Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
According to your argument, if I could guarantee your health, longevity and personal safety you would be willing to live in a prison cell rather than take your chances in the real world. Is this how you feel? I doubt it.
The problem is that too many in the agriculture industry "welfare" = physical health, exclusively. To people that are sympathetic to the plight of animals, "welfare" = physical and psychological health. People like you need to adjust your old fashioned thinking and start realising that animals are sentient, and they feel. No one wants to live in a cage.
"But as with other groups, science and common sense are not taken as evidence on their own"
"The first, and hardest, goal of working dog organisations is to convince the legislators that the two types of dogs should be acknowledged in any legislation and be subject to different conditions."
So exactly what "science" are you referring to that justifies treating animals of the same species as if they are different with respect to safeguarding their welfare? What you mean to say is, ignore the fact that a dog is a dog, and shape welfare laws according to the monkey making needs of humans.
Maybe it's time we acknowledged that the public has a legitimate interest in how farm animals are treated and that their welfare conditions shouldn't be so hidden from view. History has given us little faith that when animal welfare and profit are at odds that welfare will be safeguarded. Perhaps farms should be under publicly available real time surveillance so that "biosecurity" is not an issue.
"the way I look at it good welfare normally means good profitability and good production and if you’ve got poor welfare practices then normally you’ve got bad profitability"
This is a myth. Animals have a strong survival instinct. They can grow, get fat, maintain all their physiological functions but live a life of suffering and misery. Without this survival instinct to get through tough times we would have all go extinct. You can throw a animal OR a human in a tiny cage, abuse them daily, but as long as you give them ample food they can cling to that survival instinct and survive.
Actually she's wrong. It's not "way off the mark" to compare killing animals for racing vs killing them for food. Unnecessary harm should be avoided. We do have to eat, but we don't have to eat meat, and we certainly don't have to eat so much meat farmed with so little compassion. The use of animals in racing and food are both luxuries, not necessities.
It can't be denied that the welfare standards in agriculture are way behind other sectors of industry and public life where welfare regulations apply. The welfare protection for pets is far higher than farmed animals, and most importantly the welfare protections for animals within scientific research is far higher and more strongly regulated. It's inconsistent that there is so little oversight and protection under law for animals in agricultural systems. I have zero expectation this comment will actually be published.
"They think animals are people and people are animals"
People are animals, and all mammals are sentient. We are more similar than different to the animals we farm. We share brain anatomy and physiology. We share emotional responses. This idea that there's a huge line in the sand between humans and all other species is outdated, someone needs to give Barnaby a lesson in evolution. What matters is if you can think, feel, feel pain, suffer, experience joy, and desire freedom. The animals we farm have all of these qualities. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply unscientific.
If it makes money, who cares about suffering? Right Cattle Advocate?
Research has shown that when presented with visual representations of what 10,000 chooks per hectare vs 1,500 chooks per hectare actually look like, consumer expectations of "free range" are aligned with the smaller density. The only people who were interested in and advocating for higher densities were those that stand to make higher profit from them, and this was a minority of submissions. The purpose of this consultation process has not been fulfilled, the standard has simply been set at the lowest level that they could get away with to please those who donate big money to politicians.
Whether or not you agree with the greens whole ideology, the opposition to this bill is valid. There is inadequate oversight and regulation of animal welfare standards in agriculture industries (and other industries also). If not for animal activists, none of the cruel practices that have been exposed over the years would ever have come to light. The bill is clearly designed to undermine undercover investigations, if you can't see that you're unbelievably naive. How can you possibly oppose an independent body to enforce animal welfare standards? Unless you have something to hide.