# Merino Wool - Inhumane?



## racer357 (Feb 3, 2011)

never mind.. It is fucked up what happens everywhere so we can have our luxuries.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

racer357 said:


> If I understand correctly, this video isn't in reference to Merino wool as much as it is boots like UGG. They aren't shearing the sheep for the wool. Ugg Skins the sheep alive apparently and uses the skin and wool for their boots.


Nah, it's the wool. This doesn't even talk about Uggs.


----------



## Steezus Christ (Jul 29, 2013)

that's fucking stupid. sheep are sheared, not skinned. like any other PETA influenced video they have blown the circumstances way out of proportion. they will find anything to complain about


----------



## ARSENALFAN (Apr 16, 2012)

You don't want to see the down video.


----------



## racer357 (Feb 3, 2011)

There is a different video floating around showing the Ugg story. I thought this one was it. I was mistaken.


----------



## freshy (Nov 18, 2009)

Whoa pretty harsh. It's pretty easy to say it's the product of mass production, just sad most things that come from animals are super cruel. I don't think this video will change anything for me. Netflix is full of documentaries demonizing everything I enjoy and they don't really have any effect on me. 
If I could grow my own veggies, raise my own beef and chickens, and raise my own merino sheep I'd be all over that, but the sad reality is I will buy the best stuff I can afford.

That vid is one extreme tho, I'm sure there are sheep farms that are heavenly in comparison.


----------



## Steezus Christ (Jul 29, 2013)

these practices have been carried out since the beginning of sheep shearing. at least they didn't mention anything about the tar they use for cuts and gouges in the sheep's skin when the shears may have gone too far.. leave the farmers as they are, its a hard enough life as it is


----------



## snowklinger (Aug 30, 2011)

Things I enjoy: 

snowboarding
cars
merino wool
sushi
baby seal clubbing (I make a yearly pilgrimage to Canada with my bat)
fishing
hunting
wearing clothes
fois gras
chinese made products

Things I do not enjoy:

1st world problems
3rd world problems

The worrying is exhausting. Maybe if cooks and teachers were valued like lawyers and actors I would have time to give a fuck.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

I don't know what it's like in other cities, but here in Vancouver you can walk down the street on any particular day and see up to a dozen people or signs or picket lines or something, protesting something or other. I'd like to introduce all the protesters to a new word: "desensitization". It's not that their causes are necessarily bad or frivolous or simply bullshit (no doubt some are). It's just like with ads on tv -- after a while you just stop paying attention. Do you know that there's a group asking people to boycott the movie "Ender's Game" because the author is supposed to have said politically incorrect things? Really, about 75% of the things I do or buy or attend or enjoy cross _someone's_ picket line.

And here's the thing -- no matter who you are, you're offending _someone_. What if some other group started picketing PETA. What if yet another group started picketing them? Each group trying to get their 15 seconds of fame by outdoing the next group at being loudly offended.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

I just found this a little shocking. I have friends who rock merino nearly all year long but won't eat meat on humanitarian grounds. I guess I just expected a little more from this particular industry, probably because of the eco-friendly, all-natural seeming way merino is branded. 

But really, what's the standard? Decapitating live animals? Tossing weakened sheep overboard to drown? There's gotta be a line somewhere.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 29, 2013)

This video is obviously showing *one* (be it very terrible) side of an industry. 

Just a quick soapbox here: First off, if you eat, you are involved in agriculture. 

There are a lot of good hardworking people who treat their animals with respect and use nothing but the most humane methods of raising animals and harvesting things like milk, eggs, wool, etc. There are also a whole bunch of lazy assholes who are only interested in profit by any means...caged chickens who lay eggs till they die, improperly/inhumanely slaughtered animals, illegal methods of pest control (yes, crop farmers can also be guilty of this), etc. I grew up on a mixed farm in Saskatchewan and can attest that it is extremely hard work; the only reason for what was considered inappropriate behaviour and methods on our farm is greed and laziness. 

If you can, make the decision to buy products that can show they are using proper methods of production. Free range laid eggs, farm raised/grass fed beef etc. 

Ill go put this high horse back in the stable now.....


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

News article last week said that there is legislation in Europe that will make it illegal for a doctor to tell a patient they are obese because they may be offended.

Obese is a medical condition. Next thing you know, doc can't tell you you have cancer.

The world needs a big fat dose of desensitization. Someone offended someone, of fuck, call a lawyer!


To the original poster: if those sheep were wild, and no one cut their asses, what would happen? They would be miserable because the flys would lay eggs on them and maggos would hatch. Farmers are making that stop.

Do you eat eggs? Ever see what a commercial henhouse looks like?

Do you eat chicken? Ever seen a chicken growing farm?

Cows? Been to a butchering yard?

Want to wear fleece? That's made from propane, which then becomes polypropylene. Evil oil companies, yada yada.

We can either exterminate 1/2 the people on earth, or live with the most efficient methods of producing food and other consumer products. Deal with it.



PETA: people eating tasty animals

If we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?


----------



## Banjo (Jan 29, 2013)

kaborkian said:


> Do you eat eggs? Ever see what a commercial henhouse looks like?
> 
> Do you eat chicken? Ever seen a chicken growing farm?
> 
> Cows? Been to a butchering yard?


these 3 things are completely avoidable and are strictly ways to mass produce in an effort to maximize profit. 

You dont have to buy products from here, you only do because you are a cheapskate who doesnt give a crap about where things come from.


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

Banjo said:


> these 3 things are completely avoidable and are strictly ways to mass produce in an effort to maximize profit.
> 
> You dont have to buy products from here, you only do because you are a cheapskate who doesnt give a crap about where things come from.


Actually, I eat wild game which I hunt, kill, clean, process, and package myself. Organic free range eggs. Same with the chicken.

Point is, if everyone did that, we would run out of food as a society.

But the bigger point I was making is that people need to toughen the fuck up and stop with legislating things like the word obese into being illegal to say.


----------



## Lamps (Sep 3, 2011)

Donutz said:


> Do you know that there's a group asking people to boycott the movie "Ender's Game" because the author is supposed to have said politically incorrect things? .


Everyone should boycott ender's game because that movie was the biggest piece of crap ever produced, I want those two hours of my life back.


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

Lamps said:


> Everyone should boycott ender's game because that movie was the biggest piece of crap ever produced, I want those two hours of my life back.


The book was excellent. Thanks for the warning, I'll wait for Netflix.


----------



## freshy (Nov 18, 2009)

kaborkian said:


> The book was excellent. Thanks for the warning, I'll wait for Netflix.


It's my favorite series of books and I thought the movie was awesome. Pretty much exactly the same as the book minus some of the small details but still, I'd even say its one of my favorite top 5 movies right now. Can't wait for the sequels.


----------



## Steezus Christ (Jul 29, 2013)

Extremo said:


> But really, what's the standard? Decapitating live animals? Tossing weakened sheep overboard to drown? There's gotta be a line somewhere.


that is the standard. that is the practice of sheep sheering just like it was hundreds of years ago. try find a more efficient way whilst still being cost effective. what do you want, farmers to lay a grave and cross with flowers every time a sheep dies?

i don't know if you've ever actually seen a farm, but i'm sure you have, most of them have a fuck tonne of sheep, maybe take a trip to New Zealand. its hard enough that they have to capture, tag and drench each one as it is. they are sheep and therefore are not easy to handle. try for yourself and pick up a live one. the amount of labor and expense that would go with gently taking hold of a live sheep, sedating the sheep with an anesthetic then surgically removing each fold of skin would be ridiculous and pointless.



kaborkian said:


> To the original poster: if those sheep were wild, and no one cut their asses, what would happen? They would be miserable because the flys would lay eggs on them and maggos would hatch. Farmers are making that stop.


EXACTLY.



kaborkian said:


> Do you eat chicken? Ever seen a chicken growing farm?


whilst on the topic i thought i may as well share this story.

i've been to a few commercial "chicken growing farms" whilst studying agriculture, one of them being Inghams, a very well known source of poultry throughout Australia. same practices apply with just a slight variation. imagine walking into a stinking hot shed full of 80,000 teeny little baby chickens. the second u open the door for feeding, they all rush to the back of the shed where unfortunately a lot of them get trampled on by other chickens, suffocate and left to die. about twice a day an employee walks in with a bucket and grabber and just picks up the dead ones and puts them in the bucket. some would say it's cruel, but in what sense? how else is there to go about it?


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

"In 2005, SmartWool implemented the requirement that its New Zealand wool suppliers no longer practice mulesing.In 2010, SmartWool signed a contract to exclusively source its Merino wool from the New Zealand Merino Company."


Only company that claims this that I could find.


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

Steezus Christ said:


> that is the standard. that is the practice of sheep sheering just like it was hundreds of years ago. try find a more efficient way whilst still being cost effective. what do you want, farmers to lay a grave and cross with flowers every time a sheep dies?
> 
> i don't know if you've ever actually seen a farm, but i'm sure you have, most of them have a fuck tonne of sheep, maybe take a trip to New Zealand. its hard enough that they have to capture, tag and drench each one as it is. they are sheep and therefore are not easy to handle. try for yourself and pick up a live one. the amount of labor and expense that would go with gently taking hold of a live sheep, sedating the sheep with an anesthetic then surgically removing each fold of skin would be ridiculous and pointless.
> 
> ...


They call them "chicken houses" around here, figured not many would get the reference, so "chicken growing farm". To expand a little, truck shows up with 2 day old chickens, one per square foot of floor space. As chicks, they fit resonantly well. As 2 month old chickens that weigh 5 lbs waiting for collection, they fit about like a standard mosh pit. Hardly room for them to turn around. When the truck that takes away the live grow chickens comes, if you slide the driver a few bucks, he will toss some dead ones in as well (normally they leave them behind for disposal). See, the house gets paid by weight, so picking up most of the dead ones benefits the house, doesn't affect the driver, and Tyson farms gets aggravated that they bought dead and therefore not edible chickens.

Really a strange business.


----------



## ARSENALFAN (Apr 16, 2012)

I guess I will wear the same merino ninja suit for life. I won't have any friends, but I will be warm.


----------



## DevilWithin (Sep 16, 2013)

Whoever said this was originally about UGGs is correct. Here is the article that also included the Pink video: UGGs and Their UGGly Reputation


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

Lamps said:


> Everyone should boycott ender's game because that movie was the biggest piece of crap ever produced, I want those two hours of my life back.


Well, that's a valid reason to avoid. :laugh:


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

People should be sterilized.

Solves all the issues spoken about above.

It drives me insane how people freak out about 1-child laws in China.

We should have that here. As far as I'm concerned, you can't say shit about anything environmental if you've purposely pumped out more than 1 child. It's another mouth that needs feeding, drinking, clothing and transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3
From the book "Limits to Growth"

Reading that book changed my life.


----------



## Ocho (Mar 13, 2011)

kaborkian said:


> Actually, I eat wild game which I hunt, kill, clean, process, and package myself. Organic free range eggs. Same with the chicken.
> 
> Point is, if everyone did that, we would run out of food as a society. [snipped]


Well, this is sort of true...as hunters often go for and kill the strongest, biggest, and healthiest of game thereby diluting and weakening the gene pool of wild animals. 

So more realistically, if everyone did that, we wouldn't run out of food but further screw the natural world by engendering the propagation of the weakest and most ill of game species. And what human wants to eat that.

Natural balance of predator/prey relationship (among animals) is more the opposite; natural selection propagates the _strengths_ of other species. Strong and healthy survive to reproduce while the weak and ill don't. 

Human hunters don't hunt that way. 

An interesting perspective with regard to food, society, and animals farmed for consumption is that the amount of grain fed to livestock could easily provide food for hundreds of millions of people. This is an older Cornell article but I doubt the ratios have changed much U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle



> "If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.
> ...
> Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption. About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein.


As for the wool issue, this came up within another thread recently but can't recall which one (perhaps the fur thread?). Regardless, it's entirely possible to avoid the use, consumption, and related cruelty of animals if you so choose. Still stay fed, still stay warm, and everyone lives.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

So you're saying eat grass fed beef?


----------



## Ocho (Mar 13, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> So you're saying eat grass fed beef?


Ha. Ha.

They wouldn't live if I did.

That article doesn't have an animal-rights slant, for those who get prickly about such. It's just a different perspective and valid for the grain/feed required for the majority of livestock consumed by society (and its little return).


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

EatRideSleep said:


> Well, this is sort of true...as hunters often go for and kill the strongest, biggest, and healthiest of game thereby diluting and weakening the gene pool of wild animals.
> 
> So more realistically, if everyone did that, we wouldn't run out of food but further screw the natural world by engendering the propagation of the weakest and most ill of game species. And what human wants to eat that.
> 
> ...


There's a fallacy with that theory. The world is a closed system. While true that you have efficiency losses in growing grain to feed animals, the eating the animals, all of that "loss" is recycled. Animal eats grain. Some goes to muscle, which we the consume. Some goes to bone, skin, organs, etc, which is either fed to pets and livestock (recycled) or ground back into fertilizer. Some is passed through to animal dung and again becomes fertilizer. That sustaining process must exist in some fashion. If we as a population ate nothing but grown plant produce, the farmlands would be depleted of plant nutrients. That would have to be replinished by collection of human waste (both natural biological and any other household waste) and the turned into fertilizer. If you don't somehow complete that life cycle and just flush everything into a landfill, population will cease to exist.

To the hunting comment, your generally correct that there are a lot of human hunters who hunt horns and not meat. What's not correct is the assumption that that is bad for animal population. It's been shown many times over that current methods are causing an increase in deer population. The North American deer heard is larger than it's fer been, and growing. Think about this: if you only kill mature (6 years or older) male deer, they will have bread at least 30 does in the previous 5 years, and each time likely produced twins. So even if you exterminate every 6 year old buck, he will have sired around. 50 fawns to replace himself.

Of you do the opposite and only shoot the weakest, most careless animals (yearling does), killing one animal removes her plus the 8 or 9 sets of twins she will birth in her lifetime.

Thread creep much? Oops!


----------



## Ocho (Mar 13, 2011)

kaborkian said:


> There's a fallacy with that theory. The world is a closed system. While true that you have efficiency losses in growing grain to feed animals, the eating the animals, all of that "loss" is recycled. Animal eats grain. Some goes to muscle, which we the consume. Some goes to bone, skin, organs, etc, which is either fed to pets and livestock (recycled) or ground back into fertilizer. Some is passed through to animal dung and again becomes fertilizer. That sustaining process must exist in some fashion. If we as a population ate nothing but grown plant produce, the farmlands would be depleted of plant nutrients. That would have to be replinished by collection of human waste (both natural biological and any other household waste) and the turned into fertilizer. If you don't somehow complete that life cycle and just flush everything into a landfill, population will cease to exist.
> 
> To the hunting comment, your generally correct that there are a lot of human hunters who hunt horns and not meat. What's not correct is the assumption that that is bad for animal population. It's been shown many times over that current methods are causing an increase in deer population. The North American deer heard is larger than it's fer been, and growing. Think about this: if you only kill mature (6 years or older) male deer, they will have bread at least 30 does in the previous 5 years, and each time likely produced twins. So even if you exterminate every 6 year old buck, he will have sired around. 50 fawns to replace himself.
> 
> Of you do the opposite and only shoot the weakest, most careless animals (yearling does), killing one animal removes her plus the 8 or 9 sets of twins she will birth in her lifetime.


First, the idea that the entire world would actually be on a plant-based diet is a lovely idea but unrealistic at this point in time, I know. But if we were, consider that many not-for-food animals who produce waste used for fertilizer would still exist. Horses being one example. Do you know how many people, gardeners, and companies I see coming on to horse farms on a daily basis to haul away horse manure for just that? One horse produces a LOT of manure. There are many horses out there...

As for soil depletion, the amounts of grain being fed to livestock is doing a good job of that. Our soils are no where near the levels they were a couple decades ago. So how does that waste recycling theory work thus far? (Rhetorical; I'm not looking to argue.)

Oh, and a VERY important point: pets should NOT be fed the by-products of animals! Animals should be fed human grade ingredients, even if that means meat based. 

I'm not referring to trophy hunting. Every hunter I know goes for the best and the biggest...to eat. 

As for the deer population increase, how much of that is related to lack of natural predators and response to loss of habitat (human population increase)? Those surely factor in as well.



kaborkian said:


> Thread creep much? Oops!


Unclear as to what you're referring with this, but I was involved in that other thread where the issue of wool arose, in the event it was some sort of accusation or dig.


----------



## chomps1211 (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm not going to quote all that, but dude your point is ridiculous. Deer poulations are exploding because predator populations have been decimated. 

Taking out healthy animals, or trophy hunting is in NO WAY good for the animal population, except in the case of overpopulated areas where the only predators they have besides hunters, are automobiles. Then any reduction in population is preferable to having them starve. 

How can you claim that removal of healthy genes is beneficial to a population, unless you are claiming "Natural Selection" does not exist?

Look at any Walmart, watch any popular reality shows, watch the daily fiasco on your local freeway! Tell me what good neutralizing Natural Selection has done for the _Human_ population.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

I watched this movie last night, and it was just a reminder of how well we have it and how petty our problems are compared to so many others.

Watch Living on One Dollar (2013) Online for Free - Viooz


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

EatRideSleep said:


> First, the idea that the entire world would actually be on a plant-based diet is a lovely idea but unrealistic at this point in time, I know. But if we were, consider that many not-for-food animals who produce waste used for fertilizer would still exist. Horses being one example. Do you know how many people, gardeners, and companies I see coming on to horse farms on a daily basis to haul away horse manure for just that? One horse produces a LOT of manure. There are many horses out there...
> 
> As for soil depletion, the amounts of grain being fed to livestock is doing a good job of that. Our soils are no where near the levels they were a couple decades ago. So how does that waste recycling theory work thus far? (Rhetorical; I'm not looking to argue.)
> 
> ...


I can see both sides of this discussion, no doubt. Just saying that the study you referenced leaves out a lot of details to make their point work. Mine does as well, I intentionally went to the other extreme just to make that point.

Thread creep was aimed directly at myself, i managed to steer us well away from merino wool


----------



## KansasNoob (Feb 24, 2013)

If you're seriously worried about hunters wiping out all the good genes, you need to drive down a country road. There are plenty of MASSIVE deer all over here.


----------



## Ocho (Mar 13, 2011)

kaborkian said:


> I can see both sides of this discussion, no doubt. Just saying that the study you referenced leaves out a lot of details to make their point work. Mine does as well, I intentionally went to the other extreme just to make that point.
> 
> Thread creep was aimed directly at myself, i managed to steer us well away from merino wool


Thanks.

Most studies are slanted, whether it be intentional for personal gain or purely for concision. Cornell is a rather respected Ivy, while PETA is generally not as respected (I don't align myself with PETA, for example). Either way, that study I linked is just another perspective on feed/animals/food/society/resources.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Wait...we were discussing wool?


----------



## MarshallV82 (Apr 6, 2011)

Just thought I'd put this here, I can't wait to tell my horse crazy sister, she'll never forgive me. 

I ate some horse meat the other day. Some Canadian guy I work with took me to a slaughterhouse in Fort Macleod. He bought me some horse meat and kinda showed me around. 

They're not very tasty, but at least I can finally say I ate a horse. It's pretty f**ked up. They slaughter like 1000 horses a weak, send them to Japan alive, etc. Apparently the Japanese love eating raw horse meat. 

I was shocked.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

chomps1211 said:


> I'm not going to quote all that, but dude your point is ridiculous. Deer poulations are exploding because predator populations have been decimated.
> 
> Taking out healthy animals, or trophy hunting is in NO WAY good for the animal population, except in the case of overpopulated areas where the only predators they have besides hunters, are automobiles. Then any reduction in population is preferable to having them starve.
> 
> ...


This is amazing.


----------



## kaborkian (Feb 1, 2010)

chomps1211 said:


> I'm not going to quote all that, but dude your point is ridiculous. Deer poulations are exploding because predator populations have been decimated.
> 
> Taking out healthy animals, or trophy hunting is in NO WAY good for the animal population, except in the case of overpopulated areas where the only predators they have besides hunters, are automobiles. Then any reduction in population is preferable to having them starve.
> 
> ...


What I said was that taking out mature (beyond peak breeding age) healthy animals (big rack good genetic deer) has little to no affect on population growth. It's been shown in study after study, on small and large areas, fenced and not fenced.

Think of it this way: a deer will live to 8 or 9 years old. There are exceptions, but generally that's it. So if you kill a 6 year old buck, it's like killing a 60 year old man. Neither of them, no matter the genes, will be making very many more babies. And for deer, the handful of does bred by old bucks will get bred by young ones if you remove said old ones...


----------



## neni (Dec 24, 2012)

MarshallV82 said:


> Apparently the Japanese love eating raw horse meat.
> 
> I was shocked.


Pretty common over here (not raw, for BBQ or salami) :dunno:


----------



## aiidoneus (Apr 7, 2011)

ARSENALFAN said:


> You don't want to see the down video.


Arcteryx uses only down that has naturally fallen off or some crap like that ... but I bet Eddie Bauer just murders them


----------



## aiidoneus (Apr 7, 2011)

ridinbend said:


> "In 2005, SmartWool implemented the requirement that its New Zealand wool suppliers no longer practice mulesing.In 2010, SmartWool signed a contract to exclusively source its Merino wool from the New Zealand Merino Company."
> 
> 
> Only company that claims this that I could find.


I actually prefer SmartWool over Ice Breakers as well


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

aiidoneus said:


> Arcteryx uses only down that has naturally fallen off or some crap like that ... but I bet Eddie Bauer just murders them


Many companies tend to pull the down off when the goose is alive. Arcteryx claims they kill the goose for down harvest. Either way the goose is harvested for our coats and sleeping bags. Good riddance I say, I hate the Canadian geese.


----------



## jtg (Dec 11, 2012)

In this thread people rationalize bad behavior with some very shoddy logic.


----------



## Bamfboardman (Dec 11, 2012)

It really depends on where you get the wool from. Smart wool doesn't do this shit.


----------



## Bamfboardman (Dec 11, 2012)

Also if you are super worried about it Ice breaker makes quality products and they use real ethics. They have a whole part of their sight devoted to it.


----------



## ridinbend (Aug 2, 2012)

jtg said:


> In this thread people rationalize bad behavior with some very shoddy logic.


Well that's because hktrdr hasn't chimed in and told us how to think. Plus emotion based opinion is full of logic, others just may not comprehend the complexities.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

There's another thread on here where people can tell you what to think if you're not sure...


----------



## MrKrinkle (Mar 8, 2013)

The Sheep says:






I think me & the sheep feel the same way about this thread...


----------



## blondieyo (Jun 12, 2011)

When I was younger I used to go down with my family to a farm and stay with some family friends while we were there. We would help out with day to day stuff like shearing, herding and general labor. Every now and then we'd also have to do things like cut the tails off lambs as well. This is done the same way as they do the skin, with shears but the shears are at incredibly high temperature and cut and burn at the same time in order to seal the wound and also kill the nerve endings which eliminates any pain. If this wasn't done like someone said before, they would get infected and most likely die.
The thing I hate about PETA and alike is that they want people to boycott an entire industry because a small percentage don't make an animals life comfortable. They also paint the picture that entire industries are horrible, sadistic people that are getting rich off what they do, which is entirely untrue in this circumstance especially.
I also really don't like Pink but that's another story.


----------



## BigmountainVMD (Oct 9, 2011)

blondieyo said:


> When I was younger I used to go down with my family to a farm and stay with some family friends while we were there. We would help out with day to day stuff like shearing, herding and general labor. *Every now and then we'd also have to do things like cut the tails off lambs as well. This is done the same way as they do the skin, with shears but the shears are at incredibly high temperature and cut and burn at the same time in order to seal the wound and also kill the nerve endings which eliminates any pain.* If this wasn't done like someone said before, they would get infected and most likely die.


Just to let you know... applying heat does nothing but keep the wound from bleeding. Everything still hurts. Yes a 3rd degree burn will not be painful, but those types of burns can develop infection very quickly, so likely the animal is in a decent amount of pain after that procedure.


----------



## mjd (Mar 13, 2009)

merino base layers are the best. needlessly putting an animal through torment is demented. go after the sick-fucks not the wool.


----------



## NoOtherOptions (Nov 28, 2011)

kaborkian said:


> News article last week said that there is legislation in Europe that will make it illegal for a doctor to tell a patient they are obese because they may be offended.
> 
> Obese is a medical condition. Next thing you know, doc can't tell you you have cancer.
> 
> ...


To address your comment about wild sheep. Did you miss the part where it said the sheep were not indigenous to that area? They likely fare better in their natural environment. Evolution works pretty well in that respect.


----------



## Donutz (May 12, 2010)

This is treading dangerously close to a political argument. I'm just sayin'.

When it reaches the point of tempers flaring and people talking past each other, it'll go beddie-bye.


----------



## blondieyo (Jun 12, 2011)

BigmountainVMD said:


> Just to let you know... applying heat does nothing but keep the wound from bleeding. Everything still hurts. Yes a 3rd degree burn will not be painful, but those types of burns can develop infection very quickly, so likely the animal is in a decent amount of pain after that procedure.


Yes but monitoring those lambs and making sure they weren't infected is also a part of the process, a process which is designed to stop infection in the first place. It's not like their tails would be cut off then released back into the paddock never to be thought about again. The well being of each one of those sheep is where farmers make their money. To let them get infected and sick is counterproductive and inefficient, not to mention unethical.

Also on the topic of the Ugg's Ugly reputation article, it has been taken down as it was found to be misleading and false. Link to article now below:

UGGs and Their


----------

