Animal Rights For Farm Animals Sociology Essay

living organism Rights For Farm puppet(prenominal)s Sociology EssayThe paucity of efficacious wisdom and teaching in the res publica of sensuals and the legal philosophy is puzzling, particularly given the global inte alight in, and intense debate ab forbidden, the preaching of beasts by humans all oer the last 30 twelvemonths. The lack of interest in Australia is ironic, as it was the lock of the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, in the extremely influential book Animal Liberation, which bath be said to deem reinvigo calculated much of the modern font debate ab come forth the military position of brutes.1By contrast with the Australian uninterest, countries such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as Sweden, the united Kingdom, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands capture moved to ban the cruel confide of keeping pregnant sows in sow carrells, Australias nearly recent exemplar Pig regulation contributed for a minor levying in stall size and a gen erous 10 year phase in period for a 6 week limit on the char dissembleer of sow stalls. Moreover, the deplorable practice of keeping hens in bombing c matures delays to be nifty in all Australian jurisdictions plot the EU has let on honor the utilize of all battery cages by January 2012. b atomic number 18ly to this, the get together States court-ordered academy has been actively exploring legal issues relating to fleshlys for a number of years. The Lewis and Clark Law School, in Portland, Oregon, has established the National Center for Animal Law and publishes an annual journal, Animal Law.2Approximately 40 rightfulness schools in the United States offer run-ins on animals and the law.3The legal profession in the United States has been no less active. A large number of State Bar Associations have established animal law sections or committees. maskivist attorneys established the independent Animal sub judice Defense Fund (ALDF) in 1981. The ALDF non only provides f ree legal advice and assistance to prosecutors in inhuman treatment cases, but as well as maintains a field of study database of cruelty cases, and provides support for lawsuits that test the boundaries of animal law.4Certainly, Australias worthless animal public assistance standards in comparison argon a wakeless flaw of Australian animal fosterive covering laws. Nevertheless, change surface if the State and Territory Governments decide to lend oneself ambitious well- universe standards, as the legislation stands, these standards would go substantially unenforced. As such, this essay attempts to explore the current legal system governing our animals and in the process it lead bring to light the deficiencies that currently exist. The nidus of which will be on the treatment of milling machinery farmed animals and how Australia continues to lag stool the rest of the dry land in developing a legal system that hard-hittingly shuts discover animal cruelty.The nonion o f animal law is one that is highly complex yet ironically extremely belowdeveloped. This in turn has direct to mass confusion ab fall out the treatment of animals by various bodies. concord to voiceless, over the last 30 years, thither has been a dramatic increase in our understanding of animal intelligence and behaviour and a free acceptance that animals atomic number 18 sentient beings that have a right to stick up free of paltry. This has led to the recognition that the existing legal system has failed to provide animals with access to justice.To address this failure, two streams of law have been developed that m early(a) to use legal mechanisms to improve the lives of animals.51. Animal wellbeing laws whitethorn be defined as those laws that ingestk to promote the interests of animals, at bottom a legal example that characterises them as billet. In essence, animal eudaemonia law sanctions developing of animals but seeks to define acceptable limits to that exploitat ion by prohibiting unnecessary vexation and suffering.6Some examples of activities considered necessary under Australias current animal welf ar laws accommodate7Confining millions of pigs, white-livereds and other farm animals in concrete and steel sheds (modern pointory farms) with no access to the outdoors, little to no access to bedding solid andlittle to no so applyingful contact with their youngDenying anaesthetic during detestable procedures such as tail slip, castration and teeth clipping and utilise a range of methods from baits and traps to guns and bows and arrows (in some provinces) to kill millions of wild animals defined as feral or game e very(prenominal) year.It is under this subject field of law that Australia is absorb lacking in its commitment to the fosterion of animal welf be. Ultimately, such necessary activities atomic number 18 permitted on the basis of efficiency and economics. This is further strengthened by Francione who argues that almost a nimal welf be legislation is based on an understanding of animals as commodities (evidenced by the signifi toilett exemptions and qualifications typical of such laws, including the use of animals for food and for scientific research).8 but, the imposition of cruelty for economic reasons whole is unreasonable and essentially this admits to be re variationed. For Singer, a utilitarian, the qualified protection provided by animal welf be legislation reflects a failure to give get even rumination to the interests of animals. In turn, this failure reflects speciesism an irrational, discriminatory and deterrent examplely unjustifiable appreciation for the interests of humans over animals.9Public consideration of the issue of cruelty to animals tends to direction on the treatment of companion animals and animals use in research. Wolfson and Sullivan argue that this focus also underpins law-making and legal scholarship.10Yet, they point out, it is farmed animals that account for al most all animals killed by humans (in the order of 98 in every 100 killed).11This is once over again a clear failure in the learning of an effective body of law. The protection of animal welfare and rights is clearly a mirage of hope. This is in general based on the nonion that anti-cruelty legislation has been called upon because of the impact that humans are having on farmed animals, yet our legal bodies continue to ignore such sibilant actions and focus on an area of law that appeases society without in reality efficaciously addressing the issue at hand. Ultimately, as will be discussed later, this creates a mendacious sense of security amongst humans that our administrations are effectively targeting animal welfare rights. In the United States these animals are invisible to the law. At federal level, farmed animals are exempted from anti-cruelty legislation.12States are also increasingly incorporating customary farming exemptions. If industry participants can establis h that particular treatment of a type of animal is trite and accepted industry practice, no criminal liability can get hold based on that treatment, regardless of how cruel the treatment might actually be. The end result is a profit-driven industry, with a proven record of keep up infliction of cruelty on animals, which is largely self-regulated on issues of animal welfare.13Further to this, legislation in Australia exempts farming from cruelty offences, and although most jurisdictions have adopted codes of conduct for the treatment of farmed animals, these are not always compulsory, and are not subject to wide public scrutiny. Thus, the issue of profit making industries again goes to the core of animal welfare rights. The failure to understand animal welfare rights over economic progression will inevitably meet that this trunk a perpetual problem. Until society puts animal welfare ahead of net then Australia will remain in a contained cyclical crepuscle with prise to the p rotection of animals. It is at this point where the implementation of animal rights law may help to aid the development of animal protection in the future.2. Animal rights law may be defined as an area of law which seeks to question animals well-entrenched status as space, with a estimate to securing fundamental rights for (at least some) animals.14The quest for animal rights is not a pursuit for the analogous rights that humans should have. Essentially, animal rights lawyers argue that animals should not be treated by the law as mere things. This area of the law is based on the assumption that unless animals have rights, they will continue to be treated by society as resources to satisfy human wants and essentials.15Thus it is the development of this area of law that is essential to the proper development of animal welfare laws. The development of these two areas ultimately complements one other with the hope of eradicating the issues that arise under the first type of legal s ystem. That is, the protection of animals from unnecessary pain and suffering only. Singer may regard animal welfare legislation as a affirmative development, but would argue that to be effective such legislation needs to consider the interests of animals and humans equally. It is here where animal rights law begins to reflect such an ideological stance, and as already discussed, this is a major step in the development of an effective body of law that deals with animals and humans.Whilst the need for legal advocates is an urgent one, animal law, as already discussed is a comparatively new body of law that is still in its infant stages of development. In the United States, animal law has been developing at an increasing rate over the last thirty years. However in Australia, there are still only a handful of advocates (committees, universities and organisations) actively debating these issues. A 2006 resume conducted in connection with the Federal Governments Australian Animal Welf are dodge found that participants had a shallow understanding of animal welfare issues and that there appeared to be assumptions by the general public about animal welfare and the existence and enforcement of legislation to protect animals from mistreatment.16Thus, this clear lack of transparency and command with respect to the law inevitably inhibits the ability of animal law to grow as a serious body of law.In recent years, increase scrutiny and criticism of intensive factory farms have changed the way that animal industries market their products. No much hiding beneath a inter of secrecy hoping that issues such as sow stalls, battery cages and snapper chicken growing and processing wont be discussed and debated. The social justice question of animal protection is rapidly picking up momentum and animal industries are now, more than ever, being called upon to justify or change their practices. However despite this change in perception, it is clear that Australia is still falli ng behind in the protection of intensively farmed animals. This can primarily be relate backed to the argument that animals can never gain adequate protection under the law without a fundamental reappraisal of their legal status as property. For example, according to the American lawyer Gary Francione, because their interests are evaluated against this status as property, the outcome is almost certain people win and animals lose.17He generates the view that, although an animal treatment by its owner may ostensibly be circumscribed by anticruelty laws, property rights are paramount in determine the ambit of protection accorded to animals by law.18If we say that an animal is property, he declares, we mean that the animal is to be treated under the law primarily as a operator to human ends, and not as an end in herself.19Thus, to expand legal protection and remedy available to factory farmed animals, a uniform and settled approach on standing must be established upon the principle that animals are not merely a means to human ends but have by virtue of themselves, basic moral rights.20Ultimately, the treatment of animals as property inhibits the ability of the law to protect their rights as it would be extremely unlikely that standing can be established. As Cassuto argues, animals lack legal protections because they are commodified property whose worth emanates from their market value.21In other words, systematic abuse arises is sanctioned in the discourse of property because such animals are not considered as singular, sentient beings but a mere commodity.22Granting standing to a plaintiff to sue to enforce an animal welfare statue therefore can serve to interfere in another individuals property right. The conflict of interest that arises is therefore an inherent problem within this body of law. The continuation of animals being associated as mere commodities will essentially inhibit the development of animal rights and ultimately will visualize Australia ashes behind the rest of the world.The notion that factory farmed animals are mere commodities with no measurable rights is made apparent especially in our NSW legislation. The legislative mannequin governing the lives of animals on factory farms is indicative of the dichotomy drawn surrounded by farm animals on the one hand and companion animals or peril species on the other. As already pointed out by Wolfson, public consideration of the issue of cruelty to animals tends to focus on the treatment of companion animals and animals used in research. This is made no more apparent than in our legislation. Firstly, NSW implemented the Companion Animals make believe 1998 (NSW).23The Companion Animals Act covers the responsibilities and rights of the owners of companion animals, such as cats and dogs. The aim of the legislation is to protect the rights of animals and their owners in balance with the rights and needs of others in the community. Thus, where NSW attempts to convey to the public that it is serious about animal rights, it appears that this is only with respect to companion animals. It is an unfortunate occurrence as it has created a sense of security amongst the public that our state is serious about animal protection, yet the right of the matter is that we are neglecting the primary winding group of animals that are in need the most. In NSW, the key piece of legislation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA).24One would assume that this may provide some protection to farmed animals. However, this is clearly not the case as Peter Sankoff suggests An examination of POCTAA as a stand-alone document further supports the suggestion that the animals best protected by NSW animal welfare law are animals the community has the most nimble and intimate relationship with.25Provisions in the Act establish plastered definitions of cruelty contained in sections 4(2) and 5 in which the following is an act of cruelty whereby an animal is unreas onably, unnecessarily or unjustifiably beaten, kicked, killed, wounded, pinioned, mutilated, maimed, abused, tormented, tortured, terrified or infuriated, over-loaded, over-worked, over-driven, over-ridden or over-used, exposed to excessive heat or excessive cold, or inflicted with pain. In section 4 of the POCTA Act, animals used for the doing of food and industry are defined as stock animals comprising cattle, horses, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, and poultry. By virtue of this definition they are exempt from numerous acts that would come under the definition of cruelty if these acts were pull against an animal not defined as a stock animal.26such(prenominal) exemptions are facilitated by the establishment of a legal defense to an assert cruel practice through section 24 of the POCTA Act whereby a person is not guilty of the offence if the court is satisfied that the act or omission in respect of which the proceedings are being interpreted was done to a stock animal in the course o f various industry practices.27Such practices sustaining the defense include ear tagging or branding and all acts if an animal is less than two to six months of age depending on the species of animals. Stock animals are also exempted from section 9 of the POCTA Act which stipulates that bound animals are to be exercised. Under 34A the POCTA Act, Industry codes of expend can be adopted as guidelines, relating to the welfare of farm animals meaning that it is the Industries themselves rule animal welfare in factory farms. This essentially creates a clear conflict of interest because rather than establish independent bodies or legislative frameworks, removed from subjective bias such as monetary concerns it appears that the government is content with self regulation that is clearly ineffective. Further to this, an examination of the other regulatory instruments that work alongside POCTAA further support the suggestion that being a high visibility animal is legislatively beneficial. Exhibited animals, the highest visibility animals, are granted the full range of protections available under POCTAA, and then they have their own piece of additional legislation in the form of the Exhibited Animals testimonial Act 1986 (NSW).28The protections available to animals in circuses, zoos, and those used in theatre and film, are strong and comprehensive. The reason EAPA was created was due to the public outcry over the poor conditions being provided for animals exhibited in some circuses and fauna parks.29This demonstrates how important visibility is to good legal protections, and essentially this highlights the chronic issue plaguing farmed animals as they are on the whole removed from the spotlight. Thus it is clear this is an extremely underdeveloped area of law, as Wolfson identifies, it is farmed animals that account for almost all animals killed by humans (in the order of 98 in every 100 killed).30Thus, how can Australia possibly consider itself at the forefront of animal welfare rights, when the core group of animals remains susceptible by any form of solid legislation? Essentially, Australia is still lag behind significantly and this will be further highlighted by a comparative analysis below of the developments taking place in the United States and Europe.The underdevelopment of our legal system with respect to animals is not confined to NSW only. If one were to take an analytical view of our Victorian legislation for instance, the public would indeed see that this is a nationwide issue. Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 Victoria, and its state and territory equivalents, exclude production animals (the vast majority of animals in Australia) from the legislations protection. If production industries follow a code of practice for their particular animal, they are exempted from prosecution for cruelty, despite the fact the codes are barely enforced, or allow very cruel practices. However, as discussed above, such codes of practice are clearly a form of appeasement rather than a serious attempt at protecting our animals. As a result, millions of factory-farmed animals daily endure conditions that would be abominable if they involved a companion animal such as a cat or dog. As Katrina Sharman, corporate counsel for animal protagonism group Voiceless says Most never see the light of day, tonus the earth beneath their feet, walk freely, stretch their wings or limbs, locoweed for food or engage in normal socialisation.31Even the limited legislative protection that Australia offers animals is inadequately enforced. Under section 24 of the act, charges may be laid by a member of the police force, a public servant in the Department of Primary Industries, municipal council incumbent or RSPCA officer.32But in reality, all bodies are under-resourced, meaning most breaches of the law are not detected or investigated, let alone prosecuted, even if there is genuine will to do so.33And even if soulful ness is convicted, penalties are woeful. Under section 10 of the act, for example, the maximum penalty for alter cruelty is 12 months jail. In this regard, greater deterrence through the form of a more imposing legislative framework is crucial to ensure that industries and individuals refrain from continuing such acts. Ultimately, education has been an insufficient tool to protect our animals and from an industry perspective, unless penalties become harsher, they are going to continue to practice in a way that is focused on efficiency alone and not in a way that would be in the animals interest.According to a publication issued by the Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc vex for bird welfare is backed by Government and Industry Standards which ensure birds are kept comfortable and treated humanely.34Similarly, Australian Pork Limiteds website tells us that Australian consumers can have every confidence in the animal welfare standards applied by Australian porc producers because our farmers all take over by the standards as set out in the position formula.35 contempt such positive sentiments, the issue at hand here is that most farm animals fall largely outside the protective reach of animal welfare legislation. They are classified in law as property or commodities as discussed above. The Codes mirror this approach, which has drastic ramifications for the way farm animals are treated. For example, the Codes permit permanent indoor confinement of female pigs, layer hens and join chickens in circumstances which severely limit their ability to carry out their normal behaviours. They also provide for certain Management Practices or elected Husbandry Procedures to be performed on farm animals. The Pig Code36sanctions the docking of piglets tails, while the Poultry Code37provides for layer hens to be subjected to appropriate prick trimming. These procedures are both permitted to be carried out without pain relief, notwithstanding the fact that scientific r esearch points to the fact that they are likely to cause keen and chronic pain.38Most animals in factory farms live a deportment of confinement. They spend their time crammed into cages, sheds or feedlots and they never see the sun. Take, for example, the breeding pigs (sows), count about 300,000.39These intelligent, emotionally complex beings spend the bulk of their reproductive lives in stalls so small they cannot turn around.40The sole purpose of their existence, as determined by us, is to produce the five million pigs slaughtered every year to fill the mouths of our pork, ham and bacon lovers.41This industry is so fixated on profits and see the demands of society that from an economic perspective no other form of treatment is feasible. Thus, it is clear that the industry has taken advantage of the laxity of the legislative framework and incorporated this into its own practice codes and industry standards. Through this, it is clear that Australia urgently needs to change to en sure that it ceases to lag behind the rest of the world and become a leader at the forefront of animal welfare.As argued, Australia is clearly lagging behind in the development of animal law, and the primary area is that of factory farmed animals. Despite Australian Pork Limited Claiming that Australian pig farmers are leading the way in making positive changes in the way pigs are raised, such claims are largely a falsity. As can be seen from the discussion above, in Australia, there are State and Territory animal welfare laws that are intended to protect animals but in reality, the fundamental interests of most farm animals, including pigs, are not protected in law. As already discussed, National Model Codes of Practice apply in addition to some animal welfare laws however, these Codes also fail to provide true protection. To make matters worse, they are often used to justify many cruel factory farming practices. The current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals- Pigs ( revised) (2006) (the Revised Code)is no exception. Continuing on from the above discussion, some of the cruel practices it permits arePregnant sows may be confined for the duration of their 16 week pregnancy in individual sow stalls, measuring no more than 0.6 x 2.2m. These stalls, which have been associated with physical disorders, chronic stress and depression, are so small that female pigs cannot even turn around.42From about 2017The maximum time for holding pregnant pigs in sow stalls will reduce to 6 weeks. This is two weeks more than the minimum standard being introduced by the European compass north and sunrise(prenominal) Zealand. Sow stalls are already bannedin the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Finland. They are also banned in Florida and are being phased out in Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan and Oregon in the United States. Two of the largest pork producers in the US and Canada also recently announced their plans to phase out s ow stalls.43Heavily pregnant and nursing sows will be confined for up to 6 weeks of each reproductive cycle in birth crates, before their young are prematurely weaned. These crates, which measure 0.5 x 2.2m, are even smaller than sow stalls.44Pig producersare not have to provide access to the outdoors where pigs can engage in vivid behaviours such as grazing, wallowing in mud, walking around and nosing or manipulating their environment.45 huffy mutilations of young piglets, including tail docking, teeth clipping and castration without pain relief, continue to be permitted.46Natural materials such as straw for sleeping and nesting, while encouraged,are not mandatory, rendering many pigs subject to a broken life on concrete floors.47Thus, whilst it is correct to say that the Pig Code has recently been reviewed, the upshot of that review, other than largely reinstating the existing system, was to defer phasing out sow stalls for a decade. If sow stalls are phased out in 2017 as men tioned above, then Australia will still be 14 years behind the EU which hasnt allowed new stalls to be create since 2003. Australia will also be markedly behind eight US States including, most recently, Michigan, which is scheduled to phase out sow stalls over the next decade. No Australian jurisdiction has even meaningfully debated a ban on sow stalls. Their spin on the Poultry Code appears to have overlooked the section conveniently titled hatchery management which allows about ten million culled or surplus hatchlings (predominately male chicks) to be prone of by carbon dioxide gassing or quick maceration as if they are trash, which technically they are in industry terms, since they are of no economic utility.48AECLs press release also failed to mention that conventional battery cages are scheduled to be phased out across the European Union by 2012, whereas several attempts to introduce a ban in Australia have met considerable resistance.49Further to the above, a number of Eur opean countries have taken a leadership role in the area of chicken meat