Boxes and Tables

• To prevent cruelty to animals by ensuring the enforcement of existing laws at federal and state level
• To procure the passage of such amending or new legislation as is necessary for the protection of animals
• To develop and promote policies for the humane treatment of animals that reflect contemporary values and scientific knowledge
• To educate the community with regard to the humane treatment of animals
• To engage with relevant stakeholders to improve animal welfare
• To sustain an intelligent public opinion regarding animal welfare
• To operate facilities for the care and protection of animals     

Active publics

High knowledge, high involvement. People who have identified an issue and who organise to effect change (e.g those with a direct involvement in an animal welfare agency)

Aroused publics

Low knowledge, high involvement. People who have recognised a potential issue, are motivated but unorganised. This group represents the potential core followers of a social movement

Aware publics

High knowledge, low involvement. People who are very knowledgeable about the problem, but are not involved personally and are not likely to effect change although they might join initiatives organised by others

Inactive publics

Low knowledge, low involvement. People with little interest in the issue and who are not motivated to engage or effect change.

Nonpublics

No knowledge, no involvement. Unlikely to become aware or involved.

Steady state

1. Normal times: business as usual

Build up of stress in the system      

2. Prove the failure of institutions: normal channels fail

3. Ripening conditions

4. Social movement take off

Seen as a general problem

5. Identity crisis of powerlessness: activist ‘failure’
6. Win majority of public opinion

Resolution

7. Success
8. Continuing the struggle: moving on

Ultimate objective
       
     

• Replace the export of live sheep to the Middle East for slaughter with a meat trade

• Replace the export of live sheep to the Middle East for slaughter with a meat trade

Proximate objectives

• Regulation of transport, feedlot and export standards
• Research into welfare problems associated with export
• Feedback of R&D into improving standards
• Research on potential for conversion to meat exports

• Effective enforcement of regulations (ASEL)
• Feedback of R&D into improving standards
• Improvement of handling and slaughter standards overseas
• Research on potential for conversion to meat exports

Extent of the problem ¹

• 5,122,981 sheep exported
• 73 voyages
• Mortality rate 1.33%
• 68,136 sheep died
• 6 voyages had high mortality (>2%)

• 3,773,029 sheep exported
• 61 voyages
• Mortality rate 0.97%
• 36,598 sheep died
• 6 voyages had high mortality (>2%)

Public interest/awareness

• Limited – media coverage of trigger events minimal

• Increased since 1997 – high coverage of trigger events
• Media pickup of live export issues, 1350/year, no consistent profile

Regulation

• AMSA Marine Orders Part 43 (loading and onboard ship)
• Industry self-regulation through the Australian Livestock Export Standards and Livestock Export Accreditation Program (LEAP).
• ‘Third party’ veterinarian system (responsible to exporter)
• Mortality rate to trigger a voyage investigation 2%

• Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL).
• AQIS accredited vets (responsible to AQIS)
• Mortality rate to trigger a voyage investigation 2%

Engagement with government/industry

• One animal welfare agency representative on the AMSA Livestock Advisory Committee (LAC)
• Annual mortality figures published

• One animal welfare agency representative on the Livestock Export Standards Advisory Committee (LESAC)
• Regular discussions with DAFF
• Occasional liaison with industry
• Sixth-monthly mortality reports tabled in Parliament
• Annual mortality reports publicly available
• AQIS voyage reports publicly available
     

Summary of progress

• Incremental change: less animals affected, some improvements to animal welfare
• No progress towards achieving ultimate objective

Ultimate objective

• To get hens out of cages

• To get hens out of cages

Proximate objectives

• Phase-out of battery cages

• Phase-out of battery cages
• Accurate labelling of eggs according to production system
• Regulation of welfare standards in non-cage systems

Extent of the problem ¹

• 10.5 million hens in cages
• 450cm2 space allowance per hen
• Cages - 91% of eggs
• Barns - 3.5% of eggs
• Free range – 5.5% of eggs

• 11.6 million hens in cages
• 450-550cm2 space allowance per hen depending on age of cage
• Cages – 71.4% of eggs
• Barns – 5.3% of eggs
• Free range – 23.4% of eggs

Public interest/awareness

• 66% of people thought battery cages were unacceptable ²

• 84% of people thought battery cages were unacceptable³
• Increase in consumption of cage-free eggs from 9% to 29% of market
• Media pickup of layer hen issues, 430/year, no consistent profile

Regulation

• Minimum cage sizes

• Minimum cage sizes
• Mandatory labelling of production system in ACT and Tasmania, required under Egg Corp Assured program
• Minimum standard for stocking density of free range hens in Qld
• Revised Model Code of Practice for Domestic Poultry

Engagement with government

• Animal welfare agencies involved in 1994 Review of the aspects of layer hen housing in Australia⁴

• Animal welfare agencies involved in 2000 ARMCANZ review of layer hen housing and labelling of eggs in Australia
• Membership of Code or Standards working groups includes animal welfare agencies

Progress?

• Incremental improvement: more hens in cages overall, but a smaller percentage of flock; cage size increased slightly
• No substantial progress towards achieving ultimate objective

Ultimate objective
       
     

• For pest animal control measures to be humane

• For pest animal control measures to be justified, effective and humane

Proximate objectives

• Ban steel-jawed traps
• Replace inhumane poisons including 1080

• Develop and implement model for assessment of humaneness
• Phase out unacceptable methods as soon as alternatives are identified
• Ensure humaneness is an integral part of evaluating techniques
• R&D of humane alternatives regarded as a priority area

Extent of the problem

• 80 vertebrate species with established wild populations
• No requirement for control techniques to be humane

• Best practice codes and standards may have improved practices
• No unacceptable techniques removed from use

Public interest/awareness

• 58% of people accept control; but only 38% accept non-target deaths 1.
• No information on attitudes to humaneness

• Very high for control of native animals (e.g. kangaroo control in the ACT)
• Low for introduced animals
• Media pickup of pest control issues, 948/year, but most do not cover humaneness

Regulation

• Steel jawed traps banned in NSW

• National endorsement of codes of practice for humane vertebrate pest control still under consideration
• Steel jaw traps banned in NSW, ACT, NT, Tasmania

Engagement with government

• Submissions on wildlife management plans and related issues

• Submissions on wildlife management plans and related issues
• Discussions on improving humaneness and in the development of humaneness assessment model
• No animal welfare agency involvement in VPC activities

Progress

• Incremental change very slow to translate to on-ground work
• No substantial progress towards achieving ultimate objective