Right: Australia was once said to "ride on the sheep's back". This meant that Australia's main source of foreign currency was overseas sales of merino wool. Even today, a ban on Australian wool would damage the national economy.Arguments against stopping mulesing immediately
1. Fly strike is a more injurious condition than anything associated with mulesingThose who support mulesing claim that whatever the pain associated with mulesing it is far less than that caused by flystrike.
According to Yorke Peninsula shearing contractor Paul Michelmore, mulesing is an absolute necessity as a means of preventing flystrike. Mr Michelmore has stated, 'There is nothing worse or more cruel than to see a sheep with flystrike. They die a slow and cruel death.
Mulesing is done only once and, with regular crutching, the sheep will be pretty right. Sheep which haven't been mulesed are also more difficult to crutch because of the skin wrinkles and it is difficult not to prick them or stab then in the behind.
No farmer thinks "I want to be cruel to my sheep today so I think I will get them in and cut some arses".
Cruelty is when pain is inflicted deliberately for no reason, not when you are setting out to prevent something more cruel happening. It is cruelty not to mules and have sheep die from flystrike.'
Wesley J Smith of National Review Online has argued similarly, 'Australia is home to a nasty species of fly (the blowfly) that reproduces by laying eggs in wet wool, particularly around wounds or in healthy but damp areas soiled by feces and urine. When the eggs hatch, the maggots literally eat into the flesh of the sheep and feed for several days - a condition known as "flystrike" - before falling off onto the ground to pupate and become mature insects, starting the cycle anew. This parasitic maggot infestation - which partially eats the infected animal alive - is not only agonizing, but releases toxins causing afflicted sheep to die lingering and terrible deaths ...
[After mulesing] when the wound heals, the area has no wool, and thus wet waste is less likely to stick to the animals and attract blowflies. Moreover, the skin around the anus tightens and becomes smooth so that even if flies do land, they do not lay eggs ...
No eggs means no maggots. No maggots means no flystrike. No flystrike means no torturous parasitic affliction and death. Thus, rather than being cruel, mulesing is actually a necessary preventative that protects sheep against far worse suffering than the transitorily pain the procedure causes. Indeed, without it, up to three million sheep would die agonizing deaths during a bad flystrike year.'
2. Mulesing is currently the only practical means of controlling flystrike
Those who support mulesing claim that it is currently the only viable means of controlling fly strike. This position has been put by Ian Macdonald, the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries. Mr Macdonald stated, 'My concern is that [banning mulesing] may have major implications for the welfare of the NSW sheep flock. Being killed by flesh eating maggots is not a good way to die.
Unfortunately answers to this problem are not easy and will require considerable further research and development effort.
The NSW Government, in conjunction with other States and the Federal Government, will continue to assist the efforts of Australia's wool and sheep industries to inform international trading partners of the necessity for mulesing, as an animal welfare measure, to prevent large scale sheep mortalities while the research and development effort to find another solution continues.
Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) has said that blowfly strike would kill three million sheep per year if mulesing was not practiced in Australia. A spokesperson fro AWI has stated, 'Australian research and development is making progress on developing alternatives to mulesing that provide a similar level of protection to flystrike as mulesing.
An immediate stop on mulesing now would leave the State's 13,000 sheep producers high and dry with very few effective measures to control flystrike in their flocks.
What is needed are alternatives. Industry and Government bodies are working together to deliver these in the form of breech clips, genetics and breeding.
Instead of calling for an "immediate cessation" what is required is more energy spent on finding solutions and alternatives for producers.'
Australian Wool Innovation Limited (AWI) Chief Executive Officer Dr Len Stephens has further indicated, 'Scientific studies clearly show that mulesing and tail docking are currently the most practical, effective and humane methods of flystrike prevention available to Australian woolgrowers.
Mulesing and tail docking can decrease the incidence of breech flystrike in up to 100 per cent of sheep in a flock. Without such measures, up to 98 per cent of the sheep could be affected by flystrike, many fatally, given the right weather conditions.'
Referring to claims made by groups such as PETA that flystrike can be prevented by crutching alone, Wesley J Smith of National Review Online has stated, 'PETA suggests that sheep ranchers continually sheer the wool off of the rumps of each of the 100 million sheep in Australia. But that wouldn't work, because the flies lay eggs in healthy sheep in the wrinkly skin around a sheep's anus. It takes both the tightening of the skin and the removing of wool to prevent flystrike in healthy, uninjured sheep.'
3. Australian farmers will have phased out mulesing by 2010
In March 2008, then Australian Wool Innovation chief executive Craig Welsh confirmed to leading spinners and weavers in Hong Kong that the Australian wool industry was committed to finding alternatives to the current practice of mulesing by 2010.
Mr Welsh stated, 'I am personally committed to driving this company to meet the industry's commitment.'
Former Australian Wool Innovation Limited (AWI) Chief Executive Officer Dr Len Stephens has also indicated that scientific research presently being conducted by AWI and funded by Australian woolgrowers aimed to ensure there was a pain-free alternative available in the future for controlling flystrike in sheep flocks.
Dr Stephens stated, 'Woolgrowers care for their animals and have made it clear to AWI they'd like a pain-free alternative to mulesing. Consequently, we've invested about a million dollars in this research and the early results are very promising. The new method appears to cause no pain and appears to result in no side effects.'
4. The pain of mulesing can be managed
A CSIRO scientific study reported in the Australian Veterinary Journal in March 2007 showed that a combination of drugs can alleviate the pain response of lambs to mulesing.
The study results showed that analgesics can moderate the pain response of lambs to mulesing.
Animals in distress show elevated levels of the hormone cortisol. Greatest pain relief, as indicated by the behavioural and cortisol responses to mulesing, was provided by the combined administration of a commercially available topical local anaesthetic and a long acting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, carprofen.
CSIRO's Dr Andrew Fisher said that the anti-inflammatory analgesic used in the study - carprofen - is currently not registered for use on sheep. Dr Fisher stated, 'Carprofen is most commonly used on dogs and cats to alleviate pain following surgery and there will need to be regulatory approval before it can be widely used on sheep.' Further work is also needed to identify the best time to administer the drug combination before mulesing.
Supporters of the continued use of mulesing argue that initiatives such as using drugs for pain relief would remove the accusation that the procedure caused sheep unacceptable levels of distress.
5. Some animal welfare groups have misrepresented the mulesing debate
Some Australian woolgrowers have claimed that animal welfare groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have taken over the mulesing debate and are actually spreading misinformation.
It has been noted, for example, that PETA has not properly acknowledged that Australian woolgrowers have pledged to phase out mulesing by 2010.
It has also been claimed that PETA and other animal welfare groups do not adequately acknowledge either the painful and potentially lethal nature of flystrike, nor the difficulties associated with finding other means of controlling flystrike.
It has also been claimed that groups such as PETA exploit high profile celebrities to support their causes, but do not ensure that the celebrities are properly informed.
United States pop star Pink has recently backed away from a campaign to boycott Australian wool organised by PETA.
Pink now claims that she did not have sufficient information before she made the anti-mulesing promotion. 'I probably could have been a lot more researched, on my own. That's the lesson I'm taking from this,' the singer said. Pink has also admitted she was unaware that Australian woolgrowers had pledged to stop mulesing by the end of 2010.
PETA has been accused of deliberately spreading simplified, misleading information about the Australian wool industry because its object, according to some critics, is to undermine the Australian wool industry and ultimately bring it down.
David Martosko, director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organisation which seeks to counter the impact of animal rights/ animal liberation organisations on the food and clothing industries has stated, 'PETA has always presented inaccurate and sensationalized stories to a willing media. But the lion's share of animal production for food and fibre is perfectly humane. PETA never shows this because it wants modern livestock farms eliminated, not improved.'
Supporting this claim, Wesley J Smith of National Review Online has stated, 'And this is precisely why PETA will never disseminate nauseating pictures of flystruck sheep dripping blood and maggots on its website or billboards. Doing so would demonstrate that the Australian wool producers are merely protecting their sheep [by mulesing].'