Firstly, yes, if I could I would end our live animal export industry forthwith and I don’t eat meat and I have had a few.
But tell me how we can allow the export of animals to Vietnam knowing what we SHOULD know about their methods of slaughter and then act all surprised when the animals are subjected to horrific abuse. Why do we need to send live cattle to Vietnam anyway, as far as I know they aren’t significantly Muslim? Is it just cheaper to slaughter the poor beings there, is that it?
Australia’s most unethical industry? You bet ya.
PS I advocate the complete opening up of all information on the slaughtering of animals in Australia too. Wouldn’t that be an eye opener.
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/new-threat-to-vietnamese-live-export/2732601.aspx
Removed
Removed
Same
Once the animals leave here I couldnt give a stuff what happens to them
Why Reboot? Explain it to me. I’m not an “animal lover” but it just keeps happening over and over again. We could stop our participation in this industry but we don’t. Why?
Jeremy Bentham, the first real animal advocate, stated that any being capable of sentience deserved to be taken into account in ethical decisions and that our failure to do so was a condemnation of our claims to ethical decency. I think Gandhi said that a society should be judged on the way it treated its animals.
It sucks and we ignore it. That sucks too.
I just don’t care. Someone else has bought them, taken delivery, they are now theirs. None of my business.
If that doesn’t sit well, then the alternative is to not do the deal n the first place.
I don’t hold myself responsible for a single ■■■■■■■ thing the country i live in does. I don’t vote, none of it’s been done in my name. I was just born here and i toe the line enough to avoid jail and keep me and mine fed.
if you want my opinion on callously and maliciously harming animals. I’m against it. I’m also against joining in the Iraq war and turning back refugees and I reckon we should be a republic and I think capitalism sets artificial values that skew the true value of things and democracy is rule by manipulation of the lowest common denominator. I think nationalist divisions are an excuse to continue slavery by saying “it’s not our fault what happens in the third world, send us more cheap clothes and electronics.”
If I got to chose one of my opinions that was suddenly going to have weight and meaning somewhere in the world then being against the cruel misuse of animals wouldn’t be the one I chose, no matter how many skinning puppies “awareness” campaigns get sent around facebook.
That’s some heavy care-fatigue you’ve got there, fs.
All I can think about is American Gods.
That's some heavy care-fatigue you've got there, fs.
Good read though. Nice flow, & encapsulated just how fcked it all is in one fell swoop.
Are you the guy that has tagged “BAN LIVE EXPORT .COM” on the back of every dunny door in etihad?
I just don't care. Someone else has bought them, taken delivery, they are now theirs. None of my business. If that doesn't sit well, then the alternative is to not do the deal n the first place.
Feel the same.
I find it amazing that many care far more about the animals than they do the people it will hurt if live exporting is banned. But we all know animals are the same as humans.
go vegan
The Alternative To Live Exports That Won’t Hurt Farmers
By Jordan Rivkin
Australia’s export of live cattle and sheep has led to horrendous breaches of standards and outright cruelty. Despite the naysayers, there are ways to stop live export without hurting Australian farmers, argues Jordan Rivkin.
Pakistan, 2012. It’s difficult to imagine a more unlikely setting for thousands of Australian sheep. Forsaken by Australian authorities and abandoned to a monstrous fate, they are stabbed, clubbed and buried alive by a crew of amateur butchers.
Egypt, 2013. Australian cattle have their eyes stabbed, leg tendons slashed, and are butchered while still alive.
The Gulf of Aden, 2013. Renowned as a hub of Somali pirate activity, 4000 Australian sheep, stranded on a ship en route to Qatar, are cooked alive in searing temperatures.
These are but a few glimpses into a total of 43 investigations that have been conducted into the live export trade since 2003, all of which have revealed egregious violations of international animal welfare standards, and countless breaches of what is clearly an impotent and untenable Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS).
Last month, ABC’s Lateline aired the findings of the latest investigation, which exposed yet more horrors in Gaza, Jordan and Kuwait. Undercover footage documented Australian cattle having their throats crudely sawn open, and Merino sheep being bound and stuffed into car boots, their throats cut and left to bleed out.
I must confess, I’m at a loss when it comes to live export. Whenever I lament the cruelty inherent in this grisly trade, my remarks are met with consternation by a litany of well-meaning people, many of whom have never left their urban environs, who fall over themselves in their rush to defend it. “But what about the farmers?!” is the token catch cry that gets trotted out ad nauseam.
While I’m perplexed by such fervor on the part of those who are largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of this issue, I’m not immune to their concerns. And yet, it doesn’t take a lot of digging to discover that their sudden and fleeting concern for our rural compatriots is little more than a well-intentioned, but ill-informed, distraction from the facts.
The ‘Live Export Trade Assessment’ report by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and Sciences, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture itself, revealed that live export is in fact a small industry, worth only 8 per cent of the value of Australia’s boxed meat exports in 2012/2013.
And contrary to popular belief, most Australian farmers don’t even sell to the live export trade. Only 7 per cent of all farms in Australia with more than 100 sheep sell to live export, while only 6 per cent of cattle raised for slaughter in Australia are sold into the trade.
What’s more, many agricultural economists claim there is a viable alternative to live export, one that would generate additional profits and jobs for the industry. I’m referring to the development of new abattoirs in the north of Australia, which would facilitate the domestic processing of livestock rather than outsourcing this significant component of the supply chain to countries in Asia and the Middle East. A sheep processed domestically for meat is worth 20 per cent more to the Australian economy than a live export sheep, due to this potential to add value from domestic processing.
We need only look across the ditch to see an example of this model in action. New Zealand, a country far more reliant on agricultural exports than Australia, moved to implement what is essentially a ban on live export in 2007.
According to the former agriculture minister who presided over the ban, the government recognised that despite best efforts, it simply wasn’t feasible to regulate what happens to the animals once they disembark on foreign soil. And overlooking likely animal welfare infringements was not only morally bankrupt, but could well jeopardise the country’s standing with international trade partners.
Like Australia, New Zealand’s live exports represented only a fraction of its chilled meat trade, and imperiling those valuable exports to US, European and Japanese supermarkets was deemed imprudent at best.
The NZ government was also reluctant to forego the benefits of domestic processing, understanding that implicit in live export is the forfeiture of local jobs, and the undermining of its own meat processing industry.
The latest breaches in Gaza are of particular concern, as the Australian export company legally responsible for these animals was implicated in similar atrocities in Gaza last year.
And the infringements don’t end there. There have been allegations of falsified documentation relating to onboard fatalities, the removal of animals’ ear tags in an effort to contaminate the chain of evidence, and the smuggling of animals across the Israel-Gaza border, beyond approved and legitimate supply chains.
At the heart of this problem is the conflict of interest borne by the Department of Agriculture, which is charged with advancing producers’ interests and overseeing animal welfare. Such mutual exclusivity is so patent as to be farcical, the corollary of which is a deeply troubling lack of independence and transparency.
After the most recent transgressions of ESCAS, Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce has, unsurprisingly, responded with the same platitudes and excuses as his predecessors. This government is evidently relying on the public to grow weary of this fraught issue, all the while negotiating its enormous expansion behind closed doors. Next stop, China, where like our other live export partners, animal welfare regulations are in frighteningly short supply.
Oh i didn’t know they did bad things to animals or that there were other options. Now this information has come to light I’m sure it’s over and done with.
close thread.
I just don't care. Someone else has bought them, taken delivery, they are now theirs. None of my business. If that doesn't sit well, then the alternative is to not do the deal n the first place.Feel the same.
I find it amazing that many care far more about the animals than they do the people it will hurt if live exporting is banned. But we all know animals are the same as humans.
It’s not that amazing.
Caring humans tend to focus on those that are largely defenseless more than those that can affect their own destiny. That’s why we (largely) feel more empathy for the infirm, elderly, young, down-trodden, and oppressed. It’s not that they are harder-done-by than others - it’s that they are often less able to help themselves.
So… the Headline reads …“The Alternative To Live Exports That Won’t Hurt Farmers”
A great long article that allowed the writer to wax lyrically on his objection to the practice, use his thesaurus to seem erudite & intelligent … but really nothing on what the alternative is, how it equates to current cost concerns or how it wont hurt farmers
I hate it when I see some headline that says “solution” to something that interests me, & sucks me in to spend the time to read it, & then says stuff all about what it purports too & just wordily restates ■■■■ that has been known for eons & doesn’t add one iota of new info.
Put some abbatoirs in the NT! … heard that 7 years ago. I learnt nothing from your article Jordan, you did not make any case for your argument at all. . Fk Off.
Firstly, yes, if I could I would end our live animal export industry forthwith and I don't eat meat and I have had a few. But tell me how we can allow the export of animals to Vietnam knowing what we SHOULD know about their methods of slaughter and then act all surprised when the animals are subjected to horrific abuse. Why do we need to send live cattle to Vietnam anyway, as far as I know they aren't significantly Muslim? Is it just cheaper to slaughter the poor beings there, is that it? Australia's most unethical industry? You bet ya. PS I advocate the complete opening up of all information on the slaughtering of animals in Australia too. Wouldn't that be an eye opener. http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/new-threat-to-vietnamese-live-export/2732601.aspx
Is an Australians cows life worth more than a Vietnam born cow? They are going to slaughter animals anyway. Need to improve education of abbotoir workers.
Firstly, yes, if I could I would end our live animal export industry forthwith and I don't eat meat and I have had a few. But tell me how we can allow the export of animals to Vietnam knowing what we SHOULD know about their methods of slaughter and then act all surprised when the animals are subjected to horrific abuse. Why do we need to send live cattle to Vietnam anyway, as far as I know they aren't significantly Muslim? Is it just cheaper to slaughter the poor beings there, is that it? Australia's most unethical industry? You bet ya. PS I advocate the complete opening up of all information on the slaughtering of animals in Australia too. Wouldn't that be an eye opener. http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/cattle/beef/new-threat-to-vietnamese-live-export/2732601.aspxIs an Australians cows life worth more than a Vietnam born cow? They are going to slaughter animals anyway. Need to improve education of abbotoir workers.
Definitely. And doubly so if the Vietnamese cow came here by boat.
do people actually think the meat they eat now died/lived a natural drug free humane life??
Yes because that only happens in every country except Australia.
If you actually care, put down the steak
Not sure if the “fk off” is aimed at me or the writer whose article I posted, I assume the former but I’ll respond anyway.
While I personally have difficulty looking beyond the suffering and cruelty inherent in this industry clearly
the impact on the economy won’t be overlooked.
I think that New Zealand made the right choice morally and economically in 2007 when they brought a halt to live animal exports for slaughter. I gather that their livestock industry has flourished since then, particularly their diary industry, and I have read reports that primary producers there have limited interest in resuming the industry. "Federated Farmers meat industry group chairman Rick Powdrell said he was unaware of any pressure within the New Zealand farming community to restart the exports."http://www.farmonline.com.au/news/agriculture/sheep/general-news/live-ex-damages-reputation-nz/2730781.aspx
I concede that they do still export cattle for diary and breeding purposes, a problematic issue in itself, but I also gather they have increased exports of packaged meat, including to the Middle East. “Meat trade with Saudi Arabia is worth $120 million, most of that frozen, and it imposes tariffs of 5 per cent on those imports. It is New Zealand’s fifth largest market for sheepmeat.” It seems to me that increasing the capacity of abattoirs in the North would reduce costs to sending packaged meat to what are basically fledgling markets in places like Vietnam and I’m assuming that cost is a key factor in the decision to export cattle there.
I also note that one of the original motivations for the New Zealand ban was the concession that monitoring the treatment of animals was next to impossible. The 40 plus reported investigations into these practices in Aust since 2003 support that assertion.
Personally I cannot abide the trading off of cruelty against profit, and this is a cruel industry. But I question the long term “profit” and impact on the industry. The meat industry reported significant drops in meat sales in Australia after the footage of abuse of animals in Indonesia a few years ago was publicly released. I note that Animal Australia have decided not to release the Vietnam footage this time and I imagine the industry is relieved because the last thing the wider industry wants is widespread vision of cattle being bludgeoned to death with sledgehammers. I’m sure there are plenty of meat producers who would love to see this industry shut down too. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/local-meat-eaters-turned-off-by-indonesian-cattle-scandal-20110608-1frv4.html
It is obvious that this industry wants to operate outside the public eye and I support attempts to expose their practices. If we really are informed about what going on, we can make informed decisions, that’s not the case at present.