The Forum > General Discussion > Why fur is never cool
Why fur is never cool
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ...
- 32
- 33
- 34
-
- All
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 30 August 2008 9:06:04 PM
| |
Yabby
"Are you perhaps out of your depth, discussing this one?" No I am not, thank you, Yabby. I wasn't even attempting to 'discuss' the issue, anyway. I merely mentioned it as an example of a practice that the average man in the street wouldn't have been aware of, if it hadn't been for animal rights activists raising its profile. "Have you noted how many farmers are now using Trisolfen, now that it is available?" The only reason the Australian wool industry even considered alternatives to mulesing is because it was facing boycotts from lucrative overseas markets. If its hip pocket nerve hadn't been pinched by the consciences of its buyers, you can bet nothing at all would have changed. You are certainly back to your cantankerous old self with that last post, Yabby. Sometimes you show glimpses of having a real heart, but then the shadows roll in and it's all insults and put-downs again. I certainly won't be prodding the old beast again. You can wallow in your own negativity without disturbance from me in future. By the way, it's posting courtesy to preface other posters' quotes with their names, not that courtesy is something you waste your time over, I realise that. Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 30 August 2008 10:01:36 PM
| |
Bronwyn is right when she points out that mulesing practices are being amended in direct response to the activities of activists like PETA.
Yabby is also right when he says that nobody likes having to mules their sheep. I vividly recall having to assist in the procedure while employed as a farmhand in the 1970s - coincidentally not too far from where he lives in the Katanning district of WA. If there had been a viable alternative back then, I have no doubt whatsoever that my boss would have taken it. He loved his sheep. Where I live now, most sheep farmers in the district are similar. They go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their sheep are protected during bad weather in winter, and bottle-feed orphaned lambs every year. One fairly hard-bitten old bloke had tears in his eyes recently when he described to me what wild dogs had done to some of his ewes and lambs. Of all issues at OLO, anything to do with animal welfare seems to always inevitably descend into a slanging match between poor old Yabby and any number of the animal rights mob - who are invariably female and display various degrees of rationality. I tend to agree with Yabby about half the time, but I have to give him full credit for sticking to his guns in the face of protracted adversity at OLO. Mostly, I find the animal welfare threads here boring and predictable, but I have to say that I admire Yabby's forbearance. Mind you, I said that I only agree with him about half the time :) Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 30 August 2008 10:26:22 PM
| |
Sheesh CJ, thanks for that! 50% will do :)
Bronwyn, your rural roots clearly fell off some time ago. Has it ever occured to you, how insulted many farmers would feel, if they read the ignorant and arrogant posts of Nicky, Dickie and now it seems, yourself? I live and breathe this stuff every day, it surrounds me. Country people are some of the most generous that I know. Just today, another story about 1500 tonnes of seed grain, donated by 230 farmers, for their fellow farmers in drought. In times of fire, flood, etc, country people rally around to help one another. Of course most of them care about their livestock! There will always be exceptions, no different to anywhere else. They struggle not only with the elements, but against political systems that are stacked against them, greedy meat processors and many other challenges, to feed and clothe their families and survive for another year. I feel the pain of those who are forced to leave the industry, as the numbers don't stack up anymore, no matter how hard they tried. But you bunch of ignoramouses clearly know it all better. They must all just be greedy, for selling sheep to the live trade. How ignorant and arrogant of you! I note that you ignored my question about consistent philosophy. Perhaps you don't have one, perhaps its just more touchy, feely stuff, as we are so used to. How accurate and unbiased do you think that the information is, coming from animal rights activists with a clear agenda ? Are you so gullible as to believe it all without question? Bronwyn, some of your posts are reasonable, but this last one was typical of a now public servant, completely out of touch with country life and country people. Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 31 August 2008 12:17:16 AM
| |
"Yabby is also right when he says that nobody likes having to mules their sheep." (CJ Morgan)
Balderdash! Mulesing is a mere "bagatel" for sheep farmers. Let's be frank here. Some twenty million Merinos are mulesed each year. Mulesing has been performed since the '30s. Farmers have never objected to these heinous practices. Farmers have never lobbied governments for assistance in seeking more humane alternatives to these procedures. Eminent researchers from the '80s found that lambs mutilated from these procedures, avoided the "skilled" operators for 37 days. This research was a waste of taxpayers' funds for farmers preferred the status quo. Tail docking and castrations are performed on sheep at the same time as mulesing. All these procedures have been kept from the public eye. This industry appears sufficiently naive in believing that these other inhumane treatments will not be an issue. Rest assured, they will be. Cows'ovaries are hacked off (blind) but Yabby insists that cows "hardly flinch" during this procedure. Well they are incarcerated in a steel crush but witnesses have vouched that the bellowing is pitiful and distressing. This industry has resorted to extraordinary lengths to portray animal welfare people as nutters? The truth is that wool and meat producers, driven by avarice, have resisted change, and state and federal governments are in their laps. And our in-house Marquis de Sade, aka Yabby, is a fine example of the moral pygmies who run this club where all feast from the same poisoned tree: "But you bunch of ignoramouses clearly know it all better. They must all just be greedy, for selling sheep to the live trade. How ignorant and arrogant of you!" Indeed? And we know that you also send our sheep, goats and cattle to China too whilst operating under a system of deception, obfuscation and prostitution! The blood is on your hands - not ours Yabby! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_BOAF7qvk Posted by dickie, Sunday, 31 August 2008 3:36:27 AM
| |
CJ - with all due respect maaate.
1. Live export is not necessary - far easier, economical AND environmentally efficient to slaughter here. 2. Many farmers do love their livestock and many try very hard and need all the support they can get to enable them to use humane farming practices. Like your support for example. 3. What does being 'female' have to do with the debate? As you suggesting that females are irrational? 4. What is rational about cruel treatment of animals? It is not 'manly' just sadistic. 5. There are humane ways to manage furs and hides as others have pointed out. Nothing 'irrational' about that - just good sense. 6. I have watched calves being neutered, while their mothers mooed and cried outside the fence - I know how much these animals care and feel. 7. While Yabby has every right to express his POV - there is no justification for using patronising insulting terms to others who disagree. I guess Yabby enjoys upsetting people. Therefore, his approach to debate is not at all rational, just trolling. This patronising 'I am male, I know best' is a load of B/S. There are many men involved in animal welfare, who feel as passionately as Nicky. While I am no vegetarian, I do respect Nicky for her holding true to her values. And I do my best to purchase free-range produce. There is much that can be done to produce a livestock industry that is humane, dismissing people as 'irrational' for speaking out about cruel practices, is, well, irrational. Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 31 August 2008 9:19:57 AM
|
Nope, I discuss them with qualified people, who understand
the livestock that they are dealing with. Nicky is a fanatic, she knows
nothing about sheep. She does not know cruelty when she sees it,
as the evidence on here shows.
*Live export, is totally cruel and unnecessary.*
If that is your belief, then at least be consistent. Call for the
global banning of all feedlots, for a live ship is nothing but
a floating feedlot. 4-12 days on a boat, gaining weight, it not
an issue.
*If it wasn't for their awareness raising on issues like battery hens and mulesing,*
Has it ever occured to you that farmers don't mules for fun, but
to avoid animals suffering? Have you ever watched mulesing being
performed and studied how lambs react? Have you noted how many
farmers are now using Trisolfen, now that it is available?
Are you perhaps out of your depth, discussing this one?
*It's the sheep's reality that you have to look at.*
That is exactly what I look at. How much do you know about sheep?
*It's not about denial it's about acceptance of a reality.*
Of course its about denial, for her own beliefs contradict her
recited 5 freedoms. Its all emotion, lack of understanding and
lack of reason. If Nicky has led such a protected lifestyle that she
has never lost a bit of skin in her life, or felt a bit of pain,
then Nicky missed out on a normal, healthy childhood :)
Sorry, but normal farm kids don't live in cotton wool, nor do
animals in the wild or on farms.
Looks like I'll run out of posts on this one...