“THE live export trade is always going to be a running sore on the face of this country. It will never be made humane. Some 500 000 animals have died horrific deaths on the ships alone. 100 000 were burnt to death at sea. Hundreds of cattle have been crushed on rolling ships in rough seas, or maimed. It does not take much imagination to know the misery for maimed animals to be somehow gotten out of the hold of a ship.”
Jenny posted this comment at this blog yesterday under the note from Scot Braithwaite [1], she continues…
“PERHAPS readers would like to read the experience of the stockman who reported on the Kalymnian Espress to see what happens to cattle caught in rough seas on a moving ship.
Thousands more cattle have died of heat stress. Sheep die from failure to thrive on the long voyages and thousands have died of heat stress on arrival.
Go to the Animals Australia website and call up the Death Files and you will see the litany of disasters that have occurred, each causing untold suffering to the animals caught up in them. These disasters continue and we know that every year some 30 000 animals will die on the ships before they even get to where they are going. Then there is the fate they suffer on arrival. And we can see what that might be for some. Not a single animal should suffer that way. Suggesting they are in the minority is not good enough. One, is one too many.
We ship hundreds of thousands of sheep to the ME, many for sacrifice in the religious festivals. In Pakistan at Eid, it was expected that boys as young as 9 sacrifice a sheep, cutting its throat while fully conscious. Why should we be sending out sheep to be butchered in the back yards of homes on the other side of the world in the name of religion?
25 years ago a Senate Inquiry found the trade was inimical to animal welfare and should be phased out. But no, the industry has ploughed on regardless, in the full knowledge of the suffering of large numbers of animals, at sea or at arrival, and worked to ever more expand the trade.
All the protestations in the world by the industry will never convince me that this trade can be made humane.
It is quite right that we have no control over what happens in other countries. So if we know that our animals are going to be mistreated or suffer and die on route, then we have no right to be loading them on to ships in the first place.
Right now we know that some 30 000 animals will be dead on the ships over the next 12 months.
Frankly I think that continuing the trade in the face of that and knowing the ill treatment meted out to our animals in many of the importing countries, the industry indicts itself. It has only itself to blame that the whole thing has blown up in its face, and big time.
What the industry is confronting now is grass roots opposition to the live trade. It has gone way beyond the bounds of the animal welfare groups. The issue is now on the national agenda and consciousness of the nation as a whole. To try and dismiss those opposing the trade as just busy body animal activists is most unwise. [2]
I myself, as a cattle farmer, will continue to fight against this trade. We have had 25 years since the Georges report recommended it be phased out to develop alternatives. It is time we did just that.
**********
References
1. http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/06/asking-for-a-fairgo-for-live-export-scot-braithwaite/
2. Jenny is referring to my column in The Land of July 7 entitled ‘Netting new moral outrage’. The column was intended as a criticism of internet campaigning and the methods employed by ‘Getup’.
About Jenny
Jenny has been involved in farming (dairying and beef cattle) for over fifty years, and her family has farmed the same country since the 1830s. She has an honours degree in the Indonesian language and Asian Civilisation and a post graduate diploma in Arabic and Islamic Studies, the latter from studying at the University of Lahore, Pakistan.
When Jenny lived in Pakistan, in a hostel that lacked hot water and refrigeration, she came to the opinion that it made not one iota of difference whether the meat on sale in the city of Lahore was freshly killed or was a box of chilled meat. Either way in the heat there it was rotten within a few hours unless cooked. So lack of refrigeration in the home as a reason for live exports is, in her opinion, a furphy.
Jenny became active in regard to animal welfare when as a farmer she noted animals were left to die in a Council run abattoir without feed over long weekends. On seeing dying animals she intervened and fed hundreds of cattle and then started an action group to ensure proper procedures were put in place.
She then moved on to oppose the curfew system in NSW saleyards which often saw cattle two days or more without water in summer.
Jenny got the curfews abolished in the city saleyards and eventually all of NSW followed. She got water troughs installed in cattle yards.
On realising that the issues in her home town were not unique and that proper care of animals, be it in research labs, in abattoirs, in pet shops, in circuses, in factory farms and in almost every sphere of animals use left a lot to be desired there was obvious need for change and greater regulation.
So, Jenny founded a branch of Animal Liberation and began working toward that goal. She worked with Government agencies to redraft prevention of cruelty to animals legislation in her State and sat on various advisory committees.
Jenny made input into the National Codes of Practice for the transportation of farm animals, for care in abattoirs and saleyards and so on.
Jenny was never a Green, she was traditionally a National Party voter.
Jenny was a founding committee member of ANZFAS, now known as Animals Australia, advising on welfare of animals in primary industries. Her employment at the time was as a training officer of the Department of Primary Industry, conducting management training of our meat inspectors and vets in our export meatworks.
Some three years ago Jenny sent the MLA a CD showing similar mishandling of cattle in Egyptian abattoirs, filmed by Animals Australia and which ultimately led to the suspension of that trade for over year by the Howard Government.
On resumption, on the very first shipment, some 290 cattle died on the ship.
According to Jenny, one would have thought then, given the Egyptian ban that the MLA and Livecorp would have made sure there were no issues in Indonesia, the country where most of our live cattle were being exported to. In Jenny’s opinion, it beggars belief that they would be found so wanting in the most important market of all to the industry.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I personally would prefer that there were no live animal export. Simple as that.
Now let’s look at this from a purely pragmatic point, if there is no demand there is no trade.
Again simple as that.
I do not know whether it’s costing more or less by slaughtering and packing the meat here, or transporting live animals, sometimes vast distances, but again, there must be a reason why it’s done.
The live sheep we export, from memory, are mostly old wethers, past their prime and would be disposed of anyway at some expense to the farmer.
The cattle trade is mostly Brahman cattle we do not usually consume domestically.
Is it possible for those farmers up north to use the land for other profitable purposes?
If not, are we prepared to buy them out?
Are we prepared to compensate the live sheep exporters for their loss of trade?
Can the system be improved and will it be improved?
These are all questions we have to ask and ANSWER before we make decisions on other’s livelihood
based on our emotions.
As I said I would prefer no live overseas animal trade.
I have a great deal of admiration for Jenny’s passion re this issue.
She is also correct that our history with animal treatment is not without some serious blemishes.
I do however caution against laying blame at particular sets of feet.
I also caution against demanding that the Govt and self important bureaucrats get involved in this issue.
That would have the ring of the dodo bird syndrome attached to it.
We need to understand that the live export trade is to a large extent either tolerated or even encouraged by the same people who will quickly move to criticise it if they’re spotted by the ‘public’.
There are double standards operating here and it will be the wrong people who get punished.
The livestock farmers who are heavily involved in live export, generally operate in good faith. They do not condone mistreatment.
They are also encouraged by the ‘authorities’ because there are definite benefits to Australia’s GDP and also the Agribusiness sector in the banking world.
I also believe that we seriously need to focus on developing alternatives rather than trying to ‘phase out’. Any time I have seen governments and bureaucrats try to ‘phase out’ anything it has spelled disaster and also proved to be needlessly expensive for tax payers.
Debbie and Jonathon. Thank you for your posts which demonstrate a balanced view of the issue. I was once just a farmer’s daughter who hated the thought of what might happen to our animals after we sent them off to sale, and really preferred not to know. Someone once wrote that most of us go around with our eyes half shut in this world, for to open them too wide is to risk seeing too much, thus making it difficult to ever live in peace again.
I was a bit like that, but my eyes were forced open by the fact that I lived within a couple of miles of the local meatworks. I had heard things were not good out there, but never went to check for myself. I really did not want to know. But I worried myself into going to the Council that ran the place and begging them not to neglect the cattle over the Chrismas four day break. I got all sorts of assurances. But I was suspicious and so I asked a lad who could see over the fence to let me know if he saw anything wrong in the abattoir paddock. By Christmas morning I got reports of cattle dying out there.
I agonised over this but finally got in my car at dawn and drove out there. What greeted my eyes changed me forever. Dead and dying animals everywhere. I could no longer go around with eyes half shut for my own comfort. I turned into a so called activist from that day on. I felt I owed it to the animals we farmed and sold.
At that time when I rounded up some 15 others and we fed the cattle and sheep what happened? We got called by the Council irresponsible animal acitivists who had trespassed and I was told I would be prosecuted. I challenged them and they backed down and we worked together to bring change to that meatworks. But I suspected that meatworks was not an isolated incident so I wrote a paper on animal welfare in meatworks and circulated it in the industry . Years later the manager of the old Homebush works, on meeting me said all I wrote was true and he wanted to shake my hand. At first when he asked if I had written it I was guarded, thinking he might want to deck me!
I think farmers in the live export industry are in the same position. They relied on the assurances given by MLA and Livecorp that all was well with their animals on the ships, and after arrival. They hoped it was true because if it was not, that would be hard to live with.
But as farmers we all need to open our eyes wide and be concerned beyond the farm gate. We have to query those in charge. Every six months the Government gets a report on the death toll on the ships. The figures are available on the DAFF website. All live exporter farmers should go there and keep and eye on those figures and ask questions as to how some 30 000 animals are dying on the ships every year. Be concerned for all animals, not just your own.
There will always be accidents involving animals. Eg trucks overturn fully loaded with animals in Australia from time to time. But action is usually swift. The problem is with the ships that when things go wrong the suffering can go on for days and weeks. You cannot easily rescue
90 000 sheep on a ship that is burning and abandonned. So they burn to death over many days. Nor deal with animals crushed and injured in rough seas. Ships have been turned back and spent weeks with their dying cargo as they plied the seas looking for another country to take the animals. Over 5000 sheep as I recall died on the Como Express which all up was around three months wandering the seas. The sheep were eventually given away, to Eretria.
There will be more mass disasters on the ships. They are inevitable by the very nature of the trade.
The animal welfare movement has long arms and we are able to track the fate of animals in many countries through concerned people in many of those countries. It is not hard to find examples of mal treatment of the animals but there are people in many of those countries who care, and are prepared to help change things, not only for our animals, but for their own. Jordan is a good example where even the Royal Family has gotten involved.
But unless we have closed loop systems in place the footage that Animals Australia has now brought out of the ME after 8 investigations in 7 countries will go on and on, and every time more and more Australians say enough is enough. How often do Australians put close on a quarter of a million dollars on the table in a few days after seeing how animals were being treated? I think that is the measure of the concern felt in the community over live exports.
I think the industry has to sit up and take notice this time. No more glossy Feedback journal articles. Let us have the facts. Let the MLA publish the death rates on every consignment of live animals exported. Tell us how and why those animals died, all 30 000 of them or more each year. But let us start the process of finding alternatives to the trade.
And farmers, while we are at it. When you see animals starving to death over your neighbours fence, or see things happening in saleyards that you do not like. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I have never forgotten two men talking at a sale many years ago. One said: What they did to those bulls should have been reported to the RSPCA. My question to him had I not been so shy and young at the time would have been: Well, why did you not do that if you saw it. If we fail to speak out, then we must be prepared to accept the results of our silence. Too often we are prepared to say nothing when it is our neighbour who is at fault. But we risk being tarred with his brush if we say nothing.
Is Jenny concerned about all animals or just “our” animals.
If it’s all animals then our on-going involvement is more likely to produce a better standard of practice than our non-involvement.
The bigger the commitment we have, the more scrutiny the whole proceedure will receive.
I don’t think she is being completely honest here.
Debbie, you say “The livestock farmers who are heavily involved in live export, generally operate in good faith. They do not condone mistreatment.”
The truth is that animals involved in live exports ARE mistreated. This has been known for many years. The facts are there for anyone willing to look. I said it last time, I’ll say it again. Farmers heavily involved in live export DO condone mistreatment by the fact they have never bothered to look. Or if they have, they quickly turn the other way. Far easier to have the money in hand isn’t it?
Thank you Jenny. You’ve got me all fired up on this issue again, and I agree with everything you say. Keep up the good work.
One reason for live export is the problem of the trade unions making the local abatoirs uneconomic decades ago – hence the live export trade started up.
for those who would like to see the Parliamentary debate about this see http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr050711.pdf
google ‘cattle’
and Senator Back from WA (a vet with experience in Indonesia asked why was the tape produced to the ABC in March and then there was a wait of about 5 – 6 weeks while it edited the 4 Corners report; he said surely someone with animal welfare in mind would have tried to do something immediately rather than wait to make a ‘maximum impact’
why was there that wait
and why did some of the workers turn to smile in the direction of the camera
Just asking questions which have been doing the rounds
see http://www.charters-towers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=322
Producers of the ABC Four Corners program, which sparked the suspension of live exports to Indonesia, will have their controversial animal cruelty footage from Indonesian abattoirs, heavily scrutinised, during the Federal Senate’s upcoming inquiry into the live export trade.
Raised by the Australian Greens earlier this month in the wake of the ABC Four Corners program, the Federal Senate will investigate inhumane treatment of Australian animals in Indonesia and the live export trade more broadly, with the inquiry to be chaired by vibrant Liberal rural NSW Senator, Bill Heffernan.
The program aired on May 30 and ignited intense public outrage over animal cruelty leading to the government’s eventual suspension of live exports to Indonesia on June 6.
But WA Liberal Senator, Chris Back, the only experienced veterinarian in the Federal parliament, said there was a major cloud hanging over the ABC program and associated footage supplied by Animals Australia.
The extreme animal rights group has an uncompromising agenda to end the live export trade altogether, despite unprecedented work from industry to improve animal welfare practices in foreign markets.
Senator Back said he is pushing to find out more about the vision’s origins.
He said more than anything else, “I want to know about the integrity of that footage”.
“There is no doubt at all, that the people who were visiting that animal cruelty on those animals, knew very well they were being filmed,” he said.
“You only have to watch it, at one stage a fellow kicks an animal in the head a few times, turns to the camera and smiles.”
“Now I’ve done a lot of work in abattoirs as a veterinarian and never seen cruelty of that type and never seen someone turn to a camera in pride like that.”
“Therefore to me there’s a big question mark that still needs to be explored over that whole issue.”
“I want the ABC to front the Senate and if they don’t front for the Senate inquiry I’m sure we will met them in Senate estimates.”
In February last year, an independent assessment of the Indonesian abattoir’s slaughter practices was undertaken by four veterinarians, including one well known by Senator Back, Professor Ivan Caple, an internationally acclaimed veterinarian and Professor of Veterinary Medicine at the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Melbourne.
Senator Back said he spoke to Professor Caple about the ABC program and asked him, ‘can you tell me whether you saw footage of anything approaching that kind of animal abuse?’
His replay was, ‘do you think if I did, I would have sat around for that length of time?’
“He claimed to have seen some head slapping but nothing else,” Senator Back said.
“There’s no doubt at all, what we saw in that footage, cut to the chase of the animal cruelty which suited the purpose of the program.”
“If you want to control an animal you have to control its head.”
“So long as the head is restrained by the person holding it, the animal is under control, horse, bullock or elephant.”
“All of that shocking footage we saw could be related to the fact that once the animal was down on the ground, there was no control of its head or there was no head bail.”
“I’d be asking the question, in terms of animal management, why systems were not in place for head control of the animal?
“But Caple said to me, apart from that element, which could be improved and I’m sure would be, that he never saw any of that type of cruelty.”
“He never saw hocks being cut, or animals standing up with a cut throat etc. etc.”
“Nobody I’ve spoken to from the Australian industry, who has been in abattoirs where Australian animals are being processed, has seen that level of footage.”
“Now, could it be possible to go to a remote abattoir in Indonesia and find that kind of footage today or tonight?”
“Possibly it could.”
“But is that the best way for Australia to have an influence on animal welfare standards?”
“Do our borders now describe our interests in animal welfare standards, not for me they don’t.”
“As far as I’m concerned Australia holds its head high, we are the only country that has ever invested time, money, interest and effort in upgrading standards in the target markets that we operate in.”
Senator Back worked in the live export trade in the Middle East, the Gulf, Oman and Kuwait during the mid to late 1980’s.
During that time, he said he saw huge improvements in animal welfare standards and “no other country can boast that”.
But to improve standards, he said Australians “can’t just walk into Indonesian businesses rough shod and start throwing our weight around”.
“We need that government to government, bureaucracy to bureaucracy and trade to trade engagement,” he said.
“You can’t just walk in there and start telling them what to do, they were colonised for years, they are used to being dominated by colonists and they don’t like it and we need to understand that.”
Senator Back said the first time he saw the ABC footage was when it aired on May 30.
He asked Animals Australia campaigner, Lyn White, and Heather Neil and Bidda Jones of the RSPCA why they didn’t bring the footage to him first.
“They know I’m a veterinarian and been involved in the live export trade for years,” he said.
“Their answer was they were more intent on taking it to government and I can understand that.”
“But in their position, I would have taken the footage to someone I was confident would have taken some action.”
Animal rights groups have already come under fire for withholding the damning animal cruelty vision for two months, allowing further suffering of Australian live stock to take place while they lined up their ducks to launch an intense public and political campaign that eventually saw a Labor back bench revolt force the market’s suspension for up to six months while animal welfare safeguards and implemented.
Ms White shot the vision in March and showed it to the RSPCA in April, while the ABC’s Four Corners program took about eight weeks to construct.
Most of the criticism has centred on the hypocritical nature of the campaigners allowing further animal suffering to continue while the footage was held back, including from Federal Agriculture Minister, Joe Ludwig, and his Department.
In the delay, critics have suggested the animal activists cared more about embarrassing the government into action than the immediate welfare of animals suffering, while the delay took place.
But animal rights groups have defended themselves against those claims, saying they had to weigh up the ethical dilemma of some animals suffering mistreatment in Indonesian abattoirs, against the possibility of the Minister’s office referring the matter to industry and avoiding genuine action with a total suspension, which was likely to protect a greater number of animals.
Senator Back said he had major concerns over the delay which suited animal rights campaigner’s agenda but creating the perception, right or otherwise, the ABC was working according to a time line that suited that agenda.
“All I can say to you as a veterinarian is that if I was aware of animal welfare abuse, I would act on it,” he said.
“Let me put it to you in human context, if you were aware that a child was being severely m0lested, would you wait eight or 10 weeks to get a media effect, when you could have in fact taken some action at the time to protect that child?”
“That’s a reasonable question for any member of the community to ask themselves.”
“As a veterinarian I would have take action immediately on animal welfare or child abuse, I don’t understand what the delay was about.”
Senator Back is not alone in wondering why the footage took so long to become public.
He agreed the animal rights campaigners could have handed the vision to the Opposition to help them prepare an attack on the Federal government, to gain greater leverage, if animal welfare concerns were the true agenda.
“That is a question you could ask those who had the footage,” he said.
Who pays the piper?
Which industry would benefit most from the decimation of the live cattle trade?
Which industry has resorted to advertising on prime time commercial TV extolling the virtues of working harmoniously with farmers?
The same industry seems to keep cropping up.!!!
Val,
Your last post is revealing – confirms my view that the whole incident was a political stunt – and who benefits? To distract media attention away from the government? Or part of a longer term political goal?
Louis Dr Back does ask some serious questions
Maybe Jenny has a response
Watch out for the Jenny’s of the world.
They will misrepresent facts and issues as needed to push through their goal.
Those concerned with meat quality know that live transport should be reduced as much as possible. That’s by boat, by rail, or by truck, you name it.
With these tremendous losses, one would think there would be significant economic incentives to slaughter in Australia and ship the meat from there. And it would be cheaper to ship meat than livestock because of more efficient use of space.
I have a theory. The countries import live animals so that they can be slaughtered domestically in accordance with Halal or Kosher requirements. Nothing else makes sense.
What is the point of this sort of extreme concern for animal welfare in animals who sole purpose is to be slaughtered for food?
This makes no sense at all, and I repeat my comment to not trust what self-declared animal rights people say and do.
They are shown over time to be misanthropic and unreliable in their claims.
PETA in the US is infamous for hypocritical and profiteering actions.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
It sounds like this Indonesian infomercial is from the same ethical common ground as the PETA folks in USA.
OK, I will admit at times I am a moron too and this may be one of them.
Jenny, you mention a number of anecdotes where animals have suffered during transport due to both forseeable and unforseeable conditions. The ships being turned away and not unloaded I would consider unforseeable conditions and think it is out of place to use them as an excuse to ban live export. There may be some addressable issues as to better provisioning for the ships or conditions, but, we can’t use this type of incident to ban things or we can’t do anything.
Next is the complaints that animals are hurt and killed due to storms. Is this common?? You didn’t mention statistics. I would mention that humans are injured and killed on trains, ships, and planes due to weather. Should we ban all travel if there is any chance at all of severe weather that could cause injury and death?? We would have much reduced travel. Again, there may be addressable issues as to the manner of the shipping.
While the cry for compassion is very appealing, we have to look at this in a realistic manner. We can improve things to a reasonable extent and that would be good. Banning because there are issues is an authoritarian mind set that does not improve society.
Yes, we can improve things “to a reasonable extent”. What is reasonable?
I believe civilised people cannot condone torture of man or beast, despite some recent well documented cases.* Therefore, while I look forward to the total abolition of live animal exports for food, (along with the end of poverty and unwanted pregnancies), in the real world we must insist on stunning before slaughter. No religion actively promotes torture, and maybe we could have more intergovernmental work to encourage Islamic leaders in Indonesia ( and Kuwait etc.) to help enforce stunning in all abattoirs.
I have read all the comments here and am familiar with all the arguments made, including the attempts to question the integrity and agenda of Animals Australia. I will not bother to go there. Shoot and try and discredit the messenger is a typical strategy of those with no sound basis to argue from. I thank those who are more astute here than that.
Why did AA not show the footage sooner. Well let us cut to the chase. The MLA commissioned a report in early 2010 which detailed all the animal welfare issues illustrated so graphically on that footage. The head slapping, water dousing, eye gouging, multi attempts at throat cutting were all identified. The MLA knew about those serious animal welfare outcomes. It claims that had it known about such practices it would have been in there the next day to stop them. So why after a year of knowing was it possible for AA to gain footage of such practices?. The MLA did not need the AA footage. It knew. Given that it knew why did it have to wait for footage to be aired publicly before it took all the actions it now claims it has put in place. By the way the MLA did in fact see the footage four days before it was aired.
A summary of the report confirming the MLA knew about the cruel practices at least one year prior to AA’s footage can be found on the AMIEU website.
I note that on hurrying over to check out the footage the MLA found it had to reduce to 25 the number of meatworks in Indonesia that could give acceptable animal welfare outcomes. I understand there are 700 works over there, and we have put in some 100 of those restraint boxes. This all speaks for itself in terms of the level of attention the MLA and Livecorp had been giving to the animal welfare outcomes for our cattle and more importantly raises questions as to how many animals have likely suffered over the years away from the Australian public eye. Asleep at the wheels is what springs to mind here in regard to the industry. And that is being kind.
The fact is that Animals Australia no longer trusts anything the industry has to say. The very fact that the industry pushed for a resumption of the trade with no mandatory requirement for stunning tells us where its priorities lie. As Senator Ludwig said he can still give no assurances in regard to animal welfare. In the face of the footage we saw and the rush to resume the trade without any such guarantees the public and many parliamentarians are outraged and rightly so. This has further galvanised opposition to the trade. To have aired the footage earlier would not have saved a single animal.
What was the response of the MLA and Livecorp after the program? Did the shock horror it expressed and claims it did not know cause the industry to stop any further cattle going over there till it investigated. No. Ships left within days with more cattle for Indonesia.
And what of the fate of the some 100 000 cattle already over there awaiting slaughter. Well I spent days on the phone to the MLA, to DAFF and to Ministers trying to get assurances that those animals would be protected from such outcomes. What answers did I get. I was told by the MLA nothing could be done for those animals. I wrote to very single Parliamentarian asking them to personally intervene on behalf of those cattle. I got not one single assurance. So what I am hearing is that the industry, even if it knows what is going on has little power to stop it. At least it has now blacklisted some of those meatworks so that is something but it should never have been necessary. But it has accepted that the fox be put in charge of the hen house, agreeing to any auditing of meatworks be done by the Indonesians.
Animals Australia has carried out 8 investigations in as many countries. It has time and again shown footage that raised serious concerns about how our animals were treated in the importing countries. When I raised my voice some three years ago to the MLA at the time of the Egyptian ban I got the usual bureaucratic assurances about how it was ensuring the welfare of our animals in the importing countries to calm my concerns. If those assurances had any substance AA would not have been able to go into those abattoirs and gain the footage it did. Nor would it still be able to go to the ME and film the continuing cruel treatment of our sheep. The industry has seen footage of that time and again, and yet it still goes on.
Should the trade be banned on the basis of major incidents at sea? The fact is that it is illegal under animal welfare laws of Australia to knowingly transport and animal in such a way as to likely cause them stress harm or injury. We are tranporting animals by sea in the full knowledge that some 30 000 of them will die each year. I do not believe the live export trade should operate under a different set of rules. A case was brought against a major live exporter on those very grounds in WA and the case was won. That whole saga makes very interesting reading for anyone insterested. So it is not just the major incidents, it is the inherent nature of the trade. We know that animals will likely die on the ships before we ship them.
Asking questions about this Kuhnkat does not make you a moron. Everyone has the right to ask questions no matter how little or much they know about the issue at stake.
With the Indonesians now saying they are almost self sufficient in cattle, ahead of schedule, we can expect a drastic reduction in demand for our live cattle from there in the coming years. If the northern cattle industry is so dependant on that trade then clearly the writing is on the wall for it. But if the industry simply looks to send the cattle further and furthe to places like Lebanon, then the animal welare issues will escalate as will public opposition to the trade. If it is wise, it will look to use the time it has left to restructure the industry for on shore processing and develop further the growing demand for our chilled meat which far outweighs in value that of the live trade. Instead of spending tens of millions building floating cattle pens, it would be far better to spend the money helping developing countries develop the facilities necessary to handle that growing chilled trade.
Are we concerned about animals other than our own. Yes and so we inform and support respected international animal welfare organizations who are working in this field of these problems and they are working for all animals in all countries. The animal welfare movement in Australia has links to all those organizations. It is like most things these days a global movement. And yes we do work with individuals in the countries themselves who are battling their own governments to put in place anti cruelty laws. Those people have a lot a courage I can tell you.They risk their lives in the work they do.
Jenny; I found you comments on fresh meat v boxed in hot climates most interesting.
Elsewhere I claimed our northern beef producers could focus on a range of products including chilled beef shipped “overnight” from local meat works and so avoid old blood letting cults associated with some religious belief.
For those who don’t get it yet, no particular killing method is essential for a range of customers!
Our good butchers prefer sides to be hung a number of days in a chill room after slaughter to get the best meat whereas our supermarkets are supplied with boxed pieces straight from the abattoir. This is the “packaged” trade mostly associated with export.
the report to which Jenny refers is here
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1886477/indonesia.pdf
I believe you have at least one of your facts wrong. The case against the Live exporters by the RSPCA in WA was NOT won, the exporters were found Not to have broken any animal welfare laws,
P Charlick: Details and the whole history of the case against the live exporter Emmanuels in WA is all available on the AA website. Just google Emmanuels Pty Ltd – Al Kuwait case. The main and most important charge was found by the Magistrate to be proven. The reasons the Magistrate had in her view to acquit the Company were merely legal technical issues relating to State and Commonwealth laws as she interpreted them. This interpretation was strongly disputed by the prosecutor, the WA Government and it appealed that acquittal. However the Minister intervened to stop the appeal. A case of political interference in the legal system. I stand by my statement that the case was won. I will however be prepared to amend that to use the Magistrate’s words: Proven. Most would call that a win. Not that it did much good.
I believe State Animal Welfare laws should not be able to be overriden by the Commonwealth live export permit system.
An extract from AA site:
The WA State Solicitor provided advice that Magistrate Catherine Crawford erred in her verdict, issued on 8th February, in the Al Kuwait trial, and that the defendants Emanuel Export Pty Ltd and two directors should not have been acquitted of charges of breaching the WA Animal Welfare Act. This advice was supported by a leading Victorian QC acting on behalf of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel. The Director General of the Department of Local Government (the public officer responsible for the administration of the Animal Welfare Act) subsequently instructed the State Solicitor to lodge an appeal in the WA Supreme Court. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn on the instruction of Minister Ljiljanna Ravlich.
But as said earlier, the main charge was found by the Magistrate to be proven and that charge was very specific. It was a landmark indictment of the live trade. Getting off on legal technicalities does not mean the case was not won.
Again, not that it did much good. If the 4 Corners program and 30 000 animals continuing to die on the ships each year tells us anything, it tells us that.
On another matter I have asked the MLA to justify the expenditure of any of the levies it raises ($5 per head on all cattle sold domestically) supporting the live export trade. Livecorp collects its own levies on the live trade, some $5m per year and those are the funds that should be being used if it wants to promote that trade. It was outrageous that the MLA should be asked by the Minsiter to hand over $5 million of its domestically raised levies, and not Livecorp for the care of the cattle caught up in the ban. Why was there no mention of Livecorp’s responsibility when this issue came up. The MLA should not be involved in promoting the live trade and it tells me it has no access to the Livecorp levies.
The domestic levies should be spent for the benefit of the domestic industry, such as developing the chilled trade and the domestic slaughtering industry which has lost some
40 000 jobs according to the AMIEU as a result of the live trade. We don’t hear either Ms Gillard or Mr Abbott saying much about those jobs lost do we? I know the Goulburn abattoir with 400 jobs has just been sold and the on going lack of sheep for slaughter was one of the reasons given. The new WA operators hope to turn that around but with the national flock so seriously depleted and the live trade taking 4 million sheep a year, the writing is on the wall I suspect for those 400 jobs. I may be proved wrong, but I doubt it.
The interests of the domestic and live industry are in many respects competing interests.
One of the greatest threats to both, be it live or domestic is the ever increasing Aussie dollar. But that is another matter.
Jenny is it possible to read the judgment rather than what AA perceives it to be
the name of the company by the way is Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd
Ok, Val, yes. I did know it was Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd as my later comment extract has correctly shown. I apologise for the earlier mispelling of Emanuel. But I disagree. I think the Judgement is quite clear. It has nothing to do with AA’s perception. But I suppose you and I will just have to beg to differ on that. Now I wish to apply myself to submission to the Senate Inquiry due this week, so please all forgive me if I am less than responsive here from today.
Jenny,
Claiming that the messenger is being shot is simply to avoid the issue.
NGO’s have a strong track record of indulging in falsified and misleading claims to prevail in the public square.
Attempting to use the high moral stance you claim is yours is not sufficient or credible as an excuse to avoid this pesky fact.
Frankly I hope you lose in your Senate.
The suffering your type delivers to hard working people, when compared to the good you accomplish, does not justify your efforts at all.
“NGO’s have a strong track record of indulging in falsified and misleading claims to prevail in the public square” Hunter; go build another cigarette factory.
I say animal welfare agencies are no more involved in “falsified and misleading claims” than any industry lobby at work on our government at this moment, especially when considering the proposed carbon tax.
When government gets into bed with industry on any issue, we can have very serious consequences if no other independent agencies are on the ball. We can just look at drugs, alcohol, agri chemicals, fishing, forestry, mining, land development and gambling.
Where do morals apply? Across the board, you bet.
On the question of submissions, I made the point a bushfire can run at the speed of the wind in light dry fuel and in particular through crops of evenly spread fuel but without any solid evidence. My stand was only based on work around industrial furnaces. These days, local authorities do an awful lot of grass cutting round Canberra that wasn’t done before despite the difficulty of measuring the speed of a big fire front in bad conditions.
On the other hand I suggest Jenny would be wise to consider what evidence exists in Govt agencies about premature fatalities or injuries of animals sent for slaughter both in and out of this country.
Gavin, you are quite right in your last statement and I do not ignore that fact. As I set out in an ealier comment I first started my animal welfare work looking at how we treated our animals here in Australia in abattoirs, saleyards, in transports and on farm. As a farmer I did not like what I saw and I was not prepared to accept it.
There are indeed accidents and injuries from farm gate to slaughter (eg trucks loaded with cattle tipping over as one did down our road) that are unavoidable but action is usually swift to alleviate the suffering. But I found there was also a lot of deaths and suffering that was solely as a result of poor practices, poor attitudes and just plain carelessness. When I saw a cow being put up for sale that had lost a leg I was very angry. It had no chance in a yard with yelling and poking of the other animals in the yard as the seller moved them round for the buyers to see.
So I objected at such practice and demanded that animals that were not fit and healthy not be sent to saleyards. So nowadays in our local saleyards there are signs that sick, injured or diseased animals will not be accepted for sale. A small step.
The problem with the live trade is that when things go wrong at sea animals can suffer for more than a week before any real action can be taken to assist them. But the important fact here is that we know beforehand that when animals are shipped by sea that a precentage of them will almost certainly die on the voyage. So the death toll on the ships still stands at average 30 000 per year. No farmer would put sheep or cattle on trucks in Australia if he knew some would be certain to die before they arrived. It is this prior knowledge that a percentage of the animals will almost certainly die at sea due to the very nature of the transportation and time en route that is central to opposition to the trade. Then of course there is the added problems of poor treatment in the importing countries, not forgetting that shipments have on occasions been rejected on arrival and finished up sitting at ports or plying the sea for weeks with their living cargos progressivly dying in their thousands.
As for Hunter here. Well you seem to have him sorted.
And anyway Hunter I doubt anything I said would change your views. But God helps us if all the NGOs ever fold up their tents and silently steal away. A lot of hard working people would be very much the poorer if they did, as would animals that benefit from the work of organizations like Animals Australia.
But I really had to smile at the hard working people bit. I could take your remark as some sort of suggestion that I was a stranger to hard work. I won’t try to disabuse you of any such notion as you would probably accuse me of indulging in misleading and falsifying claims. So I will just leave you to your rather jaundiced view of me. No hard feelings mind.
Graeme and Jenny,
You seem to misunderstand.
You both complain that farmers don’t speak up enough and therefore they should be punished.
That is you misunderstanding the demographics and motivations of this sector of society.
Just because they don’t behave the way you expect them to behave does not make them guilty.
Farmers in general are good family people who work hard and would prefer to be just left alone.
They choose their rather isolated lifestyles for a reason and they are generally proud of their work.
Believe it or not, they are just not interested in joining groups like AA or even making comments on the internet. It’s not that they don’t care, they’re just not inclined to get involved in causes.
They just want to raise their families and run their farms and basically mind their own business. That actually isn’t a crime you know.
As a demographic group, they no more condone cruelty than you do, they just don’t behave the same as you and don’t really want to spend too much time in groups and organisations. If they wanted to do that, they wouldn’t have chosen farming as their livelihood.
Punishing them is counter productive, you’re just further justifying their decision to totally avoid people like you.
If you want their help, their advice or their attention, perhaps you should try asking them instead of loudly calling for them to be punished?
I find that usually works.
Jenny; at risk of stealing someone’s thunder, I say our pollies need access to improved data across the spectrum of agriculture issues. Not only do we need to know who owns the farm, but we also need to know who owns the stock on every step to the abattoirs and what wastage occurs from what practices.
For instance, the MLA levies could have numbered every beast from the farm gate and butchers could have handed back those tags to a government sponsored inspector. We have the means today. As people close to me work in a variety of information technologies, I can say our tracking systems have grown a lot since my time in the PS.
I find it astounding ministers including Ludwig didn’t know the extent of bad practice associated with the live export trade. The Senate inquiry needs to nail down all gaps in the information flow as it was.
Neglect of animal welfare cannot be tolerated in an educated society; any more than say the pollution that followed the wave of cheap manufacturing after ww2 or the trap of minefields left after more recent conflicts.
People through their governments must be made responsible for even their use of plastic bags.
Hi Jenny,
In the early 70s ,there was a letter writing frenzy in Christchurch NZ from Western Suburb residents . These people were being invaded by vermin from a nearby industrial landfill.
Duly, as happens, action was taken to fix the landfill problem. – Consequence – a letter writing tornado concerning the painful death of housepets who had strayed over and eaten poisoned vermin. Lesson ,rats and mice fell less pain than puddy tat.
‘Some animals are more equal than others’.
Even if some people believe that you are too militant this will be balanced out by some of the people I have seen in action around animals.
This said and WA legalities being discussed here, can we remember Aboriginal Elder Mr Ward ,who was COOKED ALIVE in a prison van.
No ban on prisoner transport from the Feds ,in fact the van was allowed back in service.
A handcuffed prisoner in Qld was TASERED 18 times – we saw it on TV . Are tasers banned Federally yet ?
Nope,’some animals are more equal than others’
Returning to the vermin, I recently accidentally ingested rat poison in food ,( I didn’t cook it ). It was a nauseating ,very frightening afternoon. I had no balance ,for one thing.
Having spent most of my life in the country, I believe you should approach with caution the across the board criticism of putting an animal to death without first stunning it.
With regard to onshore processing ,you and others speak of inspections, checks ,tracking ,training. Just like any manufacturing ,that is why it isn’t done here. It costs money. It does not happen elsewhere . It would, if we insisted . We don’t.
You read it above- Blame the unions and run to where the money is.
The shipping, in very expensive ships, the building of abbatoirs overseas , (by Australian Coy.s),
is cheaper than paying a skilled worker ? One on piece work ,basically paid only for what he produces ?
Perhaps Jenny ,you have a big enough audience to change this culture. Bob Katter is on your side.
Ian Thomson
Bob Katter is on your side.
No sure how you meant this?
As “it will help your case” then you are wromg, outside of his electorate B Katter is regarded as a loudmouth clown I’m afraid.
As Luke used to say, he is the archetype of the rural socialist and in this case Luke is absolutely right.
Mark A,
Bob Katter, for any failings he has, is a rare voice in tha Australian wilderness just now.
Silly bugger actually seems to believe that Australia can use a few of the local resources and make something.
Rural Socialism apparently this may be , but Germany seems to be able to do that stuff quite well. That’s likely why they are building lots of new coal fired power stations.
When people like Bob start making 20 minute speeches about being an independant Labour supporter or introducing “operationalisation” , then shoot him down by all means.
In the meantime he seems to echo a lot of what I hear said. Such as ,when the hole is finished what will the country sell?
Better to attack his ideas ,if you think he is wrong.
Does the future of this place involve no manufacturing and closing power stations and being a Chinese colony or the opposite. I am not exaggerating the colony thing. If overseas interests own the land and food from it ,why should any food stop here?
Sorry I forgot ,they can just make more food at the supermarket.
I notice my Yank version of spell check doesn’t even recognise ‘ operatioalisation’ Mr Ludwig and Can’tberra are really leading the world of production and innovation- if only in words.
Mark A,
archetype of the rural socialist?
I’m not sure what you think you meant?
Is it that you are not a fan of Bob Katter? (and I agree he is portrayed as a loudmouth clown by the media) or….
Are you sniping at Agriculture and rural people…which is usually Luke’s motivation for using that phrase?
Or maybe you meant something else entirely?
Do you mind clarifying that comment?
Ian’s point about Bob Katter was that his POLICIES would actually support Jenny’s cause in some ways. Such an obviously rural person would maybe be an unusual and possibly useful ally to help get some consistency and positive results re this issue.
The rest of his comment was highlighting some rather obvious double standards that he perceives to be operating re this issue.
gavin,
“The Senate inquiry needs to nail down all gaps in the information flow as it was.”
You mean actually find out who is paying the money and getting protected??
Interesting comments from everyone. Bob Katter. Well he is a bit of a loud mouth and there are times when I disagree with him, but there are times when he is spot on. I can relate to some of his frustrations. Chopping and changing Government policy virtually destroyed the dairy industry in this country, putting it at the mercy of the big supermarkets.
Debbie, unfortunately yes, most country people just want to get on with their lives and not worry too much about what happens beyond the farm gate. But that policy is what sees issues like the live export cruelty blow up in their faces. And that footage has turned some people off beef for good. And the images of treatment of sheep in the ME is not going to do do the sheep industry image any favours either. Had farmers been more active in demanding information from MLA amd Livecorp instead of just accepting their glossy magazine assurances that all was well with the care of our animals in Indonesia and the ME, then this matter would have been on the agenda of farmers. Instead it fell to AA to raise it publicly in order to get some action. I assume you agree those scenes in the Indonesian abattoirs did require intervention. By the way AA was in fact flooded with emails of support from farmers.
If you choose not to be involved, and that is everyone’s right, then decisions will be made for you. These days you risk being run over by all sorts of activists, by big energy companies, by bureaucrats and by politicians making laws with no understanding of their impact on your chosen lifestyle, be it rural or urban. Look at this coal seam gas issue. Farmers are going to have to stand up and fight in those prime agricultural zones under threat, or their lifestyle will be the first thing to go. Farmers simply can no longer afford to put their heads in the sand and hope for the best.
What I do acknowledge however, as I have been there, is that drought and floods and locust plagues, and mice plagues sap the energy of many farmers. It is hard to come in at night after an exhausting day and have to fight an uncaring Government or a big overseas company wanting to surround you with gas wells. I know what 18 hour days are like. I lived them for over 30 years.
I was once just like most farmers, getting up at dawn, going about the farm work day and then to bed at night, seven days a week, minding my own business. But some times in life you are called upon in your conscience to make a choice. When you see something seriously wrong either you stand up and speak out or you protect your privacy and peace and remain silent. I never chose to be put in that situation but I was. I made what I think was the right choice. I could not have lived with myself had I just walked away from dying cattle in an abattoir paddock and said I really dont want to be involved. I had never been in any group other than the Junior Farmers and there was none to join, so I simply started one myself. That group is still going 32 years later even though I am not involved much these days. It has a life of its own. As a single individual you cannot achieve much, but in a group you might.
Ian Thomson. There is in fact tracking of cattle in Australia. There is the NLIS traceback system where each property owner has a registered number for his or her property and any animals that come onto that property or leave it have to be recorded back to the MLA. Each animal has an electronic tag. So domestic cattle can be tracked and traced from birth to slaughter, from owner to owner. In fact my nephews designed the system for the MLA though I am loathe to admit that as it has its flaws and farmers complain bitterly about the bureaucratic impost it places on them. There is a lot of non compliance but they are auditing properties more now so farmers are going to have to shape up. We got audited recently on our property. Senator Ludwig is talking about having the same traceback in place for the live exported cattle, but I cant see really what that will achieve. It is how an animal is slaughtered at a meatworks, not where, Seems like just a paper trail will operate here. Traceback schemes are not designed to monitor slaughtering practices. They are intended to trace back disease when it is detected in a slaughtered animal, or chemical residues when found in the meat. So if an animal turns up with foot and mouth or BSE (heaven forbid) the farm it came from can be quaranteened and the animal’s movements throughout its life traced from property to property. The disease may have originated at another place the animal had been on, eg through being agisted elswhere.
The point was made about farm ownership. Well around us the family farmers are disappearing as bigger companies take over more and more land. And it is the same story over much of NSW at least. The average age of farmers has risen drastically along with the ageing population. Young people have left in droves to good paying careers in the cities. Every single one for around 50 square kilometres of us has left. Our neighbours are all in their mid to late sixties and early seventies. Absentee landlords of big companies have bought up much of the land around us. Overseas buyers are in there and what we should bear in mind is that during the potato famine Ireland was in fact a net exporter of food, while its population starved. Why, because the wealthy landlords controlled the land and where the produce was sold or went. We see Qatar and other ME countries, and Chinese interests buying up large areas of agricultural land in Australia, concerned about their future food and energy security. Now you dont have have a PHd to understand what that could mean in the longer term if this trend continues. At last the Government is stating to sit up and take notice. You can get around the FI rules by simply buying many smaller areas and then amalgamting them. So I understand some 40 properties around Gunnedah were recently bought by Chinese interests, with the gas reserves as the incentive. They are already nosing around our area. If farmers dont like this invasion then they will simply have to be become, shall I dare say it. Join or form a group and become: Activists.
Sorry Ian, it was Gavin who raised the issue of tracing livestock. It is hard scrolling up to look at various comments at a time.
Jenny,
I am aware of the NLIS ,how it works and why. It is the attached beaurocracy and its cost, which I refer to as another straw on the camel’s back . I do not disagree with NLIS or inspection fees etc etc . I do disagree with Unions( read wage costs), being used as a scapegoat by big business of any sort when escaping these costs overseas. What I am saying is that huge money has been invested in this trade, using onshore labour cost and lack of fridges as an excuse for a tax dodge.
The easy cure to this is to insist on trading partners being on equal terms.
Er ..Think that’s what Bob K. says too.
It is not the growers, (private anyway) ,it is the big businesses involved in the export. Good luck.
archetype of the rural socialist?
I’m not sure what you think you meant?
I know exactly what I meant, that is: he is typical of of the agrarian socialist, representative of the class etc.
I’m not against the notion of helping the farming sector in hard times more than an other industry because they are in a unique position, of supplying the food we need.
However to flatly deny that the same industry (or at least some part of it) does not take unfair advantage of government largess is equally wrong.
There is more to it but that’s an other topic for an other time.
——————————————————
Is it that you are not a fan of Bob Katter?
I suppose one must spell everything out not to be misunderstood.
I actually like the man and agree with most of his ideas, the same as I agreed with many of One Nation’s ideas.
Whitlam has done the greatest disservice to Australia when started the systematical dismantling of our manufacturing industries, which every successive government helped along.
Why they did it, one can only speculate, and that will bring us to conspiracy-world government ideas.
Cheers
Jenny,
I absolutely agree that farmers will need to stand up and be counted.
My point is that they won’t if they’re unfairly attacked by over enthusiastic activists.
I also think this latest attack has been counter productive. Far too many urban types now hold the belief that farmers are condoning all sorts of ‘evil’ activities, simply because they farm.
The comment from Graeme is a classic example.
Just as a comment, using the same logic, wouldn’t anyone who buys cheap food and cheap clothing from the same companies you are complaining about also be ‘condoning’ poor behaviour towards animals and also ‘condoning’ poor work practices? Why is no one advocating a ban on buying from these companies? I would support that and it would actually hurt them where it really matters.
Aren’t people who are buying cheap milk from Woolies and cheap alcohol from places like Dan Murphys also ‘condoning’ the decimation of the Australian Dairy Industry and the Australian Wine industry….just for a start?
Why aren’t we advocating and demanding activism on these fronts and actually hurting the people and companies who are causing the problem, by hurting their pockets?
Instead we have people like Graeme, whom I’m sure has inadvertently and mistakenly ‘condoned’ all types of below standard practices by his daily activities, blaming others, but particularly farmers for this whole mess!
Of course I hated seeing and hearing about the appalling behaviour in Indonesia. I cannot for the life of me see how punishing Australian farmers did anything at all to stop those practices. All that happened, and the only result achieved was that farmers were even further alienated and further criticised and then had to be further compensated.
You know what they’re like Jenny….that will cause them to withdraw even further.
That is NOT a good outcome for anyone….least of all for the farmers.
Debbie, for someone of what appears reasonable intelligence you do talk some toss. Jenny is the voice of reason and utmost tact and care in how she speaks. I’m not.
“Far too many urban types now hold the belief that farmers are condoning all sorts of ‘evil’ activities, simply because they farm.”
Rubbish.
It is the unwillingness to actually think about what they do that is the issue. I am from the country, I’ve seen responsible farmers. But I’ve also seen poorly educated thickheads who actually either don’t care or don’t think who cause all sorts of suffering. Farming per se is not the issue. Wilful ignorance through a lack of anything that resembles inquiry is.
Farmers just wanna be left alone to do God’s work? Poor diddums eh? Shame the rest of us don’t get that benefit, hmmm? Sorry Debbie, but like the rest of the human race they are responsible for what they do. About time they thought about that.
Now, the old find fault with those complaining because they aren’t doing something about the one thousand and one other evils of the world? What a crock, you ARE joking right? By that logic, you might as well just give up the whole anti-AGW stance now.
All I can say is it’s lucky there are people like Jenny who do care and are willing to stand up and be counted. I’m not and it’s to my discredit that I am not. As it is a discredit to you Debbie.
An interesting rumour related to me by a mid-ranking military officer.
The main reason for the government’s sudden change of heart re-live export.
Was that the Indonesians quietly explained to the Minister that they considered access to Australia’s northern cattle industry as an integral part of their food security.
And while they would prefer to buy those cattle, if necessary they will come and take them.
It could explain the government’s sudden enthusiasm for defending the North – something unlabor like to say the least.
At the moment not only is the North completely undefended. There are three large air force bases that are ready to go for any invading army that wishes to fly in and use them.
Binny
You don’t need to be a military officer to know that.
We could be invaded and taken over by unarmed civilians any time they wanted to.
Specially by unarmed civilians
The reason we are not, because at the moment it’s not yet vital for the potential guests.
Take it easy Graeme. Debbie does not upset me. She is right on some of what she says though I think she is wrong in believing city folk have a negative view generally of farmers as a result of all this. I cross between farm and city and know lots of people on both sides of the fence. All the people I talk to are just outraged at what has happened in Indonesia and the failure of the Government or organizations like Livecorp and the MLA to live up to their obligations. Hell we have sent 6 million cattle to Indonesia. The mind boggles at the level of suffering that has taken place over two decades. But of course there will always be those who think ill of farmers. Always have been. And urban folk sure get a lambasting from the rural folk from time to time.
But Australians are not too enamoured of Indonesia generally. The East Timor business has not been forgotten. And to plan to shoot two silly young Australians (though I abhore drug traffickers) while that dreadful Bashir only gets 15 years does not sit well with me.
Debbie, you will find many people in the animal welfare movement active on a lot of fronts where injustices are taking place. They are in my experience very compassionate people and their compassion is not selective.
But for those who complain Animals Australia should not have withheld the footage from the Government till it aired, well the Government had been advised in April that were serious issues, but did not even ask to see the footage. The same lack of concern was evident when Lyn White advised the Government of the outcome of her 2010 investigation in the ME. Here is an extract of her report.
“Last month Animals Australia’s Lyn White returned to Kuwait for the Festival of Sacrifice and visited once again the Kuwaiti livestock market and abattoir that had presented such grave animal welfare concerns in the past.
“In the Shuwaikh abattoir trussed and terrified Australian sheep were being dragged up the ramp into the slaughterhouse right in front of a MLA sign saying “don’t drag” animals. Nothing had changed in the dreadful cattle slaughter area at the abattoir either.”
Australia has exported over 23, 000 dairy cattle and 17,000 beef cattle to Kuwait since 2003.
“The streets of the Al Rai market on the morning of the Eid turned into a mass slaughter area for animals. Australian sheep were being purchased, bound with wire and shoved into car boots whilst others were being dragged terrified on their stomachs towards filthy slaughter areas on the side of roads where they waited amongst the dead and dying to have their throats cut. Within 30 minutes of the slaughter starting the streets were running with blood.
“The treatment of two young dairy bulls was so horrendous that it was almost soul destroying to witness. One was killed on the side of the road, and the other in a carpentry workshop. Both were brutally forced to the ground where they struggled, terrified as they were trussed with rope over a period of many minutes until tightly bound, they had their throats cut by inexperienced slaughterers resulting in long, painful deaths.
“One of the most disturbing aspects of this investigation was to clearly witness again that local people are happy for ‘tourists’ to watch and film their cruel treatment of animals. Conveying that I am an Australian makes me even more popular since we supply them with animals each year. Tragically Australia’s willingness to export animals to the region continues to reinforce local beliefs that their treatment of animals is acceptable.
“Whilst the majority of Australian animals will be slaughtered in the Middle East whilst fully conscious all year around — and animals are available to be sold to individual buyers each day — MLA and LiveCorp know so clearly that animals are enmass brutally treated during the Festival of Sacrifice yet they are still willing to send hundreds of thousands of animals to this Festival each year.”
Footage obtained by Animals Australia investigators in Bahrain in 2007 forced the Bahraini government to prohibit the transpiration of Australian animals in boots from the Bahrain feedlot for fear of losing their supply of animals. MLA/LiveCorp has lauded the success of their “in the Ute, not the boot” initiative.
“We also visited Qatar and Bahrain to observe the livestock markets. In Qatar — where MLA have also introduced their ‘in the ute, not the boot’ programme at the importer Al Mawashi feedlot — we observed terrified sheep being put in the back seats of cars of individual buyers.
“In Bahrain we watched MLA staff at the main feedlot ensuring sheep were not going into boots, but they seemed oblivious to the fact that small trucks were regularly leaving the feedlot with more animals that could be needed for individual purchasers. On following these trucks we saw that other selling markets had been established where Australian sheep were being sold into car boots. MLA had a cameraman at the feedlot filming the success of their education programme for a PR film. Their energy would have been better served identifying as we did that the problem was far from solved, but rather that it had been moved to other locations.
“Of additional concern is that this industry initiative is actively encouraging and facilitating animals to be purchased for home slaughter — where they are at greatest risk of ill-treatment.”
Now Animals Australia provided the Minister with this information and he simply told the industry to deal with it. So nothing will change. Nothing at all. So stand by for more of the same.
Now I know there are some here who think we should not worry about what happens to our sheep. Out of sight out of mind so to speak. Well I do not apologise for finding I am unable to accept that. And I know many farmers feel the same. One farmer on seeing what happened to his sheep over there refused to ever again send sheep live to the ME.
I realise that Debbie or Hunter or whomever is not annoying you Jenny. I was merely observing how well you conduct yourself. And noting I am not that good.
But Debbie’s comments do annoy me. As you yourself say “Now Animals Australia provided the Minister with this information and he simply told the industry to deal with it. So nothing will change. Nothing at all. So stand by for more of the same.”
And that is the crux of the matter. The industry isn’t some faceless perhaps invisible entity. It is everyone involved in the food trade that deal with meat. It is the very farmers themselves. But the problem is that anyone whose choice of vocation is to raise animals for slaughter has a vested interest in that very process. And faced with the choice of food on the table, kids in school, money in the bank and something approaching a decent standard of living versus the wellbeing of some sheep, which way will the farmer who live exports jump?
Note though that I am using a somewhat loose term when I say farmers, as I realise that not every, or even most, small lot farmers are the real focus. Rather the large operations are at the bottom of most of the inhumane practices.
Once you reduce livestock processing to a mass production line to service the growing needs of hungry millions in third world nations and fast food/restaurant/gourmet needs in first world nations you have a sure recipe for abrogation of responsibility. I sincerely doubt anything will change, really.
And as I said, I’m glad that level heads such as yours Jenny are actively working to make what changes can occur. Debbie shows us the uphill task you face.
So Graeme,
You seem convinced the problem is the lack of intelligence of farmers and absolutely nothing to do with the protected lifestyle of the urban (by association) intelligence of non farmers?
Has it ever occured to you that the insatiable economic desires of the coastal urban fringe are just as culpable or possibly even more responsible for much of what is being discussed here?
I would also point out that I have probably seen more ” poorly educated thickheads who actually either don’t care or don’t think who cause all sorts of suffering” living in urban areas. People like that unfortunately live everywhere, including on farms.
I was not criticising Jenny at all, I actually stated I admired her passion re this issue and I also agreed with her that farmers should speak out more.
My point remains that the recent attack was aimed incorrectly, laid blame at the wrong feet and was counterproductive.
The outcome was not a win for those animals and not a win against the appalling practices in Indonesia.
Instead the outcome was Australian farmers being further alienated, further criticised and then needing further compensation…. the last I heard it was $30+ million?
Because I am from the land and I do run my own business, I believe in and applaud results.
That does not mean that Jenny’s organisation does not do good work and that we don’t need people like her to speak out.
Quite the contrary in fact.
We also do need more farmers to speak up, even though they’re not traditionally inclined to do that.
I still would argue that it isn’t a crime to want to mind your own business. It wasn’t last time I checked anyway. Whether that is always wise is another issue altogether.
What we don’t need are people like you who are quick to blame the easiest mark and then think you have achieved some type of moral and noble goal.
The problem is not that simple and therefore not that easy to solve.
You may want to consider the results of your attitude and how many may have suffered to keep you in the lifestyle you have become accustomed to.
I would like to inject a note of reality into this debate.
When were the rules of international trade amended, to say that Australian farmers have a moral duty of care that not only transcends the normal boundaries of commerce but also international trade boundaries?
I would suggest that people who are casting around a stones throw in this debate. First of all search through their own wardrobes and households, and back trace all items to their country and factory of origin, and ensure that all human rights and workplace health and safety protocols were met in their manufacture.
If the general Australian public, wish to improve the animal welfare practices in Indonesian abattoirs then I suggest they direct their politicians. To tell the Indonesians to use the hundreds of millions of dollars that Australia gives them in aid, for that purpose.
On a personal level I am equally concerned about the safety and welfare of the slaughter men working in those dangerous conditions, as I am about the welfare of the cattle.
There is a very heavy duty racism underlying this whole debate – How dare those brown skin savages mistreat our honorary white cattle.
Nothing highlights this more than this insistence that engaging with the Indonesians is a waste of time and we must simply withdraw from this market.
Jenny,
Do you know what other countries have a live export trade?
I would be surprised if there were any other civilized countries practicing live export on the same scale as Australia.
Susan
Define ‘civilised country’ – predominantly white Christian perhaps?
Australia is the only country in the world with a large surplus of food, relative to population therefore we are the largest food exporting country in the world.
Here you go Susan,
I don’t think this is all countries but I would suspect it does fulfil your question about civilized countries?
I believe that there are many more smaller nations that export live cattle and sheep on a much smaller scale than Australia or America or New zealand or Canada etc….
http://www.livecorp.com.au/Facts_and_Stats/Statistics/International.aspx
Why not get around all this by doing the slaughtering and processing in Australia. It’s senseless not to add an added value to any export.
NZ tried to send livestock (sheep) exports to the middle east for a while but the horrendous loss and maltreatment put paid to that. I’m pretty sure it was not just the bad loss in terms of monetary loss but the thought of the suffering of the animals which got to everbody’s conscience.
Haven’t found current figures, but, back in 2005 the US was over 600 Million USD in exports. Total live animal and meat is around 8 Billion for 2007.
http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/the-u-s-ranks-6th-in-animal-exports/
In 2009 Australia earned 996.5 Million AuD:
http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/export-trade
Here are numbers for 2001-2005:
http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/exports/?section=0
Click on the country then on the “0-Food and Live Animals” for the breakout.
Here are the top 10 live animal exporters for 2005 in one chart:
http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/the-u-s-ranks-6th-in-animal-exports/
Seems like France, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, and the UK all export more live animals than Australia and the US.
Mack,
Two issues. One, Islam wants to kill its own meat under its own control. Two, socialist societies tend to add extra costs onto processes that consumers would rather not pay.
Mack
Contrary to the propaganda on activist website, live export didn’t cause the closure of abattoirs.
The closure of abattoirs brought about the need for live export.
There is currently this fantasy doing the rounds that 40,000 meat workers lost their jobs due to live export.
Just to put that into perspective the JB Swift abattoir at Dinmore near Brisbane employs 1950 (a large percentage foreign) people and kills approximately 1million cattle a year. (3300/day)
Based on that 40,000 meat workers would have been killing 20 million cattle a year
the entire Australian cattle herd stands at 28 million.
Thanks for the statistics, Kuhnkat and Debbie.
It looks as if in the stats from Kuhnkat, ‘live export’ could include exporting animals that are not for consumption, like breeding stock, race horses, dogs, etc. The data from Livecorp shows just cows and sheep for meat. A big difference in export numbers when you use the Livecorp data when you compare Australia with the US.
It’s also significant to look at the means and distances travelled. Canada and Mexico to the US isn’t that far, nor is it on a boat.
Binny, maybe you’d like to travel to Indonesia with live export cargo and define civilized afterwards?
Susan,
As far as I can see, above anything else, those statistics show that punishing Australian cattle farmers will not and could not solve issues with live export.
This issue is far more complex than most people understand and it is driven by economics and a ready market.
I’m also not sure why you wanted to corral the figures about ‘not for consumption’ and also distances?
At the end of the day, whether we like it or not (and I actually am one of the nots) these cattle and other livestock are primarily bred for and owe their existence to human consumption and human use. It is just a basic indisputable fact.
We are never going to ban people from eating meat I would imagine.
We also have no right to ban other cultures from their own religious practices, regardless how distasteful we may personally find them.
I agree that we should limit cruelty as much as possible and that we should speak up if we see outright cruelty in any form.
As much as I admire your concern, it may help you if you understand the realities of this market and also the benefits that you probably unconsciously reap from it.
Susan
‘Binny, maybe you’d like to travel to Indonesia with live export cargo and define civilized afterwards?’
Why do you think I take such monumental offence, to ignorant, arrogant, self-satisfied, sanctimonious, and racist people like you.
At what point did you become the arbitrator of acceptable behaviour, for from your privileged and comfortable position.
Visit Aceh, and Irian Jaya, or even East Timor. Then see if you can maintain your smug self-satisfaction, and faux outrage over the fate of a few cows.
These people are simply trying to do the best they can with what they have available. If you wish to improve the fate of the cows, then first improve the lot of the slaughtermen with proper equipment and facilities.
Or will you simply buckpass, and say ‘that it is someone else’s responsibility’.
Binny
Too right Binny, what some of these campaigning (for anything) people don’t realise is, that with their single (bloody) minded uncompromising attitude, they actually drive away others who otherwise would be sympathetic to their cause
gavin,
Your silly response demonstrates perfectly why you are on the wrong side of issues and history.
Jenny,
“NGO’s” and “hard work” together makes a sentence oxymoronic.
Modern NGO’s are all too often about shaking down money from easily duped people and governments and imposing policies that do not work.
Your policy goal, if reached even with the phonies up documentary your side has fabricated, will not reduce animal suffering. It will damage Australian farmers, however.
Sort of like what your current PM is trying to do regarding CO2 to all of Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8rsyg0lkkM&feature=player_embedded
But more and more people are seeing through the parasite arguments of extremists and fear mongers. So enjoy your smugness while it lasts. The push back is coming.
If we end up with the lifestyle of at least a century ago, which is where green activists want to put us through a reduced carbon and energy footprint, making each and every one of us provide greater personal exertion, it will become very evident to all just how essential increased meat consumption is in order to produce that exertion and we, like Asians currently, will be killing livestock in the backyard as we did when I was a kid because of our economic circumstances.
Prevention of cruelty to animals is has evolved more with improved economics than for any other reason.
Well a lot of comments have gone on since I accessed here a couple of days ago and I cannot possibly address all the points made. But I will make a few points.
Other countries. Yes other countries do export live but Australia is a very major exporter in terms of numbers of animals exported. And we do export live breeding stock, but by far the vast majority of the animals are for slaughter. Our geographical position is an issue due to the long haul of many voyages, up to a month at sea, sometimes a lot longer if things go wrong, which result in 30 000 animals a year dying on the ships. Many other countries are exporting live over short distances and not be sea as someone pointed out. You cannot compare apples and oranges.
(In passing mentioning oranges I see orchardists are going to have to dump their crops because they can only get $30 a tonne. Yet today I paid $4 for 3kgs in Woolies. Enough said)
Value of the live trade. The chilled trade is in fact worth nearly five times the live export trade. And a major part of the chilled trade is in fact to Muslim countries in the ME. The refrigeration issue is a furphy.
In terms of the economic effect if the live trade were ended, the report by respected independant economists Acil Tasman is worth reading. In summary it found that:
•that live sheep exports are actually costing jobs and stifling our meat processing sector
•that contrary to industry claims, farmers don’t need live sheep exports and in fact many are already moving into other, more lucrative areas;
•that live sheep exports do not underpin the price of sheepmeat domestically;
•and phasing out the trade would have a modest impact on farmers and the economy.
•And that a sheep processed domestically is worth 20% more to the Australian economy than one exported live due to the capacity to add value in Australia.
Claims by the industry of a huge loss of employment if the live trade ended are not accurate. For instance they include truckies who deliver the cattle to port. If the live trade ended the cattle still have to be trucked to a slaughterhouse. Indigenous workers would not lose jobs. More indigenous jobs would be created if there were meatworks in northern Australia to employ them. The live export industry actually employs very few people compared to the number lost in the closure of meatworks in Australia.
Now Binny wrote: “Just to put that into perspective the JB Swift abattoir at Dinmore near Brisbane employs 1950 (a large percentage foreign) people and kills approximately 1million cattle a year. (3300/day) Based on that 40,000 meat workers would have been killing 20 million cattle a year the entire Australian cattle herd stands at 28 million.”
Binny: You might like to rework those figures and take account of the numbers of sheep that used to be killed in now closed meatworks in this country. We dont just kill cattle you know.
hunter: “phonies up documentary your side has fabricated”
I actually find that quite offensive. If and when you have been over to the ME or to Indonesia and actually checked out for yourself whether the reports by Lyn White of the gross mistreatment of our animals and the film footage she has taken during 8 vistis to the region are fabrications, then I suggest you have no basis for such allegations. But I doubt the knockers here would have the guts to do what she has done. And if you did go and see what she has seen, would you have done anything about it or just turned and walked away? If the latter then let’s not waste each other’s time here.
Debbie. You wrote “I agree that we should limit cruelty as much as possible and that we should speak up if we see outright cruelty in any form.”
What Lyn White has witnesssed is probably the grossed cruelty that you could imagine. So all she has done is speak out. You, and others here might like to read her talk to the Manning Clark symposium on 29 June I think it was. Google it and you can read it. She covers a lot fo the issues people have raised here.
But now I must leave you all for a week or so (Ok don’t cheer too loudly some of you) but if you are all still here when I get back we’ll talk some more.
Susan,
try comparing the US and Australia to France and the rest of the countries in the top 3.
The real issue is the condescending attitude if not outright contempt for supposedly UNCIVILIZED COUNTRIES that export live animlas. Look at that list again. By this standard there are few, if any, CIVILIZED Countries!!
I think the real issue is the unreasonable standards placed on the treatment of animals as if they were equivalent to humans. I personally would have a talk with anyone I thought was abusing an animal. It shows an attitude that tends to flow into other areas of life, contempt for others property. On the other hand, much of the footage filmed to support this movement is questionable. Were they real workers, or, like so many other films from activists in the last 10-20 years, plants by the activists? Show me something from a group that is not making large amounts of money off of this movement and who isn’t simply out of their heads like PETA.
The fact is Jenny you are a ‘professional’ activist you may well have started out with good intentions looking for people to help you solve a particular issue with animal welfare. But you are now in a situation where you look for issues with animal welfare (by necessity further and further afield) in order to maintain your memberships and donations.
To say you are overly dramatic in your reporting, with an excessive use of emotionally charged phrasing, is an understatement.
In your CV you state that you got the dry curfew changed – give me a freaking break. The dry curfew was a stupid idea, and was opposed by every farmer in the country from the moment it was introduced.
I can’t comment on the situation with the council run abattoir because I don’t know the exact details.
However I would query the economic logic of allowing animals that have been purchased at a considerable cost to die over the weekend.
The other point I would like to make is that cattle don’t drink and eat every day. We use one-way gates on our watering points in order to capture our cattle. The outgoing gate has to be closed for two days in order to capture all the cattle at a watering point. Because the cattle spend one day grazing and filling their paunch and then one day camped at the water chewing their cud. Approximately half the cattle use a particular watering point on alternate days; you can often see them passing each other in the evening one mob coming in another lot going out.
Note: This is different for dairy cows with their far larger milk production and resulting faster metabolic rate.
I don’t know anything about the sheep abattoirs; I thought we were talking about cattle in Indonesia.
However perhaps you would like to provide us with details on what sheep abattoirs closed, how many sheep they killed, how many people they employed , when they were closed in relation to live export, and the reasons cited for the closure. You might also like to provide details on the salary of a meat worker in Indonesia, for instance, as compared to one in Australia, and what is a discrepancy in the relative processing costs. I suspect you’ll find it will exceed the actual value of the animals; in short Australian abattoirs couldn’t compete even if farmers gave them their stock for free.
You cite a report by an economist! Pul- ease l could get an economist to show that it was economically feasible, for the Queen of hearts to jump out of a deck of cards and spit prune juice in your eye.
These guys have less credibility than climate scientists.
The fact is; like water the economic investment pool flows around the world to where it is used most efficiently. If it was economically efficient to slaughter livestock in Australia, under the Australian salary system, then that would be happening. Governments have tried to legislate against economic reality for generations, and all they do is create a larger and larger economic dam, that does more and more damage when they invariably burst.
I could go on but I will return to the current situation in Indonesia. You have identified an issue with Indonesian abattoirs, what is your plan to correct this issue? Withdrawing the 20% of cattle originating from Australia, WILL NOT correct the issues affecting the other 80% of cattle being slaughtered in those abattoirs.
I will ask you this, if you saw a domestic pet being mistreated what would you do?
A. Prosecute the person mistreating the pet.
B. Ignore the person mistreating the pet. Ignore the pet shop who sold the pet to that person. Attack person who originally sold their children’s surplus guinea pigs to the pet shop.
I accept my moral and legal duty of care to my livestock, while they are under my ownership and fulfill that to the best of my ability. Under the current international laws of commerce when the ownership of those animals passes to someone else, so does the duty of care.
These are not Australian cattle being mistreated in Indonesia, they are Indonesian cattle bought and paid for by Indonesia under the laws of international trade and commerce.
If you wish to have those laws changed – then good luck with that.
I will not be held responsible for your perceptions of acceptable cultural behavior, and I will not succumb to emotional blackmail.
Gee whiz Jenny,
You’re not getting the point are you?
Nobody here is saying that cruelty is a good thing…or that we should accept it.
What the discussion is about is the OUTCOMES and RESULTS of this episode.
Because I am about to make some personal comments, to be fair I should state my position.
I am a total and useless sook when it comes to animals. Even though I live on the land I am incapable of even killing a sick chook.
My children often joke that I care about our pets more than them.
I abhor deliberate cruelty to any living creature. And yes Jenny, I too have made life very uncomfortable for saleyard and abattoir operators when I see unnecessary mistreatment.
I am mostly a vegetarian (unless you count fish and eggs and some cured products).
I am also a farmer in southern Australia and we do have a small livestock program (sheep). Our primary income source however is cropping.
Soooooo…….
Maybe if I put it this way it may help you to understand my objections?
If the aim was to get attention and an inappropriate emotional knee jerk reaction in the media and in urban Australian communities, then congratulations you succeeded.
If your aim was to get a knee jerk reaction from government and then cause them to behave inappropriately and with severely short term, political expediency and political pragmatism, then congratulations you succeeded.
If your aim was to further marginilise the farming demographic and make them appear as uncaring and as Graeme claims ‘thick headed’ and cause them to react defensively, then congratulations you were an amazing success.
If your aim was to have people like Graeme make value judgements and sanctimonious and ill informed comments about Australian farmers then you were an amazing success.
If your aim was to get people to make spurious and damaging racist comments about cultures that are different to ours, then once again you were an amazing success.
However….
If your aim was to foster a sensible and all inclusive debate about ways to improve this market and the associated practices then you have failed miserably.
All you have achieved in this arena is a whole heap of useless political rhetoric and then driven these people further ‘underground’.
This campaign and the way it was structured has NOT achieved the cessation or even improvement of live export and was never likely to!
May I also refer you to an article in the Land dated July 7th on page 3 that outlines the dreadful fallout for animals and the farming community in northern Australia as a DIRECT RESULT of this ill conceived political stunt?
For your sake I sincerely hope you truly believe it was worth it!
May I also remind you that all these animals, including pets and even livestock we breed for sport owe their very existence to the fact that we humans use them to either consume, clothe ourselves, conduct competitive sporting events, derive income from breeding, or just simply spoil and enjoy (regarding household pets).
While that may seem offensive and immoral to some, nowhere in the world is it illegal.
How these animals get treated by their human masters/owners is purely the luck of the draw.
Do I like that indisputable fact? Personally no.
I would argue that being bred in Australia is one of the luckier draws.
Do I believe it can be improved by heavy handed bureaucratic and government legislation and emotional media campaigns?
Absolutely not!
Do you ? Seriously?
I would also add that all of us are complicit as far as animal treatment goes. As Binny pointed out earlier, go and have a look in your wardrobe, your pantry and many of the other consumer items you use in your every day life and which contribute to the lifestyle that you are privileged enough to enjoy.
Unless you were extraordinarily vigilant, you are using products from these same companies and therefore inadvertently ‘condoning’ the very practices you are campaigning against.
As I said at the start of this post, there are serious ‘double standards’ operating here.
The best way to improve the way we treat animals is to raise the living standards OF PEOPLE (not animals) and foster sensible and patient discussion through education.
It is also far more productive to INCLUDE all sectors of society rather than MARGINILISE them by fostering a direct attack on their livelihood!
So, once again Jenny, Graeme et al, as much as I respect and admire your passion about animal welfare I totally disagree with your tactics because you have not achieved successful results and your arguments and comments are divisive and counterproductive.
As Binny pointed out earlier, you are passing the buck and expecting people to give up their very livelihoods IMMEDIATELY because you are morally and emotionally outraged. When they (understandably) don’t agree you want to punish them and allow others to mercilessly attack them.
From my perspective, that is a very real shame.
Jenny,
Toughsky stuffsky if you are offended, my dear parasite.
Most people eat meat. That means we kill things to get their meat.
We stun and shoot or just cut the throats of cattle and pigs and sheep.
We club fish or let them suffocate.
We pull chicken’s heads off.
We ambush deer and shoot them with rifles, shotguns or arrows. We trick ducks and geese into flying into gun range, where we blast them.
We have done it since time immemorial and we will be doing it 1000 years.
Humans are omnivore animals. We are hunters. It is in our DNA. Our ability to run long distances while carrying a club or spear and use it on the go is why we are on top.
For some people with a shared personality disorder to try and stop this by pretending it is wrong is at once annoying and entertaining. Annoying because you gin up your movies, publish your brochures and shake down rich people with your movies and brochures. Entertaining because you are just so transparently phony and people are not going to stop eating meat because of your efforts.
So be off. I wish you failure.
I hope the farmers, ranchers and hard working people who actually do the work prevail over the vacuous revisionism you push.
Regards,
hunter
Sorry Hunter I’m just going to have to disagree with you a wee bit here.
I would like to think that the animal I eat was put to death humanely. Who knows, unexpectantly having your throat cut may be better than what’s in store for some of us.
Call me a bit of a softy but I’m inclined to agree with the girls.
As for the hunting things you mentioned ; well, the more I look at man the more I love my dog.
Mack,
Hasn’t your dog ever taken down another animal?
That is not a pretty or ‘humane’ sight!
They’re rather efficient hunters too you know.
Unless of course your dog is one of those designer pets?
A A don’t like that either.
Debbie,
I agree , there is definitely a dogs instinct to hunt and kill , but a dog can be trained and “civilised” not to.
When man takes on the killing of animals for “sport” is that just to gratify his instinct for killing or should he be more civilised than that?
Mark
but a dog can be trained and “civilised” not to.
see how long that “civilization” sticks around without the “master” man being there and hunger strikes.
I agree though about hunting, if you don’t want or need to eat it don’t kill it!
Besides you will find that as people get older they lose their “killing” instinct-urge.
True hunters who hunt for food will hunt as long as they are able to.
I wish Mack had not, ever so slightly, opened the misanthropy door. Dogs aside the misanthropy door is a despicable and insidious one which informs AGW and its attendant peripheral issues like veganism, a most decadent, unnatural self-indulgence; AGW and misanthropy are explained here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html
Having said that, cruelty to any lessor creature is a diminution of man’s dominion.
One can train a dog to help in hunting and to do so with great discipline.
That discipline will last as long as its human master is present.
Cats, on the other hand, will not train for anything and will kill everything they can get away with killing.
As a very occasional hunter and someone who supports rescue of both domestic and wild animals, I am not a supporter of cruelty. But I am not going to redefine cruelty to include everything to do with hurting animals, or support misanthropes who value animals over humans. And I will push back as hard as allowed by law against those who would assign “rights” to animals. The NGO’s siphoning off money in the ruse of ‘animal welfare’ seem to demonstrate strongly misanthropic perspectives, and are often found to hypocritically profiteering, as I cited above. NGO’s that push social movements are a sort of secular era version of a religious order. The historic ones at least wrote books and made some good wines and ales. The modern NGO like a PETA or Greenpeace produces nothing but profits and power for its leadership levels.
I am not going to argue with Jenny. She has her beliefs and nothing I say will sway them. But I will say that the inferences about deaths at sea are rubbish. 28,000 did die one year, this was cattle and sheep on a boat from Uruguay that sunk and that had not been operating in Oz for years. It was an old boat of low standard. 35,000 sheep dead sounds a lot but it is only 0.0083% of the 4.2 million shipped in 2008 – this is less than would have died normally in the paddock at home. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200906/s2611325.htm Even the 295 cattle that died last year going to Egypt was out of 16,465 cattle on the boat and thus less than 0.018 percent once again, less than paddock deaths. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/large-jump-in-cattle-deaths-on-export-ships-20110328-1cdjj.html
I have been a stockman on a boat and know how well the animals are treated. I have seen how the animals are looked after in Indo. I know that Indonesians use the whole animal – minus the hair and moo – pretty hard to get the whole animal into an expensive cardboard box from Oz. The Indonesians value-add when the animal gets there through growth and fattening. This makes the meat affordable, and allows employment and participation by Indonesian people.
The comment about truckies employed to take cattle to abattoirs instead shows plain ignorance of Northern production systems. The live ex live weight is about 300 kg. To get to slaughter weight means another 150 kg minimum must be put on. This would take 18 months to two years. Truckies can’t fiddle their thumbs for 2 years waiting for my cows to fatten. They have already gone broke as Road Trains Australia (NT’s largest trucking company) has said they are looking down the barrel of doing. And even if we get an animal to 450 kg it will most likely end up as low value grinding beef, which will mean we will still go broke. Most of us spend 2 K a day to run these places. We are highly geared and have spent all our extra income from Live Ex on capital improvements and animal welfare – more water, lick block, veterinary treatments, better yards, and better systems. Now far fewer animals die in the paddock. Before live ex, cows would rarely live past 2 calves as they mined their skeletons for production and died from lack of nutrition in the dry season, where our pastures are like straw.
I am heartened that the Live Export trade has recommenced, that in a few years we might be back to full export, and I am also heartened that the Indonesian Feed Lotters Association, together with MLA have made a joint announcement that stunning devices will be introduced to all abattoirs where cattle from Australia will go.
But it will be a hard two years with exports likely to be only 40% of normal this year and 52% next year. We have all had to restructure financially. This coming at peak seasonal debt means there is literally nothing in the bickie jar. The banks have been very good, but there is a limit to what they can do and many producers and dependant businesses will go broke. How are we going to look after them? I cannot think of full restoration without knowing that ALL small businesses that rely on us are also restored. If anything this fiasco has made me realise just how dependent so many regional businesses are on our industry doing well. I can no longer think of just me, and my family it is now us, all of us, all across regional Australia no matter what we do, this will impact us all. And I am incredibly sad for the hardship so senselessly imposed on so many by such a knee jerk stupid reaction to so few.
Sorry guys I didn’t know there was such a big issue as this over AGW.
I must be getting a bit misantropyic in my old age 🙂
As for hunting, I can say that it is pretty horrific what goats and deer go through when the shot from a .308 is a bit stray on the animal and offspring are about.
Mack,
You make a good point: Hunting is often very cruel. That was the point in my explicit post.
But people are still eating meat, and not likely to change. And we do not need self-appointed busy bodies trying to impose their will on us while they take our money in the process.
Here is a conundrum: Many places in the US and apparently Australia as well, are suffering from feral hog population explosions. They are highly destructive, breed like rabbits, are disease vectors, and can be physically dangerous as well.
How do we control them? What about the many other invasive species that Australia and other countries suffer from?
feral house cats, English sparrows, certain fishes and mollusks, all are very happy to invade a destroy.
How do we stop them? Is it cruel?
Mack,
I love my dogs too. In Australia we have the lifestyle and the privilege to put our pets on a pedestal. There is multi billion dollar market that surrounds modern man’s obsession with their pets.
A huge part of the problem is that we have forgotten or refuse to recognise that this is a huge privilege in our ‘civilized ‘ world.
In other countries and other cultures they simply don’t have this luxury.
As much as I love and enjoy all my animals I am fully aware that if I had to choose between them and the survival of my family then of course my family would win. Thankfully we are rarely in this position in our privileged world.
Jenny’s organisation misses this basic fact.
As Hunter and E G have pointed out these people as a larger group are misanthropes and believe that they have the moral right to punish people and industries that they do not understand or even want to understand. They believe it is perfectly O K to demand the destruction of other peoples livelihoods because they have been morally or emotionally outraged.
Of course if anyone else demanded they give up their livelihoods they would disappear in droves.
Hunter,
Humans were responsible for the introduction of pest species and therefore should be responsible enough to eradicate them. Whether it is cruel or not is immaterial!
Of course you already know that, I just thought I would answer the question.
Hunter,
Here we are back to the mouse and puddy tat. How nauseatingly many times have you heard someone justify owning a cat in the bush, by saying that it brings lots of mice home.Love to see a post mortem on those mice to see how badly they died.
Notice that, given the grand definitions of noble hunting above, the cat did not eat the mouse.
Some animals are more equal than others all right.
An aside on AGW, did I just hear on ABC that this lot of Canberra vandals intend to BUY a coal fired power station and CLOSE it ?
And did I not read the other day, that Poland jacked up against EU targets, because they are set to export coal to a whole lot of NEW GERMAN COAL fired stations. Wonder why they want them ?
Anyone in this country could tell them to export that coal at a profit and import the Merc’s from China . Silly Germans, committing economic suicide making stuff and paying first world wages.
It will never work.
Well this phony professional activist could rebuff all the attempts to discredit me above but given the highly emotional nature of those would it change any of Binny and co’s mindsets. Of course it would not but if you have time to wait I will. Being on the road is not the easiest time to do that. But I will defend one thing. The dry curfews issue. I know farmers were against them but had failed to get them ended. Goulburn was the first saleyards to do so after and I led 40 animal acitivists into the council chamber and demanded they end them there and then in the large city saleyards. They did and soon all of NSW followed, Mind you I copped all sorts of abuse at the time from the selling agents. So we succeeded where the farmers in the district had failed and I take pride in the effort I put into that issue. Professional acitivist. Well that would be nice as I thought professionals charged rather large fees, at least the ones I know do. I wonder where I went wrong. And failed have we. I think not. We will win this battle, it will take time but we will. And there have been changes. If that were not so our cattle in Egypt would still be getting the Indonesian treatment. We got the trade stopped there for over a year after AA got similar footage there and there is now a closed loops system in place. And the industry is rushing to get stunning in more and more abattoirs in Indonesia as a result of AA footage. WE have not got the ideal situation but it will at least be better for some cattle and I call that a win. Those here who wish us failure well sorry your wish is not being granted. Now I am not copping out here. Those who asked multitude of questions of me will have to wait a week or so if you really want me to answer. By the way, our cattle drink every day all year round. and they are not dairy cattle. I know because our place is only 2200 acres and I see them all every day as they all stream iinto the troughs, all of them. They can go without for a day or more and surivive but it depends on the heat as to the level of stress they might experience as a result. Cattle in cold climates can clearly go longer than cattle in heat over 50 degrees in the sun. You dont have to be a biologist to know that.
By the way, if we have not achieved anything then someone might like to tell the MLA that all that money they are now spending in Indonesia to supposedly get better outcome for our cattle not to waste their money. That big front page ad in The Land? Oy yes, they knew things were bad over there and now they are having to do something about it solely because AA had the guts to go and expose the situation. But if I read some people correctly here who desppite their claims they cant stand cruelty, nonetheless seem to be suggesting that Lyn White, on seeing that cruelty in Indonesia should simply have minded her own business and walked away. Well sorry folks but my my moral compass will never point that way.
No Jenny,
Go to page three and read that article. The Land, July 7th.
It outlines the some of the dreadful fallout to cattle and their owners as a DIRECT RESULT of this ill conceived political stunt.
Like I said before, for your sake, I do hope you believe it was worth it.
Lyn White didn’t have to mind her own business. Of course she was horrified at what she saw.
We all were!
I am severely objecting to the political stunt that was pulled over this.
All that money? ROFL! Good one!
I am quite sure it will be uselessly wasted on pointless paper work and administrative costs and some beautiful glossy reports that claim some success.
In reality, you have just driven these people underground. In essence, the MLA has no legislative power in Indonesia. They can be as AWARE as they like to claim but they are essentially toothless in Indonesia because they are not part of the Indonesian Government.
My moral compass is obviously different to yours because it says :
Shame on you for aiming this campaign at the wrong people and creating angst and a negative response from the very people who could help you if you INCLUDED them rather than MARGINILSED them.
It also says shame on you for allowing self appointed morally sanctimonious people air space and media space to make ridiculously misinformed and racist comments about people and cultures that are not lucky enough to have their privileged and morally superior lifestyles.
It also says shame on you for goading our government into behaving irresponsibly and inappropriately and then crowing that it was a success!
You can’t legislate for MORALS Jenny! What a ridiculous idea.
I am fine for legislating against cruelty at its source. The northern cattle farmers are not cruel to their animals and you know that perfectly well.
You have no right to punish them because you are morally outraged by the perfectly legitimate trade that they conduct.
You also have no right to punish those Indonesian farmers who have made a livelihood feedlotting these animals before they are ready for slaughter.
And even though I am mostly a vegetarian, neither you or I have a right to interfere with the fact that humans are indeed omnivores and they eat meat.
I am not fine with punishing people because you are morally outraged by their perfectly legal and sustainable livelihood and lifestyle choices.
You have a right to your opinions as do all of us.
You need to check whether you really do have a right to arbitrarily impose your morals on other people and then punish them simply because they don’t behave the way you believe they should.
Once again…..I still admire your passion and I am happy to congratulate you on your personal successes re treatment of animals in saleyards and abattoirs when you have seen outright neglect and cruelty. Despite your inferences otherwise, there are plenty of us farmers who have done exactly the same thing.
Your organisation no longer has my support however because as far as I can see you have turned into an organisation like PETA and you have lost your way in a bid to gain political credence amongst the clueless and morally sanctimonious urban elite.
In the process your organisation has successfully marginilised the very people who would be in the best position to help you achieve sensible goals re animal welfare.
As Mark said earlier, your behaviour and this political stunt has driven away people who would normally have supported you.
So that’s the way it’s done, pull a publicity stunt and then claim a victory and credit for all the hard work that has gone behind the scenes.
And that’s your solution to the Indonesian abattoir issues as well, pull a publicity stunt, claim a moral victory, and then go home and count the extra donations. Leaving the Northern Australian cattle industry, via the MLA to repair damage relationships and continue with the work of making real on ground improvements to Indonesia abattoirs.
More and more people are getting sick of your hypocrisy, and they will continue to hold the mirror of hypocrisy up to your face so you cannot avoid looking at yourself.
I have a challenge for Animals Australia. Select just one of those abattoirs that you filmed and install a Temple Grandin approved restraining device, to improve the lot of both the slaughtermen and the cattle. The designs are available free of charge from her website.
After reading Binny’s comment here’s another moral judgement from my moral compass.
Shame on you for not acknowledging the damage you have caused in northern Australia and shame on you for not being morally responsible enough to help clean up the mess.
Like a spoilt teenager, your organisation has chucked a monumental tantrum, made a mess and then sulkily expected someone else to clean it up.
Lucky for you there are plenty of responsible people up there who will clean up the mess.
Lucky for you they don’t believe pulling political, emotional media stunts is the right way to clean that mess up.
They even refused to allow media and film crew anywhere near them while they did some of that cleaning.
If they did….you would be in a bit of a political pickle.
You’d say anything to defend the indefensible Debs. Clean up your acts or be voted out of business. For heavens sake you lot should be ahead of the game and this should NOT be happening. e.g. chemical industry with the drum disposal problem. Solution recyclable bulk handling. Same thing here – stop whinging, stop shooting the messenger and get it sorted.
Expect to see a world of consumers making more demands on environmental side effects and ethical considerations. Perhaps if we get rid of your protectionist single desk nanny state mentality we might make some progress.
I’ve been following the live export trade for a while now, since the sheep issues about 10 years ago, trying to get an idea of where they are at and what improvements have occurred since the issue of live exports first came to the attention of the MSM. It seems to me that there are a number of issues at play here and to understand them fully they need to separated and looked at independently in the first instance rather than as a single complex issue.
I, like most of the posters here, do not condone animal cruelty in our society. I, like many posters here eat an omnivorous diet and will happily continue to do so safe in the knowledge that the probability is high that in our society the animals that we eat are treated humanely. That’s our choice and our ‘developed’ society allows us to do so.
I’m less certain that a developing nations society allows its citizens the opportunity to always treat animals humanely. It’s a bit like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We can afford to be concerned about the environment, the humane treatment of animals, and the humane treatment of our citizens. Talking to students where I study, who are from Indonesia, on a range of issues over a prolonged period of time, it is clear that some sections of their society have achieved first world living standards and the attendant expectations in regards to the treatment of fellow citizens and their animals. However much of the county and it population do not live a first world existence, far from it. To the contrary most of the population live in a developing world, with varying degrees of both technological and societal development.
Given that, they are more concerned with putting food on their tables than they are about the way in which animals are treated. Having said that they accord animals in their care the best treatment they can given their ability to do so. And that is the crux of the matter. It is the ability to do so, or put another way, having the means to do so, that is the real issue here. Realistically I can’t criticise or condemn the abattoir workers in the 4 Corners footage because I do not live their life.
I can criticise Animals Australia for their actions more so than I can criticise the MLA for theirs. The MLA seems to have adopted the very western position of focusing on large scale abattoir’s as opposed to the small scale ones we saw in the 4 Corners footage. Their strategy see the majority of export cattle slaughtered in 3 or 4 modern, large facilities that have had significant investment over the past 10 years. My research leads me to the conclusion that they acted proactively to encourage that investment for a variety of reasons, not the least is animal welfare.
Animals Australia could just have easily have sought the assistance of northern cattle farmers to assist the Indonesian Villages, where they felt there was a problem, to introduce proper restraining devices or the supply of stun guns rather they have adopted a “higher” moral position, which by their action they have forfeited the right to, and sought instead to shut the industry down through the cultivation of outrage within the urban dwelling population in Australia’s cities.
Jenny’s original post and follow up posts here have simply highlighted that rather than make an attempt to understand the culture of the communities and their socio-economic status, as a means of finding a solution to this issue, AA simply sought to create outrage. I read this past week that the abattoir worker who appeared in the 4 Corners footage has been sacked from his job and ostracised by his community for allowing the filming to occur and the shame that this has brought upon his village. He is now unable to find equivalent employment and his family are suffering the consequences. Clearly they were not at fault, yet are being punished as a direct and foreseeable result of the action taken by AA.
There are always other ways to achieve a desired result, either AA did not look at other options or they had a different result in mind than introducing “humane” practices to the small number of Indonesian abattoirs that did not and most likely continue to not meet the standards that are accepted as normal practice in Australia. The “easy” path seems to be AA’s preferred route here.
“Affluenza” is an attempt to name what happens to people and societies that are experiencing high levels of affluence.
Think of a young movie star who, after making millions at an early age. How often we see the tragic pattern played out. How they melts down under the ‘burden’ of having nearly everything it is possible to want available at their fingertips, and being surrounded by manipulative ‘yes’ people. Those yes people are not helping the victim. They are enabling the worst, and distracting them from their talents. They end up in jail, or broke or dead.
Think of a country so rich that caring for non-food animals becomes a major industry. Think how manipulative misanthropes play on the sympathies of the vulnerable and lucratively fight against things they know will win them more money and attention. These yes people do not actually improve things much and often make things worse. But they know how to manipulate their victims and pose as a faux heroic moral crusader very well. Think of a corrupt priest or pastor who does not even bother with the God part.
How long will the target country stay affluent, much less viable?
Luke,
2 things:
1) You are entitled to your opinions and your lifestyle as I am entitled to mine.
The last time I looked, we live in a country where it is perfectly legal for you to live the lifestyle you lead and for me to live the lifestyle I lead. Notice how you are always carping and criticising with endless negative about everyone else and every other lifestyle except for your own? Isn’t it lucky that you live in a country where you’re allowed to do that?
2) You can’t successfully legislate to appease faux moral outrage.
Just because you’re offended somehow by the way farmers operate, including your obsession with a single desk, really just means you have a different opinion and a different perspective. Of course you think you’re right, but so what? It is not illegal and it does not adversely affect the way you live your life other than your claim that it somehow offends you.
Farmers are continually being forced to defend themselves for no other reason than they have been painted as enemies of the environment and now enemies of animals by people who live in a highly protected urban world and want to dictate to the rest of us via morally superior activism.
These same people, including you Luke, are just as culpable for these manufactured moral negatives, because the bulk of Australia’s economy and your lifestyle is in fact driven by the insatiable demands of the urban coastal fringe. I have to also add that to us ‘bushies’ you often appear to be incredibly gullible as you bleat about the environment etc.
Which environment has been more interfered with Luke? City or Country?
How many native animals live in your area?
What happened to their habitat?
I congratulate city councils and urban dwellers for becoming more socially responsible with their recycling and their water ways and their revegetation. Their history re the environment however is far more destructive that rural dwellers and by their very nature, they still are.
I guarrantee you that more chemicals are spewing out of your motorways than farmers will ever spill from the odd poorly stored chemical drum.
And lastly
Sniping at people from other cultures proves that many Australians (very sadly) still suffer from a type of colonial racism.
These people are doing the best they can with the resources they have available. They do not have the luxuries or the privileges that we take for granted.
I would argue that the best way to help them is to help lift their living standards and education standards. That would mean that we should stay involved, not walk away in moral outrage.
I would also argue that taking away their only means of a livelihood because you are morally outraged by the way they treat their animals is very poor behaviour.
Unlike you, I think that AA are attempting to defend the indefensible. The outcomes and results of their political stunt do not resemble their stated goals.
Not unlike that carbon tax I guess 🙂
Debs – ROFL and LMAO
“How many native animals live in your area?” how many forest parks would you like?
Well Debs we’ll just add up your score – of continental scale land clearing, scrub invasion, noxious weeds, ferals, overgrazing, soil erosion, etc Still making soil are we?
Checked your photosystem II herbicides in waterways lately.
And a little bit of dam shredding for good measure. Hey they forgot the turtle cracking !
http://www.news-mail.com.au/story/2011/07/15/lungfish-deaths-spark-outrage-bundaberg/
Come on !
And you completely missed the point on the chemical drums – it’s not “a little spill from the odd drum (stored)” – moreover disposal of 1000s of empty contaminated crushed or uncrushed drums in on-site landfills. Solution – industry based, saw it coming, got it sorted. No whinging.
Luke,
Just a note .Your recycling of plastic chemical drums is an attempt to appease silly city ideals.
An extensive study by a rural research group found that the most environmentally friendly thing to do was to build a hot fire and throw them on . Makes sense if you picture a semi traveling hundreds of kms with them on it.
Can’t wait for the reaction to the government who legislate the cockies out of existence .
Puddy tat won’t have any fresh milk ! Condensed milk lattes !
Luke,
Not surprisingly, we see a total sanctimonious rant about farmers from you.
I do not intend to jump into that gutter wth you.
I will maintain however that on the positive /negative ledger re the environment and urban vs rural, the urban coastal fringe is by far the loser.
I would not pretend for a second that rural activities don’t also impact the evironment. That would be a stupid argument. We do and, like urban activities, we will continue to do so.
There is such a thing as positive and negative impacts in case you haven’t realised. There is also such a thing as sensible recognition of mistakes and sensible, practical and responsible ways to correct them.
The notion that the only good influence or impact on the environment is no impact at all, denies all the good that we have done to make our environment a more hospitable place for all of us.
That includes the good things that have been done on the urban coastal fringe.
As I said before, you are free to voice your opinion as I am mine.
Just because our lifestyle somehow grossly offends you, does not mean it is illegal or bad or wrong. It just means that you’re offended.
Same goes for my opinion of urban, public service wage earners 🙂
It would be nice however to occaisionally hear some positive comments from you. It appears that you’re always ready to criticise and snipe and rarely ever prepared to congratulate or encourage.
Your prophecies of doom and gloom and your litany of all the evils of mankind makes me wonder if you ever have a happy day or even if you can sleep at night.
How about you stay on topic re this post which is looking at the behaviour and the results of A A via the live trade debate and the political stunt that has been staged?
I notice you steered clear of those arguments and now even want to divert it to water storage and conservation?
When the post is about water policy, I will happily discuss that topic in as much detail and depth as required.
Exactly where would all the experienced meat workers come from if anyone wanted to open an abattoir in NT or northern WA? Have you not noticed that there is really a labour shortage, especially where people have to live in remote areas. Abattoir’s cannot compete with mines in wages either.
Anyway, the video of the cruelty in some Indonesian abattoirs was made several months before it was shown at a time that caused the most damage to Australia’s cattle producers. How humane of the organization to sit in information for months that allowed the cruelty to go on!
Half-baked, emotional responses are never effective. In this case the unintended consequences have caused enormous damage to Australia’s relationship with Indonesia through insensitivity, arrogance, political ineptitude; caused many people economic and personal injury; allowed a semi-political group to feel holy and not suffer any personal expense at all.
And other nations are quite ready to take advantage of the situation which means Australia may lose a market.
The world population continues to grow and yet you, who are well fed and comfortable, feel able to tell others that it is OK that they starve.
Thanks Pandanus.
That would have to be the most sensible and evenhanded summary of the whole situation I have read.
I think with some of the small abattoirs, there has been an element of cultural pigheadedness from both sides.
The restraining boxes provided by the MLA have been designed for use with penetrating stunners.
The Indonesians have an issue with this because, Islamic teaching clearly states you can’t eat meat from an animal that has been killed by a blow to the head.
So what you end up with is the typical bureaucratic snafu.
When the door of those boxes open the animal is supposed to be unconscious or already dead. Instead we have a situation where the Indonesians are trying to restrain a conscious animal on the kill floor.
With predictable results!
Commonsense would suggest that you simply install Temple Grandin’s small abattoir restraining devices. However as we all know bureaucracy and commonsense have a tendency to be mutually exclusive terms.
This is not a unique situation, all around the world we have this conflict between Islamic/Jewish and Christian cultural beliefs.
Extensive research by Temple Grandin has shown, that while stunning is preferable to throat cutting.
The overwhelming issue regarding animal welfare, is the way the animal is handled and restrained immediately prior to slaughter.
I would suggest that anyone who is genuinely interested in this debate.
Go to http://www.grandin.com and read through the various articles.
Given the highly emotional nature of the comments by Binny and Debbie and the simply surly remarks of hunter there seems little point in me wasting my time here. My energies are better spent pursuing the goals of AA, that is the improvement in the treatment of our animals in the live export trade. And as for assertions that all I indulge in is emotional statements, well those claims come from the elements here opposed to AA’s work. Others applaud me for my rational and balanced approach. So it depends on where you are coming from I suppose.
I do not seek to impose my morals on anyone. I seek to improve the treatment of animals. If people here don’t like how I go about that, well tough. I am not going to be influenced to stop. And those who seem to suggest they would have supported AAs had it not revealed that footage publicly, but instead quietly worked with the industry to effect change, well sorry I just dont buy that. What I read here is so called horror at the footage shown, but then a host or reasons why nothing could be done about it. Well there will be change. There will be more stunning of animals as a direct result of the exposure by AA. and given that you all seem to believe that more stunning will be an improvement, then that footage has meant fewer animals will be subjected to what we saw on the footage.
In lauding the efforts of MLA in improving welfare in the importing countries, well in doing that you are in effect lauding AA and the animal welfare movement as a whole for it has been on the heels of the efforts of those organizations (including the results of eight investigations by Lyn White in the importing countries) that attention to animal welfare has been given any priority. Millions of animals had to suffer before that happened and still the MLA has to be publicly called to account in order to get it to act to end the worst abuses seen in the 4 corners program. I make no apologies whatsoever for this matter having been taken into the public arena in the way it was. That is what it takes to get this industry to sit up and take notice that cruel pracitces are not acceptable to the vast majority of Australians.
Perhaps those here defending at all cost the reputation of the northern cattle farmers might like to talk about those 500 or so cattle that died on a northern cattle station in recent times from neglect. Nothing to do with any live export ban.
Not all farmers, either in the north or the south can claim a clean slate.
As for the Indonesian trade. The northern producers seem to be living on borrowed time if they have put most of their eggs in the one basket. The Indonesians intend to reduce this trade dramatically as they become self sufficiinet and are in fact claiming they have reached that target ahead of time.
Regarding the on board ship deaths. What people fail to realise is that the level of stress that sees even 2% death rate, considered low by the industry, that that death rates is over a two to three week period. Any farmer who subjected his animals to that level of stress on farm would over the course of a year loet up to 25% of his flock or herd, and would go broke.
It is by that benchmark that the level of stress animals on board experience should be measured.
Now each to his own. I dont accept the argument that the northern industry has been damaged or that any animals suffered as a result of the short ban. Industry reps were claiming there was a good store of fodder on stations to carry the livestock and the government offered financial assitance where it was needed. MInd you the MLA objected to accessing its producer funds.
As for Livecorp, well where are all the levies it collects. it had a responsibility here more than the MLA.
By the way I have no sympathy for any cattleman who found him or herself in a dilemma due to the short ban who had been in effect overstocked. My sympathy where that occurs is with the animals, not with the station owner who should know better.
Farmers engaging in stunts risk having awkward questions being asked.
Jenny
Trying to answer and refute your points one by one would be a waste of time and effort.
You live in a cosy, imaginary, make believe little world of your own with your cohorts, and take no notice of constructive criticism or the real, every day world, that others inhabit.
Highly emotional comments!!!
I will direct you to your headline.
Anyway thanks for the concession – after 20 years of marriage.
I am very much aware that is about as close as any woman is capable of getting to an admission of fault.
By the way I was under the impression the goals of AA are not to try and ‘improve’ the conditions of animals in the live export trade, but to shut it down entirely.
My challenge re the Temple Grandin restraining device still stands, show us you REALLY care,
and make a difference in just one abattoir.
Activists engaging in stunts risk having awkward questions being asked.
Hey; wot’s up with these long posts?
All we have to do as individual electors is to remind pollies what the majority wants.
Shut down that bloody live trade and that’s that!
Silly comment Ian Thomson. The previous drums were metal. 10000s of them all with pesticide residues buried in various pits – often unmarked – leaking into who knows what. The new systems are reusable refillable plastic containers in metal frames.
So you’d like to burn vast piles of plastic though would you – ye gads !
Not relevant to the thread here except that industry can get its finger out and innovate on animal welfare. Get on with it and stop obfuscating.
247,000 signatures equals 1% of the population. I think the pollies can see with the majority want.
A large % of those signatures were ‘click here’ form letters. The pollies are learning to treat those with a bit of skepticism as well.
I am disappointed that you are so dismissive of the damage that has been caused in Northern Australia and in the support industry both here and in Indonesia Jenny.
People here are not being dismissive of much of your work, only annoyed with the political stunt and the lack of responsibility.
There is a sensible and practical middle ground you know.
It is a bit laughable that you acuuse others of being emotional.
This whole political stunt was designed around people’s emotions. Your imagery and your rhetoric is highly emotional.
Luke,
‘ Not relevant’ . You raised chemical drums as an analogy.
People are talking farming practices here ,not heavy industry. The vast majority of farm chemicals are delivered in 20ltr plastic drums .They are biodegradable in direct sunlight ,therefore not re-used. They are carted off for recycling.
I cut them up and made woolshed sweeps for the shedhands over 30 yrs ago and I don’t think I have seen a metal one for 20. The analogy is not relevant.
You seem to have a penchant for scientific study results ,perhaps that is your livelihood.
In mind of this ,you should read up on 3Nitrobenzanthrone ( lots of it in the city), before you panic at the thought of a farmer chucking a few drums on a fire.
Me I’ll have the plastic any day, you get a choice with it about being downwind.
Gavin…you think the majority should be listened to?!But you want a carbon tax and believe the majority should not be listened to in this instance?!!! Typical cherry pick from a green. A bit like bob and his “one person, one vote one value”. He means his value and he has shown his colours for all to see. Vote green then you are clearly a totalitarian and a danger to our freedoms and our childrens future!!
Dont be so stupid!
I have found the discussions here very interesting and it shows just how grey the area is. I sympathise with Jenny but when I hear people like Debbie and Binny talk they also make a lot of sense.
I thank Jenny for her article and her comments and commend her on her capacity to respond with dignity and to keep her comments civil. If only more people acted that way I think balance would be far more likely!
Further to this ridiculous propaganda, about 40,000 meat workers.
I’ve just checked the Fletcher abattoir’s website and they say they kill 85,000 sheep a week at two sites (that should translate into somewhere around 4 million the year) with more than 1000 employees (doesn’t say how many more)
currently slightly less than 1 million cattle are being exported every year so they could easily be killed by a Dinmore sized abattoir employing 1950 people.
Total sheep live export per year stands at approximately 3.5 million. They could be handled easily by two more Fletcher’s abattoirs employing approximately 1000 people.
Total increased employment if all live export was processed in Australia, possible jobs for 3000 more abattoir workers definitely less than 4000.
That’s the problem when you start telling lies sooner or later someone will check.
Mind you: If it did previously take 40,000 abattoir workers, to process 1 million cattle and 3.5 million sheep. Then that certainly explains why they all went broke, and live export became necessary.
toby robertson
I’m sorry but there is nothing civil about attempting to destroy some ones life’s work.
Jenny and her friends knew what they were doing and timed this carefully for when the Northern mustering season had started into full swing. Knowing that any interruption to the trade at that time would inflict maximum damage.
Remember they had been opposed to live export for years they are very familiar with how it works.
If they brought that film forward when they are originally took it, there would have been time to get everything sorted out before this season’s mustering got underway.
Not only that, but if they had simply come forward and said this is appalling. The best solution to this would be to install proper restraining devices, and let’s get that done now! Or even just demanded that a solution was found, Prior to this season’s exports getting underway They would have had universal support.
Jenny thrives on conflict and she knows that in most rural communities (as in most small communities) people go to great lengths to avoid conflict and keep the peace.
Jenny has build an entire career on getting her away by taking a confrontational approach.
Of course as soon as you refuse to be provoked and stand your ground with these people. They will very quickly give up and go looking for an easier target.
Dr. Temple Grandin enjoys enormous respect from livestock industries right around the world.
Mainly because she doesn’t just throw a tantrum when she identifies a problem. Instead she will identify a problem, devise a solution, and then present the solution.
That is because she cares more about the welfare of animals, then she does about her own ego or financial/political gain. Probably because she doesn’t have any agenda other than the welfare of animals.
Binny, yours is a bit of a sweeping statement to suggest there is nothing civil about destroying someones livelihood. If we still hung people would i be uncivil to campaign for its end and therefor the end of the hangmans livelihood? ( extreme exmple I know but I hope it maxe the point?)
I have had a number of debates with friends on this topic and I was arguing from “your” side. I have family running cattle and sheep stations in South Australia, so I am most certainly sympathetic to the plight of these territory cattle men and all that then rely on their incomes to support other jobs.
I found Jenny’s comment on how quickly meat goes off whether frozen or fresh intersting and on the surface a good argument for just sending over frozen meat. However as somebody here pointed out ( sorry a lot of comments so i cant remember who it was) the cost of Australian labour to cut up these cows and the fact in indonesia all of the cow gets used, would mean the real cost of meat rose dramatically making it uneconomic another enlightening point. Things are seldom black and white and I can very much sympathise if you think it is clear cut because you are actually being impacted.
The government’s sweeping response to cut all exports despite many of the big abattoirs’ using “ethical” practises was a knee jerk reaction by a grossly incompetent government.
I have little time for most NGO’s and lobby groups and believe they are generally just a parasite. That said to my mind Jenny has conducted herself with decency in her responses to comments here and should be commended with her general conduct.
I for one feel like I know a lot more about the subject and would not like to be having to make decisions. It also sounds like Jenny is not exactly making much money out of her campaigns and as a result she is clearly acting out of good conscience, whether I or others agree is irrelevant I support her right to do as she does.
Dr Grandin’s approach by the sounds of it is more consistently positive because she brings solutions with her that do not just involve stopping things or imposing rules and regulations. Maybe there is something for Jenny to learn from that?..certainly in business and life people that just complain seldom achieve much, whilst those that complain but bring solutions are much more likely to succeed in their aims.
As a question Binny et al, do you think it is true that Indonesia is close to self sufficient in cattle and as a result the trade is set to naturally decline?
toby robertson
I guess it’s easier to be impartial when it’s not your livelihood on the line.
Re your question on Indonesian self-sufficiency, the live cattle trade ‘is’ their plan for self-sufficiency.
Geography makes the trade a natural fit, Australia has large areas of low fertility (comparatively) low rainfall country, which is ideal for breeding.
Indonesia has small areas of high fertility, high rainfall country, and a cheap labour force ideal for feedlotting.
The trade will be here for a long time to come, and it has in fact a very long history, more than 100 years
I don’t think AA really understands just just what a dangerous game they were playing. Indonesia takes its access to the northern Australian cattle VERY seriously.
Thankyou for your response Binny…very interesting to hear as you put it their plan for self sufficiency is the cattle trade!…I wonder what Jenny thinks of that!?
We do as you point out have a comparative advantage thx to both our location and the land being used and the thought that I think you are hinting at and somebody earlier made about the potential for invasion is certainly a scary one although I suspect certainly at this stage unlikely. That said if the price of food keeps being forced up by uneconomic farming activities, using food for fuel, soil degradation, carbon capture, refusal to use GM and of course the one true problem of population growth etc, then your scary scenario could unfortunately become more likely.
As good as our troops are I dont fancy us taking on 300 million indonesians with a bankrupt USA unable to offer much support!
Let me clear one thing up. There is no money for me, nor for the army of volunteers who have put hundreds of hours of their lives every year over decades into opposing cruelty to animals, be that in the live export trade or in the local saleyards, or in he local unversity laboratory or wherever. AA is a non profit organization. It raises money from donations to fight the causes it espouses. I have never made or received one red cent from AA or the two organizations I founded prior to my involvement with AA, originally knonw as ANZFAS. I founded an Abattoir and Saleyards Action Group in my home town in 1972 and fought with nothing more than my pen to get a better deal for the animals in those places. I later formed a branch of Animal Liberation and sat on various Government committees helping rewrite the animal welfare laws in the ACT. I also sat on the Animal Welfare advisory Committee set up by the ACT Government. I also sat on the ethics committee set up to study the use of animals in schools. And I travelled in any spare time within NSW speaking to farmer organizations as to our goals, at my own expense..
I can say in all that that not one cent was received by me personally for any of that work. In fact to this day, 38 years on working when I could to help out, it was always at my own expense. The one occasion I concede I did receive something was the fare the Cattleman’s Union paid for me to travel from NSW to Toowoomba to address the Union on animal welfare. That was an invitation by the CU and I did not ask for my fare. They simply said they would pay it. No fee for speaking was offered or asked for by me. In fact I took time off from my job, yes real job, to go. There were other invitations to speak at rural organzations, and I accepted and did so at my own expense.
The big mistake our opponents make is to believe that those in the animal welfare movement in this country or in most countries for that matter are in it for the money, the fame, the media attention and so on. Big big mistake. What you are really dealing with is a growing army of people around the world who are prepared to put their money where their mouths are and make quite significant financial sactrifices personally in the fight for better treatment of animals. Of course those people whose whole lives involve them giving all their time to run sancturies such as those in China for the rescued caged bears in the bile farmes need a salary to do their work. No one can live on air. But by far the main supporters of all animal welfare organizations are people like me, who give of their time and money for no return whatsoever. I held down a full time job for 28 years, nursing and later as a training officer for DPI. I worked every weekend and every holiday from my job in the family dairy farm, for no wage. I did that for over 30 years. My animal welfare work was not a career as some here term it. it was work in my own time for a cause I considered worth fighting for and it cost me heaps financially through tens of thousands of dollars in my donations to various groups. Not just AA, but also Animals Asia and WSPSA and the WWF, organiaztions which do such things as help the Balinese cope with rabies infected dogs.
Most would not know that Christine Townend, who founded the first Animal Liberation branch in Australia, and actually founder AA went on herself to go and help out in India, running a shelter for unwanted animals, and soon, as her reputation spread, being asked to help eradciate rabies in one area through a vaccination program, and to treat farmers animals on which their lives depended so much. One cow can mean a lot to some people in this world. Her husband gave up his well paid job as a lawyer and went over there and for 17 years they ran that animal refuge and did so living in very primitive conditions. Oh no, there is no money in animal welfare.
So sorry to disappoint. If anyone wants to make some money and have a good career. Then you will not find it working for an animal welfare organization. Best you do something else.
But this allegation against me is just another furphy. Clearly some people here simply cannot come to terms with the fact that people like me actually do want only one thing. the proper treatment of our animals and that there is absolutely nothing in it for them personally other than satisfaction at the end of their life that they may have made a difference. I know we have made a difference to many animals, though millions more continue to suffer world wide. Every time I see free range eggs on the supermarket shelves, where 30 years ago when we first tackled that issue they were never to be had, I know that some hens have a better life because of our campaigns over that issue. When I send money to Aminals Asia for the bears I know I am helping free one more bear from a lifetime of suffering. When I send money to WSPA I know one dog in Bali might be saved from contracting rabies.
nd as for the notion that AA just waited for the time when the most impact would be felt by the northern cattlemen to release the footage, that is nonsense. The Government was informed months before that there were serious issues in Indonesia and it did nothing, even though the industry knew how serious those issues were and had known for over a decade. But it is the same old same old story. They never do anything till they can no longer sustain the public pressure, and let us be quite certain about this. it was widespread public pressure that brought about that ban,. The public has had enough of endless footage out of the importing countries that show how shocking the treatment is of our animals. If this shocking treatment cannot be stopped and clearly the industry seems powerless to stop it after 30 years of knowing about it, then the trade has no future,
Oh sure, it will probably take more bad press, tens of thousands of animals more to suffer, but it will end eventually.
As for Temple Grandin and the remarks made there. Why did the MLA not consult her on thoxe dreadful boxes they were putting in place. I know they knew of her work. She has visited this country and spoken at seminars over the past 30 years. They only had to keep up with her work on better designs for stock handling. The animal welfare movement has cited her work often enough in the forums it has run . There was simply no excuse for those boxes. Any cattleman could have told the MLA and LIvecorp what the outcome would likely be if large cattle were roped by the feet in the boxes and then dropped out on their like that. If you cant restrain the head properly then what do you expect. And from my observation it was simply not possible to restrain the head till the terrified animal fell heavily on its side. We all know how edgy cattle get when blood is around. So in those slaughter halls withe smell of blood all around them and suddenly dropped out like. No wonder the beast began to struggle violently. That the MLA and LIvecorp could preside over this sort of situation for so long just beggars belief. Did they really believe that AA, after seeing similar in Egypt, would not one day walk into Indonesia and film those scenes.
Put simply, they knew about all this. They were prepared to continue the trade with that knowledge so spare me all the screams about being exposed when it least suited to the industry. Hopefully northern cattleman have learned something from all t his. Dont trust what you read in the glossy industry magazaines regarding animal welfare in the importing countries.
Lefties negotiate in a ratchet manner: They tell you that you are so wicked and unreasonable that you must give in or else. And they call you names in the media and make phony documentaries about you.
So you give in a little when they promise to do something you want.
Then you find out they did not do what they promised, and go back to pressuring and fibbing about you, and demand that you must do a little bit more. Instead of telling them go to hell, you negotiate in good faith, and offer to do something if they do something as well.
You do your part, and then you find they forgot to do theirs, and you are wicked and evil to suggest they are being cynical or unfair. And so on, until the lefties control the media, the schools and suddenly the citizens are working the govt. workers like Luke, and then you get vilified for daring to disagree with your betters.
The Jenny’s of the world are just parasites feeding off this process by applying the ratchet in new areas or with stronger force.
@Gavin…
This post is out of topic. Gavin wrote on another thread that there were no more of my articles published. I must tell Gavin that I was a bit busy on other scientific issues so I had not written more articles. My more recent contribution to the REAL scientific knowledge can be found here:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073
And here:
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
Enjoy it!!!
😀
toby robertson
I don’t give too much credibility to mess hall gossip, however there is no doubt that the favourite pastime of the TNI is bragging about how easily they could take Australia.
Personally I believe that if Australia was attacked, the rest of the Western world would drop everything and come to our aid, without any consideration to the cost. (I just hope the Indonesians still believe that to)
In fairness to AA they operate on emotion without any rational consideration to all the consequences, and no one really expects many more of them.
What does scare me is the fact that we have a government minister, who is prepared to insult, and offend a large and potentially dangerous neighbour. Who just wants to engage in mutually beneficial trade, without any consideration as to the potential consequences.
What I can’t get my head around about Jenny, is why she seems to be genuinely believe that the MLA controls the Indonesian abattoir system.
As I said before those knocking boxes have all the hallmarks of a standard bureaucratic snafu.
AA had the chance to cut straight through that, and short-circuit the usual bureaucratic inertia and buckpassing. Instead they went hareing off after some other agenda, and expose themselves as vindictive hypocrites and fools.
In Jenny’s own words, when you engage in stunts you risk having the awkward questions asked.
Just to put things in perspective this is standard stuff for the TNI
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-115-2011
And they are the ones who gain most from the minister’s behaviour.
‘We all know how edgy cattle get when blood is around.’
Read Dr Grandins research Jenny.
Thanks for your article and comments Jenny. Keep up the good work 🙂
Thanks Libby. I will. the nonsense written here by Binny and people like hunter does not deflect me one centimetre from the cause I fight for.
Binny. Stand in a paddock and watch how beserk cattle go when they smell blood. You might learn something about animal behaviour. I sppose the quivering beast seen in the footage as its mate was butchered in front of it had noting to do with the smell of blood. Maye you did not hear Temple Grandin’s remarks on that.
And spare me the bureaucratic snafh excuse. What nonsens. The MLA and Livecorp put those boxes in and Temple Grandin roundly condemned those boxes. Yet you would call this just a bureaucratic snafu. Accept it Binny. The industry bodies knew what they were doing. They had a report they commissioned themselves in which all those welfare issues were detailed about those boxes. 12 months before AA stepped in and said enough is enough. So spare me the excuses for the industry bodies running this show. And if they have no role in Indonesian meatworks then why are they spending one cent of Autralian farmers levies over there.
As for nonsense that Indonesia is self sufficient because of our live exports. The Indonesians have made it quite clear they will be reducing the trade from Australia now they have their own cattle numbers close to what they require. I suppose the MLA will be caught asleep at the wheel again in the same way. I guess you will blame that on some bureaucratic snafu when it happens.
The live export industry has no one to blame for the fact that it has had the cruel nature of the trade exposed, other than itself.
If I put 100 000 sheep in a paddock with shade and food and water and then watched 10000 or more of them die over the next ten days and argued that that is normal, and that I then continued to do that time and time again in that full knowledge I would expect to be charged with cruelty. Let alone if I said I intended to keep doing this over and over again.
and if I then subjected the survivors of my flock to the sort of treatment filmed over and over again by AA in the ME, I would no doubt end up in gaol.
At the end of the day, if one is sincere about being opposed to cruelty to animals, then one will oppose this trade. No ifs or buts about it. To claim concern for the animals and then to argue for this trade to continue is outright hypocrisy.
And remember Gandhi’s words to effect:
The moral progress of a nation can be measured by the way it treats its animals. Well in regards to the live export trade this country in my view has been found very wanting. The industry is concerned only for financial return so while expressing shock horror at the footage seen, claiming ignorance in the process, its major concern was to keep the ships shipping cattle. Enough said. The only money it spends on animal welfare has come as a result of pressure from a public not prepared to accept the cruelty inherent in this trade. If AA had never reported on this trade, nothing would have changed in 20 years. And at the end of the day, there is much that will never change no matter how much money the industry might throw at the problem. So it will be exposed again and again until some Government has the moral courage to end it once and for all. As NZ did.
I can do little more than shake my head at the comments from Binny and Hunter. It is always intriguing to me the way human nature works – anytime someone expresses a sense of moral aspiration, the Hunters and Binnys shoot them down with what appears genuine outrage.
They would have us seek the lower moral ground, there to amuse ourselves in the certainty that no-one can judge us. Luckily, there are many who choose to dream that being blessed with a mind and opposable thumbs brings with it the potential to better the lives of all, man and beast.
Good Lord, how DARE the Jennys of this world want to make it better?
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Face Jenny you have been caught out attacking the wrong target.
And I repeat read Dr. Grandin’s research
For the benefit of the onlookers I will elaborate.
Research by Dr. Grandin has shown that animals are not alarmed by blood as such, but by stress pheromones in the blood. If the animal is calm when it is slaughtered following animals will have no response to the blood at all. The same holds true for urine.
No one is trying to defend the restraining systems here, they were shockers. The issue is what was the best way to get them changed.
The Indonesians say that they will change them, but how will we know? Because it’ll be a cold day in hell when any Australians are allowed back into their village level abattoirs, that is for sure.
The MLA concentrated on the Australian controlled abattoirs, and there is no fault in their standards. The problems occurred in Indonesian controlled abattoirs.
Which brings us back to my original question. Is AA concerned about all animals, or only the 20% that originated from Australia?
Jenny,
I am still incredibly dismayed that you and your organisation are completely abrogating yourselves from any responsibility re northern cattle farmers and Indonesian feedlotters and the immediate and dramatic harm that has been done to their livelihoods and their reputations.
I am holidaying in northern WA at present and I have to repeat, shame on you.
I will also repeat you have marginilised the very people who were in the best position to help you achieve some sensible and practical outcomes.
They no more like the primitive methods of slaughter in some of those Indonesian abattoirs than you do.
Binny and people like her know to get good outcomes for all stakeholders including these cattle which have been bred specifically for this market.
I would suggest you need to seriously question why they are very annoyed with you and why they do not want to work with you.
These are good people Jenny, and this emotional political stunt has created some dreadfully ugly and racist political rhetoric and further marginilised farmers from organisations like yours.
You are still arguing that the end justifies the means.
I am now seriously questioning what your desired end is.
Off topic but I saw Nasif’s post earlier. Jennifer, any chance of a thread to discuss that as I’ve not seen any discussion elsewhere. Unless someone can point me to something?
At first glance it looks like a good experiment that seems to miss the point completely…
Sorry, back to live export.
I promise this is my last comment on this issue.
What the Indonesians want from Australia more than anything else is RESPECT
The sort of respect that you automatically give to a neighbor, you consider your equal.
The sort of respect that would have seen AA showing their film to the Indonesian middle-class. So that THEY could be outraged and demand that THEIR government improves the treatment of THEIR cattle, in THEIR abattoirs.
The sort of respect that would have seen the agricultural minister calling his Indonesian counterpart, and saying “I am under political pressure on the domestic front, and I need your assistance”
The sort of respect that we would all hope that our neighbors would give us, if our children had a spat with their children. Not simply, ban their children, from playing with our children. But come over have a coffee, and work through a strategy together.
I have always rejected the notion that Australia was an inherently racist country, until now.
I can think of no other reason by almost everyone automatically concluded that the Australian cattle industry must take moral responsibility, for the behavior of the Indonesian cattle industry.
What other reason is there? Other than the idea that Indonesians are browned skinned savages, and not morally advanced enough to take responsibility for their actions. Therefore, as the superior beings the Australians must take responsibility on their behalf.
In the same way a master must take responsibility for the behavior of his dog.
You talk a lot of sense Binny!
Well said Binny,
As I commented at the very start. Poor behaviour that has laid blame at the wrong feet and ultimately has the ring of the dodo bird syndrome.
The associated white Australian cultural racism that has also emerged is particularly dismaying.
I guess this thread has run its course, and I realise I don’t have anywhere near enough in-depth knowledge of this matter. But Binny, I have never for a moment felt that this was a racist matter. I think you are engaging in misdirection.
The issue with live export is that we extend the suffering of the animal, and we cannot guarantee how it is treated at the other end. The concern of people like myself is that we are effectively condoning cruelty to make a quid. I presume, tho I cannot speak for them, that AA is similarly concerned at the welfare of the animals.
As far as racism goes, if it is racist to observe that other cultures practices are less than pleasant, then count me in. I don’t believe it is racist to note that other peoples do things that aren’t all that pleasant and to take a stand against it. As an example, do I really have to condone genital mutilation of women through a barbaric cultural custom, because to speak against it would be racist? No, sorry, I’m not with you on that one.
By the way, you earlier had a shot at me for the thick-headed comment. Hey, I come from the country, I’ve seen the way plenty of dopey blokes beat their dogs, kick their cattle and get a lot of pleasure out of blasting the Hell out of anything that moves. The combination of testosterone, poor education, isolation and sheer dopiness is not attractive, no matter whether they be outback farming types or inner city youth.
Cruelty thrives in any society that sticks its head in the sand on matters of morality. I for one hope we are not so weak and indecisive today that we will just take that option over what is right.
Graeme,
you are probably right, this thread has run its course.
I do however need to comment on your last post.
Contrary to your assertion about Binny engaging in misdirection I would argue that this ill conceived political stunt has resulted in misdirection.
We should always judge the results of our actions and the results of this one are not something that should be supported as a success.
As I previously mentioned I am in Northern WA, visiting my son.
Good people have been served some completely unnecessary heartache as a result of this campaign. Despite Jenny’s claims otherwise, there are large numbers of animals that have been left stranded and many people have lost frightening amounts of income.
I also take issue with your comments about the dopey blokes who kick their dogs etc….your description infers that this is rampant, unchecked behaviour in the country and therefore the actions of AA are justified for that reason?
Of course there are people everywhere who behave poorly towards animals. That usually translates to poor behaviour towards people as well. They are not a large demographic in the country however. Apart from anything else it makes no economic sense to mistreat animals.
Thankfully you also commented that inner city youth also behave this way.
However, are you prepared to have others demand and legislate for the curbing of your livelihood because there are some people who behave poorly in your neck of the woods?
There is a massive difference between taking a moral stand on an issue that you are passionate about and goading authorities to behave in an inappropriate, knee jerk manner.
I am still dismayed that AA are not prepared to accept responsibility for the damage that has been done to good people both here in Australia and in Indonesia as a direct result of this political stunt.
Whether you understand or not, an ugly thread of Australian colonial racism has also emerged as a direct result of this stunt.
And sadly….there are no less animals being mistreated and no less dogs being kicked.
The problem is that we expect others to fix these problems or even worse we expect some dramatic publicity stunt that makes people feel disgust and therefore allows heavy handed bureaucratic and political interference.
Honestly Graeme…when has that ever worked well?
From my experience as soon as we allow heavy handed bureaucratic intervention in moral issues, we immediately cause more problems than we solve.
As Binny has pointed out, there were many other options open to AA which would also mean they would have had the support of the northern cattle farmers and the Indonesian farmers.
Instead, they chose a path that immediately and dramatically marginilised these people.
Did the end justify the means?
What was the desired end?
The results have been almost completely negative because decent people have been forced to defend themselves when they have not done anything illegal and do not condone cruelty to animals.
I understand you believe the live trade is immoral, but that is only your opinion. It is not illegal and it has created benefits for many both here in our country and also overseas.
I also understand that you do not like the fact that animals are bred for slaughter.
I am mostly a vegetarian and I do not personally like the fact that we slaughter animals.
However, I am not naiive enough to espouse that vegetarianism is a morally superior lifestyle or that we should not allow people to eat meat.
Apart from the fact that it would be totally unsustainable and people would starve, it would deny an indisputable fact that humans are omnivores and they eat meat.
So on a positive/negative account ledger, as far as I can see, this political stunt has landed itself largely on the negative side.
Yes this thread has definitely run its course. And I will leave with these final comments.
1. The Livestock industry can be as outraged as it likes. If the animal organizations left it to the industry, as it was left for the first decades this dreadful trade operated. then no changes would ever have been made. Farmer organizations have always been antagonistic to the animal welfare movement, so nothing is lost there, cooperation never existed.
Cattle go beserk in a paddock when they smell blood. Fact. In good abattoirs they do not get to smell blood or see their mates killed. But when they do both they tremble in fear and stress. Fact. Even more so when they hear the panic bellowing of their mates as someone hacks at the throat with all the noise of head banging and so on that we saw. Temple Grandin was quite rightly outraged and roundly condemned the use of those boxes in the way they were used. Had AA not intervened our cattle would continue to be killed in that way far into the future. We have at least got stunning on the agenda with a rush to get more abattoirs using it. Thanks to AA and the RSPCA.
This is not an industry about family farmers. This is an industry predominated by big companies such as those run by Holmes a court and the ownership of these companies is worth taking a close look at. All go and do a bit or research. I note Holmes a Court supported the ban so he at least in the industry is prepared to stand up and be counted.
The MLA and Livecorp brought this on the industry and those organizations are made up of industry members. Full stop.
Take responsibility all of you in the industry and stop trying to blame AA for exposing the cruelty of the trade you are involved in.
On behalf of AA I make no apologies. The industry has had two decades to make sure our animals were not subjected to brutality and even as I write the industry is prepared to keep shipping animals to the ME in the full knowledge that many will be brutally treated. Cruelty is too mild a word. If the Binnys and the Debbies of this world really cared what happened to our animals they would be telling the industry to stop sending animals into the hell holes that they are currently sending them too. But no, all they can do is blame AA for exposing that brutality.
As for the claim that AA somehow fostered racism over this issue. Rubbish. And all this fear mongering about the Indonesians is just another furphy. Thsi is an issue about animal cruelty, nothing else. If some want to play the race card then let them but I want no part of it.
I dont care if the Indonesians are upset. Nor would I care if was the USA that was upset. We should be able to stand up to any country which takes our animals and then treats them badly, irrespective of who they are. I dont give a fig what colour their skin is or what religion they believe in. I am concerned about animal cruelty world wide and yes I do DARE stand up against that despite those who would have me turn a blind eye and look the other way. Sorry. Not going to do that.
Perrhaps Binny and Debbie might like to tell us all about how cattle do suffer on some northern terrirtory cattle stations instead of always defending the industry. People here should google Mataranka Station cattle deaths and read about the hundreds of cattle that died on that station in 2008 and 2009, from neglect. And to learn that the Territory Government took no action to prosecute the owners. The station is in fact run by the Charles Darwin University for heavens sake, as a training facility. Great
A bit like the training the MLA did in those meatworks in Indonesia where they installed those boxes. Not terribly effective was it.
At the end of the day I know AA will have made a difference for some of our animals at least. And I dont buy the cries of financial ruin by those big company run northern cattle stations.
So yes, this thread is finished. And I am off to continue working for the cause of animal welfare, as a farmer. Yes as a farmer. If he Binnys and the Debbies of this world do not want to be a part of that fight, so be it. Each to his own.
Debbie,
Thanks for your thoughts on my last post. I won’t belabor my point because we clearly differ. But let me just clarify a couple of things.
My comments about the behaviour of some in the country was, in context, a response to Binny’s attempt to paint farmers in something of a Godly light. As I mentioned, I am from a country town and I am very familiar with country people. I now live in a city and am familiar with city dwellers too. The sad truth is that many people are either unconsciously cruel, or in some cases simply maliciously cruel. It’s silly to pretend otherwise. I have watched firsthand farmboys of perhaps limited education treating animals very poorly. I’ve watched young men derive great pleasure from hounding and confusing animals. I’ve seen some very average attitudes from country people. I’ve also seen it from city folk. I won’t suggest country folk are worse – they aren’t. But they are simply not all saints either. That said, the worst cruelties come about when ignorant, ill educated young men with little aspiration or opportunity take jobs in abattoirs or large-scale industrial farming enterprises… I’ve seen that too.
You asked “However, are you prepared to have others demand and legislate for the curbing of your livelihood because there are some people who behave poorly in your neck of the woods?”
Well, I guess I can’t offer much in the way of cogent examples. However, I have some empathy. My chosen sport/passion is riding dirtbikes. I love the things. I have raced off-road, I’ve trailridden, I’ve done pretty much anything you can do. I’ve even ridden through a lot of central and western Qld and NSW. And you know, there is no shortage of people wanting to legislate my passion out of existence. It may happen one day. Truthfully, it’s a sport that it is hard to justify. One day perhaps, it’ll be gone for good. Such is life. My love for the sport is no measure of its social relevance.
My job is public servant. My tenure is more and more tenuous. I’ve already been made redundant once. My job exists at the whim of bureaucrats. But I reckon I get good dollars for a relatively easy life. I will never join the union. And should I be sacked or lose my job, that’s the way of it. No-one owes me a living. I’ll find another job. That is life. It’s not an argument to justify one’s livelihood for the simple reason that it is one’s livelihood. Now, here’s the cruncher. Nearly every good old salt of the earth country boy (and girl) is VERY quick to heap soil on me for being a public servant. How many tears do you think the country folk, the farmers you speak of, would shed if the government decided to thin the bloated bureaucracy? How many would be there for me and my family? I’ll tell you. Bugger all…
Lastly, is vegetarianism a morally superior lifestyle? Yes it is. I am not a vegetarian, I’m not a greenie. My wife is. We have plenty of mostly good-natured arguments about it all. For me, the most telling argument she offers is simply this.
As the ‘ascendant’ species, as the only ones that apparently can judge good and bad, right and wrong, as the arbiters of life on this planet, we are truly the ones to whom all other species find their lives indebted. All any creature, us included, has is their life. Who are we to take so lightly that charge?
The lion must kill and eat to live. We however can exercise a choice in that respect and choose not to kill for pleasure, not to consume life to amuse our palates. And I for one respect those that make that choice.
That said, I am not suggesting that we can make the world into a paradise, and I am well aware we will never stop the consumption of meat. I’m simply saying that I respect the philosophy and I support taking a more humane view of this aspect of nature’s demand of us. Maybe one day I will take the plunge and become a vegetarian. But you know, I do so like a good steak… Hypocrisy, thy name is Graeme M.
Thanks Jenny for your thoughts and contributions. At the end of the day, you are right and Binny and Debbie are wrong. Even Debbie secretly knows that. All the best in your endeavours.
I didn’t want to comment again but I cant let this one go.
Graeme has it ever occured to you that you and your wife are extraordinarily lucky to live in a land of plenty in a country like Australia where we have the privilege to choose to be a vegetarian?
It is not a superior lifestyle choice it is purely based on a life of privilege and pure luck that we were born and raised in Australia.
Jenny, you may believe you have attacked big companies and the M L A’s lack of action and to a certain extent you may have done that.
However, as previously mentioned I happen to be in northern Australia at the moment and your political stunt has seriously affected family farmers and also others like truck drivers who also have families to support.
Considering you claim affiliation with family run farming businesses, don’t you think it is therefore counter productive that in general as a demographic they are antagonistic to the animal welfare movement?
You maybe need to question your tactics and your approach?
I would argue that you would actually achieve far better outcomes if you worked with these people rather than antagonising them.
I am also rather dismayed that you dont care if you have upset the Indonesians or ‘even the USA’.
How are you going to achieve anything worthwhile if you keep upsetting and antagonising people?
I have always found that asking for help and support from the people who could help you usually achieves better outcomes.
And Graeme? ? Secretly agrees ? ? Huh? ? Sorry, that is so not true.
Geez Debbie you do think I’m not all that with it don’t you? Has it ever occurred to us? Of course. Civilisation is the thinnest of veneers. But isn’t that what we aspire to? The point is EXACTLY that. By virtue of being civilised, by not having to eke out an existence, by having the privilege to be able to choose, we SHOULD choose the better path. If we don’t what are we? That is why Australian farmers, and the Australian people, should stand up and say no to cruelty and shoddy practices.
Perhaps you are right about how it could be done better. But as Jenny points out, this is not something that just happened yesterday. It’s been going on for years. And it’s not just that trade that organisations like AA work to change. Look at the fabulous work in China. Would you argue that bile farming should be allowed to continue so those poor Chinese farmers have a livelihood? The truth is that people are very happy to put their heads in the sand if they aren’t forced to change their ways. People just aren’t that virtuous.
Maybe it was the wrong way. But just maybe, this time, it might make a difference. Maybe, things will change. Maybe this was the catalyst to make people finally move on this. Let’s see how it pans out.
Yeah I know, but this time it definitely is the last post.
Don’t worry about it too much Debbie, shared adversity is a wonderful bonding mechanism. In a lot of ways this will bring the Indonesian cattle industry, and the Australian cattle industry closer together.
It is also the perverse nature of humanity, that people are more likely to change the way they do things to avoid an adverse outcome to others, than they are to make life easier for themselves. It is also easier to accept help, when the person offering help is helping themselves as well.
So ironically there is a chance that we could get a better outcome if we go to the Indonesians now and say “Mate could you please change the way you do things, you are ruining my business. I will help you get the right restraining systems in place, because if you don’t I’m going to go broke.”
Like most Asians, Indonesians have a chip on their shoulder over colonialism. (Before now I had never really given any consideration to the level of subconscious racism that goes on.) So they would refuse to change – simply because, some white man told them to change. (Even if they could see there was an easier way of doing things)
Jenny and her friends are missionaries, in another age they would be bringing Christianity to the heathens. For them it is all about the ‘cause’, because the ‘cause’ they have nothing.
I don’t lay claim to any particular race (I would probably have to draw straws) and my attitude religion is similar. When assessing a school for my kids, a quote pinned on the wall of the religious ethics class caught my eye. (As I said I’m not much interested in religion so I wasn’t listening to the teacher)
The quote went something like this
Some abandon all restraint, and become truly evil
Some live totally restrained, and becomes self-righteous
The true path of the Lord lies in the middle.
For me that was the clincher.
Jenny is clearly a coward and knows that if she engages more she runs the risk of hurting her money pipeline.
Oh dear, my money pipeline hunter. I do wish I had a much bigger one and then I might be able to do more.
I do in fact have a money pipeline and it keeps me pretty poor as the flow is all in the wrong direction. But like many who accuse those who concern themselves with the welfare of animals I suppose you are just one more who thinks that people liek me dont give a hoot about the suffering of people. Well wrong. At last count my pipeline leads to about 22 organizations.. I am just as appalled at the thought of a child being born blind and deaf (can anyone really get their mind around just how dreadful that would be?) as I am about cattle in Indonesia. But you would find it hard to believe that simply because you are generally jaundiced it seems about someone who actually cares enough about things to put her pen and her money where her concerns are. A damned lot or people do not bother. One of my friends is a millionaire several times over. And she will not donate to any cause because she believes someone else will get the benefit, not the people in need. In fact I find it is the people who have most who covet what they have most. Not exclusively, but sadly quite true in many instances.
Debbie and Binny, contrary to what you might believe the AA exposure was no stunt. If you had worked with AA and had as many meeting with industry and the Government that has taken place over many years you would realise why the only way you get results is to expose the issues in this way. It has always been that way, be it animal welfare or any other cause for that matter.
The industry and Howard Government only acted on Egypt after similar footage hit the TV screens, even though it had been warned. So the footage aired and then it took action and now there is a closed loop system in place for our cattle going there.
What needs to happen is that family and smaller farmers need to get more control over their industry bodies such as the MLA and LIvecorp so that they can have some say in these matters. I contacted the MLA three years ago seeking assurances after the Egypt footage and I got empty platitudes that all was well, this from an organization that knew what was happening in some works in Indonesia. The MLA is a stacked body, stacked with big company share holders controlling all farmers money and directing a large part of it to works run by those companies. What the MLA fears most is restructuring but until that happens, we will see more of the same.
My focus is going to be as much on working to get that restructuring as on the animal welfare issues. Until we get change in the MLA you can expect the live export industry to be continuously at risk of more damning footage and most of the family farmers’ money in levies spent on projects that have no fudiciary review and many of which never result in any report being published. It is high time there was a review of all the industry structures and how producer money is spent.
Graeme, thank you for your comments. They are balanced and thoughtful. I too live in a house as a vegetarian with a husband who likes his meat. I do not demand that he change but interestingly when he had a heart op his heart sugeion commented on diet saying: The fact is vegetarians genearlly live longer than meat eaters. I am not sure what he bases that on but maybe all his patients are meat eaters and non are vegetarians. But all generalisations are generally open to challenge.
I note any error in one of my earlier posts where the figure 10 000 appeared in regards to sheep death sin a paddock. I meaent to write 1000 to 2000 in the given example. Apologies to all.
To continue to supply the torturer is to condone the act itself.
It’s beyond comprehension how those involved in the live animal export industry can say they are doing the right thing?
I know, that you know, you got this one wrong Jenny, and your constant attempt to justify your actions confirms that.
So learned from this, and try not to make the same mistakes in the future.
Yes politicians are a bit like cattle, sometimes they need a good whack to get them to move in the right direction. But first of all you must make sure the gate is open wide, and that they can see it. Otherwise they are likely to panic, and like cattle, panicked politicians can do a lot of damage to themselves, and everyone around them.
The end never ever justifies the means, and don’t let anyone try to tell you differently.
If you are going to go looking for problems in foreign countries, then for the love of God have the common decency and good manners. To bring the problem to the attention of the local people, and allow them the chance to devise a solution, before you start throwing bombs.
By all means keep looking over the shoulder of live export and give them a whack if they do something wrong. No one expects any less of you. But if you going to start flogging them, because they won’t jump off a cliff. Then you have no one but yourself to blame when they turn on you, knock you to the ground, and jump all over the top of you.
NO Binny, I do not know, nor do I accept that AA and people like me have got this wrong. I have been too long in the animal welfare movement to know what works and what doesn’t. So I don’t need you or anyone else here to lecture me on that score. Such just falls on deaf ears. Pussy footing around politicians and industry bodies has never achieved anything. They only respond when they have are left with no choice.
And while we talk about common decency. One would have thought that common decency and good manners, or probably more appropriately a bit of honesty on the part of the industry bodies would be nice – ie tell farmers exactly what sort of hell holes their animals are being sent to, and give them the option of saying No thank you.
I make no apologies for the any upset to the sensitivities of the Indonesians. They concerned themselves not one hoot about the sensitivities of the Australian population over their treatment of the East Timorese, a people who did so much to help Australians during the war.
They invoke their hurt sensitivities when it suits them, and always have done.
Appeasement and pussy footing around the Indonesians by both political parties in this country has been quite nauseating to watch. In the end the business in East Timor got to be far too much to stomach, even for the Liberal Party and I will give it to John Howard, he finally stood up and effectively said to hell with Indonesian sensitivities and spoke out for the East Timorese and backed that up with action.
Just as AA is doing over the live export issue. Two decades or more of cruelty over there to our cattle Binny. Two decades of the industry bodies knowing what they were sending our animals into and covering it up by not alerting the general farming community. Well AA and people like me say. Enough it enough. And the ends do in many situations justify the means. Adn this sure is one of them.
And for those who claim that only 2% of our cattle were going to those bad abattoirs and the other 98% were going to works where stunning and more humane practices were in place, I say this. Why then was it too hard for the MLA and Livecorp to step in and save the 2% of those 100 000 cattle in Indonesia destined to get the same treatment when this all blew up.
Big companies like Elders could have gone in and bought those 2000 head from the feedlots and directed them to the more competent meatworks. But no. We were simply told they could not be saved from suffering the same fate. 2000 head out of 100 000 of so already over there. And nothing could be done. I dont buy that. Unless of course the industry was covering up the real extent of the worst practice and that far more of our cattle were going to be slaughtered in sub standard works. That is possibly closer to the truth.
So Binny, time to call it a day with you. No point in wasting your time or mine further. Accept it Binny. You have failed, through your strident opposition to everthing I say, to convince me of anything.
Linda, you are quite right and this industry has continued for decades to send hundreds of thousands of our animals into situations where they knew ill treatment was widespread and are continuing to do so every year. So the industry must be held to be complicit in that ill treatment. End of story.
If I send an animal into a situation where I know it is highly likely to be ill treated, then I would expect everyone who has posted on this site to condemn me unreservedly. But it is clear some here would seek to justify my actions and would argue vociferously that I should not be held accountable. Well I have quite a problem with that because it simply means I would feel justified to continue doing more of the same. Sound familiar?
Jenny,
On the surface your comments re Indonesia sound reasonable.
Sadly you are still missing Binny’s main argument and mine.
It was not the Indonesian Govt that was adversely affected by this media/political stunt,
it was ordinary and struggling Indonesian farming families & support workers.
If you continue to miss that point and refuse to accept that sort of fallout then you will continue to lose the support of the people you claim you want to speak up.
It is these same people who in general do not condone the type of apalling practices you are campaigning against.
To claim that they must be condoning bad behaviour because they don’t support your tactics and then to claim ‘too bad’ if they suffer losses & hardship is really very poor behaviour.
Debbie, I accept that ordinary Indonesians will have likely been hurt by this campaign. But at the end of the day AA was forced to take action due to the failure of the industry to ensure reasonable standards of practice in regard to how our animals were treated over there. AA knows only too well what it takes to get the industry bodies to sit up and actually do something. It is not reasonable to allow animals to keep suffering year in and year out in the way they have done. Eventually our patience runs out.
Given that the industry is now rushing to improve things and get stunning introduced at an accelerated rate and taking action to ensure our cattle are processed through accredited works that at least meet miminum international standards, dont you think the industry bodies are culpable for not having taken the initiative and done that long ago? Why do they wait till they are exposed in the way they have been. Why is that necessary? That is the real question.
Finally I come back to one of my initial points. Attacking the whistle blower and the messenger is an age old tactic and simply allows those who are really responsible for failing in their duty of care to be held accountable. So not surprising the hunters here seek to try and discredit me personally, but that does not bother me. I know enough people care enough to support me.
Sadly yes, ordindary people do suffer when industry bodies with big companies their main share holders fail everyone else. And fail us they did, and worse they failed the animals that they had a duty of care toward. But let us lay the blame where it really lies and that is not with AA or the RSPCA or the ABC who went and checked out the claims AA was making and was prepared to air them.
Now I am leaving this site. Thank you Jennifer Marahasy for opening this thread. I did not expect that nor ask that it be done. But it has allowed people to see that not all farmers support live exports. Many abhor the trade as much as I and my rural partners do.
Jenny,
Thankyou for finally accepting that there was unintended fallout from this paricular stunt.
Are you now also prepared to ask the more strident activists in A A to stop being so insensitive and claiming that ALL people who are involved in this industry are immediately guilty of appalling treatment of animals and therefore they deserve to suffer major setbacks to their livelihood.
Unfortunately for your organisation,they were prepared to sacrifice ordinary people to make a poltical point.
Once again, I am not opposed to your ideals but I am vehemently opposed to your behaviour/tactics.
It is way too easy for organisations like AA to ignore or even justify the fallout to good people in your pursuit of an ideal.
Every time you do that, you lose the support of people who would often be in the best position to help you.
I would strongly suggest you try asking these ordinary farming families both here and in Indonesia for their help rather than turning them into sacrificial lambs. Ultimately, you will achieve better long term outcomes that way.
As you have pointed out yourself several times at this post, your organisation only achieves dramatic & short term outcomes. Once the drama blows over, it just returns to normal.
The ONLY people who have truly suffered and truly paid are the people who didn’t deserve to.
Debbie, I think we just have to agree to disagree. For one thing AA has not condemned farmers. It has primarily condemned and rightly so the industry bodies which failed both farmers in Australia and the animals themselves. In doing that they also failed the Indonesians. Clearly they can do things better and the MLA and Livecorp were the bodies in charge. Again I ask, why is it possible to ensure better ouctomes now for our animals going there, and not before. Let us just cut to the chase for once.
I read not one word here from you or Binny in regard to the failure on the part of the industry bodies which I point out are primarily run by a Board stacked with big company shareholders. The big cattle companies buy very large numbers of cattle, pay a $5 levy on each one and get their number of votes caculated on every dollar of levies paid to the MLA. So the more cattle you buy and sell the more votes you get. The smaller family farmer that might sell maybe a few hundred cattle a year is greatly outnumbered in voting rights as a result, so when the MLA blows it over animal welfare and is exposed by animal welfare groups, it seems really odd to me that you do not hold the MLA accountable for whatever harm is done to farmers’ image as a whole in the eyes of the general community. The average cattle farmer in this country has very little say in what the MLA does. That is why the ABA sought to have it abolished but of course the big voter share holder companies can block any reform. And the Board has several members on it from the big meatworks and benefit more than most from those levies. Only Government restructuring can make the MLA and Livecorp more accountable and until that happens, you can expect more issues over animal welfare in the live export trade.
Now I hope when the next lot of footage comes out, you wont say we should have warned the MLA and the Government well in advance before taking it into the public domain. They can never again claim they did not know, and there is certainly much out there in the ME that is going on that they know about and hope to keep sending animals there in spite of that. It will be exposed by AA and much already has.
Yes we make small gains, but it is worth it. And it is often four steps forward and two back. I have been involved with AA for 30 years so I know what an uphill battle it is. And believe me, AA has had close liaison with successive Governments over that 30 years. The Government knows full well that it is an organization respected internationally and has to be taken seriously, for it does not mount a campaign if there is no just cause. There are more strident groups that condemn all animal use, but they do not run AA. It is in fact an organization made up of some 40 Asutralia wide animal welfare groups. It works across the whole spectrum of use and abuse of animals. And believe me there is much that is wrong in this country that it is working against, eg the constant injury and death to horses in steeple racing in Victoria, against the abuse of animals in rodeos and circuses, in research labs and so on.
One of the issues that troubled be so much that I in fact returned my degree to my alma mater ( I guess a symbolic gesture but it made a pointe) was the treatment of the monkeys in the John Curtin School of Medical Research. It they must experiment on them then at least they could give them some sort of decent life, instead of locking them in cages when they are not using them. I saw monkeys that had gone mad as a result and even the university animal welfare officer standing beside me said this is wrong. So much is wrong in this country and around the world in the treatment of animals, and people. We can only do our best when confronted with such. We never do our second best. My best may not be your way, but it is my best.
I do in fact respect your views even though I may not accept the criticisms you make of me. I do not judge you personally as you seem to do me. But that is not important. I have no ego to protect, no money pipeline to protect and no hidden agendas. I seek no personal credit or publicity. I prefer to just get on doing what I think needs to be done and have been quietly doing so for 38 years. Most of the work I have done in the animal welfare field has in fact been behind the scenes, working with stake holders in animal use, sitting on committees with parties with competing interests and working out formulas that give a better deal to animals. Sitting in fact on Government committees. My rewards if any come from such as the Homebush abattoir manager who wanted to shake my hand for a paper I wrote about animal care at abattoirs, for he said it made a difference. I know we have made a difference for the welfare of millions of animals over the years and that is what matters to me.
Best wishes to all here. I bear no grudge for any adverse comments against me personally.