live export

i HATE THEM TOO! >

Aren't they wonderful? They're a bunch of freakin' sock puppets. Not sure whose hand is up whose backside though!

Reminds me of one Bill Hicks rant about the US government:

A: I think the puppet on the left supports my view!
B: I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs!
C: Hey! Isn't that one guy holding up both puppets?
Voice Over: SHUT UP! Go back to bed America, your government is in control. And keep drinking beer, you morons!

Have the sent any animals over seas? .. sorry for the stupid question

Do you have a copy of the letter? The Government has not set a target to make stunning mandatory for all animals in live export. In fact they have refused to do this at all. Someone is pulling your leg.

okay this is what is said
there were four things they sought out to do:
1. extend the newly introduced "supply chain conditions" to include indonesia and all overseas markets
2. Have those conditions enshrined into australian law
3. ensure an appropriate animal welfare body exists to advise on the live animal export industry.
4. make stunning of animals (during slaughter) a condition of all new export permits issued as from 1st Jan 2013.

"the first three matters were agreed to and i believe will significantly enhance animal welfare standards for the live export trade."

so yeah, basically number four didn't get in so they are still exporting the animals and they still don't give a shit about them.
what is "supply chain conditions" that doesn't even mean anything to me
do these idiots seriously think this would make anyone happy?

Random question, thought I'd bump it on an old thread rather than creating a new, do you guys all know that it is legal to slaughter livestock without stunning in Australia as well? IT also complies with the international standards for slaughter,
also, the newer footage of the overseas slaughterhouse depicted a restraining box, that was an illegal copy of the australian mark 4 box, it's apparently supposed to hold the beast down at the neck as well whilst he/she is slaughtered fully concious. No stunning is still legal! Are we still in the dark ages when it comes to knowldege of the welfare of animals? ugh! I almost think we should be focussing ourpower to make it illegal to slaughter an animla without stunning in australia, then focus on the cruel practises in live export, as it's rather hypocritical don't you think?


"•Issues were identified regarding the lack of mechanical head and neck restraint with some Mark 4 restraint boxes. A review by the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer has been suggested to assess the compliance of such boxes with international animal welfare standards."
I found the report on the investigation, and what happened in response to the newest footage, if anyone's interested here's the link.

http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/export/live-animals/livestock/investigation-report

"Questions: Isn’t it in the best interests of the animal to make stunning mandatory?
Answer: The ESCAS system is based in international animal welfare guidelines provided by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) which permit slaughter without stunning.

The Australian Government is encouraging the use of stunning. Exporters are progressively moving to stunning in more abattoirs but there is currently no requirement to do so."

Thats really interesting. I didnt know that - How you said that it is illegal to slaughter animals without stunning does that comply with animals that are slaughtered on the farm and there meat is sold at local auctions?

Does the stunning of animals prior to slaughter count for all animals? Fish? Emus? Deer? Kangaroos? Ive read quiet a few articals, interveiws, blogs ect of ex-slaughtermen saying that they dont stun some of the animals i listed above But i just wanted to double check as i couldnt really find any info.