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.