The Australian Wool Growers Association (AWGA) has continually been slammed for its views on the commitment to end mulesing by 2010.

But Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) has now raised the argument's pitch, questioning the group's motivations and interests while accusing it of seeking to divide the industry and providing animal activists with more ammunition.

AWI chairman Brian van Rooyen said it was "incredibly disappointing" the group had sent out "flawed information" to the media, aiding to animal rights activists in their campaigns to turn retailers against the Australian wool industry.

Now AWGA looked to undermine mulesing clips as being a viable alternative and instead hold the industry to ransom to force woolgrowers to use commercial pain relief.

AWI said it actively supported the use of pain relief and the least it asked of AWGA was to support AWI in finding alternatives.

AWGA WA director Shane Edwards urged producers to read the code which would clarify the true definition of mulesing.

"The definition clearly states mulesing is 'the removal of wool bearing skin from the tail and breech area of the sheep', making no mention of the shears," Mr Edwards said.

AWGA believed the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animal acted on behalf of the Primary Industries' Ministerial Council and was the underpinning document for the sheep industry to adhered.

"It is also quite clear in this Federal document, that the phase out of mulesing is only a proposal by industry," Mr Edwards said.

"Any suggestion by those people representing the industry that mulesing must be banned is misleading.

"I certainly won't be stopping surgical mulesing until alternatives are available that guarantee my sheep will be protected from flystrike and the product can be administered safely.

"In the meantime, woolgrowers should have the liberty to carry on mulesing past 2010 if there is no alternative at that time."