Mulesing - Opposition To Mulesing

Opposition To Mulesing

Some animal rights activists consider unanesthetised mulesing to be inhumane and unnecessary. They have also argued that mulesing may mask genetic susceptibility to flystrike allowing for genetic weaknesses to be continued.

Proponents of mulesing are largely from Australia where severe and often fatal flystrike is common. While alternatives are available, they are not yet economically viable (as of 2007). The industry's size and the number of sheep amplify the effect of cost efficiency.

In October 2004, American fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Co. responded to pressure from PETA to boycott Australian merino wool due in part to the use of mulesing in Australia. The National Farmers' Federation responded by stating "Abercrombie and Fitch does not use Australian wool". Then, in December 2008, one of the world's largest retailers, Liz Claiborne, (in which PETA is a shareholder) banned the use of Australian Merino wool in its products in opposition to the mulesing practice, at the time an Australian Wool Innovations spokesman said "the company did not purchase any Australian wool". In June 2009, British department store chain John Lewis joined the wool boycott. The campaign by PETA also seeks to draw attention to Australia's live sheep export trade. PETA's campaign has hurt the Australian wool industry with several American and European clothing retailers agreeing to the boycott.

Australian interior furnishing wholesaler Instyle Contract Textiles endorses the cessation of mulesing. In early 2008, the company signed an exclusive worldwide agreement with The SRS Company to source wool from non-mulesed Merino sheep that have been bred specifically to be naturally resistant to flystrike.

The controversy reignited after a television programme aired in Sweden. This programme alleged that a lobbying consultant, Kevin Craig, acting on behalf of the Australian Wool and Sheep Industry Taskforce offered a Swedish activist a free trip to Australia if the activist agreed not to go on camera nor do an interview. As a consequence, all clothing manufacturers and retailers in Sweden banned the purchase of wool from sheep that have been mulesed. Since then, the Swedish Agriculture Minister, Eskil Erlandsson, has said that "he was satisfied that Australia appeared to be responding to international concerns about mulesing and that bans or boycotts were not necessary". "But in the long run we hope there is going to be a final end to all sorts of mulesing."

Some European retailers have agreed to lift their ban on Australian merino wool if pain relief is used during mulesing. The retailers have not been named in an effort to avoid any backlash.

In order to help comply with the 2010 deadline to phase out mulesing, Western Australia's governmental research stations ceased mulesing their sheep on 1 April 2008.

The Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) has pledged to phase out mulesing by 2010, but PETA has accused the Australian wool industry of trying to extend this deadline. On 27 July 2009, the Australian wool industry dumped its long-standing pledge to phase out mulesing by the end of 2010, a move that outraged animal welfare groups and led to criticism by some farmers. The AWI maintains that pursuing a deadline approach to eliminating mulesing was not based on "sound health and welfare science" and risked a serious deterioration in the welfare of sheep. Alternative methods of mulesing, such as using clips and intradermals, were "not sufficiently developed to support a wholesale cessation of the procedure in 2010", AWI said.

Present (2011) approach of AWI is that it "supports all woolgrowers in their choice of best practice animal health and hygiene in flystrike control", including the practice of mulesing without pain relief, but aims to provide optional alternatives such as pain relief and antiseptics.