Banning Battery Cages

I'm sick of this recent celebration of (and campaigning for) moves to replace caged eggs with cage-free eggs (yes, this from someone who used to be convenor of Free-Range Canberra).

What if Animals Australia, RSPCA and their ilk eventually convince a million consumers to swap from cage eggs to cage-free? Firstly, it's no good a million people changing their preference tomorrow - there are simply not enough cage-free eggs being produced. No effective change can occur until the producers change their infrastructure and such changes may take some time which is why Woolworths have set themselves a 2018 target to remove cage eggs from their shelves nationally. Even when the changeover is complete and a million people who used to buy cage eggs now buy cage-free eggs, NO chicken will have been saved from a life of cramped use and early slaughter. Not one! Instead of being held in wire cages they will be held in barns that are just as cramped and disgusting as the cages.

And with those million consumers now enjoying the warm feel-good glow of 'humane consumption', their consciences salved by 'Happy Eggs' we'll be stuck with this new status quo for decades after.

But what if these bodies ran an uncompromising campaign for a stop to egg consumption instead? What if they came clean and said that there is no way to commercially produce eggs without death and suffering? Based on the average Australian consumer eating over 200 eggs per year and each hen producing about 240 eggs over her one year of 'productive' life (before being slaughtered) every egg consumer is responsible for about 1.6 chicken deaths every year (counting the hen and her brother who was killed on day one). So even if the 'no-egg' campaign only got one hundredth as many people to listen and act (that's 10,000 - and I think that's a very conservative figure), that will save 16,000 chickens per year from being bred and slaughtered. And the effect will be much quicker - producers don't have infrastructure to change - they just breed fewer chooks.

Please don't support any of this pointless 'ban battery cages' rubbish. Promote an egg-free diet instead. Promote veganism.

Queanbeyan Rodeo Cruelty (with extra video)

On Saturday, Mar 9, the annual Queanbeyan Charity Rodeo was held. The rodeo was attended by several members of Animal Liberation ACT who captured these images. Rodeos have been banned in neighbouring ACT for many years and these images will give you some idea why.

This is simply cruel - steers have their tails pulled, bent over and tightly squeezed to force them to run out of the chute.

Another incident seen clearly here..

To get the steer to run from the chute this bloke bends his tail tightly

a closer look at his handy work

Several similar incidents were recorded before the camera operator was spotted and asked to leave.

Calf Roping - a running calf is lassoed around the neck and pulled suddenly and violently back and upwards. The contestant then picks her up and slams her on her side into the dirt and ties her legs together.

Having just been roped around her neck, the rope is still extremely tight

She is lifted..

and thrown..

into the dirt.

This video shows the violent way in which calves are treated

What would happen to anyone who treated a dog this way? Are calves that different from dogs?

And how do you get a calf to turn around? Obviously by hitting, ear pulling and tail pulling..

The Bucking Bronc - the flank strap is fitted between the animals penis and scrotum and pulled tight. This is why he bucks - not because he's the "meanest, wildest son-of-a-bitch in the west" - he simply thinks someone is attacking him from behind.

The bloke in the blue shirt pulls the strap tight as the horse leaves the chute

Use of Cattle Prod on calves - even rodeo guidelines restrict prod use to minimal use on horses and bulls. 

Calves are prodded with an electric prod

And this is excessive and careless use of cattle prods on clearly stressed animals - apparently connecting with the face on more than one occasion..

This is not entertainment. It is simple exploitation of animals causing them fear, pain and likely injury.
Please tell the Queanbeyan Council that this is not welcome in the city any more.

Abattoir cruelty is no surprise

There shouldn't be any surprise that animals in an abattoir are treated as unfeeling objects. Pigs, sheep and cattle are regarded by the average Australian as food; we have no face to face contact with them and regard them solely as property, as things grown for us to eat. 

Chickens are largely seen the same way though some of us do have backyard chooks and may even relate to some of them individually. Those individuals rarely end up being killed for food.

But for the farmed mammals, our indoctrination starts in childhood where our books depict these animals almost exclusively in a farm environment. Those same books begin our comforting self-delusion that farmed animals are treated well and live idyllic, bucolic lives.

Abattoir workers no doubt become inured to the killing, reassured by the same indoctrination that these animals are simply food items to be processed for our consumption.

But each and every one of these mammals has a personality. If raised and treated similarly to our dog or cat (or backyard chook) they would respond and interact in much the same way as our pets. They deserve our respect for the simple reason that they are sentient and have the capacity to suffer and also to enjoy aspects of their lives if given the chance - just like human mammals.

Once we respect these nonhuman animals the very first thing we must do is stop eating, wearing and using them. Abattoirs would be consigned to history.

Time for our animal protection organisations to promote veganism

So disappointed by our three most prominent animal organisations - Voiceless, Animals Australia and, worst of all, the RSPCA . In fact, let's say I'm completely bloody disillusioned with the RSPCA.

If you are an individual who believes that nonhuman animals deserve our respect and protection the first thing you do is stop eating or wearing them - i.e. you become vegan.

If you are an organisation dedicated to caring for, protecting and engendering respect for nonhuman animals, your prime message to your followers must be to go vegan.

None of these organisations does that. The RSPCA even promotes and sells its own approved meat and eggs.

Voiceless co-founders Brian and Ondine Sherman had an opinion piece published in the Australian of Dec 23 which listed the ways in which we cause misery to our fellow animals for unnecessary food - especially at Christmas - but finished with, "If you must have meat, consider buying only freerange. It may even be time to explore meat-free alternatives to traditional festive fare.."

Animals Australia at least tries to nudge people toward the vegetarian section of the supermarket and suggests alternatives to eggs and dairy.

I can only hope that 2012 will see some sort of strengthening within these three organisations. Voiceless and Animals Australia must begin to unequivocally promote veganism.

RSPCA is coming from such a low base that their aim might be to stop promoting their approved meat and eggs. Their vegan days are a way off yet , I'm afraid.

Why is RSPCA Australia not a vegan organisation?

The Australian RSPCA puts its name and logo on eggs and some meats encouraging the public to buy them because the animals used or killed to produce the foods were raised to minimal standards of animal welfare.

When questioned as to why a society which claims to try to prevent cruelty to animals profits from their exploitation and slaughter and does not encourage people to give up meat and other animal foods they refer to this Knowledgebase entry:

“Why is the RSPCA not a vegetarian organisation?”

Just as the RSPCA respects the choices of people who don’t consume meat or other animal products, we also respect those individuals who do choose to do so. The RSPCA is not a vegetarian or vegan organisation. We acknowledge that one way of reducing the suffering of animals in livestock production systems is by not purchasing products that are sourced from farm animals. Indeed, when some people become aware of the realities of large-scale animal farming, they choose to become vegetarian or vegan. We respect this choice. However, in the mean time, there are many more people who choose to ignore the suffering of farm animals or who choose to source products from animals farmed in a more humane manner. So, while ever the farming of animals for food and fibre continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how farm animals are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher production standards along the supply chain. We do this at government, industry and producer level.

The RSPCA encourages people who do consume meat, eggs, milk and other animal products to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available on the supermarket shelf. (http://kb.rspca.org.au/Why-is-the-RSPCA-not-a-vegetarian-organisation_435.html)

Another item in their knowledgebase addressing jumps racing – “What is the RSPCA position on horse jumping races?” (http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCA-position-on-horse-jumping-races_234.html) quite clearly and unequivocally states that RSPCA Australia is opposed to jumps races.

But what happens if we re-write their stance on jumps racing using precisely the same logic, arguments and words they put forward in their explanation of why they are not a vegetarian organisation?

It comes out like this:

 

Why is the RSPCA not opposed to jumps racing?

Just as the RSPCA respects the choices of people who don’t support jumps races or other animal contests, we also respect those individuals who do choose to do so. The RSPCA is not opposed to jumps racing. We acknowledge that one way of reducing the suffering of animals in the racing industry is by not supporting jumps races. Indeed, when some people become aware of the realities of jumps racing, they choose to reject it. We respect this choice. However, in the mean time, there are many more people who choose to ignore the suffering of horses or who choose to support horses raced in a more humane manner. So, while ever the racing of horses over jumps continues, the RSPCA seeks to ensure that the conditions under which those animals live meet their physical and behavioural needs. The RSPCA believes we can help improve how horses are treated by getting involved in the process and constantly pushing for higher racing standards. We do this at government, industry and trainer level.

 

The RSPCA encourages people who do support jumps racing to make a higher welfare choice, and to help them do this the RSPCA aims to ensure that higher welfare alternatives are readily available at all RSPCA Race Courses.

 

I think that shows the weakness and inconsistency of their arguments on vegetarianism. They simply choose to be firm on jumps races but weak on vegetarianism without any underlying, solid reasoning.

RSPCA Australia needs to be honest with the public and promote a strict vegetarian (vegan) diet as a start point for anyone who purports to be against animal cruelty.

Then, of course, they’d risk 90% of their members’ fees and donations and all the profits from their ‘happy eggs’ and ‘happy meat’.

I wonder if they’ll change.

Vegetarian and Vegan Society?

The ACT Vegetarian Society recently held a special meeting to vote on the proposition that they change their name to the 'Vegetarian & Vegan Society of the ACT Inc.'.

Sadly, the proposition was voted down.

The explanation that came out with the announcement of the decision made little sense. It claimed that extending the name to include ‘vegan’ would risk watering down the inclusivity of the society as those following semi-vegetarian diets like ‘pescatarian’ (a sort of vegetarian – still eating fishes) might then feel excluded as they were not named specifically.

Rubbish! The term ‘vegan’ in the Society’s name would have increased the inclusivity of the group – not diminished it.

The Vegetarian Society includes those who are vegetarian and those aspiring to be vegetarian (those who are partly there and those considering the move). Vegans do not aspire to be vegetarian – many have ‘been there, done that’. They are now vegan because they understand that a vegetarian diet (which permits the consumption of dairy and or eggs) still causes massive suffering and death to sentient animals.

Veganism is beyond vegetarianism. Adding the word to the Society’s name would have widened its scope – made it appear more inclusive and more welcoming of vegans.

There appears to be a conservative core of old-style vegetarians in the group who feel threatened by veganism and see it as extreme. Some members have said they could not be a member of a ‘Vegan Society’ even though it’s reasonable to expect that a vegan group would welcome people who are not fully vegan in the same way as the vegetarian society welcomes those not fully vegetarian. I guess they don’t want to become ‘not quite qualified’ members of a Vegan group, preferring to stay, instead, ‘fully qualified’ members of the Vegetarian Society.

Come on, vegetarians. It’s time to rethink. The dairy and egg industries are every bit as cruel to animals as the meat industry. Veganism is not extreme, is very easy and is the morally consistent approach to deciding what you eat.

By the way, anyone in Canberra looking for a vegan group should try Animal Liberation ACT whose objects include, “To promote and support veganism” and who have a stated commitment that they “will only knowingly use products, including food, of non-animal origin” at all functions, meetings etc. Members of Animal Liberation ACT recently handed out a thousand ‘Why Veg’ booklets (which promote veganism) at the RSPCA Million Paws Walk.

Mothers' Day

Are you giving your Mum a treat on Mothers’ Day? Breakfast in bed, scones with jam and cream, maybe a box of chocolates? Without thinking, you put milk on the cereal and in her breakfast tea and the chocolates you bought most likely contain it as well.

So spare a thought for the mothers from whom that milk was taken. They don’t get to be mothers other than for a few hours after their annual calf is born and before he or she is taken away forever – usually to slaughter – so that we can take the milk. This separation causes immense distress to both mother and baby.

After enduring this for seven years or so, cows are worn out and transported off to be made into hamburgers.

So give Mum her treats but out of respect to all mothers, use alternatives to dairy. Soy beans don’t suckle their young.

Happy Mothers' Day, Mums.