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

[Tysonboss1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.