I agree that it would be superfluous and counter-productive to boycott Australian wool if there has already been agreement to ban the cruel practice of mulesing.

As a consumer I boycotted French products in response to nuclear testing, but now I wonder if boycotting is counter-productive in some ways. It certainly did not stop the French and probably had more impact on Australians who worked for French-owned companies. Then again symbolic gestures can have an unquantifiable and positive impact and boycotts could be argued as one of our few remaining democratic freedoms.

Boycott's may bring attention to worthy issues but as the author describes they can be a veil for protectionism. There should be no need for a veil in my view, if someone doesn't need our wool don't buy it for goodness sake. Boycotts might also have unintended effects on innocent stakeholders and in fact I think Sections of our Trade Practices Act criminalise boycotts if it interferes with the business of a Third Party. I will try and find a link.

Australia did the same with NZ fruit (pears and apples I think) on the basis of the fear of blight. Personally I don't think we need to import fruit if we have sufficient supplies and there is always a risk of bringing in diseases. Why don't we just refuse to buy into the free trade pandemic.

As an Australian Farmer, I can assure you there are far more benificial things people can do than boycott our products! Please read link below!

http://youcansavealamb.blogspot.com/

Clearly profits and morality will remain divided when it appears that Mr Ariel has been selected by the livestock industry to act as a bodyguard for tyranny.

In addition, Mr Ariels states:

“Sixty-five years ago, Sweden professed to owning the high moral ground by claiming “neutrality” during World War II, while secretly selling iron ore to the Nazis. Aiding and abetting the Nazi war machine cost countless British and American lives.”

Perhaps Mr Ariel needs to be reminded that Pig Iron Bob was also selling our iron ore to the Japanese who found that metal extremely useful for the Japanese war machine during WW11.

Furthermore while Mr Ariel claims that the Swedes had a “racial purity” programme, he appears to ignore history which reveals that Australia also had a White Australia policy.

However, one must thank Mr Ariel for the links he has provided. I most certainly will contact the Swedish government to offer my congratulations to those Swedes who have chosen not to purchase Australian wool due to the cruel practice of mulesing without pain relief.

I shall also advise the Swedes that the WA Department of Agriculture will cease mulesing their sheep as early as next month.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200803/s2184915.htm

Would Mr Ariel like the skin ripped off his backside without an anaesthetic?

The Swedish traders, it appears, are adhering to the EU’s official recognition in 1997 - that animals are sentient beings - possessing a level of conscious awareness, and able to have feelings .

Economist, Mr Ariel needs to be aware that Australia’s treatment of its livestock has earned them the ignominious reputation of a nation which endorses animal cruelty, not least from the export of live animals where, last year, over 40,000 dead and diseased animals were dumped overboard, These deaths are testament to the horrific journey these hapless animals are subjected to.

The author has demeaned his standing on OLO by offering a mask of reasoning which propagates an appetite for sadism.

This nation (my nation) needs to realize that we have now entered an age of enlightenment where animal cruelty will no longer be tolerated.

I come from a merino sheep farming background in WA, and am well aware of the process of mulesing, and the issues involved. It is really quite a cruel thing to do to a baby animal without use of any anesthetic, before or after the operation. While I completely agree that this is preferable to the animals becoming flystruck (I wonder how many city dwelling Europeans have seen a live animal with maggots eating into its flesh?) I do think that the industry should have realised a very long time ago that in a society waking up to animal cruelty, mulesing was never going to be an acceptable form of preventing fly strike. We just should not have come to a situation where it takes the screaming of animal rights groups, and countries boycotting our produce for the industry to do something. Farmers could and should have lobbied for alternatives a long time ago.

As for boycotting Swedish products and companies, I think a more productive and positive action would be an education campaign about the practice of mulesing to counter both the ignorance of the consumer and irresponsible claims by animal rights groups (for example, PETA's statements about the removal of "dinner plate sized chunks of flesh" from the hindquarters of sheep). This should also come in combination with widespread advertisement of the steps the industry is taking to change the practice

Jonathan..HOW DARE YOU speak about Swedish actions against Australian wool grower practices....

Don't you realize you are sprading HATE and FEAR ?

Why do you tar all Australians with the meulsing brush?

Why do you contribute to Australians becoming more 'Anti Swedish' by mentioning these things... how sad.. how horrible, how racist, how unfair...how...how.....

You are creating 'division' not unity.. you are exacerbating this problem and soon, people will give vent to the feelings you are building up inside them..and formerly sensible Australians will suddenly lash out violently against any Swedish person....

In fact..the world might come to an end because of this.

boaz, the contrast you're attempting to draw there is quite obvious.

If you'll kindly point me to the part where Mr Ariel says that the belief foundations of anything associated with PETA is 'evil' then perhaps, I might take it seriously.

Though even you could do that, it would only make me dismiss Mr Ariels piece (which as it stands, is quite a good argument) rather than accept your scaremongering against the Islamic religion on a whole.

A quasi-communist, capitalist fueled, socialist utopia like Sweden... a 'threat' to Oz wool exports? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha. Ridiculuous exaggeration of that impotent states capacity to do anything of substance.

Sweden is a rabidly docile, compliant PC culture, where more adults live off other peoples backs, than there are backs to live off. And guess what? They feeeeeeel absolutely entitled to ride the sheeples back. How ironic.

Islamification of self-immolating nation states like Sweden is not a curse. Its a blessing in disguise. This is the nature of short-sighted, sentiment fueled and poorly reasoned ultra-liberal states. They effectively liberate themselves out of existence. People being what they are... we go for the mile when given the inch and this is happening inthe rabidly liberal cultures of the west.

Balance is what is required. However the lefty hacks. like the right wing hacks want it all their own way. In the case of socialist inspired liberalism, their, uhm inconsistent 'tolerance' of politically correct social and cultural 'differences' leads to self abasement. Happens all the time.

To wit, given that being open and tolerant is a cornerstone of liberalism, its only natural that those who enable the thing, should only be too happy to eventually step aside when the the new liberated group assumes the reins of power. As they must, by definition.

Its social evolution. And its always pricelessly amusing when these folks shoot themselves in their liberal feet and wounder why their liberal culture is being replaced by another liberated cultural group.

'Aint nature grand.

I agree with wildwood completely on this:

"I come from a merino sheep farming background in WA, and am well aware of the process of mulesing, and the issues involved. It is really quite a cruel thing to do to a baby animal without use of any anesthetic, before or after the operation. While I completely agree that this is preferable to the animals becoming flystruck (I wonder how many city dwelling Europeans have seen a live animal with maggots eating into its flesh?) I do think that the industry should have realised a very long time ago that in a society waking up to animal cruelty, mulesing was never going to be an acceptable form of preventing fly strike. We just should not have come to a situation where it takes the screaming of animal rights groups, and countries boycotting our produce for the industry to do something. Farmers could and should have lobbied for alternatives a long time ago."

Also, aren't their tails cut off which they could use to swat away the flies?

astonishing article. i can accept the poverty of the arguments: olo publishes all manner of nonsense. but the hysterical tone and the gratuitous, tendentious irrelevant slurs were incredible.

please keep writing, ariel. you're the anti-mulesing lobby's best friend.

The sad reality of the anti mulesing hysteria, is that merino sheep
are going to be the big losers, as they die lonely deaths under
some tree or behind some rock, eaten alive by maggots.

Australian farms, stations, are not 5 ha Swedish style farmlets.

Trisolfen has been developed, if it is made available at local
Landmark, Elders stores etc, people will use it. That is not the
case at present. Farmers are not to blame for that, but Govt red
tape.

Last time I looked, in the US something like 97% of babies being
circumcised had no pain relief, just a few years ago, so the present
hysteria is exactly that.

But hysteria will be hysteria, especially by animal rights activists
who know nothing about the livestock and industry in question.

In this case, Peta's actions will land up causing huge suffering,
but in their ignorance, they are most likely not even aware of that.

Are there any country veterinarians out there who can strike the middle ground?

Yabby it is a little naive of you to believe that all animal activists no nothing about the issues they support.

Steel you are correct about the tails, at least on crossbred sheep anyway. We did a trial this year and left most of our lamb's tails intact. We had a horrendous fly season this year because of the rain but, lambs with tails were not struck on the breach. Some were struck on the shoulders, which in my experience is just as common as the breach. Many of the lambs with docked tails were blown on the breach.

There is another factor to this debate that just never seems to rate a mention. How much influence does the shearer have in whether or not sheep are mulesed? As a woolclasser, I have heard many times a shearer threatening an owner that if they do not do something about 'those wrickly arse sheep' they will not be back next year. No they are not interested in the welfare of the sheep, just the damage to their gear and the extra time it takes to shear them.

It appears that those who endorse inflicting pain on other species continue to raise the argument on OLO that infant males can endure the pain of circumcision. That argument has long been refuted by medical experts.

A new survey shows that 97 percent of these doctors now learn effective pain relief techniques for circumcision, such as using a local anesthetic.

"This is a large leap ahead in how physicians are trained to perform circumcisions, which at 1 million annually, is the most common surgical procedure," says researcher Daniel Yawman, M.D., MPH, a pediatrician at Golisano Children's Hospital at Strong and Rochester General Hospital, in a news release. "There is no reason a newborn should have to endure the pain of circumcision without a local or topical anesthetic."

Researchers say the results show that the debate over whether babies feel pain during circumcision has ended. Since 1999, most major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have recommended the use of anesthetics to provide pain relief for infant circumcision.

I have indeed witnessed a fly-blown sheep and also a dog. Not a pretty sight that's for sure, though interestingly, the sheep had been mulesed.

However let's be clear here why Swedish traders have chosen not to purchase Australian wool.

That reason is due to the Australian livestock industry's refusal to use any pain relief for surgical procedures on livestock. The Swedes are not objecting to the actual procedures even though other surgical procedures used on livestock, without pain relief, by the Australian industry are too heinous to mention.

Therefore, let the hysterical livestock lobbyists and the equally hysterical politicians learn the hard way whilst their masters-of-spin foolishly try to prove that sadistic practices, perpetrated on livestock, have some cogency or validity.

Interesting question you've raised Steel. I had not thought of that.

*due to the Australian livestock industry's refusal to use any pain relief for
surgical procedures on livestock.*

Actually Dickie, your claim is false. Something like 17% of mulesed
lambs were treated with Trisolfen. But its a very new product and hard
to obtain. Farmers would use it, if it were more readily available.

What is true is that use of Trisolfen is not yet mandatory. But then
pain relief for human circumcision is not mandatory either, so your
animal ethics concerns are running ahead of human ethics concerns.

What is also true is that just over the border in Denmark, millions
of pigs are castrated without pain relief and the Swedes don't say
boo.

PF, I did a trial this year with a few merino lambs, leaving long
tails, unmulesed etc. The results were frankly a disaster with
lambs struck on their butts, that had been shorn a couple of months
earlier. I've had to cover them in chemicals, until the last of
them are off the place. It once again showed me why mulesing was
develeped in the first place, certainly not because it is fun.

What will happen now is that a market will develop for unmulesed wool.
Some farmers will see the $ signs and not mules their lambs. They
will cash in on the premium, meantime during harvest and other times,
or due to slack farming, or properties too large, or whatever,
I'll drive past those properties and see flystruck sheep dying
miserable deaths.

The law of unintended consequences can be quite severe and in this
case, how ever well naive people might have meant to do good, there
will be far more suffering of merino sheep then ever before.

All pretty sad really.

ABLOY is at least a partly Finnish company (the OY is a Finnish appellation equivalent to PTY LTD or the German GMBH (sakeyhtiö abb. to OY).

I do agree that the Swedes are a hypocritacal mob over mulesing.

As mentioned in the article, Sweden now has a rather large Muslim minority (so much for their "racial purity" ideals, there won't even be a "Swedish culture" soon) yet those Muslims have to be fed. Sweden bans "halal" killing of animals (along with the Jewish equivalent) so halal meat must be imported. Why don't they apply the same level of concern for animals in respect to those slaughtered to feed Swedish (or rather Turkish, Kurd, Arab etc since most seem to despise the country in which they have sought refuge) Muslims?

Frankly, I think Sweden is a country which departed for lah-lah land some time back and I won't knowingly buy any of their products.

The Vikings would be gyrating in their graves to see the way their once proud country has gone. They're now nothing but a nation of animal libber PC girlymen sissies busy handing over the keys of their nation to foreigners.

Well, there you have it. You really can find prejudice against any nation, practice, minority, gender or religion on these forums.

Anti-Swedish. Now they're 'sissies.'

Huh. I really didn't see that one coming.

As one who knows nothing about the rights and wrongs of this issue, I don't think the writer of this article does much to enlighten people.

Anti-Swedish rhetoric is hardly a rational basis for the measures called for. While the logic of one large part of the arguments stymies me. We should not buy Volvos (yeah. like I was in any position to do so anyway, but hey, I'll happily comply)because of Sweden's ww2 record and its alleged anti-humanitarian behaviour. Instead we should switch to Benz (have just ordered two) because they are made in Berlin? Wot the?

Racism and flawed logic are not likely to sway the greeny-lefty-whatever classes who are traditionally seen as the majority of the bleeding hearts sector in issues of this sort.

Having been in South Africa when boycotts were applied, I have seen how misguided they are: sure the idea is to hit the Big Boys in the pockets. However what happens is that the BB's just move on and the hundreds and thousands of little people who shore them up are the ones who suffer. RSA was already on the path to change when the boycotts started.

The violence and mayhem which has ruled ever since can be laid at least partly at the door of all the well-meaning people who caused unemployment, dispossesion, hunger, street children, vagrants, anger and hatred when thousands of the people they were supposedly helping went to the wall, while the white managers and CEOs just transferred out.

PS TRTL. My personal favourite was the girlyboy label.My imagination went overboard on that one!

Jonathan Ariel's bleeding heart lament, states:

"Stockholm’s indignation regarding mulesing is disingenuous. There are already moves afoot to replace mulesing with other procedures from 2011. What do the Swedes want to happen between now and 2011? For lambs to be denied mulesing and die a slow and mind-boggingly painful death?"

An equally disingenuous retort from Yabby:

"Actually Dickie, your claim is false. Something like 17% of mulesed
lambs were treated with Trisolfen. But its a very new product and hard
to obtain. Farmers would use it, if it were more readily available."

No Yabby it is not "a very new product" at all and you, a sheep farmer, clearly knows better. Fortunately, so do we!

"Dr Merideth Shiels the inventor of Tri-Solfen, when launching the product in September 2005, advised that the product would be available in the following month (Oct. 2005.)

"Dr Meredith Sheil, Animal Ethics: In the latest twist in the mulesing debate some Swedish retailers have agreed to resume buying wool from mulesed Australian sheep, after an emergency trip to Sweden by Dr Meredith Sheil, the inventor of the post mulesing pain relief spray Trisolfen.

"Ms Sheil has just returned from an emergency meeting in Sweden to meet with retailers of Australian wool and she says those retailers reported being 'confused and bemused' by the presentations on pain relief made by the Australian Wool Industry Taskforce several weeks ago.

"The Taskforce had claimed the retailers would only continue buying Australian wool if mulesing ceased but Ms Sheil says they were open to persuasion on pain relief options when she discussed the issue with them in detailed presentations."

In addition, PETA, the American animal welfare group, were also agreeable to mulesing continuing until 2010 providing Tri-Solfen was administered to lessen the animal's pain.

So what happened? Remember, this industry is known for its careless handling of the truth.

http://www.animalethics.net.au/news.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content/2006/s1670515.htm

Dr Matt Makin, National President of the AVA also advised that inflicting unnecessary pain on livestock is unacceptable:

http://www.animalethics.net.au/trisolfenspeechMM.pdf

Sorry Dickie, but because a product has been developed, does not
mean that it is readily available. In farming terms 2005 is
like yesterday, it is a new product. It takes years of testing
to prove that something actually works or is any good.

The first year that Trisolfen was out, even my vet had trouble
getting hold of it. It is still a pain in the arse now. If you
want people to use products, make them readily available at
local farm supply stores.

But that is not even the point. The point is, that if mulesing
is banned, Trisolfen or no Trisolfen, a huge number of sheep will
die of flystrike, suffering miserably in the process. It is foolish
to try and ban mulesing in the first place, much more sensible to
think about mandating the use of Trisolfen or paying premiums for
wool from people who use it, not for people who don't mules.

Even people like PF, who claim to know about sheep, are amazed when
they put rings on lambs tails to tail them, then land up with
flystrike. duh. Clips etc, will do exactly the same thing.

My point remains. The Peta campaign against mulesing will land up
causing huge suffering to merino sheep in Australia, but they
are too ignorant about Australian farming and merino sheep, to
even understand that.

Yabby let me quote part of your recent post on another thread

"If you ever go into business Nicky, you will learn fast, that
if you ignore the customer, you go broke."

Excellent advice, take it.

You can stand on your digs all you like but if the customer demands unmulsed wool, then thats what they will get. The smart guy will find alternatives - crutch his sheep more often - and get a premium for his wool. You on the other hand will still be complaining about it.

My comment about tailess lambs was that of course they get flystrike duh. They dont have any defence against the flies without a tail.

PF, I have no need to complain, for the Peta anti mulesing campaign does not
affect me in the slightest. I am simply speaking up on behalf of sheep, who don’t
get a say in all this. I’m pointing out the Law of Unintended Consequences,
which many, with their well-meaning but ignorant agendas, don’t seem to understand in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence

Merino sheep will pay the heavy price of suffering miserable deaths as a
consequence, which is all very sad, when its caused by human stupidity,
which is what I am highlighting.

I have been breeding wool free meat sheep for years now. The token 200 merinos
have simply been here to compare economics of the two systems. Similarly,
the non mulesing long tailed experiment this year was undertaken in order to
speak from experience, rather then ignorant passion, as is so common.

I remind you that farming is made up by a variety of individuals, including lots
of hobby farmers, absentee farmers, part time farmers, farmers with little
experience. Merino sheep are left to their own devices for a lot of the time
and flystrike is the no 1 killer in Australia, apart from lambing deaths.

Around 5% of the flock, or 4 million sheep, die in paddocks now as it is.
Ban mulesing without a suitable replacement and that number will skyrocket.
Pay a premium for wool from unmulesed sheep, some will see the $, grab their
premium and sheep will die in the paddocks. The consumer will have been sold
the false illusion by Peta, that animals are better off. Fair enough, give consumers
what they want, that is good marketing, but that does not mean it’s good animal
welfare. We have factory farming due to consumer demand, after all, which makes
my point.

You might well believe your wavy tail theory. Far more probable is what the people
using clips are finding. It takes a very long time, from fastening a clip or a tail ring,
until that tail or piece of skin has rotted off and the lamb is no more an attractant of
blowflies

"Well, there you have it. You really can find prejudice against any nation, practice, minority, gender or religion on these forums.

Anti-Swedish. Now they're 'sissies.'

You'll note that my name is "viking" which is because I have some Scandinavian background. I'd hardly be racist against my forebears, now would I? I can however lament they way a Scandinavian country is headed. By "sissies" I mean they lack the balls to be proud of their own heritage, and to become hidebound by PC concepts. At least the Danes, as mentioned in the article, still have some (balls).

Some contention here.

[viking13] >>At least the Danes, as mentioned in the article, still have some (balls)<<

But this doesn't necessarily hold true for their their pigs, apparently:

[Arjay] >>just over the border in Denmark, millions of pigs are castrated<<

Yabby,
It's not that peta aren't aware of the consequences, those consequences have value to them. As their intention is to cease the use of animals entirely, having customers feel better about their purchases of wool, meat, milk etc is counterproductive to ending animal "exploitation".

Peta seem prepared to sacrifice animal health to that end. Sheep deaths post the mulesing ban can then be used in attempt to end the industry entirely. Welfare gains do nothing for the peta cause, it's not in their interest to have healthy sheep.

rojo, I find the idea that PETA knowingly supports a certain level of animal cruelty, simply to ensure they have a job, so preposterous, it's laughable.

That being said, I often think PETA tends to choose misguided animal causes over ones I would have thought were of a higher priority, and that all too often, their ideological rhetoric is somewhat skewed.

But I certainly don't think they pull their punches.

Which is kind of the problem sometimes, if those punches are misdirected, and this means they don't take into account the realities of situations such as this.

As for the idea they'd run out of causes... no. I don't think issues of animal cruelty are going away anytime soon.

A very succinct and accurate post from PF.

In defence of truth, which Yabby continues to distort, I advise that the pain-killer Tri-solfen is provided for mulesing by selected vets in every state.

Why then is mulesing continuing without the benefit of Tri-solfen?

"If you want people to use products, make them readily available at
local farm supply stores." Yabby

A typically arrogant whinge from a live sheep exporter accustomed to hand-outs and who remains unperturbed about Australia's reputation for cruelty whilst seeking maximum profits at the expense of defenceless animals.

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=64902

The domestic and international communities are objecting to mulesing without pain relief - objections which have been exacerbated by Australia's heinous treatment of its live animals for export.

Take heed breeders. Your profit margins are not foremost in the minds of fair-minded citizens. The animals you ill-treat are.

Enter the 21st century or join the dole queues.

Your choice, your future!

*the pain-killer Tri-solfen is
provided for mulesing by selected vets in every state.*

Indeed it is Dickie, which means that farmers may have to travel hundreds of
km to obtain it and face fat profit margins by those selected vets, rather then
normal market competition. If it was available at every Landmark and Elders
store, there would be competition on price and availability would be a breeze,
so people would use it. If you want people to use a product, the harder you
make it and the more expensive it is, the less they will use it. Do you have no
common sense?

*The domestic and international communities are objecting to mulesing without pain relief*

Those communities have done no such thing. Peta has put a proverbial gun to storeowners
heads, feeding them false information and threatening protests and boycotts outside
their stores. The mulesing debate is far too complex for the average consumer to
understand and form an accurate opinion. Some stores agreeing to boycott wool,
don’t even sell wool :) A case of passionate ignorance at its worst, by a bunch of
people who disagree with eating meat, milk, or even wearing leather shoes. Their
leader plans have her own meat barbecued when she dies. There is a screw loose
somewhere.

*Enter the 21st century or join the dole queues.*

Hehe Dickie, given that you think that farming is evil and you would rather bemother livestock
rather then accept that we eat them, we don’t depend on you veggies for our income :)

Every time I drive past a hobby farm from now on and see another flyblown sheep
dying, I will remember that it was passionate ignorants such as yourself, who barely
know one end of a sheep from the other, who don’t understand the Law of Unintended Consequences and who are partly responsible for cruelty to animals
due to pure ignorance. All very sad really.

"Some stores agreeing to boycott wool,don’t even sell wool."

Yes Yabby, I'm well aware of that and I was more than delighted to learn that other businesses are taking a stand against this inhumane, unethical practice.

If it were not for caring people's objections, it would be business as usual for sadists such as yourself.

Of course, ethical husbandry of your livestock would mean we wouldn't have to endure so many of your misleading blatherings on OLO and you might just do a decent day's work for a change.

You are hypocritical when you state that mulesing is necessary to prevent a sheep suffering fly-strike but it's OK to have their tails amputated and their backsides ripped off where they can suffer pain for months. And as usual, you insist that all those who object are ignoramuses on these matters. Well here's a couple of viewpoints from a couple more "ignoramuses:"

"DR JOHN AUTY is a veterinarian with vast experience in the meat and sheep trade, who has also worked as an Agronomist, as a stud overseer in private practice, as Chief Commissioner for Soil Conservation and in the Department of Primary Industry.

"He says of Mulesing: "It is similar to flaying and the pain will be experienced for weeks and months afterwards. Mulesing does not free the sheep from blowfly strike, but proper husbandry practices, including close inspection of sheep, will reduce and virtually eliminate flystrike."

"DR ROGER MEISCHKE is a vet surgeon who has practiced in the wool growing areas of NSW and for the Federal Department of Primary Industry. He now runs a small sheep stud. Dr Meischke is critical of mulesing. He says farmers who mules and breed from all sheep enable the susceptibility to flystrike to continue.

"He says: "Mulesing is an admission by sheep breeders, that their animals do not possess the breeding required for survival in their area."'

And as humane and ethical farmer, PF advised: "Excellent advice, Yabby, take it!"

Dickie, you remain ignorant as ever on OLO! There is no point in taking or not
taking PFs advice, when I have no merino lambs to mules or not. So you girls remain
confused as ever :)

In fact, I’ve probably done more for animal welfare then any of you, by developing
a whole new breed of wool free sheep, of which thousands now replace merinos.
but that is another story.

I am also on public record for suggesting that the real solution is to not even contemplate the abolition of mulesing, until somebody has come up with an alternative that actually works. Meantime, mandate the use of Trisolfen, AS LONG
AS it is easily available and competitvely priced. We are not here to fatten up
the bank balances of selected vets.

You don’t have the foggiest clue as to how I run my livestock, so your ignorant
comments are taken with a grain of salt.

Dr Meischke is correct, suitable animal husbandry is required to ensure that merino
sheep do not suffer painful deaths. Breeding is a long term exercise, not a solution
for tomorrow. Meanwhile there are around 80 million merinos in Australia and
their welfare matters. I hate to see them die on other peoples farms or hobby
farms. Not mulesing would mean the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them
each year. As for me, rest assured, I won’t feel a thing, neither will any of
my livestock.

Nobody muleses their sheep for fun. Talk to some old timers. Before mulesing,
20% of their lambs might die of flystrike, a cruel death if ever I saw one. After
mulesing, virtually none. The practise did not develop for no good reason.

If you want to go back to lambs dying everywhere, then ban mulesing and agree with Peta in their ignorance. Learn the hard way Dickie, I will be here to point out that
I told you so.

TRTL, no, I didn't say anything about supporting their own jobs, that indeed would be silly as they generally draw token wages. I'm saying the overall goal of ending animal use. The end justifying the means.

peta is idealogically, not money, driven. I give them respect for that, but none for their abuse of "facts".

My great-uncle invented that... true story.