# Ban live exports! Cattle should not be treated like this!



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

This has been in the media a bit latly, I urge everyone to follow the link and spend 2 minutes having their say on the topic.

I am the first to admit that I enjoy eating meat, But to think Australian beef cattle are subjected to this treatment when sent overseas disgusts me.

http://www.banliveexport.com/judgement/

.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 June 2011)

*Re: Ban live exports! Cattle should not be treated like this.*

Yes it's terrible, but destroying the cattle industry in northern Aust would be a greater crime....what others do with our produce after it leaves our hands is thier business.

Cattle
Iron
Uranium
Timber

Thier bussiness.


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2011)

*Re: Ban live exports! Cattle should not be treated like this.*



So_Cynical said:


> Yes it's terrible, but destroying the cattle industry in northern Aust would be a greater crime....what others do with our produce after it leaves our hands is thier business.
> 
> Cattle
> Iron
> ...




Ok let's just export uranium to whoever wants it, North Korea, Iran etc. Their money is as good as everybody else's?


----------



## davede (24 June 2011)

disturbing to say the least.


----------



## snowking (24 June 2011)

yes its disturbing but to ban all live trade its a knee-jerk reaction that affects the livelihood of many decent people. The fact is that not all cattle is treated this way, in fact 45% of live cattle exported to Indonesia is done so to abattoirs which meet the standards applied here in australia, some of which are actually Australia owned. Many of the Indonesian abattoirs meet these standards as well. The problem is the minority and what we saw on four corners is an example of a minority case which is designed to shock and create fear and it has done exactly that. If we were smart about this we would be selective in the ban and not completely ruin an industry without assessing all the facts.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2011)

*Re: Ban live exports! Cattle should not be treated like this.*



So_Cynical said:


> Yes it's terrible, but destroying the cattle industry in northern Aust would be a greater crime....what others do with our produce after it leaves our hands is thier business.
> 
> Cattle
> Iron
> ...




Exactly. Similarly they can do whatever they like with drug mules in their own country. Only rich countries can aspire to be kind to animals and criminals. Pets in this country are better fed than most Indonesians.


----------



## trainspotter (24 June 2011)

Isn't there already a thread dedicated to this topic? 

I am with So_Cynical on this one. We SOLD it to them. Not our concern.

Unfortunately N Korea has their own uraniun mines that they use to enrich ore to weapons grade and then sell it to Iran. Big concern. They do not need to buy the stuff.


----------



## springhill (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> This has been in the media a bit latly, I urge everyone to follow the link and spend 2 minutes having their say on the topic.
> 
> I am the first to admit that I enjoy eating meat, But to think *Australian beef cattle are subjected to this treatment* when sent overseas disgusts me.




Do Australian beef cattle have more rights than cattle from other countries?
Why isn't there a call for a total ban worldwide on live cattle exports?

I think Australia has a problem in thinking we are a 'bit better' than the rest of the world, and is delusional in always seeming to take the moral high ground when we get it wrong so many times ourselves.
Anyone who thinks animals don't suffer mistreatment in Australia, (hopefully in the extreme minority of cases) has rocks in their heads. No, wait, Aussies are incapable of mistreatment aren't they? We belong to the Lucky Country, where it is all peaches and ice cream, but it's easier to bash another country than take a look in our own backyards.

We have no problem bashing the Chinese for their human rights violations, similarly other countries have voiced concerns for our treatment of our indigenous peoples. The precedent is set then for public comment in worldwide treatment of humans and animals alike.

So, come on people, rise up against the live cattle trade globally. Nah, that all seems to hard doesn't it?


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2011)

Not all of their abattoirs are like those shown. We have enough cruelty over here without casting stones on others. We seem to want to destroy every industry we have in this country over knee-jerk feel good policy.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

*Re: Ban live exports! Cattle should not be treated like this.*



So_Cynical said:


> Yes it's terrible, but destroying the cattle industry in northern Aust would be a greater crime....what others do with our produce after it leaves our hands is thier business.
> 
> Cattle
> Iron
> ...




I think we have a big say to what happens to certain commodities and who they go to.

I am not saying destroy the cattle industry, just have some sort of standards on the facilities they go to. 

I mean how hard is it to have a better containment box and stun them first, and train the dtaff a bit better


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

All it takes to make a sensationalist video for political persuasion which will get people passionately on or off side is one isolated incident. It may not be common, but I'm sure that in isolated cases, much worse occurs in Australian abottoirs, and if someone filmed it they could make a sensationalist video about Australia.

People are becoming more and more ignorant, gullible and isolated from the real world. Democracy, running a country based on public opinion is becoming a worse and worse option (not that I have a better one on offer, sadly). All you need to do is release some meaningless but emotive piece of propaganda and you can trigger ridiculous and hugely damaging action.

How much human suffering (loss of jobs, flow on effects in the Australian economy) could a misrepresentation of animal suffering cause?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

springhill said:


> 1. Do Australian beef cattle have more rights than cattle from other countries?
> 2.Why isn't there a call for a total ban worldwide on live cattle exports?




1. No, but we control happens to ours,

2, Maybe their should be, especially any trade that involves extended periods of transport.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2011)

Sdajii said:


> All you need to do is release some meaningless but emotive piece of propaganda and you can trigger ridiculous and hugely damaging action.




How about this? We sell our nice, friendly, harmless coal to China where they are turning it into a monstrous polluting cloud of nasty gas. We should send inspectors to their factories to ensure that their chimneys only emit nice gases.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

A Better way.

.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> How about this? We sell our nice, friendly, harmless coal to China where they are turning it into a monstrous polluting cloud of nasty gas. We should send inspectors to their factories to ensure that their chimneys only emit nice gases.




Come on, you can't be comparing coal to living animals? Think about it.


----------



## springhill (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> 1. No, but we control happens to ours,
> 
> 2, Maybe their should be, especially any trade that involves extended periods of transport.




1.No, once it is sold, we don't control anything. That's like me selling you my car, and saying don't go around laying rubber on the streets, you will still do as you please. I may not sell you my next car though. We can only affect supply. Then they get replaced by another countries animals and the system continues.

2. Does this include humans too? Those jetstar seats are pretty inhumane


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Come on, you can't be comparing coal to living animals? Think about it.




Yeah, exactly, coal isn't alive, it's not like something which isn't alive could possibly ever cause harm and affect anything which is alive. Goodness, what kind of stupid idiot might make that ridiculous mythical connection! Glad to see you aren't blinded by emotion or anything. Phew.


----------



## pixel (24 June 2011)

snowking said:


> yes its disturbing but to ban all live trade its a knee-jerk reaction that affects the livelihood of many decent people. The fact is that not all cattle is treated this way, in fact 45% of live cattle exported to Indonesia is done so to abattoirs which meet the standards applied here in australia, some of which are actually Australia owned. Many of the Indonesian abattoirs meet these standards as well. The problem is the minority and what we saw on four corners is an example of a minority case which is designed to shock and create fear and it has done exactly that.* If we were smart about this we would be selective in the ban and not completely ruin an industry without assessing all the facts.*



 hear hear

btw, I thought the figure wasn't 45, but 95%; 4-corners only picked one of the bottom 2%. Nobody would've had a problem with removing those bad apples from the client list.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Come on, you can't be comparing coal to living animals? Think about it.




No. I was illustrating the stupidity of us expecting other countries to respect our high ethical standards 

No doubt you and your dog can have the best food available courtesy of the refrigeration that we take for granted.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

Sdajii said:


> Yeah, exactly, coal isn't alive, it's not like something which isn't alive could possibly ever cause harm and affect anything which is alive. Goodness, what kind of stupid idiot might make that ridiculous mythical connection! Glad to see you aren't blinded by emotion or anything. Phew.




Animals don't have a voice, so we have to be the voice for them to stop harmful things happening to them. Humans do have a voice, so if we think something is harmful to us we can say something. Know the difference. What kind of person puts animal cruelty in the same category as coal. What coal does is a whole different subject.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> No doubt you and your dog can have the best food available courtesy of the refrigeration that we take for granted.




As I said, It's not hard to build a better containment box to hold the animal during it's slaughter.

I think most of the poor treatment of the animals shown is coming from the staff being frustrated with struggling to move and subdue the beast, which leads them to take out their anger on a scared and confused animal. This could all be avoided if better systems were inplace and better training.

Why Is it so wrong to ask for improvements, Isn't that what capitalism is all about. Striving to build better systems and that bring more efficiency, better work environments and better outcomes for all involved.

I totally believe that if you are in an industry that uses a live animal as a raw material, You need to have some sort of standards that prevent that animal suffering, It can't be any other way.

Being Poor is not an excuse for being Cruel. I have seen documentories that show african tribes slaughtering animals better than these people.


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Animals don't have a voice, so we have to be the voice for them to stop harmful things happening to them. Humans do have a voice, so if we think something is harmful to us we can say something. Know the difference. What kind of person puts animal cruelty in the same category as coal. What coal does is a whole different subject.




If coal causes pollution, and that pollution devastates natural ecosystems, it causes a lot more animal suffering than poorly treated cows in abottoirs. It is naive to think that just because no humans are observing it that the animals are suffering any less.

Surely if action is to be taken it should be against the specific areas where the problem is occurring. Why harm the wellbeing of all those depending on the good abottoirs? Why penalise Australian farmers? Why penalise the economies that will be harmed? That includes me, as an Australian. The human suffering caused by it - families losing their incomes, etc, is greater than the animal suffering.

Perhaps the do gooders need emotive videos of Australian families struggling and suffering in poverty in order to convince them of the problems associated with the ban. Clearly, in a lot of cases, logic and rational thinking isn't going to do the job for them.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 June 2011)

I wouldn't sell a beautiful home on a large block to a developer who intends to demolish it and create 50 shoebox apartments overlooking the neighbors.  I'd look for another buyer.  The developer can go and chase his tail.

I wouldn't sell a sports car to a dimwit who intended to thrash it around the suburbs at night disturbing the peace.  I'd find another buyer.  The hoon can go and chase his tail.

See?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

Sdajii said:


> Surely if action is to be taken it should be against the specific areas where the problem is occurring.




Yes it should, But even if the processing is OK overseas you still have the problem of shipping, which comes with a whole bunch of problems that cause a high mortality rate during transport.

In regards to the welfare of the industry, I think that the Australian industry would be stronger If more processing was done inside australia and sold as branded Products. Many companies are already have success with this.


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I wouldn't sell a beautiful home on a large block to a developer who intends to demolish it and create 50 shoebox apartments overlooking the neighbors.  I'd look for another buyer.  The developer can go and chase his tail.
> 
> I wouldn't sell a sports car to a dimwit who intended to thrash it around the suburbs at night disturbing the peace.  I'd find another buyer.  The hoon can go and chase his tail.
> 
> See?




That's all fine and wonderful, but imagine if one person from a particular country or ethnicity or whatever group bought a lovely, beautiful home and turned it into ugly apartments, and then a law was passed banning anyone from that group ever buying homes in the area/country concerned, even though most of them were going to do no wrong, and suddenly that meant all the people who owned those homes has assets worth far less, and it was going to cause many of them to go bankrupt.

It'd kind of suck, wouldn't it?

In your analogy, sure, it would be lovely if the individual cattle sellers chose not to sell to someone they knew would do the wrong thing, but gee, isn't it insane to ban any of them from selling to a massive section of their previous market even though most of them don't do anything wrong?


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Yes it should, But even if the processing is OK overseas you still have the problem of shipping, which comes with a whole bunch of problems that cause a high mortality rate during transport.
> 
> In regards to the welfare of the industry, I think that the Australian industry would be stronger If more processing was done inside australia and sold as branded Products. Many companies are already have success with this.




In an ideal world, maybe, but there are reasons not to do it that way. At the end of the day, you can't eat meat without killing animals, in fact, you can't produce animals for any purpose without some of them suffering. Even beloved pet animals with doting owners suffer. You can always find fault in any system, some people won't be content until the day we eat nothing but rainbows and moon beams.

Sure, maybe it would be better if processing was done at home, and I certainly wouldn't oppose that, but that's another story. If your problem is with live exporting because of the transport issues, then argue that point. It has absolutely nothing to do with a few bad apples overseas (we have bad apples here anyway). They are two entirely separate issues.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 June 2011)

From what I've read, the ban needs to be much more specific, yes.

Maybe a specific localized ban is impossible to enforce.  The cattle would end up in the torture yards again.  I don't know.


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> From what I've read, the ban needs to be much more specific, yes.
> 
> Maybe a specific localized ban is impossible to enforce.  The cattle would end up in the torture yards again.  I don't know.




Live animals will be sourced from elsewhere. At the end of the day it is only the Australian producers and the Australian economy suffering all that much. There will be a stronger "Don't be a do gooder or your industry will suffer" message being put out there than a "Don't hurt animals" message.

The blanket ban is just an easy way to keep voters happy. Obviously it would be more difficult (effectively impossible?) to have a more specific ban.

For the record, I am a big animal lover, I'm all for animals being treated well, and I have no connection to the cattle industry. If we take idiotic measures to deal with the animal welfare issue it is counter productive, not only for the economy but for animal welfare. It increases the "Oh, don't listen to those hippies, they always talk crap, remember the last few times we listened to them? Ugh, what a mistake that was!" mentality. If you're going to take action, do it properly.


----------



## drsmith (24 June 2011)

It's fair to say that the government over reacted slightly.



> The Australian Online understands Mr Barnett will tell the Prime Minister that an abattoir owned by Australian company Elders and another owned by Santori Beef are up to Australian standards and above the standards set out under World Organisation for Animal Health guidelines.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ndonesia-resumed/story-fn59niix-1226081320373


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 June 2011)

sdajii, nothing 'bad' can come from doing the right thing.  There's always a way around difficulties.  Maybe the cattle producers will find new international markets or be able to broker new deals with the Indonesians or .... whatever.  Something good will come from it.  You can't view road blocks as 'the end'.  Something good will come of it.

People used to argue that we should not reduce carbon emissions because no one else in the World was.  Again I'd argue, nothing bad can come from doing the right thing.  We can set an example to other countries, _not as a way of being morally superior_, but as a way of finding responsible solutions that benefit everyone, even when it looks like it's a backwards step.  Being responsible can never be a backwards step.


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> sdajii, nothing 'bad' can come from doing the right thing.  There's always a way around difficulties.  Maybe the cattle producers will find new international markets or be able to broker new deals with the Indonesians or .... whatever.  Something good will come from it.  You can't view road blocks as 'the end'.  Something good will come of it.




What the? Give me a break!

*shakes head*


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 June 2011)

Have you never taken an action that was responsible and for the 'greater good', even though it hit your hip pocket?

The cattle producers will be looked after.  They will find new markets.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> In regards to the welfare of the industry, I think that the Australian industry would be stronger If more processing was done inside australia and sold as branded Products.




And how would you distribute this processed meat in Indonesia without refrigeration, even if you assume they could afford it?



> you still have the problem of shipping, which comes with a whole bunch of problems that cause a high mortality rate during transport.




Do you have any evidence that cattle transported to Indonesia are harmed in transit?


----------



## Julia (24 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Animals don't have a voice, so we have to be the voice for them to stop harmful things happening to them. Humans do have a voice, so if we think something is harmful to us we can say something. Know the difference. What kind of person puts animal cruelty in the same category as coal. What coal does is a whole different subject.



Agree.  To compare the treatment of animals with coal is simply silly.



snowking said:


> yes its disturbing but to ban all live trade its a knee-jerk reaction that affects the livelihood of many decent people. The fact is that not all cattle is treated this way, in fact 45% of live cattle exported to Indonesia is done so to abattoirs which meet the standards applied here in australia, some of which are actually Australia owned. Many of the Indonesian abattoirs meet these standards as well. The problem is the minority and what we saw on four corners is an example of a minority case which is designed to shock and create fear and it has done exactly that. If we were smart about this we would be selective in the ban and not completely ruin an industry without assessing all the facts.



 Exactly.  This whole fiasco is yet another example of the government's policy on the run.   It is damaging cattle producers and is a massive insult to the sensitive Indonesians.

Ms Gillard should have phoned her Indonesian counterpart to express Australia's concern and then the relevant Minister (the useless Mr Ludwig) should, with the support of the Foreign Minister (who was probably too busy at the time organising more bombs on Libya or something), have gone to Indonesia, met with the appropriate Indonesian government people and sorted out exactly which abbatoirs needed to be banned.

As someone has suggested, the blanket ban is simply a stupid pandering to outraged voters.  

I've avoided watching the footage.  Loathe and detest cruelty to animals more than anything.  I'm appalled at the way we so unthinkingly use them for our amusement, e.g. bullfighting etc.  I acknowledge that human beings want to eat meat and that cattle producers derive their livelihood from this trade.  But surely to god we can ensure that the beast is stunned before being killed?   Why is that difficult?

And the killing should be out of sight of the following animal.  Animals feel fear and terror just as much as we do.

If we're going to produce animals for our own purposes, the very least we can offer them when their brief lives are over, is a respectful, pain and terror free death.



Sdajii said:


> Surely if action is to be taken it should be against the specific areas where the problem is occurring.



Exactly right.


> The human suffering caused by it - families losing their incomes, etc, is greater than the animal suffering.



I'm not sure how you measure this.  I don't think it's possible to properly compare reduced economic circumstances with physical terror, pain and death, all of which animals experience as we do.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (24 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> And how would you distribute this processed meat in Indonesia without refrigeration, even if you assume they could afford it?





If there are truely areas that have no other option but accept live because there is not refrigeration does not mean that they can not slaugter them humanely. It does not have to be high tech, a simple box that the beast walks into where he is stunned is very low tech and cheap. I posted a video showing such a box.


----------



## Julia (24 June 2011)

Yes, exactly.  Calliope, lack of refrigeration does not have to equate to cruelty.
Why should it be difficult to stun the animal before killing?


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2011)

Julia said:


> To compare the treatment of animals with coal is simply silly.



 I made no comparison between cows and coal. People read into things what they want you to have said. I was pointing out the stupidity of expecting other countries to process a product we sell them in a feel-good manner.



> Calliope, lack of refrigeration does not have to equate to cruelty.




Again jumping to the wrong conclusion. I was pointing out the stupidity of trying to sell Australian processed meats in Indonesia.

To infer that anything I have said makes me indifferent to needless cruelty to animals is uncalled for.


----------



## Sdajii (24 June 2011)

Why are you confusing the issues? No one is suggesting that it is acceptable to treat cattle inhumanely. Of course it should be done humanely. The issue is that everyone is being penalised for the actions of a bad few.

Julia: Poverty puts people through all sorts of pain, surely this is not a new concept. Lack of funds causes children to go hungry, men to beat their wives, people to turn to prostitution, drugs, suicide, etc. The more poverty we have, the greater many of these human issues become. Yes, I do equate human suffering to animal suffering, and in my opinion it's crazy not to, even if cause and effect don't come within seconds or minutes of each other as they do in the slaughterhouse.

Gringotts: As described earlier, it's fine for the individual to make a choice for good which hurts their own wallet. It's stupid for someone else to force many others to have their wallets hurt even though it's not for the greater good.

It's easy for people to get emotional when they see animals suffer, and of course we all want to do something, but unfortunately the drive to do something overrides our ability to do the right thing and causes us to take action just because we want to take action.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> sdajii, nothing 'bad' can come from doing the right thing.  There's always a way around difficulties.  Maybe the cattle producers will find new international markets or be able to broker new deals with the Indonesians or .... whatever.  Something good will come from it.  You can't view road blocks as 'the end'.  Something good will come of it.
> 
> People used to argue that we should not reduce carbon emissions because no one else in the World was.  Again I'd argue, nothing bad can come from doing the right thing.  We can set an example to other countries, _not as a way of being morally superior_, but as a way of finding responsible solutions that benefit everyone, even when it looks like it's a backwards step.  Being responsible can never be a backwards step.






Gringotts Bank said:


> Have you never taken an action that was responsible and for the 'greater good', even though it hit your hip pocket?
> 
> The cattle producers will be looked after.  They will find new markets.




Markets are not made overnight we compete with other countries that can do it a lot cheaper than us. Emotive and often stupid decisions on policy destroy lives. There were a handful of abattoirs that should have pulled up. But the moment you break ties you lose all power to make change. They simply source their cattle from somewhere else (South America I think was about to supply?) and the same cruelty continues. Oh but its ok now its not Aussie cattle

Cattle export has their own body; they could have gone in trained up and cleaned a mess that should have been dealt with before. Instead we have a national hissy fit and demand a feel good response which is then jumped upon by the government. We punish our people for a headline.
What you call the right thing, I call the wrong thing. And it’s not all about the hip pocket; farmer’s lives are being destroyed. They won't be looked after.

Screw the carbon tax, that is just the stupidity cherry sitting on top the pile of stupidity this government has served up


----------



## Julia (24 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> I made no comparison between cows and coal. People read into things what they want you to have said.



I didn't suggest it was you who made a comparison between cows and coal.  You are the one jumping to a conclusion here.



> I was pointing out the stupidity of expecting other countries to process a product we sell them in a feel-good manner.



Why the sarcastic "feel-good manner"?   All that is being asked is for the animal to be stunned before killing.  That should not be beyond the most basic human comprehension and capacity to carry out.



> Again jumping to the wrong conclusion. I was pointing out the stupidity of trying to sell Australian processed meats in Indonesia.



I have not suggested trying to sell Australian processed meats in Indonesia, so please direct your criticism to whomever is appropriate.



> To infer that anything I have said makes me indifferent to needless cruelty to animals is uncalled for.



I'm glad to hear it's not the case.   Must just be how you express yourself that allowed me to form such a perception.




Sdajii said:


> Why are you confusing the issues? No one is suggesting that it is acceptable to treat cattle inhumanely. Of course it should be done humanely. The issue is that everyone is being penalised for the actions of a bad few.



I'm not confusing any issue.  If you read my post properly you would see that I have said just what you have above.  Just take a breath before you go off half cocked.



> Julia: Poverty puts people through all sorts of pain, surely this is not a new concept. Lack of funds causes children to go hungry, men to beat their wives, people to turn to prostitution, drugs, suicide, etc. The more poverty we have, the greater many of these human issues become. Yes, I do equate human suffering to animal suffering, and in my opinion it's crazy not to, even if cause and effect don't come within seconds or minutes of each other as they do in the slaughterhouse.



Oh for god's sake, I'm not in the least decrying human misery.  But it's a completely different concept from the fear, terror and pain of a helpless animal being inhumanely treated.



> Gringotts: As described earlier, it's fine for the individual to make a choice for good which hurts their own wallet. It's stupid for someone else to force many others to have their wallets hurt even though it's not for the greater good.
> 
> It's easy for people to get emotional when they see animals suffer, and of course we all want to do something, but unfortunately the drive to do something overrides our ability to do the right thing and causes us to take action just because we want to take action.



In this case, yes the government has over-reacted in its usual fashion.
But we do need to take action against gratuitous cruelty.   As I've already asked, how hard is it to just stun the animal before killing it!  It's not, and I'll support any government anywhere which legislates for this to happen.


----------



## LifeChoices (24 June 2011)

New Zealand stopped it and Australia should make a stand too.

There is absolutely no reason for the excessive cruelty of animals that are used to feed us. What is so hard with stunning an animal before it is slaughtered.

Nature and animals should be respected above profit.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2011)

Julia said:


> I didn't suggest it was you who made a comparison between cows and coal.  You are the one jumping to a conclusion here.




Who then was the object of your remark?



> I'm glad to hear it's not the case.  * Must just be how you express yourself that allowed me to form such a perception*.




As I said, you are quick to jump to conclusions on little evidence.


----------



## Sdajii (25 June 2011)

Julia said:


> In this case, yes the government has over-reacted in its usual fashion.
> But we do need to take action against gratuitous cruelty.   As I've already asked, how hard is it to just stun the animal before killing it!  It's not, and I'll support any government anywhere which legislates for this to happen.




...and in typical voter style, you'll support them in action against what you dislike, even if that action is misguided, counter productive, and harms many people who never did anything wrong.

It's a shame voters have this simple mentality. It doesn't need to be good action for me to support it, it doesn't even need to make sense, as long as they're doing something in the name of a cause I like.

Sure, it might be easy for the abbotoir to do the right thing, but why take action which won't solve the problem and will harm the majority of the people who were doing the right thing? Surely we demand that the action taken actually makes the situation better. 

Imagine how angry you would be if you had a business, someone else in the same industry (but in a completely different company with different customers) did something wrong, and despite never have anything wrong yourself you lost your business and livelihood, along with your staff. I'm sure you'd be really irritated by those supporting the government decision and saying "I'll support any government which takes a stand against this problem!" Sure, take a stand, but target the problem, don't penalise the innocent.

It is exactly this type of reaction by voters "I'll stand by any government which takes action for the cause, regardless of what it is, just whoever does *something* and whoever does it *fastest*!" which causes governments to make idiotic knee-jerk reactions. If the people demanded proper action, they might get it. If you demand immediate action you'll get it, and if you support idiotic decisions you'll repeatedly get them.


----------



## drsmith (25 June 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> New Zealand stopped it and Australia should make a stand too.



New Zealand is not a world leader when it comes to economic management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2011)

I spent my first 17 years on a farm among cattle. horses, poultry and pigs. We loved and respected our animals. As kids we rode our horses all over our property and to school. Outside school our faithful blue heelers were never far from our sides. We loved them and they loved us. Things happen on farms that are not pretty to watch, but we would never tolerate gratuitous cruelty.

That's why I find it it to be depressing to be the butt of snide comments from suburban pet owners like Tysonboss, who sit in judgment and deliberately distort, what I have said to make a point, 



> What kind of person puts animal cruelty in the same category as coal. What coal does is a whole different subject.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (25 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> That's why I find it it to be depressing to be the butt of snide comments from suburban pet owners like Tysonboss, who sit in judgment and deliberately distort, what I have said to make a point,




My comment and julias was aimed at the other forum members who compared various commodities such as coal, with live stock.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (25 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> comments from suburban pet owners like Tysonboss,




I may be a city boy, But I come from a farming family on my mothers side. All of my male cousins either own their own diary farms or are employed working on diary farms one of my uncles owns 3 diary farms, and the other uncles own cattle and sheep farms. So i have had exposure to farming life, ( including some of the unpleasent stuff such as stiching the bearing sheep and culling pests etc)

This does not in any way change my opinion on treatment of animals. I don't think any thing I have said is unreasonable.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> My comment and julias was aimed at the other forum members who compared various commodities such as coal, with live stock.




Yeah! Who? I have no doubt I was the butt of your snide remarks.


----------



## trainspotter (25 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> My comment and julias was aimed at the other forum members who compared various commodities such as coal, with live stock.




That would be me and So-Cynical then? The comments were made that once we have SOLD a commodity then who are we to dictate what happens to the product once the transaction has been finalised?

Yes yes yes it is animal cruelty and very hard to stomach. Note only a handful of the abbatoirs were in breach of regulations on how to humanely kill a beast. 

NOT a reason to completely shutdown the live export of beef to Indonesia IMO. More a reason to stop supplying THOSE abbatoirs that are not up to our regulations. 

http://www.liveexportcare.com.au/WeCare/Regulation/?gclid=CK2h7ouA0KkCFY2GpAod4TIbOA

This is a website for the dedication of prevention of cruelty to export animals whilst in Australia and NO mention of what happens to them once o/s??

Meat & livestock Australia (MLA) is a producer-owned company, working in partnership with industry and government to achieve a profitable and sustainable red meat and livestock (cattle, sheep and goats) industry in Australia.

_What is MLA's role in improving animal welfare in Indonesia?_

*MLA, the livestock industry and Government do not have the power to enforce animal welfare standards in any country. *

We have however worked with Indonesian operators by providing training and infrastructure in conjunction to make animal welfare improvements. 

The industry has spent over $4 million over the past ten years in infrastructure and training to achieve animal welfare improvements. 

These improvements are real, and have been recognised by industry and in independent reviews as recently as last year.

http://www.mla.com.au/About-the-red...highlight2&article=Indonesia Live Export FAQs


----------



## Tysonboss1 (25 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> Yeah! Who? I have no doubt I was the butt of your snide remarks.




So you haven't read the first page of comments?

One of the first comments buy so C mentions it for a start, and other through out also.

Try not to be so sensitive.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2011)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Try not to be so sensitive.




Thanks for the advice. Perhaps the irony escapes you. I'll have to try to harden up like you.:headshake


----------



## Julia (25 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> Who then was the object of your remark?



Tyson has already partly answered this.  Here is an additional  comment.


Sdajii said:


> If coal causes pollution, and that pollution devastates natural ecosystems, it causes a lot more animal suffering than poorly treated cows in abottoirs. It is naive to think that just because no humans are observing it that the animals are suffering any less.




OK, now, Calliope.  Glad to hear you enjoyed the companionship of dogs in the past.



Sdajii said:


> ...and in typical voter style, you'll support them in action against what you dislike, even if that action is misguided, counter productive, and harms many people who never did anything wrong.



Guess what, Sdajii?  I don't actually need your approval to form a view and happily repeat that I would be supportive of any government legislation in any country which mandates stunning before an animal is killed.

I'm sorry to know that you seem to find such a simple measure of respect for the animal unnecessary.

Just to remind you of what I said earlier:


> As someone has suggested, the blanket ban is simply a stupid pandering to outraged voters.


----------



## drsmith (25 June 2011)

To influence outcomes beyond the castle walls, one needs to be involved outside the castle walls.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 June 2011)

This thread title is the knee jerk reaction government took to the Indonesian abattoir animal cruelty incidents. Why not ban those abattoirs instead of the whole industry? Now (backed by the Green group) they want to move from live exports to chilled exports "just like N.Z. did" and supposedly create new jobs processing the chilled product in Australia. Apparently Indo's prefer their meat warm with a likelihood of lost trade in the meat market from Australia.

Add the cow cockies to the list of Aussies peeved by this knee jerk reactive government.


----------



## trainspotter (26 June 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> This thread title is the knee jerk reaction government took to the Indonesian abattoir animal cruelty incidents. Why not ban those abattoirs instead of the whole industry? Now (backed by the Green group) they want to move from live exports to chilled exports "just like N.Z. did" and supposedly create new jobs processing the chilled product in Australia. Apparently Indo's prefer their meat warm with a likelihood of lost trade in the meat market from Australia.
> 
> Add the cow cockies to the list of Aussies peeved by this knee jerk reactive government.




From post #49 Wysiwygijiggythingy



> NOT a reason to completely shutdown the live export of beef to Indonesia IMO. More a reason to stop supplying THOSE abbatoirs that are not up to our regulations.




Anyhooooo...... as the average Indo earns $100 per month it is highly UNLIKELY they are going to own a refrigerator in the first place. They buy their product from the markets on a daily basis and RARELY keep food in a pantry or refrigerated.

Westernising them with tin food and take away rubbish is bad enough. BAH HUMBUG !


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Anyhooooo...... as the average Indo earns $100 per month it is highly UNLIKELY they are going to own a refrigerator in the first place. They buy their product from the markets on a daily basis and RARELY keep food in a pantry or refrigerated.



Yes I don't think they have the luxury of refrigeration which is one of the reasons 'wet' markets are their preferred method of shopping.


----------



## noco (29 June 2011)

This open letter from Wellard Rural Exports has a lot of merit. It would appear there was a very small minority of abattoirs in Indonesia who had killed their cattle the wrong way, so this stupid Green/Labor socialist government intentionally disrupts the whole industry just to create economic chaos for the Australian economy. Don't laugh, this is real what what Brown and Gillard are doing to our economy


http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/blogs/...ellard-rural-exports/2193028.aspx?storypage=0


----------



## So_Cynical (29 June 2011)

After watching the PM and Cabinet on ABC 24 this evening (town hall style meeting in Darwin) im afraid the Labor govt is on the brink of losing my support...when Julia was questioned about the export ban she turned it into an animal cruelty issue only, in fact she said that was the issue!.

i think the issue is the deliberate and callous destruction of the Cattle industry in northern Australia...the cruelty issues could of been dealt with while the industry carried on.


----------



## noco (29 June 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> After watching the PM and Cabinet on ABC 24 this evening (town hall style meeting in Darwin) im afraid the Labor govt is on the brink of losing my support...when Julia was questioned about the export ban she turned it into an animal cruelty issue only, in fact she said that was the issue!.
> 
> i think the issue is the deliberate and callous destruction of the Cattle industry in northern Australia...the cruelty issues could of been dealt with while the industry carried on.




I could not stand listening to Julia Gillard ABC24, so switched to another channel.

She traeted the audience like a bunch of school kids.


----------



## trainspotter (29 June 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> After watching the PM and Cabinet on ABC 24 this evening (town hall style meeting in Darwin) im afraid the Labor govt is on the brink of losing my support...when Julia was questioned about the export ban she turned it into an animal cruelty issue only, in fact she said that was the issue!.
> 
> i think the issue is the deliberate and callous destruction of the Cattle industry in northern Australia...the cruelty issues could of been dealt with while the industry carried on.




Succinct and to the point. I like it.

1.8 billion dollars and 13,000 jobs down the **** chute with a stroke of a pen.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> After watching the PM and Cabinet on ABC 24 this evening (town hall style meeting in Darwin) im afraid the Labor govt is on the brink of losing my support...when Julia was questioned about the export ban she turned it into an animal cruelty issue only, in fact she said that was the issue!.



Wow, welcome to the darkside, So Cynical.
I heard her speak on this on the radio.  She was talking to a bunch of producers, for god's sake, and failed to even slightly appreciate the difficulties her government has conferred on them.
Perhaps the ongoing stress is getting to be too much for her?



> i think the issue is the deliberate and callous destruction of the Cattle industry in northern Australia...the cruelty issues could of been dealt with while the industry carried on.



 I'm prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt in that I don't really think they have been deliberately setting out to destroy the cattle industry.
More likely explanation is, yet again, kneejerk policy on the run, thrown out there in panic when there was such a national outcry on the cruelty issue.
Yes, of course, discussions and negotiations with Indonesia (instead of insulting them with a blanket ban) should have occurred, allowing most producers whose cattle were being slaughtered decently to carry on.


----------



## ChrisJH (29 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Succinct and to the point. I like it.
> 
> 1.8 billion dollars and 13,000 jobs down the **** chute with a stroke of a pen.
> 
> View attachment 43446




So times change, attitudes change, and people need to get new jobs. If the general population of Australia doesn't support exporting live animals to be killed in third rate countries like Indonesia, maybe folk from the live export industry could become chimney sweeps?


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> i think the issue is the deliberate and callous destruction of the Cattle industry in northern Australia...the cruelty issues could of been dealt with while the industry carried on.



http://blogs.abc.net.au/wa/2011/06/...-story.html?site=perth&program=720_afternoons

Early in the audio interview, there's a claim that the video footage aired was verified from ear tags as being 5 years old. If true, this will get very interesting indeed.


----------



## Bigukraine (30 June 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I wouldn't sell a beautiful home on a large block to a developer who intends to demolish it and create 50 shoebox apartments overlooking the neighbors.  I'd look for another buyer.  The developer can go and chase his tail.
> 
> I wouldn't sell a sports car to a dimwit who intended to thrash it around the suburbs at night disturbing the peace.  I'd find another buyer.  The hoon can go and chase his tail.
> 
> See?




Yeah right..... so on your examples why are long time farming families in NSW selling their farms to chinese interests because their land has a heap of coal under it ?

$$$$$$$$ thats why and if you stick to your idea's good on you but what would you do if the developer bought every block around you and built 50 shoe box 's on each block around you and you would be the only house in the middle........

it's this centric ideology(head in the sand) that people have that blinds them to the scope of situations and their repercussions.......


----------



## trainspotter (30 June 2011)

ChrisJH said:


> So times change, attitudes change, and people need to get new jobs. If the general population of Australia doesn't support exporting live animals to be killed in third rate countries like Indonesia, maybe folk from the live export industry could become chimney sweeps?




Not going to be any chimneys to sweep once we get a carbon tax. Everything will be clean and green. Maybe a solar panel polisher or a windmill blade tuner?

Anyone considered what is going to happen to all these yarded beasts we are no longer sending to Indonesia? I heard on the news it is going to take 125,000 bales of hay to feed them all per day. The vet (on the news) went on to say that it would cause them great stress to be freighted back to the cattle stations. (better than death I suppose)


----------



## trainspotter (1 July 2011)

> THE Pastoralists and Graziers Association has dismissed today’s announcement by the Gillard Government of a $30 million industry assistance package for cattle farmers hit by the ban on live exports to Indonesia as a short term stunt, and is calling on the Prime Minister to immediately reinstate live cattle exports to Indonesia.
> 
> “The WA livestock industry has made our position very clear to the Prime Minister and to Minister Ludwig - we want our industry back,” PGA President Rob Gillam said.
> 
> *“This $30 million would be better spent on assisting the Indonesian Government in upgrading their facilities* and getting the cattle back on the boats, rather than providing short term compensation to families whose only source of income has been stripped by the Government’s reckless actions.”




http://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/...alists-want-reinstatement-not-compensationth/

Genius level this guy. I would vote for him.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 July 2011)

The ALP's default reaction to any crisis is to send people to Centrelink, particularly if it is of their making.

They are not solution focussed, but welfare fixated.

They should be in Indonesia sorting this out, and let our graziers and workers continue to make a quid exporting cattle.

Somebody has to earn the bloody money to pay welfare.

gg


----------



## IFocus (1 July 2011)

Isn't there a fee paid by cattle producers  i.e. $100 mil a year to ensure all is good so this situation doesn't happen?

Shouldn't there be heads on a plate?

The industry has screwed up big time but point the finger at everyone else, insiders would have known about the issues / problems  yet $100 Mil couldn't fix it, talk about snouts in the trough. 

Raised on a farm, Dad killed all our meat used to give him a hand, he would be horrified by the vision if he was still alive.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2011)

> The independent MP for New England, who holds the balance of power, represents one of the largest cattle electorates in the country.
> 
> But two weeks ago, Windsor voted against a motion drafted by Queensland independent Bob Katter that would have delivered stun guns to Indonesian abattoirs - and ensured the speedy resumption of the live cattle trade.




Interestingly, Andrew Wilkie supported Bob Katter's motion.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg....php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_road_to_hell


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

Cattle are now being shot.



> Nico Botha of the Kimberleys’ Beefwood Park Station tells MTR 1377 this morning he’s shooting the first 200 of some 3000 cattle he may have to destroy, thanks to the Gillard Government’s bungling of the live cattle trade.
> 
> He’s overnight lost up to $4 million, he says.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...comments/the_price_of_this_governments_folly/


----------



## Sdajii (5 July 2011)

I'm sure a lot of the people who were supporting this idiotic decision are now eating their words, but no doubt a lot are still not willing to admit they were wrong and will keep their heels dug in.

No doubt a lot of people will still support the next idiotic knee-jerk reaction this or a future government makes. Give people an emotional issue and they'll just blindly follow any political stunt, er, attempt at positive action.

This whole issue has been a massive display of Australian stupidity, it is really disheartening. I'm not sure what it would take to get rid of the 'I'll support any government which takes a stand against issue xxx' mentality. Blatant and repeated demonstrations that the government doesn't care about the issue itself, and that knee-jerk reactions hurt everything including the problem they were pretending to try deal with... well, that doesn't work. Perhaps people are stupid enough to deserve the type of government we have.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Cattle are now being shot.



Pales against a poke in the eye, doesn't it?


----------



## Sdajii (5 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Pales against a poke in the eye, doesn't it?




Oh well, at least those hungry maggots won't be disappointed. Better them being fed than the humans that could have used that food (not like we're facing a food crisis in this world, right?) and not that money coming into Australia would have been of any value, right?


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 July 2011)

Sdajii said:


> Oh well, at least those hungry maggots won't be disappointed.



Yea don't mind the odd larvae myself. Lightly pan fried is a great substitute for rice.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2011)

Sdajii said:


> No doubt a lot of people will still support the next idiotic knee-jerk reaction this or a future government makes. Give people an emotional issue and they'll just blindly follow any political stunt, er, attempt at positive action.




Yeah. In Queensland the lives of fruit bats have priority over the lives of horses and people.


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yea don't mind the odd larvae myself. Lightly pan fried is a great substitute for rice.



Will we be able to afford the pan, the rice or the fuel to cook it ?

You might have to be satisfied with it roasted over an open fire on the end of a stick, once a week.


----------



## breaker (5 July 2011)

why cant mr botha put em on a boat and send em,I dont see why a goverment can stop this trade, boats are idle ,trucks are idle surely cattlemen can band together hire a boat and ship to the first meatworks open who,s gunna stop em


----------



## Sdajii (5 July 2011)

breaker said:


> why cant mr botha put em on a boat and send em,I dont see why a goverment can stop this trade, boats are idle ,trucks are idle surely cattlemen can band together hire a boat and ship to the first meatworks open who,s gunna stop em




Knowing our government, they'd use all that 'stop the boat people' stuff to stop the cattle people going the other way. Where Howard had his children overboard issues, Julia (I'm no longer giving her the respect of calling her Ms. Gillard, I'm joining the rest of the crowd) can have her own 'cattle overboard' scandal. Heck, we'll probably have a cattle detention centre (luxury accommodation of course, with conditions better than Australia's human population gets) built before we know it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 July 2011)

breaker said:


> why cant mr botha put em on a boat and send em,I dont see why a goverment can stop this trade, boats are idle ,trucks are idle surely cattlemen can band together hire a boat and ship to the first meatworks open who,s gunna stop em



 In the interests of all Australians, military intervention would be the only solution. Looking forward, we cannot have Australians making their own decisions because that is the elected governments role.


----------



## breaker (5 July 2011)

Like some overseas countrys that are unhappy with their Govt,s maybe there are other alternatives


----------



## Julia (5 July 2011)

So, Sadjii, what exactly do you think should happen?
i.e. are you happy for the trade to resume with no changes taking place in Indonesian slaughter houses, the abuse continuing?
Do you support stunning of the animal before killing?

Only a very small number of Australians want the live trade closed down, but many want to see mandatory stunning.

The government has created an abysmal mess here, not just in terms of the disaster it represents for producers, but it has also offended the Indonesian government which is equally stupid.


----------



## Sdajii (5 July 2011)

Julia said:


> So, Sadjii, what exactly do you think should happen?
> i.e. are you happy for the trade to resume with no changes taking place in Indonesian slaughter houses, the abuse continuing?
> Do you support stunning of the animal before killing?
> 
> ...




It's funny that you would ask "Do you support stunning of the animal before killing?" after I've already said that no one here is suggesting that we should condone animal cruelty. What sort of silly question is that?

If you do want to ask the question, well, I don't care how the animal is killed, as long as it is done humanely. If they want to put a bullet through the brain (an instant kill which takes place before the animal knows what is going on) I'm happy for them to do it without stunning first. If the most humane way practical in the abbotoir is to stun first, sure, whatever. As long as it's humane I'm happy. "Mandatory stunning" is a stupid rule (because it rules out other humane options which might be better, even more humane than stunning), but hey, if it is humane and it can be brought in, sure, I'm all for it. Just because I don't want to see cattle needlessly shot dead and left to rot, just because I don't want to have food wasted, just because I don't want to deprive families of their income doesn't mean I want to hurt animals! I'm actually a compassionate person who wants the best for animals as well as people.

If very few people want the industry shut down but they want mandatory stunning, how about putting an intelligent course of action in place to bring in mandatory stunning rather than shutting down the industry? There are cheaper methods which could be used to do this, and ones which don't require the slaughter and waste of countless cattle. So what would I do? Well, ANY of those alternatives would be better. What kind of idiot regulates an industry by saying "Oh, look, we found a problem in an isolated part of the industry, let's just shut the entire thing down, IMMEDIATELY"? This is particularly stupid when dealing with a live animal industry, because live animals can't just be put on the shelf for a few weeks, months or years while things get sorted out, they need space, money, feed, man hours etc to keep alive and well. Drastic, unplanned action is going to result in an animal welfare issue, and in most cases that will be a greater problem than the one you were trying to fix, as in this case.

Do you really need to ask if there is a better way to handle things? I can hardly even think of a worse one. With the amount of money this stupid decision is going to cost, it's pretty easy for anyone with a third of a brain cell to rub against the inside of their skull to come up with better, cheaper options.


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2011)

And that's how the fight started ......



> RSPCA Australia has condemned a West Australian farmer for opting to shoot cattle once destined for the Indonesian live export market.
> 
> Moola Bulla station owner Nico Botha says he will start shooting up to 3000 cattle as soon as Wednesday because he can't sell them or afford to feed them anymore.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...nt/story-e6frfku9-1226088239095#ixzz0sn32ruAc


----------



## breaker (5 July 2011)

Spotter thats exactly right ,what a**** head south African, no cattleman worth his salt would shoot his cattle, but I see he couldnt start today as waiting for 60 Mins to turn up


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

It's certainly got the government into a spin.



> “Rather than let them starve to death over two or three months, I'm going to shoot them quickly,” he told News Limited.
> 
> “My property is over-grazed and I have got too many cattle, I have to look forward to the next year or two.”
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-cattle-farmers/story-e6frg6nf-1226088144601


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2011)

Well well well ..... post #65 has just come back and bit me on the bum. 

I also notice no sign of cow getting any cheaper at the butcher nor the supermarket as yet?


----------



## Julia (5 July 2011)

Sdajii said:


> It's funny that you would ask "Do you support stunning of the animal before killing?" after I've already said that no one here is suggesting that we should condone animal cruelty. What sort of silly question is that?



Not a silly question at all, given your ranting challenged my earlier support for the animals being stunned before killing.



> If you do want to ask the question, well, I don't care how the animal is killed, as long as it is done humanely. If they want to put a bullet through the brain (an instant kill which takes place before the animal knows what is going on) I'm happy for them to do it without stunning first. If the most humane way practical in the abbotoir is to stun first, sure, whatever. As long as it's humane I'm happy. "Mandatory stunning" is a stupid rule (because it rules out other humane options which might be better, even more humane than stunning), but hey, if it is humane and it can be brought in, sure, I'm all for it. Just because I don't want to see cattle needlessly shot dead and left to rot, just because I don't want to have food wasted, just because I don't want to deprive families of their income doesn't mean I want to hurt animals! I'm actually a compassionate person who wants the best for animals as well as people.



OK, fine.  Thank you so much for the clarification which you could have expressed in about ten words instead of a whole long paragraph.  




> If very few people want the industry shut down but they want mandatory stunning, how about putting an intelligent course of action in place to bring in mandatory stunning rather than shutting down the industry? There are cheaper methods which could be used to do this, and ones which don't require the slaughter and waste of countless cattle. So what would I do? Well, ANY of those alternatives would be better. What kind of idiot regulates an industry by saying "Oh, look, we found a problem in an isolated part of the industry, let's just shut the entire thing down, IMMEDIATELY"? This is particularly stupid when dealing with a live animal industry, because live animals can't just be put on the shelf for a few weeks, months or years while things get sorted out, they need space, money, feed, man hours etc to keep alive and well. Drastic, unplanned action is going to result in an animal welfare issue, and in most cases that will be a greater problem than the one you were trying to fix, as in this case.



OK, settle down now.  I completely agree with you as will, I'd guess, most sensible people.



> Do you really need to ask if there is a better way to handle things? I can hardly even think of a worse one. With the amount of money this stupid decision is going to cost, it's pretty easy for anyone with a third of a brain cell to rub against the inside of their skull to come up with better, cheaper options.



 Agree absolutely again.  As I have all along on the utter stupidity of the government.

Let's see if our Kev can now fix this.


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Let's see if our Kev can now fix this.




WHOOOOOOOOOOAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa there sister girl. I was right there with ya pardner until you let loose the GIMP. Far out man, you may as well send Kryptonite to Superman 

Indonesian officials are very easily offended. Until they see the $$$$$$$$ coming their way.

What's this then? Muslim countries dictate that the throats must be cut ?



> Indonesia is Australia's largest live cattle market, but Australian cattle and sheep are also shipped alive to the Middle East and other countries where they are often slaughtered according to *Muslim custom by having their throats cut*.




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/07/ap/world/main20069901.shtml

Hard to sell the stun gun theory now isn't it in the name of religion?


----------



## moXJO (6 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> What's this then? Muslim countries dictate that the throats must be cut ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They are stunned here then have their throats slit actually a very fast and as painless death as other methods. Indo's were using blunt knives though and cattle were struggling making it harder to cut. All they needed was a knife sharpener next to their station, stun gun and holding pen. Once again not all of the abattoirs were like that. And someone from the live export body should have handled this mess before it got to this stage. 
But government reaction MY GOD makes you wonder what the hell they are doing. It's like watching some kind of politically retarded circus.


----------



## moXJO (6 July 2011)

> Mr Botha, who also owns Beefwood Park station about 180km to the west of Moola Bulla, said the irony was the ban -- introduced after Four Corners aired footage of cruelty in Indonesian abattoirs -- meant thousands of cattle may well die horrible deaths.
> 
> Northern Territory veterinary surgeon Gehan Jayawardhana, who has worked in the Top End since 1986, said the ban would have a horrific impact on animal welfare in northern Australia, far worse than in some Indonesia abattoirs.




Yay awesome outcome on a feel good moment. Now we have starving cattle here and no money, while another country has exported their cattle to Indonesia and the same practice is more then likely continuing. High fives all round people


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wa-grazier-to-proceed-with-mass-shooting-of-cattle/story-fn59niix-1226088394714


----------



## Sdajii (6 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Not a silly question at all, given your ranting challenged my earlier support for the animals being stunned before killing.




I never challenged support for animals being stunned before being killed, I don't care how they are killed as long as it is humane. For the record, I *would* prefer a more humane, instant kill, rather than the stupid stun-then-slash method you are supporting, the slashing bit only necessary to keep religious fanatics happy, and the stunning bit necessary to keep it a bit more humane. I was challenging your comment that you would support *any* government which tried to do something to enforce stunning. This is completely stupid. We shouldn't support idiotic governments which do idiotic things.





Julia said:


> Agree absolutely again.  As I have all along on the utter stupidity of the government.






Julia said:


> As I've already asked, how hard is it to just stun the animal before killing it!  It's not, and I'll support any government anywhere which legislates for this to happen.




See, this is the sort of mentality which brings benefits to idiotic governments which do idiotic things, and makes it happen again and again. We need to oppose idiotic moves, even if they are being done with good intentions and especially if they are being done under the guise of good intentions but without good intentions.

The support for an idiotic move which itself was not made with good intentions but was made to target people like yourself with good intentions is the problem here. This blind support for knee-jerk action makes the very problem you want to fix become worse, not to mention the damage it can cause to other areas, which in this case is massive. This is a perfect example of why we should *not* blindly support *any* government just because they are doing *something* to support a cause we like.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

Interesting article in the Business Spectator by Robert Gottliebsen

Full article: Canberra's stunning cattle misery



> Suswono appears set to teach Australians a lesson about respect for your neighbour that we will never forget. When I set out the danger (Cattle missteps could hurt Australia, June 27) it was still possible to avoid a catastrophe for the Australian cattle industry and the nation. Now that Suswono has dug in it will be very difficult




What a right royal mess...


----------



## Julia (6 July 2011)

Sdajii said:


> I never challenged support for animals being stunned before being killed, I don't care how they are killed as long as it is humane. For the record, I *would* prefer a more humane, instant kill, rather than the stupid stun-then-slash method you are supporting, the slashing bit only necessary to keep religious fanatics happy, and the stunning bit necessary to keep it a bit more humane. I was challenging your comment that you would support *any* government which tried to do something to enforce stunning. This is completely stupid. We shouldn't support idiotic governments which do idiotic things.



1.  Strangely enough, I won't lose any sleep over your opinion.

2.  I'm happy to maintain my support for stunning to be legislated by any government that is prepared to take such a step, or alternatively any action which renders the animal unconscious before the barbaric practice of cutting its throat.

3.  You are welcome to continue to call me stupid.  I won't, however, be further responding.


----------



## Sdajii (6 July 2011)

1) Quite 'peculiar' that you feel the need to point that out 

2) Sad that you'll still support this move, even though it hurts the very issue (animal welfare) that you are interested in. Sad and strange that an apparently intelligent person would take that stance.

3) I didn't call you stupid. Even smart people make stupid decisions or have stupid beliefs, I've never met anyone who hasn't. I may think it's crazy to support this government on this stance, but that doesn't mean I think you're stupid in terms of who you are as an entire person.


----------



## nulla nulla (6 July 2011)

Live Cattle exports to resume, announced tonight.


----------



## trainspotter (6 July 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Live Cattle exports to resume, announced tonight.




I will celebrate with an inch thick New York Steak with red wine jus !


----------



## breaker (6 July 2011)

Well, well what a shmozzle, great leadership,maybe if we whinge loud enough they will rethink carbon tax


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2011)

They sorta had to resume the trade. The Gillard Government had cut it's throat on this. It was time for some serious damage control, for more than one reason.



> Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd had been due to discuss the suspension and efforts to resume trade with the Indonesian Agriculture Minister, Suswono, in Jakarta on Friday.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rts-to-indonesia/story-fn59niix-1226089170854

Any celibration by pastoralists will be quickly tempered by the scorched earth left from Labor's original ban.


----------



## Sdajii (6 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Well, well what a shmozzle, great leadership,maybe if we whinge loud enough they will rethink carbon tax




Too many blind greenies would whinge if they did (does "We'll support any government which makes a stand for the environment" sound strangely familiar? People making the well-intentioned but counterproductive choice to follow an idiotic plan designed to suck the naive public in), including their commanding rulers. They've dug a hole there they can't get out of, and unfortunately, we're all stuck in it.


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2011)

breaker said:


> .....maybe if we whinge loud enough they will rethink carbon tax



I'd love to see the look on Bob Brown's face if they did. Not much chance of that though as Labor has sold its soul to the Greens. 

We can only hope that now they botch the detail and marketing sufficiently badly that the public reaction is such that rats within jump that particular listing ship. Policy track record would have to suggest it's a distinct possibility.


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2011)

The resumption of trade has very much been another jump on the panic button by the government. 

A news article from earlier today.



> But Mr Morris was unable to say when a joint team of Australian and Indonesian vets would begin inspections of abattoirs, which the federal government has said must take place before the live trade can resume.




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/gillard-pledges-future-for-live-cattle-20110706-1h1ng.html

Either that or it was a very, very hasty inspection of said abattoirs.

It will be interesting to see the fallout.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

While there is some positive news for the industry, there are still concerns that there will be cut backs.  I just hope that the animal cruelty issues have been sorted out, but I don't have any confidence in this government.

The director general of livestock with the Ministry of Agriculture, Prabowo Caturroso said:



> However, he said that his office, which advises the Government on the number of import permits that should be issued to Indonesian feedlots each quarter, would be recommending a dramatic cut in live cattle sourced from Australia.
> 
> It would also be recommending that imports of chilled boxed-beef also be cut back from next year.



Full article from the Herald Sun: Federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig announces end of live export ban


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2011)

Cabinet meetings must be a real hoot, " On todays agenda, is our lastest stuff up".
I don't understand why they don't call an early election at least that way they can stop the fiasco. We must be seen as absolute joke by foriegn governments.
Actually it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Cabinet meetings must be a real hoot, " On todays agenda, is our lastest stuff up".
> I don't understand why they don't call an early election at least that way they can stop the fiasco. We must be seen as absolute joke by foriegn governments.
> Actually it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.





Oh if only they actually had cabinet meetings.  What I have read in news articles is usually "cabinet were informed a few hours ago".  If this is so, then we have a dictatorship.  How can this happen in a democratic system?

Yes, it would make a good movie.  Pity for Australia that this is reality TV.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (7 July 2011)

This morning Animals Australia's Lyn White spoke with Fran Kelly.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/07/bst_20110707_0635.mp3


Following Lyn White's interview, Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig spoke with Fran Kelly.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/07/bst_20110707_0651.mp3?a


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 July 2011)

What a mess! This is what happens when Government makes knee jerk reactions on the hop based on TV shows. Unfortunately we have a whole industry group along with the economies of northern Australia being affected by these decisions.

While we may have lifted the ban - Indonesia has already indicated they will be allowing only 25% of our original quota. Nice work Julia and team. They will be more particualr about the cattle they take. This is bad news particularly for Western Australia which has a lot of Shorthorn (which the Indonesians don't rate highly).  The cattle that are sent overseas don't go straight to the meatworks anyway. They are sent hell west and crooked to feedlots to fatten ready for slaughter. The cattle being sent over in a fortnights time might not get killed for another 6 months plus.

The Gillard Government has surpassed even itself this time in achieving a result that absolutely NO ONE is satisfied with. The Animal Liber's believe they've lifted the ban too soon and cannot be sure that the procedures in place will have resulted in real change. The Cattleman's Union are upset with the way that the Government have effectively trashed their market with very little diplomacy, tact or regard for future outcomes.   

So in summary - based on a TV show, the Government has made a series of decisions that has effectively resulted in a 75% reduction (maybe temporarily) of live cattle exports to Indonesia, with no real guarantee of solving the "Inhumane Slaughter" issues.   Fantastic!!  

Duckman


----------



## Julia (7 July 2011)

Duckman#72 said:


> The Gillard Government has surpassed even itself this time in achieving a result that absolutely NO ONE is satisfied with.



True.  I can't see that anything has changed in terms of cattle not being abused in future.  No agreement to ensure animals are unconscious before killing.  So, um, what actually was the point of the ban???

(Hello Duckman, nice to see you poking your head up again.)


----------



## nulla nulla (7 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I will celebrate with an inch thick New York Steak with red wine jus !




My personal preferences are:

1. Eye fillet in a Beef Wellington;
2. Rib Eye Roast (done on the Kettle BBQ); and
3. Stockmans Cutlet (Rib Eye Steak) Grilled rare.

All washed down with red wine.


----------



## breaker (7 July 2011)

Holy cow Nulla thats better than viagra


----------

