This Rocky Road is INCREDIBLE with chunks of Turkish delight, marshmallow, crispy puffed rice, pistachios, and almonds, all covered in Nestar’s signature, award-winning vegan chocolate.

The post Easter Bunny adoption with Rocky Road appeared first on Animals Australia.

In Animal Liberation, author Peter Singer exposes the chilling realities of today’s “factory farms” and product-testing procedures—destroying the spurious justifications behind them, and offering alternatives to what has become a profound environmental and social as well as moral issue. An important and persuasive appeal to conscience, fairness, decency, and justice, it is essential reading for the supporter and the skeptic alike.

The post ‘Animal Liberation Now’ (book) appeared first on Animals Australia.

Your 30cm plush bunny – made from 100% recycled materials – comes with a symbolic adoption certificate for you, or as a gift in a loved one’s name.

The post Symbolic bunny adoption appeared first on Animals Australia.

UPDATE: The consultation period is now closed. THANK YOU to all the wonderful people who made a submission. The Queensland Minister for Agriculture has confirmed that over 900 written submissions and 1,500 online survey responses were received. This is an amazing result for animals, by people who care about them. Here’s to a kinder future for animals in Queensland and everywhere.

How to make your submission

Your submission doesn’t need to be complex or overly formal. Simply say that you feel animals should be properly protected, provide the key points (below) in your own words — and remember to include your name, address and contact details.

Details of the review, the discussion paper and how to submit are on the QLD Department of Agriculture website.

You can:

• Upload a written submission
• Email your submission
• Take an online survey (please prioritise a written submission with the key points below – but completing the survey in addition will be valuable to ensure the interests of animals are represented in the survey results). A guide to survey answers is also below.

Remember to get your submission or survey in by Friday 21 May to make it count.

Make your submission »

Fundamental problems with the Act

ACPA is presented by the QLD Government as the laws and regulations for how animals can be legally treated in your state. The problem is, most animals are denied these protections.

In reality, ‘Codes of Practice’ and ‘Standards’ exempt harmful treatment of farmed animals, animals used for ‘entertainment’ and some others used for commercial purposes, that would otherwise be cruelty offences under the Act. For these animals the outdated Act:

• Fails to require pain relief for painful or invasive practices like castration, dehorning or tail cutting
• Allows intensive confinement like battery cages for hens and farrowing crates for mother pigs
• Means that farmed animals fall through the cracks of the laws that are supposed to protect them.

Read more about how Australian state laws (including in Queensland) expose farmed animals to legalised cruelty.

Crucially, ACPA doesn’t acknowledge that animals are sentient – meaning that they are aware and feeling. Something that is not only completely obvious to anyone who has encountered an animal, but supported by science. In fact, New Zealand and the ACT have already done this, and the UK is about to enact laws acknowledging this very fact.

The QLD Government needs to hear from you, loud and clear, that the Act has to change to fix these problems.

Five key points that need to be addressed in the Act

Please include these in your submission.

1. The sentience of non-human animals and our obligation to provide them basic freedoms must be acknowledged
2. An Independent Office of Animal Protection must be created
3. A minimum baseline of animal welfare must be enshrined to ensure all animals are protected from suffering and afforded a life worth living, including farmed animals
4. Mandatory bans for repeat or serious animal cruelty offenders must be introduced
5. Calf roping events in Queensland rodeos must be banned

These issues are expanded below.

Key points explained: what you could include in an email submission

The sentience of non-human animals & community obligation to them

A reasonable person would think that an ‘animal care’ Act would take into account that animals are sentient (meaning they are aware and feeling). But ACPA and the supporting documentation for the review are striking in the lack of this perspective. The Act focuses on the people who interact with and ‘use’ animals, but fails to acknowledge that animals have their own lived experiences and their welfare is a goal in its own right.

The Act and review seem narrowly focused on dogs and companion animals. But most animals in human care are farmed animals. Many Australians aren’t aware that farmed animals are left exposed to unnecessary suffering by Industry Codes of Practice and Standards that exempt them from state laws like this Act and allow them to be treated in ways that wouldn’t be allowed for dogs and other companion animals under this Act.

Key point to put in your own words:

1. Recognise the sentience of non-human animals and the community’s obligation to protect the basic requirements of animal welfare – freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behaviours; and freedom from fear and distress.

An Independent Office of Animal Protection

It’s a conflict of interest for the QLD Department of Agriculture to determine policy, inspect and prosecute animal cruelty offences when it is also tasked with the promotion of agricultural activities.

Key point to put in your own words:

2. Enable the establishment of an Independent Office of Animal Protection to address the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries’ current conflict of interest in regulating and enforcing animal-use industries while fostering those industries’ economic productivity.

A minimum baseline of animal welfare

Industry Codes of Practice and Standards expose farmed animals to routine cruelty that would otherwise be an offence under ACPA.

Key point to put in your own words:

3. Provide a minimum baseline of animal welfare to ensure that neither that Codes nor Standards can enable animal cruelty that should otherwise be prohibited under the Act.

Mandatory bans for repeat or serious animal cruelty offenders

Currently, repeat or serious animal cruelty offenders can still possess animals – like the shocking case of horse cruelty in Toowoomba where Terence Oberle allowed dozens of horses to starve to death on his property. He still has possession of six of the survivors, as well as cattle, and is only barred from acquiring new horses for 10 years.

Key point to put in your own words:

4. Ensure mandatory prohibition orders for repeat or serious offenders to prohibit those individuals from owning or being responsible for any animal for life.

Ban calf roping events in Queensland

Calf roping (also called rope and tie) has been banned in VIC and SA based on animal welfare concerns. It’s a timed rodeo event in which competitors on horseback chase down a frightened calf, rope them around the neck and ‘down’ them violently to the ground before tying their legs. An experienced veterinarian present at a 2021 QLD calf roping event called it ‘hideous and disgraceful’, according to our friends at Animal Liberation QLD.

Key point to put in your own words:

5. Mandate the end to calf roping in Queensland as a prohibited event.

Your guide to taking the survey

Below are survey questions available on the review website, starting with Question 7 (as the first six are related to your details). We have selected a range of answers for the questions below that would reflect better outcomes for animals if taken on board by the Act review, and suggest you choose one you agree with.

Q.7 One of the purposes of the ACPA is to “√¢‚Ǩ¬¶achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare needs of animals and the interests of people whose livelihood is dependent on the animals…”. This purpose is still suitable with increased animal welfare expectations and consumer preferences.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, what do you think the purpose should be?

To protect animals from cruel treatment and ensure their wellbeing.

To recognise the sentience of non-human animals and the community’s obligation to protect the basic requirements of animal welfare – freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behaviours; and freedom from fear and distress.

Q.8 The current prohibited event provisions are appropriate.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, what would you change?

Bans on:

• Rodeos – and particularly calf roping
• Horse racing
• Greyhound racing
• End any use of animals for wagering

There should be other ‘prohibited’ activities – i.e Section 44 of the ACPA currently allows live bait fish to be used to lure and to catch fish (this is an offence exemption) – these are sentient animals and should not be used in this manner.

Q.9 Veterinary professionals should have obligations under the ACPA to report suspected incidents of animal cruelty or neglect to authorities.

• Strongly agree

Q.10 The current list of surgical procedures restricted to veterinary surgeons is appropriate.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, what should procedures be added or removed?

Cropping of dogs’ ears, declawing cats, or cropping cows’ or horses’ tails should only be done in the most dire of circumstances when the body part is injured or there is some other pressing medical need. More requirements needed around these operations, as is already the case with devoicing.

Q.11 The current provision on tail docking of dogs is appropriate.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, please tell us how you think the provisions should change.

At a minimum regulations about tail docking need to be prescribed (they aren’t currently but are mentioned in the Act).

Q.12 The current provisions for the supply of animals that have undergone a regulated surgical procedure are appropriate.

• Somewhat agree
• Strongly agree

Q.13 The current provisions for traps and spurs are appropriate.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, please tell us how you think the provisions should change

Toothed steel-jawed traps and glue traps should be banned.

Q.14 The current offences relating to the use of dogs to kill or injure another animal are appropriate.

• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, please tell us how you think the provisions should change

The existing offences should remain and be expanded to include hunting such as ‘pig dogging’. This practice is dangerous for the dogs and cruel to the animals being hunted, and difficult to monitor.

Q.15 The current offence relating to confining a dog is appropriate.

• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, please tell us how you think the provisions should change

There are serious concerns with tethering dogs, as well as confining dogs in enclosed spaces such as cages or crates for long periods of time (as currently may happen for some working dogs or in the greyhound racing industry, for example). Minimum housing requirements should be clearly specified.

Q.16 Transporting an unrestrained dog in the back of an open utility, tray of a truck or from an open window should be made a specific offence under the ACPA.

• Strongly agree

Q.17 The scope of when an animal is used for scientific purposes should be aligned with the Scientific Use Code. In particular, it should be expanded to:

√¢‚Äì¬ accommodate advances in science such as the creation and breeding of new animals where the impact on the animal’s wellbeing is unknown or uncertain, and
â– add other practices that involve the use of animals for science, including diagnosis, product testing and production of biological products.

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree

Q.18 Other provisions in the APCA relating to the scientific use of animals are appropriate.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, please tell us how you think the provisions should change

There should be increased accountability and reporting. There is a strong public interest in animal testing. Data must be regularly published by the Department in a timely and transparent manner. Certain procedures should be prohibited including forced swim test and antibody production. Exceptions for performing prohibited procedures should be removed.

Q.19 The powers of inspectors under the ACPA are sufficient to allow inspectors to effectively deal with animal welfare incidents and do not require strengthening.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, what should be changed?

Amend to remove possible delay in cases where animals are left with their owners despite very poor conditions, like the case of cruelty to horses in Toowoomba.

Q.20 It is appropriate for the Queensland Government to authorise non-government organisations, such as the RSPCA, to undertake investigations and conduct prosecutions under the ACPA.

• Strongly agree

It’s a conflict of interest for the Department of Agriculture to inspect and prosecute animal cruelty offences when it is also tasked with the promotion of agricultural activities.

These other organisations (RSPCA) should be properly resourced by the Government to operate their inspectorate and related activities (e.g. costs of seizing animals, prosecutions etc.)

Q.21 People from non-government organisations who are appointed as inspectors under the ACPA should be subject to the same accountability as public servants in terms of ethics and codes of conduct.

• Strongly agree

Q.22 The current suite of compliance options (not including PINs, as discussed below) for responding to breaches of animal welfare under the ACPA is comprehensive.

• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, what should be changed?

Amend to reduce risk of animals being left with owners for long periods of noncompliance. For example, the horse cruelty case in Toowoomba.

Q.23 PINs should be introduced as a compliance option under the ACPA for clearly defined, low range animal welfare offences.

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree

Q.24 The introduction of a provision that would allow a court to make a decision to sell or rehome seized animals prior to court matters being finalised is reasonable.

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree

Q.25 The introduction of a provision that would allow a court to impose a bond or security on the owner of seized animals for the care of their animals prior to court matters being finalised is reasonable.

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree

Q.27 The maximum penalties for animal welfare offences under the ACPA are appropriate.

• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

If you disagree, how should they be changed?

Note that the penalties themselves might be appropriate but they are not used and enforced fully. For example, the horse cruelty case in Toowoomba. This lack of use and enforcement must be remedied in the Act, perhaps with minimum penalties.

Thank you so much for speaking out to create a kinder future for Queensland’s animals.

[PLUGIN type=”featureBox” id=”201″ classname=”new” title=”Discover more:”]

The post Speak up against legalised cruelty in Victoria appeared first on Animals Australia.

Joining Taika is all-star multinational cast including Ricky Gervais, Zac Efron, Olivia Munn, Pom Klementieff, Rodrigo Santoro, Tricia Helfer and more.

You can add your voice for animals to HSI’s campaign to end cosmetic animal testing by taking the pledge on the Humane Society website.

Testing cosmetics on animals is cruel and unnecessary

Animal testing feels so out-dated and cruel that many people are surprised to learn that lots of the big name products on our supermarket shelves and in our department store cosmetic counters are STILL being tested on animals.

In fact millions of animals — including rabbits, cats, dogs and mice — are burned, poisoned and killed in painful and unnecessary experiments every year in order to test the products featured on supermarket and salon shelves.

In Australia, regulations introduced in recent years have restricted some testing and product sales, but don’t go far enough.

You can protect animals by choosing cruelty-free

Help protect animals from suffering by purchasing products with the Choose Cruelty Free leaping bunny logo, informing yourself about major brands that still test on animals, and taking our pledge to avoid animal-tested products.

Plus, one of the most powerful steps you can take is to contact companies and brands that still test on animals, and give them polite feedback that they won’t have your business until they make the right, compassionate, choice for animals,too.

[PLUGIN type=”featureBox” id=”28″ title=”More in this section:”]

The post ‘Save Ralph’: Hollywood stars speak out against animal testing cruelty appeared first on Animals Australia.

Did you know that your savings might be helping prop up live export companies and factory farms? That’s why thousands of Animals Australia supporters have called on their banks to cut the purse strings of cruel industries. And it’s working! In an Australian first, NAB has released an animal welfare policy applying to how they lend money.

So far, NAB has ruled out financing:

• testing on animals for cosmetics;
• the use of non-human primates for testing;
• shark finning and commercial whaling;
• fur farms or the manufacture of fur products; and
• cruel capturing and killing of species considered to be ‘invasive’.

For all industries that use animals, NAB has included the ‘Five Domains’ model in their lending policy ‘Principles’. This sets an expectation that those they lend to will consider not only an animal’s health and physical needs; but importantly, their social and behavioural needs, and mental state.

This means that one of Australia’s largest financial institutions has acknowledged that animals have intrinsic value, complex emotional lives, and deserve quality of life. NAB’s animal welfare policy is a significant acknowledgement that animals are more than just ‘units of production’ and lays a pathway for other financial institutions to follow.

Hopefully this great first step will lead to NAB and other banks taking even stronger positions on farmed animal industries and practices. We’ll be encouraging them to do so!

How you can help

Aussie banks had no reason to think about animals until caring people like you asked them to. Keen to add your voice? Ask your bank now whether they lend to live export or factory farming.

The post Big Four big win: NAB announces animal welfare policy! appeared first on Animals Australia.

BREAKING UPDATE: Animals Australia investigation sparks Bali Government commitment to close the Bali dog meat trade…

An Animals Australia investigation into the Bali dog meat trade documented street dogs and family pets being captured then killed by strangulation, beating and poisoning. Their meat, butchered in filthy conditions, was destined for restaurants and street vendors, and even unsuspecting tourists.

Part of Bali’s appeal for tourists is cost-effective accommodation and food, but most tourists have no idea that the letters “RW” on the outside of popular street food stalls indicate that it is dog meat being served. Mobile dog meat vendors also actively targeted tourists on beaches, offering satays from tubs. They are deliberately not disclosing that they are selling dog meat.

If having a healthy, happy holiday in Bali is a priority then it’s important to understand the ‘traps’ to avoid…

There is evidence that poison is being used in Bali to kill dogs who end up being eaten by people. Cooking doesn’t always make the meat ‘safe’ to eat, and meat and organs from poisoned dogs can even contaminate the ground and waterways.

Independent testing of dog meat samples in Bali showed 27 times the safe level of E.coli, a bacteria found in faeces and transmitted by unsafe food handling. And dog meat vendors have been caught on film lying to tourists about what they’re selling.

But the dangers of eating meat in Bali don’t end with dog meat…

A health and welfare disaster is brewing in the island’s slaughterhouses. Pigs, cows and chickens are routinely suffering terrible abuse before being butchered in filthy conditions.

Read on to discover why eating meat in Bali could make you very sick, and how to keep yourself and your family safe.

Evidence shows that neither animal welfare nor food safety standards are being enforced in Bali slaughterhouses. Abusive treatment like drowning, electric shocks and painful, fully conscious slaughter are routine. Animals are killed, butchered and cut up on dirty floors, with footage from at least one facility revealing eviscerated organs and meat being ‘washed’ in the sewerage-laden stream which passed beside the killing floor.

Frightened cows in Bali are being brutally killed and cut up on bloody abattoir floors.

The failure to enforce health and hygiene laws creates a toxic mix for people in Bali — local community members and visitors alike. If you care about animals, value your health and especially if you have kids, it’s important you know this so you can make informed decisions about what you eat when in Bali.

Animals Australia is working with the Bali Government to secure the enforcement of laws in Bali to better protect animals and people.

What you can do to eat safely in Bali

With unscrupulous Bali dog meat traders caught on film lying about what they’re selling, plus hygiene and slaughter standards not being enforced in Bali’s abattoirs, the safest choice to make while in Bali is to avoid eating meat altogether. It’s easy — and delicious.

Bali has a vibrant vegetarian food scene, with over 100 veg restaurants on the island. What’s more, most street or beach vendors will happily cook up vegetable dishes (like nasi goreng or veg nasi campur). Check out the Happy Cow website or app for places to eat.

Keen to avoid dangerous meat? There’s plenty of amazing meat-free food to enjoy in Bali.

Being a kind traveller in Bali

One important thing to keep in mind — especially in light of the Bali dog meat trade’s connection to tourism — is that wherever we live in the world, every society and every culture has been conditioned to think of sweet, gentle, domesticated animals as nothing more than a food source — be they dogs, cows, pigs or chickens… If we can begin to unravel our own conditioned thinking, there is infinite hope for all animals. And every caring person can play a part.

Here are 6 ways you can help all animals in Bali.

[PLUGIN type=”featureBox” id=”79″ title=”More in this section:”]

The post Sickening: Bali dog meat trade poses major health risk appeared first on Animals Australia.