Pakistani animal handling barbarism – business as usual

.

Australia’s Agriculture Minister, Senator Joe Ludwig, says Australia’s live export program works well and will continue, despite the brutal culling of up to 10,000 Australian sheep in Pakistan in recent weeks.

Senator Ludwig said his department would conduct a full investigation into the latest animal welfare incident, in which thousands of Australian sheep were clubbed, stabbed and buried alive in the town of Karachi on suspicion they were diseased with anthrax and salmonella.

“(Live exports) continues to be a very good trade for Australia. It continues to support jobs and opportunity in rural Australia, it continues to provide employment. All of that means that it is an effective trade and quite a good trade,” Senator Ludwig told ABC radio.

Middle East profitable markets for Australian Sheep – no wonder!

Video has emerged of thousands of Australian sheep being brutally culled in Pakistan with the export company that transported the animals, Wellard, describing it as “disturbing”.

A total of 21,000 sheep arrived in Karachi earlier this month after they were given a positive health check by Pakistan and Australian government officials. They were originally destined for Bahrain but were rejected by the Arab kingdom after they were found to have the common scabby mouth disease.

Local authorities in Karachi said the culling of up to 10,000 sheep was ordered because (they claimed) the animals had salmonella and anthrax.

The owner of the sheep PK Livestock has lodged a court injunction to prevent the remaining animals being killed and a ruling on their future is due to be handed down today.

The owner, and Australian officials, have questioned the finding that the animals were diseased.

2007:  Australian Sheep dying under 45 Degrees Celsius under Oman sheep traders

.

Paul Morris, acting deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, said this morning if the animals had been infected with anthrax they would have died within 48 hours and so any potential disease could not have come from Australia.

“From our view point when the animals left Australia they were perfectly healthy, they certainly had no major diseases,” Mr Morris told ABC radio.

“When they arrived in Bahrain and even before that when they were offloaded in Oman there were certainly no issues. We had a vet on board all the way through who was checking the health and the animals seemed fine throughout the voyage.

“If they did have anthrax they would have died or they would have contracted it in Pakistan rather than during the voyage or before they left Australia.”

.

.

Portland – Australia’s hub of Agricultural Immorality

.

Australian Agriculture – live up to Australian moral standards!

Since industry self-regulation can’t be trusted, ban all live animal export!

.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘Another Bloody Business‘,  by Sarah Ferguson and Deb Masters (investigative journalists), Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Four Corners Programme (TV), 20121107,  ^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/11/02/3623727.htm

.

[2]   ‘Live Animal Export Indefensible‘, Animals Australia, ^http://liveexport-indefensible.com/

.

[3]   Animals Australia main website,  ^http://www.animalsaustralia.org/

.

[4]  Australian Government principles on Live Animal Export,  Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ^http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/export-trade

(Reproduced as follows…before the government website is deleted)

.

Live Animal Export Trade

The live export industry is an important part of Australia’s vibrant and growing livestock industry. In 2009 the live export sector earned $996.5 million and underpinned the employment of around 10 000 people in rural and regional Australia.

Australia leads the world in animal welfare practices. The Australian Government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and will not compromise on animal welfare standards. Our ongoing involvement in the livestock export trade provides an opportunity to influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries.

The government and the livestock export industry are working cooperatively with our trading partners to address post-arrival welfare concerns and to improve the transportation, handling and slaughter practices of livestock in overseas markets. The Department is jointly funding a number of projects with the live export industry to improve infrastructure and training to promote better animal handling and slaughter practices. Australia is the only country that requires specific animal welfare outcomes for livestock exports. Our ongoing involvement in this trade provides an opportunity to influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries.

In 2003 a broad-ranging investigation into Australia’s livestock export industry chaired by Dr John Keniry recommended a range of initiatives to improve animal welfare conditions in the livestock export trade including better infrastructure to reduce livestock stress or injury and training for feedlot, abattoir and transport staff in overseas markets.

In the 2009-10 Budget, the government announced the Live Trade Animal Welfare Partnership, which will invest $3.2 million over three years, including $1.6 million from the government with matching support from Australian producers and livestock exporters to further improve animal welfare in, and support trade with, overseas markets. The Government has also introduced legislation that provides stronger regulation of the livestock export industry. This includes a requirement to comply with the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock.

This legislation was an important step by the Government to overhaul the livestock export trade. Arrangements to ensure exported animals are well treated during road and sea transportation are an important part of the standards. Ships must comply with strict rules about ventilation, drainage and provision of water and food. Each animal must have access to food and water on demand and enough space to lie down, and there must be special pens for sick animals to receive veterinary care.

Under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997, a report on the carriage of livestock on any sea voyage to a port outside of Australia must be tabled in each House of Parliament every 6 months. The reports to Parliament are based on the total voyage mortalities for each voyage. Some voyages include several consignments for different exporters, so it is possible for a consignment to experience a high mortality incident, but for the outcome of other consignments on the same voyage to be under the reportable mortality level. For this reason, some of the consignment mortality events may not appear in the report to Parliament, which is tabled every six months.

The Australia Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) investigates all consignments which record a reportable mortality event.

A reportable mortality event occurs in a consignment if the mortality rate is equal to, or exceeds, the reportable level specified in the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL). For cattle, sheep and goats these levels are:

• Sheep and goats: 2%
• Cattle voyages greater than or equal to ten days (long haul): 1%
• Cattle voyages less than ten days (short haul): 0.5%

More information about AQIS mortality investigations.

Mortality rates have fallen in recent years. Between 2000 and 2010 the average mortality rate for short haul cattle fell from 0.09% to 0.04%, the average mortality rate for long haul cattle from 0.42% to 0.28%, the average mortality rate for sheep has fallen from 1.34% to 0.91% and the average mortality rate for goats has fallen from 1.98% to 0.69%. The government’s policy is to bring about further improvements.

Australia has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with ten countries in the Middle East and Africa region and negotiations continue with other trading partners in the region. A key element of these MOUs is that animals be unloaded on arrival regardless of their health status. The MOUs also allow us to help our trading partners improve post arrival handling and slaughter through cooperative activities based around improving animal welfare.

Australia has also signed an MOU with Egypt on Handling and Slaughter of Australian Live Animals. This MOU requires that international animal welfare standards be applied to the handling of Australian livestock (sheep and cattle) as well as some specific handling requirements for Australian cattle.

Suggestions that the live trade could be completely replaced by chilled and frozen meat fails to take into account the requirements of the market. While Australia has developed a significant trade in meat products, the lack of refrigeration and cold chain facilities, as well as strong cultural preferences for freshly slaughtered meat precludes Australia from servicing all of its export markets with processed meat products.

.

.

The Human Pathogen is now at 7 Billion. 

.

“The high projection variant, whose fertility is just half a child above that in the medium variant, produces a world population of 10.6 billion in 2050 and 15.8 billion in 2100.”

.

Australia’s Prime Minister Gillard’s Labor-Greens Coalition is facilitating an open drawbridge working to irresponsibly encourage free-flow illegal immigration.

But Australia’s real big picture on overpopulation is through Sydney and Melbourne International Airports, where Labor’s 200,000 annual immigration intake policy adds 5.6 million tonnes of CO2 per annum to Australia’s global contribution.

THE CALCULATION:

The average Australian on a per capita basis is said to emit about 28 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, based on the accredited Garnaut Review.

Labor-Greens Coalition current national immigration policy of 190,000 per year, plus allowing for The Greens Party’s encouraged 7,000 boat illegals p.a. at the current rate (2883 arrivals for 2012 to May) , plus allowing for visa overstays, so say Australia’s net immigration is 200,000 per year.

This translates to Labor-Greens Coalition immigration policy adds 5.6 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 emissions per year (200,000 x 28 tonnes each).
“In the twelve months to June 2009, Australia’s emissions were an estimated 544 Mt CO2-e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).”

So roughly, the Labor-Greens Coalition Immigration Policy systemically adds 1% of CO2 emissions per year (CALC:  5.6Mt/544Mt).

Labor-Greens Coalition’s long-winded and over-promising Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency hyping: “The Australian Government is strongly committed to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution… The plan to move to a Clean Energy Future will cut pollution by at least 5% compared with 2000 levels by 2020”

But Labor-Greens Coalition’s blind immigration policy adds 5.6Mt (1%) per year to 2020, which becomes a total of 20% by 2020.  So Labor-Greens Coalition’s hype of 5% reduction is counteracted by 20% more from immigration. So by 2020, Australia will have an extra 15% CO2 emissions! And that doesn’t factor in all the breeding over the next 20 years.

CONCLUSION: The Carbon Tax and CO2 reduction efforts and costs are wasteful and futile, while immigration remains as it is.

On Climate Change, the Australian Labor Party has been hoodwinked into extreme groupthink, akin to naive teenagers being lured to join the Church of Scientology under clever false pretenses.

In Australia, jobs are being lost, pollution continues and no-one is benefiting from Labor’s idealistic and unpragmatic Climate Change policy, all the while the Australian Labor Party maximises export of its greenhouse gas emitting coal to China, Japan, India and Europe.  It’s like trying to export coal and pretend it is exempt from the Climate Change KPIs.

Labor is politically playing at crusading feudalism – taxing local peasants to fund costly mis-adventures abroad.

Gillard yesterday gifted $1, 000, 000,000 of struggling Australian taxpayers to Afghanistan.   This woman is dangerous with Australia’s national overdraft account!

.

‘Labor’s Carbon Tax is tokenistic, futile and domestically corrosive, so long as Australia exports coal’.

Pollution is a human manifestation without debate.

‘Pollution’ remains still the big problem,

.

Pollution is still caused by heavy industry, road transport and by high per-capita consumption.  Combined they contribute to wildlife extinctions – but try finding a PhD funded by NPWS on this?  Where is our Pollution Policy?  Where is our Population Policy?

.

The following article is sourced from ‘Missing peace in forest war’s coupe de grace‘ by Matthew Denholm, The Australian, 20111022,
^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/missing-peace-in-forest-wars-coupe-de-grace/story-e6frg6z6-122617.

Forestry clearfell of old-growth in Tasmania’s Styx Valley

 .

More than two months (on 7th August 2011) after the landmark deal that promised to bring peace to Tasmania’s forests the protests – and the logging – continue unabated.

Funding for the struggling timber industry under the landmark $276 million Gillard-Giddings deal is starting to trickle out, but as yet not one tree has been saved!

Conservationists concede they may end up with nothing to show for 18 months of torturous negotiations, while many in the industry are sceptical that the promised peace will ever be achieved. The key decisions – on how many and which forests will be saved – are bogged down in difficult detail and alleged recalcitrance.  Tasmania’s upper house, meanwhile, is lining up to sink the legislation needed to create the new national parks and reserves.

Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger (right) with The Wilderness Society’s Vica Bayley

 .

A key conservationist and negotiator, Environment Tasmania director Phill Pullinger, concedes to Inquirer that events could conspire to see money flow to industry without one tree ever being saved.

“To be honest, it is a possibility,” says Pullinger, a Hobart doctor and former young Tasmanian of the year. “It has always been the case that the forest protection couldn’t be permanently delivered until the legislation goes through both houses of the Tasmanian parliament.”

.

That vote is a long way off, probably well into next year. The most immediate hurdle to overcome is a row over whether the state-owned Forestry Tasmania should be allowed to continue logging in 41 coupes (forest areas).  All are within 430,000ha of forests set aside for “immediate” interim protection in the Gillard-Giddings deal of August 7, known as the Forests Intergovernmental Agreement or IGA.

Forestry Tasmania insists it needs to log in these coupes, a fraction of the total area, to maintain existing contracts to timber mills. Conservationists argue Forestry Tasmania could and should reschedule logging to less ecologically significant forests.  The dispute was being sorted out by an independent rescheduling team appointed by state and federal governments. Inquirer has learned this process has gone badly for conservationists, with only seven of the 41 coupes able to be protected and five already logged. Forestry Tasmania and industry claim there simply is not time to do the rescheduling work – new roads, development of forest practices plans – necessary to shift to new areas quickly enough to meet existing timber contracts.

.

‘It is a fundamental problem that has weakened the (peace) process: you’ve got a government agency that is essentially working against the agreement. And the governments haven’t shown the stomach to pull the agency into line.’’

Conservationists claim this should have been done months ago, given that Forestry Tasmania was asked by the state government – its owner –  to place a moratorium on logging in these forests in March.

“They (FT) have basically for 12 months now deliberately spun the wheels on that; there could easily have been a moratorium delivered six or nine months ago,” Pullinger says. “It is a fundamental problem that has weakened the (peace) process: you’ve got a government agency that is essentially working against the agreement. And the governments haven’t shown the stomach to pull the agency into line.”

.

This is rare intemperate talk from Pullinger, normally diplomatic and restrained as he tries to keep his constituency in the peace tent and the process on track.

It’s a sign things are not going well.  Forestry Tasmania, a government business enterprise that reports to a board and is not necessary bound by ministerial direction, denies it has been dragging the chain. While it is the party with the most to lose – up to 572,000ha of native forest it manages for timber production – corporate relations manager Ken Jeffreys insists it is acting in good faith.

“Some people out there seem to think that FT has some maniacal glint in their eye and go out and harvest forests when it has no market because it has nothing better to do,” Jeffreys complains to Inquirer. “That is so far from common sense it’s hard to respond to.“

He insists Forestry Tasmania is happy to abide by the independent reschedulers’ verdict and points out that it has already rescheduled logging out of some contentious coupes.  This fight over a handful of coupes has been holding up plans under the IGA for an overall immediate interim conservation agreement between the state, Forestry Tasmania and Canberra to protect the 430,000ha. Under the IGA, this interim agreement would protect those forests while an independent verification team determines the final size and location of the new permanent reserves.

Ancient Myrtle Beech  (Nothofagus cunninghamii)

.

IGA Independent Verification Team

.

The independent team, overseen by academic Jonathan West, will decide how much forest, of a larger 572,000ha nominated by green groups, is worthy of protection.  West’s team will also test industry claims about how much timber it requires to meet existing contracts. Then it must decide how much forest can be protected while providing this resource.  The job, which unrealistically is due to be completed by December 31, is the “forest wars” equivalent of deciding where exactly the boundaries of a Palestinian state should be drawn.

Conservation groups believe that most – if not all – of the 572,000ha can be protected, once a developing plantation resource is factored in.

.

Forestry Tasmania’s position

.

Forestry Tasmania stands by its modelling suggesting that no more than 300,000ha can be protected if it is to deliver on current timber contracts. Some in the industry believe only 250,000ha can be saved from the chainsaws.  Neither of the industry figures is unlikely to be enough for conservationists, but may well be too much for Tasmania’s independent-dominated upper house.  Several recent votes in the Legislative Council suggest it is opposed to the IGA and to more forest “lock-ups”.  Its refusal to pass the reserves would leave conservationists relying on a federal-state conservation agreement to protect those forests.

While such an agreement would ban logging, it is legally uncertain if Forestry Tasmania could ignore this on the basis that it conflicts with its legislative or contractual obligations.

Jeffreys insists Forestry Tasmania would abide by any final agreement, subject to being able to meet those commitments – a big out if Forestry Tasmania decided to dig in for a battle.

.

Tony Burke’s position:

.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke

Despite the difficulties, federal Environment Minister Tony Burke remains confident he can pull off the kind of final “win-win” forest peace deal that has eluded so many of his predecessors.  He tells Inquirer the alternative is a kind of mutually assured destruction, whereby the forests continue to fall as fast as the jobs.

The number of jobs in Tasmanian forestry has halved since 2008 from 6960 to 3460, due mainly to Japanese paper-makers boycotting woodchips sourced from native forests, Gunns exiting the industry in favour of a plantation-based pulp mill and as a result of the high Australian dollar.

“If you let the markets sort this one out without a co-ordinated strategy from state and federal government … then you end up with a terrible outcome for the Tassie economy … diabolical,” Burke says.

Initially as Forests minister and more recently as Environment Minister, Burke has been involved in the process from the beginning.  The first in federal cabinet to twig to the potential to assist industry while securing a historic conservation outcome, he has repeatedly slipped quietly into Tasmania to do his own field work.

The former staffer to Graham Richardson has camped with greenies amid the giant eucalypts of the Styx Valley and toured sawmills and production forests.  When the process has looked as if it were imploding, he has intervened with all sides to keep it on track. Inspired to join the ALP by landmark conservation battles such as the Daintree and Kakadu, Burke constantly stresses his desire to also secure a good outcome for jobs and industry.

He believes the (Tasmanian)  Legislative Council will take a different view to new reserves when details are developed for a $120m federal regional development fund promised under the IGA.  That money, to revitalise timber communities and diversify the Tasmanian economy, is contingent upon state parliament passing the new reserves legislation. No reserves; no $120m.

Burke, himself a former state upper house MP (in NSW), believes this cash for regions will ultimately win over the key 12 independent MLCs.

“Those MPs will have to look in the eyes of a whole lot of their constituents who are out of work and justify their actions,” he says. “I just don’t believe when it comes to it they’ll vote this down.  This is the first time we have tried to deal with this issue with an independent process rather than a political fix. The irony this time is: can we stop politics from wrecking it, not from fixing it?”

He warns both sides will need to accept the outcome of the independent verification process. “They are honour-bound to accept the process – they created it,” he says.

This suggests Canberra will not be afraid to impose the verdict of the independent verification team if the two sides cannot embrace it – or at least an agreed variation of it. Such action may well see either side – timber or conservation – walk away.

Certainly, Pullinger won’t promise to accept the outcome if it is not embraced by both sides.

“If the independent verification group comes down and says … we are going to protect just a fraction of these forests … then – expert group or not – I don’t think anyone believes that is going to be able to deliver a lasting agreement.”

.

Editor: 

The IGA deal is a deal is a promise.   Why are Gillard and Giddings allowing Forestry Tasmania to renege on the deal by continuing to log these now protected native forests in Tasmania’s Styx Valley and southern forests.  Why are Gillard and Giddings breaking their promise to Tasmanians?

IGA interim reserves are IGA interim reserves?  The IGA offers millions in contractual compensation.  So take the compensation Bob Gordon!  You can’t have your compensation and interim reserves too!

Leave the bloody old growth alone!

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, 2011

.

Evidence of new logging despite Tasmanian Forests Agreement

.

.

Environment Tasmania, the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation have released a report assessing the status of logging in important native forests and photographs that show new logging activity in forest reserves prescribed by the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).

“The settlement and retirement of Gunns’ native forest timber quotas has halved the demand for native forest timber from Forestry Tasmania, so there is no need or justification for logging within the forest reserve areas,” said Dr Phill Pullinger of Environment Tasmania.

“Wood supply for remaining sawmills can be provided from outside of the important native forests identified for protection,” Dr Pullinger said.

“Aerial photographs taken in late August and last week show Forestry Tasmania continues to log inside the 430,000 hectares of unique and important forests identified for immediate protection in the IGA,” said Vica Bayley of the Wilderness Society.

“In fact, our report and the new photos show Forestry Tasmania has not rescheduled logging outside this area and has even commenced logging new coupes since the IGA was signed.

“While we are encouraged to see progress on key components of the intergovernmental agreement — including the retirement of Gunns’ wood quota, funding for timber workers and contractors and the independent verification group — we have seen no progress on halting logging inside the nominated forest reserve areas,” Mr Bayley said.

“Environment groups again call on the state government to honour the agreement it has signed by directing Forestry Tasmania to declare the nominated forests as informal reserves and immediately appointing an independent expert to undertake the rescheduling,” said Denise Boyd of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The report released today is part of environment group signatories’ ongoing commitment to implementing the IGA and will provide governments with verified, accurate information to help achieve the forest protection outcomes of the IGA. The state government must now ensure delivery of the critical plank of the IGA – forest protection.

 “We have seen no progress on halting logging inside the nominated forest reserve areas.”

.

Forest protest continues in Mount Mueller Forest, Styx Valley (Tree Sit, Day 7)

.

Check out The ObserverTree protest website:

^http://observertree.org/

.