags another problem and nobody polices it. Undersize fishing being taken is a HUGE problem.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/longline_fishing_threatens_seabirds_and_other_marine_life

http://www.anti-angling-sabs.co.uk/RSPCA-angling-is%20cruel.htm

Perhaps we should have the Nationals union party and put all our twits in the one basket.

Here we are for years now years spending millions of public funds to do whatever we can to reduce fishing in Australian.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s223516.htm

Now I would have thought a smart poly like Kevin Rudd would be embracing PETAs education programme about fishing for sport + insisting it was introduced into all schools (just for starters.)

Blimey if it had teeth it would bite.



Trust a dam Union guy to raise this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s223516.htm
Buy fish by all means- After it has been slaughtered under strict Animal Welfare codes of practise .

oh and Belly I think you will find Nicky was trying to highlight the fact that Australia send millions of puppies overseas.

That’s certainly more than you have ever done for Animal Welfare- tough guy
= SEE=
http://www.aact.org.au/greyhounds.htm

Ludwig

That you are now whacking an animal welfare organisation, for not including human populations in their brief is symptomatic of an obsessive compulsive disorder. Should PETA’s brief be successful, it would do more for sustainability than any leader of any government on the planet has done.

And if you believe a successful brief by PETA would do nothing for sustainability you’re on another planet.

Factory farming has threatened our only fresh water sources; stripped our soils and our ocean waters are imperiled. Dead zones, vast stretches of costal waters in which nothing can live, are created by untreated hormones, dioxins, nitrate and antibiotic-laden agricultural waste seeping into the soil, groundwater and rivers before contaminating the ocean.

35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and groundwater in 17 states have been permanently contaminated by industrial farm waste in the US. All our vital resources are threatened by factory farming!

The majority of the earth's water is now used to support animal agriculture, and much of it cannot be reclaimed. It takes thousands of litres of water to produce half a kilogram of factory farmed beef. This means a single person can save more water simply by not eating 500 grams of beef than they could by not showering for an entire year.

PETA's budget is 30 million/pa. Your heroes, Melinda and Bill Gates have untold billions. What do they say about over-population Ludwig while they’re polluting the planet by encouraging poor nations to increase their livestock, increase their population and further rape the planet with GM crops sown on desecrated soils?

The very influential Gates could mitigate population increases with a blink of an eye and a persuasive million here and a million there. A good start would be to supply an untold number of simple vasectomies and a promise of a few bucks more if the recipients agreed. And no more grants if they refused!

Gates are the ones, influential in the poorest and largest countries on earth. They have the ear of government leaders around the world.

Please endeavour to address your hypocrisy!

I now leave the thread, I must, I am pledged to myself not to go to war, or talk to pale.
May I ask posters to look at the last 4 or 5 posts, maybe a little more, in the thread about terrorism in Australia?
Madness! I left without comment.
I started this thread for two reasons, to highlight mainstream concerns about the radical, sometimes idiotic group PETA.
And honestly, to try to bring some balance into an animal welfare thread.
Look no one has not watched my differences with PALE develop, I tried I truly did, but long ago gave it up.
That thread mentioned above, look at the bait dangled under my nose, see the insults here.
I long ago walked away from female taunts in life to get a fight started for no reason, I can ignore that forever.
But lets look again at this thread, because I have views different than Bronwyn.
Yes surely for no other reason, she referred in a very nasty way, to my education and maybe thought processes.
Dickie obviously an intelligent person, seems to value only her own thoughts.
My point? PETA is not alone, others blindly try to verbally flog people into their line, following their point of view.
Lady's, you will not force the world to agree with you, you will not force us to eat only as you wish, and forever and ever laughter will result from such idiotic things as calling fish sea kittens.
Got to try that next time I fish instead of burley, here kitty kitty nice kitty.

"Lady's, you will not force the world to agree with you, you will not force us to eat only as you wish"

Well said, which just proves, Belly, that free-will is paramount and neither PETA, nor any other person or organization, can (or should) substitute for your own conscience.

Awe Belly.
Was only a poem .
Bit of sport really. 'Fishing for union heads. We call it head fishing. The ones that betray their fellow unions.
Many Animal Welfare groups have stood shoulder with AMIEU for over 'twenty years.'

Been a tad different since AMIEU Federal Leaders were 'ordered' to back off complaning about the cruelty involved in live exports and job losses to Australia.
Gee and here we were thinking Rudd was dinky die about helping regional areas and aboriginal people. We are still waiting for charges to be laid from AWB Mr Rudd. Did you forget?

Good to know the Pastoralists Association want different views to PETA .
PALE verses PETA in the approach to improving Animal Welfare.
Nobody has the right to tell others not to eat meat.
* If that’s what they are really doing.*?
Perhaps the Pastoralists Association will give PALE the same space and show this to the public. =
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TzyPOy1rIJk&feature=email

We also support a campaign against UNNECESSARY killing of animals, for example as a sport. =

Two-headed fish mystery deepens
ANDREW WIGHT
14/01/2009 9:29:00 ARE
The facts read like a Critchon-esque thriller: A fish farmer's latest brood turns out bizarre two-headed fish larvae, allegations of chemical contamination emerge and government agencies remain baffled about just what caused it.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UXAb0nzKDeI

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/twoheaded-fish-mystery-deepens/1406893.aspx?src=enews

Baffled my foot. The same thing happens in poultry and it’s very common for the birds to be born with two heads for the same reason.’

Why on earth do you think the so called laws in Australia DENY the RSPCA entry into the places unless invited?

Q Where do you think bird flue comes from. A=Intensive breeding of birds. *Intensive animal cruelty.*

I can’t say PETA and PALE see eye to eye on how to stop cruelty to animals. One things for sure though they are mostly good people
who dedicate their lives to helping animals unlike our so called Christian leaders and countries leaders.

Federal Governments and State Governments prefer to turn their backs on Animal cruelty because of the donations and political votes from the industry.

Enjoy your fish.

Dickie, I fail to see why you object at all to what I’m saying. PETA is doing a great job in some ways, but is certainly not being holistic about it, end of story.

You appreciate the population growth issue. You put it first on your little list of environmental factors in this post on the ‘give up on climate change’ thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8385#132335.

You’re happy for the Gates Foundation to address it and the concomitant issue of sustainability.

But you don’t think that PETA should even have a word to say about it!!

You are totally aware of how continuous population growth is related to various issues that PETA is addressing, such as the impact of meat consumption on the global environment, and yet you insist that PETA should have nothing directly to do with it!

That’s awfully strange.

Leave it to the Gates Foundation, you say. Well, it would be great if they took up the cause. I wish to goodness they would. They certainly aren’t my heroes and won’t be until they do.

But EVERY environmental organisation should be pushing directly and strongly for sustainability. How can you argue otherwise? How can you argue that they should just leave it up to someone else? How can you argue that it is alright for them to work in such a way that their efforts might trickle down to some sort of sustainability impact…or might completely miss the issue altogether?

Dickie, the great hypocrisy here is with the vast majority of environmental and aid organisations that fail to address the full picture of a sustainable future. If there were powerful organisations out there that were attending to it, it wouldn’t be so bad. But there aren’t.

This is all very simple in principle. Again, it really confounds me as to why you have any objection to it.

Belly

"But lets look again at this thread, because I have views different than Bronwyn. Yes surely for no other reason, she referred in a very nasty way, to my education and maybe thought processes."

I have NEVER referred to you in a nasty way and would certainly NEVER refer to your education. Please support this accusation with a quote, Belly.

I've talked about uninformed ignorance but it was not directed at you personally. It was directed at the thread itself and the way in which you've managed it.

You set out on a deliberate witch hunt. You had one purpose and that was to hold PETA up to ridicule. You completely distorted the campaign in question. You made no attempt at balance. You made no effort to visit PETA's website and present its reasoning behind the sea kitten campaign.

Not one person on the whole of the thread has presented an argument against PETA's position on recreational fishing. All we've had is mud hurled at PETA. Some like Ludwig have made genuine attempts at decent discussion, but most have taken cheap shots instead of offering even a glimmer of valid argument.

You said you didn't want a war, Belly, but you were happy that the tenor of your thread never moved beyond a bun fight. I've always admired your posts and respected you as a poster, but your efforts here at the very least have been lazy, if not downright dishonest.

dickie,
Groups of dogs,called a pack, whether they be native dogs, feral dogs or town dogs out for the night, Kill far in excess of any hunger requirement and the killing and maiming is done for fun, that is common knowledge. You are not even honest enough to acknowledge that fact. You continue with the line that only humans kill for greed and fun, despite evidence to the contrary.

So any credibility you claim is gone. I do not believe you have a heritage in grazing, no pastoralist daughter could be so ignorant, naive and impractical. Even the first few years being raised in a graziers household gives kids far greater sense than you show.

You are just a silly sheila who's only ability is to parrot and spew out PETA propaganda.

So keep going with the 'Sea Kitten" campaign and people can easily point out just how stupid PETA is. Great laughs all around. The headline reads 'A tourist was attacked by a 3.5 metre White Sea Kitten off Byron Bay this morning' and 'A Bull Sea Kitten takes dog in Parramatta river'

Thanks Belly, for providing this amusemant.

Ludwig. I’m afraid it’s not the end of the story – there’s more. It’s still a free country – well for some!

PETA advise that a successful brief would see the end of animals systematically hung up alive by a hind leg, gaffed up by the throat, scalded, skinned while still conscious, pushed down conveyor belts to slaughter, fried to death with electric shocks in the anus, endlessly caged, left in darkness, forced to have inedible products poured down their throats and into their eyes.

They're forced to give birth, forced to produce milk, bludgeoned, shocked, drugged with steroids and antibiotics, crammed into cages that cripple paws, teeth, tails, beaks, health and spirit and then slaughtered for a very toxic Big Mac, chicken burger, mascara or some fancy-coloured fur trim.

Harvesting feed crops, continually pumping water and sewage, running packing plants and slaughterhouses, all rely on heavy machinery and fossil fuel consumption.

While 100m tonnes of food is usually diverted to feed cars, 760m tonnes will be snatched from the mouths of humans to feed animals. Yay......an excellent strategy to rid the world of over-population Ludwig eh?

Should we simply deny this is happening and seek Nirvana for our miserable soul and cowardly hide out in an ashram somewhere like Yuyutsu, who declared, “Well said, which just proves, Belly, that free-will is paramount and neither PETA, nor any other person or organization, can (or should) substitute for your own conscience,”

"Free will!?" Free for whom or what? He then goes on to dictate to us on how to become devotees of Yoga: “ When there is natural firmness in non-violence all hostility comes to an end in its very presence. Conflict ceases in such a mind." Yeah......... in ya mind Yuyutsu!

Why not put your miserable “self” last and do something constructive to halt this sordid carnage which you et al deny?

"but at least I don't need to give up on morality altogether and be counted amongst the worst of humans." Yeah right you are Yuyutsu - thank you Oh Great One!

Contd…

Contd……

“Gentlemen”

Your unmitigated conceit leads you to believe that I am endeavouring to force my beliefs upon you. How very wrong you are for I expect nothing from those whose cruel connections are paramount. I expect nothing from those who wish to destroy this nation by salivating and greedily feasting on tortured species.

You are not heroes but Neroes my friends. The “empire builders,” those who walk on their knuckles, are grateful for your support. And what public deeds have you performed to halt the environmental destruction from factory farming in your own country?

I thought not. You see gentlemen, I do not write these posts for your exclusive viewing. I do not write these posts exclusively for the giggling hyenas on this thread for there are potentially thousands of good people, who sooner or later, may access these posts. They will form an opinion from the facts Bronwyn and I have placed here. They will see that the facts have not been addressed by the pack of howling hyenas, baying for the blood of others and they will indeed spread the word.

Why, dear posters, do you believe PETA has over 1 million paid up members? From the information gleaned on the Internet dear ones and as Gandhi advised:

“The morality of a nation will be judged by the way it treats its animals.”

I am indebted to Bronwyn’s contribution, her compassion and her courage for most posters on OLO lack the courage to go out on a limb for animals. Her balanced and rational assessment has taught me much. I thank you Bronwyn.

"We must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the whole world recognize it. Until we extend our circle of compassion to all living things, humanity will not find peace."(Albert Schweitzer)

And may the force of Karma be with you all.

Bronwyn out of respect for you I break my promise to myself.
Please go back to one of your posts in this thread.
Review what you intended by your line including reference to my spell check.
If I got it wrong without reserve I am sorry.
Now in print we often look to be saying something we did not want to.
Believe me it has often been the case for me.
So clear these two issues up.
my reference to Nicky's thread was ONLY to highlight the indifference it has seen, I do not agree with most of Nicky's views.
But I respect her and read all she posts.
Now Bronwyn if I am wrong here believe me I am sorry, it was never my intent to hurt you.
I do think differently than you, to me without doubt PETA are foolish and uninformed.
Why would I start this thread to ridicule them? the very idea does that much better than I ever could.
Sea Kittens!
I fish, I eat what I catch, I release undersized and never continue after I have a feed.
I eat meat always have always will, I have killed my own and worked in a meat packing house.
In fact was once a delegate for the then union in that industry for a short time.
Few Australians are not concerned about needless cruelty to any animal, yet so many who are so remote from average Aussies try to tell us in terms like this how to live.
If saying it as I see it makes me a trouble maker then thats what I am, forever.

Dickie, I totally share your disgust with all this sort of animal cruelty and I support PETA’s efforts to eliminate it.

But this doesn’t further our debate here at all regarding PETA’s direct input into sustainability.

I propose that within campaigns like the one against meat consumption that the least they should be doing is saying that population growth is a large part of the overall issue and that sustainability is essential. Even if they could just see their way clear to include a few simple words of this type in their campaign spiels and media releases, it would help tremendously.

They should also be pushing for other environmental organisations to do the same and for governments to embrace the stabilisation of population and genuine sustainability paradigms.

Don’t you think that PETA should find it within itself to at least do this much directly for the cause of sustainability?

I still wish they’d put at least 50% of all their effort into it and really drive the messages home, and get stuck into the details of population growth and sustainaibility in campaings where these issues are major factors in reducing or preventing the constantly increasing magnitude of animal mistreatment, which would be most of their current campaigns, such as reducing meat consumption and fishing……….er… um…………….sea-kittening!

*for there are potentially thousands of good people, who sooner or later, may access these posts. *

Hehe dickie, don't kid yourself :) Interestingly enough, very few
OLO posters take part in the animal welfare debates, compared to
other topics.

*Why, dear posters, do you believe PETA has over 1 million paid up members?*

Ah, because Peta are good at marketing and pushing emotional buttons.
It does not say much about the intelligence of their members.
When organisations promote people like Pamela Anderson, who is
known for little but big breasts, I doubt if they are appealing
to peoples intelligence and reasoning skills.

The thing is dickie, why Peta has no credibility, is because like
your writing, its all about melodrama and not a balanced picture
that you are trying to conjure up. When any kind of objectivity
is thrown out the window, thinking people see through that,
you are left with a few true believers.

There is plenty of livestock farming going on, where animals are
treated humanely and are slaughtered humanely. Highlighting
some incidents as standard, does not make your case.

The sea kitten story is similar, its over the top and people see
through it.

If Peta have an issue with factory farming, they should stick
to America, Europe and China, the homes of factory farming.

In Australia, most livestock farming is still free range. That is
why MacDonalds buy so much beef from Australia. Its not as fat
as the factory farmed stuff from the US.

If they want to comment on Australian farming, rather then just
employing marketing consultants to raise more money, they should
employ some qualified Australian livestock industry people.

""Free will!?" Free for whom or what?"

As a member of the Vegetarian Society I was exposed to several PETA presentations. I did not feel at ease during those presentations, something seemed wrong - those people were ANGRY. Also, with the display of so much gore, it almost seemed as if they actually like it.

Yet I say, free will to eat whatever you want. It is one's own business: Eat sea-kittens, land-kittens, rocks, asbestos, even homo-sapiens - murder if you will, it's your karma and yours alone.

At the same time also, free will to be angry and re-display disgusting gory activities, if that's your cup of tea. I will not tell you what to do, I will quietly walk away.

Bronwyn,

I agree animals have feelings and deserve no less respect than you or I.

I want fishing cruelty to stop and fast, shark-fin cutting (the sharks can't swim after it is cut off and fall to the ocean bed to drown), whales, some Asian cooking methods where the live fish is boiled alive in oil, live crayfish boiling etc etc...

I think PETA are most often a bad publicity for animal welfare. Belly is correct, they almost could be said to be harmful to animals.

They hijacked the Aussie campaign to end live export of sheep to the ME which is the most cruel thing I have ever seen in animal suffering (and I have seen a lot of it) and the used the momentum we had going to push for an end to mulesing (cutting skin of the poohey area of wool off a sheep's bum to keep it clean and less prone to fly strike)
They threatened to end the Aussie wool industry and basically we lost the momentum and today even, 4 or so years later, sheep are still on those bloody boats.

Fly strike is revolting to be sure but NO WHERE near as bad as the boat ride to the Middle-East and the treatment there.

This is typical of PETA... I dunno maybe the do a bit of good, but as a person who cares deeply about animal rights I dislike them a lot. They verge on mild terrorism in my eyes, it seems more about them than they animals to me.

Poly do you just eat your animals alive, mate? It actually is murder. Worth thinking about, as one can at least buy less cruelly killed meat of one looks around for it and pays a tad extra.

ahhgg, sorry, my puter is stuffed atm or my connection and I am only getting the first page of the strings and have responded to Bronwyn Polycarp and Belly from page 1 in the previous post.

Yu'

I don't believe in karma, but i do agree, PETA are a bit off in some way... I think anger is natural when you see the torture animals suffer for culture or just food. But yes, PETA seem unconcerned about the animals in a way and more concerned with righteously forcing something on people. This will simply breed resentment to a pretty decent cause. Even if someone just quits bacon or one type of meat they are helping.

More "disgusting gory activities" provided for your perusal Yuyustu where I dedicate this video to the memory of Yabby's sheep forced to endure the long haul to the Middle East "where (Australia's) animals are treated humanely and are slaughtered humanely!"

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iXV65Jvqjgk

And a few more for luck, "proudly" boasting Australia's "humane" treatment of livestock and dedicated to the "Infamous liars I know:"

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

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:a4jxf6talRQJ:www.aact.org.au/greyhounds.htm+grey+hounds+exported+australia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bribe-claim-rocks-wool-trade-body/2008/03/07/1204780065920.html

In 2004, Australian laboratories, brutalised and vivisected 6 million animals:

http://www.artezia.net/animaux/vivisection/vivisection-gb.htm

http://www.savebabe.com/video.php

And my grateful thanks to Yabby once again, who persistently and unwittingly contributes to the coffers of PETA. Well done......Bravo!

"Angry" Yuyutsu? No no indeed not and we shall have a drink this evening in your honour! Prost!

Ah......almost forgot the sea kittens - "tsk tsk off topic again - naughty Dickie!":

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/29/2455906.htm

Cheerio.

Dickie,

The dogmeat industry is really off, it will end up with dogs loosing any legal protection they have as they are lowered to livestock status.

When I have shown dog stuff to people they have been so shocked, a lot of people just don't know what goes on. Same with lab stuff.

The sheep and cattle slaughter houses are slightly more publicly known, as are the battery pigs. (Belly we are getting battery sheep now too just fyi) Feedlots are also pretty common here in OZ.

Most of these people on OLO care about good, even when I don't agree with them, I believe mostwant to lessen animal harm just cuz they can

*And my grateful thanks to Yabby once again, who persistently and unwittingly contributes to the coffers of PETA. Well done......Bravo!*

Well that is great news Dickie! If you have watched the news, then
you will know that the US economy is in diabolical shape and they
need every cent that they can get! They are after all, our biggest
customer for lamb meat and we would not want them to be unable to
pay our bill :) So send all the Aussie Dollars that you have.

Of course you are angry and it shows in your posts. Angry, just
like those Peta people. Fanatical really and that is the problem,
for rational and sensible debate becomes impossible. That is
exactly why organisations like Peta are ignored by the mainstream
population.

Mind you, the animals rights activist tactic of trying to shock
people with graphic images, has been around a long time. The
Catholic priests for life have been showing gory bits of fetus
for ages, so perhaps that is where you lot learnt all about it.

It sure works for some, like yourself. The more intelligent
realise that it is a clever marketing ploy and seek more objective
evidence, for what is really going on out there in the real world.

Just as I have no influence over people who want to join the
Jehovas Witnesses, the Taliban and similar fanatical organisations,
or true believers who are sucked in by Peta, well so be it.

At least there is a benefit with the latter. Our lamb business
to the US might keep flourishing and growing, if they can afford
to pay our bills with your help :)

Sea kitten thread possibly kicked off as light entertainment, but good to see it’s taken a more interesting twist with input from both sides.

First prise would have to go to Ludwig. Bronwyn’s contribution calming.Yuyutsu`s comment as a veggie interesting.
Belly feels that PETA are foolish and uninformed which brings us to this rare insight from Yabby.

*If they want to comment on Australian farming, rather then just
Employing marketing consultants to raise more money, they should
Employ some qualified Australian livestock industry people.
Posted by Yabby, Friday,

We agree.

Until sensible alternatives working 'united with farmers’ are supported by PETA and others don’t kid yourselves we can do much to improve welfare of animals.

Its difficult to try to tell people too much at once about the inherently cruel practises our DPI and Governments allow to go unreported.
Because there is so much unbeliable cruelty people tend think your an extremist or nutter.
Most of the Australian public think RSPCA for example inspect Abattoirs.
No they are NOT allowed to enter the premises unless invited.

Most members are decent normal people but we need to look closer at some heads.

We were thinking of giving Yabby first prise until he blew it with his comments on Pamela.
He proved the old school boys club still lives. Trying to discreet Pamela Anderson but unaware she is deeply concerned personally with Animal Welfare.

She’s got more moral fibre in just 'one of her breasts than the whole of the National party have in their pants.

Posted by meredith, Friday, 16 January 2009 5:48:32 PM
Looks like you just lost your position to meredith Yabbs.
Well said who ever you are.

Thank you for your sensible input to animal welfare.
Its people such as yourself that are needed as leaders to give the animals a chance.
We only have one question for you.

Where have you been all our lives.

Belly

"Bronwyn out of respect for you I break my promise to myself. Please go back to one of your posts in this thread. Review what you intended by your line including reference to my spell check. If I got it wrong without reserve I am sorry."

You did get it wrong, Belly. I made no reference to your spell check. Nor did anyone else, that I could see. Maybe you’re getting a bit paranoid.

“I fish, I eat what I catch, I release undersized and never continue after I have a feed.”

Ah Belly, I know you’re a good and decent man and that you genuinely don’t see the harm in what you do. That’s your prerogative. Here are a few facts though, that I hope stay with you and resurface in your mind each time you’re baiting your hook or reeling in some poor flailing fish.

The pain a fish feels when it’s hooked is equivalent to the pain we’d feel if a dentist drilled into our tooth without anaesthetic.

Fish have memories and can fear and anticipate pain.

Even when released, as well as the wounds from the hook, fish can suffer from the loss of their protective scale coating, dangerous build-up of lactic acid in their muscles, oxygen depletion, and damage to their delicate fins and mouths.

Once returned to the water, these fish are easy targets for predators and other anglers. Researchers have found that over 40% of fish released after being caught die within six days.

http://www.fishinghurts.com/Angling.asp

Recreational fishing is cruel and unnecessary, irrespective of whether the fish are killed on the spot or thrown, injured and exhausted, back into the water.

Being a ‘catch and release’ angler doesn’t let you off the hook on this one, Belly.

Dickie

Thank you. I can’t imagine what you’ve ‘learnt’ from me, but I’ve certainly learnt much from your knowledgeable and informative posts, as have I’m sure many others.

You have got me wrong Bronwyn I am a killer, last night I killed millions of mosquito's.
Maybe a few flys and even the odd cockroach.
The first men and women ate animals they killed with rocks spears and hands.
It was the meat that gave us the energy and life span to develop into todays humans.
In country's no better or worse than ours like China people eat much more that lives and breaths than we do.
Some times we cringe at the cruel ways it is killed or cooked, but while we may wish for change we must find ways to bring about change.
How can you tell fish feel pain?
Would the pain of an Eskimo child starving to death be worse?
I did see some thing in print, has any thread been changed or deleted?
I got it wrong once at least, Foxys insight highlighted something I let pass, I was wrong.
This is now an animal rights thread, it has got more posts than quite a few about the middle east combined.
Children are dead, in my view used as human Shields but dead still, both sides have forgotten them.
I and mainstream Australia will continue to fish, eat meat, and not help in the campaign to stop live exports.
We will be unconvinced we can sell sheep meat in a market that wants live sheep.
We will still have concerns about cruelty, be prepared to say so if asked by groups we think are rational.
PETA and its methods never will be such a group, it will bring more and more uninformed into its ranks, but mostly bring ridicule too, sea kittens has become the first thing people will think of as PETAS name is mentioned, laughter the second.
For a wage, 4 wheel drive and time of to go fishing I am available to fill the much needed PR job at PETA.
oh I will need a laughing room.
regards all.

PALE&IF: << [Pamela Anderson's] got more moral fibre in just 'one of her breasts than the whole of the National party have in their pants. >>

So "moral fibre" is made of silicone, and that's what National party members have their trousers made from? If that's the case, you're undoubtedly correct that one of Pammy's pneuamatic boobs would have enough for the entire National party.

So we've now gone from "Sea Kittens" to "Sex Kittens". I think PETA is very good at attracting attention, but I'm doubtful that this campaign will have any demonstrable influence on the fishing industry.

Nice to look at though :)

*I and mainstream Australia will continue to fish, eat meat, and not help in the campaign to stop live exports.*
Belly.

Fact is, mainstream Australians have 'already' spoken 'against live exports.'

On ABC Land Line ALP went on record. They acknowledged more letters demanding live exports to be banned than any other topic.


Question -

If the public want live Animal Exports banned + Muslims of Australia (for those who didn’t know) -Then WHY does our Government go against the people` wishes s.

Answer.

Because Government`s lack the back bone, principles, to carry out the publics wishes.

They are in bed with the live trade industry.

Donations to parties come first especially ALP and connections to transport unions.

We should ought to consider options to challange their action by going against the public wishes.


Bronwyn

We both know many of the posters on this thread are either members of PETA or Animals Australia and that some of Belly`s views are pretty generally felt about PETA in Australia

What you dont know is PETA and Animals Australia both showed zero interest when approached to unite with Muslim leaders farmers working together to phase out live exports.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Council even lodged a sub to the Senate Enquiry into Animal Welfare.

NO Interest from PETA. AA . When contacted by phone to enquire why- PETA hung up in staffs ear.

Since our organisation working in conjunction with RSPCA QLD joined OLO as corporate members we have been bombarded with anti pale posters using false names whom are clearly here to beat the PETA drum and others.


Our Mission is to reach the PETA 'members' and others and put forth the proposals by Muslims, Farmers , RSPCA QLD CEO to actually work together to help animals.

We would appreciate Ingreds to explain why a project to phaze out live exports has been so strongly 'opposed'-

Yet you claim you want to Ban Live Exports?

Did George Bush write that last post?
We should ought to?
On thread subject one of 50 quotes from Bush in todays Sydney press quote I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully end quote.
yes every word was his in that order, know what he meant?
Once more may I say we all have views opinions and take sides in issues, to both give more weight to our own view and under value others is self defeating.
Fact is if most Australians back any issue it is more than unlikely both forms of government did not agree.
Constant claims Labor is in any way different than last government on live exports is untrue and that is the truth.
Hope Pammy can convince the fish to make love not war.
Actualy fish fall for plastic too, have my bait is plastic not unlike Pammy, not as old but plastic.

"If you have watched the news, then you will know that the US economy is in diabolical shape and they need every cent that they can get! They are after all, our biggest customer for lamb meat and we would not want them to be unable to pay our bill :) So send all the Aussie Dollars that you have."

Dear me Yabby - that's disturbing news. Does this mean that you and your cabal may have to "eat cake." Goodness what can I do to assist?

I know. The most sensible way is to turn them off lamb meat - that's it! It wont be that easy since your industry has assured them that we are a humane nation and wont tolerate animal cruelty.

Oh well here goes:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=mJEQToveb_s&feature=related

I trust that works Yabby.

Cheerio

PS: Let me know if you need more assistance. I'm delighted to help out.

•yes every word was his in that order, know what he meant?

"I know that the human being and the fish can coexist."

On Friday, 29 September 2000, Governor Bush was on the stump in Saginaw, Michigan, and deviated from his prepared speech to reassure the business community that he would not support the tearing down of energy-producing dams merely to protect threatened fish species, an issue he had recently covered while campaigning in the Pacific Northwest:
Friday, feeling the need to explain his statement during a speech on energy policy that he intended to maintain dams in the Pacific Northwest, he departed from his text and added, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." He did not elaborate.7
Mark Crispin Miller noted in The Bush Dyslexicon that:
This remark is striking not because it's silly but because it casts a threatened creature as a national enemy. A relic of the Cold War, the phrase "peaceful coexistence" was a predétente Soviet coinage, meant to pitch conciliation between the world's two rival superpowers.

Belly
ALP are no different to the Howard Government- correct.
The difference was their dishonerable stunt staged ABC coverage two weeks prior to the elections where they stated they would.

Mr Rudd also dipped out on informing the public about AWBs connection to live exports as Shadow Minister.

Personally I feel we have a much better chance to reopen our own abattoirs for AMIEU 'with' ALP running the country.

Even Kevin Rudd cant do that without the Animal Welfare authoritys teaming up 'with farmers' Muslims to work united and put alternatives on the table.-

Hense PETAs attitude towards such a project is unhelpful to the animals.

Its up to industry to introduce new methods and 'improve' slaughting yards and the Prime Minister and staff to assist.

Me must cut red tape to make chilled carcuss on an even keel.

John Howard had ten years to do something about the cruelty and the loss of Aussie jobs -lets see if PM Rudd can help phaze it out sooner than that.

PS Dont take political comments personally.

Dickie dear, sorry but I don't do Youtube, its not a good idea,
if one has a mobile broadband connection. We are not spoilt, like
you city slickers.

If the American economy should crash to the point of lowering
their lamb consumption, I guess then Wellards would just have
to hurry up those four new ships that they have on order, to
crank up Middle East exports.

So keep sending your money to
the Americans, their economy needs it! It also means less
lambs going to the Middle East, more lamb meat to America.
So you are doing your good turn for the day and can go to
bed feeling better. Don't forget the cup of chamomille tea
to calm the anger :)

Hi Bronwyn

You may already know but it appears that the mystery of the two-headed farmed "sea kitty" has been resolved by a Dr Landos. Watch the Department of Agriculture duck for cover.

The outcome is not surprising since the farmed "sea kitty's" deformity is the result of Australia's continued use of the heinous endosulfan and the fungicide carbendazim.

Endosulfan has been banned by 56 other nations but this "clean, green" country of ours continues to contaminate waterways and marine life with endosulfan. Boths chemicals are carcinogenic and teratogenic.

http://www.liveexportshame.com/news2/index.php?PHPSESSID=2389f6ddbc66648dae7264c8a56268b4&topic=5146.msg6274;topicseen#msg6274

Cheers

Belly,
As it appears you are still on this thread, heres a little something showing the hypocracy of PETA.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I almost forgot about PETA's attempts to get a US Icecream chain to stop using cows milk and use, wait for it, Human breast milk!

There is no end to the irrationality of these idiots. Makes one wonder how they survived after weaning.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2008-35,GGLJ:en&q=peta&start=60&sa=N

Belly

"How can you tell fish feel pain?"

If you'd bothered to read PETA's website on the issue, as you should have before you kicked off this thread, you'd have been able to see the research findings for yourself.

Your casual retraction and apology (if you could call it that) after the false accusations you levelled at me is disappointing to say the least. But I've learnt a bit about you from this thread, Belly, and so have other readers I'm sure.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming

"We would appreciate Ingreds to explain why a project to phaze out live exports has been so strongly 'opposed'- Yet you claim you want to Ban Live Exports?"

This appears to be addressed to me but I'm not sure why. I've never mentioned Live Exports on this thread. I'm not a member of PETA or any other animal rights group. I just happen to support its stance on the issue of recreational fishing, that's all.

Dickie

"You may already know but it appears that the mystery of the two-headed farmed "sea kitty" has been resolved by a Dr Landos. Watch the Department of Agriculture duck for cover."

No, I didn't know. Thanks.

The DPI officer working on the case, in response to the local MP's demands for answers, was quoted in today's local paper as stating that it would be a 'complex task' finding the cause of the deformities. The tests were 'very sensitive and analytical, using the best equipment available'.

Looks like the ducking for cover has already begun.

Thanks for the link. I'd have been waiting a while to read that particular report in our paper I think.

Bronwyn did you have any post deleted?
Do you know of any deletions in this thread?
PALE for the first time in months said something I agree with.
Do not take political comments personally.
Well some times they are made hoping I will take them personally, but I should not.
Banjo I came back to issue a retraction, and stayed.
But some things need saying Bronwyn, I have no need to look at PETAs home page.
I am never likely to give any credence to them, actions long before sea kittens blackened the fools for me.
You and Dickie have to understand others views have value, that we have the right to different views.
And just maybe statements like I have learned more about you are like a bucket without a bottom.
Useless meaning less, thinking far differently than you is no crime Bronwyn, face it on this issue you are very much in the minority.
Brest milk ice cream? sea kittens? poor old Pammy and pink sound like Bush act like Bush,
Sea Kittens?
Get a stick and chase them under the veranda.

Oh stop your snivelling Belly. Is this what you have accused Bronwyn of?:

“Look at Dickie's post, heart on sleeve for sure but how can harpooning people have got a run?” Belly. How does harpooning non-humans get a run? And Belly, discovering spell-check does not bring wisdom"

(Posted by dickie, Thursday, 15 January 2009 12:18:45 PM)

We've waited three days for you to apologise to Bronwyn but no -"mutter, mutter, mutter!"

Shall I apologise? No. You'd already advised in a previous thread that you had found spell-check. In fact you even advised someone else to use it.

Deletions? What deleletions?

"I now leave the thread, I must, I am pledged to myself not to go to war, or talk to pale." 16 January 2009

But you're still here Belly, going to "war" - wallowing in self-pity, admonishing everyone on their "false assumptions." Admonishing everyone with your self-righteous twaddle.

"You and Dickie have to understand others views have value, that we have the right to different views."

Who said you haven't that right Belly? Do you know the meaning of debate?

Aw gawd......go find yourself a clean hanky Belly!

Ah Dickie, LOL, a good post on which to leave this thread I think.

Over 80 posts and NOT ONE poster has presented a counter case to PETA's position on recreational fishing. That tells me that the detractors here don't really have a countering argument. It's far easier just to bucket the organization and those like ourselves who are persuaded by some if not all of its arguments.

I can't say I've enjoyed banging my head on a wall as I have on this thread, but I have appreciated arguing alongside someone with such a good grasp of the issues, a great capacity with language and a sharp ability in picking up on what is said and not said on these threads. A rare combination and all power to you, Dickie.

Now that you've cleared the air on the spell check mystery, an apology from Belly should be forthcoming?

Yes, I know what you're thinking, I won't hold my breath waiting!

Belly

"And just maybe statements like I have learned more about you are like a bucket without a bottom."

Let's put a bottom on that bucket then shall we, Belly. I had thought I'd already said enough for you to pick up on my feelings but now that you've pushed me I'll spell it out for you.

What I've learnt on this thread about you, Belly:

That you have a way to go when it comes to conducting a fair and balanced thread.

That you're lazy about researching and backing up your assertions with quotes.

And that even once it's obvious to all you've got it wrong you're slow to acknowledge your mistake and to apologise for it.

Fortunately, none of this is enough to alter my previous summation of you as basically a decent and worthwhile poster, but as I said I have definitely seen another side.

The twists and turns that a thread can
take are truly bewildering. However,
I suppose that's human nature. We're
such a diverse lot.

But, then I guess so are all creatures,
big and small, right?

Animals kill to survive. We all have to eat,
be it meat, fish, or plants. The choice is ours
to make. Personally, I enjoy eating meat, sea-food,
and vegetables. What I don't enjoy and do object to
is, cruelty to animals, and needless killing of any
animal.

What do I think of PETA and its 'Sea Kittens,' stand.
I don't know that much about PETA, but I would assume
that this is simply a campaign to draw attention to
the needless killing of marine life. The words are
merely semantics.

For anyone who doubts that our marine life deserves to
be preserved, I simply suggest a visit to your city's
Aquarium. It may put things into perspective for you.

“The choice is ours to make. What I don't enjoy and do object to is, cruelty to animals, and needless killing of any animal.”

Unfortunately Foxy the animal you feast on does not have that choice. Factually we are consuming an animal which has been incarcerated, force-fed antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals and brutalised in the most abominable manner. I understand you would object to cruelty to animals, however, we continue eating brutalised beasts. Oxymoron? We are supporting the godless monsters who profit from this mechanised madness.

My firm resolution is to adopt a lifestyle, like millions of others, free from the desire to feast on the rotting flesh of these tortured animals.

Most famous naturalists will tell you that good health is not dependent on meat consumption – indeed the opposite. The following quote is attributed to the famous 17th century naturalist John Ray:

“There is no doubt that man is not built to be a carnivorous animal.

"What a sweet, pleasing and innocent sight is the spectacle of a table served that way and what a difference to a make up of fuming animal meat, slaughtered and dead where the slaughter houses and butchers are full of congealed blood and abominable stench.

"Man in no way has the constitution of a carnivorous being. Hunt and voracity are unnatural to him. Man has neither the sharp pointed teeth or claws to slaughter his prey. On the contrary his hands are made to pick fruits, berries and vegetables and teeth appropriate to chew them.”

Yes time to depart Bronwyn and I like you, do not support all of PETA’s briefs either. What I endorse is their untiring endeavours to bring to the world’s attention, the abject cruelty perpetrated on food animals. I endorse too, the selfless endeavours of AA and the indisputable footage they have provided revealing the sordid and horrendous actions of this unsustainable and gluttonous industry.

Compassionate people will no longer tolerate the insanity committed by these misfits. Already their leper bells resound around the planet - the pestilence of the 21st century - soon to be eradicated!

Cheerio

Hi everybody,

What an interesting thread. I would like to thrown in a few thoughts though, by stating some ideas, which may help with clarification. This is not a shot at omnivores, as people have to make their own minds up about what they eat. But considering the implications; suffering of sentient creatures, impost on the environment and I would add, the wider view on how humans treat the planet, it is a decision that should be a considered one.

I will make some statements, which pretty well are backed by what is known.

Fish do feel pain.

World wide fish stocks are diminishing rapidly.

Most people in developed nations do not need to eat fish. (Especially as there are supplements of Omega 3, from flax, supposedly not as effective but that is talking degrees)

Vegetarians are so because of ethical concerns; that is limiting the amount of suffering, for health reasons and/or for perceived environmental concerns. (Some for medical reasons)

Vegetarians exist in large numbers in developed nations and reports of ill-effects are spasmodic and anecdotal. If one is a vegetarian, cheese, eggs, fruit, vegetables and soy products supply ample nutrition. There is no evidence that vegetarians are a high proportion in numbers of the obese group or unhealthier.

Vegan aspirers are fewer in number. The only potential problem with veganism is vitamin B12 deficiency, which is nearly unheard of in developed nations. Supplements derived from bacterial fermentation can alleviate this concern.

Taste is the only variable.

Jonathon

Dear Dickie and Jonathan,

Your arguments are well reasoned and
have given me much to think about.

Thank You.

I'd venture to say anything that struggles to escape doesn't want to die or take pain.

But I do think we need to accept that people are not going to give up meat anytime soon.

I believe pushing for the unlikely with shrill guilt games is only going to drive potential help away, and yet showing pics of cruelty is also important, but they need to be shown in a less aggressive way.

I have had meat eating friends, even some who have reduced intake or buying more humane products tell me they can't volunteer for animal welfare or rights work because they are not veg or vegan.

Belly,
What people here are saying about fish is pretty much true as far as I know too. I also used ot be a vet nurse, we were taught to not even let one tiny scratch on the skin of a fish lest it become fungal. We had to sand the tiny bur off the center of the ice-cream containers we used to pick fish up with out of the tank so they didn't scrape against it.

But if your going to eat the fish, I think do it as best and quick and clean as you can and eat them. If you can ever cut down do so...

The more people who just do their best... the better, even if it is a tiny improvement.

Bronwyn and Johnathan

Fish do feel pain. (specially when a Barracuda bites them)

World wide fish stocks are diminishing rapidly.

(recreational/domestic fishing for a 'feed of fish' is not a threatening act.. only large commercial fishing operations are.)

The pain issue is irrelevant. The natural created order of things is...predation/food chain.

Pain for it's own sake IS a problem. We don't cause unneccessay pain or we are cruel. Predation by nature, whether by hunans or chimps.. is painful for the prey. Get over it.

It is patently rediculous for one member of the food chain to single itself out for special treatement. (us) and suddenly make spurious claims about "it hurts them, so I can't eat it"

If for example....you don't believe in God... then on what possible basis can anyone claim anyone else should not eat this or that?
It would be totally subjective and culture based.

If you DO believe in God...then you would recognize that He created the concept of predation and food chain which is such an integral part of the whole of nature it is inescapable.

You also need to decide the 'Creator/Chance' issue before making ethical or moral pronouncements. If you don't believe, then you are just woffling subjectively. If you do believe..then we have some definite guildlines "Thus he declared all foods clean" (Jesus)

That's like saying a punch in the face is the same as a sleeping tab, both knock you out. Most people, veg or carni don't want to inflict unnecessary pain on anything, who does?

I have made a blunder, the post I claimed Bronwyn did came from Dickie.
For that Bronwyn I am truly sorry.
For in your view not researching the thread? come I am wrongly judged I have no intention of changing PETA are silly.
Now Dickie, we have clashed before, we will again, your anger was not always released so easy, I have read your post history.
However you let fly with brutal anger often, I well remember things no male poster would ever be forgiven for in a thread Foxy used to say good by just in case, as she went for cancer treatment.
Yes I remember you too fight that battle.
I am still shocked about your comments in a number of other threads, brutal is at times not enough to describe them.
I think men could never unleash such anger without reprisals, your slur at my spell check was weak and nasty Dickie.
But you use nastiness often, you will not silence me.
I will continue to eat meat, say needless cruelty is wrong, but question animal rights groups before siding with them.
The intention of PETA is to stop recreational fishing, to stop harvesting fish, to fail to understand in this over populated world we need all the food we can get is blindness.
Dickie do you know I truly often think of your battle with your health?
And that I often put your uncontrolled anger down to that?
I hope you one day return to your earlier posting style, that some how you find having differing views than you is no reason for such nasty nasty slurs.

Ah Dickie, so nice to respond to one of your posts, it has been a long time

“Unfortunately Foxy the animal you feast on does not have that choice.”

But I do not ascribe the same rights to critters as to humans and to be honest, find the folk who claim Animal Rights a bit limp, when it comes to reasoning.

“My firm resolution is to adopt a lifestyle, like millions of others, free from the desire to feast on the rotting flesh of these tortured animals.”

My firm resolution is to support the system of democratic tolerance which allows you to follow such an ethos

But only with the absolute understanding and expectation that you respect my right to chew on tender filets of prime beef, pork, chook and sea critters of whatever sort I choose.

“There is no doubt that man is not built to be a carnivorous animal.”

Well 17th century thinking has moved on, we are omnivores and eat a broad range of items. I do like berries.

Cranberries go particularly well with turkey

“Compassionate people will no longer tolerate the insanity committed by these misfits. Already their leper bells resound around the planet - the pestilence of the 21st century - soon to be eradicated!”

Soon to be eradicated - only if you find a way to “eradicate” all the meat eaters… when the meek do truly inherit the earth.

Mind you by then, life will not be worth living anyway.

Until it happens, I will still chew on chook and anything else which takes my fancy.

Btw I remember now, you claimed I told lies… and I called you on it

and you scurried away back under your stone…

I guess you are still unable to substantiate your hairy-fairy claims…

I suppose I can expect "substaintiation" when I am about to be "eradicated"

BOAZ_David,

The natural order is “cruel in tooth and claw”. That is an observation and says nothing about the ethics. Other creatures, especially higher order animals are sentient in that they feel pain, fear, suffering etc in a similar fashion to the human animal. You would have it that a god is responsible for this being the creator of it. This is the argument that theologians cannot successfully explain away and neither can you.

Evolution has developed a speciesist attitude in most creatures to allow for doing to other species that which they do not do to their own. Humans have also been subjected to this evolutionary history. We can shut off our empathy and compassion in the name of self interest, even if that self interest is only taste preference.

Better than this godly unethical situation, is the higher ethical considerations that advanced civilisation have. In fact, such societies legislate against cruelty to other animals. Have you heard of the RSPCA and the police force that can bring legal action against those flouting such laws?

Because the legislation does not cover all sentient animals is irrelevant to the argument. There is no cut off point of suffering between those covered by legislation and those not. It is arbitrary and generally a financial demarcation.

Nature is not capable of working out that certain actions cause pain, as survival is the main imperative. However, humans can consider the pain factor and still survive quite happily. Many people think the lessening of pain a good idea and contribute by not eating meat or animal products.

You may follow a world view made by someone else but others like to think for themselves on this topic.

As an offshoot, the environmental argument to lesson the eating of meat will become stronger as the situation deteriorates. It will most likely be a better feeling voluntarily to give up meat as a matter of principle, rather than being forced to by circumstance.

Jonathon

Jonothan Byrd “This is not a shot at omnivores, as people have to make their own minds up about what they eat”

That is a good premise to start on because, being ominivors we might bite back

“Most people in developed nations do not need to eat fish.”

But like you said previously, “people have to make their own minds up about what they eat”

“Vegetarians are so because of ethical concerns;”

Well they too are people and they too are entitled to ““make their own minds up about what they eat”

“The only potential problem with veganism is vitamin B12 deficiency, which is nearly unheard of in developed nations”

Maybe because veganism, as a chosen lifestyle, is out there with the worshippers of woodland pixies

“Taste is the only variable.”

And my taste is for ribeye

But like you said originally

“This is not a shot at omnivores, as people have to make their own minds up about what they eat”

And trust me, I will continue to make my own mind up and I will practice my belief in my sovereign right to eat meat, regardless of the beliefs of the woodland-pixie worshippers.

*Hunt and voracity are unnatural to him... On the contrary his hands are made to pick fruits, berries and vegetables and teeth appropriate to chew them.” *

Hehe Dickie, you will be scratching to prove that one! I guess
those thousands of year old cave paintings were actually of men
spearing berries :)

Your posts are now sounding more and more like Nicky's but that
is what happens when you both read from your Peta bible. Now of
course your next big quandry. Do you give up milk, eggs, cheese
and leather too? Do you go out and buy all plastic shoes?

*Many people think the lessening of pain a good idea and contribute by not eating meat or animal products.*

Jonathon, this is where I think your argument is philosphically
flawed. Ok, lets agree that we should minimise suffering. But
at what point is leading no life at all, the better option.
That question can apply to all species, including humans. Think
about it.

Fact is that we can show, that much free range livestock largely
enjoy their lives and live contented lives, with far less pain
or suffering then in nature. They are fed through droughts,
treated for worms, are not torn to bits by predators etc.

Do you really think that they care about who eats them, once they
die?

I actually thought about the people on this thread a couple of
days ago, when the temperature hit 41deg. A ewe and her twins
were walking past the house, next thing she took advantage of the
verandah shade and started peering through the windows. I cracked
up laughing and it occured to me that according to Dickie etc,
perhaps I should have let her in to benefit from the airconditioning:)

Col Rouge,

Is this tone necessary? It appears to be very defensive.

“Maybe because veganism, as a chosen lifestyle, is out there with the worshippers of woodland pixies”

Or, in the same post, “…egardless of the beliefs of the woodland-pixie worshippers.”

I fail to see where anything I have said could elicit such banality. I have supplied reasonably factual knowledge. Unless of course you think that, some knowledge is best not discussed, giving you unqualified right to ridicule it to make it go away. Showing disrespect in such a manner to ideas born of compassion is a little on the base side.

This kind of method using ridicule of those with a different opinion is not very helpful in discussion. Do you feel the suppression of ideas by this method is acceptable just because they are not your ideas?

Yabby,

Are you implying that being a vegetarian or vegan is “leading no life at all”? If so, that is a value judgement that fits you, not everyone.

Most people do not necessarily eat free range meat products. The argument of a better life than in nature is meaningless compared to not eating either free range or traditionally gained meat.

How much or what kind of meat or fish people eat is up to them. That does not mean the facts surrounding such choices should not be discussed in a civilised manner.

Jonathon

*Are you implying that being a vegetarian or vegan is “leading no life at all”? *

Absolutaly not. What I gather that you are claiming, is that by
not eating meat, people will reduce the suffering of other species.
In other words, if some species were not farmed at all and had
no life in the first place, the world would be a better place.

Now we also know that millions of people live very sad lives, far
worse then a great many livestock. Would they too be better off
having lived no life at all, as you seem to imply is the case
with free range animals?

For by not eating meat, you are including all farmed animals,
not just factory farmed ones. Otherwise you would have drawn
the line at factory farming, not at eating meat.

As far as the environment goes, once again, what would happen if
all livestock grazing would shut down tomorrow? Much land is
simply unsuitable for cropping and continous cropping is not
very sustainable in the first place.

What would happen is that those grasslands would grow huge amounts
of biomass. In summer, when it all dries out and lightning strikes,
the whole lot would burn, as Canberra found out, when parts of that
city started to burn.

So my point is that free range livestock grazing, if done
sensiblely, is both sustainable and environmentally acceptable,
compared to the options. Eating those livestock is not cruel,
for the other choice is to leave them to the worms to eat, as will
happen to you when you die.

Jonothan Byrd “Showing disrespect in such a manner to ideas born of compassion is a little on the base side”

Just as we are both free to choose what we eat,

we are free to hold and express our respective opinions on woodland-pixies.

Suggesting my comments are “a little on the base side” sounds a bit defensive of you too.

But I do hope you stick around,

We are going to have lots of fun together….

Yabby “what would happen if
all livestock grazing would shut down tomorrow?”

I guess the land would return to the wild and Roos would abound…

but Skippy tastes good too

actually I would appreciate any Roo Recipes if you have any :-])

Yoohoo Boazy aka Polycarp - It is I - the resurrection. Behold the return of St Dickie - Head Heretic! Yay!

“Forbid us, LORD, our daily meat. Give us our daily bread………. genuflex, genuflex. Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch. Amen.”

So many gods, so many creeds,
So Many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind
Is all the sad world needs.

I am the voice of the voiceless:
Through me, the dumb shall speak;
Till the Deaf world’s ear be made to hear
The cry of the wordless weak.

From street, from cage and from kennel,
From jungle and stall, the wail
Of my tortured kin proclaims the sin
Of the mighty against the frail

For love is the true religion,
And love is the law sublime;
And all is wrought, where love is not
Will die at the touch of time.

Oh shame on the mothers of mortals
Who have not stopped to teach
Of the sorrow that lies in dear, dumb eyes,
The sorrow that has no speech.

The same Power formed the sparrow
That fashioned man-the King;
The God of the whole gave a living soul
To furred and to feathered thing.

And I am my brother’s keeper,
And I will fight his fight;
And speak the word for beast and bird
Till the world shall set things right.
(Ella Wheeler Wilcox)

“Yes I remember you too fight that battle. Dickie do you know I truly often think of your battle with your health? And that I often put your uncontrolled anger down to that?

Well think again dearly demented. I have never had a battle with my health. Where are your links old timer? I’m as fit as a new-born cricket. Walk 3 kilometres a day, well ahead of all the family, predominantly fruitarian, and no serious addictions – except this dang-fangled forum!

I implore you Belly – do get your facts right – there’s a good lad!

Received in good faith Foxy. Thank you too Jonathon Byrd – such words of wisdom. Touche to that!

Yabby,

If animals were not produced for meat, they therefore cannot suffer. The same as only a small percentage of humans actually are born compared to the number of sperm and eggs available. That is, most do not have life at all. Should we convert every sperm and egg into a human so they can have a life? Think about it. The same is true for meat animals.

Factory or farmed animals both suffer by human command. I have not said different.

Cropping is continuous already. The point with cropping, take the American experience, is that at least 60 % of the total harvest goes to feed animals to feed humans. If you are speaking of range land, then you would know it is has been and is being stressed by livestock to the point of un-viability in many instances.

It is true that initially that range fires would be fierce but a return of the interior of how Australia was pre-European would need planning. It has gone for millions of years without sheep and cattle. It can do it again.

Most free range cattle are fattened on grain, as you would know. The dehorning, de nutting, transport and killing are far from humane. And you would know that.

And to pre-empt the, ‘we have a duty to feed the world’ argument before it raises its head, the feed that goes to animals could feed far more humans as grain, not meat.

All these things and more will debated with greater and greater seriousness as climate change takes its toll on the planet. It is no good going into denial about this subject; it has to be faced up to sooner or later. I suggest sooner to be the better idea.

Col Rouge,

Kangaroos would return to a pre-European level. The unavoidable abject cruelty in commercial shooting of Kangaroos pales other meat production into insignificance. Interested parties have grossly misled the public on this. Do your own investigation. The information is out there for those who want it.

Only a four post limit on this Forum. Tata for awhile.

Jonathon

Brownye

The invitation to PETA founder Ingrid to enter OLO and debate wasn’t directed at you.
I agree it looked that way as it followed on from my comments to you- Apologies.

We would like to invite PETA to tell the public – ( before they open the office in Australia ) - whether or not they really support phasing out live exports to be replaced by chilled or=

if its Anti Meat Industry full stop.

I would ask the same question of yourself and Dickie. Welcome John and perhaps you would like to comment on that also.

Foxy well said

Belly

We are all passing through and – do unto others as they…….
Yeh I teased you a bit way back. Not to be nasty- -just my dry bush humour..
You were picking on Antje`s spelling. (Kind of ironic isn’t it.)
You apologised and your actually probably one of the few who has improved himself on OLO in IMO...
I don’t give a dam about political correctness and frankly Belly you shouldn’t either. Wear it with a badge of pride that you’re from the old school and their 'ain`t too many left .
Put them on a horse or 4wheel Drive on a station and I know who would survive.

Dickie
You seem to feel we have no right to speak about Animal Welfare.
We wont fall into line and comply. I told you that when you contacted our office telling us not to post to Yabby.
I don’t want to get into beefups with you- but if we don’t talk with farmers and live exporters how on earth are we ever going to work out variable alternatives to change it.

*If animals were not produced for meat, they therefore cannot suffer.*

Ah Jonathon, but if humans were not born, they would not suffer either! No need for mommies to suffer either, giving birth.

If you agree that to avoid suffering, its better not to be born,
then surely it does not matter which species.

*Factory or farmed animals both suffer by human command.*

Humans suffer by human command too.

*Cropping is continuous already.*

Not sustainably, it isn't. Its based on cheap oil. Rotating livestock
and crops is far more sustainable, due to legume pastures, far far
less herbicides, less problems with resistant weeds, as livestock
can eat them, etc. etc. Animal manure is a sustainble fertiliser,
factory produced urea is not.

*If you are speaking of range land, then you would know it is has been and is being stressed by livestock to the point of un-viability in many instances.*

Only if it is done badly. But then bad driving, bad surgery, bad
anything can be dangerous. That is my point, factory farming and
free range farming are not the same, yet you want to throw them
into the same bucket.

*It has gone for millions of years without sheep and cattle. It can do it again.*

It sure can. As soon as the fuel load is high enough, the whole
lot burns, killing most wildlife who are roasted alive, but of
course nobody cares, as nobody owns them. Now that humans have
houses in these areas, they would burn too. You call that a
sensible plan?

*Most free range cattle are fattened on grain, as you would know.*

Some are finished on grain, as that is what some consumers prefer.
All that dark coloured beef at Coles called "Budget Beef" is
range reared and alot cheaper.

If that grain could feed the poor, then anyone is free to buy it
and feed them. There is no shortage of grain, there is a shortage
of money to buy it for the poor. But then the poor should be growing
potatoes and other crops themselves, not depending on food aid.

"We wont fall into line and comply. I told you that when you contacted our office telling us not to post to Yabby."

You're one sick bimbo PALE. And didn't you slander Nicky too in similar fashion?

I believe you're unhinged PALE and a liar to boot but what can we expect from one who carries brown paper bags, wants only to own all the abattoirs in Queensland and will assassinate anyone who supports the humane treatment of food animals.

Unfortunately you don't flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot, however sordid and demeaning.

Alas, it would take several tonnes of explosives to remove you from any animal welfare thread. The good news is, once you infiltrate a thread everyone runs away. Yay!

Dickie

We were not trying to upset you nor be unpleasant towards you. - Never have been.

I am also aware of your health and often wonder at your efforts to help animals.

“However” posts like yours above does nothing improve the welfare of animals?
Are we now to take it you denying contacting us to suggest it was unwise for us to debate live exports with Yabby

Pls keep in mind there are five staff in the office and as it happens one of our lawyer members was also present. We discussed your views after your call. His advice was to withdraw our posts would not be in the interests of the animals.

He thought that would strangle our objective to reach the main stream public.

Would I like the world to go Vegetarian? ABSOLUTLTY but its not going to happen in our life time and probably not the next generation either.

I see Yabby differently to you and your friends and I told you that.

A Especially in the early days if it had not been for Yabby we would have had little debate on live exports with nobody to argue with for want of better words.

B Because if you would only listen sometimes your told things you need to know. He has at odd times tried to explain what must be done to divert live to chilled. It’s no picnic. It’s huge and requires everybody’s co operation.

Halal meat alone John is an over two trillion dollar industry – and growing fast. Now if you’re fair dinkum about helping animals you must start SOMEWHERE.

At least slaughtering them on their own soil is an improvement. Each Halal Farm will also have Halal Vegetables which of course in the end IMO will produce more funds back to investors than meat.

In the mean time PETA could put a chain of fast food veggie shops in Australia if they saw fit.
…

PaLEaIF

What you are doing is underhanded, even if Dickie did ring you to "out" him publicly to bait another poster is a disregard for his privacy and deeply unprofessional. It is also somewhat pathetic.

Dickies ideas aren't quite my cup of tea either, but your tactics are right off.

I seriously would not trust you or your organization after seeing this.

Meredith,
I am honestly sick of these peoples abuse both on and off OLO.
We are dedicated Animal who have copped nothing but abuse for years.
We have been literally bombarded with people trying to tell us what we must do- OR not do. Right down to a couple entering my private property to gain the contacts of thirty plus people and harass them not to join PALE.
- I do often forget the tag always comes up under the organisation and this is just something I do after hours like everybody else.
I will speak olo about this to see if I may be considered as just another poster (which I am) rather than every one of my comments coming up as an organisation.


Dickey

I was picking up on the ‘topic’ we left off on and I didn’t really think TBO but if disclosing we spoke upset you "I` apologise. "

PS It might also be not in the best interests of animals or others to even hint at a threat of explosives.

*They are fed through droughts,
treated for worms, are not torn to bits by predators etc.*
Yabby

We both know that is only in the case of some farms.

You cant sit there and say that animals do not die in the thousands throught this contry through flood and drought.

Then of course we have the good old red cross or others running into " Wait for it prayer with the farmers- (wheres Boaz) while the animals die of thirst.

We asked them once why they couldnt spend some of the funds donated to them by the public to buy water and hay.
As you know in such times asks any farmer what he needs most and he will tell you feed and water for his stock.

Of course he will because without his stock he has no farm.

Anyway we finally got a reply from the head of the church
The letter reads- Dear bla bla We can not buy food or water from the farm hand appeal because Peter Costello wont allow it:)\
True story.
So we need to map out the areas of high risk by working with data and introduce a controlled amount of breeding only in those areas mostly effected

Dickie I got the information about your health from you!
In that thread from Foxy.
Not worth the effort but I looked at your posts again, anger, yep plenty of it.
No way the thread was ever going to be calm, however the lost in space group PETA have done what they set out to do, got us talking.
Strange however if those who support them dislike those who do not being in the majority so badly that insults result threads like this will fail.
Sea Kittens, the words make me smile and hungry too Hey just thought oysters are they kittens?
How about prawns? mud crabs? please say they are ok.
Interesting thought, right now this country and the world can not be sure if we can escape a true world wide depression, it could be the worst time in world history, yet we find many more posts about animal rights and religion than any thing else.

"Dickie I got the information about your health from you!"

Belly

Your feeble endeavour to perpetuate an outrageous lie is noted.

I reiterate - where is the link?

Foxy joined us in late 2007 so it will not be difficult for you to find the link to which you refer.

I predict that your failure to provide the evidence warrants an immediate apology and since you have informed OLO of your real name, and PALE has perpetuated the same outrageous lie, including the one about Yabby, may I ask if you pair have colluded by telephone to kneecap Dickie?

I acknowledge my colourful posts and the requirement to be more subtle or courteous, however, dealing with liars makes that a difficult task and your attempts to assassinate an opponent's character without substantiation, reveals the unconscionable depths to which you will resort.

Who would buy a used car from the likes of you?

Meredith

I thank you for your support.

I did post something earlier on this thread and now can't find it. Belly, I was pleased to see that you started it with the intention of "not starting a war", but do you not think that was almost inevitable, given that the same old antagonists were bound to appear? And thanks for your kind words, by the way.

I see some very well-informed material here as usual from Bronwyn and Dickie, PALE reviving the same old, same old, about every other animal advocacy organisation, and sinking to a new low by revealing what is essentially personal and private information about others - which may or may not be true but PALE's not interested in letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Nonetheless it shows a complete lack of understanding of ethical and moral considerations.

It should be noted that PETA sees its primary function as being about animal cruelty - environmental concerns and sustainability are incidental to its central campaigns and PETA has never presented otherwise, so far as I know.

PETA has done this as a media attention grabber. It worked, didn't it?

Cheers
Nicky

Yabby,

With all due respect, I was looking for a rational response, not irrelevant hyperbole.

“Ah Jonathon, but if humans were not born, they would not suffer either! No need for mommies to suffer either, giving birth. “

Errrr, yes Yabby, that is what I said.

“If you agree that to avoid suffering, its better not to be born,
then surely it does not matter which species.”

This is mixing two ideas, distorting my intention and is senseless.

“Humans suffer by human command too.”

Have you heard of two wrongs etc. Humans have comprehensive protective legislation – most animals do not.

“Not sustainably…etc.”

This is known as a rationalisation, it is not an argument against cruelty.

Australian range land evolved with soft footed animals. Expansive damage by greater numbers of hard hoofed animals is widespread. (Obviously!)

I have explained the fire risk. Again, this is a rationalisation to support a view.

Consumer preference does not necessarily make for ethical correctness.

Because of a few perceptual problems with vegetarianism does not negate the concept especially as there are very many more real negatives with consuming meat.

Your statement on food aid is elitist. Millions of people need help and cannot grow their own. That meat is dearer than grain seems to have missed your notice.

As well as arguing that animals are only commodities you feel that people don’t’ deserve our help either. It is pointless responding to someone with such an attitude on this subject.

I would expect you to answer points I have raised but obviously, you would rather just throw in red herrings. Whatever you believe is fine. I have no wish to alter your mind. But, confusing the facts at hand with opinions influenced exclusively by personal circumstance, is non productive.

Please lift your standard.

Jonathon

Jonathon, hehe, because I ask valid questions which you cannot
answer, you claim that I should lift my game and call it rationalisation :)
I know exactly what rationalisation means,
go and look it up so that you do too.

* This is mixing two ideas, distorting my intention and is senseless.*

Yet it is a valid question, unless you are being speciest. Human
life at any cost, free range livestock which might well be
enjoying their lives and living sustainably, will not be tolerated,
because of your flawed philosophy. Think again.

*Humans have comprehensive protective legislation – most animals do not.*

Go and tell that to people in Somalia, the Congo and other third
world nations, where human life basically has no value. If animal
protection laws need changing, they can be changed, which includes
pets by the way, which are kept as virtual slaves by their owners.

*Expansive damage by greater numbers of hard hoofed animals is widespread. (Obviously!)*

That really comes down to soil cover and stocking rate. Yes, more
care needs to be taken with hard hoofed animals, but it can be
done quite sustainably.

Compare that to the scenario which you seem to prefer, ie one
of the Australian outback regularly on fire, the nutrient loss
is ginormous and is one explanation why we have such improverished
soils. As I have pointed out, the cruelty of all those animals
burning alive in the process, seems to have passed you by.

*Your statement on food aid is elitist.*

On the contrary, I think it is very sensible and highlights why
we have such enormous problems in parts of the third world.
First we send them boatloads of food and planeloads of vaccines,
but forget the family planning part. So the population soars to
ever higher levels. Then we dump food aid on their markets, or
cheap subsidised US and EU foodstuffs, putting their own farmers
out of business. Now you seem to think we should dump even more
boatloads of food there as a solution. Think again.

Yabby,

You are trying to steer the discussion away from the reasons humans eat meat. It is taste. The arguments for not eating it are very sound otherwise; you would not fear them so. I am not advocating that people don’t eat meat as that is a choice even though childhood influence is a big factor. I am actually suggesting that people eat what they like. Eating what you like has consequences. Surely, these should be looked at in a rational manner.

It is time wasting to advocate free range, when that is a very small part of the diet of meat eaters.

An example of your irrational protectionism is jumping in and out of the developing world at whim. I have mentioned the Western diet. I would consider it a favour if you would stick to that.

You have not answered any of my genuine claims supporting a no meat diet, but rather you make peripheral mutterings about scenarios you dream up in your head.

If I say Australia got by without sheep and cattle, possibly for hundreds of thousands of years, you answer that taking away that stock will cause immense fires and more animals will die because of it. Even with the aboriginal fire regime, which did not cover all of Australia at once, you can’t even think this can be repeated.

Stocking rates are beyond capacity now. You may not admit it, but the government does. Look it up.

And back you to classing other humans as ‘them’ as if we should have no concern. These are people just as you are a people (Just) comprised of women, men and children in different circumstances than yourself. As I say, if you have no compassion for the less fortunate, then what hope is there of you showing any compassion for other animals?

None, I would suggest.

Jonathon

Dear Jonathan, you may have noticed that Yabby is incapable of rational debate without the obligatory red herrings and gratuitous insults (such as describing those who disagree with him in derogatory terms such as "housewife" and "city slicker")

He does this to justify his own (self-proclaimed)lifestyle, which encompasses "enslaving" pets (for example, he has a mixed-breed dog from which he breeds indiscriminately, then chops off its pups' heads if/when no-one wants them, and sends lambs off to the Middle Eastern butchers).

It is scientific fact that Australian agriculture is not sustainable; the fragile ecosystems were meant to support native wildlife, and the consequences of mass-scale farming of cloven hooved animals has caused irreparable soil erosion. Mass clearing of trees is another contributing factor. The deaths of huge numbers of farmed animals by bushfire should not be happening because those animals should not have been there to begin with.

Then consider the damage to waterways and land by intensive pig and chicken farmers, and feedlots. Also consider the handouts farmers expect - and get - some sectors of Australian society are definitely more equal than others. And just think of their carbon footprint.

The only rational argument Yabby has is for foreign aid in the form of birth control.

Nicky

Here is a "Sea kitten" site for you (not!) Even though the site is in Dutch language the pictures tell the story.If anyone needs a course translation, please ask. But the main line will probably read, "Men need to prove their manhood".Sick if you ask me!
http://www.partijvoordedieren.nl/content/view/126//weblog/view/1027/Marianne_Thieme

I did not lie Dickie you spoke of an illness in that thread.
And I am afraid unlike you I stand by what I say and if wrong admit it.
You need to control you raw anger, some times I ask myself why men are pounced on for far less than you so often use in the form of insults.
The thread is now animal rights with a side issue of should we eat them at all.
Frankly vegetarians trying to stop meat eating is even more funny than sea Kittens!
To think some are content to sell the vegan message just as the world is about to be flooded with altered vegetables is of more concern to me than those two headed fish, at least they never made it to the table.

“If you are speaking of range land, then you would know it is has been and is being stressed by livestock to the point of un-viability in many instances.”

An excellent assessment on the state of Australia Jonathon Byrd – particularly Yabby’s state (Western Australia.)

Regrettably, Agricultural Minister, Tony Burke and the MLA continue their junkets overseas, coercing poor countries into buying more meat (dead or alive) from Australia.

The state of WA is of no consequence, particularly the salinity, which is engulfing the equivalent of 19 footy fields per day. WA is the largest exporter of live animals.

Apart from the cruelty aspect, the growing of hard hoofed animals, on nearly 60% of our land mass, is creating a catastrophic and unsustainable environment for ourselves and our future generations: Again, I provide the following disturbing excerpts:

“Society has a fundamental duty to ensure that freeholders manage soils and lessees manage the rangelands vegetation in an ecologically sustainable way. This is because sustainability is the ultimate physical basis of continuing survival and economic viability. For society to be content with ecologically unsustainable management of these resources is for it to condone a threat to its own survival.

"Society's responsibility and duty to require its own and private management of agricultural land and natural renewable resources to be ecologically and sustainably productive has precedence over every individual person's and corporation's agricultural and pastoral land ownership rights.

"WA's current and potential soil salinity crisis warrants government seriously to consider new land ownership rights. WA has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands.

"Whereas the land-use managers - whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold - are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.

"The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least.“

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/ruralsoc/v6n2p3.htm

Nicky,

Yabby is from the old school. He is finding it difficult to come to grips with the changing world his ancestors have left him. He sees his livelihood and way of life threatened by any mention of not eating meat. He therefore, understandably responds in a manner steeped in ridicule.

I harbour no grudge towards him.

It is sad that humans must change to accommodate advancing knowledge because it means that some will be affected detrimentally but that is how it has been since the year dot. The wooden wheel replacing the stone, the horse buggy replaced by the petrol engine, ships replaced by planes, all happened at a cost to many.

The bigger picture has presented humans with a dilemma never before faced. We have run out of new frontiers. It is therefore necessary to re-examine the reasons for this and change, if we wish to continue as a race.

Our before assumption, that we are separate from nature and its absolute controller, need challenging and challenging with vigour, if we expect to continue on this recently recognised reality that we exist on a very fragile planet.

dickie,

You amplify the reasons as to why the economy surrounding diet is so important a subject that it is foolishly reckless to dismiss all options available by trite comment.

Jonathon

In case we needed further evidence beyond that provided by Dickie, Jonathan and others:-

"A four-legged chicken has been smuggled out of a Hunter Valley, NSW, chicken processing facility by a worker fearful for his own health.

The worker noticed the abnormality during routine processing work at the factory.

"I have worked in chicken sheds for six or seven years and I've seen extra toes and that sort of thing, but never anything like this".

"I though it was a myth."

The six-week-old fully grown chicken from Ingham Enterprises at Cardiff was brought to the Mercury and photographed by Cath Bowen on Thursday, January 8.

Ingham farm manager, Shane Reeves, said the bird should not have been allowed to survive beyond the hatchling stage.

"It should never have even got to that stage,"

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/fourlegged-chicken-freak-of-nature-or-science-askew/1409259.aspx?src=enews

The worker is quoted as saying that it would have finished up in the "food chain". One wonders exactly the extent of other nasties that Australia's "majority" population of meat - and fish - eaters is consuming. Don't forget the chemicals in the waterways where fish grow!

Nicky

*It is scientific fact that Australian agriculture is not sustainable;*

Nonsense Nicky. What is a fact is that there is both sustainable
and unsustainable Australian agriculture. You refuse to separate
the two, due to your vegan religion. Jonathon's suggestion,
of constant cultivation and crop growing, is in the unsustainable
category.

My argument about wildlife burning clearly went over your head,
for it was wildlife I was referring to, not domesticated livestock.

Dickie, I have answered your salinity question before, but of course
you ignored it. It is not agriculture that is causing salinity,
but overclearing of land in the wrong places. If you check your
history and facts, then you will learn that farmers were forced to
clear all land as part of their COP blocks. In other words, Govt
not knowing any better, forced them to clear those areas.
The answer is of course, since that salt comes from the ocean
by rainfall over time, it should go back to the ocean.

*Yabby is from the old school.*

Hehe Jonathon, I have been called many things, but never that one :)

If I have a fault, then it is a low tolerance for stupidity and
frankly a great deal of the nonsense preached by the veggie/vegan
movement is exactly that.

You cannot name me a single way of turning dried out old grass,
which poses a fire risk, into great human nutrition, in a more
sustainable way then through herbivores. It is a win-win situation
if done correctly. Now feel free to let the ants eat those herbivores
rather then you eat them, but don't expect others to join your
feelgood exercise, for they will laugh at you.

*Our before assumption, that we are separate from nature and its absolute controller, need challenging and challenging with vigour*

On that I agree with you. Religion and Descartes got it very wrong.
I have never claimed anything else.

Yabby,

My statement of existing conditions of, “Cropping is continuous already”, does not lend itself to mean your interpretation of, “Jonathon's suggestion, of constant cultivation and crop growing, is in the unsustainable category.”

I made no such suggestion.

This is a good example as to why responding to you is a waste of time.

I hope you have learnt from this topic that other thoughtful views are in conflict with your own prejudices.

You certainly have clearly demonstrated why the opinions of vested interest are not to be trusted. That is one positive outcome, none of us should forget.

Au revoir

Jonathon

Belly
I understood same. Considering I’ve apologised for continuing conversations outside this forum – you will have to use your imagination. Sorry.
I like prawns also. Up here you can buy them straight off the trawlers.

*kneecap Dickie?*

:)

Looks like I will have to talk to the bloke who installed the scrambler:)

Funny you mention selling cars- I have 3 for sale +a jet ski -all going cheap.

Under the circumstances we could toss in some flippers and goggles, so you can visit the sea kittens.

For an extra buck you can have the boat +trailer to take your PETA mates along with you.
I hear there is a hurricane coming along so there `s no time to waste.

You girls are not really the smartest at times.

I apologised for the disclosure ‘BUT’ if you’re calling me a liar- that’s completely different.

I’d Quit while I was ahead if I were you.




Jonathon Byrd
If you oppose Free Range for hoofed Animals you’re supporting intensive farming. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Unless of course your arguing vegetarians verses the rest of the world which is very noble but self indulgent.

What about the millions of Animals suffering in the ‘mean time’

Or don’t they count?

I will say to you what I have told the girls. Listen to Yabby because in the real world thats the type your up against. Instead of trying to convince people breeding live stock they are evil try to employ proper live stock people and put the live exporters out of biz.
You do this by coming up with viable alternatives and working with them- not against them
I see you have a big heart BUT that wont fix it.

Hi all,
I haven't had much time for OLO lately but thanks for that link to the Animal Party in Holland, Eft. I am able to read it because I come from there.

This is a political party in the opposition with *I think* 4 seats in the govt there.
It's the first animal party in the world.
They do a lot of great work and are very active and I think they are very balanced (for an animal party anyway, hehe).

I'd like to ask all animal lovers on this thread to say no to this barbaric tradition on the Faroe Islands by signing this petition (It's in English so people anywhere in the world can sign and help) this Dutch Animal Party on their mission to stop this cruel, senseless torture and slaughter of these beautiful animals.

http://www.partijvoordedieren.nl/content/view/409

Just a quick note on the actual topic, I still don't know what kind of argument is being used to NOT stop recreational fishing.
Fishing for food is one thing, but fishing for recreation should simply be banned. It's wasteful and cruel.

I'm against recreational fishing.

As some on this thread will know, I am also against the practice of depriving animals of their freedom for human recreational purposes, otherwise known as "keeping pets".

So I feel obliged to point out that petitioning against the slaughter of animals on the grounds that they are "beautiful animals" is just a little precious.

The difference between clubbing to death baby seals, and poisoning rats so that they can die a slow and painful death, is that only one of them is cute and cuddly. A decision based, I suggest, on some fairly wobbly ethics.

Maybe it simply is not possible to apply a consistent set of standards to animals, when the nice moo-cows have such big brown eyes (aaaaah...), but the horrid ratty creatures have nasty faces (kill, kill!)

A facet of human nature that has forever puzzled me.

Celivia, thank you for that link, and consider it done. I had heard of the Dutch party members, and how great they are.

Jonathan, please do not abandon this, because you have provided us with information I didn't know, Don't let the arrogant and ignorant drive you away.

PALE, what have you been drinking/smoking? Belly has clearly expressed his antipathy for PETA, so your comment to him is fatuous (as usual) in the extreme. And the fact that you have three cars and a jet ski for sale is (again, as usual) of total and sublime irrelevance. Nor did I see any suggestion by anyone to "kneecap Dickie". Please don't try to pretend you are smarter than the average ratbag (apologies to rats), you are clearly not. Your comment that if Jonathan disapproves of farming cloven hooved animals then he favours intensive farming - for God's sake, what is the matter with you? Do try for a little basic comprehension. And "quit while we are ahead"? Who? And why on earth should we/they?

No-one on these threads with any interest at all in the welfare of animals is ever going to take Yabby seriously, only the terminally stupid would do so. That, by your own admission, means you. You have corrupted yet another thread for your own insular, petty agenda.

Nicky

“Dickie, I have answered your salinity question before, but of course
you ignored it. It is not agriculture that is causing salinity,
but overclearing of land in the wrong places. If you check your
history and facts, then you will learn that farmers were forced to
clear all land as part of their COP blocks.”

Yes Yabby, we have debated salinity before and I have not ignored it. Since you persist in giving half an answer, I must give you the other half.

Commercial crops, including the vast amount of crops grown as feed for livestock do not absorb water like native vegetation. As a result much of the surplus water goes into the groundwater. The groundwater rises and the water table brings the salt to the surface thus increasing salinity.

“The answer is of course, since that salt comes from the ocean
by rainfall over time, it should go back to the ocean.”

Are you speaking geological time Yabby – thousands perhaps millions of years? If your theory was correct in the short term, our soil would not be in such a dire condition – the worst salinity this country has ever known.

Salinity is so bad that there has been a strange suggestion to dump tonnes of this saline soil in the town of Kalgoorlie thus moving the problem from one place to another. The growing of crops just to feed food animals can never be justified. There are some 110 million sheep and cattle alone - a reduced number to previous years. What is grown for pigs, chickens, turkeys etc. I have no idea.

Thank you eftfnc and Celivia for the link. It’s a shocker isn’t it? I too provide a link (all in English) for your perusal:

http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/gruesome-whale-and-dolphin-bloodletting-massacre-in-europe/offbeat-news

Interesting information Nicky. One must wonder just how many mutated food animals we are actually eating. I suspect the toxins in their feed would play a large part too in deforming these pitiful critters (and potentially, human foetuses!)

Thank you also eftfnc and Celivia Dickie for the links.
Speaking of fish I assume you all saw this-

Indonesia refuse repairs for Japanese whaling ship
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/16/2468118.htm

yabby I too have a question for you.
Why do you bother?
Far from old school I smell standard issue Aussie bush man on you.
Opinions like yours, even much more extreme are held not only in the bush but by Joe average too.
I came for a laugh, and in wonder, Nicky's thread had little support and I thought just maybe we could talk here.
We did, mostly without the insults till late in the thread.
But the more you speak like Joe average bushy the more the insults are thrown at you, why do bother?
Sometimes views that are not even near those held by the majority get more air than they should, but not in places it counts.
Sea Kittens are no longer the subject, meat eating and animal welfare is.
Notice how the concerns about vegetables being contaminated by deliberate manipulation is ignored?
It is more than likely the equivalent of two headed fish has found its way on the table from this unsafe manipulation of every food we grow, if not yet soon.
Well now that I have outed myself as a believer in common sense I will trot of the stage.
May come back to value the coming insults, sea Kitty and eggs for breaky got to go.

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/barra-bounce-back-after-killer-cold/1408001.aspx?src=enews

Getting away from rights and wrongs I wonder if its possible to look inside peoples minds who enjoy fishing. I am serious. Perhaps if we research what it is they really enjoy it might give us a better understanding.

Todays newspaper reads- To make things more 'enjoyable.'

As a kid I recall going fishing with Dad. It was great to spend time with him and I think he loved just being on the beach again . Of course in his younger life fishing was a way of the family living as they lived deep in the bush.
My Grandad blew his arm off fishing I was told. Still he lived with his shark jaws hanging from the rafters. Most of their stories told over the years really related to time spent together miles down the beach or driving bullocks in the bush. I dont know if hey ever realised that TBO.

I have met many a gentle person who hasnt even thought about fish feeling pain. To me it just makes plain sense but how many people really think about it.

The Sea kitten ideas really isnt a bad idea. Perhaps the RSPCA combined with Government need more education in schools and other places.

PETA tend to get up peoples noses with an attitude of attacking people for eating meat and fish.

While RSPCA are short staffed they hold a more main stream approach which in the long run works better with the general public.

This project is supported by the Commonwealth Government through a grant-in-aid administered by the Department of Finance and Administration. Its worth a read. I would like to add if commercial fishing must use stunners perhaps the Government should look at private fishing.

http://www.rspca.org.au/events/seminars04_summary.pdf

Question What was the standard method of killing Yabbies and has anything changed withi the industry.
in other words do they now stun them. Does anybody know

Gosh this thread has been open well past its use-by date and is beginning to smell much like its topic when left out too long.

And having brought us back to topic ,

“Sea-kittens” – addressing one of its possible definitions

“fishy smelling pussy”.

For which, I thought there were deodorant sprays available?

Celivia and Dickie,
You want to stop the killing of pilot whales, that are used for human consumption by indigenous people of the Foreo Islands. I assume all whale and dolphin harvesting as well.

What about all the Krill and squid, and sea kittys, the whales and dolphins devour. One big whale must devour millions of the poor little Krill and no one gives a damn about them. Are they not sea kittens too and to be swallowed whole and die by the digestive juices does not sound like a pleasant way to die. So the Japanese and Foreo Islanders may be saving the lives of millions upon millions of animal lives.

Just where are your ethical standards. Have you a campaign to teach these species to graze on sea weed?

Banjo

Your questions can not be answered in a short post. My observations reveal that, without human interference, there is much law and order among other species. The krill to which you refer is supplied by nature to sustain another and so on. The krill, prior to meeting its fate, have not been subjected to the abominable cruelty which "intelligent" man likes to inflict on its victims.

Among all species, there is order and balance with the exception of humans who in their “wisdom” have dumped many species into foreign lands, thus corrupting those laws, thus threatening man’s own survival, thus corrupting the balance in nature.

Friday, in the park, I was suddenly alarmed by 7 mudlarks appearing from several trees – the cacophony of screeching was deafening. I then witnessed a baby mudlark which had fallen from its nest – a baby they were protecting from predators. These birds allowed me to return it to a tree but they swooped my dog constantly. After a successful endeavour and on returning home, 2 of the birds followed, swooping my poor dog but not attacking him. “Ok” I told the birds – “we’re going!”

The people of the Faroe Islands do not mass slaughter these whales because they are hungry. It is a medieval cultural practice and an abominable one where these intelligent animals witness the brutal slaying of their companions before their own vicious slaughter.

We will not endeavour to force any species to graze on sea grass. That is not the role of humans. We are but one small part of the web of life. Your belief that we are superior and can override the laws of nature is precisely why man’s survival is now seriously threatened. We are the cruellest and greatest predators but we will not triumph. We will remain at the bottom of the heap!

“Where are YOUR ethical standards?” Where is your wisdom? Where is your humility?

Pericles,

Rats have a bad rap because they are destructive, cause disease, are ubiquitous and can be a direct threat to life and health. They therefore are in need of controlling.

But I agree with you, ‘cuddly’ should not be a determiner of status. Suffering capability should. It seems within the realms of possibility that the dislike of rats is embedded in the human psyche, as rodents have played havoc with food storage forever.

A couple of the keys to controlling rats is to never leave food of any kind out at night or allow rubbish to build up where they can take up residence. Convincing neighbours not to do this is the real problem.

The compassionate/empathetic part of people in choices about other creatures is sometimes based in irrationality. Doesn’t mean it should be disregarded as ‘nutty’, rather it should be a starting point for a greater understanding of all living things.

Belly,

Vegetables are not suffering capable. People are able to have multiple concerns.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

“If you oppose Free Range for hoofed Animals you’re supporting intensive farming. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

I am not supporting one or the other. I am merely pointing out they both have cruelty and environmental concerns.

What individuals or humanity does with information along these lines is up to individuals and humanity.

Is it “self indulgent” of you, (And me) that opposed to the rest of the world, you use a computer, drive a car, have running water etc? Explain why, it is only diet that is self indulgent?

My attitude is not because of a “big heart”. I merely accept that I am a creature of happenstance, as are all others. I do not assume special rights unless under direct threat of survival.

I heard the other day that the only certainty of getting into bed with the devil, is that at some stage one is bound to get screwed.

I think there is a lesson in that for all of us. :))

Jonathon

Rats were a metaphor, Jonathon Byrd, representing the entire spectrum of non-cuddly species.

But I'm sure that you knew that, really.

My point was not that people are "nutty", as you put it, in their mindless protectionism of the cute and furry, but that they are fundamentally hypocritical.

The same goes for people who would be utterly horrified if I kept a slave in my house to do my bidding, but are perfectly comfortable with the idea that animals somehow relish a lack of freedom in their lives.

>>...rather it should be a starting point for a greater understanding of all living things.<<

Couldn't have put it better myself

Pericles,

Maybe the word ‘hypocritical’ is too harsh. To be hypocritical there needs to be knowledge of holding two opposing opinions. Being unaware that two opinions are in conflict, can be caused by a number of factors and mostly culturally promoted.

For instance, legally owning a slave, providing no better treatment than to your dog was not hypocritical. Often, the dog faired better in the equation. Slaves were classified by culture to be inferior beings. Therefore, there was no hypocrisy. Plenty of poor thinking, yes, but no hypocritical thinking.

Dogs are treated better than Kangaroos or fish for the same reasons. A greater understanding shows support for both these examples to be baseless and only supported by cultural agreement. As we know, slavery was wrong. The question we are confronting now is; are we also wrong in how we treat other sentient animals? If we are not, then why are we not?

Does the cultural imprimatur of accepting an action only on taste preference override ethical evaluation?

Jonathon

It's the financially valuable animals that are the ones with less rights though, not the ugly ones.

Animals classified as live stock etc, used in science..

It's true dogs have more rights than pigs, sheep, cows, chickens etc because they are preferred by humans, but if the dog meat industry kicks off, they too will be live stock with no rights at all.

Same with the native animal industry, all of a sudden less right to protection from pain and harm

*yabby I too have a question for you.
Why do you bother?*

Belly, lets say that many little reasons, make one
good reason.

Yes most country people have some common sense, it
seems its not the case with this lot. So in that sense
they amuse me :) Cases like Jonathon and Nicky, who
are up themselves intellectually and read their Singer
gospel etc, really have virtually no common sense,
just a religous kind of belief in their dogma, much
like Boaz and Gibo, believe in their religion.

If they call me names and can't answer my questions,
clearly they don't have any answers. After having debated
Al Queda supporters and similar on British websites, these
petals are a breeze :)

So I have a pretty thick skin and unless they have some
kind of intellectual, rational point of reason, which they
have thought through and are not just parroting on, as they
usually do, there is really nothing but a bit of humour.

I will freely change my opinion, but it will take more
then a few parrots to convince me.

Dickie, yes, growing annuals rather then perineals or trees,
will tend to bring salt to the surface and highlight the
problem which nature itself has caused. WA's problems are
that those soils are extremely old, unlike volcanic soils
in other parts of the world.

So much salt has accumulated, due to natural causes. These were
not caused by irrigation, as in other parts of the world.

Trees simply keep the problem out of eyesight, they do not
solve the problem. Good drainage does, for it removes the
salt and puts it back from where it came.

My farm for instance, won't have a salt problem, as it has
good drainage and salt goes back where it came from. Other
parts of Western Australia are not so fortunate. They are
relatively flat, were overcleared and have nowhere for the
salty water to go back from where it came. So you then
have a problem. Open up those channels leading back to
the river system and ultimately the sea and-you-will-solve-it.

Meredith,

“It's the financially valuable animals that are the ones with less rights though, not the ugly ones. ”

This is a statement of some fact. It has nothing do with ethics concerning the premise of animals as financial objects. Slaves were spoken about in the same manner as per example:

“It’s the financially valuable slaves that are the ones with less rights though, etc”

You may have to explain the next sentence a little better.

“It's true dogs have more rights than pigs, sheep, cows, chickens etc because they are preferred by humans, but if the dog meat industry kicks off, they too will be live stock with no rights at all.”

This one is none too clear either.

“Same with the native animal industry, all of a sudden less right to protection from pain and harm”

Are you saying that if humans concede native animals equal consideration with dogs, they will be worse off?

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post but I found it a little confusing. Maybe give it another go using different terms.

Jonathon

Hi Johnathon,

Sorry man! No, what I am saying if the that if dog meat becomes an industry, that dogs too will become livestock and loose any extra (over sheep cattle etc) rights they may have.

Here in NSW for example it recently became illegal to consume dog meat... Thankfully.

With native animals since the roo/possum meat and products (specially with the Greenie push), I notice native animals are seen less romantically too, as they are all of a sudden now more a live stock product.

Also,

Meredith,

Gotcha. :)

“With native animals since the roo/possum meat and products (specially with the Greenie push), I notice native animals are seen less romantically too, as they are all of a sudden now more a live stock product.”

I think that is correct in some quarters of society but there is a growing opposition to the exploitation of native animals. And with a very sound basis in reasoning, from my understanding.

Good People,

The inauguration of Barack Obama as president of the USA tonight is a moment in history I do not want to miss. Must go to bed and be up early for it.

This thread has been interesting but I think, for my part it has run its course. If anything, it demonstrated that cordiality was nearly achieved on a subject prone to excite passions on both sides.

Jonathon

Belly

are National Farmers Federation Union members ?

Jonathon

*I am not supporting one or the other. ....*

We should support the least cruel practises for 'all' life, including fish.

It’s a wonder the Government hasn’t engaged CSIRO to invent a stun gun for domestic use for recreational fishing. (Think of the endless funding possibilities especially licensed them.)

Regarding the removal of stock from grazing- I can assure you that had 'nothing' to do with the environment - unless you are talking and the political environment + Parks and wild life... Roos Corruption and mafia connections and control of Governments.


See=
http://www.smuggled.com/vac.htm

Because someone pays a so called professor to write an article claiming live stock are destroying the bush." Mostly it’s done by someone who’s never lived in the bush.

Reports from Uni who’s funding is often from that very industry =

Pedler, Primaries of WA, and Landmark state livestock and wool manager Chris. Medcalf caught up after the launch ... Murdoch University Dean of Veterinary and Biomedical ... Murdoch University to fund a senior lecturer in leadership in ..

*This is what hoofed Animals Do Jonathon*

They control the weeds which BTW are clogging our rivers now out of control and they are a natural fire protection

“Without them” the wildlife won’t survive- 'not the other way around.'

This is why I said in today’s world we at least require free range stock not intensive farming. Apart from anything else the wild life suffers by removal of stock to keep the fires to a contolerable level.

Even if they stuffed the padocks we cant keep animals locked up in areas where they cant turn.

Some dream of No animals being bred for meat. Thats a PIPE dream I am afraid. Halal alone is a 3 trillion $ Industry and growing.

The industry are curropt and inhumane so we must take over the industry to at least slaughter here humanly and breed free range.

As I leave the thread I want to thank every one, yep every one who posted here.
We did not do too bad, we got a little bit hot under the collar, we always do in talking about this subject.
I note your question Pale, about farmers federation and unions.
Your idea that you do not post every thing as PALE seems a good one.
I do not post every thing as a unionist, surely it is clear from my posts history I take a separate view on many subjects?
And I have not ever claimed unions should be involved in every thing.
Some times yes, views on things that will involve workers welfare, jobs, health, safety, lifestyle, but the farmers federation?
They are an unlikely partner for the union movement, fighting against wage justice for those who make them rich , always.
My breakfast was not Sea Kittens yesterday, farmed Trout Dam Kitty's?
Again thanks, Yabby? ok fair enough keep on keeping on

Ok, Jonathon Byrd, so how would you describe it?

>>Maybe the word ‘hypocritical’ is too harsh. To be hypocritical there needs to be knowledge of holding two opposing opinions.<<

On the one hand, killing (some) animals is bad, while on the other hand, killing (some) animals is OK.

On the one hand, depriving innocent people of their liberty is inhumane, on the other hand depriving innocent animals of their liberty is perfectly fine.

Is it possible to be unaware that one is holding these two positions simultaneously?

Is it likely that an intelligent person is ignorant of the double standards involved?

If you are uncomfortable with the word hypocrisy, please feel free to provide a realistic alternative.

Meredith,
Noticed in your last post that you said that dog meat comsumption was 'recently'made illegal in NSW.

This interested me as a couple of years ago I saw a small media article about dog meat now illegal in SA and I made efforts to ascertain the situation here in NSW. I approached the Health section of my local council and then wrote to NSW Health without getting a reply. I thought it a pretty straight forward question actually, but maybe it was legal until more recent legislation?

Could you post any info about this. Where I could confirm it and/or a link to the legislation. I keep up with most major papers daily but it may not have made it to press if other news overshadowed it and it was supported by both major parties.

Many thanks.

Hi Banjo,

I can't find much info on the net about it either, I have tried a few times myself, usually for olo debates, and I have read somewhere it's illegal in SA too actually.

I know it to be true as I remember it happening when I worked for Animal welfare. I don't know anything about it being de criminalized, but I haven't been involved enough to hear for a while.

This was a few years ago like 3 or 4. I am sorry I can't help you more, some greyhound groups might know...

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has a complete list of all livestock etc, and through its member countries, has the power to classify dogs as not for human consumption.

**Since there has never been a *recognised international dog-meat trade and the market is relatively recent, dogs do not appear on the FAO list of livestock.**

However China (an FAO member country) has unilaterally classified them as livestock.

Dogs may spend their entire lives in wire cages - usually in filthy cramped conditions.

Packed so tightly into cages on their way to the markets that injuries are common.

In addition, the dogs are often killed in horrendous ways, or beaten severely prior to being slaughtered in order to stimulate the animal to produce adrenalin, as many believe that eating such meat boosts men's virility. For example video footage shows dogs being killed by methods such as:

• Pouring boiling water over the live animal to increase the adrenaline production. Their throat is cut and the meat left to dry.

• Holes are cut in the paws. The animal is then left to bleed to death. This takes 10 minutes or so but makes the meat taste better.

• Legs broken the night before slaughter then the dog is skinned alive the next morning.

• Beating with sticks and slow strangulation/blow torching.

The way in which to stop the dogs trade is for RSPCA National to request copies of paper work from AQIS and UN.

The federal Ministers advisor stated she could assure us no dogs were being exported to Asia for food.

Now thats a might interesting statement considering the counter argument is we have no paper work.

However she must have some type of paper work to make such a statement. We would like them to share it.

Much of the exports are *controlled * by China. For example its VERY hard to export meat to Maylasia given China`s infulence over export accreditations.

Do dogs go from Australia to China + get sent out again to other countries.?

Dont think - know it.

Please consider signing the petition against the export of greyhound dogs to Asia: The carnage of greyhound racing in Australia simply adds to this country's shameful record:

http://www.petitiononline.com/GAIBEGA/petition.html

http://www.worldgreyhoundracingfederation.com/index.php?mode=info&view=news&t=2

http://www.animal-lib.org.au/subjects/subjects/greyhound-racing.htm

http://www.greyhoundaction.org.uk/igreyhound.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/24/1098556290613.html

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/in_the_news.php?article=250

Pericles,
I don't think there is such a word for a person who has such a seeming dichotomy of moral imperatives.
Your example presupposes a philosophic moral link between the treatment of a person and an animal.
I suspect that the link is more cultural and circumstantial than philosophic or morally absolute.

Consider the people who are in extreme circumstances are compelled to eat human flesh to survive or their dogs (Scott). In these (im)famous examples the people where culturally both western and Christian. Yet they weren’t prosecuted/convicted of cruelty or cannibalism. One can assume that moral links of the nature you propose are at best conditional. Therefore the judgement is in the eye of the beholder and often determined by culture.

Belly

*I note your question Pale, about farmer’s federation and unions*
Tar – Perhaps we could discuss that on another thread sometime.

*Your idea that you do not post every thing as PALE seems a good one*.

Will take that onboard.

*I do not post every thing as a unionist, surely it is clear from my posts history I take a separate view on many subjects?*

Fair comment, you’re your own man ‘at times’ and that is a good thing. Just tell it like it is belly that’s all anybody can do. Make ‘sure of your facts then go for it.
In that regard at least we are in the same paddock.


Btw, Yabby doesn’t answer all questions.

Please everyone take a moment to sighn the petitions Dickey posted.
We ask everybody to write to the Prime Minister RSPCA National demanding an urgent BILL be passed in Parliament to stop these dogs being exported from Australia. Perhaps Bob Brown would put it to the Senate.

*THEN watchful eyes.*

Many or most of these operations operate via a loop hole in the law- even more illegally.
Somebody should approach ‘get up’ …Don`t think Senator Fielding would give a continental but if enough write to him ….

Bob Brown would probably be helpful. Unless of course somebody knows more after Hugh s media R.

. Nicky opened a threat on exporting dogs. We should use that I suppose in future.

This time I will try to encourage everybody goes back on topic out of respect to the author of this thread.

Speaking of something fishy I hear your teams fishing for a loan belly (private joke)

There you go belly - Right back on topic.

.

I think you are absolutely right, examinator.

>>Your example presupposes a philosophic moral link between the treatment of a person and an animal. I suspect that the link is more cultural and circumstantial than philosophic or morally absolute.<<

If we could follow the "cultural" idea for a moment.

There is massive human suffering in the world, I don't think anyone would deny that. Just glancing through articles on Somalia, or Zimbabwe, or Sudan gives anyone the shivers...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/africa/17somalia.html

"Ms. Safia, a 25-year-old mother of five, has not eaten in a week. Her 1-year-old son is starving too..."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=880540

"Zimbabwe's children are fending off starvation by eating rats or nibbling inedible roots riddled with toxic parasites"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D8163AF930A35752C0A96E948260

"900,000 people, nearly three quarters of Equatoria's population, face imminent starvation."

But if a visitor from Mars were to attempt to understand a little of our life on this planet by reading OLO, he would be convinced that our lives revolved around the fate of doggies and moo-cows.

Of course there are no "moral absolutes" involved. And there is no earthly reason why people should not immerse themselves in the issues surrounding the treatment of baa-lambs and pussy-cats.

But it does - to me at least - make a substantial statement about the nature of our society, that we appear to spend a disproportionate amount of time pondering the inhumane treatment of cute furry creatures.

And further, that we appear incredibly selective in what we then determine to be "cruelty", as in the treatment of animals-for-food, and what we deem to be behaviouraly acceptable, as in the enslavement of domestic animals for our personal amusement.

Hey, I don't pretend to have all the answers.

But I am genuinely and deeply interested in the questions.

periciles,
You are absolutely right. It is the disproportionate amount of time, energy and money spent on animal 'rights' that irks me, when there is so much need to meet the basic needs of people. After the flack the US copped about Iraq, I cannot see their willingness to intervene in Zimbarbwe and the UN is not making great headway in other African countries.

Today in the Tele is a photo gallery of near naked PETA actiists demonstrating in Sydney, against eating meat, against KFC and bullfighting. So Help me, bullfighting has been against the law here for as long as I can remember. They seem to be very selective and discriminating with the issues they promote.

There was a large posting on this thread about exporting dogs which they claim are being killed for human consumption, but it is obvious PETA do not know if it is legal to consume dog meat here in NSW.

I find it ironic that so much effort is put into preventing cruelty to animals but nothing is said about cruelty to little girls by way of FGM and forced marriages that are endured by young women.

Also today, articles about some silly cleric saying it is OK to rape and beat ones wife.

Sure animals need protection but let us keep it in proportion to our human needs.

My this thread is becoming convoluted. What has the US, Iraq and Zimbawe to do with animals rights? None of these governments waste their time on animal rights – rather they torture them in the name of "humanity."

And just where is the relevance to PETA’s knowledge on bull-fighting in Australia? Their brief is on the cruelty perpetrated on bulls in Spain – a country known for its blood lust. PETA is alerting the world to this heinous sport.

And what on earth has FGM to do with PETA’s brief? There are plenty of human rights groups speaking out on FGM though those who perform FGM generally like to suck the blood from an animal whose brain and heart is still pulsating.

“Sure animals need protection but let us keep it in proportion to our human needs.” Yeah…..sure thing Banjo. What a pity that the proportion you speak of is greatly outweighed in favour of human needs – all 6.7 billion of them.

Thousands of groups are speaking out about human rights. These groups remain silent over the abominable cruelty to animals. Why aren’t they speaking out on animal cruelty too, one must ask since you do?

And while Pericle's fanaticism on animal “slavery” continues, my animal refugees are gathered together in the morning sun, on the footpath watching the passing parade. Mind you, no designer labels among this ragged lot, who’ve previously been beaten, starved and incarcerated. Mmmmmm……wonder why they don’t run away from their "slave" owner?

Oh oh – excuse me....someones knocking at the door. “Oh good morning Miss Nanny Goat. Have you tidied up the weeds on the footpath? Good girl. In you come sweetie pie!”

Good People,

Like a moth drawn to the flame, I’m drawn momentarily into the fray by statements inconsistent with rationality.

It is inscribed in law that many governments give huge sums of money to disadvantaged peoples and countries. The United Nations, by way charters and agreements, no matter that there are some problems and inconsistencies involved with it, is a people protecting mechanism. Parliaments produce laws by the bucket load in the interest of people. Taxes supply hospitals, police forces, services and infrastructure for people. Vast amounts of money prop up aid organisations for humans, as it should be. This donated money used by faith driven organisations is unaccountable

Compared to all of this, there are a relatively small number of non-government organisations struggling against massive opposition from vested interest to bring to the attention of the public the cruelty inherent in speciesism.

The odd tit or hint of a tit is sometimes used in this venture and suddenly, some perceive that animals are getting too great a deal in the fairness stakes.

Only one thing can cause this type of outrageously blinkered thinking; the protecting of a prejudice.

Jonathon

My mistake. I am not speaking on behalf of The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. This is my opinion and my nom de plume.

David

Pericles

Caring about animal welfare and being concerned about human suffering are not mutually exclusive. In my experience, people who care about one also care about the other.

Animal rights activists might seem to you to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy on their cause. But that's what you have to do if you're passionate about an issue and want to make a difference. It doesn't mean these same people turn their backs on situations involving human misery, in fact quite the contrary I would suggest.

Those here who have spoken out against recreational fishing would I'm sure detest the cruel confinement of pets, or the wealth disparity within and between nations and the human suffering it entails, every bit as much as you do. In fact, a person's attitudes towards animals I think is a good indicator of their capacity to experience empathy more generally.

When the posters here who argue the most vehemently in favour of the exploitation of animals, then turn round and pontificate on the plight of women in Africa, for example, their words have a rather hollow ring for me I'm afraid.

Compassion is not an either/or situation. We can and should have the heart and the capacity to care about the suffering of all living creatures. We just have to keep striving for the win/win solutions whereby both humans and animals benefit.

Driving a wedge into any discussions working towards that aim isn't helpful.

I agree entirely with your comments, David. Jonathon? Couldn't work that out I'm afraid!

Bronwyn,

That was a very succinctly worded post containing all the necessary elements against this preposterous idea that people concerned for animal welfare are somehow non-caring about humans. One would think your words would put an end to this stupidity, but sadly, I doubt that.

To clarify your puzzlement, I am David Nicholls who writes for and on behalf of the Atheist Foundation of Australia. As animal rights are also an interest of mine, I am compelled by personal opinion to write sometimes about that subject. As it falls outside the direct mandate of the AFA, I therefore use a pseudonym, which is Jonathon Byrd.

After a night with Barack Obama and a four hundred kilometre drive the next day for an AFA meeting, returning in the wee hours of this morning and getting very little sleep, through tiredness, I accidentally logged in as The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

I have contemplated just using David Nicholls as the name without the AFA tag, but I figured it would still be synonymous with my position in the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.

This is a good compromise, although I would rather have kept the two ‘handles’ as separate entities. Can’t help bad luck, I suppose.

Hope this helps.

On the negative side, I have blown two posts on explanations.

Jonathon

Jonathon Byrd,
Just a friendly word of warning we were banned for a month for the same thing. We joined as a insitute member to enable all our members to post.
I wanted to keep my ID seperate but someone comlained and..
After this the members started posting under their own Ids only to have people say hey you cant do that your really PALE Arnt you.( Then complained again)

They even opended a whole thread about it calling it the car park.

So the members stopped posting after months up upsets which did nothing to help the animals.

Now they want me to do the same thing again.- hilarious. Just dont want to see it happen to you. Check with GY first.

Thank You for our comments and I am sure you already know Albaco seems to agree with you so your in good company.

He intends to close down Puppy mills and has a great compassion for animals. The act of adopting a puupy if elected as president or not goes before beyond a promise to the children. I susopect his children will make wonderful Animal Welfare advicits.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:tEp3Eq6UBPsJ:www.deathrowpets.net/PDFs/Obama_Baby.pdf+president+al+usa+animals+puppy+mills&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&client=firefox-a

While speaking in Henderson, Nevada, Democrat Barack Obama says he won't just be a president for the American people, but the animals too.

"What about animal rights?" a woman shouted out during the candidate's town hall meeting outside Las Vegas after he discussed issues that relate more to humans, like war, health care and the economy.

Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, "not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog." He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.
http://www.catanna.com/obama-animal-welfare.htm

PS It would be nice if your organisation would include Animal Welfare to give Obama supportin his efforts for animals. Christian Churches sure as hell 'mostly' dont give a dam.

Hi Bronwyn

>>Caring about animal welfare and being concerned about human suffering are not mutually exclusive.<<

I wasn't aware that I had suggested otherwise.

The sequence of my posts here has been:

- my observation that Celivia's reference to "slaughter of these beautiful animals" could be construed as selecting only cute and fluffy creatures for protection - the "baby seal syndrome"

- my observation to Jonathon Byrd that the preferential treatment of attractive animals over ugly one might smack of hypocrisy

- an invitation to Jonathon to provide a more appropriate terminology than hypocrisy

- a musing with examinator on the possibility that our civilization may have reached a point where single-issue fanaticism about doggy-related issues has somehow outweighed our compassion towards our fellow humans.

And as I said, I don't see this as an assertion, more as a question to which I personally don't have an answer.

Possibly, it is a sign that we have over-evolved. That we are perhaps, as a civilization, reaching another "Decline and Fall" point, evidenced by our dedication to marginal causes (cf. gladiatorial contests in the Coliseum) that have nothing to do with growing and maturing as people. In other words, that the ability to devote ourselves to such causes (save the lesser-striped bilby from torture) is a luxury only recently afforded us, courtesy of our elevated economic position.

Perhaps we have reached the end-point of our growth and development as a species, will henceforth eschew the trappings of capitalism, and the next millennium will be populated by greenies living in mud huts.

If it does come to pass in this fashion, I can guarantee one thing.

They will eat meat. And they will catch it and kill it in any way they can.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

When I post as separate identities, I do not use one to support the other in the same thread. That is, when the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc makes a comment, Jonathon Byrd does not suddenly appear and support that comment or vice versa. We are both confident enough in our views to need no support. :))

The AFA can only pronounce on topics related to adverse religionism accepted by a majority of Atheists. Many Atheists share my concerns but the cultural blind spot about animal welfare is a universal one. Mores the pity.

Barack Obama has the potential on many fronts to be the most positive force for good that the planet has witnessed for a long time.

Animal rights cannot be denied forever, even though the battle has only begun recently. Slavery lasted for hundreds of years, as has the lack of equality for women and same sex oriented people.

These blights on humanity still exist in some part of the world and that is why Democracies should be the greatest advocators of getting rid of them. And, with the freedoms we have, we should at least be considering extending compassion to other species.

The first poster to mention animal voting rights or lack of tax paying ability etc, places her or him high on the list of nominees for 'thickhead of the year' award.

Jonathon

Pericles,

“my observation to Jonathon Byrd that the preferential treatment of attractive animals over ugly one might smack of hypocrisy

- an invitation to Jonathon to provide a more appropriate terminology than hypocrisy”

There is no more difference between some people being fixated on “attractive animals over ugly ones” than others being fixated on a dog or a cat over a sheep or a pig.

I tend not to call either example that of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy needs conscious admission where a lie is behind the ‘reasoning’. Cultural teaching can distort rational thought processes allowing this to be considered normal.

If I had to classify such thinking, maybe the word used should be, ‘delusional’ or ‘rationalisation’.

To call someone a ‘hypocrite’ is to call them a liar and is far too strong a term for people who are trying to do the correct thing, as they perceive it.

You know this but in protecting your own ‘rationalisations’ you lash out at them with inappropriate language.

Not good enough.

You have forced this answer out of me, as I did not wish to be the one to tell you.

Jonathon

Don't take it to heart, Jonathon Byrd, it's only a word. You have chosen a particular definition with which to hang me...

>>Hypocrisy needs conscious admission where a lie is behind the ‘reasoning’... To call someone a ‘hypocrite’ is to call them a liar and is far too strong a term for people who are trying to do the correct thing, as they perceive it<<

Wikipedia (that font of all knowledge) describes it as...

"...the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself"

Does that necessarily indicate the telling of a lie? Or merely the act of selectively ignoring one's own advice?

And I'm not at all sure that substituting your proposed "delusional rationalisation" takes us anywhere useful.

But let's not get carried away, shall we?

>>You know this but in protecting your own ‘rationalisations’ you lash out at them with inappropriate language. Not good enough.<<

"Lash out?" "inappropriate language?" Way too heavy.

>>You have forced this answer out of me, as I did not wish to be the one to tell you.<<

Oh, I am sorry. That must have hurt.

Here, have some chocolate.

*When the posters here who argue the most vehemently in favour of the exploitation of animals, then turn round and pontificate on the plight of women in Africa, for example, their words have a rather hollow ring for me I'm afraid.*

Ah Bronwyn, how diplomatic of you, not to name names :)

I love the way that the extreme left use the word "exploitation."
Give somebody a job for instance, you must be exploiting them.

Every creature has to make a living somehow in this world.
Some manage to do it, by looking cute and satisfying the mothering
instincts of those who feed them. They become replacement children
etc.

Farm livestock make a living by being what they are. Their progeny
are eaten. Its not as if they really care, for once we are dead,
none of us do.

So farm livestock, in many cases who live far more naturally then
those bemothered pets, often are in a win-win situation with people.

What it comes down to, is about are their lives worth living and
are they suffering.

As to women in Africa, arn't you fortunate Bronwyn, that you can
choose how many children that you decided to have and to raise.
Why should women in Africa not have the same choice?

Pericles

On the surface this is indeed a perplexing issue but I suggest you’re looking in the wrong direction for an answer.

I would suggest that you consider the psychological motivation for individuals’ choices of pets.

As an ex-owner of pet shops I often saw links between the personality and their buying motive. I maintained an “our pet’s board “where purchases posted their pet photos. The purpose was originally commercial but I became intrigued the links.
The links between personality and choice were particularly observable when it came to the breed of either dog/cat.
This was further amplified by their level of anthropomorphism of the pet.
Believe it or not my staff and I became quite adept at picking the prospect to a breed.
Recent psychological research has come up with the theory that we as humans are hard wired (+/-) to respond to certain visual cues instinctively…big eyes, cute cuddly etc (babies) . When coupled with my observations above I simply think that certain people are acting on this stimulus.
Add to this desire for substitute, control, unconditional affection and ego all contribute.

It is interesting to note that after the initial stimulus comes some degree of anthropomorphism. Those that can’t maintain some level of this beyond the cute stage tend to be either bad owners or those who dispose of the inconvenient pet.

Another observation on dog breeders and showies is that those who see the pet as a means to an end tend to be those who regard the pet least.

One can then surmise those who form the extreme end of animal rights MAY simply be expressing a (+) end of that stimulus or ulterior psychological motives.

When I raised the issue of culture some simply see animals as food and are culturally desensitised in degrees to respond to respond to the cute (helpless) syndrome beyond their own family/tribe/clan.
The latter extreme is that which explains cultural canabalism.

Pericles

"Hi Bronwyn

>>Caring about animal welfare and being concerned about human suffering are not mutually exclusive.<<

I wasn't aware that I had suggested otherwise."

I'm sorry, I may have misread you to some extent, but the general tone of your posts and the following statement in particular do suggest to me that you are at least somewhat critical of the priorities set by animal rights activists.

"But it does - to me at least - make a substantial statement about the nature of our society, that we appear to spend a disproportionate amount of time pondering the inhumane treatment of cute furry creatures."

Banjo certainly thought so, and to be fair to you, I may have allowed myself to be unduly influenced by his reading of your comments.

"periciles,
You are absolutely right. It is the disproportionate amount of time, energy and money spent on animal 'rights' that irks me, when there is so much need to meet the basic needs of people."

I possibly should have directed my comments to Banjo as well, though I must say I view him as a bit of a lost cause when it comes to animal rights!

Jonathon

"On the negative side, I have blown two posts on explanations."

Sorry about that. I had read your first explanation but it still hadn't helped me!

And here I was getting all excited about this 'new' white knight in shining armour who'd blown in from nowhere to take up the cudgel for animal rights! I'm most deflated, but very happy to bump into you again just the same!

Yabby

"As to women in Africa, arn't you fortunate Bronwyn, that you can
choose how many children that you decided to have and to raise.
Why should women in Africa not have the same choice?"

You missed my point, Yabby. It's not that I don't agree with you. Of course women in Africa should have the same choices. It's just that I find your new found 'compassion', in light of your usual fatalistic, pragmatic and business-comes-first stance, oddly out of character and somewhat less than convincing.

Jonathon Byrd,

*We are both confident enough in our views to need no support. :))*
:) Love it!- interesting case angle to argue. Do I detect a background.

BTW- for sixteen grand I reckon that would buy more a than few bumpers on the back of garbage trucks or perhaps livestock ‘road trains'.
In case you haven’t heard that live animal export guys will do pretty much anything for a quid. Isn’t that right Yabby :)

Pericles,
There’s a difference between those who care and those who don’t do anything sitting on higher moral bottoms.
Take a look at this=
http://wheredopuppiescomefrom.com.au/australian-puppy-mills/queensland-puppy-farm-raids-cancelled-no-room-left-at-rspca/

We have been through your views which IMO mirror PETA many times before. Ok, let’s agree 'again' that we work towards everything you say.

Mean time why not take a pet from RSPCA or off the streets. Save it from labs puppy mills or animal experiments suffering and starvation.

Your friends ideas you mirror IMO seem to be on a par with that other famous fellow that didn’t like Dews.

So there’s another view on Hypocrisy.

Now if you will excuse me my new puppy wants a pee!

For one very simple reason, PALEIF

>>Mean time why not take a pet from RSPCA or off the streets. Save it from labs puppy mills or animal experiments suffering and starvation.<<

To do so would perpetuate, not alleviate, the problem.

In my opinion the problem, in case I hadn't made it clear enough, is that our society condones, even supports, the use of animals for human amusement purposes.

From the article you linked to:

"A puppy mill or puppy farm is a large dog breeding facility created to mass produce puppies for profit."

The reason that these places can make that profit is because there is a market.

The market exists only because it is legal in this country to i) keep an animal for personal entertainment purposes and ii) to export those animals, for whatever reason.

Banning ii) will not solve the problem.

Making both illegal will.

I hope that makes my position a little clearer for you.

>>Ok, let’s agree 'again' that we work towards everything you say.<<

Forgive me, but I can see absolutely no indication that you have any desire or inclination to do any such thing, particularly given that you have not so far even been able to understand the logic behind it. So I can only conclude that you put that in in an attempt to humour me.

In the meantime, has it ever occurred to you that I take the position that I do, precisely because I actually like and respect animals?

>>Your friends ideas you mirror IMO seem to be on a par with that other famous fellow that didn’t like Dews. So there’s another view on Hypocrisy.<<

Given such a pathetic attempt at a killer put-down, clearly not.

>>Now if you will excuse me my new puppy wants a pee!<<

I'll resist the obvious response to that..

Have a great day.

Pericles,

Out of respect for the rules of four posts per person in a 24 hour period, I will leave this one until tomorrow (Friday 23rd). By having two handles in this thread I could technically get away with posting now (Thursday 22nd) just after yours.

I have no desire to hang you.

“...the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself” This is a part definition.

An accurate definition is in the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary for hypocrite, which is, ‘simulation of virtue or goodness: dissimulation, pretence.’

Note the words, ‘pretence’ and ‘dissimulation’. They mean to intentionally pretend one thing and do another or deceive. Or, as I have said, consciously lying! People favouring certain animal are no more lying than those favouring companion animals over non companion animals. If you like, we could discuss your ‘rationalisations’ in the latter case.

And further down the page in Wikipedia on hypocrisy, which you apparently missed it states.

“It is a common fallacy to accuse someone of being a hypocrite to disprove their argument. This can be known as an ad hominem attack.”

Throwing the hypocrite word around unjustly is a frequent ploy utilised when all else fails.

I’m really not hurt, nor have I reason to be hurt, but you have. Also, hurt unfairly are those labelled with such an inappropriate, unnecessary and intentionally provocative word. Playing semantics with the feeling of others is not cool.

It would be a prudent course of action to admit such derogatory language a mistake and we all move on and forget it. Sorry isn’t that hard a word to say.

examinator,

I personally have no wish to own pets and know many people with similar views. Equal consideration for other creatures isn’t about pet ownership or anthropomorphised human substitutes. It is a stance chosen on the intellectual assessment supporting empathy and compassion for suffering capable animals. It also concludes that because we can kill at whim is not reason good enough to kill.

Jonathon

I'm bemused that the fate of all companion animals has been decided on this thread. Astonished that some humans now see pets as slaves to humans.

Sure, in view of man’s abject cruelty, man needs to first obtain an “L” permit, then a “P” then a “D” class licence to own a companion animal.

Nevertheless man is too urbanised, too callous, too irresponsible to acknowledge that humans and animals have freely wandered around together for at least 100,000 years and still do.

Man is now too egotistical to understand that non-humans exist in an eco-sphere - unlike man in his ego-sphere.

Let us reflect on our perpetual stuff-ups. The European rabbit was introduced to Australia with the first fleet. From the late 19th century to the early 20th century, man’s introduced cat was released into the wild to control the plague numbers that rabbits had reached. It didn’t have any substantial effect on the rabbit populations, but it did have an increase of feral cat populations and a decrease of native animal population though the evidence for early impacts of cats causing major and widespread declines in native fauna is considered tenuous and unconvincing.

1080 baiting, bullets and man’s cruel traps are now the "solution." Huh?? Now we must slaughter the "slaves" too! Huh??

Today, men tell us that it is emotional claptrap to defend non-humans against animal abuse but that it is noble and just to defend humans against human abuse where humans kill other humans for greed or for no good reason at all.

Human beings have sacrificed animals in order to connect with the Divine. Eventually, rather than the connection with the Divine, the sacrifice of non-humans itself became paramount, and the result - as in the present day, is a global society of human beings who are eating animals obsessively.

Now, there is only the killing and the eating of the animal and the global propaganda that one must eat animals to acquire protein in order to survive - an absurd notion, exacerbated by perpetual spin.

And that is no more evident than on OLO! LOL!

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

“Do I detect a background.”

Yes you do, enough to make me value the only life available, uncluttered by cultural baggage. I’ve been very lucky.

As for advertising, ‘David’ says he is quite happy with the results already :))

Bronwyn,

“Sorry about that. I had read your first explanation but it still hadn't helped me! ”

I would rather wear neither hat, but there is a need for those who can make a positive contribution to speak out.

“And here I was getting all excited about this 'new' white knight in shining armour who'd blown in from nowhere to take up the cudgel for animal rights! I'm most deflated, but very happy to bump into you again just the same!”

I understand your disappointment but I also have been waiting for a ‘new’ white night(s) to combat the excess of intolerance surrounding animal rights. The problem isn’t that they are not out there, it is more to do with knowing the opposition does not fight fairly that puts people off. Don’t get me wrong, vested interest thinks it is being reasonable and some is, but unsupported assuredness of cultural tradition is a slippery beast with which to do battle. This makes public forums unrepresentative of actual reality as not many folk cherish the thought of wearing verbal abuse. This is pretty-well guaranteed to happen on these topics.

On the other hand, some ‘animal lovers’ express opinions that are only half truths and seem compelled to use overt bluntness in support of their views. This is in need of checking but not by harsh put down as even inconsistent compassion for other creatures is far better than the alternative of none.

I think it would be a wise move and this includes for me, to follow these words of wisdom; “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” (KJV Proverbs 15:1)

Jonathon

Jonathon,
Thank you for your opinion.
Albeit predictably consistent with your usual myopic culturally biased absolutes.
Which BTW misses the purpose, context and ignores the scientific psychological and brain research mentioned in my post to Pericles.
It should be noted that neither in this nor the preceding post was I passing any sort of pejorative judgement on people’s priorities merely a tentative explanation for them.

The first bit of your response is hardly indicative of anything. With regard to my examples however, when linked to accepted scientific conclusions is prima facae(on the surface)supporting evidence (I make no claim beyond that).

You said >“a stance chosen on the intellectual assessment supporting empathy and compassion for suffering capable animals. “<
Is clearly a logical nonsense. In fact psychological and brain research has determined that the emotions (empathy and compassion) come first then the higher function rationalization comes next usually coloured by CULTURAL imprinting.

>”It also concludes that because we can kill at whim is not reason good enough to kill.” < A clear cultural rationalization of the above emotions.

I have no wish to hijack or impose any further on your thread or indulge in what experience has shown would be a pointless discussion therefore I’m gone.

Confusion begets confusion, obviously.

PALE&IF seems to think I am some kind of PETA stool-pigeon.

>>We have been through your views which IMO mirror PETA many times before<<

Or perhaps a stalking-horse. It's not entirely clear which.

Now dickie wades in.

>>I'm bemused that the fate of all companion animals has been decided on this thread.<<

I'd say the discussion is on-going, but there you are.

>>man is too urbanised, too callous, too irresponsible to acknowledge that humans and animals have freely wandered around together for at least 100,000 years and still do.<<

Oh, really?

Are you suggesting that there is a parallel between the trained wolves of pre-history and Paris Hilton's chihuahua?

And let's face it, it wasn't always dog-blankets and pooper-scoopers.

"Dogs that were probably nothing more than domesticated wolves were adept at spotting and flushing out game. Often, this meant that the animal would then be chased and harassed to the point of exhaustion and collapse, whereupon the humans would close in and finish the job with spears, stone knives, and arrows."

http://ezinearticles.com/?History-of-Hunting-Dogs&id=1894192

How does this compare with, say, modern methods of killing animals for food? More, or less cruel?

>>Man is now too egotistical to understand that non-humans exist in an eco-sphere - unlike man in his ego-sphere.<<

Could you expand on this a little? I think it might mean something, but I can't fathom what.

>>Now we must slaughter the "slaves" too! Huh??<<

For the nth time, nobody (that I am aware of) is suggesting that these domestic animal-toys be taken out and shot.

>>Now, there is only the killing and the eating of the animal<<

Couldn't work this one out either. Are you suggesting that prehistoric man didn't eat animals?

News, sunshine. They did.

Some tribes also ate... dogs

www.in.gov/dnr/files/american_dogs.pdf

"In 1673, the chief of the Peoria tribe held a feast for two French explorers, Marquette and Jolliet. The fourth course of the feast consisted of dog"

Man's inhumanity to animals didn't suddenly start in the recent past, it has always been around. But that doesn't justify its continuance, would you not agree?

But intensive farming methods, long distance transport for no better reason than slaughter at destination, and mass slaughter on industrial scales are relatively modern, are they not?

Examinator, I am interested in your experience owning pet shops. Did you provide any follow up of the animals you sold to (presumably) anyone who wanted them? Did you assist spay/neuter programs? I am with Pericles on this (but Pericles, I remain in my personal moral dichotomy about my dogs, I'm afraid - how inconsistent is that? I console myself with the reflection that had I not taken them they would have met nasty deaths, and they give every appearance of being happy and healthy). I do not believe that animals should be sold in pet shops for the reasons above. That's what shelters are for, and there is nothing rational about this country needlessly destroying 200,000 "companion" animals a year while people are breeding more, many of whom the shelters will have to eventually deal with.

As for the Indians eating dogs ... whites practiced slavery for centuries. But where "farmed" animals are concerned, the human species is completely unevolved, in fact, growing more and more cruel in its methods, not because of hunger, but because of taste. Bronwyn, I agree with you - Yabby's concerns for African women seem somewhat inconsistent with his (largely ill-informed) views on everything else.

Nicky

”Oh, really?”

”Are you suggesting that there is a parallel between the trained wolves of pre-history and Paris Hilton's chihuahua?”

Not at all Pericles. Were you not so urbanised, so naive so......, you would discover that Aborigines still come to town, followed by 5 or 6 dogs – untethered! Both species freely wander around together – catch on? Each day on my daily walk, leash in hand, I wander with my dog who is also untethered. Catch on?

“…. and what we deem to be behaviouraly acceptable, as in the enslavement of domestic animals for our personal amusement.”

Balderdash Pericles. Could we expect, that is, if you had a persuasive case against companion animals, that pet slaughter for human consumption would become acceptable in this country or shipped off to other nations to make another fast buck and further spill the blood of the defenceless? Yes!

“Could you expand on this a little? I think it might mean something, but I can't fathom what.” I anticipated that Pericles. Let’s see. Man may have a vintage Merc in his garage – an inanimate object. He feeds it, waters it, polishes it, caresses it, protects it from scratches and locks it away to discourage robbers of his own species.

Then perhaps he takes this inanimate object out on Sunday, puffed with pride, chuffed by the fact that his inanimate object has attracted the attention of so many and elevated his status in the community. Eco-sphere vs. ego-sphere!

Unfortunately your pattern of argument - the ridiculous philosophising about pet ownership rather than the institutionalised and accepted barbaric acts of cruelty, and the supposition that man is born to be a carnivore, is quite pathetic since you have failed to acknowledge that man does not have the agility to catch an animal.

Nor does he have the teeth or the claws in which to rip the animal apart. That man eats meat is no indication that he should. The culture to eat meat on a regular basis has been scientifically proven to be one of man’s most self-destructive practices.

Contd……

Contd……

The other omissions in your argument Pericles are the environmental ramifications of growing animals for human consumption.

Livestock remain the largest emitters of methane, the most destructive animals of our precious soil, the largest consumers of precious water supplies, the largest polluters of our oceans and rivers, native habitats are destroyed to accommodate livestock, they remain the largest consumers of antibiotics in this country, have the largest body burden of dioxins on the planet which is then passed to humans, and the largest carriers of zoonotic pathogens which are now afflicting humans at a rapid pace.

Livestock are now a major source of human infectious disease – some 67% of human infections. The overpopulation of humans and the overpopulation of food animals has carried us closer to the precipice.

While companion animals carry pathogens too , their cross infections pale into insignificance compared to the animals humans eat:

Mad cow disease, anthrax, salmonella, pig swine, brucellosis, Type A pig influenza, sheep scabby mouth, avian influenza, pig streptococcus su, Marburg and Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever, Rift Valley fever, monkey pox etc etc.

“Man's inhumanity to animals didn't suddenly start in the recent past, it has always been around. But that doesn't justify its continuance, would you not agree?”

Of course I agree Pericles. However, egotistical man denies that he's still a rock ape and unfortunately the corporate Neanderthals and Troglodytes that walk among us in this country, continue to coerce poor nations into eating even more meat (dead or alive) thus increasing animal cruelty thus threatening human survival.

So what have you publicly stated about that? Your philosophy is lost on me - just the facts will do thanks.

Too many words, dickie. Not enough substance.

We can all pick examples that suit our views. It's called "generalizing from the particular", and carries no weight.

Here are your offerings:

>>Aborigines still come to town, followed by 5 or 6 dogs – untethered!<<

I have to say, if all domestic pets had the same freedom, I'd have far fewer concerns.

>>leash in hand, I wander with my dog who is also untethered.<<

And the leash is for... what?

>>Man may have a vintage Merc in his garage – an inanimate object. He feeds it, waters it, polishes it, caresses it, protects it from scratches and locks it away to discourage robbers of his own species.<<

I particularly liked this one. I tried to work out what percentage of the six billion folk on earth would fit this category. Not enough to form a quorum, I thought.

>>man does not have the agility to catch an animal. Nor does he have the teeth or the claws in which to rip the animal apart.<<

It has probably escaped your notice, but not all animals kill their own food. Quite a few wait until another animal does it for them. Not that I can see the relevance...

I can't be bothered to quote any more, it was all pretty much noise and bluster anyway.

But just for the record, tell me, what is your view of Paris Hilton's chihuahua?

More importantly, what do you imagine to be the chihuahua's view?

*PETA advise that a successful brief would see the end of animals systematically ..

PALE replies-

Do they. Gee that’s really informative. So its taken five years (or is it six) of nagging for these people to grasp Animal Welfare CAN be taken to the federal courts- or higher.

What a pity they rejected together with Animals Australia our request to assist with documents to brief the X Federal Crimes Commissioner- now a judge-so its too late!

Perci

Crikey, I doubt I could ‘ever’ humour you.


Regardless of your intentions , you have give argument for people to say all Animal Welfare people are extreme.

That only damages hard work done by people like RSPCA QLD and the Humane Society.

BTW there is NO SUCH THING as companion Animals! We are equal.

If you honestly believe people are superior to animals you must have been brain washed by some Christian Church IMOP.

So many times you have diverted threads – from discussions of inherently l cruelty to animals and what steps can be taken to start to make a difference to 'yourself'.

You chase any new posters off Animal Welfare as your attempting to do with Jonathon Byrd,. I for one apprecaite someone as busy as he giving his time to make concerned imput for animals.

I know others won’t take my advice – but by responding to you its working against animals and not for them.

*Banning ii) will not solve the problem.*

*Making both illegal will.*

My goodness Banning requires an act of Parliament which makes it illegal!

Tall order considering the UN approve selling puppies for food and support live exports SHAME ON THEM.

Hi Pericles

Just to enlighten you a little. The leash in my hand is in consideration of others. Should I spot someone in the distance (which is rare on my walks), I leash the dog to mitigate the fear in those who approach. It is common knowledge that humans have a fear of untethered beasts and rightly so.

As for the “eco-sphere – ego-sphere,” as anticipated, the message went completely over your head.

“It has probably escaped your notice, but not all animals kill their own food. Quite a few wait until another animal does it for them. Not that I can see the relevance...”

This is a strange statement indeed Pericles. Scavengers are very adept at ripping up the leftover prey of other animals since they have the anatomical equipment to perform such deeds. Are you suggesting that humans should be feasting on the carcass of a beast which has been slain by another animal? I reiterate: Humans are not anatomically built to catch or rip up a beast for consumption.

Nevertheless in regard to companion animals, it appears that you remain adamant that pets should be phased out due to enslavement.

Are you also recommending that human children should be phased out also? Many children are enslaved by their “owners” too where children are tethered to beds, locked in cellars, not permitted to mix with outsiders, kidnapped, beaten, raped and murdered etc etc. Is this part of your brief?

“I can't be bothered to quote any more, it was all pretty much noise and bluster anyway.”

I do believe your posts were "all pretty much noise and bluster" Pericles for out of my 700 word posts, you have addressed some 86 words. You are unwilling or unable to address the enviro/health/enslavement aspects of growing food animals. Clearly you do not recommend phasing out livestock. How very hypocritical of you.

I rest my case.

Cheerio

As nobody`s sticking to Seakittens – I`ll just post something fishy.

If people really want to help Animals we MUST address corruption and hypocrisy.
A perfect example of this would be the Christian Leader Senator Steve Feilding .
We attended Steve Fielding office with a Christian leader who had lived in ME.
He had witnessed first hand this barbaric cruelty of live animal exports from Australia... With us also was a RSPCA CEO.

We asked Senator Fielding to support a proposal to improve jobs and conditions in the bush together with Animal Welfare. =
http://www.halakindmeats.com/

(Zero interest)- He doesn’t even ‘ have’ an Animal Welfare policy- however ‘does support rodeos to err, entertain people.

In contrast Muslim Leaders lodged Submissions to Animal Welfare Senate Enquires. They spoke out. They offered assistance to phase the practise out.

For God's sake are there any people left in Australia who care about where this country is heading.

Without the support of Senator Steve Fielding the government wouldn't have got its new media laws through parliament intact. Those laws now threaten to see most Australian media controlled by a few families i.e. the Murdoch family, the Packer family, the Stokes family.= Live Animal Exporters.

Funny how they told our old farmers there was no money in livestock! The national party were the traitors of our farmers and country folk.

Representing the Pentecostal ‘Christian backed, Family First party, Fielding's role in this is a case study of the way Christians of all denominations in Australia are reducing the Creator God, the God of the Nations, to a private fetish. Media policy is just one example of Christians ignoring the social good as they turn inward to their private-only salvation.

And with Mark Scott, the ABC's new Managing Director, choosing to announce major changes to the ABC's editorial policies not to the public at large, nor even to ABC managers and journalists, but at a meeting of Gerard Henderson's right-wing lobby, The Sydney Institute, media policy should be a burning social justice issue for Christians.

TO BE CONTIUNED

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,

“You chase any new posters off Animal Welfare as your attempting to do with Jonathon Byrd,. I for one appreciate someone as busy as he giving his time to make concerned input for animals.”

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Be assured, I am not in the game of being chased off. I may not answer posts contrived in ignorance, written for the purposes of obfuscation or are self denouncing. In these cases, if I am too busy, a frequent occurrence, I sometimes leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions.

Justified silence can condemn more effectively in some instances than a thousand words.

Jonathon

*I reiterate: Humans are not anatomically built to catch or rip up a beast for consumption.*

Dickie dear, the problem is that you still don't understand basic
evolution theory, so remain confused.

Every creature needs to make a living somehow, to survive in this
world. Giraffes for instance evolved to have longer necks, it gave them an
advantage over other species with shorter necks. Humans evolved
with a slightly larger brain, that was their evolutionary niche.

As it turned out, forced to bipedalism due to changing climate
in East Africa, the prehuman vocal tract changed, so that they
could not only pronounce vowels sounds, like their relatives,
but consonants too. That led to much better communication, which
led to language. Combine that niche with a slightly larger brain
and you don't need muscles or speed, to make a living to survive.

Of course your pet is your slave, for you own it and you make the
rules. It is there purely for your amusement and to keep you
company, you pay the bills. In the days of slaverly, some slaves
were quite accepting of their lot and stayed, even without being
chained up. People, just like pets, can become conditioned to
their circumstances and accepting of them. That does not change
the fact that it is your slave and you could have it put down or
ditch it tomorrow, if you chose.

So philosophically Pericles is absolutaly correct.

"That does not change
the fact that it is your slave and you could have it put down or
ditch it tomorrow, if you chose.

"So philosophically Pericles is absolutaly (sic) correct."

Touche Yabby - oh naive one! How selective of you and Pericles for you have both omitted the following from your list of the enslaved:

Enslaved Humans and Non-Humans:

The infirmed
The crippled
The aged
The mentally disabled
The children
The women enslaved by men
The livestock
The wildlife

"That does not change
the fact that it is your slave and you could have it put down or
ditch it tomorrow, if you chose."

Of course oh naive and shifty one....... and we do!!

Err Dickie, you own your pet, as slaves were owned. It is there
purely for your amusement and to satisfy your emotional needs.
(missing those kids perhaps?)

The crippled, the old, even your partner or kids, are not
owned by anyone, but you own your pets. They are your slaves.

Yup, livestock are owned too and they serve a purpose. They turn
dried out grass into tasty human nutrition, as they have a
rumen, which humans don't have. Humans would not do so well,
chewing on dried grass. Humans benefit, they get nutrition,
livestock benefit, they get a life which they would not have
had.

Your pet however, serves no purpose other then to satisfy
your personal needs. You own it. It is your slave. Its time that
you admit it.

*Clearly you do not recommend phasing out livestock.

**How very hypocritical of you. **

I rest my case.*


Cheerio

Dickie - well said.

Blimey Old Yabb`s seems a bit of a mess lately, even agreeing with Perci- hilarious!. He’s confused a bond of mutual respect and friendship with ‘some views of marriage.


=*(missing those kids perhaps?)*

Giving us an insight into the old National boy’s club party thinking of women 'reasons' for existing.

A wardrobe Christian perhaps```.?

Tell us Yabby, did you get that out of the Family First bible or perhaps Senator Heffernon ?( who’s heavily involved in live animal exports (but sits in 'conflict of interest') on so called Animal Welfare boards.?)

There was considerable furore both in Australia and overseas over comments made by government Senator Bill Heffernan

````(repeating remarks he had made the previous year),"" ```

when he suggested in a Bulletin interview Deputy Leader Julia Gillard was unsuitable to lead the nation because she was ‘deliberately barren’.
He elaborated that to understand the community one needed to understand the relationship between mum, dad and a bucket of nappies.

While this remark received almost universal condemnation and the Prime Minister required the senator to apologise, some saw it as dog whistling to the Christian fundamentalist constituency about women’s roles.

Jonathon Byrd,

As for advertising, ‘David’ says he is quite happy with the results already :))*

Jonathon Pls tell David he should be- but I think its more than luck

How ‘clever ‘. “Endless possibilities” World advertising for (0)forever amen.

And all he has to is=

```` Do it Again`````:):)

examinator,
We too would have liked for you to answer Nicky`s questions.

Here`s another. Did you know that Pet Shops sell to people running puppy mills= please see.
IMO you always sounded like a decent chap. So if you can assist us with any of this pls come back and do so.=

http://www.saynotoanimalsinpetshops.com/articles.html

I had planned to let this thread go, since it has digressed so completely from Belly's intention (rightly or wrongly) in starting it. But I have to agree with Dickie's comment; Pericles, you have selected a "niche" argument with your enslavement of pets notion. Can you please state your position on the issue of livestock "husbandry", intensive farming, long distance transport and slaughter? Just for the sake of consistency, if you will.

To expand Dickie's thoughts further, are all children not slaves to their parents, upon whom they depend for food, entertainment, and by whom they are effectively "ruled" for (usually) the first 17 years or so of their lives?

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the quote from PALE that PETA ever said: 'a successful brief would see the end of animals systematically...' I can only assume that the quote is incomplete because PETA, so far as I know, does not advocate an end to all animal life as we know it. Where the Federal Court comes into it is beyond me, I'm afraid, but we've heard before (so many times) this story of PALE's exclusion from mainstream animal welfare debate by other advocacy organisations. Nor is it anyone in the movement who distinguishes between "companion" and other animals; legislation and codes of practice make those distinctions.

Is there proof that all the families mentioned have a direct link to the live export trade? James Packer was down to his last luxury yacht, the last I heard, and I have never actually seen any direct proof that links the Murdochs and the Stokes to "livestock" at all.

Greens Senator Rachael Siewert would have been a better target than a waste of space like Fielding, although you would be preaching to the converted.

Nicky

My apologies; Dickie actually posted the full PETA content earlier. But to revert to the topic; PETA's gambit has worked to the extent of reaching international media, which, I suspect, is exactly what they aimed to do.

PETA is on record opposing the live export trade in multiple media, on many occasions. If the detractors here were to research their claims properly (that PETA works actively against the meat industry), they would find that PETA has involved people like Temple Grandin in its aim to make slaughterhouses more humane, and one of its key strategies is to buy shares on large organisations with a view to changing policies and practices in animal welfare. PALE, you should not be misrepresenting PETA as you so continually and consistently do.

Nicky

Nicky
We were responding to this=-

*PETA advise that a successful brief would see the end of animals*
Posted by dickie, Friday, 16 January 2009 12:42:49 PM

*PALE, you should not be misrepresenting PETA as you so continually and consistently do.*

Nicky
We have not misrepresnted anybody including PETA. I note you are speaking on behalf of this organisation while repeadly denying any links to them what so ever.

How do you know what evidence we have that not only PETA but leading

animal welfare groups both in Australia but world wide OPPOSE anything to do with opening more abattoirs to phaze out live exports.?

Do not speak for Ingred or Animals Australia or even WSPA because you A have no right B No knowledge.

Let PETA founder Ingred( and other heads) come on here and confirm they 'support' the reopening of abattoirs in Australia- and elsewhere.

I know whats on their web sites says . But whats behind the scene.

*Do not be so blind Nicky*. We are not the animals enermy!

Its was us who raised Live exports in this country To Glenyse.

When she said they wouldnt touch it- because it was too political we decided to open pale. At least everybodys working now( sort of) for the animals!
Just leave it now at that if you really care. Do NOT make me post evidence. It will set Animal Welfare back years!!

The fact is Australia is a meat eating country. If we have called peak groups *against opening abattoirs *in fear of loosing their veggie members-

its hardley fair on the 98% of the public nor and especially the animals!

We can not afford to play into the hands of the media and curropt bodies in bed with the live export industry.

Why not spend your time writing to Steve Feilding

PALE, no-one is speaking "on behalf" of PETA or anyone else - the information here was simply the product of fundamental research. You should try it some time. Why can you not put your differences with (seemingly) every known animal advocacy organisation/individual behind you, get on with doing your thing and letting them do theirs? If they don't want to follow the PALE dogma, so be it, that is their right and their choice. Nor would I expect any of them to bother appearing here to counter your claims; they have more productive and effective things to do and appear to be doing them quite successfully.

As for writing to Fielding, why on earth would I bother? The man is an idiot.

You misrepresent all the other groups continually with your claims that they do not support a frozen meat trade; all make it absolutely clear that that is in fact their agenda. Some may have a preference in encouraging a vegetarian lifestyle and that is their right, and part of their function is to educate people about cruelty to "livestock" in meat-eating cultures. In fact, none that I know of would do so because they are not dogmatic, and a substantial number of members may be meat eaters, upon whom they reply for support.

Please start a new year by trying to appear just slightly factual and less confrontational. And get over issues that are years old. Try for something new for a change.

And I suspect you have things back to front again - pet shops BUY from puppy mills, they would be unlikely to be selling to them (I note you unashamedly use information from the websites of the other organisations you claim are despicable and still get it wrong).

98% of the population being meat eaters is something of an exaggeration too. It is a blanket statement that fails to recogise a) a growth in vegetarianism and b) the number of people decreasing their consumption of meat. Perhaps you could provide a source for such a self-serving statement.

Nicky

Yes Yabby they are worthy creatures indeed. And during and after these livestock have served your purpose, you hack off their backsides, hack off their testicles, hogtie them and stab them in the throat. And as for your surplus pups, well you did inform us that you chop them up with an axe.

“Your pet however, serves no purpose other then to satisfy
your personal needs.”

I am for sure a fulfilled woman Yabby. All my personal needs are satisfied by hard work, a lover, children, grandchildren, my animals and my close friends.

My favours are shared equally among them except perhaps when we decline invitations where our dog is not invited. Nevertheless, he enjoys many dinner parties, trips to the bush, trips to the ocean, café lattes on the river and the car……oh my………such heaven with his snout out the window taking in delicious scents.

Our dog guards our house and our lives. He cleans the ears of our three legged cat who is still capable of discouraging the mice and our goat eats the weeds and they all sleep together. Such valuable animals are these who ask for little in return.

So what do yours and Pericles’ “pets” look like Yabby? The ones you seek out to satisfy your personal needs? Are they blue eyed blondes with long legs or buxom brunettes with flashing eyes? Do they cook and clean for you? Feign interest in your dribble? Are they refined in public and “animals” in bed?

But why, I wonder, do I get the impression that you have nothing to satisfy any of your personal needs Yabby? After all, you did advise OLO that your last “pet” ran away. I wonder why? Callous Yabby, incapable of compassion; incapable of expressing love and incapable of receiving it.

“Do not be so blind Nicky*. We are not the animals enermy (sic)”

PALE what a pity you don’t speak the lingo of animals for if you could, they would certainly tell you that you ARE the enemy for you lure and bully them into your abattoir and slit their throats!

Ah well there we have it. One moment we were discussing a valid
philosophical question about pets being slaves, yet a couple
of females can do no better then turn it into their own private
little bitchfest.

One of the local characters once told me "You know, alot of these
females, if they never had that little map of Tassie, no bloke
would ever talk to them" I still chuckle about that one :)

*Why can you not put your differences ….*
Wasn’t PALE wagered war, was your veggie mates.

HKM was established to hand over lock stock and barrel to RSPCA +Animals Australia. They were invited to join our MOU with Muslim leaders from day one to work united to phase out live exports to replace with chilled.

It was rejected.

Now it goes to the Humane Society +RSPCA QLD
‘if the current CEO is still in place.-) every cent of it!

http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-end-live-animal-exports-now

Rachel`s great. Why on earth would I ‘target’ her.

Elections have been won and lost through the
Church votes or religious organisations
since the beginning of time.

Steve Fielding policies are a matter of public interest.
We found Family First is not concerned
by lost jobs in country towns and bush.

Zero compassion for farm animals exported “ALIVE”
despite being made fully aware of the barbaric cruelty to what HE claims are Gods Creatures.

I posted important information regarding the
Media that Steve Fielding passed.

Then you ask ‘why’ I mention Family first Senator Fielding.- curious

*Is there proof that all the families mentioned have a direct link to the live export trade?*

You must be kidding. You come in threads
dictating like a Minister on a Sunday morning
and you don’t know that.

Then again I seem to recall you people
also didn’t know about AWBs involvement
in live exports either.( Or claimed not to)=

http://www.livexports.com/cowgun.html

Question. What have everyone been doing the last 20 years.


Dickie said
*You misrepresent all the other groups continually with your claims that they do not support a frozen meat trade;*

PALE replies- Why such interest in an organisation you ‘claim’ no part of.?

Dickie, ‘You ‘ demonstrate that point far better than I or anybody else could, by your next comment.- Thank You.=

*PALE what a pity you don’t speak the lingo of animals for if you could, they would *certainly tell you that you ARE the enemy for you lure and bully them into your abattoir and slit their throats!

Posted by dickie, Saturday, 24 January 2009 11:18:10 PM

"Dickie said
*You misrepresent all the other groups continually with your claims that they do not support a frozen meat trade;*"

Errr.......no, no! Dickie did not say that.

Have another joint PALE!

Dickie,

*PALE what a pity you don’t speak the lingo of animals for if you could, they would *certainly tell you that you ARE the enemy for you lure and bully them into your abattoir and slit their throats!*

Posted by dickie, Saturday, 24 January 2009 11:18:10 PM

Does that sound like somebody supporting slaughtering in Australia to divert the live Animal Trade. NO I dont think so. Try as you may you have again blown your cover and agenda. Again I thank You.

Your dishonesty is screaming at the Australian Government.
This works in reverse of assisting the very animals we are fighting to lesson the suffering of.


It is a matter of record you have ‘both ‘ attacked pale for their projects to reopen abattoirs in Australia to phase out live exports such as your comment above dated 24th January.

Surely you are not denying you’re opposed to our organisations operations to slaughter in Australia to phase out live animal exports.

Personally I have no problem with vegetarian people.

I think they are the best people on earth.

However Australia is not a vegetarian country and we must do something to stop the suffering of those animals going live 'now'.

What I do find unbelievable and very concerning is straight out dishonesty of some people who hold your ideology.

No wonder why the Government have no respect for Animal Welfare groups and do not trust them.


For anybody who was unaware there is a movement to unseat RSPCA in Australia being run by vegetarian groups=
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24411799-2,00.html

Could you refrain stop using such terminology as explosives and -Have another joint- or he`s an idiot….

He’s a member of Parliament in this country and deserves at least to be addressed in a proper manner (regardless or not if we agree with his policy.)

Those types of comments do nothing to assist animals and reflect on all groups.

PALE, do us all a favour PLEASE and GET OVER IT! It is just SO BORING. There are the real animal advocacy groups, there is the RSPCA (which profits from battery cage hens in NSW, supports intensive pig farming in SA, and, covertly, live exports in WA) - and there is PALE (the only one to actively promote mass slaughter for profit).

The real animal advocacy groups, I suggest, (sigh! yet again) do not want to profiteer from the slaughter of animals. I would not want to belong to any group that made money from such profiteering.

So they didn't like your HKM notion. For God's sake, MOVE ON. But before you do, do tell us how much HKM has contributed to the RSPCA and HSI, won't you?

No direct proof about Murdoch and Stokes and the livestock industries? Thought not. I might concede on Packer though. As for the AWB story, is was commonly reported in financial circles, so it was no great discovery, and it proved bugger-all to such an extent that no-one wanted to know about it. Pursuing Fielding is a similar lost cause, so why bother?

Hugh Wirth would have to have been the singular most divisive force in the animal welfare movement in decades, and would know absolutely nothing about organisations other than his own. Nor would he bother, his ego would get in the way. Before you say it, I'm sure that there were reasons for his being the spokesperson (and only the spokesperson) for HWC. But he doesn't like PALE either, does he, so why do you quote him when it suits your purpose?

Now we have yet another thread that has been totally corrupted by PALE's singular agenda, discrediting anyone and everyone, and even attributing my comments to poor Dickie, with the usual accusations.'

I'm over it! Sorry, Belly! We may not agree on much, but it was worth the discussion.

Nicky

Then it worked Nicky.
Yes I said about 60 posts ago I was leaving.
Well I did.
But like a lot I came back to read others thoughts, daily.
Walk with me for a while, lets talk about animal welfare.
Lets pretend each of us using this thread are a team, we have been given a project.
To make an add seeking support for a campaign to stop cruelty, for this campaign make it any issue you want.
We must not use this thread, would any one of us think we could convince others to come on board if we can not act better than this?
Now remember that add? the lie about a bloke leaving his jacket?
Would you buy that brand?
Some you know would, some never.
Some truths exist here animal cruelty exists, puppy farms are wrong, dumped Christmas presents are being killed, its wrong.
Why do animal welfare groups need to be so numerous?
Why is it needed to run rat bag things like sea kitten adds?
Why can we not talk animal welfare without war?
Why is yabbys insistence we keep closer to reality seen him slandered?
My aim was to highlight PETA are in my opinion fools, and to get better results in an animal welfare thread than Nicky's last one.
Now I will hide in the corner with yabby, reality is hiding behind us.

*Why do animal welfare groups need to be so numerous?*

Belly, because they are all squabbling amongst themselves
and these days with easy money to be made on the internet,
they can rattle their tins and some sucker from somewhere
will donate. The animal welfare threads on OLO show the
bitchiness that exists within the movement, amongst its
followers.

What you need to do is change the way you think about the
posts on here, for its a good laugh and provides some
perspective about the human mind. For me anyhow, its a
source of constant amusement :)

Just look at the hypocracy of some of the posters. They
contradict themselves constantly, for their life is
an exercise of feelgood irrationalism. But I doubt
that they even notice.

Now Dickie complains that the planet is being destroyed,
yet, she raised a whole tribe of kids, all who consume
resources. Thus her environmental footprint would
be huge, for now its not only kids, but grandkids.

Ok, so she is highly maternal, even a goat has to
be kept in the city. Never mind that the goat might
prefer other goats, it doesent get a choice.

Dickie insists on a stainless steel water tank,
insists on modern technology for herself and no doubt
for the huge number of ancestors that she is leaving
behind.

Fact is that if Dickie and her brood want stainless
steel sinks and stainless steel water tanks, computers,
tvs, cars etc, then there will be mining and the environment
will be affected.

How her maternal instincts have cost the Australian environment,
I doubt if she has ever thought about. That does not stop
her from preaching on OLO. Ah, the hypocracy!

"Now Dickie complains that the planet is being destroyed,
yet, she raised a whole tribe of kids, all who consume
resources. Thus her environmental footprint would
be huge, for now its not only kids, but grandkids."

Pretty sick isn't it Yabby when three posters (including you) have descended into an unconscionable realm of lies and defamatory attacks on an anonymous poster.

Not that it's your business, however, I have given birth to two children only. Is that what you describe as "a whole tribe?" Furthermore, I have raised other children because their mother abandoned them.

Due to your unmitigated ignorance, I advise that my stainless steel water tank is small, is many years old, does not rust or scale and there are no hydrocarbon gasses emitting from a hazardous, plastic lining since there isn't one! To the best of my knowledge, this tank will outlast me. Therefore my carbon footprint is small indeed.

Of course you are on your lonesome Yabby. What decent woman would want you? However your carbon footprint is massive.

Apart from trashing this country with cloven hooved animals; apart from the heinous cruelty you inflict on them; apart from poisoning and blinding animals for human consumption, you have trashed our soil, our waterways, our sea kittens, our health and our air with chemicals which have been banned in over 55 countries (including developing nations.) Here's the most recent examples:

http://www.safe2use.com/poisons-pesticides/pesticides/misc/endosulfan.htm

http://ntn.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=8&Itemid=62

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/twoheaded-fish-now-linked-to-cancer-cluster/1413366.aspx?storypage=2

"That does not stop
her from preaching on OLO. Ah, the hypocracy (sic)!"

Kitchen a little too hot for you Yabby? Why not go out and tend to your sheep's scabby mouths before returning to your lepers' colony?

After all, you intend flogging these sheep off to unwitting humans for their consumption.

Sheesh, I love this female logic :) Because some fish in
Queensland has two heads, I in Western Australia, whom you don't
know and have never met, must be responsible. Get your hand
off it Dickie.

Indeed, your environmental footbprint is large, for as you admit,
you raised a tribe of kids and grandkids, all who consume
resources. You yourself, insist on having a car, a computer,
no doubt a fridge, so are a customer of the mining industry,
to keep you and your brood supplied with the latest in resource
consuming toys.

I am simply pointing out your hipocracy. No doubt some of your
brood eat meat and fish, use consumer mined resources etc.

So its time to get off your high horse Dickie, pack that
irrationality away and learn some common sense.

I doubt that you have that ability, but at least I pointed it
out.

Yabby, your insulting behaviour towards someone you do not know would be just a fraction more effective (but not much), if you just learned to spell, and refrained from the smut. You are rude, untruthful and offensive.

Pseudointellectualism amongst the illiterate just is not a good look.

There is no 'bitchiness' within the animal advocacy movement beyond one group. Everyone else involved in a meaningful way works in complete harmony.

Nicky

TRANSCRIPT OF NAB ADDRESS BY DR HUGH WIRTH AT NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, 5 JULY 2006.
COMPERE: Today at the National Press Club, -

Dr Wirth has led the Society for the past 'thirty-four years' and is its representative on many government advisory boards.

His speech today canvasses the future of animal welfare.

National Press Club and National Australia Bank -

Dr Wirth as you've just heard has been President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for, for most - "just about as long as most people in this room can probably remember."

We've got extreme and differences in conduct of the various advocacy groups for animal welfare-

. Lastly, we've got deep divisions in the animal welfare movement and why have we got that?

Simply because there are now a new philosophy - there is now a new philosophy that says that animals cannot be used by humans for any purpose. That in fact the use of animals comes down to exploitation.


There are deep divisions that need to be healed and the trouble is that the deep divisions have caused mistrust in all of the stakeholders that are dealing with animal welfare.

So co-operation is thrown out the door.

*The baby's thrown out the door with the bath water and animal welfare is the poorer for it.*

Now finally the advocacy groups have got to open dialogue with each other and find a common language. It's no good warring, it doesn't help what we're dedicated to do.

We've got to share research and we've got to share knowledge. At the moment it's easy to do because the world is a global village.
We've got to think more about animals as sentient beings, not a species to be just simply concerned. If we bothered to do that then the recent example of the controversy over the import of Thai elephants would never have happened.

And lastly, the - the animal welfare groups have got to become more professional in their commitment, their internal processes and their community outreach.

[Applause]

Now I am very, very puzzled.

PALE&IF recounts - somewhat triumphantly - part of a speech made a couple of years ago that contains the line:

"there is now a new philosophy that says that animals cannot be used by humans for any purpose. That in fact the use of animals comes down to exploitation."

It is a sentiment I agree with - and, strangely, for which I have been constantly criticised... by PALE&IF.

On the one hand PALE&IF describes my position on the keeping of animals for human amusement "ridiculous philosophising about pet ownership", while on the other - apparently - endorsing a "philosophy that says that animals cannot be used by humans for any purpose"

How odd.

So do tell, PALE&IF.

Are you in favour of, or against, the concept "that animals cannot be used by humans for any purpose"?

A one-word answer - "for", or "against" - will be just fine, thanks.

Pericles

Far be it for me to have any wish to defend PALEIF but I'm pretty sure you've misread her - not that that's difficult to do!

I think the 'new' philosophy you referred to was, according to her, that of an opposing sentiment developing within the animal rights movement, not her own or that of her group.

Thanks for putting me straight Bronwyn.

>>I think the 'new' philosophy you referred to was, according to her, that of an opposing sentiment developing within the animal rights movement, not her own or that of her group<<

It was probably the "[Applause]" at the end of the extract that confused me - I thought this indicated approval of the content.

I imagine it would be fair to let the question stand, though.

PALE “Wirth re “We've got to think more about animals as sentient beings””

Why?

I am unsure about half the people who post here being “sentient”, let alone the lower order of critters.

The reality of life is, humanity has used critters since man first sat on the back of a horse and threw food scraps to a dog and they will continue to do so.

It is the nature of humanity to try to manage his environment by making changes to it.

I see little evidence of any critter deliberately managing, by change, their environment, beyond birds making nests and gofers and the like digging holes and the odd critter picking up a stick or stone at random to get to a food source.

So if Hugh wants to talk about “Sentient” he should first understand, simply being “conscious”, does not amount to much, for many people and all critters.

I do too find your post a little ambiguous to your position on the matter.

Pericles asks an appropriate question.

*There is no 'bitchiness' within the animal advocacy movement beyond one group. Everyone else involved in a meaningful way works in complete harmony.*

Hehe Nicky, it seems you can't remember what you have posted on
OLO. Apart from Gertude's mob, you can't help yourself but rip
the RSPCA to bits. So your statement above is of course
complete nonsense.

I once landed up reading some notes on the net, from some group
in Perth who are protesting against the live trade. Amazing what
they publish on the net for their members, when sometimes the
public can access it too. Once again, one large bitchfest, with
all the members squabbling.

You girls just can't help yourselves, as we see with your
obsession with Gertrude's mob.

I just sit back and chuckle.

Yabby, it seems that we can add the deficit of reading properly to your written literacy problems. I said "involved in animal welfare in a meaningful way". That does not include those areas of the RSPCA which fail in their statutory duty, and of course there are differences in any organisation from time to time. The overall resolve remains the same.

As for the speech by Wirthless, the only agenda he pushes is that of himself. He is a sad caricature, and could never be accused of doing anything particularly proactive for animals, anything that requires any particular courage of conviction. As the then National President, in 2006 on "A Blind Eye", he said he "could not control state branches", so add totally ineffectual to the above. He long ago lost the respect of people doing "meaningful" things in the animal welfare movement, and the right, not to mention the insight, to comment on other groups and their philosophies and strategies. The RSPCA is mostly reactive rather than proactive (look the words up, there's a good boy).

PALE quotes him here in yet another sad, misguided attempt to discredit all of those fine, courageous people who DO go out there and make a difference. Before anyone asks how he became spokesperson for HWC/WSPA, all I can say is that he would not have been if it were my choice.

Nicky

Yabby

I too had a chuckle over your deception since you, a wheat grower also, feigned ignorance on pesticides and insecticides which are currently suspected of causing fish mutations and cancers due to the fact that these chemicals are endocrine disruptors, though that would be the least of your worries.

Speaking of wheat Yabby, it has been noted that the top grade is always kept for export – the domestic consumers get the rest. How embarrassed you must be Yabby, that your "top grade" WA wheat has been rejected not once but twice by Japan, just this decade, because it was contaminated. So what are the domestic consumers eating one must ask?

Then Pakistan rejected a load too claiming it was contaminated with lead. Was that from WA? Of course, I understand that when these thousands of tonnes are rejected due to contamination, one must find another customer to flog it off to, just like your live animals eh, which we know are provided with grain potentially contaminated with endosulfan and God knows what else.

Ah....but hang about dear Yabby! Perhaps a few loads of the wheat rejects were dumped on the Indians:?

http://renegadewritings.blogspot.com/2007/10/low-quality-import-wheat-india.html

Yes indeed......should one ponder these wide brown lands of ours which are certainly not clean or green?

What say ye Yabby? Strewth cancel that last request – you’re already drowning in dribble! Haven’t you got a job to go to? Perhaps you could apply to take part in a commercial ad? You know the one where the two twits play the piano with their privates? And you can remain mute - dear God! Don't forget the Viagra first dear boy!

And yet poor simple Belly believes the "sea kitten" ad could beat that for stupidity! Oh.....my!

Cheerio

Oh deary dear me. Now our Dickie is trying to apply her
housewifely skills to growing wheat and global trade!

Its fairly bleeding obvious that you worked for the Catholic Church,
for you clearly don't have the foggiest about the rough and tumble
of international marketing :)

Go and ask CBH about the sorts of outrageous claims that are
made by some buyers, in order to push down the price by 20 bucks
a tonne or to get out of a contract, signed when prices were higher.

In Asia there is a thing called "fair game" and anything goes.
I've seen gullible Aussies who don't understand it, lose their
shirts, because they were convinced that little signed bit of
paper mattered. As one Aussie supermarket chain manager told
me when he had to pay a bribe to get some perishables through
customs in Taipei, "Its law of the jungle over here"

Stick to the housework Dickie, clearly that is your field
of expertise, certainly not agriculture.

Why should any WA wheatgrower use Endosulfan on wheat?
A two headed fish appears in Queensland, now you want
to blame WA farmers for that too. Female logic indeed!

BTW, some of the worst soil erosion from overcultivation
would occur when people grow organic wheat. Unable to
use Roundup etc, they cultivate the soil to death to
kill those weeds. Next thing it washes and blows away,
so that you can eat your organic wheat. So much for
saving the planet heh.