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.