May Safely Graze contributor Danette Wereta is the General Secretary of the Animal Justice Party Aotearoa New Zealand, an experienced senior leader, and co-founder of a newly established animal charity. She is currently studying animal law and ethics and spends time rescuing injured wildlife.

 

 

 

 

When I heard about the upcoming Canada goose cull at Molesworth, I felt that sick feeling at the bottom of my stomach. Not just because hundreds, even thousands, of geese will be shot down in the name of “pest control,” but because I know these birds as individuals. I know their intelligence, their devotion to family, their courage, and their grief. I know this because of the young Canada goose I came to call Grace.

In early 2023, my life changed forever.

I was out walking my dogs when I came across her. I noticed she was sitting strangely, and when I looked closer, I realised her wing was severely broken. Since then, I seem to always notice birds sitting strangely, or not looking quite right. Often an injury is not visible, but if they catch my attention I always stop. Always.

Near to Grace were her parents, loving, vigilant, and protective. They never left her side through the whole rescue. Her dad was always on watch, quickly ushering the family away whenever we came too close. They recognised us when we arrived each day to attempt to help Grace, and they did everything they could to protect their little one.

For a week, I poured myself into trying to save Grace. I researched, made calls, and found people willing to help. The rescue effort grew, kind strangers joined in, kayaks were launched, and large nets were bought. Every attempt showed us just how quick, intelligent, and resourceful geese are. Even injured, Grace outsmarted us more than once. I joked that I now understood the saying ‘wild goose chase….’

One day, with teamwork and determination, we managed to capture her safely. She spent the night tucked up warm in a barn, loved and cared for. The next morning she went to the vet, but her injury was too severe, the infection too advanced. We were told that the kindest thing was to let her go. Deeply saddened, I wanted to give her a name. I chose Grace, to convey her beauty, elegance, poise, and her kind, gentle, and stoic nature.

Grace never made it back to her parents, who we knew would be grieving the loss of their child. Her life was short, but her impact on mine has been profound. It was Grace who set me on the path of rescue, a path I am still walking. Even now, I talk to her in spirit, and she will always occupy a place in my heart.

 

Grace

Grace is why the Molesworth cull is unbearable to me.

The official line is that Canada geese eat too much pasture, taking food from sheep. But this conflict only exists because humans brought them here, and because we farm sheep in the first place. It’s not the geese who created the problem, it’s us. Killing them doesn’t solve it. The geese just breed more, and the cycle of violence continues, season after season.

The truth is that geese are intelligent, family-oriented beings who mate for life, mourn their dead, and fiercely protect their young. They are not ‘pests’, a word I dislike intensely. Animals we brand this way are not ‘nuisances’; they are living creatures with feelings, desires, and experiences.  Along my local river, duckling season sees a lot of sadness, with many babies not surviving, for various reasons. One day you might see several ducklings swimming alongside their mum, the next day there are only two.  But this is not the case with geese. They basically run a nursery – keeping all the babes together, safe and loved. It’s quite the sight to see, especially when they run a special road crossing and all the babies, of different ages, waddle past.

There is no need for violence to manage populations.  There are alternatives to culling that are proven, humane, and effective. Other countries have used non-lethal methods, for example laser deterrents, with great success. These approaches are efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable. Shooting sprees are not.

When I comment, politely and with compassion, on posts relating to geese culls,  it’s always the same. I’m met with replies like “geese taste nice” or “they’re vermin”, and, of course, I get lots of laughing emojis.  You can see from their profile pictures that many of those leaving such comments are hunters, often proudly displaying the animals they’ve killed. How do people reach the point where bragging about being cruel and killing animals for a pastime is seen not only as acceptable, but also funny?

When I point out the cruelty, the reactions I get – mockery, anger, or doubling down – are also predictable, a mix of cognitive dissonance and identity protection. Many hunters don’t want to see themselves as cruel, and their discomfort is deflected outward. Mocking animals as “vermin” or joking about killing becomes a defense mechanism, a way to laugh off the unease. It also reinforces their in-group identity, because by ridiculing compassion, they reassure themselves they’re on the “right side.” In truth, their hostility just shows how deeply normalised cruelty to animals is, and how threatening empathy is to a mindset built on dominance and control.

When I think of Grace, I remember her parents’ courage and devotion. Every goose shot at Molesworth has a family like that. Every one of them is ‘someone’, not ‘something’.

The “magic of Molesworth” isn’t in the cruel, destructive hunt. It’s in the lives of the beings who call it home. And if we truly respected that magic, we wouldn’t be pointing guns at it.

Fly free, Grace. You started me on this journey, and I will keep speaking of you.

 

May Safely Graze contributor Wendy Ward is a retired clinical psychologist and university lecturer in the UK and New Zealand.  “Until I lived in the King Country and was surrounded by dairy farms, I had swallowed the myth of contented cows grazing in paddocks. I learned the dairy industry is based on cruel practices. The worst being the removal of new-born calves from their mothers at birth. These new-borns are trucked to slaughterhouses to be killed. The dairy cow is a milking machine. Her maternal instincts are crushed by the yearly removal of her hard-born calf.”

“DAILY OFFERINGS”

Walking back to the farm
I saw ute and trailer being mobbed by Mums
distraught and mooing.
The daily offering of new-born calves, taken away to be sorted:
Heifer, bull, bobby, longish life, short life, no life.
A daily offering, laid on the altar of profit.

Even if people here were starving,
Would it be right?
Can we sanction these
Induced abortions
To fit farm timetables and the killing of new-born calves?
This is a country of so much milk and meat
We are dying of excess.

It’s a familiar mantra:
Consumer demand overseas
Free trade, exports
GDP.
As dairy farmers say
“If you want butter and cheese to eat
And milk to drink, then there’s a cost.”
Citizens are waking up
Realizing the power of their wallets
and voices.
Remembering each one of us counts
In the choices we make.

What of the future?
When land is worn out
Water polluted?
We think of ancient peoples
Who made daily offerings of animals and birds,
To appease all-powerful gods.
Are we any different by placating a different God?

 

May Safely Graze contributor Danette Wereta is the General Secretary of the Animal Justice Party Aotearoa New Zealand, an experienced senior leader, and co-founder of a newly established animal charity. She is currently studying animal law and ethics and spends time rescuing injured wildlife.

 

 

 

I find it so very hard to believe that we don’t all agree that animals are not here for us, they are here with us. They are not resources or tools; they are individuals with lives of their own.

Tom Regan says it clearly in The Case for Animal Rights “The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us, to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money.” That is the heart of it. The suffering animals endure is beyond terrible and constant, and the problem is the worldview, the belief that animals exist for human use. That belief underpins farming, testing, hunting, and even conservation policies that treat killing as a solution.

I spend some of my days on the front line, rescuing injured wildlife. I see their fear, their pain, their sheer determination to live. This work is a calling, but it brings a pain I don’t think I even have words for. And I also know I must go upstream. Dan Heath describes it well in Upstream: imagine hearing a child drowning and you and your mate jump in to save them, but then hearing another, and another. At some point, you climb out and your mate says where are you going? You reply, to stop the person throwing children in. That is how I feel about animals. I must be there to help them, for example when they are hit on the road, but I also have to fight against the mindset that causes it in the first place.

When I help an injured bird struck on the road, I need to not just treat wounds, but confront a deeper truth upstream. Was the bird hit because the driver believed they had the right of way, that their journey mattered more than the bird’s life? But what if we shifted that thinking? What if drivers understood “I live here, with these birds. They have every right to be here. This road crosses right through their home, so I should be considerate.” If you can swerve for a pothole, you can look out for wildlife.

I feel a duty not just to rescue animals, but to try and rescue people from the belief that animals are things. That is why I struggle so much with our New Zealand Department of Conservation. DOC was set up to protect our natural world, yet its approach, and might I add, its only approach, relies on killing, including methods such as aerial poison drops and hunting competitions.

DOC’s duty is to protect biodiversity, but there is no legal duty to protect individual animals from suffering. It breaks my heart, because I know that every possum, goat, rat or wallaby is not a “pest.” They are animals, just like the animals DOC says they are protecting.

If we shifted our mindset to “animals as individuals,” DOC would be forced to invest in alternatives instead of defaulting to killing. This utilitarian logic, that we can cause suffering to some animals to protect others, is flawed. And when your only conservation strategy is killing, you never innovate beyond killing. Whenever I post via the Animal Justice Party (AJP) saying killing isn’t the lever to pull, people always write smart-ass comments and demand a list of solutions. Here’s the thing,  the answer is changing the mindset and investing in looking at different solutions. I don’t have all the solutions, that’s exactly the problem. These solutions don’t exist in any meaningful, funded way because of the mindset. When you believe animals are just resources, why would you invest in developing humane alternatives? But alternatives do exist, they are just not explored in New Zealand. There is fertility control, habitat modification, and species-specific deterrents. The innovation happens when we stop defaulting to violence.

Hunting competitions, which DOC runs, take everything that’s wrong about how we see animals and shove it in your face. They don’t just promote killing, they glorify it. They turn death into sport, entertainment, something to cheer about. They teach communities and even children to see animals not as living beings with their own lives, but as targets, trophies, “pests” to be eliminated. Research by Emily Major shows how possums are framed by media as villains, and “the only good possum is a dead possum.” This framing makes violence seem acceptable, even patriotic or funny.

People let themselves feel okay about it by saying it’s for conservation. But how can people who eat animals or farm them really claim to care about conservation? It’s like saying, ‘I care about the ocean, so I won’t use plastic straws,’ while eating fish. It’s ridiculous.

Justice for Animals matters. It’s not just about reducing suffering here and there. It’s about shifting how humans think about and relate to animals. It’s about considering animals so their lives are not endlessly negotiable. I may not have all the answers, but I can contribute my hands, my heart, and my voice to that shift.

Globally, animals are almost invisible in the frameworks that guide our future. Sustainable development, the world’s blueprint for a good future, talks about protecting species and ecosystems, but not about how individual animals live, suffer, or thrive. How we treat animals is tied to environmental health, social justice, and economic stability. We cannot build a sustainable future if we ignore the lives and wellbeing of animals.

There is hope. Hope drives the work of shifting beliefs and building laws. That is why I do this work. That is why I will keep going until animals are no longer invisible in our laws, our policies, and our vision of a fair future.

When I help that injured bird struck on the road, I know I also have a duty to shift the view of my fellow humans. Only then will that bird, and all animals, finally be seen for who they are. Because that bird has every right to be there, and it’s our duty to be considerate and not kill or injure them with our cars. The road to justice isn’t just about healing the wounded, it’s about stopping the wounding in the first place. It starts with seeing animals not as things in our way, but as sentient beings sharing our world.

 

 

 

 

 

Summer Jayne is an author and animal-advocate based in Taranaki, New Zealand. She is the mother to two teenagers, a five year old, and ‘a house full of animals’.

 

 

 

 

Next weekend, gunfire will ring out over otherwise tranquil locations all around Aotearoa. The target of the relentless rain of bullets: thousands of gentle and innocent ducks, resting unsuspectingly in the wetlands, rivers, lakes, and ponds that they consider their homes.

The first weekend of May is the opening of duck shooting season, an outdated Kiwi tradition, continuing over a number of weeks, where violently killing ducks is regarded as a recreational activity. The animal welfare issues are extensive, but there are also environmental and social implications to consider. Animal advocate Sandra Kyle is one of many calling for an outright ban.

“Duck shooting is unconscionable,” states Kyle. “Fortunately, more and more New Zealanders are concerned about the suffering and injury caused to ducks and other waterbirds during duck shooting season.  I am hopeful that this horrible tradition will soon be winging its way into obscurity.”

In 2015, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill passed into law in Aotearoa declaring that animals, like humans, are sentient beings. That means they are legally recognised as conscious, and capable of experiencing pain, fear, and distress. In addition to having sentience, ducks are intelligent and social beings, who sometimes partner for life.

Forcing them to experience the horror of being shot, retrieved in the jaws of a dog, and then swung around by the head until their neck dislocates, all in the name of tradition, is morally abhorrent. But the extent of the cruelty goes ever further. Each season, countless birds experience non-lethal wounding when they are shot, but do not die outright.

Wounded birds suffer agonising and prolonged deaths. Often unable to fly or swim, many will drown or starve. Former hunter Paora Mepham has witnessed the suffering of wounded ducks firsthand and chooses to take photographs instead of lives these days.

“Every trip there was prolonged suffering by ducks. Wounded birds, unable to fly, would invariably escape into the surrounding undergrowth and suffer slow deaths. Getting together with mates in the great outdoors is great fun. Killing animals while doing it; not so much,” Mepham states.

While bird protection is proudly encouraged in Aotearoa, ironically, duck shooting is not widely regarded as a threat to bird life. In reality though, it disrupts whole ecosystems, damages wetlands, and harms the native and endemic birds that live in these precious and unique ecological areas.   Fragile populations of endangered whio (blue duck) and pāteke (brown teal) face unnecessary disruption and death during duck hunting season. When they’re in flight, pāteke is visibly similar to a common mallard and they’re regularly killed by mistake.

Areas where duck hunting takes place become littered with the wads of shotgun cartridges, adding to plastic pollution and degrading waterways. The constant gunfire and the traipsing of hunters to their maimai disturbs wildlife in other predictable ways; a violent and unnecessary intrusion that turns wetlands into killing zones.

The Fish and Game regulations allow for the killing of ducks and other “game bird” species considered to be overpopulated, including mallards, black swans, pheasants and quails, as well as NZ native pūtakitaki (paradise shelduck) and pūkeko.

Killing species we don’t want around is the default position in New Zealand, but we should not consider killing a form of conservation when there are other non-violent solutions available that offer benefits that traditional methods often overlook,and can also be more economical.  Non-lethal methods for controlling duck numbers include habitat modification, exclusion and deterrents, birth control such as oiling eggs and contraceptive baits, and population control via humane capture and relocation.

Duck shooting is widely considered a tradition in New Zealand, framed as a family-friendly activity passed down through generations. However, in 2025, surely it is time to evolve beyond a cultural tradition based on harming and killing animals. It is well-documented in scientific research that exposure to violence negatively impacts children’s development. Involving children in any form of animal killing desensitizes them to violence and normalises the objectification of other beings. It is now well established that children who hurt animals are statistically much more likely to grow up and hurt other humans.

Duck shooting is also closely tied to binge-drinking culture, with consumption of alcohol a very common accompaniment to hunting. As well as being dangerous for other humans, this also contributes to shooters making errors resulting in non-lethal woundings of ducks.

In 2025, we ought to strive for a society where we no longer consider killing animals an acceptable form of recreation. Traditions and activities that are based upon the harm, exploitation, or deaths of other creatures should be banned. We can replace these outdated activities with kinder and more environmentally friendly pastimes, such as community engagement in wetland conservation,  and counting of local bird populations.

Three Australian states have already banned duck shooting and it’s time Aotearoa followed their lead. On opening weekend, animal advocates will be protesting in Christchurch and Whanganui. There is also an online petition to the government that people can sign to support a ban. Let’s choose new, non-violent traditions to instill compassion and kindness into society, and show mercy to animals who do not deserve to be killed for our leisure.

This moving documentary follows from a previous article we did on Stuart Edmondson, the Pig Man of the Coromandel, who for twenty years has been feeding, looking after, and living with feral pigs on his remote property.  Trying to protect his family of pigs from pig hunters last Friday 13th, Stuart finally snapped, and tragically shot and killed a pig hunter who was poaching on his property, and injured another.  Stewart has been remanded in custody until his Court case comes up in February 2025.

We have started a fundraiser to try and help the many pigs who are now left alone, without a carer and surrounded by pig hunters.

https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/save-the-coromandel-pigs-urgent-appeal?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2w30uTrT0k6hAllyVhKOgSQebK0nfoGiFoDXahiUCx0s5aGE4AoB4KvZU_aem_D1FYcI9F2WhI63P9rxa_Aw

 

by Sandra Kyle, Editor, May Safely Graze

 

A 77 year old man was taken into custody this week, and given name suppression.  The man has been accused to shooting two pig hunters, one of whom died at the scene, the other airlifted to hospital in non-critical condition.

This tragic incident took place on a remote rural road, the 309 road on the Coromandel Peninsula.  There on the property his parents bought more than 70 years ago the man shares his life with hundreds of ‘wild’ pigs.  He feeds them, looks after them, tends to them when they’re sick or injured.  He’s well known in the area and tourists drop by from all over to meet the pigs and cuddle the piglets.  Film makers Amy Taylor and James Muir interviewed him ten years ago, and the video is available on youtube.

“I’m here to help them,” the man says in the video of his friendly, domesticated pigs.  “If they get sick or anything they come up to see me.  If a pig dog’s chewed their ears off or arrows sticking out their stout.

“They’ve got real neat natures.  They’ve all got their own personalities like people. Little gentle souls. They don’t do anyone any harm. They’re really social animals. It really upsets me when they run them over on purpose, grab them, knife them, stick them with a crossbow. It’s a really cruel death.

“They just walk up to people and they just shoot them with a crossbow. Put them in all that pain. Very slow deaths.  Breaks your heart when you see an animal suffering like that”.

The pensioner is always having run-ins with pig hunters, who come onto his property at night, trying to steal his pigs.  Some are deliberately mowed down by cars.  “I normally bury them facing towards the sun. Not sure why.  I’m an old fella but I still cry when I lose an animal”.

Recently a New Zealand pig-hunting TikTok showed a wild boar cornered by six dogs.  The hunter can be heard egging his dogs on as three of them latch onto the pig’s face.

The boar is cornered by the increasing number of dogs sinking their teeth into his body, and then the hunter walks over and slaps the pig’s leg.  The pig tries to kick back and you can hear him groaning in pain.  The video went viral.

Is this what we celebrate?  The torture of animals?  Ill-treatment of wild animals is an offence under the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999, but a defence can be made if the alleged conduct is considered generally accepted hunting practice.  How can shooting animals with a crossbow and dogs be deemed accepted hunting practice?

As far as I’m concerned there is no accepted hunting practice.  When we examine hunting through a lens of ethics and compassion, it becomes evident that all forms of hunting are fundamentally wrong, irrespective of the justifications for it. Pig hunting should be banned, at the very least there should be an immediate ban on using dogs and crossbows.  It is blatant cruelty to pigs to put them through such torment, and it’s also dangerous for the dogs.

The tragedy this week has touched many lives.  A family is grieving for the loss of their loved one, and hundreds of pigs are now without their dad and carer.   This normally gentle, mild-mannered man, after twenty years of trying to protect his pets, found hunters trying to kill them and he finally snapped.

He will be appearing in Court this week.  I will be following this case with interest.

And meantime, who will look after the pigs?  Will hunters be having a killing fest on the Coromandel Peninsula?

In this article May Safely Graze contributor Dr Lynley Tulloch condemns the mass gassing of 200,000 birds this week after avian influenza was found on a layer farm.

 

The spread of a highly pathogenic subtype of avian influenza on Hillgrove Egg Farm in rural Otago, belonging to Mainland Poultry,  has resulted in the entire population of 200,000 chickens being killed.  This strain is different from the H781 bird flu virus that has been responsible for the deaths of wild birds and mammals globally, and is not thought to be a threat to humans.

This is a biosecurity incident and it is rightfully being taken seriously. Concerns for economic implications regarding exports are one worry for the Industry. Consumers are also anxious that egg supply will be interrupted (it won’t apparently).

Yet, there is so much more to this than human-centred or industry concerns. New Zealand has a reputation for high animal welfare standards and yet these chickens were killed in one of the cruellest ways imaginable. Biosecurity New Zealand deputy director-general Stuart Anderson announced to the media that the birds would be ‘humanely culled’ (an oxymoron) with the farmer’s cooperation. Ray Smith was further quoted as saying: “Poultry farms are always having to depopulate and repopulate. They have large containers and they go into the containers and it is effectively a carbon dioxide process.”

The killing of 200,000 live and sentient chickens is a serious ethical issue. Chickens are intelligent, feeling, problem-solving, walking, flapping marvels. It’s high time that the implications for the chickens was given precedence over sunny-side-up eggs and capitalistic profits.

First up, how do you kill 200,000 birds over a few days with carbon dioxide? What are the methods of ‘humanely culling’ or ‘depopulation’? These are weasel words designed to distract and conceal a horrific process. Information on this requires a deep dive into the Code of Welfare: Layer Hens, published by the Ministry for Primary Industries.  ‘Humane destruction’ of hens according to MPI includes ‘gas suffocation’.  I am quite perplexed as to the use of the word ‘humane’ when linked with the painful extinguishing of life by administering gas.

For disease control purposes, carbon dioxide (CO 2) is often used in on-farm killing of large groups of poultry, in both mobile gas container units and whole house gassing exercises. When using this gas the hens generally asphyxiate within two minutes. In the early stages they experience breathlessness, hyperventilation and irritation of the nasal mucosa. Veterinarian Dr. Jonas Watson says that gassing also causes headshaking, gasping and convulsions in chickens prior to the cessation of brain activity.

The egg-laying industry is fraught with animal welfare issues even before any concerns about viruses or culling is mentioned. MPI also endorses the shredding of day-old male chicks in a giant macerator amounting to 2.5 million of these babies every year.  Their definition of humane killing also involves stringing spent hens up and then stunning them electrically, followed by neck dislocation and exsanguination (slitting their throats). I am positive that MPI and I do not share the same concept of what ‘humane’ means.

It’s a terrible lot layer hens have. Colony cage hens are only given the size of an A4 piece of paper each and live in crowded and noisy sheds their entire lives. This is enormously stressful and often leads to feather picking and cannibalism. Reducing a living being’s entire life to a biological function is exploitative and cruel. One might even argue that is not a life worth living. Having rescued a small number of these chickens at eighteen months old when they went off the lay, I can testify to their dull eyes and featherless bodies.

Chickens do not deserve this. No living and feeling creature should end their lives in such a cruel way. The only reason they are in this position at all is because they are being ruthlessly exploited to produce eggs in the first place.

It’s very easy to look the other way and not think about the lives of these birds.  But it’s not good enough, and we need to get into a flap about it. We have known for a long time that the gassing of animals is highly distressing to the dying animal. We need to reevaluate our food systems and not subject living beings to this kind of torture. The mass factory farming of egg-laying chickens needs to stop.

Animals need to be given the same essential rights as humans, otherwise we will continue to misuse our power by exploiting, harming and killing them.  Such a reorientation will include both how  we co-exist with our fellow Earth beings, and how we operate our society economically and socially.

 

 

 

Dr Lynley Tulloch is an Early Childhood Education Lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology (AUT).   She is a long-time animal activist.

 

 

by May Safely Graze contributor, Dr Lynley Tulloch

Just a few days after the opening of duck shooting season on 4 th May, 2024 I planned a kayak down a section of the Waikato River. The air was crisp as a Granny Smith apple and smelled dank. Before my journey had even begun my eyes caught sight of a beak and feathers wrapped in a black bag by a rubbish bin. Sure enough, there was a bag of dumped ducks, buzzing with flies and decomposing in the half-baked sun. The ducks with their broken wings and raw flesh were like ripe strawberries on the turn. They lay in their unsung grave, victims to the ‘sport’ of duck shooting.

The dumping of ducks is illegal according to the New Zealand Fish and Game Council. It can carry a fine of up to $5000. Drinking alcohol while hunting is also frowned upon by he New Zealand Fish and Game Council. However, judging by the amount of beer cans also in the rubbish bin the no-drinking rule seems to have been taken with a grain of salt. 

It left a bad feeling. There was something terribly sad about the single wing that fluttered uselessly on the tarmac. I took a picture because I hoped it would say the thousand words that now caught like a river rock in my throat.

The thousand words of ducks on the wing; of the breath of wind; of the sandy bottom of the river; of the heights of clouds.

---

The story ended here.  In a rubbish bin. Dumped. Like no one cared.  Except they did. I cared. And so do many other animal lovers who loathe duck-shooting season.

---

I got in my kayak and glided away from the death of ducks. The ducks didn’t deserve to die and I vowed to get them some justice. But the horror was not yet over. To my side in the water was a putrid body of another duck. Then a few strokes of the paddle revealed yet another dead duck. This duck lay on his back with his feet facing skyward. The world has turned upside down and the clouds now scudded across the bottom of the river. This duck would never fly again.

It was fair to say that this horror made my blood run as cold as the river itself. Further upstream I found bags and bags of bottles and beer cans dumped just up on the bank. They spilled out and into the water, bobbing like the dead duck they were merging with. This duck had lost all the feathers on his neck.

 

 

---

Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) has drawn on international studies which show that 20 to 40% of water birds that are hit by shotgun pellets are never retrieved. With around one million water birds shot in Aotearoa New Zealand each year this would equate to the maiming or around 200,000 birds who go on to suffer prolonged pain or death. 

---

I’m trying to see things from the perspective of the ducks and other waterbirds that are killed every season. With every turn of the river I don’t see a ‘sport’. I see death, pain and fear. I know the human perspective unfortunately too well. For humans this is a great weekend and fun. Maybe they will eat the birds – maybe they won’t (cue dumped ducks). The birds on the other hand, despite being framed as ‘game’, are victims of a cruel attack.

 

---

This is their home, the one they live in all year round, raising young and forming flocks. Who are we to invade it, loaded with guns, duck decoys and whistles, boats, motorised engines, waders and beers?

---

Who indeed? For the ducks and other water birds we are not their equals in a sports game, and this is not fun. This is their lives.  Paddling in despair I came around the bend of the river to find a dead black swan. Her graceful arching neck was now collapsed like a piece of sinewy rope. She floated in the river currents, her eyes looking skyward to a world now lost to her. It’s not commonly known that you are allowed to shoot swans during duck shooting season. Fish and Game Regulations on the Auckland / Waikato season give an indication of the variety and amount of water birds hunted. This includes eight bags of Mallard and Grey Duck and ten bags of Paradise Sheldrake duck in a single day. Also up for grabs are quail, pukeko, pheasant and geese. As if this isn’t enough, some of these ducks are native to Aotearoa New Zealand. In fact, three native duck species, in decline or endangered, are allowed to be shot under the outdated Wildlife Act 1953. They are the Grey Duck (Parera), the Shoveler (Kuruwhengi) and the Paradise Shelduck (Putangitangi).

The river was now eerily quiet as I paddled along to the next landing. A few ducks hid in the undergrowth while duck decoys bobbed realistically near maimais. Each maimai  a death trap, decorated with ferns and flaxes so the ducks don’t know of the danger within. Gun shots rung out in the distance, and I longed for the end.

 

---

Finally I reached the landing. But just before I got there another ghoulish surprise waited. A dead sheep, all flesh removed and head and skin hanging on a pole over the water stared down at me. It was like a haunted house. I had seen people camping not far from this poor sheep during the opening weekend of duck shooting. It is likely that the sheep remains came from their meal.

---

It is time to ban duck shooting and make a stand against this violence to waterbirds. Please sign the petition to ban duck shooting in Aotearoa New Zealand.

 

 

This time last year the new New Zealand Associate Minister of Agriculture was a leader in the dairy-farming community, and the President of Federated Farmers.  Now as an MP he will be spearheading the new government’s promise to reverse the previous Labour government’s ban on live export.  

The Industry is throwing a million dollars behind a campaign to persuade the NZ people that this is a good idea.

Read why it is not – and how you can help to keep the ban in place!

Andrew Hoggard MP, new Associate Minister for Animal Agriculture (Animal Welfare) in New Zealand

 

 

Spinoff article by law professor Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/02-02-2024/if-reversing-the-ban-on-live-exports-is-a-good-idea-why-spend-1-million-to-persuade-us 

 

Support the Animal Justice Party of Aotearoa NZ’s campaign to keep the ban in place.

https://animaljustice.org.nz/protect-the-ban-on-live-export/  

 

 

National Day of Action Against Live Export – February 25th 

https://www.facebook.com/events/935649641517198  

 

 

New film on the sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1 live export carrier.  

https://maysafelygraze.org.nz/7384-2/ 

 

In this article Sandra Kyle interviews New Zealand independent film maker Carlie Jackson.  Carlie has just completed a film on the sinking of the Gulf Livestock I, a live export carrier that sank in the South China Sea in 2020, killing 43 crew and nearly 6,000 cows.

 

Carlie was born in rural Waikato, New Zealand, in 1971.  She grew up on a dairy farm, developing a deep love of animals along the way, often believing she could communicate intuitively with them.

Carlie had a number of life-changing experiences, beginning from the tender age of 3 years, when she fell into an old farm trough.  Her father pulled her lifeless body out just in time but this near-death experience profoundly affected her childhood. From that time onwards Carlie felt her insight into animals grew, and she would often have precognitive dreams about them. She had another profound near-death experience as a teenager, that fundamentally changed her view of existence, time, and consciousness, and this continues to drive all she does today. 

From the young age of 19, Carlie single-handedly raised 2 sons (now in their late twenties and early 30s).  She has always leaned towards a creative path in life.  From painting on canvas to illustrating children’s books and making short films, her creative flair was forever at work.

Today she lives with her husband Greg on the same farm she grew up on, where she now runs an animal rescue sanctuary, rescuing and caring for many abandoned animals.  She describes the dairy farm-turned-sanctuary as ‘her happy place’.  (Edited from Carlie’s bio on FilmFreeway). 

 

How long have you been a vegan/animal activist Carlie?

I have been a vegan for about 20 years (since my early 30s) and vegetarian through my teens and twenties before that.

I think the first seed of animal rights activism started early for me, on the dairy farm my parents owned, and it was also the catalyst for turning me vegan.  My earliest memories are of suffering animals.  I remember trying to defend bobby calves around age 4.

I recall witnessing the cruel treatment of calves by truck drivers who would literally throw them onto the trucks, often breaking their bones.  I remember hearing the tormented cries, including from the mother cows, and seeing the unwanted calves left on the roadside pens, as they did back then in the 70s. As a young child, I would try to intervene and defend them from the truck drivers.

Over the years I attended many protests, made animal rights videos, and a few animal rights TV productions.  I also attempted to start an animal justice party during 2020, but decided to focus my energy toward the film instead, and leave it to the people who were cut out for politics, while I focussed creatively to make a difference.

Why did you form Stonewall Productions?

Prior to forming my production company I spent many years as an artist, and also illustrating children’s books. I wrote two books, one about single parenting (‘Solo Angels’), and a children’s book with an animal rights focus (‘I am Not Bacon’) .

I spent several years in the TV industry producing and presenting shows before I fell in love with film.  I decided that film was potentially a more powerful medium than books to reach a wider audience, to move more hearts and to hopefully shift the thinking of the status quo (particularly with regard to animal rights), so I taught myself to both film and edit.

 

Waking from the dream.  Arleearna Drake standing beside her on
screen grandmother ( Lisa Stevens).  Māori mythology is woven through the film about
the power of the ocean, and respect for the sea.

 

When did you decide you wanted to make a feature film about Gulf Livestock I?

I almost felt like the film chose me, if that makes sense!

At the risk of sounding weird, I actually woke from a very lucid dream several months prior to the tragedy. I woke deeply upset from the dream, recounting it to my husband, and because it was so vivid, I felt it was significant and wrote it down in a dream diary I keep.

I often dream about animals who are in distress.  I have found abandoned kittens after dreaming about their exact location. Maybe it is due to my ancestral ties to this land where I still live today, who knows?

When I heard the news about the sinking months later on my car stereo, I was incredibly distressed. The way the news rolled out was just as I had dreamt it. “Thousands of frightened cows falling into the sea after the ship capsized.”

The decision to make a film about this came literally within days of the tragedy. I was infuriated about how our government and media were handling things, including their continuous reference along the lines of “they were just cows,” dismissing their suffering, and focusing almost entirely only on the human loss of life.

 

From left, Phil Palmer, Roman Jackson, and Mike Cater playing NZ and Australian Crew getting ready to
leave Napier Port

 

Can you outline the process of making the film for us? 

Blood, sweat and tears literally for almost 3 years!

Initially, I went to the New Zealand Film Commission to apply for funding. They said because I was a “nobody” they couldn’t help me, and that they preferred not to fund films that involved animals or the ocean, apparently because those things are problematic to film. (!!)

My wonderful dad, who was unwell at the time – and underwent a major amputation – believed so much in my efforts, he offered to fund the film.

I knew we wouldn’t be able to board a real live export ship to film on (although I did approach numerous companies to try!) so we had to improvise cutting between a small boat we ended up using, to real footage that I had obtained from a live export ship.

I started researching early on about the horrific condition the Gulf Livestock 1 vessel was in, and how it had not passed its seaworthy inspection just 12 months prior to leaving Napier Port.

My upset about the tragedy grew even worse when I was told by MPI that it was in fact, a port vet who did the final inspection of Gulf1 before it left Napier Port, and not an engineer. I have this in writing from MPI.

Initially I felt I wanted to lean the film towards a drama as opposed to a documentary, as my concern was that a full-on doco might drive viewers away from watching, if they feared too graphic images.

So, I wrote the script as a drama, based on the true story. Then it was only toward the end of editing the film I decided it must become a docu-drama, because this was the only chance to embed the tragedy into the minds of people, and to remind our government in the event that they might try to bring it back – which they now, very disturbingly, are attempting to do.

 

Sandra Kyle plays her real life role as an animal rights
activist, as well as the on-screen mother to crew member Chris Gordon. A final
goodbye before leaving Napier Port.

 

Most of those playing key roles are activists rather than experienced actors?

Yes, most of the actors in the film are activists, friends and people known to me, which was a deliberate decision I made for a number of reasons.

Firstly,  I preferred to work with people who had a true passion for having this tragic story told, because I believed that would produce the real fire-in-the-belly required to bring the characters to life.

This was a self-funded film, and I couldn’t afford ‘real actors’ anyway, even though I communicated with Lucy Lawless and a few other known actors.  I am glad I did go within unknowns, because each and every actor delivered so beautifully and powerfully. I was wiping tears as I filmed!

I was so humbled by the dedication and delivery of all the actors, and I am so grateful to them all. It’s a very vulnerable situation for them to be in, and they did themselves proud.

 

Monica Reid with onscreen husband (Chris Gordon) saying a final goodbye
before leaving port.

 

I think there were many obstacles along the way for you Carlie?

Yes, absolutely. Mammoth obstacles, that I’m still reeling from today.

In a sense I felt like I bled much of my own pain into the film, as we often do as creative people. We pour our pain into something tangible. It has all added an ethereal feeling to the film as well.

The loss of my father during the final stages of editing was an enormous blow for me.  I was very close to my dad, and was at his deathbed when he passed. I also had to take a break from the production process while I underwent major cardio-thoractic surgery to my lung, as a result of which I was in crippling pain for a year.  What’s more, my son, who is also an actor in the film, left for the Ukraine to fight on the frontline not long after we had finished filming.  As a mum, this was a horrific time for me.

On the lighter side of obstacles, because I didn’t have the kind of major funding required – which normally for a film like this would require at least a few million dollars – I had no ‘crew’ as such, other than a group of amazing actors!  I had to write, produce, direct, film and edit the entire feature film myself.

When will it be released?

There are a few technical issues within the film that are currently being fixed, so that it will be cinema ready from April.  Unfortunately, the NZ Film Festival declined playing the film this year, on the basis that ‘it didn’t fit with their genre of films for 2024.’  It is currently lodged with ‘Doc Edge’ a film distribution hub in NZ, who are making a decision on whether to release it nationwide across all cinemas. Their decision will be made in April, so all things crossed!

If for any reason Doc Edge choose not to distribute the film, I will self-distribute through cinemas that are willing to show the film around New Zealand, Australia and the Philippines, as well as online from early May 2024.

Any funds raised from the film will go to support more campaigning against the Live export industry, as well as other animal rights projects.

Have you got any other projects in the pipeline?

Yes, two projects this year.

I am currently putting my own personal story into a film this year called “Ancestral Fires” centered on a near-death experience I had as a teenager. I am also working on a documentary around the experiences of soldiers on the front line in the Ukraine, and their collective stories about coping with the trauma of war.

Is there anything else you would like to say?

I believe if you feel a deep calling to do something that could potentially change history for the better, it  is important to honour it. Rather than waiting for permission or approval, find the support and just do it.  Life is too short.

I believe it is a moral obligation to Life itself, for each of us to leave a legacy in our lives, and to hopefully leave our planet, the animal kingdom and humanity in a better state than it was. Whether it is to immortalise a story in a book, a piece of music, art, film, or poem, every small offering is important.

I would also like to add that my greatest respect goes to the animal rights activists across New Zealand, who continue to speak out loudly and boldly about the atrocities happening to animals across many industries. It will be the actions of these strong people who will change history.

One of my favourite animal rights sayings in terms of motivation, has always been:

“If not us, then who?….If not now, then when?”

Thankyou, Carlie! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will only take a minute of your time!  We need as many people as possible to send for the government to take our opposition to this cruel practice seriously.

Here is the link:

https://animaljustice.org.nz/protect-the-ban-on-live-export/?civiwp=CiviCRM&q=civicrm%2Fpetition%2Fsign&sid=2

Text of the letter is as follows:

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon

Hon Todd McClay, Minister of Trade, Minister of Agriculture

Hon Andrew Hoggard, Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)

CC: 

Rt Hon Winston Peters

Hon David Seymour

Dear Prime Minister and Ministers,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the coalition agreement to overturn the ban on the live export of animals by sea. My reasons are set out below.

1 Reversing the ban will harm New Zealand’s billion-dollar Image

The ban on live export plays a vital role in upholding New Zealand’s image as a clean, green country with high animal welfare standards, which is worth billions to our economy. The ban is a testament to our commitment to good welfare practices. Reversing it jeopardises our reputation and could impact global trade agreements with potential economic and diplomatic fallout. Our ban has already influenced discussions in Free Trade Agreement negotiations with the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Distressing footage during live export journeys going viral can also be disastrous for our reputation. Australia’s international reputation as a progressive country that cares about animal welfare suffered severely as a result of leaked footage of their live sheep export. New Zealand farmers have a strong reputation that would become compromised with similar footage.

2 Live export makes a minimal contribution to our Economy

Live exports constitute a mere 0.6 percent of primary sector exports, contributing minimally to our $53 billion record in primary sector exports last year. It should be noted that the $53 billion was in large part thanks to our global image. The economic loss from maintaining the ban is inconsequential compared to the damage to our reputation if the ban is overturned.

Furthermore, China’s drive for dairy self-sufficiency directly undermines the profitability of New Zealand’s live animal exports in the future. New Zealand could, instead, be investing in high value and knowledge-intensive products from our biomaterials, such as biocosmetics or sports nutrition, both of which are growing export markets and play to New Zealand’s branding strengths.

Overturning the ban is therefore counterproductive, and not in the best interests of our economy.

3 ‘Gold Standard’ voyages do not address the defined problems.

The much-taunted ‘gold standard’ for live exports, including improvements to ships, cannot address the fundamental concerns at the heart of live export. The length of the voyage is the main issue.  Improvements cannot overcome the injuries, infectious diseases, stress, fear, seasickness, boredom, lack of free movement, anxiety, fatigue and dehydration that are an inherent part of the experience of animals during long-distance journeys.

Improvements also cannot completely remedy the serious risks associated with unpredictable weather conditions, including storms and extreme temperatures. Tragically, we saw this in 2020 when the Gulf Livestock I sank during Typhoon Maysak, resulting in the drowning of 41 crew and nearly 6,000 of our New Zealand cows.

4 The journey at sea is only part of the issue. 

Once the animals arrive at their destination, they fall outside the protective umbrella of the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act. This omission opens the door to potential mishandling and suffering during long overland journeys and ultimately in slaughterhouses, that are unregulated by animal welfare standards. Animals are left vulnerable without the legal safeguards that our Act provides, amplifying the urgency to maintain the live-export ban.

The majority of our animals are exported to China, a country where there are currently no nationwide laws that explicitly prohibit the mistreatment of animals, and which has an Animal Protection Index rating of E (the lowest being a G). Re-initiating live exports to China severely compromises our farmers’ strong reputations as well as our global image.

I support the live export ban.

In conclusion, Prime Minister, and Ministers, reversing the live export ban jeopardises New Zealand’s billion-dollar image and economic success.

The short-term minimal financial contribution from live exports does not justify the cruelties and risks to the animals or our economy. Upgrading ships does not address key defined problems as they cannot shorten the journey or offer any form of protection once animals are off-boarded.

As one of the many New Zealanders who support the live export ban, I am extremely proud of our world-leading approach to this and the fact that other countries have followed, or are considering following, our lead, and banning this practice.

Upholding the ban aligns with changing global ethical practices and will safeguard our reputation as a leader in animal welfare, as well as protecting the economic advantages that depend on that reputation.

Please acknowledge that you have received this letter. Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue and we look forward to your timely response.