Would the medicine be safe though? Personally I don't like the idea of mulesing and there must be a better way, but if the choice is between mutilating sheep or poisoning the customers then I think mutilating the sheep might be a better option. In the event that the medicine is without risk then it's probably a better idea anyway. The risk of infection from the mutilation itself must be pretty high.

An even better question is why are wool farmers sending their sheep overseas? Surely they can make more money and better fleeces shearing them here.

And slitting the sheep's throat is required to prepare kosher meat for Jewish and Muslim consumption. It's not the most humane way to slaughter an animal, but it's better than what harvesters do to chickens.

"so the animal liberationists have created some"

which makes no sense. Personally I think you have a case of andromorphism, considering animals to have human feelings. The common thinking of the libral animal right protector is... "What if you were a sheep?". The only problem with this is... I'm not a sheep, so you can't compare me. Humans create a pyramid of relation. Meaning your mother or sister is very close in relation, therefore anything happening to them is close to you. If they die, you feel very sad for it. Lower down on that list is Animals. Since humans are humans and have human feeling they try to understand animals using human emotions. Any pet owner knows this. Oh Oreo looks sad, or bored. Simply this is not the case. Some liberalists apply this to all animals. The scale of it is incredible. There is so much misinformation. Take for example the belief that we are becoming overpopulated. The truth is the scientits who created this said population grew at a expontential rate, and food at an algebraic rate... sounds good. As anyone knows eventually an exponential rate will outgrow an algebraic rate. The only problem. No time in history has this theory been proven. In fact it's been disproven. Look at the stats of global warming. Really look into it. There is no such thing. Yet people constantly state it as a fact. Whilst the evidence supports the opposite.

Back to the point of sheep. So if sheep don't have human emotion they still feel pain, right? Well let me ask you something. Whats so bad about pain? Are the farmers mutilating these sheep to cause harm. No they are protecting them from disease. Do you remeber that boo boo from childhood? Pain is temporary. I bet it's also inhuman to give us shots. i mean they hurt! I'm going to go and sue the hospitals. i be back in a bit. Do you see my reasoning or are you going to join me on my peroxide ban? Of course they are in it for the money. If they don't come out positive then they arn't going to have sheep in the first place.

Of course sheep die on ships. I'm not against helping this problem. I doubt though if they let the sheep go first class and smoke big fat cigars in recliners while watching there paper view movies, they'd be in the profit. Is death that bad though? I mean really. If you let these sheep out in nature they'd get eaten by wolves. Shepherds are there to help the sheep live, not to kill and torture them. They need the sheep. If you create all these bans you can drive the shepherd out of buisness and kill the buisness. I'm all for the "human"e treatment of sheep. I mean don't these sheep deserve some "human"ity? All I'm trying to say is remember they are sheep, not humans.


Also. I've added this article and the responses to my site. If you have a problem with this feel free to go to my site and look in the forums for the article and change anything. You can go there by typing in your ScreenName, and the password

SN: cactoblasta PW: guest

SN: ChampasSocialist PW: guest

I'd recomend changing your password. Feel free to start other articles, and reply as well. If you wish to continue this discussion with me please do so at that site. Otherwise carry on with it without me.

Thank you

~capi crimm

Capi - you don't have my permission to post anything I write on a foreign website without asking, especially when you mention a site without actually providing any links or information about it. I think you can do it legally, but I'd rather you didn't in future without making a request. It's pretty impolite. If you'd asked, I probably would have said yes. But I'd like to be asked.

As for your argument, I mostly agree with the following reservations:

Firstly, Australian farming land isn't exactly packed full of wolves, so your argument falls flat there. They'd more likely die from starvation or pure stupidity than killer wolves. Without human intervention most domesticated animals would fail to survive. But that doesn't mean that we should go out of our way to be cruel. Sure, they're not human, but if the cruelty is unnecessary, dangerous or just excessive then it's a waste of time and simply creates excessive fallout domestically and abroad.

Secondly, I think the Australian export trade is more robust than you give credit. It is vastly more efficient than its bloated US and European rivals, and is competitive on price even with the long shipping lanes and without government handouts. The extension of common wool sheep measures in Australia to sheep for export might be slightly more expensive, but if it protects the health and productivity of the crop and maintains market access then it's worthwhile.

EDIT: I know you don't have many members, but to any of you others thinking about doing the same thing, don't sign me up for your damn site! If you need names to fill the members list, make them up yourself rather than ripping off mine and starting a pseudo-discussion without even mentioning the source you stole the ideas from!

You may be suprised Champas but I actually agree with you on this one. Besides after reading anthropomorphism being spelt "andromorphism" I can hardly side with Capi Crimini!( Just Kidding Capi, I hate spelling nazis)
I know I made a somewhat similiar arguement about Kangaroo culling but in that case I felt you actually were anthropomorphising (though that was only my opinion). In this case your only stating that the animals feel pain, which they do and they almost certainly suffer from it. If pain didn't feel 'bad' to them it would useless, so I believe that pain is felt even if the animal isn't consider intelligent or sentient. I do believe sheep are conscious beings and not simple mindless automatons (though some of their herding behaviour may led you to believe otherwise!).
The pain in this case is almost certainly not temporary. Have you ever had a large piece of skin cut away? This would promote infection anyway since the main point of the skin is the prevent entry of germs. So even it does prevent flystrike it probably causes other problems.
Mulesing is only performed because certain sheep have a genetic suseptability to flystrike. This trait is hard to select out unless you know whcih sheep are suseptable. Proper breeding would benefit both the farmer and the sheep.
Poor sheep breeding is not an excuse for cruelty. It is one of the most important aspects of animals husbandry. Firstly they should prevent flystrike with other methods and secondly they should avoid breeding with any sheep that have been affected by it.

>And slitting the sheep's throat is required to prepare kosher meat for Jewish and Muslim consumption. It's not the most humane way >to slaughter an animal, but it's better than what harvesters do to chickens.

I wasn't aware this was a thing to do with kosher ness, yet for me the cruelty is a higher priority. In Vietnam, they cut bears' paws off because it is a cultural belief that this brings luck. Nevertheless, efforts are being made (and not by your traditional Animal Lib groups) to get rid of this practice. And of course, I'm opposed to what harvesters do to chooks.

>Personally I think you have a case of andromorphism, considering animals to have human feelings.

I can understand your perspective but I disagree with your judgment. It is a semi-religious belief of mine that animals are far more intelligent and emotional than modern science has as yet discovered. I usually point out that it's very recent that scientists argued that black people were inferior and little more than animals. (But please don't see this as me saying that you can't argue that animals are inferior, simply because it is a religious belief for me. I try to respect others' beliefs, but I try not to hide behind the same defence).

>Lower down on that list is Animals.

Lower than my family certainly, but not lower than other humans in my eyes. And I'm not actually an animal lover at all. You are assuming that your judgment is the same for everyone, except for other people who are apparently clearly irrational. Yet if I am so irrational, then may I ask you, have you ever read the modernist philosophers who are responsible for logic and science becoming such a predominant mode of thought in our society? Are you aware of the assumptions upon which your theories are based? Because while I acknowledge scientist philosophers such as Descartes as excellent thinkers, I think there were strong limitations to their theories that will see them surpassed. How pretentious was that ay!

> Simply this is not the case.

Or perhaps simplistically. Look, you're entitled to your view but I wish you wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume your correctness. What is more, most of this is beside the point. I realise you want t try to increase traffic to your own site and so you've gone on a tangent to draw people, but if you want to participate in this debate, you should come here to participate, in fairness to me.

>In this case your only stating that the animals feel pain, which they do and they almost certainly suffer from it.

In the particular instance of this article, this is all that is relevant. So this issue should be something that crosses party lines.

>Look at the stats of global warming. Really look into it. There is no such thing.

I know the argument, and I disagree with it. Some evidence points one way, some points another. This is a copout, but others are far better at explaining this argument and so I can't see the point in going into it.

>Is death that bad though? I mean really.

This is where I started to think you should have quit while you were ahead.

>If you let these sheep out in nature they'd get eaten by wolves.

I am not arguing that the sheep meat industry should be abolished. Animals and people eat animals. I am uncomfortable with that, but I do not argue for that religious conviction of mine to be forced on others. So, wolves or humans can eat sheep. Unnecessary cruelty by humans though is, well, unnecessary.