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".