P*ss off PETA

Remove this Banner Ad

Cameo King

Debutant
Jun 30, 2004
88
0
MELBOURNE
AFL Club
Essendon
who are these muppets? trying to derail farmers livelihoods and ruin their lives by pressuring US companys and others to stop buying our wool.

The live sheep trade issue has been blown out of proportion. There was the one disastrous shipment, but otherwise the shipments aren't overcrowded and are quite humane. If controlled it is a legimate and safe trade.

and complaining about mulesing!!! for heavens sake they're doing the sheep a favour with this as it greatly helps prevent sheep getting flyblown.

have a good hard look at yourself PETA, and maybe venture beyond Brunswick St and see what the real world is all about
 
Cameo King said:
who are these muppets? trying to derail farmers livelihoods and ruin their lives by pressuring US companys and others to stop buying our wool.

The live sheep trade issue has been blown out of proportion. There was the one disastrous shipment, but otherwise the shipments aren't overcrowded and are quite humane. If controlled it is a legimate and safe trade.

and complaining about mulesing!!! for heavens sake they're doing the sheep a favour with this as it greatly helps prevent sheep getting flyblown.

have a good hard look at yourself PETA, and maybe venture beyond Brunswick St and see what the real world is all about

They might or might not win the live sheep trade argument. Logic does say slaughter here facing towards mecca if necessary.

They could never win the mulesing argument. The fat lamb stuff doesn't matter much but an unmulesed merino is a debacle at this time of the year.
 
It is overlooked that farmers dont want to ship the sheep live but do so because the Saudis etc want to butcher the sheep themselves. Everyone agrees that it would be better if the sheep were slaughtered in Australia (well except the Middle East customers). These muppets are blaming the wrong people.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

****ing Yanks. Who do they think they are? Do these people have any idea at all? Do they even know what mulesing is? How the hell do they deal with it in America...wait, do they even have sheep in America? Or do all their sheep have tails? :rolleyes: Clearly they are clueless, and they believe they are righteous so-and-sos who can dictate what the rest of the world should and shouldn't do.

The live shipments is one thing, and an issue that needs to be dealt with. But mulesing? I've grown up on a farm - have any of these people ever done that? Do they see the direct results of mulesing (or not doing it)? I just found this: Is Mulesing necessary? No, but State Agriculture Departments promote it because it is cheaper and easier to mules once, rather than to provide proper management such as good breeding, inspection and crutching. Mulesing is performed to save labour costs and is an economic decision.

Departments promote it? My father has run a farm all his life (in Victoria's Western District - one of the world's greatest wool-producing areas), and his father before him. I think they know what's best for their animals. It's been practised for sometime and is considered a normal part of farming procedure, not a bloody economic decision. I've watched it done; it's not as horrific or gruesome as it sounds. They bleed a bit, the pain doesn't last too long, and it heals quickly. As for 'proper management', my dad doesn't have time to sit around on his ass while he breeds generation after generation of sheep, losing money while he does so, in order to prevent this 'animal cruelty'. Nor does he have time to crutch and inspect every single sheep (FFS, there are at least thousands on any average farm) every other week.

Damn right it's 'cheaper and easier'. More effective too, in case they hadn't noticed. Sheep don't die from mulesing. They can die from "flystrike" though. Prevention is better than a cure. Better to have no risk at all, than to constantly have to take measures in order to ensure a sheep doesn't get it. And you wouldn't be able to prevent all cases anyway, and you'd end up with sheep that are useless and would have to be killed anyway. (And let me guess...they'll want us to take them to the vet and have them put to sleep too?)

Perhaps this mob need to get out and run a farm themselves. See the hardship that goes on. See what some of these animals are subject to with REAL improper management, such as not mulesing for one, or from nature itself. What are they going to suggest next, we let all sheep run free because they're restricted in their paddocks? That the hay isn't nutritious enough or doesn't provide enough variety? They're subject to terrible, rocky terrain? Fences are blocking their view of the f***ing road? I don't think these people would survive a week on a farm. Wonder how many of them are wearing an article of clothing or use blankets made from Australian wool? I suppose they'll go and tell us now that we should stop tagging sheeps' ears because they suffer a bit of pain and it can bleed? No more shearing because it causes skin abrasions? Ban woolsheds because sheep constantly put their legs through a slat and are at risk of maybe breaking an ankle?! Maybe we should just let all sheep run free! This is the agricultural industry for you, it's a way of life, it's harsh, bloody well deal with it.

I'm not one for getting big into international issues, but this one is an issue that would affect me directly should it be implemented. One of my father's primary sources of income is from his wool produce, as it is of many people I know. I hate to imagine what further difficulty would be caused if major international companies stopped buying our wool. :mad: I can imagine my dad sitting at home right now, in one way laughing at them...and in the other looking rather grim, knowing exactly what it'll mean for people like us.

Idiots. They are absolutely clueless.
 
BomberGal said:
Idiots. They are absolutely clueless.


Too Bloody right, but I suppose you wouldn't expect rational thought from a group that tried to ban ownership of household pets on the account that it's inhumane.

PETA's simply a group for people who are too gutless to stand up for a truly worthwile cause. Donate to the RSPCA if you want to help animals, they do a much better and more effective job.
 
BomberGal said:
Departments promote it? My father has run a farm all his life, and his father before him. I think they know what's best for their animals. It's been practised for sometime and is considered a normal part of farming procedure, not a bloody economic decision. I've watched it done; it's not as horrific or gruesome as it sounds. They bleed a bit, the pain doesn't last too long, and it heals quickly.
OK. Then this:

As for 'proper management', my dad doesn't have time to sit around on his ass while he breeds generation after generation of sheep, losing money while he does so, in order to prevent this 'animal cruelty'. Nor does he have time to crutch and inspect every single sheep (FFS, there are at least thousands on any average farm) every other week.
What would you call an economic decision then? That sounds like the exact definition.

If it is an economic decision, they why deny it?

My two cents? Sure these people are pretty strong in their views. But as far as I can see (from the five minute bit on Lateline), they're only presenting the facts. It was the company's decision to pull the pin.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DaveW said:
OK. Then this:


What would you call an economic decision then? That sounds like the exact definition.

If it is an economic decision, they why deny it?

My two cents? Sure these people are pretty strong in their views. But as far as I can see (from the five minute bit on Lateline), they're only presenting the facts. It was the company's decision to pull the pin.

In the context of the website I was reading, they were suggesting 'economic decision' as though it were simply a careless decision, farmers were irresponsible, didn't know what was best for the sheep, and did it purely in a production-line manner. I'm suggesting that's bull****.

It's not just an easy solution. It's effective. Economic in that sense, not economic according to the way it could be seen in my above statement.
 
DaveW said:
OK. Then this:


What would you call an economic decision then? That sounds like the exact definition.

If it is an economic decision, they why deny it?

My two cents? Sure these people are pretty strong in their views. But as far as I can see (from the five minute bit on Lateline), they're only presenting the facts. It was the company's decision to pull the pin.


Personally mules 6 to 7 hundred a year. Have to do it. The alternative is flys laying eggs in dung that catches on wool fibre around the anus. Eggs develop into lava that grow into maggots that eat into the sheep flesh. The sheep only survives if treated. Mulesed sheep still get struck. The incidence is about 90% against about 15%. The most distress is male lambs and the ring. As you do your snips they are in fright. It may or may not knock some for a few weeks. The alternative is flys killing adult sheep. Anti mulesing arguments can never win.
 
That fashion house was intimated by the blackmailing methods of PETA, who threatened to run full page ads in US papers detailing the cruelty of museling or whatever it was. I was listening to BBC last night, and the reporter spoke to a PETA person who said she has videos depicting the cruelty of this museling method. Based on what the more knowledgeable ones have said here, i guess the fashion house didn't know enough to be not convinced. This is the same PETA who have Pam Anderson campaiging for them and against KFC, or 'Kentucky Fried Cruelty' in her words.
 
BomberGal said:
Is Mulesing necessary? No, but State Agriculture Departments promote it because it is cheaper and easier to mules once, rather than to provide proper management such as good breeding, inspection and crutching. Mulesing is performed to save labour costs and is an economic decision.

The CSIRO are obviously a disgrace, imagine not being able to create a sheep that could prosper in Australia with a tail that didnt get fly blown. Thus genetically modified sheep are ok, genetically modified food = work of the devil.

Besides all the farmers I know of in Tas including my brother mules, crutch and inspect their sheep. If they really want to whinge why dont they talk about dogs getting their tails docked, they would be on much firmer ground.
 
medusala said:
The CSIRO are obviously a disgrace, imagine not being able to create a sheep that could prosper in Australia with a tail that didnt get fly blown.

Yeah, you're right. All their contributions to Australian agriculture last century are crap because they can't breed a sheep with the a new arse and tail.

They're rubbish compared with rest of the world. Everyone's "creating" sheep with genetically re-engineered rear ends and we're being just left behind.

They are a disgrace.
 
as johnnie would say......hello......hello

i find this incredible, i just cant get my head around it.

these peta moonbats are the typical ferals you find in the greenie religious cult and hence they are aligned with the labour side of politics. for the past month we had all the gullible fools on this board banging on about how great latham is and supporting labour to the hilt, now a week after the election these same fools are complaining about some greenie moonbats and their totally irrational logic.

people on the left side of politics must take responsibility for their actions.....if you vote for moonbats then dont start complaining when the sh1t hits the fan......you cant have it both ways.
 
Agitator

I am a lefty green and dont agree with PETA......sorry to get in the way of your over generalisation.

Also how did the battle with PETA and a US shopping firm, suddenly become your hissy fit on domestic politics?

Stay on topic doodlenut.
 
What cu*ts!!!

240-savethesheep.jpg


Who do they think they are to disgrace out flag?

ITS A BLOODY OUTRAGE IT IS!
 
Moo said:
Agitator

I am a lefty green and dont agree with PETA......sorry to get in the way of your over generalisation.

Also how did the battle with PETA and a US shopping firm, suddenly become your hissy fit on domestic politics?

Stay on topic doodlenut.

It is on topic if you accept the argument that Australia HAS become US domestic policy :p

I would like to offer a few more points for discussion and try for a balanced view..I would like to know how much A&F WERE buying before the decision?, How did PETA make the jump from live sheep trade to shearing?, What clothes/makeup/furnishings each member of PETA has?

A&F can make commercial decisions as they see fit but I am dissapointed they allowed outside pressure to influence them.

Correct me if I am wrong but dont sheep NEED to be sheared? Just as man needs to manage hair isnt the shearing of sheep an animal management issue?
And if people use what is cast off then all well and good ..hey I didnt complain when the hairdresser gave away my hair to little old ladies who used it to line birdcages...I would rather they sh** on my hair when its off rather than when I am walking down the street.

CCMG ... Brilliant... and it goes to my 3rd question..to truly be committed and active shouldnt members of PETA be naked and live in caves? The clothes we wear and the furniture we use and the makeup they have on has somewhere somehow had an animal involved...
Dont get me wrong I agree wholeheartedly with the stopping of cruelty to animals but where do you draw the line..If you dont crutch a sheep and it dies of flystrike at least it wasnt subjected to cruel practices!!! Apart from the maggots eating them from the inside.

BomberGal my guess is Hamilton way ..my mum lives in Dartmoor ;)
 
I had a painful wisdom tooth. Even with an anesthetic having it removed hurt like hell and knocked me about for a day or two. Presumably I should have been treated with diet, medication and selective breeding. Where were PETA when I needed them?

Sometimes cruelty is NOT putting someone / something through a treatment or preventative measure.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

P*ss off PETA

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top