Originally posted by orfeooh! then possibly i'm not guilty as i charged 😀
Actually I think elvendreamgirl did a slight typo - I think the question was supposed to be is mulesing ONLY done in Australia.
so thanks for making me feel a bit better, but i still feel like the strawman - i should have figured it out, but i was focussing on the Oz thing 😀
Mulesing is illegal in Britain. Flystrike occurs there but it is not as great a problem as in Australia and New Zealand.
http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/aec-w-entries-wool.html
A technique called Mulesing is widespread in countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where, of course, so much imported lamb comes from ... Mulesing would not be needed if farmers were to shear their sheep on a more regular basis.
http://uk.geocities.com/veggiemania_org/farming.htm
so it seems to happen primarily in Oz and New Zealand.
people may wonder why it is called mulesing. as the article below explains, it was named after a farmer named Mules. it also confirms your question about reinfection:
Mulesing
In warm weather, sheep are susceptible to an infestation of blowflies that lay their eggs in the moist and soiled folds of fleece. The eggs then hatch into maggots in less than a day and eat very deeply into the skin. Prevention and control can only be carried out with proper management and quick treatment of the herd. In the 1920s, a farmer named Mules developed a barbaric solution that is now used on 95% of sheep in large herds. Instead of maintaining good husbandry and cleanliness, the lambs are collected and tied upside down to long frames by their legs, while a worker moves from one to the next, slicing off the skin around the tail. It is a large wound that the sheep will suffer with for months, and no anesthetics are used. Frequently, maggots will be found embedded near the eyes or hooves as well, and the skin in these areas will also be cut away. Almost immediately, the open wounds are re-infected.
http://www.chai.org.il/_chai_sites/en/compassion/clothes_wool.htm#mulesing
(a graphic of the process with lambs lined up as described above is available by following the REALITY CHECK: Mulesing link)
i have searched for a while and haven't found any other places that do mulesing on the web. that may simply be because it is so prevalent in the aforementioned countries so that's what shows up.
in friendship,
prad
we have dealt with the mulesing issue fairly extensively.
we will now focus on the live export trade.
Very briefly, here is an account of what it is:
[Sheep] are often shipped thousands of miles through scorching heat and freezing cold by sea in open-decked ships, to have their throats slit in filthy, open-air markets while they are still fully conscious. More than three-quarters of Australians are opposed to live export, including many legislators and other governmental officials.
http://www.savethesheep.com/
There is a long history finally sparking widespread public attention with the Cormo Express ship disaster (2003) that sparked public attention (more on this later).
We'll start with a 2002 article below in which the Australian government pledges to impose greater controls after the death of 15 000 sheep on their way to the Middle East.
In friendship,
prad
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-3-2002-25729.asp
Call to ban live exports as 15,000 sheep die in transit
By Guardian Newspapers, 9/3/2002
Australia has pledged to impose new controls on animal exports after the death of 15,000 sheep en route to the Middle East.
The agriculture minister, Warren Truss, said there would be regulations to stop any repeat of the incident in which the carcasses were dumped into the Arabian sea.
But lobby groups want a ban. "It's a barbaric trade. There's no justification for this sort of cruelty. It's impossible to guarantee a safe passage for these animals," said Maggie Mann, president of People Against Cruelty in Animal Transport.
The deaths were largely blamed on the move from the relative cold of Australia's winter to the Middle Eastern summer.
Australia exports more live sheep than any other country, the vast majority to the Middle East. Concerns over halal slaughter in foreign countries mean that countries in the Middle East prefer live imports.
Last year, Australia exported 6.6m sheep worth £154m.
But critics say the industry is under-regulated. Exporters need only to inform the Australian maritime safety body if over 2% of animals die in any one shipment, but some vessels carry as many as up to 140,000 sheep.
Deaths on the four vessels last month were 5.5% of the 270,000 sheep in transit, although on one ship it was 11%.
One vessel, the Cormo Express, was involved in a similar event in 1990, when 10,000 sheep died on the way from New Zealand to Saudi Arabia.
Hygiene and ventilation on the three-week trip is minimal, with sheep kept on decks in pens of up to 20 animals. The minimum space required by law is 3.5 sq ft per sheep.
The industry says most animals die of exhaustion when they refuse to eat the pellets fed them - but campaigners say many more die from disease, the extremes of heat and cold, and suffocation in the fumes of their own urine.
The industry insists that it has cleaned up its act since the mid-nineties, when up to 200,000 sheep died in transit each year. Last year, 90,000 deaths were reported.
"In Australia we are used to losses of animals that might in some other countries be regarded as quite extreme," said Kevin Shiell, chief executive of Australian livestock export body, Livecorp.
"Australia is a big country: animals travel very long distances and we have to accept there will be some losses. We don't enjoy the subsidies that Europe has."
The export of certain cattle during the northern summer has already been banned after 900 died last month on the MV Becrux, a ship initially praised for its improved hygiene and ventilation.
While the investigation is under way, at least one vessel involved in last month's incident has been cleaned, loaded up with a fresh cargo and sent back to the Middle East.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat other webside is not peta.org, it's some other website with a link to peta.org
Examples of action on the PETA website include a cute little sticker
I don't see it at peta.org, unless it used to be where the "Cancelled" sticker is now. That other webside is not peta.org, it's some other website with a ...[text shortened]... to them and to those who proposed the boycott and spread the message.
Go to www.peta.org, and note the neat little blue rabbit icon on the url line. Click on campaigns and you are at PETA Animal Activist Com. Click on animals used for clothing. The link to furisdead is right there, in the paragraph below the one about the wool campaign. And there is your cute little rabbit back on the URL again, on a page with a link to info@peta.org and PETA in big letters on the top line, just above the fox.
Here are a few more slogans from this PETA branded web page:
"Our message this winter is this: "Fur-wearers beware!
Fur-wearers, manufacturers, farmers, trappers, designers, and magazine editors who promote fur, beware: We're not going to take the fur plague lying down!
Fur Wearers Can't Hide: Pelt Them for PETA
New weapons in the war on fur hags!
The gloves are off!"
And of course. "If you wear fur, watch your back'' on a target. Still there.
So tell me again how this page and its threatening messages has got nothing to do with PETA? Save the two clicks from www.peta.org and go right there to see for yourself.
http://www.furisdead.com/gloves.html
Then - having seen how PETA operates - tell me again how it is unfair to assume this is intimidating?
Originally posted by steerpikeMaybe I missed one of your arguments somewhere, but why is it wrong to intimidate those that wear fur or make their living by selling fur? For that matter, why is it wrong to use direct action like spray painting the building housing such a business? You've assumed this in various places, but haven't said why. Why is it the case that a human's supposed right to be free from intimidation trumps an animals right not to be killed and skinned?
[b]That other webside is not peta.org, it's some other website with a link to peta.org
Go to www.peta.org, and note the neat little blue rabbit icon on the url line. Click on campaigns and you are at PETA Animal Activist Com. Click on animals used for clothing. The link to furisdead is right there, in the paragraph below the one about the wool camp ...[text shortened]... having seen how PETA operates - tell me again how it is unfair to assume this is intimidating?
[/b]
Originally posted by bbarrBecause it's vigilante action. Why is it that wolves have the "right" to kill animals whereas humans do not?
Maybe I missed one of your arguments somewhere, but why is it wrong to intimidate those that wear fur or make their living by selling fur? For that matter, why is it wrong to use direct action like spray painting the building housing such a business? You've assumed this in various places, but haven't said why. Why is it the case that a human's supposed right to be free from intimidation trumps an animals right not to be killed and skinned?
Originally posted by KneverKnightFirst, merely calling direct action 'vigilante action' isn't sufficient to show that direct action of the sorts I've described are impermissble. All you're doing is calling direct action by a different name. So, again, why is it that 'vigilante action' of the sorts I've described are impermissble? Why does a person's right to be free from intimidation (if there is such a right) trump an animal's right not to be killed for the purpose of making a coat or hat?
Because it's vigilante action. Why is it that wolves have the "right" to kill animals whereas humans do not?
Second, I'm not claiming that humans do not have the right to ever kill animals. If an animal attacked me, and I couldn't subdue it using non-lethal means, I would kill it. I'd do the same if a human attacked me. Further, I think that human life is more valuable than animal life, so I'm fine with humans killing animals if it is necessary for them to do so to subsist (although this isn't the case in developed countries). So, your point about wolves, whatever it was, is irrelevant. Wolves don't kill animals for the sake of vanity. Humans, however, do. So, the question remains, why is it permissible for someone to kill and skin an animal merely to satisfy the dictates of their vain ego?
I think humans have the right to obtain clothing from animals, whether they are vain or not is a matter of taste, some fashion surely outrages some people ...
Vigilante, direct actioner, these are just terms. Five spray-can armed activists confronting a lone woman because she's wearing a mink coat is just plain bullying. If this tactic is permissable here, why not start torching cars because they pollute the air?
Originally posted by KneverKnightI think humans have the right to obtain clothing from animals, whether they are vain or not is a matter of taste, some fashion surely outrages some people ...
I agree that humans have this right, subject to certain constraints. If, for instance, an animal must be killed for clothing in order to prevent a human from freezing to death, then I agree that it would be permissible to kill an animal. But the fur industry isn't necessary to prevent people from freezing to death. Folks who can afford fur coats can afford coats not made of fur. So, given that the fur industry isn't a necessity, and that fur coats exist today merely as status symbols, why is it the case that human vanity provides sufficient reason to kill and skin an animal?
Vigilante, direct actioner, these are just terms. Five spray-can armed activists confronting a lone woman because she's wearing a mink coat is just plain bullying. If this tactic is permissable here, why not start torching cars because they pollute the air?
I agree that it is bullying. So what? If the woman doesn't want to be bullied, she shouldn't support an industry that kills and skins animals merely for the sake of satisfying her vanity and greed.
To begin with, punishing fur wearers and fur producers is partly justified by the egregiousness of their moral transgression (i.e., killing an animal and skinning it merely to satisfy their vanity and greed). Similarly, if it is necessary to destroy cars for environmental reasons, we ought target only the most egregious polluters (e.g., S.U.V.s, Hummers, etc.). Now since there are a variety of alternative modes of destruction, arson is an unnecessary risk. Arson carries with it the substantial risk of harming persons, as well as whatever property of the victim's that is in the car but isn't itself morally offensive (e.g., non-fur items). So, I would suggest that, rather than arson, one resort to destroying the engine directly.
Originally posted by bbarrGood argument bbarr, but I think it should be extended to ...kill and skin an animal and render entire species extinct. All for the sake of the latest 'fashion', which itself will be extinct within a year.
why is it the case that human vanity provides sufficient reason to kill and skin an animal?
D
I agree that fur-wearing is repulsive, but that doesn't give me the right to annoy or harrass fur-wearers, because that's just my opinion. Animals do not have innate rights, only those rights which we grant them. If I felt strongly enough about this issue, it would be better to ally myself with like-minded people and start an ad campaign to convince people not to buy fur.
A bullet through the block of an SUV might be tempting, but there again I would have made an arbitrary choice to target those vehicles and not others which, by virtue of greater numbers, may actually pollute more. Not to mention lawn mowers, chainsaws etc.
As for such things as arson directed against individuals or corporations engaged in activities we deem repulsive, immoral etc., the risk of killing a person, a cleaner if the arson was carried out after business hours, negates any argument made by the arsonist that he/she was acting in a moral manner; in short, the end doesn't justify the means.
Originally posted by bbarrBecause it is dishonest to call such actions a boycott. This is not an organized refusal to purchase products or patronize a store. It is threatening and intimidating behaviour, and the retailer will assume if they don't comply, there will be consequences beyond some customers buying elsewhere.
Maybe I missed one of your arguments somewhere, but why is it wrong to intimidate those that wear fur or make their living by selling fur? For that matter, why is it wrong to use direct action like spray painting the building housing such a business? You've assumed this in various places, but haven't said why. Why is it the case that a human's supposed right to be free from intimidation trumps an animals right not to be killed and skinned?
Why do you refer to such behaviour as direct action? I would regard threatening people by assault, arson or sabotage as criminal action. And I don't care if the thugs support my views.
Originally posted by bbarrWhy should a woman be attacked because she wears a fur coat - while no-one notices my leather shoes? In both cases, an animal has to be skinned to produce the materials, and there are equal amounts of vanity and greed. Why is her moral transgression greater than mine?
I agree that it is bullying. So what? If the woman doesn't want to be bullied, she shouldn't support an industry that kills and skins animals merely for the sake of satisfying her vanity and greed.
To begin with, punishing fur wearers and fur producers is partly justified by the egregiousness of their moral transgression (i.e., killing an animal and skinning it merely to satisfy their vanity and greed).
Or is rational thought not required on these topics?
Originally posted by KneverKnightI agree that fur-wearing is repulsive, but that doesn't give me the right to annoy or harrass fur-wearers, because that's just my opinion. Animals do not have innate rights, only those rights which we grant them.
Oh, so now you are distinguishing between innate rights and those that are merely granted. Of course, since you'll claim that humans, unlike animals, have innate rights, this ends up being a fancier way of claiming that humans have rights while animals do not. First, this is the very subject at issue in the debate over the permissibility of direct action, so this response of your is merely question-begging. Second, what arguments do you have to support your contention that the only rights animals have are those we grant them? What mystical faculty to humans have in virtue of which their rights are given the special status of 'innate'? Further, why would humans choose to grant rights to animals in the first place, unless we had reason to believe that treating them cruelly was actually wrong. Seems to me that we haven't granted rights to animals, but rather begun to recognize the rights they have (rights which are independent of our beliefs or opinions). If a human has an innate right to life, then why not animals? It sounds to me like you make the same mistakes a racist or a sexist makes, only you discriminate against animals by refusing to take seriously the importance of their interests and the moral weight of their well-being.
If I felt strongly enough about this issue, it would be better to ally myself with like-minded people and start an ad campaign to convince people not to buy fur.
That would also be good, but it should be a supplement to direct action. We should not let the greedy and the vain get away with killing animals solely for their skin. They deserve to be punished for the systematic vilolation of the rights of animals.
ullet through the block of an SUV might be tempting, but there again I would have made an arbitrary choice to target those vehicles and not others which, by virtue of greater numbers, may actually pollute more.
The point isn't to stop all pollution. The point is to get people to realize that buying those egregiously polluting vehicles is a transgression. That is why you'd want to target the worst polluters. People should be forced to realize that rapaciousness and gluttony regarding our natural resources will not be tolerated by decent people.
As for such things as arson directed against individuals or corporations engaged in activities we deem repulsive, immoral etc., the risk of killing a person, a cleaner if the arson was carried out after business hours, negates any argument made by the arsonist that he/she was acting in a moral manner; in short, the end doesn't justify the means.
I've already mentioned this above. There are much better ways of engaging in direct action than by setting fires.