Recent comments by: Katrina Love
How bizarre that Animals Australia, the only organisation seemingly looking out for all these animals that farming Australia professes to care so deeply about; the only organisation exposing serious breaches of ESCAS and horrific treatment of Australian sheep, cattle and goats, is referred to as "public enemy number one"... oh of course - OK to care about your anmials as long as it doesn't actually interfere with profit or convenience.
GM fanatics are hurting agriculture the way human rights fanatics hurt slavery, or animal rights fanatics are hurting vivisection and animal testing.
Really... asking for balanced reporting on this issue is like asking for balanced reporting on child abuse issues or paedophilia; yes, there are children who are NOT abused or victims of paedophilia - that doesn't in the slightest reduce the abhorrent nature of the fact that some children ARE.
The ones that live normal, healthy, well-adjusted lives do not NEED the focus of media or public scrutiny and opinion.
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
Maka - your question is based on one of the many non-facts I referred to in my first comment: Australia's presence in these importing countries is not dragging those countries' standards up to our own, as evidenced by the ongoing instances of horrific animal abuse.
What Australia’s continued supply of animals to countries in which they continue to be abused IS doing though, is sending a message that Australia condones the abuse - oh... Egypt stabbing eyes and slashing tendons yet again? Here - have some more cattle. We have been exporting to some of these countries for four decades.
LTF - there is nothing non-genuine, irrational or emotional about citing the FACT that the Dept of Ag's list of investigations into ESCAS and/or ASEL breaches is now up to 36 - NINE involving ONE exporter (LSS).
There is so much wrong with this article, I wouldn't know where to begin. If it wasn't so terrifyingly alarming that someone with a public outlet can spout these misinformed views and disinformation, it would be an hysterically funny "opinion piece".
As alarming, is the number of LE supporters unquestioningly re-spouting the live export industry spin - spouting "facts" which are no such thing... many still harping on about trade being "banned" from questionable footage takin in Indonesia in 2011, blithely ignoring the 33 (and counting) Dept of Ag investigations over the past two years.
Ahhh... the straws that are clutched at.
By that rationale, David, why are you not questioning why the Salvation Army isn't re-homing abandoned dogs and cats and stopping the decimation of wildlife on the duck flats of Victoria?
Make up your mind - Coles' flirtation with Animals Australia can't be ignorant and stupid AND share the aims of Animals Australia. I suggest that anyone who does NOT share Animals Australia's aims of a kinder world and recklessly pursue and promote intensive farming of animals are the ones who are ignorant and stupid.
"It SOUNDS brutal but it WAS legal and effective..."
I think more accurate to say it SOUNDS legal and effective to those in the industry, but WAS BRUTAL.
Law (or the lack of it) and effectiveness has no place when considering ethics and the treatment of non-human animals.
What have we become when the the slayers are the victims and those who attempt to help the slayed become acccused of terrorism and compared to Nazis?
In any case, take your complaints to PrimeSafe - it was in their hands.
Both sides making absurd statements. Unfortunately, the interruption was a good example of bad activism - stating half truths & utter rubbish was unprofessional & weakens our campaign, but Ms Penfold's response is equally laughable: "...Australia remains the only country... that export(s) livestock that has made animal welfare a condition of trade." She fails to mention that the "animal welfare" doesn't necessarily mean GOOD animal welfare - 70% of animals exported will still have their throats cut whilst fully conscious, meaning 70% of animals exported face atrocious animal welfare outcomes.
Never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with Bob Katter.
Mr Baston says the Middle East was a diverse & valuable trading region... it also has an appalling record of horrendous animal welfare involving Australian animals exported live; all countries visited on his tour (Qatar, UAE, Saudi & Egypt) have been the topic of investigations into extreme cruelty & abuse spanning decades & the abuse so bad in Egypt that the live cattle trade has been stopped twice & the import of live sheep banned - any animals sent to the countries mentioned will also have their throats cut whilst fully conscious. They all also import chilled Aussie Beef and/or sheep meat.
Coming from an ACTUAL vegan, veganism is not and never has been about animal welfare, it is about abolishing the use of animals and their staus as property - recognising their intrinsic value and their right to live their lives free from human harm and usE. It is not about being "anti-meat" - as animals are not "meat" - they are other inhabitants of this planet; and it is about a whole lot more than who you eat, but also whose skins and fur you wear, who your cosmetics and cleaning products are tested on and who is forced to perform unnatural acts for human enetertainment or "sport".
The RSPCA is about as far from an animal rights group as the Shooters & Fishers Party is from an animal protection group.
Given that every animal rights/welfare/protection group on the planet recognises the inherent cruelty of the trade; given that the majority of Australians are opposed to the trade & given that even the 1985, the Senate Select Committee's live sheep export report concluded that "if a decision on the future of the trade were made on animal welfare grounds alone there was enough evidence to stop the trade", RSPCA would be remiss in its duties to NOT vehemently oppose it.
Ironically, Israel is often described as "the most vegan country in the world" and they have a very well-organised and vocal animal activist group directly opposing Australian live exports (imports) into their country, often helping out Animals Australia with video and photographic evidence of abuse and cruelty.
This should be the absolute lowest bar across the industry, in all importing countries - mandatory use of concussion knockers with training in competent operation.
To demand that lowest bar, we MUST change the legislation in Australia that allows non-stunning for a small percentage of Kosher and Halal slaughters, along with fully conscious throat cuts on farm and in sale yards across the country. Anyone who deals with "livestock" should always have access to and be required to use, either a captive bolt stun gun or a bullet.
We can and MUST dictate conditions for purchase and import.
Some good news in a sea of bad, I guess.
What a shame that the effort that goes into finding new, live export markets, that are realistically unable to be monitored or regulated, doesn't go into developing viable domestic processing options for all producers, and removing import tariffs in the countries in which they handicap chilled imports.
Also a pity that the outrage expressed by LE supporters over the (inexcusable and indefensible) damage done to an inanimate truck this week is not matched by the outrage expressed at the ongoing abuse of Aus animals in importing countries.
Regardless of Bahrain's other imports of live animals or boxed meat, the fact remains that prior to the MoU breach and subsequent suspension of live sheep trade by Australia to that country, they were importing approximately 229 swt of chilled sheep meat from Australia. Since the suspension, that rose to over 13,000 swt - that represents over 600,000 sheep stunned and slaughtered in Australia, under Australian law, to Australian standards, by Australian workers. The LNP have just put a a nail in that coffin and shipped those jobs, that value-adding and those animals offshore. Shame Australia.
Thankfully Animals Australia never relied on government funding to do their tireless and essential work, but instead relied and continue to rely on the kindness, concern and generosity of caring and compassionate people who will continue to fund their exposure of animal abuse here and abroad - including those abuses that are government-sanctioned.
Perhaps Mr McCormack would like to also see a resurgence in cock fighting and the legalisation of dog fighting and bear baiting... maybe we could resurrect kangaroo boxing? Really Minister - join this millennium; ANY industry that sees people making a profit from the exploitation and suffering of animals for the mere purpose of "sport" or entertainment is on the chopping block, and yes, that includes all racing, rodeos, circuses that use animals and recreational shooting.
"A biosecurity risk assessment informed the requirements of the sheep being unloaded and strict measures are in place to protect the biosecurity status of the WA sheep flock. "
That's an odd statement - I followed the first truck to leave Fremantle port, laden with sheep who had been unloaded from the Ocean Outback, from Freo to Baldivis, and I continually had to clean my windscreen of the crap flying onto it from the truck - one assumes this is also falling onto the road over which other livestock trucks and other vehicles pass before entering other feedlots and properties. Top job.
No James - one of the polls to which you refer found that 69% of Australians supported the continuation of live export "if humane treatment of animals could be guaranteed" or words to that effect. Given that their "humane" treatment can NOT be guaranteed and in fact they will be subjec ted to risk of horrific animal cruelty, that 69% in fact do NOT support live exports.
I woudl need to see the wording of the other poll.
All polls conducted on this topic without ambiguous wording have shown a majority support for a phase-out of live exports.
What's "perverse" is continuing to send live animals into situations where we KNOW there is a risk greater than that which they would face if slaughtered locally to Australian standards, under Australian law, by (majority) Australian workers.
Sure, welfare standards in some countries have improved, but the case of yet more horrific cruelty to cattle in Vietnam over two years after the first reported ESCAS breach and similar horrific abuse, despite 24/7 CCTV monitoring and advanced tracking systems, shows that there will always be a risk for the animals, and that risk is unacceptable.
God forbid Saudi Arabia doesn't agree with our regulations for live supply and continues to buy Australian chilled meat, keeping jobs and profits in Australia and more importantly sparing hundreds of thousands of animals the sea voyage and fully conscious slaughter - that's just not on!
Good to see the government pushing to export Aussie jobs, profits and value-adding, and not tarnish the live animal trade's reputation as Australia's dirty shame.
Mabel Peyton-Smyth - I hardly think the Greens' agenda is vegetarian, or that they are opposed to the farming of animals, given Di Natale farms cows and pigs and slaughters his own pigs. It's ridiculous that a party supposedly so concerned about the environment does not have a policy opposing all animal agriculture, but it doesn't - hypocrites.
The ESCAS report's 0.16% figure was based on the assumption that if no animal was REPORTED as suffering worse animal welfare outcomes, everything was peachy keen. What it SHOULD have said was that only 12,958 animals were reported, but how many actually suffered worse than usual AW outcomes is unknown.
By definition, every animal to step foot on a ship immediately suffers a worse AW outcome than those processed in Australia ergo, there is a 100% worse animal welfare outcome for animals exported live from Australia.
"Anti-live exports campaigners defaced the National Farmers' Federation building in Canberra amid protests over Australian cattle reportedly being sledgehammered in the Vietnam market after being on-sold, outside of approved supply chains."
Anti-live export campaigners, otherwise known as the majority of the Australian public.
That's right - it was only non-Australian animals who were being sledgehammered in approved facilities, right next to their Australian counterparts who were being stunned - an excellent example of how Australian intervention is improving AW in all areas... not.
Dumb and dumber. If Ludwig was a disaster, Joyce is a catastrophe... Armageddon.
Nice way to prove our point, Jo Bloomfiled. Bidda Jones (and Temple Grandin) based her findings on hours and hours of footage taken in 7 randomly selected slaughterhouses known to process Aus animals. 4 Corners found exactly the same issues present when they did their own filming and they were issues that were referred to in the 2010 MLA-commissioned report in animal welfare issues in Indonesia. It is expected that what was caught on film would have been happening in all but the Elders owned/operated, other 60-70-odd facilities being used at the time - this was just the tip of the iceberg.
Back needs to pull his head in - any vet who openly supports the live animal export trade should have their license revoked... and how about doing your job and representing the views of ALL the residents of WA in the federal Senate, not just the minority. Being a society for the PROTECTION of ANIMALS, RSPCA would be remiss in its duties if it did NOT oppose the live animal trade as all other animal protection/welfare/rights organisations worldwide do. The cruelty is inherent & there are worse animal welfare outcomes for 100% of animals exported, as soon as they step on board a ship.
beeffarmer - what is it YOU don't understand? Every country we currently export live animals to (except Turkey) also imports chilled Aussie beef &/or lamb; the Middle East chilled market alone is worth the same as the entire live trade; household refrigeration ownership in the oil-rich gulf countriues we supply is over 99% & even in Indonesia, over 60%. The "no refrigeration" furphy has been well and truly disproved, as has the "religious requirements" excuse for live animal exports. There simply is NO justification for continuing to use Aus animals as crash test dummies for cruelty & abuse.
There is actually no room for religious OR cultural sensitivity when it comes at the cost of animal welfare - cultural and religious "requirements" must always come a very poor second to animal protection
Given that all Muslim and Jewish countries we export live animals to (except Turkey) also import chilled beef and/or sheep meat, the many reasons that exist for Australia exporting live animals for slaughter obviously do not include "for religious reasons".
If your religion requires that animals suffer for your consumption, it's time to stop eating them or change religion.
That's incorrect, Dash - whilst stunning equipment has been supplied and is used for Australian animals (and others) in Indonesia (90% stun rate) and Vietnam (100% stun rate IF not leaked from ESCAS-approved facilities), stunning is not carried out in Kuwait, Egypt (electric stunning has been discussed), Israel, Turkey, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Mauritius and a few others I've forgotten.
So ESCAS "works" and is lauded by the current government, until it gets in the way of unfettered trade. In other words - all countries that wish to import Australian animals live for slaughter must comply with the regulations and requirements set by Australia... unless they don't want to.
Bring on the change of government!
Whilst far from perfect, they at least have some sort of moral compass, and Members/Ministers willing to take an ethical stance when it comes to the non-human inhabitants of this country. An independent inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports is a step in the right direction.
No one wants to see farmers leaving the land, but live animal exports is a risky business (for animals and those who produce them), which is not going to be their saving grace - need to think smarter than that.
Farmers' daughter - why then does every country that currently imports live animals from us (except Turkey) aslo import chilled Aussie beef and/or lamb? Why then is the chilled trade to the Middle East alone worth what the entire live trade is?
Makka - what we have against attempts to improve handling and slaughter practices for all animals in importing countries, is that A/ they are using Australian animals as crash test dummies to expose faults/leaks/breaches/abuse/cruel ty B/ you know non-Australian cattle are being sledgehammered in ESCAS facilities next to Australian cattle being stunned, right? C/ Aus animals should only be exported if the welfare outcomes for them are as good or better than what they would face here.
AA, CWF, WAP all work in importing countries and with OIE to improve standards.
Makka - I don't get paid to make comments and I have never stated that making comments is "my job". I am the Campaign Manager for Stop Live Exports and as such, part of my duties includes making media comments, which I also made in the seven years of campaigning against this trade PRIOR to my three year tenure (so far) in this position. I am also the WA Convenor of the Animal Justice Party, and in that role, also have a duty and obligation to speak out against this trade. Paid or not, current employment or not, you would still be seeing my comments.