DawnWatch Australia

DawnWatch Australia: Huge article in The Age on zoos -- January 19, 2008

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:55:00 GMT

Aussies,
The following thoughtful lead article, from Saturday's January 19 edition of The Age, opens the door for letters to the editor from animal advocates. My thanks to Lisa Kane for making sure we saw it.
The Age takes letters at letters@theage.com.au and advises, "All letters and email (no attachments) to The Age must carry the sender's home address and day and evening phone numbers for verification. ...Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words."

Here's the article:

The Age (Melbourne, Australia)
January 19, 2008 Saturday
First Edition

Animal rights & wrongs;
TROUBLE AT THE ZOO

Royce Millar and Cameron Houston - Royce Millar is an Age investigative reporter. Cameron Houston is city reporter

INSIGHT; Pg. 1
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/animal-rights-and-wrongs/2008/01/18/1200620207184.html

Melbourne Zoo is fending off accusations that conservation and animal welfare are taking a back seat to exhibits that entertain.

ONE of the first exhibits you encounter as you enter Melbourne Zoo is an empty, iron-barred cage. Built for orang-utans in 1927, the concrete-floored coop is a reminder of what used to be: animals behind bars, freezing or sweltering in their own faeces and urine, children outside gawking and chucking peanuts.

The enclosure, says a plaque, belongs to an era when animals were "objects of curiosity and displayed in cages which paid little heed to their true needs". It is meant to sit in contrast to the contemporary zoo, with its re-created rainforests, faux jungle and Thai village, elaborate butterfly show and improved orang-utan sanctuary.

Management insists the zoo is now an enlightened hub of animal-centred education, conservation and research. But allegations of physical abuse and animal neglect, and a deep rift among staff, management and outside experts about policy and direction, have raised troubling questions for Australia's oldest zoological gardens. The debate about animals in captivity is a live one.

Like all public institutions, zoos embody the values of a society at any given time. From private menageries for amusement and displays of wealth in ancient Egypt, Greece and China, they have evolved into publicly managed institutions that emphasise education and conservation.

The evolution is incomplete, however, and zoos now find themselves torn by competing forces. Animal rights lobbies pressure them to be more caring but economic rationalism demands they stand on their own feet financially. This means a tendency to talk conservation, say critics, while the turnstiles remain core business. Evidence for this can be found in what the zoo's former senior curator, Peter Stroud, calls the "Disney effect" - the creation of more, and ever more elaborate, "blockbuster" exhibits aimed at getting more paying customers through the gate.

In a sense Melbourne Zoo - and it is not alone - says as much about humans as the other species it houses. It is an exhibit of human attitudes to animals, and of the unresolved battles between conservationists and economic conservatives.

Everyone The Age has interviewed acknowledges the big advances in animal care the zoo has made in recent decades. Animal welfare campaigner and RSPCA Victorian president Dr Hugh Wirth applauds Melbourne for dragging itself out of a "Victorian-era" circus-like mentality. Still, he says, the zoo has a long way to go.

Australians have tended to distinguish between domestic and farm animals on the one hand, and wild animals on the other. Domestic animals have had individual rights recognised, with Government standards applied. Wild animals are viewed collectively, with protection of the species, not the individual, the only concern. There is little regulation in Victoria for the handling of captive wild animals.

But Wirth says community views and expectations are changing, with big implications for zoos. The zoo concedes as much. In its corporate plan for 2007 to 2012 it looks ahead 50 years to foresee "community attitudes fully against keeping animals in cages for human amusement".

Paradoxically, the growing recognition of individual animals comes as the individualist market philosophy that dominates Western economics seems to be pressuring zoos to do the opposite.

Even the State Government - to which Zoos Victoria, as a statutory body, is accountable - acknowledges the dilemma. "Commercial requirements to maintain 'attractive' animals or provide for 'contact' experience may override objectives such as providing representative collections and meeting animal-welfare needs," warns the obscure 2000 parliamentary inquiry into the state's native animals and plants.

By virtue of their historic entertainment role, it seems, zoos are expected to generate more of their own income than institutions such as museums, galleries and public parks. In Melbourne, admission to the National Gallery is free for adults and children. At the Museum of Victoria it is $6 for adults, children free. Adult entry to the zoo is $23, children $11.

And Zoos Victoria gets less government support than other Australian zoos, including the larger Taronga Zoo in Sydney. Of Zoos Victoria's total income in 2007, just 24% was from Government grants, down from 37% in 1991. Taronga relied on Government grants for 42% of income last year.

Melbourne Zoo struggled in recent decades - in 2001-2002 its visitor numbers were declining by about 2 % a year - but the decline has been reversed. Last year more than 1.6 million visitors went to the three zoo venues, a record for the past 15 years.

A crucial factor in the turnaround has been management's determination to make the zoo more exciting, including the $15 million Trail of the Elephant enclosure, the $6 million orang-utan enclosure and the multimillion-dollar butterfly exhibit. A new $20 million Stories from the Sea marine precinct is on the way. Other proposals being discussed by management and staff include a Cage of Death that would give visitors frighteningly close ringside seats to big cats feeding.

Zoo acting chief executive Matt Vincent is proud of the turnaround and makes no apology for the zoo becoming "more accessible" to the community. "Our vision is to connect people and wildlife together." He says the health of the zoo business is good. "Of course the more prosperous and healthy we are as a business the more we can reinvest in revitalising the zoo."

That revitalisation, say critics, including former senior staff and current staff, is overly focused on human thrills rather than the animals.

The zoo's former strategic planning director David Hancocks says that with limited philanthropic support available, the Melbourne Zoo has repeatedly gone to government for capital grants, always arguing that new, exciting exhibits will attract more paying visitors and help make the zoo self-sufficient. "It is a circular logic. This approach for years has led the zoo executive and board down the wrong path," he says.

Zoo insiders say the preoccupation with money-spinning attractions was especially prevalent under American former chief executive Laura Mumaw.

It contributed, say the critics, to a climate racked by low morale, and tension between management and staff and within upper management. The Age believes the zoo board decided late last year that the zoo administration had become unworkable under Mumaw. She left after eight years at the helm when her contract expired in November last year.

Hancocks says he left in 2003 disillusioned because he could no longer tolerate the corporate approach of Mumaw and the business-dominated board. He says the new "bean-counter mentality" resulted in a narrow focus on attendance figures, rather than animal welfare.

Vincent disagrees and insists animals, not money, come first. "Zoos Victoria absolutely has the best interests of the health and welfare of our animals at heart and we would never compromise that."

He acknowledges the zoo has undergone much change due to "unprecedented investment" in new exhibits and other programs. "That change has been exciting and revitalising for a lot of staff, but there are some people who have struggled with that change."

Always braced for controversy and criticism, zoos are notoriously defensive organisations. At Melbourne, staff are either frightened to, or contractually bound not to, speak out. The zoo now requires staff to sign confidentiality agreements, known as "deeds of release", silencing them even after they have left the zoo's employ.

Wariness of the world beyond the zoo walls is intensified in an era when vocal animal rights proponents question the very existence of zoos. Under such questioning, conservation and biodiversity work, rather than entertainment of the masses, tends to be zoos' first line of defence. Zoos Victoria is able to reel off a long list of conservation, breeding and wildlife recovery projects with which it is involved. It has been lauded in the past for recovery work with the striped legless lizard. Species in conservation breeding programs at Healesville Sanctuary include orange-bellied parrots, helmeted honeyeaters, brush-tailed rock wallabies, mountain pygmy possums and eastern barred bandicoots. Australian zoos are renowned internationally for their breeding work with Sumatran tigers, a critically endangered sub-species. Still, zoo insiders and other experts say conservation takes a back seat to entertainment. In 2004, for instance, Melbourne Zoo management undertook a major restru
cture and scaled back its conservation and research department, which led to the departure of several high-profile staff.

Former conservation and research director Peter Temple-Smith did not have his contract renewed after the 2004 review. He says the zoo's board and marketing department often failed to recognise the importance of conservation, particularly of smaller native animals. "If it's not a big animal program in the Serengeti, then the zoo sometimes struggles to see the point."

Zoologist and former Melbourne Zoo employee of 19 years Peter Myroniuk was another casualty. He resigned after being overlooked for a job similar to his own in the 2004 shake-up. "The idea (of the restructure) was to replace conservation staff with keepers with a keener sense of the business side of things," he says.

In recent years the catalyst for these debates has been elephants. Just over 12 months ago, three Thai elephants were brought to Melbourne to join long-time residents Bong Su and Mek Kapah. The importation of the elephants - another five went to Taronga Zoo - sparked a domestic and international controversy, including a protracted legal challenge from animal welfare groups, protests in Thailand and the spending of as much as $50 million, including on the creation of special enclosures at Taronga and Melbourne.

Under international guidelines, wild animals can only be imported for conservation reasons. The zoos managed to convince the Howard government that conservation was, indeed, their primary motive. Yet the zoos have struggled to explain to a wider audience how, exactly, this conservation works.

Animal welfare campaigners, including the RSPCA's Hugh Wirth, scoff at the conservation claims, pointing out that elephants have never bred in captivity in Australia and, even if they did, their offspring would not be sent back to the wild.

While employed at the zoo, Hancocks was involved in discussions about the Thai elephants. He says there is no doubt their importation was "first and foremost a commercial venture". He says that for a fraction of what was spent on the new elephant exhibits, the two zoos could have protected thousands of hectares of elephant habitat in the wild. "This would have been real conservation."

Zoo acting chief executive Matt Vincent responds that the funding from government was specifically for enclosures and so would not have been available for habitat. He says another problem with direct funding of habitat is that it may protect it for only five or 10 years. The zoo's elephant program is about long-term investment and partnership with the community, he says. The zoo hopes to breed the elephants, although Vincent acknowledges that at this stage the breeding would be for zoos only. He says a "viable captive herd" would act as an insurance against "catastrophic declines in the wild".

Former senior zoo curator and now zoo consultant Peter Stroud was in charge of the elephant program in the early 2000s and also party to discussions about the Thai elephants. Stroud now says he questions why, if purchase of the elephants was for conservation and animal welfare, neither Melbourne nor Taronga sent the animals to their respective open-range zoos. "Clearly the box office is an issue," he says. "It's preposterous to pretend that breeding elephants in Australia is some type of contribution to elephant conservation."

Vincent struggles to respond to this. As is often the case with zoos on such matters, he falls back to a second line of defence: education. The implication is that more people will see the elephants, and therefore learn more, at Parkville than at Werribee.

"Zoos are the incubators of the conservationists of tomorrow," he says. "What we're trying to do is capture the hearts and minds of the people to get them involved in the long term." He notes that of the 1.6 million visitors to the three zoos last year, 620,000 students were there for formal learning programs.

WHILE close encounters with wild animals are undoubtedly moving, the merits of zoo education are unproven. New York University environmental studies professor Dale Jamieson, queries the education bona fides of zoos. "Despite the pious platitudes that are often made about the educational efforts of zoos, there is little evidence they are successful in educating people about animals," he concludes in Australian philosopher Peter Singer's 2006 book In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave.

The two zoos stress that the Thai elephants did not come from Eden-like rainforest but from work camps where they were disciplined and worked in chains. The suggestion here is that they are actually better off in Parkville than Thailand. Critics respond that buying elephants from Thailand - even from work camps - only encourages a market in them, and poaching. One senior elephant handler in Thailand says elephants have a much richer life working in Thailand than being cooped up in urban zoos in Australia.

The Trail of the Elephants enclosure at Parkville has won awards and its Thai village, complete with community hall, colourful roadway kiosk and jungle, is a popular enhancement to visitors' zoo experience. Vincent says the zoo would have been criticised had it not redeveloped the previous, outdated elephant enclosure.

Stroud says that through exhibits such as the Trail of the Elephants the zoo is attempting to create a fantasy in which people are taken on an international safari to see animals in their own environment. "In reality all the resources go into the human experience at the expense of the animals. That's the dilemma of zoos around the world. They all do it."

Hancocks helped design the enclosure, which he now says was a mistake. While he believes it to be better than any such exhibit in Australia, he says his study of elephants since has convinced him that no urban enclosure is adequate for them. He likens the enclosure to "being locked in a hotel room with four other people, not of your choosing, for the rest of your life".

Even so, the elephants, tigers, orang-utans and butterflies are the stars of the show at Parkville and, on the face of it, seem to get special attention, and money. The lesser lights such as kangaroos, many of the birds, the pumas, leopards and bears languish in inferior enclosures, some of which have not been upgraded for decades.

Having a big, pink bulbous bottom is a real disadvantage. If you're a baboon at the Melbourne Zoo you get a concrete and wire cage, not much better than the barred cage used as a reminder of the bad old days.

Vincent acknowledges the age of the baboon enclosure but stresses that the care of animals is top class. He says the current group are the happiest he has seen in 20 years at the zoo. Under a long-term plan, all the old enclosures are earmarked for redevelopment, money permitting. Some of the current "collection" of species will no longer be kept at Melbourne as part of a strategy to concentrate on animals from the South-East Asian region.

Despite the ongoing controversy over captive animals, Vincent says zoos will play an ever bigger role in the future, courtesy of disappearing habitat and the species that go with it. "The need to keep animals in captivity will continue to grow and our relevance and value to the community to preserve species, to preserve habitats will increase and strengthen."

This view, that zoos are the modern arks, and zoo professionals the modern Noahs, is common among zoo managers. But if they are to play this ark role then money will continue as a major challenge.

In her 2001 book After the Ark then Australian National University research fellow Nicole Mazur argues that the answer to the dilemma of zoos, money and animal care may be a fundamental rethink of their place in the 21st century. She says zoos should consider abandoning their old-world entertainment role and operate more like museums, galleries or parks, charging little or no admission but relying more on government support.

Hancocks and Stroud call for zoos with less focus on big mammals which, they say, should not be kept in such confined, "impoverished" environments. Stroud says the idea of zoos as places "to see animals" should be replaced by the idea of them as "dynamic interactive environment centres" - more like Scienceworks than a traditional, passive zoo.

Such zoos, he says, should be accountable to the community rather than to a business-dominated board more concerned with performance indicators than biodiversity. "If we need a redefinition of humanity's relationship with nature, we need zoos that are able to help change things, not merely reflect current market demand."

Melbourne-born ethicist and philosopher Peter Singer believes time is probably up for the traditional inner-city zoo such as Melbourne. The question then, Singer told The Age, would become what to do with the animals already in captivity. He says there may be a case for Werribee-style open range zoos if the animals were allowed a varied and active life, or if they seriously face extinction. Otherwise sterilisation is an option to prevent future generations suffering in zoo conditions.

Writing in Singer's book, Dale Jamieson sees the vision of the modern ark as tragic because Noah, after all, found a place for his animals to roam free and thrive. "If zoos are like arks then rare animals are like passengers on a voyage of the damned."

Royce Millar is an Age investigative reporter. Cameron Houston is city reporter.
(End of The Age article)
-------
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. You may forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts if you do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this parenthesized tag line. If somebody forwards DawnWatch alerts to you, which you enjoy, please help the list grow by signing up. It is free.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Fri Jan 18 16:55:01 2008

DawnWatch AUS: ABC's Catalyst on animal loving Eureka nominated scientist -- Thurs 2 August, 2007

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:27:00 GMT

DawnWatch Aussies,
Here is part of this week's promo ABC TV show Catalyst (ABC TV: 8pm Thurs 1:30pm Tues and ABC2: 8pm Wed 5:30pm Fri):
__________________________________________________
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/promo.htm

Two of the best � Nominees for the Australian Museum Eureka Prizes

Every year, the Australian Museum Eureka Prizes recognises the achievements of scientists making a difference to our lives.

In the lead up to �the Oscars of Australian science�, Catalyst will introduce you to the six nominees for the People�s Choice Award to be presented by Graham Phillips. You�ll be able to have your say by voting on-line for the scientist of your choice.

Meet two of best in this week�s Catalyst�

Dr. Francesco Pomati - 2007 Eureka People�s Choice nominee ....

AND

Dr. Hala Raghib - 2007 Eureka People�s Choice nominee

Animal lover Dr. Hala Raghib has developed methods of testing the side-effects of drugs on the heart �without recruiting a single lab rat.

It�s well known that some drugs can have adverse effects on the heart, so testing of medications during their development phase is critical before moving onto clinical trials with humans.

Hala received her Eureka nomination for devising a testing system that predicts what effect non-cardiovascular drugs will have on the heart using human rather than animal cells.

Not only will her technique reduce the number of animals used in drug screening trials, the results themselves are more valid than the conventional animal models.

Producer/Researcher: Ingrid Arnott
__________________________________________________________

If you miss the story on air, you can go to the website and click "Watch Catalyst" to watch it on line.

Please send a quick note thanking ABC for the coverage. Send to catalyst@your.abc.net.au
Enthusiastic responses to animal friendly coverage encourages more of it.

I couldn't tell from the website how to vote for Dr Raghib. Please send me a note if you work it out so I can spread the word to Aussie Catalyst viewers.

I send thanks to David Stenson for making sure we knew about this coverage.

Yours and the animals',
Karen Dawn

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. You may forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts if you do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this parenthesized tag line. If somebody forwards DawnWatch alerts to you, which you enjoy, please help the list grow by signing up. It is free.)

To discontinue DawnWatch alerts go to http://www.DawnWatch.com/nothanks.php

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Wed Aug 1 19:27:51 2007

Animal Law Conference -- University of NSW, 6-7 July 2007

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:44:00 GMT

Aussies,
The following announcement comes from Angela Radich, Chair of the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee -- http://arc.younglawyers.com.au/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2007 Animal Law Conference
The NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee is proud to be hosting Australia's first Animal Law conference at the University of NSW on 6 and 7 July 2007.

The theme of the conference is "The Future of Animal Law in Australia" and our principal aim is to assemble a large network of Animal Law advocates from throughout Australia, as well overseas, with a view to educating each other and exchanging new ideas.

The highlights of the conference will include keynote speakers, thought provoking and stimulating panel sessions (to enable attendees to pose those all important questions) and will be rounded up by a cocktail function to give attendees a real opportunity to meet and share experiences with fellow animal advocates.

While the conference has a legal focus, persons without any legal experience but with a keen interest in animal protection are more than welcome to attend.

Places at the conference are strictly limited and are filling fast. Early registration is advised to secure attendance.
The conference is proudly supported by Voiceless, the fund for animals (http://www.voiceless.org.au/), Animal Liberation NSW and the City of Sydney.

What is Animal Law?
Animal Law consists of those laws that relate to the treatment of animals in our society. In Australia today Animal Law is in its infancy and is largely based on the principle of animal welfare, being the prevention or minimisation of the pain and suffering of animals.

Animal Law as a distinct legal discipline is now well established in countries such as the United States (where it is being offered at over 60 universities, including Harvard, Stanford, NYU and Duke), the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. While still in its fledgling stages in Australia, there is a raft of activity and reforms presently being undertaken which will have wide ranging implications for our country at large. In 2004, the University of NSW became the first Australian university to offer an Animal Law course and similar courses are now being offered by a number of other universities around Australia. The movement has begun�

Speakers
Speakers at the conference will be:

Senator Andrew Bartlett, Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats
Katrina Sharman, Corporate Counsel for Voiceless, the fund for animals
Brian Sherman AM, Co-Founder and Director of Voiceless, the fund for animals
Graeme McEwen, Chair of the Victorian Barristers Animal Welfare Panel
Steven White, Lecturer in Animal Law at Griffith University
Geoffrey Bloom, Lecturer in Animal Law at the University of NSW and Southern Cross University
Paul O'Donnell, Barrister for the RSPCA
Steve Coleman, Deputy CEO RSPCA NSW
Peter Sankoff, Senior Lecturer in Animal Law at the University of Auckland
Deidre Bourke, Co-Chair of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network in New Zealand
John Mancy, Barrister, Casual Lecturer and Member of the Animal Rights Committee
Nichola Donovan, Legal Project Officer and Volunteer Co-ordinator, Lawyers for Animals
Glenys Oogjes, Executive Director of Animals Australia
Lyn White, Communications Director of Animals Australia
Nicolas Patrick, National Pro Bono Director, DLA Phillips Fox
Jessica Wood, Senior Solicitor, Environmental Defender's Office NSW Ltd
Venue
The conference will be held at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
The University is ideally situated 7km from the Sydney CBD and Sydney Airport. It is well serviced by public transport and also offers on-site parking. Parking is free after 7.30pm and on weekends. For the segment of the conference being held on Friday 6 July 2007, all day parking vouchers may be purchased with registration at a cost of $3.30 (Incl. GST). Alternatively, metered parking is available at a rate of $2 per hour.

The University is surrounded by a number of hotels which offer attendees discounted rates. Please visit http://www.venuesandevents.unsw.edu.au/accom/accomindex.html for further details.

Registration
The following registration fees include a conference information pack, morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea and cocktail function:

$240 (Incl. GST) Full Registration
$120 (Incl. GST) Student/Unwaged Registration
Please visit http://www.lawsociety.com.au/uploads/files/1172529252711_0.19556813684047253.pdf to download a conference registration form.

Completed registration forms must be returned to the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Rights Committee (att: Christina Piazza) at Level 6, Law Society Building, 170 Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000 (or DX 362 SYDNEY) by 29 June 2007.

Completed registration forms may also be returned via fax to (02) 9926 0282 or email to arc.conference@younglawyers.com.au.

Online registration is available via the Law Society's Online Shop at http://www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?PartID=15613&CategoryID=18&Step=1. If registering via the Online Shop please remember to include all the information requested in the registration form in the "Additional Info" box.

MCLE Units
Attendees will be entitled to claim a total of 10 MCLE units if attending both days of the conference and if the content of the conference is relevant to their immediate or long term professional development needs and to the practise of law. Further information concerning MCLE units can be obtained by contacting the Law Society of NSW.

Cancellations
Registrants are advised that no refunds will be made for cancellations received after 29 June 2007. Prior to 29 June 2007, any cancellations must be requested in writing and an administration fee of $45 will be charged. NSW Young Lawyers reserves the right to cancel or reschedule the conference or to change speaker programmes.

Tax Invoice
On receipt of your payment an acknowledgement will be forwarded to you confirming your registration. A tax invoice will also be issued automatically in due course. The Law Society ABN is 98 696 304 966.

Further Information
For further information please email arc.conference@younglawyers.com.au or telephone the NSW Young Lawyers office on (02) 9926 0270.

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Sun Jun 10 10:44:44 2007

DawnWatch Australia: Canberra Times cover story on battery hens -- 16 April, 2007

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:42:00 GMT

Aussies, this Canberra Times disturbing cover story present a great opportunity for letters to the editor. The Canberra Time takes letters at http://tinyurl.com/cl8hp

Canberra Times
April 16, 2007 Monday

WHAT NOW FOR BATTERY HENS?
COVER STORY

The Presence of a battery-egg production farm in north Canberra has attracted controversy for well over a decade.

Parkwood Eggs at west Belconnen was ''raided'' by Animal Liberation in 1995, and 14 activists chained themselves to the battery cages. Four were arrested including actress Lynda Stoner. During the ensuing court case, the magistrate did not uphold the charges stating it was ''impossible not to be overwhelmed by the evidence presented (that) producing eggs by means of battery farming hens is inherently cruel to the hens'' and Parkwood Eggs ''were no exception'' to this finding.

Now, a new controversy appears to brewing after a group of residents contacted The Canberra Times to voice concerns over treatment of the 250,000 hens housed at Parkwood. They claim a brief glimpse of a fox alerted them to several emptied battery- hen sheds at Parkwood last week. Taking an evening walk on land bordering the egg production complex, they noticed shed doors were open. They also heard noises that suggested there might be hens inside the open sheds.

What they did next after much discussion and angst over ethics, trespass and moral responsibility wasn't legal but was motivated by concerns over animal welfare. They decided to take a quick look into the sheds to allay fears about foxes getting in and killing hens.

What they claim to have discovered was described to The Canberra Times by members of the group as ''the stuff of nightmares.'' They claim to have found dead hens littered across the shed floors. They also say they saw dozens of hens some with feet so thickly encrusted with manure they could barely walk in manure pits below the emptied cages.

In a shed lined with empty cages, they claim they discovered a lone hen, still locked in a cage, with a crudely lettered sign reading ''Mental case do not remove.'' Members of the group say they were so appalled by the condition of the hens and the stench from the manure pits they decided to ''rescue'' them. They claim they returned with face masks, cartons, pillow cases and a video camera to film conditions in which they found the hens. Pace Farms, the company that owns Parkwood Eggs did not return calls last week from The Canberra Times, requesting comment or clarification on whether the sheds had been routinely ''de-populated'' (cleared of hens, which are sent to slaughter at a poultry abattoir) or if plans were underway to build new cages to comply with new laws to take effect in January 2008. Last Friday, prior to the reshuffle of ACT Government portfolios, a spokeswoman for ACT environment and animal welfare minister John Hargreaves said government inspectors had visite
d Parkwood Eggs last week ''as part of their routine visits.'' She said the inspections had found Parkwood to be operating within laws governing animal welfare as well as environmental laws and guidelines. ''The issues raised by The Canberra Times have not been reported to the government. The government has contacted Parkwood and has found no basis for these allegations,'' she said.

But senior government sources later told The Canberra Times the ACT Government has held several recent discussions with Parkwood Eggs over plans to acquire the land for future urban development, and a compensation package is being negotiated. Parkwood is required to replace its battery cages by January 1, 2008 to meet national standards on minimum cage sizes agreed in 2000 by state, territory and federal governments. Michael Linke, the RSPCA's ACT chief executive, said the organisation would investigate claims that hens had been abandoned and left vulnerable to attack by predators at the Parkwood sheds.

''The RSPCA is fundamentally opposed to hens living in cages and to have Parkwood closed down would be a positive step forward for animal welfare in Canberra.'' A law introduced by the ACT Greens to ban production and sale of battery eggs in the ACT was passed in 1997, but the ban required state agreement to be enacted. Following a Productivity Commission report assessing the economic implications of the ban, the agreement was not given. Linke says battery hens ''live in diabolical conditions'' in wire mesh cages only 40cm high with a floor area per bird of 450cm square ''about three-quarters of the size of an A4 piece of paper.'' The cages do not allow the hens to stand properly, preen their feathers, stretch out or flap their wings. ''Battery hens cannot perch, cannot roost, cannot dustbathe, cannot forage for food, cannot satisfy their urge to lay their eggs in a nest,'' Linke says.

''Preventing hens from performing these natural behaviours causes immense frustration. The restricted movement and lack of exercise in battery cages also causes skeletal and muscle weakness, and the cages' mesh floors and lack of perches can cause serious muscle damage. In short, the scientific evidence indicates that battery hens suffer intensely and continuously throughout their confinement in cages.'' Recent reports by the United Nations and the British-based global group Advocates for Animals have raised doubts about the environmental and health risks of intensive poultry farms.

A report, ''Livestock's Long Shadow'' by the FAO, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, estimates poultry processing is a massive consumer of water, with water use estimated at 1590 litres per bird, making it far more water-intensive that red meat processing. In poultry processing plants, water is used to wash and clean carcasses, including ''hot water scalding of birds prior to defeathering, in water flumes for transporting feathers, heads, feet and viscera and for chilling birds,'' the report says.

The FAO report also says intensive poultry operations in China, Vietnam and Thailand are ''emerging as a major source of nutrient pollution of the South China Sea.'' It also estimates that 25 million tonnes of ocean-caught fish are used each year to manufacture fishmeal for livestock feed 24 per cent of this global catch is used for poultry feed in factory farming operations.

A report issued earlier this month by Advocates for Animals explores a potential link between avian influenza and factory farming of poultry. It claims intensively farmed poultry are ''inevitably in unnaturally close contact with their own wastes'' and if infection enters a shed ''it will spread rapidly and the levels of circulating virus will be greatly increased.'' The report claims the avian influenza virus H5N1 is transmitted from the faeces of infected birds and says a recent FAO study stated ''poultry production and commerce have played the largest role in the spread of the disease.'' A study in the medical journal, The Lancet also suggests ''large concentrations of (presumably stressed) birds have facilitated an increased affinity of the virus to chickens, and an increase in pathogenicity.'' Meanwhile, there are concerns that battery-egg production in west Belconnen and in close proximity to the new suburb of West Macgregor could undermine the ACT Government's plans to
nominate the ACT as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. A submission from Parkwood Eggs to the ACT government's planning and environment committee says the egg factory has ''no objection in principle'' to the proposed nomination, subject to the listing ''not having an effect on the ongoing use and operation of our farm''. The submission says Pace Farm, the company that operates Parkwood Eggs, has ''invested considerable time, expertise and money'' into the business and ''would need this investment to be protected.'' But battery-egg production is likely to be at odds with UN criteria requiring nominations to prove a commitment to sustainable land use and ecosystem management. Meanwhile, the chooks ''rescued'' last week are adjusting to a new life over the border. Their rescue squad, who joke about calling themselves The Other Canberra Raiders, say they have one regret it takes around four hours per chook (aided by warm soapy foot baths and soothing classical music) to gently pick the rock-hard accretions of manure off their feet.

''It's stinky messy work, but worth it when you see chooks being able to walk rather than hobble across the grass,'' said one of the raiders.

(End of Canberra Times article)
-----
DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To discontinue DawnWatch alerts go to http://www.DawnWatch.com/nothanks.php

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Mon Apr 16 20:42:40 2007

DawnWatch Aus tip: Lawyer Steve Wise at University of NSW, 1 May, 2007

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:32:00 GMT

The invitation below comes from Voiceless. Steve Wise is terrific -- I wish I could be there! (I can't resist telling you that the Uni of NSW is where I studied. I am a bit homesick!)
-----------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

On Tuesday 1 May, Professor Steven Wise, described by USA Today as "America's best-known animal lawyer", will deliver the inaugural lecture in the University of New South Wales / Voiceless animal law lecture series at the University of New South Wales.

Admission is free and the event is open to the public. Follow the link below to read our media release and find out where to register.

http://www.voiceless.org.au/Media_Section/Media_Releases/Wise_words_on_animal_law/

We hope to see you there.

Kind regards,

Brian Sherman AM
------------

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. )

To discontinue DawnWatch alerts go to http://www.DawnWatch.com/nothanks.php

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Wed Apr 11 07:32:25 2007

DawnWatch Australia: Live cattle export resumption to Egypt -- AAP report on SMH and Age sites, Oct 3, 2006

Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:25:00 GMT

The following AAP article is on the Sydney Morning Herald and Age websites at:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Cattle-exports-to-Egypt-set-to-resume/2006/10/03/1159641319186.html
and
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Cattle-exports-to-Egypt-set-to-resume/2006/10/03/1159641319186.html

The Herald takes letters at letters@smh.com.au
The Age takes letters at letters@theage.com.au

Both advise, "All letters and email (no attachments) must carry the sender's home address and day and evening phone numbers for verification. Letter writers who would like receipt of their letters acknowledged should send a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words."

Please write.
------------------------------

Cattle exports to Egypt set to resume
October 3, 2006 - 6:49PM

Australia is set to resume live cattle exports to Egypt after a seven-month ban prompted by claims of animal cruelty.

The federal government suspended exports in February and began investigating allegations Australian cattle were being mistreated at an Egyptian abattoir.

A TV current affairs program showed footage of cattle at Cairo's Bassatin abattoir being stabbed in the eye before having the tendons in their back legs cut so they could not escape.

It also showed a steel restraint box, provided to the Egyptians by Australia to improve their handling of cattle for slaughter, which appeared to have never been used.

Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran on Tuesday said an investigation found the cattle shown in the footage were not from Australia.

He has signed two memorandums of understanding with Egypt after receiving assurances from Cairo that it would treat Australian animals in line with international standards.

Live exports to Egypt could resume within weeks.

"I acknowledge the close cooperation received from the livestock export industry in developing the arrangements with Egypt," Mr McGauran said.

"This reflects government and community expectations that good animal handling must occur throughout the supply chain, and that Australian animals must continue to be treated well even after they leave Australia."

Under the new agreement, three Egyptian abattoirs - including Bassatin - will be accredited to handle Australian cattle.

Cattle would be traced from the farm gate to Egyptian feed lots through their Australian National Livestock Identification System tags.

The arrangements will be audited independently to ensure compliance.

Mr McGauran said Egypt had also agreed to make sure animals were unloaded quickly and humanely on arrival and provided with feed, water, shelter and veterinary care.

The peak beef industry body, the Cattle Council of Australia, welcomed the agreements.

"We will defend this important trade to the hilt and we stand by our animal welfare standards, the highest in the world," council president Bill Bray said in a statement.

"We are confident our livestock will receive high standards of animal care in Egypt."
(END OF AAP ARTICLE)
------------
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi You are encouraged to forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts but please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Tue Oct 3 09:25:20 2006

DawnWatch Australia: Age on ethical eating -- Tuesday, August 22

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:36:00 GMT

This article from The Age offers a great opportunity for letters to the editor singing the praises of plant-based diets. The Age takes letters at letters@theage.com.au and advises, "All letters and email (no attachments) to The Age must carry the sender's home address and day and evening phone numbers for verification.... Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words."

Hard to swallow
Michael Harden
August 22, 2006

If you knew how some of your food was produced, would it put you off your dinner?
----------
YOU'RE in the supermarket shopping for dinner. It's been a long day and you want to make this quick. Into the trolley goes a plastic-wrapped tray of pork chops, vegetables, salad, maybe a couple of apples for sauce, juice, eggs and coffee for the morning, and perhaps some chocolate for a treat. Despite the bright lights, bad muzak and onslaught of packaging, it is a painless process and one that has cost you very little. Or has it?

What you have also piled into your trolley is a load of ethical dilemmas with the ability to turn your cheap, quick dinner into a much more complicated feast. Look closely at your purchases and the questions come thick and fast. What sort of life did the pig lead before it became chops? Were the chickens that laid your eggs confined to a cage with less than an A4 sheet of paper's room to move? How much fossil fuel was burnt importing the fruit squeezed into the juice or the shiny capsicum destined for your salad? What were the wages and conditions of the workers who picked the beans that were processed into the coffee and chocolate? How many tonnes of chemicals were pumped into the fields and orchards that grew your salad leaves and apples?

It is a lot to think about when you just want to get home and eat, but with a constant barrage of food-related issues - from record levels of obesity, diabetes and cancer, to the spectres of dead rivers and bird flu - there is an increasingly vocal school of thought that says food choices should be about more than convenience and price. This includes a belief that your choices contribute to your own health, to that of the planet and, some animal rights activists would have it, the health of your soul.

Two recently published books - Peter Singer's and Jim Mason's The Ethics of What We Eat (Text Publishing) and Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma (Allen & Unwin) - provide excellent opportunities for the oblivious supermarket shopper to re-engage with where their food comes from, what they are putting into their bodies and how much the cheap food they are buying actually costs.

Singer and Mason are long-term animal activists with a well-documented aversion to eating animals and their products (they're vegan), and Pollan is a committed omnivore, but there is more to their books than whether it is ethical to eat steak and eggs. Predictable vegan versus carnivore arguments aside, the authors tread a lot of similar ground and reach a remarkably similar conclusion: that by closing our eyes to how our food is produced in exchange for a constant, cheap supply, we are creating a whole range of problems that are damaging our health and environment, and the health and environment of future generations.

In both books there are scathing appraisals of the intensive farming of animals, a factory-like production system that accords animals the status of "product" - restricting their movement and access to pasture, fattening them on food they would not naturally eat and keeping them inside for much of their lives. Intensive farming and the suffering it engenders only comes about, the authors argue, because of consumer demand for cheap meat, eggs and milk.

Admittedly both books are based on US practices, where standards in everything from animal welfare to organic certification and workers' rights lag well behind those in Australia. Life here for cattle and sheep is - for the moment at least - mostly conducted in paddocks rather than the enormous, barren feedlots found in the US where cows are fed grain, not grass. But there are still plenty of questions surrounding your plastic-sealed supermarket pork chop.

According to a 2004 Welfare Audit for the Department for Primary Industry, intensive pig farming in Australia is increasing, with 10 per cent of pig farms in Australia accounting for 60 per cent of total pork production. Recent footage broadcast on Channel Seven's Today Tonight of Wasley's Piggery in South Australia showed sows confined in stalls so small the animals could not even turn around. It may have shown a worst-case scenario (the piggery's stalls breached the law in that, at 55 centimetres wide, they were five centimetres narrower than the industry minimum) but such confinement is not unusual; these dry sow stalls (for confining pregnant sows) are used in 60 per cent of piggeries. Sit these alongside practices such as tail docking, ear clipping and castration without anaesthetic, and there is more to the pork chop than meets the eye.

Amanda Reagan, senior policy analyst for pork producer-owned Australian Pork Limited, says the industry is always pushing for higher standards of animal welfare and that practices are in place for the good of the pigs.

"Pigs are incredibly territorial when they are pregnant," she says. "They can get very aggressive and compete for food. In a group housing situation there can be incredible fighting causing horrific injuries, loss of pregnancy and in some cases death. The sow stalls are there to protect the sow and the babies."

Glenys Oogjes, executive director of animal welfare lobby group Animals Australia, argues that much of the aggressive behaviour is caused by the overcrowding in intensive pig farms and that there is a double standard when it comes to the welfare of farm animals.

"Pigs are treated in a way that would not be tolerated for companion animals like dogs and cats," she says. "There is no logic to how sentient pigs are, how much they feel pain, how depressed they can become in confinement. It all just comes down to what gives the industry commercial advantage and expediency."

Not surprisingly, Amanda Reagan disagrees.

"What we're talking about is pigs, not pets," she says. "We are not putting emotional anthropomorphism into play, we are actually growing the pigs for food according to a well-regulated code of practice. Pig farmers care about their animals. If you don't look after your animals, your product is inferior, so it is in the interest of farmers to look after their animals."

In The Ethics of What We Eat, Singer and Mason rebut this common defence of intensive farming, saying that because there is no market incentive to reduce animal cruelty, profitability and animal welfare often pull in opposite directions.

A further pork dilemma is that more than half the processed pork products in Australia are made with imported pork. Much of that comes from Canada and the United States, countries with far less rigorous farm animal welfare standards than Australia's. (The meticulously detailed descriptions in The Ethics of What We Eat of the meat and egg factory farms in the US are truly horrific.) So unless you stick with free-range or organic bacon, you can never be sure just how much suffering your breakfast experienced before it died.

It takes time and effort to source free-range and organic meat in Australia, with less than 5 per cent of all meat - lamb, pigs, cattle, chicken - produced in Australia certified organic. You will also pay more for it (around $17 for a medium-sized organic chicken, for example, compared with $6 for an intensively farmed one), a common complaint about organic produce. But as Michael Pollan argues in The Omnivore's Dilemma, food is one of the few things we buy where most of us are guided largely - if not solely - on price. Many people put more thought into their brand of mobile phone or even kitty litter than they do about the food they put into their bodies, and there is an expectation - a feeling of entitlement even - that food will be cheap and readily available. Fifty years ago, for example, chicken was something special, eaten once or twice a year. It is now one of the cheapest and most frequently consumed meats available, the price made possible by factory farming in ofte
n questionable conditions. But with scant information on the packaging that surrounds the meat, what does the consumer have to go on but price?

Australian households now spend 3 per cent less of their annual household budget on food than they did in the mid-'80s and a substantial percentage less than their 1950s counterparts, but people still complain about the price of food and scoff at organic produce as elitist. Yet according to the organic industry - and writers such as Pollan and Singer - the extra money you pay for organic produce brings the price closer to the real value of producing the food. It is even argued that the price you pay is something of a bargain if weighed against costs to health and the environmental damage caused by much conventional intensive farming. Singer argues that today's cheap prices are being subsidised by future generations.

According to Scott Kinnear, a director with Biological Farmers of Australia, there is "a touchy feely trendy side to organic food and that is all very nice, but what we really have to do is look over the horizon and understand the ethics of what we are eating".

"We should be aware of how food is being grown and if it is sustainable," he says. "We should be paying small farmers more so that it is easier to source products locally rather than have them travelling great distances."

Kinnear is definitely "old-school" organic, as interested in rural social systems and workers' rates and conditions as he is in health - the reason increasing numbers of people join the organic parade. Being old-school, he is suspicious of Woolworths and Coles dipping their toes into the organic market, citing the US experience of big business latching on to organics and making it an industrial process, albeit with fewer chemicals. Big versus small organics is becoming an ethical issue in itself.

Pierce Cody, owner of the Macro Wholefoods chain of organic supermarkets, which will have four branches in Melbourne by the end of the year, straddles the big and little divide. He knows he is looked on with suspicion by many traditionalists but believes "if you keep it small, fewer people will buy organic, fewer acres are returned to their natural state, less good food is produced and the other guys stay in business longer".

There is also a definite whiff of the evangelical in Cody that underpins the rapid expansion: "I've seen a battery chicken farm and it was horrific, like a death camp." He believes putting ethical products within easy reach of people relieves the guilt of choosing convenience over conscience when shopping for dinner, and is good for the planet.

Shopping ethically is also a problem for chefs (and hence their customers), when much ethically sound produce is expensive and its supply less than reliable. Justin North, owner/chef of Sydney's Becasse restaurant, recently published a book (Becasse) that goes into great detail about the producers from whom he sources his food. He says organics are great but too tricky for a restaurant like his. Yet he is also concerned about the way the animals he uses are treated and the way his produce is farmed. His solution? Go meet the farmers.

"The biggest thing is to develop a relationship with your suppliers so you can talk directly to them about how the food has been grown," says North. "It means you can trust them when you go and visit their farms, and see that they kill animals humanely and are not using chemicals they shouldn't be."

This approach is also in evidence at the increasing number of farmers' markets springing up. Built around a local food philosophy, such markets tap into the ethics debate with their interest in supporting small producers, reducing the amount of fossil fuel burnt transporting food from interstate and overseas, and encouraging direct dialogue between consumer and farmer.

Miranda Sharp, who runs three farmers' markets in Melbourne, believes that just by turning up "people are choosing to remove themselves from the industrial food system" so they can be in "the sort of environment where you can get the truth about what you are eating and are not unknowingly buying oranges that have been flown in from California. It is about connecting people back to the food they are eating so they can get the simple truth about how things get from A to B," she says.

It is this point that comes up over and over again when talking about food and ethics. From the Singers and Pollans to the chefs, producers, retailers and consumers who are interested in eating ethically, the message is the same. A little research will help you know just what you are loading into your supermarket trolley.

IN THE BASKET
So how much more does it cost to shop for organic, biodynamic or Fair Trade ingredients? Using the "quick dinner" in our main story as an example, we bought a generic/supermarket basket and an ethical basket. Our baskets contained two pork mid-loin chops, a red capsicum, half a pumpkin, a butter lettuce, a litre of orange juice, half a dozen 55-gram eggs, three cooking apples, a packet of coffee beans and a chocolate bar.

The generic basket. Shopping mainly at Safeway (we picked up the coffee at a specialist tea and coffee retailer), our total came to $30.38

The organic/ethical basket. Shopping at Macro Wholefoods and the Queen Victoria Market, our total came to $53.73. With adjustments for those items sold by weight (e.g. the generic-basket pumpkin weighed 811 grams, the organic one 1.5 kilograms) the cost for the organic/ethical basket was $49.24.

HOW TO THINK ABOUT IT
Peter Singer's Five Ethical Principals from The Ethics of What We Eat.

1 Transparency - consumers have a right to know how their food is produced.

2 Fairness - producing food should not impose costs on others (any food produced that is not environmentally sustainable, for example, is unfair to future generations).

3 Humanity - inflicting significant suffering on animals is wrong.

4 Social responsibility - workers must have decent wages and working conditions.

5 Needs - choosing to eat a food because of taste or habit (as opposed to necessity) means that your choice must meet stricter ethical standards.

SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CHOCOLATE
If you thought the only guilt from a chocolate bar comes from eating a whole family block on your own, think again. Within that block are several ethical issues that go beyond gluttony.

The cocoa beans that make chocolate are often grown in some of the poorer parts of the world, where regulation of labour practices and environmental protection are less than stringent. Slave and child labour, toxic chemicals and corporal punishment have all been associated with cocoa plantations in Africa and South America.

One way of assuring that your beans were not subjected to vast amounts of toxic chemicals and were picked by workers paid a proper wage is to buy Fair Trade chocolate. Fair Trade certification means workers were treated well and also that a larger percentage of the price goes directly back to the community from which the cocoa came.

So far so good. But then there are those who would argue that it is unethical to fly products or ingredients (particularly non-essential ones) halfway around the world, that the amount of fossil fuel burnt negates any positives from Fair Trade chocolate. Others would argue that it is better to buy as local as possible, keeping local farmers in business.

Still others would argue that the impact of transporting goods by sea is less harmful than your five-kilometre drive in a gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive to the farmers' market.

ETHICS ONLINE
Animal Welfare - animalsaustralia.org
Compassion in World Farming - ciwf.org.uk
Ethical Consumption - http://www.ethicalconsumer.org
Fair Trade - http://www.fta.org.au
Local Food - communityfoods.org.au
Organics Biological Farmers of Australia - http://www.bfa.com.au
Environment Australian Conservation Foundation - acfonline.org.au
---------
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi You are encouraged to forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts but please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Tue Aug 22 10:36:32 2006

DawnWatch Aus: "Thai elephants are on the move today" -- Herald Sun, Monday, June 5

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:30:00 GMT

The following article on the shipment of elephants from Thailand to Australia presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor. The Herald Sun take letters at
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/feedback/dhs-testletters.html
A good source of information on Thai elephants is http://www.elephant.or.th/eng/

Herald Sun (Australia)
June 5, 2006 Monday
NEWS; Pg. 15

Thai elephants are on the move today

Eight Asian elephants will leave Thailand for Australian zoos today, despite protests from animal rights groups who fear they will suffer in their new homes.

An Australian court in December cleared the way for the move to Melbourne and Sydney, provided the zoos met conditions guaranteeing the elephants' welfare.

Melbourne and Sydney zoos have spent $40 million installing or upgrading enclosures.

But the measures didn't go far enough for Thai and Australian groups who have fought the transfer for months.

The elephants have been kept in quarantine in Thailand for 1 1/2 years.

The groups say moving the animals to zoos would be detrimental to their wellbeing.

''I'm opposed to this export and feel very sad with what the Thai authorities are doing,'' said Soraida Salwala, founder of the Friends of the Asian Elephant.

''Elephants are a Thai national symbol. It's not in their behaviour to be away from their herd. I don't want them to be in an enclosure like in prison.''

A Thai official confirmed the animals were to be brought to Bangkok today and put on a plane to Australia this evening.

Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the breeding program would help ensure the survival of the species.

Senator Campbell has said with fewer than 50,000 Asian elephants remaining in the wild, ''every attempt must be made to ensure the survival of the species, including through captive breeding programs''.

The dispute over the elephants was the latest involving Thai efforts to export or import wildlife.

A plan to bring in 175 animals from Kenya to Thailand's Chiang Mai Night Safari Zoo was blocked by a Kenyan court in December after anger from conservationists.
(END OF HERALD SUN ARTICLE)
-------
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts please leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Mon Jun 5 14:30:27 2006

DawnWatch Aus tip: Peter Singer scheduled on the 7:30 Report tonight, Monday May 22

Mon, 22 May 2006 05:27:00 GMT

Aussies,

Peter Singer is scheduled to be on ABC's 7:30 Report tonight, Monday, May 22 (though things can always change last minute) talking about his new book, co-written with Jim Mason, "The Ethics of What We Eat."

If you watch and enjoy, please thank the show! The 7:30 Report takes comments at http://www2b.abc.net.au/730/letters/guestbook/

Yours and the animals',

Karen Dawn

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Sun May 21 23:27:09 2006

DawnWatch: Telegraph and Australian articles on banned PETA Easter billboard -- Saturday, April 15

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:20:00 GMT

The Saturday, April 15 Daily Telegraph includes an article headed, "Space denied to crucified lamb ad" (Pg 11). And the Australian has a has a lengthier version of the article on its website at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18812547-29277,00.html headed "Crucified lamb billboard 'blocked.'" I will paste the Telegraph piece below. The articles offer a good opportunity for letters about mulesing and the Live Export Trade. The Telegraph takes letters at letters@dailytelegraph.com.au and advises, "Letters should be no longer than 250 words. Name and address and phone number must be supplied for verification." The Australian takes letters at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aus_letters.htm

The Daily Telegraph (Australia)
April 15, 2006 Saturday

LOCAL; Pg. 11

Space denied to crucified lamb ad

A BILLBOARD depicting a bloody, crucified lamb has been refused space above Sydney's roads this Easter, an animal rights group claimed yesterday.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which has been running an international campaign against sheep mulesing in Australia, wanted to mount the confronting image for motorists over the Easter weekend. But the group said billboard owners refused to lease out the space.

''PETA had hoped its billboard -- a blood-soaked lamb on a crucifix with the tag-line 'Have mercy on them, stop mulesing and live exports' - would be up in time for Easter,'' the US-based group said. ''But outdoor advertising companies have said want no part of it.'' Mulesing, widely practised by Australian sheep farmers, is the surgical removal of folds of skin from the backsides of sheep to prevent the painful and sometimes fatal condition of fly strike.

PETA's worldwide campaign against Australian producers who practise mulesing has damaged the industry.
(END OF TELEGRAPH ARTICLE)
----------------

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts please leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Fri Apr 14 16:20:45 2006

DawnWatch Australia: SM Herald article questions rodeo -- Saturday, April 8

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:41:00 GMT

The following Sydney Morning Herald article (on line at http://tinyurl.com/p4ou9) presents a good opportunity for letters against rodeo and all abuse of animals for human entertainment. The Sydney Morning Herald takes letters at letters@smh.com.au and advises, "All letters and email (no attachments) to the Herald must carry the sender's home address and day and evening telephone numbers for verification. Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words."

I send thanks to Pam Ahern for making sure we saw this.

Here's the article:

Rough ride for show's rodeo
"Gone is the 'wild west' image of a bygone era" � talk of animal abuse plays badly with corporate sponsors.

April 8, 2006

A campaign by animal rights activists has put the Royal Easter Show's most extreme sport in doubt, writes Gwyn Topham.

FOR breeders, riders and fans this 75th year of rodeo at the Easter Show should be the best yet. It has top billing at the show, which has, it says, invited the cream of Americans to do battle with the best of the Australians; assembled the very best rough stock; and handpicked the cowboys. Not to mention doubling the prizemoney.

But this extravaganza may also mark the beginning of the end for the sport in Sydney as, under pressure from animal rights groups, organisers have pledged to review rodeo events.

Footage obtained by the Herald from last year's Easter Show shows acts described as "totally illegal" by the show management going on under the eyes of crowds. A stockman carrying an electric cattle prod partly concealed in a bag is shown administering a shock to a horse, presumably to make it buck.

Together with the death of a prize bull at last year's show, the images above sit uneasily at a family event. Reports of cruelty and animal deaths have led to corporate sponsors withdrawing from rodeos. A firm that would speak only on condition of anonymity said animal rights' concerns had been a large factor in withdrawing support. Telstra, once a backer of rodeos, stopped sponsoring them in 2002.

The show's general manager, John Aitken, said he had seen footage of a man using an electric prod on a horse, and disciplinary action had been taken. He said the man was from Queensland and said he did not understand the local regulations.

Animal welfare groups believe they have struck a deal with show management after meeting 10 days ago in which they highlighted abuses at rodeos. The executive director of Animal Liberation NSW, Mark Pearson, said: "We're in a very serious dialogue. So we're not going to protest this year." He said he applauded the show for not including calf roping in the program - the rodeo event considered the most inhumane by many.

But in return for not targeting the rodeo in such a high-profile year, Mr Pearson expects the show to review the program after this year's event closes. Activists hope to focus on steer wrestling, an event in which riders on horseback tackle cows to the ground.

"The Royal Agricultural Society has given an undertaking to review their concerns when provided in writing at our next meeting, which will be after the show," Mr Aitken said.

The show's own publicity says rodeo is "the most dangerous and extreme sport on Earth". Those in rodeo talk of an unequal contest - 1000 kilograms of stock against 65 kilograms of cowboy. Most likely to be injured, by far, they say, are the riders. But then, the critics say, they choose to be there. A reprieve for otherwise unusable animals, breeders say. Better a quick, humane death than distress and injury, welfare groups say.

Any talk of animal abuse plays badly on the ears of corporate sponsors, which may explain why the show talks up 75 years of tradition, yet emphasises: "Gone is the 'wild west' image of a bygone era." Today, rodeo is a sport with its own star circuit and prizemoney to match.

Scott Johnston, 32, is one of this new generation: an Australian champion who has won more than $1 million on the US circuit. "There's a lot more money and a bit more competition over there," he said. Johnston is a specialist in saddle bronc and bareback: the classic rodeo events in which a cowboy tries to stay on the back of a wildly bucking horse, with just one hand on a rein - and in bareback, not even that. Johnston grew up in a remote area of NSW. "We always rode horses, broke horses. I was riding horses before I could walk."

The best rodeo rides, he said, are on "a horse that really bucks or a bull that jumps a long way in the air - if the guy looks like he's in control". The horses were always unpredictable, he said, and you just had to react. "Your top guys are always in control - always riding the horse for what it does. But you need that horse to buck. Drawing a good horse is always half of it."

And a good horse is highly prized. Judges score competitors not only on their ability but on the beast below: if it does not buck hard, simply staying on will not win riders prizes. Horses get the same kind of theatrical names as a WWF wrestler: Akubra Crusher and Dynamite. Bulls bred to be mean, such as this year's Nitro, trace their lineage from previous stars. All this means, breeders say, that their wellbeing is paramount.

Scott Maynes, whose bucking bull Little Big Horn was a star of the circuit before dying in an accident at last year's show, said: "My whole life revolves around my animals; if they're not handled properly, that's it. All the cows get fed before my wife and I do. I just spent $40,000 on new pens, and you can sell each cow for $5000.

"If they're worth that kind of money we're not going to treat them bad. And the bulls I have here - if they weren't here, they'd be in a can being fed to a dog." Maynes, a veteran of 17 years' bull riding, with punctured lungs, 17 screws and five plates in his face, said: "I'd invite anyone out to my place. They can be a red-hot animal lib activist. If anyone was against it and came here for a week they'd change their minds."

Johnston agreed. "They think it's cruel, but most of the horses that get bucked were about to get their heads chopped off. To me, really it's one more chance to see if they're good for anything. If they buck they get looked after as well as any horse, and they only buck for 20 seconds a week, so it's a pretty good life. I think animal libbers have got nothing to worry about. Some [horses] get injured, but they can get injured out in the paddock. They look after them the best they can."

Show organisers point to the involvement of RSPCA monitors. But the RSPCA said: "We are utterly opposed to rodeo and want them shut down. The risk of injury and distress to the animals is unjustifiable in terms of entertainment." Even if animals are treated well, it said, rodeo was cruel. "Most of the time rodeos don't cause serious injury - but it always causes distress."

Proponents say that rodeo is just outback culture, a sport that showcases the skills that cattlemen needed to survive and prosper. Mr Aitken said: "It's been a key part of our heritage - and the RAS has been quite instrumental in the development of rodeo as a sport over the years. It's always been part and parcel of the show.

Others dispute this. "It's an import from cowboy America," Mr Pearson said. "I've been out west and I've not seen any Australian farmer ride a bull."

The RSPCA takes a middle line: "We understand that some practices such as calf roping have a place in the farm environment, but we don't believe they should be deliberately recreated for entertainment." Only barrel racing was acceptable, it said. The ladies-only event was fast, highly skilful and one of the show's most popular events, Mr Aitken said.

Supporters argue that few injuries occur to animals in any rodeo event, making it less dangerous than horseracing, and that many "broncs" - untamed horses that prefer to buck than accept a rider - are happier in rodeo than being broken for use elsewhere.

Yet campaigners such as No Rodeo's Jeanie Walker, a South Australian activist who has received death threats, said: "Animal abuse exists at all rodeos. We've got footage of people stabbing prods into bulls' genitals and faces to get them to buck. They don't try to hide it much in the outback."

So do animals buck because they want to or because they are made to? Asked where to find an independent opinion on this, the president of the Australian Veterinary Association, Dr Matthew Makin, laughed. "This is a problem that the Government needs to address: there are no accurate independent studies on the effects of rodeos on animals." His association "only supports rodeos when the welfare of the animals involved is safeguarded and underpinned by an effective and enforceable code of practice". Most important, he said, was that organisers are legally responsible for the welfare of the animals, even if prosecutions are rare. But, he said: "Accidents will happen. Animals will get injured. They need immediate attention. It's not acceptable to make one wait for an hour."

Breeders such as Scott Maynes - who buried his favourite bull in the paddock, describing it as the worst day of his life - said animal welfare was paramount and that any abuse was caused by a few bad apples. Rodeo had cleaned up. "The old Aussie style of getting drunk in the backyard saying, 'Get on her' - those days are gone." But as the video nasty from last year's show demonstrates, breaches can still occur at even the biggest events.
(END OF SYDNEY MORNING HERALD ARTICLE.)
------------
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

----------------------------------------

You are subscribed to DawnWatch Australia using the following address:

example@example.com

Date: Sun Apr 9 16:41:38 2006