Recent comments by: Real Deal
I doubt that I have ever read an article which better illustrates the very things it purports to condemn. Any further comment would waste as many words as you have used in this drawn out dribble except to ask; 'are you saying that the animals weren't mistreated, that Lyn White's agenda or otherwise makes it alright to mistreat animals, or that ABC's apparently bias reporting (unlike your own objectivity here) somehow cleanses this vile industry? Or were you just going for a sensational story?'
Sherrill, is this Jo Ludwig's alias in action? (Hi Jo). The vast majority are doing the right thing you say. I don't know if you're correct about that or not ... my only point here is 'neither do you!'
So now you're saying it's a half a billion dollar industry then?
Michael, no-one envies you and probably most of us would try to understand your situation and support your fight to government but not at the expense of treating animals humanely or sending them off to somewhere else to be treated inhumanely. That choice is yours alone, and neither the government nor anyone else should be asked to accept responsibility for how you run your business, or how you choose to end it. Your not the only industry in Australia doing it tough, your just the only industry with government support.
Unbelievable !! If industry can't even come to terms with what the problem is, industry really has no place in taking part in the solution.
Exporters have perched producers on a knife edge. Australian's don't need to see your farms, the problems occur off shore.
You accuse everyone without a RMB of not knowing the facts, have you ever considered that some of us in particular know a lot more about this than many of you do ??
Animal Welfare is NOT an economic argument, the alternatives to live export are an economic reality. Suggest you start paying attention to them.
Yes Neville, recent protests by 'an isolated' group (you understand that distinction, don't you ??) were over the top. They were inexcusable. It's interesting to read that you, Neville, and your industry, don't object to protests about the industry and even think it's peoples right to do so, as long as they do it peacefully. Oh, and as long as they don't do it at the port or anywhere near the poor animals that you've got your hands on, 'eh Neville. Yep, I know your industry. Not much like the way you describe it though is it Nev ?? (Rhetorical)
Bushie Bill; there is a bigger picture to consider, not just a short term gain for industry picture.
Assuming that you have a farm and don't want to lose it, think about all of the reasons why you wouldn't start selling off the paddocks one by one. Those same reasons apply to why Australia shouldn't sell out to "any" overseas market, and, yes, it is a community concern, it's our country.
Additionally, do you know how much foreign ownership is allowed in China?? Zero!! Ravenhill Dairy haven't just sold their company to China, they've sold the land that it sits on to China.
Like so many others, the system is wrong, although we shouldn't be surprised that "our" government has an agreement which voids them from being able to act on our behalf .
Anyone who has ever imported from China knows that "it doesn't leave China until you've paid for it". China knows that anyone not happy with their purchase "isn't going to send it back" so the reality is , "once they have the money ... they really don't care".
I feel for Mr Nicolaou and hope that his plight helps teach us to "buy Australian". Some lessons are not worth learning from experience !!
What is industry so concerned about anyway?? If they have nothing to hide then there is nothing to find, uhm, or is there??
The only reason that there's nothing to hide is because so much of what WAS hidden has now been exposed.
The terms of reference for both enquiries pre-suppose that the industry will continue , so that's not a problem either.
One enquiry is in serious favour of the Farmer, and the other enquiry won't matter a RAT's , will it?? (Besides , it's chaired by a cattle producer so give up on the high and mighty will you ?!?! !!)
Interesting that neither of the 2 recipients who allegedly received these letters contacted the police but both happen to know how to access the same journalist ??
Wonder why the WA Police Media Dept. just happened to have a prepared comment on the issue ??
Did anyone from rural wherever happen to pop into the post office while they were in Perth for their rally I wonder, or perhaps even one of the many members of the Perth community who you claim turned out to support your polite little egg throwing, under the bridge, vulgar outburst ??
The options are just endless aren't they.
2 THINGS should be painfully obvious here:
1. ANY Activist engaging in ANY irresponsible action or conducting themselves in ANY kind of less than professional manner will achieve nothing to improve animal welfare outcomes, and they are often detrimental to their cause and to those organisations and individuals working toward a realistic goal to do so.
2. ANY animal producer who HONESTLY believes that live export improves animal welfare outcomes has been quite seriously mislead by both exporters and their own industry bodies alike. That argument is a desperate plea to save face..
RE : Cattle Advocate
That's a pretty big ''if'' CA . Given that Indonesians average 2.2kg of red meat consumption per annum , the accurate calculations for your example would actually be ; if Indonesians ate beef 3 times per week , each meal would consist of only 14.1 grams of beef which is 79% less than your figures and would therefore equate to 2.4 million tonnes per year . (I think you may have used Australia's consumption rate and multiplied it by Indonesia's population but I haven't checked that) Cheers .
Hi Dubious. I certainly agree that duplication isn't typically productive but this is a case of removing requirements from ESCAS which are duplications of either ASEL or other relevant regulation. As neither exporters nor importing countries need to pay a lot of attention to any Australian regulation once the animals are offloaded, but they do need to abide by ESCAS, remove the duplication by all means, but remove it from ASEL for as long as ESCAS remains in place. (so it does water down the standards which other countries are required to meet) It's about Saudi, who refuse ESCAS, not about us.
Here comes the watering down of a system that's better to have in place than not, but requires little more than a guarantee by importing countries to honour their obligations under OIE. The fact that every importing country are signatories to OIE makes one wonder why they bothered signing it if they had no intention of upholding it. Sadly, the animals are about to lose again, the producers will cop the blame again, and animal advocates will be sneered at again. Exporters will see it as a win, but it will be another nail in the coffin for industry. Who cares about the animals anyway? I DO.
Just as not every producer believes in live animal export, nor do most people associated with animal welfare believe in the antics of Animal Amnesty or give them the credibility which you have by writing about them. Continue to stereotype us if you will, but your readers should know that you'll be wrong.
Ms Beveridge. If you'd let them break in again to retrieve their equipment you could have demanded that a welfare agency make the video evidence of your impeccable animal handling public. You would be happy if the video was made public, wouldn't you?