PDA

View Full Version : Horse seriously using hind end



canyonoak
Sep. 20, 2010, 12:22 PM
and poll definitely the highest point!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrewWywcYKg&NR=1

Don Raphaelo Rollkurista
Sep. 20, 2010, 12:38 PM
Thanks for that!

Blue Domino
Sep. 20, 2010, 01:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrewWywcYKg&NR=1
I considered it a disgusting display of machismo at the horses expense. It was quite inappropriate to do on a paved driveway, the guy needs to get him a dirt bike if he wants to pop wheelies, and quit ABUSING the horses.

Watched a video of the gray stallion on the same site, and that I did somewhat enjoy, but after watching the other video, I wonder how the gray horse gets treated too.

What people enjoy watching, tells you plenty about them.

Don Raphaelo Rollkurista
Sep. 20, 2010, 01:14 PM
I was being a bit sarcasstic BTW.

TropicalStorm
Sep. 20, 2010, 01:19 PM
wow,that actually seriously bothers me. I think its disgusting, and having had a horse flip over on me, quite scary too.

Don Raphaelo Rollkurista
Sep. 20, 2010, 01:19 PM
Lets consider this. Where these horses are bred the "hind leg walk" and these horses predisposition to perform it is what they are breeding for. Without jobs horses become at risk of becoming food. We cant go to this island off of Spain and stop them from doing this or stop them from breeding horses. Unpleasant as it seems to us maybe this is how these horses stay out of the killpen.

HFSH
Sep. 20, 2010, 01:30 PM
disgusting. :no:

Blue Domino
Sep. 20, 2010, 01:58 PM
I was being a bit sarcasstic BTW.

glad to hear that.

ToN Farm
Sep. 20, 2010, 02:01 PM
Without jobs horses become at risk of becoming food. We cant go to this island off of Spain and stop them from doing this or stop them from breeding horses. Unpleasant as it seems to us maybe this is how these horses stay out of the killpen. Maybe so, but while the idea of the killpen (and the trip to it) makes me sick to my stomach, so does this kind of display. Does it have to be a choice of what is worse? The killpen is a one time thing; this stuff is ongoing and who knows how their lives are when not performing.

See, this is the kind of thing that I could understand people banding together to stop.

Blue Domino
Sep. 20, 2010, 02:31 PM
If my steer walked on his hind legs like that, he'd still get et.

mbm
Sep. 20, 2010, 02:42 PM
i think that you cant make a comment about abuse from the video of walking on hind legs. not enough to see how the horse is really treated.

and i find it simply amazing that there are those that think hind leg walking is abusive but dont find aggressive rollkur so.

why is that?

because rollkur wins of course and is popular.

disgusting in my book.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 20, 2010, 03:24 PM
Thats cool! If I were a horse I would rather do that than 15min of 20 meter circles with a beginner rider on my back trying to learn sitting trot!

Don Raphaelo Rollkurista
Sep. 20, 2010, 03:53 PM
Someone put the aggressive rollkur reel back on please. Come on. Find an old post where anyone says aggressive anything is good because it wins.

alicen
Sep. 20, 2010, 04:04 PM
It's ok, canyonoak, some of us got it.

dougx3
Sep. 20, 2010, 04:10 PM
Interestingly enough if you do a search on the Menorquin horse the majority of the photos that come up show the horse rearing with and without a rider.

BumbleBee
Sep. 20, 2010, 04:43 PM
odd and interesting

Not sure why some are so disgusted none of what we do with horses is natural.

Looks terrifying for the rider.

Blue Domino
Sep. 20, 2010, 05:16 PM
Very odd, and troublesome,

That someone would liken the abuse in the video to normal pleasure riding.

Looks terrifying for the horse.

I hope you go find a man who will practice machismo on you if you think it's interesting.:lol:

butlerfamilyzoo
Sep. 20, 2010, 05:34 PM
What abuse is this? Half the world probably teaches their dogs to do the same thing... This horse calmly goes into the movement and calmly back out of it, there is no tail swishing, teeth grinding, gaping mouth, or resistance. The rider is holding the saddle with his right hand to stay on, not hauling on the reins.

This horse is not fat or thin, his coat is shiny, he looks like he has muscle to spare, and he's been bred for this activity...

Abuse??

I cant say its something i would ever want to do, looks like hell to stay on and would scare the bajeebas out of me!

But heck, the spanish riding school does airs above the ground with riders on their backs, is that abuse? It's darn close to the same thing here folks... Circus horses have been performing mounted and unmounted rearing and different airs above the ground for centuries.

It doesnt look like this horse was forced to do this, it looks like he's a bit of a freak of nature that enjoys the movement. If he didnt, he would be showing a heck of a lot of resistance before, during, and after, yet he willingly performs...

I agree with the other poster. Everything we ask these animals to do goes against nature... From hopping around on their backs for vaulting, to the big drafts doing pulling contests with half their veins popping out of their skin...

I'm just happy if i see them in good weight, muscle, and happily working anymore. It's the neglected, beat, worked into the ground, etc... that upset me...

Don Raphaelo Rollkurista
Sep. 20, 2010, 05:41 PM
To Ton. all due respect. This is in Menorca. Spain. You know bullfighting and the like. And I have seen much worse from ammy's at schooling jumper shows that meant no harm but really were hard on their poor horses mouths and backs.

Blue Domino
Sep. 20, 2010, 05:45 PM
Very troubling that some want to make excuse for the abuse shown in the video.

mbm
Sep. 20, 2010, 05:46 PM
(i dont think you can make any claim about abuse etc based on that video - the horse wont show resistance because resistance might make him loose balance - )

i am not sure how many of you have seen a horse beaten? do you think they resist and fight? or go along and try to be "better"? the ones that survive to be beaten again go along.... it is really quite sad - there have been things i have seen that make me want the horse to attack its handler - but they never do.... they just tow the line and hope it all goes well. we have certain people around here who are known to be very very whip happy.... and yet they get high scores in shows etc.

you just never know.....

mbm
Sep. 20, 2010, 06:10 PM
i think this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xurvzgBDn9A&feature=channel

shows little more about the riders character..... the only thing i find at fault is sitting on a horse that is swimming.... i think that freaks horses out....

interesting to watch in any case....

goodpony
Sep. 20, 2010, 06:12 PM
The side rein/draw (oops its a curb rein and he is using it to balance with) rein cranked to the hilt is not exactly performing by free choice--I cant imagine what is in his mouth,,,barb wire? bicycle chain?. When they do that bitless I'll be impressed.

Quest52
Sep. 20, 2010, 06:17 PM
i think this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xurvzgBDn9A&feature=channel

shows little more about the riders character..... the only thing i find at fault is sitting on a horse that is swimming.... i think that freaks horses out....

interesting to watch in any case....

I think this just shows a bit more about the rider's character when there is a video rolling. Not to say I'm sure it's all done with extreme brute force... or that it's not, but the camera can mask a lot.

mbm
Sep. 20, 2010, 06:26 PM
there is also vid of the horse doing is walking on long reins.....

i guess until you can see folks interact in person you just never know....

mbm
Sep. 20, 2010, 06:30 PM
The side rein/draw (oops its a curb rein and he is using it to balance with) rein cranked to the hilt is not exactly performing by free choice--I cant imagine what is in his mouth,,,barb wire? bicycle chain?. When they do that bitless I'll be impressed.

just curious... do you think the SRS is abusive? or any of the stuff that is where the rider ties the curb rein to their tummy and rides handless?

nothing i saw *in that video* said abuse to me (altho i dont like sitting on horses when they swim) ...... but like i already said and has been said by others - video can hide a lot - and until you can see in person what is going on - sometimes you just never know.

goodpony
Sep. 20, 2010, 06:42 PM
I only watched the video posted by the OP and did not feel compelled to visit the website--still dont--I am seriously not impressed with the use of the curb rein as a mechanical lever. What is being performed in this video is nothing more than back alley showboating.

Blue Domino
Sep. 20, 2010, 07:04 PM
i think this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xurvzgBDn9A&feature=channel

shows little more about the riders character..... the only thing i find at fault is sitting on a horse that is swimming.... i think that freaks horses out....

interesting to watch in any case....

looked like the horse enjoyed the water time, and the swimming was no doubt therapeudic for his joints.

The man was crazy to be dismounted around flailing swimming hooves in my opinion.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 20, 2010, 07:29 PM
While it is strange its hard to say that its strictly abuse to have him do a trick. I dont like the charro riding in the streets I see usually so its just a normal reaction to suppose some of this horses training was along those lines, but I cant say for sure so I reserve judgment.

The training for it isnt pictured so we cant say anything about that.

As a kid I swam on around and with many horses, and if they are regular swimmers they could really care less about a rider climbing on while they swim. Some of the horses I rode couldnt wait to get in during the summer :)

raff
Sep. 20, 2010, 07:36 PM
I know someone who is a trainer of doma menorquina, he's a lovely bloke, an excellent rider, and his two stallions are happy and healthy. The walking on the hind legs may not appeal to you, but it sounds very ignorant to damn a training method based on one video clip.

I think such a closed mind will never learn, what a shame. I suppose you have never swum with a horse either? It's a lovely experience.

BaroquePony
Sep. 20, 2010, 07:59 PM
Posted by butlerfamilyzoo:

What abuse is this? Half the world probably teaches their dogs to do the same thing... This horse calmly goes into the movement and calmly back out of it, there is no tail swishing, teeth grinding, gaping mouth, or resistance. The rider is holding the saddle with his right hand to stay on, not hauling on the reins.

This horse is not fat or thin, his coat is shiny, he looks like he has muscle to spare, and he's been bred for this activity...

Abuse??

I cant say its something i would ever want to do, looks like hell to stay on and would scare the bajeebas out of me!

But heck, the spanish riding school does airs above the ground with riders on their backs, is that abuse? It's darn close to the same thing here folks... Circus horses have been performing mounted and unmounted rearing and different airs above the ground for centuries.

It doesnt look like this horse was forced to do this, it looks like he's a bit of a freak of nature that enjoys the movement. If he didnt, he would be showing a heck of a lot of resistance before, during, and after, yet he willingly performs...

I agree with the other poster. Everything we ask these animals to do goes against nature... From hopping around on their backs for vaulting, to the big drafts doing pulling contests with half their veins popping out of their skin...

I'm just happy if i see them in good weight, muscle, and happily working anymore. It's the neglected, beat, worked into the ground, etc... that upset me...

Excellent post :yes:

alicen
Sep. 20, 2010, 08:01 PM
It's ok, canyonoak, some of us got it.

Ummmm, maybe not.

BaroquePony
Sep. 20, 2010, 08:03 PM
At 1st I thought I was watching a Fellini movie :yes:

I think the horse looks very relaxed and willing. Love the little red ribbon on the bridle. Nice touch.

Looks quite *saddlebred-ish* to me, only with a tangent into the airs above the ground rather than extreme flatwork.

BumbleBee
Sep. 20, 2010, 08:23 PM
lol If the music had been lighter I don't think it would look abusive.

First time I watched it my volume was off so I just watched a calm horse do something difficult that he is obviously very well conformed, trained and conditioned(muscles) to do.

I have a horse that tends to be on the hind end naturally. At play he is a rearer, undersaddle if I ask him to lift his withers at a halt he does so to sometimes the point of a low calm stationary levade.

I imagine breeding generation upon generation of horses that show this ability and tendency would make it very easy to get one to comply happily to this difficult upright work.

I fail to see the goal. lol but still just because it is odd/different doesn't make it bad.

BumbleBee
Sep. 20, 2010, 08:30 PM
Also the curb puts downward preassure on the poll, and the chain makes the horse tuck his chin some.

It apears he is not using the curb to LIFT the horse up he looks to be using the curb so he doesn't pull the horse over backwards like he would more easily with a regular snaffle.

BumbleBee
Sep. 20, 2010, 08:38 PM
Very odd, and troublesome,

That someone would liken the abuse in the video to normal pleasure riding.

Looks terrifying for the horse.

I hope you go find a man who will practice machismo on you if you think it's interesting.:lol:


For the record I didn't say "hey it's just like pleasure riding poopsy" :rolleyes:

Do you think endurance horses have an easy job?

Upper level eventers?

Mountain trekking horses?

Upper level dressage horses?

.... heck school horses with beginners on their back, hanging on their mouths 3 hours a day, does that sound great?

No we all including horses have to work for a living.

I would rather be this horse walking on my hind legs than some human on their feet all day for minimum wage.

Life is abusive in varying degrees, but it's better than the alternative.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 20, 2010, 09:00 PM
I think what is most important when dealing with horses is to make sure that the horse is happier playing with you than grazing in a pasture and will choose you over the pasture. I think we all have to keep that in mind, we get to choose our careers, horses don't so we owe it to them to make their "work" their most pleasurable time of day.

That being said, I think this horse looks like he enjoys his work and this looks a lot better than many of the suffering horses I see at dressage shows. You'll never know if the horse really would rather be playing with his human than grazing in the pasture unless you interact with the horse in person.

But I think we all have to ask ourselves if our horses would rather be playing with us or grazing in a pasture. That will show you how good your training is.

2tempe
Sep. 20, 2010, 09:03 PM
In many other countries horses are treated differently than here. That doesn't always mean its right or wrong. To make an arbitrary judgement that this is abuse when the horse is in no obvious signs of distress, is not being whipped, or spurred or made to fight w/ another animal is not really reasonable. You may not like to watch this, just like some don't like to watch racing; I dont like to watch some of the shoed-up saddle horses. I can remember someone I used to show w/ who managed to nail her hunter in the mouth at 7 out of 8 jumps every time they went in the ring. I didn't like to watch that either. Driving horses go on pavement all the time - not just the Amish, but others as well. The Irish hunts go on lots of roads, and trust me when I tell you, not always at a walk.
Some people think jumpers are abused, some think dressage horses are abused, unless you let your horse live in a field (big) 24/7 you are abusing it. And then if it rains and there is no shelter, you're abusing it.
Every horse who has an owner who feeds it well and a job is likely safer in the end than those who dont.

p.s. Though I dont have kids, I do believe that an occasional fanny paddling is NOT a bad thing....!

Fixerupper
Sep. 20, 2010, 09:12 PM
This is hilarious actually....
apparently there are people who will attack just about anything to get the 'abuse' message out there...
I'm thinking....PETA is on COTH....

BetterOffRed
Sep. 20, 2010, 09:37 PM
What is that WOOSH sound that I hear?
Why that would be the fun getting sucked out of COTH.

Beentheredonethat
Sep. 20, 2010, 09:49 PM
This is hilarious actually....
apparently there are people who will attack just about anything to get the 'abuse' message out there...
I'm thinking....PETA is on COTH....

This.

SisterToSoreFoot
Sep. 20, 2010, 11:49 PM
I agree with the posters that point out that the horse seems composed, focused, and not particularly stressed. Yes, it is very odd to see a horse walk on his hind legs, but that does not make it abusive. Some of the moves in upper level dressage look just as weird when you step back and look at them---a canter pirouette, for instance, often looks labored to me and not a lot of fun IMO. And a piaffe doesn't exactly look natural or enjoyable in many cases. Does that make it abusive? It depends (on training methods, on horse/rider relationship/on the horse's lifestyle etc. etc), just like "it depends" here.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 20, 2010, 11:51 PM
This is hilarious actually....
apparently there are people who will attack just about anything to get the 'abuse' message out there...
I'm thinking....PETA is on COTH....

As a strong supporter of PETA I am offended:o, I do not find this abusive at all... (and btw, don't start saying how can you support PETA and ride horses, they don't think people should have pets... blah... blah.. blah:lol:... not true).:winkgrin:

mbm
Sep. 21, 2010, 12:01 AM
ummmm.... who is supposed to be the PETA mole?

fwiw, i support PETA, im a (gasp!) vegetarian, blah, blah, blah, blah......

your point?

Beentheredonethat
Sep. 21, 2010, 01:03 AM
I don't usually get into this, but, seriously, chill out.

You know, those who cry "abuse" the most . . .

mbm
Sep. 21, 2010, 01:20 AM
i just re-read this thread.... it appears there are a couple folks that said it was "disgusting" , one person said it was back alley showboating, and i think one person said it looked abusive.

95% of the folks here are saying you cant tell anything from that video.

so i am not sure why a couple folks feel the need to tell us to chill out etc?

who is supposed to be chilling out?

and who is supposed to be the PETA person?

BaroquePony
Sep. 21, 2010, 07:44 AM
Posted by ToN Farm:

Maybe so, but while the idea of the killpen (and the trip to it) makes me sick to my stomach, so does this kind of display. Does it have to be a choice of what is worse? The killpen is a one time thing; this stuff is ongoing and who knows how their lives are when not performing.

See, this is the kind of thing that I could understand people banding together to stop.

Personally, this is the type of attitude that I think people should band together to stop :yes:

The horse in the video looks really healthy and he does not look stressed out in any way. I do think the "walking on hind legs" aspect is sort of ugly, but I cannot imagine trying to train a horse to do that using brute force. Think about it ... if that horse was nervous, upset, resistant, scared, confused or in pain ... there is no way that that horse and rider could stand (rear) up and walk like that.

I think it is scarey when people start off wanting to ban something when they seem unable to understand, or at least sort of understand, what they are looking at.

That is not a *freaked out* horse. Weird *discipline* maybe, but look past the discipline at the horse.

I think a lot of riders/up-and-coming-horse[wo]men could do better to look past any of these disciplines, including dressage, and look at the friggin' horses.

BaroquePony
Sep. 21, 2010, 07:56 AM
And ... Roy Rogers signature was REARING on Trigger and it looked pretty good. I understood that Roy Rogers actually learned and practiced DRESSAGE.

The Lone Ranger and Silver also had a signature rear.

I got in a b_ttload of trouble when I was younger for teaching my show jumper to rear. Even though we (my horse and I) had everything under control, my uncle threw a fit ... he was old school and did not want any Roy Rogers cowboy stuff going on in his hunter/jumper barn.

It's not really about the discipline, per se, it is about how you present the discipline to the horse.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 21, 2010, 11:51 AM
What is that WOOSH sound that I hear?
Why that would be the fun getting sucked out of COTH.

Thank you, BOR!

The most abusive part of the video was the camera tilt. Was I the ONLY person who got queasy?

PETA folks, sorry, but the object of PETA, ultimately, is to outlaw the keeping of domestic animals. Be careful what you wish for.

mbm
Sep. 21, 2010, 11:59 AM
PETA may ultimately want to ban domestic animals - but that isnt going to happen anytime soon. in the meantime they are EFFECTIVE at creating positive change for animals . what about you?

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 21, 2010, 12:10 PM
I think Peta was debunked once someone let on that they dont give a dime to humane society/shelters or any actual working programs to help animals or adopt them.

BUT they spend millions on media to object a naked woman in fur poster across the water.

Saying how about you is pretty crappy M. Donating to ANY program in your direct area is a far stronger act then supporting the anti fur hollywood of animal rights groups.

mbm
Sep. 21, 2010, 12:15 PM
PETA is effective at creating positive change for animals. period. i could care less is they have naked women in ads....

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 21, 2010, 12:16 PM
PETA is effective at creating positive change for animals. period. i could care less is they have naked women in ads....

I said they spent millions to object it, and how exactly do they create positive change?

Just saying it doesnt make it so.

It sounds to me you just like carrying the card around.

mbm
Sep. 21, 2010, 03:55 PM
mmm... k, what ever you say.....;)

shalomypony
Sep. 22, 2010, 08:14 AM
Ugh..........:no:

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 22, 2010, 09:05 AM
PETA has done more to influence how we treat animals in the US than any other lobbyist group in history. Care of animals used in scientific experiments, treatment of animals on farms, making fur un-cool, minimizing abuse at rodeos, P&Rs at endurance rides, treatment of pets in pet food feeding trials.... effectively PETA has stopped the suffering of more animals than any animal welfare group ever has because of the fear they instill in companies and the social effect they have, dispite being viewed as a crazy extremest group. They get media attention, you hear about everything they say in the news and companies fear their wrath. Google their accomplishments and I challenge you to find any group that has done more for animal welfare than PETA. (...even though they do kill animals, their killing is well warranted).

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 22, 2010, 11:55 AM
Meager for the amount of money they take in.

I assure you that fur is not "un-cool" and is draping the runway as usual.

I can also assure you that them striking fear into the hearts of corp does little, and I'd like them to strike fear into the average joe who seemingly thinks its okay to beat his dog with a shovel down the street.

The majority of animal abuse is done in the home. Peta targets what gets media, and is the hollywood of animal rights (so not surprised they do absolutely nothing).

Glad you seem impressed.

meupatdoes
Sep. 22, 2010, 12:28 PM
PETA has enough money that every shelter in the country could be a no kill shelter.

And yet they have $9,000 freezers for dead animals on their corporate statements, and the kill rate in some Humane Society shelters is as high as 95%.

So uh, when you support PETA... where does the money go?

ThreeFigs
Sep. 22, 2010, 12:49 PM
So PETA supporters think it will be OK that children in the future might have no chance to live with and love a pet like a dog, a cat or a bird? Or a horse, if PETA gets its way?

How very selfish and short-sighted. Caring for and loving the pets in our lives makes us more human and more humane. For most of us, anyway. There will always be the twisted ones who will abuse anything weaker than themselves.

Target those types, not the general population who love and dote on their animals.

PETA cares less for humans than it does for animals, and from my point of view, the animals are only a means to an end: to control the behavior of others. Freedom of choice be damned.

For some here, that translates into telling the rest of us how to train and ride our horses. The speechin' and preachin' and scoldin' gets old. Ride the way that works for you and your horse. Horsemen with sufficient background will not be swayed by the ranting angry lunatic fringe.

Don Raphaelo Rollkurista
Sep. 22, 2010, 12:53 PM
Bravo!

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 22, 2010, 12:55 PM
So uh, when you support PETA... where does the money go?

Um last in the media they were upset with Rapper 50cent because he had a picture with a knife to his dogs throat. IT was a publicity stunt and everyone knew the dog was fine, but of course Peta is in an uproar.

Forget the starving animals of America, we have a rapper that's making fun of killing his dog and that's priority.

Their focus is whether or not the dogs on the red carpet in the purses hurts their feelings.

While they do jump on animals rights, and it smells like roses, their effectively ineffective, and focus on giving animals attorneys, and saying what products we should be allowed to have from a cow.

Silly people, who get silly people, to pay them money. IMO

ThreeFigs
Sep. 22, 2010, 01:01 PM
:yes:

Blue Domino
Sep. 22, 2010, 01:45 PM
Hopefully, PETA will be able to stop rollkur.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 22, 2010, 02:00 PM
PETA will stop rollkur by attempting to outlaw ownership of all domestic animals.

Is that what you want?

Your posts are so off the wall, BD, it's hard to take you seriously. No, not just hard, impossible. IMO, you like to stir things up without contributing much that's meaningful.

OneGrayPony
Sep. 22, 2010, 02:26 PM
I looked and looked and looked at the video and to be quite honest, I found nothing to be abusive in it. Strange, and quite amazing perhaps, but not abusive. A few google searches reveals that the horses are revered on that island, and bred and selected for their ability to rear and "walk" which is a movement for them.

Perhaps I am misguided and missing something but I saw no signs of abuse of the gray horse either. He looked like a lovely fiery PRE that was trained in the Doma Vaquero tradition. Again, perhaps I missed something in the video that spoke otherwise.

Both horses looked shiny and in good health, and the rearing one didn't look overly concerned or keyed up when he landed.

I just am really failing to see the issue (beyond PETA and Rollkur, neither of which I am willing to discuss). :confused:

ThreeFigs
Sep. 22, 2010, 02:38 PM
You are wise, Grasshopper.

RK & PETA are a PITA.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 22, 2010, 03:55 PM
Regarding PETA- There are more pet owners who get a new animal every year than animals euthanized in shelter every year. That means that if everyone who got their new pet at a shelter there would be no need to euthanize animals in shelters. However, not every animal in shelters is nice, not a biter, chewer, not a sufferer of separation anxiety etc... and many people are not willing to deal with pets with issues, so these animals will not get adopted out. If they live in a no-kill shelter that means they will live in a cage their whole life without someone treating them as a pet. Maybe there are good shelters out there that treat their unadoptable animals like pets and give them the attention they deserve, train them and dont just leave them in a cage, but many do not have the manpower for that. So I guess PETA should give those shelters money to hire more people to take care of those dogs, but that isn't really solving the problem is it?

What has PETA done?

"One of its first actions was a hidden-camera investigation of a research laboratory in Silver Spring, Md., in 1981 that resulted in a police raid on the lab and the first-ever conviction of a scientist on animal-cruelty charges.

PETA has many subsequent achievements to its credit. It succeeded in closing animal-experimentation labs such as a Department of Defense “wound lab” that planned to fire missiles into dogs and goats for experimental purposes; this campaign also resulted in a ban on the shooting of dogs and cats in all such wound labs. In the 1980s it launched a major campaign (the Compassion Campaign) against animal testing of household products and cosmetics; the Compassion Campaign succeeded in persuading major cosmetics companies, including Avon and Mary Kay, to stop testing on animals. PETA’s creation and distribution of undercover videos showing horrific conditions in animal laboratories and slaughterhouses raised public consciousness about these institutions. After long PETA campaigns, McDonald’s Corporation agreed to demand from its suppliers a higher standard of humane animal treatment during raising and slaughter; Burger King and several supermarket chains later followed suit."

Name another organization that has caused this much change in the way animals are treated in experimentation and food production? The HSUS? People hate them too for some reason.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 22, 2010, 04:12 PM
What about more recently?

Peta had a over 90% kill rate in their shelter when the neighboring SPCA had less than 70%?

They don't seem to be trying to adopt the animals out very hard.

They choose to get involved in cases where a cat has inherited millions, or where a seal wasn't released into the wild like a reserve promised. These things are so very small compared to the horrors a plenty to be fought for animals and their protection.

Attacking the beef industry, fur industry, and making changes to the rodeo is MEAGER for the millions they recieve.

But then again, its already been shown that Jets and other luxurys are paid for with the money people donate to Peta for animals (rolls eyes).

DebbieB
Sep. 22, 2010, 04:59 PM
Here's another video, but it doesn't abuse us with horrible camera angles.

The horse is performing paso espaniol, passage and Levante. Everybody looks pretty healthy and relaxed to me. I don't see how it is abuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKeI8D7Tkvk&feature=related

BumbleBee
Sep. 22, 2010, 05:10 PM
Here's another video, but it doesn't abuse us with horrible camera angles.

The horse is performing paso espaniol, passage and Levante. Everybody looks pretty healthy and relaxed to me. I don't see how it is abuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKeI8D7Tkvk&feature=related

Okay that was so Fn cool. If I were any dumber I would be tempted to give that a shot. lol:yes:

BumbleBee
Sep. 22, 2010, 05:13 PM
Oh crap watching it a second time I may actually be that dumb. Did you watch the second time he does it?

Oh and incidentally his horses poll is the highest point at all times.

Wow I am so not good enough a rider to do that.

Marengo
Sep. 22, 2010, 06:01 PM
I bet all the horses in the videos could have careers in Hollywood. That wouldn't be so bad would it? Unless some of you think that the horse used in the original Black Stallion movie and various others has been abused through its training? Maybe we shouldn't make horses perform in movies that inspire countless children, maybe they should be happily grazing in a field and we should leave them that way? I think all horses need jobs otherwise they're at risk of ending up in a kill pen.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 22, 2010, 08:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with the humane euthanasia of an unwanted animal, other than the fact that it devalues life and it is sad that that animal never got to be loved and cared for. But the number of animals that die in shelters is tiny compared to the number of animals used in experimentation and food production. That’s where PETA has and continues to promote and force change in the treatment of these animals. They have improved the lives of so many animals by using the media to force companies to change their practices and bringing the awareness of animal suffering to the public eye. You can google their accomplishments and it is quite extensive. Shelter animals have a good life and death compared to those animals in food production and experimentation. That’s why I believe PETA has accomplished more than any other organization to improve the lives of vastly more animals than any other organization.

Now, I am sure you all have given money to an organization that you believed in, but disagreed on some of their viewpoints. Maybe there was one or more issues that you were not on the same page with (think churches, politicians, political parties, charities) but you gave money because you liked the majority of what they do. I still want my pets and horses, but I do disagree with the way 90% of people treat their animals (and children for that matter) so I am in favor of legislation limiting the exploitation of animals, but I do think animals like dogs, cats and horses co-evolved with humans for a reason. Often a child’s first feelings of love and empathy are towards an animal and that is important for the continued enlightenment of human beings and their interactions with fellow humans. My dogs and horses would rather live with me than in the wild, and I would hope some day all domestic animals feel the same way. Even though I disagree with PETA on pet ownership (though I don’t think they actually believe in abolishing the human-animal bond) I do support them because they and the HSUS are really the only voice countering the powerful farm and corporate lobbyists seeking to make their exploitation of animals as profitable as possible.

Coppers mom
Sep. 22, 2010, 09:41 PM
Just when I think I might want a little webular interaction, I take a look at trusty old COTH, and get right back out to my ponies.

Not all, but some of you have the most INCREDIBLE imaginations :lol:

Fixerupper
Sep. 22, 2010, 10:57 PM
I see nothing wrong with the humane euthanasia of an unwanted animal, other than the fact that it devalues life and it is sad that that animal never got to be loved and cared for. But the number of animals that die in shelters is tiny compared to the number of animals used in experimentation and food production. That’s where PETA has and continues to promote and force change in the treatment of these animals. They have improved the lives of so many animals by using the media to force companies to change their practices and bringing the awareness of animal suffering to the public eye. You can google their accomplishments and it is quite extensive. Shelter animals have a good life and death compared to those animals in food production and experimentation. That’s why I believe PETA has accomplished more than any other organization to improve the lives of vastly more animals than any other organization.

Now, I am sure you all have given money to an organization that you believed in, but disagreed on some of their viewpoints. Maybe there was one or more issues that you were not on the same page with (think churches, politicians, political parties, charities) but you gave money because you liked the majority of what they do. I still want my pets and horses, but I do disagree with the way 90% of people treat their animals (and children for that matter) so I am in favor of legislation limiting the exploitation of animals, but I do think animals like dogs, cats and horses co-evolved with humans for a reason. Often a child’s first feelings of love and empathy are towards an animal and that is important for the continued enlightenment of human beings and their interactions with fellow humans. My dogs and horses would rather live with me than in the wild, and I would hope some day all domestic animals feel the same way. Even though I disagree with PETA on pet ownership (though I don’t think they actually believe in abolishing the human-animal bond) I do support them because they and the HSUS are really the only voice countering the powerful farm and corporate lobbyists seeking to make their exploitation of animals as profitable as possible.

OMG....I keep trying to come up with a rational counter argument to the pro- PETA thingy and then words fail....:eek:

DebbieB
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:06 AM
PETA does just enough good that their supporters can turn a blind eye to the horrendous long term future with no human/animal interaction that PETA envisions for us all.

PETA in all their "wisdom" is sure that they know what is best for everyone. They are control freaks along the same lines as Communists dictators.

They are the camel's nose in the tent, the foot in the door, the first step on the slippery slope.

mbm
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:16 AM
<shakes head>

how many here support political parties that don't mesh 100% with their own ideals? or what about your religion of choice ? or friends? or SO? or businesses?

mbm
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:17 AM
i dont believe PETA will ever do away with animals if even that is what they want to do... first of all they would put themselves out of business..... second they dont have that kind of power.... well unless you folks give it to them by thinking they DO have that kind of power.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:21 AM
Agree with DebbieB.

Google some of Ingrid Newkirk's quotes. Crazy on stilts. It's a free country (for now), support whatever point of view you like. Just don't be surprised or offended if you are viewed as crazy, too!

stoicfish
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:46 AM
PETA may ultimately want to ban domestic animals - but that isnt going to happen anytime soon. in the meantime they are EFFECTIVE at creating positive change for animals . what about you?

I find PETA in direct opposition to nature. Suffering is not a domestic animal creation. So except for eliminating all living creatures, you cannot prevent animal suffering.
In its most basic level, it is more to do with the members not accepting that life is not without pain. I can give my own animals the best lives possible but I do not for a second think that it is possible for all wild or domestic animals to have such a life. Hell there are billions of people in this world that will never have the standard of life my cat has.
They can do what they want, without my support, but the hypocrisy of using the majority of their funds to propagate an impossible scenario instead of actually helping animals is not respectable.

Nobody lives -nobody gets hurt.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 02:07 AM
Exactly. Another excellent post.

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 06:55 AM
stoicfish:

I find PETA in direct opposition to nature. Suffering is not a domestic animal creation. So except for eliminating all living creatures, you cannot prevent animal suffering.
In its most basic level, it is more to do with the members not accepting that life is not without pain. I can give my own animals the best lives possible but I do not for a second think that it is possible for all wild or domestic animals to have such a life. Hell there are billions of people in this world that will never have the standard of life my cat has.
They can do what they want, without my support, but the hypocrisy of using the majority of their funds to propagate an impossible scenario instead of actually helping animals is not respectable.

Nobody lives -nobody gets hurt.

Any well studied human being should know that man is far more cruel than nature, on average.

I do not know enough about PETA to feel confident that I can say they are, or are not, actually helpful without some nefarious hidden agenda.

There is a lot of propoganda floating around in America these days about everything.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 09:54 AM
Having heard Newkirk speak on TV talk shows and radio shows convinces me PETA is a clearing house for crazy.

Google the "propaganda" from both sides and decide for yourself.

I give no support to any so-called humane group that has connections to PETA. While they may do some good (mostly in high-profile big dollar cases), IMO the evil they do outweighs the rest. PETA hates on the human race, equating a boy to a rat in Newkirk's mind.

"Any well studied human being should know that man is far more cruel than nature, on average."

We are part of nature, like it or not. Not all humans are cruel. While in many cases I do prefer the company of my horse to humans, I do not hate humans. Neither do I want to eliminate the relationship I have with my horses and birds -- or see this most valuable connection destroyed for all of us by the warped philosophies of PETA.

ginger708
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:11 AM
The Buddhist that have been in the game of respecting all living creatures rights for a long time. The Buddhists believe that life is suffering. No matter where you live or life style there is an element of suffering. Being a former member of PETA and a practicing Vegetarian. I believe that PETA do have an agenda and it is an extremist agenda. Education in the correct manner not shoving it down peoples throat and yelling abuse at corner can go a long way to enlightening people to think. When everything is wrong and there is no gray area no place for people to exercise their free will then you loose everything. I do not tell people that meat is murder. If my life style comes up I explain that you should revere where your food comes from and respect the creature that gave you their life. Make sure that that creature had a good live while it was waiting to serve you.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:41 AM
Life may be full of suffering but does that mean that humans should have the right to inflict suffering on other humans and animals? Sure humans do inflict suffering on other humans and animals, thats why certain philosophical beliefs evolved, to try to change that- the old golden rule and such. Why shouldn't the golden rule extend to animals? So in nature animals kill eachother, and would kill us (though I doubt cows, chickens, sheep, and goats would, ha ha), but maybe us, being the "higher beings" should realize that we do not have to resort to that behavior, inflicting pain on others, maybe we should use our giant neocortex we have evolved for things other than developing more efficient systems of killing, and realize we don't need to kill and cause suffering at all. What is so horrible about that belief?

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:07 AM
Because you are being negative, and assuming that your opinion should change and effect the entire human race.

The care of animals and betterment of their livelyhoods is our responsibility. So teach your children how to best care for them, and encourage the world to do the same, but keep your radical all or nothing views for the rich, because the world is filled with people who eat cat, dogs, and horses, let alone the cows and chickens Pita wants to save, because they would starve if they didnt.

Some people DON"T see animals as pets, only wealthier nations like ours do because we are able to feed our children.

Would that be better to you? That we return to ONLY seeing animals as food? Do you think that we would treat them better if they were all like cattle to us?

Even nations that are not completely poor but overpopulated like China eat puppies, and kittens. Its hard to accept, but just be thankful you were lucky enough to be raised in a place where we CAN enjoy animals as friends and family. Because if you werent born here you wouldnt even know to have these arguments.

PETA forgets about everyone but the reality show watchers, and their world view is as small as from one side of Rodeo Drive to the other.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:17 AM
There is nothing at all wrong with that belief, CLFPP. I'm all for the humane treatment of animals and humans.

In a sense, this is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" questions. There is no answer that doesn't make the answerer look guilty.

What is wrong with PETA's agenda is its extreme stance. NO pets. NO domestic livestock. NO fur or leather products. NO meat. It threatens freedom of choice and hurts those of us who love our animals and care for them well. Ultimately they strive for the extinction of domestic animals. Extinction. Where's the humanity in that?

My cousin treated his horses and cattle well and got after any hired man who treated them roughly. There is a good economic reason for treating livestock as gently as possible, never mind the humane aspects of it. Temple Grandin did much to modernize the beef industry and reduce the stress that livestock animals experience when being handled. I'm all for the kind treatment of the animals we use and eat, and, in the Buddhist fashion, honor the animals that provide sustenance.

Unlike some city folks, I know where my meat, eggs and milk came from. I'm not much removed emotionally from the food I eat.

Other cultures have different attitudes towards animals. It will be a long time changing the bullfighting cultures in Mexico and Spain. In Third World countries, draft animals are often brutally used, but then again, the lives of the people in those places is also brutal and short. Humane veterinary organizations reach out to those populations to try to educate them and help their draft animals, but it's a tough road. When a man can barely subsist and scrape together food for his family, who can blame him when he lacks the resources to care for his animals as "we" see fit? How arrogant!

stoicfish
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:18 AM
Any well studied human being should know that man is far more cruel than nature, on average.



Well I disagree. I am university educated in biology, have a professional designation attached to my name that has to do with the environment, live and work in natural settings that include the Rocky Mountains, the far north, northern BC and Alberta. I spend 10-12hrs a day in natural or even remote settings.
Every time a wolf or coyote eats an animal, especially a large animal, it is a slow death, often it is vivisection. When it is a smaller animal, they often play with it before killing it. Food is very scarce in many ecosystems and starvation is a reality. Parasites and disease go untreated and in some cases lead to death. The mortality rate of most species is high and the only thing that balances that is high birth rates.
I understand that some humans can be very cruel and it is because it is a conscious act that is seems particularly harsh. The reality is that nature is also harsh just without the anthropological morality. Very few wild animals will have the quality of life, treatment of disease, feelings of safety, shelter, food that is provided by a GOOD home with people that care for that animal like a family member.

So no, any well studied human that didn't rely on Walt Disney or has first hand knowledge of a natural environment, would not think that humans inflict more suffering on animals then nature. If your life is centered on humanity and you do not spend equal time in nature - it would be easy to assume otherwise.

Ps My little cat who I found as a starving stray with a broken foot, would like to suggest if you think nature is so kind, get out of your house and go live in the bush for a month. Without the RV.

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:18 AM
I agree that man is 'part of nature', but I do think there has been some division of man 'from nature', probably dating back tens of thousands of years or whatever, where man sort of grouped together in ways that has allowed him/her (homo sapien) to go to 'exreme' lengths in almost every category of complex evolutionary development.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:19 AM
NOM, you expressed that so much better than I just did!

Excellent points, Stoicfish. Watching the barn cat skin a mouse live or eat the leg off a live rabbit is pretty horrifying, but that's how nature works.

We humans tend to dispatch our dinners quicky with a minimum of stress compared to that. I didn't learn about ecology and biology from "Bambi" and "The Lion King".

ginger708
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:21 AM
There is nothing wrong about that belief. However why are you assuming the worse about the rider in the video. Isn't that wrong as well. I have no idea how this horse was trained so I am not going to assume that is abusive just because it looks like something I have not seen before. Even though I do not eat meat I do not feel that it is wrong to eat meat. I would just hope that people that eat meat care about how the animal lived and do their best to choose the best sources available to them. Yes in our lives we should strive to be kind. However we can not mistake kindness for weakness and not respect the power and the ability of the animals that we work with to hurt us. By the way Cows can and have killed people think of all the size and power of a horse with a lot less training.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:31 AM
NOM, you expressed that so much better than I just did!


;)

Peta can't do a dang thing about China, so they figure they will just up the control here in the states lol

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:37 AM
And pigs have killed people -- and then ate the corpse!

While domestic fowl might not have the size & strength to kill, they can sure do damage, plucking out eyes, scratching, pecking. You have to watch little kids around them. They are small enough to be vulnerable.

Buck goats and rams are capable of doing damage, too.

The rider in the video is one example of different culture = different emphasis on what a horse can or should be able to do.

Ever seen videos of the dancing horses of India or Pakistan? Same thing.

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by stoicfish:


Originally Posted by BaroquePony:

Any well studied human being should know that man is far more cruel than nature, on average.


Well I disagree. I am university educated in biology, have a professional designation attached to my name that has to do with the environment, live and work in natural settings that include the Rocky Mountains, the far north, northern BC and Alberta. I spend 10-12hrs a day in natural or even remote settings.
Every time a wolf or coyote eats an animal, especially a large animal, it is a slow death, often it is vivisection. When it is a smaller animal, they often play with it before killing it. Food is very scarce in many ecosystems and starvation is a reality. Parasites and disease go untreated and in some cases lead to death. The mortality rate of most species is high and the only thing that balances that is high birth rates.
I understand that some humans can be very cruel and it is because it is a conscious act that is seems particularly harsh. The reality is that nature is also harsh just without the anthropological morality. Very few wild animals will have the quality of life, treatment of disease, feelings of safety, shelter, food that is provided by a GOOD home with people that care for that animal like a family member.

So no, any well studied human that didn't rely on Walt Disney or has first hand knowledge of a natural environment, would not think that humans inflict more suffering on animals then nature. If your life is centered on humanity and you do not spend equal time in nature - it would be easy to assume otherwise.


I beleive the cliche that I quoted ('man is far more cruel than nature') was a reference to man's creative abilty to practice things like the art of prolonged torture and some very specific types of torture that have been developed over long time periods by certain cultures.

millerra
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:56 AM
One of the "cruelest" most horrific things I have ever witnessed via TV was the killing of a young bison by a pack of arctic wolves. They literally were eating chunks of her as they were chasing her down. Huge chunks of meat were missing, her rear end was torn open and she kept going. It was AWFUL - far worse to me then the Downer cow video that was playing everywhere a while back.

And then there's kitten infanticide by toms (and not just domesticated cats), chimpanzee rape and murder...

Nature is brutal.

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:02 PM
Huge chunks of meat were missing, her rear end was torn open and she kept going.

Running on adrenaline and in shock.

ginger708
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:06 PM
I beleive the cliche that I quoted ('man is far more cruel than nature') was a reference to man's creative abilty to practice things like the art of prolonged torture and some very specific types of torture that have been developed over long time periods by certain cultures.


While this may be true it is not exclusive to humans. Have you ever seen cats play with animals that they have caught before they kill them? I caught my dogs tag team playing with a squirrel and I stopped them but I could not save the squirrel. There are scientist believe that shock is the body's way of responding to trauma so there is a more peaceful death of the animal being killed. Thus proving that nature is inherently a tough place to survive in.

Also the capacity of a person to be cruel is in that individual and their circumstances. There have been psychological studies that have found that if you dehumanize a subject that all of us have the capability of torturing.

I think that all of this strays away from the subject of why do some of us see the torture of a horse in the video posted and other see just a horse and rider.

stoicfish
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:08 PM
I beleive the cliche that I quoted ('man is far more cruel than nature') was a reference to man's creative abilty to practice things like the art of prolonged torture and some very specific types of torture that have been developed over long time periods by certain cultures.


Right. But my point was that PETA is trying to eliminate the suffering of animals by having no domestic animals. But the reality is that some of the best quality of life that animals lead are domestic homes and that suffering will continue in nature regardless.
Spend the money helping and educating in a practicle way. An animal rights group that pisses animal lovers off is probaby not going to change the minds of people who are less concerned about animals.

There are more kind people in this world then Marquis de Sade. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Horse in video-not what I think is a cool thing to do. My yearling colt however spends a great deal of time tormenting everyone else in that exact pose. The herd and I personally think it is a bit ostentatious and pedestrian. They are a witty bunch!

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:16 PM
I think that all of this strays away from the subject of why do some of us see the torture of a horse in the video posted and other see just a horse and rider.


Some people have more sophisticated brains to begin with, and some people are more educated, whether by accident or choice.

mbm
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:19 PM
just curious: who here "supports" an org that they agree with 100% ?

i don't personally think it is possible :)

i will back who will do the best job getting "my" agenda done... whatever that agenda might be - whether "socialist" health care or animal rights.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:25 PM
Some people have more sophisticated brains to begin with, and some people are more educated, whether by accident or choice.

lol

And some people have traveled beyond their living room and t.v.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:30 PM
:lol:

Cheap shot, BP. The sign of an argument circling the drain.

Bluey
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:46 PM
The OP, watching that strange horse act, probably was as surprised and questioning as I was the first time I saw these, 40 years ago, when they still had those many inches long wood blocks on their feet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF3eGOCr5R8&feature=related

Once you learn about what others do with their horses, you start putting it in perspective.
You may still never learn to like it, but you may understand it a little bit better.

Now, when we talk real abuse, that is a more serious matter.
I don't think that is abuse, if you like it or not.

Bluey
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:54 PM
just curious: who here "supports" an org that they agree with 100% ?

i don't personally think it is possible :)

i will back who will do the best job getting "my" agenda done... whatever that agenda might be - whether "socialist" health care or animal rights.

Maybe no one supports an organization that does 100% what they agree with, but honestly, to support PETA or their business suit equal HSUS, that are intent on eliminating any use of animals by humans, when we are horse owners and I assume many also pet owners, that is being a little bit delusional, no matter how we try to excuse it.:lol:

About like a jewish person supporting Hitler because he provided his Youth Corps with pretty uniforms and a serious work ethic.:rolleyes:

Don't be surprised if laying with dogs, you end up with fleas, is an old phrase that I think applies here.;)
Unless you really agree that we should not have those poor enslaved dogs to lie with.:p

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 12:58 PM
I have a new neighbor that has moved in a few houses down and she is the epitamy of the PETA description that you guys (for the most part) are giving.

She likes to run topless (against the law here) through the woods around here. This woman hires a deaf man to walk her pit bulls in the woods some of the time. At other times she likes to turn her rescued pit bulls loose (also against the law here) for some exercise while she runs naked through the woods.

I met her while schooling my extremely spoiled and very hot Welsh Cob out on the trails. He was so busy trying to keep his eye on the bouncing jugs, he didn't see the pit bulls right away :lol: fortunately the pits were on leashes, althought the guy walking them was totally deaf. Max was looking back and forth ... jugs, pits, jugs, pits ... :lol:

Several of these dogs lunge on the leash once they get an eye on Max. If they ever were loose I know they will come straight for us.

I eventually made it clear to this woman that should one of her dogs ever come at us off of the leash I will do my best to stop it ... any way I can (mentioning a list of possible weaponry since she was not listening).

I just finshed training Max the Cob to not kill the other neighbor's cats or dogs .... guess I'll have to retrain him again on that one. He has a dark side :yes:

She is now calling me a murderer (I haven't murdered anything ... yet) and telling me how horrible people are, blah, blah, blah ....

She went off on some tirade about all of the innocent animals ... that is why she adopted six pit bulls :confused: and 13 cats. Her house is flea infested. AND, AND ... she wonders why no one wants to date her :rolleyes:


I don't like fanatics.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:04 PM
Haha

Ive been in communes with friends that were granolas at their best.

One of their stories.

Their children (ages 6) were out in the park playing with knives at midnight. A cop brough the children back, and the party got a good laugh. You see the commune was having a party burning literature (some christian writer) and got so high they forgot to watch the children *sigh*

They all told me this and laughed about how funny it was after the fact? WTF

But now, if you even think of saying anything about an animal being in harms way...

ginger708
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:06 PM
I have a new neighbor that has moved in a few houses down and she is the epitamy of the PETA description that you guys (for the most part) are giving.

She likes to run topless (against the law here) through the woods around here. This woman hires a deaf man to walk her pit bulls in the woods some of the time. At other times she likes to turn her rescued pit bulls loose (also against the law here) for some exercise while she runs naked through the woods.

I met her while schooling my extremely spoiled and very hot Welsh Cob out on the trails. He was so busy trying to keep his eye on the bouncing jugs, he didn't see the pit bulls right away :lol: fortunately the pits were on leashes, althought the guy walking them was totally deaf. Max was looking back and forth ... jugs, pits, jugs, pits ... :lol:

Several of these dogs lunge on the leash once they get an eye on Max. If they ever were loose I know they will come straight for us.

I eventually made it clear to this woman that should one of her dogs ever come at us off of the leash I will do my best to stop it ... any way I can (mentioning a list of possible weaponry since she was not listening).

I just finshed training Max the Cob to not kill the other neighbor's cats or dogs .... guess I'll have to retrain him again on that one. He has a dark side :yes:

She is now calling me a murderer (I haven't murdered anything ... yet) and telling me how horrible people are, blah, blah, blah ....

She went off on some tirade about all of the innocent animals ... that is why she adopted six pit bulls :confused: and 13 cats. Her house is flea infested. AND, AND ... she wonders why no one wants to date her :rolleyes:


I don't like fanatics.


I guess it must be warm where you live.:D

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:16 PM
I guess it must be warm where you live.:D

Yep. I'm in the south :yes: NOT a native ... want to make that clear :yes:

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:18 PM
playing with knives at midnight

:lol::no:

ginger708
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:26 PM
All of that is why I am a former member of PETA. At first it makes sense and you can agree with them but then you start to get the videos and the magazine and you start to see that they are a little wak-a-do. Also I do not remember who mentioned it on here but they are right. PETA may not have to pay the celebrities in the "I would rather go naked" campaigns. But they have to pay for the add space where they hang the banners and that can run into the thousands of dollars. Money I think could be put towards education and supporting farmers that choose to treat their live stock humanely before and during slaughter.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:32 PM
Jugs, pits, jugs, pits...

ROFLMAO! Thanks, BP!

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 01:34 PM
Money I think could be put towards education and supporting farmers that choose to treat their live stock humanely before and during slaughter.

I agree with this, my veterinarians agree with this (they are well known as being VERY humane and thoughful), most all of the trainers I know agree with this ....

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 23, 2010, 03:13 PM
Ya see I love vegetarians, because when I get in line behind them instead of the fire department at subway, there is always enough meatballs left :)

Im pregnant and thats what I crave.

Side note: My husband asked why is it always the older not so good looking women that are free spirits running naked through the woods?

BaroquePony
Sep. 23, 2010, 03:38 PM
Side note: My husband asked why is it always the older not so good looking women that are free spirits running naked through the woods?

:lol:

BumbleBee
Sep. 23, 2010, 09:53 PM
Well I disagree. I am university educated in biology, have a professional designation attached to my name that has to do with the environment, live and work in natural settings that include the Rocky Mountains, the far north, northern BC and Alberta. I spend 10-12hrs a day in natural or even remote settings.
Every time a wolf or coyote eats an animal, especially a large animal, it is a slow death, often it is vivisection. When it is a smaller animal, they often play with it before killing it. Food is very scarce in many ecosystems and starvation is a reality. Parasites and disease go untreated and in some cases lead to death. The mortality rate of most species is high and the only thing that balances that is high birth rates.
I understand that some humans can be very cruel and it is because it is a conscious act that is seems particularly harsh. The reality is that nature is also harsh just without the anthropological morality. Very few wild animals will have the quality of life, treatment of disease, feelings of safety, shelter, food that is provided by a GOOD home with people that care for that animal like a family member.

So no, any well studied human that didn't rely on Walt Disney or has first hand knowledge of a natural environment, would not think that humans inflict more suffering on animals then nature. If your life is centered on humanity and you do not spend equal time in nature - it would be easy to assume otherwise.

Ps My little cat who I found as a starving stray with a broken foot, would like to suggest if you think nature is so kind, get out of your house and go live in the bush for a month. Without the RV.

Can I get an AMEN!!

Anyone who thinks man is more cruel than nature has not spent much time studying nature.

Nature is NOT NOT NOT humane!

mbm
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:03 PM
animals cut holes in the guts of other animals, insert all sorts of gadgets, put a window in and then keep they animal alive to study the effects?

animals/nature infects other animals with hideous diseases to just to see what will happen and does it repeatedly ?

animals/nature do things like torture, concentration camps, etc etc etc?

nature is nature. there is no intent. with humans there is. that matters.

most wild animals have fine lives. they live as they have evolved to live....

i dont have a problem with humans and animals associating (duh) but i do have a problem with humans hurting animals for their own gain, or "protecting" an animal to the point of hurting the animal (ie a horse kept only in a stall and fed pellets)

Bluey
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:09 PM
animals cut holes in the guts of other animals, insert all sorts of gadgets, put a window in and then keep they animal alive to study the effects?

animals/nature infects other animals with hideous diseases to just to see what will happen and does it repeatedly ?

animals/nature do things like torture, concentration camps, etc etc etc?

nature is nature. there is no intent. with humans there is. that matters.

most wild animals have fine lives. they live as they have evolved to live....

i dont have a problem with humans and animals associating (duh) but i do have a problem with humans hurting animals for their own gain, or "protecting" an animal to the point of hurting the animal (ie a horse kept only in a stall and fed pellets)

Your words sound right out of a PETA flyer.:yes:
This is who PETA is:

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

There are people called ethicists that anyone wanting to do any research using animals has to run their protocols thru.
If the ethicists don't approve of it, the research is not funded.

I think that you need to go pick a bone with the ethicists, if you think they are not doing their jobs.;)

stoicfish
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:22 PM
most wild animals have fine lives. they live as they have evolved to live....


Right. Out to the bush with ya!
Mr. Moose will be glad that Mr. Bear has someone else's ass to chew on besides his.

Which will hurt much less because you know that he is only doing it because he is hungry or territorial or curious.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:30 PM
Your words sound right out of a PETA flyer.:yes:
This is who PETA is:

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

There are people called ethicists that anyone wanting to do any research using animals has to run their protocols thru.
If the ethicists don't approve of it, the research is not funded.

I think that you need to go pick a bone with the ethicists, if you think they are not doing their jobs.;)

Do you know why animal research protocols have to be approved by ethics panels? Because groups like PETA brought the past cruelty to the public eye resulting in legislation that requires animal use committees to approve such research.

mickeydoodle
Sep. 23, 2010, 10:37 PM
the video from the first post shows an idiot doing a circus trick on asphalt without a helmet- or a net for that matter

stupid - yes
abuse - no

hopefully both will survive or perish together

Bluey
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:03 PM
Do you know why animal research protocols have to be approved by ethics panels? Because groups like PETA brought the past cruelty to the public eye resulting in legislation that requires animal use committees to approve such research.

That is what PETA likes to tell, but it is not so.
Universities had ethics commitees long before PETA existed.

There is no reedeming qualities to any extremist group, read the link of who PETA really is, that gets millions in donations for animals and spends 1% on them.:no:

Donella
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:31 PM
So no, any well studied human that didn't rely on Walt Disney or has first hand knowledge of a natural environment, would not think that humans inflict more suffering on animals then nature. If your life is centered on humanity and you do not spend equal time in nature - it would be easy to assume otherwise.

Stoic, while I agree with you to some degree, I don't know if it is fair to compare the way humans treat animals with the way nature does. Human beings do have the capacity to understand that certain things we do to others (be it animals or human) inflict high degrees of suffering. And yet we still do it and to a VERY large degree. Billions of animals a year large. So while there are lots of pets that live wonderful lives, there are lots of other human owned/controled animals that I am sure would MUCH prefer the slow death in nature as opposed to an entire life of abject suffering on a factory farm.

That is what PETA likes to tell, but it is not so.
Universities had ethics commitees long before PETA existed.

PETA was founded in 1980. Some of the most unethical human experiments performed at universities in America were carried out in the 80's. Self policing is rarely effective (though I know you are a strong advocate of such and have alot more faith in the riteousness of our species than most).

DandyMatiz
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:42 PM
well, this has become a trainwreck..

I don't know how humanely treated the wheat was, but i offer a round of beer.. anyone have the popcorn?

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:44 PM
We wouldnt even have the animals to eat if they were left to the wild. For us to continue being as comfortable as we are vs. the congo where they hunt for their own food and watch their villages suffer from starvation, those factory farms have to also breed the animals that you want free and wild.

Wild cattle, or chickens, wouldnt feed the entire population.

Solve that by forcing veganism (since no choice, no factories) and we would starve with the first drought or bad season.

Extremism will result in the rich being able to eat, just like many other countries.

We have already offended other starving nations by refusing horse slaughter. We have animals here to eat and feed the less fortunate, but we've let the liberals scream their way to protecting an animal that could feed quite a few mouths.

As long as we can afford our Hybrids right?

Donella
Sep. 23, 2010, 11:51 PM
I hardly think that American's need to eat as much meat as they do. Last time I checked over half the population is considered obese and the #1 killer is heart disease. I doubt vegetables are to blame.

I guess comfortable means different things to different people.


We have already offended other starving nations by refusing horse slaughter. We have animals here to eat and feed the less fortunate, but we've let the liberals scream their way to protecting an animal that could feed quite a few mouths.

LOL are you for real? You think that billions of animals live in factory farms "to feed the less fortunate"??

BaroquePony
Sep. 24, 2010, 12:09 AM
I hardly think that American's need to eat as much meat as they do. Last time I checked over half the population is considered obese and the #1 killer is heart disease. I doubt vegetables are to blame.

I think that Americans are eating far less beef than they used to ... supposedly it is the consumption of large amounts of processed foods and sugars that are beginning to show up (in research) as the real reason for obesity and heart disease in the US.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 12:23 AM
This planet will have a hard time supporting 7 billion people who all eat the amount of meat that Americans do. In developing countries the amount of meat they eat is minuscule compared to what we eat. In fact, many populations in developing countries raise meat animals but they themselves cannot afford to eat the meat, it is sold to richer people.

PETA has been around for 30 years and PETA did have a lot to do with decreasing animal use in cosmetic testing, research, and improving the lives of those animals that are used for those purposes, as well as improving the lives of food animals. Again I ask, name another organization who has accomplished as much, or who is countering the big farm and corporate lobbyists in any way?? But there is still a lot that needs to be done.

Just a few years ago in college I had to participate in the most brutal experiment castrating and vasectomizing mice for my animal science lab. The end result was pretty pointless (look the vasectomized mice have larger accessory sex organs than the castrated mice 2 weeks later...well duh) and many of the mice died a slow and painful death (they weren't supposed to die, but we had to do an open abdominal non-sterile surgery on them and of course the majority got septic and died) to prove something we already knew and was intuitively obvious. We used an "anesthesia" that only caused paralysis with minimal loss of consciousness and no analgesia. Many of the mice woke up during surgery and were walking across the table with their guts hanging out. This experiment should not be allowed. I complained to the higher ups of course, but despite all that found that they ended up doing the same "experiment" with the next year's class!

On a side note... I find it ironic, me and mbm, the biggest PETA supporters, both think the horse in the video was not being abused.:lol:

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 12:30 AM
Funny, that. I didn't think the horse was being abused, either. I don't support PETA. What's your point?

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 12:43 AM
Funny, that. I didn't think the horse was being abused, either. I don't support PETA. What's your point?

Sorry I didn't make my point clear. Here it is:

PETA may not be perfect but its the only lobbyist group out there that has and continues to cause meaningful improvements in the welfare and use of animals.

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 07:59 AM
Sorry I didn't make my point clear. Here it is:

PETA may not be perfect but its the only lobbyist group out there that has and continues to cause meaningful improvements in the welfare and use of animals.

Are you really thinking thru what you just said?

You think that because you think that animal rights organization seems to do some of what you like, they are ok, when their ultimate, many times stated goal is ELIMINATING all USE of animals by humans?

Do you really think they will make an exception for you and let you keep your horses and pets, because you defended them on COTH, donate to them and carry their membership card?:rolleyes:

First, those organizations are working to keep their organization getting in millions in donations and thriving and becoming even larger.:)

Second, they do that thru PR and that PR is what makes them look like they are being effective, when the way the world is changing is because we are changing, not because a carrot clad young kid is parading in front of a school.;)

Those groups are slicksters that understood that there is donations in presenting abuse and crying "we want to stop it, help us" and people will open their wallets.:D
They didn't invent caring for animals properly, or eliminating any use of animals by humans, they jumped on that bandwagon, once information was getting so good where abuses were coming to the fore more.
Today those groups have so many millions, donated by the gullible public to help animals, that they have used to build a war chest and they are very influential, can pay their way into doing much they want.
Remember what their small print tells us, their ultimate goal is not the welfare of animals, that is window dressing to keep people donating.
They have not helped practically not any animals, other than when it brought them publicity and photo ops and their name in the news.

Their intent is to end any use of animals, the rest is just a way to get there.

What a short memory we have, when not so long ago they did close the slaughter plants in the USA, when that was a stupid move, bound to hurt horses, not help them, as it was done, as it was predicted it would happen.

Now horses are still being killed in just the same numbers, but they have to travel much longer distances.:(
You won't hear anyone from PETA or HSUS or their supporters apologizing, as they should, for in their utter cluelessness they followed those organizations into that stupid action.:no:

Shame on all those that follow ANY animal rights group, without really learning who they are in detail and understanding that THEIR right to own and use animals is being whittled down by what those groups push just as surely as that of any other animal owner and user.

It has never been very smart cooperate with the enemy, no matter how shiny they come across to you and try to entice you with their propaganda to keep you hooked, paid for with YOUR donations.:p

Hey, that is logic 101, surely it is simple enough to understand.:confused:

BaroquePony
Sep. 24, 2010, 08:32 AM
Posted by Bluey:

What a short memory we have, when not so long ago they did close the slaughter plants in the USA, when that was a stupid move, bound to hurt horses, not help them, as it was done, as it was predicted it would happen.

Is this actaully true? What documentation supports this?

I am not saying it isn't true, just trying to figure out what happened.

Is PETA the group that caused the closing of our slaughterhouses here?

I am not as well informed as I would like to be on what really happened to stop the local transport of horses to slaughter and/or the closing of slaughterhouses where horses can be sent.

I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion, just some basic background or history on WHO was responsible for the laws (I am not totally sure exactly which laws ended up being the end of slaughter for horses here).

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 09:33 AM
Is this actaully true? What documentation supports this?

I am not saying it isn't true, just trying to figure out what happened.

Is PETA the group that caused the closing of our slaughterhouses here?

I am not as well informed as I would like to be on what really happened to stop the local transport of horses to slaughter and/or the closing of slaughterhouses where horses can be sent.

I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion, just some basic background or history on WHO was responsible for the laws (I am not totally sure exactly which laws ended up being the end of slaughter for horses here).

Spend some time looking thru these links and you will understand more where those animal rights groups come from, who they are, how they have handled the millions in donations they have, etc.
VERY enlightening.
Don't miss the red menu links on the right, where their financials and scary quotes by their officers are:

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/136-humane-society-of-the-united-states

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/21-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals

http://www.humanewatch.org/

Here is part of an article in the front page of this last link, that touches on what I mentioned before:


---"Secret HSUS History: The 60/40 Split

Truth be told, this part of the Humane Society of the United States’s history isn’t as much a “secret” as it is neglected—by the current generation of HSUS leaders and spokespeople, anyway.

Ever since HumaneWatch started making noise about how contributions to HSUS only support local pet shelters at the rate of less than 1/2 of 1 percent, the organization has been in constant damage-control mode. In particular, an HSUS “emerging media” employee and former paid lobbyist named Hillary Twining has spent seemingly countless hours trying to reassure the public that nothing is amiss.

Her basic argument (in her own words on April 5 of this year, although there are literally hundreds of similar examples) is that HSUS “was founded in 1954 with the specific aim of NOT replicating what is already being done by shelters.”

This kind of statement is how HSUS justifies spending dollars intended for the direct care of dogs and cats on programs that attack farmers, ranchers, zoologists, circus trainers, medical research scientists, and others.

It sounds good, except that it’s not true."---


There is a thread right now someone resucitated in the OFF COURSE forum with this same debate going on.
Your questions have been answered at lenght there.
You may want to refer to that one to continue this discussion.:yes:

BaroquePony
Sep. 24, 2010, 10:04 AM
Thanks Bluey. I do not want to take this thread off track, Just trying to wrap my brain around some of this stuff.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 10:29 AM
Our country highly values horses enough to make people stop and think that maybe we shouldn't slaughter horses like cows. For one thing they are not like cows at all and killing them the same way as cows is incredibly cruel, it is harder to get the captive bolt to the brain given their conformation, long neck and legs and their wider range of movement.
It was the voters that ultimately lead to the closure of the slaughter houses. What they should have also done was ban the export of horses for purposes of slaughter and give government subsidized humane euthanasia to those who want it for their unwanted horses. Because that is what our society values, and values enough to close slaughter houses. Is it fair or reasonable to the other animals that continue to be slaughtered? No, but it is a win for horses, in theory if they were to be offered a humane euthanasia at home instead of a long trip across borders. The answer to the problem isn't to bring back horse slaughter to the US, its to make humane euthanasia accessible to all.
Its a lot like gun control laws, many are good in theory but what ends up getting passed is so ridiculous, certain guns are illegal and hard to come by while other more dangerous weapons are accessible and in the end criminals end up having an easier tie getting guns than law abiding citizens. The NRA is the PETA of that issue, many would agree that all people shouldn't be able to just walk into a Walmart and walk out with a hand gun, but the NRA fights any gun law that comes about, no matter how reasonable the law, because their needs to be an opposing view.
PETA can try to take away the right to own animals, but it wont happen no matter how hard they try and how much money they have. In the meantime though, there is no other lobbyist group that is countering the farm and corporate lobbyists like PETA does, no one comes close. That is the point and their needs to be opposition or else animals will suffer. PETA is the only large group with a united stance able to do this.

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 10:43 AM
Our country highly values horses enough to make people stop and think that maybe we shouldn't slaughter horses like cows. For one thing they are not like cows at all and killing them the same way as cows is incredibly cruel, it is harder to get the captive bolt to the brain given their conformation, long neck and legs and their wider range of movement.
It was the voters that ultimately lead to the closure of the slaughter houses. What they should have also done was ban the export of horses for purposes of slaughter and give government subsidized humane euthanasia to those who want it for their unwanted horses. Because that is what our society values, and values enough to close slaughter houses. Is it fair or reasonable to the other animals that continue to be slaughtered? No, but it is a win for horses, in theory if they were to be offered a humane euthanasia at home instead of a long trip across borders. The answer to the problem isn't to bring back horse slaughter to the US, its to make humane euthanasia accessible to all.
Its a lot like gun control laws, many are good in theory but what ends up getting passed is so ridiculous, certain guns are illegal and hard to come by while other more dangerous weapons are accessible and in the end criminals end up having an easier tie getting guns than law abiding citizens. The NRA is the PETA of that issue, many would agree that all people shouldn't be able to just walk into a Walmart and walk out with a hand gun, but the NRA fights any gun law that comes about, no matter how reasonable the law, because their needs to be an opposing view.
PETA can try to take away the right to own animals, but it wont happen no matter how hard they try and how much money they have. In the meantime though, there is no other lobbyist group that is countering the farm and corporate lobbyists like PETA does, no one comes close. That is the point and their needs to be opposition or else animals will suffer. PETA is the only large group with a united stance able to do this.

You didn't read the links provided, or you would not have made the statements you made in your post.

PETA is a mere sideshow, compared with the HSUS millions they have and the influence that provides them.

There is a reason so many top PETA executives have been now for so many years running the HSUS.

Promoters go where the most money is, it is their profession and they know how to manage around .orgs.

Read the links, you may learn much interesting stuff there.:cool:

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 11:00 AM
So the HSUS is the one I should be supporting now? :)

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 11:31 AM
So the HSUS is the one I should be supporting now? :)

Not if what you want is to help the WELFARE of animals, not further animal rights to the end, where humans won't be able to use them.

Your support would be much better used with local rescues and organizations, where you know who is doing what and where the money goes directly to the animals needing help.

The big difference is that welfare looks at trying to curb abuse of animals, but permits us to own and use them.
There are uses we may not like, as this horse walking on his hind legs, or gaited horses with big padded feet grotesque ways of moving, but is that abuse in the sense that we need to ban such?

Animal rights ultimate goal is to not have any use of animals by humans, not pets, not horses, not any domestic animals at all.
They are going at that by starting with the low hanging fruit, animal agriculture, but attacking the rest of our uses of animals are not far behind, is just not PC right now, would lose them too many donations and support if they made that clear up front.
Those groups don't want to stop abuses in research, they want to stop any research using animals.
They don't want to stop abuses in animal agriculture, they want to ban any use of domestic animals for food and all other products we get from them.

Animal rights groups forget that humans have used animals as the natural, renewable resource they have been for us since we have been around and now think maybe animals are some kind of special creature that should not be touched by human hands.
Those groups point out abuses as if that was the norm and people buy it, sending them money to stop abuses, money those groups then use to better make more money, finding more abuse and so getting even more support and donations, to, again, make more money.

The animals are mere props to them, the same works with "saving the rain forest", or whatever cause of the moment.

That is what .orgs do, those that get very big, as the HSUS is, are practically factory fund raisers, wholesale getting programs out there and spending their money to, guess what, get more PR programs out there to get, again, more money in.

If they really cared for the animals, they would have done real work to help animals.:(
They had some 50 years to do so and they have not done any of it, but accumulated tremendous amount of money and other assets, just doing some some window dressing here and there, like helping fund a token sanctuary.
That ought to tell us something of where their priorities lay.

We as humans need to see that no one abuses animals, but most that have animals don't abuse them and we already have many laws addressing abuse.
We need to work at making our uses of animals the best we can make it for both purposes, the animals comfort and that our needs are also served.

To animal rights fanatics, only NO use of animals is acceptable and if humans were wiped out from the earth, even better.:no:
Self defeating, if you are a human, I would think.;)

millerra
Sep. 24, 2010, 01:42 PM
animals cut holes in the guts of other animals, insert all sorts of gadgets, put a window in and then keep they animal alive to study the effects?

animals/nature infects other animals with hideous diseases to just to see what will happen and does it repeatedly ?


You know, I respect this position and understand it. However, the next time your horse, dog or child is up for vaccinations, just say no.

The next time your horse, child or dog needs an antibiotic to treat a infection, just say no.

The next time you reach for an aspirin or advil, just say no.

Any time you need surgery, just say no.

If you've ever done any of the above actions, you've personally benefited from "animal torture".

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 02:03 PM
I heart you, millerra!

mbm
Sep. 24, 2010, 02:27 PM
You know, I respect this position and understand it. However, the next time your horse, dog or child is up for vaccinations, just say no.

The next time your horse, child or dog needs an antibiotic to treat a infection, just say no.

The next time you reach for an aspirin or advil, just say no.

Any time you need surgery, just say no.

If you've ever done any of the above actions, you've personally benefited from "animal torture".

it is possible to do proper research without undue suffering of animals.

and i chose carefully what i will or will not do because to act is to support. i do not eat animals, and haven't for most of my life. i will not buy the strawberries grown where they keep the little baby calves in plastic crates.... i do not shop at any large store, i try to support only local businesses, etc etc.

in other words i try to live what i believe every day - it is difficult - especially living as i do outside of a "big" city (Oakland/SF) where such things are much easier..... i make a sacrifice every single day for what i believe. so, thanks for the ideas, but i already am very very very careful in what i do.

millerra
Sep. 24, 2010, 02:42 PM
Of course there is a difference between "undue" animal suffering and biomedical research using animals. I believe that there is no intent to simply "hurt" animals just to cause "hurt". However, PETA and the like would allow NO animal research. And w/out animal research, the development of new vaccines, medicines, and surgical practices as well as surgeon training would be, um... less effective. Would you like to be the first mammal for a drug to be tested on? Or would you like a rat or mouse to be used first. You like to be the first animal a surgeon cuts into, or would you prefer that he/she at least dissects a few different species first? (dead, yes- but raised for that purpose)

Let me be clear: there is NO way to tell 100% for sure what the effects of an administered drug is until it is tested. Period. Why? Because we do not have all the mysteries solved of how a complex animal such as us truly functions at the biochemical level (plus we all have some slight variations).

So, unless you have refused all medical treatments for you, your family or your animals, then you have benefited from animal research. Plain and simple.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 02:47 PM
"in other words i try to live what i believe every day. you?"

Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

However, I'm not so obsessed with other people's behavior that I do everything I can to limit their choices or freedoms. Evidently you do, since you believe some of us are too stupid or mean to treat animals right or make decisions regarding our own nutrition and health care.

So you refuse vaccines, surgery and medicines as well as animal products?

I do hope you ride a synthetic saddle, mbm, and use a biothane bridle. Your boots and shoes -- are they synthetic, too?

Your belief system strikes me as very rigid, judgemental, narrow-minded. It infuriates you that other people don't live just the way you do -- or the way you THINK they ought to live, anyway.

I have better things to do than obsess about what other people choose to do with their time. As long as what they're doing isn't illegal or immoral (as in generally-held Ten Commandments type standards), it's none of my business. Even there, as long as what they're doing "doesn't frighten the horses" in the old Victorian sense, it's their business, no one else's.

BaroquePony
Sep. 24, 2010, 02:50 PM
Posted by Bluey:

Don't miss the red menu links on the right, where their financials and scary quotes by their officers are:

http://activistcash.com/organization...-united-states (Don't miss the red menu links on the right, where their financials and scary quotes by their officers are:)

Well, I spent maybe an hour trying to slog through the very confusing list of "wrongs" and who did the "wrongs". I made the mistake of trying to keep track of who did what, when and how .. Yikes! They need a better way to present that type of material.

The "quotes" link was just as confusing as to who was on who's side, so to speak.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:06 PM
Here's some grist for your mills! Afghan and Pakistani "dancing" horses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKpivyB5rHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcJcQ2IW43U

It would be fun to see what these little horses could do in "traditional" dressage.

I'll refrain from making judgements on what they're being asked to do. I'll leave that open for discussion...

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:07 PM
Baroquepony, I think Bluey posted that, not me. Credit where credit is due!

mbm
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:13 PM
Of course there is a difference between "undue" animal suffering and biomedical research using animals. I believe that there is no intent to simply "hurt" animals just to cause "hurt". However, PETA and the like would allow NO animal research. And w/out animal research, the development of new vaccines, medicines, and surgical practices as well as surgeon training would be, um... less effective. Would you like to be the first mammal for a drug to be tested on? Or would you like a rat or mouse to be used first. You like to be the first animal a surgeon cuts into, or would you prefer that he/she at least dissects a few different species first? (dead, yes- but raised for that purpose)

Let me be clear: there is NO way to tell 100% for sure what the effects of an administered drug is until it is tested. Period. Why? Because we do not have all the mysteries solved of how a complex animal such as us truly functions at the biochemical level (plus we all have some slight variations).

So, unless you have refused all medical treatments for you, your family or your animals, then you have benefited from animal research. Plain and simple.

yes, and as i already stated - i am VERY careful about what i chose on a daily basis - for me and my animals. i believe that all animals testing that is non mandatory should not occur.

and any animals that must be used should have good lives and not made to suffer.

as for what happened in the past - yes, not much i can do about that except make choices i believe in....

and i hope that there will be a time when animals dont suffer for human benefit.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:18 PM
So instead of supporting the HSUS I should support local shelters and organizations? What are they doing to enact legislation to improve the welfare of farm animals and animals used in scientific research? What are local shelters doing to counter the farm and corporate lobbyists who want to stop legislation aiming to improve welfare?

The number of animals in shelters is tiny compared to the number of animals used in food production and experimentation. The welfare of animals living in shelters is superior to that of farm animals and animals used in experimentation, and animals in shelters get the most humane form of euthanasia available.

Local shelters are not solving the bigger problems. Thats why I support organizations like the HSUS and PETA because they are the only ones countering the food production and corporate lobbyists whose goal is to turn back the clock on the progress we have made in the treatment of animals in order to improve their own bottom line.

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:25 PM
Its easy when you take a stance that its fine to use animals and animal products, no one can call you hypocrite. But the second you try to cut back on what animal products you use, people start calling you a hypocrite because you don't stop using animal products all together! Its hard to not use animal products in todays society. But if you make the choice to not eat meat, but you choose to take medicine that was tested on animals you are considered a hypocrite, its like its all or nothing and it shouldn't be that way!
How about we appreciate and respect those that are making baby steps and thinking about decreasing the amount of animal products they use. It doesn't happen overnight. Maybe just start with one day a week without using meat and gradually increase from there?

alicen
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:35 PM
Has anyone noticed that this thread has gone from a tongue-in-cheek video of a poll high horse to PETA and vegetarianism?

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:41 PM
What if I don't want to go a day without meat? Is that OK with you? What if I prefer the fit & feel of real leather shoes, full-seat breeches and tack? What if my health choices include regular vaccinations, medications and necessary surgeries? And yes, I'd prefer my surgeon had practiced a little on cadavers, whether animal or human, before cutting on me.

I knew a woman several years ago who did choose to go completely veggie. Biothane bridle, synthetic saddle, damned if I know what her shoes were made of. Banana skins, maybe. Oh, and she was a Christian Scientist, so no doctors or meds for her, either. Her choice, her life. And bless her, she didn't evangelize about her life style.

It's fine with me if you choose to go vegan or vegetarian, just don't try to limit my choices or my exercise of free will.

That's stepping over the line.

So how about those dancing Afghan & Pakistani horses?

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:43 PM
Alicen, I have noticed that. How 'bout those dancin' horses?

I'll bet they're tasty, too. Just trying to tie everything together.

BaroquePony
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:47 PM
Quoted from Beasmom ... or is it Bluey? :lol: :

Baroquepony, I think Bluey posted that, not me. Credit where credit is due!


Yeah, it was Bluey ... sorry :p Fixed :yes:

cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:52 PM
What if I don't want to go a day without meat? Is that OK with you? What if I prefer the fit & feel of real leather shoes, full-seat breeches and tack? What if my health choices include regular vaccinations, medications and necessary surgeries? And yes, I'd prefer my surgeon had practiced a little on cadavers, whether animal or human, before cutting on me.

I knew a woman several years ago who did choose to go completely veggie. Biothane bridle, synthetic saddle, damned if I know what her shoes were made of. Banana skins, maybe. Oh, and she was a Christian Scientist, so no doctors or meds for her, either. Her choice, her life. And bless her, she didn't evangelize about her life style.

It's fine with me if you choose to go vegan or vegetarian, just don't try to limit my choices or my exercise of free will.

That's stepping over the line.

So how about those dancing Afghan & Pakistani horses?

Thats fine, but you do want to improve the welfare of the animals you use for food and fiber, right?

mbm
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:59 PM
Beasmom, i notice that you tend you think that your ability to do as you want is being jeopardized a lot. you fear that anti rollkur measures will inhibit you from riding FDO, or long and low, etc, and now it seems that this talk of animal welfare etc is going to stop you from "doing as you please"

eta to say the above posts says it better :)

alicen
Sep. 24, 2010, 03:59 PM
Anybody have some good vegetarian recipes they'd like to share?

Donella
Sep. 24, 2010, 04:19 PM
It's fine with me if you choose to go vegan or vegetarian, just don't try to limit my choices or my exercise of free will.


And it's fine with me if someone wants to support factory farming and other forms of animal abuse. We all have a choice. I just don't know why those people don't just admit :" I don't care enough to give up certain aspects of my lifestyle". Why is there always some sort of illogical arguement used to defend their choices (like "we need factory farming to feed all the starving people", or " without factory farming, cows wouldn't exists" or " nature is cruel too" or " vegetables have feelings too" ect ect) Why not just say " I don't care"?. But if you don't care about the abuse of animals, then the OP's video should not offend you.

There are issues that I don't care much about either and I will be the first to admit that.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 04:46 PM
Donella, the OP's video does not offend me. I never said it did.

I care about animal welfare, but not animal "rights". In the grand scheme of things, I'm more concerned about terrorist attacks, Sharia law, female genital mutilation, and creeping Socialism. Some things simply rate higher on my list of things to worry about.

In the case of the video, it's a cultural thing; it's what those horsemen choose to do with their animals. On the "continuum of cruelty", what they're doing rates pretty dang low.

Carters in various Middle Eastern countries load their carts till their hapless donkies are lifted off their feet, suspended in their harnesses. Games on horseback in other countries are played with live goats or chickens as the "ball".

Is disapproval of such practices racist, xenophobic? Life is hard in those countries. The perception of what suffering is differs from ours.

ginger708
Sep. 24, 2010, 05:30 PM
Anybody have some good vegetarian recipes they'd like to share?


oh I do and I will give them up with out preaching. Even though I am a vegetarian I have no problem with people using animals. My bone to pick is just making sure you respect the animals for what they are giving up. So I frown on feed lot beef, but I also realize that not everybody can afford to or they may not want to shop at whole foods. At the end of the day I feel we live in a healthier society if we are all allowed to practice free will.

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 05:53 PM
oh I do and I will give them up with out preaching. Even though I am a vegetarian I have no problem with people using animals. My bone to pick is just making sure you respect the animals for what they are giving up. So I frown on feed lot beef, but I also realize that not everybody can afford to or they may not want to shop at whole foods. At the end of the day I feel we live in a healthier society if we are all allowed to practice free will.

Wy would you frown on feedlot beef?
Those are some of the happiest cattle around.
They spent their lives playing in pastures, were weaned and spent some more months with those same friends that they will then spend the last 90 to 120 days in a feedlot pen, where they don't have anything to do other than eat, drink and get fat.
That feedlot pen is the equivalent of room service and no work for your meals at all, along with your friends you get to play with in that pen when you feel like it.

When I first saw a feed lot, I was also wondering about all this, just as you do.
The manager told me to watch this, opened the gate and had to haze the cattle out into a nearby pasture.
In 30 minutes, they were back in the pen, laying around, the gate open.
He told me he was leaving the gate open and for me to watch the cattle for the next several days, as the pen was by the highway.
Sure enough the cattle just didn't go out, they knew the good life when they saw it and being cattle, that pen was it, the pasture and grass didn't mean anything to them, they knew where the best food and company were.

We don't have feed pens, just working pens, where cattle are never left overnight and only penned to ship them.
Our own pastured cattle come to the pens about mid morning and lay around there for several hours and again come back most evenings and lay there in a pile until in the morning many nights.
They choose to do so, we don't feed them in there and they have water out in the pasture.
From the several thousands of acres in their pastures, the pens is where they like it best, that is cattle for you.

The mistake we make many times is to consider how we manage animals as if they were humans.
That is not only wrong, it is not right for the animals, that really don't want the same out of life as we do.

The pens are muddy?
Ever seen where cattle in grass pastures choose to go lay?
Right in the mud, by the ponds, where it is soft and cool.
Now, a very deep, muddy lot, that of course is bad management and should not happen and it doesn't in well managed lots, but that is another topic, the particulars of how we should manage our animals, including our horses, according to each situation.

We really should not listen to those that have agendas as the animal rights groups do, because they rarely have anyone that knows what they are talking about.
Much of what they complain about how we raise and manage our animals is absurd, like a blind man describing an elephant by touch and trying to figure what it is and what colors it may show.

Now, there is real abuse out there, no question of that, but it is abuse, not use.
Everyone, including those handling animals, are appalled by any abuse.
That distinction is one you won't hear in the propaganda from those animal groups.
To them, any use is abuse and, like the HSUS president said long ago, "he will be glad when we don't have any more domestic animals and none too soon for him."
If you think about it, that means horses and your pets too.:eek:

ginger708
Sep. 24, 2010, 05:59 PM
It's fine with me if you choose to go vegan or vegetarian, just don't try to limit my choices or my exercise of free will.


And it's fine with me if someone wants to support factory farming and other forms of animal abuse. We all have a choice. I just don't know why those people don't just admit :" I don't care enough to give up certain aspects of my lifestyle". Why is there always some sort of illogical arguement used to defend their choices (like "we need factory farming to feed all the starving people", or " without factory farming, cows wouldn't exists" or " nature is cruel too" or " vegetables have feelings too" ect ect) Why not just say " I don't care"?. But if you don't care about the abuse of animals, then the OP's video should not offend you.

There are issues that I don't care much about either and I will be the first to admit that.

Just because I do not see abuse in the op video does not mean that I'm going to take a hammer to my dog. I am not ready to point the abuse finger because I respect other people culture and unlike Bull fighting I do not see the horse being stabbed with swords and bleeding to death slowly.

Could the horse in the video be abused? There is a possibility that abuse may be involved in the training however there is just as large possibility that their is no abuse in the horses training either. There is no way to tell from the video whether or not the person is a animal abuser. Judging the horses training from a two or three minute video is like putting down a horse or dog that kicks or bites a person once. Even kickers and biters get a second chance.

ginger708
Sep. 24, 2010, 06:28 PM
Wy would you frown on feedlot beef?
Those are some of the happiest cattle around.
They spent their lives playing in pastures, were weaned and spent some more months with those same friends that they will then spend the last 90 to 120 days in a feedlot pen, where they don't have anything to do other than eat, drink and get fat.
That feedlot pen is the equivalent of room service and no work for your meals at all, along with your friends you get to play with in that pen when you feel like it.

It is really my bias. When I ate meat and The one time a year that I will eat meat I prefer meat that spends it's whole life on pasture eating grass only or wild game.

The feed lots that I do not like are the ones where the density of cows and the diet of corn open up the animals to opportunistic diseases. I also realize that a lot of grass feed beef spends the last few weeks of their life on feed lots I avoid that meat too. It is a personal choice for me. I realize that there are many people that do not have the resources that I do. Or they may not want to restrict their diet and that is fine with me. I do not think that meat eaters bring home McDonalds and Kick their dog for fun.

There was a thing in Chicago for a while some alderman banned Fioe Gras. A large group of people thought the process that makes the liver is abusive. The pro-people argued the same as you that the animals are raised in a pen with other geese and all they have to do is be forced feed twice a day by "room service". I personally don't like it I find it unnatural. I do not believe that Foie Gras should have been banned. I feel that people should be educated and then make their decision. The ban got repealed and the people that like it eat it and the people that don't do not eat it.

I believe in voting with the wallet. And that is what I do. For me since I will only eat certain types of meat very infrequently it's just easier to say that I'm a vegetarian. But I have leather boots, saddle, breeches and bridle and I have no fantasies or excuses where they come from.

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 06:46 PM
---"The feed lots that I do not like are the ones where the density of cows and the diet of corn open up the animals to opportunistic diseases. I also realize that a lot of grass feed beef spends the last few weeks of their life on feed lots "---

Each one of us choose our own poisons, don't we.;)

By the way, that quoted above doesn't quite make sense.
All beef cattle are raised on grass, the only difference with grain fed is that they are fed grain rations for a few weeks.
Some of the grass cattle are fed grains to finish, on grass and called grass finished, which fits some niche markets that, like you, are queasy about cattle spending any time in a lot.
Most grain finished cattle in lots only spend a few weeks there, they like it and no one force feds them.

As for the opportunistic diseases, right now, there is much new research that shows there are more diseases in grass cattle than in the cattle in lots.
The media has not caught to that yet and if they have, they don't like it, doesn't fit with their ideas, they also are enamored with the idea of "grass fed", so you won't hear much about that, but it is in the CDC web pages.:yes:
It is under the research and discussion about antibiotics.

I also don't eat hardly any meat, but that doesn't really has much to do with understanding how the world around us works and getting the facts correct.

ginger708
Sep. 24, 2010, 07:25 PM
---"The feed lots that I do not like are the ones where the density of cows and the diet of corn open up the animals to opportunistic diseases. I also realize that a lot of grass feed beef spends the last few weeks of their life on feed lots "---

Each one of us choose our own poisons, don't we.;)

By the way, that quoted above doesn't quite make sense.
All beef cattle are raised on grass, the only difference with grain fed is that they are fed grain rations for a few weeks.
Some of the grass cattle are fed grains to finish, on grass and called grass finished, which fits some niche markets that, like you, are queasy about cattle spending any time in a lot.
Most grain finished cattle in lots only spend a few weeks there, they like it and no one force feds them.

As for the opportunistic diseases, right now, there is much new research that shows there are more diseases in grass cattle than in the cattle in lots.
The media has not caught to that yet and if they have, they don't like it, doesn't fit with their ideas, they also are enamored with the idea of "grass fed", so you won't hear much about that, but it is in the CDC web pages.:yes:
It is under the research and discussion about antibiotics.

I also don't eat hardly any meat, but that doesn't really has much to do with understanding how the world around us works and getting the facts correct.

That is why I started with it is my bias. If I eat meat it basically comes from small artisan farms. Same with my eggs and Cheese. I am very lucky in the mid-west if I choose to ingest an animal product I can get it from the person that raised it and slaughtered it. But as I said I eat meat maybe once a year because it is very expensive to eat meat in that manner.

Bluey
Sep. 24, 2010, 07:54 PM
That is why I started with it is my bias. If I eat meat it basically comes from small artisan farms. Same with my eggs and Cheese. I am very lucky in the mid-west if I choose to ingest an animal product I can get it from the person that raised it and slaughtered it. But as I said I eat meat maybe once a year because it is very expensive to eat meat in that manner.

If all I had to eat was some truly grass fed beef, without any grain, I too would not want to eat much of it if any, for a good eating treat as a steak.:lol:

Now, for any other kind of prepared meat, roasts, swiss steak, hamburgers, anything that you cook it and spice it so it gets tender and tasty, that is ok, but also not my preference.
The little beef I eat, it needs to be good and that today, for most people, is fed some grain and grilled.
That is my bias also.;)

Different strokes and all that.:)

Donella
Sep. 24, 2010, 11:41 PM
Wy would you frown on feedlot beef?
Those are some of the happiest cattle around.
They spent their lives playing in pastures, were weaned and spent some more months with those same friends that they will then spend the last 90 to 120 days in a feedlot pen, where they don't have anything to do other than eat, drink and get fat.
That feedlot pen is the equivalent of room service and no work for your meals at all, along with your friends you get to play with in that pen when you feel like it.

The problem is that they are fed a diet that they are not physiologically designed to eat: Corn. So you lace their diet with antibiotics to prolong their lives long enough to get them fat and to the kill floor. Are they suffering? I don't know, but the feedlots I have been to feature cattle packed like sardines standing knee deep in shit eating a diet that would destroy them if it weren't for keeping them high on antibiotics.

But still, at least those cattle get to live outside, to see the light of day, to be able to MOVE , to be able to socialize. It's not all bad. You can't say the same for other species of animals we like to eat.

Donella, the OP's video does not offend me. I never said it did.

Weirdly enough, it doesn't really offend me either.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 24, 2010, 11:59 PM
Packed in like sardines? Really? Not around here.

If it bothers you the way meat animals are raised and processed, then vote with your wallets and locate a source of naturally raised beef, chicken or pork.

If that form of meat production started cutting into the profits of the so-called factory farms, they'd change their methods to appeal to the changing market.

Such matters are topics of discussion at beef grower's conventions. They are surprisingly attentive to public opinion.

Fixerupper
Sep. 25, 2010, 12:21 AM
:yes:
what she said

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 08:33 AM
Wy would you frown on feedlot beef?
Those are some of the happiest cattle around.
They spent their lives playing in pastures, were weaned and spent some more months with those same friends that they will then spend the last 90 to 120 days in a feedlot pen, where they don't have anything to do other than eat, drink and get fat.
That feedlot pen is the equivalent of room service and no work for your meals at all, along with your friends you get to play with in that pen when you feel like it.

The problem is that they are fed a diet that they are not physiologically designed to eat: Corn. So you lace their diet with antibiotics to prolong their lives long enough to get them fat and to the kill floor. Are they suffering? I don't know, but the feedlots I have been to feature cattle packed like sardines standing knee deep in shit eating a diet that would destroy them if it weren't for keeping them high on antibiotics.

But still, at least those cattle get to live outside, to see the light of day, to be able to MOVE , to be able to socialize. It's not all bad. You can't say the same for other species of animals we like to eat.

Donella, the OP's video does not offend me. I never said it did.

Weirdly enough, it doesn't really offend me either.

Honestly, seems that we need some information around here.

There have been tons of studies to determine what is the best concentration of cattle in pens, the standard measure consumption and conversion, that means how many lbs they eat a day and how those transform to lbs gained.

That is a very sensitive measure, if the cattle are stressed at all, the weather, getting the wrong ration for them, with too much grain of fiber or protein, if there are any that fight others, they are too crowded or NOT CROWDED ENOUGH,all those are measured and remedied.

The research found that 150 square feet per animal and 5 square feet per shed or mound, cattle like to rest in mounds, is ideal, less is crowding, more, past 200, starts to impact them, they don't settle as well and there is more fighting.
That is a general rule for the average size of cattle that go to the feedlot, most 750 lbs, will change if it is winter or summer, they need more room in the winter pens, where the feedlot is located and what the weather is there, if dry or wet, etc.

There is much reseach on how to lay the bunks, bunk space, ideal starting pens is 18", for full feed cattle is 12" per animal, where to place the waterer, the orientation of mounds, shades for hot areas like Arizona, windbreaks for the north, etc.

Feeding in lots is a science and cattle don't make much money there for the owners, but they make money for the feedlots because their services and grain are sold to the ones that own the cattle, most times investors and that little difference of a pen being happy, doing well and feeding better means you can make a little more money in that good feedlot, you get repeat customers, than where they don't do it right.
The beef business is a mature industry, players in it have been around long, everyone knows everyone else and who to do business with and who didn't make it.
Weeds bad feedlots in a hurry.

Muddy lots are like a muddy horse pen, when it rains, well, there is mud.
If there is mud so bad cattle are sinking to their knees, as you say, that is pens with a bad base and not kept clean, signs of a badly run feedlot, not up to par and won't stay in business long, because the cattle pulling mud like that won't gain and the slaughter plant will dock them for mud.
Self defeating, so you won't see many like that.

Now, I wonder if just because they were in a pen and there was some mud, you thought it was terrible and didn't really know the difference with mud and MUD.

There was a lady in MO that had her arabian horses confiscated, because some animal control lady had a beef, pardon the pun, with her and took them saying they were in terrible conditions, they were in MUD.
Never mind that every horse in MO was in mud right then, they had record breaking rains for two months.:rolleyes:
The lady got her horses back when others investigated.

Anyway, feedlots today are extremely regulated, they have to comply with tons of rules, they all have to fill all kinds of paperwork with plans to control runoff, dust, wells tested, test wells dug around a feedlot that are tested monthly to be sure they are not causing any contamination, it is very involved to be a feedlot manager.
Feedlots have an enviromental engineer that knows feedlots and regulations on call, veterinarians, nutritionists, are a big employer for their area and an important tax base for the communities.

The cattle, as I say, are fed a very well studied, controlled ration, not grain just poured into the bunks and one reason the cattle have less bugs than grass cattle is because they are fed an also very well studied and controlled and regulated low level of an old type antibiotic.
There are many studies now showing that such feeding helps the cattle and doesn't pose any threat whatsoever to human health, because of several factors.
The kinds of antibiotics that are causing problems in human hospitals today is the overuse of modern antibiotics, there is much science today behind that.

In fact, in Europe, where use of antibiotics in animals was banned in some places, like Denmark, the incidence of sickness and deaths rose.
I wonder if they have made the connection yet?:p

Anyway, maybe you can understand that no, cattle fed for those last weeks in a feedlot are not abused, is not harmful to keep them there for anyone and there is much science and tons of regulations behind how they are run.

Remember, those people working there are also consumers of that same beef they raise and everyone else eats.;)

Sorry this got long, but maybe this will explain a little bit more about what those just driving by 55 miles an hour and peeking at feedlots may understand about feedlots.:)
Information is your friend, not assumptions, really.

Fixerupper
Sep. 25, 2010, 09:51 AM
thank you for that...

ThreeFigs
Sep. 25, 2010, 11:21 AM
Thanks, Bluey.

You're the voice of reason, logic and fact here!

mbm
Sep. 25, 2010, 12:21 PM
i am curious where all the regulations/rules/paper work/etc for feed lot cattle came from?

do you think it came from the cattle industry? or maybe some outside agency that forced them to do certain things?

i don't know the answer to that - but generally self policing doesn't work.... so i am thinking it must of been welfare orgs of some sort that must of been involved....

ThreeFigs
Sep. 25, 2010, 12:32 PM
It's not self-policing, it's based on studies regarding optimal efficiency & production. Animal health and welfare is at the heart of this. Unhappy, unhealthy, stressed cattle do not eat and gain weight, and that's the bottom line.

Ag universities study this stuff all the time.

I'll bet you could find the data from CSU or Texas A & M if you cared to.

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 01:46 PM
i am curious where all the regulations/rules/paper work/etc for feed lot cattle came from?

do you think it came from the cattle industry? or maybe some outside agency that forced them to do certain things?

i don't know the answer to that - but generally self policing doesn't work.... so i am thinking it must of been welfare orgs of some sort that must of been involved....

Yes, the regulations do follow studies and the science as we have and as the government decides how to mandate for what.
Many regulations come from the EPA and other government agencies, just as they do for any other business out there, all kinds of business, farming, digging water or gas or oil wells, any kind of factory, city dumps, even the local government nuclear assembly plant has to abide.
They too had to drill test wells and those also are tested regularly.

Feedlots are constructed with pens with a clay base, packed, then sloped so they run a certain way when it rains and the run off is collected in ponds, generally several, the first one will catch most solids, then next one will be more liquids, the last one flows into specific grass filters to end up with clean water, all that regulated and tested.
Those are cleaned and any solids used for fertilizer, although there are not many, because pens are cleaned after every turn of cattle and the manure composted and sold, some are using manure digesters and the gas produced is used to run generators that provide the electricity to the mills.

All that has many regulations you have to follow and there are inspectors coming by regularly.

Our government does regulate plenty. If you have ever been in any kind of business, you also had to abide by those regulations, from what you can use in your parking lot to what you can dispose down your drain.

Cattle feedlots are not any different, EPA, OSHA, Department of the Interior and many more others, that is why they hire enviromental engineers, nutritionists, veterinarians.
Those know the regulations and how to train the employees so they follow the rules.
Feedlots are business just like any other and, like most good business people, the ones running them try to do way better than just what regulations demand, that generally is a minimum standard.

Right now, there is a new tightening of the regulations on particulate matter, that means dust, that any one can emit and the way they are suggesting they work, it will make it very hard to even plow your land or drive a truck down a dirt road, because just the dirt stirred up with that would get you fined.:eek:
Feedlots have water trucks that run around watering the lots all day when is dusty, but you can only do so much.

All this also applies to horse farms, so be sure you find out what all regulations may get you in trouble if you have any land you use.

Hopefully clearer heads will prevail and the stipulations for dust emissions will be workable, not an impossible imposition.:(

twofatponies
Sep. 25, 2010, 02:07 PM
This gets the blue ribbon for weirdest thread ever. Ever.

Re: the original video, the Menorquin riding tradition emphasizes the rearing and walking on the hind legs - it is considered common and normal. The horses are related to the Andalusian/Lusitano, but are their own breed.

Some horses rear and do all sorts of crazy moves when loose. Depends on how they are built and how much they like to play. Lots of horses are trained to rear or walk on their hind legs - movie horses, trick horses, circus horses, drill team horses, those scary Spanish Riding School and Cadre Noir horses.

We live in a country where there is an obsession with safety and lawsuits. Most of the rest of the world isn't like that. Doesn't mean we're right or wrong. Personally I find it tedious.

But meanwhile, back to the discussion of rollkur, peta, and farm policy???? :P

ThreeFigs
Sep. 25, 2010, 02:10 PM
:lol:

Where to next? Barefoot vs. shoes? Bitless?

Bluey, you are an encyclopedia! Many thanks!

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 02:12 PM
This gets the blue ribbon for weirdest thread ever. Ever.

Re: the original video, the Menorquin riding tradition emphasizes the rearing and walking on the hind legs - it is considered common and normal. The horses are related to the Andalusian/Lusitano, but are their own breed.

Some horses rear and do all sorts of crazy moves when loose. Depends on how they are built and how much they like to play. Lots of horses are trained to rear or walk on their hind legs - movie horses, trick horses, circus horses, drill team horses, those scary Spanish Riding School and Cadre Noir horses.

We live in a country where there is an obsession with safety and lawsuits. Most of the rest of the world isn't like that. Doesn't mean we're right or wrong. Personally I find it tedious.

But meanwhile, back to the discussion of rollkur, peta, and farm policy???? :P

You are right, it is crazy to teach a horse to rear and jump around like that, but maybe not something we should call AC about.;)

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 02:16 PM
:lol:

Where to next? Barefoot vs. shoes? Bitless?

Bluey, you are an encyclopedia! Many thanks!

What I think is sad is that what I wrote about feedlots is common knowledge here, the fellows that wrote those books decrying how terrible those are and the ones that made the hatched job documetaries could see that, were told that, but choose not to mention any of it.
They found somewhere someone doing it wrong, or just took pictures to make it look like that and took off with their agendas.
They knew that there is no story to business as usual, they had to make feedlots bad to have a story to sell.

Sad, really and it can happen to anyone, even in your stable, if someone with an agenda against how you raise and train your horses wants to manipulate what you do to look bad.:(

twofatponies
Sep. 25, 2010, 03:00 PM
...even in your stable, if someone with an agenda against how you raise and train your horses wants to manipulate what you do to look bad.:(

Absolutely true!

mbm
Sep. 25, 2010, 05:19 PM
yes, the gov't will regulate but only AFTER someone raises a loud and horrid stink. usually those are welfare orgs. once the regs are on the books for a certain number of years, it is thought of as "just the way things are" and people forget how it got to be that way.

i assure you that no business will regulate unless forced - why? because it costs plenty.

i dont have the inclination to do research about this particular issue, but i am sure the info is out there for anyone that cared to look.

eta: a perfect example is how little baby cows (veal?) are housed in those horrid plastic igloos - even in the hottest part of the year those white plastic boxes are in the blazing sun - (and it gets up to 100 degrees here) those babies were not able to move or get out of those stifling plastic crates....

however, in CA there was hue and cry about that and now those same little baby cows have front porches out side their plastic crates.... so they can move around and get out of the stifling heat.

when i drive by those rows and rows of hundreds upon hundreds of plastic igloos - most of the baby cows are standing where? outside!

do you think the cattle industry made that change willingly? and do you think that in a few years it will be "common knowledge" that the cattle industry for the good of the baby cows and because of science let those calves be outside?

CosMonster
Sep. 25, 2010, 05:38 PM
Here's some grist for your mills! Afghan and Pakistani "dancing" horses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKpivyB5rHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcJcQ2IW43U

It would be fun to see what these little horses could do in "traditional" dressage.

I'll refrain from making judgements on what they're being asked to do. I'll leave that open for discussion...

Those are interesting videos, I've never seen that before. The second one in particular sure could use his hindquarters! His poll wasn't the highest point, however. ;)

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 05:39 PM
yes, the gov't will regulate but only AFTER someone raises a loud and horrid stink. usually those are welfare orgs. once the regs are on the books for a certain number of years, it is thought of as "just the way things are" and people forget how it got to be that way.

i assure you that no business will regulate unless forced - why? because it costs plenty.

i dont have the inclination to do research about this particular issue, but i am sure the info is out there for anyone that cared to look.

eta: a perfect example is how little baby cows (veal?) are housed in those horrid plastic igloos - even in the hottest part of the year those white plastic boxes are in the blazing sun - (and it gets up to 100 degrees here) those babies were not able to move or get out of those stifling plastic crates....

however, in CA there was hue and cry about that and now those same little baby cows have front porches out side their plastic crates.... so they can move around and get out of the stifling heat.

when i drive by those rows and rows of hundreds upon hundreds of plastic igloos - most of the baby cows are standing where? outside!

do you think the cattle industry made that change willingly? and do you think that in a few years it will be "common knowledge" that the cattle industry for the good of the baby cows and because of science let those calves be outside?

I am not that familiar with the dairy industry, but I don't think that story is quite so, the veal industry had moved to pens many years ago.
The animal rights groups went looking hard, found some still using only crates I guess and made a stink about it and took credit for something practically all have been doing for many, many years.

We also have several dairies here and for at least 40 years they have had their young calves, the three weeks they need to be isolated from each other, in those little buildings with pens, then several to larger buildings and when old enough, to the larger pens in larger groups.
That has been standard for long time.

You should see how grumpy those dairymen get when anyone messes with their little calves.
They practically go over any truck hired to move them with white gloves and bed those with prettier shavings than horses get.

That is why it was so hard to believe that one video of someone beating on a cow or much less calves.
I still have to think it was a set up, I don't know anyone working there that would do that.:(

I think that some should quit reading animal rights propaganda.

If you get any horse and farm catalogs, you should have seen those setups advertised for sale in them for many years now.:yes:

I know nothing is perfect and you can find someone, somewhere not doing things right, look at all those teachers, doctors and even priests in the news, but the majority of human beings are nice people trying to do their best, really, even farmers and dairymen.:)

mbm
Sep. 25, 2010, 08:46 PM
so you are saying that the thousands and thousands of little white igloos that i have seen for the past many years were a figment of my imagination? and that
the California Proposition 2 did not really happen?

Once Prop 2 passed the little white crates got little front porches - i will give the ranchers credit because they didn't need to do it for a few years, but it is VERY clear what the voters said and i assume they noticed and changed their act.

same with egg laying hens (which we have million and million in my town)... (and there is legislation pending i believe which will insure that CA buyers buy the more expensive CA eggs)

you can say all you want that ranchers do what they do because it is the right things to do for animals - but facts will prove that incorrect. generally they will do it once they realize what the buying public demands.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/2/

editing to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veal (i picked this because it seems fairly "balanced"

seems like i am not the only one that fees as i do... plus you can see one of the "hutches" aka plastic igloos that the calves live in (which can get horrendously hot - which, if you have ever used a porta potty you will understand)

mbm
Sep. 25, 2010, 08:49 PM
ps - i also happen to be quite open in my research and will read anything on a subject that interests me...... and i try to stay away from propaganda, unless i am specifically researching propaganda.... and then i will try to read it from both POVs.

FWIW, i don't watch TV (don't own one) don't read mainstream mags/papers/etc....

when i want to learn about a topic i research it period. then i come to my own conclusion.

the funny thing is that you all assume some interesting things based on my comment that i "support PETA" ...

eta that i will not watch shock videos of any kind... so i have not seen the horrid videos produced about animal abuse. i just dont need to see it.... i know it exits because i have sadly seen it in real life. so you will have to come up with another reason why i am so animal welfare positive ;)

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 10:34 PM
ps - i also happen to be quite open in my research and will read anything on a subject that interests me...... and i try to stay away from propaganda, unless i am specifically researching propaganda.... and then i will try to read it from both POVs.

FWIW, i don't watch TV (don't own one) don't read mainstream mags/papers/etc....

when i want to learn about a topic i research it period. then i come to my own conclusion.

the funny thing is that you all assume some interesting things based on my comment that i "support PETA" ...

eta that i will not watch shock videos of any kind... so i have not seen the horrid videos produced about animal abuse. i just dont need to see it.... i know it exits because i have sadly seen it in real life. so you will have to come up with another reason why i am so animal welfare positive ;)


You can't be seriously implying that animal rights care about animals, other than for window dressing?
All they want is to eliminate any use by humans, read the small print or listen to some of their talks in their meetings or conventions.

There are way too many reports of what they say when they are not out in public and it is sure not how much they care about animals.:no:

Fixerupper
Sep. 25, 2010, 11:10 PM
Will you people please stop quoting mbm so that I end up reading her comments....!!!
I keep wasting time writing scathing replys and then erasing them....
because I have sworn not to get sucked in any more
:lol::lol::lol:

Bluey
Sep. 25, 2010, 11:20 PM
Will you people please stop quoting mbm so that I end up reading her comments....!!!
I keep wasting time writing scathing replys and then erasing them....
because I have sworn not to get sucked in any more
:lol::lol::lol:

Ok, will do, sorry.
That is good advice, will think about it.;)

I think that there are many people today that don't understand the differences between living and what we do to live and true abuse, that is harming someone or an animal or destroying just for the heck of it.

This video of this horse walking around is a stupid stunt, but to call that abuse, I think that is abusing the abuse concept.:yes:

Donella
Sep. 25, 2010, 11:58 PM
I think that there are many people today that don't understand the differences between living and what we do to live and true abuse, that is harming someone or an animal or destroying just for the heck of it.

So, if you need to do something in order to make a living it is automatically not abuse?? The animal is not suffering because you need to be able to cut costs so that you can compete? The pig is now comfortable with never being able to turn around, see the light of day, socialize or have it's teeth, tail and various other body parts cut off without anesthetic and pain control simply because the farmer is saving money?

Abuse is abuse wether it is a dog, a horse or a pig. They all feel more or less to the same extent therefor they suffer to the same extent. Why is something we like to eat not worthy of moral consideration simply because it is inconvenient or because it costs money?

I don't believe that farmerS deprive some species of all of the basics of life outside of shelter and food simply for the heck of it. Of course not. They are not sadistic (I have friends that are great people that raise pigs and poultry for that matter). They do it because they have to in order to be competative. But it doesn't mean it isn't abuse!!!

I don't think the cattle you describe are living horrendous lives, that they are suffering constantly. But if you look at the lives of pigs and poultry, a very different picture emerges and I honestly believe that if anyone posting here had to spend a day in the life of one of those animals they wouldn't struggle to say that those animals have it pretty awful.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 25, 2010, 11:59 PM
Fixerupper, you have the right idea.

Bluey, thank you for your insights!

mbm
Sep. 26, 2010, 02:13 AM
You can't be seriously implying that animal rights care about animals, other than for window dressing?
All they want is to eliminate any use by humans, read the small print or listen to some of their talks in their meetings or conventions.

There are way too many reports of what they say when they are not out in public and it is sure not how much they care about animals.:no:

???

what does that have to do with anything i have said here? wasn't i the one that said that PETA would never really want to do away with animals because to do so would put them out of business? (hint, i also study politics and economics)

and no comment about the veal igloos and CA Prop 2, etc?

Bats79
Sep. 26, 2010, 06:28 AM
I think that there are many people today that don't understand the differences between living and what we do to live and true abuse, that is harming someone or an animal or destroying just for the heck of it.

So, if you need to do something in order to make a living it is automatically not abuse?? The animal is not suffering because you need to be able to cut costs so that you can compete? The pig is now comfortable with never being able to turn around, see the light of day, socialize or have it's teeth, tail and various other body parts cut off without anesthetic and pain control simply because the farmer is saving money?

Abuse is abuse wether it is a dog, a horse or a pig. They all feel more or less to the same extent therefor they suffer to the same extent. Why is something we like to eat not worthy of moral consideration simply because it is inconvenient or because it costs money?

I don't believe that farmerS deprive some species of all of the basics of life outside of shelter and food simply for the heck of it. Of course not. They are not sadistic (I have friends that are great people that raise pigs and poultry for that matter). They do it because they have to in order to be competative. But it doesn't mean it isn't abuse!!!

I don't think the cattle you describe are living horrendous lives, that they are suffering constantly. But if you look at the lives of pigs and poultry, a very different picture emerges and I honestly believe that if anyone posting here had to spend a day in the life of one of those animals they wouldn't struggle to say that those animals have it pretty awful.

As someone from a farming background I agree with you entirely.

In Australia we still have the issue of sheep mulesing. In the first place it was done to protect the sheep from flystrike which is a horrible affliction.

But there HAS TO BE a better way - and the only way that it will be found is by public outcry and the likes of PETA threatening Australian wool exports.

Bluey
Sep. 26, 2010, 07:52 AM
I think that there are many people today that don't understand the differences between living and what we do to live and true abuse, that is harming someone or an animal or destroying just for the heck of it.

So, if you need to do something in order to make a living it is automatically not abuse?? The animal is not suffering because you need to be able to cut costs so that you can compete? The pig is now comfortable with never being able to turn around, see the light of day, socialize or have it's teeth, tail and various other body parts cut off without anesthetic and pain control simply because the farmer is saving money?

Abuse is abuse wether it is a dog, a horse or a pig. They all feel more or less to the same extent therefor they suffer to the same extent. Why is something we like to eat not worthy of moral consideration simply because it is inconvenient or because it costs money?

I don't believe that farmerS deprive some species of all of the basics of life outside of shelter and food simply for the heck of it. Of course not. They are not sadistic (I have friends that are great people that raise pigs and poultry for that matter). They do it because they have to in order to be competative. But it doesn't mean it isn't abuse!!!

I don't think the cattle you describe are living horrendous lives, that they are suffering constantly. But if you look at the lives of pigs and poultry, a very different picture emerges and I honestly believe that if anyone posting here had to spend a day in the life of one of those animals they wouldn't struggle to say that those animals have it pretty awful.

You are extrapolating when you say abuse is abuse no matter the species and taking my words out of context with that.

No one said it is not abuse if it is a fly that is getting it's wings pulled because it is a fly, that is silly.

If you have some farmer's friends that are handling animals in a way they are ashamed of, I wonder about those friends of yours.:no:

I don't know about other industries other than beef, but I see the same reports everyone else does and those that know pigs and chickens tell us, with science behind them, that the way they manage them is not abuse and is best for the animals, if we want to have them for our needs.
Not that they are not continuously finding better ways, there is now a pherormone showing promise to keep sows from eating the little pigs or killing each other, so they can be managed in small groups when nursing, not have to be kept individually.

We keep kids in school for hours a day, years on end and if you were an alien looking at humans and didn't know why, you may consider that terrible abusive, kids sure do.;)
We humans live in cities, in apartments, work in offices or factories, or farming or in a dairy and I am sure many, many of us would rather do something else than work, or live where we have to live.
That we have to keep kids in school, unpleasant that it is, or adults work wherever they have to work, that may not be that ideal job, is not abuse, is at best an inconvenience.

There are trade offs for all in life and some of those don't permit us to do what we want when we want, that is life and it is not what abuse is supposed to be.

A life in the wild is not that stress free either for any animal, but although they of course try to make things as easy for themselves as they can, they don't brood over it, just adapt and live and die as they need to, in droughts and fires and floods and being eaten alive or left there to eventually die after a fight with others.

There is no perfect, utopian wild world where all the days are sunny and animals die in their beds at an old age.
I think that domesticated animals, in general, may not have perfect lives either, but the trade offs are not so bad we need to eliminate their uses by humans.

Abuse is to do direct harm, which happens plenty, no one denies it and should not happen and we have laws against true abuse already.

You say chickens in cages are abused?
Do you know the rate of chicken attrition when kept loose?:eek:
Chickens are chickens and part of it is being cannibalistic and the way chicken farmers got around it was by the management they follow, for what their science has shown them.

Sure, it looks terrible to us humans, but we are not chickens.
I don't know, the only chickens we raised were the old fashioned way, but you could not expect that way to give us the amount of food we need today.
There is another trade-off, if we are going to have eggs to eat for all at an affordable price, we need to keep chickens in large numbers.
Until we find a better way to do so and you bet there are plenty of innovative people looking at better ways to do anything we do in life, until we find better ways, current management is what we have.
Is is chicken abuse? If you were a chicken, I don't know if being in a cage is more abusive than running around pecking other chickens to death or being the one pecked on to death.
That is not exactly stress free living either, even if you are a chicken and the one doing the pecking.

I expect that, because to the rest of the world keeping chickens in cages SEEMS abuse, even if we don't know and the science tells us it is not, chickens in cages will be banned.
Not because it is abusive, which the ones that know tell us is not, but because it is PERCEIVED as abuse.
Mind you, I am not defending how chickens are kept, I don't know enough to say either way, but I am defending that those that are managing chickens are not doing it knowingly abusing chickens, no matter how it looks to those of us that don't know any better.
I say their industry's studies and regulations show them what to do or not to do and we the public don't know.

Maybe some day we can truly interview a chicken and they will tell us exactly how they feel about their lives and why did they cross the road.:D

If you really think that we humans should not under any circumstance keep animals, that alone is abuse, then those of us that have them don't have anything else to say to you.

If it is the horse you ride, by gosh, because YOU think that riding a horse is such a great experience for your horse, to the dog or cat you have on your sofa or whatever other animal you care to interact with, just by being around that animal you are altering the way the animal would live as nature intended and you are already causing it's nature stress that it would not have otherwise.

That is what animal rights fanatics bring to the table, picking at every one of the uses we make of animals.
As the HSUS president said, "one generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".

We have already established that there is use and there is abuse and that no one defends abuse.

If you agree with him that human use of animals is inherently abuse and that we should not use animals, despite human's history of having used all animals as the natural renewable resource they are for us all these thousands of years, it is the way we humans have evolved, using animals in all ways, then tell me, why are you posting on a horse training forum and I assume, have horses and maybe other animals for pets and make use of all that animals provide for us, from food to leathers to medical products amongst it all, if you think that use is so objectionable?:confused:

That to me is no better than those friends of yours that keep animals in conditions they find deplorable, just so they can make money with them.
That is wrong on several levels, I think.

If you really think that we humans should not under any circumstance keep animals, that alone is abuse, that doesn't speak too well for then finding excuses to make use of the animals we want to make use of, just because we want to.
Yes, it is black and white when it comes to following animal rights groups.
If you want to be honest with yourself, you don't get to pick and choose which moral ground lines to upheld or to cross.

Donella
Sep. 26, 2010, 10:21 AM
Bluey, I think you are missing what I am saying entirely. Yes, of course science is advancing leaps and bounds to find more ways to manage the risks of putting so many animals into such a small area and to treat them so unnaturally. Remove the stress gene, cut off body parts so they can't mutilate each other ect ect. But why are they needing to do this in the first place? There is plenty of research that shows that when all of these species are raised in natural environments the stereotypies are not seen. Why is that?? Could it be that they suffer?? Or are we as a species still too freaking stupid to connect those animals that we eat with the ones that we love (or to ourselves!)??

You either believe it is wrong to cut parts off of animals with no anesthetic or pain control (which you would be fined for if you did it to your dog or cat..on account of ABUSE) or you dont. You either believe it is wrong to deny a very sentient being with a higher IQ than your dog the freedom of movement or you don't ( you would also be considered an animal abuser if you did it to your pet). It is no longer a secret what goes on in factory farms. Animals are denied all of the basics of their natural lives with the exception of food, water and shelter. They cannot move, they cannot socialize, they do not breath fresh air or feel sunlight or wind or rain. They spend their entire existance staring out of the same cage a few inches larger than their own bodies. They are often hauled distances in excess of 50 hours with no food or water (which is legal, btw). None of this is even debatable anymore, it's simply the way it is for layer hens, pigs ect.

I do not condone the abuse of animals and the above is undoubtably abuse. If you don't think those animals suffer I have to question your sanity and your capacity to reason. If you condone it because you like your meat. Fine. But don't sit here and try to compare such practices to "sending your kids to school" .

Bluey
Sep. 26, 2010, 11:13 AM
Bluey, I think you are missing what I am saying entirely. Yes, of course science is advancing leaps and bounds to find more ways to manage the risks of putting so many animals into such a small area and to treat them so unnaturally. Remove the stress gene, cut off body parts so they can't mutilate each other ect ect. But why are they needing to do this in the first place? There is plenty of research that shows that when all of these species are raised in natural environments the stereotypies are not seen. Why is that?? Could it be that they suffer?? Or are we as a species still too freaking stupid to connect those animals that we eat with the ones that we love (or to ourselves!)??

You either believe it is wrong to cut parts off of animals with no anesthetic or pain control (which you would be fined for if you did it to your dog or cat..on account of ABUSE) or you dont. You either believe it is wrong to deny a very sentient being with a higher IQ than your dog the freedom of movement or you don't ( you would also be considered an animal abuser if you did it to your pet). It is no longer a secret what goes on in factory farms. Animals are denied all of the basics of their natural lives with the exception of food, water and shelter. They cannot move, they cannot socialize, they do not breath fresh air or feel sunlight or wind or rain. They spend their entire existance staring out of the same cage a few inches larger than their own bodies. They are often hauled distances in excess of 50 hours with no food or water (which is legal, btw). None of this is even debatable anymore, it's simply the way it is for layer hens, pigs ect.

I do not condone the abuse of animals and the above is undoubtably abuse. If you don't think those animals suffer I have to question your sanity and your capacity to reason. If you condone it because you like your meat. Fine. But don't sit here and try to compare such practices to "sending your kids to school" .

Just one question, how many chickens have you raised?
Chickens are chickens and do things that chicken do, even when running loose.
If you ever cared for some, more than a handful and over time, you would find that you have to watch them, because they will start one spot on one chicken and in some hours they may have pecked that chicken to death.
That is chickens that run loose, not confined ones.

You know, if someone beats a chicken, I probably would end in jail for assault and battery, I would sure not stand for it.
If someone grabs a chicken swiftly and rings it's neck and it is their Sunday dinner, well, that is what chickens are raised for, to be our dinners, not to write poetry or make the next big discovery.

That is one difference that many just don't seem to see.
Maybe keeping chickens in confinement is abuse, I don't know, but for what many studies show, those chickens are not really suffering any more stresses than is normal, for a chicken, so maybe it is not abusive after all?
Don't think about being a chicken and how you would feel, because we just are not chickens.
That is why there are studies and regulations and yes, those are changing what we do all the time, according to what we find is appropiate.

Many people in the USA object to horses being stalled, but in Europe, that was the only way we had a chance to have horses, there was no other place if you had mature horses in work than stalls and you know what, our horses were just as comfortable in those stalls as they are in the largest pastures.

All that is alive will adapt and we should not confuse what is adapting to our circumstances, if we are a chicken or horse or human, with abuse.

The difference is at times blurry and that is why we are having this discussion.
Still, I contend that humans using animals, all kinds of uses we make of them, is not inherently abuse and needs to be stopped, all animals freed and no more domestic animals raised, as animal rights groups insist.

mbm
Sep. 26, 2010, 12:16 PM
Donella excellent post and right the the heart of the matter.

Bluey we have raised chickens all our lives but they live "free" either loose or in large free range fenced of areas.

we have NEVER had chickens peck other chickens to death - not ever.

I will grant you that chickens look stupid, but they are NOT.

science advances so that humans can exploit animals more fully in a cheaper, more profitable manner with less loss of revenue. it has NOTHING to do with welfare for welfares sake - the only time they even deal with welfare is when forced to do so by welfare orgs/gov't/etc. i wouldn't say farmers are inherently cruel - but i would say they dont see their farm animals like they do their pets - what they do see is economic data.

and, still no comeback re: the veal igloos and prop 2?

ThreeFigs
Sep. 26, 2010, 12:26 PM
I'd be horrified if the HSUS gets its way and eliminates domestic animals. What a cold, unhuman and inhumane place the world would be.

I will fight that agenda till my dying breath.

I find it interesting that the "animal activists" seem to have pets or working animals (pets like dogs & cats, working animals like horses). Yet they do not want to set an example by turning their animals loose in the wild or euthanizing them and living their lives without the pleasure of animal companionship.

Yet they support an organization that vows to eliminate animals in the lives of future generations. Hypocrites.

Bluey
Sep. 26, 2010, 12:35 PM
Donella excellent post and right the the heart of the matter.

Bluey we have raised chickens all our lives but they live "free" either loose or in large free range fenced of areas.

we have NEVER had chickens peck other chickens to death - not ever.

I will grant you that chickens look stupid, but they are NOT.

science advances so that humans can exploit animals more fully in a cheaper, more profitable manner with less loss of revenue. it has NOTHING to do with welfare for welfares sake - the only time they even deal with welfare is when forced to do so by welfare orgs/gov't/etc. i wouldn't say farmers are inherently cruel - but i would say they dont see their farm animals like they do their pets - what they do see is economic data.

and, still no comeback re: the veal igloos and prop 2?

I already answered with what I know about veal in another post, sorry you missed it.
Of course it will be a little bit different in each different location and we already know about CA being a special case.
They of course can always import their food they don't want to raise, so it is no sweat for them to let rule some animal rights people demands, harebrained as they may be.;)

Yes, even if you want to paint research as being ignorant of welfare concerns, if you learn a little more you may find it is not so.
If not because of humane concerns, since you won't believe anyone but an animal rights person really can care about animals, because without happy and comfortable animals, they won't do well for the one caring for them.

Some day we will have a little box that we can plug in and it will change energy to any matter we wish.:cool:
We can have a chicken dinner without having any more chickens around for anyone to worry if they are being abused.
May even have replaced our horses with a mechanical horse that is indisinguishable from a real one, all but down to being able to park it in the garage and turn it off when we are thru playing with it.:D

No more domestic animals, no more abuse, even unintended one, all happy then.:winkgrin:

mbm
Sep. 26, 2010, 12:44 PM
science for factory farming asks questions like: how do we stop the loss of animals (ie $$) when they are kept in tiny cages. then they go about trying to answer that question. they ask: what is the most profitable way to keep animals on the way to slaughter. they ask: what is the way to get teh most $$ out of each and every animal.

they don't ask: what is the absolute best way to keep an animal so it lives a healthy "happy" life. (well probably because they would be out of work if they asked that question)

its kinda like those toys invented for horses that are stalled 24/7 - yes, it is nice that "they" are thinking of ways to keep the horse entertained, but really the best thing to do in general is to keep the horse outside with other horses in a place where they can move.

i really think that if you did some open minded research you might have a bit of a different take on things....

i will say tho that i do appreciate the info you have provided here.

Bluey
Sep. 26, 2010, 12:53 PM
science for factory farming asks questions like: how do we stop the loss of animals (ie $$) when they are kept in tiny cages. then they go about trying to answer that question. they ask: what is the most profitable way to keep animals on the way to slaughter. they ask: what is the way to get teh most $$ out of each and every animal.

they don't ask: what is the absolute best way to keep an animal so it lives a healthy "happy" life. (well probably because they would be out of work if they asked that question)

its kinda like those toys invented for horses that are stalled 24/7 - yes, it is nice that "they" are thinking of ways to keep the horse entertained, but really the best thing to do in general is to keep the horse outside with other horses in a place where they can move.

i really think that if you did some open minded research you might have a bit of a different take on things....

i will say tho that i do appreciate the info you have provided here.

You are letting your bias show there, about the horses stalled and needing toys.
That comes under managing properly for the situation, be it pastured or stalled.
When we kept horses stalled, they were used many hours a day, every day and so when in their stall, they were happy to be there.

Stalling a horse is about managing it's time, something you don't have to do with them turned out, also under the proper management turned out, of course.
When stalled, you trade off being able to keep a horse in a small space by taking the time to keep that horse exercised and entertained.
Not better or worse either way, just different.

Horses do fine either way and yes, how we manage our horse's lifestyle, or that of other animals we care for, compares how we manage human lives too.
We also have trade-offs in our lives, that makes some we do better and easier, even if not ideal, or at times worse, but it is necessary and we understand it is so.

siegi b.
Sep. 26, 2010, 01:17 PM
Bluey - you can't argue with the ones that have drunk the KoolAide.....

As you said, their eventual goal is to do away with all "kept" animals regardless of the consequences. It sounds like a noble goal, but so far it looks like management is only in it to pad their own pockets while the poor, gullible membership promotes sensational propaganda.

What's next? Let's see how many abused children we can find and then try to outlaw the human species from reproducing?

I can just see all the sensational press created with "kids kept in tiny little rooms/igloos", beaten daily, starved and possibly sexually assaulted. Great headlines....

Wouldn't that be a much worthier goal though?

millerra
Sep. 26, 2010, 03:28 PM
you know, I can't say anything about farming in California, especially dairy. But I can tell you what dairy farmers here say and yes, they are my neighbors and my family.

The "igloos" HERE are not for veal calves. They are for ALL the baby calves because they are removed immediately from their mothers and hand raised. Those babies are very important to the farmer's economic bottom line and they are not abused - but little 'treasures' and are very well cared for because they become the next generation of 'happy cows'.

Farming has always been 'cruel'. There is a cycle of life and death. Animals cannot be viewed as loving companions because they are not. I was "given" kittens every year to have and play with. Very few ever survived to adulthood. The most common cause of death was being squished by a cow laying down. Were they buried w/ tears. No. They were tossed onto the manure spreader.

It has always been a tough life farming. The margin for profit is small. The current fad is to blame corporate farming for animal cruelty and abuse and cry about the loss of the good old, kind family farm. It's not real. Listen to the stories of the old farmers - about "castrating hog day" or about the bull that killed the neighbor or the uncle who lost his arm in the corn picker or crushed by the combine. It's always been a gritty, hard existence for both animals and humans. To worry about the suffering of an animal that was in good health and had food, water and a safe place to exist until its end just doesn't really compute - at least w/ the older generation of farmers.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 26, 2010, 05:22 PM
I don't order veal. In FFA it was no secret that the veal calf's life isn't grand or healthy, so I just don't eat it.

The beef cattle on the other hand are pretty normal, as are the dairy cattle. Ive worked on a huge University dairy farm and those cows were absolutely happy and taken care of.

People keep bringing up CA like its the only place in America. THEY have lots of dirt lots and veal cows packed in, so address THEM. Most states here in the south have plenty of grazing and TONS of shady treelines and lovely ponds and natural running water through the properties. If it wasnt so expensive for land in CA maybe they wouldnt have the dirt lots *shrugs* dont know.

Of the farms in my area (of which is most of our parish) I havent even seen anyone with veal cattle, but funny thing is we arent very resteraunt laden so maybe you need those fancy dives to really have a veal market?

Even within an hour of my home I dont think one place serves veal, so its just not as popular.

I'm not a fan of specialty foods that make animals sufffer. I won't eat anything kosher slaughtered, or veal.

Just my opinion.

mbm
Sep. 26, 2010, 06:33 PM
Bluey - you can't argue with the ones that have drunk the KoolAide.....


exactly what "kool-aid" have i drunk? it will be interesting what your answer is because you are ASSuming a lot.....

eta: maybe you should read this link before using the term "drunk the kool-aid"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

900 + people DIED because of Jim Jones.... how is it ok to use that phrase in such an off hand way?

mbm
Sep. 26, 2010, 06:41 PM
i "keep bring up CA" because i LIVE here - would you rather i speak about some place i have never been?

as for factory farming compared to old school farming - i NEVER made that comparison - i have seen some horrid stuff from both.

but then - i dont really believe in raising cattle to eat (not very good for the environment, etc)

oh, and before any accuses me of "drinking the kool-aid" (which by the way is a pretty crass and callus thing to accuse someone of considering how many people DIED at the hands of Jim Jones ).... anyway, i came to all these animal friendly conclusions all on my own (you know, using that thing called a brain). we raised animals and killed them as i was growing up - that is why i made the choices i made. not because if watching something on tv (remember i have never owned a tv)....

you folks really need to get more imagination!!! It is clear that like many other topics this one is senseless to have here. Intelligent debate/conversation is good - but when the same ole same ole jump on and start snarking - it is time to shove off.

happy fall!

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 26, 2010, 07:17 PM
[QUOTE=mbm;5121272]

but then - i dont really believe in raising cattle to eat (not very good for the environment, etc)
QUOTE]

But you have no right to stop others from eating cattle right?

I only ask because, the LEVEL at wich you don't believe in something can become fanatical easily enough.

I DO very much believe in raising and eating animals, and so there should a choice right? TO eat or not to eat meat?

If you feel differently, then arguing is moot, as I don't think anyone with sense would try and rule out meat products for anyone who actually wants it in their diet.

Donella
Sep. 26, 2010, 08:24 PM
Bluey. I own chickens. I was brought up on a farm. I live on one now. I have a degree in Biology (prevet) and took many ag courses at a university that is in the heart of farm country (Alberta Canada). Right now we have 20 chickens in a large fenced area. None have ever attacked each other or pecked each other to death. That happens when chicken density is too high, that is a proven fact.

You say, chickens are not human, so why do we assume they need to be able to stretch their wings, to move more than two inches in their whole lives, to be free of pain? Well why do we assume those same things for our dogs? For our cats and horses? Why is someone considered an animal abuser if they starved their dog or cat near death and yet that same person can force molt a chicken and suddenly, such an action does not cause suffering? SPARE ME. All sentient beings should be able to experience basic needs such as movement, food, water, shelter, socialization to some ectent.

What is it with some of you? You think that there are two options: you can either treat a food animal horrendously by depriving them of literally everything and giving them only enough to ensure they live through their short lives long enough for their carcass to be profitable. Or two, we simply do not own animals??? Why are those the only two options? Well guess what? They aren't. There are places in the world (UK for example) that give farm animals some moral consideration. And guess what, the world didn't fall apart. People still own animals. Mcdonalds still exists. Despite all the fear mongering from farmers ala Bluey, nothing really changed except that those pigs and chickens ect that gave their LIVES for you were granted some semblance of mercy before they died. What on earth is wrong with that???!

Bluey
Sep. 26, 2010, 08:34 PM
Bluey. I own chickens. I was brought up on a farm. I live on one now. I have a degree in Biology (prevet) and took many ag courses at a university that is in the heart of farm country (Alberta Canada). Right now we have 20 chickens in a large fenced area. None have ever attacked each other or pecked each other to death. That happens when chicken density is too high, that is a proven fact.

You say, chickens are not human, so why do we assume they need to be able to stretch their wings, to move more than two inches in their whole lives, to be free of pain? Well why do we assume those same things for our dogs? For our cats and horses? Why is someone considered an animal abuser if they starved their dog or cat near death and yet that same person can force molt a chicken and suddenly, such an action does not cause suffering? SPARE ME. All sentient beings should be able to experience basic needs such as movement, food, water, shelter, socialization to some ectent.

What is it with some of you? You think that there are two options: you can either treat a food animal horrendously by depriving them of literally everything and giving them only enough to ensure they live through their short lives long enough for their carcass to be profitable. Or two, we simply do not own animals??? Why are those the only two options? Well guess what? They aren't. There are places in the world (UK for example) that give farm animals some moral consideration. And guess what, the world didn't fall apart. People still own animals. Mcdonalds still exists. Despite all the fear mongering from farmers ala Bluey, nothing really changed except that those pigs and chickens ect that gave their LIVES for you were granted some semblance of mercy before they died. What on earth is wrong with that???!

Don't ask me, I already said I don't really know about chickens, other than what we raised long ago and it was not commercial chicken raising and yes, without crowding, chickens will have their problems picking one to peck on at times, that was one reason I heard for some of the whys for some of their management practices.

You need to ask the scientists that ran the studies that the regulations are based on for what is acceptable to house chickens.

millerra
Sep. 26, 2010, 10:58 PM
Oh dear, I didn't realize I was being snarky.

Maybe people get a bit uptight because of the "slippery slope" thing. I personally don't think things are black and white. I have been to a "factory" pig farm and yes, it did make me uncomfortable w/ the idea even though the pigs were in good health (based on weight, skin condition, etc) and the barn was spotless.

Back to the slippery slope idea.

"causing animal suffering" - well, I give my horses vaccinations (shots) and float their teeth. They clearly don't like it - have to tranq 2 to float teeth. Why - clearly for their health, but no, horses in the wild don't have it done. And clearly it causes them "suffering" in their little minds.

"cutting off body parts" - well, I have personally had two horses gelded - only to make them easier for me to "use" and so they could co-habitate peacefully w/ their kind. And yes, they were tranq'd but they sure didn't receive pain killers afterward.

"keeping animals in crates" - well, I stall my horses in the summer about 18 hours every day because of bugs. They'd rather be in but nevertheless, they are kept "in crates".

"animals for human use" -well, that's why I keep horses. You know, to ride them. They'd probably rather I didn't but until they've earned their retirement, I ride them. It's their job.

back to "keeping animals in crates" - well, I crate my dogs while we're at work during the day - for their safety and that of my house. (we had one dog w/ separation anxiety and she did some major damage to herself and parts of the house (and car)). [some animal rights groups tried to outlaw this in Colorado a few years back, IIRC.]

Other body parts removed - both our hunting dogs have had their dewclaws removed, to prevent injury in the field. And our hunting dogs are "used" too, just don't tell them that.

And, we get it from the other side too - I have barn cats. They have a job to do. In exchange, they are fed, neutered or spayed (back to the body parts thing) and vaccinated. But to some cat lovers, I am a horrible cat owner because I don't keep my cat safely in the house. It is a dangerous world out there.

So you see, in my humble opinion - I can be accused of many of the "heinous, abusive" acts that some animal rights people are so against. But in my opinion, it is good animal husbandry. Many of the animal rights groups and people in them don't know the difference or if they do, don't care. And that's where I have the problem. If you don't know much about taking care of a cow, then don't tell some who DOES how to do it.

ThreeFigs
Sep. 26, 2010, 11:50 PM
So I took a peek at mbm's latest post. Yes, I know I shouldn't have. Does this mean she "shoved off"?

I have to speak up about her comment regarding cattle raising bad for the environment. I have no idea what that means. Global warming has been debunked as a hoax, so cow farts & belches surely are no longer a problem!

There are vast parts of this country where very little grows besides grass. I'll use the eastern plains of Colorado as one example. There is not enough water available to irrigate crops like corn or beans or broccoli. Places, yes, along the Fort Lyon Canal, various crops are raised. Beyond the reach of the canal water, however, is dry grassland, watered only by rains. Some years, precious little of that.

What do you do with such country? You raise cattle. Cattle convert grass to protein in a form that (most) humans find palatable. They do it efficiently. It is a good use of a natural resource. Good cowmen (the only kind I know in that country) manage both their resources and their herds with great care. They know from history that it's a fragile environment.

The good prairies were reduced to useless sandhills after homesteaders attempted to raise dryland wheat and corn -- and the Dust Bowl Era hit them. My cousin and his dad bought up those falied homesteads, terraced the sandhills and broadcast seed to bring the prairie back to life and usefulness. It took 80 years for the grass to come back and tame the dunes. 5,000 acres or so of sand on the ranch is now covered with good grass. The remaining dune is maybe 250 or so acres, a reminder of those bad old Dust Bowl days.

Donella
Sep. 27, 2010, 12:36 AM
"causing animal suffering" - well, I give my horses vaccinations (shots) and float their teeth. They clearly don't like it - have to tranq 2 to float teeth. Why - clearly for their health, but no, horses in the wild don't have it done. And clearly it causes them "suffering" in their little minds.

"cutting off body parts" - well, I have personally had two horses gelded - only to make them easier for me to "use" and so they could co-habitate peacefully w/ their kind. And yes, they were tranq'd but they sure didn't receive pain killers afterward

Well you sedate them don't you? Or do you just restrain them and have at it to save costs? A while ago I was reading in the newspaper about a case of "animal abuse" where someone had used an elastrator band to neuter a cat. The person was charged with cruelty to animals. There was some statement in there by the AVMA about how such a method is not appropriate because it causes undue pain. But yet it is SOP for all the animals we eat. You don't just put your colt in a restraining device and geld him . Your vet come out, knocks him out and does it so he is not fully conscious when he is having his body parts lopped off (to me that is pain control). There are lots of instances where body parts are removed and none of them feature any form of anesthetic because it is impractical and costly

"keeping animals in crates" - well, I stall my horses in the summer about 18 hours every day because of bugs. They'd rather be in but nevertheless, they are kept "in crates".

Yes, I stall mine too. But they do get out every day. Anyone who keeps their horses inside makes sure the horses get out for both their mental and physical well being. And if they don't, I am sorry, but that is inhumane in my mind. I don't know about your setup, but my horses are able to turn around and to move in their stalls. In gestation crates, farrowing stalls and battery cages the animals are in there 24/7 their entire lives and they are unable to literally turn around and the chickens cannot spread their wings. If meat animals were allowed time out to move around, I wouldn't be so appalled. There is a HUGE difference between spending some time confined to spending all the time confined in an extremely small space.



"animals for human use" -well, that's why I keep horses. You know, to ride them. They'd probably rather I didn't but until they've earned their retirement, I ride them. It's their job

Yes, and it is your job to make sure that they are not suffering as much as possible. Wouldn't you say? Or do you have no obligation to them ethically? In my mind, I am grateful and humbled that they put up with me and I return that with respect for them and their needs. That is part of what it means to care about and to respect animals. Otherwise it is exploitation rather than husbandry.


back to "keeping animals in crates" - well, I crate my dogs while we're at work during the day - for their safety and that of my house. (we had one dog w/ separation anxiety and she did some major damage to herself and parts of the house (and car)). [some animal rights groups tried to outlaw this in Colorado a few years back, IIRC.]

Would you be ok with it if your neighbour bought a dog and crated it literally 24/7 for three years? Would you think such a thing to be humane? I crate my dogs too when need be, but again, it's in moderation. The dog doesn't spend it's entire life crated!

So you see, in my humble opinion - I can be accused of many of the "heinous, abusive" acts that some animal rights people are so against. But in my opinion, it is good animal husbandry

And so could I! I am sure true animal rights activists would be discusted by me. I own animals. I keep them in pens ect. I subject them to things they probably don't love from time to time. But the vast majority of their existance is comfortable because they are not completely denied the basics of life nor do I ignore their pain because I want to save costs. And that is the big difference here.

Mammals and birds that we eat are sentient animals and I believe that their welfare should be considered wether it costs us or not, or wether they are cute and furry or not. If it is wrong to cause suffering to your dog to cut costs, then why is it not wrong to do the same to another species? That is my point. I am not saying people need to free all the animals ect ect. I am simply saying that they should be treated as sentient beings. They are not machines or tools. They are living, breathing, feeling entities and modern factory farming treats the animals it profits from as if they are not.

Bluey
Sep. 27, 2010, 07:55 AM
---"Mammals and birds that we eat are sentient animals and I believe that their welfare should be considered wether it costs us or not, or wether they are cute and furry or not. If it is wrong to cause suffering to your dog to cut costs, then why is it not wrong to do the same to another species? That is my point. I am not saying people need to free all the animals ect ect. I am simply saying that they should be treated as sentient beings. They are not machines or tools. They are living, breathing, feeling entities and modern factory farming treats the animals it profits from as if they are not."---


Are you saying that, if you keep your hamster in a cage, that you know your hamster, being a hamster, is fine in, your fish in a bowl, that you have read books on how to care for, keep the water just right for that fish, it is ok, because you LOOOVEEE them and take such good care of them?:)

If a farmer keeps chickens in cages, sows at times in crates, all because studies have shown they are best there, perform at their most efficient for what we humans need like that, as they are the less stressed and safer for all there, chickens don't kill each other like that, pigs don't eat their litters, then that is bad in your eyes, because whoever cares for them, does that to make a living doing that, make MONEY, the horror and, in your opinion, doesn't LOOOVEEE them enough?;)


Seriously, I get your points, I just don't agree that when you ask others handle their animals as YOU determine they should, against what studies have shown is appropiate for their industry and in your wisdom you demand they do as you say.:(

Get that degree, run those studies, then stand on the soapbox and tell others what, in your then really educated opinion, with FACTS to back you up, what you think they should do and work for regulations to change to reflect that.:yes:

That is the way the process should work, not for some animal rights groups, clueless, finding some abuse somehwere, run their publicity campaigns to get people to donate to the cause of the moment, taking reality out of context and INVENTING those problems from some abuse cases and then want voters to decide how those farmers need to take care of their animals or conduct their business, as they have done in CA and tried to shut down this summer the dairy industry in IL.:no:

Don't kid yourself, what we do with our horses will come next.:eek:

Fixerupper
Sep. 27, 2010, 07:56 AM
modern factory farming treats the animals it profits from as if they are not.

without getting too deep into the argument...I would like to point out two things in your concluding statement that show that the animal rights message is insidious (as well as perfidious ;) )....!


modern factory farming is inherently wrong
raising animals for profit is inherently wrongWe need to separate out the 'message' from the reality and not allow ourselves to be programmed into a lazy way of thinking by folks with an agenda and 'shocking' video.

Using your money to buy 'free range' and 'traditionally raised' product makes more sense than to support 'rights' groups with 'feel good' donations now and again. Tell me it is easy to plonk down $12 instead of $5 for the free range chicken every time you shop!?!

and then tell the single working mother or unemployed auto worker with a family to do the same....

no black and white there?

DandyMatiz
Sep. 27, 2010, 08:02 AM
Only on COTH...

Can a horse walking on it's hind legs, turn into paying $12 for a chicken..

Bluey
Sep. 27, 2010, 08:13 AM
Only on COTH...

Can a horse walking on it's hind legs, turn into paying $12 for a chicken..

:lol:

In the eyes of animal rights groups, all we do with animals, other than admire them in the wild, is abuse.
They have stated, some posting right here on COTH, that the world would be better off without humans, so animals can live undisturbed by us.

Those people have right to their opinion, they don't have the right to demand the rest of us give up our animals because they say so, as they demand.

Fixerupper
Sep. 27, 2010, 08:52 AM
Only on COTH...

Can a horse walking on it's hind legs, turn into paying $12 for a chicken..

:D

millerra
Sep. 27, 2010, 09:56 AM
[B]"

Yes, and it is your job to make sure that they are not suffering as much as possible. Wouldn't you say? Or do you have no obligation to them ethically? In my mind, I am grateful and humbled that they put up with me and I return that with respect for them and their needs. That is part of what it means to care about and to respect animals. Otherwise it is exploitation rather than husbandry.




But you see, you and I agree. I believe I DO have an obligation to care for them, and respect them. However, I am not so sure that the true animal rights activists would agree w/ you either. That's the problem.

Donella
Sep. 27, 2010, 11:05 AM
Bluey, it's not the caging that I have a problem with. It's that these animals live in cages so small that they are literally unable to move at all, their entire lives. Can you not see the difference between that and a horse or cow in a pasture, or a pig in a sty, or a chicken in a run?

Ag research focuses primarily on finding a way to keep these animals alive with as little cost to the producer as possible. Yes, you can keep a hen alive in a tiny crate packed with other hens. They will lay eggs. But they simply cannot move. At all. Nor can they stretch their wings. But again, welfare issues are not really of concern. Keeping the animal alive and producing for a short span of time at the cheapest cost is. I have a good friend from Holland who came here to do her PHD working with pigs. That is all her research focuses on.

Clearly, I am not the only one who feels there is a difference between confinement and outright taking away an animals ability to move. In 1996, European Commission’s Scientific Veterinary Committee found that :
"It is clear that because of its small size and its barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens"

They have also phased out their farrowing crates, gestation stalls and the traditional way of raising veal. These are all trademarks of modern factory farming. So yes, I do believe that modern factory farming IS inherently immoral.

I do not believe that raising animals for profit is wrong. Nor did I state that. I mentioned that factory farming treats the animals it profits from as if they lack sentience. THAT is inherently wrong.


ut you see, you and I agree. I believe I DO have an obligation to care for them, and respect them. However, I am not so sure that the true animal rights activists would agree w/ you either. That's the problem.

I know, but again, I am not animal rights activist. I am a strong proponent of animal welfare. They don't have to agree with me :o)

Bluey
Sep. 27, 2010, 11:22 AM
---"Clearly, I am not the only one who feels there is a difference between confinement and outright taking away an animals ability to move. In 1996, European Commission’s Scientific Veterinary Committee found that :
"It is clear that because of its small size and its barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens"

They have also phased out their farrowing crates, gestation stalls and the traditional way of raising veal. These are all trademarks of modern factory farming. So yes, I do believe that modern factory farming IS inherently immoral."---


That is scientists disagreeing with scientists and they will have to each prove why they think so and how to make it better.
So do the producers.

I don't think that you or I have much to say in that, unless we were raising those animals.
What doesn't make sense to us, maybe it does if we were in that situation?

You may call how they manage their animal "immoral", but I wonder how you define moral and any one's obligation to follow the "morals" of someone else that is not involved with what they do?

I think you may mean "unethical" there and still, I think that ethics are much depending on who can show what is better and why.
In ethics, you learn that in real life, you can't have your ethical omelettes without breaking some ethical eggs, pun intended.
ANY use we make of any animal, including owning a horse as a pasture ornament, there are trade-offs with the animal's nature.
As it happens so often, the devil is in the details.

As of now, the jury is still out and, believe it or not, if there is a better way to manage animals, every producer will jump on it as soon as they possibly can and those that don't want to, will be regulated into it.

There are way more concerns to anything we do than just one as you focus there, following the propaganda of animal rights groups, if you are aware of it or not.

NOMIOMI1
Sep. 27, 2010, 11:54 AM
We need to remember that the more regulations and rules we put to the farming undustry, the more the product will cost.

I know that some of us here are more comfortable than others, but much of America is out of a job and struggling to feed their family.

I am very much concerned with the lack of concern for their ability to get product for a reasonable amount.

We could NEVER afford to take care of the farming animals the way our horses are, it's just not an ability we have.

Add up what you spend on your animals care in the home and at the stable and then decide what price per pound to get a profit... Impossible.

Bluey
Sep. 27, 2010, 12:05 PM
We need to remember that the more regulations and rules we put to the farming undustry, the more the product will cost.

I know that some of us here are more comfortable than others, but much of America is out of a job and struggling to feed their family.

I am very much concerned with the lack of concern for their ability to get product for a reasonable amount.

We could NEVER afford to take care of the farming animals the way our horses are, it's just not an ability we have.

Add up what you spend on your animals care in the home and at the stable and then decide what price per pound to get a profit... Impossible.

Now, we were just told repeatedly that such concerns as you bring up there are "immoral".:eek:

That we should not accept less than perfect when it comes to how we manage our animals, no trade-offs, not even when we have the science to show it is ok to manage as we do.:no:

Of course, the definition of perfect, in the end, is not to use any animals at all.

Who can debate for animal use of any kind, especially that which ends in killing the animal for our purposes?:cry:
Well, I say lets not confuse use with abuse.
An animal in the wild genearally will be also stressed, injured, get sick, too slow and eaten, they won't live a long, fruitful, uneventful life and die of old age.
Living with some stress and adapting is what life is for all organisms alive.
For us humans, that involves keeping, managing and making use in ways we have found are best of other animals, to eat, get many products and also to enjoy, like our pets.
Animals for us are one more natural, renewable resource.

Use is using the animals we have for all and any use that is not directly abusing the animal, which should be driven by common sense and what we know of the true nature of the animals we are talking about.
Yes, they are sentinent and we should care for them to the best of our ability not to cause undue stress, we agree with that.
Then, when we measure for all we do managing our animals, is a chicken, for a chicken, that stressed in a cage, a horse in a stall?

That, I think we need to leave to those that study those things and those that care for those animals, before we go banning this or that on some human's perceptions of what is adequate that are not familiar with the true nature of the animals in question.

Donella
Sep. 27, 2010, 01:50 PM
Well, I don't believe in self policing. It doesn't work. If a person can profit from what amounts to abuse, in many cases, they are not going to stop what they are doing. I don't have that much faith in the unselfishness and uncallousness of human beings. No way. So, no I am not comfortable with producers policing themselves because of the motives involved.

I just don't think it is THAT complicated. You take an animal and you remove it's ability to MOVE, to breath fresh air, to perform the very basics of life for even a small time each day. And we actually have to sit here and discuss wether or not that is ethical? I find that so very sad. Is compassion really inherent in our species? Sometimes, especially when these kinds of discussions come up, I really am not sure.

We need to remember that the more regulations and rules we put to the farming undustry, the more the product will cost.

Well, according to the American Cancer Society , the typical American eats WAY (I can't remember the exact amount) more meat than what is recommened for good health. We all know that. Eating meat every meal is not a neccessity (it's a want, and nothing more). I mean, if you truly could care less about the consequences of cheap meat (ie supporting inhumane practices) then so what?. But, I quite frankly I find it a small price to pay. I am sure there are other ways to deal with providing food during poor economic times then having to condemn animals to such a fate.

katarine
Sep. 27, 2010, 05:56 PM
I'll pay 12 dollars to watch the free range chicken ride the horse, how 'bout it?

alicen
Sep. 27, 2010, 06:12 PM
What was it, awhile ago, about chicken's laying eggs on horses butts?

siegi b.
Sep. 27, 2010, 08:26 PM
No, it was how cruel it was for the $12.00 chicken to chew the pig's tail off and then crowd it in its cage... or something like that.

Quite confusing.....

... and I just remembered... wasn't there a horse in there somewhere?

alicen
Sep. 27, 2010, 09:11 PM
Wasn't that the same chicken that took to laying eggs in a horse's manger and would savage anyone who tried to remove her?

ThreeFigs
Sep. 27, 2010, 09:58 PM
"Hens gone wild!"

Bluey
Sep. 27, 2010, 10:26 PM
"Hens gone wild!"

:lol:

You know why the chicken crossed the road?

John Locke : Because he was exercising his natural right to liberty.;)

foursocks
Sep. 28, 2010, 04:20 PM
Wait, global warming is a hoax? Phew, what a relief!!! Someone should be sure to tell that to Bangladesh!

ThreeFigs
Sep. 28, 2010, 04:39 PM
Hey, local warming is still fact! LA is melting, mellllting...

We're having record setting highs for late September, but it's still not bad.