All farmers need to be consulted on this. Not just told it's being done, and then asked for input. The animal activists will try to push their agenda which is for no one to be able to eat meat, therefore farmers will not need to farm animals.

Farmers need to stamp on the heads of these minority who want to regualate them with no authority or qualifications.

Quote: "The sheep project will consider issues such as responsibilities and competency, feed and water, loading, journey duration, travel conditions, spelling periods, risk management of climatic extremes, natural disasters, predation and disease, handling and husbandry practices, surgical husbandry procedures, mulesing and breeding management procedures." What?... doesn't the farming community want to take some actual responsibility for the real and individual welfare of each animal in their care?

Until a national standard is created that actually takes animal welfare seriously, one that farmers, staff, handlers and transporters must be educated in and comply with, then their claims of 'caring for their animals' will never be taken seriously.

Time to move forward and into the 21st century people.

Typical fear mongering from the wool innovation. The devisive comments only serve to spread fear amongst farmers rather than to focus their concentration upon animal welfare which is vital if farmers hope to sell product overseas.

Overseas markets are not taken in by the vitriol of industry and govt. They want to see proof that welfare is taken seriously- which it is not. And comments such as those made by Webster show that welfare is NOT important.

Where is the industry going when silly comments are put into print - unless farmonline want to show how much industry hates animal welfare?

We realise that the industry would rather write their own standards and guidelines- the paper would be blank of text because then the industry can do what it likes. Oops, it does that now, because compliance to the existing codes and regulations is extremely low and regulators fail to enforce anyway.

Let's be honest. Just who is on this writing committee? 20 people? Two animal welfare people against 18 industry. How fair is that?

Besides, industry focus on making money and animal welfare costs so of course they don't want robust welfare just the ability to exploit as much as possible.

As for deaths of animals, insurance covers them so it matters not if many suffer and die. The time is now that industry made a concerted effort to understand what animal welfare actually means, in terms of the animals and not from a farmer point of view.

Reminder: animals are not crop commodities or inanimate objects. They are sentient creatures with scientifically proven capacity to feel pain, fear, and joy.

Most parents, educators and religious leaders teach children to treat animals with kindness. The hypocrisy relating to selected farmed species is blatantly wrong.

The fact that animal producers are under increasing pressure to reduce profit-driven cruelty is simply reflective of changes in our better educated, more questioning and compassionate society.

How typical Mr. Webster being afraid of animal welfare being a threat to the industries. Farmers make money out of animals and therefore should make sure all aspects involved with the animal are humane.

Farmers who complain that it is too much trouble or costs are too high to ensure animal welfare should give up and get out.

I am vegan because of the disgusting ways animals are treated by many farmers and the meat and livestock Industry. It is time these people and industries evolved.

I hope they make sure those two 'activists' get out of their cocooned city fantasy world where things just happen by talking about it and onto a property for a few weeks at least so they can experience the reality of daily livestock care BEFORE they start telling people how they should do things.

Just to be fair, farmers should be able to prepare a standard for how, when and where activists should go about conducting their protesting - not to mention eating, drinking and generally living without the input of farmers.

Where does the public's responsibility stop in relation to predation? Are they not responsible for the mutilation and death of many sheep and other livestock by supporting national park and wild life conservation?

When I was a boy, there were no wild dogs left in what is now Goulburn river national park. Now they kill and maim sheep around the park every night, with thousands killed and maimed. Guts ripped open from the flank and sheep left to die horrible deaths.

Who is responsible for all these dogs?

Positive animal welfare practices surely translates to positive outcomes for livestock which will improve productivity as well as the work environment for those working with livestock. Is this article biased by David Webster's view that it is uneconomic to cease mulesing?

It is hoped that an extra crutch in the sheep management cycle, (until sheep genetics makes this unnecessary) does not mean the difference between profit and loss for producers.

It would seem unfair to bias potentially good work across a range of animal welfare issues because of the mulesing debate - and one person's point of view at that.

Where do we get a copy to comment on and who do we give it too?