Livex Trade & The RSPCA's Most Unfortunate Position.

 

 

In the whole Live Export Debate there's the horrid & unacceptable deaths of livestock followed by the other casualty, the truth.

I have not met one primary producer who is ok with a shipment that lost 2400+ sheep due to over heating or any other reason. I also know that as repulsive as the 2400+ deaths were, we can be thankful at least for the fact that such events are statistical outliers and NOT standard practice amongst the compliant majority of the trade.

These facts and others lead many of us to say, "Penalise The Offending Outliers Not The Compliant Majority"

So what do we expect from ill informed activists. Not much but we expect a whole lot more out of the RSPCA. Here's an example, note the cute doe eyed but completely irrelevant dog holding a photo of a pen of sheep, because...well no reason other than to solicit emotions that gather support.

Facts not Feelings? Not On Your Life!

 

And what exactly was the con, the lie that the RSPCA were pointing to? No less than an "opinion piece" by Mark Riley in The West Australian. After spending the first third of the opinion piece winding up the emotion spin lever he finally arrives at a fact with a data point.
( https://thewest.com.au/opinion/live-export-to-middle-east-based-on-a-lie-ng-b88840086z )

"Before this week, any mortality rate below 2 per cent was deemed acceptable." Trouble is Mark plucked this figure out of the air. Fact is, the mortality rate rarely goes over 0.7% so he's nearly 3 times higher. And in case anyone is wondering, here's a data point he missed, ignored, omitted or was too sloppy & lazy to find. OK that's not entirely fair, he may have been just too damn eager to write pre-suppositional piece that fits the narrative he's in love with.

 

Oh dear Mark you're not exactly looking like a reliable witness, please get out of jury duty too if it comes up, you will need to set aside bias and make judgements on facts.
But of course, we can look at other data sources, see what we can come up with.

Wow Look there Mark Riley & RSPCA - It seems like there's another statistical fact omitted, ignored or generally undiscovered. It seems the trade has a steadily falling trend line in Transit Mortality in the last 7+ years. So the Livex Trade has been improving.

I note at this point when I have shown these facts activists, yes including a Tweeter from RSPCA will say that deaths do not represent the suffering of the animals that survive. That is in fact kinda true. If a ship however had a 50% mortality rate due to excessive heat & little or no water its fair to assume the surviving 50% didn't have a very good time of it. There is a connecting link.
So if the mortality numbers are declining it means things are getting better. That is a definite fact.

"Oh but the mortality rate doesn't show the suffering of the survivors"
Yes but it doesn't show how many were smiling & doing cart wheels either.
You cannot argue from an absent negative. It doesn't show what it doesn't show. If it doesn't show something, the conclusion is inconclusive because there's no facts to judge.
But we do know when the mortality rate falls, the rest of the shipment has a greater likelihood of gaining weight per head. They do not gain weight whilst under distress.

When you have some facts, please speak up.

Now we'll leave Mr Riley aside. This shoddy article worthy of a bit of time on ABC's MediaWatch or perhaps a Q&A Fact Check is not the reason the RSPCA is in a Most Unfortunate Position.

There's this...a Sydney Morning Herald article by Rachel Browne on June 6th 2010
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/truth-about-cats-and-dogs-250000-killed-every-year-20100605-xlr4.html

Transit Mortality Rate in Livex is around 0.7% - This number is still unacceptable for the RSPCA or at least one of its internal voices. Its just too high a number and the Live Trade has to be banned.

Ok...9,600,000 million pets or companion animals in Australia. Annually 250,000 cats & dogs are put down. That's 2.7%

That's higher than Mr Riley's "2%"
It's also nearly 4 times higher than Livex's "0.7%
That's just "cats & dogs" doesn't include all other animals.

Question - WHEN IS THE RSPCA CALLING FOR AN ALL OUT BAN ON PETS & COMPANION ANIMALS IN AUSTRALIA?

Repeating that article of Rachel Browne's was dated June 6th 2010.
The RSPCA has had nearly 8 years to shut the pet industry down. Now mortality rates are only one indicator, they don't show the suffering of all the others not put down.

Using the RSPCA's own stats, it received 45,256 dogs in 2015-16 and put down 5872 dogs or nearly 13%
Using the RSPCA's own stats, it received 55,570 cats in 2015-16 and put down 16,205 cats or just over 29%
( https://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/RSPCA%20Australia%20Annual%20Statistics%202015-2016%20.pdf )

That's a lot of killing. Perhaps every single one of them is justified. Perhaps that number is ok. Or perhaps in view of the fact its so much worse than Live Export we need to close down and abolish all pet ownership. Ban the entire Pet Trade.

In the 2015-2016 Financial Year there were 65,714 cruelty complaints. That's the action the Society is supposed to PREVENT.
In the same year there were 250 successful prosecutions.
So the RSPCA killed 100,826 cats & dogs (no we're not counting the other animals) and there were 250 successful prosecutions with 1963 charges laid. Curiously Victoria alone had the bulk of the charges laid, 1126. Not saying they're more cruel in Victoria, there are more people there...and there's very little Live export compared to WA.

No it seems on death rates alone the RSPCA should push for abolition of the massive Pet Industry before the Live Export Industry. I guess the Pet Industry is too big & powerful...or hang on let's tweak & use the Ban Live Export activist's battle cry...

"The RSPCA refuses to Ban The Pet Industry because they make money, blood money off the misery of the Pet Industry."

Come on RSPCA, if your job is to "prevent" cruelty, using your Live Export (non)Logic there is no room to move, there is no alternative...you must push for a full abolition of all pet & companion animals. Its a lot worse than the Livex Trade.

Animals Australia on the other hand, puts down zero animals. Rescues & rehomes zero animals. Put zero animals in its care. It does take photos & footage of anything to do with animal farming in the hope of closing it down. They are Animal Liberationists NOT animal welfare people.
Think they must be building numbers in the RSPCA.

Animals Australia? Yes...and here's their co-founder Peter Singer. His philosophy is that which he himself is devising. Be scared. This is a glimpse of the Politically Correct Moral & Fact Vacuum ahead of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDv3uhqqTI&t=23s


LATE EDIT & ADDITION (22 July 2018)

This added bit is due to the Katanning meeting where best estimates are between 1000 & 1500 people attended. I spoke with one on the organisers and didn't think to ask if they had an official attendance number as people were all signing in, but he mentioned the number being around 1200.

Points to remember, there was a large police presence and I feel sorry for them being forced to roll up and wet nurse 1200 harmless non violent pro animal welfare producers. I spoke to one of the policemen and said at least he'll have a quiet day and if they were involved in any arrest today it'd be helping with a cardiac arrest. He said no worries "...we can help with that".

Note that, even the impartial policemen was there to help. I hope the police stationed streets away which apparently included riot equipped officers had a few newspapers & magazines to read. I appreciate their service as dead boring and wasted as it was.

I was disappointed in the minister as she skirted issues, gave tactical replies instead of answers and wandered off into la-la land on a bluff-the-crowd exercise a few times and got caught out. Rabbiting on about the need for dual purpose sheep and better breeding outcomes to produce a different type of sheep. Great idea, exactly what the industry has been doing since the sheep first hit Australia soil. But then she once also said farmers need to turn to spreading compost instead of fertilisers on broad acre crops...not one to understand soil science hidden within a soil test or leaf test result I guess.

Looking at Plan B as she kept saying is fine, I'm good with that but she's sticking with WALabor pre-election policy platform which clearly stated "transitioning the industry to chilled"
It's darkened stealth language for Ban Live Export. We need both Live & Chilled. She says Labor is not about closing the trade, but her actions, platform and words speak volumes otherwise.

As Barnaby pointed out, if we ban live export & deny the likes of Qatar (and Kuwait) Live Sheep they will halt all our chilled from entering the market. We will lose 2 export meat trades because that will be their reaction to the offence we will have caused them by denying them food security. Live will most likely be sourced from Somalia & Sudan who have no ESCAS type regulations to ensure Animal Welfare standards at all. It will be an Animal Welfare disaster here with stranded unsaleable stock & in the Middle East where all progress to modernised standards will be thrown out.

Or they'll source from South America which means an extra 4-5 weeks on the water. To do that economically there will be no 30% reduction in stocking rates. It will be a total loss making exercise with or without zero deaths.

This also plugs into the intellectually bankrupt argument that we can jump over to chilled as New Zealand banned live export. Actually NZ hasn't banned live export at all, they just provide very little to that trade at all. They have a permit system not a ban. Comparing NZ to the WA trade is comparing apples and Toyotas.

The Media was asked a question at the meeting but no one from the media stepped up.
To paraphrase, how is it that the majority of recent LSS shipments are 99.7% successful, they are humane, compliant & cruelty free and when stock footage of Live Export is needed for a TV story they ALWAYS use footage from the appalling Awassi. One of the most appalling, horrifying and unacceptable events in Live export. Now, still an outlier of course but none the less shocking.
Why do the media outlets use footage that is definitely NOT representative of Live Export as it is right now?
Can they stop now please?

This is an attack from a religious worldview. Barnaby is 100% correct it is a group of religious zealots and sheep is not the aim, all animal production & consumption is their target.

What can you do? Well I could tell you to join a Farmer Lobby Group, there's 2 main ones in WA but that suits some farmers & not others. Some for good reason some not, but consider doing it. Other option is a little simpler and a little more straight forward.

Join a political party and become quite vocal within the tent. No you won't get your way on everything, but you get your say on anything and yes, sometimes the most political place is within a political party. Thing is, you will get faster, quicker & easier access to MPs.

Looking at the Katanning meeting I'll list the MPs I saw.
Federals...
Barnaby Joyce MHR (Nat)
Rick Wilson MHR (Lib)
Senator Slade Brockman (Lib)

WA Parliament...
Alannah McTiernan MLC (Lab) Minister for Ag
Peter Watson MLA (Lab) Speaker of the House
Mia Davies MLA (Nats) Leader of the WA Nationals
Peter Rundle MLA (Nats)
Colin DeGrussa MLC (Nats)
Rick Mazza MLC (SFFP)

Worth mentioning David Littleproud MHR (Nats) Federal minister for Ag was coming but due to a G20 Agriculture Summit in Washington couldn't come & he asked for a date change so he could. Sadly it was very late in the peace so he had to send an apology.

So really? Join a political party?
Yes. Just pick one you think represents Agriculture best and join. When you send in your cheque add a note that you're joining because you want a fair outcome for Live Export that genuinely represents the Farming Economy and that you're prepared to shop around for a party at membership renewal time.

If you hate politics be aware, if your join a political party that may not change.
If you think changes are slow, if you join a political party that won't change.
If you hate not getting your way, if you join a political party that happens for sure.

But if you don't join a political party you are not only outside the tent, your miles from the tent door. You won't become a mover & shaker that gets results within minutes, mostly you'll become a small tooth on a large wheel inside a bigger machine. But those of you who are croppers with machinery or have had some background in motorsport you'll know the difference between winning & losing may just be the presence or absence of a small $2.00 part.

The political parties that represent the bush well usually do so on a tight, very tight 2nd hand shoe string budget. If they gather a few members and bolster their coffers a little, well things get easier. Noticeable is execs & MPs within a party sit up & take notice when there's a membership surge and generally want to know why & what aspects they need to cover to keep those members.

Political solutions are very much chip away at the stone with a wooden chisel sometimes, but it's better than shouting at the wind and sooner or later, things turn the way of the smaller parties that have maintained the fair and right path. They can get results. Often the bigger parties will revise history to claim all credit but a win is a win.

Yes it seems counter intuitive to join a political party but consider doing it. For the price of less than one export wether you are contributing and you don't have to get any more involved in the party machine than you want to. If you like, just keep it local branch centred but if you have some skin in the game, get some fist & bootstrap in as well.

Just be sure to contact the party of your choice, tell them you're pro Agriculture, pro Animal Welfare and pro Live Export and you're considering joining. You will have their attention and they will listen.

Stunning Absurdity Within Animal Liberationist Thinking.

Some stunning comments are made & I'm left wondering about how brains work at the ever increasing absurdity from time to time.

There's a couple of reoccurring traits present.

        1) The ten most utterly absurd replies or statements come from "Twitter Eggs" or anonymous accounts. When you ask them why they don't post under their real name various replies come forth generally about threats of violence, bullying, death threats.

        2) Shape shifting logic. They deliver blows on one point at a time where they think they & only they can win a silly internet point. Soon as their position begins to crumble it goes to another point quickly but more commonly it goes fact free and onto feelings. Most often its identity politics, undermine moral standing, a person defending live trade is of lesser worth or nasty. Weak.

First up, if you are being bullied with your real name you're going to get bullied with a fake name. It says you're keen to throw mud from behind a hidden mask. People don't always like that. If you can't settle a rattle cage you probably should let in someone from your position in who can use respectful facts. If you're getting death threats, call the police, site admin. Don't change yourself to a hidden identity so you can further encourage your "opponent"  to continue the behaviour. It's again about continuing the behaviour in order to degrade the position you oppose rather than using respectful facts. They need the angry bully yelling to use that as an undermining point so the facts can be skirted around and omitted. Bullying is wrong. Don't let it happen, don't enable it so you can win a silly internet point without referring to facts & data.

Here's a classic example...
Here's one post pointing out the contradictory fact that the transit mortality rate of Livex is actually lower than the rate of deliberate deaths by the RSPCA in the Australian Pet Industry. Both are unnecessary in that all would be better if we could eliminate them but some will occur. Point is the Pet Industry rate by the RSPCA alone is over 3 times worse. Why do we not close down the Aust. Pet Industry and BAN ALL PETS? At what number will pets equal Livex in disgust? Million Paws Walk, do we need 1 million pet kill a year to say Ban Pets? 5 million? Why is it different?

 

And here was the curious shape shifting reply...

This is one of the more staggering replies. Again in the ten most absurd replies I've seen the person's identity is obscured. I wonder how many are bogus shared accounts and how many are the same person. That aside the reply clearly states that deaths are not the issue, the cruelty is.
"Compare how" is a shape shifting attempt to drag the debate away from real facts & reposition it where the staggering Twitteregg thinks there's a discourse advantage to them. How is separate from why. Both are unnecessary deaths, that is an omitted fact but they what they've clearly said is deaths don't matter or don't matter as much as cruelty. In fact with that logic extended with death not an issue we can load up a rusty obsolete death ship and as long as the crew can execute the sheep before or just as any suffering starts.
In trying to stick with facts not feelings we have a twitteregg who's been able to go further into a fact free zone. Same week a ship arrives in the Middle East with very low mortality rates, below the usual 0.7%, no disease, no evidence of suffering or cruelty and no mention of it. A cattle shipment also arrives with cattle having put on weight whilst on board which indicates little or no stress rates whilst in transit. No mention. Facts not mentioned are still actual relevant facts.

The other issue is yes, Livex end up with 100% mortality, because they're food. Its all a necessary death. Its life, its as humans have operated throughout the ages. The same contempt is not extended towards the lion killing the antelope because remember there is no "humane death" delivered by the lion but strangely no moral outrage toward the lion. Nor should they be, its nature, its what nature does. The higher on the food chain feeds on those below. If you're an overtly godless liberationist who thinks we're all just animals, then morally eating meat is just fine, there is no ethical dilemma.
Is the antelope's death cruel or just part of nature, just naturally doing what each species do? Why can humans be vilified for keeping each other in enough food? Stark hypocrisy that's soon imploded due to it's logic free basis.

Sound the alarm...it would be at this point the Twitteregg would embark on Shape Shifting to another kernel of falsehood or logic free distraction. Count on it. Still no reply on RSPCA killings being ok & why. Just it has to be omitted, ignored or hidden away, no logic applied as it implodes the shape shifters position.

No when you have a Animal Rights zealot on the ropes in an internet debate remember a few things.

1. It's the internet so it probably doesn't matter or make any difference.
2. If they're a devout Animal Rights Cultist, Animal Religion Zealot there's a fair chance good well placed facts will change no one's mind. They are pre-suppositional in their approach and differing views are bordering on evil.
3. If you win a point or two you can expect to be labelled as immoral, evil or a pro cruelty abuser and the list goes on. This is Identity Politics. To avoid having to face facts, they will provoke the other side until they fire a salvo back perhaps with a hard insult or bad language. Be advised you'll then be hit with questions about your character for being so hate filled and horribly abusive. That is the aim. It's not productive as no one is challenging their thinking, a pointless internet point is one & lost. It makes no difference except to those few open minded observers who may not be posting but are on the fence & assessing. If pro welfare/pro Livex people are labelled as abusive, threatening bullies the facts of the trade are brushed aside. Intellectual Corruption Wins.
4. Return to the facts, use industry data where you can and remember you probably cannot convert the mind of a rabid zealot, but you can help to prevent them getting away with murder in the debate. 

Peter Watson MLA - Member for Albany

Peter Watson MLC is the Labor member for Albany. What's he actually done in his time?
Well for the most part he's done nothing wrong. Not done much else really.

He organises plenty of things, wears funny hats, silly costumes gets in front of a microphone and has a sing along where food is free or cheap. Little cabaret act, but politically, no not a lot. As a long standing incumbent he really needs a scandal to be turfed out. Doing nothing wrong is generally enough to keep getting elected for an incumbent.

He's Speaker of the Lower House. What's this mean?
It means he gets a nice boost in salary and staff.
It means he cannot vote on the floor of the parliament unless there is a tie and with the large majority Labor has, he will not vote at all for the entire duration of this Parliament.
He takes no formal part in government business at all. Yes he can get in the ear of the Premier or ministers but he has not formal ability to affect any change at all. He's the umpire of the Parliament.

He's a member of Labor so even if he could vote, he cannot cross the floor in the best interests of his electorate. If he did so as Speaker he faces the possibility of being expelled from the party. If he did as a normal MP he would definitely be expelled from the party. So to secure his place both he and any other Labor MP will not cross the floor ever. The cult will deliver brutal payback on such independent thinking.

He stood on the steps of Parliament with a 40,000 signature petition complaining about cuts to education. He was in opposition at the time and that was an opposition ploy. He cannot be consistent in Government. That's all in the past. So when people ask "Why are you not supporting education the rural & regional areas? Why is Moora Residential College being closed for lack of $500,000 yet PerthLabor Government pours $3Million into developing "live music scene" in Perth?"

There's no answer other than to blame the previous government. They weren't perfect either, but they're not in power now & they're not advocating $3Million for Perth live music instead of $500,000 for Moora.
Moora is a regional education hub servicing students from many thousands of square kilometres to north and east of Moora.
There's also no need to axe the Boarding Away from Home Allowance (BAHA) for the most vulnerable in the regions who haven't got a High School nearby & cannot afford the expensive Perth Private Schools. The likes of Moora is essential and the BAHA is also.

Labor axed the School of the Air, but thankfully due to outcries it was reversed. It was a savage & thoughtless decision and reversing it doesn't excuse it. With Labor crowing it has the most regional MPs of any party you'd think they'd all know of that decision in advance. None did. Not one. And none of them wanted to comment on it. One slipped up and said he knew nothing of it until it's public announcement. Biggest regional education cut to the most remote students and not told nor consulted. Stark reminder that Labor's MPs in the bush are cardboard cutouts & do as they're told by their masters regardless of their electorate's needs.

South West Rescue Chopper was axed too, but reinstated after huge public outcry. Again the Regional Labor MPs like Peter Watson went into siege mode in the bunker. No comments made before during or after the backflip. It was a savage & thoughtless decision, proven so, yet no comment and silence was the stern reply.

Ag Schools are now targeted for a gouge of their working account.

School Camps are to be closed and sold to developers.

CRC's are to cop a 40% funding cut. There's 2 in Peter Watson's electorate, but he's laying low and trying to get photos taken of him at sporting matches as a distraction.

Now Labor is on the Live Export bandwagon, avoiding facts and going with feelings.
The 2400-2500 deaths was utterly repulsive and indefensible but thankfully its a statistical outlier NOT common practice. The death rate in transit rarely goes over 0.7%
The RSPCA kills 250,000 unwanted pets a year which equates to an estimate 2.6% of the Australian Pet Population. No deafening outrage on that worse statistic & no calls by Labor & Peter Watson to ban all pets & companion animals. Funny that.

If the Livex trade is banned that's 3 Million+ extra animals that will have to be processed in WA, many in the north where there is no processing facilities. WA Processors say they can take on all the livestock from the Live Trade, process it here and sell it.
Why is Peter Watson not asking "Why aren't you doing that now? If you can, just out compete the Livex trade in the market place, can't you do it now because if you can, why aren't you? Are you waiting for the livestock prices to fall to zero with a market ban first?"

Peter? Where are you? Take of you're silly cowboy or Santa hat and stump up some answers based on Facts not Feelings.

Banning the trade will cause an economic, ecological and animal welfare disaster beyond all known proportions. Rangelands and farmland relies on sheep & cattle industry to make lands viable and business profitable. Production of livestock for domestic markets or foreign chilled boxed relies on Livex to hold the farm gate prices up. The market needs the competition. Remove the biggest player the price plummets and we see a repeated disaster that the Gillard Ban caused that shut rural businesses down, bankrupted producers and led to many suicides.

Peter? Where are you?

 

He's gone full socialist cult with full socialist dogma at hand, behind the façade.
Anything that wins is fair, even if everything socialists touch is ruined.
The removal of the Livex will destroy the market price, the flow spending that has an economic multiplier of minimum 3 to 4.

The savage payback isn't restricted to agriculture, its pushed onto any non Labor, non Perth seat.
Education is being savaged and its ramping up.

Did you know that more money is going into Basketball in the Premier's electorate in just one year than will go into the Ice/Meth Rehab programme in Albany over 2 years? Fact.

Did you know that the Premier has visited Washington, London, Germany, China, Japan & Dubai in his first year but hasn't visited Moora to explain the College Closure? Can't even get the Education minister to go to Moora.

This is not a City vs Country Fight, this is a PerthLabor Party vs the Country fight. Most city people are unaware of the current unfair gouge fest by PerthLabor or the horrible affect its having on rural & regional people. To further explain it, if the PerthLabor Government loses all the seats they hold with a paltry 3% margin they'll lose 8 seats at the next elections. If they were to lose all seats with a 8% of less margin they'll lose 12 seats and also lose government. Its on a knife edge and they're trying every trick in the book to buy metro seats and like Federal Labor snatch up as many disgruntled Greens voters as possible.

       WHATEVER IT TAKES & TAKING FROM NON LABOR IS VERY FINE WITH THEM

So is all this swimming around in the gravy train whilst gouging the regions as political payback a real thing or is it just a political whinge...Have a look at the following & decide for yourself. Its pretty easy to see & understand.

This is the Labor Treasurer Ben Wyatt, from Hansard.

 

And this is from Ken Travers who was a Labor MP until he retired prior to the last State Election



Again from Hansard, Labor MP Darren West admitting the gouging & paying for the costs of pork barrel sweetners popping up in metro Labor was not about budget repair

Dear Geoff Hutchison

Dear Geoff, (and anyone else of a open mind with hunger for facts & logic)

I'm glad that Live Export is getting a run on the Mainstream Media like your show, but as best as anyone can do, much of the smoke n mirrors of various interests can cloud important facts. Here's just a few.

 

 

1. Animals Australia is not an Animal Welfare group, its an Animal Rights/Animal Liberationist group. There's a large distinction with the latter having a very determined cult like culture. It is against all animal farms, animal farming & animal farmers and that's a fact it likes to hide. It is against food and any other products being derived from animal sources. It often applies human rights and transfers them illegitimately to animals to serve their purpose. It is not aiming for long term improvements in animal welfare between the paddock & the plate, its aim is to eliminate the animals from the paddock AND the plate.
2. I have never met a farmer or even heard of one who is in favour of or has even staggering difference towards animal cruelty. It is however a determined and deliberate tactic to use terms like blood money, murderers or phrases that suggest farmers are keen to make money off cruelty. That's a ethical judgement that just does not stack up. If we stick to facts not feelings we soon see this accusation for what it is, false, misleading and irrelevant. Its designed to go emotional to try & trump facts or lack of facts. We are not monsters, I reject the views or position of anyone that also holds or spreads that false view. It's intellectually corrupt & ethically wrong. I have no respect for those that allow that to go unchallenged. Its sloppy & lazy thinking from poisoned spoon feeders.
3. The 2500 deaths. I don't not the exact number but will call it 2500. I do not know of anyone who is ok with that death rate. I know of not one person. I wish the Animal Liberationists could point to the person who is fine with it. There is one clear yet deliberately hidden fact. As utterly disgusting, repulsive & unacceptable as the 2500 deaths were, it is thankfully a statistical outlier. IT IS NOT COMMON STANDARD PRACTICE.
   The Transit Mortality Rate figures clearly show an industry improving with a negative trendline in on board deaths. The facts are it's been going down for years and rarely goes above 0.7%. The industry loses huge amounts of money and with 2500 deaths someone has lost close to $250,000 but probably a lot more when you factor in loss of profit margin, the cost of the animals, freight cost and feed cost prior & during the trip. No one benefits, no one will be happy, no one enjoys this at all. The industry relies on the mortality rates being as close to zero as humanly possible.
4. With this being a statistical outlier we have to look at what action needs to be taken and against who. Animal Liberationists want a complete ban. This is again feelings over facts. You do not solve a problem by punishing all the compliant mainstream because of statistical outliers, no matter how repugnant & revulsive the outlier's result was. With this absurd logic extended we must now, due to the current Banking Royal Commission, abolish the entire Banking & Financial Sector due to the serious breaches by some banks. Is this how it works?
   No, we isolate the problem sources and deal with them directly for the problems they have caused & elevate regulation to prevent it reoccurring.
   
        Punish the offending outliers NOT the compliant majority. It is that simple.
5. When we look at Mortality Rates, aside from disgraceful outliers, the rate is very low. If we compare it to the very big, powerful Pet Industry we notice something very startling. Livex Mortality Rates are comparatively low. There are approximately 9.6 Million pets or companion animals in Australia. The RSPCA annually destroys approximately 250,000 unwanted pets a year. That's deaths that need not happen. Unnecessary deaths. That does not include unreported deaths by dog pounds, rangers and pest controllers. If ethically one death is appalling then all are. That mortality rate of the Pet Industry is then now 2.6% and likely higher, how much higher we don't know. And why is it companion animals and their mortality that is hidden ignored or omitted. Its hard to say but for some Liberationists the fact we generally don't eat pets means "they're not comparable" - That tells me the deaths aren't actually that important to them, its the consumption of meat that's the perceived greatest crime. Fact remains 0.7% versus 2.6+%
6. Live export into Indonesia is required because such a small percentage of consumers have electricity. In fact refrigeration ownership is just 24% in Indonesia. Only 32% of their rural  population has electricity. In bigger fact... 49,000,000 Indonesian citizens have no electricity at all. Add to this many people there have an aversion to frozen or chilled meat. Culturally the rejection is due to dodgy butchers have in the past used freezing and sealed packaging to hide spoiled or rancid meat. That can kill. The wet market isn't going away anytime soon and in the case of Indonesia, they don't want it too. Fresh & warm means they know what they get. That's not going away from at least 49 Million people so if we leave the trade, then live animals will have to be sourced from our competitors, which ironically are most further away from the market, requiring a longer sea voyage. I don't have data for the Middle East but one thing is for sure, the supposed boxed & chilled product won't replace the live trade unless it can land on the foreign consumers table for the same price. There is absolutely no data or suggestion that can be achieved. Its worth remembering if the trade is phased out & another phased in it has to be no penalty to producers or the consumers.
   
   Its early in the morning, I'll come back and add more later. There is much missed that needs to be covered. And yes I'll cite the sources. I'll cover what happens to the market were we to go fully Australian processed for boxed & chilled meat. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
   
      Facts not Feelings - Penalise the offending outliers NOT the compliant Majority.

Facts Not Feelings - But Did You Know?

Did you know that the Nazi were Fascists? You probably did.

Do you know that its a common smear on those of the right by those of the left. Yes people from the left love to call those on the right Fascists? You probably do know that too.

Now overlay that with the Facts not Feelings filter.

Did you know that Fascism is actually of the Left not the Right and that Fascism is actually a form of Socialism? It is. The real father of Fascism was an Italian Socialist philosopher named Giovanni Gentile who died during World War 2. He was a mentor and ideological guide of Mussolini. There's another clue of course, Nazis were "National Socialists"
Socialism is the form of State Owns & Runs everything dogma that's heavily based on Class identity and has capitalism & the upper classes as the enemy of the state.
Fascism is the form of State Owns & Runs everything dogma that's based heavily on the National identity and has capitalism, the upper classes, foreign countries & foreigners as the enemy of the state.

And yet many think Fascism is of the right. It's amazing how easily the majority of people will believe a line of thinking if it's pushed relentlessly enough even if its incredibly wrong.

Live Export in WA is under huge pressure especially since the vile footage of the most atrocious and unacceptable conditions aboard a ship carrier that resulted in the death of some 2500 sheep. There's a good deal of fact hiding and relentless lie pushing to the point where many reasonable people now believe quite false and misleading comments.

Lets apply the same "Facts not Feelings" filter up and see what it is that the anti Livex protesters don't want you to know or consider.

Firstly the 2500 deaths comes from the Middle East shipment that ran during a seasonal time when temperatures & humidity are stifling. More so it seems it was in an under prepared ship possibly not designed for those weather conditions. The high death rate is indefensible, atrocious and saddest of all avoidable.
So there's no backing away from the indefensible nature of that serious mess, but strangely I don't think anyone has.

Here's the solutions.
1) Apply engineering solutions to all shipments during the dangerous weather seasons and time voyages better...or most likely do both.
2) Penalise and/or ban those that fail to comply, NOT those who do comply with the standards.

Yes, penalise the offending outliers NOT the compliant mainstream because as reprehensible as the 2500 deaths shipment was, its actually a statistical outlier, it is not the norm. Look on the social medias and you will find, with out much effort anti Livex people saying its happening all the time.

(Apply Facts not Feelings Filter)

This claim is incorrect. Facts show the Transit Mortality Rate (as a percentage) has been & still is on a downward trend line for at least the last 8 years. That's a fact even when you include the 2500 deaths. That doesn't excuse the 2500 deaths, it widens th context and lessens false readings of the data. Fact is, it rarely goes above 0.7% of sheep shipped.

That's low. Its lower than average on farm mortality rate.
That's low alright, its lower than the actual mortality rate of the pet industry.
Now I don't mean Rover or Puddy-cat dying of old age or Wanda the fish dying because her time was up. No I mean the avoidable or at least un-necessary deaths of the Australian Pet Industry.
There's an estimated 9,200,000 pets in Australia and the RSPCA puts down between 70,000 and 80,000 unwanted pets each year. One other figure puts total euthanized pets across the country at close to 250,000 a year. That represents 2.7% deliberate but avoidable deaths of pets in this country.
Why is the outrage not the same or greater seeing the death rate is greater?
(We should add that the Pet Industry deaths via RSPCA are deliberate not accidental nor due to weather related extremes)

Because no one gets footage of the unnecessary RSPCA deaths onto 60 Minutes.
That figure is probably much higher as it doesn't include those euthanized by Vets, pounds or rangers.

Other facts omitted, ignored or deliberately hidden...

 - Live Export is a multi Billion Dollar Export industry that not only employs a vast number of Western Australians it has a knock on multiplier effect in our economy that is at the very least 3-4 times.
- Landcare & Rangeland Management in the Northern Half of Australia will cease with any permanent Live Export ban. There is no sustainable way to keep districts & vast station country viable without small pockets of mining which can never replace a small fraction of what livestock production does.

- Live Export actually underpins and holds up the domestic livestock prices at the levels they're currently at. Without Live Export there would be a massive glut in stock numbers and that's when farm gate prices tumble. How bad? Think back to the Flock Reduction Scheme where the government had to step in and pay for the destruction of sheep because they were worthless and delivery to saleyards meant that farmers we're charged for their disposal as they had no commercial value at all.

- Live Export is vital for overseas markets, no data on the Middle East but in 2nd & 3rd world countries reliable electricity & refrigeration is scarce.

In Indonesia...
Refrigeration ownership - 24%
Rural houses with electricity - 32%
49 Million Indonesians have NO ELECTRICITY AT ALL
Culturally, Indonesians and many 3rd world countries don't trust chilled or frozen as its the easiest way to hide rancid or rotten meat...which can kill.

There's also the fact electricity isn't as reliable and it costs a huge percentage of an average Indonesian's yearly wage compared to Australian citizens. You're looking at roughly AUD$150-200 a year which is a massive slice of the Indo Yearly Average Wage.

Feedlots especially in Indonesia cost 1/5th of an Australian feedlot with much lower slaughter & processing costs. The wet market product per kilo is a lot cheaper than a chilled/frozen product thats been processed in Australia.

We need not mention that some of the current Australian abattoirs are lamb chains and running extra shifts to kill & process large wethers just isn't physically possible. Building new infrastructure will cost billions, there's barely enough staff for the current infrastructure let alone a proposed domestic processing industry that'll take an extra 1.7Million to 3.1Million sheep and an extra 800,000 to 1.2Million cattle.
Then its compounded even further, there's been more abattoirs close in the last five years than new ones open. One of the new ones, the big one in Darwin is set to close.

Did we mention effects on the Chilled market? Apart from being swamped Qatar & other countries who have taken on ESCAS have said if Live is banned, they will ban Australian Chilled.
Australian Chilled does go into the Middle East but its the high priced premium market, which is a small segment that is many times cost of the delivered Live Product.
Short answer is, ban live & the farm gate prices plummets, local market swamped/destroyed and our competitors with no Animal Welfare standards (like Sudan & Somalia) take over delivering a greater Animal Welfare disaster potential. Oh, did we mention South America?
Extra 5 weeks at sea with no ESCAS.

Remember
Live export mortality rate 0.7%
Pet industry's unwanted pet death rate 2.7%

Facts Not Feelings.

This is why many of us say, penalise the offending outliers NOT the compliant mainstream in the industry. Yes as shocking as 2500 ship deaths on one voyage was, it remains a statistical outlier, not the norm. That doesn't excuse it. It helps to focus in, with proper context where the problem is so a proper in context solution can be applied without adversely affecting anyone innocent & compliant.

Unless you're prefer a fact free emotion based virtue rant unsupported by logic or truth.

Regarding the Live Export Trade

Regarding the Live Export Trade

Facts not feelings. When you let emotions take over, facts are lost and often become the enemy of the ranter as they highlight how little (or nothing) the ranter knows.
1) I don't support the unnecessary deaths on ships whether they're cruel or not. Don't know anyone who does - Don't play that false cruelty lie card. Its a deceptive emotional lie, not factual.

2) You should support the sensible approach. Penalise/prosecute/ban the offending outliers not the compliant majority. Yes outliers. These utterly disgusting examples are outliers, not the usual thing. Whoa up on your indignation gland, that doesn't excuse it, that points to the incredibly simple fact that EVERYONE is then able to focus on the small number of offenders & then separate them from the majority are fully compliant. Go after the offenders not the good guys.

3) The idea is, what with this being a $2Billion international trade is for all the stakeholders to earn money. For the system to work, they have to get as many alive to the destination as possible, they also need the livestock to gain weight in transit. When people bleat about blood money or money over animals rights they really are exposing themselves to be very real living brain donors. If the exporters don't make money, the trade stops...or they work out how to be more efficient. This atrocious example benefits no one so to say it's an act that anyone approves of or enjoys is again deceptive, its feelings not facts. Its an outrageous lie by people without the skerrick of intelligence, general those over burdened with post modernist lie disorder.

4) Wet Market, not only does most of the market go into homes with little or no refrigeration, many in these 3rd & 2nd world countries just plain won't trust chilled or frozen because dodgy butchers in their countries have routinely used freezing to hide rancid meat. If the meat is freshly slaughtered and warm they know what they're getting and they know its safe for their family.
They as a nation can store vast amounts of meat, not in freezers but in feedlots, where they gain more weight. At a far lower cost than the feedlot meat can be produced in Australia. They simply may not be able to afford the huge leap Australian processed will cost. They do not have the luxury of your life, your supermarket, your polystyrene trays with blood soakers & glad wrap and an full chain inspection system, health inspectors and serious penalties for selling rancid meat. Its very disingenuous & morally arrogant to impose the standards you're blessed with onto a country that hasn't and cannot have. Many have little or no reliable electricity let alone the ability to run a /fridge all year. They haven't got any of those standards and systems. That's real western bigotry & arrogance

5) Then aside from the fact free zone that most left wing crazed virtual signallers bellow from, none actually have the fortitude to explain their moral judgement. Saying someone else is immoral is an act of outright intolerance & bigotry unless you can satisfactorily explain their moral judgement system...you know where your morals come from. If its a true moral position I and many others will listen to it. But if its ill informed screeching from morally bankrupt rebels without a clue, well its just an opinion probably from a loud idiot. Where do your morals come from to make whatever so called moral judgement you declare. C'mon, toughen up, let us test it.

6) Apart from frozen/chilled not being able to work, even if it did (and in 100 years it might) who pays? To kill & process and then export and additional 1.5Million to 3.5Million animals domestically who actually does it when we have to import so many people each year to scrape thru the domestic kill trade we have now? And where does it happen? You'll have worked out the infrastructure required means we'd have to increase infrastructure 2-3 times the current amount and then have to find 1000s of workers that don't currently exist...in fact it'd be closer to 10s of thousands. Then we have to work out who pays for all this. I'll wait patiently for Sussan Leys's business case.

7) Yes on the who pays for this, we need all the activists to lobby their super funds. Apparently there's huge amounts of money to be made so they could all invest in ethical on shore slaughter & processing. Yeah, imagine that, protesters and virtue signallers putting up the money, the many billions needed to build and entire supply chain.

 

WHAT A MORAL & ETHICAL INVESTMENT!!!

I mean if onshore is the only way & its profitable then stump up the cash and get it rolling. Get some skin in the game and put competitive market pressure on the Livex trade and give everyone the option of a so called ethical alternative.
This doesn't happen because key board warriors generally have no business experience or any "moral" consistency due to being angry at the world because they can't find meaningful work due to corrupt nature of western society that won't employ a person with a university degree in gender studies or lesbian dance theory. Yes see how naughty feelings over facts are? I do wonder how accurate that might be though

Facts not feelings...when you produce and regularly use facts, you can then varnish them with a thin layer of feelings.
Fact often omitted or hidden - the ESCAS system is not perfect, but there is nothing like it in the world and the Transit Mortality Rate is on a downward trend as a result. The indefensible scenes from that ship is an outlier. Penalise the offending outliers not the compliant majority.
Otherwise activists ought to come clean and admit they're Animal Rights Activists not Animal Welfare stakeholders

There is another fact that is overlooked or omitted because it is so devastatingly sad. The amount of bankruptcies & foreclosures on producers and local businesses that the last horrid Live Export Ban. Worse still the number of suicides it caused. Suicides in general are not reported due to the high chance of copy cat incidents. It's very much avoided when they're primary producers or rural/regional small business owners. I'm mentioning it for the very reason that Sussan Ley and other thoughtless virtue signalling evil clowns might pull their heads in and think.

The Traps & Pitfalls of Engineering Gender Balance in the Workplace

Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, therefore they should make up at least 50% of the seats on Company Boards, seats in the Parliaments & CEO positions in top ASX companies.

That's been the claim. It has some problems. So do some of the proposed solutions.

Firstly, 10% of the world's population is left handed. Therefore the workplace must represent this. Each board & every parliament must be 10% left handed and the rest right handed.

Secondly, 28% of the Australian population was born overseas, so for their unique qualities that they certanly bring, we need boards & parliaments to have 28% overseas born.

Thirdly, Indigenous Australians are roughly 18% of the population so Parliament & boards must have 18% Indigenous Australian. Surely?

Fourth, 63% of Australians are reported to be obese or overweight. We need that reflected in the boards & Parliaments. Health is a social issue so it makes sense to have stakeholders involved in the greatest health threat to the nation as captains of Industry & Legislation.
Fifth - 32% of the population live in rural or regional areas of Australian, therefore only 68% of all boards & parliaments should be city dwellers.

Sixth - I could go on forever with the angle of the silly thickened identity politics style assessment. This is part of the problem and the solution, so we must take the identity politics out of the equation and the answer.

Make it equal opportunity for all Australians, whether they're male, female, left or right handed Indigenous or not, born here or overseas, city or rural based, overweight smoker/non smoker, gay straight, atheist, devout faith follower...quit with the sub culture bracketry. Go with the facts, the requirements of the job and the best suited for the job. Is it so wrong to say "Sorry you weren't the best person for this job" or do you have to find a reason to carry your false offended back side? It is a sorry sad & pathetic clam to say " Its not me and my suitability its racist, ageist, sexist, elitist..."
You are not entitled to the job you have chosen. The job of your choice is not an option. If you fail to secure that job with that firm, guess what? That's life, go for another job and do what you can to make yourself the best person for the job. Compete for the job, not expect it to be allocated to you because of an accident of birth that designated your gender or some other divisive identity flag.

That's the problem part solved. Its not a matter of there's not enough of any particular identity, its a matter does the position have someone who is suitable, productive, effective irrespective of their clothes size, gender, sexual preference, hair colour, ethnic makeup, or any other minor & irrelevant grouping. The job criteria is about the job you have to suit it...not the other way around.

18% of the population is aged Zero to 15. Do we slide some of them onto boards? No we don't. So why use some other minor group splitting like age, gender, ethnicity or anything else over & beyond MERIT???

Here's the problems within some of the solutions.
Quotas.
Big problem. Why?

Quotas are a diabolical form of Social Engineering. Now I know with those that know (or perhaps don't realise) they have strong socialist/Marxist leanings, Social Engineering is terribly appealing because allowing the state to take control & engineer things in every day life seems like a short cut to equity. It just doesn't work well. When the state dictates a little, the state will want to dictate a lot. Quotas wont necessarily lead to a murderous communist regime but it doesn't help anyone and the possibility of it being amongst a suite of social engineering initiatives is pretty worrying. More worry when some genuinely good people with left leaning inclinations follow the harder line leftists and the minor & very wrong becomes law.
There's another issue. The advent of the term "Quota Queens". A derogatory term for those ushered in by "positive bias" because they possess that item of identity that the engineers decide needs favouring over & above others to reach a balanced goal. Now in this case some people were quite accurately quota queens, not really worthy of the role, but a person of a particular gender, race, religion etc was needed for the numbers. Some cop the term unfairly, some were legitimately qualified for the job & hopefully were actually employed solely on that basis and not because of the quota AND their identity group.

I can point to a mining company, a big well known mining company in WA's North West. It has a positive bias employment programme. It installed a number of women in middle management & supervisor roles. One specific one covering contractor project management despite a couple of them never having ever spent a day on the tools. A person I know managed a contract job where a car park was built. 18 months later another was required to be built on an adjacent space. These were not 3 bays, these were LARGE sealed parking lots. All was going swimmingly until the lady employed under their gender quota rolled up. She saw the completed 2nd car park area and said the whole lot would have to be re-sealed. No not one, both. She said the contractor had fouled up as the freshly laid asphalt was not the same colour as the other car park. It was explained to her that the colours would even out over time because ones fresh & one's 18 months old.
She ignored this and the company instead of paying for one new car parking lot actually paid for one & then for 2 new layers on top.

The morale there is improving as the supervisor gains experience and she's had to listen to advice from experienced workers. One of the men told me "She'll be ok in time, but its cost some big bucks in mistakes til she gets time & runs on the board. She'll be fine, but she shoulda have been on the tools for a few years to learn up". He went onto say a bloke would have been sacked or promoted sideways out of the way.
So there's problems ahead for unqualified women who leap frog into positions because they're female and there's problems for properly qualified, experienced women who get the job purely on merit. Both can be fairly or unfairly labelled quota queens and we keep the discrimination alive, well and still festering.

The right solution is simple. Set the job role out regardless of gender, race, religion or any other identity parameter. Allow anyone to apply and judge them solely on their ability, qualifications and suitability for the role. Set up penalties for those who deliberately discriminate. Allow merit, irrespective of identity parameters to rule the waves.

It is interesting, gender balance seems to only be aimed at very high paying white colour jobs. MPs, Senators, Company Directors, CEOs, higher executives, management layers. I haven't seen any initiatives in play to increase the number of women in brick laying, truck driving, shearing, roof tiling, drilling operators, diesel mechanics, plumbers, dozer operators, policing. Do they need to be 50:50 or do they have an exceptional case method?

I notice there's no shaken voice outcries for more men in nursing, child care, health or teaching. I know if I get sick there's not a 10% chance the nurse is left handed, 28% chance they're born overseas, not a 18% chance they're indigenous nor 63% they're overweight nor 50% chance they're male. I don't look at the gender of the doctor, sister, nurse or other health worker. I just look for good people doing their job well.

Did you know?
In 2011 there were 257,200 nurses, 90% of them are women. Is that fair, are we lacking a specific skill set men might bring? Why has the Identity Politics/Social Engineer's barge polling in this field of employment gone missing?

Are women better at it? Now if that question were aimed at a male dominated high paying white collar field there'd be a scary outcry of bigotry & intolerance, boys club, glass ceilings yada yada.

So what do we do with Nursing.
Well we can...

a) Socially engineer nursing so a workplace has to have 50% men.
b) We can force workplaces to reach the 50% target within a few years
c) We can accept that perhaps 90% of the people who apply happen to be women & this is reflected in the actual number employed and just go with that
d) We can ascertain if anyone (of either gender) has been employed unfairly, without proper training, experience or qualifications and either get them up to speed or get them out.
e) Accept that 50:50 is nice but if it means deterring women from applying because there's a quota in place & a large number of men will be accepted, some ahead of good women possibly some of those men not good enough but get the job because of the mere accident of gender at birth...

No. The solution is simple. Merit. Equal opportunity and Merit.
Going straight to equal outcomes (quotas, social engineering) actually reduces fairness, ignores merit and squashes equal opportunity.

Child birth - Oh man does this argument get messy. I point to Julie Bishop, Michaelia Cash, Julia Gillard. They sure did rise to the top, no quotas, just merit. None of them had kids. Its their choice I don't care but fact is child birth is going to set a career back. It does mean time out of the workforce.
Now the debate is whether women are unfairly disadvantaged career wise by having a child or whether men who do not give birth should be on the same footing career wise as a person who takes 12 months off work for child birth once or several times.

Pretty clear in brick laying I'd guess. Time off work due to these things does reduce productivity to the company over time. The debate will rage despite that.

One thing is for sure...

Equal Opportunity for all is the fairest way and it is based on merit, not identity.

Equal Outcomes goes straight to the desired outcome without any fairness, merit or equality & is counter productive.

The Socialists favour the latter and many good, well meaning people who lean to the left will get swept up in that Socialist distortion.