There’s a new term being tossed around by opponents and
antagonists of Australian agriculture……”Ag-Gag Laws”. As with many things it is
a term borrowed from the US where animal rights activists like PETA and Animal
Liberation are very active. So active in fact that they have taken their
activism to the next level - terrorism,
and I do not jest. Animal Liberation burnt 14 trucks at a US meat company in an
effort to damage industry.
But we are in Australia, and things like this don’t happen,
or do they? Is there a campaign against our Australian intensive livestock
industries underway? Definitely. We have Animals Australia and Animal
Liberation undertaking many campaigns and activities to undermine consumer confidence
in our livestock farmers. They have also successfully, it seems, drawn the RSPCA
into their efforts. Their most effective campaigns stem from the use of video
footage depicting acts of cruelty against farm animals. This however is where I take issue
to their campaigns.
Let me explain a little more initially by way of some myth
busting of the seven basic myths being pedalled……..
Myth 1: Farmers don’t want people on their farms or filming
things because they are cruel and are doing the wrong thing.
Truth:
Australian farmers love to talk about their farms and
livestock. Just ask one a genuine question and they will love the opportunity to explain what they do and why they do it. They love visitors.
However they are also far from naive and over the past three years many have
become very aware of how easily things can be twisted through clever editing, to
alter a perfectly benign situation into something much more sinister. This has
made them cautious and wary. The amount of damage done to individual farmers
through footage, of which little has resulted in successful prosecution for
cruelty, is enormous. They have learned
to be distrusting of a stranger’s motives and wary of disgruntled employees in
this day and age of social media and the Internet.
Myth 2: All livestock farmers are cruel.
Truth:
There is always someone somewhere in this world doing the
wrong thing. People murder each other, people do terrible things to their pets,
they do terrible things to each other. Farmers are not immune to this either
and there will always be a small minority doing the wrong thing. They are
however, as with the rest of the population, a small minority. As a beef cattle farmer and
feedlotter, I can tell you we take great care of our livestock. We value them
not only as a commodity from which we earn an income, but as a living,
breathing being for whom we provide food and water, treat when ill or injured
and receive endless enjoyment from. Farmers are proud of their livestock. They
put much effort into the genetics and breeding herd and their animals give them
great pleasure and pride. To treat one of their animals poorly that they
invested so much time, effort and patience into simply makes little sense. There is also the fact that a mistreated
animal will never result in the same returns as a happy, well cared for,
content animal.
Myth 3: If you earn a living from livestock you are only interested
in making money and are therefore cruel.
Truth:
To own or operate a farm, the end goal must be
sustainability. Sustainability encompasses a wide spectrum of responsibility. Farmers
must care sustainably for the environment (soils, water, vegetation), the
animals (their welfare), their community (employees, contractors, service
providers, schools, etc) and their business. If their business is not
financially sustainable they cannot undertake the other aspects of farming
sustainably. Did you know that 61% of Australia’s land mass has a farmer as its custodian, and to maintain this land, vegetation and animals is expensive. A
livestock business must make money from the sale of its animals. It must be
profitable during the good seasons/times so there are funds in reserve to
manage the business through the poor seasons and times. Without money generated
through profits from the sale of livestock there is no money for fodder or vets
or medicines to treat ill livestock.Financial viability underpins animal welfare.
Myth 4: You can’t trust Livestock Industries and their
various representative bodies because they have a vested interest
Truth:
A vested interest is exactly why livestock industries and
bodies need to be one of the first ports of call when an issue rears its head.
As a feedlotter we face annual audits each year, but in addition if we were
found to be doing something wrong, especially acts of cruelty we would very
quickly have our licence suspended and
probably revoked. Our industry does not want to see its well established
reputation as progressive and welfare orientated tarnished by individuals who
chose to deliberately do the wrong thing. After speaking with members from
several other industries their Industry bodies are much the same. There is
always room for improvement and our Australian livestock industries and the
bodies that represent them are striving to achieve high standards.
Myth 5: Farmers are uneducated and therefore are unable to
adopt new practises and unable to be trusted with knowing what is best for
their farm and livestock.
Truth:
It can be very easy for people from outside the livestock
industries to view our farmers as uneducated and believe that they in fact may
know better how to operate a farm and look after its livestock than the actual
farmers doing it themselves. The truth of the matter is that Australian farmers
are some o the most efficient and innovative in the world. They are quick to adopt
new practices and technologies. They deal with a variety of environments,
climates and market conditions. Australian farmers are very adaptable and their
abilities do need to be given a little more respect. As an aside, an interesting static for the
feedlot industry shows that 29% of those employed in the industry actually have
a Bachelor or Master's degree.
Myth 6: Animals Rights activists and organisations are the
same as Animal Welfare organisations.
Truth:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Organisations like
Animals Australia and the Animal Liberation do not spend a cent on the
provision of welfare for any animals. Instead, in the case of Animals
Australia, they spend a large portion of their budget on wages, advertising and
legal fees. They provide shelter for no homeless pets nor do they act in the
best interest of animals, rather making the best use of any footage to further
their agenda than swiftly report and act incidents of cruelty.
Myth 7: Cruelty should be reported to animal rights
organisations like Animals Australia.
Truth:
Due to the heavy campaigning in the media of groups like Animals
Australia there is a misguided belief that they should be the first port of
call if you witness cruelty occurring especially for farm animals. This is
something that is becoming increasingly concerning as we continue to see
footage released that has been held for long periods of time with no direct
action or intervention. It is worrying seeing the shift in understanding that an
organisation like Animals Australia is the right place to report cruelty. It is
not. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Animals Australia do not
have any power to act upon reports. The RSPCA does. Animals Australia does not
have the ability to investigate and prosecute, DAFF does. Animals Australia is
not able to suspend accreditation for intensive industries, but industry bodies
can.
So how can we counter these issues to a point that will see
both animal cruelty reported in a timely manner but farmers rights protected
from the deceitful actions of activists.
Portions of the legislation being proposed by Senator Chris
Back would you believe actually originated from a chance meeting in Canberra. I had actually gone to Canberra to attend the
launch of the Agribusiness Council of Australia. So perhaps I might be well
placed to describe in part what the actual purpose behind the legislation is.
Animal Rights groups (not Animal Welfare) have increased
their campaigns since the Four Corners episode A Bloody Business aired in 2011.
Since that time there have been numerous releases of footage of animal cruelty
at slaughter yards, piggeries, poultry farms and now shearing sheds. This
footage is generally obtained using either deceptive methods or as a result of surveillance
cameras being placed on farms after trespassing and breaching biosecurity
protocols.
While the common theme in these clips is of course the
cruelty, there is another more sinister theme……that of an agenda that allows
the footage to be obtained and held sometimes for as much as 9 months before
being released or authorities contacted to report the incident. Often the clips
are held to coincide with a peak production period for an industry such as ham
at Christmas, or the height of the Live Export season. This is where I take particular exception.
How can any person who claims to have the welfare of the
animals at heart not immediately report the cruelty incident to the correct
authorities immediately? How can someone who claims to have the interest of
animals at the centre of their beliefs not act promptly to ensure that the
person responsible is at least removed from the position of caring for animals
if not prosecuted. Why do they not act immediately?
There has been a whole industry spawned that revolves around
obtaining footage of cruelty. At present there is a veritable wealth of causes
on sites like pozible, to which you can contribute by way of crowd funding, to facilitate
the purchase of camera, video cameras and even drones whose sole purpose is to obtain
footage from farms. The footage is used on social and mainstream to instill
outrage amongst consumers. The footage that reaches its final destinations is
not the original footage, but heavily edited, with suitably sad music applied.
If there is so much cruelty in our livestock farming
industries, why are there not more cases successfully prosecuted?
To counter the issue of unauthorised filming obtained with
an agenda in mind but also to ensure that any cruelty is reported immediately
to the authorities so it can be acted upon immediately a new suite of
legislation is required. The legislation should be enacted at a Federal level
and the States should follow suit so that borders are no obstacle in implementation
or prosecution. I believe this is the only way that both parties (a person
filming genuine cruelty and an innocent farmer) can be protected.
I urge all parties to consider supporting the
Bill that Senator Back has proposed. If we are to see cruelty dealt with
swiftly and effectively but also protect our farmers from organisations whose
intention is to defame, discredit and destroy I believe this legislation must
be adopted.
As a feedlotter it would give me great peace
of mind. It is not unedited footage we fear, as it would show a complete
version of event, but the heavily edited footage obtained through illegal
trespass. It is easy enough to create an issue where in actual fact there is
none with today’s technology. The liability and biosecurity risks we face are also
real concern, along with the risk posed to ourselves, employees and children.
Surely all reasonable sides of the argument
can see the benefits of adopting this legislation. I suggest that those against
the legislation are fearful of a loss of revenue stemming from their public
funding campaigns that rely heavily on footage of cruelty to win public support
through outrage. It is much harder to inspire outrage when authorities are
dealing with the matter at hand.
Let's be proactive and think of the welfare of both our livestock and our farmers.
