Porkgate

[MSTRS:Me]

My only farming experience is farming pigs.

It was not a nice experience. Free range pig farming means a high mortality rate for piglets. Even the ag inspector sent after a complaint about dead piglets suggested Sow crates until the piglets were weaned.

I'm simply not mentally equipped for farming. Giving animals like pigs "nice" conditions simply gives them scope to break fences, stalls, water troughs, pipes, and kill and eat their piglets. If mum gets irritated when she's feeding them, she'll simply roll over and kill some of them.

The legal twaddle is irrelevant in the face of those challenges.

And that, in a nutshell, is why crates are used. As long as the sow doesn't spend it's life in one.

[Beemer]

I hear what James is saying and understand that free range chickens pick on each other too. I think what most of us would like is a happy medium if possible - one where animal welfare takes into account these things. Maybe a bit more space, a lot more cleanliness and rotating where the animals are to give them a bit more quality of life. I realise it has to be economical for the farmer and perhaps if it is not possible to do this and still give the animals a better life, we SHOULD be thinking about whether we still want to eat meat.

SAFE does not have the best interests of the general public in mind, they are quite militant and I don't always agree with their methods. Hans Kriek used to be with the SPCA but I don't like him in his new role, he really polarises people.

[Hitcher]

The debate is about the state of our pigs being farmed for meat.

I disagree. The debate that is being forced is whether animals should be farmed at all. Anybody who thinks that that isn't the end game of SAFE and other militant vegan organisations is deluded.

[Phurrball]

I think you will find that the 'majority of the populace' demands cheap, and really has no interest in the standards under which that cheap meat is produced.
(Snip)

Really? That's a pretty cynical view. I think that what the public are waking up to is that all the AW Act covers all animals EXCEPT FOR PIGS and a few others - this is what is most disturbing, and what most people are blissfully ignorant of: "We have GREAT animal welfare laws in NZ!"

Almost agree with that. The 'debate' is more about the conditions under which some pigs are farmed. Yes, all meat animals exist purely for the end result, but if there is no need to un-naturally confine them, then why do so?

How does that sit with your previous post?

My only farming experience is farming pigs.

It was not a nice experience. Free range pig farming means a high mortality rate for piglets. Even the ag inspector sent after a complaint about dead piglets suggested Sow crates until the piglets were weaned.

I'm simply not mentally equipped for farming. Giving animals like pigs "nice" conditions simply gives them scope to break fences, stalls, water troughs, pipes, and kill and eat their piglets. If mum gets irritated when she's feeding them, she'll simply roll over and kill some of them.

The legal twaddle is irrelevant in the face of those challenges.

The former is a likely a consequence of the density of farming and probably goes beyond the scope of my knowledge and what I can adequately comment on. Others who know more than I do have looked at this. Some seem to be able to farm pigs free range with no problem? Only 50% (IIRC from the industry body's statements) of the pork industry uses crates. They speak of moving away from them.

And that, in a nutshell, is why crates are used. As long as the sow doesn't spend it's life in one.

Again, density and the fact that people eat far too much meat. Ethics as distorted by economics. It's a pretty sad indictment that economics should inform animal welfare FOR THE ANIMALS IN SCHEDULE 4 ONLY. Everything else is well within the scope of the act.

(Snip)

SAFE does not have the best interests of the general public in mind, they are quite militant and I don't always agree with their methods. Hans Kriek used to be with the SPCA but I don't like him in his new role, he really polarises people.

I agree in part. I am not a SAFE member, but I do support some of their aims and campaigns. In NZ, the SPCA deals with prosecuting animal cruelty (and to a lesser extent MAF). The SPCA receives no government funding at all and MAF has very few resources for this kind of issue. That's how seriously we take animal 'welfare' in NZ. There is not even a government agency to prosecute cruelty. That's probably why the likes of Mr Kriek left. Among those who take animal issues seriously, there is a high degree of disillusion with the SPCA, MAF , NAWAC (NAWAC is ruled by the animal industries' economic concerns) and the legal framework in general.

I disagree. The debate that is being forced is whether animals should be farmed at all. Anybody who thinks that that isn't the end game of SAFE and other militant vegan organisations is deluded.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they are more realistic and you over-extrapolate? I don't know. The current campaign is to show the glaring inconsistency in the way pigs are treated in comparison to other animals. Why shouldn't we have that debate?

As much as I believe in animals rights (as opposed to welfare, which is a human construct) I have to be pragmatic about how progress can be made. I believe in 'harm minimisation' and achieving progress for the lot of animals through education and the law starting to take animal issues seriously. Believe me, the legal system right up to the judiciary do not take animal issues seriously at all. There are many judgments where the judge uses words to the effect of "It's only an animal" to mitigate the most egregious of crimes - that is what saddens me most of all. Even the current laws are watered down by the judiciary and not enforced as they should be.

[Lissa]

I disagree. The debate that is being forced is whether animals should be farmed at all. Anybody who thinks that that isn't the end game of SAFE and other militant vegan organisations is deluded.

Well it started out about how animals are farmed, was just trying to keep on topic.

Did anyone see the news regarding making endangered animals a food source and thus breeding more and taking them off the endangered list? I missed it, but thats what its all about. The only reason we have so many cows, pigs, sheep etc is because we do indeed eat them. How many people would farm these animals if they didn't do it for money/food? They aren't domesticated animals and can be quite expensive to keep.

I think its silly to think that there will never been farmed animals being mistreated, just like alot of people mistreat domesticated animals. Becoming Vegan isnt going to stop people doing so. There are just alot of sick bastards in the world.

[MSTRS:Me]

Really? That's a pretty cynical view. I think that what the public are waking up to is that all the AW Act covers all animals EXCEPT FOR PIGS and a few others - this is what is most disturbing, and what most people are blissfully ignorant of: "We have GREAT animal welfare laws in NZ!"

How does that sit with your previous post?

Even the current laws are watered down by the judiciary and not enforced as they should be.

I see nothing cynical in what I said. It is realistic. Joe and Mary Public just buy their meat according to their wants/purse and never think about where it comes from or how it was produced. And for the most part, they really don't care.

Two different sides. Mine is that we are 'debating' the ethics of caged farming, as it relates to sows, that there must be a valid commercial reason for caging sows or it wouldn't be practised, and that my opinion is that I'm not comfortable with the idea that sows may spend their entire life caged. However, if they do, I don't feel strongly enough that I'd stop eating pork products.

Doesn't that say more about the judiciary, then it does about any particular law?

[Quasievil]

my latest contribution to this thread

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBoLA_BQ4tU[/YOUTUBE]

[Phurrball]

I see nothing cynical in what I said. It is realistic. Joe and Mary Public just buy their meat according to their wants/purse and never think about where it comes from or how it was produced. And for the most part, they really don't care.

Probably more semantically correct would be sad...

Two different sides. Mine is that we are 'debating' the ethics of caged farming, as it relates to sows, that there must be a valid commercial reason for caging sows or it wouldn't be practised, and that my opinion is that I'm not comfortable with the idea that sows may spend their entire life caged. However, if they do, I don't feel strongly enough that I'd stop eating pork products.

Emphasis added. When commercial considerations inform ethics, we're fucked... just like the pigs are for that very reason...

Doesn't that say more about the judiciary, then it does about any particular law?

It's society's attitude that ultimately informs sentencing, within the framework of statute and precedent. If people were outraged by the weak sentences handed down to individuals guilty of the most unspeakable acts towards animals, then things would change. Sadly, most people are ignorant and assume the law deals with this adequately. Only a few in the legal community take an interest. As it stands, an animal is a mere chattel in law. IMHO that's wrong.

In this case, the way pigs are treated is informed by the codes of welfare promulgated by NAWAC (De facto = industry's economic concerns). Ya see, it'll never get to the feeble judiciary*, as what is cruel to other animals isn't cruel to pigs... (even though it is...)

[*'Feeble' is my opinion, and only with respect to to most of the prevailing animal welfare sentencing. I have the utmost respect for the learned legal minds that preside over our nation's courts.]

(Oh, and thanks for a most worthy thread to the many that have meaningfully contributed.)

[James Deuce]

3 sows on 6 paddocks over a hectare isn't over crowding. It is poor commercial practice.

[MSTRS:Me]

3 sows on 6 paddocks over a hectare isn't over crowding. It is poor commercial practice.

Fuck paying the kilo price for any of that pork.

[James Deuce]

Farm changed from Dairy to dry-stocking so we had some land to play with.

We should have just built a shed and got three farrowing stalls made up.

[MSTRS:Me]

Ya see, it'll never get to the feeble judiciary*, as what is cruel to other animals isn't cruel to pigs... (even though it is...)

[*'Feeble' is my opinion, and only with respect to to most of the prevailing animal welfare sentencing. I have the utmost respect for the learned legal minds that preside over our nation's courts.]

(Oh, and thanks for a most worthy thread to the many that have meaningfully contributed.)

You seem to miss the fact that it is being said is that sows (in NZ) are in those crates for between 4-6 weeks to allow their young to suckle without being killed by the mother. Where has it been claimed that those sows spend all their life in there? I'm sure that 'overseas' it happens, but here? What's not being said is whether those sows are bred year-round, or just once. Gestation is 16 weeks and I assume that they are not kept 'too' confined during that time. I also guess it's possible that they are bred twice a year, with a 4 week stand-down between each pregnancy/suckling.

I don't follow that the judiciary are apparently feeble in their sentences, yet you have the utmost respect for them. Which is it?

Oh, and who exactly are you sniping at...

[mynameis]

Pork sales have been hit and are down, looks like the media is doing a good job aren't they?

Who said people didn't care where their meat came from and what kind of life the animal had?

[MSTRS:Me]

Pork sales have been hit and are down, looks like the media is doing a good job aren't they?

Who said people didn't care where their meat came from and what kind of life the animal had?

That's this week...give it time

[mynameis]

That's this week...give it time

Meeeeeeeeeh

That man dancing in your avatar has had a few pork chops too many!