Here’s another reason why all farmers should be on social media (see previous blog post). To actively counter misinformation, and share quotes.
Lynne Bradshaw, National President of the RSPCA, spoke at the LiveExchange conference in Townsville last Friday. The talk was in the form of an interview by Landline presenter, Pip Courtney.
These are some of the things Lynne said (in italics), and the questions I would have asked, if public questions had been permitted:
- “The RSCPA reflects public opinion”
- “Represents mainstream Australia”
- “has 98% brand recognition in the community”
- “The public at the moment are really barely tolerating live exports.”
Any objective, independent research behind the assertion re “reflecting mainstream Australia”, and ‘the public’ (all?) ‘barely tolerating live exports’? Any actual figures? Or are we supposed to just swallow these assertions because it’s the RSCPA saying so? And because the public recognise a brand, doesn’t translate into meaning it’s inherently a good brand, or that the public approves of it. (I’ll resist the urge to trot out the many examples of well recognised “brands” that spring to mind, that most Australians are unlikely to approve of.)
“We are not a vegetarian society – the RSPCA does not have a vegan agenda.”
Then:
“Vegetarians are 7% of the community and growing”
It’s unclear what relevance the second statement has, but it looks like it has a link to the former statement. Is Lynne Bradshaw a vegetarian? It seems likely.
And what percentage of the population is actually vegetarian? Or saying they are vegetarian (but really eating sausages, bacon, prawns etc, like most “vegetarians” I have met)?
When asked if the RSPCA approved of activism, the answer was:
“it depends on how you define activists….the RSPCA is representing the interests of animals”.
Lynne stated the RSPCA had an issue with transporting animals a long distance from production and for this reason would never support live exports:
“In a perfect world we’d like to see live exports phased out…not immediately, but in the future…there seems to be a change coming.”
So the obvious question is; does Lynne Bradshaw think the vast majority of northern cattle stations should be shut down? Because if the RSPCA succeeded in banning live exports, clearly the next item to tick off their long list of stated aims, would be banning long distance transport within Australia. And it’s never going to be economic to have abbatoirs dotted across northern inland Australia. If it was feasible, they’d be there already. Unfortunately the reverse has been the case, with hardly any abbatoirs left in the top third of the continent. (This process had begun long before the live export industry really got going.)
“There are probably some black sheep in your industry and they probably need to be turfed out.”
Only a fool would disagree with getting rid of people who aren’t doing the right thing. But is there also some black sheep amongst the members or staff of the RSPCA? People who believe in animal rights, not just animal welfare, as Lynne has described it? People who have been working on making a formerly well-respected, conservative animal welfare organisation more militant and extremist? And will these black sheep (all evidence points to the fact that there are some, especially in Victoria and South Australia) be ‘turfed out’ of the RSPCA?
“We feel there is a lot of lip service paid to animal welfare” (in the Australian livestock industry).
Does the RSPCA trust the people in this room?
Rural people feel the RSPCA pays a lot of lip service to a lot of things. (Caring for farmers, small businesses, native animals, for example.) So we’re probably on a par in this department.
“We are not interested in a confrontational ‘lets all cock our leg on our own tree’ situation.”
Well thanks for the compliment, that’s choice! The RSPCA isn’t lecturing farmers on what they should be doing, as if they’re some superior fount of knowledge re animal welfare? And protecting their own organisation, generous government funding and public donations? (More on patch-protecting below.) It was very clear from the tone, the RSPCA is worried about losing some control and influence to other animal organisations, that have sprung up like toadstools over the last decade or two.
“The RSPCA’s charter isn’t about stopping farming”
But if the RSPCA’s demands make farming uneconomic, then they’ve stopped farming, by default. Oops, it was a side effect we didn’t anticipate!
“10% of the population have a ‘cruel’ gene in them”
This was perhaps the most surprising assertion amongst the whole talk. One in every ten people has a ‘cruel’ gene? Where did this idea spring from? And does Lynne and the rest of the RSPCA really believe this astonishingly high estimate?
“If you take out the 10% then what you are left with is education. The RSPCA is really an education organisation.”
Animals Australia would no doubt describe themselves thus, as well as a raft of other organisations. At least the RSPCA does have a large network of animal shelters and does do useful hands-on domestic animal welfare activities.
Does the RSPCA believe that it knows more about animal welfare than livestock producers, who have spent their whole lives raising animals?
Does the RSPCA believe there are any other organisations in Australia, qualified to “educate” people about animal welfare? Or is the RSPCA the only organisation in Australia, that is qualified?
“We were duty bound to look at it from the science perspective.”
This statement was made, but no scientific research or credited statistics etc were mentioned, during the entire session. Other than out-of-the-blue (unsupported) statements such as 10% of Australians have a ‘cruel gene’ and 7% of Australians are vegetarian (perhaps there’s some overlap there….). Both these statements were completely unsupported. Not confidence-inspiring in a ‘scientific’ approach to things.
In relation to efforts to improve animal welfare standards, Lynne said:
- “I’d like to think it wasn’t because you had your backs to the wall.”
- “We can help you along the way.”
- “We don’t want to engage from the side. We want to be involved.”
- And the industry has been: “Dependent on a fickle trade – all the eggs in one basket”. (Thanks for the business advice, we should have realised that! [perhaps cattle stations could grow lettuces as a sideline].)
- And: “We even had a producer in tears”. Followed by a pregnant pause, for this to sink into our heads, that a livestock producer was actually so upset about witnessing cattle being treated so cruelly.
The first statement was reiterated and said in a tone indicating clearly that Lynne believed industry changes were only made because it was forced upon the industry. From this and other statements, it is 100% clear that Lynne Bradshaw believes farmers only care about profit, and do not know or care about animal welfare, and changes have only been made because they’ve been forced upon the industry. The second statement was surrounded by similar comments which spelled out Lynne’s belief that farmers need the RSPCA to tell them how to look after their livestock; that the “RSPCA knows best”. What planet has this woman been on? I have read truckloads of messages from livestock producers extremely upset by the cruelty they saw on their televisions. And for them, it didn’t matter whose cattle they were (Australian or otherwise) – cruelty is cruelty, and none of them could understand how a film crew could not only stand by and watch, without intervening, but sit on the footage for several months before airing it on prime time television. Livestock producers were distraught by what they saw, dismayed by a failure of existing systems that had been put in place, and determined to ensure changes were implemented (with millions of dollars since spent on measures to improve animal handling in receiving countries). But Lynne Bradshaw just continued on, talking about people being upset about their business being stopped. It appears to be totally beyond Lynne Bradshaw’s comprehension that livestock producers, facing a live export ban implemented totally out-of-the-blue, were left dealing with ensuring the welfare of cattle that were to be sold and now were not able to be (some sitting in yards en route); the resulting overstocking impacting on the welfare of cattle that were already on the station, with the dry season rolling on; and were very worried about the impact of the resulting overstocking on the soil, native flora and fauna (longer-term impact). By this section of the talk she had clearly hit her stride, relaxed, and was enjoying uninterrupted bursts of lecturing in between Pip’s probing questions. With us all sitting there mute, listening, as we were not able to question anything. The patronising attitude shone through as clear as a beacon.
“People take a view, then they shut down.”
Of course Lynne was only referring to the bad people when she said this, not the good people (the ones who have a monopoly on caring for animals, and don’t need to listen because they’re already founts of wisdom and knowledge. I.E. the RSPCA.)
Would an RSPCA audience sit politely listening to a livestock producer holding the floor, patronising the audience and trotting out unsupported statements, with the boot on the other foot? We’ll never know, because it would never happen.
“The art of any negotiation is give and take on both sides.”
So what ‘giving’ (other than patronising lectures), is the RSPCA undertaking?
Other questions I would like to have asked:
- The RSPCA is not just an Australian organisation. Does the RSPCA care about animals in other countries? Does it care about how locally born animals are treated in countries such as South East Asia, and the Middle East?
- Does the RSPCA value the hands-on work done in these countries, by Australians, to improve animal welfare standards?
- Does the RSPCA think this work would continue, if Australia livestock were no longer imported by these countries?
- Many people have asked the above questions previously and I’m yet to see an answer.
Good often comes from bad. Lynne Bradshaw made the valid point that more stringent animal welfare standards were something good to come from the live export ban. Does Lynne also think that greater hands-on efforts to raise animal welfare standards in receiving countries, is also something worth hanging onto?
Does the RSPCA care about native animals? All native animals?
If so, what policy has the RSPCA formulated to deal with the destruction of native wildlife by cats (both feral and domestic), not just in remote areas but also in closely settled areas? This has been a huge issue this year, with many cattle station owners, local councils and indigenous residents right across the north crying out for cat control measures to be introduced to protect vulnerable native animals. I’m yet to see a single comment from any animal welfare or animal rights organisation in Australia.
Or does the RSPCA only care about cute and fluffy domestic animals, and easy-target livestock producers, with the odd waddling wombat thrown in, for useful advertising purposes? Silence on the cat plague issue is speaking volumes.
Here’s a summary that the RSPCA and other animal welfare and animal rights organisations seem to not grasp, but should:
- People are in the business of raising livestock because they like livestock. If they didn’t, they’d be doing something else.
- Yes farms are businesses. But the capital value of most farms could be invested elsewhere and would often earn a higher income than the net farm profit. Farmers farm because they have chosen to; not because they can’t think of anything better to do with their time.
- People live in the bush because they like the bush. That means they have an interest in the native plants and animals, as well as domestic animals.
- If farmers don’t look after their land, their business suffers. If they’re in the business of raising livestock and they don’t look after them, profitability suffers. So even if you don’t believe they care about livestock for moral reasons, it’s commonsense that they care for business reasons.
- Livestock farmers care about all animals. Not just their own. They don’t want to see animals being treated cruelly anywhere, and can’t understand the RSPCA’s apparent lack of interest in helping to raise the animal welfare standards in countries other than Australia.
- Implying that people who have chosen to spend their whole lives handling livestock for a living, need a lecture on animal management techniques from someone who has next-to-no hands-on experience handling livestock, isn’t going to be well received. Naturally.
- Farmers cannot understand why the RSPCA is campaigning for the cessation of live exports, because of some instances in cruelty; while not campaigning to end domestic pet ownership, despite thousands of proven animal cruelty cases annually. Right here in our largest cities. The inconsistency is glaring. Farmers are seen as an easy target?
- Working with farmers means working WITH them, showing respect for their knowledge and skill. If the RSPCA continues to talk down to livestock producers like a pack of naughty children who don’t know what they’re doing, the RSPCA will continue to be treated with contempt.
Postscript: I received an email from the RSPCA on 8th October stating that Lynne Bradshaw: “had made the organisers aware that she was happy and willing to take questions from conference attendees as well as from Ms Courtney. Her appearance was scheduled for the afternoon on the first day but had to be deferred to the following morning when the previous session ran overtime. Ms Bradshaw changed her flights to ensure she would be available but then had to leave the conference very soon after her appearance due to another commitment in Brisbane that afternoon. Unfortunately, this left no time for further questions.”
I was aware the 20 minute scheduled talk was shifted from 2.45pm the previous afternoon to the following morning, but not that Lynne Bradshaw had been willing to take questions from the floor. Seems odd the talk was not shortened at least slightly, to allow some questions from the audience. However, the RSPCA does have the opportunity to answer the questions I have posed above. For example, is Lynne Bradshaw a vegetarian? What is the RSPCA doing about cat control and the welfare of native animals, whose existence is threatened by cat predation? Just this morning our local paper has an advertisement for $20 RSPCA cats – ready to go back out roaming.
It was good to hear commonsense prevailed recently, and the RSPCA is supporting the urgently required brumby cull in northern Western Australia. Unfortunately wild horses do not have the romantic, idyllic existence that many, who are far removed from the problem, prefer to believe.
This sort of commonsense, practical and holistic environmental management would help restore the faith of agricultural producers in the RSPCA as a practical, hands-on organisation actively working to improve the situation for all animal species (and by default, caring for the environment on which all life depends). Ignoring feral animal issues, or worse still, protecting feral animals – simply makes animal “welfare” organisations a laughing stock amongst people with hands-on environmental management experience.
Tags: Australian meat industry, Australian Beef Industry, Image of the bush, Vegans & Vegos