What does the Act say?

The Sunday expose on intensive pig farming has pushed the shadowy world of indoor pig farming firmly into the spotlight. TVNZ’s Close-up this evening pitted Mike King (and Safe‘s Hans Kreik) off against Chris Trengrove, the Chair of the Pork Board, resulting in a commitment to random visits of other pig farms to see if the one exposed was really a one-off as the Industry claims, which I don’t believe for a minute.

I have always been disappointed that our quite good Animal Welfare Act has been subverted by the Nat-Labs in power, resulting in low-standard Welfare Codes. Frankly, some Codes do not meet the purpose of the Act, which is:

(1) The purpose of this Part is to ensure that owners of animals and persons in charge of animals attend properly to the welfare of those animals.

(2) This Part accordingly— (a) Requires owners of animals, and persons in charge of animals, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animals are met in accordance with both—(i) Good practice; and (ii) Scientific knowledge

Meanwhile the so-called Code of Welfare for pigs sets minimum space requirements of (read it for yourself):

Pregnant Sows in individual stalls 1.20 (0.6m x 2.0m)
Lactating Sows and litters: Farrowing crates and creep areas 3.2 (total area)

But rather than debate the size of the crate, the real question is whether a cage-reared pigs can ever meet the “physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animals”.

Labour’s Jim Sutton signed off that Code, and Jim Anderton and the Primary Production Select Committee (including the current Ag Minister David Carter) have not sought to change it since. As Sue Kedgley reflected in a recent reflective podcast:

“The Clark-Cullen Government had tremendous opportunities to launch a progressive agenda… [but were] completely out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. [Take] the whole animal welfare issue as an example – they could have set in motion a process of phasing out those hideous battery hen cages and incredibly cruel sow crates…”

The new Prime Minister and his Agriculture Minister have been superficially shocked by the TVNZ investigation, with Key vowing to take action if this farm is anything more than a rogue operator. It isn’t – crates of that size are legal and widespread in caged pig-farming – so will the Key Government do what Clark-Cullen didn’t and phase the cruel cages out?

One thing’s for sure, Sue Kedgley will continue to fight until someone does.

125 thoughts on “What does the Act say?

  1. Animal rights activists found a pig farm owned by NZ Pork Borad member Colin Kay at Kuku Beach Road, Levin, that beached the code in that the stalls were narrower than the allowed 60cm. This was exposed on Campbell live, and MAF investigated. Following intensive lobbying from the pig board, and cosy lunch dates with MAF staff, MAF changed the regulations stating that they did not mean what anyone of normal intelligence and sanity would think they mean; the clear space available to the pigs, but rather what they called “centre to centre” measurement. This means the width of the bars could be subtracted from the allowed width.

    MAF, NAWAC, and the agriculture ministers from National Labour and the Progressives are corrupt. Russel should get more votes if he makes animal welfare an election issue.

  2. Sorry for being facetious re grammar. The torture of factory farmed pigs is a serious issue, and one we now have an opportunity to strongly address.

    In retrospect, probably not a good look to take the piss when we’ve got on board on one issue people who usually oppose us on most others.

    Well done BP – will you be with me when we liberate the pigs?

  3. I certainly will :)

    I’ve already written to the Nats and the Pork board. Key looks to be on-side. Perhaps the Greens could make it a non-negotiable election issue?

    God forbid I might have to swallow a farm load of dead rats and actually vote for you….

  4. BluePeter said: God forbid I might have to swallow a farm load of dead rats and actually vote for you…

    Hey, I can find you a farm load of live ones – funnily enough, it is a pig farm too. And I can find you a several chicken farms as well with plenty of rats.

    We got a bigger problem now (in the immortal words of Jello Biafra), huh?

    See how an initial awareness of one discrete issue can suddenly reveal an awareness of many more.

    We’ll have you opposing GE outside the lab and suporting a greenhouse gas emission charge on farming as well soon BP? Because they are all inter-related issues, and as soon as you accept the validity of just one of them, trust me, it’s the slippery slope to becoming Green.

  5. greenfly, does Jack Humm also live somewhere behind the black hole in you wardrobe?

    I miss his contributions on g.blog, and understand he lives somewhere down your way.

    Any chance you could have a word and encourage him to post there again occasionally?

  6. Did BP just agree to animal-liberation?
    What happened to te all-important property rights?

  7. >>We’ll have you opposing GE outside the lab and suporting a greenhouse gas emission charge on farming as well soon BP? Because they are all inter-related issues, and as soon as you accept the validity of just one of them, trust me, it’s the slippery slope to becoming Green.

    Meh.

    It’s an animal cruelty issue.

    GE- The Greens is a Frankenstein argument – which isn’t a good one.
    ETS – Nobody has yet been able to tell me how much it will drop global temperature by, and even if that’s a desirable thing to do, even if we could do so, which there is no proof we can.

  8. There’s a homeopathic solution to the pig issue – assign Gerry Brownlee to deal with it!

  9. sue k. is currently kicking butt..

    ..on national radio nine to noon…(available online..)

    ..well done sue..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  10. Hammer this one Greens!

    I imagine country of origin labelling will have to come into this (or maybe something else), or the only result will be a lot more not-nice foreign imports coming in…

  11. big bro – what do you say about this piggy business, bro? You’ve long been champion for animal rights, or so you had us believe. Why so silent now? I bet you are disgusted by the responses over at the Kiwiblog! Come share your concerns with us Bro.

  12. Fly

    Unlike the Greens I am appalled at the treatment of pigs, I am also on record as saying I am dead against this disgusting practice.

    Sadly the Greens use the issue of animal welfare to get votes and then spend the next nine years as lap dogs of the Labour party doing nothing about the issue.

    You could do something about it Fly, you could join SAFE or donate to them, you could be a member of the SPCA or donate to them as I do however I suspect as a Green you do nothing.

  13. # StephenR Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 9:57 am

    > I imagine country of origin labelling will have to come into this (or maybe something else), or the only result will be a lot more not-nice foreign imports coming in…

    we should be able to also ban imports that aren’t free-range. There’s probably some WTO rule against this, but I never know how much we can get away with flouting WTO rules.

  14. Yes, kahikatea, but we can still implement country of origin labelling so people can at least know where pork comes from and avoid that from countries with barbaric practices.

    But for that to be any use we’ve got to get our domestic pork industry to clean its act up first.

  15. Bro – you’re being pig-headed over this. You know the Greens are and have always, been light-years ahead of any other political party on this issue. What do you think of the responses on your favourite blog? Disgusted by your peers are you?

  16. big bros said: Sadly the Greens use the issue of animal welfare to get votes and then spend the next nine years as lap dogs of the Labour party…

    Not true. Sue Kedgley has been trying to get action on this issue from a few months after she was first elected to Parliament.

  17. Toad

    It is bloody true, you managed to pressure Labour into passing the social engineering anti smacking policy yet you have done nothing about animal welfare.

    You campaign on animal welfare and have done nothing about it for nine plus years.

  18. Bro – National also passed that bill, you’ll recall!
    Maybe now they will put an end to cruelty to farmed animals (with pressure, as always, from the Greens).
    John Key – Save the Pigs!

  19. Fly

    Your last comment typifies the Green party approach to Animal Welfare, the reality is that you do not care, it is all part of the political game to you people.

    I don’t give a toss who passed the anti smacking bill, the point is that the Greens pressured Labour into making it a government bill therefore by passing the ballot.

    If Sue K’s bill is ever picked out of the ballot we both know it will not pass, you guys will then sit back and pretend that you have tried your best and again milk the animal welfare vote as much as you can.

    You could have pressured Labour into making the animal welfare bill a government priority, the fact remains that you did nothing, in my book this makes you worse than the Nat’s who are only never going to do anything to upset their precious rural vote.

  20. bro – it’s a fine delusion, yours, and it suits you well. How you ever managed to delude yourself that Greens and greens don’t care for animal welfare is a mystery only you can fathom. Everyone else equates ‘save the whales, ‘free the chickens’, don’t exploit dolphins for entertainment’ and so on, as bleeding-heart lefty/greenie, vegetarian, tree-hugging issues to the core, but not you! You are one out of the box.
    You say, If Sue K’s bill is ever picked out of the ballot we both know it will not pass
    and manage to lay the blame for that at the feet of the Greens! Twisted logic Bro. Surely those who defeat the bill should bear the brunt of your anger.

  21. Fly

    I am not bloody interested in laying the blame Fly, I want something done about animal welfare.

    The fact that you manage to sheet this back to petty party politics says a lot and only confirms my suspicion that the Greens do not care.

    The fact remains that you guys had the chance and did not deem it to be of any real importance, therefore IMHO the Greens are guilty of using animal welfare as nothing more than a sick and twisted way to grab votes.

  22. big bro Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 11:50 am

    > I don’t give a toss who passed the anti smacking bill, the point is that the Greens pressured Labour into making it a government bill therefore by passing the ballot.

    The Labour Party decided to make it a government bill. If the Greens had the power to pressure Labour into passing bills they didn’t want to pass, they would have used it to make them pass bills on climate change and dirty dairying.

  23. petty party politics Bro?
    You don’t think this is a political issue? Then why the attack on the Greens? Why aren’t you out there in the stalls, freeing sows? I wager there are few, if any right-wingers out there uncovering these acts of cruelty, exposing the exploitive farmers and their practices and protesting those conditions. It’s the eco/enviro/greenies, isn’t it Bro? Or am I wrong? Do you know different? Have you seen a Young Nat team out there in their dark-blue overalls, torch in hand, squeezing under the wires, video cameras in hand. Or Actoids, Bro? Any Actoids saving the sows? Nah. You are blowing.

  24. BP,
    Yes, I have a dog, He has the option of being free range; doesint like it very much though, much prefers to be an inside dog with the warmth and the soft bedding. He was one rescued from a real abuser. Incidently he is from carlingrig kennels, same lineage as ‘Dog’ from footrot flats.

    This whole pig thing has been blown out of proportion, they chose one of the worst places and paint the whole industry with the same colours. Most places are free range our provide plenty of space. The ‘depresed’ pig and the pigs chewing on the bars are perfectly natural things; my flatmate (masters in pig nutrition) says that when you put them in a feeding lot they chew on the bar regardless of how they are kept, thats just how they are. Im not excusing the way they are kept in the places highlighted, but its nowhere near as bad as its being made out to be. Its just the media twisting it as always with their limited understanding. That mike didint investigate before he started promoting just shows his stupidity.

    On another point; anyone watch ‘louis therodoux’, or whatever his name is, on hunting parks in affrica? I found it interesting, also harks to that “no farmed animal has ever gone extinct” comment onf of the B boys made.

  25. Fly

    “petty party politics Bro?”

    Yes, have a read of your 12.47 post and you will see what I mean.

  26. kahikatea

    “The Labour Party decided to make it a government bill. If the Greens had the power to pressure Labour into passing bills they didn’t want to pass, they would have used it to make them pass bills on climate change and dirty dairying.”

    Stop telling lies, the Greens did pressure Labour into making the anti smacking bill a govt one, they could have done the same at any time with the animal welfare bill.

    You did nothing about climate change and dirty dairying because the reality is that these issues are not that important to the Greens, total control of our lives and the implementation of your precious communist “social justice” plan is what you people want.

  27. The section 59 Bill didn’t ever become a Government Bill – it passed through all stages as a Member’s Bill.

    Interestingly, at about the same time Sue Bradford put her section 59 Bill into the Member’s Bills ballot, Sue Kedgley put in one to amend the Animal Welfare Act to do all the things you would want it to do big bro.

    It was just the luck of the draw – the section 59 one was drawn and the animal welfare one never was. If it had been, I can assure you it would have been lobbied for by the Greens just as strongly as the section 59 one was.

  28. I wager there are few, if any right-wingers out there uncovering these acts of cruelty…

    Mr Stephen Franks :-) You might recognise the woman in the cage too.

  29. Bro – the pig issue (sows in crates) and the child welfare issue (repeal of Section 59) are very similar. Can you see it?

  30. StephenR – excellent! That’s one !
    (I was tempted to say, Stephen Franks is a bore’, but that would be a cheap shot :-)

  31. I’d never attack someone who was jammed helplessly into a crate the way Franks is. Too easy :-)

    Have you uncovered any other blue-blooded hog-rescuers Stephen? A pic of Big Bro tearing down the doors of a piggery with his bare hands? David Carter getting his hands dirty, (they already have blood on them) freeing swine? David Farrar among the sows (be sure to describe some identifyable feature to avoid confusion)

  32. “David Farrar among the sows…”

    Well, no need to be a bitch greenfly.

    I think it’d be hard to find anybody of note doing damage to private property like that, seeing as it IS illegal and all.

  33. Fly

    I would wager that I have done a hell of a lot more than you to improve the lot of animals, indeed I have even been to court because of an animal welfare related arrest.

    So please, stop using animal welfare as a petty political pawn and either do something about it or stop pretending that you care.

  34. toad said..

    “..It was just the luck of the draw – the section 59 one was drawn and the animal welfare one never was. If it had been, I can assure you it would have been lobbied for by the Greens just as strongly as the section 59 one was..”

    like you did with metirias’ medical cannabis bill..?..toad..?

    face it toad..on both those issues..animal welfare..and medical pot/cannabis law reform..

    ..the greens .. given the assets/resources/forums at their disposal..

    ..really did diddly-squat..eh..?..about both..

    ..no questions in parliament..

    ..no working the media..

    (sorry..sue k in a cage in 2000…isn’t quite ‘enough’..eh..?..)

    ..the spokespeople on both issues being largely silent..for thel ast nine years..

    ..and the greens really had nothing to do with bringing this current attention to the animal welfare issue..

    did they..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  35. on both those issues..when you boil it all down..

    ..you’ve been pretty much bloody useless..

    ..eh..?

    and i know why….

    ..you’ve been so scared of appearing ‘loony’…eh..?

    well..both these issues are no longer ‘loony’..if indeed..they ever were..

    ..so..noew they are nearly mainstream..

    .. how about growing a spine on both..?

    ..and i refuse to believe the fact that most of you are carnivores/eat the bacon/sausages..

    ..has nothing to do with your inaction on animal welfare issues…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  36. I would wager that I have done a hell of a lot more than you to improve the lot of animals
    I believe you Bro and admire you for it.

  37. and as for yo..big bro/bruv/whoever..

    i’ll pay your animal welfare crocodile tears/’cares’ some respect..

    when you come here and tell us you no longer eat any of them..

    ..’till then you are just blowing/posturing..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  38. phool

    When you tell me you have stopped stealing from the rest of us and got a job I will take you seriously, until then you remain nothing more than a bludger and violent criminal.

  39. big bro doesn’t really care about animal welfare. If he did he’d support those, like Sue, who have been working so long to improve the lives of animals. But sadly its all just pretend.

    I have even been to court because of an animal welfare related arrest.

    Its amazing the lengths to which he’ll go to make people think he cares, aye?

  40. I met Phil U once. Not a man I would ever describe as a violent criminal. Your pushing the line here BB, making personal attacks of this nature. Settle down, have a BLT and a beer.

  41. BB did promise me once that if Sue K’s Bill got passed, he would vote Green. I guess that was an empty promise, eh BB?

  42. Frog – I think Big Bro meant, ‘violet crinoline’ and quite frankly, sometimes Phil does seem to be cut from that cloth.

  43. Frog

    Has Phool not told you about his past?

    Perhaps you should ask him to tell you about the time he was arrested for aggravated robbery.

  44. Valis

    I suspect I supported the Greens long before you were eligible to vote, for some time now they have been campaigning on the false promise that they would do something about animal welfare.

    They had their chance and did precisely nothing about it, preferring to push their social engineering policies instead.

    Frankly I don’t care what you think, I am only interested in the actions and thoughts of those who are genuinely keen to see the lot of animals improved in New Zealand.
    I am not interested in the thoughts of a bunch of closet commies who abuse the very real passion and concern that many of us have for the plight of animals.

  45. Big Bro says: I am not interested in the thoughts of a bunch of closet commies
    and yet you spend your day here, blowing, blowing, blowing, blown!

  46. Fly

    Unlike you I have two passions apart from my family.

    One is individual freedom and therefore the defeat of left wing politics, the other is animal rights.

    You really should try standing for something instead of wasting your time with hit and run blog trolling.

    Or….you could get a job.

  47. Bro – you’re gonna defeat left wing politics! Respect!
    Get a job? Hmmmmm… never considered that before…
    Maybe there’s a place for me in the world after all!

  48. What a load of irrelevant twaddle.
    I expected better of people who take the time to write on this thread.
    How about being part of the solution rather than being contributors to the problem?.
    Saying you don’t eat meat is irrelevant & spurious.
    The best way to improve the lot of pigs everywhere is to have all pig products from Countries that sanction sow crates banned.
    Farmers trying to convert should get tax incentives to do so.
    Look after our Country & our industry.
    Everyone has it in their power to improve the lot of these animals. Lobby the hell out of local MP’s.

  49. big bro Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    > Stop telling lies, the Greens did pressure Labour into making the anti smacking bill a govt one, they could have done the same at any time with the animal welfare bill.

    you’re quite desperate to believe that, aren’t you?

  50. do animals not have ‘rights’ to be not killed/eaten by you..?..big bro..?

    what a strange/contradictory/segmented view you have on this issue..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

  51. One is individual freedom and therefore the defeat of left wing politics, the other is animal rights.

    This says it all doesn’t it. Politics is big bro’s real concern. He claims animal rights only comes second, but we know better. His real priority is clear as it always has been. He won’t let animal suffering get in the way of his political agenda.

  52. Valis said: He [big bro] won’t let animal suffering get in the way of his political agenda.

    There be the difference between out two most prolific resident trolls Valis. BluePeter seems as though he will.

    Suspect the reason he hasn’t commented here for a while is he is too busy swallowing farmloads of dead rats.

  53. What a load of irrelevant twaddle
    Sorry Kelpie
    I’m taking myself to a dank corner and jamming my pointy hat on hard!

  54. Phil,

    do animals not have ‘rights’ to be not killed/eaten by you

    Well actually, by the very definition of rights and the process through which they are created, no.

  55. I would expect someone with a masters degree in pig nutrition to support the status quo that they have been indoctrinated in. But any reputable independent scientist such as those making up the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission, and those summarised in my own peer reviewed paper on the subject, know that bar biting is not normal behaviour, it is so-called repetitive “stereotype” behaviour, indicative of intense mental stress.

    Sows also do not always attack each other and have to be held back in stalls. If they were as aggressive as the lying scum O’Hara and the pork board chief make out then sow stalls would not work anyway because as can be clearly seen from the pictures, they can quite easily have a go at their neighbours on either side if they want.

    If we are using arguments from authority, then I have a PhD in zoology from New Zealand’s top university, which trumps a mere masters degree any day.

  56. frog said: OK. I know my bad pun was not as funny as greenfly’s…

    I try my best too frog, but greenfly has got it all over the rest of we mere mortals as far as puns go.

    Rank indeed” on Sue B’s Christine Rankin thread had to be one of the best ever.

    Greenfly’s even got a mate called Jack Humm who lives in the black hole out the back of his wardrobe! But Jack doesn’t come here. I’m trying to encourage Jack to post on g.blog though.

  57. Kiore,
    I offered my flatmate a chance to respond, she did not want to engage in something which would make her frustrated so close to bed.
    Though to summerise what she has been saying:

    My flatmate states that this bar-biting is not always indicative of stressed behaviour. When expecting to be feed pigs, even when kept in a proper and spacious environment, will often chew bars in anticipation for the food and out of curiosity. In relation to the raid performed by Mike King she states the bar biting behaviour to be likely due to the expectation of just such a feeding since a human is entering the shed at night which is normally indicative of morning feeding. The squealing is apparently also likely due to the expectation of food.

    One would think that, even at masters level, someone specialising in pig nutrition would know more on the subject than a PhD in zoology, that is presuming the PhD specialisation was not on the same topic.

  58. I try my best too frog, but greenfly has got it all over the rest of we mere mortals as far as puns go.

    We must all bow before greenfly the great. violet crinoline!

  59. i thought ‘toadying on kiwiblog’ ..

    ..deserves at least an honorable mention…

    ..then of course..there is ‘being normaned’..

    ..nandor knows all about that..

    …and sue b. is about to find out..

    (and (hopefully)..shearer..)

    ..then there’s ‘having a fitzsimons’..

    ..(that’s eating a baby calf you have home-reared..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  60. That’s very kind gentlemen but I’m sure you’ve over-egged my pudding.
    Your comments though, contrast nicely with those of David Farrar, (who likes to call me a f*cking moron) and the hoarse croakings of his stunted understudies who bay for my expulsion each time I flit around the Kiwiblog.
    Guess I’m in the better place!

  61. # Sapient Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    > One would think that, even at masters level, someone specialising in pig nutrition would know more on the subject than a PhD in zoology, that is presuming the PhD specialisation was not on the same topic.

    On the subject of pig nutrition, of course the person with the masters would know more. But this is about pig behaviour, not pig nutrition. You’re not suggesting the pig was chewing the bar for its nutritional value, are you?

  62. Kahikatea,
    No, I am not suggesting the pig was chewing the bar for its nutritional value. I am suggesting that the pig was chewing the bar in expectation of being feed. I would suggest it an example of conditioning and social perpetuation, but I am a psychology student, not someone knowing much about pig nutrition.

  63. sapient – for a moment, I thought you were onto something there – I’ve chewed bars for nutrition in the past and especially like the blueberry flavoured ones, but I delved deeper..read on through your comments around the pig expose and found this:
    a proper and spacious environment and thought, no, didn’t see any of that on the telly. Bar chewing is a red-herring.

  64. >>Bar chewing is a red-herring.

    Not ‘pie in the sky’ for the (flying) pigs to pursue?

  65. but Sapient -the pig is likely to draw essential magnesium and phosphorus from those bars – don’t imagine They’re silly. not for a moment.
    Did you know we keep Humans in worse conditions?
    Animal rights seem jocular to me,
    After our basic Human Rights have gone.

  66. Greenfly,
    That was an arguementive qualifyer used to appeal to the fact that, even when kept under conditions which are humane and considered to be without stress, pigs will exhibit this behaviour and because of this the exhibition of this behaviour in this example does not neccacarily, or even in any likelyhood, mean that they are doing so due to stress. As such, the bar-chewing is irrelivant as an indicator of stress in this example and has no place in the arguement; the arguement falling back to: we think the crates are too small and when you look them in the eyes they look depresed. The crates may or may not be a point, but the eyes are another irrelivant factor as the perception of emotion is drawn very little from the eyes but more from the surroundign muscles, that is how pigs look, but we humans perceive it as depresion because we are attempting to apply methods for judging human feelings to an animal with totally different facial feature; the judgement is invalid. So what this ultimatly comes down to is that the media is blowing it out of proportion, because thats what they do, the pig industry is pretending its appalled so it doesint loose business, and the animal rights idiots are using it to further their own political agenda.

  67. sapient – bar chewing or sad eyes are not what I base my opinion over the pig crates on. ‘What it comes down to’ is that those animals should not be in those cages. It’s a cruel practice.

  68. Greenfly,
    No, i do not expect you base your opinion on the bar chewing or the sad eyes. I expect that you base your opinion on what you perceive to be right and wrong, your subjective morality.
    My disagreement is with the use of these ‘sad eyes’ and bar chewing by ideolouges, particuarly SAFE, to try and promote the change they desire even though the phenomina they use as evidence do not support their claims at all. They are attempting to motivate the idiotic masses to action by manipulating them and taking advantage of their ignorance; not that I see anything wrong with that, just the use of supposeed evidence that is not evedence at all. The gradual release of footage over the period of a week shows this to be exactly what they are trying to do. They have no interest in reporting the truth, nor showing what is standard practice, but in manipulating public opinion through mistruths and extremme examples. This never has good results for society, thats why the use of spin-doctors is often criticised; and yet this party and these people, whom normally critise such use of spin doctors, have no problem using and perpetuating what is prehaps the biggest use of spin doctors in NZ this decade!

  69. hey! ease up on the Hippies Dude!
    there was a fair notch of dam good freedom in all that you know.
    Youngers today look all straight-jacketed and down-dimensional 2 me…

  70. …And yet hippies have killed far more than the nazi ever did…
    .. and it was far more racially selective …
    .. and this is only one of the avenues through which they have caused such death :P
    … hilarious …

  71. oright Sap; detail the Hippie Dead for me will you? Not Names(unless you have a list) Broad spectrum accusations should do – though I fear we may well disagree on the definition of a Hippie – but I warn you, I know several Retired Hippies already…..and you know the scary thing? They look just like u & me; cept they had children!!!!
    Subliminal oinksurrection hey? An SIS file on an 11 year old?
    No Hippies here Matey!!!

  72. Mark,
    Hippies looking like you and me? next you will be claiming that the NAZI were humans! caucasian even!
    LOL, it was mostly a joke but; lets look at it this way (elabortating on the example used in the linked article):
    Taken from wikipedia

    Each year, there are approximately 350–500 million cases of malaria, killing between one and three million people, the majority of whom are young children in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ninety percent of malaria-related deaths occur in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    malaria is also a major cause of poverty and as such may indirrectly cause pretty much every other poverty related disease. so the true deaths through indirrect causes are much much much higher, and the suffering even more so.

    Malaria was eliminated from america and most western nations through massive application of DDT, DDT was banned in america in 1972 due to the hippies and the environmentallist movement in general due to concern for egg-shell thining. Because of this ban american agencies and UN agencies refrain from funding those that use DDT, effectivly preventing its use. So, from 1972 to 2009, assuming a constant death rate, that is 111,000,000 deaths and 18,500,000,000 infections dirrectly from malaria and probally several times that from the induced poverty. Take note that the higher estimates of deaths in the holocaust are around 11,000,000 and 17,000,000, and that those were not just jews but gays, mentally handicaped, russians, etc.
    Not to mention that such proliferation of malaria proliferates sickle-cell disease since those with sickle cell disease are far more likely to survive (human evolution anyone).
    So, instead of a couple billion dollars in DDT being sprayed and effectivly stopping malaria, one of the major causes of poverty, and poverty related diseases we have billions going into mosquito nets, antivirals, food provision, and treatment for poverty related disease which doesint even reverse the trend, keeps the african economy desolate, and causes massive population booms which only make the matter worse.
    Thus; hippies kill.

  73. I have not read anything in the scientific literature suggesting pigs chew their bars in anticipation of food. There have however been no shortage of studies on stereotype behaviour in pigs, hens, humans and other animals in conditions conducive to poor welfare.

    It also comes down to who you believe. A factory piggery owner who has already been caught lying once and breaking the law, or activists who regularly spend their nights risking their freedom and possibly their lives, up to their knees in pig sh*t and chicken sh*t all for the sake of the animals.

  74. Kiore,
    Both the piggery owner and the activists have strong bias and reasons to lie, both are well known to lie to protect their interestsa and to see only what they wish to see. I would much rather beleive the educated masters bearer on this subject, esspecially when she spent months raising the pigs in her trial using different diets and conditions, getting up at ungodly hours to feed them and cart around the food, spending her whole day ensuring they are healthy and monitoring their blood and behaviour.

  75. gotchya Sap; so if Hitler lives furhter south he would have got malarial incest sooner and not risen to destory the world???
    Zagzactly!

  76. nazi’s wre a race suppressed Sap: Goering addicted to Opium; Hitler with the bigbro sickness? Humans can be anything your imagination allows.

  77. Frog,
    And that link provides support for exactly why a DDT Blitz attack and then health coverage should have been funded by the developed nations, not why funding for DDT should be restricted as the link actually mentions exactly why such restriction of funding is a bad thing. lol. You will also notice that the DDT ban was bull part of it does not relate to my statement at all as I did nto make any of the claims that article claims were incorrect but rather my claims are backed up by what the article states, lol.

    Mark,
    I have no idea how that relates to my statements past the implication of hitler and malaria. But, had hitler of dies young then I think the world would be significantly worse of than it presently is. Esspecially considering the economic and social situation of germany and america.

  78. Mark,
    Indeed, the NAZI acheived the hights they did because of the german publics feelings of oppresion by hard workign jews. A point I am fond of making on this blog, an arguement against many green party race relation policies infact.

  79. well, yeah, sorta, 4me. Though I think the great lesson travelling has taught me is that ‘Race” is largely irrelevant.
    We are well into the “information control age”
    Divisions reported that don’t exist, anonymous ones ignored.
    Consider this: That ten thousand Rabbi’s march on the UN in a Peace Demo can go unreported on the 6o’clock news – someone is lying to us brother. Someone loves arms sales.

  80. and you would be spot-on there. My news comes from various overseas netsources and makes the 6 o’clot version look just plain silly.
    You know a lot of big US Newsapers are done and gone for this reason = it’s why I keep reminiscing about the morning Rome fell…the News has Outpaced ye Paper and Talkback Shew – goodbye to all those ego’s hay?

  81. Actually I would challenge you to give even one instance where animal rights activists in New Zealand have lied about animal abuse. they don’t have to. the truth is shocking enough. And I would challenge you to provide even one peer reviewed reference to your claim that pigs bite the bars because they are anticipating food. I personally would be more inclined to believe the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission than someone trained in the current New Zealand agricultural paradigm that animals are merely production units. Dont give me that bollocks about them caring for the animal’s health. What they care about is producing maximum flesh for minimal raw materials. there is no shortage of scientific literature showing that pigs in stalls are actually hungry a lot of the time. Not so much because the food does not contain adequate nutrients, but because it does not satisfy.

    I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw’s dictum that anyone who is so warped they would not hesitate to abuse animals would certainly not hesitate to lie about it.

    I have stated before on this blog I am against capital punishment, but if anyone deserves to die it is the lying scum who support this despicable industry. They rank on about the same level as the torturers of the kid in Rotorua in my book. In fact they are worse because they are intelligent, well educated people prostituting their abilities for evil ends.

  82. Kiore,
    I dont do articles on pig nutrition; im a student of psychology not of animal nutrition, husbandry, and health. Quite frankly I wouldint care if the pigs were dangled from hooks on the roof from the moment they were born if not for the implications of such on society.
    Please do enlighten me as to how those whom support this industry are evil, thats a very strong acqusation. Furthermore, I would be interested how you determine whom is more deserving to die than any other individual.

    Im quite surprised that you claim to have PhD, I would expect someone with a PhD to be more rational, or to atleast argue rationally. Prehaps that expectation is just irrationality on my part.

  83. Case Closed Dude – take your occluded truths over to Kiwibog – no need for standards there eh? eh?

  84. Mark,
    Case closed? Im presuming you mean to say that you think I have lost the arguement?

    My flatmate has been keeping track of this thread and we have been laughing together, though kiore has been making her particuarly mad due to such displays of ignorance. Last night she showed me several veternarian reports with nothing but praises for how her pigs were being treated in her masters project, it was considered the pinacle of good treatment, they even had climate control when indoors. And yet still they chewed the bars when let into the feeding area and squealled. Apparently when she ran her study whenever she came in in the morning they would all be quiet but then once she started to give the food to the first pig all the other pigs would start to scream and this wouldint stop untill the last pig was feed and then they were quiet untill they wanted to be let out. The pigs whom has not yet been feed would often chew the bars in expectation of food. The reason kiore has not read about it in the liturature is because it is such a common and accepted fact that it hardly needs to be stated and a doubt that she has made any real effort to find liturature which may go against her/his beleifs. Besides, ignorance of a phenomina does not mean absence of a phenomina.

    Additionally, kiore, you say you got your degree from NZ’s top university? Zoology? Going by ratings you would be refering to Auckland university, and yet Auckland university, except for in marine biology, has the nations worst zoology programe; how interesting.

  85. nono….not you Sap dear fellow – imagine someone with a bad attitude further up the thread…..still it is fun hey?
    and some take themselves so seriously I’d swear their real life is Hell….
    Yet i have a friend whose life consists of writing small books for educational reference…..there is a Market, even for Piggy.

  86. >>Sapient Says: Quite frankly I wouldint care if the pigs were dangled from hooks on the roof from the moment they were born if not for the implications of such on society.

    So, Sapient, are you an ardent supporter of a faction of anthropocentric ultilitarianism? Are you not prepared to give any moral status to anything other than humans, most of which you claim belong to the ‘ignorant masses’? Over the past 50 years, environmental philosophy has moved on from regarding animals as Aristotle (The Politics): ‘Plants exist for the sake of animals.. all other animals exist for the sake of man’ and Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles): ‘Man uses (animals) without any injustice, either by killing them or employing them in any other way’ to giving serious consideration to overhauling the very basis of our moral code.
    It is interesting that one of the first to suggest that animals may well have rights for their own sake (dare I say it .. intrinsic rights), was Jeremy Bentham, the co-founder of utilitarianism (The Principles of Morals and Legislation): ‘the day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny… the question is not can they reason? nor can they talk? but Can they suffer?’

  87. Kjuv,
    Finally a reply to my deliberativly provocative statement.
    Not anthorpocentric utilitarianism but gaian utilitiatrianism, as I have highlighted on many occasions. As to my ardence; the only thing I really have any passion for is understanding and challenge, my utilitarianism mearly serves to designate a goal in which i beleive both significant challenge and emotional gratification may reside.
    Bentham was an idiot, my utilitarianism has grown not from his philosophies, nor from those of any other, but from my own inpersonalisation of others and anomie. Benthams arguement is based on increasing happyness, extending this to animals because they may have the potential to be happy and thier happyness may bring about happyness in others. My arguement, like benthams, is based on the utility to a purpose, but that purpose is not strict happyness. Because of this I would not support hanging pigs from hooks, i would not support it not because it si immoral or because of its effects on the pigs happyness, but because it would detriment society more than it would assist it and as such would act against my goals.

  88. Sapient:
    The way you discribe your moral position – namely, the importance of how actions impact the society (of humans?) – does meet the criterion for ‘anthropocentric’. What is the relevance of ‘gaia’ please?

  89. I have been arguing very rationally, and in turn been subject to irrational and emotive abuse. If you really cannot see that it is evil to abuse animals, then cover up and lie about it then I can’t really argue with you, perhaps your standards of morality are very different to mine.

    Anyway I am far too busy doing media releases on this subject, due to being sought after as an expert, to bother to argue any more here.

    If you want peer reviewed references on pig welfare you can start with my own publication from the “Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics” in 2004. If the two of you are really such experts as you make out, then I am sure you know the one I mean.

    And please don’t display your ignorance about tertiary education as well as zoology. The marine biology programme at Auckland university was part of the zoology when I was there.

  90. kiore; right on brother. All one can do is refuse permission for abuse in one’s own life – and take it with you wherever you go. I think you’ll find more credit than you expect. It takes a good soul to take up the right for those who cannot protect themselves. Never stop or Give up – as James K Baxter said, some of the most barren times can also be some of the most productive!
    arohanui. Mark

  91. Kjuv,
    I consider society important only because it is through society that humans acheive a status which allows them to act as a keystone species where they are able to make significant scientific advancements which may ultimatly allow gaian life to propigate among the stars, in doing so vastly enhancing the ability of gaian life to survive rather than limiting us to one planet on which life could be wiped out through any number of freak events. Just as a rose bud makes no contribution to its parent plant, and infact acts to its detriment, it is through that bud that the genes of the plant may ultimatly survive.

    Kiore,
    Yes, and the marine biology part is the only one with any credance.
    Being sought as an expert by media is worth little kudos, in any case an expert should look at the subject of study from a neutral point of view; calling for their death and anouncing that they are evil hardly helps you here.
    Evil is an immensly subjective concept based on blind adherance to morals (more or less the definition of irrationality), that you call those whom breed pigs for slaughter evil speaks only of your own irrationality. MY moral standards are very different to yours as the closist thing I have to a moral is “do what you want”, i am not bound by such idiotic and subjective concepts as you.
    I am not an expert in the area and I have said so many times, but the very form of your arguement is invalid. You claim that these conditions are horendous and back this up by assertions about an animals behaviour, attributing this behaviour to stress, etc which may indicate conditions to be horendous and yet I have provided evidence that these behaviours occur in the absence of negative treatment and even in pristene settings (as reviewed by ethics board vetenarians) which more than meet even the higest of standards; the presence of this evidence renders your entire arguement falicious. You have lost, crawl back to your rock garden.

  92. Ah! ‘A biting the hand that feeds you’ philosophy :) So, we can best progress by stomping all over our fellow (non-human) travellers on this planet? But why stop there? Why not put our felow humans to good use for our objective? The trouble is, I guess, that this may capsize the whole fabric of human society resulting in global anarchy.
    Thus it would seem that you believe that humans have progressed over the aeons. Have you not also noticed the emergence of a more inclusive moral approach by humans over time? By that I mean according a moral standing to a greater diversity of subjects – from perhaps just the leaders through all ‘free men’ to both sexes of ethnicities? Furthermore there has been a gradual softening of our approach to other creatures. This is most likely influenced by the, first gradual and now, speedy realisation that nature is no longer the threat to our wellbeing and our very existence that it once was. Consequently we are now in a better position to appreciate the likenesses together with the agreeable as well as the unique qualities of the various non-humans with which we share this planet.

  93. Kjuv,
    I am not suggesting the humans stomp all over other humans and over non-gaian life. Mearly that an ought can not be derived from an is. In the absence of a creator life has no purpose, with no purpose it is for us to decide on our purpose, it is for us to create our own ‘ought’.
    I have chosen to follow the path which most satisfies my personal psychology. By inserting the presumpositon that an individual ought act for their own greatist happyness this allows me to to derive oughts from the path I have chosen, oughts which ultimatly assist in the acheivement of that path.
    so, assuming that I ought work to accheive my goal I then create the ought that i should work toward spreading gain life throuhgout the universe, from this ought I derive a need for scientific endevour, and from this ought i dervie the need for a stable and proserous society conductive of this endevour; it is this ought that allows me to apply many of my own oughts to the oughts of others: One cannot argue without the assumption of a common ought.
    Derived from my own oughts is no reason why I ought not perceive other humans, non-human animals, and non-gaian life as anything more than tools save the personal psychological anomie that results from such action. There are however reasons why I ought ensure that society does not adopt my philosophy :P , not that people dont treat people like tools anyway; they just like to pretend that isint what they do: an actual acknowledgement of that truth, as you point out, would however shatter the false pretenses that create the dream world most of us perceive as the true nature of society. It is my interests to use others as tools and to ensure they are all lovey dovey with each other. It is prehaps not in my long term interest to allow my philosophy to be aired as much as I am allowing it to be though, lol.

Comments are closed.