This reminds me... How come there hasn't been any mention about American Apparel's decision to start using wool?

Peace,
Brian.

Posted by: Brian W. Lockyer | January 7, 2009 07:25 PM

THIS IS SICK AND NOT UP TO DATE WITH WHAT NEW MYTHODS THT ARE OUT THERE TO USE. It just shows everyone that in order for them to save a few dollars the animal suffers.

Posted by: SASHA | January 8, 2009 09:04 AM

Oh my God! this is ridiculous. how can people actually get away with this!!!??? DONT WEAR UGGS!!! Because people think it's just the wool but it is actually the wool and skin of the sheep. Also it's covered in suede!

Posted by: Karen | January 8, 2009 12:29 PM

I didn't know American Apparel is using wool. i buy a lot of their product. I knew to ask them about this. And those UGGS are so stupid-looking. Only bimbos wear them. really

Posted by: felix | January 8, 2009 02:01 PM

WTH?! why are these sick bastards able to get away with it?! They should have the same thing done to them! END THE USE OF WOOL!

Posted by: Me | January 8, 2009 02:59 PM

Can someone tell me the alternative to mulesing? I am not nor have ever been a primary producer but I have seen the results flystrike where the sheep has not been mulesed. Australian farmers are experiencing drought some for up to 7 years. Every sheep that survives and provides good quality wool is the only income for some, why would you risk death or illness with your bank account.

PS I will be interested to see if this is posted?

Posted by: Barb | January 8, 2009 04:09 PM

I'm all for not mulesing...but can anyone name effective alternatives? Flystrike is more damaging to the animal then mulesing. The farmers are just doing their best with what they have. It's hard.

Posted by: Kestral | January 9, 2009 12:07 AM

Effective alternatives to mulesing include breeding for worm resistance and breech strike resistance and parasite control/management.

Posted by: Amber | January 9, 2009 12:46 PM

Sadly there are neglectful farmers just as there are neglectful pet owners. Because "some" mulesed sheep had flystrike does not mean mulesing is ineffective. Flystrike can be in other areas than the breech too.

Amber, worms have nothing to do with flystrike, blowflies lay their eggs in areas they think are attractive like around sheep bums. These eggs hatch and the larvae eat whatever they come across, effectively eating the sheep alive.

I'm all for better husbandry for sheep, but it has to be better. Breeding is the only real way to minimise flysrike without physically bareing the breech.

A thinking person would realise farmers only make money from healthy sheep so they don't go "cutting lambs open and leaving them to be eaten alive by maggots under the pretext of keeping them healthy". Counterproductive to say the least.

Posted by: rojo | January 9, 2009 04:18 PM

That is Auful! I have cousins that live in australia and have three sheep ....but they dont shear them because those are pets that they rescued from a horrible sheep farm like that.... but any ways those uggs are so gross they make peoples feet look HUGE and I don't know what ugg stands for but I'm guesing it means
UGGLY !

Posted by: Kayla Foster-Brandt | January 10, 2009 12:30 AM

From what I know, the sheep are mulesed to keep the wool from growing around their anus because they are bred to carry such a load of wool, there is no other way. Wouldn't it be better to simply keep the end shaved? Why cut the skin open so that it doesn't produce wool - why not just keep it short? I don't understand this terrible infliction of pain on animals. Wool used to be an honorable product.

Posted by: Jan Schultz | January 10, 2009 11:00 AM

I hate for this to be done to sheep, but I think flystike is much worse. why dont they either come up with a new mothod, or make this one more human as in cleaning and dressing the wounds or putting the sheep under so not as much pain is felt?

Posted by: Mary | January 11, 2009 06:28 AM

Rojo

Amber is right - worms have everything to do with flystrike, particularly of the breech. They cause the animal to scour, wetting the breech, causing dermatitis etc which attracts the primary strike fly (Lucilia) - the real damage is done by the secondary strike fly (Chrysomya etc)

Posted by: John | January 11, 2009 08:36 PM

What do the famers in other countries do to stop flystrike ? I am interested to know because it looks like Australia is the only country with the problem.

Posted by: Geoff | January 11, 2009 10:11 PM

Way to go rojo!

Posted by: kerry | January 11, 2009 10:27 PM

I think that what these farmers are doing is just wrong and barbaric it is upsetting to know that they can get away with animal abuse....

Posted by: Mareena | January 12, 2009 08:54 AM

This Australian Animal Tourture is ridiculous! Let the sheeps live peacefully and get their wool safely without havrming them... Hope the farmers get OUT OF BUSINESS!!!

Posted by: AWWang | January 12, 2009 05:31 PM

Geoff, do other countries have the Australian blowfly?

John, point taken. Our biggest flystrike risk was during and after sustained rainfall events, not as a result of scouring. Didn't think of that.
Apologies Amber, however the sheep with immunity to worms appear to not be immune to scouring.

http://www.mackinnonproject.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36:causes-and-costs-of-scouringdag-in-merinos&catid=17:internal-parasites&Itemid=51

Australian farmers spend lierally hundreds of millions of dollars already on worm control as it is.

Mareena, what is barbaric is to let the sheep die of flystrike, and not to do your best to prevent it. We vaccinate our children with needles, which no doubt causes them pain, because we know that it's for their own good. One day we'll look back and think how barbaric that was when some new method takes off. At present mulesing is effective, and the alternatives yet to be commercially developed. breeding is ultimately the logical course but takes time to change the whole flock.

Posted by: rojo | January 13, 2009 07:24 AM

Icant find worlds..I will never buy ull more!!!

Posted by: Louise Wickelgren | January 17, 2009 10:03 AM

I grew up with pet sheep and we did shear them in the summer, but we never hurt them. I assumed that everyone else did it the same way. Thanks for opening my eyes, PETA! This is truly horrific.

Posted by: Alisha | January 20, 2009 03:51 PM

Mareena you are correct this Australian abuse of animals in this case sheep is horrific, I have seen sheep in paddocks dying of flystrike some were treatable others were not and as we could not get the help of the authorities we treated the sheep that were not too far gone however the sheep that were close too death we took to a vet and sadly they were put down,a couple of sheep had been mulesed but still suffered from this hideous affliction many more of these sheep may very well have been mulesed also, mulesing is not the answer, efficient regular monitoring of sheep is, mulesing is nothing but a cheap alternative for Australian sheep farmers.

The farm in question is in Victoria, Australia and the farmer responsible for these sheep lived right across the road from his property and would have seen his sheep dead and dying everytime he drove out his driveway.

Posted by: marissa | January 23, 2009 07:36 AM

I laugh when I here people talk about pet sheep!
They obviously dont realise that farmers dont have sheep as pets, they have them to live off. It is their livelihood.
I commend Australian sheep farmers who take the necessary mulesing step.
People who hurt animals and are cruel of course are terrible humans, however, the mulesing step is taken in prevention of flystrike.
People want to realise that farming is a business. Just like those businesses that rip of the customer and take peoples homes and so forth, farmers to have to take some hard measures. However, mulesing helps in the long run.

Posted by: paul | January 27, 2009 09:44 PM

I think you will find these pictures were the most extreme cases they could find.

Before ALL Australian sheep farmers are labeled barbaric you should see first hand how badly this country has been ravaged by drought and hear the hundreds of stories about farmers and their families practically starving to make sure these animals see it through.

Posted by: Pippa | February 2, 2009 06:09 AM

oh my god! a better way to kill the sheep would be to euthanize them gees!!!!!! its not that expensive i think and it doesnt cause pain to the sheep! yeesh why cant farmars do that? wtf is wrong with people........i love you pink!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rebecca | February 6, 2009 03:42 PM

Dear readers,
I am a current senior student in Australia. Like most I had no idea what Mulesing was until I recently heard about it in a class discussion.

I have chosen to research this as a major assignment. My initial thoughts were the same as the majority (OMFG this is cruel, disgusting, can't they use pain killers or anethsetic or something?) However, after much research I believe that mulesing is currently the most affective way to prevent flystike in Australia. The fly that cause this infection is only native in Australia, which is why no other countries preform this cruel yet affective practice. People do not understand that this fly can eat through skin, muscle layer, organs and even bone causeing much pain for the sheep over a long period of time. Mulesing, while it is still painful, only removes the skin layer down to the muscle, not "chunks of flesh" as some believe!

Although I support mulesing, I also support finding an adequate alternative that is less painful for livestock.

It is unreasonable to ask the sruggling farmers in rural Australia to pay mass expenses for injections on thousands of sheep at a time.

The 2010 ban is only 1 year away and does not give scientist and other professionals to come up with a good enough alternative.

Until this alternative is discovered I think mulesing is the best way to prevent flystrike wich can be fatal!

Posted by: Rhiannon | February 16, 2009 04:44 AM

Rhiannon,

I would very much like to see some of your research. My son has also elected to study this topic and as the wife of an Australian farmer I am not sure what is the best option. I believe mulesing is a better alternative than having the sheep flystruck and believe me I have seen some of them. But on the other hand it is not all breeds of sheep that need this done and we dont practice mulesing on our farm.

Posted by: Tanya | February 17, 2009 06:02 AM

It seems that there is more emotion than scientific consideration among the opponents of mulesing. I doubt that many of these opponents have been to Australia or have even visited a farm. It is amazing that people can have such strong feelings based not on first hand experience or research, but based on sensationalism and 3 photos whose origins are not proven.

Posted by: Edward | February 18, 2009 07:52 AM

"It seems that there is more emotion than scientific consideration among the opponents of mulesing."
- Edward

Yeah, somehow I'm guessing if you were in the sheeps position, getting the flesh around what used to be your testicles cut away you wouldn't be feeling science much either.

Btw Rhiannon, there are already viable options on the table for farmers to use:
Prevention of scouring by a good worm control program
Breeding breech-strike resistant sheep
Selection away from harsh-woolled, wrinkly sheep
insecticides
and by not breeding the extra wrinkly sheep that facilitate flystrikes in the first place.
Money is no excuse for the cruelty these sheep are shown. If you can't pay the bills the wool industry demands, perhaps you should pack your bags and head for the city instead of taking it out on the sheep...

Posted by: I | February 23, 2009 11:47 PM

"Mulesing, while it is still painful, only removes the skin layer down to the muscle, not "chunks of flesh" as some believe!"
-Rhiannon

Yea I'm sure handlers who don't even take the time to practice proper husbandry and apply anesthetic, will take the time to surgically separate skin from flesh.

Posted by: I | February 23, 2009 11:54 PM

"Although I support mulesing, I also support finding an adequate alternative that is less painful for livestock."
-Rhiannon

Vaccination, Insecticides, Breed Selection, Sterile Male blowfly release, Improved farm management, Baited traps, Increased monitoring and treatment, and a topical application being developed that is virtually painless, bloodless mulesing.

"It is unreasonable to ask the sruggling farmers in rural Australia to pay mass expenses for injections on thousands of sheep at a time."
-Rhiannon

If you can't pay to take care of your sheep properly, why do you have them? Also struggling farmers don't own the multitudes of sheep where mulesing occurs.

"Until this alternative is discovered I think mulesing is the best way to prevent flystrike wich can be fatal!"
-Rhiannon

Simply not true, there are many effective alternatives to mulesing. Also sheep are not allowed to live after their wool productivity declines.

Posted by: I | February 24, 2009 12:09 AM

This is a terrible issue, and I am horrified by even the idea of mulesing. However, as an Australian I feel I should defend my country. I had never even heard of mulesing until a friend of mine from New Zealand described the practise to me. It isn't just an Austrlian practise, merely more common in Australia because of the much larger sheep populations. Something has to be done to prevent flystrike, but our farmers can barely afford the cost of feed for livestock, and the number of rural suicides have increased as the drought goes on. We need a solution which is not only humane, but which farmers can actually afford. When someone can come up with such an idea, bring it to the attention of the Australian Department of Agriculture and go from there.

Posted by: Paige | March 11, 2009 11:23 PM

These pictures are of animal neglect and have nothing to do with mulesing.
There has been a big reduction in the numbers of lambs mulesed. Also the new pain relief treatments are now available. The Aussie wool industry is producing wool ethically. Support it!!

Posted by: Doug | March 17, 2009 06:18 AM

You can't boycott Australian wool because a handful are neglecting their animals, farming in Australia is hard, without shearing them in summer i dare you to stand in our climate with a wool coat on! Not to mention the drought, the farmers are doing the best they can with what they have, why would we deliberately harm our Sheep for no reason, I would rather a small sore on my bum than to be eaten alive by maggots!

Posted by: Monika | April 27, 2009 12:37 AM

To whom it may concern,

Firstly, mulesing. I myself do not come from a sheep farm, but I am friends with many who do, therefore i have a broad knowledge of how one runs. Mulesing at the time may seem cruel and inhumane, but the recovery is usually at the most a week and the benefits of this practice last an absolute lifetime. The consequences of not mulesing are highly fatal. Would you rather see a sheep with a sore rear for a week or see a sheep lying prostrate in paddock unable to feed, water, reproduce and eventually die a painful and elongated death? Furthermore, have you ever been to a well run sheep farm that practices mulesing? These farmers would obviously not want the quality of their sheep to be degraded, therefore they take the utmost care during mulesing and post-mulesing. I suggest you who criticise, get a further education in this area because you probably have no clue about half the things you are talking about.
By constantly putting the sheep industry in a negative light, you are downgrading its reputation and credibility, one that has been worked hard to be attained.
Secondly, you're protesting against the beef cattle industry. Have you ever actually looked at the anatomy of a human? Humans insides are made to digest meat; it is an essential source of vitamins and minerals. Humans in the cave ages lived on a diet made mostly of meat. WE ARE MEANT TO EAT MEAT. The beef industry is also an essential sector of the country's agriculture industry and export industry, and by protesting against this, more jobs that can be accounted for will be lost, especially in the time of an economic crisis. Meat will be lost for those who are normal and healthy and have a diet that consists of a fair amount of meat. Is this really fair?
With all due respect, I suggest you learn about what you are talking about before you even consider opening your mouth. I hope you understand how hard the beef and sheep industry work to produce top quality meat that is needed in a normal, true Australian diet.

Regards,
SAZ.

PS. If you do not post this comment you clearly have no balls and you are scared we might know a little more that what you are talking about!!

Posted by: SAZ | May 2, 2009 01:39 AM

oi monika... u wrote a comment on april the 27th 2009. If you feel so strongly that we should eat meat... id like to see you go out and kill your own.

Posted by: Olivia | June 7, 2009 09:33 AM