Photo Gallery

Exporting Cruelty

Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)

What Others are Saying

1. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
01-07-2005 by visitor

I think it would be good if you people who run this website could be made go back to before we had a consumer society and have to actually work to put food on your table and keep your self warm . As far as muilsing goes it is not barbaric at all. As soon as the lambs are released they go back to their mothers and start feeding as if nothing was done to them. They have a lot better chance of surviving the rest of their life with out prolonged pain as they would have when they get fly struck and the maggots are slowly eating them alive till they either die of blood poisioning or shock which is a very cruel death. Now I hear you say that the farmer should be looking after them and make sure that they dont get fly struck. Well thats what the farmer is doing when they have them muilesed to start with and it is an on going part of  sheep farming. If people were prepared to pay more for wool and other products from farmers they would be able to employ more workers to look after the sheep and make a better living, All Peta and the likes of your group are doing is making it harder and harder for farmers to make a decent living and so will not be able to look after the sheep as good as they do now or in the past and more sheep will die a cruel death. You  people should get out of your ivory towers and go get a real life

---

2. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
03-07-2005 by visitor

It seems the farmers would like a medal of congratulations for even acknowledging that flystrike is painful and that they implement preventative treatments for this condition. Well congratulations! Now get over yourself.

I wonder if farmers would go to such extremes if flystrike wasn't potentially fatal, and -- let's be realistic -- a potential economic loss. Perhaps if it just left the sheep with a bloody painful wound it wouldn't be such a problem. Indeed -- this is what they are forced to endure at the hands of unqualified farmers already!

Mulesing lambs for fear of flystrike is like hacking off a child's ass for fear of eczema.

And let's just get this straight -- with NO ANAESTHETIC! Can you imagine how traumatising that would be?

It all comes down to economics, doesn't it. It is un-Australian to scruitinise the wool industry, because it brings in billions of dollars each year. But it's unnacceptable to suggest that farmers ought to take more care to ensure the humane welfare of the animals they exploit in order to make their own "living" (how ironic).

Perhaps hacking off a child’s ass WOULD be a cheap way to prevent some skin conditions. So why not do this? Because it’s barbaric, and because we have alternative preventatives that are a little more expensive and require a little more care, but that everyone recognises as necessary for the child’s welfare.

If you’re not prepared to treat your child with the necessary care he/she deserves, then you have no right raising children. The same could be said for burdening yourself with the welfare of 20,000 sheep.

The bottom line is simply that profit does not justify cruelty.

So why is the government still protective of the dear wool industry in all its ugly abuses?

It seems that one of the biggest problems is that farm animals – who think and feel as much as domestic animals – have been written out of legislation that protects animals from real cruelty. There are two standards. If you raise a duck in your backyard, she/he will be protected with one standard. If the same duck is raised on a farm, these protections are void.

Such legislation exists to prevent pet owners from lawfully abusing animals in their own homes. For example, you would be sent to jail for skinning your cat if you didn’t want to spend the money to deal with a veterinary skin condition, or for slitting the throat of your dog because you wanted to cook him up on the BBQ.

Take these abuses out to the country and they can be lawfully committed by anyone who calls themselves a farmer, because the government currently sanctions abuse for the sake of money. For example, you can skin a sheep alive without any pain releif (mulesing), or slit his/her throat (lamb roasts) because we can all make a buck from it.

It is this distinction that deludes most city folk (who REALLY don’t have a clue about agriculture) into believing that raising animals for food and such is ethical because the powers that be protect all animals from cruelty. It is simply not true.

Oh, and I promise to get a 'real life' if you promise to get any type of conscience.

---

3. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
09-07-2005 by visitor

What in the hell are you people Smoking?  Mulesing sheep has nothing to do  with skinning cats sliting dogs throats or doing things to childs arses( just shows how sick you people are)
First and foremost Mulesing is to protect the sheep form flystrike around the breach and yes I supose it does have an economic value because it keeps the sheep alive. Mulesing has to be done by an aproved operator and they have to show that they can do the job professionally before they can gain aproval.
As far as your arguments about animals on farms  being exempt from cruelty legislation that is simply another of your lies that you are pedaling to people who dont know any better. There was a farmer prosecuted for not feeding his sheep through the current drought just recently. and so he should of been too.
It is just a pity that people like you cant be prosecuted for claiming so many untrue things and trying to link them with the imagination in your not so fertile mind. And as far as getting a real life I am sure that it would be Just about impossible for you. By the way how many grass eating animals have you starved to death while your been eating your veg only diet?  :))

---

4. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
09-07-2005 by visitor

You Like to show a picture of the lamb being Mulesed. Why dont you be fair and show a picture of a fly blown sheep and lets see how cruel that looks. You dont have any? Well here are some links I am sure the people who posted them on their web page wont mind.
http://www.woolisbest.com/photo_gallery/images/large/the_culprits.jpg
http://www.woolisbest.com/animal_welfare/mulesing/index.html
Now lets have a bit of fair play and get both sides of the coin not just a  onesided, Flawed and sensationalised augument from airy fairy people who wouldn't  know a Merino sheep from a Dorper.

---

5. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
28-07-2005 by visitor

Mulesing has nothing to do with care for animals and everything to do with cheap exploitation. It's AMAZING that farmers can attempt to justify hacking off the arse of a sheep -- without any consideration for pain reduction -- an act of "care".

It was put quite plainly above that such a procedure wouldn't exist if it were to simply reduce the pain and suffering of these animals (rather than prevent a potential income loss).

Comparing mulesing to skinning a cat doesn't make a person "sick"; but the act itself is certainly not something to be condoned. The act, itself, IS sick. But it happens. Cats and dogs are skinned alive in China and other countries that have as little respect for these animals as Australian farmers do for sheep. Are you outraged? Do something about it! But don't act like a hypocrite in the process! The suffering of a cat is no more immediate than the suffering of a sheep. Please get over the cutesy sentimentality and see suffering for what it really is!

And just how "approved" do these operators of mulesing have to be..? ABC rural news reports a mulesing contractor's surprise at his own lack of expertese due to inadequate (or no) necessary training (which were inflicted on thousands of innocent lambs, no doubt):

"...Yes it certainly did come as a surprise to us because as a contractor being a contractor for years you seem to think there that you have been doing it right and your way is the only way but when you come to one of these courses you soon learn different..."
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2005/s1418439.htm

---

6. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
28-07-2005 by visitor

Thank you for posting the links to the pictures of flyblown sheep. It is abhorrent! These farmers should be shot for not looking out for the animals in their care!

Why are Australian merino sheep so suceptible to flystrike?

Could it be that this non native breed of sheep is so utterly ill suited to our climate that they succumb to such peril? These animals have been PURPOSE BRED to have extra rolls of skin and thick, greassy wool in order to bring in a few extra dollars each year. Apparently this is a trade off for their welfare and comfort (or even their lives, in some dire cases).

Some more sensible farmers who decide to raise sheep in Australia opt for breeds more suited to this climate. They realise that this level of suffering is not worth gambling a few extra bucks per bail. Good on them!

Greed has powered this industry for too long. If you can't afford to look after your sheep without skinning them alive, get a different job! Have some respect!

---

Are you seriously wanting an answer to your question: "By the way how many grass eating animals have you starved to death while your been eating your veg only diet?  :))"

-- About a twentieth of the number a meat eater would. (Farm animals need to eat too, you know...)

---

7. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
02-08-2005 by visitor

First lets get the facts right.
mulesing is not "hacking off the arse of a sheep" as you keep saying in your uninformed rants.
Fact. Mulesing is removing a small piece of skin from around the tail and the breach of the sheep. It is done so that the sheep has least chance of getting fly struck by the sheep Blowfly and also it stops a lot of chemicals being used as these would have to be used all the time otherwise the sheep would die a horrible death from maggots eating them alive.
To compare a lamb being mulesed to a cat or dog being skinned alive is just plain stupid and just goes to show how much grey matter the author has between their ears.
Now if it is true what you say and I very much doubt that it is. That cats and dogs are skinned alive in China or any other country then thats where you should be heading as fast as you can get an airline ticket. Then you could say YOU have done something noble for the animal world and stopped this terrible thing. If you need the money to go I am sure a few shearers would gladly pass the hat around and help you on your way.
You talk about cutesy sentimentality, Well that would sum up your way of thinking to a T and as for suffering. Have you ever seen a lamb being mulesed?
They are sucking their mothers and grazing  as soon as they are released and if they were badly hurt as you say  then i am sure they wouldnt do that.
You quote the ABC rural news story about the contractor and in no way was it said that he inflicted unnecessary pain on INNOCENT lambs. Just said that he found an it easier on himself and a better way to do it and it does show that contractors like everyone else are willing to learn new methods. Unlike the so called animal rights people who cant tell the truth and just tell lies and more lies to try and grab news headlines.
As for this statement "Greed has powered this industry for too long. If you can't afford to look after your sheep without skinning them alive, get a different job! Have some respect!" Wool is not worth growing now as you are all wearing  synthetic cloths made from oil and helping polute the planet and hasten global warming and there soon wont be any sheep left in Australia as they are not viable to run so you can all pat yourselfs on the back and when the oil runs out I hope you all freeze to death. END

---

8. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
02-08-2005 by visitor

Whether or not you describe mulesing as "removing skin", or "hacking off the ass", it still equates to the same thing: live skinning -- without anesthetic (I'm curious as to how you argue that "removing skin" from a live animal does not equate to live skinning, but that's another debate, no?).

Everyone knows "why" mulesing is practiced. There's no need to go over this again. We've even been graced with gruesome photographs of the "deadly flystrike" and "horrible death from maggots". This is very clear. But you're kidding yourself if you attempt to justify that mulesing is for the well being of the sheep. It's to keep them ALIVE. (Dead sheep aren't much use to sheep farmers, after all).

Nobody is suggesting that FLYSTRIKE CONTROL is unnecessary. MULESING without pain relief is unnecessary. Ending such a barbaric practice need not condemn "up to 3 million sheep to a horrible death by flystrike each year", to use the industry's words.

Comparing the skinning of a sheep to the skinning of a dog or cat merely serves to demonstrate the twisted paradigm in which we base our assumptions on what is cruel and what is not cruel. Somehow a sense of familiarity and "cuteness" leads us to think that sheep (and other farm animals) are not worthy of our compassion, whereas cats, dogs, etc. are. This is false compassion based on ignorance and sentimentality.

The fact is, both these cruel practices exist and ought to be condemned. See for yourself http://www.furisdead.com/feat/ChineseFurFarms/ The very same activists that are fighting the wool industry to end mulesing are tirelessly campaigning for an end to the fur trade all over the world. I'm certain they would appreciate a donation to help fund their treacherous work.

Skinning an animal that is fully conscious to the pain that is caused -- without attempting to alleviate the pain -- is just plain wrong. You might argue that mulesing involves just a "small area" of skin, and the animal will eventually recover from the ordeal, and thus it's not "so" wrong. Well where would you draw the line? Getting it wrong? Cutting off her tail? (Try justifying such a thing to a victim of abuse: Is just a little bit of rape less wrong than a lot of rape?)

To most people (who aren't in the business from profiteering from animal suffering), these practices are equally abhorrent. That you are stupefied by the similarity simply shows that you have been blinded to suffering by routine torture and the excuse that sheep are a means to an end for Australian farmers. Indeed, the Chinese furriers would argue the same thing.

What would I gain from seeing a lamb mulesed? (See http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=save_the_sheep for anyone who hasn't and can stomach the footage) Would I learn just how cold hearted our sheep farmers really are? Should I be assured by the lack of outward physical distress of the lamb? Is this what you base your assumption that mulesing is not a painful, invasive procedure?

Perhaps you're relying on ignorance to get this point across, or perhaps you don't know much more about sheep than how they can be exploited for their wool and killed for their flesh. Sheep are prey animals. Like other prey animals, the species has evolved not to draw attention to themselves when fearful and in distress. Instead, they remain silent. It is a survival mechanism and doesn't mean they are not experiencing terror and agony. On the contrary, studies have proven that mulesing induces severe stress in sheep during and well after the process (see http://www.savethesheep.com/report.asp)

If wool isn't worth growing, then why resist? I would agree it's not worth growing. It's not necessary, particularly with so many less-cruel and sustainable alternatives such as hemp and organic fibres. No need to be melodramatic about the end of the world!

---

9. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
08-08-2005 by visitor

I am not going to continue this debate as it is just a waste of time because you have no idea what you are talking about and it doesnt  look to me that you are willing or it might be that you are unable to comrehend the facts. I will give you a couple of examples to show you why I consider this to be  the case.
"Getting it wrong? Cutting off her tail? "  When the lambs are muelsed their tail is also cut off and if you have seen lambs being mulesed or marked you would of known this.
Another of your comments was "Sheep are prey animals. Like other prey animals, the species has evolved not to draw attention to themselves when fearful and in distress. Instead, they remain silent." This just shows you how naive you are or that you just dont get out from your virtual world and see for your self. If sheep are in any distress at all they do not remain silent, far from it and who ever told you that one has not been around sheep either.
I am pleased that you mentioned that sheep were prey animals and as such we can use them for the production of wool and meat.
Have a good day and maybe if you get and see for yourself you might actually learn a few things instead of peddaling so much misinformation. If you are getting paid for this web page then YOU are taking money under false pretences and if you are doing it for free then you should get your facts straight.

---

10. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
08-08-2005 by visitor

It's clear that you're struggling to support the case to continue mulesing when you decline to support your cause, while claiming that those who object to the mutilation "don't know what they're talking about" -- without being able to refute, in any clarity, the objections to mulesing posted here and elsewhere.

Why?

Because there are no merits for the case to continue mulesing that stand up to any real ethical debate. Because, despite humane alternatives, its continuance serves only to benefit the pockets of the farmers who raise and exploit these animals for commercial interests. Because it is clear that nobody other than those who profit from the abuse of sheep are arguing to sustain the practice of mulesing, and because those who oppose this barbaric practice have no vested interest, other than the concern to minimise unnecessary and egregious suffering of others, due to the inhumane practice of mulesing.

That's right, nobody pays activists to stick up for sheep. It's hard to believe that such efforts would be made purely for the welfare of animals, without regard for remuneration, huh?

It simply does not follow, the fact that sheep are 'prey' animals, that humans (who, naturally speaking, also wouldn't stand up in a fight against a predator!) have the right to physically abuse them in any manner we please. To suggest this is to throw all moral obligations accompanied with being an intelligent human being out the window.

To claim that slicing skin off the backside of an animal, while cutting off their tail, causing a gaping bloody wound, without any anesthetic, would not cause "any distress at all" is quite courageous (or just stupid). What's more concerning is what you're doing to sheep to cause them to act in ways you consider "distressing"! I hate to think.

To quote Temple Grantin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University: "Well sheep feel pain. Now the thing about sheep is they are a prey species animal, and a prey species animal tends to cover up the fact that they hurt. You know, an animal like a dog will yelp when he hurts, because he's a predator, but sheep being a prey species animal, doesn't want to advertise to all the dingoes out there that 'I'm injured'. And you can get situations where you can just about torture sheep and they behaviourally act normal, but if you go in and measure their stress hormones, their stress hormones are going to be off the charts."
From an ABC interview: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1319562.htm

---

11. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
09-08-2005 by visitor

I will say it once again so you can read and let it sink in. Get out of your ivory tower and come down to a farm and have a look what actually happens so you maybe know what your talking about.
As far as your professor well he wouldnt know the rear end of a sheep from the front and as far as knowing their behaviour goodness knows what drugs HE was on. If a sheep is attacked by dogs (which I have personally seen) they dont just stand there dumb. They actually make quite a bit of noise so much that I was able to hear them and put a bullet in the dogs that were from a town. The owners were amazed that their dogs would go off and kill sheep. I suggest to you that you get out and see whats happening and dont listen to people who dont know what they are talking about.Just recently a well known film and telivision star who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister So he could ban mulesing, after getting out and learning the facts apologised to the farmers for getting it wrong. Pity you cant do the same thing. Get out learn the facts and then come back tell us all then. BTW  have you boycotted all the goods made in China because of the so called cats and dogs issue ? Bet you havent. Get a life.

---

12. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
10-08-2005 by visitor

1. If you took the time to read the interview rather than arrogantly pretend to know what you're writing about, you'd know that Temple Grantin is not a HE, and probably would not take kindly to insinuations of drug dependence. Please stick to facts and don't rely on assumptions and derogatory name-calling if you want an intelligent debate.

2. Would it not have been more humane to shoot just one sheep (that was being "killed", in your words, and if it wasn't -- why shoot the dogs...?) than a number of dogs that belonged to some family out of town? My guess, because like mulesing, it's an economic decision, not a welfare one.

3. The film star you refer to is Toni Collette, who describes mulesing as an "unimaginably cruel procedure". There was never a retraction made that indicated she found the procedure any less barbaric and inhumane.

4. Boycotting all Chinese products because of its fur industry would be about as practical as boycotting vegemite for mulesing.

---

13. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
14-08-2005 by visitor

funny how you want to boycott our wool industry but you dont want to boycott chinese products even though you say that they are skining dogs and cats alive. Great prioritiies you have. Full Stop.

---

14. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
14-08-2005 by visitor

This is a little off topic, but I thought the philosophy behind product boycotts were rather fundumental. Yet it seems you're more than a little confused on the issue.

Don't you think it would make more of a statement against the FUR industry if only Chinese FUR (or all fur for that matter) were boycotted, rather than an arbitrary country-wide boycott? What would such a knee-jerk reaction prove? And yes, I should hope any self respecting person with an ounce of integrity would boycott such a despicable trade as the fur industry.

Just like the current boycott against the cruel practices of the Australian WOOL industry is targeted at Australian WOOL, not everything made in this country.

The reasons for boycotts are two-fold. Firstly, it reduces the demand for a product, and thereby minimises the cruelty involved in producing it, and secondly, it sends a clear message to the producer of said product -- that consumers are unhappy with their product and will urge others to boycott said product -- thereby causing economic loss to the manufacturer, which will continue unless they change their policies.

Does that make sense?

---

15. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
24-01-2006 by visitor

I would like to offer my opinion, based on the fact that I own 45 sheep, live in the Wheatbelt of WA (fly prevalent area) and have had significant experience with both farming and animal welfare (I am a CALM carer)

Credentials established...I'm sorry to say that some of you people do not know what you are talking about.  Sad, but true.

Merino sheep are bred for wool.  They are prone to flystrike.  Crossbreeds are bred for meat.  They are less prone to flystrike.  (oh, the irony...)  It is physically impossible for a farmer to manually check 20,000 sheep, individually, for flystrike, in less than a fortnight.  A flystrike attack will strike down and kill a sheep, horribly, in less than two days in some cases from the first visible signs.  Sometimes there are no visible signs at all (dark wool etc) as some types of blowfly burrow down into the flesh.

By the way - none of my sheep are mulesed, and I lost two last spring from my flock, despite daily monitoring.  Ten had signs of flyblow, and required daily care for a fortnight (first tearing off the wool from the skin, which often tears off the skin as well where the maggots have got in) and then putting flystrike powder on.  One I put down as the flies had got into its anus and laid maggots, which were eating the sheep from the inside.  I shot it, and cried buckets.  These sheep I use to prevent fire hazard, and I also take in orphaned lambs.  I can tell you now that to say that it is viable for a farmer to 'anaethetise' a sheep before mulesing is just not feasable - and that does not mean that the farmer is tightfisted.  An anaesthetic for a sheep would present far more danger to the animal than mulesing.  A local anaesthetic is not feasible as the area to be covered is too large for the injection.  Crutching twice a year does not significantly reduce flystrike incidence to the degree where mulesing is unnecessary.

With your analogy regarding children - I believe that if one million babies were doomed to a painful, maggot filled death through penis infection if they were not circumcised - yes, these are the statistics of the rate of death due to flystrike which would be suffered without mulesing (see reference below) - there would be a national LAW implemented to circumcise male children in Australia at birth.  

The irony is that these merino sheep, bred for wool, are generally very well treated in comparison to those who are doomed to be exported overseas or to the slaughterhouse for meat.  

It isnt about economics, nor about animal welfare.  I have never met a farmer locally who has treated his sheep with anything less than fondness and compassion.  Our local RSPCA are very vigilant on cases in our area, and our rep says he has never attended a case of animal abuse on a farm here.  The main offenders are people who do not put down old and sick animals because they are too attached to them - they do not have the common sense to recognise safe practices which contribute to the welfare of an animal sometimes include euthanasia.

Please, have a look at these statistics.  I do know what I am talking about.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:U9X19Zs7svUJ:www.woolisbest.com/documents/mackinnonProject_020605.pdf+flystrike+incidence+in+sheep&hl=en

---

16. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
24-01-2006 by visitor

By the way...an answer to your question.  

Why are Australian merino sheep so suceptible to flystrike?

We have a very aggressive Australian blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) which is responsible.  There are seasons when it is exceptionally hot, and/or wet, and the flies become worse at that time.

Could it be that this non native breed of sheep is so utterly ill suited to our climate that they succumb to such peril?

There are no breeds of sheep native to Australia.

These animals have been PURPOSE BRED to have extra rolls of skin and thick, greassy wool in order to bring in a few extra dollars each year. Apparently this is a trade off for their welfare and comfort (or even their lives, in some dire cases).

The Australian Merino originated in Spain, but has been crossbred to adapt to our environment as much as possible.  The types of sheep which do not have rolls of skin and thick, greasy wool, are meat sheep, not bred for wool.  They have been purpose bred to adapt, not to be killed by flystrike - obviously.

Some more sensible farmers who decide to raise sheep in Australia opt for breeds more suited to this climate. They realise that this level of suffering is not worth gambling a few extra bucks per bail. Good on them!

They have generally chosen to breed meat sheep.  Again, if you think that a thirty second minor medical procedure is less barbaric than the process in which a sheep is taken to the abbatoirs or exported live, I suggest you go and visit an abbatoir.  I myself am a vegetarian, but respect others rights to eat meat, including sheep.  However, I am happy that the wool sheep in our area live out a long and happy life grazing in paddocks.

---

17. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
01-06-2006 by visitor

I would just like to clear one thing up. Merino sheep are not bred to have wrinkles in their skin. This is actually an undesirable trait due to the fact that it increases the sheep's chance of getting flystruck. The wrinkled sheep were introduced to Australia in the late 1800's in the belief that the wrinkles would increase the surface area of skin and hence wool harvest. However it did not have the planned result and in fact these sheep were found to be harder to sheer, more prone to strike and actually produce less wool than normal sheep. Australian famers have been trying to bred this trait out of their stock ever since.
I really don't know where PETA are getting their material form, but it is not accurate.

---

18. Re: Mulesing Constraints (Warning Graphic Photo)
03-02-2007 by visitor

Well I stumbled across this place by accident, read everything, and can honestly say with unequivocal certainty that anyone who thinks that mulesing is barbaric, inhumane, cruel or any other disparaging word you care to use, is an absolute IDIOT. Period. (Oh and I use the word idiot because the real word I want to use isn�t very nice and I�m not rude enough to use it here) Quite frankly I don�t give a damn what, if anything, you say in reply, because I wont be coming back here. Why would I, when all I�d be doing was trying (in vain I might add) to educate people who have absolutely and naively closed their minds to the idea that they may just be wrong? Do you enjoy walking around with blinkers on? � you must look pretty stupid. I must admit that I find it greatly amusing that if you people had dynamite for brains, and it exploded, it wouldn�t even ruffle your hair.

I am absolutely positive that if you were asked to imagine what it would be like to be eaten alive by maggots, then while you may have some vague idea, you would be so far from the actuality it would be laughable. And here you stand trying to convince normal, just, sane and humane people who are looking out for the welfare of their stock that this is preferable to removing some skin once in a lamb�s lifetime! What in the name of all things holy are you high on? More to the point, Who The Hell Do You Think You Are??????? I�m willing to bet that none of you have ever owned a sheep farm, have ever had to kill a sheep because it was fly struck. So until you personally own a farm, have worked on it, have cared for sheep, have seen some of YOUR own sheep being eaten alive or dying from blood poisoning because you refused to conduct mulesing, have seen firsthand the irrefutable benefits derived from mulesing, then keep your mouths shut and your pathetic displays of ineptitude, and naivety to yourselves.

Why don�t you go and save the Tigers who are killed for a number of so called medicinal reasons, but whose medicinal reasons wouldn�t stand up in a court of law. Or maybe the Whales that the Japanese are right now slaughtering off the coast of Australia in the name of research!! Research my butt. The tigers and whales are killed outright!! Lambs only have a small amount of skin removed. Get your priorities straight people. And if it�s not too hard to manage, try and answer everyone�s prayers and get a brain while you�re at it. Then at least a conversation with you could finally be called intelligent.

---