Members of a Murray River recreational fishing club took me fishing soon after the IPA published my controversial Backgrounder ‘Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment’. They wanted to pick my brains on various issues including the future of fishing along the Murray.
That afternoon I remember one of the group John, showing me the Murray Cod he had just caught. He had this fish, about the size of a 3 month old baby, cradled in his arms and he was bringing it up to his face to give it a kiss in the same way a mother might kiss her baby. I thought it was gross, but he clearly adored the fish he had just caught and killed.
According to today’s ABC Online,
The Federal Government says an animal welfare bill introduced by the Democrats could mean the death of recreational fishing in Australia.
Under the the National Animal Welfare Bill the ‘capture and killing of wild animals for the purpose of entertainment and sport’ would be outlawed, a concept federal Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald says will mean the end of outdoor sports like angling.
“It would mean a lot of people along the West Australian coast, a lot of families who love to go fishing together as a family, wouldn’t be able to do that any more,” he said.
However, Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett says the bill has nothing to do with fishing.
“The legislation seeks to outlaw things such as tail docking of dogs, cock fighting, it does not mention fishing in any way shape or form,” he said.
The bill is currently before a Senate Committee and a report is expected by the end of June, for more information click here.
Is fishing hunting? On Monday, ABC Online published a piece about hunting lions in Africa:
Regional governments and conservationists have agreed on initial steps that need to be taken to save the African lion, which has been pushed to the brink of extinction throughout much of its range.
The strategies were worked out at a workshop on lions in east and southern Africa, which wrapped up at the weekend.
“The reduction in the lion’s wild prey base, human-lion conflicts and habitat degradation are the major reasons for declining lion populations and need to be addressed,” the World Conservation Union (WCU), one of the workshop’s organisers, said.
Government officials, local community representatives, lion biologists and safari hunters attended the meeting.
“Regulated trophy hunting was not considered a threat, but rather viewed as a way to help alleviate human-lion conflict and generate economic benefits for poor people to build their support for lion conservation,” the statement said.
Trophy hunting of lions already takes place in several African states including South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
But expanding these lucrative operations to other states is bound to be opposed by animal welfare groups, which view hunting as cruel.
With its iconic status as “King of the Beasts,” the hunting of the lion is an emotive issue sure to stir controversy, even if it does generate revenue for poor rural communities from licensing fees and jobs created.
Other strategies agreed on at the meeting include: action to prevent the illegal trade in lions and lion products; developing management capacity; and creating economic incentives for poor rural folk to live close to lions.
The lion’s overall situation is dire in the face of swelling human populations on the world’s poorest continent.
“Over the past 20 years, lion numbers are suspected to have dropped dramatically from an estimated 76,000 to a population estimated to be between 23,000 and 39,000 today,” the WCU said.
“Across Africa, the lion has disappeared from over 80 percent of its former range.”
In West Africa, lions number fewer than 1,500.
Conflict between humans and lions is a huge problem with attacks on people on the rise in Tanzania and Mozambique.
For those still reading this long post. Here are a few ideas to ponder:
1. Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context?
2. Society can justify pursuing animal welfare on anthropogenic grounds (benefits to people). It does not require any commitment to biocentric philosophies. Science is and will continue to be the most effective tool in improving animal welfare, so actions aimed at constraining research with animals may have limited utility in advancing animal welfare?
3. The core business of animal welfare is the reduction of unnecessary pain and suffering in captive and wild animals within different contexts. It should be objective and scientifically-based. Different contexts will always involve different levels of pain and suffering. When assessing the right to exist of individual contexts, such as the live export trade, battery hens or hunting, animal welfare is but one of many variables that society needs to consider?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Referring to the bill, under Schedule 2—Definitions it does describe animal as vertebrate (therefore fish) and does exclude the young of fish (but not adult fish)
Why not just say “we exclude all fish?”
Anyway the bill is sunk
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb//view_document.aspx?TABLE=BILLS&ID=2014
The problems in Africa are enormous with HIV/TB/Malaria plus wars and poverty taking their toll.
Jen there are idiots and idiots,
Fish kissing borders on bestiality but only just.
Removing the right of people to defend themselves against disease, people in the numbers of millions, because of traces found but not species death was mass murder.
Agree sustainable harvesting of some species will defend them. Fish we’ve been killing and eating them since our sun first came up. If the herds alive then they win and we win.
But it seems that animal predators have more rights that human v animal predators.
Jennifer
You have brains? I am now extremely jealous!
Beats having no brain of course.
In relation to pet and animal owner’s responsibilities the RSPCA supports the Bill;
http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=RSPCABlob&blobwhere=1129302919822&cachecontrol=*%3A15%2C45%3A00+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true
How this relates to fishing, hunting, mulesing, racing etc remains to be seen.
Some might say that a horse galloping along a track, or jumping a barrier, or executing passage and piaffe is cruel.
The other issue is that inspectors virtually have full access to all property and may seize animals as they see fit. This could include farms, fisheries and processing facilities.
Activities of the agency are to be run by a central committee or board.
My questions to Sen.The Hon Andrew Bartlett are; which parts of the existing state RSPCA laws covering this issue are not working?
Are there any states that do not have such legislation already? and,
Why are you wasting the time of a federal chamber on what is essentially a state issue?
Thanks for the post Jennifer. It’s good to flesh out some of these questions, as in my experience, most people oppose cruelty to animals, but we rarely think through what this means and why some suffering is supportable (and even promoted) while other suffering is abhored. As I’ve posted on this site a number of times perviously, the whaling debate is as good an example as any of this inconsistency (without wanting to sidetrack this post by giving people another idea to have a go at Greenpeace about).
A few points just in regard to my Animal Welfare Bill:
1 – It is a Private Senators Bill. It therefore is highly improbable that it will become law. It is put forward to generate debate and highlight areas were I believe there are gaps, inconsistencies or problems.
2 – The Bill does not even mention fishing – recreational or otherwise, nor have I as the person who tabled the Bill ever mentioned it as an aim. Minister MacDonald has (presumably knowingly) grossly misrepresented the potential consequences of the Bill.
3 – The Bill first appeared (in slightly altered form) back in 2003. It is currently before a Senate Committee for people to identify any problems with it or raise any other related issues which are worth noting. If people believe there could be improvements or clarifications in wording, that’s what Committee inquiries are for. On the other hand, if they just don’t like the idea of clearer laws to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, they should say so.
4 – In response to Ian Mott, the federal government does have jurisdiction over many issues which directly affect animals, but have used the ‘it’s a state issue’ excuse to avoid paying any attention to welfare issues. The most obvious of these are import and export laws (both wildlife and domesticated animals), but also laws relating to biodiversity management. One could, again, add whaling to this. The lack of any national laws means there is no framework – enforceable or otherwise – used to consistently assess animal welfare issues. Thus the Environment Minister was able to quote welfare impacts as one reason to refuse a permit for safari hunting of crocodiles in the NT (a decision I agree with), but ignored much more comprehensive evidence of welfare problems to approve the import of elephants for Tarongo Zoo (a decision which is a joke on environmental as well as welfare grounds, driven almost totally by commercial interest). There is a National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare, but it has no formal authority (and few resources). Interestingly though, this Committee has recently released proposals for a Code of Practice regarding fish and fishing.
5 – Also in response to Ian – there are no “existing state RSPCA laws”. The RSPCA is – in some states – an enforcement agency (a fairly unusual situation for a charity to be a quasi-law enforcement body, but that’s a separate issue), but the laws and Regulations are derived through Parliament like any other. These laws are inconsistent and are often beyond the resources of the RSPCA to enforce. Whilst police can also enforce the laws, they tend to use the RSPCA as an excuse not to do anything themselves, even though the RSPCA has far fewer resources and personel (and obviously less wider legal authority). Also, the detail of the laws are often based around Codes of Practice which are ‘guidelines’ rather than legally enforcable. The lack of consistency and leadership (or even interest) from a national level reinforces this.
Andrew, how do you define “unnecessary” animal suffering? I could easily imagine a situation where this definition could be used to oppose normal meat production, and even recreational fishing, even if this is not the intent. Have you consulted with PETA or farmers groups?
Why do you think this is important to legislate about? Seriously, why shouldn’t ordinary people be allowed to act according to their ethical beliefs when dealing with animals?
Please don’t form the impression I am advocating cruelty to animals. I assure you I am not.
In regard to people being allowed to act towards animals according to their ethical beliefs – in broad terms I agree, but there are still boundaries in regards to cruelty. Such boundaries are currently set (somewhat loosely and inadequately in my view) by various state laws and codes of practice.
I have stated on this site a few times that I’m a vegetarian (which is another reason why the inconsistencies in the whaling debate irritate me, much as I abhor whaling). However, while I will advocate the good reasons for vegetarianism and encourage the practice, I would never dream of legislating to prevent normal meat production. Of course, there’s no way such a law would be accepted in Australia any time this century, but even it could be enforcable, I don’t think it would be an appropriate way to go on such an issue. Fishing would be in the same category.
As with existing animal welfare laws at state level, what constitutes cruelty is defined in the law and usually interpreted by Courts in line with perceived community standards. This will always be a bit open to interpretation on the margins, as laws always are, but under this draft Bill there are only a small number of activites that are specifically banned.
My previous comment explained why I think it is important to raise at a national level (noting again also that the Bill won’t become law as is, being a private Senators Bill, but it assists in raising the issue and spotlighting gaps that exist.)
( sorry, had to do that answer in two parts, I kept getting a message that my comment was “rejected for questionable content”. Not sure what precisely was objectionable – unless it was just me. I know plenty of people don’t agree with me, but I hope computer servers aren’t against me too)
Thanks for your reply, Andrew.
A very quick scan of your Bill reveals that it proposes a blanket ban on mulesing of sheep. It could also, in my opinion, lead to an increase in cat declawing, as an owner would only have to claim the cat was hunting native wildlife.
Also game parks would possibly be under threat, as would rodeos.
Inspectors also have quite extensive powers to enter premises.
I see the Bill has received well over 100 submissions.
Andrew or anyone else: a bit of a tangent but do you know if there’s any broadscale move toward allowing (particular) native animals as household pets?
Paul
Yes, I added mulesing to the latest version of the Bill, as the industry have said they will end it by 2010 anyway, so having it in legislation would ensure the industry is not disadvanatged by any rogue operator who refuses to follow that policy.
I can’t see how game parks would be under threat, any more than zoos. I think Rodeos would depend on how you interpret it, but they are a good example of activities that regularly breach existing codes of practice with impunity. Unless rodoeos get a specific exemption from animal cruelty laws, it is the sort of activity that would be within the margins of interpretation under many exisiting state laws, but a combination of current community standards and political priorities means they are left alone unless sufficient evidence/publiclity comes to light that a one-off prosecution occurs.
Think – I’m not aware of any “broadscale move” towards native animals as pets. There’s advocates here and there, and the occasional small opening up here and there.
Andrew
If the sheep industry is not able to find/develop an effective alternative to mulesing by 2010, what would you consider a reasonable course of action then? Ban it anyway?
I am sure the intention to phase it out is sincere, but I would have thought that a promise to use alternatives that are not yet viable is a gamble the industry decided (or was compelled by circumstances) to take. Given that other methods are not widely displacing mulesing suggests that there are no viable alternatives at this time.
As I mentioned above, the Bill won’t become law, so putting mulesing in was more a political action in response to current events, rather an expectation it would result in a ban – however, I’ll respond to your question anyway:
Whilst I personally don’t like mulesing, and it seems clear to me that it is not so much that there are no alternatives, but that the alternatives are more expensive, I never made made any statements or acted on that issue. Whilst it’s easy to make statements suggesting it’s bad that people care about money, I recognise we all have to give a lot of attention to cost when you’re trying to earn a living. There are more clearcut animal welfare issues which merited more attention in my view.
However the AWI – the main Wool industry body – decided to spend millions of dollars to (mis)use the Trade Practices Act to try to intimidate and silence animal welfare activists. I figured if they had that much money (a lot of it from taxpayers I might add) to give to lawyers, then the industry also had enough money to implement alternatives, but just didn’t see it as a priority.
I probably would have still stayed away from the issue if they had just targetted PETA – that organisation is large enough to look after itself and they know what they are doing when they start major campaigns. However, AWI also deliberately joined some individual Australian advocates in their court action who have no organisational links to PETA. They are just people – however much you may disagree with them – with a strong personal belief that mulesing is wrong and were acting to inform others about it and encouraging them to alter their buying habits if they shared that concern.
Consumer power is about all many people have left these days, and if industry bodies are going spend money – much of it provided by the taxpayer for the purpose of promoting the industry – on court actions, trying to squash political debate about their industry or any person who ever calls for a boycott of a product, then I’m afraid my sympathy diminishes quite significantly.
(I might also say that – given the above – I wouldn’t be so sure the intention to phase it out is sincere at all, at least on the part of some. Although I know for sure many woolgrowers are very sincere about it, unless the leadership of the main industry body change their attitude I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see an about face down the track)
Misusing subsidies, if that has happened, is one thing. Protecting your industry from threats using the legal system is another, and surely permissible in a democracy.
Is there any law that says individuals have free reign to attack an industry body, while preventing that body from countersuing?
I fail to see how the AWI could mount a legal action WITHOUT “giving money to lawyers”. Your claim that the money spent on legal action could, instead, be used to accede to AWI’s opponents demands, seems simplistic. Why not just let PETA run the AWI?
You also accuse the AWI of misusing the Trade Practices Act. If they have done so in a legal sense, then won’t their legal action be thrown out of court?
If you mean “misuse” in the sense of going beyond the original intentions of the Act, can you not imagine that a group such as PETA would similarly “misuse” your Bill to attack practices of which they disapprove?
Also, thank you for the opportunity to discuss issues such as this directly with a politician. It is a rare thing.
Actually there is a GM idea being floated with respect to Merino, must be true saw it on landline. They are modifying a flock using a rare couple of sheep who just dont grow wool in the area of mulesing. Of course using this type of GM will take 20 or so years for practice but Peta and eco politicians can’t wait that long.
Perhaps PETA enjoys the sight and the smell of fly blown ground lice (sheep in cattlemens terms), I’m sure the grazier doesn’t.
It,s wrong when an idustry defends itself but it’s not wrong when eco poticians attack sustainable industry on at best spurious nonsense feel good issues. I guess when some politics is neither fish nor fowl they lose a twenty year existence.
Provision of a solution better than the quo is often the way any industry adapts.
As for that nonsense about sheep (or cattle) not being dead when carved its emotional bs. Anything gets hit like that in the head with a bolt and then electrocuted like that then I can assure them the animal is dead, I know I would be.