When animal rights go wrong (Aussies standing up to PETA)

THEY oppose kids keeping goldfish. They oppose people riding horses. They even oppose blind people using guide dogs.

But who would have thought that some so-called animal rights groups would end up promoting animal cruelty?

That is exactly what has happened with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) protests calling for an immediate ban to mulesing.

It is not the first time this organisation has been on the absurd side of an argument.

The reason for mulesing is simple - it prevents the sheep from being killed by flesh-eating maggots.

Our merino sheep were developed through selective breeding, some time around 1870 - about the same time the blowfly made it here from South Africa.

The folds in the breach of the merino's skin together with the introduction of the blowfly became a lethal combination, creating a new disease: flystrike, where the folds in the skin become infested with maggots and the sheep dies a slow and painful death.

That's why mulesing was first introduced. Removing some of the wool and skin around the breach prevents the sheep being eaten alive. Farmers don't enjoy doing it, but the alternative is far worse.

The American-based organisation PETA knew that Australian industry had agreed to a 2010 phase-out of the practice to provide time to develop alternatives to mulesing.

Some of the alternatives being developed have involved clips, sprays and selective breeding. But then earlier this year PETA decided to embark on a campaign which, if successful, will only cause more sheep to die through flystrike.

They called for mulesing to be banned immediately. Then they went to different retailers around the world and tried to talk them into boycotting Australian wool because we had not met our 2010 deadline.

"Surgical" is a rather elegant term for this. The animals are tied up and a guy moves quickly down a row of them chopping off a chunk of flesh from their buttocks and anal area WITHOUT any anesthetic. The problem isn't that the "surgery" is being done, since it certainly does prevent an awful alternative, but the fact that it's being done without any type of anesthesia or pain-killer, during or after, on the grounds that that would be too expensive.

Of course, PETA is doing more harm than good, since as usual they're really out to shut down any industry that uses animals in any way whatsoever, no matter how humanely. A law requiring at least local anesthetic would provide some financial incentive for a better solution to be found sooner. And there seems to be widespread agreement from the industry that a better solution does need to be found -- they just aren't willing to spend the money on anesthesia in the meantime. Personally, I don't think anyone would be harmed by paying a higher price for wool, or buying less of it if they really can't afford the higher price.

The American-based organisation PETA knew that Australian industry had agreed to a 2010 phase-out of the practice to provide time to develop alternatives to mulesing.
Stupid Aussies!

You made a Deal with the Devil.....

Now you are screwed!! they will never stop! You are fools to ever trust PETA.

I like it! And, we could maybe convert some other mindless libtards into food products for them...Soylent Green is people, after all.

I’m failing to see the downside on this one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.