government

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Deadstock

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009
"deadstock"

"deadstock"

From an Ontario Federation of Agriculture press release:

It’s something every livestock producer knows – if you have livestock on your farm, you are also going to have dead stock.

Safe disposal of that dead stock is increasingly a problem in Ontario for farmers and society.

… farmers are faced with paying a fee for the pick-up and disposal service.  Coupled with losing a valuable animal this presents a double-sided hit to the balance sheet.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been working with the industry to find an acceptable solution that will keep our valuable disposal services in operation, providing farmers with an affordable alternative to on-farm disposal of deadstock. (Source)

Basically, what this means is that they want the government (and, more specifically, the taxpayers) to pick up the tab for disposal of dead animals.

Nevermind that the “dead stock” was a living, feeling, sentient being. To the farmers they are really just a commodity, and the death of an animal is just a “hit against the balance sheet.”

Farmers should have to pay for the full cost of any cleanup that is required due to their keeping and exploiting animals. Otherwise, we do not see the real cost of the meat they are “producing.”

They write: “The industry performs a vital service for Ontario and needs to remain sound.” If by vital they mean putting our health at risk, damaging the environment, and exploiting and killing millions of animals each year, then sure, it’s vital.

Canada signs on to the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

Monday, November 9th, 2009

This past Friday the Canadian Parliament voted to support the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW).

From The Province:

In a rare move, federal MPs have voted unanimously for a private member’s motion in support of a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare — essentially agreeing that animal welfare is important.

The motion calls on Canada to support development of animal-welfare declarations at all relevant international organizations and forums.

Remember, though, that these are the same people who voted unanimously to request that seal skin be a part of the official 2010 Canadian Olympic uniform. I think the motion to sign on to the UDAW was done because it really doesn’t do anything to improve the lives of animals.

Again from The Province:

Organizers say that by establishing the status of animal welfare as an international issue of concern, it will:

- Provide a basis for animal-welfare legislation in countries where it does not already exist;

- Encourage governments to improve their national animal-welfare legislation;

- Recognize the reality of animal welfare as a key factor in humanitarian and environmental policy making;

- Encourage those industries that use animals to keep their welfare at the forefront of their policies;

- Improve public awareness of the importance of animal welfare; and

- Inspire positive change in public attitudes toward animals.

This motion could help to raise awareness about animals in general, bringing more attention to the idea that animals are worthy of our concern. But, practically speaking, it doesn’t do anything directly or immediately to improve animal welfare. There are no laws or requirements that necessarily come out of this.

Just about every organization of farmers (Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Pork Council, etc) has a statement about animal welfare on their website. Saying that animal welfare is important and a focus for an organization (be it a government, coalition of farms, or a single farm) is easy and doesn’t really cost anything. But making real changes and doing what’s best for the animals involved does cost a great deal of money and would change the way these people do business.

I am cautiously optimistic that this vote, combined with other items in the public eye these days (Food, Inc., the HSUS veal slaughterhouse investigation, the publication and coverage of Eating Animals), might get people thinking more about the intrinsic value and concerns of these animals we call “food.”

Cruelty, supported by your tax dollars

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

From a press release [pdf] I received this morning:

The Government of Canada is investing up to $9.6 million to help improve the long-term profitability of Eastern Canada’s largest culled cattle slaughter plant in Quebec. This is the first project announced under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Slaughter Improvement Program, part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.

This is a slaughter plant that kills dairy cows that are too old to be profitable. “Cull cattle” are “spent” dairy cows who. Not only do they spend their whole lives (4-5 years of it) producing milk, we thank them by “retiring” them to be slaughtered.

From the website of Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec (FPBQ):

A dairy cow’s primary function is to produce milk. But did you know that at the end of their active life, when they are no longer able to give a sufficient quantity of milk, dairy cows will have a “second vocation”? That is when they will be culled. Dairy cows generally are culled at around 5 or 6 years of age. In Quebec, approximately 70,000 dairy cows are culled annually.

No happy fields for them.

The press release continues:

Levinoff-Colbex provides a key service to the bovine livestock sector in Eastern Canada, serving as the only significant slaughter facility for cull cows for producers in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces. Levinoff-Colbex slaughters and processes 150,000 cull cattle per year.

Not only do we send these worn out dairy cattle to slaughter, we transport them hundreds of miles to the slaughterhouse. Dairy cows are often so worn out that many of them become “downers”, unable to walk into the slaughterhouse. The regulations in Canada concerning cows who are too sick to walk as good as non-existant. We aren’t really supposed to load them on the truck to begin with or transport them if they might not survive the trip, but I imagine it’s of economic benefit to the farmer to get as many of the cows to slaughter as possible.

There are also no laws in place in Canada that restrict the slaughter of downer cattle for food. So what economic incentives are there for a farmer to keep his milk machines healthy until they reach the slaughterhouse? Very little, especially if keeping the cows healthy means spending extra money.

In addition, the Canadian “Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals” are entirely voluntary. There is no law governing the transport and handling of farm animals.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association is complicit in allowing this:

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association’s position statement regarding nonambulatory livestock states “If the animal is to be moved to a suitable processing facility, a veterinary inspection of the nonambulatory animal must be performed on the premises of origin. The animal must be accompanied by an antemortem veterinary certificate declaring whether the animal can or cannot be humanely loaded, that the animal is fit for slaughter and that the owner has observed all applicable withdrawal times for drugs used. The loading and transportation of nonambulatory animals must be performed in a manner to avoid pain, suffering and distress to the animal and upon arrival at the processing facility the animal must be humanely stunned or euthanized on the vehicle prior to unloading. Equipment currently being used includes slide boards and mats, forklifts, front-end loaders, hand carts, slings, “cow caddys” and stone boats or sleds. In those situations where the nonambulatory animal is passed for slaughter, but where the veterinarian deems loading and transportation inhumane, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association recommends on-farm slaughter. Nonambulatory animals deemed unfit for slaughter should be humanely euthanized on-farm and the carcass disposed of in accordance with local regulations.” (from the CFIA website)

Note the part where they describe the use of “forklifts, front-end loaders, hand carts, slings, ‘cow caddys’ and stone boats or sleds” as ways to move a cow without causing pain. Forklifts? A couple of years ago HSUS got some footage from a slaughterhouse that was using front-end loaders and forklifts to move downer cows to the slaughterhouse. It was horrific. I don’t even understand how the CVMA can stand by and allow sick and injured animals to be hauled about as if they are already carcasses without medical care. Veterinarians should be doctors for animals, not apologists for the meat and dairy industry.

Everyone who drinks milk needs to realize that they are supporting this system. Everytime we put milk in our coffee or grab a yogurt from the fridge we are saying, “Yes, please impregnate this cow so that she will produce milk in larger than natural amounts. Then when she’s not as profitable send her to slaughter, transporting her long distances across multiple province. I approve of how the system works. ”

And we all should probably be pretty bothered that our tax dollars are being used to support industries that make a profit on the suffering and exploitation of animals.

Do Californian chickens have rights?

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

In November 2008, Californians voted against the worst confinement systems in animal agriculture. An overwhelming 63% of voters gave permission to farm animals to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The Proposition 2 victory is extremely important because it shows that the majority of the people do not approve of the current system of industrial animal agriculture. At the same time though, it is sad to think that we are declaring victory over the fact that millions of animals are now “liberated” by gaining a few inches of space inside their cages.

4751_86776639309_516524309_1666017_1916643_n1Coincidentally, during the same election, Proposition 8 was also passed, banning gay marriage in California. Living in Canada where gay marriage is as common and legal as non-gay marriage, the kerfuffle over this issue seems surreal. I don’t think I’m alone when I say I found the ballot initiative to be offensive and distasteful. And the fact that it passed served as a stinging reminder of the deep prejudice against LGBT people that is still very common. To me, this type of prejudice, like cruelty to animals, should never be tolerated.

The outcome of the election gave rise to the argument that chickens now have more rights than gays in California. But is that really true? Does Proposition 2 give RIGHTS to farm animals?

98% of all of our eggs come from this

98% of all of our eggs come from this

Today’s industrial farming system is so cruel that nothing else in history can compare. An egg laying hen spends her entire miserable life inside a small cage with 5-7 other inmates. She stands on a slanted wire-bottomed floor while being defecated on by other hens above her. A breeding sow, probably smarter than most dogs, is locked up in a cage so small that she is unable to take a step forward or backward. She stays like this for her entire life and goes insane from the extreme confinement and lack of mental stimulation.

Thanks to Prop 2, these animals will no longer have to endure the most extreme forms of confinement. But it is a far cry from having any rights.

This leads me to wonder what California would look like if chickens were actually granted rights. First off, chickens would not have to worry about being locked up, beaten, strung up, mutilated and murdered at 6 weeks of age – or EVER. And if they can talk, they would say “screw prop 2, I don’t just want more leg room, I want out of this cage and into an air conditioned sanctuary. And no one better steal any of my kids for no stinking breakfast sandwiches!”

For a chicken, the end is all the same

For a chicken, the end is all the same

But as it stands, even with the help of Prop 2, chickens have no rights. They are still treated more horribly than any slave in history. Can anyone truly and sincerely feel animosity towards chickens for getting a bit more leg room?

Native People and the Seal Hunt

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

Well, it’s that time of year again.  The Canadian Seal Hunt starts in about a month and a half. I refer, of course, to the annual slaughter of about 300,000 baby harp seals.

I think that a lot of the people who actually support the Canadian Seal Hunt are understandably confused by the concept that it is, at least in part, a sustainable native hunt.

It is not, not even remotely.

The species targeted during the hunt are baby HARP seals (and occasionally hooded seals), most of them between 12 days and 3 months old.  (Yes, it is still legal to hunt baby seals, despite what the government might tell us.  beater sealThey have only made it illegal to kill pups 11 days and younger!)  About 325,000 are killed every March and April.  Native people, on the other hand, prefer to hunt adult RING seals.  They kill just 10,000 per year, and they actually HUNT them.  To quote Arnaituk M. Tarkirk, an Inuit man from Kuujjuak, Quebec:

“We are skillful hunters who hunt adult animals for food, That is not the same as bashing a pup, which can’t move, over the head.”

He even goes so far as to hypothesize that the end of the Canadian Seal Hunt would actually BENEFIT the native population:

The bloody aftermath of seal hunting“There would be 180,000 more seals left for us to eat when they are a few years older, and also people would not have such an aversion to sealskin products as they have after seeing the way they kill the pups, so craft work made with adult seals would be more popular.” (source)

Meanwhile, NativeRadio.com has also come out against the seal hunt:

“There is a difference in an indigenous culture’s right to hunt for food and economic survival, and the non-indigenous Newfoundlander’s massive slaughter of defenseless animals for profit and vanity!” (source)

The Canadian government, of course, doesn’t care.  They just want the seal hunt to continue, but the work of activists for the past few decades has made it basically a pariah in the global community.  To counter this, they had to come up with a scheme to appeal to “a poorly informed and emotional public”.  Yes, they actually said that.  More specifically, Brian Roberts, a senior advisor to the Canadian Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, said that, in a speech.  He also said:

“The first step was to neutralize the appeal of the animal protection lobby.  To accomplish this it was necessary to mount an equally emotionally powerful counter-appeal…based on the survival needs of aboriginal communities which depended upon the continuing taking of fur-bearing animals.” (source)

I am not native myself, but I find it disgusting and exploitative that the Canadian government, which on the whole has been totally dismissive in regards to the concerns of aboriginal people, is now claiming to be their champion.

If you want to read some of the most frequently asked questions in regards to the seal hunt (what happens to the meat?  what about the cod?) check them out here: http://liberationbc.org/issues/seal_hunt

A mother and child seal