Live Export, Factory Farming & Sentient Beings

Live Export is easier to understand than some things. If the animal is live and its exported from one nation to another then its what most people consider when they mean Live Export. Of course its not generally considered that livestock transported from Kangaroo Island to the Australian mainland is Live Export. Nor livestock transported across national borders like cattle, sheep or even companion animals crossing from say France into Germany. It also doesn't include the important work that Australian bees do in foreign countries. Yes, that little creature, well lots of them are exported overseas. No outcry, no stocking rates I'd assume...in fact no mention of them being exported at all in the Live Export debate. Now there must be a reasonable and sensible reason why not. I hope someone replies in the comment section below so we have some sort of idea to look at. Perhaps they're not animals to some people, hmmm not sure.

Factory Farming is a pretty clumsy term to me at least, but popular with folk trying to evoke an associated image of a dirty industrial scene during the industrial revolution with all the associated images of exploitation. Of course it conveniently doesn't seem to include broad acre cropping. It doesn't include plantations including forestry. It doesn't seem to include other forms of intensive farming like 5 acres of greenhouses producing fruit or vegetables or vast hydroponic units. It seems to only cover intensive and semi intensive farming of animals destined for human food production. Strangely I don't think factory farming is a term that's used in reference to people keeping bee hives either. If it is then perhaps there's an argument for eating the honey of wild bees and an argument against an apiarist's honey. Odd yeah? I would have to argue, if we're to have cities, and we are, then unless ALL CITY DWELLERS become self reliant in food production "factory" farming is essential. Unless all city, country & remote population ALL become self reliant & venture into solely subsistence existence then we actually need broad acre farming, intensive farming and other methods of growing larger amounts of product per acre for selling to downstream processing. "Factory Farming" is a deliberately designed term, constructed to evoke a negative view of animal for food production.

Sentient Beings. Its often propelled into anti-meat debates as a reason to morally oppose and stop the production of meat animals for food consumption. Its used to say that animals are thinking beings which also experience pleasure and pain, therefore they morally do not deserve to be enslaved and used cruelly, in the more extreme Animal Rights folks, its a reason not to use them in food production full stop (Remember this point, its important you do cos we're going to return to it for closer inspection). Now whether or not this also applies to other animal products that we use food or not depends sometimes on whether the person arguing is a staunch vegan or not. So for some, animal produced food products such as milk, cream (and other dairy products), eggs and honey are off the menu.

Live Export, Factory Farming & Sentient Beings. 3 related topics and ALL THREE suffer selective usage as deemed useful to people in the debate.

How so with Sentient Beings? Well, it comes back to religion, which for most people of the world, a religious worldview is the original source of the term and concept of sentient beings. Which religions well if you're right into the sentience theme as a part of your worldview you're likely to be a follower of an eastern religion. Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings. Now if you're staying up at night having trouble sleeping you can activate Google and check out Sentiocentrism or sentio-centrism describes the theory that (all and only) sentient individuals are the centre of moral concern. Yep moral concern and moral authority is something I seem to touch on, near on an underlying theme I admit. Mainly because moral concern is quickly ascribed to animals but where and what is the moral authority, origin of the morals is avoided like poison. Some of that might be because some folk don't want the origin of morals to include a transcendent creator (Yep, well probably try to touch on that angle later too).

Its just that when someone tells me killing animals for food is immoral, they have to have a moral standard by which to make such a truth claim. Its not unreasonable to ask them to present it. Its not unreasonable to expect them to be imperfect just me and like the rest of humanity but they surely can answer that question fairly and clearly. No one is perfect amongst us. Its reasonable to assume that whether or not you keep all moral laws, its fair to expect you'd be against someone breaking a criminal law and/or a moral law if you're to occupy the moral high ground. If it is possible to argue that its ok to break and enter (that is illegal entry) to help save an animal from the immorality of becoming a human's meal then it should be clearly set out how and based upon what, because you need a moral authority to trump moral and criminal codes. If you're fighting against something you claim is morally wrong, you kinda lose a ton of credibility if you ignore the law of the land and conduct criminal behaviour. That kind of moral selection is moral relativism, if the individual gets to choose then its all meaningless anyway. we're down to whatever suits whichever individual. If there's a moral authority, cite it for us all to understand. Sadly when you press the moral-let-us-see button some folk scamper and you can even be attacked for being "religious". Yes, its a special kind of odd.

If you claim to be non-religious, follower of no faith I'd probably disagree. It is impossible to remove God and replace Him with a vacuum or void. Those that remove God generally replace Him with the next best thing, something they venerate or long for. In short, another deity, religion or faith of some description will step in...or some mix of religious facets or tenants that suit the person denouncing religion/s. There's even a few folk arguing that atheism is a religion...something for another time and place.

If you definitely believe there is no God, no Creator, that all is a result of nature, chance and evolution then perhaps then and only then are we all animals and speciesism is a viable idea, but for some strangely no, for some folk we're all animals with similar rights, the right to live and let live so we shouldn't be cruel to animals and we certainly shouldn't eat them because they're sentient beings.

Then there's no moral dilemma if the lion kills the antelope and because I happen to be there nearby I kill the lion, take the antelope carcass and cook it for myself. Some will argue no, the lion is a sentient being and should not have been killed. Such a moral problem didn't exist for the lion when it was killing and if all animals are equal and speciesism is despicable and to be opposed then I have every right to kill the predator to eat its prey. Where do the morals come from if its wrong?

Perhaps if its all dog eat dog and survival of the fittest, morals actually are a deceptive hindrance & hurdle to the clearly only real natural way, dog eat dog. Morals in a fully secular natural world MUST be a fake smoke screen. I can kill the lady with the shopping trolley & take her food and her 4WD cos the tank is full and she has food and its there. Survival of the fittest. No obviously this is illegal (and to me abhorrent and immoral) but while its against the law, if we're all just animals then its not morally wrong. This will come as a wonderful consulation to the serious career criminals just about the exit jail. They can have complete peace of mind and know in good faith they can ethically and morally go all Chopper Reid over someone who has a larger slice of pie when they get out. They just have to just make sure they don't get caught because the law of the land might not be too good to them, but morally, they're good to go. Seems the human conscience is really a serious hurdle to be overcome if we're to move up in the completely nature only world as individuals.

Oh course this is utter bullocks, but its the Pandora's box of murky conundrums the godless folk have to some how overcome. Generally though, religion is splashed as being bad and topic closed and avoided. Should be reasonable to ask.

One side step is morals "are innate and like kindness, something you have or you don't" which is terribly flawed in this nature world where we're all just animals of evolution. If it such a case, then the lion doesn't have morals and to rate it lower is that horrible species-ism again. Its really quite funny the more you look at it and if we're all just a result of nature, chance, evolution and there is no creator, there are no real morals, just some bluffs that work with some people and none of the animals...they're a tool for control and have no real ethical foundation whatsoever. Nature rules, morals are fake. Its at this point the naturalist view of including morals is kinda like the cat chasing its tail, except every time the cat gets close it slams into a logical brick wall.

To quote Voiceless - "Farmed animals are conscious beings with rich experiences of the world. They suffer from pain, feel emotions and build strong relationships. These capacities ought to be considered when making ethical decisions about the treatment of animals"

Now its not unfair to ask the question, "Ahh ok but does that really matter to the cow who provided the steak I'm eating or is it supposed to matter to us or society as a moral question?"
In some restaurants you can go up to the aquarium, look at the fish or lobster and select the one you choose to eat. Whether you want to do that or not is clearly a personal choice, but is there something wrong with meeting your meal while its alive, then actually going thru with the process of having someone kill it, prepare it, cook it and present it on a plate for you?

"Ought to be considered" - why? No seriously why?
In the naturalistic world of food chains of various animals, being freaks of nature, chance and evolution why ought it be considered? Now its easier for those who follow a religion or a deity, but the Godless, their "ought" could be the trick a lion type person uses to control or bring down an antelope type person, after all, if we're all "just animals together" morals and other things we "ought" have no real ethical grounding at all. "Ought to be considered" - says who and why?

If we're all equal animals on a spinning planet with no creator, then the "oughts" are inventions which we have no obligations to follow whatsoever, no matter how pretty and flowery the prose or stance.
There is no foundation.

I hope some folk can see or are beginning the logical implosion here for the naturalistic world moraliser.

Now lets return to the first point I said to remember about sentience.

Its used to say that animals are thinking beings which also experience pleasure and pain, therefore they morally do not deserve to be enslaved and used cruelly, in the more extreme Animal Rights folks, its a reason not to use them in food production full stop.

Some folk point to The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness as a great pointer to validate Sentient Beings. It was signed by a group of eminent professionals in the related fields on July 7th 2012 at Francis Crick Memorial Conference, you can Google it and plenty will come up including the Declaration was signed in front of Steven Hawkings. Ahh thing is, it puts science to consciousness and doesn't seem to mean that we should eat animals at all. Some people sentient beings feel pain, fear and pleasure. Peter Singer seems to draw close on that angle too, but the declaration doesn't go over to suggest because they feel we shouldn't eat them at all.

The lion, the antelope and us humans are apparently all sentient beings.
Apparently we all share considerable rights, and being a sentient being we are all central to moral consideration. Strangely it certainly seems the lion isn't to fussed about morals in killing the antelope, or indeed if its required killing us.

Strangely there's atheist who thinks there is no God and its all been random mutation since something somehow went from chemical soup to living cell. Or perhaps from goo to you via the zoo.
They have a clearer logical path in rejecting morals, rejecting Animal Rights extremists and going their fully godless path and eating what they want guilt free. To them there is no logic ruling out species-ism.

For the devout Judaeo-Christian, Muslim devotee, there is no moral problem breeding and raising animals for meat consumption. In fact in the Torah, Bible, Koran its not a problem at all and Species-ism again pops up, no matter what your faith (including atheism) as being morally and logically coherent.

So if a sentient creature is one that feels pleasure and pain, fear etc, what is the problem with the lion eating the antelope or the human going the next logical step and farming livestock for food. What's wrong with one sentient creature eating another and us as human beings putting ourselves at the top of the food chain?
Morally? Nothing if you're of religious persuasion
Morally? Nothing if you truly are convinced you and we all live in a Godless existence.

If you're an extremist, you may well say we shouldn't eat sentient beings because they feel fear, pain, pleasure and have a right to a full life. But why?
Who ascribes the reason why and under what authority?
Having consciousness to feel things can be proven, but how does that become and who was it who had the authority to say that ability is the reason they shouldn't be eaten.

Peter Singer trod on this notion a little accidentally and unintentionally.
If a person cannot feel anything, cannot experience anything they have a lower moral worth apparently...potentially none. So eating a person in a coma therefore becomes more "morally" ok under that premise than eating a sheep or a cow.

If you want to live a vegan life, go for it. Its your body and you have the right (and I respect, encourage and will defend your right) to choose to fuel your body with whatever you want. Except human flesh cos my worldview doesn't allow that :-)
By all means be vegetarian or vegan and battle on for the prevention for cruelty for animals while you're at it. Its all good with me, its a good and worthwhile pursuit.

Just try to avoid using morals to stop meat and animal products for food, especially when your morals are self chosen or self concocted opinions. Be a little honest intellectually and if you're going to use morals, outline fully and properly, without squirming your origins of morals and the moral authority. If morals don't transcend humans (that is come from a Creator) then they're opinions...relative and subjective.

Speciesism - Google it...it is not a negative thing that negates the human the right to eat meat from other animals, to farm them or anything else. Its a nice try but its try, but its another logic bomb in the minefield the extremist seems to have set for them selves :-)

Speciesism - its not a dirty word

Euthanasia - What's the go?

This came up a while ago, it'll come up again and again until its legalised in Australia. Yes I think it will eventually be legalised but that's not a view based on my opinion of what's right or wrong. Well not directly anyway, I think it'll be legalised because there's a growing number of people wanting to support it. Not all things good are popular, not all popular things are good. I think it'll eventually get passed into legislation irrespective of whether its genuinely right or wrong (good & popular).

Now that out of the way, might as well jump over to some of the murky grey areas that come up regularly. If you oppose it, you may have been guilty of saying that its ok to euthanize your old, decrepit. blind dying dog so it should be ok for one self to allow end pain, suffering, indignity & halt the drain on society.

I think with a closer look the comparison with a companion animal is entirely invalid and untenable. Which is not to say that even if my argument is 100% correct some folk won't still oppose it ;-)
Lets switch to numbered dot points as to why it might not be a tenable argument

1. Animals don't decide for themselves that life is slowly draining or that they're a burden on society and they wish to have dignity in death by deciding their fate or more importantly the timing of it. They just don't. We, along with the advice of Vet Doctors, decide the animal cannot be returned to full fitness, they're in pain and suffering and its not something that can be repaired nor can they recover from. Which is not to say there isn't pain relief. We can easily keep an animal sedated or fairly pain free if we need to, but there's no dignity (nor lack thereof) involved. We cannot practically keep them alive and pain free so its the owners of the dog/cat/pet that decide to "end the suffering" and snuff out its light. Generally though, the pet is sedated under less than cheap pain relief. Its not suffering, its not in pain, it just has no future like its past. We decide to end its life. This is deftly overlooked and swept past when using the ending a pet's suffering and human euthanasia connection. Do we then decide that the patient we're related to, looking at, is by all reasonable assessments "stuffed" and its time snuff out their light? An animal being put down argument cannot be used to support euthanasia because the dog doesn't decide (nor the vet) the owner does. In the humane parallel we do not have a situation were the patient doesn't decide (nor does the doctor) but someone close by does. The argument doesn't transfer from animal to humans.
2. Animals and humans are different. There is distinct differences. We own animals, we are stewards of animals and with those positions there are rights and responsibilities. Companion animals, indeed all animals have different rights & responsibilities because they have a different role on this planet. The lion that kills the antelope is not charged with murder. The cat that isn't hungry isn't charged with murder for killing the mouse it doesn't eat because its full. If I have a dying pet and put it down I'm not charged with murder. Even the snake that bites me and causes my death isn't charged with murder. Humans are distinctive from humans. Animal rights are completely different from human rights. I can legally buy a rifle and legally go hunting and I am not charged with murder for killing the wild pig, wild dog, the rabbit, the fox or any other feral. I might kill ferals that kill or threaten native species and primary production animals, but its not murder. It is not unlawful. On the other hand were I to kill a human possibly best described as a "feral" who is well below my idea of a dignified life, who's refusing to work or help their fellow man, who's a drain on society...I'd quite rightly be classed as a murder and be charged accordingly. What happens to animals is not transferable to humans, so again the argument doesn't transfer from animal to humans.
3. Religious Interference. Apparently religion is by some thinking the main obstacle that stops euthanasia being reasonably accepted as being reasonable and lawful. I'm still looking for evidence of any society that has spent the last say 1000 years as entirely secular. Euthanasia would be legal in that mythical country by that reasoning and allowing (human) euthanasia just as putting down a pet would be legal. There have been secular countries in the world, but never last for all that long. Stalin banned religion as have other communist based countries, none have lasted and ironically the country with the fastest growing Christian numbers is actually, currently, China. Why is "RELIGION" even being mention in relation to the animal angle? Ahh because some folk have gone onto to saying the closeness of animals to humans, the close correlation is not what divides us but what we have in common. Animals its then said are sentient beings, capable of consciousness, thought, action, reaction, expression, understanding, fear, pain and the list goes on. This is then said to be held up, as opposed to plants which its said are non sentient beings. Why the link between religion and sentient under this animal angle? Ahh easy. The whole notion of sentient beings is from eastern religions. It is a large part of Buddhism. In fact Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings. So if you're going to have the "Keep Religion Out Of It" rule, then the sentient being angle is just pitched out. In any case, when ever you remove the religion its replaced by another, or a cult. Its an interesting notion to say leave religion out, but if religion is out we cannot cherry pick aspects from eastern religions and mysticism and say religion is out.

 

Which leave the 3 other big topics in favour of Euthanasia.

Pain.

Suffering

Dignity.

I think both side of the debate might be furthered if they avoided the "Animal" analogy and stuck with the remaining big three. Personally I would only remove the animal thing because there's no rational connection between animal scenario and the human scenario. I'd include religion also but many anti religion folk would not want a word on it. Sometimes, even those who claim to be non religious/anti-religious have a religion but don't recognise it as such. In any case sticking with the big three Pain, Suffering, Dignity on the table we'd actually see proper rational progress.

On the topic of pain, we have to stop thinking of what we feel looking on. We need to research what pain there is in palliative care. In researching, here's one page, I'm sure there are others of a similar vein or fully opposing. Its a good place to start when looking at pain and suffering. http://www.hospicefoundation.org/painmyths

One of the worrisome things that might be an unhelpful by-product is that being old and decrepit with few moments left in life, society were to create a mind set that such people in such a state are without dignity, without reason to be kept on, have become a drain on society and thus inferred that if they have dignity within them they will crease and fold their life straight away to maintain dignity. It may not be the action of a person if they're feeling obliged by a wrongful standard of society.

Just a thought. The issue is layered and complex, I expect it to have passionate followers and opponents of all the various stripes with no clear empirical found outcome. Legalised or not

That's Karma Baby...

No, sorry I don't believe in Karma.

I heard the story of the man & woman in India who fell in love but they were from different castes. You might not have heard this story, I head it on a Ravi Zacharias podcast. They are in love and against both their families wishes, they marry. Both their families disown them, they're now on their own and I gather in another time it may have been their death sentence. But for them life goes on, til one day the wife is transferred to another city with her job. Sadly they grow apart and she falls for another man. The husband suspecting something has gone wrong travels to her only to be told by his wife that the marriage is over, she's met someone else and she plans to marry him

Despite all his best attempts she's unmoved in her decision. The story goes he asks her why, that they both lost all their family members and contact, all they had was each other. Still she is unmoved.

In acceptance of the fact she's unwilling to save the marriage he re-enters the room and tells her he will not oppose her but all he wishes for is to lay his head on her lap for half an hour and with no words or movement, just  rest there, enjoying the closeness before she moves on in her life. She agrees and he lays down his head and rests in the last closeness they will ever share.

She not knowing he's taken a strong poison and before the half hour is up, he is dead.

Time passes by but understandably the woman never really gets over the ordeal, eventually she calls on a Hindu mystic and consults him. He takes her birth date, the husbands, their marriage date and other factors looks at his charts, and relies on his spiritual knowledge. Eventually he concludes its actually not her fault at all, in fact it is the man's fault completely. The mystic explains to her that in a previous life the man was not her husband, he was someone she knew and he had raped her and that the failed marriage and his suicide was in fact "KARMA".

In the casts system, your only way of moving up the caste system to a higher social status is to be a good person to other people so when you're reincarnated you can step up a position or two based on your actions, or go down to abject poverty and disease with no future because you were not a good person in a previous life.

So you either believe in Karma because :-

1. You're a believer in re-incarnation and you're a follower of eastern mysticism. With origins in ancient India, it is a key concept in  Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Ching Hai and others.
2. You've simply cherry picked an aspect of eastern mysticism because it suits you for any number of reasons. Not sure how one is able to intellectually support the idea of construct your own religious faith by picking out aspects from a range of faiths that suit you best. Seems odd but that sort of oddness seems to rest easily amongst some eastern mystic influenced types we commonly & possibly call hippies or alternative types. 
3. Perhaps the concept of cosmic come-uppance appeals to you because someone's wronged you & you're now happily living in the knowledge they will get their just desserts some day. No forgiveness, just everyone bad or more accurately, everyone who's ever been bad to you will not go unpunished. Kind of an appealing passive revenge system.
4. Or even odder still, you're one of those folk who opposes religion, thinks religion is the root of all evil and the Karma thing is where its at...even though its from a religion. Contradiction Alert buzzer should be flashing and ringing like a banshee. And seeing banshee's don't exist something that rings and flashes a lot...a big alarm ;-)

Reincarnation falls flat on its one life face for a number of very simple reasons. There are more people living now then any other point in history. The world population today is higher than say 1000B.C. so at some point there has to have been new people born that didn't exist before in the reincarnation model. In fact if there was "a beginning" in the reincarnation model, there must have been at least as many people as the subsequent time with the highest ever world population.

 

On a different angle, why is it that many celebs used to be reincarnated famous people, indeed some decades ago some stand up comics who were ridiculing reincarnation were saying "Hurry up and claim someone famous before all the famous ones are taken". There was another glitch, no one was ever able to establish facts around the previous life that could then be verified by other sources. There is in other words, no circumstantial evidence corroborating previous lives lived.

 

There's also the awkwardness of the otherwise atheist person (who connects with Karma) commenting that the Biblical account of the creation of earth and all its creatures is false as there is no evidence to support it. This somehow doesn't apply to Karma and reincarnation. Also doesn't apply to Darwinian versions on the creation of life. No evidence how chemical soup turned into a living cell and evolved into life as we know it. No evidence, no replicating in experiments just theories. That's branching off if we're not careful, but the point is Science is wrongly pointed to supporting the Darwinian approach, but there's no science or evidence for Karma or reincarnation.

 

So...

 

Person # 1 "Yeah I believe in Karma"

 

Person # 2  "So do you believe in reincarnation"

 

Person # 1  "No that's ridiculous"

Person # 2 "I don't believe in either and can't understand how you can not falsely believe in one and reject the other, what religion are you?"

 

Person # 1 "I don't believe in religion, there is no religion that is right or wrong"

 

Person # 2  "So what you're saying is two opposing religions don't contradict, they just are...they're both neither right nor wrong. How's that work, I mean how do you believe in religion but you believe that all religions are not right or wrong? Who's that work?"

 

Person # 1  " ahhh...."

 

From this point much, much more creativity is required for the person to try & develop a solution. Open mindedness is essential, the type that says its right without any idea why its right and pushing away anything that shows its wrong or even doubtful. Accepting KARMA as being legit is a decision based on a desire to agree with it after one has removed all logic. You gotta like it to believe in it, nothing more.

 

KARMA - its there for folk who might also care to buy a bridge in New York that was once owned by Elizabeth Taylor and was built solely by George Washington with his bare hands.  Take my word for it :-)

 

 

Why Seriously Think in Regards Live Export?

Well its emotive and its easy for some folk to be led and misled.

A totally unrelated issue, but this is a good example of how people can be easily misled despite the plain simple facts of the matter.

Some people were getting revved up and loud about what the then impending "New Millennium" was going to bring.

Strangely however, the majority of folk were counting down to the big milestone date of just after midnight of January 1st 2000 as the beginning of the new millennium.

The facts are however quite different than what was popular, it started on January 1st 2001.

At the time pointing this out reactions were worth noting, some rejected it outright, regardless of what was said, some others could see the fault but even so were happy to agree but still kept on with the wrong date.

It was easy to show, we can track back and find the year 1AD and can track back earlier there we can find a year of 1BC. There was no year 0 in between. So the "first decade" of the first millennium AD went from 1AD to 10AD - That's January 1st 1AD right up to and including Dec 31st 10 AD.

The first century went from January 1st 1AD up to and including December 31st 100AD. The first day of the second century was January 1st 101AD.

The first millennium went from January 1st 1AD up to and including December 31st 1000AD.
The second millennium (AD) went from January 1st 1001 up to and including December 31st 2000AD.

This current millennium started on Jan 1st 2001AD and will conclude on December 31st 3000AD.

Its not a big deal, nothing really hinges on either answer correct or wrong, but it was a pretty big milestone date at the time, fireworks, party time yada yada yada...

And still the date was wrong, it was plain and simple and the majority of people got it wrong even though it was a very simple fact in full plain view.

So seriously think, its sadly very easy to be led or misled on not a lot of facts.

In regards to Live Export...I know of no fair and rational person who supports, condones or excuses the stabbing of eyes or slashing of tendons of any animal during the slaughter process. I think we can clearly assume no sane or fair person would be ok with that.

However in addition, no one should be assuming that's still going on. It should be tested.
The images should all be dated.

1. Is the unacceptable behaviour and accurate reflection of what was happening there in that particular slaughterhouse?
2. Is it still happening? 
3. Has it been rectified?
4. What is the current position of that particular slaughterhouse?

At some point, images must be relevant, current and fair representations of what is happening, good or bad.

Images must not be regurgitated to help shock people into maintaining the rage against actions which may or may not be still happening. It shouldn't be continually be revisited like a dog returning to its vomit.

Strongly urge people to seriously think.

Those "30 ESCAS Breaches..."

30 ESCAS Breaches.

Yes it was about time this was highlighted. Several Anti Live Export folk have made a number of comments which are false, misleading and that's either through deliberate act of deceit or innocent ignorance. I suspect these misleading statements are aimed at potential or actual Animal Rights Activists...but who knows.

What we do know is there have not yet been 30 ESCAS Breaches yet as some have and are claiming.
Let me be clear and repeat that, there have not been 30 confirmed ESCAS breaches...no matter what anyone tells you.

Be alert and watch closely how things are portrayed.

There have however been 30 reports lodged with the federal Department of Agriculture (at the time of typing this (14/05/2014).

That's REPORTS LODGED not 30 INVESTIGATIONS nor 30 BREACHES.

So how many investigations were there actually?

Well first lets understand what happens. A person or persons lodge a complaint with the Department and the complaint goes firstly through an "assessment" which we assume is to weed out any vexatious complainants or poor and sloppy reporting. If it passes the Assessment phase then an Investigation is launched.

So that being the case, how many report are there currently before the department as I type?
Well out of 30 reports there are 4 Investigations in Progress so it'd be unwise and untidy to speculate on their outcome at this point let alone prejudice. There are 3 reports that are Under Assessment so again whilst those lines of enquiry are being pursued no speculation is good advice.

That leaves 23 reports to look at. 2 more reports didn't get past assessment ( i.e. were never investigations) that leaves 21 actual investigations.

Of the 21 actual investigations one was classed as not being found "non-compliant", so we're down to 20 now.

4 of those investigations, I think the first 4 on record, were unable to make a conclusion as there was insufficient information.

That leaves us with 30 actual reports lodged and only 16 actual findings so far. Now when people claim 30 breaches, 7 reports are still pending a judgement. Why are they not ruled out let alone the other 7 where for a number of reasons including insufficient evidence no finding could be made???

Now, we're gone a bit deeper, tried to be more precise with the ACTUAL FULL FACTS.
Now AA comes out with a pie chart which is misleading to those who do not research the full facts and assess them, as a whole, in context. Their pie chart shows zero reporting from Live Exporters.
Now there real facts are, out of the 16 actual breaches so far, 4 of them were Self Reports by exporters. The AA pie chart isn't completely false, out of the 4 specifically and specially selected breaches, none were 'self reports' by live exporters. If you know all the facts its not such a big deal, its actually a pretty poor out of context stat to flog. (click on the pie charts below to enlarge)

 

So we figured well only thing to do is make a deliberately deceptive pie chart of our own, one that's not actually false or anything, but it is deliberately deceptive, the breaches are narrow and specially selected to give the opposite impression of the AA pie chart. Somehow had we done this first, hopefully no one would have found the opposing pie chart below worthwhile of any notice.

So who was fooled?

Hopefully not you, but got to say, the AA one has been hotly defended. I'm pro LE but anti cruelty. I'm also anti BS so I'd kinda hope both sides can refrain from Ad Hominem straw man fallacy arguments as well as deceptive facts.

Remember when anyone talks about 30 breaches, there have not been 30 proven breaches yet.

Only 16 confirmed breaches.

Again there are some genuine folk amongst the ARA's and some shape shifters who've shown deceit and falsehood to beguile some of their legitimate followers who haven't tested claims properly.

Look closely, be vigilant.

Japanese Whaling Decision

Well I guess I'll have to see this afternoon if its an April Fool's hoax, pretty elaborate if it is but this caught me eye. This from the latest news...

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled Japan must immediately stop its whaling program in the Antarctic"

Source - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/ijc-japan-whaling-southern-ocean-scientific-research/5357416

Peter Garrett the former Labor government's Minister for Shopping Bags will no doubt be happy and indeed can take a good deal credit but he cannot win a trick. Poor fellow as lead singer of Midnight Oil joined the Labor party and in doing so caused a buzz of excitement amongst many people thinking his staunch stance on a wide range of social issues from Nuclear to mining to you just about name it would be the foundation of a vanguard of action against inequality or wrongful stalling of proper issues by the Labor party.

Instead he did the orderly conversion to full party drone and more than a few folk felt majorly let down.

At any rate the International Court of Justice has put a ruling out and Japan is expected to comply with the ruling and cease with whaling in the southern ocean. I do hope this doesn't mean whaling will now begin in other waters. The ruling should I expect confirm what most reasonable and unbiased people would have considered, the whaling was less to do with scientific research and more to do with commercial fishing with the level of whaling well outweighing any supposed scientific research.

It will, if its not an April Fool's joke to remember, and if Japan actually ceases be a great day for Sea Shepherd as well and see them refocusing their resources and efforts away from whaling onto other issues. They may well be in the southern ocean pursuing other ships over fishing the area.

I'm not a card carrying member of AA or PETA but despite that I have always opposed whaling and would not support it unless it, like other fisheries, could be adequately shown to be a sustainable fishery. Whaling is indeed a fishery, but shouldn't be opposed because they're mammals, it should be opposed because stocks are in dangerous low levels. Compounding Japan's problem is its continued line of defence that it was important research where left over catch was sold after research was carried out to help fund research...that's one line that was presented but irrespective of how accurate that is/was it wasn't research it was a commercial fishing venture that was trying to find some research to maintain the cover. I think if all whale meat and product were required to be disposed of at sea and not used for human consumption we probably would have seen whaling cease long before now.

Of course there is a cove in Japan where the secret dolphin slaughter happens, but of course its not so secret. I can understand indigenous folk maintaining tradition and hunting food sources, however I'm not sure how it can be excused either. Sea Shepherd may have some offshore anchorage time off Japan.

Now I'm just waiting for some "out to lunch" fundamentalist to link the whaling decision to the Live Export Trade of sheep and cattle from Australia. Goodness know we've seen a number of unrelated, in fact completely unconnected inhumane acts used via tenuous link to support the cessation of the Live Trade.

Intellectual Bankruptcy is still rampant and we need more Receiver/Administrator/Liquidator type folk to embark of some sort of Forensic Audit of many of the bogus truth claims.

Stop the Whaling, no argument there from me.
Live Trade...well an end to cruelty in the trade, and continue the Fair Trade of a sustainable food source.
 

More Shark Goings On...

Well yeah its still going on and I think its fairly safe bet to assume much of the momentum has been due to Social Media. Social Media is a new phenomena even if FaceBook is 10 years old. The uprising in Egypt is said to have been sparked and fuelled by Social Media and the humble phone text messaging.

Of course, the killing of a beautiful animal plugs into the receptors of many a person and there's actually nothing wrong with that.

Sadly though, Social Media provides the soapbox for idiots on both sides of every debate and a great disservice is done to pretty every side of every debate. Sad, but that's the way it is. Not everyone is going behave well and be an avid reader of Edward DeBono books, but there you have it.

I was a little surprised at there being a rally held today (as I type) against the Shark Cull here in Albany. Now reason I thought this a little odd, is there are no baited drum lines here in Albany, in fact you got to go 4 hours drive away to even get close to them. Now its not a negative thing that people are passionate about an issue, especially as there's definitely been more than a few people (of whatever age) who belong to the "Whatever" generation, generally disinterested in anything more pressing than the next meal or more serious than the weather. Its not a negative that there are people who for or against the Shark Cull but it is a little disappointing from a number of angles.

Firstly it is a cull, not a eradication programme. This is about reducing numbers of certain types and sizes of sharks in a particular area. Now how effective that aim is, well that's a very worthwhile discussion but its seems to not be closely looked at, but it isn't the wholesale slaughter of an entire species with impending ecological ramifications for the planet. Its not putting us on the brink of planet death as a few suggested. I saw another line that sharks help soak up radiation from the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster and therefore should be left alone. I don't think it matters which side of the debate you lay your hat, that sort of argument doesn't do anyone any favours. It is odd, odd and very odd.

Personal view, well if it is there territory and we should just accept the risk, then we must instruct all life savers to save people who are drowning or in distress but not intervene during a shark incident because people should know and accept the risk. Onus is on the swimmer/surfer and life savers should stick to their knitting and just prevent drownings. Whilst I draw that long illogical bow (yep I'm trying to be odd) all bushwalkers on the Bibbulmun Track must accept the risk of snake bite. They should not kill snakes, accept they can and possible might be bitten. They are not to dispatch the animal. I must not kill one if it gets into my house either. Oddly the snake should know the risk of entering my habitat and accept I may kill it as a part of nature.

I'm not sure how accurate or efficient the baited drum lines are, its probably very hard to work out if its going to save lives. But if we have (in Perth at least) aerial patrols, do we halt them because people should know and accept the risk or should we (instead of drum lines) send out a team to kill a big menacing shark that is too close to land?

The only alternative to baited drum lines I have seen mentioned so far is do nothing, let nature be.

Again I'm not a fan of Colin Barnett but I think he's pretty well hog tied on the issue now. Drum lines are in, there's precedence over on the eastern seaboard going back many years, I think despite the siege, the policy is set for now. The all new Fiona Stanley Hospital is now suffering a major cost blow out and massive delay to the opening date. I'm not sure if it will even add any extra beds to the health system in Perth. I think the fact that Treasury was only given 2 weeks to go over the financials and give a verdict is a huge worry and we may see a crack in the door which is beginning to show things reminiscent to the bad old days of WA Inc.

If ever there was an issue to poke and prod as a political distraction, this Social Media fuelled Shark Cull Debate is an absolutely God send for the Government and Cabinet. With ramping effect of Social Media, a few rallies hitting the news its a perfect smokescreen to take some of the sting out of the uncomfortable facts in other areas.

Sorry, but the Government has bigger fish to fry and the Anti-Cull Shark group are going to help keep peering eyes off some serious political hand grenades that already have the pin pulled.

I remember some years ago the interview on the radio with an adventurer who was flying a helicopter around Australia to raise money for charity. When asked what was the most incredible sight he'd seen so far he mentioned Broome. He said to be up high and see all the people on the beach swimming whilst not all that far away were literally thousands of sharks was a jaw dropping eye opener. Now why was that even possible? I think its fairly simple (yet unproven) fish numbers are there are greater than they are off Perth. The sharks food sources are in abundance up there compared to the Bunbury to Hillarys stretch. Is this a variable, are some sharks learning that meat is more plentiful closer to shore? If so, and I really don't know, I'd assume such sharks will be the bigger ones. I had heard of the shark that has a track it seemed to follow from Mandurah to Hillarys. Been a number of close calls, Kayaks bumped, outboards bitten. I imagine sharks biting outboard motors isn't new, but we do seem to hear more about it today than say in the 1970s.

I've not heard whether the sharks behaviour or food sources have changed over the decades. If it has, it changes the risk a great deal. But while we're all watching that, see if the private security firm Cerco issue, Fiona Stanley Hospital issue and rising unemployment numbers generate less rage in the community due to people's attention being diluted by big predatory fish.

Magician's illusion is afoot.