EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Telling me to look up your evidence is an old trick in debates. If I do not find said evidence it is my fault for not looking hard enough so your claim can still stand? No, if YOU cannot support YOUR claim by evidence you provide your claim is not worthy of consideration.


No trick required .... ever. Hope you weren't looking for the number of bacteria in a petrie dish. You want "lab" evidence" or much stronger anecdotal evidence than your dog in the passenger seat?



Considering I have seen neither to date anything would be an improvement.

Quote:
Quote:
If you replaced "need" with "want", no. That would be likely. A need claim, however, has no evidence to support it.


Good thing we were absolutely NOT talking about 'absolute' need for 'absolute' survival then. We are talking about something else and always have been. And, of course, you know that, but are distracting from the conversation as it suits your argument. But why are you arguing?


Yes, you were talking about something else, emotions, and when I point it out you claim you are not.

Quote:
Quote:
Because you are making claims unsupportable by any evidence. Children say they "need" the latest technology, when in reality they merely WANT it. Just as you have tried to replace want with need. It is a common misrepresentation and usually based on the desire to impart a greater weight to one's claims than is really generated.


The example of children "wanting technology" is a terrible example in light of this situation. You are minimizing a much more egregious situation with such a trite example of children living in a consumerist society.


How much more egregious is a "want" than a need? Specifics work wonders when trying to make such a claim.

Quote:
Quote:
That is you OPINION and one for which you have provided no evidence to show that it is based on anything other than assumption.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-l ... -1.2820563

Canada's regulations governing the transportation of farmed animals date back to 1975. They currently allow for cattle to be in transit for 52 hours without access to food or water, while the maximum for pigs and chickens is 36 hours.

"Animals are often transported thousands of kilometres without any food, water, shelter or any protection from the elements."
And these conditions appear to be taking their toll. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says between two and three million animals die during transport every year.


Old MUST be bad is a clear set of evidence? Stating the regulations is factual but no evidence there is a significant problem with them. The rate of animals dying during transit is between 0.28% and 0.42% according to these figures. The US has a level of concern trigger at 0.5%.

Quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-standards-for-farm-animal-transport-dangerously-lax-report-says/article1211566/

Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.


It seems the transport is being blamed for both, when diseases should take longer to manifest symptoms. This appears to indicate a pre-existing condition prior to transport.

Quote:
The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather. Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.


Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering, which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions.

Quote:
Geoff Urton, the farm animal welfare co-ordinator at the British Columbia SPCA, said Canada's regulations are more than 30 years old and need to be updated. "There is really good evidence that the current standards are not adequate to actually protect the animals," said Mr. Urton.


And then we have nothing .....

Quote:
KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT

1. Unacceptable numbers of animals, particularly chickens, die during transport.
This most often happens when the birds are moved over long distances and in inclement weather.


No data provided as to what an acceptable level is and by what level it was exceeded.

Quote:
2 to 3 million: The number of animals that arrive dead every year at Canadian slaughterhouses.


There will be a percentage of deaths everywhere. This percentage is within the acceptable range listed for the US.

Quote:
2. Animals are transported in overcrowded conditions.

Transporters pack between seven and 16 chickens into crates that are a half-metre square, and cows have arrived at processing plants with sores on their backs from brushing against the roof of the truck.


It seems the "overcrowding" references chickens and not the hogs which were the point of discussion. How much additional room should the chickens be given before increase injuries are noted due to their movement in shipment? Cattle brushing against the roof of the truck does not indicate overcrowding as much as a design flaw in the transport truck in use.


Quote:
6% to 89%: The increase in number of animals covered with salmonella after being kept in crowded conditions for 40 minutes, according to a Texas Tech University study.


Which has what to do with this discussion?

Quote:
Severely injured and sick animals are transported in contravention of federal regulations.


Not a problem with the regulations at all and indicate the numbers of dead and injured after transport are biased due to this effect.

Quote:
Animals are arriving at slaughterhouses and auctions emaciated, weak, crippled and with severe injuries.
The number of sheep a farmer brought to be slaughtered at Princeton Meat Packers in Woodstock, Ont., that had injuries so severe, they should never have been transported.


So much injury in such a short period of transport time? This does not indicate the transport is as bad as prior treatment.

Quote:
4. Severely compromised animals are transported and left to suffer for prolonged periods, sometimes days.


Making it more illegal will prevent it?

Quote:
The World Society for the Protection of Animals says many incidents may be in violation of federal or provincial animal cruelty laws.
58: The length of time, in hours, one crippled cow was left alive on top of a pile of dead animals in Lethbridge, Alta.


A pile of dead animals being transported?

Quote:
5. A shortage of trained animal welfare inspectors, particularly veterinarians, puts animal health and welfare at risk.


Again nothing to do with transport itself.

Quote:
Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors are not authorized to euthanize animals or relieve their suffering for humane reasons, and few animal inspectors are veterinarians or trained to address animal welfare problems during transport.


Again nothing dealing with a problem with transport itself.

Quote:
Drivers appear to be unaware of regulations, including their right, indeed, their responsibility, to refuse to transport an injured animal. Some drivers didn't even know how many animals they had aboard their truck.


Responsibility? That seems to be an addition added as another emotional surge.

Quote:
http://www.hsi.org/world/canada/work/transport_slaughter/facts/animal_transport_fast_facts.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/

According to the government department responsible for enforcing transport standards, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), between two and three million animals die during transport every year. Most of these animals are chickens—either broiler chickens, raised for meat, or spent hens, laying hens who are no longer seen as productive.


So it is not hogs which are transported in overcrowded conditions and arrive dead?

Quote:
Suffering in transport

Transport is an inherently stressful event for any farm animal given their natural sensitivities to new places, loud and unfamiliar sounds, changes in temperature, and being placed into close proximity to other animals.


This stress is redefined as suffering?

Quote:
Within Canadian borders, ruminants such as horses, sheep and cattle can be transported for up to 52 hours with no access to food, water, rest, or protection from extreme heat and cold; pigs for 36 hours; and newly hatched chicks can be transported for up to 72 hours with no access to food or water. Rest periods need only be five hours and there is no maximum time limit to an animal’s total journey time.


And that is a problem?

Quote:
Animals transported in Canada are often overcrowded in trucks, causing poor ventilation and air quality, over-heating, trampling and injury, and forcing animals to sit or lie in their own excrement.


How "often" is that? 1% of the time? It has to be less than 50% of the time or they surely would have claimed "most" of the time.

Quote:
Inadequate government regulations and inspections

A lack of enforcement of current regulations is placing animals at risk of not even being assured minimum standards of protection.
HSI/Canada is highly concerned about the infrequency of inspections of transport vehicles, loading and unloading procedures, as well as the lack of properly trained CFIA inspectors.


Inspectors.

Quote:
CFIA considers spent laying hens to be compromised animals (fragile animals who should only ever be transported with special care and provisions). While CFIA standards require that no more than one percent of broiler chickens arrive DOA (dead on arrival) at their destination, the requirement for spent laying hens is four percent, allowing for their transport despite acknowledging that these animals are less likely to survive the stresses of their journey.


If one really reads it is clear that known compromised animals being transported and which are less likely to survive the transport have a higher upper limit for DOA animals.

Quote:
According to CFIA inspection reports, however, trucks have been known to arrive well over these limits, with hundreds of dead chickens—sometimes up to 30 percent of the animals on board.


And the circumstances surrounding these known instances are not given. I have seen news reports of accidents involving animal transport where the animals initially surviving the accident were placed on new transport vehicles, for example.


Quote:
Under CFIA regulations, transporting “downer” animals, animals who are unable to stand or walk due to stress, injury, illness, or fatigue, is banned. However, according to CFIA records, instances of animals being dragged onto and off transport trucks still occur.
Transporting downer animals is not only problematic from a welfare perspective, but also poses serious food safety concerns.
In 2010, CFIA was given a “D” by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, for failing to meet its obligations under Canada’s Access to Information Act.


Inspectors again. Nothing really on the regulations.

Quote:
http://cfhs.ca/farm/transportation/

Canada’s current animal transport regulations are decades old and inadequate by modern standards. They allow cattle and sheep to be transported for up to 52 hours continuously with no food, water or rest. Pigs, horses and birds can be transported for up to 36 hours. And there is no requirement for animal transporters to have any training on how to handle animals humanely or to drive safely with them on board.
In comparison, in the European Union, most species are not permitted to be transported for longer than 8 hours, unless transporters meet several conditions that preserve animal welfare on longer trips. Regulations that set out maximum loading densities to prevent overcrowding are strictly enforced.


Same stuff repeated. No really compelling data for anything to change the regulations, but maybe to increase the funding for enforcement.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 2:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Yes, it is a measure of time! 36 hours in transport without the usual human distractions is quite a considerable measure of time.


But we are not dealing with humans and that is where your emotional position fails.

If they were human animals, would my "emotional' position have failed? Yes! It would have!
There were all kinds of rational and pragmatic arguments for why we should have procured slaves and most agreed with the practice at the time. It was the thing. It was the status quo. It is what people did. It was legal. We agreed to it. It was convenient.

Quote:
Especially loaded up so closely.


Not very closely in the video though. In fact, I have passed a transport three days this past week and all three time showed the hogs lying down presumably asleep. A few had snouts protruding while others had ears and most were just visible at the floor level.

Quote:
Neither oxygen nor nitrogen is an issue. (???)


Neither is your 35 hours without some defined reason other than you don't like it because you would not like it if it happened to you.

Exactly. 36 hours And 52 for cows.
It's an industry.
People support it with diet. Habit. Not necessary.
What a nightmare.

Quote:
You bring up nitrogen now? Oxygen? Who said anything about either?


It was to point out that without some supporting reason periods of time are useless.


"Without supporting reason, periods of time are useless?"

Huh? Why? How? While pigs are not human, they are animals. They endure time.
What does nitrogen and oxygen have to do with the way we treat animals?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:19 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
Quote:
That is you OPINION and one for which you have provided no evidence to show that it is based on anything other than assumption.


NOT my opinion and NOT my assumption. I prefer facts.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-l ... -1.2820563

Canada's regulations governing the transportation of farmed animals date back to 1975. They currently allow for cattle to be in transit for 52 hours without access to food or water, while the maximum for pigs and chickens is 36 hours.

"Animals are often transported thousands of kilometres without any food, water, shelter or any protection from the elements."
And these conditions appear to be taking their toll. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says between two and three million animals die during transport every year.


Quote:
Old MUST be bad is a clear set of evidence? Stating the regulations is factual but no evidence there is a significant problem with them. The rate of animals dying during transit is between 0.28% and 0.42% according to these figures. The US has a level of concern trigger at 0.5%.


Old must be bad? No. The evidence you are looking for and which I have provided is 36 hours and 52 hours. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says between two and three million animals die during transport every year. Is this no concern for you? If not, perhaps we should be discussing the weather instead?

The key information is that between 2 and 3 million animals die in transport every year. What other evidence would you like?
If that many dead animals is only a small percentage, then how many animals are transported, and for what? Food? Protein? Habit? Industry?

Because animals are not human animals, you will defend the current system?
No problems with it?

Quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-standards-for-farm-animal-transport-dangerously-lax-report-says/article1211566/

Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.


Quote:
It seems the transport is being blamed for both, when diseases should take longer to manifest symptoms. This appears to indicate a pre-existing condition prior to transport.


Nothing was said about a pre-existing conditions. But what if there was one? Who would have known, or cared? They are shipping in bulk and we are buying utility chickens and downers. They all end up in our grocery stores.

Quote:
The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather. Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.


Quote:
Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering, which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions.


Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. I should not feel any emotion about this situation? Why? Is there something wrong with my intellect if I have an emotional reaction to this situation? 52 hours in transport, and you want specific documentation? You have it. It's Canadian law.

52 hours
without food, water and a rest break is undocumented suffering?
In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.

Quote:
Geoff Urton, the farm animal welfare co-ordinator at the British Columbia SPCA, said Canada's regulations are more than 30 years old and need to be updated. "There is really good evidence that the current standards are not adequate to actually protect the animals," said Mr. Urton.


Quote:
And then we have nothing .....


No. We have quite a lot. Taste buds, habit, tradition, etc. Need? Not much. Industry? Yes. Call it what it is.

Quote:
KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT

1. Unacceptable numbers of animals, particularly chickens, die during transport.
This most often happens when the birds are moved over long distances and in inclement weather.


2 to 3 million animals die during transport and you are waiting for "acceptable levels"? Who will tell you? What agency? What religion? What nationality? What economic system? Is their a road map for such things? A formula? Which jurisdiction will make that okay for you?

Animals died during transport? Acceptable?

2 to 3 million: The number of animals that arrive dead every year at Canadian slaughterhouses.

Quote:
There will be a percentage of deaths everywhere. This percentage is within the acceptable range listed for the US.


2 to 3 million: The number of animals that arrive dead every year at Canadian slaughterhouses. ( or anywhere ...} is acceptable?
So you are not arguing the numbers anymore? You are justifying it? Because "this percentage is within the acceptable range listed for the US". Really? Do pigs hold passports? There fate does not take borders into consideration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:37 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Yes, it is a measure of time! 36 hours in transport without the usual human distractions is quite a considerable measure of time.


But we are not dealing with humans and that is where your emotional position fails.


Quote:
If they were human animals, would my "emotional' position have failed? Yes! It would have!


Yes, because you are human and the feelings would be similar so when they were asked about the conditions you could empathize.

Quote:
There were all kinds of rational and pragmatic arguments for why we should have procured slaves and most agreed with the practice at the time. It was the thing. It was the status quo. It is what people did. It was legal. We agreed to it. It was convenient.


Yes, and women were kept in their place as well. Your point being?


Quote:
Exactly. 36 hours And 52 for cows.
It's an industry.
People support it with diet. Habit. Not necessary.
What a nightmare.


Food IS a necessity, however. Animal products are a natural necessity for our well being and they convert products humans cannot consume into products we can and need.

Quote:
"Without supporting reason, periods of time are useless?"

Huh? Why? How? While pigs are not human, they are animals. They endure time.


None of which makes any sense at all. Animals endure time no matter where they are or what they are doing.

Quote:
What does nitrogen and oxygen have to do with the way we treat animals?


The difference between a necessity and a want, which you still seem to fail to grasp.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:08 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:


Quote:
Old MUST be bad is a clear set of evidence? Stating the regulations is factual but no evidence there is a significant problem with them. The rate of animals dying during transit is between 0.28% and 0.42% according to these figures. The US has a level of concern trigger at 0.5%.


Old must be bad? No. The evidence you are looking for and which I have provided is 36 hours and 52 hours.


Which means nothing as evidence of anything other than units of time.

Quote:
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says between two and three million animals die during transport every year.


They also say most of those deaths are chickens who are already near the end of their lives and are expected not to survive as are the animals for which those two units of time measure relate. You are not giving evidence of anything related to the video or the units of time you say are critical.

Quote:
Is this no concern for you?


It would concern me if someone had a more viable solution, but until then the fact they all die does not cause me to loose sleep over the issue.

Quote:
If not, perhaps we should be discussing the weather instead?



Actually you were when you were telling me of the heatwave those hogs in the video might have endured.

Quote:
The key information is that between 2 and 3 million animals die in transport every year. What other evidence would you like?


Start with how would any change to the regulations prevent these deaths, especially since you have not touched on the regulations for chickens, which account for the majority of the deaths.

Quote:
If that many dead animals is only a small percentage, then how many animals are transported,


If you so not have that data you should not even be talking about the subject because you have no understanding at all.

Quote:
and for what? Food?


Yes.

Quote:
Because animals are not human animals, you will defend the current system?


Unless and until someone shows me information that indicates a demonstrably more effective system which can replace the current one.

Quote:
No problems with it?


Not like you do.

Quote:
Quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-standards-for-farm-animal-transport-dangerously-lax-report-says/article1211566/

Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.


Quote:
It seems the transport is being blamed for both, when diseases should take longer to manifest symptoms. This appears to indicate a pre-existing condition prior to transport.


Nothing was said about a pre-existing conditions.


Animals do not contract and show significant symptoms of many diseases in such a short period of time, thus they were diseased prior to transport.

Quote:
But what if there was one? Who would have known, or cared? They are shipping in bulk and we are buying utility chickens and downers. They all end up in our grocery stores.


Changing the regulations would have no effect as that is already prohibited. That lessens the caseyou are trying to make to change the regulations.

Quote:
Quote:
The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather. Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.


Quote:
Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering, which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions.


Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. I should not feel any emotion about this situation? Why? Is there something wrong with my intellect if I have an emotional reaction to this situation?


Yes, you are assuming you and a cow feel the same way about everything.

Quote:
52 hours in transport, and you want specific documentation? You have it. It's Canadian law.


You want to change it so you need something to show that it NEEDS to be changed and provide a viable solution FOR the final change.

Quote:
52 hours
without food, water and a rest break is undocumented suffering?
In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.


In Europe are there the same distances to be transported? If not that solution is not as viable. it is comparing apples to oranges. If most of the cattle can be to their destination in 12 hours in Europe, there is no comparison to Canada. You have to have more information if you wish to prove there is a viable comparison between the two sets of regulations.

Quote:
Quote:
Geoff Urton, the farm animal welfare co-ordinator at the British Columbia SPCA, said Canada's regulations are more than 30 years old and need to be updated. "There is really good evidence that the current standards are not adequate to actually protect the animals," said Mr. Urton.


Quote:
And then we have nothing .....


No. We have quite a lot. Taste buds, habit, tradition, etc. Need? Not much. Industry? Yes. Call it what it is.


I suppose I should have said YOU have nothing.....

Quote:
Quote:
KEY FINDINGS OF THE REPORT

1. Unacceptable numbers of animals, particularly chickens, die during transport.
This most often happens when the birds are moved over long distances and in inclement weather.


2 to 3 million animals die during transport and you are waiting for "acceptable levels"?


Animals die. A percentage will die no matter what. YOU have to show that percentage is correctable or YOU have no case. If your proposed solution still results in a similar number of deaths why make the change? You do not seem to understand this very simple fact.

Quote:
Who will tell you? What agency? What religion? What nationality? What economic system? Is their a road map for such things? A formula? Which jurisdiction will make that okay for you?


Death is a part of life.

Quote:
Animals died during transport? Acceptable?


Yes, you cannot have a perfect outcome no matter what.

Quote:
2 to 3 million: The number of animals that arrive dead every year at Canadian slaughterhouses.



Yes, out of how many shipped again?

Quote:
Quote:
There will be a percentage of deaths everywhere. This percentage is within the acceptable range listed for the US.


2 to 3 million: The number of animals that arrive dead every year at Canadian slaughterhouses. ( or anywhere ...} is acceptable?


Yes, there has to be a percentage of acceptable losses because there will always be losses. The total number of humans killed in transport is evidence that we must accept that percentage of loss.

Quote:
So you are not arguing the numbers anymore? You are justifying it?


No, you are the one using the numbers incorrectly. Mixing chickens, hogs, and cattle losses to say the time limits for travel for hogs and cattle are bad is worse than misleading.

Quote:
Because "this percentage is within the acceptable range listed for the US". Really? Do pigs hold passports? There fate does not take borders into consideration.


You used Europe as an example without questioning if the animals held passports? Being consistent in the use of information makes for a more believable presentation. You are not doing very well in yours.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:09 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

Quote:
Animals do not contract and show significant symptoms of many diseases in such a short period of time, thus they were diseased prior to transport.


Of course, 1,500 birds didn't freeze to death. They were already sick and injured, and that's why they froze to death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

Quote:
Animals do not contract and show significant symptoms of many diseases in such a short period of time, thus they were diseased prior to transport.


Of course, 1,500 birds didn't freeze to death. They were already sick and injured, and that's why they froze to death.


Odd that you left out the portion of the quote to which I had replied .......

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

Quote:
Animals do not contract and show significant symptoms of many diseases in such a short period of time, thus they were diseased prior to transport.


Of course, 1,500 birds didn't freeze to death. They were already sick and injured, and that's why they froze to death.


Odd that you left out the portion of the quote to which I had replied .......

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.


I am well aware of my own quote. No need to yell. 1,500 birds froze to death. Two to three million die in transport. And yes, 11 of those 2-3 million were already diseased. And in only one incident, 1,500 froze to death while in transport. Were any of the 1,500 diseased. Is that why they froze to death? You have stated that a percentage of the 2-3 million were already diseased. I heard you.

The others die because of temperature extremes ..... in this scenario.

Could it be that the 2-3 million DOA required some basic care rather than wanted it? (which was the example you gave of our dear children when say they absolutely "need" a new gizmo or else they will die?) These animals actually do die for want of water and rest and protection from extreme weather conditions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1211566/

Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm. Animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.

Quote:
It seems the transport is being blamed for both, when diseases should take longer to manifest symptoms. This appears to indicate a pre-existing condition prior to transport.


Only for the 11 million which is only a percentage of the dead. What about the injured? They were either injured during transport or were already injured prior to transport. Either way, inhumane. 11 million is a percentage of the substantial 2-3 million. How do you account for the rest?

The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather. Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.

Quote:
Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering,

No. It is not saying that 'where there is transport there is suffering'. It is saying that, in Canada's 30 year old animal welfare laws, cows can be transported for up top 52 hours without food, water, or rest. It is not an assumption; it is a fact.

Quote:
which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions.


Supported by actual fact. Now, one might experience some emotion in regards to this fact. It's quite possible, and hopefully probable.

Quote:
No data provided as to what an acceptable level is and by what level it was exceeded.


The "acceptable level" is whatever we want it to be. Whatever is convenient. Would you like some bacon with your croissant? Would you like a pork chop, bacon bits, veal cordon bleu with your chianti? "need vs. want". But while 2-3 million die in transport, these animals don't actually "need" anything just as our kids don't "need" Nintendo. This is your point it seems, probably you make this point because it is convenient for you. I can't imagine why else you would.

Animals are arriving at slaughterhouses and auctions emaciated, weak, crippled and with severe injuries.
The number of sheep a farmer brought to be slaughtered at Princeton Meat Packers in Woodstock, Ont., that had injuries so severe, they should never have been transported.

Quote:
So much injury in such a short period of transport time?


What do you mean "short"? We are talking about the length of transport time.

Quote:
This does not indicate the transport is as bad as prior treatment.


Prior treatment, transport treatment ...... I'm not sure what your point is? Would prior treatment absolve the transport treatment?
If there was due care, should these animals have been transported at all if they were ill treated before transportation? Did they perhaps "need" some other due consideration, or did they just "want" it? What would have prevented animals arriving at slaughterhouses and auctions emaciated, weak, crippled and with severe injuries?

The number of sheep a farmer brought to be slaughtered at Princeton Meat Packers in Woodstock, Ont., that had injuries so severe, they should never have been transported.

Severely compromised animals are transported and left to suffer for prolonged periods, sometimes days.

Quote:
Making it more illegal will prevent it?


Yes, as well as consumer demand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm.

Quote:
Animals do not contract and show significant symptoms of many diseases in such a short period of time, thus they were diseased prior to transport.


Of course, 1,500 birds didn't freeze to death. They were already sick and injured, and that's why they froze to death.


Odd that you left out the portion of the quote to which I had replied .......

animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.


animal-friendly wrote:
I am well aware of my own quote. No need to yell.
]

It did not seem so given my quote you included was not referencing what you wanted to connect.

Quote:
1,500 birds froze to death. Two to three million die in transport. And yes, 11 of those 2-3 million were already diseased.


11 million ios larger than 2-3 million.

Quote:
And in only one incident, 1,500 froze to death while in transport. Were any of the 1,500 diseased.


You tell me. You seem to be saying that different transport rules would have prevented it so you must have information to support that view.

Quote:
Is that why they froze to death? You have stated that a percentage of the 2-3 million were already diseased. I heard you.


A percentage is weakened chickens and most likely does include some of the diseased animals, which you have yet to show would be improved by different regulations.


Quote:
The others die because of temperature extremes ..... in this scenario.


Providing they were not some of those weakened birds.

Quote:
Could it be that the 2-3 million DOA required some basic care rather than wanted it?


Anything COULD be. You have to show something to a greater certainty if you want to make changes as you propose.

Quote:
(which was the example you gave of our dear children when say they absolutely "need" a new gizmo or else they will die?) These animals actually do die for want of water and rest and protection from extreme weather conditions.


What level of water and rest would have prevented this again? Where is the evidence to support this? What exactly was different about thsi one case of bird freezing than the regular transport? The type of bird? The type of transport? What?

Quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-standards-for-farm-animal-transport-dangerously-lax-report-says/article1211566/

Poultry workers opened the doors of a chicken truck at a Toronto slaughterhouse in December, 2008, to find that nearly 1,500 birds had frozen to death in sub-zero temperatures during their final journey from the farm. Animal rights organization obtained from CFIA indicate that two million to three million animals die during transport every year and another 11 million arrive at their destination diseased or injured.


Have there been any changes or modifications in the last 8 years? It seems this was more of a one-off than a typical situation.

Quote:
Quote:
It seems the transport is being blamed for both, when diseases should take longer to manifest symptoms. This appears to indicate a pre-existing condition prior to transport.


Only for the 11 million which is only a percentage of the dead.


11 million is several times either the 2 or 3 million number.


Quote:
What about the injured? They were either injured during transport or were already injured prior to transport.


That is what YOU have to show with evidence if you wish to blame one or the other.

Quote:
Either way, inhumane.


Possibly but one way the transport regulations are not going to make a difference if they are changed.

Quote:
11 million is a percentage of the substantial 2-3 million. How do you account for the rest?


YOU have to do the accounting if you want to show that 1) they are killed solely due to transport issues and 2) the changing the regulations would prevent a significant percentage of those deaths.

Quote:
The greatest animal suffering observed in the study occurred on long journeys - especially in freezing weather.


When you are looking for "suffering" and self define it the discovery is not really connected to anything. What of this "suffering" caused documented injury or death? How many of the injuries or deaths could be prevented by changing the regulations? What is the cost/benefit analysis of the changes you propose?


Quote:
Canadian cows can be in transit for 52 hours without food, water and a rest break. In Europe, the standard is 12 hours.


Yes, you keep mentioning that, but what are the documented differences in injuries, deaths, costs, etc?

Quote:
Quote:
Suffering which again is not specified nor documented. It seems to say that if there is transport there must be suffering,

No. It is not saying that 'where there is transport there is suffering'. It is saying that, in Canada's 30 year old animal welfare laws, cows can be transported for up top 52 hours without food, water, or rest. It is not an assumption; it is a fact.


That fact doe nothign to provide evidence of SUFFERING either UNLESS you fall back to the assumption that with transport there MUST BE suffering.

Quote:
Quote:
which is an assumption unsupported by anything other than emotions.


Supported by actual fact.


What "actual fact" was that? What injury or death is documented between the two?

Quote:
Now, one might experience some emotion in regards to this fact. It's quite possible, and hopefully probable.


All you have provided is emotion though.

Quote:
Quote:
No data provided as to what an acceptable level is and by what level it was exceeded.


The "acceptable level" is whatever we want it to be. Whatever is convenient. Would you like some bacon with your croissant? Would you like a pork chop, bacon bits, veal cordon bleu with your chianti? "need vs. want". But while 2-3 million die in transport, these animals don't actually "need" anything just as our kids don't "need" Nintendo. This is your point it seems, probably you make this point because it is convenient for you. I can't imagine why else you would.


So you have no acceptable level and there is no reason to listen to you because you will never be satisfied with the regulations.

Quote:
Animals are arriving at slaughterhouses and auctions emaciated, weak, crippled and with severe injuries.
The number of sheep a farmer brought to be slaughtered at Princeton Meat Packers in Woodstock, Ont., that had injuries so severe, they should never have been transported.


If they never should have been transported changing the regulations to even the EU levels would not make any difference. You have admitted as much.

Quote:
Quote:
So much injury in such a short period of transport time?


What do you mean "short"? We are talking about the length of transport time.


Since that quote did not come form the last few of my posts and there is nothing to indicate where to look for the context, I cannot say.

Quote:
Quote:
This does not indicate the transport is as bad as prior treatment.


Prior treatment, transport treatment ...... I'm not sure what your point is? Would prior treatment absolve the transport treatment?


YES!! If you are claiming injury prior to transport as part of the transport injury data it IS absolved of those injuries because none of the changes to the transport rules would have an effect.

Quote:
If there was due care, should these animals have been transported at all if they were ill treated before transportation?


What kind of "due care" reverses injuries during transport?

Quote:
Did they perhaps "need" some other due consideration, or did they just "want" it? What would have prevented animals arriving at slaughterhouses and auctions emaciated, weak, crippled and with severe injuries?


NOTHING would have. The current regulations, changes to follow the EU regulations, or changes to follow whatever your regulations would be would have had an effect.


Quote:
The number of sheep a farmer brought to be slaughtered at Princeton Meat Packers in Woodstock, Ont., that had injuries so severe, they should never have been transported.


Thus no changes to the transport regulations would have had an effect.

Quote:
Severely compromised animals are transported and left to suffer for prolonged periods, sometimes days.


So no changes to the transport regulations would affect any of these problems.

Quote:
Quote:
Making it more illegal will prevent it?


Yes, as well as consumer demand.


Really? You are saying that being illegal to do so does not prevent the problems but making it more illegal will magically make the difference? Can you explain this?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
"Yes, there has to be a percentage of acceptable losses because there will always be losses. The total number of humans killed in transport is evidence that we must accept that percentage of loss"

See how weird it gets folks?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
"Yes, there has to be a percentage of acceptable losses because there will always be losses. The total number of humans killed in transport is evidence that we must accept that percentage of loss"

See how weird it gets folks?


It is called reality, if you cannot deal with it your ideas will not be considered because they will be impractical.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
"Yes, there has to be a percentage of acceptable losses because there will always be losses. The total number of humans killed in transport is evidence that we must accept that percentage of loss"

See how weird it gets folks?


It is called reality, if you cannot deal with it your ideas will not be considered because they will be impractical.


See how weird it gets folks? Apparently it is impractical to envision anything different.
Do not dare think outside the box.

Do not dare to think their is a box in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:56 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
"Yes, there has to be a percentage of acceptable losses because there will always be losses. The total number of humans killed in transport is evidence that we must accept that percentage of loss"

See how weird it gets folks?


It is called reality, if you cannot deal with it your ideas will not be considered because they will be impractical.


See how weird it gets folks?


Yes, to actually expect someone to have a solution that will work in the real world in order to make changes in the real world is really weird to those who really want to affect a change.

Quote:
Apparently it is impractical to envision anything different.


No, it is impractical to want people to make a change before having a change that will work, with evidence and reasoning to support it.

Quote:
Do not dare think outside the box.


If that is your take, it is as incorrect as many of the other claims you have made.


Quote:
Do not dare to think their is a box in the first place.


First learn to think and work up form there.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:07 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Is there a reason you are just now quoting your own posts from prior pages?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
[quote="Wayne Stollings"]Is there a reason you are just now quoting your own posts from prior pages?[d
Not exactly. No.Why do you ask?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group