RSPCA WESTERN AUSTRALIA INC
PO Box 3147
Malaga WA 645
PERSONAL REPONSE TO THE ABC PROGRAM, “FOUR CORNERS”
It has been interesting to observe that of all the letters I received and the calls taken following the recent ABC Program, Four Corners, and subsequent media commentary, only one person amongst them is currently a member of the RSPCA. Nevertheless, in response to your letters and calls, I have decided to report to you the origins of that interview and the events related to it
The entire Four Corners interview was based on information represented to the ABC by a member of the RSPCA’s own Council, Ms Yvonne Pallier, RSPCA Council documents regarding an ongoing investigation released by Ms Pallier and misquoted by the ABC, and privileged legal advice released by Ms Pallier to the media regarding an investigation for a significant prosecution.
I faced a camera under lights in a non-stop inquisition (and it was an inquisition without warning) for more than two hours. About 2 minutes from two hours of film were selectively pasted into the program. Extremely adverse impressions were formed from that “cut and paste” in the editing.
Our Members and supporters deserve balancing information to enable them to form a rational view. Although I am currently on leave of absence from the Council and am unaware of any action the Council may be taking, I am forwarding the following information for those who have tried to contact me.
Firstly, it is clear from many letters and many calls that RSPCA members and the public believe the members of the Council are paid officers. I need to dispel that image immediately. No member of the Council receives any remuneration or compensation of any kind. The members are all volunteers. They give their time freely to the organisation for no reward other than a beneficial outcome for animal care and welfare.
Secondly, the selective “cut and paste” of the interview portrayed a gross distortion of my views, and those of others. Those who know me are outraged by the misrepresentation portrayed by the editing.
I was shown stating: “I don’t believe in animal rights …”.
Understandably that edit has caused a huge reaction. In response to a question as to my philosophy I actually replied:
“I don’t believe in animal rights, I believe in the responsibility of humans for the care and welfare of animals. That’s the RSPCA philosophy.”
That’s like asking someone if they agree with crime and being shown replying “Definitely …”, when the reply was “Definitely … not.” That sort of editing is a scandalous abuse of media power to mis-portray people or circumstances.
Thirdly, there was an emphasis in the ABC interview on declarations of interest by members of the Council, but only two were edited into the footage.
All Councillors make a disclosure of financial interests each year immediately after the Annual General Meeting. Declarations were sought during and after the October 2003 Council meeting. The disclosure is in accordance with the Associations Incorporation Act and the Constitution. All councillors apart from one lodged their declarations. Only one Councillor failed to lodge a disclosure of interests form for seven months, ie: until after the May 2004 Council meeting. That was Councillor Pallier.
Councillors also make additional disclosures during the year in respect of debates on issues in which any conflict of interest, either real or perceived, may exist. That is normal and proper practice.
In respect of a budget allocation during the April meeting for a national campaign against live exports, one Councillor, Mr Gooding, a farmer, declared that it is possible stock which he had sold to the general market could have been on-sold for export without his knowledge. That was a proper declaration, and he correctly refrained from participating in any debate on the industry. He conducted himself properly, in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Councillors, and took no part in the discussion.
Page 2
But he was attacked by Ms Pallier, not in the Council where her concerns should be raised, but to the media, and in a most scathing way, about his alleged involvement in Council decisions in which he had not participated.
The attack was extended to another Councillor, Mr Marsh, who was not even present at either of the meetings dealing with the issues.
Fourthly, it was claimed during the ABC interview that “I” had withheld a “legal opinion” from the Council during debate about a potential prosecution. The claim was made without warning, and was based on operational documents passed by Ms Pallier to the ABC. Without the benefit of access to any documents or Council Minutes, I denied that claim on camera, and I vehemently deny it off camera.
I asked genuinely “Why would I do that?” as there was just no reason for such an assertion. It would be anathema to me to impede an investigation. The investigation is one which has ( or had prior to the improper disclosure of investigation details), the potential to achieve an outcome I, the State Council and the National Council have all sought for 25 years – a prosecution for animal suffering in the live export trade.
It is improper to discuss individual investigations and prosecutions, and the public disclosure of any such information is regarded as gross misconduct of the most serious kind and provides grounds for immediate dismissal of an employee, and grounds for expulsion of a Member from the Council. With that in mind I will mention some background issues to the media reports, but in general only.
It is important to understand that members of the Council do not handle documents related to prosecutions. They remain the property of the prosecuting officers. Councillors may be informed about operational matters in progress but they do not interfere in them. Regrettably this changed in respect of the complaint lodged by the animal rights group Animals Australia, and it has been politicised.
Prior to receiving the Animals Australia documents we had already begun discussions regarding jurisdiction in respect of the export trade. We were in pro-bono discussions from October 2003. And in December 2003 we sought jurisdictional advice from the authority from which we derive our powers, the Animal Welfare Unit in the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.
My involvement was to be informed when we received the much publicised documents from Animals Australia (why they went public about a potential major prosecution escapes me). As we had still received no definitive advice about jurisdiction and because jurisdiction was critical to any prosecution I urged that the Animal Australia file should be given to our principal legal advisers, Phillips Fox, to establish if in the opinion of our own advisers we had power to act. Without jurisdiction all else was irrelevant.
Upon inquiry after the ABC filming I was informed that a document titled “Legal Opinion – Jurisdiction” from Animals Australia was included in the file given to our legal advisers, Phillips Fox. It was the opinion from Phillips Fox, who already had the Animals Australia file, that went to the Council.
I therefore correctly informed ABC that the document to which they referred was in the possession of our legal advisers: it was not withheld from the Council. Phillips Fox, produced their opinion and the Council received that opinion, as I did. I can re-state what I told ABC, that the Council received three documents – they were two opinions from our own prosecutors, and the Phillips Fox opinion. No documents were withheld.
The inference that “I” had deliberately withheld documents from the Council is an outrageous allegation. [Although the allegation doesn’t change, it transpires that the alleged “legal opinion” was a document composed by Animals Australia: it was composed from an exchange of e-mails they had with a respected Barrister.]
Fifthly, it was claimed on the program that the CEO had argued against and recommended against a prosecution. That was just not correct. The document shown on camera was the CEO’s cover sheet attached to two reports from another officer, not from the CEO, stating that in the officer’s view a prosecution could not be sustained. The CEO did not make that claim, and never argued that to be the case. He relayed the view of another officer.
Page 3
Nor did the CEO seek to withhold a prosecution on the basis that government funding would cease. Every responsible CEO has a duty to ensure the Council is informed before reaching a conclusion on any matter before it. If recurrent government funding ceased because the export industry was closed that may cause a financial hiccup for the Council. Closure of funding may or may not be an outcome, but the CEO did not argue that the investigation should not proceed by reason of government funding.
State government funding is less than 10% of our cash inflow and under the terms of payment it is not permitted to be used for inspectors, investigations, prosecutions, rescues or the animal shelter. It is restricted to education services. No funding is provided by the Commonwealth or by local councils. We raise 90% of all our funds ourselves.
Sixthly, it was claimed on the program that the Council was not proceeding with the relevant prosecution. Despite all the improprieties of discussing the progress of an investigation, I was forced to state that the assertion was just not true. We were establishing jurisdiction and I stated that in my view I believed we would find that we did have the appropriate power to proceed with the investigation.
The Council gave instructions to the CEO to seek advice as to the evidence we would need to launch a prosecution for animal suffering in the trade. The information received from Animals Australia could then be measured against the evidence needed to establish if the case could be made. That process is in progress and no decision has yet been made. Even if the evidence is inadequate to support a prosecution on this occasion, and I have no way of forming that judgement, we will be placed in a strong position to pursue the industry for its conduct.
No member of the Council has experience in investigations or prosecutions. The task of investigating and the judgement for prosecuting should be correctly left to our experienced officers and to our legal advisers, not to Council members.
There is nothing more serious than the pursuit of a prosecution, and nothing more important than success. To prosecute and fail, and particularly in a test case of the most significant kind, would send the wrong message to the industry and to government. It has to be done carefully and thoroughly.
The haste sought by animal rights groups, and even by some on our own Council, is understandable, but threatens a successful outcome if it is not done properly. Members and the community must give credit to our officers who have always acted carefully without fear or favour, and never with reckless enthusiasm or consumed optimism.
Seventhly, the question of costing a major investigation and prosecution is a serious issue. The cost of a failed prosecution could reach $250,000 or more and we don’t have extensive reserves of free cash.
But we began with pro-bono assistance last October, and that is continuing. We have received generously discounted advice from our principal legal advisers, and a senior associate from the firm has presented the firm’s advice, and met with Councillors pro-bono. It is argued that an offer of pro-bono advice to Animals Australia from eminent barristers in Perth has been ignored, but that is not true. We have not yet met with them as the matter was progressing through the Council, and we will be seeking their offers in due course. Pro-bono Court representation will be highly valued.
There will be significant associated costs involved. We have touched on the extent of potential costs, but not yet explored all the cost implications. Even funding a case from a special public appeal is not out of question.
It is disappointing that in the meanwhile an eminent barrister has criticised the RSPCA ”for not proceeding with the prosecution” when that assumption is unfounded. There is a danger in making assumptions from unsubstantiated sources. No one asked the RSPCA.
Had the investigation been allowed to progress through the normal operational channels before being referred to the Council, it may have progressed further by now. But the significance of success at last in a prosecution of the export trade was so important that it deserved the Council’s attention. Since is was first raised in the Council, the investigation has been politicised [maybe even to the detriment of the case] both outside the Society and inside the Council, and that has only served to delay its progress and given rise to outrageous claims of interference in a prosecution.
Eighthly, the ABC Program in respect of Western Australia took its lead from a position pursued by Mrs Yvonne Pallier. That attack has continued since the program was shown.
Page 4
Remarkably, Ms Pallier discarded all proper conduct in this affair. She ignored the Code of Conduct she helped to produce for Councillors, abandoned the basic Constitution of the Society, ignored her duty to raise matters of concern within the Council, snubbed her Council colleagues, disregarded the adverse impact her actions would have upon loyal and committed staff, and went directly to the media with no warning. She sought protection behind a claim the National RSPCA President had told her to do that. Not surprisingly he rejects that claim and has initiated legal action for defamation.
Finally, I want to commend the remaining Council of 14 dedicated members who provide their time and talent to govern the Society’s affairs in Western Australia with propriety and selflessness. Outlandish claims of self-interest, favours and interference can not be demonstrated. The maturity of the Council members and their totally unconnected interests provides an independence which is important. Their diversity of vocations, ages and gender provides a balance very representative of the community, and not of any sector. It is that balancing of representation that has made the RSPCA unique and underpinned its survival, as a barometer of the community’s views, for 180 years.
Taken out of context, the ABC Program, Four Corners, set out to promote a perspective – that the Society has no will to intervene to stop animal industries such as the live export trade. The program encouraged the perception that the RSPCA is a cat and dog Society, with no capacity to deal with animal industries. This was reinforced by the producer wanting each RSPCA officer filmed with dogs or cats or in pet shelters, while detractors were filmed with livestock.
Anyone who knows the reality of investigations knows that animal industries enjoy no exemption from RSPCA prosecutions. They know the huge effort our officers put into the livestock industries. And no one can demonstrate interference in that process. Members of the Council do not divert resources away from prosecutions. We just don’t have enough resources to do everything demanded of us. The dedication, enthusiasm, good work and loyalty of all our officers are all depreciated by the scandalous assertions in the ABC Program, and the detractors of the RSPCA.
Inferences that either I am, or any other Council Member is, uncommitted to the RSPCA charter of animal care have no substance. Anyone who has heard me, spoken to me, listened to me, corresponded with me, or read anything I have written over 20 years, will attest to the falsity of that claim. I am a total supporter of the RSPCA position.
I encourage you to dismiss the misrepresentations for what they are, malicious assertions in a political challenge. Our job in the RSPCA is to stay focused on the welfare of animals within our capacity to do that. I hope you will help us in that pursuit with your support rather than join those who seek denigration of the people working arduously for improvements for animal protection in Western Australia.
Eric Ball
President
RSPCA WA Inc
6 July 2004
Source: http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/ebabe.htm
Click here to return to Rabbit Information Service page about “A Blind Eye”
Update (May 2005)
**************
Quoted from From Page 3, RSPCA Today, 1st Quarter 2005
“Former RSPCA President receives prestigious service award
Former RSPCA President and current Councillor Eric Ball has been honoured with one of the RSPCA’s highest National accolades, the Outstanding Service Award. This award was established to recognise a member of any RSPCA in Australia who has mad a major contribution and given outstanding service to the RSPCA both at a local and National levels.
Over the past 20 years, Mr Ball has held office as RSPCA Treasurer, President and Chairman of the Society. He has been a member of the State Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the State Cat Committee. He sat on the Animal Ethics Committees for Royal Perth Hospital, Perth Zoo, Edith Cowan University and Curtin University, was a review member for the Animal Ethics Committee at Murdoch University amd Chairman of Newcomers WA, President of Newcastle Jaycees, a member of Lions, Chamber of Commerce, Apprentice of the Year Committee and other industry groups.
Mr Ball joined the RSPCA as a councillor in 1984 and became a National Councillor of RSPCA Australia in 1985.
He held office as President of RSPCA WA from 1985 to 2004, during which time he was an advocate for good corporate governance. He strove to ensure the Society had a Council of diverse viewpoints to produce a balanced outcome for animal welfare based on RSPCA Policies.
Recipients of the Outstanding Service Award receive both a certificate and a medal from RSPCA Australia.”
******************************************************
The RSPCA, The Live Export Trade/Intensive Farming and 4 Corners (ABC TV) program
On the 21/06/2004 The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC TV) Documentary/Investigative Journalism program “Four Corners” screened a program titled “A Blind Eye” featuring reporter Ticky Fullerton.
Read the ABC Promotion for “A Blind Eye”
Read the full transcript of “A Blind Eye”
RSPCA WA Inc – Response to Four Corners “A Blind Eye”
Read the reply by Mr Eric Ball, President of the RSPCA WA Inc to “A Blind Eye” by clicking here
A quote from the ABC Promotion for “A Blind Eye” says “Four Corners asks if the RSPCA is still “for all creatures great and small”, or if it has now become a creature tamed by the multi-million dollar industries it is meant to police. Reporter Ticky Fullerton explores the uncomfortably close relationships that the RSPCA is forging with key industry groups – intensive poultry, pork and live exports – and asks whether these bonds have tied it in a knot of conflict. In its defence the RSPCA argues that it is working with industry for incremental improvements in animal welfare. In several states a fierce struggle for control is now being waged between farm-friendly members at the RSPCA and those they accuse of being animal activists. As the autonomous state branches play politics, cut deals and fail to promote national RSPCA policy, national president Hugh Wirth can only watch helplessly from above. Has the RSPCA become hopelessly compromised? Is it an anachronism in the modern age of intensive farming? Should its role in enforcing laws against animal cruelty be stripped away and left exclusively to police?”
As a member of the RSPCA Western Australia and also a person opposing the cruel intensive farming practices of some farmers, I believe the public should be aware that there are some issues that were not covered by “A Blind Eye” that the general public should be aware of. There are also allegations (from the President of the RSPCA WA Inc., Mr Eric Ball and others) that imply that “A Blind Eye” did not fairly report on the issues covered by the program. Four Corners “A Blind Eye” tried to convey perceived problems within the RSPCA as well as explaining some major issues concerning the treatment of farm animals and the live animal export trade.
One debated point about “A blind eye” concerned Mr Ball’s statement “I don’t believe in Animal Rights”.
This Statement by Mr Ball “I don’t believe in animal rights” has been discussed on other web sites eg http://www.vegsoc.org.au/forum_messages.asp?Thread_ID=852&Topic_ID=8 The Vegetarian/Vegan Society of Queensland message board Response from Eric Ball the WA RSPCA President when asked: ” In the eyes of the RSPCA, is a dog’s right the same as a sheep’s right? ERIC BALL: I don’t believe in animal rights. ?????????? Posted “4:39:33 PM on 22-06-2004”
Mr Ball’s statement (read by clicking on the link at the top of this page) says he stated he didn’t believe in Animal Rights but (in the same breath and in the same sentence) he believed in Animal welfare (read his Statement closely).
I watched “A Blind Eye” and another person I spoke to who watched the program said “Anyone can see Mr Ball went on to say more than “I don’t believe in Animal Rights” but that it looks like the rest was edited out. He did not seem to stop talking at that point where the interview was cut”.
I phoned Four Corners about this and was connected to a Producer named Ms Janine Cohen at about 1.15pm on the 14th of July 2004 and she denied Mr Ball’s version of what he said on Four Corners was true. She denied Four Corners “misquoted” Mr Ball yet if an ommission did happen by virtue of cutting Mr Ball’s statement short, is this classed as a “misquote”? She also said she was aware of Mr Ball’s statement and she implied they (the ABC Four Corner’s program) had considered going to “Media Watch” (TV program) but they thought it wasn’t going to achieve anything). Strangely enough, an employee of the RSPCA I spoke to also said he had considered approaching “Media Watch” about the program.
Isn’t it strange that both the RSPCA employee and the producer from Four Corners both felt a need to go to “Media Watch”? This is another indication that there are conflicts about the program “A Blind Eye” from both the production team and the people interviewed for the program about the program’s presentation.
My own experiences with an ABC film production team were far from satisfactory and I believe that that particular program (Quantum) seemed to have a set agenda (in my opinion) and was more interested in making pictures for the public to watch than in sitting down and discussing the issues. Being asked to drive someone elses car, with Megan James in the front seat and the sound and camera men in the back seat while trying to answer questions on an issue where I had accrued considerable expert opinion was unsettling to say the least. Having a bed in my home moved so the ABC could film me touch typing and when I couldn’t touch type (what a sin) then having Megan James type at my computer so they could get film footage of fingers typing on my computer was laughable. Finally, the comment made at the end of the Quantum film implying some people had been given more credibility that they should have in the RCD issue was uncalled for. Expert opinion spoke for itself. So much for impartial reporting. Some of the ABC production team experience I was involved in felt like a circus production for the public viewing rather than a proper discussion of the scientific facts.The moral of this is that one should not believe the ABC is better than anyone else at producing films and documentaries.
Concerning the Four Corners Program “A Blind Eye”….
Does the public understand the difference in the philosophies between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare which causes friction between the groups.Did “A Blind Eye” seek to clarify these differences or did they assume the public knows the differences in philosophy involved (Animal Rights philosophy generally means an Animal Rights supporters will say that animals should not be kept as pets, should not be eaten and should not be exploited, culled, killed or bred and more). Animal Rights Activists have valid points of view and are continually challenging the way in which animals are exploited and hurt by Society. Animal Welfarists accept that animals are part of our Society and that animals should be treated humanely but that they can still be kept as pets and eaten. Some Animal Welfarists class Animal Rightists as extremist because Animal Welfarists believe that humans have the right to eat eggs, meat, chicken, fish etc. Most Animal Rightists, by definition, are vegans or vegetarians.
In my opinion the Australian public should be asking questions of the RSPCA and the Government about policies and Codes of Practices involving intensive farming and whether the majority of people in Australia (who I presume are meat eaters) should be asking that animals be treated with compassion and allowed to live in as normal conditions as possible (not caged up in crates and cages).
Were these issues covered thoroughly and was enough reporting time time placed into putting the onus on the Australian Government to properly look after the interests of animals as well as humans in Australia?
Was the RSPCA made a target by “A Bind Eye” for not addressing animal welfare issues that the whole of our Society and the Australian Government should be held accountable for?
Is too much expected of the RSPCA in expecting them to fix the problems that Society turns a blind eye to?
Where were the indepth interviews with the State and Federal Australian Government politicians on how they perceived the role of Government in policing and dealing with cruelty to farm animals ?
How much cruelty to animals is allowed by the Australian Government and how much is cruelty to animals is accepted as part our culture (eg killing and eating animals is by its very nature cruel to animals since you deprive the animal of its life and eat it which is arguably the cruellest thing anyone can do to a living creature.
Were other major issues concerning how different groups see the place of animals in our society and the agendas of these groups also ignored and why?
Was “A Blind Eye” biased because of the time constraints of the program or because of the difficult issue the program was dealing with or because of the stance taken by those producing and constructing the program for public viewing?
What was the aim of “A Blind Eye?” and how did the producers aim to position the public to react to the film and the interviews?
Was the use of film footage and excerpts used by “A Blind Eye” to portray the RSPCA as a Society focused mainly on dogs, cats and pet animals? (Some allege that filming some of the interviewed people with cats and dogs etc set the tone of the program in some respects).
Does the RSPCA take action against those who abuse farm animals (yes it does, visit their WA website and read the cases for yourself).
Within the realm of Animal Activism there are two types main types of activists, welfarists and animal liberationists. Animal Welfarists are often meat eaters who eat red meat, chicken, eggs and products from animals such as milk, cheese, and eggs. Many humans have been raised on such a diet and assume it a right to buy eggs,meat, fish and poultry. They see this as part of a normal diet.People who are Animal Welfarists assume the animals they eat should be allowed a life free from cruelty up to the time they are slaughtered.Most Animal Welfarists also desire that animals kept to produce milk and cheese and eggs and other animal bi-products will be kept in a humane manner. The keeping of animals in our Society is usually governed by “Codes of Conduct”. For example, I believe there is a Code of Conduct for the treatment of animals at the saleyards (where cattle, sheep, pigs and other animals are taken for sale before slaughter of before further transporting eg the live animal export trade). As a society who eats animals and animal bi-products we are all collectively responsible for the manner in which these animals are kept. As individuals, we rely on the Government (our elected representatives) to maintain a Society in which cruelty to animals and humans is minimised. Is it the job solely of the RSPCA to ensure all animals all over Australia are properly treated and do they have the funds to do so? The answer is “probably not”. The Australian Police Force, as an alternative to the RSPCA in policing Animal Cruelty are alread understaffed and asking them to police the whole of Australia to prevent cruelty to animals when they cannot seem to cope with the results of cruelty of humans to humans is a big monetary demand. Funding would have to be provided on a massive scale for police to properly deal with all the issues demanded of them. A current standing joke I heard was that you would get faster service from phoning Pizza Delivery than by calling the police on some occassions.
The RSPCA WA website says (regarding intensively farmed battery hens) “Who, we might ask, is responsible for the way these poor creatures are treated? Who indeed. If you eat eggs, then chances are that you are responsible. I am. Every one of us that ever walked out of a shop or supermarket with one of those ubiquitous coloured cartons of eggs is responsible.
How many of us stop to think about where those eggs come from? We are usually more concerned with finding a carton that has a dozen whole eggs, not glued to the cardboard by the congealed contents of a crumpled shell.
Anyone with any compassion for the humble hen will never again feel the same about their morning soft-boiled once they have witnessed thousands of birds crammed into impossibly small cages, or had their senses assaulted by the cacophony and the overpowering stench associated with a battery hen farm.
RSPCA has begun a campaign to release the chook from its prison. The campaign is up and running in New South Wales and Victoria, and has been launched here in WA through Golden Egg Farms (WA Egg Marketing Board). RSPCA is supporting “Barn Laid Eggs”. Chickens on these farms will be housed in large barns which give them the freedom to scratch, dust-bathe and perch. There will be no cages and no wire floors. There will be contented hens, free to express more of their natural behaviour. As long as the producer complies with conditions set by the Society, and as long as you, the consumer, support this concept through your purchases, there will be more and more happy hens laying eggs in barns instead of cages.
RSPCA will accredit any producer who complies with a fairly stringent set of requirements and is prepared to maintain them. Regular inspections by RSPCA officers will ensure that standards do not slip. The RSPCA name will be used in marketing these eggs in return for a royalty. Everyone wins – the producer, the Society and most important of all, the hens. Help release the humble chook from its prison and look for “Barn Laid Eggs” at your local shop. “
The RSPCA WA Inc’s website says “RSPCA’s policy on the export of live food animals is that we are “opposed to the export of live food animals for immediate slaughter and advocate the adoption of a carcass-only trade.”
Finally, Animals Australia, Australia’s peak animal group being an umbrella group comprising many Australian animal groups now makes this comment –
“22 June 2004.Animals Australia removes historic live export complaint from WA RSPCA. Lack of confidence in WA RSPCA President and CEO forces Animals Australia to lodge complaint with WA Government”
In case anyone doubts the RSPCA does prosecute farmers and people involved with farm animals (not just pet animals) here are some quotes from the RSPCA WA website
“Landmark win for RSPCA 11 May , 2003
The RSPCA has applauded the magistrate’s decision to convict Donald Raymond Hammarquist in the Perth Central Law Courts today in relation to 10 counts of unnecessary suffering.
Mr Hammarquist was charged after 45 cows and nine calves, transported from his Mt Augustus property, were found either dead on arrival or had to be euthanased on humane grounds at their Bellevue destination on 11 September 2001 . In the following weeks a further 12 cattle died.
The RSPCA has hailed the result a landmark decision claiming it will demonstrate to the livestock industry the importance ensuring all animals to be transported are fit for travel prior to loading.
RSPCA spokesperson Kelly Oversby said the Society had acknowledged that unnecessary suffering had become a major issue within the livestock transportation industry and the organisation was currently working with industry members and bodies to improve current standards.
“We can not express enough the importance of preventing unnecessary suffering by assessing each animal individually prior to loading and travel. If an animal does not appear fit then it should not be loaded.”
During the six day trial it was heard that five road trains conveyed 444 cattle and 226 calves to a Bellevue property, stopping en route at the Midland Saleyards.
It was found that many animals were either in very poor to poor body condition; late stages of pregnancy and in very poor to poor body condition; or had young calves at foot and in very poor to poor condition prior to being transported from Mt Augustus Station.
Despite their poor condition, Mr Hammarquist sold the cattle. However, the sale was rejected at Bellevue .”
*****************************************************************************
Further information about the Live Sheep Export can be obtained from the RSPCA WA Inc. website.
FACT SHEET
The extract below about the live export trade is from the RSPCA WA Inc website
“When you next see sheep and cattle grazing peacefully in a paddock, consider these facts because this may be the fate that awaits them. There are no enforceable controls over the way the majority of exported live animals are treated during transportation.
Livestock Exports from Australia
Because there are no enforceable regulations in QLD, WA and NT, this is what is allowed to happen to live animal which are
If I am a sheep chosen for export I will be rounded up from my paddock and packed onto the back of a truck so tightly that I will not be able to move. I may stay in this position for up to 36 hours without any food or water and I may travel in all weather. If I am on the bottom tier of the truck, I will have urine and manure dropping on me from the sheep above.
I will be taken to a feedlot which probably will not have any shade. There will not be any grass to graze on, only pellet feed. I could be in this feedlot for up to 10 days. I will then be packed onto the back of another truck, and taken down to the wharf where I will be loaded onto a sheep ship. I will probably slip and fall while running up the ramps, and skid on the hard metal decks of the ship.The ship could be a converted car carrier or converted oil tanker, and might be 15 to 20 years old. I may be on board for up to five days before we set sail. During the voyage, which can last up to three weeks, I will have only 1/3 of a metre in which to stand.
It may be damp and stuffy in my pen if the ventilation is poor. I may not be able to breathe very well and I could develop pneumonia. I may also develop diarrhoea, but there will probably be no veterinarian on board to treat me. The stench of ammonia will increase throughout the voyage and I will become increasingly hot and distressed, especially in summer, and as we pass over the equator. The pen that I am in may not be cleaned out during the entire voyage, so a pad of manure will build up. As we pass over the equator the interior of the ship will become increasingly hot and humid and the manure pad will become very boggy. I will find it hard to move around and to get to the feed and water troughs. Larger sheep may stop me from accessing the feed trough, and even if I get to the food I may be suffering from “failure to eat syndrome”. This maymean that I starve to death. If I am old or fat or traveling at the wrong time of the year, then the journey will be even harder to cope with.
If I survive the voyage, it could take another five days to unload the vessel and I may be injured getting off the boat. I could then be placed in a feedlot for up to a month before I am eventually sold for slaughter. I may die in the feedlot. The entire journey from farm-gate to eventual slaughter can take between three to eleven weeks.
290,000 sheep died in 1996 as a result of the poor conditions in which they were transported.
5,800,000 Australian sheep suffer these conditions each year, only to be slaughtered in the Middle East.
720,000 cattle also suffer similar conditions being transported to the Middle East and South East Asia.
RSPCA’s policy on the export of live food animals is that we are “opposed to the export of live food animals for immediate slaughter and advocate the adoption of a carcass-only trade.”
While the RSPCA cannot depart from this policy of opposition, the live animal trade is a reality, and the Society therefore believes it is necessary to achieve short term reforms within the trade to make it more humane.
Consequently, we have consistently called on Government for urgent implementation of legally enforceable regulations, based on acceptable animal welfare standards.
This lobbying has been backed up with ongoing public awareness campaigns by RSPCA, together with our programs of industry consultation and inspection.
In our experience, farmers generally share the RSPCA’s preference for a carcass-only trade, which has a greater economic benefit for them. However, until such a trade can be developed to replace live stock export, the RSPCA must do all things possible to make the export more humane. This should not be taken as any sort of de facto approval of the trade.”
**************************************************************************
Finally, a word from the Greens Party in WA who also commented on Four Corners “A Blind Eye”
“Greens call for RSPCA to be stripped of their powers”
“Greens call for RSPCA to be stripped of their powers
The Greens are supporting calls by Animal Liberation for the RSPCA to be stripped of its powers, after the 4 Corners programme revealed that the welfare of animals is under threat due to vested interests, said Greens MLC Lee Rhiannon.
“Last night’s 4 Corners programme revealed the extent of the relationship between RSPCA and the corporate farming industry,” said Ms Rhiannon.
“The corporate farming industry is clearly out to maximise profits, which can often mean that the welfare of animals suffers.
“An example of the extent to which the RSPCA is compromised is the business relationship between PACE egg farms and the RSPCA, where the RSPCA receives money from every carton of eggs sold.
“I understand that in NSW, the RSPCA has condoned battery cages for hens. It is unacceptable for the organisation which has sole responsibility for the policing of cruelty to animals to endorse battery cages, which animal welfare experts worldwide have condemned.
“The RSPCA is a charity and doesn’t have the resources to adequately police animal welfare. The organisation is also vulnerable to be taken over by vested corporate interests.
“The Greens support calls by Animal Liberation for the RSPCA to be stripped of its powers as a statute body. Policing of animal welfare should be the responsibility of the Government, not of a charity.
“The Government can resolve this unsavoury situation by legislating to ensure that the policing of the prevention of cruelty to animals is moved to a special unit of the police,” said Ms Rhiannon.
MEDIA RELEASE: 22 June 2004″
**************************************************************************
The Last Word
Before anyone blames the RSPCA for not changing farming practices designed to feed huge numbers of human beings in Australia, consider the role the Government should be playing and remember the fact that huge changes in the farming industry encompassing compassionate farming will probably mean you will pay more for eggs, meat, chicken and other products. As a compassionate consumer, you should be prepared to pay more for these goods if prices increase so don’t complain.
Alternatively,you may consider a healthier diet consuming less meat products and decide to have more vegetarian meals (which are not at all boring if you educate yourself about proper diet, vegetarianism and healthy eating.) Don’t forget to take B12 supplements and to educate yourself to obtain all the nutrients you need from a properly balanced vegetarian diet. Information in Australia on Vegetarian diets can be obtained from The Australian Vegetarian Society
For further information on other cruelty to animals that Society endorses,such as horse racing and greyhound racing (yes horse racing is a cruel industry where horses no longer useful are often sent to slaughter) visit People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
PS. Don’t forget that nobody’s perfect. Even some Animal Liberationists argued that Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease was actually a more acceptable way of killing wild rabbits than cruel Myxomatosis. I could not believe their attitude on this. Since when was killing animals by deliberately spreading a hemmorhagic disease of animals supposedly humane to the species doomed to die from internal hemmorhaging? Ask the animals too sick to move who were deemed to be dying a “Quiet humane death”. What a spin on cruelty to animals from those who deem themselves at a higher level on understanding of the matter of cruelty to animals than other human beings.
rspcaanimalcruelty 