PDA

View Full Version : Assaulting our rights to own and use horses:



Pages : 1 [2]

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:22 PM
The world is better everyday???
We have more chemicals in everything. The farmers make less to grow gmo soybeans and corn
Have you seen the pollution??
Have you noticed how many people are overweight these days (including myself). If not actually obese?? We hardly have REAL food anymore. Do you ever read labels???
Why has TG worked to improve things?? Do you really think McDonald's would have started improving things for cattle just because??? I'm sure they're just angels right???:eek:
None of us likes the extremists but we do need the checks and balances. There are abuses out there and someone needs to make sure they don't happen.
The faster things have to happen leaves more room for mistakes.



Pure nonsense that I have already addressed in some post before on this thread.

Animal rights extremist groups are riding the coattails of those of us that take care of animals.
Why do you think they have trouble finding abuses and use those same videos time and again?
That would be like using whatever the name of that college football team trainer that is a sexual predator story to say all college team coaches are like that, beware!:no:

Temple Grandin has been paid for decades now to study how to better manage cattle.
She is part of the beef industry, just like others like her, that have always been trying to do better and better.

Animal rights groups go around the back way to find abuses and use that for their agenda to eliminate all animal use.
They never do anything good for any animals, they are after whatever serves their agenda to show any animal use in the worst light they can manage and make a good living off that too.:p

Abusers we ought to know by now are in anything we do and it is not because we use animals that there are abusers, but because there are some defective people that are abusers of anything they can abuse, even other humans and yes, animals too.:(

Don't kid yourself, the world is better every day and getting even better for more and more, humans and animals and that is because those caring for everything, including animals, are doing a better job, not because some extremist groups are making a living by crying abuse and putting their hands out for the gullible to donate to them to "make it go away".

Those groups are a scam at many levels and definitely not but rarely they do any real good, that is not also in their own interest to make anyone with animals look terrible and so gain track on their push to eliminate all use of animals.

Already forgotten the lawsuit they lost against that circus, where in court it was shown they made up the charges?:eek:
You talk about abuses?
What do you call what those you defend did to the circus people?
Nice folks you are defending there.:no:

sunridge1
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:35 PM
Can someone please post where it has been said that these groups really want to take all the animals away? Please do not repost ad naseum the out of context "one generation and out." (whatever that really means) What else you got that explicitly says, without a doubt, they want to take our animals away?

I'm sorry, but just saying it over and over with no real 'true' source is not good enough for me and my critical thinking.

Parcell's "one generation and out" with the whole content doesn't even make any real sense. Except they don't care about heritage cattle?

Bluey
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:41 PM
The world is better everyday???
We have more chemicals in everything. The farmers make less to grow gmo soybeans and corn
Have you seen the pollution??
Have you noticed how many people are overweight these days (including myself). If not actually obese?? We hardly have REAL food anymore. Do you ever read labels???
Why has TG worked to improve things?? Do you really think McDonald's would have started improving things for cattle just because??? I'm sure they're just angels right???:eek:
None of us likes the extremists but we do need the checks and balances. There are abuses out there and someone needs to make sure they don't happen.
The faster things have to happen leaves more room for mistakes.

Every industry has many laws, regulations, supervisors, inspectors and government and industry itself are continuously tweaking those as problems come up.

The cattle industry had since 1984 BQA, that has trained many in the industry, from ranchers to feedlots to truckers for many years and certifies premises.

If you work in any industry, as a professional, even as a teacher or trucker, you would know that.

Yes, things are better all along and getting better.
Quit listening to all that is wrong and look around you and wonder at all that we have already made better.
Someone did all that for the rest of us to live better, so you can now sit behind a computer and complain, with a handy refrigerator full or a service industry that brings you ready to eat food, with all else that keeps our societies functioning and helping those that don't yet get there.

Of course there is always more to do, some that is not quite right, some bad, but to only see that as you keep bringing up, that is very shortsighted of you.

As long as you only look at what is still not good enough, all you will do is become frustrated and look for someone to blame.
Fine, if that is what floats your boat, but when you come here to tell us, sorry, there are too many of us that know better.

Alagirl
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:42 PM
The world is better everyday???
We have more chemicals in everything. The farmers make less to grow gmo soybeans and corn
Have you seen the pollution??
Have you noticed how many people are overweight these days (including myself). If not actually obese?? We hardly have REAL food anymore. Do you ever read labels???
Why has TG worked to improve things?? Do you really think McDonald's would have started improving things for cattle just because??? I'm sure they're just angels right???:eek:
None of us likes the extremists but we do need the checks and balances. There are abuses out there and someone needs to make sure they don't happen.
The faster things have to happen leaves more room for mistakes.

Yes, the wolrd is much better than it used to be.
At least in terms of pollution and chemicals.
We have made great strides in eliminating many such contaminants.
And don't bring in China. They ar eout of our reach and sadly have not paid any attention to the failures of ours from the 60s and 70s.

The 'chemicals' of today ar emuch more targeted than in the past. Also, due to cost, they are used much more sparingly.

The GMO crops? Well, the jury is out on them still. They have not been out long enough. And while some suspect them in having a hand in certain conditions, so far it's annecdotal evidence (Much of it supported by Rodale Press...but not many more) The Monsanto angle is much more worrisome, but for a different reason.

Seriously, read more real sources and less of the populistic ones.

Niennor
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:44 PM
And we kow, that you are a good egg. So was County. (Miss him a lot).

It's the extremists on the pro side who accuse everyone who is remotely concerned with animal welfare, to be an RARA.


There are a lot of animal advocates who work without any influence from HSUS/PETA.
That doesn't mean that in some instances they don't come to the same conclusion.

I am no fan of HSUS, however, I am thrilled of what their undercover Big Lick video has accomplished for the horses involved.
None of us COTHers or any little animal welfare group could have gotten that kind of media attention.

I'm with you on that. PETA and HSUS do have their use, when there are actual cases of cruelty that they can get the media on. Unfortunately most of the time they're too busy souting insanity. But hy, at least one good thing came out of there being RARA's: the horrors of the Big Lick shows finally ot some exposure. In the long run, I don't think they can accomplish much in the way of getting people to loose the right to have pets of livestock, because those of us with common sense and who truly care for animals still outweigh the crazies.

Bluey
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:51 PM
Can someone please post where it has been said that these groups really want to take all the animals away? Please do not repost ad naseum the out of context "one generation and out." (whatever that really means) What else you got that explicitly says, without a doubt, they want to take our animals away?

I'm sorry, but just saying it over and over with no real 'true' source is not good enough for me and my critical thinking.

Parcell's "one generation and out" with the whole content doesn't even make any real sense. Except they don't care about heritage cattle?


What do you think it will mean to give animals the same rights that we give humans, as the OP article explains animal rights groups attorneys are working to get passed?

Do I need to say more?:rolleyes:

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 10, 2012, 06:58 PM
Yes and you can sit behind a computer and say the sky is falling.
And thank you for pointing out what I would know as a professional. As happens I can see both sides.
I'm actually trying not to be shortsighted or have blinders on. Unlike some.



Every industry has many laws, regulations, supervisors, inspectors and government and industry itself are continuously tweaking those as problems come up.

The cattle industry had since 1984 BQA, that has trained many in the industry, from ranchers to feedlots to truckers for many years and certifies premises.

If you work in any industry, as a professional, even as a teacher or trucker, you would know that.

Yes, things are better all along and getting better.
Quit listening to all that is wrong and look around you and wonder at all that we have already made better.
Someone did all that for the rest of us to live better, so you can now sit behind a computer and complain, with a handy refrigerator full or a service industry that brings you ready to eat food, with all else that keeps our societies functioning and helping those that don't yet get there.

Of course there is always more to do, some that is not quite right, some bad, but to only see that as you keep bringing up, that is very shortsighted of you.

As long as you only look at what is still not good enough, all you will do is become frustrated and look for someone to blame.
Fine, if that is what floats your boat, but when you come here to tell us, sorry, there are too many of us that know better.

sunridge1
Oct. 10, 2012, 07:49 PM
What do you think it will mean to give animals the same rights that we give humans, as the OP article explains animal rights groups attorneys are working to get passed?

Do I need to say more?:rolleyes:


The ultimate dream for animal rights advocates would be something like the application of the 14th Amendment's equal protection to animals as well as humans. Such a ruling might ban the rearing of domesticated animals for meat altogether. And some major thinkers in the field -- most famously Steve Wise of the Nonhuman Rights Project -- are actively pursuing it.

"Right now, it's really easy to determine who has the capacity to have a right," he explained. "You look at the species. If you're human, you have rights. If you're not, you don't. What we're arguing is that species is completely arbitrary. There are many nonhuman animals that have really serious cognitive complexity. And we think that cognitive complexity alone is a sufficient condition to make some animals legal persons."

Well yes you do. Steven Wise has no affiliation with HSUS or Peta for that matter. He is his own man, The Nonhuman Rights Project to be precise.

So we degrade HSUS who are now considered 'moderate' by lumping Wise in with them in the article. News sites you just can't trust them.That critical thinking AND reading for comprehension will get you every time. :rolleyes:

Bluey
Oct. 10, 2012, 08:17 PM
Well yes you do. Steven Wise has no affiliation with HSUS or Peta for that matter. He is his own man, The Nonhuman Rights Project to be precise.

So we degrade HSUS who are now considered 'moderate' by lumping Wise in with them in the article. News sites you just can't trust them.That critical thinking AND reading for comprehension will get you every time. :rolleyes:

You really believe the HSUS doesn't has an interest in all those topics and helps where help is needed to further them, as in the guardianship voting in CO lately and so many other out there lobbying?:p

You know, the HSUS has been realizing they could not really show how extreme they are, so the past few years have done much PR and toned it down, but a tiger by any name still has stripes.;)

I can't believe anyone that supposedly has animals and comes to a horse training forum thinks it can defend animal rights extremists.
There is a great disconnect there.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 10, 2012, 09:10 PM
In some ways yes in some ways no it isn't.
Not even touching China
I read the labels on food. Instead of asking where's the beef you can now ask where's the food. Or better yet.. what the he@@ is that?


Yes, the wolrd is much better than it used to be.
At least in terms of pollution and chemicals.
We have made great strides in eliminating many such contaminants.
And don't bring in China. They ar eout of our reach and sadly have not paid any attention to the failures of ours from the 60s and 70s.

The 'chemicals' of today ar emuch more targeted than in the past. Also, due to cost, they are used much more sparingly.

The GMO crops? Well, the jury is out on them still. They have not been out long enough. And while some suspect them in having a hand in certain conditions, so far it's annecdotal evidence (Much of it supported by Rodale Press...but not many more) The Monsanto angle is much more worrisome, but for a different reason.

Seriously, read more real sources and less of the populistic ones.

sunridge1
Oct. 10, 2012, 09:51 PM
You really believe the HSUS doesn't has an interest in all those topics and helps where help is needed to further them, as in the guardianship voting in CO lately and so many other out there lobbying?:p

You know, the HSUS has been realizing they could not really show how extreme they are, so the past few years have done much PR and toned it down, but a tiger by any name still has stripes.;)

I can't believe anyone that supposedly has animals and comes to a horse training forum thinks it can defend animal rights extremists.
There is a great disconnect there.

The disconnect is that YOU repeatedly confuse animal rights with animal welfare. As demonstrated here on this bulletin board countless times (and I mean countless) calling fellow animal owners animal rights extremists. YOU even called me a RARA, someone who actually farms and was raised on farm owned by my family for 5 generations since they came over on the boat. How in hell am I supposed to take you seriously? Or believe your selected drivel/propaganda.

I can't,you've crossed the line with being an extremist yourself. Your opinion is clouded by an agenda. Not unlike the people you rail against.

ETA how is THAT for critical thinking!

jetsmom
Oct. 10, 2012, 10:00 PM
You know, the HSUS has been realizing they could not really show how extreme they are, so the past few years have done much PR and toned it down, but a tiger by any name still has stripes.;)

.

The problem is that you think anything with fur is a Tiger. You think that anyone that supports ANY issue, that HSUS supports is an animal rights extremist. (Not an activist, but an extremist). That shows how far your disconnect is to what a true animal rights extremist is.

Calico
Oct. 10, 2012, 10:27 PM
The disconnect is that YOU repeatedly confuse animal rights with animal welfare. As demonstrated here on this bulletin board countless times (and I mean countless) calling fellow animal owners animal rights extremists. YOU even called me a RARA, someone who actually farms and was raised on farm owned by my family for 5 generations since they came over on the boat. How in hell am I supposed to take you seriously? Or believe your selected drivel/propaganda.

Echo. I have the posters that assume I am a RARA because I support animal welfare on ignore for precisely this reason. BTDT :)

Alagirl
Oct. 10, 2012, 10:35 PM
In some ways yes in some ways no it isn't.
Not even touching China
I read the labels on food. Instead of asking where's the beef you can now ask where's the food. Or better yet.. what the he@@ is that?

But those chemicals have nothing to do with the original topic.
What the processor tossed in the vat is not equivalent with bad animal husbandry.

Separate issue. (I don't disagree with you, but it's a different topic)

Alagirl
Oct. 10, 2012, 10:38 PM
The disconnect is that YOU repeatedly confuse animal rights with animal welfare. As demonstrated here on this bulletin board countless times (and I mean countless) calling fellow animal owners animal rights extremists. YOU even called me a RARA, someone who actually farms and was raised on farm owned by my family for 5 generations since they came over on the boat. How in hell am I supposed to take you seriously? Or believe your selected drivel/propaganda.

I can't,you've crossed the line with being an extremist yourself. Your opinion is clouded by an agenda. Not unlike the people you rail against.

ETA how is THAT for critical thinking!

I think the correct term fo people who fail to make the connection is 'usefull idiot'
And as I have been told, that is the term the Mother Ship uses (aka PETA and HSUS)

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 10, 2012, 10:46 PM
True. I have more issues with the middleman than the actual farmer.


But those chemicals have nothing to do with the original topic.
What the processor tossed in the vat is not equivalent with bad animal husbandry.

Separate issue. (I don't disagree with you, but it's a different topic)

jetsmom
Oct. 10, 2012, 10:59 PM
I think the correct term fo people who fail to make the connection is 'usefull idiot'
And as I have been told, that is the term the Mother Ship uses (aka PETA and HSUS)

An example of "if you run out of arguments or facts, call names."

sunridge1
Oct. 10, 2012, 11:53 PM
I think the correct term fo people who fail to make the connection is 'usefull idiot'
And as I have been told, that is the term the Mother Ship uses (aka PETA and HSUS)

Huh? You call me an idiot? Where is my tin foil hat?

Jeez you people are not ready for a brave new world. Thank goodness you'll be dead as well as all your animals so you won't have to suffer through. The future is not yours. Really glad it's not mine.

betonbill
Oct. 11, 2012, 12:01 AM
I agree about ARA. But there are those on here, that feel that supporting banning any act like soring TWH or horse slaughter for human consumption, makes you an ARA. I disagree with that. And I don't think that banning those two things, will result in us losing our animals. The fear of ARA's is making it harder to write laws banning truly abusive practices. And while I recognize that some people are ok with horse slaughter as it is currently practiced, being against it does not make someone an ARA.

There are lots of issues, like dog fighting, canned hunts, horse tripping, horse slaughter for human consumption etc, that many people feel ARE abusive. But the people that find them abusive are not necessarily ARA's. It has become customary that instead of accepting that some people have the opinion that they are abusive, they want to label them as ARA's to try to diminish their opinion and denigrate them, in spite of them owning animals, riding, wearing leather and eating meat. Or they label them RARA's which is even more of an insult since a true RARA will use terroristic acts like violence, or letting animals loose.

While you don't want to support AR agendas, it is also wrong to ignore abuse, misrepresent laws written to prevent abuse (like the legislation to prevent soring which is specific to TWH's), and call people names, just because they support banning an abusive act that you may be ok with.

I'd be curious to know what issues those posting on this thread feel were wrong to be made illegal/or wrong to have people trying to make them illegal...dog fighting? cockfighting? horse tripping? canned hunts? gestation crates? cages for poultry where they can stand up and turn around? If you support banning even one of those issues, then you have no right to call someone an ARA that supports a ban on something else they consider abusive, if it doesn't involve losing the right to own animals, because that is the goal of an ARA. There are even people that don't think it is right to have carriage horses in Central park, that aren't ARA's. THey are ok with them elsewhere but object to having them on the city streets there. I may not agree, but that doesn't make them ARA's. (I mean do you really think Georgina Bloomberg and that other BN rider are ARA's, who want animal ownership banned?) they may not agree with your stance on the issue, but they aren't ARA's.

BRAVO. Well said.

Bluey
Oct. 11, 2012, 07:31 AM
The disconnect is that YOU repeatedly confuse animal rights with animal welfare. As demonstrated here on this bulletin board countless times (and I mean countless) calling fellow animal owners animal rights extremists. YOU even called me a RARA, someone who actually farms and was raised on farm owned by my family for 5 generations since they came over on the boat. How in hell am I supposed to take you seriously? Or believe your selected drivel/propaganda.

I can't,you've crossed the line with being an extremist yourself. Your opinion is clouded by an agenda. Not unlike the people you rail against.

ETA how is THAT for critical thinking!


The problem is that you think anything with fur is a Tiger. You think that anyone that supports ANY issue, that HSUS supports is an animal rights extremist. (Not an activist, but an extremist). That shows how far your disconnect is to what a true animal rights extremist is.


Huh? You call me an idiot? Where is my tin foil hat?

Jeez you people are not ready for a brave new world. Thank goodness you'll be dead as well as all your animals so you won't have to suffer through. The future is not yours. Really glad it's not mine.

:lol:

Present irrefutable evidence in the OP article and so many others you can find out there of what those animal rights extremist groups are, their agendas and how they operate and guess what, the regular customers of their propaganda can't do more than make lots of irrelevant noise and yell "not true, everyone else is wrong, we the true believers know!":p

Ok, who here is wearing tin foil hats, you think?;)

Yes, this would be very funny, if it was not such a serious subject, our rights to own and use animals hanging on the balance.:(

As for those that cry "we are all for welfare, not following animal rights extremist agendas!"
Please, if you really want others to believe that, easy, just don't follow their agendas as you so obviously do.
Use some common sense for once.
Learn to make a difference in what is really animal welfare and what is one more stepping stone to eliminate all animal uses, one at the time, following blindly what animal rights extremists do, using the by now very tired abuse card.:no:

Alagirl
Oct. 11, 2012, 10:55 AM
Huh? You call me an idiot? Where is my tin foil hat?

Jeez you people are not ready for a brave new world. Thank goodness you'll be dead as well as all your animals so you won't have to suffer through. The future is not yours. Really glad it's not mine.


An example of "if you run out of arguments or facts, call names."


OH EM GEE she called us names!!!11!!eleven!!11!!

You missed the little segment where the much beloved organizations themselves call the wellmeaning but ignorant people who further their cause, thinking they are working 'welfare' when they are not, such lovely descriptive monicers.

However, as I threw the term out as it has been done before, you ladies are eager to slip that shoe on your foot.
I suppose if it fits, you are welcome to wear it.

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 11:07 AM
Present irrefutable evidence in the OP article and so many others you can find out there of what those animal rights extremist groups are, their agendas and how they operate and guess what, the regular customers of their propaganda can't do more than make lots of irrelevant noise and yell "not true, everyone else is wrong, we the true believers know!"



Why don't YOU present irrefutable evidence to support YOUR claim.

You have been asked to do so before, but you conveniently ignore any such requests.

And please don't cite any of the Berman clan's opinions. They are opinions, not facts.
Just like your wash, rinse, repeat extremist bla-bla-bla........

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 11:56 AM
The HSUS is not the batch of nutjobs some make them out to be.

If it wasn't for work of the HSUS, the American public wouldn't have the awareness it does today of the huge problem of dogfigthing. HSUS was the whistleblower a couple times on slaughterhouses dragging downed cows into the kill room to be used in the *human* food supply. HSUS is also one of the few national voices the horses have against problems such as soring.

Don't buy into the factory-farmer's propaganda. The HSUS is not out to steal your animals and give them voting rights and dress them in human clothing. That's insane.

Do keep in mind there is a strong ($$$) drive to keep the distrust against HSUS and related groups. Who benefits if HSUS dies? Factory-farmers, fur ranches, puppy mills, poor quality zoos, and other sources of concern for anyone who has any compassion for animals. Follow the money. Follow who is funding the supposed "Humane Watch", a fake so-called watchdog group, funded by Center for Consumer Freedom. The CCF is in turn funded by big ag interests. CCF is also the group that fought against MADD to keep liquor less regulated and fought against health advocates to keep tobacco regulated. Are these really the people who should be speaking for what the public wants in the way of basic animal welfare?

Before you buy into the hateful stories about the HSUS, please read StopHumaneWatch. See where much of these press releases are really coming from before you buy into it.
http://humanewatch.info/blog/about-hsus/

And as someone who works every day in the equine welfare business, I can tell you that HSUS is not out to steal your horses. They've been a wonderful resource to independent animal rescues/shelters nationwide. I've been to one of the conferences they organized, and it was a wonderful learning opportunity. They're the national voice all the little shelters/rescues/sanctuaries need in Washington. Independently we're all little local organizations. We cannot fight the big $$$ lobbyists at the national level without help. There is a lot of money involved in keeping horse abuse legal. If we let the bad rumor mill divide us and turn us against other equine welfare causes, the bad guys win.

Of course you believe in the value of HSUS. Did Stacey write this for you, or just give it to you as a press release.

Maryland...home of Equiery, and Maryland Horse Council...both in the same building and work together. DEFHR --horse seizure I mean rescue...sits on the council board...and low and behold Stacey is listed in a lawsuit for telling a county to seize horses "as it would be a great training opportunity for her "equine rescue team" and with the press their organization (HSUS) will be able to raise a lot of money in charitable donations.

Nothing "fake" about Humane Watch. Not only does he list who he is but also his roll on behalf of Agri Business and food interests. It is HSUS and its followers that repeat the lie that HE is hiding HIS agenda.

Funny that Humane Watch does NOT HIDE their donations especially from George Soro's foundations i.e. Tide and Melon that give to HSUS and don't forget the HSUS lawyer who sits on the Presidential advisory board. Coincidence? Not on your life.

If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ecoterrorism.asp

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 12:09 PM
One of ECHO's favourite groups;;;Animal Defence League ;;;she takes many quotes from them

Vlasak, who is a member of the Animal Defense League, a radical animal rights group that carries out various direct actions, including home demonstrations, also reportedly said, "I don't think you'd have to kill too many. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives." Although he was not allowed to attend the conference, Vlasak addressed the gathering via video link.


March 2005: Peter Daniel Young, an animal rights activist wanted for allegedly releasing thousand of animals from Wisconsin fur farms in 1997, was arrested in California. Young, 27, had been a fugitive for over seven years when he was arrested in San Jose for shoplifting at a Starbucks. Authorities say Young broke into three Wisconsin fur farms, releasing thousands of animals and causing more than $200,000 in damages. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the releases.



Terrorism in the name of animal and environmental protection has steadily increased during the past decade in the United States. Automobile dealerships, forestry companies, corporate and university-based medical research laboratories, restaurants, medical-supply firms, fur farms and other industries continue to be targeted. Although no one has yet been injured in a domestic ecoterror attack, the increasingly violent nature of attacks suggests that someone will be hurt before long.

In a statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2004, John E. Lewis of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division noted the "upswing in violent rhetoric and tactics" among ecoterrorists and said that in recent years ALF and ELF "have become the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States."


Alex Epstein quotes follow:

Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited. Animal rights activists know this, but are unmoved. Chris DeRose, founder of the group Last Chance for Animals, writes: "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

To ascribe rights to animals is to contradict the purpose and justification of rights - to protect the interests of humans. Rights are moral principles necessary for men to survive as human beings - to coexist peacefully, to produce and trade, to provide for their own lives, and to pursue their own happiness, all by the guidance of their rational minds. To attribute rights to non-rational, amoral creatures, who can neither grasp nor live by them, is to turn rights from a tool of human preservation to a tool of human extermination.

It should be no surprise that many in the animal rights movement use violence to pursue their man-destroying goals. While these terrorists should be condemned and imprisoned, that is not enough. We must wage a principled, intellectual war against the very notion of animal rights; we must condemn it as logically false and morally repugnant.

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 12:21 PM
Fairfax,

why are you quoting and linking stuff that's almost a decade old? :confused:

Dispatcher
Oct. 11, 2012, 12:39 PM
What do you think it will mean to give animals the same rights that we give humans, as the OP article explains animal rights groups attorneys are working to get passed?

Do I need to say more?:rolleyes:

That is not going to happen. You said yourself that these groups are scammers. Scammers don't win everyone over.

No one with an ounce of education and a spoonful of common sense would support giving animals "right's" the same as humans have. The majority of people do not think that way. Some do, but not the majority. Support "welfare", yes. If you like other living things, this is automatic.

Those who try to propose laws to take away our animals would be laughed right out of the door. These people supporting this are nothing but a cult. Cults don't make laws. Washington DC would be snickering and guffawing through the whole presentation by any RARA.

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 12:45 PM
Fairfax,

why are you quoting and linking stuff that's almost a decade old? :confused:

Because it is still relevant and a leopard doesn't change its spots.

Now..if you don't like that explaination...why do you quote statements regarding abuse, transportation regarding delivery of horses that is almost a decade old?

These are people who are still very much active.

It is an explaination as to animals rights and terrorism

But lets bring it up to date. HSUS, PETA DAILY...now..here and now..in this year..and this month...use much of that "decade old" information in their ongoing struggle on behalf of "the animal"

They just water it down

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 12:48 PM
That is not going to happen. You said yourself that these groups are scammers. Scammers don't win everyone over.

No one with an ounce of education and a spoonful of common sense would support giving animals "right's" the same as humans have. The majority of people do not think that way. Some do, but not the majority. Support "welfare", yes. If you like other living things, this is automatic.

Those who try to propose laws to take away our animals would be laughed right out of the door. These people supporting this are nothing but a cult. Cults don't make laws. Washington DC would be snickering and guffawing through the whole presentation by any RARA.

Designating livestock as companion animals is just the first step and that IS currently on the books for these groups

Cults DO make laws and get them through. Just ask the AKC and their ongoing legal battles to stop anti dog designation, city by city, county by county and state by state

Dispatcher
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:09 PM
Designating livestock as companion animals is just the first step and that IS currently on the books for these groups

Cults DO make laws and get them through. Just ask the AKC and their ongoing legal battles to stop anti dog designation, city by city, county by county and state by state

A "law" to make livestock companion animals will not fly in the U.S. You can bet your bottom dollar that farmers across our nation would call all out war on this.

Where I live, cults don't make laws. I think because there are so many libraires, colleges, and universities around here. People have vast resources to learn the truth behind a movement.

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:33 PM
Now..if you don't like that explaination...why do you quote statements regarding abuse, transportation regarding delivery of horses that is almost a decade old?



A decade old?

Below is the the most recent documentation we posted earlier.
Dated 09/21/2012.
Less than a month old!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCBHEpaw7dg&feature=youtu.be

Bet you didn't even bother to check it out, because you prefer to wear blinders and sing la-la-la.

And there is plenty more documentation from 2012 revealing animal cruelty is pretty much still part of the slaughter pipeline. The same as it was a decade ago.

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:38 PM
A "law" to make livestock companion animals will not fly in the U.S. You can bet your bottom dollar that farmers across our nation would call all out war on this.

Where I live, cults don't make laws. I think because there are so many libraires, colleges, and universities around here. People have vast resources to learn the truth behind a movement.

Is under Senatorial study in South Dakota and will come to a vote at the end of the month

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:38 PM
A "law" to make livestock companion animals will not fly in the U.S. You can bet your bottom dollar that farmers across our nation would call all out war on this.



Totally laughable to even consider possible. :lol:

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:41 PM
Is under Senatorial study in South Dakota and will come to a vote at the end of the month

Plenty of BS legislation comes up all the time, never making it past the garbage can.

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:49 PM
No. I do understand there are problems but I also understand there are laws that can be enforced and I also know that truckers who are going to ship to Canada and break those laws will NOT be able to bring the horses in through the Sweetgrass Mt/Coutts Alberta crossing.

I observed FOR TWO YEARS the Fort MacLeod plant. Many improvements were made, many changes in the culture were implemented.

You don't want to hear about those as they rebut your slaughter comments.

So..you will go after transportation amd auctions. They WILL have to undergo numerous changes and they will as it will make them more money.

There is ALWAYS going to be a u tube of a woman striking her child in the face.

Does that mean ALL women strike their children in the face and therefore Motherhood should be banned?

THIS is what the industry battles daily...this woman IS a PETA member and in a "non threatening" interview this morning managed to slip in...of course a LITTLE beef or meat is good for you, but there are substitutes that are not of an ethical nature regarding abusive animal care and if we have the right to consume another being....Direct quote from the Dave Rutherford Show, CHQR Calgary..11:15 am

Here is her book she is pushing:

Publication Date: October 16, 2012
Each year the average North American ingests well over two hundred pounds of animal protein. Meanwhile the global appetite for meat has increased dramatically. But feeding our meat addiction comes at tremendous cost. Mainting our current level of consumption is ecologically impossible in the longterm and undermines our personal health and community well-being.

High Steaks documents the disastrous consequences of modern large-scale industrial meat production and excessive consumption, including:

The loss of vast tracts of arable land and fresh water to intensive livestock production

Increased pollution, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and accelerating climate change

The environmental and health impacts of too much animal fat, and of antibiotics and other chemicals in our food.
Timely and compelling, this powerful book offers a modest, commonsense approach to a serious problem, suggesting strategies for all of us to cut back on our consumption of animal products and ensure that the meat we do consume is produced in a sustainable, ecologically responsible manner. At the same time, High Steaks describes progressive food policy shifts that will discourage factory farming and encourage people to eat in ways that support ecosystems and personal health.

Eleanor Boyle has been teaching and writing for twenty-five years, with a focus on food systems and their social, environmental, and health consequences. As well as working with organizations aiming for better food policy, she holds an MSc in food policy and is an instructor at the Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia.

Climate change/////here we go AGAIN...COW FARTS ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT

Loss of land IS of concern...but NOT by livestock and farming interests. It is by the overrun of housing developments AND golf courses.

jetsmom
Oct. 11, 2012, 01:59 PM
No. I do understand there are problems but I also understand there are laws that can be enforced and I also know that truckers who are going to ship to Canada and break those laws will NOT be able to bring the horses in through the Sweetgrass Mt/Coutts Alberta crossing.

I observed FOR TWO YEARS the Fort MacLeod plant. Many improvements were made, many changes in the culture were implemented.

You don't want to hear about those as they rebut your slaughter comments.

So..you will go after transportation amd auctions. They WILL have to undergo numerous changes and they will as it will make them more money.

There is ALWAYS going to be a u tube of a woman striking her child in the face.

Does that mean ALL women strike their children in the face and therefore Motherhood should be banned?

THIS is what the industry battles daily...this woman IS a PETA member and in a "non threatening" interview this morning managed to slip in...of course a LITTLE beef or meat is good for you, but there are substitutes that are not of an ethical nature regarding abusive animal care and if we have the right to consume another being....Direct quote from the Dave Rutherford Show, CHQR Calgary..11:15 am

Here is her book she is pushing:

Publication Date: October 16, 2012
Each year the average North American ingests well over two hundred pounds of animal protein. Meanwhile the global appetite for meat has increased dramatically. But feeding our meat addiction comes at tremendous cost. Mainting our current level of consumption is ecologically impossible in the longterm and undermines our personal health and community well-being.

High Steaks documents the disastrous consequences of modern large-scale industrial meat production and excessive consumption, including:

The loss of vast tracts of arable land and fresh water to intensive livestock production

Increased pollution, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and accelerating climate change

The environmental and health impacts of too much animal fat, and of antibiotics and other chemicals in our food.
Timely and compelling, this powerful book offers a modest, commonsense approach to a serious problem, suggesting strategies for all of us to cut back on our consumption of animal products and ensure that the meat we do consume is produced in a sustainable, ecologically responsible manner. At the same time, High Steaks describes progressive food policy shifts that will discourage factory farming and encourage people to eat in ways that support ecosystems and personal health.

Eleanor Boyle has been teaching and writing for twenty-five years, with a focus on food systems and their social, environmental, and health consequences. As well as working with organizations aiming for better food policy, she holds an MSc in food policy and is an instructor at the Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia.

Climate change/////here we go AGAIN...COW FARTS ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT

Loss of land IS of concern...but NOT by livestock and farming interests. It is by the overrun of housing developments AND golf courses.

Well PETA is an AR group, but where do you see that she is a member?

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:28 PM
Totally laughable to even consider possible. :lol:

Sorry...North Dakota



H$U$' campaign manager for Measure 5 in North Dakota claims ) that Measure 5 has "nothing to do with animal agriculture"... But WE KNOW that H$U$ doesn't do ANYTHING without setting a precedent! Why else would they be grouping horses, cats and dogs together unless they were making an attempt to reclassify horses from livestock to companion animals?!

Also in this link is a recording of Jason Schmidt, with North Dakota Animal Stewards to defeat Measure 5 and he is really giving HSUS a run for their money in North Dakota! Please support their campaign!!!
Measure 5 Town Hall Meeting Tonight in Valley City | NewsDakotawww.newsdakota.com

VALLEY CITY, N.D. (NewsDakota.com) Opponents of Measure 5 will hold a meeting in Valley City tonight...



Lovey..ya need to get out of Kentucky and travel America.

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:30 PM
Well PETA is an AR group, but where do you see that she is a member?

From my membership list and she also attended and was a guest speaker in New Oreleans at their convention around 2002-2003

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:37 PM
Lovey..ya need to get out of Kentucky and travel America.

That is soooooooooooooo funny. :lol::lol::lol:
Not that you'd know why. :D

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:44 PM
So..you will go after transportation amd auctions. They WILL have to undergo numerous changes and they will as it will make them more money.



THAT has been mine and many other's number one priority - for over a decade.

That's where some of us have the on the ground experience.

You could build the most incredible slaughter plant in the world, but there will NEVER be any changes in the pipeline unless the plant contracts someone like Sallee's for transportation and auctioneers/feedlot owners/KB's who give a damn.

JSwan
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:44 PM
Plenty of BS legislation comes up all the time, never making it past the garbage can.

I could write a book......

On the other hand, plenty of bad legislation DOES make it through. Well intentioned, perhaps. But bad public policy in the long run.

Which is why it's possible to be against specific legislation, but not necessarily opposed to the intent behind it.

It's unfortunate, because often poorly drafted legislation pits groups against each other when if folks would pull their heads out.... some good could be done.

I guess that's a whole 'nother subject....

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:46 PM
From my membership list and she also attended and was a guest speaker in New Oreleans at their convention around 2002-2003

And here we go again; info from a decade ago. :winkgrin:

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:50 PM
Climate Change and the Livestock Industry - Eleanor Boyle
http://eleanorboyle.com/articles/ClForChangeFactSheetDec07.pdf


From my membership list and she also attended and was a guest speaker in New Oreleans at their convention around 2002-2003

This is only part of what she has to say on the subject.
I'm not finished reading it yet.

Modern industrial meat production causes global warming by several means, including:
1) Deforestation. Unknown to most citizens, the livestock industry is “the major driver of
deforestation” (FAO, 2006, p.xxiii). Most of the Amazon rainforest that has been cut
down is used for livestock pasture, and much of the rest is used to grow the huge amounts
of feed needed to fatten cows and pigs to produce steak and pork chops. Not only does
deforestation cause environmental problems such as loss of biodiversity, but it removes a
link in the carbon cycle in which trees would naturally take some of the atmosphere’s
excess carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen. Deforestation therefore decreases nature’s
ability to mitigate global warming.

candyappy
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:51 PM
Climate change/////here we go AGAIN...COW FARTS ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT



I heard a few years ago they were going to charge a tax on farmers who own livestock that chew cud as their " Belching" was a direct link to ozone loss and global warming. I think sheep and dairy cows were at the top of their list.

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 02:59 PM
I could write a book......

On the other hand, plenty of bad legislation DOES make it through. Well intentioned, perhaps. But bad public policy in the long run.

Which is why it's possible to be against specific legislation, but not necessarily opposed to the intent behind it.

It's unfortunate, because often poorly drafted legislation pits groups against each other when if folks would pull their heads out.... some good could be done.

I guess that's a whole 'nother subject....

Totally agree.

The KY Ag Dept. put a board together to write minimal care standards for equines, because in the past they used the one for cattle/livestock.

Well intentioned? Or just a passifier to calm the mounting horse neglect calls they have been receiving in recent years.

The majority of this board is AG or industry related. Only one member has some animal welfare experience, but he doesn't have a back bone :(.

Thus some of the changes would override good county ordinances already in place for horses.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 03:05 PM
Too true. Helps to read the entire thing.
You should totally write a book!! Don't you think it would be a bestseller?? LOL Surely you could outdo 50 shades???



I could write a book......

On the other hand, plenty of bad legislation DOES make it through. Well intentioned, perhaps. But bad public policy in the long run.

Which is why it's possible to be against specific legislation, but not necessarily opposed to the intent behind it.

It's unfortunate, because often poorly drafted legislation pits groups against each other when if folks would pull their heads out.... some good could be done.
:X
I guess that's a whole 'nother subject....

JSwan
Oct. 11, 2012, 03:12 PM
Thus some of the changes would override good county ordinances already in place for horses.

This is REALLY common. Not just for animal laws, but for all kinds of legislation.

Even at the local level, the people responsible for drafting the legislation know little to nothing about the subject matter. Or, they might know the subject matter (let's say... hog farming), but not be really educated on laws and regulations pertaining to hog farming. But because they're the only hog farmer willing to chip in and help - he's "it".

Or, you have a very urban oriented planner - who might be a fantastic county employee, a hard worker, the works, who gets stuck drafting an ordinance on a something he knows nothing about.

An example where I live would be a proposed ordinance directed at something very specific, but had the unintended consequence of banning all unloading or loading of livestock except at certain places on farms. All kinds of setback requirements, screening requirements, etc. HUH?

That didn't go over too well with the farmers. Or horse owners - because we load and unload horses at parks, shows, meets, schooling facilities, on private land to trail ride (with permission of course)... etc etc etc.

When that was pointed out - the shock on people's faces was obvious.

Here's the problem. That proposed ordinance was pretty close to being voted on and put into law.

All because people didn't realize what they were doing.

This sort of things happens a great deal. If I was to put on my tin foil hat and look in the sky for the black helicopters - I could accuse the locality of being infiltrated by RARA's and hating horsies and ponees and cute widdle cows.

The truth is, it was an extremely well intentioned effort to promote agriculture, which is our largest industry. (where I live) It was just poor drafting by very well educated, wonderful, competent people our locality is blessed to have working for us. That's all.

Personally, I chalk that up in the "sh** happens" category. And happily work with these terrific people.

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 03:23 PM
This sort of things happens a great deal. If I was to put on my tin foil hat and look in the sky for the black helicopters - I could accuse the locality of being infiltrated by RARA's and hating horsies and ponees and cute widdle cows.



Thank you!

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 04:05 PM
I'm glad you're doing it - you're absolutely right.
It's scary.


This is REALLY common. Not just for animal laws, but for all kinds of legislation.

Even at the local level, the people responsible for drafting the legislation know little to nothing about the subject matter. Or, they might know the subject matter (let's say... hog farming), but not be really educated on laws and regulations pertaining to hog farming. But because they're the only hog farmer willing to chip in and help - he's "it".

Or, you have a very urban oriented planner - who might be a fantastic county employee, a hard worker, the works, who gets stuck drafting an ordinance on a something he knows nothing about.

An example where I live would be a proposed ordinance directed at something very specific, but had the unintended consequence of banning all unloading or loading of livestock except at certain places on farms. All kinds of setback requirements, screening requirements, etc. HUH?

That didn't go over too well with the farmers. Or horse owners - because we load and unload horses at parks, shows, meets, schooling facilities, on private land to trail ride (with permission of course)... etc etc etc.

When that was pointed out - the shock on people's faces was obvious.

Here's the problem. That proposed ordinance was pretty close to being voted on and put into law.

All because people didn't realize what they were doing.

This sort of things happens a great deal. If I was to put on my tin foil hat and look in the sky for the black helicopters - I could accuse the locality of being infiltrated by RARA's and hating horsies and ponees and cute widdle cows.

The truth is, it was an extremely well intentioned effort to promote agriculture, which is our largest industry. (where I live) It was just poor drafting by very well educated, wonderful, competent people our locality is blessed to have working for us. That's all.

Personally, I chalk that up in the "sh** happens" category. And happily work with these terrific people.

Fairfax
Oct. 11, 2012, 04:25 PM
And here we go again; info from a decade ago. :winkgrin:

My list is from 2010

JSwan
Oct. 11, 2012, 04:31 PM
Here's another example.

My state created a minimum care standard for livestock not too long ago. It was part of a larger effort to update the animal care code. (as time went one changes here and there had made a bit of a muddle out of it - which was NOT helpful for anyone.)

It wasn't an "agribusiness" bill. The bill was the result of a cooperative effort between animal care professionals, veterinarians, and yes, ag interests. But note - leadership within the animal shelters were at the forefront of the effort.

It was a good Bill. No longer was the mere presence of food or water on the premises sufficient to thwart animal control officers, even when the animal was starved or dehydrated. The animal COULD NOT be starved or dehydrated. There was a lot more to the Bill - including an exception for Acts of God (massive flooding with stranded livestock, hurricane, etc.)

But it was a big improvement, it was reasonable, it balanced the desire to protect animal welfare with the need to have exceptions for Acts of God, and did not venture into animal rights territory, and it had the full support of law enforcement, shelter leadership, the AG's office, the ag community, etc.


Who opposed the Bill and put a lot of money and effort into defeating it?


HSUS.

jetsmom
Oct. 11, 2012, 04:33 PM
Here's another example.

My state created a minimum care standard for livestock not too long ago. It was part of a larger effort to update the animal care code. (as time went one changes here and there had made a bit of a muddle out of it - which was NOT helpful for anyone.)

It wasn't an "agribusiness" bill. The bill was the result of a cooperative effort between animal care professionals, veterinarians, and yes, ag interests. But note - leadership within the animal shelters were at the forefront of the effort.

It was a good Bill. No longer was the mere presence of food or water on the premises sufficient to thwart animal control officers, even when the animal was starved or dehydrated. The animal COULD NOT be starved or dehydrated. There was a lot more to the Bill - including an exception for Acts of God (massive flooding with stranded livestock, hurricane, etc.)

But it was a big improvement, it was reasonable, it balanced the desire to protect animal welfare with the need to have exceptions for Acts of God, and did not venture into animal rights territory, and it had the full support of law enforcement, shelter leadership, the AG's office, the ag community, etc.


Who opposed the Bill and put a lot of money and effort into defeating it?


HSUS.

What did they object to? Sounds like it would've been a good bill...

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 04:37 PM
Wow - did they have any reasoning behind that decision or was it a "just because" kind of thing.
Really gives the lie to it's all about the animals.


Here's another example.

My state created a minimum care standard for livestock not too long ago. It was part of a larger effort to update the animal care code. (as time went one changes here and there had made a bit of a muddle out of it - which was NOT helpful for anyone.)

It wasn't an "agribusiness" bill. The bill was the result of a cooperative effort between animal care professionals, veterinarians, and yes, ag interests. But note - leadership within the animal shelters were at the forefront of the effort.

It was a good Bill. No longer was the mere presence of food or water on the premises sufficient to thwart animal control officers, even when the animal was starved or dehydrated. The animal COULD NOT be starved or dehydrated. There was a lot more to the Bill - including an exception for Acts of God (massive flooding with stranded livestock, hurricane, etc.)

But it was a big improvement, it was reasonable, it balanced the desire to protect animal welfare with the need to have exceptions for Acts of God, and did not venture into animal rights territory, and it had the full support of law enforcement, shelter leadership, the AG's office, the ag community, etc.


Who opposed the Bill and put a lot of money and effort into defeating it?


HSUS.

Alagirl
Oct. 11, 2012, 05:31 PM
What did they object to? Sounds like it would've been a good bill...

HALLELUJA

seems you are finally getting it.

what did they object to?
Who knows. They did not come up with it, the evil farmer people were behind it, it woould take their bread and butter away from them, you know, the cases of abuse, while still being within the law.

It is not about the animal to them. It's about their bottom line and the agenda.

Bluey
Oct. 11, 2012, 05:47 PM
Climate Change and the Livestock Industry - Eleanor Boyle
http://eleanorboyle.com/articles/ClForChangeFactSheetDec07.pdf



This is only part of what she has to say on the subject.
I'm not finished reading it yet.

Modern industrial meat production causes global warming by several means, including:
1) Deforestation. Unknown to most citizens, the livestock industry is “the major driver of
deforestation” (FAO, 2006, p.xxiii). Most of the Amazon rainforest that has been cut
down is used for livestock pasture, and much of the rest is used to grow the huge amounts
of feed needed to fatten cows and pigs to produce steak and pork chops. Not only does
deforestation cause environmental problems such as loss of biodiversity, but it removes a
link in the carbon cycle in which trees would naturally take some of the atmosphere’s
excess carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen. Deforestation therefore decreases nature’s
ability to mitigate global warming.


HALLELUJA

seems you are finally getting it.

what did they object to?
Who knows. They did not come up with it, the evil farmer people were behind it, it woould take their bread and butter away from them, you know, the cases of abuse, while still being within the law.

It is not about the animal to them. It's about their bottom line and the agenda.


You know, I have debunked that old "cows cause global warming" before.
It is a bit disingenuous to bring that again.
Either you have a very bad memory or you can't keep from bringing up things you think make your point, even knowing they are not true.:no:

Let me tell you again why that came to be.
There was this international meeting on global warming in the United Nations.
Political expedience indicated they found someone to blame and cattle came in handy, a bogus study was presented and used to try to force some countries to vote a certain way.

AFTER that meeting, the study was questioned and debunked, the science was terrible and clearly the results not valid and the UN apologized.
By then the UN didn't care, the votes had been cast, nothing resolved anyway, the gamble didn't pay after all.

Now, for some reason, those with certain agendas and those with very, very poor memory keep linking to those articles out there as if they were some kind of environmental Bible.

The reality, US greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sectors break down this way:

As percentages of total:

Industry: 29.80%
Transportation: 27.13%
Residential: 18.10%
Commercial: 17.28%
Agriculture: 7.69%


That is ALL of agriculture, not just cattle.

Yes, those old "cows is the cause global warming" is not true by far.
Only those with a bad memory can still insist that one old study years ago is valid.

-
As for abuse cases, well, do we really need to keep putting abuse in perspective?:rolleyes:
Do we need to ban driving, because some abuse their rights to drive by driving drunk, against the already existing laws?
Didn't think so, well, the same applies to any other place you may find abuse.

FIX the abuse.
Don't use the abuse card to ban whatever you don't like.
If you do, don't expect what others don't like that you do, not to become someone else's target, using your actions for a precedent.:(

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 06:05 PM
Please Bluey don't bother. You obviously are not paying attention to the conversation. Fairfax brought it up. I was just curious and if you had read it and not reacted all I said was I hadn't finished reading it. Or am I only allowed to read Bluey approved reading material????


Yes, the wolrd is much better than it used to be.
At least in terms of pollution and chemicals.
We have made great strides in eliminating many such contaminants.
And don't bring in China. They ar eout of our reach and sadly have not paid any attention to the failures of ours from the 60s and 70s.

The 'chemicals' of today ar emuch more targeted than in the past. Also, due to cost, they are used much more sparingly.

The GMO crops? Well, the jury is out on them still. They have not been out long enough. And while some suspect them in having a hand in certain conditions, so far it's annecdotal evidence (Much of it supported by Rodale Press...but not many more) The Monsanto angle is much more worrisome, but for a different reason.

Seriously, read more real sources and less of the populistic ones.


You know, I have debunked that old "cows cause global warming" before.
It is a bit disingenuous to bring that again.
Either you have a very bad memory or you can't keep from bringing up things you think make your point, even knowing they are not true.:no:

Let me tell you again why that came to be.
There was this international meeting on global warming in the United Nations.
Political expedience indicated they found someone to blame and cattle came in handy, a bogus study was presented and used to try to force some countries to vote a certain way.

AFTER that meeting, the study was questioned and debunked, the science was terrible and clearly the results not valid and the UN apologized.
By then the UN didn't care, the votes had been cast, nothing resolved anyway, the gamble didn't pay after all.

Now, for some reason, those with certain agendas and those with very, very poor memory keep linking to those articles out there as if they were some kind of environmental Bible.

The reality, US greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sectors break down this way:

As percentages of total:

Industry: 29.80%
Transportation: 27.13%
Residential: 18.10%
Commercial: 17.28%
Agriculture: 7.69%


That is ALL of agriculture, not just cattle.

Yes, those old "cows is the cause global warming" is not true by far.
Only those with a bad memory can still insist that one old study years ago is valid.

-
As for abuse cases, well, do we really need to keep putting abuse in perspective?:rolleyes:
Do we need to ban driving, because some abuse their rights to drive by driving drunk, against the already existing laws?
Didn't think so, well, the same applies to any other place you may find abuse.

FIX the abuse.
Don't use the abuse card to ban whatever you don't like.
If you do, don't expect what others don't like that you do, not to become someone else's target, using your actions for a precedent.:(

JSwan
Oct. 11, 2012, 06:09 PM
Jetsmom-

I think someone posted the action alert on this BB when it happened.

From what I recall, they told the public that it lessened protection for livestock.

Also read elsewhere that " it didn't go far enough."

Well, which is it.

A little bird told me that they were pissed because our state came up with a good Bill without their involvement. We stole their thunder,maybe?

It IS a good law. It struck the right balance, which a good animal welfare law will do. It doesn't go after anyone. It's not ideology driven. It was part of a larger effort to update the code. No flash, no media blitz, no headlines.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 06:14 PM
Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm


Jetsmom-

I think someone posted the action alert on this BB when it happened.

From what I recall, they told the public that it lessened protection for livestock.

Also read elsewhere that " it didn't go far enough."

Well, which is it.

A little bird told me that they were pissed because our state came up with a good Bill without their involvement. We stole their thunder,maybe?

It IS a good law. It struck the right balance, which a good animal welfare law will do. It doesn't go after anyone. It's not ideology driven. It was part of a larger effort to update the code. No flash, no media blitz, no headlines.

luvmytbs
Oct. 11, 2012, 07:31 PM
HALLELUJA

seems you are finally getting it.



Get what?

Oppose anything that comes from one side? Support everything that comes from the other?

You need to look at each and every piece of legislation individually.
Then you need to determine how it COULD be interpreted if it's not clear enough down to the nitty gritty.

The fail in interpretation happens a lot when legislation is written without knowledge of every little detail of what legislation is supposed to address and what the concequences could be.

My prior example (KY minimum care standards for equines) would eliminate shelter requirements some counties have adopted in local ordinances.

Health issues would only require 'healthcare' without defining the actual care.

To some KY good ole boys healthcare means giving tobacco to wormy horses.
Feeding destillery slop to emaciated horses (had a case two years ago - several horses had to finally be euthanized).

Then there is the other side - pro industry, not pro horse - constantly opposing legislation to benefit animal welfare.

It's never black and white; but some just form an opinion based on who is involved. :sigh:

sunridge1
Oct. 11, 2012, 07:48 PM
Thanks luvmytbs. I am SOOOOOO sick of the side thing. I don't like choosing sides in anything being it a divorce or politics. I am completely turned off by ANY entity telling me I must do so to be valid. I do not! I don't follow anyone's dogma except my own. Yeah I know I'm weird/eccentric/trusts very little etc. Everybody lies. Kill me now....

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 11, 2012, 08:30 PM
Thank you.


Get what?

Oppose anything that comes from one side? Support everything that comes from the other?

You need to look at each and every piece of legislation individually.
Then you need to determine how it COULD be interpreted if it's not clear enough down to the nitty gritty.

The fail in interpretation happens a lot when legislation is written without knowledge of every little detail of what legislation is supposed to address and what the concequences could be.

My prior example (KY minimum care standards for equines) would eliminate shelter requirements some counties have adopted in local ordinances.

Health issues would only require 'healthcare' without defining the actual care.

To some KY good ole boys healthcare means giving tobacco to wormy horses.
Feeding destillery slop to emaciated horses (had a case two years ago - several horses had to finally be euthanized).

Then there is the other side - pro industry, not pro horse - constantly opposing legislation to benefit animal welfare.

It's never black and white; but some just form an opinion based on who is involved. :sigh:

Frizzle
Oct. 11, 2012, 09:45 PM
Well, the law has already stated that corporations are people, so are animals really all that far of a leap?

My apologies if this has been brought up already--I meryl skimmed the first page.

Echo
Oct. 11, 2012, 09:56 PM
You think that these people should be allowed to do this too? Maybe everyone that is pro slaughter is a 'slaughter extremist'......

http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/horse-starved-for-3-months-sheriff-has-evidence-wont-make-arrest/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Head-of-Nonprofit-on-Crusade-To-Close-Down-Illegal-Florida-Slaughterhouses-162676766.html

Bluesy
Oct. 12, 2012, 01:28 AM
Lovemytbs -

Thank you. :)

and to those who think/call -all- vegans and/or animal rights peeps are "x" - that is so ridiculous. It's like calling -all- Americans fat.

I could say all people who eat meat are evil velociraptory horrible terrible people - but that's ridiculous. Probably 99% of you are wonderful people who have stuck by tradition. I can't fault you that. :)

But going back to animal rights - I do believe that animals should have basic rights - like the right to live, without pain and suffering. etc.

So even as a long term horse owner, I still do struggle with "do we really have the right to use animals for our own means?"

Most of what we do does have roots in ego - I mean it makes us feel really good, it boosts our self esteem, some of us make money out of it..etc

BUT

I don't know about your horses, but mine is treated like gold. He's my partner, my best friend - and most importantly he's a happy horse. He gets fed hay, grain, supplements, 24/7 turnout in a nice field with clean water - that's better than a LOT of people have it - and he really doesn't work that hard most of the time, and not only that - he enjoys to work.

But

not all horses (or other animals have it that good) some are mercilessly abused. Is it our right to abuse our animals if we own them?

Just because something is tradition/something we've done for thousands of years - does that make it okay to continue doing something like ritual sacrifice because "we've always done it"? Where do we draw the line?

I'm all for owning animals - but perhaps it's the people that need licensing :winkgrin:

and food for thought:


HORSES' HOOFS ARE MADE for treading frost and snow, their coats for keeping out wind and cold. To munch grass, drink from the stream, lift up their feet and gallop this is the true nature of horses. Though they might possess great terraces and fine halls, they would have no use for them.

Then along comes Po Lo.1 "I'm good at handling horses!" he announces, and proceeds to singe them, shave them, pare them, brand them, bind them with martingale and crupper, tie them up in stable and stall. By this time two or three out of ten horses have died. He goes on to starve them, make them go thirsty, race them, prance them, pull them into line, force them to run side by side, in front of them the worry of bit and rein, behind them the terror of whip and crop. By this time over half the horses have died.

~Chuang Tse/ZhuangZi

wonderhorseguy
Oct. 12, 2012, 05:19 AM
You think that these people should be allowed to do this too? Maybe everyone that is pro slaughter is a 'slaughter extremist'......

http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/horse-starved-for-3-months-sheriff-has-evidence-wont-make-arrest/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Head-of-Nonprofit-on-Crusade-To-Close-Down-Illegal-Florida-Slaughterhouses-162676766.html

These actions are already against the law. What is your point?

ldaziens
Oct. 12, 2012, 05:53 AM
I have tried to read most of this, and I would beg all of you to watch "If A Tree Falls", because it is a great movie and absolutely relevant to this discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/If-Tree-Falls-Story-Liberation/dp/B006FTCCQK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350030349&sr=8-2&keywords=if+a+tree+falls

I am very interested in reading reactions to this movie and discussion about how it relates to this discussion.

For me, my perceptions and views now that I am over 40 and living on a small farm are very different from my views as a suburban raised college student who believed that food came "from the store".

My epiphany regarding animal rights came when I was researching a group called Project Coyote, who flew in to train the animal control officers and head up community meetings in New Orleans. They caught my attention because the information they were spreading via the local news did not at all match the scientific coyote research that I was aware of by Robert Timm of University of California, Hopland Research Center.

Anyway, I came across what I call the "Crazy Cat Lady" paper that was presented at a Wildlife Management Conference --
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=icwdm_wdmconfproc

I started to read it and thought, "No Way - this woman is a crazy loon". But, as I checked out each wild assertion; she was right. The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.

Bluey
Oct. 12, 2012, 06:35 AM
I have tried to read most of this, and I would beg all of you to watch "If A Tree Falls", because it is a great movie and absolutely relevant to this discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/If-Tree-Falls-Story-Liberation/dp/B006FTCCQK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350030349&sr=8-2&keywords=if+a+tree+falls

I am very interested in reading reactions to this movie and discussion about how it relates to this discussion.

For me, my perceptions and views now that I am over 40 and living on a small farm are very different from my views as a suburban raised college student who believed that food came "from the store".

My epiphany regarding animal rights came when I was researching a group called Project Coyote, who flew in to train the animal control officers and head up community meetings in New Orleans. They caught my attention because the information they were spreading via the local news did not at all match the scientific coyote research that I was aware of by Robert Timm of University of California, Hopland Research Center.

Anyway, I came across what I call the "Crazy Cat Lady" paper that was presented at a Wildlife Management Conference --
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=icwdm_wdmconfproc

I started to read it and thought, "No Way - this woman is a crazy loon". But, as I checked out each wild assertion; she was right. The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.

Watch it, you will be told you live in the basement and wear a tin foil hat, don't know what you are talking about, and how do you dare question the holy animal rights extremist gods and their prophets.

As you may have already figured, there are here some that are blindly animal rights extremists defenders, seem to have their fingers in their ears, wear rose colored glasses and WON'T LISTEN.:eek:

Very strange that they think they make any sense to bring animal rights extremist talk to, from all places, a horse training forum.:rolleyes:
That seems like some kind of very basic reality disconnect, makes as much sense as if I was to go post my ideas on an animal rights extremist forum.:confused:

Your story reflects what those of us in animal agriculture see every day, what the OP article was talking about, what so many have been saying for decades now.

Thank you for speaking up, not many are that brave today.
Why?
Animal rights extremists have made enough inroads with their false logic using the abuse card to incense the crazy element.
That can become a personal safety problem, as so many in agriculture have found out.
From putting animal rights extremists plants in places of work, that foment abuse to get videos for their agendas, to getting personal threats to having fences cut and your animals shot, as, according to those extremists some here defend, shame on them, they are better of dead than "slaves".:no:

The news have stories about some teacher abusing a student most every day any more.
The difference here, people understand that we don't need to quit trying to educate students, but to try to avoid abuses.
There are not some extremely rich non-profits making their living out of showing gruesome abuse videos, many well edited for impact, from students being abused by teacher/coaches and lobbying to "stop schooling kids, insisting it is all abuse, kids need to grow up without interference from grown ups, that can be abusers, see here".:no:

That is where we are those of us with animals we own and use today, with such as the animal rights extremist groups out there trying to make dirty abusers, second class citizens of us with their propaganda.
Gullible people fall for their song and dance and have made them the very influential, immensely rich groups they are today.:(

They say that intelligence is gaining points in general today over half a century ago.
The evidence out there makes that hard to believe.
Amazing, as a certain fellow said, there is still one born every minute, is it.;)

Remember, folks, there is a chasm between good animal husbandry, using animals as the natural, renewable resource we all alive are in this world, called also animal welfare and extremists like animal rights groups, where animal welfare is just a convenient stepping stone to gain power and influence for their ultimate goal of eliminating all animal use.

That is clearly shown in the post above, one more of so, so, so many stories out there, including the OP article.
Glad that some any more are starting to say, "hey, wait a minute, something is not right with the way animal rights extremists and their groups are trying to further their agenda! It is not all about saving that sad puppy in their propaganda. "

JSwan
Oct. 12, 2012, 07:07 AM
I'm glad to see there is someone else who knows about Rewilding.

It's the latest and greatest fashion trend in conservation biology - the adoption of the neo-pagan, neo-luddite, eco-feminisim claptrap.

Funded by taxpayer dollars, in addition to private donations by people who think these groups are about real conservation.

One of the main proponents of the movement is the guy who founded Earth First - you know - the domestic terrorist. Dave Foreman. The one who helped plan to sabotage water pumping stations.

He and others like him receive millions of dollars of taxpayer money to pursue their crazy agenda. It's always couched in the most benign terms, of course. No one would give any of these groups money if they knew the plan was to release elephants on US soil.

Restoring wildlife corridors and restoring habitat, protecting species - all that is mainstream conservation - including the conservation of apex predators. Rewilding proponents adopt that mainstream thinking - but go to the extreme. Literally.

Rewilding is controversial within the conservation community. It's largely driven by ideology; not by science. It may sound terrific if you're the self-loathing, guilt ridden, hand wringing type - but those large carnivores don't just eat wild animals. And releasing elephants and zebras onto the land is just plain crazy. And yet... these folks ARE aggressively pursuing their agenda - largely with taxpayer money. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/RewildingRedux.kr.html




The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.

Guilherme
Oct. 12, 2012, 07:12 AM
Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.

<the above snipped for brevity>

That would be me! :)

I've not heard of Project Coyote but will look it up. We have them around here, too. They've not been coming too close to the barn (we know this because or cat population is stable; they are the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to coyote activity ;) ).

Wild animals have an instinctive fear of humans. Even domestic animals have a wariness; consider the behavior of most foals at birth. Part of the domestication process is to overlay that instinct with new instinct via selective breeding.

Habituated wild animals may be the Worst of All Possible Worlds. Now you have a powerful, aggressive predator with no fear of a potential prey with very modest inherent defenses. I'm not sure I like the idea of children becoming the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to the activity of local predator populations.

The core of the animal rights movement is made up of zealots. Increasingly, the core of the animal welfare movement is attracting the same persons/types. They are merging. You cannot argue with a zealot. They have closed minds and no tolerance for anyone who does not "toe their line." They actively attempt to harness the power of the State to advance their agenda. Pseudo-science pervades their thought. They are never to be trusted.

This is a sad state of affairs, but just one more bit of evidence that our society is fast losing its ability to tolerate a diversity of views.

G.

Echo
Oct. 12, 2012, 07:46 AM
These actions are already against the law. What is your point?

Are they? What part do you believe is against the law? It is not against the law to slaughter your own animals for personal use. It is very difficult to get regulatory authorities to act in real animal abuse cases. Too often the animal has to be down before they will do anything.
Some here are bent on aligning anyone opposed to horse slaughter as a RARA and defend the current horse slaughter system as 'humane'. According to some, everyone or any organization opposed to horse slaughter is a RARA - burning buildings and setting animals free, which is absurd.
If this is true, than everyone that is pro slaughter, is a pro slaughter 'extremist' and animal abuser.
What about all of the laws that are broken in the current horse slaughter system?
How can it be legal to take unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated, horses and fabricate foreign EID or Equine Identification Documents concerning a horses medical history and knowingly terrorize a human food chain with adulterated meat?
Some here defend horse slaughter and never once tried to alter the system to be humane for the horses. They had many many years to do so. They don't care. They just want the current system and those opposed to horse slaughter to 'work' on making it more humane.

Propose a system that the majority of horse owners would support. Everyone opposed isn't a RARA anymore than those that are pro-slaughter are 'slaughter extremists'. The current system is inhumane and terrorizes a human food chain with adulterated meat. Attempting to align everyone opposed as a RARA just makes some of you a 'slaughter extremist' or animal abuser.



http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html

Bluey
Oct. 12, 2012, 08:03 AM
Are they? What part do you believe is against the law? It is not against the law to slaughter your own animals for personal use. It is very difficult to get regulatory authorities to act in real animal abuse cases. Too often the animal has to be down before they will do anything.
Some here are bent on aligning anyone opposed to horse slaughter as a RARA and defend the current horse slaughter system as 'humane'. According to some, everyone or any organization opposed to horse slaughter is a RARA - burning buildings and setting animals free, which is absurd.
If this is true, than everyone that is pro slaughter, is a pro slaughter 'extremist' and animal abuser.
What about all of the laws that are broken in the current horse slaughter system?
How can it be legal to take unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated, horses and fabricate foreign EID or Equine Identification Documents concerning a horses medical history and knowingly terrorize a human food chain with adulterated meat?
Some here defend horse slaughter and never once tried to alter the system to be humane for the horses. They had many many years to do so. They don't care. They just want the current system and those opposed to horse slaughter to 'work' on making it more humane.

Propose a system that the majority of horse owners would support. Everyone opposed isn't a RARA anymore than those that are pro-slaughter are 'slaughter extremists'. The current system is inhumane and terrorizes a human food chain with adulterated meat. Attempting to align everyone opposed as a RARA just makes some of you a 'slaughter extremist' or animal abuser.



http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html

:lol:

As long as you are using the tired abuse card to ban what others do that is legal, be it slaughter, whatever you don't like others may do with their horses, you are right in step with animal rights extremists.

Don't be surprised then if you are bundled right along with them, because you are de facto one of them by pushing for their agendas, no matter how much you may want to convince yourself you are not.:confused:

If you were working to help make legal processes better, the ways we use our animals, here horses, legally as already determined by the many current laws and regulations, then that would be different.

Obviously that is not what you are doing, when all you want is to ban slaughter or else.:no:

You need to learn to differentiate between a perfectly good process to use some horses one more time, that doesn't need banning as the process it is, from someone, somewhere, abusing any animals, which can happen any place.

Do you, once slaughter was banned, then move on to ban, what, eventing, rodeo, racing, owning horses?:eek:
There is abuse there too, there is abuse in all we do in life, sadly, but that doesn't mean we should quit doing anything because someone may be an abuser.:no:

Echo
Oct. 12, 2012, 08:16 AM
:lol:

You need to learn to differentiate between a perfectly good process to use some horses one more time, that doesn't need banning as the process it is, from someone, somewhere, abusing any animals, which can happen any place.



The current system is inhumane and provides unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated animals for human consumption.

Bluey
Oct. 12, 2012, 08:30 AM
The current system is inhumane and provides unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated animals for human consumption.


According to who, animal rights extremists?

If you find something missing, go ahead and work to make it better, not ban, that is illogical.

Inhumane?
Work to get it to suit your idea of what is humane.

Unregulated?
Are you kidding me? Horse slaughter was some of the most regulated of all slaughter, as per the inspectors that worked there, regardless of all that animal rights extremist propaganda.

Adulterated?
You really think there are not protocols following regulations of all kinds, some clearly against what your animal rights extremist propaganda want to make you believe, as my friend told me, that was testing every horse in the line?

As I keep mentioning, this thread is not about slaughter.
You are in the wrong one for this debate.
This is about how animal rights extremists are working people like you to follow them, as they are lobbying all along to eventually eliminate all uses of animals, one at the time, by less than honest propaganda, as you yourself reflect believing and repeat on your post above.:(

CFFarm
Oct. 12, 2012, 09:59 AM
I haven't read this thread because I know some people see a conspiracy behind every tree......

Ain't gonna happen. 1) there's to much $$ involved in the animal business.

And 2) The American's I know would let you draft their son into the army but show up to take their animal and they would meet you at the door with a shotgun.

luvmytbs
Oct. 12, 2012, 10:03 AM
but show up to take their animal and they would meet you at the door with a shotgun.

That would be so me. :D

JSwan
Oct. 12, 2012, 10:26 AM
And 2) The American's I know would let you draft their son into the army but show up to take their animal and they would meet you at the door with a shotgun.

Good point. :lol:

Fairfax
Oct. 12, 2012, 10:30 AM
I haven't read this thread because I know some people see a conspiracy behind every tree......

Ain't gonna happen. 1) there's to much $$ involved in the animal business.

And 2) The American's I know would let you draft their son into the army but show up to take their animal and they would meet you at the door with a shotgun.

You are the poster child for the extreme elements in Animal rights and animal welfare.

You only go by "your friends or local area".

State after state is in an "individual battle:

Look at what the extreme group tried in Oregon...Horses as companion animals..they wanted to license ALL horses and also they must be picked up after if the defecate. It had to be over turned and tossed out (Newport) and it was an expensive battle.

When good people do nothing..bad things occur.

Rewilding: The transfer of Wolves from Canada to Yellowstone national park. It was NOT a success. They moved the solves under the advice of environmentalists AND animal welfare groups DURING THE WINTER. The wolves had no lay of the land and they could not track with the expertise they would normally use. All were monitored and almowst NINTY PERCENT DIED THE FIRST YEAR. ALL OF THE PREGNANT FEMALS.

When the environmentalists were confronted..they just shrugged and stated "it was a learning experience"...they would not take any responsibility.

That is why we will no longer export wolves to rewild.

My family donated a great deal of land to the grizzly trail conservatory. This is in the porcupine hills HOWEVER..the land is to be USED BY RANCHERS...it only stops the oil drilling "in that area". We are NOT against oil as my grandfather founded Barons Oil in the 40's.

We have an attachment on the donation that if for ANY REASON, ranchers are not allowed access to the property for the next 100 years it will revert back to the family.

Ranching is renewable...

I sure had to laugh at yet another young lady from Florida who stated in her school report that cattle ranching was bad as it was NOT a renewable resource. Cutting trees was bad as it, too, was NOT a renewable resource. Building cars WAS a renewable resource as it used material from old cars.

This came from a young lady who is part of the Bubbling Midnight Madness Fan Club (A saddlebred mare I own).

It started with a young lady who saw her picture and asked to have more information on her to do a school report. It is for a grade six class...(they graduate and the new children take over). That is how I received the report so I was able to have Bubbles answer and make some corrections to the report...of course it was approved by the teacher.

In SMALL ways...all of us can help correct misinformation.

As for ECHO...she is only driven by her guilt. That actually makes her more suseptible to mantra of the animal rights groups.

She will do nothing but spout decades old information (never challenged by lovey and her group) and will try and manipulate each thread back onto her agenda. And yet, she has NEVER ONCE volunteered to help or monitor any group..or she would have made that very clear.

As was suggested...rather than ban...make a difference OR come up with a realistic solution that can have some immediate impact...and don't blame the breeder....Stacey from HSUS was quoted that the reason the seizure had to take place was to show that this person as a breeder was everything that was wrong with animal ownership. DO NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE MOMENT that they support the ongoing breeding of any animals.

I have had individuals say...HSUS will NOT ask for removal of all animals...how would they (HSUS) exist?...EASY...they target seals, kangaroos, and everything becomes an international, governed NOT by Americans but International Groups to SAVE THE ???? and that is what they actually want the funds for. Why? Because domestic animals are too easy to be held accountable for...i.e. when they rescue and kill them...whereas no one really knows IF they saved a seal..so the money goes into their pockets.

Echo
Oct. 12, 2012, 10:59 AM
According to who, animal rights extremists?

If you find something missing, go ahead and work to make it better, not ban, that is illogical.

As I keep mentioning, this thread is not about slaughter.
You are in the wrong one for this debate.
This is about how animal rights extremists are working people like you to follow them, as they are lobbying all along to eventually eliminate all uses of animals, one at the time, by less than honest propaganda, as you yourself reflect believing and repeat on your post above.:(

This thread is all about trying to discredit anyone or any organization that opposes horse slaughter as RARA.

If those that support it had worked to make it humane, the horse slaughter facilities would still be in operation here in the United States. The 'make me' approach is what ended the operations.
Just as no one can force someone to care about horses, we will never be able to force those in the slaughter system to care about the horses.
No regulatory authority in the United States requires any documentation of a horses medical record. Less than 3% are ever tested in any given year for drug residues and one year. Foreign EID documents are allowed to be created by horse dealers concerning a horses medical history. That is unconsionable. United States veterinarians aren't even required to keep a horses medical history for more than a couple years and horse owners don't have a clue what is and isn't allowed in food animal production because they aren't bred and raised as food animals here. Have you seen the drug listings in the EID's? A typical horse owner wouldn't even be able to relate the drugs legal name to the drugs name that is commonly used.

wonderhorseguy
Oct. 12, 2012, 11:43 AM
Are they? What part do you believe is against the law? It is not against the law to slaughter your own animals for personal use. It is very difficult to get regulatory authorities to act in real animal abuse cases. Too often the animal has to be down before they will do anything.
Some here are bent on aligning anyone opposed to horse slaughter as a RARA and defend the current horse slaughter system as 'humane'. According to some, everyone or any organization opposed to horse slaughter is a RARA - burning buildings and setting animals free, which is absurd.
If this is true, than everyone that is pro slaughter, is a pro slaughter 'extremist' and animal abuser.
What about all of the laws that are broken in the current horse slaughter system?
How can it be legal to take unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated, horses and fabricate foreign EID or Equine Identification Documents concerning a horses medical history and knowingly terrorize a human food chain with adulterated meat?
Some here defend horse slaughter and never once tried to alter the system to be humane for the horses. They had many many years to do so. They don't care. They just want the current system and those opposed to horse slaughter to 'work' on making it more humane.

Propose a system that the majority of horse owners would support. Everyone opposed isn't a RARA anymore than those that are pro-slaughter are 'slaughter extremists'. The current system is inhumane and terrorizes a human food chain with adulterated meat. Attempting to align everyone opposed as a RARA just makes some of you a 'slaughter extremist' or animal abuser.



http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html

“The law that I worked so hard on with my friends in Miami to pass is being disregarded,” Crist says. From the article you posted.

According to the article you posted it is against the law. Did you read the article?

The current system is not inhumane. Does abuse happen? Yes. Ending slaughter will not end abuse. Abuse happens everywhere.

If you are looking for a solution then push to have current laws enforced. Adding more laws which are not enforced is not going to solve anything.

Fairfax
Oct. 12, 2012, 11:57 AM
Echo..what have you done to help enforce the current laws? Provide some information showing you have contacted those who are law makers, legislators etc and have VOLUNTEERED to be of assistance to end the "abuse" as you call contact with horses.

Have you done ANYTHING?...other than carry out your absolve yourself of any responsibility mantra

Transportation has been acknowledged by all sides, to be a problem. What have you done, yourself, to try and get enforcement of the laws before the horses come to Canada and are rejected and sent back?

The total percentage of returned trucks is about 4% and is down by over 20% in the past year. Still high but a major improvement.

(Stats provided by the vets office, Coutts, Alberta Canada)

Your one trick pony...adulterated meat ...is becoming old, worn and very tired.

What have YOU done to support changes?

Let me give you an answer about testing. It is done HERE IN CANADA. That is why there is no testing done before the horses are shipped. If the auction/seller/transporter is given a clean passport that will be reflected in the import however the animals ARE STILL TESTED to confirm that.

Transportation is still considered to be an issue. What are the ABUSE issues you continue to state but not name?

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 12, 2012, 12:19 PM
Interesting read about the coyotes and cats.
I've had my own run ins with coyotes. I have lost a couple cats to them and almost my german shepherd dog.

Just recently in Eastern Washington they killed a wolf pack that had been praying on cattle. They were no longer hunting
what they were supposed to hunt - the cows were too easy.
There was an uproar about the pack being taken out but in this case I believe it was the "correct" thing to do.

We also have a couple sightings of Grizzlies back in the Cascades. Some people are really upset as they camp/hike/hunt up there. I think the bears deserve a chance.

It is sad that so much of all this seems all or nothing - not much of a middle ground as far as animal rights vs. animal welfare - there is a difference. No I don't think the Animal Rights groups hide what they want.


I have tried to read most of this, and I would beg all of you to watch "If A Tree Falls", because it is a great movie and absolutely relevant to this discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/If-Tree-Falls-Story-Liberation/dp/B006FTCCQK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350030349&sr=8-2&keywords=if+a+tree+falls

I am very interested in reading reactions to this movie and discussion about how it relates to this discussion.

For me, my perceptions and views now that I am over 40 and living on a small farm are very different from my views as a suburban raised college student who believed that food came "from the store".

My epiphany regarding animal rights came when I was researching a group called Project Coyote, who flew in to train the animal control officers and head up community meetings in New Orleans. They caught my attention because the information they were spreading via the local news did not at all match the scientific coyote research that I was aware of by Robert Timm of University of California, Hopland Research Center.

Anyway, I came across what I call the "Crazy Cat Lady" paper that was presented at a Wildlife Management Conference --
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=icwdm_wdmconfproc

I started to read it and thought, "No Way - this woman is a crazy loon". But, as I checked out each wild assertion; she was right. The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.

Bluey
Oct. 12, 2012, 02:05 PM
This thread is all about trying to discredit anyone or any organization that opposes horse slaughter as RARA.

If those that support it had worked to make it humane, the horse slaughter facilities would still be in operation here in the United States. The 'make me' approach is what ended the operations.
Just as no one can force someone to care about horses, we will never be able to force those in the slaughter system to care about the horses.
No regulatory authority in the United States requires any documentation of a horses medical record. Less than 3% are ever tested in any given year for drug residues and one year. Foreign EID documents are allowed to be created by horse dealers concerning a horses medical history. That is unconsionable. United States veterinarians aren't even required to keep a horses medical history for more than a couple years and horse owners don't have a clue what is and isn't allowed in food animal production because they aren't bred and raised as food animals here. Have you seen the drug listings in the EID's? A typical horse owner wouldn't even be able to relate the drugs legal name to the drugs name that is commonly used.

Wrong again.

This thread is to show those, that still don't believe who certain animal rights extremist groups are, that there are more and more questions being asked about how they operate and what they really are doing.
If you read the OP article you would find that is so.

The ones inconvenienced by those facts, as you seem to be, are the ones here wanting this to be about slaughter and most anything else but the reality of who those animal rights extremist groups they defend so vigorously really are.:no:

Dispatcher
Oct. 12, 2012, 02:15 PM
No one on here has defended any extremists.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 12, 2012, 02:22 PM
LIKE


No one on here has defended any extremists.

ldaziens
Oct. 12, 2012, 03:45 PM
It is sad that so much of all this seems all or nothing - not much of a middle ground as far as animal rights vs. animal welfare - there is a difference. No I don't think the Animal Rights groups hide what they want.

I actually think the majority of people are susceptible to getting riled up by biased propaganda -- marketing and advertising very effectively use all that is known about the human mind to influence; but I think most people are also capable of taking a deep breath and listening to one another and reaching a consensus -- at least we used to be any way.

My concern is that money dictates policy even more than it ever has; and these groups are collecting money from people and companies who are ignorant about where that money is going. Most people donate to the humane society to help puppies and kittens in animal shelters with no clue where the money ends up.

I also get extremely frustrated/angry by the ham-handedness of government entities like USDA / APHIS. The final straw for me was the USDA / APHIS proposed rule change to the Animal Welfare Act redefining pet stores -- please note that this has nothing to do with actual retail pet stores which expose large numbers of animals to each other and to large numbers of the general public -- no, it turns out pet stores aren't regulated and small hobby breeders were exempt from USDA licensing and inspections, because they were defined as pet stores -- confused yet? The transcript of the stakeholder conference call just blew my mind as it was obvious the government officials had not actually bothered to think through any of the consequences of this new rule. You can read it here:
http://www.saova.org/news/APHIS/Aphis_May_10_2012.pdf

It should not have surprised me, since my intro to DC politics & the legislative process was temping in a lobbying office for one of the largest "garbage" companies. I thought it was so cool that they were working with the EPA drafting more stringent Clean Air Act rules for incinerators. A garbage company that wants to save the environment by making the air cleaner -- raising the bar; how wonderful. Forget it. They created legislation to raise the bar just high enough to force all of the mom & pop incinerators out of business; so they could buy them cheaply or just have them shut down. :no:

JSwan
Oct. 12, 2012, 04:28 PM
They created legislation to raise the bar just high enough to force all of the mom & pop incinerators out of business; so they could buy them cheaply or just have them shut down. :no:

It's called horizontal integration.

This is what has happened in agriculture; followed by vertical integration.

Guilherme
Oct. 12, 2012, 04:39 PM
When ever government regulates anything (banks, nuclear reactors, animal transport, environmental quality, airlines, power plants, food products, drugs, fire safety rules, etc.) there will be two classes of person:

1. Winners

2. Everybody else

This is a fundamental fact that few people ever think about. You can bet that HSUS thinks about it and keeps it foremost in their minds as they lobby for laws and regulations that promote their agenda.

Right now there's a bunch of hoopla over "corporate persons" and their rights to lobby government. I don't understand why folks get so wrapped around the axel on this. If government proposes to do something, or nothing, that is going to grossly benefit, or impair, a Billion Dollar enterprise would not the people running that enterprise be fools, or worse, to not attempt to influence that action or non-action?

The power to regulate is the power to destroy.

G.

Gnalli
Oct. 12, 2012, 04:52 PM
ROFLMAO - it's perfect - I can so picture it. A bunch of old ladies with their pearls.

Nope, because pearls come from oysters....Those poor abused oysters....

ldaziens
Oct. 12, 2012, 05:03 PM
It's called horizontal integration.

This is what has happened in agriculture; followed by vertical integration.

I hope that people on all sides will take some time to talk to local small farmers and educate themselves about where the food we eat comes from. IT DOES NOT COME FROM THE STORE :lol:

In my non expert and limited experience, there are lots of farmers that I have gotten to know who are pragmatic problem solvers who care about the quality of life of their animals, care about the environment, are open to consider the possibility of a better way. I think it is impossible to address animal welfare without at least making the effort to understand the state of Agriculture in this country. On a personal level, I deeply regret that I spent my youth worried about saving whales and rainforests while family farms disappeared :(

Anyway, I would have continued on blissfully ignorant; but I happened to grab "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kinglsolver at the airport. I thought it was fiction, and I really liked her novel, "Poisonwood Bible". I ended up with a surprise that was really informative and readable. Then I read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan where I learned about Joel Salatin. I watched Food, Inc. I went out to visit the horse farm of my former vegetarian friend and learned about the ALBC and heritage animals. And, then I joined a lot of Yahoo Groups to learn about pastured poultry, heritage turkeys, gulf coast sheep, and livestock guardian dogs. I am no farmer, but living on a farm has given me a glimpse "behind the curtain" and a whole lot of respect for farmers and the challenges they face.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 12, 2012, 05:26 PM
Yes. Totally agree. We used to be able to talk things over. Now it seems it's more about who has to be right.


I actually think the majority of people are susceptible to getting riled up by biased propaganda -- marketing and advertising very effectively use all that is known about the human mind to influence; but I think most people are also capable of taking a deep breath and listening to one another and reaching a consensus -- at least we used to be any way.

My concern is that money dictates policy even more than it ever has; and these groups are collecting money from people and companies who are ignorant about where that money is going. Most people donate to the humane society to help puppies and kittens in animal shelters with no clue where the money ends up.
^^^^
In spades.

I also get extremely frustrated/angry by the ham-handedness of government entities like USDA / APHIS. The final straw for me was the USDA / APHIS proposed rule change to the Animal Welfare Act redefining pet stores -- please note that this has nothing to do with actual retail pet stores which expose large numbers of animals to each other and to large numbers of the general public -- no, it turns out pet stores aren't regulated and small hobby breeders were exempt from USDA licensing and inspections, because they were defined as pet stores -- confused yet? The transcript of the stakeholder conference call just blew my mind as it was obvious the government officials had not actually bothered to think through any of the consequences of this new rule. You can read it here:
http://www.saova.org/news/APHIS/Aphis_May_10_2012.pdf

It should not have surprised me, since my intro to DC politics & the legislative process was temping in a lobbying office for one of the largest "garbage" companies. I thought it was so cool that they were working with the EPA drafting more stringent Clean Air Act rules for incinerators. A garbage company that wants to save the environment by making the air cleaner -- raising the bar; how wonderful. Forget it. They created legislation to raise the bar just high enough to force all of the mom & pop incinerators out of business; so they could buy them cheaply or just have them shut down. :no:

^^^^
They talk about fair market competition, where exactly did that all go.
There isn't much of anything left that's mom and pop anymore.

You must have been so incredibly disappointed by your experience in DC.

I had a small taste here in Washington schools. We had a little thing called the WASL. Where's the head:desk emoticon when you need it.

What I see happening is that any land large enough to support horses is going to be bought up and paved over or built on all in the name of progress. It will be so expensive only a few will be able to afford it.
I'm sure that RARAs will do their best but I'm not sure they will win in the end. Pollution will also be a part of it as well. That's all about money as well. You have to keep your horses out of a salmon spawning creek to protect the salmon but apparently, with enough money, you can build a housing development right next to the same salmon spawning creek.:::confused:

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 12, 2012, 05:28 PM
You really have to wonder where they come up with these terms!!!


It's called horizontal integration.


This is what has happened in agriculture; followed by vertical integration.

ldaziens
Oct. 12, 2012, 09:23 PM
Well, in regards to horse slaughter...

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=371115

CFFarm
Oct. 13, 2012, 06:44 AM
When ever government regulates anything (banks, nuclear reactors, animal transport, environmental quality, airlines, power plants, food products, drugs, fire safety rules, etc.) there will be two classes of person:

1. Winners

2. Everybody else

This is a fundamental fact that few people ever think about. You can bet that HSUS thinks about it and keeps it foremost in their minds as they lobby for laws and regulations that promote their agenda.

Right now there's a bunch of hoopla over "corporate persons" and their rights to lobby government. I don't understand why folks get so wrapped around the axel on this. If government proposes to do something, or nothing, that is going to grossly benefit, or impair, a Billion Dollar enterprise would not the people running that enterprise be fools, or worse, to not attempt to influence that action or non-action?

The power to regulate is the power to destroy.

G.


And their agenda is....?

Bluey
Oct. 13, 2012, 06:47 AM
And their agenda is....?

Eliminating all animal use by humans, one place at the time, by any means they can, by interfering with any we do with them, any way they can.

That includes what you do with any of your animals, including horses.

Here is one of many places they have their fingers in, introducing poorly written bills that eventually give them power to interfere with animal ownership.
You ignore who they are at your own risk, unless you agree that eliminating all animal use is what humans should do:

http://www.bovinevetonline.com/newsletter/bovinevet-wir/ND-Animal-Stewards-battle-Measure-5-173564731.html

Here is much more information about who animal rights extremist groups are:

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

Their defenders here will yell that website is supported by their enemies, so it would be biased.
The truth, that website is telling it like it is.

While all of us have the right to our own opinions, we don't have any rights manufacture our own facts and that, as the OP here makes clear, is how animal rights extremist groups operate.

The OP article and this website are about those inconvenient FACTS about who those animal rights groups are and what they do, how they do it and what their ultimate goal is.

Believe who you want to believe, but being better informed is never a bad idea, especially when so much is hanging on these battles.

Guilherme
Oct. 13, 2012, 09:21 AM
And their agenda is....?

Their agenda.

You can determine what that is by:

1. Reading their written statements.

2. Learning about the philosophy of their leadership.

3. Following their public positions and actions.

4. Determining as best as is possible their private actions.

5. Intelligently combining the above.

G.

CFFarm
Oct. 13, 2012, 11:37 AM
Eliminating all animal use by humans, one place at the time, by any means they can, by interfering with any we do with them, any way they can.

That includes what you do with any of your animals, including horses.

Here is one of many places they have their fingers in, introducing poorly written bills that eventually give them power to interfere with animal ownership.
You ignore who they are at your own risk, unless you agree that eliminating all animal use is what humans should do:

http://www.bovinevetonline.com/newsletter/bovinevet-wir/ND-Animal-Stewards-battle-Measure-5-173564731.html

Here is much more information about who animal rights extremist groups are:

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

Their defenders here will yell that website is supported by their enemies, so it would be biased.
The truth, that website is telling it like it is.

While all of us have the right to our own opinions, we don't have any rights manufacture our own facts and that, as the OP here makes clear, is how animal rights extremist groups operate.

The OP article and this website are about those inconvenient FACTS about who those animal rights groups are and what they do, how they do it and what their ultimate goal is.

Believe who you want to believe, but being better informed is never a bad idea, especially when so much is hanging on these battles.

OK. So they want to wipe all animals off the earth, as no one can "use" one. From guide dogs, riding horses to pets. OK. Now I see........I was so blind......

Bluey
Oct. 13, 2012, 11:40 AM
[B]

OK. So they want to wipe all animals off the earth, as no one can "use" one. From guide dogs, riding horses to pets. OK. Now I see........I was so blind......

Yes, sadly you were blind, if you were following animal rights extremist groups.:(

"One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
Last I looked, dogs and horses are considered domestic animals.:eek:

CFFarm
Oct. 13, 2012, 11:45 AM
the problem is that it seems many on this board put every animal charity in the "extremist" group.

jetsmom
Oct. 13, 2012, 11:55 AM
Yes, sadly you were blind, if you were following animal rights extremist groups.:(

"One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
Last I looked, dogs and horses are considered domestic animals.:eek:

A statement made years ago referring to heritage cattle. Not pets, horses, other livestock.

Bluey
Oct. 13, 2012, 12:07 PM
A statement made years ago referring to heritage cattle. Not pets, horses, other livestock.

That is the excuse given years later, when that statement became "inconvenient".

I have it from people that were there at the time that was being said and repeated that yes, all domestic animals is what was meant, although maybe not in that one interview it is quoted from.

That was a very openly and strongly felt position some years ago, toned down now for PC expediency.

Those that ignore who animal rights extremists have been clearly show they are do so at their own risk.:(

goneriding24
Oct. 13, 2012, 12:13 PM
I was sort of thinking I might be 'safe' out here in the wilds of Oregon, but, really, I'm not. The anti's have started poking their heads above ground here and there. Even in NV with the situ with CCH, it seems the AC person may be affiliated with an animal rights groups. I can't reference it now, I've slept since I read it, so take that with a grain of salt, but, I'm pretty sure it's what I read.

Horse ownership is down around these parts. Hay sales are down, too. One feedstore has already had little stickers stuck on dog feed about animal rights. Even in my h*llandgone land I live, they are somewhere around.

Guilherme
Oct. 13, 2012, 12:51 PM
the problem is that it seems many on this board put every animal charity in the "extremist" group.

Actually, rigid categorization seems to be your mistake.

G.

Bluey
Oct. 13, 2012, 01:02 PM
I was sort of thinking I might be 'safe' out here in the wilds of Oregon, but, really, I'm not. The anti's have started poking their heads above ground here and there. Even in NV with the situ with CCH, it seems the AC person may be affiliated with an animal rights groups. I can't reference it now, I've slept since I read it, so take that with a grain of salt, but, I'm pretty sure it's what I read.

Horse ownership is down around these parts. Hay sales are down, too. One feedstore has already had little stickers stuck on dog feed about animal rights. Even in my h*llandgone land I live, they are somewhere around.

I have seen the push by extremist animal rights groups in the past two decades become so much stronger, in the horse world, the dog world and in animal agriculture.

On several fronts, they have hoarded the riches people have donated to them, spread them into several different organizations, so they don't look quite so impressive and have been using much of it to strengthen their lobbying power to make the changes that benefit them.

Many here just seem to know their little corner of the animal world and can't see the overall picture, the many fingers in the pie of our uses of animals those groups are trying to throw wrenches in the wheels, trying to cause problems, trying to derail what we do.

That is what is sad too, not only what those animal rights extremists do and how, not that their goal eventually is eliminating all use of animals, but that so many are falling for their propaganda, because of their divide and conquer agendas.

It is absurdly illogical that anyone that wants humans to keep our rights to use animals would, no matter how they rationalize it, follow those groups.

So what if this or that fellow associated with them this one time deigned be helpful?
That one college coach started a problem kid's group and ran it for years, with many thanking him for it, but he still molested some kids.

When someone tells you who they are, why give them a pass for some good, when they are working against what you believe, here having horses for all we do with them?
That just doesn't make any sense at all.:confused:

goneriding24
Oct. 13, 2012, 01:50 PM
Many here just seem to know their little corner of the animal world and can't see the overall picture,:

It's not only some of the horse people on here, it's everywhere. I'm getting down from reading all the posts here and elsewhere about so many different aspects where people just see their little world, never thinking of the larger picture. Just 'what about ME?' type thing. (example: I wrote about Amish kids supposedly being the healthiest on the planet and some dingaling tried to shoot me down. I posted from an allergen journal which had article about Amish healthy kids. But no, it was outside the realm of someone's world and just couldn't be. Honestly, ticked me off) Like I said, I thought I could fly under the radar and be safe from loonies, doesn't appear that way.

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

People, we have the internet, use it and expand your world. :yes:

(I'm in a cranky mood. People in my family are driving me nuts so my word filter from my brain to my mouth is disengaged at the moment. Please accept my apologies in advance)

CFFarm
Oct. 13, 2012, 01:59 PM
I don't look at it as "my own little world" or "what about me". I like to give locally for many reasons.

http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/news/equine-nonprofits-and-everyday-giving.aspx

JSwan
Oct. 13, 2012, 04:50 PM
This may come as a shock to some of you, but I wrote that series of articles. :lol:

luvmytbs
Oct. 13, 2012, 05:07 PM
This may come as a shock to some of you, but I wrote that series of articles. :lol:

Great job!

Bluey
Oct. 13, 2012, 05:44 PM
This may come as a shock to some of you, but I wrote that series of articles. :lol:

Very good articles.:cool:
I would add, a good rescue should have a link to those articles.:yes:

Next you know, the HSUS may be offering you a job..:eek:
You are very good and they thrive on good people for the job, that is how they got where they are today.

JSwan
Oct. 13, 2012, 05:54 PM
Next you know, the HSUS may be offering you a job..:eek:
You are very good and they thrive on good people for the job, that is how they got where they are today.

It will be a cold day in hell before I'd accept a position with them. I loathe the animal rights movement and I wouldn't pee on Pacelle if he was on fire.

I just thought it was funny that someone linked to the articles. I didn't realize anyone had actually read them.

Bluey
Oct. 13, 2012, 06:03 PM
It will be a cold day in hell before I'd accept a position with them. I loathe the animal rights movement and I wouldn't pee on Pacelle if he was on fire.

I just thought it was funny that someone linked to the articles. I didn't realize anyone had actually read them.

I really think rescues should take notice of those articles.
So much information there, short and clear, would make their lives so much easier to follow that and to have it handy for their donors to understand what they do.

They could be made a sticky, so everyone can access them easily.

You did a good job there, you really did.:)

As for animal rights extremists, they have their right to their place under the sun, I don't mind that at all.
I don't like that they deny the rest of us ours and work at taking it away in ways that are less than honest.
I think it is sad that they have grown as much as they have, on the backs of gullible donors, that don't know what those groups are all about.
Just that, sadness that the world is like it is.
Some abuse animals, some abuse the trust of some well meaning ones trying to help animals, as animal rights extremists do, abusing the trust with their misinformation.:(

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 01:39 PM
Well I for one am a huge supporter of HSUS as well as various other animal rights organizations such as Mercy For Animals, Compassion Over Killing, and my absolute favorite AR group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I'm not really sure where I stand on PETA, they bring a lot of attention to animal rights issues but they also turn a lot of people away and I don't agree with them on a few issues.

I think you are all getting upset over nothing. HSUS and PETA aren't going to take your horses away anytime soon. :rolleyes: Believe it or not the AR movement has bigger, more pressing issues and until the entire world is vegan equestrians don't have anything to worry about.

And to whoever said we need to worry about starving/poor children instead of animals:
Guess what? There's this amazing thing called supporting more than one cause at once. Just because some people care about the welfare and yes, rights of animals that doesn't mean we don't care about people as well.

And I don't believe in giving animals the same rights as people, I don't know of any ARA that does because that's not even possible. Call me a RARA but I believe that animals have the right to live their lives as long as naturally possible free of abuse.

Bluey
Oct. 14, 2012, 02:00 PM
Well I for one am a huge supporter of HSUS as well as various other animal rights organizations such as Mercy For Animals, Compassion Over Killing, and my absolute favorite AR group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I'm not really sure where I stand on PETA, they bring a lot of attention to animal rights issues but they also turn a lot of people away and I don't agree with them on a few issues.

I think you are all getting upset over nothing. HSUS and PETA aren't going to take your horses away anytime soon. :rolleyes: Believe it or not the AR movement has bigger, more pressing issues and until the entire world is vegan equestrians don't have anything to worry about.

And to whoever said we need to worry about starving/poor children instead of animals:
Guess what? There's this amazing thing called supporting more than one cause at once. Just because some people care about the welfare and yes, rights of animals that doesn't mean we don't care about people as well.

And I don't believe in giving animals the same rights as people, I don't know of any ARA that does because that's not even possible. Call me a RARA but I believe that animals have the right to live their lives as long as naturally possible free of abuse.

You have obviously not read the links provided to prove you are wrong.
Please do that and then come back to tell us that what you wrote is even close to the real world of animal rights extremists and their goals out there and more important, why, with the information out there.:rolleyes:

Thankfully clearer heads in the media are catching on and starting to tell the REAL story behind those animal rights extremist groups and how they operate.
I say, about time, because much of it is right down scary, like the circus the HSUS tried to frame and lost the lawsuit about that little misstep, bulldozing over the wrong people there.:no:

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 02:22 PM
You have obviously not read the links provided to prove you are wrong.
Please do that and then come back to tell us that what you wrote is even close to the real world of animal rights extremists and their goals out there and more important, why, with the information out there.:rolleyes:

Thankfully clearer heads in the media are catching on and starting to tell the REAL story behind those animal rights extremist groups and how they operate.
I say, about time, because much of it is right down scary, like the circus the HSUS tried to frame and lost the lawsuit about that little misstep, bulldozing over the wrong people there.:no:

I've read every link up until page 5 and I've yet to see anything that proves me wrong. Sorry, I don't have the patience to read all 18 pages. But please feel free to show me a link in which a respected member of the AR movement has said animals deserve the exact same rights as humans including rights such as the right to vote.

I know what the goals of the AR movement are, I'm part of it. The ultimate goal of the AR movement is total animal liberation and I'm ok with that. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be vegan. I support HSUS because IMO they use their money appropriately to further the AR movement. However, I don't totally support the ASPCA and will never financially support them because they are very welfare-ish.

I own and ride horses because I believe it is beneficial to my horses. Even PETA has a written statement in which they say that they support horseback riding.

Bluey
Oct. 14, 2012, 02:33 PM
I've read every link up until page 5 and I've yet to see anything that proves me wrong. Sorry, I don't have the patience to read all 18 pages. But please feel free to show me a link in which a respected member of the AR movement has said animals deserve the exact same rights as humans including rights such as the right to vote.

I know what the goals of the AR movement are, I'm part of it. The ultimate goal of the AR movement is total animal liberation and I'm ok with that. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be vegan. I support HSUS because IMO they use their money appropriately to further the AR movement. However, I don't totally support the ASPCA and will never financially support them because they are very welfare-ish.

I own and ride horses because I believe it is beneficial to my horses. Even PETA has a written statement in which they say that they support horseback riding.

Fine, each one has their own opinions and that is the way it should be.
If you could not find enough to convince you of what animal rights extremists are after in what has been said, well, at least you have now more information to go by when you think about this than only the animal rights extremists party line.:)

millerra
Oct. 14, 2012, 02:41 PM
Believe it or not the AR movement has bigger, more pressing issues and until the entire world is vegan equestrians don't have anything to worry about.



Honestly, you believe your mission is to turn us all into vegans?? Really? Wow... thanks for exposing your true cause.... You honestly thought that would help your argument?

Where is my PETA sticker? People Eating Tasty Animals.

jetsmom
Oct. 14, 2012, 02:45 PM
I know what the goals of the AR movement are, I'm part of it. The ultimate goal of the AR movement is total animal liberation and I'm ok with that. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be vegan. I support HSUS because IMO they use their money appropriately to further the AR movement. However, I don't totally support the ASPCA and will never financially support them because they are very welfare-ish.

I own and ride horses because I believe it is beneficial to my horses. Even PETA has a written statement in which they say that they support horseback riding.

So are you planning on setting your animals loose? And do you honestly think if everyone set their horses, dogs and cats loose, it's better for them?
Just asking because I've never met a true AR person.

millerra
Oct. 14, 2012, 02:47 PM
Shhh Bluey. She's digging the RARAs a mighty big hole... and she apparently doesn't even know it.

Everyone a vegan.

Animal liberation.

There everyone, the true agenda. Black and white. Still want to support them?

And perhaps, Devons girl, you should read scientific articles on the domestication of animals. Some really interesting ideas and evidence suggesting that domesticated animals are genetically and psychologically different from their wild relatives. They truly are NOT captive wild animals.

jetsmom
Oct. 14, 2012, 03:06 PM
Shhh Bluey. She's digging the RARAs a mighty big hole... and she apparently doesn't even know it.

Everyone a vegan.

Animal liberation.

There everyone, the true agenda. Black and white. Still want to support them?

And perhaps, Devons girl, you should read scientific articles on the domestication of animals. Some really interesting ideas and evidence suggesting that domesticated animals are genetically and psychologically different from their wild relatives. They truly are NOT captive wild animals.

I'm not aware of anyone on here besides Devon's girl, supporting ARAs, much less RARA's.

Bluey
Oct. 14, 2012, 03:11 PM
Shhh Bluey. She's digging the RARAs a mighty big hole... and she apparently doesn't even know it.

Everyone a vegan.

Animal liberation.

There everyone, the true agenda. Black and white. Still want to support them?

And perhaps, Devons girl, you should read scientific articles on the domestication of animals. Some really interesting ideas and evidence suggesting that domesticated animals are genetically and psychologically different from their wild relatives. They truly are NOT captive wild animals.

Sound like a clueless kid following someone's agenda, that has not thought thru past that.
I have learned, those you let go on and in a few months, you may get an email thanking you for giving them a new outlook on how the world works.

Doesn't matter what anyone believes, that each one comes to different opinions from the same data is what keeps the world going around.
What is important is that everyone come to their opinions on their own, not hand fed some agendas, but with true, full knowledge and understanding.

If someone really thinks this world should not have domestic animals, well, they are welcome not to have any.:yes:

When they come after our domestic animals because they think WE should not have any, ignoring our rights to have them, then we have some talking to do about that.;)

millerra
Oct. 14, 2012, 03:35 PM
I have run into a few too many college kids w/ PETA stickers on their lab tops and backpacks, too ready to defend the poor [insert animal] here without thought for the big picture to be quite as optimistic.

And from inferring from posts, I think, [don't KNOW, of course], there are folks on here that do support parts of the RARA agenda and are therefore willing to give money to them... Unfortunately money given for one cause can be used to support another....

My point was: eyes wide open.

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 04:39 PM
Honestly, you believe your mission is to turn us all into vegans?? Really? Wow... thanks for exposing your true cause.... You honestly thought that would help your argument?

Where is my PETA sticker? People Eating Tasty Animals.

It's not exactly a secret what the purpose of the AR movement is. The purpose of the animal rights movement is to eliminate animal suffering however possible. A horrible, evil goal I know. My point is that right now no animal rights organization is making any attempt at all to stop horseback riding because we have much more pressing issues to worry about.


So are you planning on setting your animals loose? And do you honestly think if everyone set their horses, dogs and cats loose, it's better for them?
Just asking because I've never met a true AR person.

I've met a lot of ARA both in person and online and I've yet to talk to anyone who thinks it's ok to set domesticated animals loose. The majority of animal rights activists have pets.


Shhh Bluey. She's digging the RARAs a mighty big hole... and she apparently doesn't even know it.

Everyone a vegan.

Animal liberation.

There everyone, the true agenda. Black and white. Still want to support them?

And perhaps, Devons girl, you should read scientific articles on the domestication of animals. Some really interesting ideas and evidence suggesting that domesticated animals are genetically and psychologically different from their wild relatives. They truly are NOT captive wild animals.

Again none of this is a secret. Have none of you visited any animal rights organization's website? Guess not. Lmao you make it sound like we are going to force people to go vegan. It's a choice that we simply encourage. And do you honestly care if people do go vegetarian or vegan? Good lord people it's nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

I know that captive animals are very different than wild animals. Again, no one is suggesting we set domesticated animals free.


Sound like a clueless kid following someone's agenda, that has not thought thru past that.
I have learned, those you let go on and in a few months, you may get an email thanking you for giving them a new outlook on how the world works.

Doesn't matter what anyone believes, that each one comes to different opinions from the same data is what keeps the world going around.
What is important is that everyone come to their opinions on their own, not hand fed some agendas, but with true, full knowledge and understanding.

If someone really thinks this world should not have domestic animals, well, they are welcome not to have any.:yes:

When they come after our domestic animals because they think WE should not have any, ignoring our rights to have them, then we have some talking to do about that.;)


Make no mistake, the decision I made did not happen overnight and it wasn't anything less than extremely thought through and well researched. I spent years obsessing over the issue of animal rights vs. animal welfare and I made sure I had all the facts from both sides of the issue before I decided on anything. I certainly didn't let any organization make up my mind for me.

The goal of the animal rights movement is not to rid the world of domestic animals. That is not what animal liberation is. This is the definition of animal liberation: the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.

In other words: If you wouldn't eat a child don't eat a cow. If you wouldn't skin a human alive don't do it to a snake. If you wouldn't want your child taken away from you, don't take away the children of others. The list goes on.

Guilherme
Oct. 14, 2012, 04:49 PM
It's not exactly a secret what the purpose of the AR movement is. The purpose of the animal rights movement is to eliminate animal suffering however possible. A horrible, evil goal I know. My point is that right now no animal rights organization is making any attempt at all to stop horseback riding because we have much more pressing issues to worry about.



Well, no.

If the entire agenda of "animal right activists" were the elimination of "animal suffering" then they'd be "animal welfare activists."

Sometimes labels are descriptive, even in today's age of media manipulation and prevarication.

You really need to broaden your horizon some.

G.

P.S. Some stuff on the Internet really is false. ;)

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 05:25 PM
Well, no.

If the entire agenda of "animal right activists" were the elimination of "animal suffering" then they'd be "animal welfare activists."

Sometimes labels are descriptive, even in today's age of media manipulation and prevarication.

You really need to broaden your horizon some.

G.

P.S. Some stuff on the Internet really is false. ;)

Not necessarily, the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movement have different definitions of suffering, different ideas on the best way to end it, different lengths they are willing to go to end it, and different opinions on whether or not it should be ended.

Animal rights = the belief that animal are entitled to basic rights. Doesn't seem terribly deceptive to me.

No, I have broadened my horizon a tremendous amount. I have looked at both sides of the story, made sure I had all the facts, and made a decision accordingly. Call me what you like but one thing you cannot call me is close-minded.

P.S. I know and I've weeded through what's lies and what's not. Perhaps you'd be surprised to know that most of the BS comes from trillion dollar industry and not million dollar 501c3s, although you shouldn't be. Don't believe me? Then do your own research, just don't be afraid to be open-minded to what isn't convenient.

Guilherme
Oct. 14, 2012, 06:03 PM
An open mind is a Good Thing. But if you have one then you'd also best have some pretty robust filters.

Put another way, an open mind is like an open storm sewer; anything can get in and clogging is a constant threat. ;)

G.

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 06:42 PM
An open mind is a Good Thing. But if you have one then you'd also best have some pretty robust filters.

Put another way, an open mind is like an open storm sewer; anything can get in and clogging is a constant threat. ;)

G.

The mind is like a parachute it doesn't work unless it's open.

If it weren't for open-minded, independent thinking people whom aren't afraid to question the norm people would still be denied rights based on the color of their skin.

Of course their is a difference between open-mindedness and naivete. ;)

ldaziens
Oct. 14, 2012, 09:05 PM
The goal of the animal rights movement is not to rid the world of domestic animals. That is not what animal liberation is. This is the definition of animal liberation: the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.

As a person w/ plenty of vegetarian & vegan friends -- and a person who has spent some time living at Esalen in Big Sur -- and a person who has spent a LOT of time thinking about animal welfare (and child welfare); I want to say that I respect your decision to be a vegan. I respect your decision to be a vegan and "walk the talk" -- especially when compared to all of the animal rights activists who still think food comes from the store; eat fast food; and financially support Big Ag & Monsanto w/ their spending purchases. I respect that Vegans aren't hypocrites.

That said, I am at an age where I have come to realize there is a lot more that I don't know than I know; and that the law of unintended consequences beats moral superiority and extremism every single time. Or, as my grandma said repeatedly, "the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions". I suspect that you are younger than me, and I can't judge too harshly; because when I was your age I was absolutely appalled by EVIL hunters who chose to go out and kill animals for sport. I also ate a lot of fast food hamburgers at that very same point in my life-- oblivious to the disconnect until my hippie roomates hippie organic farmer parents (in 1987 hippies were weird and most of us knew nothing about organic) - the same hippies that had given me hell over the cat wearing a flea collar -- served freshly hunted quail. Because I have a tendency to blurt out what I think, I said, "How can you get so upset about flea collars and refuse to kill the spiders INSIDE YOUR HOUSE; but you can go out and kill a little bird???" Luckily, they patiently asked me to consider the possibility that the little bird carcass in front of me had a great quality of life before meeting a swift death and forced me to consider for a very, very brief second that the meat I ate perhaps came from animals and not from the store. I immediately made myself forget that meat came from animals ;) So, kudos to you to for not being a food hypocrite.

But, IF you are going to argue your case, we need to clarify a few things --

Definition of LIBERATION from Webster

1: the act of liberating : the state of being liberated
2: a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group <women's liberation>

I would highly encourage you to watch "If a Tree Falls", which is an awesome documentary and a great history lesson that is not at all dry or boring.

Read a bit about Animal Liberation NOW -
http://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/

And even a thoughtful & intelligent debate between Peter Singer and Judge Posen here:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/200106--.htm


In other words: If you wouldn't eat a child don't eat a cow. If you wouldn't skin a human alive don't do it to a snake. If you wouldn't want your child taken away from you, don't take away the children of others. The list goes on.

I'm just going to ask you to re-read your comment above. Then read the debate between Peter Singer and Judge Posen.

Please understand that on the journey to turn us all into Vegans; the animal rights people will have put all of the small, family farms -- including the sustainable and humane ones -- out of business; but they will not be able to put Big Ag & Monsanto & CAFOs out of business. Maybe if all of the stars align; they'll force most of that offshore, so animals and humans can be treated worse somewhere else.

Most importantly, you do need to do a little research into David Foreman, Michael Soule, and Rewilding -- including Pleistocene Rewilding, and Ted Turner.

Then watch "12 Monkeys" and that new show "Revolution" and start thinking about TEOWAKI

& party like it's 2012 :winkgrin:

ldaziens
Oct. 14, 2012, 09:09 PM
Their agenda.

You can determine what that is by:

1. Reading their written statements.

2. Learning about the philosophy of their leadership.

3. Following their public positions and actions.

4. Determining as best as is possible their private actions.

5. Intelligently combining the above.

G.

Short & Sweet!

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 10:16 PM
As a person w/ plenty of vegetarian & vegan friends -- and a person who has spent some time living at Esalen in Big Sur -- and a person who has spent a LOT of time thinking about animal welfare (and child welfare); I want to say that I respect your decision to be a vegan. I respect your decision to be a vegan and "walk the talk" -- especially when compared to all of the animal rights activists who still think food comes from the store; eat fast food; and financially support Big Ag & Monsanto w/ their spending purchases. I respect that Vegans aren't hypocrites.

That said, I am at an age where I have come to realize there is a lot more that I don't know than I know; and that the law of unintended consequences beats moral superiority and extremism every single time. Or, as my grandma said repeatedly, "the road to hell is paved w/ good intentions". I suspect that you are younger than me, and I can't judge too harshly; because when I was your age I was absolutely appalled by EVIL hunters who chose to go out and kill animals for sport. I also ate a lot of fast food hamburgers at that very same point in my life-- oblivious to the disconnect until my hippie roomates hippie organic farmer parents (in 1987 hippies were weird and most of us knew nothing about organic) - the same hippies that had given me hell over the cat wearing a flea collar -- served freshly hunted quail. Because I have a tendency to blurt out what I think, I said, "How can you get so upset about flea collars and refuse to kill the spiders INSIDE YOUR HOUSE; but you can go out and kill a little bird???" Luckily, they patiently asked me to consider the possibility that the little bird carcass in front of me had a great quality of life before meeting a swift death and forced me to consider for a very, very brief second that the meat I ate perhaps came from animals and not from the store. I immediately made myself forget that meat came from animals ;) So, kudos to you to for not being a food hypocrite.

But, IF you are going to argue your case, we need to clarify a few things --

Definition of LIBERATION from Webster

1: the act of liberating : the state of being liberated
2: a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group <women's liberation>

I would highly encourage you to watch "If a Tree Falls", which is an awesome documentary and a great history lesson that is not at all dry or boring.

Read a bit about Animal Liberation NOW -
http://animalliberationpressoffice.org/NAALPO/

And even a thoughtful & intelligent debate between Peter Singer and Judge Posen here:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/200106--.htm



I'm just going to ask you to re-read your comment above. Then read the debate between Peter Singer and Judge Posen.

Please understand that on the journey to turn us all into Vegans; the animal rights people will have put all of the small, family farms -- including the sustainable and humane ones -- out of business; but they will not be able to put Big Ag & Monsanto & CAFOs out of business. Maybe if all of the stars align; they'll force most of that offshore, so animals and humans can be treated worse somewhere else.

Most importantly, you do need to do a little research into David Foreman, Michael Soule, and Rewilding -- including Pleistocene Rewilding, and Ted Turner.

Then watch "12 Monkeys" and that new show "Revolution" and start thinking about TEOWAKI

& party like it's 2012 :winkgrin:

Thanks for the info and I'll definitely watch that documentary when I get a chance. I skimmed through the debate between Singer and Posen briefly and but I'll have to read it more thoroughly later. Although I must say I'm no fan of Peter Singer.

I tend to disagree with you the AR movement hurting family farms. Sadly family farms are disappearing and it's not because of the animal rights movement. You can blame CAFOs for that. After all they are the main competition of family farms. PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups encourage people to buy meat from family farms, even though we'd much rather people not buy meat at all. Big AG is the main target of the AR movement and I can't imagine too many people on here are terribly distraught about that.

I'm a firm believer that their is no such thing as humane meat or dairy. As long as the animal dies I have a problem with that. And at the end of the day the grass fed cattle go to the same slaughterhouse that all cattle go to. Dairy is even worse. I can't even imagine the grief stricken bellows of the cows as their babies are taken away. And don't even get me started on veal, which is as we all know is a by-product of dairy.

Devon'sGirl26
Oct. 14, 2012, 10:19 PM
And speaking of interesting reading about animal rights, I highly recommend the book The Face on Your Plate as well as Thanking the Monkey. And although not necessarily AR related the documentary Forks Over Knives is very interesting.

Alagirl
Oct. 14, 2012, 10:29 PM
And speaking of interesting reading about animal rights, I highly recommend the book The Face on Your Plate as well as Thanking the Monkey. And although not necessarily AR related the documentary Forks Over Knives is very interesting.

elaborate as to why

millerra
Oct. 14, 2012, 11:13 PM
My point is that right now no animal rights organization is making any attempt at all to stop horseback riding because we have much more pressing issues to worry about.

I've yet to talk to anyone who thinks it's ok to set domesticated animals loose.
Lmao you make it sound like we are going to force people to go vegan.
In other words: If you wouldn't eat a child don't eat a cow.

OK, now I will use the LMAO

YOU were the one who said the goal was everyone a vegan. YOU were the one who said animal liberation.

Wild animals are already "liberated" - who exactly are RARAs then planning to liberate?

You're not YET going after equestrian sports because you have bigger fish to fry - pun intended.

And yes, please forgive me for not eating children and I actually prefer not to eat COW because they tend to be older, and tougher. We tend to purchase meat from meat production steers, instead.

Oh, and I also like venison and, my fave... pheasant. That shouldn't bother you, no? Because they are liberated and have a pretty quick death for the most part?

millerra
Oct. 14, 2012, 11:22 PM
T I can't even imagine the grief stricken bellows of the cows as their babies are taken away.

Get yourself to a dairy, watch a dairy cow give birth and see that she couldn't give a damn.

Get yourself out to ag country and see "big ag". Where I live and where my family is from, the farms are still "family owned" but not the old fashioned idea of farms, with chickens, a dairy cow and a few hogs. It's machine sheds and grain bins. BUT it's still family owned.

Go see, instead of spewing misconceptions about the ag business and what it is, eh?

Bluey
Oct. 14, 2012, 11:47 PM
Thanks for the info and I'll definitely watch that documentary when I get a chance. I skimmed through the debate between Singer and Posen briefly and but I'll have to read it more thoroughly later. Although I must say I'm no fan of Peter Singer.

I tend to disagree with you the AR movement hurting family farms. Sadly family farms are disappearing and it's not because of the animal rights movement. You can blame CAFOs for that. After all they are the main competition of family farms. PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups encourage people to buy meat from family farms, even though we'd much rather people not buy meat at all. Big AG is the main target of the AR movement and I can't imagine too many people on here are terribly distraught about that.

I'm a firm believer that their is no such thing as humane meat or dairy. As long as the animal dies I have a problem with that. And at the end of the day the grass fed cattle go to the same slaughterhouse that all cattle go to. Dairy is even worse. I can't even imagine the grief stricken bellows of the cows as their babies are taken away. And don't even get me started on veal, which is as we all know is a by-product of dairy.

I am a firm believer someone is pulling our legs here.:lol:

I first thought 14-15 year old, now more like 12, as the one that wrote this gem:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a298/Robintoo/No-animals-were-harmed1.jpg

No one today can be that misinformed, live in such an absurdly irrational imaginary fantasy land, not knowing any better how things work in this pretty little blue marble we happen to live on.:D

Someone is taking us for idiots, don't fall for it, folks.;)

millerra
Oct. 15, 2012, 12:34 AM
you callin' me an idiot??

Just kidding,:D

You are probably right. 'nuf said on the subject....

jetsmom
Oct. 15, 2012, 01:20 AM
Bluey- You spend all of your time accusing those that are for animal welfare of being ARAs yet when you get an ARA in front of you (Devon's Girl) you dismiss them as fake...:no::no:

rustbreeches
Oct. 15, 2012, 01:53 AM
I tend to disagree with you the AR movement hurting family farms. Sadly family farms are disappearing and it's not because of the animal rights movement. You can blame CAFOs for that. After all they are the main competition of family farms. PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups encourage people to buy meat from family farms, even though we'd much rather people not buy meat at all. Big AG is the main target of the AR movement and I can't imagine too many people on here are terribly distraught about that.



I'd call this the most pig ignorant thing I have ever read, but that is an insult to pigs. We have a family owned and operated dairy. We couldn't exist without CAFO, because there is no way we could afford an acre of land for every 4 cows in our 500 cow herd, never mind the additional 500 or so heifers we raise. Our CAFO allows us to efficiently use the land we have to support our family and the 4 other families that rely on our business to keep food on their tables.

You RARA/ARA types are so ridiculous, you laud the family farm and condemn the "factory farms" but you have no real knowledge about how modern family farms work. What powers that be arbitrarily decide what constitutes a "factory farm"? I know of several multigenerational dairies that milk several thousand cows. That is a family owning, running and putting their blood, sweat and tears into their farm.

We streamline animal agriculture to create a system where each animal receives optimal care while balancing keeping food at costs Americans can afford, and keeping us in business.

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 02:58 AM
Bluey -
I am ashamed to say that your attached picture absolutely captured my feelings as a very intellectually bright college student in 1987 as I sat down and faced a quail on my plate that DID NOT COME FROM THE STORE; and, in fact, came from hippie roomates hippie organic farming parents who SHOT that little bird dead. Honestly, I had totally detached store meat from animals.
I had never experienced hunting or farming, and I loved animals. Strangely, I grew up on the beach crabbing and fishing; and never fell apart over watching my grandma boil the crabs or helping her clean them.

So, yes, it is within the realm of possibility to be fairly intelligent passionate human being and also be spectacularly ignorant -- ESPECIALLY about agriculture given how few people actually have ever set foot on a farm.

How many people won't eat eggs from hens that have never laid eyes on a rooster, because they are convinced there's a baby bird in that egg?

When veggie gardening became popular recently -- many people were very curious as to how many plants would grow out of each seed.

The people who believe meat comes from the store are much scarier than the vegans in my opinion.


I am a firm believer someone is pulling our legs here.:lol:

I first thought 14-15 year old, now more like 12, as the one that wrote this gem:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a298/Robintoo/No-animals-were-harmed1.jpg

No one today can be that misinformed, live in such an absurdly irrational imaginary fantasy land, not knowing any better how things work in this pretty little blue marble we happen to live on.:D

Someone is taking us for idiots, don't fall for it, folks.;)

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 03:36 AM
Rustbreeches -

I am not a fan of the CAFO / Factory Farming model; but I certainly don't blame the family farmers. I would like us to get to a place as a country where you and all family farmers have the option to make more money and a higher profit raising fewer animals on grass IF that is what you want to do. I am not a farmer, but I am really glad I have now experienced living on a farm. And, I am really glad that I have seen the challenges of trying to just manage an "old school" diverse little farm w/ free range birds and sheep -- and predators.

And, the biggest challenge to trying to have the kind of farm that I prefer -- is nonsensical government regulation at every level. You and I might differ on our idea of a farming ideal; but I think we both would agree that something is terribly wrong consumers are paying top dollar for "organic foods" at Whole Foods that are imported from China.

My brother-in-law WAS an umpteenth generation farmer in Ohio. Brother in law had a cutting edge hog operation - he kept the sows and piglets until they shipped off to the next grower. He went to all kinds of conferences and gave lectures. He was doing everything reflecting the latest research at the time. He also kept winning boars - who got to live in a separate climate controlled building - in pretty large pens; and he collected semen for AI. The boars were all named and loved -- most prized boar was "cupcake" named by their young daughter. So, super nice guy who cared about his animals was doing what all of the Ag school research said was great AND what the USDA wanted him to do per the agricultural policies at the time. Raising animals inside in confinement to keep them safe with floor grates and automated manure management & lagoons to keep them clean and cages to keep the sows from smothering the babies, and automated feeders dispensing optimized feeds and precise antibiotics for maximal weight gain. Busting his a$$ he could run his operation w/one other long time employee also busting a$$ and could feed his family w/ his wife working full time off farm. He was land rich and cash poor, and at a certain point after 50 or so years of hard manual labor and more and more aches and pains and a torn rotator cuff and hurt back and a daughter to send to college; he decided to sell that farm; which in addition to the hog operation included lots and lots and lots of very fertile crop farmland. It was sold to a developer, and now it's a subdivision -- probably w/ most of the homes foreclosed at this point!

So, I am interested in farm policy; because I do not think we ae getting it right when good farmland is now a subdivision full of foreclosures. It should have been a viable and affordable option for a proven farmer like you to spread those cows out on the farmland as far as the eye can see -- IF you or somebody like you wanted to do that.

In real estate terms, that subdivision was NOT the "highest & best use" of that land.



I'd call this the most pig ignorant thing I have ever read, but that is an insult to pigs. We have a family owned and operated dairy. We couldn't exist without CAFO, because there is no way we could afford an acre of land for every 4 cows in our 500 cow herd, never mind the additional 500 or so heifers we raise. Our CAFO allows us to efficiently use the land we have to support our family and the 4 other families that rely on our business to keep food on their tables.

You RARA/ARA types are so ridiculous, you laud the family farm and condemn the "factory farms" but you have no real knowledge about how modern family farms work. What powers that be arbitrarily decide what constitutes a "factory farm"? I know of several multigenerational dairies that milk several thousand cows. That is a family owning, running and putting their blood, sweat and tears into their farm.

We streamline animal agriculture to create a system where each animal receives optimal care while balancing keeping food at costs Americans can afford, and keeping us in business.

Bluey
Oct. 15, 2012, 05:50 AM
Rustbreeches -

I am not a fan of the CAFO / Factory Farming model; but I certainly don't blame the family farmers. I would like us to get to a place as a country where you and all family farmers have the option to make more money and a higher profit raising fewer animals on grass IF that is what you want to do. I am not a farmer, but I am really glad I have now experienced living on a farm. And, I am really glad that I have seen the challenges of trying to just manage an "old school" diverse little farm w/ free range birds and sheep -- and predators.

And, the biggest challenge to trying to have the kind of farm that I prefer -- is nonsensical government regulation at every level. You and I might differ on our idea of a farming ideal; but I think we both would agree that something is terribly wrong consumers are paying top dollar for "organic foods" at Whole Foods that are imported from China.

My brother-in-law WAS an umpteenth generation farmer in Ohio. Brother in law had a cutting edge hog operation - he kept the sows and piglets until they shipped off to the next grower. He went to all kinds of conferences and gave lectures. He was doing everything reflecting the latest research at the time. He also kept winning boars - who got to live in a separate climate controlled building - in pretty large pens; and he collected semen for AI. The boars were all named and loved -- most prized boar was "cupcake" named by their young daughter. So, super nice guy who cared about his animals was doing what all of the Ag school research said was great AND what the USDA wanted him to do per the agricultural policies at the time. Raising animals inside in confinement to keep them safe with floor grates and automated manure management & lagoons to keep them clean and cages to keep the sows from smothering the babies, and automated feeders dispensing optimized feeds and precise antibiotics for maximal weight gain. Busting his a$$ he could run his operation w/one other long time employee also busting a$$ and could feed his family w/ his wife working full time off farm. He was land rich and cash poor, and at a certain point after 50 or so years of hard manual labor and more and more aches and pains and a torn rotator cuff and hurt back and a daughter to send to college; he decided to sell that farm; which in addition to the hog operation included lots and lots and lots of very fertile crop farmland. It was sold to a developer, and now it's a subdivision -- probably w/ most of the homes foreclosed at this point!

So, I am interested in farm policy; because I do not think we ae getting it right when good farmland is now a subdivision full of foreclosures. It should have been a viable and affordable option for a proven farmer like you to spread those cows out on the farmland as far as the eye can see -- IF you or somebody like you wanted to do that.

In real estate terms, that subdivision was NOT the "highest & best use" of that land.

Some years ago, maybe 8 or 10 now, the chemical industry, that keeps tabs of all they produce and sell to all kinds of markets, had numbers showing that for the first time, more chemicals used in agriculture were sold for residential uses, that is houses, lawns, parks and golf courses than for any other use.

Those that love to bash farmers and the fertilizers and insecticides, herbicides and fungicides and all that they use are now barking at the wrong target, that should be themselves and the houses they nuke at the sight of a crocroach or flea, lawn fertilizing and other such chemical uses.

While there is much marketing of all kinds of products to everyone, including farmers, that are licensed to use them and inspected as how they keep and use them, it is a bit scary the many products that any one Joe Doe can buy at Home Depot and use, maybe misuse on their driveway to keep a couple of weeds at bay and no certification or inspection needed.
We are as exposed to those products directly in our homes and where we walk to as much as we are to, if any, any minuscule part per million residue in any food they may still linger after being applied to fields.

Back to animal rights extremists, that one poster here comes across as a caricature of an animal rights extremist follower, with all that talk, that any sensible grown-up knows "it ain't so".;)
That is why I think it is making fun of us here with that kind of animal rights extremist over the top, everyone knows better talk.
No one over 6 years old could be THAT clueless.:p

I think that finding fault with those that provide us with the nice living we have today is a first world problem, a place for discontents with their idle lives to focus their energy.
Too bad that there will be unintended consequences, that will eliminate so much that gives us happiness in our lives, like our interaction with our animals, that we are losing in these battles to keep our rights to use them, as the natural, renewable resource they are in this world, for all in this world, including the human species.:(

Dispatcher
Oct. 15, 2012, 07:32 AM
the problem is that it seems many on this board put every animal charity in the "extremist" group.


Yes. And giving more credence to extremists than they are worth.

Extremists look for the vulnerable and prey on them. Then there are those people who believe extremists can actually accomplish what they are so maniacal about. Extremsits are not normal thinking humans. Why would anyone follow them so closely--either those that agree with them or those that are afraid of them.

Majority rules folks. Extremists are small factions full of perverted thought patterns.

Bluey
Oct. 15, 2012, 07:39 AM
Yes. And giving more credence to extremists than they are worth.

Extremists look for the vulnerable and prey on them. Then there are those people who believe extremists can actually accomplish what they are so maniacal about. Extremsits are not normal thinking humans. Why would anyone follow them so closely--either those that agree with them or those that are afraid of them.

Majority rules folks. Extremists are small factions full of perverted thought patterns.


When those extremists are directing some of the largest, richest non-profit groups around and using those riches to lobby for their agendas, you dismiss them so casually at your own risk.:eek:

Dispatcher
Oct. 15, 2012, 07:55 AM
When those extremists are directing some of the largest, richest non-profit groups around and using those riches to lobby for their agendas, you dismiss them so casually at your own risk.:eek:

Yeah, well I don't believe the largest and richest are being directed by extremists. Unless of course the largest and richest have the lemming syndrome. Which I also don't believe.

Just an aside: hippies in 1987??? They missed the movement by about 20 years. Hippies were a product of the 1960's. I know. I was there.(but not a participant!) Although I did support "peace, love, & heal the world" stuff for a while.

CFFarm
Oct. 15, 2012, 07:59 AM
We are not going to change anyone's mind on this board.

I live in a state where horses are a multi-billion (with a b) business. They aren't going anywhere in any hurry.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that there are more horses now than 100 years ago.

I LIKE to get my meat all processed and ready to cook. Once I looked something in the eye, I couldn't eat it.

I think most people care about the welfare of animals, even the extremists. What we need to do is put them all on a horse, at least once.


Jmho

Carry on.

JSwan
Oct. 15, 2012, 08:09 AM
. My point is that right now no animal rights organization is making any attempt at all to stop horseback riding because we have much more pressing issues to worry about.

Then explain why HSUS sued to stop the 3 day eventing at the 96 Olympic games; claiming eventing was "cruel and abusive" to horses.



The majority of animal rights activists have pets.

That just makes them hypocrites. What they (and you) are telling the world is, "Do as I say, not as I do".



Again none of this is a secret.

Yes, we know it's not a secret. I was among the victims of a violent PETA attack. I know exactly what AR activists are like.



Again, no one is suggesting we set domesticated animals free.

So I guess the ALF and SHAC are just figments of our imagination.


I certainly didn't let any organization make up my mind for me.

The goal of the animal rights movement is not to rid the world of domestic animals.

Yes, it is. The goal of the AR movement is to eliminate all human contact with domestic or wild animals. "Enjoyment at a distance." is one quote by Wayne Pacelle. Wildlife watching is an enjoyable pastime. But it is one activity among many. What the AR movement seeks is the abolishment of all animal agriculture (which, by the way, includes horse sports). They don't say that on their benign little websites but they sure as hell say it in front of legislatures and judges. What aspect of the 14th Amendment confuses you?


That is not what animal liberation is. This is the definition of animal liberation: the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.

No - the goal is to assign animals the same rights as human beings. Which means that cute horse you own? It's a slave. Slavery is against the law - therefore the ownership of a horse or dog is slavery. In the simplest of terms, that is their goal.

In other words: If you wouldn't eat a child don't eat a cow. If you wouldn't skin a human alive don't do it to a snake. If you wouldn't want your child taken away from you, don't take away the children of others. The list goes on.

Exactly. Mixing the animal welfare aspects with animal rights - to gain support among animal welfare advocates who don't realize they've been duped into supporting a very extreme, often violent, agenda.

If you would not ride your child, you would not ride a horse.



Oh, and by the way - don't tangle with folks like me on the "small family farm". I'm one of those small diversified farms the AR groups like to pimp as their own creation.

We're every bit a part of agriculture as large or medium sized farms of all kinds. And every single attack on agriculture, by AR groups - negatively affects us too. Try getting a small processing plant opened to serve the small family farms and see how fast the locals oppose it - using AR propaganda.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Bluey
Oct. 15, 2012, 08:20 AM
Yeah, well I don't believe the largest and richest are being directed by extremists. Unless of course the largest and richest have the lemming syndrome. Which I also don't believe.

Just an aside: hippies in 1987??? They missed the movement by about 20 years. Hippies were a product of the 1960's. I know. I was there.(but not a participant!) Although I did support "peace, love, & heal the world" stuff for a while.

Read JSwan's answer for a better response that I could ever muster.

By the way, I too am one of those small farmers, but choose to market thru commercial channels, not local ones, because it fits what we do best.
If we were living by a very large city, that may permit a more niche marketing for some of our products.

"Agriculture" is not all the same, there are many and very diverse producers involved and you know, it is going to take all to keep food on the pantries for all.
Too many of us today take our aboundant, varied, safe food for granted.
Has not always been so and it may not always be so, if we don't take care agriculture keeps being viable.
Try not to kill the goose laying our golden eggs of plenty, in your hurry to find fault in what and how others do what they do.

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 08:28 AM
hippies in 1987??? They missed the movement by about 20 years. Hippies were a product of the 1960's. I know. I was there.(but not a participant!) Although I did support "peace, love, & heal the world" stuff for a while.

:confused::confused::confused:

Gayla
Oct. 15, 2012, 08:40 AM
This whole thread seems very paranoid to me. :confused: People have to scratch and fight for rights in the country...forget about a cow getting anything.

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 08:47 AM
Yes. And giving more credence to extremists than they are worth.

Extremists look for the vulnerable and prey on them. Then there are those people who believe extremists can actually accomplish what they are so maniacal about. Extremsits are not normal thinking humans. Why would anyone follow them so closely--either those that agree with them or those that are afraid of them.

Majority rules folks. Extremists are small factions full of perverted thought patterns.

Well, as my husband said about Islamic extremists in the Middle East, "we've labled them as extremists, but that's not at all how they view themselves".

Fairfax
Oct. 15, 2012, 10:48 AM
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is now running a new TV ad opposing one of the most anti-animal politicians in Congress. Our ad exposes the terrible voting record on animal cruelty issues of Representative Steve King, (R-Iowa).

Please watch the TV ad today, and make a generous donation to support ads like this in races across the country. <http://action.humanesociety.org/site/R?i=XQry8q0PIatG8Zq7x8QjPw> Your gift will help us fight back against anti-animal politicians like Steve King—and support our work to pass state and federal legislation to help animals.

In addition to fighting anti-animal politicians this election season, we're also working to support our humane leaders in Congress and re-elect lawmakers who are standing up for the values of kindness and compassion. And we’re fighting for stronger animal protection laws, such as banning spectators at animal fights, ending invasive research on chimpanzees, and cracking down on puppy mill abuses.

Politicians need to know that voters care about the humane treatment of animals, and will hold them accountable for being out of step with mainstream values. Remember, there are only 22 days left…and the animals can’t wait. With your help, we'll give the animals a voice this Election Day. <http://action.humanesociety.org/site/R?i=YrKbCPRJ2HDTN4UFaOnSDQ>


Thank you for your support, and for all you do for animals.

Sincerely,

mike_sig_blue.gif<http://action.humanesociety.org/site/../images/content/pagebuilder/14359.gif>

Mike Markarian
President
Humane Society Legislative Fund


And yet..they support Michael Vicks and have stated he would make a great dog owner...the man never uttered one word of remorse after torturing so many of his fighting dogs..

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 12:06 PM
We are not going to change anyone's mind on this board.
...
I LIKE to get my meat all processed and ready to cook. Once I looked something in the eye, I couldn't eat it.

I don't think the goal is to CHANGE anyone's mind per se; but I can go through my own life and very clearly see different points in time where I learned something that made me question my beliefs and judgments about the world and people in it. And, yes, my mind definitely changed.



I LIKE to get my meat all processed and ready to cook. Once I looked something in the eye, I couldn't eat it.


Exactly!

I think the vast majority of Americans agree; which is probably why the American supermarket meat dept. looks the way it does -- unlike countries where whole animal carcasses and often live animals ready for choosing are on display at the butcher. I guess the vast majority of Americans are okay w/ looking seafood and especially lobsters in the eye; though I imagine the number of Americans who have purchased a live lobster to eat is relatively small and a lot of headless shrimp are sold.

"Don't Eat Aything With a Face" is the Vegan mantra. They realize that once they look something in the eye, they can't eat it; so they don't. I respect that conviction.

Personally, I was much more blissful when I was ignorant and thought meat "came from the store". So, for me, acknowledging that meat comes from dead animals with faces -- animals that were raised to be killed for food -- not magickal animals that get swooped up the instant they keel over of natural causes; nor does my meat magickally regenerate in the store. So acknowledging where my meat comes from and acknowledging that I still really like to eat meat and am not going to give it up is a dilemma I have pondered and will continue to ponder. Reading "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" and "The Omnivores Dilemma" were pivotal experiences for me -- and for all of the other people who put those books on the best seller list. So, for me, at this point, the "search for the meaning of life" = "search for the meaning of food".

So, to me, success in this thread will be when Bluey (picking on you ;) acknowledges that it is not only possible; but more and more likely that nice, "bright", well intentioned people -- NOT IDIOTS, Bluey ;) -- in their "gut" cannot fathom how another nice, bright, well intentioned human can look something in the eye, kill it, and eat it -- much less raise an animal from a baby; looking it in its eyes every day; for the purpose of killing it / or sending it to slaughter so we can eat meat.

The Vegans actually don't matter as much as the majority of the American population who have zero experience or knowledge of agriculture -- all of the people who eat meat, but are in denial about &/or very uncomfortable with whatever goes on prior to the supermarket meat display.

I now an inkling after 2 years of my Idiot Moves to Farm misadventures of just how mind boggling and frustrating it is for a farmer to try to even figure out where to begin with someone expressing views like Devon'sView; and any farmer reading probably cannot fathom how somebody could have some firm convictions that seemingly have no basis in reality.

My warning to farmers is that those views are absolutely grounded in reality -- the reality that the majority of the people in this country grow up in -- THEIR food comes from the store -- NOT from animals with faces and not from plants that grow in the dirty ground. And, when they look behind the curtain and get a glimpse of the Secret Life of Food before it lines the grocery store shelves and the meat displays they are NOT happy at all. So, your AG consumers - unless you are making a living selling directly to consumers who are consciously choosing to support your farm and farming methods -- will support any regulation & / or non-profit that offers to deal with that "unpleasantness" behind the supermarket curtain and you surely cannot count on them to stand beside you to protect your livlihood & way of life.

UNLESS you get these "idiots" involved in real live farms and give this first person experiences -- how will their "reality" change? Success will be when DevonView voluntarily refers a meat eating friend to a farmer she knows; a farmer who she knows, in her gut, is a really good human being -- even if said farmer kills animals.

Our nation's strategy of shielding us from the agricultural processes that produce the food that we eat has gotten us into a big, big mess. But, I'm still cautiously hopeful.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 15, 2012, 12:22 PM
I don't think the goal is to CHANGE anyone's mind per se; but I can go through my own life and very clearly see different points in time where I learned something that made me question my beliefs and judgments about the world and people in it. And, yes, my mind definitely changed.

Yes!!

Exactly!

I think the vast majority of Americans agree; which is probably why the American supermarket meat dept. looks the way it does -- unlike countries where whole animal carcasses and often live animals ready for choosing are on display at the butcher. I guess the vast majority of Americans are okay w/ looking seafood and especially lobsters in the eye; though I imagine the number of Americans who have purchased a live lobster to eat is relatively small and a lot of headless shrimp are sold.

"Don't Eat Aything With a Face" is the Vegan mantra. They realize that once they look something in the eye, they can't eat it; so they don't. I respect that conviction.

Personally, I was much more blissful when I was ignorant and thought meat "came from the store". So, for me, acknowledging that meat comes from dead animals with faces -- animals that were raised to be killed for food -- not magickal animals that get swooped up the instant they keel over of natural causes; nor does my meat magickally regenerate in the store. So acknowledging where my meat comes from and acknowledging that I still really like to eat meat and am not going to give it up is a dilemma I have pondered and will continue to ponder. Reading "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" and "The Omnivores Dilemma" were pivotal experiences for me -- and for all of the other people who put those books on the best seller list. So, for me, at this point, the "search for the meaning of life" = "search for the meaning of food".

So, to me, success in this thread will be when Bluey (picking on you ;) acknowledges that it is not only possible; but more and more likely that nice, "bright", well intentioned people -- NOT IDIOTS, Bluey ;) -- in their "gut" cannot fathom how another nice, bright, well intentioned human can look something in the eye, kill it, and eat it -- much less raise an animal from a baby; looking it in its eyes every day; for the purpose of killing it / or sending it to slaughter so we can eat meat.

The Vegans actually don't matter as much as the majority of the American population who have zero experience or knowledge of agriculture -- all of the people who eat meat, but are in denial about &/or very uncomfortable with whatever goes on prior to the supermarket meat display.

Agree - most people are totally clueless about where their food comes from.


I now an inkling after 2 years of my Idiot Moves to Farm misadventures of just how mind boggling and frustrating it is for a farmer to try to even figure out where to begin with someone expressing views like Devon'sView; and any farmer reading probably cannot fathom how somebody could have some firm convictions that seemingly have no basis in reality.

My warning to farmers is that those views are absolutely grounded in reality -- the reality that the majority of the people in this country grow up in -- THEIR food comes from the store -- NOT from animals with faces and not from plants that grow in the dirty ground. And, when they look behind the curtain and get a glimpse of the Secret Life of Food before it lines the grocery store shelves and the meat displays they are NOT happy at all. So, your AG consumers - unless you are making a living selling directly to consumers who are consciously choosing to support your farm and farming methods -- will support any regulation & / or non-profit that offers to deal with that "unpleasantness" behind the supermarket curtain and you surely cannot count on them to stand beside you to protect your livlihood & way of life.

YES YES YES

UNLESS you get these "idiots" involved in real live farms and give this first person experiences -- how will their "reality" change? Success will be when DevonView voluntarily refers a meat eating friend to a farmer she knows; a farmer who she knows, in her gut, is a really good human being -- even if said farmer kills animals.

Our nation's strategy of shielding us from the agricultural processes that produce the food that we eat has gotten us into a big, big mess. But, I'm still cautiously hopeful.


Yes again!!

Bluey
Oct. 15, 2012, 12:23 PM
All of us are young at some time and have had to figure for ourselves how the world works.
Ignorance is easy to remedy, learn more.

Lack of learning interest, call it whatever you want, idiocy is just one possible cause, that can't be helped.

I too grew up with animal stories sitting in for humans as fables, so had a hard time separating animals as the animals they are and animals as representation for human stories.
I talked to all animals and heard their responses.
Yes, as a kid communication is not necessarily divided into spoken and all other.
Body language and learning to infer from that what another being is saying is par for the course for me still today.:cool:

As a very young kid, one of my chores was taking care of the rabbits we raised, that once grown were sent to the local restaurant.
Heck I had never been in that fancy restaurant, or any other, really, just heard that is where the rabbits went and how nice a place it was.

I think I was in my teens, long after I was not caring for the rabbits any more, that I realized one day what the rabbits were doing in that restaurant, being the meat in some plate.
What a surprise!:eek:

All of us have stories like that, it is part of who we are, we learn thru our lives and the more we learn, the more we find to question, as our horizons expand.

I think that the trick to our awareness of the world around us being realistic is where being a bit more interested in thinking thru more than just what is obvious or following thoughtlessly what others tell us.

-
-
-


The Humane Society Legislative Fund is now running a new TV ad opposing one of the most anti-animal politicians in Congress. Our ad exposes the terrible voting record on animal cruelty issues of Representative Steve King, (R-Iowa).

Please watch the TV ad today, and make a generous donation to support ads like this in races across the country. <http://action.humanesociety.org/site/R?i=XQry8q0PIatG8Zq7x8QjPw> Your gift will help us fight back against anti-animal politicians like Steve King—and support our work to pass state and federal legislation to help animals.

In addition to fighting anti-animal politicians this election season, we're also working to support our humane leaders in Congress and re-elect lawmakers who are standing up for the values of kindness and compassion. And we’re fighting for stronger animal protection laws, such as banning spectators at animal fights, ending invasive research on chimpanzees, and cracking down on puppy mill abuses.

Politicians need to know that voters care about the humane treatment of animals, and will hold them accountable for being out of step with mainstream values. Remember, there are only 22 days left…and the animals can’t wait. With your help, we'll give the animals a voice this Election Day. <http://action.humanesociety.org/site/R?i=YrKbCPRJ2HDTN4UFaOnSDQ>


Thank you for your support, and for all you do for animals.

Sincerely,

mike_sig_blue.gif<http://action.humanesociety.org/site/../images/content/pagebuilder/14359.gif>

Mike Markarian
President
Humane Society Legislative Fund


And yet..they support Michael Vicks and have stated he would make a great dog owner...the man never uttered one word of remorse after torturing so many of his fighting dogs..


I thought non-profits were not permitted to pay for ads for any one candidate?:confused:

Dispatcher
Oct. 15, 2012, 01:46 PM
Really?? Americans don't know where their food comes from? How pathetic is that? But I wonder if that is true.

Geez, Since we are a nation of fast food gobblers, you can't tell me people haven't seen the huge billboard for Chick fil-A (or however it's spelled) with a 3-D cow saying "eat more chicken".

If they can't tell from that they are eating cows and chickens, then their reading comprehension skills are pretty darn poor.

Alagirl
Oct. 15, 2012, 01:47 PM
Really?? Americans don't know where their food comes from? How pathetic is that? But I wonder if that is true.

Geez, Since we are a nation of fast food gobblers, you can't tell me people haven't seen the huge billboard for Chick fil-A (or however it's spelled) with a 3-D cow saying "eat more chicken".

If they can't tell from that they are eating cows and chickens, then their reading comprehension skills are pretty darn poor.

is that an assumption you would stake your farm on?

Dispatcher
Oct. 15, 2012, 02:00 PM
is that an assumption you would stake your farm on?

tell me it ain't so!

Alagirl
Oct. 15, 2012, 02:44 PM
You need to get out more!

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 03:40 PM
Really?? Americans don't know where their food comes from? How pathetic is that? But I wonder if that is true.

Geez, Since we are a nation of fast food gobblers, you can't tell me people haven't seen the huge billboard for Chick fil-A (or however it's spelled) with a 3-D cow saying "eat more chicken".

If they can't tell from that they are eating cows and chickens, then their reading comprehension skills are pretty darn poor.

Your example of Chick-fil-A points out that we can save the dairy cows with faces (who can also stand upright and paint signs) by eating more chicken breast sandwiches / wraps / nuggets <not %100 sure Chick-fil-A does nuggets>, but regardless NO FACES. And, if I am a kid I get some kind of toy / prize -- possibly stuffed biped literate dairy cow. Obviously, as a consumer I get that this is a joke, because when I go to McDonalds for a hamburger -- no dairy cows anywhere & NO FACES.

I graduated from highschool in 1987. As a kid, we shopped at the base commissary, which was like a supermarket; and there was a butcher there who could cut a steak for you or whatever -- and they did it where you could see. My step dad's father owned and ran an IGA store in their Southern Ill town; he was the butcher, and he stood in the back "butchering" all day. (NOT Slaughtering, but working w/ the huge animal -- not sure if carcass is correct term). And, my grandma, knew well the Winn Dixie butcher who would pull the carcass out and carve your desired meat piece right out; and there were big posters w/ the outline of a cow and pig showing where the different cuts of meat came from. By the time I got my first job as a cashier at the new Winn Dixie in high school, the "meat dept. " people and managers did all the butchering behind the scenes -- you had to buzz to talk to them, and they would come out, go to the back, "make" desired meat, and resurface w/ your packaged meat. I don't think the commissaries and super WalMarts have butchers on staff; I think it's shipped in packaged; and I doubt the big pig and cow meat cut posters are prominently displayed.

Go forth and verify.

Alagirl
Oct. 15, 2012, 05:04 PM
Your example of Chick-fil-A points out that we can save the dairy cows with faces (who can also stand upright and paint signs) by eating more chicken breast sandwiches / wraps / nuggets <not %100 sure Chick-fil-A does nuggets>, but regardless NO FACES. And, if I am a kid I get some kind of toy / prize -- possibly stuffed biped literate dairy cow. Obviously, as a consumer I get that this is a joke, because when I go to McDonalds for a hamburger -- no dairy cows anywhere & NO FACES.

I graduated from highschool in 1987. As a kid, we shopped at the base commissary, which was like a supermarket; and there was a butcher there who could cut a steak for you or whatever -- and they did it where you could see. My step dad's father owned and ran an IGA store in their Southern Ill town; he was the butcher, and he stood in the back "butchering" all day. (NOT Slaughtering, but working w/ the huge animal -- not sure if carcass is correct term). And, my grandma, knew well the Winn Dixie butcher who would pull the carcass out and carve your desired meat piece right out; and there were big posters w/ the outline of a cow and pig showing where the different cuts of meat came from. By the time I got my first job as a cashier at the new Winn Dixie in high school, the "meat dept. " people and managers did all the butchering behind the scenes -- you had to buzz to talk to them, and they would come out, go to the back, "make" desired meat, and resurface w/ your packaged meat. I don't think the commissaries and super WalMarts have butchers on staff; I think it's shipped in packaged; and I doubt the big pig and cow meat cut posters are prominently displayed.

Go forth and verify.

I have not seen a poster of that kind in eons.
And the butcher has become a rarity, for sure.

Add to that that many people live in 'food deserts', meaning they live nowhere near a grocery store....we are having a problem!

sunridge1
Oct. 15, 2012, 07:16 PM
National Geographic had an article in the early 80's that stated, the family farm will dead in 25 years largely taken over by wealthy corporate interests. I didn't believe it but always kept the info in my head.

So many children missing out on a stunning childhood. *sigh*

Bluey
Oct. 15, 2012, 07:50 PM
"Family farms" were feeding a few, the equivalent of mechanics making one car at the time in their shop behind their house.
We would not have many cars to drive if we didn't have become a bit more efficient, would we.

Don't lose sight that family farms would never have fed the 94 people per farmer we feed, clothe and provide energy for today.

It takes all that can and will raise agricultural products to have enough for all in the near future, small and large, unless someone hurries up to invent a magic matter transforming box, to keep our societies humming along with those basic needs covered.:yes:

ldaziens
Oct. 15, 2012, 08:04 PM
...
Ignorance is easy to remedy, learn more.
...
As a very young kid, one of my chores was taking care of the rabbits we raised, that once grown were sent to the local restaurant.
Heck I had never been in that fancy restaurant, or any other, really, just heard that is where the rabbits went and how nice a place it was.

I think I was in my teens, long after I was not caring for the rabbits any more, that I realized one day what the rabbits were doing in that restaurant, being the meat in some plate.
What a surprise!:eek:

All of us have stories like that, it is part of who we are, we learn thru our lives and the more we learn, the more we find to question, as our horizons expand.

I think that the trick to our awareness of the world around us being realistic is where being a bit more interested in thinking thru more than just what is obvious or following thoughtlessly

I think the real problem -- well one of them :winkgrin:-- comes when we don't know we are ignorant on a subject.

I love your rabbit story.

I know that I can't count the times that - long after the fact, I'm like, "Ohhhhhhhhh... THAT'S what that meant". This has gotten exponentially more frequent as my hearing has sloooowly gotten worse plus I'm near sighted, so aside from being oblivious to stuff I actually do see &/or hear; now I'm actually missing stuff. I'm have been procrastinating on actually going in to find out how MUCH I am missing.

It's funny, when I turned 21, I had no idea that that was the "smartest" I'd ever be. At 21 I knew EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING; and looked forward to building on that infinite wisdom -- unlike my parents and grandparents who were so obviously out of touch and clueless :D And, I have always been the Queen of learning things the HARD WAY -- that has not changed so much except that I do think I have gotten at least slightly better at realizing that perhaps I need to stop and reassess things. And thank God I can laugh at myself.

So, yup, youth is youth.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 15, 2012, 09:36 PM
I think the real problem -- well one of them :winkgrin:-- comes when we don't know we are ignorant on a subject.

I love your rabbit story.

I know that I can't count the times that - long after the fact, I'm like, "Ohhhhhhhhh... THAT'S what that meant". This has gotten exponentially more frequent as my hearing has sloooowly gotten worse plus I'm near sighted, so aside from being oblivious to stuff I actually do see &/or hear; now I'm actually missing stuff. I'm have been procrastinating on actually going in to find out how MUCH I am missing.

It's funny, when I turned 21, I had no idea that that was the "smartest" I'd ever be. At 21 I knew EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING; and looked forward to building on that infinite wisdom -- unlike my parents and grandparents who were so obviously out of touch and clueless :D And, I have always been the Queen of learning things the HARD WAY -- that has not changed so much except that I do think I have gotten at least slightly better at realizing that perhaps I need to stop and reassess things. And:lol::lol: thank God I can laugh at myself.

So, yup, youth is youth.

And wasted on the young!!!!:lol:

ldaziens
Oct. 22, 2012, 03:33 PM
Okay, I think this Fugly article exemplifies the concerns about animal rights idiots who present random nonsense as fact. I actually am very opposed to the Big Lick; and I know that I lean a little lefter and support a little stronger animal welfare guidelines than some here; and this article lit ME up like a Christmas Tree. I pasted the comment I submitted below, but I was hoping that more articulate and calmer minds might want to comment. I worry when people have to make up nonsense in order to write an article on a subject where plenty of legitimate facts exist for making the same argument.

http://fuglyblog.com/2012/10/22/guest-post-fighting-for-the-tennesee-walker/comment-page-1/#comment-125533

"That is the most non-coherant and completely ignorant article I can recall reading. It is, frankly, offensive and does absolutely nothing to support the fight against Big Lick.
I have a rescued former Big Lick horse that I keep at home on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. I also believe in God, Gun Rights, and My Country. Many people might see my little farm and look down their nose at it — especially as we are still recovering from Isaac damage. And while my mare has registration papers, and, in fact was the Reserve Champion at the KY Celebration in the BIG LICK FREAK SHOW; I refuse to register her, because I will not send a dime to the TWHBEA. I would register her w/ the TWHBEA IF I had time / inclination to show her in non-Big Lick classes as well as the time to fight for change within the TWHBEA as the Preacher does.
It is completely irresponsible to state that poor backyard owners of non-registered gaited TRAIL horses are the people responsible for the continuation of the Big Lick.
Anyway, my little farm is redneck-y to be sure; but I would probably physically come to blows w/ the a$$hat that wrote that article if I caught them taking pictures of my place / horses and lumping ME in with the Big Lickers. That was truly one of the most ignorant things that I have ever read on Fugly.
Now, a valid link, that Nathaniel Jackson can speak to, is the link to racism. And, the he could write an article that coherently articulates the facts on this issue — not some nonsense blaming poor people with trail horses for the Big Lick.
As far as poor people & horses – Our local horse rescues in MS have had great success in reaching out to those who perhaps have not benefitted from the educational and financial opportunities that the snarkies have (though education is doubtful based on that article) – the rescues reach out in a kind and respectful way to offer gelding and vaccination clinics in poor areas as well as volunteering to help put up safer fencing.
This article is on par with those claiming all of our societal ills are the fault of poor people and minorities — and could probably form a solid basis for a libel suit."

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 22, 2012, 04:05 PM
Um WOW:eek::eek::eek:
I can see why you're having a knee jerk reaction.
If I read it right none of the horses pictured is a purebred TWH for starters.
There is no indication by the pictures that these people are actually doing Big Lick.
Are they the best representatives of "back yard breeders"??? No.
They are breaking a very young horse - most would consider it a too young horse. All the horses look majorly on the thin side.
On the one horse - doesn't look like there are even shoes on it - let alone anything else.
Anything else I missed?

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 22, 2012, 04:06 PM
OOPS there was ONE TWH.

Niennor
Oct. 22, 2012, 05:27 PM
I thought non-profits were not permitted to pay for ads for any one candidate?:confused:

So did I. But as i learned the hard way, in the end its all about politics. That's why I don't give to any non-profits anymore unless they are willing to take donations in kind.

ldaziens
Oct. 22, 2012, 05:31 PM
I don't know if you are missing anything, because honestly, at a certain point I stopped reading and started skimming ;) I could not bring myself to read through it again.

Absolutely, I do not support riding young horses OR back yard breeding or neglecting in horses in any way. And, I am fanatically opposed to the Big Lick -- knowing my sweet sweet old mare was put through that $hit and now has the arthritis related to that freak show has made me absolutely steadfast in my belief that the Big Lick is evil.

However, I probably should have said that I don't breed horses and my horses do not look like that -- though my TWH mare is a little on the thin side; but she has an awful time in the summer w/ the heat and has arthritis; so I didn't try too hard to fatten her up while it was hot. My vet also reminds me that she will never look like my gelding -- a draft cross air plant who is a little too chunky.

It made me mad because not only is it just nonsensical; the writer really is offensive; but it also made me mad because the Big Lick supporters can print that right out and pass it around to demonstrate the idiocy of their enemies. If you told me it was written by a Big Lick supporter trolling, I'd believe it. And, regardless of how we feel about the (lack of) horsemanship demonstrated in the photos; those people are being libeled by being accused of supporting -- and being responsible for -- the Big Lick abuse. I'm assuming the people had ads on CL; and mocking them regarding their actual ad is one thing, which I think is the whole point of Fugly (which still rubs me the wrong way as the purpose is just to enjoy being mean and in no way helps the horses involved); but poaching the pictures and making up stories about the people in them crosses a line with me personally; and sure seems to meet the definition of libel.

Niennor
Oct. 22, 2012, 05:35 PM
Okay, I think this Fugly article exemplifies the concerns about animal rights idiots who present random nonsense as fact. I actually am very opposed to the Big Lick; and I know that I lean a little lefter and support a little stronger animal welfare guidelines than some here; and this article lit ME up like a Christmas Tree. I pasted the comment I submitted below, but I was hoping that more articulate and calmer minds might want to comment. I worry when people have to make up nonsense in order to write an article on a subject where plenty of legitimate facts exist for making the same argument.

http://fuglyblog.com/2012/10/22/guest-post-fighting-for-the-tennesee-walker/comment-page-1/#comment-125533

"That is the most non-coherant and completely ignorant article I can recall reading. It is, frankly, offensive and does absolutely nothing to support the fight against Big Lick.
I have a rescued former Big Lick horse that I keep at home on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. I also believe in God, Gun Rights, and My Country. Many people might see my little farm and look down their nose at it — especially as we are still recovering from Isaac damage. And while my mare has registration papers, and, in fact was the Reserve Champion at the KY Celebration in the BIG LICK FREAK SHOW; I refuse to register her, because I will not send a dime to the TWHBEA. I would register her w/ the TWHBEA IF I had time / inclination to show her in non-Big Lick classes as well as the time to fight for change within the TWHBEA as the Preacher does.
It is completely irresponsible to state that poor backyard owners of non-registered gaited TRAIL horses are the people responsible for the continuation of the Big Lick.
Anyway, my little farm is redneck-y to be sure; but I would probably physically come to blows w/ the a$$hat that wrote that article if I caught them taking pictures of my place / horses and lumping ME in with the Big Lickers. That was truly one of the most ignorant things that I have ever read on Fugly.
Now, a valid link, that Nathaniel Jackson can speak to, is the link to racism. And, the he could write an article that coherently articulates the facts on this issue — not some nonsense blaming poor people with trail horses for the Big Lick.
As far as poor people & horses – Our local horse rescues in MS have had great success in reaching out to those who perhaps have not benefitted from the educational and financial opportunities that the snarkies have (though education is doubtful based on that article) – the rescues reach out in a kind and respectful way to offer gelding and vaccination clinics in poor areas as well as volunteering to help put up safer fencing.
This article is on par with those claiming all of our societal ills are the fault of poor people and minorities — and could probably form a solid basis for a libel suit."

I have to agree with you on that. I see no relation between the people depicted in those pictures and the big Lick movement. do I believe those horses have the best care? No, not being ridden at 16 months and looking underweight. But I fail to see what it has to do with the BL movement. I find this post full of assumptions and poorly constructed at best.

Guilherme
Oct. 22, 2012, 06:42 PM
Really?? Americans don't know where their food comes from? How pathetic is that? But I wonder if that is true.

Geez, Since we are a nation of fast food gobblers, you can't tell me people haven't seen the huge billboard for Chick fil-A (or however it's spelled) with a 3-D cow saying "eat more chicken".

If they can't tell from that they are eating cows and chickens, then their reading comprehension skills are pretty darn poor.

Remember that we live in a nation where you can get a high school diploma as long as you can read and cypher on an 8th grade level.

My wife is an MD and her university level Family Practice clinic has twice over the past few years had to "dumb down" the routine instructions given patients. She noted that a recent survey put average reading comprehension of their patient base at just over the 7th grade level.

Our educational system has failed, dramatically, over the past couple of decades. We seem to have come to a point where kids get educated in spite of the system, not because of it. This failure shows up again and again and again.

G.

Bluey
Oct. 22, 2012, 06:59 PM
Remember that we live in a nation where you can get a high school diploma as long as you can read and cypher on an 8th grade level.

My wife is an MD and her university level Family Practice clinic has twice over the past few years had to "dumb down" the routine instructions given patients. She noted that a recent survey put average reading comprehension of their patient base at just over the 7th grade level.

Our educational system has failed, dramatically, over the past couple of decades. We seem to have come to a point where kids get educated in spite of the system, not because of it. This failure shows up again and again and again.

G.

Read and weep:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy

It is not only animal rights extremists that are gaining important footholds with their illogical premises about the nature of all animals, including the human one and our place in this world.
Seems that, with the bounty of more humans and so more that can and have advanced knowledge, we also have more that can't comprehend the world around them and will follow any one Pied Piper that does the thinking for them and pulls the right emotional strings.

Doesn't look good for us, that understand the symbiotic relationship all have in this world, that include our already well regulated thru laws proper use of other animals, including our horses.:(

michaleenflynn
Oct. 22, 2012, 07:02 PM
Would that make them Sinn Fern? :lol:

OK, this is freaking hysterical.

ldaziens
Oct. 22, 2012, 07:10 PM
Remember that we live in a nation where you can get a high school diploma as long as you can read and cypher on an 8th grade level.

My wife is an MD and her university level Family Practice clinic has twice over the past few years had to "dumb down" the routine instructions given patients. She noted that a recent survey put average reading comprehension of their patient base at just over the 7th grade level.

Our educational system has failed, dramatically, over the past couple of decades. We seem to have come to a point where kids get educated in spite of the system, not because of it. This failure shows up again and again and again.

G.

Well, I just got called out for my lack of reading comprehension on that Fugly site; because I failed to appreciate the "well written" article.
Lord knows brevity is not my virtue; and typing on an iPad means that all kinds of random things appear on my behalf; and I am convinced that my newly developed problem mistyping homophones is a sign of Alzheimers; but my reading comprehension is still working well -- thank goodness.

You are reminding me of my first "corporate world" job where I had to teach my staff about fractions - same skill I taught my 6th grade students the 4 prior years. Bless their hearts, they all calculated 15 minutes as .15 on their timesheets. They were hard workers making a low wage and cheating themselves out of a little bit that added up.

I assure you that whatever concerns you have about your local education quality will pale once you experience Mississippi's finest. Moving down here from Northern Virginia and the top schools in the nation has made it that much more painful to see that these parents have no idea that their children are being robbed.

sunridge1
Oct. 22, 2012, 07:36 PM
Read and weep:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy

It is not only animal rights extremists that are gaining important footholds with their illogical premises about the nature of all animals, including the human one and our place in this world.
Seems that, with the bounty of more humans and so more that can and have advanced knowledge, we also have more that can't comprehend the world around them and will follow any one Pied Piper that does the thinking for them and pulls the right emotional strings.

Doesn't look good for us, that understand the symbiotic relationship all have in this world, that include our already well regulated thru laws proper use of other animals, including our horses.:(

I could write a book...However as far as "people don't know where their food comes from", that is mostly a demographic shift. People don't/can't make that association, even in rural areas because farming itself has changed. Where I grew up in the heart of Dairyland MOST of the kids were farm kids. There were several family farms on a square mile. Today? not a one on that square farms any kind of cattle. They can't compete with the few 1000 cow farms in the county. So I can certainly see how they don't know even in rural areas. THEY DON"T SEE IT ANYMORE. It comes from a factory just like a car.

Dispatcher
Oct. 23, 2012, 08:29 AM
Remember that we live in a nation where you can get a high school diploma as long as you can read and cypher on an 8th grade level.

My wife is an MD and her university level Family Practice clinic has twice over the past few years had to "dumb down" the routine instructions given patients. She noted that a recent survey put average reading comprehension of their patient base at just over the 7th grade level.

How sad is that? And let's not forget "college" education nowadays. Seems most are only equal to a high school level. Yet, people have "degrees" that get them jobs. But they are not truly educated.

Our educational system has failed, dramatically, over the past couple of decades. We seem to have come to a point where kids get educated in spite of the system, not because of it. This failure shows up again and again and again.

G.

How sad is that? and "college" seems to fall in the same boat. Kids get "degrees" and still remain woefully uneducated.

allintexas
Oct. 23, 2012, 05:33 PM
How do these people address things like predators and prey in animals. How is it OK for that fox to eat a mouse but it is not OK for us to eat an animal?

I'll take a stab at this one. A fox doesn't have a choice and is not capable of reasoning about right and wrong.

It's ok for you or anyone to eat an animal. Now, abusing animals is not ok, and that is why it is regulated by law. Not that these laws aren't regularly flouted

TheBarnRules
Oct. 23, 2012, 06:08 PM
How do these people address things like predators and prey in animals. How is it OK for that fox to eat a mouse but it is not OK for us to eat an animal?

I wish I could find the post, but one actually said that if the lion could be made to understand how painful it was to the antelope to be eaten, the lion would be vegan. :eek:

I wish I was kidding... :no:

Bluey
Oct. 23, 2012, 07:09 PM
I'll take a stab at this one. A fox doesn't have a choice and is not capable of reasoning about right and wrong.

It's ok for you or anyone to eat an animal. Now, abusing animals is not ok, and that is why it is regulated by law. Not that these laws aren't regularly flouted


I wish I could find the post, but one actually said that if the lion could be made to understand how painful it was to the antelope to be eaten, the lion would be vegan. :eek:

I wish I was kidding... :no:


Do you really, really think that, if the fox could "reason right and wrong" would do any different than eat the chickens?:eek:

I think you have read too much animal rights propaganda, sadly misinterpreting the real nature of animals.

Animals are wonderful creatures as they are, they don't need to be made any other.
It is a shame to not give who they are the right to be who they are, if you can even understand that.:no:

Maybe see if you can understand the point of the next post copied above, right below yours.:yes:

sunridge1
Oct. 23, 2012, 07:39 PM
How sad is that? and "college" seems to fall in the same boat. Kids get "degrees" and still remain woefully uneducated.

Maybe it's because kids never get to "live" outside the over-indulgent parents watchful eye and learn something on their own. The horror of pumpkin actually getting hurt in ANY WAY by ANYTHING is way too great. We have failed our "Greatest Generation".

allintexas
Oct. 24, 2012, 02:57 PM
Do you really, really think that, if the fox could "reason right and wrong" would do any different than eat the chickens?:eek:

I think you have read too much animal rights propaganda, sadly misinterpreting the real nature of animals.

Animals are wonderful creatures as they are, they don't need to be made any other.
It is a shame to not give who they are the right to be who they are, if you can even understand that.:no:

Maybe see if you can understand the point of the next post copied above, right below yours.:yes:

Please don't assume that I'm an idiot. Not suggesting that a fox can reason. Just that people can. Thus we have ethics. Surely you are not suggesting that humane laws should be stricken from the books, because animals aren't humane to each other?

CFFarm
Oct. 24, 2012, 03:53 PM
Do you really, really think that, if the fox could "reason right and wrong" would do any different than eat the chickens?:eek:

I think you have read too much animal rights propaganda, sadly misinterpreting the real nature of animals.

Animals are wonderful creatures as they are, they don't need to be made any other.
It is a shame to not give who they are the right to be who they are, if you can even understand that.:no:

Maybe see if you can understand the point of the next post copied above, right below yours.:yes:

I hate to take things out of context but this sounds a lot like the statements animal rights groups make. LOL

Alagirl
Oct. 24, 2012, 05:00 PM
Please don't assume that I'm an idiot.

I am sure we don't.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 24, 2012, 05:16 PM
Our lives have changed so much - too much tv and too many computer/wii/x-box whatever games.

As parents we are bombarded in the news about kidnappings and sexual predators in our neighborhoods.

No more are the days of taking off on horseback or even a bike- they'd only start to worry if we weren't back by dinner.
There aren't a lot of places to safely ride anymore.

People actively honk at a horse on the road - if it spooks so much the better - it's funny don't ya know? Heaven forbid you should slow them down.

If someone breaks down on one of the bridges around here, they're honking at you and giving you the finger. Yea right, I seriously planned for my vehicle to break down just to screw with YOUR day.

One time someone was threatening to jump off the Aurora bridge. She was causing a traffic jam - people were yelling at her to just jump.

I don't mind if my "pumpkin" gets hurt in the normal course of things but I'd rather she not get folded/spindled or mutilated by some nutjob or someone that's just in a freaking a$$ hurry.
If she got thrown off a horse now and again - at least she'd be doing something fun!!







Maybe it's because kids never get to "live" outside the over-indulgent parents watchful eye and learn something on their own. The horror of pumpkin actually getting hurt in ANY WAY by ANYTHING is way too great. We have failed our "Greatest Generation".

TheBarnRules
Oct. 24, 2012, 05:27 PM
Do you really, really think that, if the fox could "reason right and wrong" would do any different than eat the chickens?:eek:

I think you have read too much animal rights propaganda, sadly misinterpreting the real nature of animals.

Animals are wonderful creatures as they are, they don't need to be made any other.
It is a shame to not give who they are the right to be who they are, if you can even understand that.:no:

Maybe see if you can understand the point of the next post copied above, right below yours.:yes:

I'm confused - I was telling you what a RARA said to me about animals being vegan if only the predator could be made to understand how painful being eaten is to the prey. I certainly don't believe that - an animal is what it is - predator or prey and we would be wise not to think we can change that, vegan dog and cat food aside.

luvmytbs
Oct. 24, 2012, 05:40 PM
Surely you are not suggesting that humane laws should be stricken from the books, because animals aren't humane to each other?

To Bluey et al it doesn't matter as long as they are not enforced to the point of interfering with THEIR personal view of what THEY consider humane. :(

ldaziens
Oct. 24, 2012, 05:44 PM
I wish I could find the post, but one actually said that if the lion could be made to understand how painful it was to the antelope to be eaten, the lion would be vegan. :eek:

I wish I was kidding... :no:

I suspect this was the thought process of that guy who hung out with the sweet grizzly bears -- until they ate him. Or the sweet chimpanzee - that tore the woman's face off.

There's something I read, and maybe somebody here knows what I am talking about -- otherwise, I'll have to find it. But, apparently, during the whole wolf reintroduction debates; the pro-wolf contingent heavily relied on Farley Mowat's book "Never Cry Wolf" - which is apparently complete fiction - from Farley Mowat WikiPedia entry:

"In a 1964 article published in the Canadian Field-Naturalist,[2] Canadian Wildlife Federation official Frank Banfield compared Mowat's 1963 bestseller to Little Red Riding Hood, stating, "I hope that readers of "Never Cry Wolf" will realize that both stories have about the same factual content."[2] L. David Mech, a wolf expert, stated that Mowat is no scientist and that in all his studies, he had never encountered a wolf pack which primarily subsisted on small prey as shown in Mowat's book.[7]
Duncan Pryde, a Hudsons Bay Company trader who pioneered the linguistic study of Inuit languages, attacked Mowat's claim to have picked up the language quickly enough in two months to discuss detailed concepts such as shamanism, pointing out that the language is complex and required a year or more for Europeans to master the basics. Pryde said that when Mowat visited his post at Baker Lake in 1958 he only spoke a single word in the Inuit language.[8]"

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

Bluey
Oct. 24, 2012, 05:46 PM
Please don't assume that I'm an idiot. Not suggesting that a fox can reason. Just that people can. Thus we have ethics. Surely you are not suggesting that humane laws should be stricken from the books, because animals aren't humane to each other?

Well, how you come to the conclusion that anyone here against those animal rights extremists "wants humane laws stricken from the books" does give me pause about how your thinking process functions.:lol:

Remember, those animal rights extremist groups are not at all for humane laws in themselves.
Those laws have been always there and getting better the more we learn, although the past two decades animal rights extremist groups have used any such for their propaganda, as if they did it, which they didn't.
The abuse card, to brand all in what some abuse somewhere an animal is part of that propaganda and so many fall for that one.
Animal rights extremist groups tried about a year ago to shut down the whole dairy industry in a Midwest state thru showing someone abusing dairy calves as they were lobbying for a bill against dairies.

Animal rights extremist groups are riding the coattails of those living and working with the animals that have brought advances in care forth to get followers.
Humane laws is only a handy stepping stone for animal rights extremist groups, that brings them followers that don't know their agenda, that clearly is to ban all use, humane or not.:(

sunridge1
Oct. 24, 2012, 06:00 PM
Our lives have changed so much - too much tv and too many computer/wii/x-box whatever games.

As parents we are bombarded in the news about kidnappings and sexual predators in our neighborhoods.

No more are the days of taking off on horseback or even a bike- they'd only start to worry if we weren't back by dinner.
There aren't a lot of places to safely ride anymore.

People actively honk at a horse on the road - if it spooks so much the better - it's funny don't ya know? Heaven forbid you should slow them down.

If someone breaks down on one of the bridges around here, they're honking at you and giving you the finger. Yea right, I seriously planned for my vehicle to break down just to screw with YOUR day.

One time someone was threatening to jump off the Aurora bridge. She was causing a traffic jam - people were yelling at her to just jump.

I don't mind if my "pumpkin" gets hurt in the normal course of things but I'd rather she not get folded/spindled or mutilated by some nutjob or someone that's just in a freaking a$$ hurry.
If she got thrown off a horse now and again - at least she'd be doing something fun!!

Sorry I was harsh, I really didn't mean to be, I DO understand that those fears are not unfounded. From what I see it goes way deeper than that however, our societal ills are NOT because of over-protective parents but a result of a dispassionate, dishonest, and an opportunistic culture.

I am so glad I didn't have children, I couldn't have lent them anything to thrive in this culture. My own naivete would have only harmed them in this dog eat dog country.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 24, 2012, 09:23 PM
No worries - I didn't take it that way.



Sorry I was harsh, I really didn't mean to be, I DO understand that those fears are not unfounded. From what I see it goes way deeper than that however, our societal ills are NOT because of over-protective parents but a result of a dispassionate, dishonest, and an opportunistic culture. ^^^^^^YES


I am so glad I didn't have children, I couldn't have lent them anything to thrive in this culture. My own naivete would have only harmed them in this dog eat dog country.

JGHIRETIRE
Oct. 24, 2012, 09:24 PM
Nailed it in one!!


To Bluey et al it doesn't matter as long as they are not enforced to the point of interfering with THEIR personal view of what THEY consider humane. :(

jetsmom
Oct. 24, 2012, 10:11 PM
And apparently because animals kill their prey to eat, it's ok for people to engage in sports where you can use animals to kill the prey, purely for our own entertainment. Extra points if you can do it from horseback.
Based on their reasoning on another thread, I think they would probably be ok with dogfighting, and cockfighting, because after all, animals naturally kill other animals.

MistyBlue
Oct. 24, 2012, 11:46 PM
:no:
The point with those who disagree with some of you is that welfare is fantastic. Rights are not.

Agreeing and supporting welfare does *not* mean the person is close minded, enjoys seeing animals fighting and most certainly does not mean they only want their personal views of humane only.

As a matter of fact it means the direct opposite of that. That they agree with welfare laws and want them upheld...they do NOT want a few inexperienced people forcing their opinions into laws. Which is what animals rights are.

Jetsmom...do you really honestly think that the folks you dislike on here would seriously be for dog and cock fighting for any reason? Honestly? :no:

The point many have been attempting to make on these ridiculous threads is:

LEARN exactly what is going on...LEARN it. Do not parrot what the internet says. Get off your duffs, get out there and use reason without bias. The internet...she lies. A lot. Kinda like the silliness of folks posting "HSUS is not animal rights! They don't have that on their website!"

Because the rhetoric being posted here about fox hunting couldn't be more dramatic & ridiculous if it was a soap opera script.

ldaziens
Oct. 25, 2012, 12:12 AM
And, I would highly encourage anyone who thinks that farmers raising free range birds support HSUS & PETA to actually ask a farmer how they feel about them. I raise free range birds, and the only way I can raise them free range without major predator losses is with the help of my livestock guardian dogs. My girls LOVE to work and choose to work; but these HSUS & PETA fools insist that these dogs can only be happy as house pets. My girls have house privileges; but they would be perfectly happy just staying out guarding the sheep and birds.

Exactly what MistyBlue said - LEARN about the reality of what these people are up to.

Lynnwood
Oct. 25, 2012, 01:03 AM
And, I would highly encourage anyone who thinks that farmers raising free range birds support HSUS & PETA to actually ask a farmer how they feel about them. I raise free range birds, and the only way I can raise them free range without major predator losses is with the help of my livestock guardian dogs. My girls LOVE to work and choose to work; but these HSUS & PETA fools insist that these dogs can only be happy as house pets. My girls have house privileges; but they would be perfectly happy just staying out guarding the sheep and birds.

Exactly what MistyBlue said - LEARN about the reality of what these people are up to.


They don't even want that. I saw a recent posting on W.A.R I believe but don't quote might have been one of the others . Where one person spouted off about how cruel it was to keep a dog as a domestic companion. That we make them sit in the house all day while we go off to work etc forcing them to hold their bladders and be un natural. Then again they try to force their Carnivore only cats to eat a "healty" Vegan diet.

About 15 years ago there was a study done on the diets of house cats and the diseases most linked to their foods. Diabetes , Renal Failure etc. In the end the study proved out of all the types tested the healthiest cats were being fed "ground mouse". Literally lab raised mice tossed whole into a meat grinder and then fed fresh. So talk about cruel taking an animal that is designed to eat meat and forcing it to eat a plant based diet because of your opinion. :no:

They don't want house pets they don't want PETS PERIOD.

ldaziens
Oct. 25, 2012, 01:37 AM
They don't want house pets they don't want PETS PERIOD.

The ultimate goal is no pets; but between now and then it's just about relentlessly harassing people on multiple fronts.

Vegan dog and cat food -- seriously HOW does this nonsense get any traction.

jetsmom
Oct. 25, 2012, 02:36 AM
:no:
The point with those who disagree with some of you is that welfare is fantastic. Rights are not.

Agreeing and supporting welfare does *not* mean the person is close minded, enjoys seeing animals fighting and most certainly does not mean they only want their personal views of humane only.

As a matter of fact it means the direct opposite of that. That they agree with welfare laws and want them upheld...they do NOT want a few inexperienced people forcing their opinions into laws. Which is what animals rights are.

Jetsmom...do you really honestly think that the folks you dislike on here would seriously be for dog and cock fighting for any reason? Honestly? :no:

The point many have been attempting to make on these ridiculous threads is:

LEARN exactly what is going on...LEARN it. Do not parrot what the internet says. Get off your duffs, get out there and use reason without bias. The internet...she lies. A lot. Kinda like the silliness of folks posting "HSUS is not animal rights! They don't have that on their website!"

Because the rhetoric being posted here about fox hunting couldn't be more dramatic & ridiculous if it was a soap opera script.

Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved. So if you support one, there is no reason they wouldn't support the other. Both end up with dead animals for the people's entertainment. Same thing with trophy hunting when they are doing it just to mount the head.

And not everyone thinks that the HSUS is an AR organization. Taking some old quotes, often out of context, doesn't make it one. And not donating to shelters doesn't make it one, when their mission statement isn't one of being a shelter. They lobby/fight for bills designed to prevent abuse/make animal use more humane. But you disagree with me on that...so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. But it works both ways. You want to say, "Don't believe the internet/biased sites, but your buddy Bluey trots out the numerous Richard Berman sites all of the time. A paid lobbysist who keeps 92 cents of every dollar donated to one of his faux charities. And yet you and others will never tell her that the site is biased. So you all, have a biased agenda, yet won't admit it. Did you even look at the link allintexas linked on the other thread?.

Fairfax
Oct. 25, 2012, 10:16 AM
The comments were delivered exactly as stated. Pacelle discovered that Joe and Martha thought they were too radical so he toned his comments down to make them "easier to swallow".

Nice guy...kinda like Bill Clinton...a great conversationalist...

but...would you trust him with your daughter...alone?

Then why trust him with your pets or livestock.

It is all about the M O N E Y

Having worked from the inside out..what we read and see is hardly what is spoken about behind closed doors.

There IS a Vegan agenda.
There is a ban on livestock agenda

He won't tackle the pet issue as he would like to as most people have a grand mother/father who owns a pet...he wants THEIR money


a quote from a Nibbler

"Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved. So if you support one, there is no reason they wouldn't support the other. Both end up with dead animals for the people's entertainment. Same thing with trophy hunting when they are doing it just to mount the head"


But...but....but....darn it...didn't WAYNE PACELLE HSUS CEO PROCLAIM that Michael Vicks would make a GREAT PET OWNER?

Vicks has NEVER been remorseful for all of the deaths which were staggering according to the ASPCA...the number of animals...puppies...kittens...cats...wild animals tossed into the pen so a good and violent KILL could be made. Therefore they would LEARN how to kill and if they didn't...he broke their front legs and tossed them back in to be killed.

and yet....Wayne PROCLAIMS that Vicks is ONE OF THEM...

Vicks just blames his culture and his mistreatment as a youth...

Hate to let reality destroy your premise

wonderhorseguy
Oct. 25, 2012, 11:07 AM
Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved. So if you support one, there is no reason they wouldn't support the other. Both end up with dead animals for the people's entertainment. Same thing with trophy hunting when they are doing it just to mount the head.

And not everyone thinks that the HSUS is an AR organization. Taking some old quotes, often out of context, doesn't make it one. And not donating to shelters doesn't make it one, when their mission statement isn't one of being a shelter. They lobby/fight for bills designed to prevent abuse/make animal use more humane. But you disagree with me on that...so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. But it works both ways. You want to say, "Don't believe the internet/biased sites, but your buddy Bluey trots out the numerous Richard Berman sites all of the time. A paid lobbysist who keeps 92 cents of every dollar donated to one of his faux charities. And yet you and others will never tell her that the site is biased. So you all, have a biased agenda, yet won't admit it. Did you even look at the link allintexas linked on the other thread?.

Bluey the site is biased.

Of course it is biased. Every site, every statement, every post, every donation is biased. Seeing past the bias to the facts is what is important and what makes us informed. The facts are still true.

HSUS presents very few facts. They prey on emotion as they do not have to prove anything that way. HSUS and PETA nibble away at the edges of our rights. Enough little nibbles equal a large bite. RARAs believe and spout the statements they make without verifying the facts. Can you show me a statement made py Mr. Purcell supporting domestic animal ownership? Not the mission statement but a statement he has made to refute the earlier statements.

TheBarnRules
Oct. 25, 2012, 02:16 PM
Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement... .

Wow. You really know nothing about foxhunting, do you? Oh, I'm sure you think you do, but :no:

sunridge1
Oct. 25, 2012, 07:24 PM
Could you please explain how foxhunting works? Don't the hounds eventually kill the fox? I thought that is why it was banned. A form of dog(canine) fighting.

MistyBlue
Oct. 25, 2012, 08:19 PM
And not everyone thinks that the HSUS is an AR organization.


The US government does.

And HSUS does not hide it. They just don't use the actual word "rights" after learning that the general public views animal rights proponents as mentally unstable, fanatic and in some cases domesticen terrorists.

HSUS used to term themselves as Animal Welfare advocates.

As soon as Wayne went to work there...he dropped the "welfare" and, on the advice of his legal team, changed it to Animal Protection instead of Animal Rights.

Wayne doesn't really hide it. Let's look at his bio he wrote on his own blog:


The organization is the 155th largest charity in the United States. The growth has partly been achieved through successful mergers with other animal protection organizations. In 2004, Wayne Pacelle and Michael Markarian (president of The Fund for Animals and now chief program and policy officer of The HSUS) helped engineer the corporate combination of The HSUS and The Fund for Animals, the national organization founded by Cleveland Amory. In 2006, Pacelle was the architect of a combination with the Doris Day Animal League, which was founded nearly 20 years ago by iconic actress Doris Day, and is one of the major American animal protection organizations. He created the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, after the formerly named Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights was brought into the HSUS family.


Fund for animals is an Animal RIGHTS org. Started by bigtime Animal Rights activist Cleveland Amory. Taken over after Amory's death by Markarian...also a self avowed animal rights activist.
Wayne was pres of peta, animal rights.
Wayne also absorbed Doris Day's org...Doris day was a self avowed animal rights activist.
Wayne absorbed in the Vets for ANIMAL RIGHTS group and renamed it to remove the rights.

To think that HSUS, all top officers replaced by Wayne all from animal rights and wayne himself from Peta, is NOT animal rights is either naive or purposely obtuse.

Bluey
Oct. 25, 2012, 08:43 PM
The US government does.

And HSUS does not hide it. They just don't use the actual word "rights" after learning that the general public views animal rights proponents as mentally unstable, fanatic and in some cases domesticen terrorists.

HSUS used to term themselves as Animal Welfare advocates.

As soon as Wayne went to work there...he dropped the "welfare" and, on the advice of his legal team, changed it to Animal Protection instead of Animal Rights.

Wayne doesn't really hide it. Let's look at his bio he wrote on his own blog:



Fund for animals is an Animal RIGHTS org. Started by bigtime Animal Rights activist Cleveland Amory. Taken over after Amory's death by Markarian...also a self avowed animal rights activist.
Wayne was pres of peta, animal rights.
Wayne also absorbed Doris Day's org...Doris day was a self avowed animal rights activist.
Wayne absorbed in the Vets for ANIMAL RIGHTS group and renamed it to remove the rights.

To think that HSUS, all top officers replaced by Wayne all from animal rights and wayne himself from Peta, is NOT animal rights is either naive or purposely obtuse.

If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, no matter what it wants to call itself, no matter where it comes from, it is indisputably a duck.

I think that is some of what the article that started this thread was saying.
Finally even the main media is catching on.
Sorry, they can't hide their duckiness any more, no matter how they try to spin it.

Fairfax
Oct. 26, 2012, 02:22 AM
The US government does.

And HSUS does not hide it. They just don't use the actual word "rights" after learning that the general public views animal rights proponents as mentally unstable, fanatic and in some cases domesticen terrorists.

HSUS used to term themselves as Animal Welfare advocates.

As soon as Wayne went to work there...he dropped the "welfare" and, on the advice of his legal team, changed it to Animal Protection instead of Animal Rights.

Wayne doesn't really hide it. Let's look at his bio he wrote on his own blog:



Fund for animals is an Animal RIGHTS org. Started by bigtime Animal Rights activist Cleveland Amory. Taken over after Amory's death by Markarian...also a self avowed animal rights activist.
Wayne was pres of peta, animal rights.
Wayne also absorbed Doris Day's org...Doris day was a self avowed animal rights activist.
Wayne absorbed in the Vets for ANIMAL RIGHTS group and renamed it to remove the rights.

To think that HSUS, all top officers replaced by Wayne all from animal rights and wayne himself from Peta, is NOT animal rights is either naive or purposely obtuse.

This is a very important post because when I posted my concerns regarding Vets having their education paid for by HSUS the standard thought was...who cares!!

We are now finding out how insidious this program is.

These are vets who REFUSE to euthanize any healthy animal for any reason. We have a pending suit where a vet told a lady he would put down the family dog (both parents laid off work) when they put down one of their children.

Another vet arrived at a farm where the owner of an elderly horse stated old "dobbin" could not make it through another winter so he wanted him put down while the temperatures were warm. Dobbin was 32 years old..and was thin as most horses that age become. The vet reported him to authorities and he was charged with ABUSE AND NEGLECT. It was eventaully tossed out because ANOTHER vet had viewed the horse over the years...and had helped develope a special diet.

HSUS vets regularly attend auctions looking for old or thin horses that owners have put into the sale KNOWING they will go for slaughter. They contact local authorities and have them charged (we have over 40 cases on this premise alone)

HSUS regularly approaches the courts with an explaination as to why THEIR vets should be considered to be the final word during a trial. And, as we found out during the Vess case, the courts can be swayed and the testimony of an equine vet with over 25 years experience was over turned by the testimony of a vet (general practice with only 40 hours of equine study) who was in her SECOND year of practice.

luvmytbs
Oct. 26, 2012, 09:16 AM
HSUS vets regularly attend auctions looking for old or thin horses that owners have put into the sale KNOWING they will go for slaughter. They contact local authorities and have them charged (we have over 40 cases on this premise alone)



Charged with what ??????????????

Owning old horses is not against the law.

Selling horses is not against the law.

Selling for slaughter is not against the law.

I NEVER saw anyone from HSUS at the auctions I frequented. As a matter of fact, NOBODY of any authority (AG Dept., Auction vet) ever gave a rat's behind what shape the horses were in that came into the sale.

So facts please FF.

Bluey
Oct. 26, 2012, 09:48 AM
The facts here is that, long before the HSUS was active with the abuse card and videos from sale barns and farms and all that for their cause of the moment donation drives, sale barns already had protocols for what animals they accepted or not for their sales.

That doesn't mean some animal may not have been kept there from individuals that was not up to those standards, but it was not part of the sale.

For a good 30+ years, our sale barn had a sign with that, for the increasingly clueless new animal owners that didn't know what good animal husbandry is.
In that sign it was clearly stated any animal having ambulatory problems or open wounds would be rejected.
If it was bad, the owner was reported to the sheriff, if the situation was decided to be extreme by the sale vet.

Yes, good animal husbandry is what those that care for animals have always done, well before any animal rights extremists groups decided that using abuses was a great way to condemn all animal users, as they have done more and more, even making up some of the abuse, as those stories finally coming to light show, as in the circus lawsuit they lost.

Remember, if you see abuse anywhere, including sale barns, speak up and help remedy that.
Don't go believing aligning yourself with some animal rights extremist group is going to help the animals, because their intent is not that, but to eliminate all uses, eventually.

I think it is idiocy to align yourself with animal rights extremist groups, if you want to keep YOUR rights to have and care for any animals.
Hard to understand why anyone would think that makes any kind of sense.:confused:

Now, if you really think that we need a new world order, where humans don't get to have any animals in their care at all, hands off them totally, then yes, animal rights extremists groups are for you.

Then all I will say is that we have to agree to disagree.:yes:

Each one of us is free to have our own opinions, including the opinion that humans should now quit using animals, as we have evolved doing in this world, as the natural, renewable resource they are.

That is what freedom is, each one can have their own opinion.
With freedoms come responsibilities, including to respect other's freedoms.

That is where I won't agree that animal rights extremists have the right to determine if the rest of us get to have and use animals.
I would not demand they have to use animals or else, which would be the other coin of being intransigent and wanting to impose our opinions on others, just as they are trying to do.:no:

sunridge1
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:00 AM
Posting again since I'm all about facts. Where, anywhere, please, does/has one of these organizations ever stated they want to end all animal use, pets or otherwise.

I need facts to make a decision about anything. It has kept me out of a lot trouble in my life to seek out the real truth.

Like MistyBlue stated in an earlier post, don't believe the internet. I believe nothing in general, most people are just plain wrong, they don't look beyond what is in front of them. Even experts in their field.

Fairfax
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:17 AM
Charged with what ??????????????

Owning old horses is not against the law.

Selling horses is not against the law.

Selling for slaughter is not against the law.

I NEVER saw anyone from HSUS at the auctions I frequented. As a matter of fact, NOBODY of any authority (AG Dept., Auction vet) ever gave a rat's behind what shape the horses were in that came into the sale.

So facts please FF.

It IS against the law to have a horse considered to be under weight. When a person sends the horse to the auction, the local authorities DO have the right to charge the seller with neglect and abuse.

Most famous case was Axel and Dale Huber. They were charged when they took their old non producing mares to the auction (4 of them) and yes...they were under weight. They were charged with Abuse, Christine Matthews took two thin TB's to a sale in Florida and was charged.

This is done to stop individuals from using auctions especially if kill buyers are present. It is all done to intimidate and create and aura of fear

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:40 AM
Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved.

You see no difference between a wild animal that can run away, knows the territory, can go to ground, etc. and animals put in a very small confined space with no way to leave that tiny box? Truly? You don't see the difference? Wow.

And "social status"? You're one of those ARs who think that everybody who hunts has is a toff?

luvmytbs
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:42 AM
sale barns already had protocols for what animals they accepted or not for their sales.


For a good 30+ years, our sale barn had a sign with that, for the increasingly clueless new animal owners that didn't know what good animal husbandry is.
In that sign it was clearly stated any animal having ambulatory problems or open wounds would be rejected.


Signs (rules) are everywhere we go in life.
They mean nothing if they are not enforced.



If it was bad, the owner was reported to the sheriff, if the situation was decided to be extreme by the sale vet.
And you have seen that happen with your own eyes? Anyone ever been charged?
Don't think so. Not in my corner of the world.




Remember, if you see abuse anywhere, including sale barns, speak up and help remedy that.

Been there, done that.
Best I ever got: "Let's hope someone will buy the horse and feed it."
.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:45 AM
Posting again since I'm all about facts. Where, anywhere, please, does/has one of these organizations ever stated they want to end all animal use, pets or otherwise.

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” Elliot Katz, President “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

"But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

“We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win.” Dr. Steven Best, speaking at International Animal Rights Gathering 2005. The Telegram (UK) July 17, 2005.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:48 AM
Here's another: “The cat, like the dog, must disappear….. We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.”
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

Now, how can it be clearer than that? It is crystal clear and animal rights advocates are entirely about eliminating domestic animals.

luvmytbs
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:49 AM
It IS against the law to have a horse considered to be under weight. When a person sends the horse to the auction, the local authorities DO have the right to charge the seller with neglect and abuse.



But they don't.

You and bluey are dilusional. :rolleyes:

sunridge1
Oct. 26, 2012, 11:25 AM
Okay if those quotes are in their entire context which Parcells is not, THAT I do know, then you are talking about NUTJOBS championing a cause. THEY are nutjobs before they are anything else. Extremists, on the fringe.

If they really have any power they are being used by others that actually have the power i.e. the developers in New york and the Carriage industry. Someone is using the nuts to do their dirty work. Follow the money and that is what I see.

Of course as nutty as this country has become they probably do rule the roost.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 11:42 AM
No, I'm talking about Animal Rights activists. I'm in my 50's. I've been following animal issues since I was in high school. The publications of HSUS used to be extremely forthright about their animal elimination policies. Very obvious. But that doesn't help the donations, so they eliminated that language.

Wayne Pacelle said what he said. He publicly admits he has no animal bonds.

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” ----Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” ---Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.

QUOTES FROM HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES MANAGER JOHN ("J.P.") GOODWIN:

“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." ---JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996.

"We will never, ever, ever work with anyone who helps the FBI stop the A.L.F.” ---JP Goodwin, “Fur Wars Heat Up. A.L.F. is on the Warpath! No Compromise, Issue 4, Fall 1996.

"We’re ecstatic," (of the fire that did almost a million dollars of damage and could have killed a caretaker family sleeping on the premises.) ---J.P. Goodwin, ALF Spokesman, Deseret News (Utah), Mar. 11, 1997.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 11:43 AM
Okay if those quotes are in their entire context which Parcells is not, THAT I do know, then you are talking about NUTJOBS championing a cause. THEY are nutjobs before they are anything else. Extremists, on the fringe.


Pacelle is head of HSUS. That's not on the fringe. That's extremely mainstream.

Fairfax
Oct. 26, 2012, 04:06 PM
But they don't.

You and bluey are dilusional. :rolleyes:

I wish I was wrong. I have given you cases and you call me dilusional.

This is part of the problem Unless some individuals see it in their own back yard they refuse to believe it is happening anywhere else. There was a time when a "rescue" with motives i.e. property acquisition was also denied by many posters.

Now..first hand they can see how the NYC carriage horses have a smear campaign against them OVER REAL ESTATE.

The US is filled with stories where counties have "paid a bargain base price" for private property for the community good...and then sold it to a developer for a profit thereby cheating the original owner.

What would make anyone think that "animals" would be any different.

This is why we say "Follow the Money:

Try selling a skinny horse in California or Oregon at public auction.

And yes...agents do charge individuals. We have cases before the courts right now. When they re adjucated I will print the results.

Your eyes must be pretty strained by now.

When should I expect that 13 year old school yard girl "sigh"?

Maybe next post from you?

jetsmom
Oct. 26, 2012, 04:11 PM
Signs (rules) are everywhere we go in life.
They mean nothing if they are not enforced.


And you have seen that happen with your own eyes? Anyone ever been charged?
Don't think so. Not in my corner of the world.




Been there, done that.
Best I ever got: "Let's hope someone will buy the horse and feed it."
.

The Chavez auction in NM is a great example. Four horses suffering overnight or even days, and left laying on the ground thrashing, and the auction owner and livestock inspector ignore it, until forced by an animal welfare group to shoot the horses.

jetsmom
Oct. 26, 2012, 04:15 PM
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” Elliot Katz, President “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

"But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

“We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win.” Dr. Steven Best, speaking at International Animal Rights Gathering 2005. The Telegram (UK) July 17, 2005.

A bunch of 10-30 yr old quotes taken out of context. The most recent (at the bottom) was at an AR gathering (not HSUS or even PETA). Nothing even remotely recent.

Alagirl
Oct. 26, 2012, 04:19 PM
A bunch of 10-30 yr old quotes taken out of context. The most recent (at the bottom) was at an AR gathering (not HSUS or even PETA). Nothing even remotely recent.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Honey, when people tell you who they are, you really ought to believe them.

The leopard does not change it's spots.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 04:31 PM
You're not paying attention. These are the views of these people. They have learned that to keep people like you and all the "animal lovers" sending in huge amounts of cash they can't say such virulent things in public anymore, so they've changed their rhetoric in public. But simply look at their proposed legislation. Banning breeding for instance. In every proposed law there is NO exception for breeding police dogs, military dogs, assistance dogs. NONE. It often gets added by alert people. You think ARs weren't hoping that wouldn't be caught?

Many ARs are against the use of dogs in military and assistance work anyway.

Think of the reality. All breeding banned. What happens in 50 years? Or sooner?

What about the case in VA where PETA workers picked up a truck full of dogs from a shelter and killed them all within hours?

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/

As I've said, I've been reading HSUS publications and Animals Agenda (my library used to get that magazine) for decades. You think they changed their views by magic? That they were lying maybe all those years ago? They didn't change. They believe that stuff. I had a HSUS calendar one year that was full of "we must eliminate pets" comments every month. Wish I'd saved it. I don't believe their objectives changed one bit. I think that the internet spreads their comments too fast and they were alienating the fools who give them money, so they two-face it now.

Anybody on here remember the posts during Hurricane Katrina? A poster here on COH had photos of truckloads of brand-new dog crates being piled into dumpsters by HSUS workers. They didn't want "stuff," they wanted cash, baby. They had no use for dog crates.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Honey, when people tell you who they are, you really ought to believe them.

The leopard does not change it's spots.

Excellent post. Much more to the point than my long-windedness. Excellent.

Bluey
Oct. 26, 2012, 05:10 PM
Go to humanewatch.org and you can read many first hand accounts of people these past few years, right to today, that go to their seminars and conventions.

Many, that used to also not believe what animal rights extremists really are, have reported back with what is being said, appalled, including the same old quotes some just don't want to believe.

Anne FS
Oct. 26, 2012, 06:13 PM
Exactly. ARs *want* you to believe that was then, this is now. It's another tactic to pretend that they're not anti-animal.

Remember a few years ago on here the CO proposed legislation was discussed to officially (legally) changed the terminology from animal owner to (I think it was) Caretaker? Lots of "animal lovers" said why not? we're for it, and it was being considered, until the real animal supporters pointed out that legally a Caretaker is not the same thing at all. IOW, you buy a horse, you would be legally obligated to care for that horse for the rest of its life. You could never sell it or re-home it, you couldn't even make the decision in serious illness to euthanize it. You were its Caretaker and therefore were legally obligated to keep it alive no matter the cost, no matter the suffering.

Buy a horse for trail riding that turns out to be unsuited but would make a dynamite jumper or dressage horse? Too bad. Doesn't matter what the horse would enjoy doing. You can't sell it because you technically don't "own" it because "owning" animals is no longer PC.

The AR people were like, "oops, does it really mean all that??? Why, laws-a-mercy me."

Yeah, it really meant all that. And they knew it, too. They just counted on the people who refuse to believe ARs are anti-animal.

Fairfax
Oct. 26, 2012, 06:33 PM
Exactly. ARs *want* you to believe that was then, this is now. It's another tactic to pretend that they're not anti-animal.

Remember a few years ago on here the CO proposed legislation was discussed to officially (legally) changed the terminology from animal owner to (I think it was) Caretaker? Lots of "animal lovers" said why not? we're for it, and it was being considered, until the real animal supporters pointed out that legally a Caretaker is not the same thing at all. IOW, you buy a horse, you would be legally obligated to care for that horse for the rest of its life. You could never sell it or re-home it, you couldn't even make the decision in serious illness to euthanize it. You were its Caretaker and therefore were legally obligated to keep it alive no matter the cost, no matter the suffering.

Buy a horse for trail riding that turns out to be unsuited but would make a dynamite jumper or dressage horse? Too bad. Doesn't matter what the horse would enjoy doing. You can't sell it because you technically don't "own" it because "owning" animals is no longer PC.

The AR people were like, "oops, does it really mean all that??? Why, laws-a-mercy me."

Yeah, it really meant all that. And they knew it, too. They just counted on the people who refuse to believe ARs are anti-animal.

Thank you for your informative posts.

Please keep them coming. There are some nibblers here and you will never change their minds (possible medical condition caused by eye rolling strain) but for many othesr who are just reading for the first time it is what they need to learn so they can do their own research.

luvmytbs
Oct. 26, 2012, 07:37 PM
Try selling a skinny horse in California or Oregon at public auction.


Auction in Ontario, California:

http://www.savinghorsesinc.com/uploads/Valiant.jpg

http://www.savinghorsesinc.com/uploads/Valiant3hrsbeforehedied080108.jpg

"SHI received a phone call from Inland Valley Humane Society alerting us to 2 emaciated horses standing on an Ontario auction lot. The officer stated that she would not remove the horses immediately as it was not a life threatening situation. Indeed it was!! A volunteer was sent to the lot and she was horrified. Humane Society was contacted again by several people requesting that these two horses be seized immediately. They were not. A 48 hour notice had been served on the auction owner, to bring in a vet. If that was not done the horses would not have been seized until Monday 8/4. We were afraid that the horses would die before then. SHI decided to act. Friday morning volunteers arrived at the auction lot and the horses were transported to safety.


Sadly the gelding, whom we named “Matthew the Valiant” went down in the trailer. His body was already in organ failure, and he had to be euthanized upon arrival at the foster home, the home of a veterinarian. VALIANT hung on for as long as he could. Sadly this rescue was too late for him. We apologized to him that human beings had done this to him.

We are happy to say that the 20 year old mare, although very thin, is making a good recovery. We have named her VALOUR. She is one brave little mare."

-----------------------------------

MIKE'S AUCTION, Mira Loma, California

"On Saturday September SHI went to Mike’s auction, Mira Loma to rescue 2 horses.
A 7 year old thoroughbred named Keelhauled was rescued for $125. With no other private bidders interested in him, this horse would have ended up at slaughter.

The other horse a 25 year old ex-racehorse, whom we named COURAGE was the most emaciated, horse at auction. His teeth were in very bad shape, contributing to his emaciation. This horse walked fine through auction He cost us $25.( His racing name was Lucifer).

The next day, Dr. Ross was to pick him up and take him to her house for the 30 day QT period. Sadly the horse was in worse shape, unable to walk, was showing obvious signs of a neurological disorder. Dr. Ross recommended euthanasia, which was performed on Monday morning. Animal Control were sent out to see the horse before he was euthanized, and they denied any wrong doing by the person who dumped this poor horse at auction. Courage was sent to the state lab for a full necropsy."






And yes...agents do charge individuals. We have cases before the courts right now. When they re adjucated I will print the results.


What agents?

If you are talking USDA or AG Dept. agents, they have NO police powers, nor can they file charges.

MistyBlue
Oct. 26, 2012, 07:41 PM
A bunch of 10-30 yr old quotes taken out of context. The most recent (at the bottom) was at an AR gathering (not HSUS or even PETA). Nothing even remotely recent.


No, not all taken out of context. You just refuse to admit so.

How about what Wayne wrote and post on his own blog, which I quoted the paragraph in it's entirety...not out of context.

Fairfax
Oct. 26, 2012, 09:46 PM
Auction in Ontario, California:

http://www.savinghorsesinc.com/uploads/Valiant.jpg

http://www.savinghorsesinc.com/uploads/Valiant3hrsbeforehedied080108.jpg

"SHI received a phone call from Inland Valley Humane Society alerting us to 2 emaciated horses standing on an Ontario auction lot. The officer stated that she would not remove the horses immediately as it was not a life threatening situation. Indeed it was!! A volunteer was sent to the lot and she was horrified. Humane Society was contacted again by several people requesting that these two horses be seized immediately. They were not. A 48 hour notice had been served on the auction owner, to bring in a vet. If that was not done the horses would not have been seized until Monday 8/4. We were afraid that the horses would die before then. SHI decided to act. Friday morning volunteers arrived at the auction lot and the horses were transported to safety.


Sadly the gelding, whom we named “Matthew the Valiant” went down in the trailer. His body was already in organ failure, and he had to be euthanized upon arrival at the foster home, the home of a veterinarian. VALIANT hung on for as long as he could. Sadly this rescue was too late for him. We apologized to him that human beings had done this to him.

We are happy to say that the 20 year old mare, although very thin, is making a good recovery. We have named her VALOUR. She is one brave little mare."

-----------------------------------

MIKE'S AUCTION, Mira Loma, California

"On Saturday September SHI went to Mike’s auction, Mira Loma to rescue 2 horses.
A 7 year old thoroughbred named Keelhauled was rescued for $125. With no other private bidders interested in him, this horse would have ended up at slaughter.

The other horse a 25 year old ex-racehorse, whom we named COURAGE was the most emaciated, horse at auction. His teeth were in very bad shape, contributing to his emaciation. This horse walked fine through auction He cost us $25.( His racing name was Lucifer).

The next day, Dr. Ross was to pick him up and take him to her house for the 30 day QT period. Sadly the horse was in worse shape, unable to walk, was showing obvious signs of a neurological disorder. Dr. Ross recommended euthanasia, which was performed on Monday morning. Animal Control were sent out to see the horse before he was euthanized, and they denied any wrong doing by the person who dumped this poor horse at auction. Courage was sent to the state lab for a full necropsy."






What agents?

If you are talking USDA or AG Dept. agents, they have NO police powers, nor can they file charges.

AC agents can notify the county AND THEY MAY PROCEED WITH CHARGES WITH AN ATTENDING POLICE OFFICER. It is up to the AC agent. Some auctions seem to skip through it and others don't.

I am not familar with the case you cited however the fact they did not press charges means it may NOT have been dropped off by the owner...there could be a variety of circumstances.

I will forward your information to the lawyers for six cases where there are charges against the person selling the horse.

Thank you. I appreciate the help

I just checked the documents on one case as I am familar with Mike's....low end auction and one of the charges is from there.

Great news...maybe it can be thrown out.

jetsmom
Oct. 26, 2012, 10:05 PM
Most famous case was Axel and Dale Huber. They were charged when they took their old non producing mares to the auction (4 of them) and yes...they were under weight. They were charged with Abuse, Christine Matthews took two thin TB's to a sale in Florida and was charged.

This is done to stop individuals from using auctions especially if kill buyers are present. It is all done to intimidate and create and aura of fear

The fact that 27 horses starved to death on their property and almost 100 were seized that were starving, along with other animals on the property had nothing to do with it I guess...simply that they took 4 non producing broodmares that were a little thin to auction and the mean AR people wanted to intimidate them...yeah, right.
What is it with you always defending animal abusers and minimizing what they do??? You make the pro slaughter/anti HSUS side look like you really care about animal welfare...NOT.

Fairfax
Oct. 27, 2012, 01:35 AM
I am sorry you are unfamilar with the case. It was a horrible case of abuse and I applaud the ladies who set a NEW STANDARD for evaluating, moving horses in their groups etc.

That said. It was documented that Axel had been charged five years prior by the ASPCA for dropping off four starving (their words) 30 plus year old Arabian mares. He received a six month probation and a $1000 fine.

He had (right or wrong) used the Innisfail Horse auctions (and general auctions) to sell horses for the money to purchase feed. After his charges he never used the sales auction again.

I have never defended him. Period.

I helped coordinate the Okotoks Alberta feed drive for the horses and we were able to raise money for 500 bags of rolled oats and 800 tonnes of Timothy Alfalfa Hay.

We, as an industry applauded the CAHR who went to bat to sort through the registration mess.

I did not directly work with that case as it was in excellent hands and the volunteers were dedicated and amazing.

My views and defence of some seizures is from my involvement going back to the Rex Ellis case in California...The Bentwood case in Waco Texas, the Albertsons case in Amarillo Tx, and numerous others. I learned how it should be done, why there are protocols to follow and I also learned first hand about "other agenda's" and why they become evident when protocols are not followed and there is a demand to act quickly, even if unsafe for the horses.

The Axel case used existing protocols AND also due to the number of horses...pregnant...stud colts etc..they also devised some pretty awesome strategies so NO horses would suffer.

Many seizures especially if they are high profile are NOT for the welfare of the horse...they are for the welfare of donations and advertising.

Getting back to the Axel case...it was interesting that several individuals who wanted these Polish horses for free or next to nothing (we will take them right now and save "you girls" having to continue to feed them) were also the same people who lined up with the karona group to try and get the Maryland Polish horses.

jetsmom
Oct. 27, 2012, 01:42 AM
I am sorry you are unfamilar with the case. It was a horrible case of abuse and I applaud the ladies who set a NEW STANDARD for evaluating, moving horses in their groups etc.

That said. It was documented that Axel had been charged five years prior by the ASPCA for dropping off four starving (their words) 30 plus year old Arabian mares. He received a six month probation and a $1000 fine.

He had (right or wrong) used the Innisfail Horse auctions (and general auctions) to sell horses for the money to purchase feed. After his charges he never used the sales auction again.

I have never defended him. Period.

I helped coordinate the Okotoks Alberta feed drive for the horses and we were able to raise money for 500 bags of rolled oats and 800 tonnes of Timothy Alfalfa Hay.

We, as an industry applauded the CAHR who went to bat to sort through the registration mess.

I did not directly work with that case as it was in excellent hands and the volunteers were dedicated and amazing.

My views and defence of some seizures is from my involvement going back to the Rex Ellis case in California...The Bentwood case in Waco Texas, the Albertsons case in Amarillo Tx, and numerous others. I learned how it should be done, why there are protocols to follow and I also learned first hand about "other agenda's" and why they become evident when protocols are not followed and there is a demand to act quickly, even if unsafe for the horses.

The Axel case used existing protocols AND also due to the number of horses...pregnant...stud colts etc..they also devised some pretty awesome strategies so NO horses would suffer.

Many seizures especially if they are high profile are NOT for the welfare of the horse...they are for the welfare of donations and advertising.

Getting back to the Axel case...it was interesting that several individuals who wanted these Polish horses for free or next to nothing (we will take them right now and save "you girls" having to continue to feed them) were also the same people who lined up with the karona group to try and get the Maryland Polish horses.

Well, knowing that he had several starving horses that he tried to dump at auction, that he was convicted on, and then later had 27 dead horses/100 starving horses, doesn't exactly make me think they jumped the gun in charging the first case...and I would bet the horses at the first auction, were more than "just a little underweight".

Fairfax
Oct. 27, 2012, 10:53 AM
Actually no. The auctions tended to be up to November and so he used the money for the feed for other horses.

He can definitely be condemned for over production, unrealistic views as to the worth of the horses and he did turn down some good offers.

His property was visited enough times by individuals wanting to see the horses that there were few comments.

The year this came down the pike they were out of money. Period. I have been told Axel was in Germany trying to raise some. Dale was the one left to ???? hard to feed when you don't have any.

There are too many facts so your " I would bet " is totally without merit.

Alagirl
Oct. 27, 2012, 11:35 AM
Actually no. The auctions tended to be up to November and so he used the money for the feed for other horses.

He can definitely be condemned for over production, unrealistic views as to the worth of the horses and he did turn down some good offers.

His property was visited enough times by individuals wanting to see the horses that there were few comments.

The year this came down the pike they were out of money. Period. I have been told Axel was in Germany trying to raise some. Dale was the one left to ???? hard to feed when you don't have any.

There are too many facts so your " I would bet " is totally without merit.


I guess the desired outcome is to eliminate the big bad sale to make a buck of Dobbins. Too bad, so sad, that the money is needed to pay the hay man (another evil person, not selling hay all day long for 4 bucks a bale) and the horses are now put on the back 40...eventual they will die a natural death....

sunridge1
Oct. 27, 2012, 01:34 PM
Hmmmm...so selling 4 skinny old mares at auction would result in enough money to feed 100 others? Boy if that were the case I could cull one and feed the remainder for the rest of their lives. I love it when the math works to my advantage.;)

jetsmom
Oct. 27, 2012, 01:39 PM
Hmmmm...so selling 4 skinny old mares at auction would result in enough money to feed 100 others? Boy if that were the case I could cull one and feed the remainder for the rest of their lives. I love it when the math works to my advantage.;)

Yup.
And apparently not just feed them that year, but up to 5 yrs later..

Fairfax
Oct. 27, 2012, 03:40 PM
I will 'splain" it to you

He would cull his herd...get rid of old horses or those that were non productive. Some would go to horse buyers..and of course...some to kill buyers.

After he was charged with selling OLD horses that were not in good shape (and forget all that rescue pr that ALL old horses can be kept in great condition). I know different as I have kept many old QH's, TB's and Arabs..some do well on specialty feeds, special programs and some..no matter what you put into them can not gain a pound.

If they are bright and happy and healthy BUT they are thin...some of us keep them "until they tell us it is time"...other breeders/owners....put them down when they fail rather than spend more money on them.

A very famous TB breeder who was in her 70's had the HS called on her (they arrived with police) and they attemped to seize her seven TB's because they were thin. It was a warm spring day and she had taken their blankets off in the pasture (they went in at nights) so they could roll and itch.

The HS IMMEDIATELY called to seize the horses. Good thing this lady not only was able to get a hold of her lawyer but also her vet who arrived and was pissed. He had all of those mares under his care. HS DEMANDED that he immediately euthanize all of them as they did NOT LOOK GOOD....damn the fact they could flat their tails and trot around the pasture.

Of course they were forced to withdraw when the lawyer arrived...

Ages of the horses...32-37.

We have been conned into believing that ANY horse can be kept FAT or at the very least..a good covering over the ribs. It there is nothing medically wrong with the horse...why should it be put down because it doesn't look good.

The vet was so angry he did make a comment that most rescue individuals and HS tend to be over weight..therefore any animal not reflecting THEIR ideal is skinny. (food for thought in the culture of obesity today)

No way is this defending Axel or Dale Huber. They did receive their just dues.

The money didn't feed all 100 Mary...it did however go towards feed according to the court documents. Point was he used the money to go to the feed and had done so for over 10 years.

Fairfax
Oct. 28, 2012, 02:06 PM
This statement from Mr. Tom Persechino, AQHA executive director of competition and breed integrity says it all, "We are living in a very different time where social media, technology and people's unfamiliarity with the horse industry constantly puts us in a defensive mode. It's never been a goal to punish but to bring about change and protect our horse and our industry before someone else decides what is right and what isn't."


http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20636


New AQHA Equipment Rules to Ensure Horse Welfare

www.thehorse.com

The AQHA Animal Welfare Commission recommended the rules to ensure horse welfare at competitions.......