undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdmbche3y ago0 comments

Well it's not like a building inspection - how many animals are in each building? You have to assess them to see their welfare - on top of checking that the enclosures and practices are up to code.

Some practices might not get done in those days - and might not be reviewed. Imagine no animals has to be put down during these two days, there will be no actual review of that procedure - and so on.

In slaighterhouses in Canada, we have federal inspectors during all work hours but activists still film abuse happening.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

gpm3y ago· 3 in thread

I guess you can broadly split compliance work like this into two categories, spot checks and audits. The former where you're pseudo-randomly checking that they are following the rules, and punishing them where you aren't (taxes work like this), the latter where you are systematically checking that the rules have been followed (I believe building inspections work like this).

1 inspector/100 facilities seems within the realms of reason if you're doing spot checks. It's absurd if you think you need to be doing continuous audits.

It sounds like you're saying there's good reason to think the slaughterhouse business needs the latter (that there is a documented history of abuse despite them happening - I don't really know anything about the industry), but most industries seem to survive on spot checks.

I don't know much about the zoos and breeders that the USDS is inspecting either, maybe continuous auditing would be a good idea, but it doesn't seem absurd to think that spot checks are sufficient. Is there some particular reason to think that they're like slaughter houses and that spot checks are clearly insufficient?

ethbr03y ago

> systematically checking that the rules have been followed (I believe building inspections work like this)

For residential, building inspectors certainly don't work systematically, at least in the US.

When and what they check is pretty spotty.

gpm3y ago

I could be wrong about the example entirely, I've never actually been involved in that stage of construction (or most other stages).

My understanding of building inspections in Toronto, Canada was that they were supposed to be reasonable systematic and thorough even for houses, but I'm definitely not a reliable source. Even if my impression was right I definitely have no reason to assume it applies elsewhere.

Anyways, hopefully the point came across anyways even if the example was sub-optimal.

1 more reply

dmbcheOP3y ago

Full disclosure, I'm antispeciesist and an animal rights activist. - also, love your comment and spelling out both types.of inspections.

To me, industries that are responsible for the well being of animals are more similar to old persons homes, hospitals and kindergardens - they are responsible for the well being of individuals that can't care for themselves. Being at the mercy of the workers, the individuals need better protection than is afforded by spot inspections.

Another thing that should raise scrutiny in these context is that animal welfare costs money, and companies are there to maximise profits - which creates a perpetual tension between respecting animals rights and better/faster results/profits.

And a quote : Freedom is the right of all sentient beings - Optimus Prime

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse