Pig Code of Welfare – last day to send submissions

Written By: - Date published: 12:00 am, April 16th, 2010 - 18 comments
Categories: animal welfare, farming - Tags: ,

Today is the last day to send in your submission on NAWAC’s draft Code of Welfare for Pigs. New Zealand Open Rescue have put out a new video containing footage from many different farms around the country, to remind you why it is important to have your say.

The draft Code of Welfare as it currently stands proposes to limit the use of sow crates to 4 weeks per year by 2013 – leaving sows in crates for up to 20 weeks per year. It recommends that by 2018 sow crates be banned, leaving sows in farrowing crates for still up to 12 weeks per year.

What SAFE is asking for is pretty conservative. All they are asking is that sow crates and farrowing crates be banned. The rest of the conditions on a pig farm are pretty awful too – sow group housing and fattening pens are also concrete and barren – the only thing that makes them slightly better is that the pigs can turn around.

As always, it is best if you have time to write your own submission – however the most important thing is that you get it in on time. You can send a submission using SAFE’s template at www.lovepigs.org.nz.

18 comments on “Pig Code of Welfare – last day to send submissions ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. belladonna 1
    16 April 2010 at 7:21 am

    Yes I think it is important that compassion is extended to all living creatures. I hope those on the left are as willing to show their disgust at the way these pigs are treated as they do to the suffering of humans.

  2. Sarge 2
    16 April 2010 at 7:29 am

    I’m curious. How many of those who want to stop factory farming pigs also wear clothes from Chinese sweat shops?

    If you want to buy free range pork, go ahead. I’m not going to stop you (indeed, I have no reason to prevent you doing anything). However, a law change would force me to also buy free range pork. Why should I not have the choice?

    • Marty G 2.1
      16 April 2010 at 8:25 am

      – If you want to not beat your wife, go ahead. I’m not going to stop you (indeed, I have no reason to prevent you doing anything). However, a law change would force me to also not beat my wife. Why should I not have the choice? –

      We have laws against things because society thinks they’re too wrong to allow, even if some individuals don’t mind it.

    • Lew 2.2
      16 April 2010 at 8:36 am

      The proposed change has nothing to do with enforcing free-range production. Not even SAFE and Open Rescue are pushing for that, as Rocky’s article makes plain.

      L

  3. Sarge 3
    16 April 2010 at 9:08 am

    Marty G -Alright, fair point. Why just pigs then? I’m sure most people would find starving children acceptable (I myself donate to TearFund), but there’s no way I would suggest a compulsary donatation to help end poverty in Africa. Or what about those with terminal illnesses? Even though most people find these unacceptable, I certainly wouldn’t support a law change requiring all scientists to work on finding a cure. Let people choose which causes they wish to support, instead of a law change that requires everyone to pay more.

    Besides, if most people found this practice unacceptable, they wouldn’t buy from firms that used them. Those firms would quickly go out of business. As this doesn’t happen, I’d suggest that although most people may voice disgust at the current practice, they aren’t happy to pay the higher prices (Note: This was not aimed at anyone in particular).

    Lew – Sorry, you’re right. My apologies to all, and thanks for pointing that out.

    • Marty G 3.1
      16 April 2010 at 9:11 am

      there is a compulsory donation to help end poverty in the third world. It’s called your taxes paying for the aid budget.

    • lprent 3.2
      16 April 2010 at 9:17 am

      Apart from anything else both sow and farrowing crates violate our own animal welfare legislation as a parliamentary select committee found a few years ago (limited access today, so I’m not looking it up). They have been given ‘temporary’ exemptions for the last decade by regulation to be able to continue to violate the standards already laid down in legislation.

      So Sarge – do you advocate that pig farmers should be able to continue to violate our existing legislation by a bureaucratic override?

      captcha: misunderstands – weirdly appropriate

    • prism 3.3
      16 April 2010 at 10:21 am

      Sarge I haven’t enquired whether the pig farms whose bacon I buy have got good conditions. I think about it, but find that having to make ethical decisions on each item as I do my shopping means that I faint from hunger before finishing the job. Shoppers don’t want to go without bacon and buy either not caring, or in a limited time-frame. The decision about ethical treatment of animals shouldn’t be left to the market.

      But I may do better in future. My latest bacon purchase from the supermarket is from Freedom farms – NZ free farmed, no crates, no cages, no pens, no growth hormones, gluten fee and traditionally wood-smoked also GE free. It has a Free Farmed logo with map of NZ and pig beside. Can’t remember how much it cost.

      So we might be on the road to ending this resistance to good conditions for piggies. Freedom farms is making a stand so support their product and other food suppliers doing likewise.

      • Sarge 3.3.1
        16 April 2010 at 11:23 am

        Marty -And I disagree with that. Even though it’s a cause I support, I believe people should be able to choose who they donate money too.

        Iprent – if they’re breaking they law, take them to court. However, if they’re using a loop hole, they aren’t violating anything. What they’re doing is perfectly legal. (I agree people shouldn’t be able to get away with using a loop hole though. The law should be clairfied one way or the other).

        prism – I agree the market isn’t a perect mechnism. I accept that there will be a small number of people who will be unable to find a brand which matches their beliefs. But the alternative is forcing a larger group of people to start paying for a cause they don’t believe in. Which seems to be the most inequitable?

  4. prism 4
    16 April 2010 at 10:41 am

    Incidentally this so-called argument that people shouldn’t attempt to adopt better and more humane standards for one circumstance because there are a million other unsatisfactory circumstances in the world being ignored is a pathetic one.

    It is lazy and selfish people who criticise every attempt to improve things, only arousing themselves to give negative examples attempting to show that the person wanting change is foolhardy. Let’s all not bother about trying to do anything that is within our power to make anything better. It’s too much hard work and ultimately it may improve things for others and not ourselves, and that’s the important point.

  5. Sarge 5
    16 April 2010 at 11:28 am

    “Let’s all not bother about trying to do anything that is within our power to make anything better. It’s too much hard work and ultimately it may improve things for others and not ourselves, and that’s the important point.”

    Not at all. You can donate to any cause you want. You can volunteer for any group you want. I don’t care. Just don’t expect me to pay more for a cause I don’t believe in.

  6. Sarge 6
    16 April 2010 at 11:29 am

    “Let’s all not bother about trying to do anything that is within our power to make anything better. It’s too much hard work and ultimately it may improve things for others and not ourselves, and that’s the important point.”

    Not at all. You can donate to any cause you want. You can volunteer for any group you want. I don’t care. Just don’t expect me to pay more for a cause I don’t believe in.

  7. prism 7
    16 April 2010 at 11:37 am

    Yes I can see you have made my point Sarge, twice.

  8. jules 8
    16 April 2010 at 3:17 pm

    sarge , is just like the majority of human beings ,he cares for only one thing and one thing only -himself!

Links to post