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.

A Plea to Vegetarians

The vegetarian diet is one that excludes all animal flesh and the by-products of the slaughter of an animal (such as gelatine and rennet) but it may include eggs and/or dairy products. The full, correct term for this diet is ‘lacto-ovo-vegetarian’ (or ‘ovo- lacto-vegetarian’) but the shorter term, ‘vegetarian’ has come to mean the same thing.

That’s pretty much the definition accepted by vegetarian societies world-wide and it is what is usually understood when one sees a ‘vegetarian’ section on a restaurant menu or a ‘vegetarian’ cookbook or recipe.

Most vegetarians choose their diet out of concern for the animals being killed for their flesh. So did those who set up Australia’s first vegetarian society in 1886 who felt that dairy and eggs caused little harm to the animals and included in their constitution and manifesto, “the great majority of so-called Vegetarians indulge in the use of eggs, milk, butter and cheese. It is not necessary to deprive animals of their lives in order to obtain these articles of food. On the contrary, many animals are, in consequence of the use of these substances, called into existence, and live happy lives in the society of mankind”.

While the early vegetarians felt dairy products and eggs were acceptable, if the same people were starting a vegetarian society today I believe there would be no quibbling: dairy and eggs would be off the menu! Why? Because the world has changed. Back then there were no intensive factory farms, no battery cages and no mass killing of the male chicks (people generally ate the excess roosters and gathered the eggs from the hens).

Now both the egg and dairy industries slaughter the animals they exploit well before they would have died naturally. If we believe it to be wrong to kill animals in order to produce unnecessary food, does it make any real difference whether they are killed before or after being used?

All male chicks bred by the egg industry are slaughtered on the first day of their life because males are of no value to the industry. Male and female breeder chickens (the parents of the layer hens) are slaughtered when they have outlived their usefulness and over 700,000 "bobby" calves are slaughtered each year in Australia in their first week of life simply so their mothers’ milk can be stolen for humans.

There is also widespread suffering for the animals used by these industries prior to their death. Dairy cows suffer dehorning, tail-docking and the distress of having their babies taken from them every twelve months. Layer hens are de-beaked whether destined for battery cages, barns or free-range.

In fact it can be argued that the dairy and egg industries are crueller than the meat industry in that the animals live a little longer and therefore suffer more. And to repeat, all ‘food’ animals end up at the same slaughterhouses.

For this reason, I believe that it is inconsistent with the ethical and philosophical aims of vegetarian societies to promote a diet that contains any animal products. The promotion of (lacto ovo )vegetarianism is, in effect, telling the world that it is wrong to kill nonhuman animals for their flesh yet it is okay to breed, imprison and mutilate them for milk or eggs – and then kill them.

People become vegetarian for all the best reasons but vegetarians need to consider that whatever reasons led them to be vegetarian should now also lead them to reject eggs and dairy products if they have not already done so.

Their vegetarian society tells them that they have reached an endpoint – that they are ‘vegetarian’. And society in general reinforces this acceptance of vegetarianism as a final state with a special section on the menu at many restaurants and processed food labelled, ‘suitable for vegetarians’ – each of which often means ‘contains dairy and or egg products’.

But given the changes in animal agriculture, lacto-ovo-vegetarianism is now not an endpoint – it is simply a place along the road to complete vegetarianism and should have no more recognition than that place where we first give up red meat or the one where we ‘still eat a little fish’.

Everyone on the ‘vegetarian road’ is to be congratulated on what they’ve done so far but also encouraged to keep going to the end. The current concept of ‘vegetarianism’ serves to stop people prematurely on that road – it gives them a comfortable but artificial niche.

Vegetarians are practising a far more caring and environmentally friendly diet than the average meat-eater but to be consistent, should now take the final, logical step of removing all products derived from the exploitation of animals from their diet.

On a practical level, soy milk or oat or rice milks provide a perfect alternative to cow’s milk. Soy yoghurt and ice cream are also delicious and nutritious. There are many alternatives to eggs in baking and scrambled tofu makes a great breakfast dish. If you consume processed foods, it may mean a little more reading of labels while you determine which products are animal-free. As strange as it may sound, milk solids appear in all sorts of weird places such as one brand of tomato paste.

So – I urge you to remove that qualification (‘lacto-ovo-’) from the description of your diet and become fully and unambiguously vegetarian by following a diet that contains no animal products – a diet that, as far as is practicable, does not support the exploitation of nonhuman animals.

Finally, if you are a member of a Vegetarian Society I encourage you check the rules of your Society to see that they do not promote a diet that ‘may contain eggs and dairy products’. If they do, please work toward changing them so that your Vegetarian Society is no longer ambiguous on the mistreatment and killing of nonhuman animals.

Sexual abuse of nonhuman animals

There’s been a kerfuffle here in Canberra over the last few days after a photo of a Canberra Raiders (rugby league) player Joel Monaghan simulating sexual contact with a dog was published on the web. Apparently it’s gone world-wide.

One of the major sponsors of the Raiders is the dairy industry (represented by Canberra Milk). They certainly hopped on their high-horse, expressing their outrage at such an act.

They, of course, are well placed to comment on the subject of sexual contact between humans and nonhumans. A regular part of their business is the manual extraction of semen from bulls and the placement of that semen into the cows – guided by an inserted human hand.

Sounds pretty perverted to me.

Coincidentally, this piece written by Jenny Moxham was published in the Geelong Advertiser today.

-----------------------------------

PERSPECTIVE
Geelong Advertiser
8/11/10


Sex assaults make animals of humans

Two items in the newspaper caught my eye. One was about a former priest who was on trial for sexually abusing children in the 1970's and the other was about President Obama pardoning a turkey for Thanksgiving.

Now what on earth have these two things got to do with each other?

Lots - because every turkey eaten on Thanksgiving Day - or Christmas Day, here in Australia - is the product of sexual abuse.

Going by the jail terms meted out to sex offenders we clearly regard the sexual abuse of our fellow humans as a very serious crime - some offenders have received sentences of more than 15 years - yet, when the victim is a species other than our own we seemingly "turn a blind eye" to it. Why?

Because factory farmed turkeys have been bizarrely, and cruelly, bred for maximum profit, their breasts are now so large they can no longer mate naturally. Consequently, in order to produce the chicks that the industry is so desirous of, the birds are routinely sexually abused by workers.

The protesting males are held upside down with their legs clamped and are "milked" - to put it nicely - by the workers. The unwilling females are then put in stirrups and have their private parts similarly violated as they are artificially inseminated.

Imagine what an uproar - and outrage - there would be if someone performed these acts of sexual abuse on humans!

But it's not only turkeys who are sexually abused in the livestock industry.

Pigs, too, are subjected to similar sexual abuse. No factory farmed pig is ever permitted to mate naturally with a female. Instead he is man-handled and manipulated in the same way as the turkey, and the female is subjected to similar sexual violation by farm workers in order to forcibly make her pregnant.

Dairy cows are likewise subjected to this sexual violation. In order to impregnate them the farmer inserts his entire arm into their private parts.

Of course, even when animals mate naturally in the livestock industry it could be regarded as sexual abuse.

Take the broiler industry, for example.

In order to produce meat chickens - known as broilers - the breeding females are forced to endure intolerable conditions. Locked inside sheds with many young roosters they are constantly raped until their backsides are red, raw and swollen.

Surely this is simply another form of man - inflicted sexual abuse because in a natural environment it would never occur.

If we regard it as wrong to sexually abuse humans, shouldn't we likewise regard it as wrong to sexually abuse other species?

In 1973 the term speciesism was created by British psychologist Richard Ryder to denote prejudice against non-humans based purely on physical differences.

Surely to condemn the sexual abuse of humans yet condone the sexual abuse of non-humans is out-and-out speciesism.

JENNY MOXHAM
-------------------------------------------------
On ya, Jenny.

Another horse dies

Friday’s Canberra Times reported that the horse Sampler ‘broke down’ at Canberra racecourse on Thursday August 12 (“Hawkeye Hope runs down jockey moments before win”, Aug 13, p25). It stated that the jockey had sprained his knee – didn’t even go to hospital – but gave no information on the condition of the horse. Nor was there any news online for the next few days.

I did find the race video and it seemed clear that the poor mare had broken her near foreleg. But the replay commentary also avoided the fate of the horse, the camera following the other horses to the line and beyond and not showing her suffering – just a reference to her ‘not doing too well’.

I finally tracked down the Stewards Report to find that, “following an immediate veterinary assessment of its injuries the mare was humanely euthanased.”
So we have yet another horse going through agony before being killed in support of this glorified gambling industry.

It’s pointless to ask, “how many more?” – while there’s horse racing the horses will continue to be regarded as expendable. Expensive but expendable.
And it seems the media will continue to avoid the ugly facts.

No - I'm not an 'animal lover'.

We who argue for the rights of nonhuman animals should never use the term ‘animal lover’ to describe ourselves and should strongly reject the term if it is ever used to describe us.

Society’s dealings with nonhuman animals are largely based on the false perception of a vast chasm between humans and nonhumans (generally referred to as ‘animals’) – very much ‘us and them’.

The reality is that there is no such gulf; it is a human construct which allows for our treatment of nonhumans as objects, property, slaves and recipe ingredients – not as individual sentient beings with interests, wants and needs of their own.

If we accept ‘animal lover’ then we are tacitly accepting the existence of this artificial gulf.

A similar term (‘nigger lover’) was used to marginalise those who argued for the abolition of slavery and other racial discrimination. This term is even worse than ‘animal lover’ because it includes the word that, in itself, is offensive – but both expressions perpetuate the notion that there are two entirely separate groups; white people and black people in one case, human animals and nonhuman animals in the other.

The second reason we should deny the term ‘animal lover’ is that not only does it perpetuate the myth of difference but also states that you must be a ‘lover’ of that different group before granting them any sort of rights; another form of marginalisation. People who argue for the rights of women, children or any other group do not need to be ‘lovers’ of that group – just fair minded, just and unprejudiced.

So, no – I’m not an ‘animal lover’ – I simply regard them as sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect. This would generally translate to us leaving them and their environment alone and limiting our interaction with them to what is currently seen as proper dealings with our fellow humans – benign, peaceful contact and assistance when required.

New ACT regulations on battery hens are trivial

Those of us concerned about the treatment of caged hens have always argued against the appalling battery cages on the basis that they prevent the hens from expressing the vast majority of their natural, instinctive behaviours. They cannot spread, let alone flap, their wings; they cannot dust-bathe; there is no nest, no roosting and no perch. As they cannot exercise, their bones are weakened and break easily. They cannot even preen themselves.

Absolutely nothing in the ACT Government's new regulations ("Improving the welfare of caged hens”, 23 Feb 2010, http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9255&m=51) will alleviate a single one of those restrictions.

And for the Chief Minister to brag about the extra space for ACT hens is nauseating. The only reason that the Parkwood hens have a little more space (a scant finger width in all directions) than most caged hens in Australia is that Pace Farm chose not to replace their obsolete, filthy bloody cages when regulations changed two years ago. Instead, they simply restocked with one less bird per cage.

And despite Stanhope's ridiculous claim, it is just not possible to "improve the welfare" of hens while keeping them in battery cages.

The ACT must truly take the lead and ban the cages.

Canberra Times and Dr Bryan Pratt

In January, a platypus was killed in Lake Burley Griffin after it was entangled in fishing line – either discarded or deliberately and illegally left in the water. That prompted a letter in the Canberra Times from local fish hunter, Shane Jasprizza (pub. Jan 17) describing the animal’s death as “unfortunate and regrettable” – as, of course, it was – but no worse than the death of any one of the thousands of fish he and his mates kill every year.

I wrote a reply (pub. Jan 19) asking why the death of the platypus was so much worse than the death of a fish – the desired outcome of a typical fishing trip – and pointing out that both platypus and fish feel pain and would have suffered.

This prompted local “fishing guru” Dr Bryan Pratt to devote a part of his weekly Canberra Times column (‘Gone Fishing’ Jan 22) to dismissing the idea that fish can feel pain. He said,

Unfortunate death of platypus brings out ignorant bleating of anti-anglers

Unfortunately, the publicity sur rounding the event, intending to serve as a useful reminder for anglers and others to be more careful about protection of wildlife, also brings out the crazies, bigots, Luddites and others in society who don't necessarily care about the wildlife but simply use this as another oppor tunity to publicise their hatred of angling. They paint anglers in the worst possible way and where they don't have facts to back up an argument they simply invent them. One classic example is to claim that fish feel pain and that anglers cause that pain.

Let's get this right. The full weight of scientific opinion, the result of an enormous amount of research in Australia and overseas, by totally independent scientists, indicates that fish do not feel pain, certainly not in the way that mammals do. They simply do not have the nervous system development to register pain. Consequently, feel free to ignore the bleatings of the anti-angling brigade each time they put forward more of this childish, ignorant and unhelpful nonsense and tell them to go away.

(Canberra Times, p30, Friday Jan 22, 2010)

As mine had been the only letter published claiming that fish feel pain, I took this as a personal insult. I sent a letter to the paper objecting to his language (“crazies, bigots, Luddites”, "childish, ignorant and unhelpful nonsense") and referring to scientific research which concluded that fish feel pain. I also pointed out that the RSPCA Policy on Angling (adopted August 2008) states, "RSPCA Australia considers that the available scientific evidence demonstrates that fish are capable of experiencing pain and suffering".

Given that research and the RSPCA policy, I argued that it was simply unsustainable to argue that, “The full weight of scientific opinion … indicates that fish do not feel pain”.

The letter was not published within a couple of days so I sent it again copying it to the CT Editor and with a note explaining the reasons I thought his crap deserved a response. Again – no joy.

However, the following Friday (Jan 29), Pratt again mentioned the issue in his column.

Science hits raw nerve

My comment last week on the science of whether or not fish feel pain drew a mixed response.

Most people were interested to hear of the scientific findings but others, amazingly, were convinced I was singling them out for special treatment and challenging their ver acity. I apologise to those poor souls and assure them that I had no such intention.

What I was presenting was that the consensus of scientific opinion is that fish do not feel pain because they lack the necessary neurological make-up to do so and yes I am aware of the experiment at the Roslin Institute and Edinburgh University whereby a researcher injected saline solution into fish and claimed they feel pain when they reacted badly to it.

Equally they could just have found it distasteful without actually feeling or registering pain.

I repeat that the vast body of scientific opinion is that fish do not feel pain. That's not just my opinion, it's that of independent scientists worldwide and I am happy to pass on that information without denigrating anybody else's opinion.

(Canberra Times, p23, Friday Jan 29, 2010)

I faxed the good doctor (I don’t have an email address for him) on the day he made that offer asking him to ‘pass on that information’. Despite a reminder a week later, I have received nothing from him.

Pratt also does a brief fishing report on local ABC radio on Thursday mornings. Prior to his appearance on Feb 4, I emailed the show and asked them to put my points to him and ask him to provide the proof for his claims. The presenter did, referring to my email.  Pratt dismissed the science (he’d heard that stuff before) and as to whether he was going to provide proof (put to him as ‘a challenge’) he said that he didn’t respond to such nonsense.

The local RSPCA also sent a letter to the Canberra Times defending their policy but it was not published.

I don’t deny Dr Pratt or anyone the right to express an opinion. If he had simply said that he disagreed with the scientific research that is showing that fish probably feel pain then so be it. 

But he didn’t – he claimed that the full weight of scientific opinion indicates that fish do not feel pain. That statement cannot be substantiated.

Dr Pratt is either deliberately lying or is deluding himself. I guess that’s understandable given that he profits financially by encouraging people to hunt fish and then selling them the equipment required to do so.

The Canberra Times has allowed a columnist to vehemently assert an untruth and refused to publish letters which would show that the RSPCA refutes that assertion.

At least there was some airing of the RSPCA position – two local papers (The Chronicle and City News) published my letters referring to the RSPCA policy and some recent research from Norway.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to remind Dr Pratt that I am waiting on his promised information.

An open letter to RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke

Michael, I have seen your recent messages to one of the Animal Liberation ACT members following some posts (since deleted) on the RSPCA ACT Facebook page. I am not writing on behalf of AL-ACT as I am not an office bearer – just an ordinary member. But as such I took offence at your words and wanted to pass on my thoughts to you – and your members.

The origin of the discussion was an announcement by RSPCA of upcoming events. This brought about a number of posts suggesting that the RSPCA should serve only vegan food at such events as the production of unnecessary animal based foods causes massive suffering and the deaths of millions of farmed animals. It was put that by so doing, the RSPCA would be taking a very clear stance against the treatment of farmed animals – removing some of the inconsistency in its current position.


In response, you stated that “we do not promote a vegetarian lifestyle”. We know that – but we fail to see why. Your UK RSPCA colleagues provide links to the Vegetarian Society, have recently encouraged people to “look out for a tasty vegetarian alternative, such as a nut roast” for Christmas dinner and have educational materials that encourage teachers and students to look at the issue.

The RSPCA ACT website does not even mention the word ‘vegetarian’ yet reducing the amount of animal products one consumes is the single most effective way to reduce animal suffering.

You also labelled us ‘extremists’ and accused us of “bemoaning” and criticising rather than taking real action. I find that extremely offensive and arrogant given that you are a paid, full-time CEO of a multi-million dollar organisation. To criticise the amount of work done by volunteers in a small community group is a bit rich – and is also completely unjustified. AL-ACT is extremely active and has achieved much on a very limited budget. They have been instrumental in having animal circuses and rodeos banned and despite your apparent attempt to claim personal credit for the ban on fireworks and the new egg-labelling laws, AL-ACT has been extremely active and effective in both those campaigns for years.

Further to the battery caged eggs issue, I attended your launch of the Choose Wisely campaign at the parliament house breakfast and, as I said to you afterwards, I was very disappointed that you could not even mention the work done by Animal Liberation in the speeches and video presentation purporting to portray the history of the anti-cage campaigns in the ACT. You made no mention at all of the work done over the last 14 years by AL – including its work with the Greens on drafting Bills and the effective campaigning carried out by Free Range Canberra (an AL-ACT campaign).

The RSPCA often demonstrates a blind spot for farmed animals continuing with a recent item in the Canberra Times regarding the hot weather where you appealed for people to take care of domestic animals and expressed concern for wildlife yet failed to mention the thousands of sheep and cattle often left in paddocks with no shade on the hottest of days. Nor did you mention your commercial partners, Pace Farm and how the hens in their stinking hot sheds at Parkwood would have suffered over these hot periods.

We know you are not an animal rights group but you don’t need to be to mention on your site and in your literature that no modern animal ‘farming’ is humane.

I understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I can see that taking a position (veganism/animal rights) at the end of the spectrum causes difficulties in pulling the average Aussie that long distance from his current meat-eating way of life. I can also see your point in aiming for prodding Mr Average via small steps and staying “in the tent” – but while you are there you need to start acknowledging that there is a lot of space and a growing crowd outside it.

RSPCA is far too inclined to stay in its comfort zone. It’s time you all got a bit bolder and acknowledged veganism as the most effective way for individuals to reduce animal suffering. And refusing to serve dead animals at your functions should be your first step.

Mike O'Shaughnessy

A Ban on Battery Cages in the ACT

A ban on the use of battery cages for egg production in the ACT is well overdue and is now very achievable.

Why?

* It would affect one facility only – Pace Farm, Parkwood.

* The ACT Greens’ now hold the balance of power in the Assembly and their Animal Welfare policy states that they support “legislating to phase out battery egg production in the ACT by 2012” - a commitment not only to the ban but also to an achievable time-frame – one that aligns with the coming EU ban.

* The ACT Legislative Assembly has favoured a ban for over ten years.

• A ban was passed by the Legislative Assembly in 1997. In 1997 the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 1996 was passed which resulted in this clause being inserted in the ACT Animal Welfare Act 1992,

9A Battery hens
A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person keeps hens for egg production; and
(b) the hens are kept in a battery cage system.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units, imprisonment for 1 year or both.

However, this clause is still uncommenced due to its commencement being tied to a ban on the sale of cage eggs in the ACT which required an exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act.

• Ten years later, during the debate on The Greens’ Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 2007 both major parties expressed their opposition to battery cages.

LABOR: A Government media release of 25 Sep 2007 announced three measures “designed to phase out battery egg production in the ACT”. The three measures announced by the Chief Minister were:

1. An offer of assistance to Pace Farm to convert their Parkwood facility to barn or free-range


2. Aproaching other governments in an attempt to achieve a national approach to the issue


3. Implementing a purchasing policy in all ACT Government institutions which prohibits cage-eggs

He went on to say that if measures 1 and 2 failed he was prepared to revisit a ban: “Mr Stanhope said if the offer of industry assistance was not accepted after negotiation with Pace and if advocacy at the national level proved fruitless the Government was prepared to revisit the issue of battery egg production in the future”.

The Chief Minister has admitted that his advocacy at the national level has failed. Pace has not accepted the offer to convert – eighteen months after it was made. They do not see a market for barn eggs and the location is not suitable for free-range hens.

LIBERAL:
Then the Liberals announced in the Assembly on 26 Sep 2007: “The Canberra Liberals support the banning of cage egg production not just in the ACT, as is the proposition of the Greens, but also nationally".

* Pace Farm is not an important industry to the ACT.

• Pace has very few employees (only 14, according to their details as given to the National Pollutant Inventory).
• The company pays a trivial rent of $486 per annum for the Parkwood site.
  

* Pace Farm is not committed to the ACT.When new regulations required more space per hen (1 Jan 2008) Pace simply restocked with fewer birds per cage. They did not invest in new cages but made minimal changes to their very old cages.

* Pace Farm is not a good neighbour for the ACT.

• Pace has breached the code of practice by leaving hens to slowly die in the manure pits. Particularly during de-stocking – every 15-16months or so –hens can fall into the manure pits below the cages. The Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry, 4th Edition states in part:

11.3 … In the case of poultry in cages the daily inspection must
specifically include checking for entrapment and checking of the manure areas under cages for escaped birds. …

12.7 Where birds are found to have escaped into the manure area under cages they must be captured as soon as practicable on
the day of observation and returned to cages or destroyed humanely.

In 2008, a day after a de-stocking event, 70-80 hens were rescued from the manure pits.

After a previous de-stocking event, many of the hens rescued had rock-hard, tennis ball sized accumulations of manure on their legs – evidence that they had been in the pits for far longer than 1 or 2 days.

• The Macgregor West residential development is right next to the Pace Farm facility. Macgregor West is located less than 1 km east of the battery hen sheds and the occasional huge piles of manure. With houses so close this is another good reason to close down the facility. A hot westerly wind will not smell like roses to residents of the new development.

* A ban on battery cages has the strong support of the ACT community.

• A local survey commissioned in September 2005 regarding the ACT community’s views on battery caged hens found 73% of respondents supported banning the cages.

• A WIN TV News poll resulted in an overwhelming 94% support for a ban.
  

* There is a clear and irresistible world-wide move away from these inhumane cages.

• Some jurisdictions have moved to ban the cages.

• An EU-wide ban on the use of conventional battery cages for egg laying hens will be applied from 1 January 2012
  

• The US state of California voted last year to ban the cages.
  

• Many retailers, campuses and other organisations have announced that they will no longer purchase cage eggs.
  

• From http://www.farminguk.com/news/Sainsburys-make-decision-to-sell-only-free-range-eggs-from-5th-February10251.asp: "UK retailer, Sainsbury’s announced that from 5th February 2009 it will no longer sell eggs from battery hens. Sainsbury’s is the first major retailer to make such a pledge ensuring over half a million hens will no longer be kept in battery cages".
  

• Over 150 US university campuses – including Harvard, Princeton and Tufts – have made the decision not to support the cruelty of battery hen farming. In Australia the University of Newcastlehas decided to have all food outlets use cage-free eggs.
  

• Three Tasmanian local councils (Hobart, Clarence and Launceston) have announced that they will only use eggs from free range farms at council functions and our own ACT Government institutions will not purchase any more cage eggs after May 2009.
  

• McDonalds UK serves only free-range eggs now.

• In Britain, the Guardianreports that the majority of eggs purchased in
  March 2008 were from free-range hens.
  

• In Australia, the proportion eggs sold which came from cages is decreasing.

The Australian Egg Corporation Annual Reports show that the market share of free-range eggs in Australia rose from 20.3% to 23.4% in the 12 months to June 2007 while the sale of cage eggs dropped from 74.9% to 71.4% in the same period.

* The ban would be an effective, important step for animal welfare.

The Chief Minister argues that an ACT ban would be ineffective as Pace would simply move the cages interstate.

In his Media Release, “Momentum for battery egg phase out”, of 16 Apr 2008, Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said, “While there have been calls for the ACT Government to simply ban the use of battery cages in the ACT, this would not save a single hen from the fate of life in a battery cage, as the battery cage would just move across the border where the use of battery cage use was still legal”.

I disagree. Given the strong move away from cage egg consumption, egg producers such as Pace Farm are unlikely to invest in new cage facilities. They can see the writing on the wall.

However, even if the cages were relocated, an ACT ban would send a clear message to the industry, consumers and other States.

It would be a very important, symbolic step.

Let’s finally do it!

Jack Waterford - Human Supremacist (and proud of it)

The Canberra Times Editor-at-Large, Jack Waterford, is a human supremacist of the first order.

He’s one of those human supremacists who will sneer at the very possibility that the term even exists.

He’s not the only one by any means – nor, I suspect, is he the worst example. But unfortunately, he is in a position to promulgate his speciesist beliefs through Canberra’s only daily newspaper – and he does so often.

On several occasions over the last few years Jack has devoted his various opinion pieces to belittling vegetarians and animal liberationists. (Some of those opinion pieces are still available on the Canberra Times site and on his blog - www.canberratimes.com.au/blogs/jack-waterford). He also often acts as Letters Editor for the paper so is in a position to suppress or edit pro-animal views – though I must admit that my letters get a reasonable success rate, even when I am criticising his writings.

In Waterford’s case, his attitude of human supremacy seems to stem from his childhood on a rural property where nonhuman animals were either;

1. ‘stock’ – cattle or sheep to be grown, used and killed as required,
2. more-or-less domesticated dogs and moggies – useful around the farm but, kids, don’t get too attached to them,
3. pests – any other nonhuman animals that such people believe interfere in their right to make a living off the land and their introduced ‘stock’, or
4. others – I gather a very small group of native animals who were paid the respect of being ignored.
   

You can take the boy out of the country but…

Waterford has a thing about vegetarians and regards us with mystified disdain if not real hatred. (“I learned early that vegetarianism is a fairly nutty, though harmless idea, perfectly tolerable so long as the proponent did not frighten the horses”).

Strangely, he believes that vegetarianism adopted as a ‘food fad’ can lead to veganism which can lead to support for animal rights. It is, of course, the opposite of what generally happens; learning of the cruelty inherent in producing unnecessary food and fibre from our fellow animals leads compassionate people to stop consuming meat and other animal products. It’s the concern for animals that leads to vegetarianism.

He is often very condescending toward us animal activists – apparently believing that we only ever campaign for animals that are “thought to be especially warm, cuddly or symbolic” – leaving cane toads and other less furry critters to fend for themselves. He also seems to believe that animal activists (including myself) are being ‘misinformed’ by ‘someone’. He apparently refuses to consider the possibility that we are able to seek out information and reach conclusions on our own.

His common themes also include the accusation that groups such as PETA (http://www.peta.org/) who argue for better treatment of animals are secretly aiming to make the whole world vegan. There is no secret, Jack. That’s exactly what we want (amongst other reforms). This is from PETA’s FAQ page;

“People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her)”.

Jack’s most recent rant was on November 6 (I’m sure the Canberra Times will include it on his blog site when they get around to it. They seem to be a bit behind – at least on the Opinion pages – at the moment).

On that occasion he got a bit personal, describing me as “the hapless self-appointed publicist for a vegetarian movement which would, in the natural course of things, attract little publicity or support”. Before stepping down earlier this year, I was for a number of years the duly elected President of the ACT Vegetarian Society (http://www.vegetariansociety.org.au/). I often wrote on behalf of the Society but at other times, and since stepping down, write to express a personal opinion – backed by facts where applicable. By no means a "self-appointed publicist".

As for "hapless", it’s a bit tricky to jump up and down and yell “I am not hapless” without appearing - well, bloody hapless. So I’ll just have to let people decide on that point for themselves.

He also accused me of describing him, his history and ideas as "disgusting". I have never called him names as far as I can remember (at least until now) and it would be a foolish thing to do. Many of us, myself included, shared Jack’s prejudices until we began our journey of understanding and compassion toward nonhumans. I recall, many years prior to my own vegetarianism, meeting up with a cousin who I hadn’t seen since he was a small kid only to hear he was ‘a vegetarian’. I silently scoffed – thinking that the poor bloke must be a bit soft. Sadly, he was killed in a motor accident nearly 20 years ago and I regret not being able to chat to him now and compare notes.

Jack Waterford is not just wrong in his attitude to nonhumans and those who speak up for them but seems to delight in displaying that wrongness. He also comes across as a condescending bully – in one infamous article implying that he had the urge to smash us over the head with a 12” bolt.

It’s a shame he uses his position of influence to vilify animal libbers and vegetarians - particularly at a time when moving away from a diet based on animal products would benefit us, and nonhumans, in so many ways.

Cage Free = Cruelty Free?

As mentioned in an earlier post, a few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the launch of the Choose Wisely campaign breakfast at Parliament House. After seeing a video on the fight to have battery cages banned, particularly in the ACT, we were invited to enjoy our breakfast which included, naturally, free-range eggs which, we were assured, were ‘cruelty-free’.

Now I am the first to urge consumers to buy free-range eggs in place of cage eggs. I have previously been involved with the Free Range Canberra campaign run by Animal Liberation ACT. Even so, there is no way that I could ever describe either barn-laid or free-range eggs as ‘cruelty-free’.

Let’s put aside for the sake of this argument the sad fact that many eggs sold as free-range are simply not. To my way of thinking, if eggs are labelled ‘cage’ you can be sure that the hens who laid them have lived in hell whereas eggs labelled ‘free-range’ mean that there is at least a good chance that the hens had some freedom during their short life.

But let’s go back to the start of the process. Whether layer hens are to spend their lives in cages, barns or with access to grass outdoors they all come from the same hatcheries. The fertilised eggs that are used by these hatcheries are laid by breeder hens who spend their shortened lives in sheds similar to broiler sheds. The hens lead stressful lives with an unnaturally high mating rate. In a more natural flock, the proportion of roosters to hens is much lower than the proportions maintained by these commercial breeders. Frequent matings result in severe feather wear and injury for the hens. Also, it is not uncommon for breeders to kill all the roosters after several weeks and replace them with young roosters to accelerate the rate of fertilisation. For an insight into layer breeder sheds see http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RbmTHILGL1M

‘Worn-out’ breeders go to be slaughtered for second quality foods.

On hatching, about half the chicks are male. These males are of no value so are killed – either by being tossed into a bin to be gassed or by being thrown into the spinning blades of a macerator.

No matter what type of production system they are destined for (cage, barn or free-range), chicks may be subjected to painful beak trimming with a hot blade.

Finally, again regardless of the system used, hens in commercial layer flocks are culled after about 15 to 18 months – their peak laying period. They are transported, often for many hours in open trucks, to be slaughtered for second grade human and pet food – or maybe just fertiliser.

Avoiding cage eggs is a good start but regardless of the egg production system used, there is no such thing as a cruelty-free commercial egg.

Animal Liberation and the RSPCA

The President of Animal Liberation ACT (AL ACT), Mary Hayes, and I were invited to this morning’s Parliament House breakfast launch of Choose Wisely – the new RSPCA initiative designed to reduce the number of cage eggs consumed in Australia. I got a guernsey due to my previous involvement with AL ACT and its Free Range Canberra (FRC) campaign.

The morning started badly – no soy milk for this vegan’s coffee (“we do have skim milk, Sir”). Then it got worse; in announcing the launch of Choose Wisely, RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke, acknowledged the past work of others in seeking to have cages banned in the ACT including the Greens MLA Dr Deb Foskey but, sadly, neglected to acknowledge the ongoing work of AL ACT. He made no mention of AL ACT’s role in the 1997 attempt to legislate against the cages and its more recent “Free Range Canberra” campaign which led to the introduction of last year’s revised Bill by the Greens. Ah well.

“Choose Wisely” is a term that has been used for some time by the RSPCA but now has a new logo and its own website http://www.choosewisely.org.au/. It is intended to persuade organisations to move toward the use of cage-free eggs. Those that do will earn the right to display Gold, Silver or Bronze logos depending on their degree of progress in eliminating cage eggs from their businesses. InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) was announced as the first ACT business to commit to the move toward cage-free eggs as part of the RSPCA campaign.

The campaign will also encourage consumers to support such businesses and to use RSPCA supplied calling cards at other eateries – leaving them on the table to encourage the café to change its buying habits.

The IHG move will mean some 200,000 eggs per year in the ACT will be RSPCA–accredited cage-free eggs instead of sourced from caged birds. But will that make a difference? The Pace Farm facility in the ACT produces some 60 million eggs per year so even if IHG have been using all ACT eggs up til now the change will only affect about 0.33% of the ACT facility’s output.

This move is more symbolic than practical so it will really only make a difference if it leads other businesses and individuals to change their buying habits. Let’s hope that RSPCA and IHG can get some media coverage.

The Animal Liberation movement and the RSPCA have had their differences – and they continue to do so. According to http://www.rspcawatchdog.org/ (the Animal Lib point of view), “Despite the hard work of volunteers, RSPCA management consistently fails animals.” The RSPCA South Australia site (http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/2007/01/12/animal-liberation-front/) gives the other perspective. It says “we fundamentally differ from the animal liberation movement in the methods we use”.

But the differences are not restricted to methodology – the RSPCA also differs from the AL movement in what it regards as cruel. At breakfast this morning after seeing a DVD showing the horrors of battery cages we were invited to enjoy our hot breakfast which included cage-free eggs, bacon and chicken sausages – proclaimed joyously as all ‘cruelty-free’. This is where we differ. The RSPCA believes that it’s ok for humans to use animals – to breed them, incarcerate them, separate mothers from their babies, perform surgical procedures on them, transport them and, of course, slaughter them – as long as it’s all done ‘humanely’.

Does this mean that Animal Liberation and the RSPCA can’t work together? I don’t think so. As an Animal Liberationist I see the RSPCA as on the right track – but just a bit further back. Still, by being more conservative than Liberationists they are more likely to gain support from the general public as well as from politicians and businesses.

The local RSPCA ACT folk have been supportive on the battery cage issue – even if a little ignorant of AL ACT’s efforts and achievements – and I think this initiative deserves AL’s support. They are a far bigger organisation with a lot more money to spend than most Australian AL groups. Besides, once they achieve this goal of finishing off battery cages they will most likely have come to see the cruelty inherent in the barn system and refocus on it.

By the way, had the RSPCA been more aware of AL’s Free Range Canberra campaign they’d have seen that FRC recruited businesses long ago to commit to free range eggs (http://www.freerangecanberra.org/restcafe.htm).

They would also have been familiar with this calling card.

On a final note, after breakfast we were treated to a speech supporting the new campaign by Senator Gary Humphries who has apparently changed his spots somewhat since his days in the ACT Legislative Assembly where in 1997 he opposed the Greens’ Bill to ban battery cages on the basis of the possible loss of the Parkwood facility and its jobs from the ACT as well as “the weaknesses that the alternative schemes of egg production being suggested by the Greens might have in terms of animal welfare”. Good to see you catching up, Senator.