Wool is theft

[PatrickG]

Can we all agree on this?

Think of the indecently exposed sheep with their soft, smooth skin and curves that don't stop...

You should feel really guilty right now for thinking about nekkid sheep. Shame on you! Shame!

Pervs!

[Lubichev]

Oh, they get their cut of the profit. Believe me.

[Screwtape]

I like naked sheep.

[Cam63]

Who invited New Zealanders here !?

[SoulOnIce]

I personally avoid wool. Australia and New Zealand particularly practice something called "mulesing." Basically they cut chunks of flesh from the rear of the sheep in order to prevent maggots from settling there. There are other pain free methods to prevent maggots but of course it is not as cost-effective.

And no I am not a humourless bastard.

[Kyuubi]

Does that mean polyester is attempted arson?

[Adam Crocker]

Can we all agree on this?

Think of the indecently exposed sheep with their soft, smooth skin and curves that don't stop...

You should feel really guilty right now for thinking about nekkid sheep. Shame on you! Shame!

Pervs!

You do realize that now that anytime post of yours gets anywhere remotely near romance or sex I'm going to say "bbbaaaa---aaaahhhhh..."

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

I like naked sheep.

Technically, isn't that ALL sheep?

[Jeff Brady]

Perhaps he meant shorn sheep?

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Perhaps he meant shorn sheep?

A-ha! I caught you! This was a sting, all along!

[Jeff Brady]

Caught me at what? :confused:

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Caught me at what? :confused:

Too late to play dumb, Lanolin-lover! Save it for the judge.

[Jeff Brady]

I'm so confused, but I can't help laughing.

Wool is too itchy & staticky. I hated it when I was a kid. By the time I became veggie, not having it was a no-brainer.

[Screwtape]

Does that mean polyester is attempted arson? I think so. And nylon is sexual harrassment, while cotton is merely jaywalking.

Pleather is just generally criminal.

[PatrickG]

I like naked sheep.

http://cagreetings.com/images/lambchop.jpg

You sure?

[PatrickG]

You do realize that now that anytime post of yours gets anywhere remotely near romance or sex I'm going to say "bbbaaaa---aaaahhhhh..."

Enh. Sad thing is, that would be a step UP from my lovelife the past three years. Wait. Make that a step UP for my lovelife, PERIOD. :)

Wow. I am Jack's self-pity.

[the4thpip]

http://science.box.sk/uploads/00000396.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40648000/jpg/_40648579_rev_shrek1.jpg

[Melissa]

I personally avoid wool. Australia and New Zealand particularly practice something called "mulesing." Basically they cut chunks of flesh from the rear of the sheep in order to prevent maggots from settling there. There are other pain free methods to prevent maggots but of course it is not as cost-effective.

And no I am not a humourless bastard.

Hello? SoulOnIce? This is reality calling....

I suppose you've never actually set foot on a sheep farm in Australia. I'd wager you've never seen a flystruck sheep, or spoken to a real farmer about it. Nor do you list any of the other methods, or their relative effectiveness.

You might also be unaware that we - yes, we, not you - have developed a better, more cost-effective way of avoiding flystrike. Guess you guys were too busy pointing the finger and throwing blood over models for wearing fur (but leather's ok).

I now return you to your righteous armchair pontification. Please resume oral frothing...

[Jeff Brady]

Hello? SoulOnIce? This is reality calling....

I suppose you've never actually set foot on a sheep farm in Australia. I'd wager you've never seen a flystruck sheep, or spoken to a real farmer about it. Nor do you list any of the other methods, or their relative effectiveness.

You might also be unaware that we - yes, we, not you - have developed a better, more cost-effective way of avoiding flystrike. Guess you guys were too busy pointing the finger and throwing blood over models for wearing fur (but leather's ok).

I now return you to your righteous armchair pontification. Please resume oral frothing...

Would you share those methods with us?

And I think you missed the part where we said leather is NOT ok. But thanks for calling us hipocrites anyway. Speaking of righteousness...

[Melissa]

Would you share those methods with us?

And I think you missed the part where we said leather is NOT ok. But thanks for calling us hipocrites anyway. Speaking of righteousness...

Gee, did I use that word? And did I refer to you?

Two methods - the first is a series of injections of a natural protein that effects the same results (tightening of skinfolds) as mulesing, without the pain. This is still experimental, but results so far are promising. The second involves a mutation (shhh... don't tell the people who don't believe in evolution) that has been discovered among Merinos in South Australia, where the loose skin and wool simply don't exist. So potentially in a few generations the issue will have been bred out of existence.

[the4thpip]

I only wear sweaters made from yarn spun from my own bellybutton lint.

[YoGo]

I personally avoid wool. Australia and New Zealand particularly practice something called "mulesing." Basically they cut chunks of flesh from the rear of the sheep in order to prevent maggots from settling there. There are other pain free methods to prevent maggots but of course it is not as cost-effective.

And no I am not a humourless bastard.

Well if they didnt do that the sheep become fly blown and infected or die. So they get the bit cut off and it hurts a bit. What's the big deal? It saves their lives doesn't it?

And are we actually arguing about sheep now...? This was supposed to be a parody of the fur thread... somebody shoot me.. NO Gail wait, no...*

[Lubichev]

Actually, I was just waiting for the arguments to start. And we got to it before the end of the second page! Isn't computer anonymity grand?

[SoulOnIce]

I suppose you've never actually set foot on a sheep farm in Australia. I'd wager you've never seen a flystruck sheep, or spoken to a real farmer about it. Nor do you list any of the other methods, or their relative effectiveness.

So just because I have never set foot in a sheep farm in Australia means I don't have the right to critcize mulesing? Can I take the word of all the animal rights organizations in Australia that are against it? A lot of people from around the world justly criticize Canada's seal hunt and I welcome their support in fighting cruelty.

Gimme a break.

You might also be unaware that we - yes, we, not you - have developed a better, more cost-effective way of avoiding flystrike. Guess you guys were too busy pointing the finger and throwing blood over models for wearing fur (but leather's ok). I now return you to your righteous armchair pontification. Please resume oral frothing...

Good for you. Maybe you can try getting more sheep farmers to use those methods.

I have the right to state my point of view and I have the right to not support cruel practices as well. Are we so cynical in this world that anytime someone tries to stand up to cruelty we get accused of being self-righteous?

[outlander78]

It's an old joke, and highly portable ... I last heard it from Peter Jackson.

"Remember, if you see a man in New Zealand carrying two sheep, he may not be a sheppard. He may be a pimp."

(Works just as well for Wales, Scotland, Austrailia, Alberta and any country that isn't New York City.)

I don't agree that wool is theft or that fur/leather is murder (though, dress shoes aside, I don't own any of the latter), but I do often wonder why people take animal rights as a cause while such horrible things are happening in the world to people. Not that animals aren't important, but given the choice wouldn't you rather save humans?

[Guapo Méndez]

Wool is theft is too long. Should be abbreviated to "Woeft".


....nah...doesn't have the punch "Furder" does.

[the4thpip]

Wool is theft is too long. Should be abbreviated to "Woeft".


....nah...doesn't have the punch "Furder" does.
How about Thool?

[Azrael52]

Can we all agree on this?

Think of the indecently exposed sheep with their soft, smooth skin and curves that don't stop...

You should feel really guilty right now for thinking about nekkid sheep. Shame on you! Shame!

Pervs!


That was uncalled for, Patrick! You are obviously a member of www.warmsoftfluffycurvysheepluvintonight.com (http://)

[Azrael52]

Does that mean polyester is attempted arson?

Much like courdoroy on larger folks.

[El Santo]

So just because I have never set foot in a sheep farm in Australia means I don't have the right to critcize mulesing? Can I take the word of all the animal rights organizations in Australia that are against it? A lot of people from around the world justly criticize Canada's seal hunt and I welcome their support in fighting cruelty.

Gimme a break.

Yeah! If you can't trust the word of PETA (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm) , sight unseen, who can you trust?



Good for you. Maybe you can try getting more sheep farmers to use those methods.

I have the right to state my point of view and I have the right to not support cruel practices as well. Are we so cynical in this world that anytime someone tries to stand up to cruelty we get accused of being self-righteous?

self-right·eous (slfrchs)
adj.

1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.

self-righteous·ly adv.
self-righteous·ness n.

self-righteous

adj : excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile" [syn: holier-than-thou, pietistic, pietistical, pharisaic, pharisaical, sanctimonious]

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=self-righteous)

[Charles RB]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40648000/jpg/_40648579_rev_shrek1.jpg

Holy carp. HOW did it- how... :eek:

Well, the sheep seems happy and I guess that's the important thing.

[the4thpip]

Holy carp. HOW did it- how... :eek:

Well, the sheep seems happy and I guess that's the important thing.
It's Shrek, the sheep that ran off and wasn't sheared forever. Looks like the modern breed of sheep wasn't really meant to not be sheared.

[Charles RB]

Please tell me they sheared him soon after that photo was taken.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

http://science.box.sk/uploads/00000396.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40648000/jpg/_40648579_rev_shrek1.jpg

Is there supposed to be a sheep in there somewhere?

[outlander78]

Does that look like cement to anyone else?

[Matt Algren]

Reminds me of the old Ralph Sheepdog/Sam Wolf Looney Tunes cartoons.

[Robin3]

You know, modern sheep have been bred so much for their wool, if they don't get sheared annually, they'll grow too much wool, and die. If they don't die from the wool, they'll be easily killed by predators.

It's like modern dairy cows that have to be milked daily, or they feel pain within hours.

[SoulOnIce]

Yeah! If you can't trust the word of PETA (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm) , sight unseen, who can you trust?




self-right·eous (slfrchs)
adj.

1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
2. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.

self-righteous·ly adv.
self-righteous·ness n.

self-righteous

adj : excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile" [syn: holier-than-thou, pietistic, pietistical, pharisaic, pharisaical, sanctimonious]

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=self-righteous)

Santo, for someone who seems to represent themselves as someone against neo-cons and corporate corruption you seem to reference that PETA kills animals web site. I am sure, of course, that you know that the sponsor of that website, the Centre for Consumer Freedom is a lobbyist for big corporate tobacco and food companies. I'm sure you know that they got their start with funding from Phillip Morris.

More:CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a May 11, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle article, CCF spokesman John Doyle responded to questions about nationwide radio ads put out by the group. He said the ads were meant to attract people to their website and "draw attention to our enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry." [3]

Berman is “a one-man wrecking crew on important issues.” His approach has been described as “misleading” and “despicable.” Berman has been called “a tobacco company whore,” but he’s branched out since then.

PETA’s recent successes in gaining fast-food industry concessions for more humane conditions for farm animals have sent ripples of fear through the food and beverage service industry. About the same time that McDonald’s buckled to PETA’s demands, Richard Berman changed his front group’s name and stepped up his attacks.

As someone who claims to be for the humane treatment of farm animals why do you use a corporate lobby group (who are overwhelmingly pro Bush) to attack PETA (a group that has convinced McDonalds to adopt more humane standards for farm animals)?

[PatrickG]

You know, modern sheep have been bred so much for their wool, if they don't get sheared annually, they'll grow too much wool, and die. If they don't die from the wool, they'll be easily killed by predators.

It's like modern dairy cows that have to be milked daily, or they feel pain within hours.

I don't think this is all or nothing.

Sheep can be treated more humanely and at the same time taken care of.

Besides, all of you think sheep are hot so what's the argument about?

[El Santo]

Santo, for someone who seems to represent themselves as someone against neo-cons and corporate corruption you seem to reference that PETA kills animals web site. I am sure, of course, that you know that the sponsor of that website, the Centre for Consumer Freedom is a lobbyist for big corporate tobacco and food companies. I'm sure you know that they got their start with funding from Phillip Morris.

More:CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a May 11, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle article, CCF spokesman John Doyle responded to questions about nationwide radio ads put out by the group. He said the ads were meant to attract people to their website and "draw attention to our enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry." [3]

Berman is “a one-man wrecking crew on important issues.” His approach has been described as “misleading” and “despicable.” Berman has been called “a tobacco company whore,” but he’s branched out since then.

PETA’s recent successes in gaining fast-food industry concessions for more humane conditions for farm animals have sent ripples of fear through the food and beverage service industry. About the same time that McDonald’s buckled to PETA’s demands, Richard Berman changed his front group’s name and stepped up his attacks.

As someone who claims to be for the humane treatment of farm animals why do you use a corporate lobby group (who are overwhelmingly pro Bush) to attack PETA (a group that has convinced McDonalds to adopt more humane standards for farm animals)?

A fair question. And to be honest, I do find it somewhat distasteful to be quoting one group of assholes in order to attack another. Put simply, I find much of PETA's agenda and methods to be disgusting in the extreme, especially their leaflets aimed at convincing children that their parents are murderers. Much as I find your comparing slavery and holocaust to the chicken industry to be offensive.

That said, I think it's time for both of us to acknowledge that hostility does not appear to be all that effective here. While I can sympathize with you as a left-leaning moralist and a person of multi-cultural background, it appears that our sharply contrasting view on the morality of eating animals makes it difficult for us to interact positively. I personally do not wear fur. Then again, I'm a heterosexual male who isn't Dennis Rodman, so that's not very surprising. :) Leather, I assume, is collected from cows who were killed for meat, so it's not nearly as wasteful. Likewise, the sythetic replacement for leather (I believe it is called "pleather") sucks. In contrast, the sythetic replacements for wool are quite warm, soft, and comfy. I'm not really that picky though. I wear shoes made out of...whatever the hell they feel like making shoes from. Eventually, synthetic materials will become more common, and being cheaper to produce en masse than leather and suede, the cheapest shoes (the ones I will buy) will be made of synthetic materials, and you'll have gotten your way by default.

Now if only you guys could make decent cookies and a whipped cream substitute, we'd be in business.

[Just_A_Rat]

While I think the folks behind PETA Kills Animals are jerks, that doesn't invalidate their message, much like the fact that I disagree with and even strongly oppose, many of the methods used by PETA doesn't necessarily invalidate their message.

But there are a lot of people out there who are developping a knee-jerk anti-PETA reaction. I always hate to see things like that, as it throws out their good works with their bad (or questionable, or what have you). I have the same complaint about some anti-Bush folks who will automatically oppose anything he does, without even know why they oppose it other than the fact that it was him doing it. It's the same thing, just from opposite sides of the political fence (usually) and I think prevents useful discourse.

But then, sometimes it is just more fun to engage in useless namecalling. I know that I love to let things get to that point every now and then.

[Charles RB]

that PETA kills animals web site. I am sure, of course, that you know that the sponsor of that website, the Centre for Consumer Freedom is a lobbyist for big corporate tobacco and food companies.

So are you saying the site is inaccurate and that PETA hasn't killed animals then? Because it seems like they actually have.

[Guapo Méndez]

It's THOOL!

THOOL,I tell you!





Thanks for the word, 4thpip!

[shrike]

Its quite obvious sheep can't cut their own hair so they honestly need someone to do it for them.

[Screwtape]

Holy carp. HOW did it- how... :eek: Holy Carp? Is that a reference to a Dagon cult that I don't know about, or are you just entering into the spirit of the PETA thing?

[Cam63]

http://science.box.sk/uploads/00000396.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40648000/jpg/_40648579_rev_shrek1.jpg

'Looks like one of those nanna types who wear three or four layers of sweaters !

[Cam63]

I only wear sweaters made from yarn spun from my own bellybutton lint.

I only had enough to make a beanie for my cat.

[Melissa]

So just because I have never set foot in a sheep farm in Australia means I don't have the right to critcize mulesing? Can I take the word of all the animal rights organizations in Australia that are against it? A lot of people from around the world justly criticize Canada's seal hunt and I welcome their support in fighting cruelty.

Gimme a break.



Good for you. Maybe you can try getting more sheep farmers to use those methods.

I have the right to state my point of view and I have the right to not support cruel practices as well. Are we so cynical in this world that anytime someone tries to stand up to cruelty we get accused of being self-righteous?

It's not the standing up I'm criticising. It's the ignorant, though well-meaning bandwagonning. You don't really know much about it at all, but you know it's wrong.

That's what I'm criticising. It's admirable that you seek to fight against animal cruelty, but until you've researched the issue, and know what you're talking about, your "right" to an opinion is arguable.

[Cam63]

I'm not crazy about mulesing either, but until something better and more practical comes along, it's better than having sheep infested with maggots.

[the4thpip]

I only had enough to make a beanie for my cat.
Does it look as good on kitty as the lime helmet?

[Cam63]

Nothing looks as funny as the pissed off cat in the lime helmet.

[Cam63]

...Except for the Swiss Guard uniform !

[the4thpip]

Somebody should totally photoshop a pic of Bush struggling with that locked door wearing a Swiss Guard uniform and a lime helmet!

[Cam63]

No, the genuine Dubyah is far funnier than anything you could cook up in a photoshop.

[SoulOnIce]

It's not the standing up I'm criticising. It's the ignorant, though well-meaning bandwagonning. You don't really know much about it at all, but you know it's wrong.

That's what I'm criticising. It's admirable that you seek to fight against animal cruelty, but until you've researched the issue, and know what you're talking about, your "right" to an opinion is arguable.

Of course, you know how much "research" I've done.

[Melissa]

Of course, you know how much "research" I've done.

Well y'know man, put up or shut up. Prove me wrong. Explain to me the realities of farming sheep, outline some of the methods for avoiding flystrike, discuss the cost effectiveness of mulesing vs other methods, and finally take a look at the economy of a pastoral operation on the dryest continent in the world after four successive years of drought, and the relative cashflow of the Australian farmer.

Please, prove me wrong. Go ahead. And don't be afraid to point out the health risks to the sheep if it ends up being flystruck.

But I must, in all fairness, admit that I work at the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, so you may want to be sure of your info.

[CaptMagellan]

PatrickG.... this is all YOUR fault. :p

[Guapo Méndez]

But I must, in all fairness, admit that I work at the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, so you may want to be sure of your info.


That, and she sleeps with a stuffed sheep plushy next to he pillowcase. It goes "baaaah" at exactly 10 past 2 (which we all know is the Sheeping Time).

[Robin3]

I don't think this is all or nothing.

Sheep can be treated more humanely and at the same time taken care of.

Besides, all of you think sheep are hot so what's the argument about?

I'm replying to the original argument that "Wool is theft". By that token is it theft when I go to the barbershop? But then, they throw that hair away, so I suppose it would only be vandalism.

A sheep can't say, "shear me", but if we happen to do so, it's certainly not stealing from it. If such a concept existed.

[Robin3]

Its quite obvious sheep can't cut their own hair so they honestly need someone to do it for them.

Exactly. This is the point I was making. We have a symbiotic relationship with them now, because of the breeding our ancestors did to them. Do we commit animal genocide, simply to undue the overdone wool-producing properties of domestic sheep? The only other solution would be to spend another 500 years breeding the wool back out of them.

[SoulOnIce]

Well y'know man, put up or shut up. Prove me wrong. Explain to me the realities of farming sheep, outline some of the methods for avoiding flystrike, discuss the cost effectiveness of mulesing vs other methods, and finally take a look at the economy of a pastoral operation on the dryest continent in the world after four successive years of drought, and the relative cashflow of the Australian farmer.

Please, prove me wrong. Go ahead. And don't be afraid to point out the health risks to the sheep if it ends up being flystruck.

But I must, in all fairness, admit that I work at the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, so you may want to be sure of your info.

Before we start our little debate I have a question that may end it pretty quickly. In your opinion, using methods available today, is mulesing the most efficient way of controlling blowfly infestation in sheep?

[El Santo]

Hmm...SOI meets factual information. This should be an interesting encounter.

[MacQuarrie]

So are you saying the site is inaccurate and that PETA hasn't killed animals then? Because it seems like they actually have.
See, there you go worrying about facts again.

Argumentum ad Hominem: logical fallacy in which the person making the claim is attacked in order to avoid having to refute the accusation. Because the people behind petakillsanimals.com have an agenda of their own, we don't have to question whether or not the things they say are true.

Your problem is you keep looking at things in terms of right and wrong. If you would switch that to good and evil, you wouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.

See, if you think in terms of right and wrong, you are stuck with the problem of reconciling the fact that a group many would say is trying to do right, PETA, has done wrong, which would make them hypocritical. And another group which many woudl say is wrong, CFF, has done right by revealing this information. See, that's morally ambiguous. Morally ambiguous situations force us to think and weigh alternatives and other non-fun stuff like that.

Now, if you switch to the good/evil paradigm, things are considerably easier. Under that view, PETA is good, because they want to save animals. CFF is evil because they work for filthy corporations. Therefore, anything PETA does is in service to good. It doesn't matter how wrong it may be, because they are good and that's all that matters. Anything CFF does is evil. Even if they do right, they are still evil.

And the thinking has been done. No moral ambiguity. This makes the righteous indignation a lot easier.

See, one can do wrong in service of good and then rationalize it away, but one can never do evil in service of rightness. Right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of intent or motive. Good and evil are subjective and negotiable, and very very flexible.

[YoGo]

Hmm...SOI meets factual information. This should be an interesting encounter.

Don't be a poo poo head.

[El Santo]

Don't be a poo poo head.

Sorry, but who would want to live in a world without snarkiness and sarcasm?

[SoulOnIce]

Hmm...SOI meets factual information. This should be an interesting encounter.

Says the man who threatened to kick the ass of another poster then said he didn't really.

Who called Pip, someone with a black boyfriend a racist. Called me, with a black father, an Indian wife, and a multi-racial child, a racist.

The man who compared being a vegetarian to cutting off your testicles and asked the very important question if someone put a gun to a rabbits head and said cut off your balls (I'm seeing a trend here) to save the rabbit's life would you?

Frankly El Santo at this point you have very little credibility with anyone.

[Ed Cunard]

I'll say it again. Dance off.

http://www.lionbrand.com/archives/lbyarnblog4/breakdancing.jpg

[SoulOnIce]

I'll say it again. Dance off.

http://www.lionbrand.com/archives/lbyarnblog4/breakdancing.jpg

Well, I got black in me so I would probably win.

Uh oh. I better not say that since he has me one step away from joining the Klan.

[El Santo]

Says the man who threatened to kick the ass of another poster then said he didn't really.

*sigh*. I said that I *would*, under very specific circumstances that included being goaded ("you are a barnyard animal"), kick his ass. I was then accused of threatening to come find him and kick his ass, which are two very different things. Please, eat some protein. Your mind is going on you.

Who called Pip, someone with a black boyfriend a racist. Called me, with a black father, an Indian wife, and a multi-racial child, a racist.

Yes. Louis Farrakhan is black. And he is a racist. Even Mahatma Ghandi made racist remarks about Africans. Being a minority does not make you immune to being a racist.

The man who compared being a vegetarian to cutting off your testicles and asked the very important question if someone put a gun to a rabbits head and said cut off your balls (I'm seeing a trend here) to save the rabbit's life would you?

Frankly El Santo at this point you have very little credibility with anyone.

Those two statements should have a connection...they were part of the same conversation, which was about an analogy asking the question of how far a person would go to save the life of an animal. As for my credibility among racist multiracial vegans from Canada...I'll get over it, I'm sure.

[Ed Cunard]

http://www.recsports.ufl.edu/ContentManagedImages/sport%20clubs/sc_breakdance.jpg

White kids can hold it down too! I can!

Er, could. Once. Before I became the lazy would-walk-a-mile-for-a-Camel-if-I-could-catch-my-breath self.

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that that's me. That's some random kid I found on Google.

[El Santo]

Well, I got black in me so I would probably win.

Uh oh. I better not say that since he has me one step away from joining the Klan.


I'm Latino. We're better dancers. :D

[Jeff Brady]

As for my credibility among racist multiracial vegans from Canada...I'll get over it, I'm sure.

Why, hello, "Ignore Function," so glad to see you.

[Screwtape]

I think Ed and I should have a dance off, since we're clearly the most interested in the process. GO!
http://www.emeralddancestudio.com/images/tonynicholedip.jpg

[SoulOnIce]

I'm Latino. We're better dancers. :D

But Black Latino dancers rule the world.

[Lubichev]

"Hey, no fists, man. No fists. Now go over to him and say, 'Hey man, let's go home and fucking do it.'"

[Ed Cunard]

Screwtape, it takes two to tango:

http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_2001/Feb22/Images/Arts_Tango_Pasion.jpg

And it takes two confident enough in their own coolness and the power of disco to do the tango hustle:

http://home.tiscalinet.ch/dswpic10/021214_em/bilder1/20021214_EM_03.jpg

[Melissa]

Before we start our little debate I have a question that may end it pretty quickly. In your opinion, using methods available today, is mulesing the most efficient way of controlling blowfly infestation in sheep?
Perhaps a quicker way of ending this... well, it's never going to become a debate, let's call it a discussion - is for me to ask whether you believe what PETA says. Because if you do, then you won't be interested in the facts and we can pretty much stop now.

Now, I'm not going to argue which is the most "efficient" method, because despite PETA's lies, we don't just use one method. But I am going to talk about which methods are most effective when used in combination as part of an overall flystrike management strategy. I think that's an important distinction. You seem (forgive me if I'm incorrect here) to be focussing on how the farmers are apparently trying to save a buck by using the most 'efficient' method - which to me suggests cost-effective. I'm going to talk about how the Australian Wool Industry use a combination of methods with the goal of most effectively minimising the incidence of flystrike.



Before you bloody my nose and "win" this argument, let's get some clarity:



The US Sheep flock averages around 6.5 to 7 million head of sheep (depending on whose numbers you use, these are all ultimately estimates, collations and extrapolations) and this flock has trended significantly towards decline over the last century, with no indications that the trend will reverse. The Australian flock, by comparison, averages around 150 million head. (Approximately. See above caveat)

The United States, with a total GDP of $11,750 billion is the richest country in the world, and holds around 20% of the world's wealth - total world GDP is about 55.5 trillion. By comparison, the Australian annual GDP is around 612 billion. Which means we have a flock that is around 22 times the size of yours, and we have around 5% of the money to spend on it.

Assuming all else is equal (which it is not, but we can't cover every economic, industry, government policy and technological variable in the time we have today - unless you'd like to go there, let me know and we can) that means that for every dollar available to look after the average Aussie sheep, its American cousin enjoys a little over $450. This figure will continue to grow as your flock numbers decline.

Now, let's look at the breeds involved. US Sheep, bred for their meat, are largely descendant from British breeds, although there are minimal numbers of sheep descending from other countries, mainly througout Europe and South America. The British Breeds do not have Soft Rolling Skin (SRS) hindquarters, and produce coarse scratchy wool mainly as a by-product of the meat industry, which is not suitable for clothing (the only proven effective method for making US wool suitable for clothing involves a chemical process that has been outlawed in the US. Currently your scientists are seeking another solution, and could be close to cracking it). This means they enjoy relative immunity from flystrike.
By comparison, Australian sheep, most of which have been bred for wool, are about 80% SRS breeds, with the various strains of Merino (don't confuse this with the Spanish Merino, from which the Australian breed was first derived, they have over the past couple of hundred years become a very different breed) by far the majority. This increases the risk by several orders of magnitude.

So we have sheep that are far more likely to suffer flystrike, with around 0.22% of the money to spend on them.

Now, let's consider climate. The United States is situated further from the equator and closer to the pole and has a more temperate overall climate than Australia, which with a landmass only marginally smaller than the 48 contiguous States, is closer to the equator and further from the pole. Three of your top five Sheep producing States are further from the Equator than all of mainland Australia. Thus they enjoy a far colder climate. By comparison, if Australia's position was hemispherically reversed, it would run from around Oklahoma down to about Honduras. Add to this the fact that Australia is the dryest continent on the planet, and you may begin to understand the temperature extremes here. Which makes a warm, moist, daggy sheep's arse an irrisistible target for flies.

Speaking of flies, let's look at the differences between ours and yours. Public Enemy No1 when it comes to flystrike is Lucilia Cuprina, a nasty little bastard originally from South Africa. The United States is a relative youngster when it comes to dealing with L.Cuprina - it's only been in your country since about 1980. We've been putting up with it since the late 1800s. I think we all know enough about the exponential breeding of flies to get some sense of the difference in numbers here. Something like comparing how many fingers on your hand with how many grains of sand on a beach....

Ok, now that we have a little context.

Flystrike. Kills quickly and painfully for the animal. First the maggots burrow into the flesh, leaving raw and bloody wounds. Eventually the animal dies from blood poisoning. How do we avoid flystrike? We can't. It's a reality that a proportion of all wool herds in this country will be flystruck. So the question is how to effectively control that as best we can.

The answer is never one method. It is always a combination of methods.

One lie that PETA spreads is that farmers who mules don't practice other methods. That's simply not true. Let me repeat that. It's simply not true. Flystrike costs the Australian wool industry upwards of $161 million. Australian wool producers are keen to stop flystrike as far as is possible, which is why they practice a range of measures, including dipping, baiting, clipping, plain old vigilance and mulesing (by far the most effective method we currently have). Other methods currently under development and experimentation include a range of protein mix injections attempting a range of effects from active parasite balancing to modification of the SRS area; genetic sterilisation of L.Cuprina populations and selectively breeding using the South Australian population I mentioned previously.

We've literally tried everything, including attempts to forecast the flystrike events using climatic parameters. We continue to try everything. The Australian Wool Industry has given a guarantee to replace mulesing by 2010. Let's look at the most extensively used current methods in turn.

1) Dipping: I'll use this term to cover the various types of pesticide-based methods of trying to control flystrike. This method is actually cost-effective. One of the prevailing myths is that we don't do it because it's expensive, instead we mules because it's cheaper. This is a fallacy. There are two drawbacks to dipping - firstly that it has to be done routinely every few weeks to be effective. Given that some properties in Australia are larger than some US States, this can prove problematic. However, it is done. The second concern with this method is about pesticide residue on wool and all the environmental and occupational health and safety issues that go along with that.

2) Baiting/Trapping: This involves the suppression of blowfly populations through flytraps and genetic controls. Traps have been used for over a hundred years and have involved all kinds of baits including Liver/sodium sulphide combinations, synthetic kairomone lures and a variety of chemical combinations, such as the recently-trialled LuciTrap system developed through Queensland Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. This method can be labour-intensive and has only partial success at physical interdiction between L.Cuprina populations and their woolly targets. Still, it's done.

3) Clipping: A recent innovation that is still being trialled. Involves clipping the same fold of skin which would usually be removed during mulesing. The clip reduces blood flow to the fold and it withers and falls away after only a few days. Potentially this could be the most effective alternative. I like it because it's less traumatic than mulesing, and if the trials prove successful - mainly around finding a bio-degradable clip so that there's no remaining health risk if the clip doesn't fall with the flap - it could be as effective as mulesing

4) Vigilance: Watching your flock, looking for signs of flystrike. The labour intensity of this task reduces its effectiveness, since you've got to spot them. And on large properties, that's a big ask. Not only that, but it's shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, so you have a sick sheep to treat.

5) Mulesing: Removing the loose fold of skin via surgical method. No, it's not done under a general in a hospital. But the trauma only lasts a couple of days (which is less than an incidence of primary flystrike, let alone secondary) and the result is permanent reduction of risk of flystrike in the sheep. It never has to be repeated. Any cost-effectiveness that the casual observer might think they see in this permanence is a fallacy, as mulesing is done by teams and is highly labour-intensive - after all, if you don't do it right, you've not saved anything. And its permanent nature means a spread of inevitability of protection across the flock. But if you're still really, really opposed to mulesing (which is done to save the animal's life) I suggest you check out these three links:
http://www.amrottclub.org/dock.htm
http://www.cdb.org/
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.html

[Melissa]

<<Part II, because the post was too long>>


Now, let me be clear on this: we want to find an alternative. Those numbers I threw up there surely illustrate how, at far greater personal expense than your blokes'd ever have to consider, we're dumping money into finding a replacement. No-one wants to chop bits off an animal. But the alternative is infinitely worse. Methods 1-4 don't add up to the effectiveness of method 5, let alone all five in combination.


But y'know, don't just take my word for it. If you're really serious about this, take a look at these links:
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/sheep/8507.html
http://www.woolinnovation.com.au/LivePage.aspx?PageId=2402
http://imbs.massey.ac.nz/Staff/mscott.html
http://www.sandymacdonald.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=186
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/may05/wool0505.htm
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20050505044
http://www.woolisbest.com/documents/debunkingPeta6Myth.pdf
http://tenterfield.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=345954&y=2004&m=10
http://www.gravett.org/yobbo/?p=1182

[Guapo Méndez]

Am I the only one that pictures this when reading "mulesing"?

http://mule2.com/mulepix/mulesing.jpg

[CaptMagellan]

Am I the only one that pictures this when reading "mulesing"?


I keep thinking about the damn breakfast cereal myself... or something unwholesome from some Mexican/American border town.

But seriously- Melissa, thanks for the info. That's the most interesting thing to come out of any of these related threads.

[Dreadstar]

. . .Those numbers I threw up there surely illustrate how, at far greater personal expense than your blokes'd ever have to consider, we're dumping money into finding a replacement. . .

Just as a minor caveat: A lot of "us blokes" over here understand completely the inanity of PETA's histrionics over mulesing. Many of of grew up handling livestock.

I do, however, like the clip method. I'm assuming it's a lot like the method we practiced with gelding young bulls. We attached a tight rubberband above the testicals and knot, and the whole sack would painlessly rot off over the span of a week or two. A little topical afterwards and you have a healthy steer.

[Screwtape]

Ed, Ed, Ed. I can see that we're going to have to take this dance contest to the next level. And that level is Fruit Hats, Carmen Miranda, and Busby Berkeley.

Take that!
http://www.ragtagfilm.com/archives/images/gang.jpg
And that!
http://www.hollywoodcelebrityphotographs.com/imageslg/1268B.jpg
And that!
http://www.danceheritage.org/images/berkeley.jpg

[SoulOnIce]

First off, I'm Canadian not American. You would have know way of knowing that unless you have read all my posts but we Canadians get a little touchy when people refer to us as Americans.

Secondly, as someone who works for the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, what is your mandate? What are your primary concerns? Does the economic viability of the, for example, wool industry and the wool farmers trump the concerns of animal welfare?

Thirdly, why does everyone assume that all people who are concerned with animal rights use PETA as their only resources? There are a number of animal rights groups in Australia that are against mulesing. The information I have looked up has come from PETA but also from many other organizations. PETA has really bought this issue to the forefront but it was Australian animal rights groups that have been trying for years make this practice known.

OK, so here is what I understand. Bearing in mind that I live thousands of miles from Australia and my main source of Australian info has come from Crocodile Dundee. :p

Many sheep farmers have already stopped mulesing and they seem to doing just as good, if not better, a job of controlling blowflys.

The alternatives seem to be selective breeding for sheep w/o wrinkles in the breech area. Australian sheep have been bred to have excessive wrinkles in order to produce more wool. This is doubly worse for sheep in Australian because of the weather as you pointed out. Of course, the animals now have to pay for the greed of human beings.

Dr Roger Meischke BVSc., MVSc., PhD., MRCVS, MASM - "Mulesing is the surgical correction of a genetic fault. Mulesing is presently carried out by farmers on all animals in their flock - this practice must be codemned since it removed genetic pressure for improvement of sheep resitance to flystrike. Mulesing not only makes a poorly bred, highly susceptible sheep relatively resistant to breech strike, allowing her to breed, it also masks those sheep which are resistant to breech strike. Both the bad and good sheep have their character masked by the mutilation. Advances in the genetic changes necessary for the sheep to become fly strike resistant becomes difficult or impossible."

Another alternative which you already dismissed is more stringent observation of the sheep. This costs time and money and many people feel that animals are not worth the effort I guess. But dillegent farmers are crutching more often, shearing more often, they look at their sheep for early signs of fly-strike. Essentially, they just take better care of their sheep and they use more stringent, caring, husbandry methods.

I also appreciate your obvious knowledge about this.

[Ed Cunard]

This volley is brought to you by the letter C, Screwtape.

Cabaret!

http://www.artandjobmagazine.com/eventi/1734_2.jpg

Minelli. Yeah. I went there.

Charleston!

http://www.danceheritage.org/images/charleston.jpg

Conga!

http://www.streetswing.com/histmain/gif/9conga.gif

[Jared_Humpherys]

Dammit, who sucked the funny out of this thread?

I think this is the first parody thread I've seen turn serious, then seriously full of farce. Sad.

[Slam_Bradley]

I do, however, like the clip method. I'm assuming it's a lot like the method we practiced with gelding young bulls. We attached a tight rubberband above the testicals and knot, and the whole sack would painlessly rot off over the span of a week or two. A little topical afterwards and you have a healthy steer.


That's how we did it as well. Course that doesn't work if you want the oysters.

[Azrael52]

Wow, this argument is still raging. I started reading this thread a few days ago. It was fun, but now .... why do arguments erupt in every thread now?

[Dreadstar]

Wow, this argument is still raging. I started reading this thread a few days ago. It was fun, but now .... why do arguments erupt in every thread now?

Human nature?

[Dreadstar]

That's how we did it as well. Course that doesn't work if you want the oysters.

Quiet!

You'll rouse the natives.

[CaptMagellan]

Human nature?

Is there a common element in the threads in question though?

Maybe it's a lack of prairie oysters in the diet.

[Slam_Bradley]

Is there a common element in the threads in question though?

Maybe it's a lack of prairie oysters in the diet.


Those are Rocky Mountain oysters.

You all should come out this way for Missoula's testicle festival. It's a hoot.

[Dreadstar]

Is there a common element in the threads in question though?

Diversity of opinion is usually enough. If you enforce your opinon with items you see as fact, then opposition opinion automatically becomes wrong and by interpolation execrable. And naturally, the human nature intrudes with the willingness to inform the other party of the error of their "opinion." Usually with a generous dollop of righteous indignation. It happens with both sides, whether it's vegan/omnivore, religious/atheist, homophile/homophobe, etc...

Maybe it's a lack of prairie oysters in the diet.
Atkins approved!

[CaptMagellan]

Those are Rocky Mountain oysters.

You all should come out this way for Missoula's testicle festival. It's a hoot.

Is that anything like Miskatonic's Tentacle festival? Probably not huh?

[Charles RB]

If you would switch that to good and evil, you wouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.

True. Both groups are clearly evil.

Now, if you switch to the good/evil paradigm, things are considerably easier. Under that view, PETA is good, because they want to save animals. CFF is evil because they work for filthy corporations. Therefore, anything PETA does is in service to good. It doesn't matter how wrong it may be, because they are good and that's all that matters. Anything CFF does is evil. Even if they do right, they are still evil.

Disturbingly, this is the exact same system of ethics that shows up in Pokemon. It's scary.

[CaptMagellan]

True. Both groups are clearly evil.



Disturbingly, this is the exact same system of ethics that shows up in Pokemon. It's scary.

C'mon, everyone knows that Pokemon is a not very subtle attempt to glorify Goetic Ceremonial Magic.

(How many demons can you summon, control, and then send to destroy your enemies).

Are there any sheep pokemon?

[Melissa]

Wow, this argument is still raging. I started reading this thread a few days ago. It was fun, but now .... why do arguments erupt in every thread now?
Sorry about that! :p Speaking for myself, I have a little bit of a problem when I see my country being slammed, even moreso when I think the reasons for slamming it are bogus.

Just as a minor caveat: A lot of "us blokes" over here understand completely the inanity of PETA's histrionics over mulesing. Many of of grew up handling livestock.
I do, however, like the clip method. I'm assuming it's a lot like the method we practiced with gelding young bulls. We attached a tight rubberband above the testicals and knot, and the whole sack would painlessly rot off over the span of a week or two. A little topical afterwards and you have a healthy steer.
You're exactly right, which is why I'm such a big fan of it. The trick is getting the right composition of the clip, so that it also goes, rather than hanging around and becoming an unplanned health risk to the animal. Can't have it degrade too fast, can't have it not degrade... chemistry is such a fine balance, no?
As for PeTA's insanity, the biggest complaints about them where I work (which is a collection of big brains - not mine, other people's) is that they use bad science. It's kinda funny to see the outrage among the purists over their disinformation. "But... there's no discipline!"
I understand your point about handling livestock. There's a lot of casual horror among 'civilian' observers when they first encounter some of the realities of animal husbandry. Farming is tough, and tough things need to be done. No-one (ok, maybe college boys) cuts bits off an animal for laughs. To implement such a bloody cure, obviously the problem is brutal. But few casual observers ever look at the full picture. Many seem distressed to find out (find out! As thought they haven't been paying attention) that meat isn't genetically engineered to grow in little plastic packets.

First off, I'm Canadian not American. You would have know way of knowing that unless you have read all my posts but we Canadians get a little touchy when people refer to us as Americans.

Secondly, as someone who works for the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries, what is your mandate? What are your primary concerns? Does the economic viability of the, for example, wool industry and the wool farmers trump the concerns of animal welfare?

Thirdly, why does everyone assume that all people who are concerned with animal rights use PETA as their only resources? There are a number of animal rights groups in Australia that are against mulesing. The information I have looked up has come from PETA but also from many other organizations. PETA has really bought this issue to the forefront but it was Australian animal rights groups that have been trying for years make this practice known.

OK, so here is what I understand. Bearing in mind that I live thousands of miles from Australia and my main source of Australian info has come from Crocodile Dundee. :p

Many sheep farmers have already stopped mulesing and they seem to doing just as good, if not better, a job of controlling blowflys.

The alternatives seem to be selective breeding for sheep w/o wrinkles in the breech area. Australian sheep have been bred to have excessive wrinkles in order to produce more wool. This is doubly worse for sheep in Australian because of the weather as you pointed out. Of course, the animals now have to pay for the greed of human beings.

Dr Roger Meischke BVSc., MVSc., PhD., MRCVS, MASM - "Mulesing is the surgical correction of a genetic fault. Mulesing is presently carried out by farmers on all animals in their flock - this practice must be codemned since it removed genetic pressure for improvement of sheep resitance to flystrike. Mulesing not only makes a poorly bred, highly susceptible sheep relatively resistant to breech strike, allowing her to breed, it also masks those sheep which are resistant to breech strike. Both the bad and good sheep have their character masked by the mutilation. Advances in the genetic changes necessary for the sheep to become fly strike resistant becomes difficult or impossible."

Another alternative which you already dismissed is more stringent observation of the sheep. This costs time and money and many people feel that animals are not worth the effort I guess. But dillegent farmers are crutching more often, shearing more often, they look at their sheep for early signs of fly-strike. Essentially, they just take better care of their sheep and they use more stringent, caring, husbandry methods.

I also appreciate your obvious knowledge about this.

Thanks. Apologies for incorrectly assuming your nationality.

[Charles RB]

Are there any sheep pokemon?

Surprisingly, yes. (http://www.pokemopolis.net/episodes/johto/139.htm)

Before Misty or Brock can beat him to death for such heartless pun-inicity, the jingling of a bell distract them all and they look off into the distance, where they spot, of all things, a sheep.
"What's that?" asks Ash, whose stupidity obviously surpasses even that of the legendary sheep.

[Screwtape]

This volley is brought to you by the letter C, Screwtape.
Volley? Ha! A mere smattering! How do you like THIS?

http://www.poleworks.com/client-images/819_1921.jpg

http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/ikoba/image/may-pole.jpg

http://members.aol.com/Guare427/newdancingmonkey.gif