PDA

View Full Version : horse ownership considered abuse by PETA???



Horsecrazy27
Apr. 30, 2007, 03:51 PM
I have a friend who's daughter won't ride anylonger because her daughter got involved with PETA....She said that haltering a horse--owning a horse is abuse---as well as riding it.

?????

I haven't heard of this..... is her daughter over the top, or are they really this "strict"?

Tiki
Apr. 30, 2007, 03:53 PM
I think that's their policy, but they're nuts. The modern domesticated horse couldn't live long on it's own, without us.

ExJumper
Apr. 30, 2007, 03:53 PM
Yup. Having pets of any kind is evil and wrong and degrading to animals. So I hope she got rid of her dogs and cats, too.

Kimberlee
Apr. 30, 2007, 03:55 PM
Per PETA - no animal should be subject to being captive in any form.

MistyBlue
Apr. 30, 2007, 03:55 PM
Nope, normal PETA (or more apt, pita) propaganda. Sitting on horses, stabling them, owning them, etc is considered unecessary abusing use of an animal for human entertainment value.
They should all be *wild and free!* :rolleyes:

Save an animal...eat a PETA. :D

I'm EBO
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:03 PM
The PETA people are radical and upsetting and offensive---but every now and then, they're right. (But, not about owning and riding horses, imo.) Look them up on the internet and read their principles, just to see where you agree and disagree. It's an eye-opener.

For example, they are urging that Californians pass a spay/neuter bill for companion animals--a good thing imo. They list cosmetic companies that don't use animal testing--another good thing imo. They advocate that children be taught to treat animals kindly. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.

LexInVA
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:04 PM
PETA is sometimes like the ACLU only they are hardly involved in anything realistic.

LisaW-B
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:08 PM
There are PETA people, and then there are *PETA people,* if you know what I mean. PETA is one of those strange organizations that has actually done quite a lot of good for animals, but it does definitely also have its own agenda and lunatic fringe. I used to work with a number of *PETA people* who did ask me if it was cruel to ride a horse, because that was what they had read. I tried to explain that horses generally enjoy being ridden, and that riding is a partnership. But we really didn't have many personal conversations after that.

Kimberlee
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:10 PM
http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

Interesting to read thru.

walkinthewalk
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:15 PM
normal PETA (or more apt, pita) propaganda.


Save an animal...eat a PETA

Well phooey, that's what I wanted to say:lol:

I never have had much use for PETA, but I didn't really believe when someone told me awhile back that they actually thought owning a horse was abusive.

They must be absolutely ecstatic at all the "horse dumping" (abandonment) that is going these days. Putting the horses back into the wilds and all----never mind that their chances of survival are slim and none:sigh:

Stuff like this makes me glad I'm old. I love, love, love Bucky Covington's song "A Different World". I lived that song and am still around to tell about it ----didn't have PE(I)TA back then either. I sense the need to "step away from the soap box" :lol:

jilltx
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:18 PM
Yes. That's PETA for ya.
THey also liken breeding to slavery practices where one horse was "put with" another horse for the purpose of procreating for "profit". Poor horses had no choice who they bred or didn't breed, and when "the act" was done, they were seperated and no longer saw each other. :rolleyes:

Also fish in aquariums...inhumane.

Beverley
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:35 PM
PETA is one of those strange organizations that has actually done quite a lot of good for animals, but it does definitely also have its own agenda and lunatic fringe.

Make no mistake, PETA has occasionally done (or created the impression that they have done) 'good' things, but that is only to try to appear mainstream in the hope of getting more bucks from unknowing animal lovers. Plain and simple, they are extremists, opposed to all forms of animal 'use' whether eating, research, riding, or owning a dog or cat or guinea pig or whatever. Ditto HSUS.

PETA in fact willfully causes the deaths of animals to try to make political points. Mind you I do have friends who are card carrying PETA members (and who are somewhat in denial about the 'real' agenda)- but the organization is awful. Ditto HSUS. Ditto Fund for Animals. None of these will ever see a penny of my money!

ThePerfectFit
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:38 PM
I take an Animal Behavior class as an elective at my high school, and we recently began talking about PETA. They really are a little bit nuts when it come to certain things. Its proven that a horse does not live as long when it is in the wild, so having a horse live longer is cruel?

I love the thing about fish in aquariums. Hahaha

Thomas_1
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:39 PM
PETA is a bunch of dysfunctional, stark staring bonkers nutters.

Ordinarily if their members had an additional brain cell, they could apply to become a cabbage.

And I really must stop mincing my words, and just come out and say what I think.

bugsynskeeter
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:39 PM
Its scary what PETA believes...but it seems like so many of their members own dogs or cats...

Isn't that against the rules? I have a hard time supporting Carrie Underwood since she too is a PETA member...

Seal Harbor
Apr. 30, 2007, 04:50 PM
These people set farm raised mink free to fend for themselves. They can't. They were run over by cars are killed by other animals and starved to death. Yup that is humane.

They took dogs from a shelter and killed and dumped them in a dumpster under the guise of "adopting them out". Right that is humane.

They don't want anyone to own any animals.

meredithbarlow
Apr. 30, 2007, 06:29 PM
While I think PETA has many WACKOS in it... GO "people eating tasty animals"... lets at least have our facts straight before we go bashing them. Again NOT a PETA fan, I'm much more into animal welfare than animal rights and despite what PETA says horses need us in today's world.

"How does PETA feel about horseback riding?

When there is a respectful, loving bond between horse and human, then horseback riding is as much an act of companionship and exercise as walking one’s dog. However, just as we oppose the use of "choke" collars on dogs, we also oppose the use of whips, spurs, and other devices that cause discomfort and pain to horses.

PETA supports humane, interactive training. Just as a dog can be lovingly or abusively house-trained, gentle methods can be employed to teach a horse to allow a rider on his or her back. PETA does not support training methods based on punishment."

rcloisonne
Apr. 30, 2007, 06:44 PM
They don't want anyone to own any animals.
That's right. Because for every kind, knowledgable owner there's a cruel or ignorant one. The animals have no choice of where they wind up. They are truly slaves at the mercy of their "mastas".

How many dogs and cats are brought to the pounds (if they're lucky) each and every year because people get "tired" of caring for them, get sick of the expense, have no clue that the cute little puppy will grow into a big obnoxious DOG without TRAINING? Millions are slaughtered every year in the US alone. Millions! Thousands of horses suffer the same fate or worse.

And how about "Onco" mice? Animals genetically engineered to develop cancer? Where's the humanity in that?

People believe what suits them and justify their actions, just as slave owners did/do. If you have horses, how can you not believe riding them is a "partnership"? :lol: Can you honestly say the TB race horse, the eventer, the reiner, etc, don't exist solely for human entertainment and/or profit?

But ask yourself, what other partnerships do you have where you are allowed, encouraged even, to use whips and spurs on your "partner" to get them to do what you want? S&M freak clubs? At least those folks participate of their own free will.

Until human consciousness is very much raised (and I won't hold my breath - look at the atrocities humans perpetuate on other humans, including their own children), I tend to agree with PETA's stance regarding domestic pets, "Breed none until there are none".

MistyBlue
Apr. 30, 2007, 06:53 PM
That's a somewhat extreme view.
There *are* shades of grey in the middle, as with everything in life.
Because some people neglect or abuse their children doesn't mean nobody should ever have a child ever, anywhere.
Because some people neglect or abuse their pets does not mean nobody should own one ever.
A crop and/or spurs when used correctly are not abusive or even painful.

I'm EBO
Apr. 30, 2007, 07:06 PM
:lol: When I'm a (very) old woman, I'll probably join these people. After all, their home office is in California, so my people wouldn't have a long trip to visit me in prison.:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

meredithbarlow
Apr. 30, 2007, 07:50 PM
A crop and/or spurs when used correctly are not abusive or even painful.

Just for the record I wasn't agreeing with the quote I posted. You can check out my tack room if you think I'm against crops or spurs. LOL.
Though I do think there are types of spurs that should be out lawed (not like doing that would stop abuse). I once saw a CHILD no more than 7 picking out the nastiest spurs I've EVER seen with her mother. I commented that no beginner rider needs to be wearing spurs like that and her mother said "SHE'S NOT A BEGINNER" :rolleyes: Sorry not to be mean but lets say for the sake of argument that she's been riding since she was 3... she's still only been riding for 4 years, 2 of which she wasn't even in grade school. That makes her a beginner in my eyes........... wow I got off topic sorry. I guess my point is that there are all kinds of ways to abuse animals with or with out spurs, crops, or chains, some people are going to be idiots no matter what!

SillyFilly
Apr. 30, 2007, 07:55 PM
I read somewhere that an active board member of PETA owned a pet dog. When asked about it, he replied that each morning, he opens his door and says "If you want to leave, leave. I do not own you. You can leave if you want." Riiiiiiight.

Sure, let's all do that to our horses and let them onto the highways, I think that's a great plan. Oy!

Heart River
Apr. 30, 2007, 08:21 PM
When PETA and others like them are willing to refuse vaccines and medicines developed in animal models (all of them), I'll respect their position about not "using" animals.

There are abusive riders and abusive parents. People who don't ride have a hard time imagining that TBs want to run, that if a horse didn't want to let you on his back, he's got really good ways of keeping you off his back, if he doesn't want to jump, he won't. They imagine that they can define partnership with animals and that those of us who ride can't.

My best friend runs an SPCA, and we've had to kind of make a truce -- she won't tell me that she thinks all riding is abusive ("what animal wants a bit in its mouth?") and I won't try to convince her that my horse wouldn't gallop the length of his paddock to greet me if he didn't want me to handle/groom/ride him.

meredithbarlow
Apr. 30, 2007, 10:05 PM
Personally I think we should stop all animal testing.... I think there are plenty of rapist and murderers out there that we should drugs etc on!!!
And further more I personally DO think its wrong to test makeup, or hair products on helpless animals. But as for cancer research etc... I think they call it the greater good. JMHO
Oh and if I opened the gait and told my horses they had the right to leave they probably would... but they'd come running back as soon as I whistled. Or for that matter to come get dinner!

tbgurl
May. 1, 2007, 02:10 AM
Personally I think we should stop all animal testing.... I think there are plenty of rapist and murderers out there that we should drugs etc on!!!

I couldn't agree more!! Can we add animal abusers to that? Real animal abusers, not the ones PETA consider abusers (AKA pet owners who love and spoil their animals)


Oh and if I opened the gait and told my horses they had the right to leave they probably would... but they'd come running back as soon as I whistled. Or for that matter to come get dinner!

Mine would leave as far as the nearest grass patch...and come running back to their stalls the minute they thought a meal was about to be served!

Flameborne
May. 1, 2007, 02:35 AM
"Breed none until there are none".

I stopped to think about this very concept one afternoon after having a discussion with a friend who was very pro-rescue, and very anti-breeding.

My musings left me with the conclusion that, given the average life-span of an animal... within 20 years, if we all subscribed to this theory, there would be no domesticated animals on this earth, with the exception of perhaps elephants and birds who seem to have a terribly long life-span.

If they are ALL spayed and neutered in the meantime... when you get down to the last two, just how exactly are they supposed to be repopulated?

Cloning? Yet another touchy subject with drastically differing opinions.

I prefer to breed selectively and keep the world in horses, to some degree. :)

Seal Harbor
May. 1, 2007, 03:02 AM
"Breed none until there are none".

I stopped to think about this very concept one afternoon after having a discussion with a friend who was very pro-rescue, and very anti-breeding.

My musings left me with the conclusion that, given the average life-span of an animal... within 20 years, if we all subscribed to this theory, there would be no domesticated animals on this earth, with the exception of perhaps elephants and birds who seem to have a terribly long life-span.

If they are ALL spayed and neutered in the meantime... when you get down to the last two, just how exactly are they supposed to be repopulated?

Cloning? Yet another touchy subject with drastically differing opinions.

I prefer to breed selectively and keep the world in horses, to some degree. :)

Actually I believe the world would be much better off if the breed none until there are none was applied to humans first. Starting with PETA members. The animals and the planet would be far better off.

xegeba
May. 1, 2007, 03:29 AM
yet?

Thomas_1
May. 1, 2007, 03:39 AM
Personally I think we should stop all animal testing.... . Well I've never agreed with that statement and now speaking as someone who was diagnosed with cancer 13 years ago and has had virtually every new experimental cancer drug out since then and also a bone marrow transplant, I am absolutely and totally opposed to it.

And I still think that PETA members are a load of nutters. I also think they draw in and prey on folks with kind hearts and cozy ideas and draw them in.

fullmoon fever
May. 1, 2007, 03:43 AM
Vice-President of PETA, Mary Beth Sweetland, is a Type I diabetic. She uses insulin derived from animal products because she has to live "to fight for animal rights". All other diabetics can die, though. Hypocrite. I wonder if she'd be out fire-bombing Banting & Best's lab if she was around when they were "discovering" insulin?

(I had a much longer post typed, but I timed out...here is a link I did retrieve.)

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

xegeba
May. 1, 2007, 03:44 AM
Well I've never agreed with that statement and now speaking as someone who was diagnosed with cancer 13 years ago and has had virtually every new experimental cancer drug out since then and also a bone marrow transplant, I am absolutely and totally opposed to it.

And I still think that PETA members are a load of nutters. I also think they draw in and prey on folks with kind hearts and cozy ideas and draw them in.

Thank You for being a human chimp... and if I'm nice to you ...can I come visit you in Scotland? Do you live near a blue ribbon river? Are you a good cook? i'll buy the wine.

carolprudm
May. 1, 2007, 05:59 AM
PETA is based in Norfolk and they run an animal "shelter" They kill virtually every animal brought in.

Thomas_1
May. 1, 2007, 06:01 AM
Thank You for being a human chimp.. You're very welcome ;)

can I come visit you in Scotland? Well you can but that will be outside at the end of the farm. I'm in England - right on the border albeit. It was Scotland until King James got it terribly wrong at the battle of Flodden in 1513 and hence the border went to the other end of the farm.


Do you live near a blue ribbon river? Never even heard of it??? I'm near the River Tweed though which is one of the best Salmon fishing rivers in the world - and beautiful too.


Are you a good cook? I get by and Susan is an extraordinarily good cook


i'll buy the wine. We're very partial to a good Gigondas, Morgon, Nuits St George, St Emilion, anything in fact - so long as its not American :winkgrin:

Rockfish
May. 1, 2007, 06:07 AM
I have a friend who's daughter won't ride anylonger because her daughter got involved with PETA....She said that haltering a horse--owning a horse is abuse---as well as riding it.

?????

I haven't heard of this..... is her daughter over the top, or are they really this "strict"?

i don't think strict as much as hypocrytical.

PaulaK
May. 1, 2007, 07:20 AM
"For example, they are urging that Californians pass a spay/neuter bill for companion animals--a good thing imo."

Yes another example of poorly written legislation supported by AR activists. AB1634 has already passed the first phase. This law requires mandatory spay/neuter by 4 months of age unless the owner qualifies and purchases an "intact" permit. One of the requirements to obtain the permit is showing the animal. I don't know about cats but dogs cannot compete before 6 months of age. The legislation also does not have an exemption for out of state animals competing in California.

Just another example of governments inability to enforce current laws against irresponsible ownership (be it companion animals or livestock) and enacting new laws that will only impact serious breeders and/or enthusiasts.

matryoshka
May. 1, 2007, 07:58 AM
Actually I believe the world would be much better off if the breed none until there are none was applied to humans first. Starting with PETA members. The animals and the planet would be far better off.This one definitely has merit! I wondered to a friend if PETA members have looked around and seen what happens to animals that have no value to humans? Their habitats decrease, they are hunted, or exterminated as vermine. At least if we own animals, we protect them (unless we are abusers, and I'm guessing this has been a problem since humans first domesticated animals).

As for humane, anybody watch how animals die in the wild? Turn on Animal Planet and see a crock nab a zebra that is trying to cross a river. Or lions running down prey. My cats catch and torture mice--they'd love to get a hold of my kids' pet mice. So, get rid of crocks and cats and any carnivore that harms other animals? Where does it end?

I had a boyfriend who thought that owning and riding horses was abusive. He was also scared of horses because of their size--totally didn't understand the herbivore/herd mentality and was horrified that they actually bite and kick each other. Oh, and anybody who thought differently than he did was a moron. He didn't last long. Luckily, I had already met my future husband. :)

Claddagh
May. 1, 2007, 08:04 AM
PETA is a bunch of dysfunctional, stark staring bonkers nutters.

Ordinarily if their members had an additional brain cell, they could apply to become a cabbage.

:eek: Sooooo true! It's just a fact of life though - there are plenty of *wackos* running around "pretending" to be normal people - somtimes in groups like PETA, sometimes as religious fanatics, etc. They try to recruit either by having others become "card carrying" members or by simple association. Pretty scary really!

Gnalli
May. 1, 2007, 08:18 AM
There was an article in the Shelbyville paper not long ago about a trainer that carried a PETA member thru her barn, and was explaining the care of the horses. When she got to the part about her de-worming practices, the PETA person said that the worms have a right to live too. :confused: Yeah, right.....not in my horses...in the worm beds for the kids to go fishing, yes.


I believe in animal welfare, not animal rights. BIG DIFFERENCE. As a small child, it was explained to me this way: God put animals on this earth for us to use as we need to, but not to abuse or misuse. They are entrusted to us to make sure that we have what we need, and in return, we should make sure that they have what they need. A good horseman puts his/her horse's needs first.

Flameborne
May. 1, 2007, 09:04 AM
"My cats catch and torture mice-"

LOL! Isn't that the truth? Our barn cats are terribly unaware of the concept of a "quick death". On several occasions I've seen acrobatics out of the corner of my eye -- you know cat doing the leap-twist-pounce-roll thing -- only to investigate further and discover some feathered or furry creature is being used as a cat-version of fetch and retrieve. Of course, this routine only serves to draw the attention of the other barn cats and eventually one of the spectators gets annoyed enough to steal the "toy" and then happily eat it abruptly ending the sport of the initial cat.

Useless trivia: Did you know that felines are one of VERY few animals that hunt for sport, not out of a need to survive, much the same as modern-day humans? Now why-oh-why must they show off their abilities to their humans by bringing these things to our feet is a completely different question.

Wonder if PETA is going to start policing the wild and rescuing prey from them too.

theoldgreymare
May. 1, 2007, 09:41 AM
I hear alot about them as there International headquarters are not far from me in Norfolk, VA. Did you all know that PETA destroys a large number of animals yearly? Here is a link to an anti-PETA group. Follow the "skeptical? click here to see the proof" link to see the VDAC reports that site the numbers put down.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

Ilex
May. 1, 2007, 09:49 AM
You're very welcome ;)
We're very partial to a good Gigondas, Morgon, Nuits St George, St Emilion, anything in fact - so long as its not American :winkgrin:

OHHHHHHHHHH.....that was just wrong! We have wonderful wine.

Horsecrazy27
May. 1, 2007, 09:56 AM
Nope, normal PETA (or more apt, pita) propaganda. Sitting on horses, stabling them, owning them, etc is considered unecessary abusing use of an animal for human entertainment value.
They should all be *wild and free!* :rolleyes:

Save an animal...eat a PETA. :D


Your last qoute---LOL!!!!!

Horsecrazy27
May. 1, 2007, 10:08 AM
I feel bad for her and her daughter (from the original post), she has a great horse and used to love it so much, showing and riding. NOW, she won't even feed it and they have arguments all the time. How would a teen ager get so involved? Do they have recruiters out there? LOL???

Isn't Paris Hilton a PETA person---her and her little dogs? They sure have a lot of Celebertys in there!

Is PETA and Sciencetology related??? Seems like the same people (celebs) are involved in both? Maybe I'm way off base--you know, I read my mom's pass me down tabloids.

RNB
May. 1, 2007, 10:14 AM
Ahhhhhh...PETA! Luckily for many of you, you just get to read about them. I have them in my backyard, so to speak. Their international headquarters is here in Norfolk, VA. Amazingly, their building is on some of the most prized real estate in downtown Norfolk...right on the water. :eek: And yes, they do put down more animals than any other group! :rolleyes:

There was an issue in our area regarding horses a few months ago. PETA shows up at the City Council meeting....at least 200 strong. Had pictures of dead horses on 3' X 5' boards walking around with them...news crews interviewing them....using kids as a sympathy cards.....it was unbelievable!!!! Out of the 200+ PETA people only ONE had actually ridden or knew anything about horses (she said she use to ride ...but who knows).

BTW....the horse folks won this battle. But I have NO doubt they will go after the horse folks again in the future!!!

Thomas_1
May. 1, 2007, 10:23 AM
Isn't Paris Hilton a PETA person---her and her little dogs? . Highly probable and she's prime recruitment material being somewhat simple in mind and dysfunctional.

Rick Burten
May. 1, 2007, 11:26 AM
Personally, I am a charter and card carrying member of PETA! People Eating Tasty Animals that is. :D

I must confess that it has always been a dream of mine that, in my presence, some PETA(the other group) lunatic would attempt to splash blood or red paint on a fur coat wearing member of my family so that I could demonstrate for them the folly of their thinking and actions.

Rick

MistyBlue
May. 1, 2007, 01:07 PM
Rick...I've run into the wack-jobs a handful of times over the years. Have yet to meet a single even mildly sane one.
Met them at a small local fund raising rodeo (where the 'worst' thing done was Mutton Busting...kids riding sheep) a couple horse shows, a livestock fair and even at a local small town's pet contest. The type where children bring their pets in for prizes such as Cutest, Biggest Feet, Looks Most Like Owner, etc. They target women and children...never the males present at these functions. Half of them spend time on phones calling the media to alert the media of their presence somewhere...then they harass everyone with nonsensical made up "cruelty facts" until they find out the media isn't coming. No media = no saving animal tactics.
If you stand up to them, they shriek and then back down. If you have a camera start filing/taking photos...they leave. If you introduce yourself as an attorney...they run like h*ll. :lol: (not that I am one, but it sure is hilarious to watch them scatter)
Have to say...they didn't last long at a livestock fair. The dairy and beef cattle folk aren't very tolerant. :winkgrin:

PETA = People Euthanizing Thousands of Animals.

Jasmine
May. 1, 2007, 01:14 PM
I used to work in Medical Research. We did the animal testing. We did new drugs, not cosmetics or hair products, but we used mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, and monkeys. PETA was the *least* offensive of the AR groups. They didn't threaten to kill me and my family. ALF did.

Thomas_1
May. 1, 2007, 01:29 PM
Now ALF are the really scarey ones. Violent terrorists.

No more no less

One of those maniacs Donald Currie, who was described as the Animal Liberation Front's leading bomber was jailed for 12 years in the UK last December. He planted bombs outside the homes of a senior pharmaceutical company executive. He was a former psychiatric nurse too! Scarey!!!!

philosoraptor
May. 1, 2007, 01:57 PM
I've met some PETA members. They're not all whack jobs. I am not one personally, though... not my cup of tea.

People need to keep in mind that a person can be part of an organization without subscribing to some of the extremist ideals. For example there are people out there with registered AQHA horses who aren't in favor of slaughter. I use a vet, and for all I know she could be an AAEP member, but she doesn't tell me to ship horses to slaughter.

I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "sad" this girl made a choice based on her beliefs. How many of us make compromises based on our own personal beliefs? We may not agree with her belief, but it's hers and it's her right to have. Why not respect it?

catknsn
May. 1, 2007, 02:09 PM
People need to keep in mind that a person can be part of an organization without subscribing to some of the extremist ideals.

Thank you. It's just like being a Democrat or a Republican...odds are you don't subscribe to every little detail of the party's platform. People always like the cite the extremist fringe to make everybody look bad.

Anybody see the "Dealing Dogs" documentary on HBO? It exposed a really horrific class "B" dog dealer who was involved in buying stolen pets for research. I know a lot of people who claim they hate PETA and similar groups but were shocked by this documentary and impressed that someone had the guts to go in there undercover, at great risk to his own life. Well, meet a typical "radical animal rights activist"...that's who has the guts to do those things. I had the privilege of meeting him not long ago. You can thank him if your pet is still in your backyard when you get home tonight.

catknsn
May. 1, 2007, 02:13 PM
I used to work with a number of *PETA people* who did ask me if it was cruel to ride a horse, because that was what they had read. I tried to explain that horses generally enjoy being ridden, and that riding is a partnership. But we really didn't have many personal conversations after that.


I have convinced many PETA members that owning and riding horses is fine and that the horses enjoy the attention and benefit from the perks of civilized life such as veterinary care.

The one thing I learned is that letting them know that synthetic tack is available was helpful. :)

Jasmine
May. 1, 2007, 02:29 PM
It exposed a really horrific class "B" dog dealer who was involved in buying stolen pets for research.

Most medical research places will NOT use dogs that are not purpose-bred for research. Stolen pets do not have the genetic uniformity that is needed for a good research test. Pretty much any med research place that is in any way reputable doesn't deal with stolen pets.

(sorry for the tangent, this is one of my pet peeves.)

MistyBlue
May. 1, 2007, 04:00 PM
I do get that not all PETA members may not be insane...however by being part of them they do financially and morally support their actions. And their actions are basically one thread short of terrorists.
ALF is financially supported by PETA...PETA also fundraises for their defense at trials. For domestic terrorism. :eek:
One can be Dem or Rep and not be severe left wing liberalists who thinks everyone needs a hug or severe right wing conservatives and think everyone needs to be shot. However, neither party is as wacked out as PETA itself is. Ingrid wants to be skinned after death, Mary Beth takes animal based insulin but it's okay for her as long as no other human benefits from it, Donald blows things and people up and the whole messed up organization kills far more animals than any other one in this country does. While raising money for *saving* animals. While *promising* they're adopting those animals out.
PETA is run by people who are a few beers short of a 6 pack.

catknsn
May. 1, 2007, 04:16 PM
Most medical research places will NOT use dogs that are not purpose-bred for research. Stolen pets do not have the genetic uniformity that is needed for a good research test. Pretty much any med research place that is in any way reputable doesn't deal with stolen pets.

(sorry for the tangent, this is one of my pet peeves.)

Well, some research places must use whatever they can buy, because the guy in the documentary was making out like a bandit. However, it is possible that he was selling to non-medical research facilities as well. I don't know if they've been able to make public a list of who he sold to. That's an interesting question. It would make for a great boycott list.

criss
May. 1, 2007, 05:21 PM
I doubt this makes much difference to any of you, but I, for one, am deeply hurt by the vitriol and hatred in this thread.

PETA does not do everything right. They do some things I think are of questionable value in helping animals--clearly, they are alienating a lot of people who care about animals, which can't be a good thing--but they also are not afraid to use outrage to raise awareness, and I think it's hard to overestimate the good that has done. Many of the issues about industrial animal cruelty--from slaughterhouse conditions to pet-shop atrocities to blinding/burning/poisoning for cosmetics testing--would not even be on your radar were it not for the animal rights movement.

So, sure, they make mistakes, but then again, so do you, and so do I. I hope, every day, that I do more good than harm, and I wish that some of you could stop before having such vicious knee-jerk reactions and think about the fact that maybe PETA and its members in general are like me in that way. We are trying.

I don't have time or energy right now to refute every one of the false claims made on this thread by people who are just repeating what they've heard, but I would like to comment on a few:

Yes, PETA kills dogs at its shelter, and yes, there was a scandal about that--a couple of employees who disposed of the bodies in the wrong way, for which PETA has fallen over itself apologizing--but until we pass and enforce and fund some decent spay/neuter laws and programs in this country, no-kill shelters can't be the whole solution, as a matter of simple arithmetic. If you want to see a true waste of people's time and money, think about what would happen if we kept alive every stray dog, no matter how unadoptable, even as the stream of unwanted dogs produced by the intact pets of irresponsible pet owners continued to replenish the supply. It's not sustainable, it's a poor use of donors' money, and it does nothing about the problem in the long run. Kill shelters are a sad fact of life, but euthanasia is the kindest thing we can offer animals until we get a handle on the supply side. This has been discussed to death in slaughter threads and I don't intend to get into it again, but I would like to go on record saying PETA cannot, in good conscience, NOT euthanize dogs.

As for the Paris Hilton thing--PETA is adamantly opposed to the use of animals as disposable accessories, to be replaced when something cuter comes along. Having a cute pet that suddenly disappears from your life when it becomes unfashionable is the absolute epitome of everything PETA opposes.

And finally (because I have to go groom my horse before the chiropractor gets there), PETA as an organization may have problems with the concept of ownership as it pertains to animals, and for good reason, but the vast majority of animal-rights people I know not only have pets but wholeheartedly endorse things like riding a horse in a humane and harmonious manner while doing things the horse enjoys. I think most of us can agree that some activities and some "training" techniques are abusive and wrong (even if there are a lot of gray areas where we might disagree), and that a horse should enjoy his work, so the disagreement between animal-rights advocates and horsepeople is something of a fabrication.

What's really at issue is that, as long as animals are considered property and nothing else, they cannot have a legal "interest" in their own well-being, so that abuse of an animal is legally wrong only if it results in financial harm to the owner. That, not some idea about it being cruel to ride horses, is at the heart of the concept that "ownership" of an animal is a flawed concept. Cruelty to an animal is, as I suspect most of you would agree, wrong because of the pain and suffering the animal experiences. The result may or may not bring about financial loss, and I realize that many here would consider their financial loss at least as consequential as the horses' suffering if someone abused their horses, but I think--I hope!--that we all, PETA supporters and PETA haters alike, can agree that it is wrong to abuse an animal simply because it causes the animal to suffer. Without changing our ideas about property and animals, there is no legal basis for that idea, and that's the heart of the politics of animal rights.

Without legal standing, we cannot protect them from abuse, and don't we all want to protect animals from abuse?

meredithbarlow
May. 1, 2007, 06:03 PM
"Breed none until there are none"

What a dumb idea!
I do however believe that at this point and time people need to EASE UP! There are wayyyy too many horses cats and dogs etc, and people are way too lax about what they breed (humans included) I think that supply and demand SHOULD dictate what is bred. For instance I cannot stand when I see 10 ads in the newspaper for Golden Retriever pups! AND then I go to the shelter and see 5 purebreds (I assume they are by looks) sitting in the shelter because their owners didn't want them/didn't want to put up a fence/substitute another dumb reason here. Certain breeds need to ease up. And it wouldn't hurt to institute a fund for rescues- ie something like a "stud fee tax" or something. Like a certain percentage going to the rescues.

matryoshka
May. 1, 2007, 06:20 PM
I understood what you were saying until I got to this paragraph:
What's really at issue is that, as long as animals are considered property and nothing else, they cannot have a legal "interest" in their own well-being, so that abuse of an animal is legally wrong only if it results in financial harm to the owner. That, not some idea about it being cruel to ride horses, is at the heart of the concept that "ownership" of an animal is a flawed concept. Cruelty to an animal is, as I suspect most of you would agree, wrong because of the pain and suffering the animal experiences. The result may or may not bring about financial loss, and I realize that many here would consider their financial loss at least as consequential as the horses' suffering if someone abused their horses, but I think--I hope!--that we all, PETA supporters and PETA haters alike, can agree that it is wrong to abuse an animal simply because it causes the animal to suffer. Without changing our ideas about property and animals, there is no legal basis for that idea, and that's the heart of the politics of animal rights.

Without legal standing, we cannot protect them from abuse, and don't we all want to protect animals from abuse?I'm not sure that you are stating things accurately. How can an animal have a "legal interest" in its own welfare? It is not able to express what it needs or what it considers its welfare, or press a lawsuit. And if people press lawsuits/prosecution on behalf of the animals (I believe this does happen when abuse is discovered, animals siezed, etc.), they are still working from standards set by people, not the animals themselves. Proveable standards; police involvment; documentation; veterniary evalutaion; etc. The problem is enforcement, gathering proof, getting law enforcement involved, and then being rewared by relatively minor penalties for offenders, IMHO.

Abuse is only legally defined as abuse if it brings about financial loss? Huh? Am I missing something? Please clarify this, because I don't understand it the way it is written.

I'm not trying to pick an argument. I do think that imposing human standards (or "rights") onto animals may be off base. We Americans have an alarming tendency to anthropomorphize animals, how they think, what they feel, etc.--to the point that we are applying labels from human disorders onto animals that may simply be exhibiting traits natural to their species. I think these lines get drawn arbitrarily based on the emotional state of the people who are active in the group. That is what is scary about the passion and sensationalism employed by these groups. Give me a reasoned discussion based on facts, pictures taken by law enforcement and governmental animal welfare groups, and I'll listen and even donate time and money.

The more over-the-top the rhetoric, the less I listen, and the more I get biased against the people, not necessarily the "cause" they espouse. It sounds like others have similar distaste for PETA's rhetoric. That is probably the vitriol you see--an "equal and opposite force" to that applied by PETA. Its reputation is very relavant, since, as you say, a lot of us are making assumptions based on what we have heard. It goes down to the old adage, "where there is smoke, there is fire."

Sorry for all of the triteness in this post. :(

skatepixie
May. 1, 2007, 07:46 PM
How would a teen ager get so involved? Do they have recruiters out there? LOL???

Well, teens do tend to get involved in radical movements. They have ideals that tend to dive them toward action, and they often don't have the experence nessicary to judge whats radical and what isn't. A lot of PETA is high school and college students. To someone who cares about animals, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sounds good.

As far as recruiters....well, sort of. I know that there are a couple of members here on campus who leave stickers and stuff on our front doors. They also talk to people and try to convince them to join and stuff.

xegeba
May. 1, 2007, 08:16 PM
You're very welcome ;)
Well you can but that will be outside at the end of the farm. I'm in England - right on the border albeit. It was Scotland until King James got it terribly wrong at the battle of Flodden in 1513 and hence the border went to the other end of the farm.

Never even heard of it??? I'm near the River Tweed though which is one of the best Salmon fishing rivers in the world - and beautiful too.

I get by and Susan is an extraordinarily good cook

We're very partial to a good Gigondas, Morgon, Nuits St George, St Emilion, anything in fact - so long as its not American :winkgrin: Excellent! a 'blue ribbon river" is a river filled with native fish... and it sounds like your Tweed fits the bill perfectly. And I promise I won't show up with a CA Merlot!

Tom King
May. 1, 2007, 09:08 PM
People for Extermination of Tame Animals

fullmoon fever
May. 1, 2007, 09:37 PM
How would a teen ager get so involved? Do they have recruiters out there? LOL???

Yes! PETA has members speaking at high schools and colleges all the time. Their darling bomber (I don't recall if he was actually an ALF person) has done lots of speaking engagements at schools and gives instructions on how to make malatov cocktails. :eek:

criss
May. 1, 2007, 09:40 PM
I understood what you were saying until I got to this paragraph:I'm not sure that you are stating things accurately. How can an animal have a "legal interest" in its own welfare? It is not able to express what it needs or what it considers its welfare, or press a lawsuit. And if people press lawsuits/prosecution on behalf of the animals (I believe this does happen when abuse is discovered, animals siezed, etc.), they are still working from standards set by people, not the animals themselves. Proveable standards; police involvment; documentation; veterniary evalutaion; etc. The problem is enforcement, gathering proof, getting law enforcement involved, and then being rewared by relatively minor penalties for offenders, IMHO.


Well, exactly. Animals are not regarded as having an "interest" (as opposed to a regular old interest--this is legalese, and I'm not a lawyer so I can't properly explain the difference, just know that it's a term with a particular legal meaning to the effect that action can be taken on behalf of that interest; it's related to the concept of "standing," as in whether one has standing to bring a suit on X's behalf). the result of this is that you can come in with all the evidence/proof/standards you want, and because the law does not regard the animals or their rescuers as having standing, there's definitionally nothing you can prove.

This is why so many of the horses seized wind up going back to their abusers, because while it can be amply proven that the horses have in fact suffered, it cannot, by definition, be proven that the abusers were at fault in causing that suffering. That is, there's no question that it was through their actions that the horses suffered, but somehow those actions were still reasonable, so the suffering is not in itself actionable.

To some extent it's also an attitude problem in society; I testified in a case in which the standard of proof was clearly met in a jurisdiction where there actually is a felony cruelty law that covers abuse of one's own horses (many felony cruelty laws only apply to abuse of other people's animals, because of the financial-loss standard [so you aren't committing a crime by causing yourself financial loss]), and the jury found the defendant not guilty on all counts...because he had been having health problems, so of course it was OK that he had failed to feed his horses until they almost died!

To my mind, the attitude problem, the attitude that starving animals to death doesn't matter that much, is clearly linked to the centuries-old legal doctrine that says, essentially, that what happens to an animal only matters to its owner or other financially interested parties, that an animal's suffering doesn't matter to the animal itself. So, to me, the animal rights movement is worth dealing with its potentially silly logical extremes for the sake of moving towards a philosophy in which our motivation for ending animal abuse is just to end animal abuse. It's too limiting to stay within the old box; the most we can ever hope for is to recoup damages for the pain and suffering of an animal's owner for the loss of companionship she experiences. What about an animal who is a stray? Does that animal's suffering inherently matter less than the suffering of an owned animal? So to me it is crucial that we fix our collective attitude problem.



Abuse is only legally defined as abuse if it brings about financial loss? Huh? Am I missing something? Please clarify this, because I don't understand it the way it is written.

Having done my pathetic, non-lawyerly best to explain why this matters to me and how I understand it, I should refer you to the source, Gary Francione's Animals, Property, and the Law: http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Property-Law-Ethics-Action/dp/1566392845/ref=sr_1_1/102-4482640-8060133?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178068743&sr=8-1



I'm not trying to pick an argument. I do think that imposing human standards (or "rights") onto animals may be off base. We Americans have an alarming tendency to anthropomorphize animals, how they think, what they feel, etc.--to the point that we are applying labels from human disorders onto animals that may simply be exhibiting traits natural to their species. I think these lines get drawn arbitrarily based on the emotional state of the people who are active in the group. That is what is scary about the passion and sensationalism employed by these groups.

Well, and I think this is where the myths perpetrated by both misguided animal-rights zealots and by those who would discredit all animal-rights advocates come into play. Of course it's appropriate to discriminate based on species; hitting a horse with a dressage whip in an appropriate fashion is never abuse, while hitting your child or the cat with a dressage whip in any manner whatsoever would generally be not-OK in almost everyone's opinion. Knowledge about animals is important, and there certainly are some people with more enthusiasm than sense who get involved in animal issues without having much familiarity with the animals in question. Animals, as we here all know, communicate with us quite clearly and unmistakeably, and if they are not happy with our management practices, we know about it if we are paying attention. No matter how bad my spurs may look to some people, my horse has never told me he views them as anything but communication tools, except when my leg isn't still enough, and then he lets me know I should watch myself; that said, animals are emotional and sometimes sensationalize things themselves. It's not necessarily anthropomorphisization to do so.

Many non-horsepeople would think I was anthropomorphizing when I talk about my horse letting me know what he thinks, but do you think it is? Don't your horses get upset about things, and isn't their fear or anger meaningful? I think sometimes it is necessary to try to shock people into understanding, because we live in a world where people don't even understand that their everyday habits, food, and clothing cause sentient animals to suffer and die. That is not meaningful to many people, but it is tremendously meaningful to the animals. You don't have to be irrational, you don't have to sensationalize, and you don't have to blur the distinction between humans and animals in order to see that their suffering does matter to them.



The more over-the-top the rhetoric, the less I listen, and the more I get biased against the people, not necessarily the "cause" they espouse. It sounds like others have similar distaste for PETA's rhetoric. That is probably the vitriol you see--an "equal and opposite force" to that applied by PETA.
Well, and that's a fair objection (sort of--I truly don't think PETA is as vicious and hateful as the other side, but obviously I am biased). One comment I would make, though, is that different approaches work for different people. I, for instance...the first time I was told about the conditions for chickens on factory farms, I said I didn't really care that much about the suffering of chickens. Reading some PETA literature was actually what helped it hit home for me that the chickens and their suffering were real, and the ability to feel that realness was what made it matter to me. So, while PETA itself is certainly offputting (even to me, and I suspect most PETA supporters feel the same), their tactics do work, in some situations and on some people. Nothing is going to work for everyone, though. I don't buy "they offend me" as a meaningful indictment of their potential to do good.

Okay, this has been too long--I did try not to ramble too much, but alas...

Tom King
May. 1, 2007, 09:48 PM
Are they still passing these out at middle schools?

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf

TheOrangeOne
May. 1, 2007, 10:28 PM
Are they still passing these out at middle schools?

http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/mommykills.pdf
I haven't seen that one lately. I live abotu half an hour from the headquarters, so I and most of my classmates have been harassed by them. The best is when they come up and beat on your car on their KFC days. I am not saying that people ONLY go to KFC on those days, but...It's a draw to make fun of them. I also made the mistake of being trapped alone around them, but I got the "teacher kills animals in her office" schpiel with the frogs and dissecting.

RNB
May. 1, 2007, 10:39 PM
Criss.....may I ask who you are and how much work you have done with PETA? Most of the posters here are basing their opinions on their dealings with PETA folk. I am right in the center of PETA headquarters and have yet to meet a ration member. Sorry if that statement offends you but it is my opinion based on my experiences.

For those who know me....know for a fact I am against horse abuse..heck, all animal abuse. But I believe in approaching the issue from a different and in my opinion rational manner. I am currently lobbying the General Assembly in my state....trying to get better laws on the books! From what I have seen PETA has lost all credibility and now resorts to extreme comments and actions.

galwaybay
May. 1, 2007, 11:42 PM
Doesn't PETA stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ? Since when is owning a dog, cat, horse "unethical" as long as they are properly cared for?? If PETA believes that no animal should be "owned" then i guess that let's them off the hook for adopting wild burros, mustangs. Was/IS PETA involved in helping wild animals in any way - like did any of their funds go towards feeding wild burros and mustangs this winter in those harsh conditions??

While I might be a bit biased but I swear my horse likes me and enjoys being my "pet". Why else then would he walk up to me when I enter his field (its about 6-7 acres?) Why does he always nuzzle me when I go to put is halter on and if it's so mean to "halter" a horse, why does he often seem to put his head down in the halter, when he could just as easily run away? -

criss
May. 1, 2007, 11:48 PM
Sure, you can ask. Who are you?

I am a person who has spent many years involved in animal welfare and animal rights organizations. I know a lot of people who are involved with animals in all kinds of ways, from vegans who won't wear silk or wool to people who think it's terrible that I, as a rescuer, think they should have enough money to call the vet if they want to keep a horse, so I have had plenty of chances to form an educated opinion of the situation. I read a lot of rescues' publications. I have volunteered for and given money to a lot of different groups. I have been both a board member and an executive director of a horse rescue.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would prefer that you not try to cheapen mine by implying that I don't know what I'm talking about and you do.

Lori
May. 1, 2007, 11:52 PM
PETA thinks all domestic animals should basically die out. Everything should be natural and wild.

Um, wouldn't that make the PETA LUNCH for the carnivores?? Or do they believe the wolves would let them run free?

PETA is the other end of the abuse extreme. One brings about the other. While I do not agree with extreme animal rights stuff, I also do not agree with abuse.

I am a moderate. I am a vegetarian, but I don't bash someone for eating meat. I raised both meat goats and meat sheep, naturally, pastured and well cared for. The meat I had in the house fed my dogs. They are not vegetarians and knew any time meat was being prepared, it was for them. I raised honey bees, I love honey. Dang things are hard to keep, they have predators and sometimes just take off out of the hive. I raised chickens who ran free on my land and who gave me very rich eggs. My sheep produced beautiful wool and were not mistreated when they were sheared. In the hot VA weather, they did better when sheared in the summertime.
I don't agree with mass producing animals for food or pets and I think humans are way overpopulated and that drives the commercial production. I think most people nowadays are just too far removed from the realities of where the meat, etc. come from. The whole issue just gets too out of control for me to think about sometimes.

criss
May. 2, 2007, 12:13 AM
Galwaybay,
PETA isn't opposed to having pets. They're opposed to the philosophical construction of "owning" animals. The two are very different. Some misguided people are opposed to riding horses, but for the most part the animal rights folks I know are not at all opposed to riding healthy, happy horses.

If anything, I would say PETA does not devote sufficient thought to the consequences of keeping carnivorous pets (that is, to have a dog or cat, you have to accept the deaths of other animals, since dogs probably and cats definitely can't live w/o meat). They are all in favor of keeping dogs, especially, and making a huge fuss over them, but they're not really on the issue of humane treatment for animals whose meat goes to feed those dogs...maybe it's too squeamish an issue for a lot of people, but it annoys me that they don't take it head-on.

matryoshka
May. 2, 2007, 07:44 AM
Umm, Criss, I think you may have misread RNB's post. I think he/she was saying that you seem rational, but that most of his/her experience with PETA representatives has been otherwise. I don't believe an insult or undercutting of your point of view was implied. I'm objective here, never having encountered a PETA person--just reading their published statements on various issues.

Your example of the dressage whip is not anthropomorphising, because you aren't imposing human traits on your horse. If you read through the posts on this site, though, you'll see plenty of examples where people do attribute human motives to their horse's actions. I have learned how to read my horses' body language in an attempt to understand them better. That doesn't mean I know what they are thinking in terms of motives. I believe I can read their emotional state as well. That's about as far as it goes. Having a history with an animal helps us to predict how they will react in certain situations and we do our best to understand them. This is not anthropomorphising. But I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples where people do.

The idea that people who do impose human ideas, behaviors, and motives onto their animals seem to me to be the passionate ones who are more likely to participate in an organization like PETA. I'm not saying that PETA doesn't do any good. But I am saying that it is not surprising that people here would find their tactics offensive, their rhetoric off base, and some of the people to be lunatics. Those who ally themselves with such an orgainization are naturally going to be viewed as having similar traits, until they speak up and explain their point of view, as you have.

For the record, I don't think you are nuts or on the fringe. You sound rational and well thought out, and I'm glad you are out there standing up for animals. We need more people like that. I do my part by working with a rescue, rehabbing feet, and taking in/retraining needy horses when I can. I also try to educate my trimming clients (and have started giving presentations at expos) on how to care for their horses, especially ones with special needs. That's the extent of my involvement in animal welfare. It is too emotional a topic (logic gets thrown out the window), and the activists (in general) are too extreme, for me to want to participate on a larger scale. I'll stick to the small stuff in my area.

I'll continue to have an opinion on how the visible, in-the-media people handle things. :D They are the ones who set the tone for PETA and affect public opinion about the organization. It's good to know that for all the attention-getters, there are also quiet people in the background getting the work done.

Rick Burten
May. 2, 2007, 08:44 AM
While I might be a bit biased but I swear my horse likes me and enjoys being my "pet". Why else then would he walk up to me when I enter his field (its about 6-7 acres?) Why does he always nuzzle me when I go to put is halter on and if it's so mean to "halter" a horse, why does he often seem to put his head down in the halter, when he could just as easily run away? -
These actions fall under one or more of the nine basic behavior categories horses exhibit and within whose parameters they operate. Remember that horses are gregarious. The behaviors you describe would be found within the context of Epimeletic and et-Epimeletic behaviors.

Personally, peta people cause me stress, which is defined as the condition that results when the mind overrules the body's desire to kick the living KaKa out of someone(s) who so richly deserve it.

Rick

RNB
May. 2, 2007, 10:48 AM
Thank you matryoshka. I do think my post was misread. Wasn't being snarky just asking a question. Was curious as to whether or not he/she lived nearby or worked for PETA. I mainly post in hunter/jumper or off-course and yes the folks there know who I am as I have never hidden behind my screen name. I sometimes forget that not everyone has read my posts when I have included my name and/or contact info.

I know not everyone who is a card carrying member of PETA is an extremist. I was just stating MY experiences with them and my opinion on the organization.

And just to clarify Criss....I too work with shelters, rehab not only domestic animals but wildlife through the local associations, every animal we have owned has been rescued or adopted, daughter works for a vet..puts her name on the "last call" list at the animal shelter, hubby owned a wholesale pet supply business for 25 years distributing along the entire eastern seaboard, we have supported/donated/worked with animal groups/associations for decades. I have lived here my entire life, 50+ years (gads..I'm old :lol: ). Not trying to toot my own horn here and could add more but want you to know I am and always have been very involved with the welfare of animals. In my 50 years of doing this, PETA is the only group where all my experiences have been negative.

My last dealings with them was my first regarding horses. PETA was trying to stop some horse related activities on city property. They brought in 200+ people wearing stickers, had huge posters of dead horses, called in the media, dozens got up and spoke before City Council stating it was cruel to put a horse in a stall, it was horrible to trailer a horse, the horses were being mistreated...everything was negative. They were basically verbally attacking all horses owners in our area. I could not believe while people were addressing the City, PETA members were walking around with 3'X5' posters of dead horses....going so far as having young children carry the posters!

My BO, who happens to be on the Virginia Horse Industry Board, Equine Task Force and every other horse related organization/association in the state stood up before City Council and took the offensive. He formally invited any/every one to meet him at his barn any time. He would be more than happy to address any issue they had, EDUCATE then regarding horses (only 1 person out of the 200+ stated they had ever ridden). How many of these people actually took him up on his offer???? Not one! They did not answer his formal letter, return his phone call or say thank you for the offer made before the Council meeting (which was being televised). Not one these folks had stepped foot on a horse farm in our area. My opinion....if they were that concerned about the welfare of our horses then they would have taken us up on the offer to LEARN as much as they could about horses and responsible horse ownership. My opinion of PETA would have improved had just one of them stepped forward to show a true interest. Sadly, no member has.

Debbie Hanson

catknsn
May. 2, 2007, 12:00 PM
Criss, thanks for coming to this thread. I felt like I was an army of one, ha ha. Excellent points.

A comment I have to make on RNB's post...


I could not believe while people were addressing the City, PETA members were walking around with 3'X5' posters of dead horses....going so far as having young children carry the posters!

I always think it is so interesting how the public is outraged by images of death or people talking about death but perfectly willing to ignore actual death. For example, I have a friend who has a website where she (on her own time and dime) posts better pictures of animals in the L.A. shelters and better descriptions and seeks to get people to go to the shelters and adopt. She also updates the page with the outcome. Sometimes the outcome is "euthanized." She got REAMED by a bunch of angry parents because their children had read the page and were upset. You know what? They should be upset. Perhaps they will remember those feelings when they are feeling a little too lazy to take the cat in for spaying. Or when they think it might be cute to get puppies out of their mixed breed dog. Or when they are thinking of dumping their cat because the new boyfriend doesn't like cats.

Sometimes, we learn by being upset. Sometimes a little shock value goes a long way. I responded to one of the outraged parents that they should use this as a learning tool, i.e. "this is why we're having Fluffy spayed" or "this is why we are adopting from a shelter or a rescue and not buying from a pet store." Make something positive and educational out of it.

I notice a lot of people here mention PETA's campaign against fur. Were their techniques shocking? Yes. Are a lot less people wearing fur now? Yes. Have a lot of furriers gone out of business? Yes. Does the end justify the means? Well, that is for every person to decide for his or herself...but I will note that polite tactics, historically, do not seem to bring about change on most matters. Research the fight for women's suffrage some time if you want to read about burning down buildings and blowing up mailboxes...and that was in the early 1900s. Much more shocking than picketing with disturbing images.

RNB
May. 2, 2007, 06:04 PM
catknsn ~ One of the issues I had with displaying pictures of dead horses was the fact they were speaking before City Council implying we, as horse owners, were cruel and inhuman....thus causing the deaths of these horses. I'm not shocked at the sight of a dead animal...the point I was trying to make in my post...they were making false allegations and accusing all the horse owners. Had they taken a minute or two and stopped by to visit any of these farms....they would have seen how wonderful the horses are cared for. I know there is abuse in the horse world...the same as with dog, cats, etc. People who abuse animals should be held accountable. Just don't point fingers at people like me, whos horses have better living conditions, better health insurance/medical care, better clothes, who get groceries before I do, etc. But to say it's cruel to have a horse in a "box" (English for stall), the horses will be traumatized for life, they have looked in to the eyes of these horses and they are sad, these horses want to be free..... These people were making up so called statistics which when asked by Council where they got them, they did not know. They claimed it was cruel to trim feet.....at which point a couple of ferriers spoke. Again, I don't want to start a huge debate....as I said in each post...this is just my opinion of an organization based on my personal experiences....and I know there are lots of good caring folk who are members. I just wish those were the people running the whole shebang!!!

KaraAD
May. 2, 2007, 07:27 PM
CRSS -
So your understanding of the law, leaves something to be desired. (And, I'm sure it is based on what PETA has told you.)

Most states actually have two forms of protection for animals.

In civil court, there's the idea of ownership and me having standing to bring a claim against someone whose has deprived me of the value of the property I own. Because I own the animal, I have the right to preclude others from taking or injuring the animal and I can sue them if they do. Because the animal belongs to me, I have rights regarding what happens to the animal and in determining its care.

But there is also criminal court, where the concept of standing doesn't exist. The state has the right to enforce laws and in many states, there are protections that would preclude me or others from abusing the animal. ***Don't get me wrong, I believe that the current protections should be stonger and the penalties should be tougher and that all states should have laws against abusing animals*** but in no way are Animal Welfare laws at odds with the concept of ownership.

Horses don't need to have a legal interest in their own well being or standing for the state to enforce laws protecting the animal's welfare. In fact, a horse could never have standing. In most states for most types of civil cases, minors (human children) don't generally have standing to bring a claim in court. The child's parent or guardian has to bring a civil claim for them - but that does NOT mean that we don't have laws protecting them from abuse - even against their parents. The state's criminal code protects children from abuse. In many states, the criminal code protects animals as well. The focus should be on making sure those laws are effective, have stiff penalties and sufficient resources are dedicated to enforcement.

We don't need to do away with the concept of ownership in order to enact laws that protect animals from abuse but, because PETA at its core, is a radical group that has ideas about companion animals that are out in left flield, they focus doing away with the concept of ownership. It's a shame they are on the fringe because if they were more mainstream, they could get a lot more good done.

matryoshka
May. 2, 2007, 09:37 PM
Thanks KaraAD, you nicely described what I was trying to understand. I worry that if people start giving animals "rights" (not just protect them against abuse), and that if they legally try to compensate an owner or animal for "pain and suffering," that we are going to end up with law suits brought by anybody on an animal's behalf. All they'd have to do is convince a jury that the animal should somehow be compensated for pain and suffering, mental anguish, whatever, and a human will reap the reward monetarily. That is what has happened in our society--law suits happen when we use laws to define intangible things.

I think the criminal aspect needs to be stressed, and penalties tougher. These laws are already in place, but not easily enforceable. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" should be the motto where neglect is concerned. I can't understand why a criminal court would allow a man who neglected his horse off the hook because he was sick. Ownership means that if we cannot care for the animals ourselves, we find somebody who can, even if we have to pay them to do it. If they cannot care for the horse or arrange for its care, then they need to contact an animal shelter and at least make them aware of the problem. I realize this is not as easy as it sounds, but when we buy/adopt/lease a horse, we are accepting responsibility for his care and should be held accountable if his basic needs are not being met (shelter, food, fresh water, room to move).

I'd hate for laws to be passed regarding how much stall time a horse may or may not have, when and what weight of blanket to use, what type of saddle I may ride in, etc. When laws are passed regarding the intangible things, then where does it stop? This is why I don't like extremists. Yes, they make things happen, but they don't seem to stop when they accomplish a goal. Balance is lacking.

Thomas_1
May. 3, 2007, 08:10 AM
We've got a new act in the UK which I posted about here:

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=95752

Nothing to do with PETA though !!!

JSwan
May. 3, 2007, 09:01 AM
I find it odd that you would say that, because the reason those PETA employees were not convicted is because the ENTIRE PETA defense was based upon the fact that PETA OWNED the animals and that PETA considered the dogs and cats property and they could dispose of them as they saw fit. If you like, I can quote the testimony verbatim. They are on record as stating the dogs and cats are property and can be disposed of as such.

So the fact that PETA employees had been picking up adoptable animals, promising the owners good homes, and then killing the animals in front of each other 5 minutes later was not a violation of law.

The owners of those animals had not harmed them in any way. PETA took custody of them and then killed them. And they killed the animals in front of each other - which is something that even slaughterhouses make great efforts to avoid.

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I promised a crying owner a good home for their pet and then killing it and dumping the body. Unfortunately, PETA holds itself out to be an organization devoted to caring and saving animals - but it isn't. They want domesticated species to become extinct, and they want no human to have any contact with any animal in any form.

Sorry - I don't want to live like that.

For those who don't think PETA is as bad as ALF..... where do you think ALF gets the money for their legal defense? PETA. Former and active ALF members are also PETA employees. There is a reason PETA is on the FBI watch list.

Animals need PETA the same way airports need Al Qaeda.



[QUOTE=criss;2402280,
What's really at issue is that, as long as animals are considered property and nothing else, they cannot have a legal "interest" in their own well-being, so that abuse of an animal is legally wrong only if it results in financial harm to the owner. That, not some idea about it being cruel to ride horses, is at the heart of the concept that "ownership" of an animal is a flawed concept. Cruelty to an animal is, as I suspect most of you would agree, wrong because of the pain and suffering the animal experiences. The result may or may not bring about financial loss, and I realize that many here would consider their financial loss at least as consequential as the horses' suffering if someone abused their horses, but I think--I hope!--that we all, PETA supporters and PETA haters alike, can agree that it is wrong to abuse an animal simply because it causes the animal to suffer. Without changing our ideas about property and animals, there is no legal basis for that idea, and that's the heart of the politics of animal rights.

Without legal standing, we cannot protect them from abuse, and don't we all want to protect animals from abuse?[/QUOTE]

Thomas_1
May. 3, 2007, 10:28 AM
For those who don't think PETA is as bad as ALF..... where do you think ALF gets the money for their legal defense? PETA. Former and active ALF members are also PETA employees. There is a reason PETA is on the FBI watch list.

Animals need PETA the same way airports need Al Qaeda. :yes: :yes: :yes: They pussy foot about trying to hide the dirty little secret of supporting terrorism and violence and merely hint and suggest that the end might justify the means. But in truth they're a bunch of socially dysfunctional lunatics. They are rightly and properly being watched in the UK and mainland Europe by the authorities and they are being treated as the terrorists and threat that they are.

Those who say they're members but are totally reasonable and don't really believe in everything they do are IMO opinion naive and stupid at best, or dysfunctional and lunatic at worst.

Take your pick - but no other argument is going to wash with me.

Its a bit like trying to persuade me you were a Nazi but thought they went a little far with ethnic cleansing and war and world domination migh have been a little extreme but really you're a nice and normal person that just doesn't agree with all their policies - duhhhhhhhhhhh

criss
May. 3, 2007, 01:50 PM
CRSS -
So your understanding of the law, leaves something to be desired. (And, I'm sure it is based on what PETA has told you.)
Wow, ignorant and rude. Awesome combo.

If you had read my posts you would have noted that I have been professionally involved in rescue, including testifying in abuse cases. I am most certainly not a lawyer, which is why I referred people to Gary Francione's book, which is used in law school classes.

As it happens, your own understanding of the situation leaves something to be desired. We can't have appropriate laws until we wrap our minds around the idea that animals have an inalienable interest in their own well-being. The criminal statutes on the books today were all written with the idea that there must be some harm done, at least philosophically, beyond the physical and mental suffering of the animal, or no crime has been committed. You can enforce laws till you're blue in the face, and it won't help the animals if there aren't good laws to enforce.



Matryoshka,
I think right now we're so far away from the kind of overreaction you fear that it's kind of unreasonable to let animals suffer because you're afraid that if we try to stop their suffering, we might go too far and inconvenience you. You have a choice, the animals don't, and if I have to choose between the animals' lives and your convenience, you will perhaps understand if I don't take your side?


J Swan,
Yeah, the reason PETA is regarded as a terrorist organization is the same as the reason tens of thousands of Americans still think Saddam must have had WMDs and been supporting Al Qaeda. Neither one makes any sense, does it? So there you have it.

I think it's a bit irresponsible of you to judge a large, long-established group like PETA on the basis of one (albeit grievous) misstep. I don't applaud them for that episode, but I also don't think it means they can never again be trusted.

Thomas,
Congrats to you for re-proving Godwin's law, as if it needed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

And finally, Everyone,
Do you think you could try, if I ask really nicely, to have some freakin' manners?!?!

2DogsFarm
May. 3, 2007, 02:22 PM
PETA is a bunch of dysfunctional, stark staring bonkers nutters.

Ordinarily if their members had an additional brain cell, they could apply to become a cabbage.

And I really must stop mincing my words, and just come out and say what I think.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, Thomas - do tell us how you really feel

Someone from PETA needs to come & visit my poor abused horses...
Hmmm...since I haven't "abused" i.e. ridden one in weeks maybe I should join PETA

JSwan
May. 3, 2007, 02:57 PM
No - that's not why PETA is under investigation by the FBI.

And I know whereof I speak. I have been a victim of a violent PETA attack. And in my youth - I was a freakin' member before I figured out what they were about.

My judgment of PETA was not formed upon one "misstep" as you call it. PETA had been doing it for years - they just finally got caught. I formed my opinion of PETA based upon many years in the legal field - much of which was spent on conservation and preservation of wildlife, as well as other animal welfare matters.

If you are asserting that our courts need to appoint a GAL for animals, or that owners decisions about the extent and nature of veterinary treatment, ability to compete or show their animals - needs to be mandated by a group that advocates for the elimination of all domesticated animals...... you are very very very misinformed.

Animal welfare does not equate to animal rights. Rights as understood and applied in human society. While the antelope might have a "right to life" in your philosophy, the lion would disagree and would be harmed by the antelope asserting that "right".

Humans have rights and responsibilities - not animals. Humans have the right to own an animal, but with that right comes responsibilities. The animal is not held to that standard, nor should it be.

Reasonable people will agree that animals have certain requirements in order to be healthy and well adjusted. No one advocates denying an animal shelter or water, for example. But to turn an entire legal system on its head just because our overindulgent, overly consumptive society dresses our dogs in baby clothes and treats them like children...... that's nuts.

Any group that advocates violence to affect political change is unacceptable to me - I don't care how many cute stickers, or delicious vegan recipies they send their members.

And the horrible comics they give children - "Your Mommy is a Murderer" - yeah - that's really nice.









J Swan,
Yeah, the reason PETA is regarded as a terrorist organization is the same as the reason tens of thousands of Americans still think Saddam must have had WMDs and been supporting Al Qaeda. Neither one makes any sense, does it? So there you have it.

I think it's a bit irresponsible of you to judge a large, long-established group like PETA on the basis of one (albeit grievous) misstep. I don't applaud them for that episode, but I also don't think it means they can never again be trusted.

Thomas,
Congrats to you for re-proving Godwin's law, as if it needed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

And finally, Everyone,
Do you think you could try, if I ask really nicely, to have some freakin' manners?!?!

jilltx
May. 3, 2007, 03:40 PM
Criss I can sympathize and understand that a few apples don't speak for the entire bunch, but you've got to admit, PETA has done/said some pretty wild things in the past.

The article I was speaking about which compared breeding horses to slavery was taken from a PETA newsletter that I read circa 1986 (ish). I was thinking about joining their organization until I took home a flyer (brought to me by another employee who WAS a member) and read through it thoroughly. I pointed out the strangeness of some of the claims to my fellow employee and she went on and on about the cruelty of keeping animals as companions. Ironically, we both worked for Steak and Ale at the time, which I was was quick to point out to her vegetarian self. Talk about irony... :lol:

I'm all for humane treatment of any animal but some of the things tht hace been printed BY PETA are completely over the top!! As others have pointed out.

RAyers
May. 3, 2007, 03:52 PM
I think it's a bit irresponsible of you to judge a large, long-established group like PETA on the basis of one (albeit grievous) misstep. I don't applaud them for that episode, but I also don't think it means they can never again be trusted.

Having been victims of PETA attacks on our labs, I would say it is not one instance. I get regular FBI updates on PETA and ALF activities so we can lock things down, in case. We installed alarm systems, guard station and such because of threats from PETA. They have been linked directly to threats against workers at medical research facilities as well so it is not "one...misstep."

No, PETA can not be trusted.


Reed

Thomas_1
May. 3, 2007, 04:02 PM
J Swan,
Yeah, the reason PETA is regarded as a terrorist organization is the same as the reason tens of thousands of Americans still think Saddam must have had WMDs and been supporting Al Qaeda. Neither one makes any sense, does it? So there you have it.
Wrong! the reason why they are regarded as a terrorist organisation is that they support terrorism and have been indulging in attacking people who are going about their lawful occupation. duhhh



I think it's a bit irresponsible of you to judge a large, long-established group like PETA on the basis of one (albeit grievous) misstep. I don't applaud them for that episode, but I also don't think it means they can never again be trusted. And its darnright stupid to try to justify the acts of an organisation who support terrorism by suggesting it was just a little mishap!



Thomas,
Congrats to you for re-proving Godwin's law, as if it needed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law Thank you for confirming my opinions regarding folks who rely on Wikipedia for information


And finally, Everyone,
Do you think you could try, if I ask really nicely, to have some freakin' manners?!?! Please pardon me for not being terribly polite earlier when I asserted that PETA is supported by a bunch of dysfunctional lunatics.

Mayhaps I was a little rude but oh I say old chap, its just not terribly good form going round terrorising those nice little nurses and laboratory technicians and doctors who are trying to go about their jobs and do something useful in the process. What ho, tut tut and tally ho.

MistyBlue
May. 3, 2007, 04:54 PM
According to the IRS and PETA's actual returns information, PETA donates to and funds North American Earth Liberation Front...an FBI declared domestic terrorist group.
They also fund Animal Liber.ation Front (ALF) another recognized domestic terrorist group.
Since euthanizing has to be reported, records show that PETA has euthanized between 10k and 14k animals annually that *they* have taken in under the pretenses of adopting out. They record an over 90% kill rate for the animals they are claiming to love, save and protect.
Also according to the IRS returns info on PETA's annual donated income, PETA spends less than 1% of their annual income on actually saving any animals or on animal care.
They've funded burning labs, made death threats, made bombing threats, etc. Which is why PETA *is* considered a domestic terrorist group.
The IRS doesn't lie. They're annoying...but they don't fudge returns and it's all public record.
Go read it. Learn the actual truth about how PETA is spending their funds.

Mav226
May. 3, 2007, 05:19 PM
I would guess that 90% of celebrities who endorse PETA have no idea what ideals and values the organization stands for. Certainly, the ones carting around blinged out Chihuahuas don't.

matryoshka
May. 3, 2007, 10:44 PM
Well Criss, you lost me completely. If you think law suits are an inconvenience, then you haven't been sued yet. They are life altering, just like accidents. I'm saying that the animal rights issue will head that way if PETA wins its attempts. It may not be in my lifetime to cause me, personally, any inconvienence, but I'm looking at the trends in society, not just what may happen in the next couple of years. Go ahead and fight for this, but don't complain when it bites you on the butt (and it likely will).

For the record, I'm not in support of animals suffering. Just because I don't support PETA (and am now firmly against PETA--thanks to Criss), doesn't mean I don't care about animal welfare or do my part to help animals in need. I do what I can, others do what they can. You won't see me demonstrating, handing out pamphlets, or writing propaganda. I'm more likely to be one of the many horsemen who take in a horse in need (am fostering 3 at the moment), training a diffucult horse who needs careful work before finding an adoptive home, trimming a rescue horse for free, or going to help a disabled person care for their horse. You know, I'm a person who fears personal inconvenience. ;)

JSwan, that's kinda what I was getting at, only you said it much better and more clearly! And no, I'm not a lawyer or even in the court system. And, I think I'd choose to fight an organization who uses violence to get their point across.

rcloisonne
May. 4, 2007, 04:46 AM
And, I think I'd choose to fight an organization who uses violence to get their point across.
Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War? The latter of which was fought to stop one group of people from selling, breeding, owning and exploiting another? I'm sure abolitionists were considered "nutters", tree huggers and members of the sweetness and light brigade in their time too until the idea went mainstream that it's not OK to enslave a race different from your own.

Even then it took another 100 years for most of the South to "get it". You're probably too young to remember the integration riots of the 60's? Rosa Parks? A hero to some, an uppity "nutter" (or other "N" word) to others. :rolleyes:

Now, consider substituting the word, "species" for, "race". Call me a nutter but they are one and the same to me from a moral standpoint. And while I would consider myself the non-violent type, sometimes violence and/or other drastic measures are the only way to get a point across to stop atrocities. I cheered when I heard they (PETA?) had burned down the lab in MA that developed and bred "Onco" mice for profit. I'd first read about them a few years earlier in Chemical and Engineering News and was appalled! And I'm sad to say there are far more needlessly cruel things going on in some labs and research facilities. When do these barbaric practices stop? And who's gonna stop them?

JSwan
May. 4, 2007, 07:02 AM
Wow. I don't even know where to start. Well, for starters, your revisionist, politically correct version of American history. But that's not horse related - and somehow I don't think you'd grasp the complexities of how and why each war started - and how close we came to avoiding both.

And I guess I have to ask - I can't help myself - why on earth you post on a horse BB if you equate horse ownership with human slavery? Is it to annoy the natives? No, I bet 10$ you'll reply with some justification for your particular situation, in which somehow your involvement in horses/animals is completely altruistic and therefore not subject to the same "rules" you've set up for the rest of the world.

It's an insult to the memory of Rosa Parks to mention her name in the same sentence as PETA. And I find it frightening that you would condone, even cheer for, acts of terrorism and violence. I bet 10$ if you were on the receiving end of that violence, you'd sing a different tune.

I've seen and been affected directly by a terrorist attack - 9-11. If you think for one minute that any good comes from such pernicious evil......I'd say you need your head examined.






Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War? The latter of which was fought to stop one group of people from selling, breeding, owning and exploiting another? I'm sure abolitionists were considered "nutters", tree huggers and members of the sweetness and light brigade in their time too until the idea went mainstream that it's not OK to enslave a race different from your own.

Even then it took another 100 years for most of the South to "get it". You're probably too young to remember the integration riots of the 60's? Rosa Parks? A hero to some, an uppity "nutter" (or other "N" word) to others. :rolleyes:

Now, consider substituting the word, "species" for, "race". Call me a nutter but they are one and the same to me from a moral standpoint. And while I would consider myself the non-violent type, sometimes violence and/or other drastic measures are the only way to get a point across to stop atrocities. I cheered when I heard they (PETA?) had burned down the lab in MA that developed and bred "Onco" mice for profit. I'd first read about them a few years earlier in Chemical and Engineering News and was appalled! And I'm sad to say there are far more needlessly cruel things going on in some labs and research facilities. When do these barbaric practices stop? And who's gonna stop them?

matryoshka
May. 4, 2007, 09:08 AM
rcloisonne, I'm not calling you or criss nutters. However, when violence is used in the name of saving something else in civilian society, be it animals or fetuses, I'm against it. Period. Now, if violence is used to stop immediate violence, such as a mugging or abuse happening right before one's eyes, then I can see it and call it understandable, if not necessarily justified. Cold, calculated violence, such as terrorism, is murder. I know that those against animals used in testing see this as murder, but it is a huge step to go from there to blowing up a building or targeting the people who do it. :no:

Do you know how many horsemen take in horses in need and quietly get them healthy and either find them new homes or care for them the rest of their lives? Have you asked many long-term horse people this? When I talk to others about the rescue I volunteer for, I hear plenty of "No thanks, I've taken in a few needy horses over the years and prefer doing that to volunteering for a rescue." And I thank them for that and for wanting to keep doing so--they don't need or want my thanks, but I say it anyway.

Just because people don't agree with or want to participate in an organization such as PETA doesn't mean they aren't passionate about helping animals. They may simply not like the way PETA does things.

You can call me a nutter now, or short sighted, animal hater, whatever makes you happy. Labels applied by others are based on their emotional state and mind set, not on reality or fact. They reflect more on the person using the term than on the person who is being called the name. Think about that the next time you feel like somebody is implying you are a nutter. I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. Peace now? You aren't going to convince me, and I'm not trying to convince you. No point in arguing, IMO.

JSwan, even though I've seriously disagreed with some of your postings in the past, I find myself agreeing with you here. Thanks for stating it so clearly! I used to be a technical writer and I can't seem to express myself well on this topic. Kudos!

Thomas_1
May. 4, 2007, 09:43 AM
Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War? The latter of which was fought to stop one group of people from selling, breeding, owning and exploiting another? I'm sure abolitionists were considered "nutters", tree huggers and members of the sweetness and light brigade in their time too until the idea went mainstream that it's not OK to enslave a race different from your own.

Even then it took another 100 years for most of the South to "get it". You're probably too young to remember the integration riots of the 60's? Rosa Parks? A hero to some, an uppity "nutter" (or other "N" word) to others. :rolleyes: Poor comparison and ridiculous argument


Now, consider substituting the word, "species" for, "race". Call me a nutter but they are one and the same to me from a moral standpoint. And while I would consider myself the non-violent type, sometimes violence and/or other drastic measures are the only way to get a point across to stop atrocities. And so long as there's morons that think violence and terrorism are a solution, there'll continue to be a problem


I cheered when I heard they (PETA?) had burned down the lab in MA You're one heck of a sick nutter!

And I'm happy to oblige

Jasmine
May. 4, 2007, 09:48 AM
So basically, you're saying that animals' lives are worth more than humans'. It's perfectly acceptable to burn down labs, threaten to kill families, bomb buildings and other assorted vile and violent acts, in order to save animals. I would like to see how you feel about that after someone tells you that they will kill your family to save a rat. ALF did that to me.

Do you take tylenol ever? Because that was tested on animals. How about perscriptions? ALL are tested on animals.

Oh, and even if your shampoo says "animal testing free" it's not. That particular *combination* wasn't tested on animals, but each and every ingredient in it was.

If you are so strongly against animal testing, make your own soap, toothpaste, and stay away from doctors at all costs.

JSwan
May. 4, 2007, 10:54 AM
I suspect that we probably have a great deal in common - our disagreements notwithstanding. I'm pretty much all peace, love and flowers.

There are many things I'd like improved when it comes to animals. But unlike the PETA people - I don't hate the human race, (although the gene pool could use a little chlorine). And I certainly do not condone anarchy, violence and instilling fear in people to force them to adopt my personal philosophy.

I've always thought that PETA was not about being an animal lover. They are about hating humans. Even their leaders have said they really don't care about animals.






d

JSwan, even though I've seriously disagreed with some of your postings in the past, I find myself agreeing with you here. Thanks for stating it so clearly! I used to be a technical writer and I can't seem to express myself well on this topic. Kudos!

criss
May. 4, 2007, 12:45 PM
Wow, it's amazing the lies people will believe, and the wrong conclusions people will draw, when it helps them insulate their personal bubble from any semblance of, say, morality.

While I personally am a nonviolent person (as are all the other PETA-types I know), and while I certainly would never advocate actually doing violence to you, I have to say these comments do make me wish you could experience what your poor, tortured lab rats experience. How can you look your horse in the face after doing needless, barbaric experiments on other animals? There are plenty of ways that medicines and cosmetics could have been developed and tested, but we have n oinfrastructure for it, because it would have been a little more expensive and required a little more vision. Well, that and maybe a shred of common decency.

I'm done with this thread. You people who say you love animals but think it's perfectly alright to torture and murder them...you make me sick.

Oh, and taking in and rehabbing the odd horse here and there does not wipe the slate clean. Moreover, it doesn't even move you in the right direction, since if all we do is continue to react to the problem by taking in horses who are someone else's responsibility, without ever addressing the broader problems that created the individual horse's problem, all we're really doing is letting other people keep being irresponsible and letting the cycle continue.

God, it's just too depressing, I thought horsepeople were above average in terms of having a spine and a conscience, but it seems like not only are we, as a group, not above average, we're actually below it.

RNB
May. 4, 2007, 01:59 PM
:rolleyes:
Normally I stay away from these types of threads since they usually end up in a trainwreck. It's similar to discussing religion or politics. But Criss, when you start verbally attacking the people of this BB, then I'll be darn if I can sit on my hands any longer.

Because people here do not like an organization that you belong to does not mean they are uncaring or evil. I may not be a long time COTHer but I do know the huge majority of posters are indeed caring individuals and animal lovers. I have gotten to know many of these folks...even personally meeting quite a few. These folks have gone out of their way to not only help animals in need but COTHer's in need as well. We disagree all the time but the one thing I have found is when some person or animal needs help COTHer's have put aside their difference in opinions and stepped up to the plate!

You say you have worked with shelters, etc. Great!! Keep it up! They all can use support. But don't sit behind the safety of your screen name, call us names and not have the guts to stand up and say who you are or where you're from, etc.

Again I ask....what are YOU doing to make things better...even for those lab rats? Are you just posting here complaining about us? I know many of the COTHer's here are out in the trenches doing all they can to make improvements each and every day. You are NOT the only animal lover!!

So I can assume you feel I'm a do-nothing kind of gal who hides behind my computer and hates animals. Hmmmm.....I guess the fact that I spent all of yesterday morning meeting with Congressman Forbes Ag reps talking about putting together a law on the federal level....or the fact that next weekend I'll spend with the legislators on a trail ride to gather support for horse related issues....of the fact I was asked by the Dept of Justice to apply for a grant to put together an equine BBB......if you would like my resume of all the things I am not doing to help animals I will be happy to post it. I normally don't come on this board and say I did this or I did that but your post was uncalled for. For your information.....many COTHer's are involved with all of the above. When I testified out in KY last Sept. a couple of COTHer's flew in from other states to be there....just for support....one I had never met!!!

We're spineless and make you sick?!?!? Well that's a very lovely statement. All I will say to that....if the COTHer's are indeed spineless... I will gladly take any of them over someone with your attitude any day to work with me on making changes regarding animal welfare because unlike you and your statements....they DO have spines!!!!

Debbie Hanson
Virginia

Jasmine
May. 4, 2007, 02:12 PM
When you actually KNOW what kind of life lab rats lead, let us know. The rats/mice/rabbits that I have worked with in lab settings are treated much better than most pets. ALF/PETA/AR people will never believe that, though.

How many pets do you know that have two full time vets watching every move that is made with them? Or have *enforced* regulations regarding their care and/or happiness? Yeah, lab rats are horribly abused. Give me a break.

How many clinical trials are YOU willing to participate in? Can we test potential new drugs on you or your family? I'd much rather test new drugs on a rat, or even a cute puppy dog or monkey, than my child/parent/sibling/loved one. If that makes me a cold hearted animal abuser, I guess I can live with that.

meredithbarlow
May. 4, 2007, 02:29 PM
Oh, and even if your shampoo says "animal testing free" it's not. That particular *combination* wasn't tested on animals, but each and every ingredient in it was.


Now many of the products we use say "This final product was not tested on animals" meaning just what Jasmine said, the actual shampoo wasn't but everything in it was! I think this is crap! I am ALL for animal testing that tests for cures for diseases and such, but testing a shampoo?? Come on! Let's find some college students looking for some extra cash.

JSwan
May. 4, 2007, 03:22 PM
I don't know anyone on this BB, or elsewhere for that matter, who thinks it's alright to torture and murder animals. You're the one who condoned violence.

The folks on this BB who help wayward animals are the ones in the trenches getting the job done. They're the ones rehoming horses, retraining projects, advocating for humane treatment, and pushing for reform in certain areas. I'd rather give money to an anti-slaughter person with whom I've argued incessantly, than lick an envelope for PETA.







I'm done with this thread. You people who say you love animals but think it's perfectly alright to torture and murder them...you make me sick.
.

MistyBlue
May. 4, 2007, 03:46 PM
criss...unfortunately with the black/white positions you're presenting on here and the overly emotional replies, you aren't seeming to project any different opinion of PETA than most of us on here already have. You started out sounding rational, but that backslid quite a bit.
As I stated before in another post on this thread...look up and *read* the actual government records on this organization. Please.
I could talk to you from sun up until sun down about my personal run-ins with PETA members at various public happenings that would curl your hair. And no, it's not the "unusual overly vehement" person that is the regular PETA member. It's the average one, not the rare one.
You do not seem to understand the complete future ramifications of actual Animal Rights. My biggest annoyance with anyone is when they jump on a bandwagon without fully and comprehensively researching all sides/aspects of the bandwagon they're jumping on.
Many of us donate a ridiculous amount of time and money to animal welfare. From personal "rescues" to lobbying for changes.
I know of three people here in my state that donate more combined annually to animal welfare than PETA does. Because PETA devotes less than 1% of their donated income on the actual animals. Had you read the tax returns that are public on this, you'd know that.
Please don't take everything they say and print as gospel truth...they're a terrorist organization that is far more interested in recruiting more and more naive people and attracting more and more celebrities and media attention in order to make money. And that money is not being used for animals. Please consider the actual celebrities who do endorse PETA...

criss
May. 4, 2007, 03:53 PM
:rolleyes:
Normally I stay away from these types of threads since they usually end up in a trainwreck. It's similar to discussing religion or politics. But Criss, when you start verbally attacking the people of this BB, then I'll be darn if I can sit on my hands any longer.
Okay, but I guess it's fine when I'm accused (even if indirectly, a la "All Peta people are ______") of being a terrorist, of hating humans, of not really liking animals, of not understanding what I'm talking about...?

I am glad you do good work. I am glad a lot of people here do good work. Every animal helped is an animal that's better off, and that's great. However, when people work to rescue individual horses, but find the larger issues too unpleasant in whatever way to actually address beyond being nasty to strangers on the internet, it disgusts me, as well as makes me sad that they're wasting their very well-intentioned efforts, because they are alleviating suffering in one breath and causing suffering in the next.

And I hope verbally bashing strangers on the internet is as far as most of you folks are willing to go, because for all the talk about PETA being violent, I've never witnessed a single act of aggression by an animal-rights advocate, but I have scars on my hands from where someone wrenched a picket sign out of my hands and laid my knuckles open with it when I raised my hands to protect my face.

criss
May. 4, 2007, 04:07 PM
I don't know anyone on this BB, or elsewhere for that matter, who thinks it's alright to torture and murder animals. You're the one who condoned violence.
I did? No, I said I wouldn't mind people who do research on animals having to experience what those animals experience. If the animals have as good lives as they claim, why would that be a problem for them?

I explicitly said I endorse non-violence. I'm anti-war, too, and anti-death-penalty if you want to open that can of worms. I couldn't be a whole lot more anti-violence.


MistyBlue, I'm sorry you think I've backslid, but perhaps you can appreciate that it's hard to keep composure in the face of some of the things that have been said or implied about me on this thread (by complete strangers, so I guess I should let it roll off, but still)? If you wish to think I am no better than any of the other loonies you think represent PETA, whatever, I guess. But as for the percentage that goes to the animals, PETA does work that doesn't and can't help individual animals in individual rescues, but still matters. I am not saying they are the best, most efficient nonprofit group in the world, and I am certainly glad there are other groups attending to the individual animals. That said, attending to the individual animals, without trying to change the general situation that led to their need for rescue, just doesn't work. I rescue individual animals too, although I'm at all-time low right now of four dogs and four horses, only two of each of whom live with me (the rest live with people who rent my house while I temporarily live elsewhere, which is a long story). I pull my weight/am a sucker for rescues too. I just know that that is NOT the real solution, just a bandaid.

JSwan
May. 4, 2007, 04:47 PM
Uh - you stated you cheered when a violent act was committed.

Your solution (since you are a PETA member), is to eliminate all human contact with wild or domestic animals - and the eventual extinction of all domestic animals. That is the mission of PETA. While you may still want to have some sort of contact with animals (like owning a horse - which I assume you do even though it's considered slavery by PETA) - that does not jibe with PETA's stated mission.

Not all members will espouse every little thing PETA stands for. But that does not stop the organization from furthering its mission. Standing by and cheering on others who commit violent acts makes you complicit - your "non violent" statements notwithstanding.

Your money and support goes towards accomplishing the mission of the organization. By supporting them - you support the elimination of all human contact with animals, and condone violence and terrorism to support that goal. That is the essence of PETA. Hem and haw all you want, equivocate, vacillate and explain your position. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about PETA.

And if you think they are just supporting violence acts against labs - you're wrong. One of their main targets are conservation organizations. You know - preserving nature and animals and habitats. How inhumane.

matryoshka
May. 4, 2007, 06:43 PM
J Swan, that wasn't Criss who applauded the blowing up of a building, that was rcloinsonne. :no:

Um, Criss, I think you may be taking what has been said about PETA as a personal attack on yourself, and you have already said you don't resemble the remarks people have made about PETA. I certainly never called you a nutter; I merely stated that you have affirmed my opinion about PETA and I want no parts of it. You don't like being lumped in as a terrorist or extremist with the few highly-visible members of PETA, and yet you generalize about us here on COTH. What a way to make a point! If people have been making this discussion into a personal attack on you, they should be ashamed of themselves. I missed it, though, and am not willing to go back an read to be sure. I hate any kind of inconvenience. (Okay, I do resort to sarcasm--can't help it, I've been reading too many of Thomas and Rick's posts ;) )

I'm sure you are a pretty cool, interesting person, as long as we don't get onto the topic of PETA. Since you don't know me, you have no way of knowing what level of insulation I need to stay functional in life. Because I choose not to expose myself to horrors dose not make me a bad person. Had you been exposed to the horrors I was forced to see as a very young person, you might also avoid organizations who condone it, such as PETA. Some of us insolate out of necessity, not comfort. I'll just leave it at that.

I live in society. Any action I take, food I eat, or trash I throw away affects the environment and the animals in it. I can't avoid that. I even leave hoofprints in the park when I ride! My horses use pasture that small animals might otherwise use for their homes, and my horses have eaten the bark off some trees in our woods. These trees are now dying. I realized it too late to protect the trees. I feel very badly about that. I'd love to leave no trace of my existance, but it isn't possible.

If caring for the animals I can help, rather than contributing to an orgainization that may or may not share my ideals makes me spineless, I'll crawl about with the worms, or the snakes, if that is how you prefer to see me. It matters not at all. I think PETA is going about things the wrong way, and I will not be a willing contributor to that.

Sorry that horse people in general have disappointed you! I find that the more horse people I meet, the better they seem. I wonder why our opinions differ so much on that, considering that I meet lots of people when I trim their horses' feet? The stories people tell me are both amusing and heart warming and prove over and over to me that it is a symbiotic relationship (at least in the good homes) rather than a master/slave relationship.

rcloisonne
May. 4, 2007, 08:11 PM
Uh - you stated you cheered when a violent act was committed.
Uh, yes. It was a quick death for suffering animals who would have gone on to produce umpteen more generations of suffering animals. I can't think of anything more evil than to purposely create sentient beings born to suffer.


Your solution (since you are a PETA member), is to eliminate all human contact with wild or domestic animals - and the eventual extinction of all domestic animals. That is the mission of PETA.
I'm not a PETA member but, yes, I agree with most of their philosophy. Domestic animals exist for the pleasure of homo sapiens. This, like any other form of slavery, is morally wrong to me.

I too had a problem with this many years ago, being an animal lover my whole life. "What do they mean, no pets? Are they nuts? My animals live the life of Riley, well cared for and loved!" However, I've come to believe my desire for animal companionship is does not justify the enslavement of another species. It’s selfish to the extreme.


While you may still want to have some sort of contact with animals (like owning a horse - which I assume you do even though it's considered slavery by PETA) - that does not jibe with PETA's stated mission.
I no longer have any horses but still have other pets. All the domestics are neutered. I also have exotic birds, including a few highly endangered species I would gladly return to the wild if their natural habitats hadn’t been destroyed by HUMANS and if they had the ability to survive (which I doubt). Some were born in captivity, some were wild caught as babies (ripped from their nests for a few bucks). The wild caughts are rescues others got tired of after the novelty wore off.

And regarding domestic horses, some have a decent life but many do not. Most often the needs of the human come first. “Let's run 'em hard at two and see how much money we can make. Let's jump 'em over a high fence, even though they're three legged lame. Oops! My bad. This one is lame? Send ‘em to the knackers, there’s plenty more where he came from. Let's use gag or twisted wire bits cuz they don't "obey". Let's pump 'em full of all manner of drugs so we can continue riding their crippled bodies”. Is this humane? Society as a whole thinks so.


Not all members will espouse every little thing PETA stands for. But that does not stop the organization from furthering its mission. Standing by and cheering on others who commit violent acts makes you complicit - your "non violent" statements notwithstanding.
Sometimes there is no other way. Reasoning with morally bankrupt people often doesn't work. If all non human animals were treated as sentient beings organizations such as PETA wouldn’t exist.


Your money and support goes towards accomplishing the mission of the organization. By supporting them - you support the elimination of all human contact with animals, and condone violence and terrorism to support that goal. That is the essence of PETA. Hem and haw all you want, equivocate, vacillate and explain your position. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about PETA.
I don't support PETA financially and am not a member but I do agree with their primary goal: the ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS.


And if you think they are just supporting violence acts against labs - you're wrong. One of their main targets are conservation organizations. You know - preserving nature and animals and habitats. How inhumane.
I don't support violent acts against anybody. Not a single human was injured when that lab that was burned. I do support stopping the incredible cruelty some humans are capable of. And, BTW, am definitely FOR conservation of open space for all wild and/or feral animals such as horses. :)

Appassionato
May. 4, 2007, 08:35 PM
J Swan, that wasn't Criss who applauded the blowing up of a building, that was rcloinsonne. :no:

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Lexation
May. 4, 2007, 08:37 PM
PETA....
hmmmm doesn't that stand for "PEOPLE EAGER TO AGGRAVATE (everyone)"

The more I learn about people the more I love my horse!

Appassionato
May. 4, 2007, 08:46 PM
PETA....
hmmmm doesn't that stand for "PEOPLE EAGER TO AGGRAVATE (everyone)"

The more I learn about people the more I love my horse!

No kidding.

"Animal rights" scares me. It isn't that I agree with the abusers at all, but at what point is someone going to tell me I have to stop trying to help my horse (who is doing better, with science to prove it)??? Laugh all anyone wants, but I worry about animal rights activists...

Lookout
May. 4, 2007, 09:04 PM
"My musings left me with the conclusion that, given the average life-span of an animal... within 20 years, if we all subscribed to this theory, there would be no domesticated animals on this earth, with the exception of perhaps elephants and birds who seem to have a terribly long life-span.

Wow, talk about worrying about a problem that's never going to happen. Have you seen the figures on how many kittens can be produced from one unfixed breeding pair over the course of their lifetimes? It's in the thousands.

Appassionato
May. 4, 2007, 09:12 PM
Wow, talk about worrying about a problem that's never going to happen. Have you seen the figures on how many kittens can be produced from one unfixed breeding pair over the course of their lifetimes? It's in the thousands.

True, in my area, people will breed any darn thing. You wouldn't believe some of the crosses of horses down here. And no, it's not that I'm a "papered horse only" snob.

I think so much of the two barn cats that aren't wild at my barn/feed mill, that every time people come in with their dog that tries to chase the cats, I remind them that their animal isn't welcome. Fine, I'm a nut and a bitch. The real problem is that I'm fine with it. :lol: We also think so much of these two male cats we had them neutered. ;)

Bluey
May. 4, 2007, 09:47 PM
I know an active charter member of PETA, that worked at the top of the organization, that defended them for many years and finally, once she opened her eyes to what was happening, admitted that they had changed into an organization that she could not support any more and has not for many years now.

Those that support them today are either for violence in the name of expedience or DON'T KNOW what they are supporting.
Here are some FACTS on what PETA has done:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2088

PETA received, as reported to the IRS in 2004 and yes, that is some 30 millions.
I have heard it was double that by 2006, mostly because of the donations the "ban horse slaughter" publicity brought.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/21

Appassionato
May. 4, 2007, 09:58 PM
Those that support them today are either for violence in the name of expedience or DON'T KNOW what they are supporting.

You don't mean it! :rolleyes: ;)

chemteach
May. 4, 2007, 10:42 PM
Well, and that's a fair objection (sort of--I truly don't think PETA is as vicious and hateful as the other side, but obviously I am biased). One comment I would make, though, is that different approaches work for different people. I, for instance...the first time I was told about the conditions for chickens on factory farms, I said I didn't really care that much about the suffering of chickens. Reading some PETA literature was actually what helped it hit home for me that the chickens and their suffering were real, and the ability to feel that realness was what made it matter to me. So, while PETA itself is certainly offputting (even to me, and I suspect most PETA supporters feel the same), their tactics do work, in some situations and on some people. Nothing is going to work for everyone, though. I don't buy "they offend me" as a meaningful indictment of their potential to do good.


PETA is to be credited for the reduction in animal dissections in high schools. The film report they did on Carolina Biological showed cats being embalmed while still alive. It was heart wrenching. When I taught biology, I refused to dissect after the first two years because most students did not take it seriously and I ethically just couldn't do it.

JSwan
May. 5, 2007, 06:06 AM
I think I'm going to vomit. I was just waiting for the justification for you owning pets - explaining how it's ok for you and your circumstances, and that you're morals are better than the rest of us - but the rest of the hundreds of millions of people in the US have to abide by different rules. That's typical and I see it all the time.

I think it is the height of conceit and selfishness to treat animals like humans. Slavery is a human concept. Aphid farming by ants is considered a symbiotic relationship - yet in your view would subject the ants to arrest for slavery, burning their nest to stop them from farming aphids - ridiculous. Or mouse rape. The male mouse (don't remember the species) that mates nonstop until it drops dead - even dragging female mice out of their dens to copulate unwillingly. You gonna burn your bra over that one?

Come to think of it - not a bad way to go for the male mouse.....at least he died with a smile on his face.

Applying human concepts and values to different species is unfair to that species. I like and value animals for what they are - even what man has made them through domestication. As our understanding of science progresses, lab animals and testing will no longer be necessary. I can see a day when that will be true. Every day we get closer. A positive pregnancy test is no longer referred to as "the rabbit died". We don't get insulin from dogs anymore. PETA had nothing to do with that. Human progress and natural processes did.

PETA isn't doing anything positive. They run around naked saying fishing is cruel - and behind closed doors they have caused as much suffering and despair as any hardened animal abuser.

I suppose you cheered for the 21 hijackers too. In your view, killiing all those people on the planes and buildings left fewer people to procreate. How civilized.

Yup - I've got the dry heaves.


Uh, yes. It was a quick death for suffering animals who would have gone on to produce umpteen more generations of suffering animals. I can't think of anything more evil than to purposely create sentient beings born to suffer.


I'm not a PETA member but, yes, I agree with most of their philosophy. Domestic animals exist for the pleasure of homo sapiens. This, like any other form of slavery, is morally wrong to me.

I too had a problem with this many years ago, being an animal lover my whole life. "What do they mean, no pets? Are they nuts? My animals live the life of Riley, well cared for and loved!" However, I've come to believe my desire for animal companionship is does not justify the enslavement of another species. It’s selfish to the extreme.


I no longer have any horses but still have other pets. All the domestics are neutered. I also have exotic birds, including a few highly endangered species I would gladly return to the wild if their natural habitats hadn’t been destroyed by HUMANS and if they had the ability to survive (which I doubt). Some were born in captivity, some were wild caught as babies (ripped from their nests for a few bucks). The wild caughts are rescues others got tired of after the novelty wore off.

And regarding domestic horses, some have a decent life but many do not. Most often the needs of the human come first. “Let's run 'em hard at two and see how much money we can make. Let's jump 'em over a high fence, even though they're three legged lame. Oops! My bad. This one is lame? Send ‘em to the knackers, there’s plenty more where he came from. Let's use gag or twisted wire bits cuz they don't "obey". Let's pump 'em full of all manner of drugs so we can continue riding their crippled bodies”. Is this humane? Society as a whole thinks so.


Sometimes there is no other way. Reasoning with morally bankrupt people often doesn't work. If all non human animals were treated as sentient beings organizations such as PETA wouldn’t exist.


I don't support PETA financially and am not a member but I do agree with their primary goal: the ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS.


I don't support violent acts against anybody. Not a single human was injured when that lab that was burned. I do support stopping the incredible cruelty some humans are capable of. And, BTW, am definitely FOR conservation of open space for all wild and/or feral animals such as horses. :)

Bluey
May. 5, 2007, 07:10 AM
---"Applying human concepts and values to different species is unfair to that species. I like and value animals for what they are - even what man has made them through domestication. As our understanding of science progresses, lab animals and testing will no longer be necessary. I can see a day when that will be true. Every day we get closer. A positive pregnancy test is no longer referred to as "the rabbit died". We don't get insulin from dogs anymore. PETA had nothing to do with that. Human progress and natural processes did.

PETA isn't doing anything positive. They run around naked saying fishing is cruel - and behind closed doors they have caused as much suffering and despair as any hardened animal abuser.

I suppose you cheered for the 21 hijackers too. In your view, killiing all those people on the planes and buildings left fewer people to procreate. How civilized. "---

So well said!:cool:

Way before PETA, these questions were asked and no one had to kill and destroy to present them.

PETA's idea that only thru violence people will become aware of the issues is a poor way to excuse that they LOVE to be over the top in their actions.
Anyone supporting them is supporting that, if they personally don't think they like violence.
Can't support a violent association and say "I don't like violence".:(

meredithbarlow
May. 5, 2007, 07:55 AM
Okay it gets better! I was reading Petakids.com YES there is a petakids.com! Yay brain washing! And I get to this part about fishing.... and how barbaric it is! Well too bad fish cannot feel pain. I remember being told this as a kid, and I was curious if it was just something my parents said to get me to fish or if it were true. So I looked it up, and it is! Apparently they have done many studies that prove this. Of course PETA says that all of these scientists are lying.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1793

Thomas_1
May. 5, 2007, 08:30 AM
PETA is to be credited for the reduction in animal dissections in high schools.... When I taught biology, I refused to dissect after the first two years because most students did not take it seriously and I ethically just couldn't do it.

I can't speak for America but in schools in the UK there's been minimal disections for 30 years and absolutely NOTHING to do with PETA or any other terrorist or terrorist supporting organisation. The disections that are undertaken are on the likes of pigs hearts and eyeballs and come from animals that have not been specifically killed for that purpose.

PETA here does absolutely nothing positive or constructive and they've achieved sweet Fanny Adams. Indeed their lunatic ideas and crackpot policies tend towards having a negative public reaction to what is real animal welfare.

rcloisonne
May. 5, 2007, 09:30 AM
I think I'm going to vomit. I was just waiting for the justification for you owning pets - explaining how it's ok for you and your circumstances, and that you're morals are better than the rest of us - but the rest of the hundreds of millions of people in the US have to abide by different rules. That's typical and I see it all the time.
My "pets" were acquired before I knew better. All except the exotics are rescues (a formerly skin and bones Beagle hit by a car and not even house trained at 7 months and several barn cats that were on their way to the local gas chamber). They will not breed on.

I feel sadness and guilt everyday for the birds, who are one generation out of the wild, who can not live as nature intended. These are captive because people like me believe(d) "owning" them is/was their right or really didn't give it much thought at all. The vast majority become disillusioned when their pet birdy bites them, screams incessantly and makes a mess in their house. So they dump them. Very sad.


I think it is the height of conceit and selfishness to treat animals like humans.
I agree with this. Each species has their own needs and those needs are often not what humans think they are and rare met in captivity. Barns and cages are good examples.


Slavery is a human concept. Aphid farming by ants is considered a symbiotic relationship - yet in your view would subject the ants to arrest for slavery, burning their nest to stop them from farming aphids - ridiculous.
I also agree with this. Nature knows best. But we as humans do far worse than what ants do and often with forethought and malice. Animals take/use what they need. People most often go way beyond that.


Or mouse rape. The male mouse (don't remember the species) that mates nonstop until it drops dead - even dragging female mice out of their dens to copulate unwillingly. You gonna burn your bra over that one?
Burn my bra? :lol: :lol: :lol: Whatever works for the mice is fine with me. ;)


Come to think of it - not a bad way to go for the male mouse.....at least he died with a smile on his face.
Exactly. :D


Applying human concepts and values to different species is unfair to that species. I like and value animals for what they are - even what man has made them through domestication.
I like them for what they are too. We differ in that I believe we should leave them alone. And, I don't believe domestic animals should be turned loose to fend for themselves. That would be certain death for most and just plain stupid.


As our understanding of science progresses, lab animals and testing will no longer be necessary. I can see a day when that will be true. Every day we get closer. A positive pregnancy test is no longer referred to as "the rabbit died". We don't get insulin from dogs anymore. PETA had nothing to do with that. Human progress and natural processes did.
I sincerely hope you're right but somehow I doubt it. And I do think PETA has had significant impact in raising peoples' awareness. Just as the abolishionists did.


PETA isn't doing anything positive. They run around naked saying fishing is cruel - and behind closed doors they have caused as much suffering and despair as any hardened animal abuser.
I think sport fishing is cruel. Fish have arteries, veins, nerves and a brain. Why would anyone think they don't feel pain? It's one thing to kill to survive, another to do it for "fun". And what suffering "behind closed doors" are your referring to?


I suppose you cheered for the 21 hijackers too. In your view, killiing all those people on the planes and buildings left fewer people to procreate. How civilized.
Touched a raw nerve, have I? That was pretty low.


Yup - I've got the dry heaves.
I'm sorry but, really, that's your problem.

kcgold
May. 5, 2007, 10:37 AM
Galwaybay,
PETA isn't opposed to having pets. They're opposed to the philosophical construction of "owning" animals. The two are very different. Some misguided people are opposed to riding horses, but for the most part the animal rights folks I know are not at all opposed to riding healthy, happy horses.

I'm still have trouble with the above quote from a few pages back. I don't see how you can say that PETA is not opposed to have pets. Here are some quotes from Ingrid Newkirk (PETA prez), who presumably speaks fpr the organization. Sure sounds like anti-pet rhetoric to me:

“If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Animals, 5/1/93

“…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.”
— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223,

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Newsday, 2/21/88

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald, 3/1/90

JSwan
May. 5, 2007, 10:40 AM
No - you didn't touch a raw nerve. What's pretty low is cheering and condoning violence and terrorism. The folks who are victimized by PETA and ALF and ELF, for example - are just as much victims of terrorism as the people in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the hijacked planes. The PETA types stalk and threaten the children of lab employees. Death threats to entire families. You think little kids deserve that?

That is business as usual. It's not a mishap, it's not an isolated incident by an overzealous employee. It's a regular day at the office.

Stop trying to justify your ownership of animals. This isn't about you. This is about PETA. They turn domestic animals loose all the time - and those animals die a horrible death. I just don't get your "moral high ground" message because it doesn't jibe with PETA's mission. The power behind PETA are folks who would pass a dying dog in the streets. YOU may not be that way - but that is not the point. By supporting PETA, you are financing their ultimate goal. You can't have it both ways.

PETA does a great job of marketing itself - by trying to look more mainstream and emphasizing the "welfare" aspects - they get more members with more money to donate. It's all about increasing membership. But those dollars don't go towards anything positive.

If you truly and honestly support PETA - let those birds go. In your philosophy - even a bird in a gilded cage is more cruel than allowing it free to die in the wild. So let it die.

Oh - final note - while YOU may support conservation - PETA does not. PETA opposes management of endangered species and protecting habitat. They may use endangered species as an excuse to raise money - but they do not, in any way, think that wild animals and their habitats should be conserved. If you'd like to verify that - just contact The Nature Conservancy and ask how many times they've been attacked by PETA. Last time I was there, the SWAT team had to protect the employees.

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

meredithbarlow
May. 5, 2007, 02:39 PM
I'm still have trouble with the above quote from a few pages back. I don't see how you can say that PETA is not opposed to have pets. Here are some quotes from Ingrid Newkirk (PETA prez), who presumably speaks fpr the organization. Sure sounds like anti-pet rhetoric to me:

“If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Animals, 5/1/93

“…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.”
— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223,

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Newsday, 2/21/88

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald, 3/1/90

Let me make it clear (again) that I'm not supporting PETA, I still think they are wackos as you can see in my other posts on the subject... but these are are older quotes I believe they have changed this line of thinking somewhat.

meredithbarlow
May. 5, 2007, 02:52 PM
You know what I cannot stand about radicals... is that they don't change a darn thing! LOOK at how many millions of dollars they raise yearly, yet its the dirt poor humane societies and the true animal rescues who are saving animals, or the little kid who saves up his allowance for 6 months and donates it to save a puppy from unnecessary euthanasia. NOT them. Why don't they invest their efforts into changing things that actually have a chance of changing???

For instance their whole NO fishing thing. Why not work to get more people into properly disposing of hooks and fishing lines so that they do not end up killing turtles, and fish, and baby seals!

Instead of telling people NO hunting. Why don't they work to promote those new things they have where the hunter can use lasers to get "points" for "shooting deer" Don't ask me how it works but its out there.
(Oh and btw, I'm TOTALLY for hunting, I won't do it, but someone has to since we've overpopulated the crap out of so many deer habitats that they are killing humans in their cars)

How about making sure that people that DO raise cattle for slaughter treat them humanely while they are being transported to the slaughter house? I mean COME ON... not to be a narrow minded jerk here, but we are NEVER as a society going to stop eating meat.

Or how about working to enforce current laws that are supposed to protect slaughter bound horses??

You don't have to condone something to help make it better for the animals involved. So anyways- anyone wanna join my PETA is stupid clique? LOL

Bluey
May. 5, 2007, 03:17 PM
---"How about making sure that people that DO raise cattle for slaughter treat them humanely while they are being transported to the slaughter house?"---

That is another myth.
Ask my neighbor, that hauls cattle around most every day, how long he would keep his job if he was not VERY careful with them.
Remember, if not on humane considerations, any stress cattle go thru means money directlly out of the owner's pockets, so why would anyone not try to handle them the absolutely best way they know how?

We had some neighbors help once and they crammed the cattle into the loading chute, before we saw it and put a stop to it, put the fellow that was doing that in the back, loading the alley with another fellow that was to teach him to go slow.
Still, that first truckload were evidently a little bruised and not eating good the first week in the feedlot and we sure heard about it from them.
Even more of a concern if they had been going to the salughterhouse, where they would have been harvested right off.
That is why the truckers that haul to the slaughterhouse itself will load their own cattle, don't want to be responsible for any bruising, that will come off their own pocket, if not get them fired if that keeps happening.

There are many myths about how animal agriculture handles their animals that make for good propaganda against it, but if people would stop to think why would anyone not do things right, if not because it is the right, humane way to handle the animals in itself, if nothing else, because there is an economic incentive to to so.

Stressing animals is not only inhumane, but counterproductive to those animals working/gaining for you.

I am sure that you can find a few sorry humans that don't care enough and are stupidly abusing the animals in their care, but it is not par for the way the majority of people handle their animals, be it horses, cattle or any other, any more than the few bad bad doctors, bad teachers or any other mean all doctors, teachers and other are bad ones.

meredithbarlow
May. 5, 2007, 03:25 PM
---"How about making sure that people that DO raise cattle for slaughter treat them humanely while they are being transported to the slaughter house?"---

That is another myth.


True that most people who raise cattle do care properly for their stock, but the people who don't are allowed to with no fricking consequences. My friend has a neighbor with 44 head on less than 10 acres. They are skinny and inbred and never given enough hay, but no one will do a thing because they are simply livestock.

Bluey
May. 5, 2007, 03:31 PM
True that most people who raise cattle do care properly for their stock, but the people who don't are allowed to with no fricking consequences. My friend has a neighbor with 44 head on less than 10 acres. They are skinny and inbred and never given enough hay, but no one will do a thing because they are simply livestock.

His level of care may not be what you agree is right, but if it is bad enough to be breaking laws, why not report him?
We had a fellow inherit some land here with some cows, then let them starve. Some of those cows were ancient, his grandfather had not culled forever and so may have been dying naturally of old age, but most people do at least shoot them when they get too poor to be helped.
Our sheriff went over and gave him a talk, a neighbor was hired to look after the cattle for a while, most of the cattle recuperated and all did fine after that.
I heard about it because we were asked to provide some hay for them.
Maybe you could do that there?

meredithbarlow
May. 5, 2007, 04:26 PM
His level of care may not be what you agree is right, but if it is bad enough to be breaking laws, why not report him?
We had a fellow inherit some land here with some cows, then let them starve. Some of those cows were ancient, his grandfather had not culled forever and so may have been dying naturally of old age, but most people do at least shoot them when they get too poor to be helped.
Our sheriff went over and gave him a talk, a neighbor was hired to look after the cattle for a while, most of the cattle recuperated and all did fine after that.
I heard about it because we were asked to provide some hay for them.
Maybe you could do that there?

The authorities have been called and refuse to do anything. I'm not an idiot-I know that the level of care I think an animal should get is not what the law thinks but these cows are clearly being neglected (even by legal standards) only problem is that the AC in this particular county (not my county Hanover is great!) is TERRIBLE. So they go out and see the cows in the front pasture (who typically fair okay) and then leave. They don't even get out of their truck! And the times they do, they don't walk the property. Its a nasty property as you can imagine. If they would take a walk around back they'd see the dead chickens in the coop who died from starvation, and then were not removed. The rats that infest the same coop, mind you the coop is in the same field with the cattle. Just this year they've lost two calves (these are only the two my friend knows about) I'm revving up to call again I know it sounds back but I need to wait for things to get "bad" again. They just got some hay which will last a week or so and then another bale won't go out for another month or so. So that's when I'll be making another call.

And just to add- Old age is NOT a natural cause of death for ANY animal. In the wild (lol, wild cows, funny image) the animal would be given a quick end by a predator, and as you said should be given a quick end by a bullet or euthanasia solution in a domestic situation.

JSwan
May. 5, 2007, 04:31 PM
Because (and you know this already) - it's not sexy. Like anything else - the folks that do the most good are the ones in the trenches. And the orgs that accomplish real change in handling, animal husbandry, etc - are not AR groups. It's things like 4-H. Advancements in veterinary medicine. Renewed interest in small/sustainable farming, and the backbone of every good idea - the average animal lover who leads by example, develops partnerships and fosters collabaration among diverse groups.

To nefarious/shady organizations - the best way to get money is to get attention. Bad attention or good attention. Doesn't matter. Tacky publicity stunts. Outright lies, fabrication, obfuscation.

Or worse. But you know - the people who commit violence to get their point across are not committed to a peaceful goal. They are just disaffected, twisted people who have hung their hat on a certain idea - using it as an outlet for pyschotic behavior. If it wasn't fishing, it would be religious extremism. Or some other "ism". They are angry people. Angry and full of hate.

Plain old getting the job done without fanfare is just not sexy. Someone like me, for example, who just works within communities and develops consensus among opposing groups. TNR. Works for low cost/spay neuter. Helps instead of hinders. Positive rather than a punitive approach. BORING!

Why mediate and be positive and proactive when blowing something up or posing naked will get your name in the paper? Getting your name in the paper brings in more money.

But it helps nothing.

Meanwhile - the boring folks in the trenches just quietly get the job done with little to no money, no lobby, no celebrity endorsements.

Which approach is better? Guess it depends upon your point of view. Direct, measurable results vs name recognition and the sexiness factor.





You know what I cannot stand about radicals... is that they don't change a darn thing! LOOK at how many millions of dollars they raise yearly, yet its the dirt poor humane societies and the true animal rescues who are saving animals, or the little kid who saves up his allowance for 6 months and donates it to save a puppy from unnecessary euthanasia. NOT them. Why don't they invest their efforts into changing things that actually have a chance of changing???

For instance their whole NO fishing thing. Why not work to get more people into properly disposing of hooks and fishing lines so that they do not end up killing turtles, and fish, and baby seals!

Instead of telling people NO hunting. Why don't they work to promote those new things they have where the hunter can use lasers to get "points" for "shooting deer" Don't ask me how it works but its out there.
(Oh and btw, I'm TOTALLY for hunting, I won't do it, but someone has to since we've overpopulated the crap out of so many deer habitats that they are killing humans in their cars)

How about making sure that people that DO raise cattle for slaughter treat them humanely while they are being transported to the slaughter house? I mean COME ON... not to be a narrow minded jerk here, but we are NEVER as a society going to stop eating meat.

Or how about working to enforce current laws that are supposed to protect slaughter bound horses??

You don't have to condone something to help make it better for the animals involved. So anyways- anyone wanna join my PETA is stupid clique? LOL

matryoshka
May. 5, 2007, 09:23 PM
... the people who commit violence to get their point across are not committed to a peaceful goal. They are just disaffected, twisted people who have hung their hat on a certain idea - using it as an outlet for pyschotic behavior. If it wasn't fishing, it would be religious extremism. Or some other "ism". They are angry people. Angry and full of hate. ...Exactly. And these people are lauded because somebody thinks the end justifies the means. That's only true as long as the whackos aren't targeting a place where their family members work. I can only imagine how unsafe a person who worked in that building would have felt, wondering if he/she was going to be targeted next, or whether they'd screw up the timing and do it while people were in there. How does anybody know how quickly those animals died, either, or the fear and pain they experienced while things were falling around them?

I can justify having my horses the same way rcloisonne justifies having her exotic birds. But there is no need. My horses seem to be content, except that my horse, Butch, fell in love with the new foster mare, and he won't let Box Office (another foster horse) near her. Box Office is very upset, because Butch is hogging all three mares and won't share even one.

At least, that's the way it seems to me. Only Butch and Box Office can truly understand what is going on. The mares don't seem to care whether they are herded around by one gelding or the other, as long as they get to stay together.

Shodan VIII
May. 5, 2007, 09:40 PM
Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War? The latter of which was fought to stop one group of people from selling, breeding, owning and exploiting another? I'm sure abolitionists were considered "nutters", tree huggers and members of the sweetness and light brigade in their time too until the idea went mainstream that it's not OK to enslave a race different from your own.


The American Civil War was originally fought to keep the Union intact.

I ABSOLUTELY despise PETA with every single damned molecule in my body. Some of their goals are legit, most are just way over the top.

This little article proves that the ALF doesn't do shit for animals:



Claim: 6,500 minks set free by animal rights activists rampaged through the British countryside.

Status: True.

Origins:

An attempt to free minks into the wild before they were turned into fur coats has resulted in a wildlife and domestic animal crisis in Britain. Minks, you see, are killers . . . a fact you might expect animal rights activists would have taken into account before unleashing them on an unsuspecting countryside.

What follows is one of the representative news articles about this August 1998 invasion brought on by good intentions gone horribly wrong:

In what must have seemed like a brilliant idea at the time, British animal-rights activists sneaked onto the grounds of a mink farm here during the weekend, cut through wire fences and gave 6,500 minks their freedom instead of a future as fur coats.
But the illegal act has backfired as few British animal-liberation missions ever have. Released into the rich countryside of England's southern coast, the thousands of minks have gone on a rampage driven by insatiable hunger and equally insatiable mink-like curiosity.

Domestic pets and farm animals -- including cats, hamsters, chickens, guinea pigs and hens -- have been pursued and killed. Wild animals -- including the endangered water vole, a type of water rat -- are under attack. Local fisheries are threatened.

And local residents, including the owners of a wild bird sanctuary where three birds were killed in mink attacks Sunday and Monday, have taken up arms. One of the dead birds was a beloved, 14-year-old kestrel named Spitfire who made countless educational trips to local schools.

The bird sanctuary "has become a restaurant for mink," said angry sanctuary manager Chris Milsom, who has armed himself with a shotgun to join other residents on mink hunts. Monday, Milsom showed the results of his latest foray: He upended a plastic grocery bag and five small, brown, furry and very dead minks fell onto the ground.

A group called Animal Liberation Front is believed responsible for the mink release from the Crow Hill Farm, although no one has stepped forward to formally take responsibility for the action.

Robin Webb, the group's news-media spokesman, defended the release Tuesday -- even though hundreds of the freed minks are now being gunned down by locals, except for those that are being run over by cars. Hundreds more have been returning on their own to the mink farm, though about 3,000 were believed still on the loose.

"Certainly some people may disagree with it, but the mink which have been shot and killed, had they remained where they were, they would have been killed in a barbarous manner to make fur coats which nobody needs," Webb said.

Webb said the released minks could be expected to "disperse" among an existing British wild mink population already numbering in the tens of thousands. Those wild minks are, ironically, the descendants of earlier fur-farm escapees imported from America to England by mink breeders in the 1920s.

But rather than mix with local wild minks, the newly freed minks seem to have minds all their own.

Several have wandered nonchalantly into local homes, including that of Crow Hill resident Christine Pinder. She was shocked Saturday morning when a mink -- which she at first thought was a kitten -- appeared in her bedroom and jumped at the throat of her pet dog.

"I took my husband's walking stick and I whopped it," she said.

Other minks have walked into a local 17th-century pub, the Crown Tap, with pub-goers unsuccessfully giving chase.

In the charming, thatched-roof village of Burley Lawn, resident Ed Gurd was alarmed Sunday to find a mink inside his house intently studying the cage of his daughter's pet hamster, Honey, as if it were contemplating lunch.

Those who freed the minks, Gurd said, "are totally irresponsible because of the destruction they're causing of the local wildlife. "

Great Britain has seen many animal-rights actions in the past: Wild cats have been released from Scottish zoos; the export of British veal has been blocked at French ports; even domestic salmon have been freed from Scottish fish farms.

But few actions have upset the British as much as this one.

"Wanted Dead or Alive: 3,000 Vicious Killers" said the headline in Monday's Daily Telegraph.

Officials and police were advising residents in the Crow Hill area to keep small domestic pets indoors -- though they were quick to assure locals that children are safe from mink attacks unless they grab at the long, thin animals, which have sharp teeth.

In addition to the various beloved pets and indigenous wildlife killed by these predators, three extremely rare owls also fell prey to them. Minks broke into the wildlife sanctuary where the owls were housed and made short work of them.

A fisherman was also attacked in that August 1998"liberation."

You'd think one such ecological disaster would be enough to convince even the most diehard animal rights activist that releasing minks into a countryside is less than a brilliant idea. Ah, but you'd be wrong.

In September 1998 the Animal Liberation Front set yet another 8,000 minks loose on Britain. Most of the vermin remained within the farm's boundaries, but an estimated 2,000 got out into the neighbouring area. Homeowners were warned to keep their doors and windows locked, and pets and children inside for the duration.

A week earlier, a similar "liberation" took place in Finland. Thousands of minks there were released into the wild by an unnamed animal activist group. Many of the minks were soon killed on highways or fell to preying on each other.



Wow, with success like this, animals need the ALF like America needs another Civil War.

To whoever cheered when the ALF burned down the lab, you have a hell of a lot of problems.

Using violence to promote a political goal just alienates the general public (who you really need the support of nowadays), turns off wanna be members, causes government and police monitering and possibly provoke a backlash of violence. I mean, some animal rights radicals have threatened to shoot hunters. Is that what these people want, shootouts between hunters and animal rights radicals?

Bluey
May. 5, 2007, 10:14 PM
Because of those animal rights violent people, the horse slaughterhouse owners in TX had to sell out, when their houses, cars and even themselves and their families were harassed and threatened.
They sold to foreigners, that those people could not get to so easily.

Many think that is ok, because they don't like horse slaughter, but when you align yourself with those people, no matter what the "cause of the moment" you want to support, beware, because next time violent people may not like something YOU are involved with.:eek:
Then YOU will be their next target, with others then looking and cheering them on, if that is what we accept, when is convenient to our goals.:no:

What goes around has a way of coming around.

Remember, two wrongs will NEVER make a right.:yes:

Appassionato
May. 5, 2007, 10:23 PM
Remember, two wrongs will NEVER make a right.:yes:

Or even a pretty good. :no:

criss
May. 5, 2007, 10:23 PM
Raising awareness is necessary. As long as consumers can buy meat in a package and not know or care where it came from, society as a whole will lack the will to take any action. Sex sells, so there is a place for sexy, attention-grabbing activism.

The boring stuff is needed too, but let me tell you, as someone who does all the boring stuff, how much it hurts when animals get returned to a place where they were starved nearly to death, where the carcasses of other animals are presumably still rotting, because no one cares enough to enforce the laws we do have. No public pressure is brought to bear, because not enough people have been made aware of the issues, so even media coverage of the specific case doesn't help. Awareness is something that needs to be raised over time, and if you can't make it exciting for people, they will not become more aware.

I'm certain that there are people who treat their animals humanely before sending them to the feedlot or wherever, but the issues go way beyond that. I have photographs of skin-and-bones cattle eating hay that's black with mold next to the carcass of the most recent casualty of such a "feeding program"--and not one of those cows was seized, despite the involvement of one of the most animal-welfare-friendly livestock inspectors in the state. What we have is not good enough.

We just can't do enough, as individuals helping individual animals. It makes us feel good, and it makes the individual animals we help feel good, but if no one ever gets upset, there will only be generation after generation of animals born into the same lousy situations, and generation after generation of rescuers stumbling along, noses to the grindstone, doing what they can with no hope of ever not being needed. I get that y'all hate PETA, but who else is stepping up to the plate to address the systemic problems so that one day animals will be treated well by humans and we will not need to rescue them?

Appassionato
May. 5, 2007, 10:27 PM
But who is really being raised to awareness, criss? Us, or the buyers of horsemeat? Why attack people of a plant? I live in a small town. I know about taking a job you can get to feed your family. So what do you propose? That would also suit the American buyer? Remember, some other countries work cheaper.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, my guy is set by my will. However, what about other horses?

HECS04
May. 5, 2007, 10:29 PM
Let me make it clear (again) that I'm not supporting PETA, I still think they are wackos as you can see in my other posts on the subject... but these are are older quotes I believe they have changed this line of thinking somewhat.

Not all of them are wackos...you just hear about the wackos and not the normal ones...I do support most of what PETA stands for (most definately not all of it) but I do agree with most of it. I own and show horses, yet have my own opinion on it...not everyone who involved with them are "wackos" I do understand where you are coming from...i used to feel the same way...I just wanted to put my opinion out there

Bluey
May. 5, 2007, 10:30 PM
---"...who else is stepping up to the plate to address the systemic problems so that one day animals will be treated well by humans and we will not need to rescue them?"---

Who? Decent people, that do what they can to help, without destroying things and hurting animals and people in the misguided name of "doing good".

Ever read "Range" magazine? Plenty of stories of animals and people being injured and killed by those radicals, in the name of "helping the animals", for what they tell me.
I know some of the people involved in those stories.
They feel at war in their own homes and land.:no:

kcgold
May. 5, 2007, 10:54 PM
Let me make it clear (again) that I'm not supporting PETA, I still think they are wackos as you can see in my other posts on the subject... but these are are older quotes I believe they have changed this line of thinking somewhat.

sorry, but I don't see that she (Newkirk) has modified her views at all - here are some later quotes which at least to me, show she hasn't changed at all:

"Our goals and direction remains true to our founding. We wish to raise awareness, shake people out of their dirty, cruel habits, and facilitate a change to a cruelty-free world."
March 2003Vegan Family interview

"the ultimate end goal would be to put animal exploiters out of business, which would be fabulous."
Dec 2000 SATYA interview

"I also believe animals should not only be treated kindly within the context of using them, but that they are not ours to use."
e-mail interview, May 2007

She (Newkirk) regards the use of guide dogs for the blind as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use.
June 2003 Observer interview

Appassionato
May. 5, 2007, 11:16 PM
sorry, but I don't see that she (Newkirk) has modified her views at all - here are some later quotes which at least to me, show she hasn't changed at all:

"Our goals and direction remains true to our founding. We wish to raise awareness, shake people out of their dirty, cruel habits, and facilitate a change to a cruelty-free world."
March 2003Vegan Family interview

"the ultimate end goal would be to put animal exploiters out of business, which would be fabulous."
Dec 2000 SATYA interview

"I also believe animals should not only be treated kindly within the context of using them, but that they are not ours to use."
e-mail interview, May 2007

She (Newkirk) regards the use of guide dogs for the blind as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use.
June 2003 Observer interview

I agree. Frankly, and this is coming from an agnostic, people trying to give "rights" to animal are ridiculous. We are their caretakers. Period. Whether you believe in God or not. We are the higher species. And I'll be damned before anyone tries to convince me differently.

Thomas_1
May. 6, 2007, 01:29 AM
Raising awareness is necessary. As long as consumers can buy meat in a package and not know or care where it came from, society as a whole will lack the will to take any action. Sex sells, so there is a place for sexy, attention-grabbing activism. So in that case why are organisations like PETA just indiscriminately targeting all farms and ALL meat. If the consumer is driving a market, then its the consumer that needs educating not the farmer that needs terrorism and intimidation and violence.


The boring stuff is needed too, but let me tell you, as someone who does all the boring stuff, how much it hurts when animals get returned to a place where they were starved nearly to death, where the carcasses of other animals are presumably still rotting, because no one cares enough to enforce the laws we do have. No public pressure is brought to bear, because not enough people have been made aware of the issues, so even media coverage of the specific case doesn't help. Awareness is something that needs to be raised over time, and if you can't make it exciting for people, they will not become more aware. And folks like that have got absolutely nothing to do with good farmers and those who practice good animal husbandry.

I'm certain that there are people who treat their animals humanely before sending them to the feedlot or wherever, but the issues go way beyond that. I have 800 cattle and nearly 2,000 sheep. Each and every one is free range and I've organic status and I've been a member of Compassion In World Farming for over 30 years.

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml

But PETA as an organisation is so stupid that they don't know the difference and hence they are ineffective and treated as the bunch of lunatics they are.


I have photographs of skin-and-bones cattle eating hay that's black with mold next to the carcass of the most recent casualty of such a "feeding program"--and not one of those cows was seized, despite the involvement of one of the most animal-welfare-friendly livestock inspectors in the state. What we have is not good enough.
So….. And do you honestly think that what PETA is doing is going to change that situation. And if you’re not sure of the answer its “no of course it won’t”


I get that y'all hate PETA, but who else is stepping up to the plate to address the systemic problems so that one day animals will be treated well by humans and we will not need to rescue them? Did you read the posting I put up earlier and relating to the new legislation brought in by the British Government? Did you look at the link about Compassion in World Farming? Do you know anything at all about organic farming?

PETA have done sweet Fanny Adams.

JSwan
May. 6, 2007, 07:01 AM
If animals have rights - then they have responsibilities. You can't have one without the other.

I need some help getting Peanut out from under the covers on my bed. She's a lazy hound and needs to stop laying about the house and get a darn job. My 16 year old Basset Hound, Falstaff, needs to be getting some Social Security or I'm going to put him in an old folks home instead of treating his senility with expensive medication. His memory foam dog bed is nicer than my bed. And the Shepherd -well - he was a rescue. Should have let him die rather than enslave him. Get off the couch, Homer!

And the pig too. The pig just lays around, mooning over a gelding he's in love with . (who says I'm not a "progressive" farmer? I even have gay livestock).

I suppose I should just shoot the feral cat colony instead of TNR. Bullets are cheap and it's cruel to subject animals to surgery and ear notching.

The horses must have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome or something - because when I hook up the trailer they gallop up to the gate - knowing that I'm going foxhunting.

I think I should bomb the animal shelter - that way no animals would be brought there any more. They could just live and die where they are - I hear starving to death is a peaceful way to go. Besides, shelters are just another way to continue the enslavement of animals. Best I just kill them all and bomb the shelter.

Thomas_1
May. 6, 2007, 08:04 AM
I think I should bomb the animal shelter - that way no animals would be brought there any more. They could just live and die where they are - I hear starving to death is a peaceful way to go. Besides, shelters are just another way to continue the enslavement of animals. Best I just kill them all and bomb the shelter. :lol: :winkgrin:
Heck just join ALF or PETA. You'll get on great there :winkgrin:

criss
May. 6, 2007, 02:24 PM
Do you know anything at all about organic farming?
No, Thomas, never heard of it. :rolleyes:

You people think you have a monopoly on your particular brand of intelligence and knowledge of the world...and you know what? You're absolutely right... :lol:

Sithly
May. 6, 2007, 02:48 PM
You can't reason with crazy people.

matryoshka
May. 6, 2007, 11:54 PM
The problem is figuring out which ones are crazy! ;)

Thomas_1
May. 7, 2007, 07:34 AM
No, Thomas, never heard of it. :rolleyes:

You people think you have a monopoly on your particular brand of intelligence and knowledge of the world...and you know what? You're absolutely right... :lol:
And you know I am absolutely and totally aware that there is organic farming and natural farming and heritage farming and just old fashioned good basic farming in the USA - but it seems from your previous postings that you haven't got a scooby! At least you chose not to give them any credit at all for feeding the nation.

So now you claim to know but you just talk crazy crap and rubbish about farming and lump everyone in the same category then? Pretending that the bad and the negligent and the cruel is the norm and using those examples as generalisations.

Just as I thought!!

And do excuse me for being annoyed at you because I'm proud to provide food for people's tables as I'm sure are America's good farmers.

Thomas_1
May. 7, 2007, 07:35 AM
The problem is figuring out which ones are crazy! ;)
Nah its dead easy

county
May. 7, 2007, 07:37 AM
Oh Thomas 1 " shame on you "

matryoshka
May. 8, 2007, 08:14 AM
Thomas, thanks for standing up for the farmers. I live in a farming communtity, but sadly, the farms are disappearing and houses popping up everywhere. A dairy farmer I used to buy hay from (and he seeded my pastures for me, too) used to talk about his dairy cows the way we horse people talk about our horses. He milked maybe 200 cows, but he knew each and every one and was very fond of them. Same goes for the dairy farmers (and would help occasionally) I knew while growing up.

In any community, one sees animals that are poorly cared for. Those are the animals I'd like to help. People who do that are simply not normal. They are deviant and would find some way to take it out on some poor living thing if they didn't have livestock. People who starve their animals have something wrong with them. It is not the same as raising an animal for meat, where the animal hopefully meets a quick end. Starvation is torture.

And has PETA forgotten how successful many of the non-violent protests have been? They have also raised public awareness, but in a good and productive way. Their aim has to be true and streamlined for effectiveness and not target the wrong people (as in when they were holding pictures of dead horses at a horseman's gathering mentioned a few pages back).

drmgncolor
May. 8, 2007, 05:26 PM
I have to add to this topic... probably shouldn't, but what the heck...

I recently read something I find absolutely hilarious and must share. Pamela Anderson is one of PETA's biggest celebrity faces and has been for some time. Apparently just recently she has discovered that her precious Ugg boots she has loved dearly for YEARS and a hot trend she is credited with starting... are none other than REAL sheepskin and has now vowed to "kick them to the curb."

What do you mean they used real sheepskin attached to the wool? **Gasp** Its not like Ugg was keeping it a secret. Seriously... did she read the label? can she read? I knew they were sheepskin and I don't even own a pair.

PETA needs to look into acquiring some smarter celebrity backers... because this just makes them look silly. tsk tsk tsk.

edited to remove a link... found too many good ones and figured you would all get a kick out of googling Pam Anderson and Uggs.

skatepixie
May. 8, 2007, 07:22 PM
I know they're sheepskin and I have....3 pair. *evil grin*

Appassionato
May. 8, 2007, 09:17 PM
Thomas, thanks for standing up for the farmers. I live in a farming communtity, but sadly, the farms are disappearing and houses popping up everywhere. A dairy farmer I used to buy hay from (and he seeded my pastures for me, too) used to talk about his dairy cows the way we horse people talk about our horses. He milked maybe 200 cows, but he knew each and every one and was very fond of them. Same goes for the dairy farmers (and would help occasionally) I knew while growing up.

In any community, one sees animals that are poorly cared for. Those are the animals I'd like to help. People who do that are simply not normal. They are deviant and would find some way to take it out on some poor living thing if they didn't have livestock. People who starve their animals have something wrong with them. It is not the same as raising an animal for meat, where the animal hopefully meets a quick end. Starvation is torture.

And has PETA forgotten how successful many of the non-violent protests have been? They have also raised public awareness, but in a good and productive way. Their aim has to be true and streamlined for effectiveness and not target the wrong people (as in when they were holding pictures of dead horses at a horseman's gathering mentioned a few pages back).

Ditto, since I too live in a farming community.

Bluey
May. 8, 2007, 09:38 PM
Most people don't seem to be aware of all that people in animal agriculture do.
Here is a little example, with mention of a program the cattle industry has had on caring for the animals and the environment for now 20 years, long before it became the PC thing to do.
Too bad that the only the general public hears about what farmers do are the few bad stories, many times taken out of context to make someone's point in the animal rights/welfare association's propaganda:

---""Animal Welfare is Our Livelihood and Our Legacy"


Washington, D.C. (May 8, 2007) – Paxton Ramsey is a Texas cattle producer (Chairman of Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association's Brand and Inspection Committee) and member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). In testifying on behalf of the American rancher before the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, Ramsey reaffirms the importance of animal welfare to the cattle industry.



"As a rancher, the care and well-being of my livestock is top priority. Ranchers are the original proponents of animal care and welfare because we understand the moral obligation that comes with being a steward of our animals. We spend every day living off the land, working with our livestock - and it is our passion.



"This long-standing commitment to the health and welfare of our animals is probably not something we talk about enough in public, because it is not something that we have to make a conscious decision to pursue. Good care of our animals is second nature to us. It is not something we do because it is popular or newsworthy. We do it because these animals depend on us and we cannot fail them.



"Taking good care of our livestock is not just about doing the right thing; it also makes good business sense. It is well-recognized by our entire industry that it is in everyone’s best interest – from producer to packer – to handle animals humanely. Sound animal husbandry practices – based on generations of research and practical experience – are known to impact the well-being of cattle, individual animal health, and herd productivity.



"NCBA has long taken its role in animal welfare seriously. As the trade association for America’s cattlemen, we have a role to help educate and train our members in the proper care and handling of livestock. These discussions began at the grassroots level and have involved the expertise of all entities associated with our business. Producer-led initiatives include NCBA’s Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Program and the cattle industry’s "Guidelines for the Care and Handling of Cattle."



“Created in 1987, BQA unites animal scientists, veterinarians, feed suppliers, animal health companies, packers, and retailers with producers. The BQA program provides guidelines for livestock care and handling, nutrition, and veterinary treatment. Cattlemen become certified and undergo continuous training to remain certified.



"BQA incorporates current Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations, as well as Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles. Today, BQA influences more than ninety percent of U.S. cattle.



"Not only is proper care and handling something we practice, it is also regulated by state and federal laws. As such, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that state and federal agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have all of the resources they need for inspection of regulated facilities that handle livestock. In addition, we think it is crucial for local, state, and federal governments to prosecute those who willingly mistreat their animals and break these laws.



"Years of practical experience have shaped the practices that my family, and ranching families across the country, use to provide humane care of our livestock. It is not just something we talk about, it is something we do everyday."



Ramsey's full testimony is available online at www.beefusa.org."---

Claddagh
May. 8, 2007, 10:12 PM
How nice for him! :sleepy: Do you want some violin music to go along with that canned speech Bluey?

And BTW, shouldn't you be posting about cattle on some cattle BB, not on a horse BB? :rolleyes:

matryoshka
May. 8, 2007, 10:27 PM
Dairy farmers bale the best hay for horses! :D The dairy cows need the same quality hay as horses, and they are the best source of good quality stuff. The ones around here give a refund if you find mold in the bales.

hb
May. 9, 2007, 01:10 AM
What's really at issue is that, as long as animals are considered property and nothing else, they cannot have a legal "interest" in their own well-being, so that abuse of an animal is legally wrong only if it results in financial harm to the owner.


That's absolutely not true. There are laws against animal abuse that have nothing to do with financial harm to the owner, while still allowing for ownership of an animal. We can protect animals and still own them.

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 08:06 AM
What *hb* says is absolutely true. Laws exist against animal abuse and neglect and people can be prosecuted if they break those laws. (Although we all know that far too many cases either don’t get prosecuted at all or if they do, the “penalties” to the owner are often nothing more than what amounts to a “slap on the hand”.) :no:

But anyway, I think what *criss* is confusing for prosecution when she says that “abuse of an animal is legally wrong only if it results in financial harm to the owner” is that in animal abuse cases, the financial recovery of the owner (of an animal who has been harmed by someone else) is limited to the actual financial “damages” that the owner incurred as a result of the actions of the guilty party. In other words, the owner can recover any veterinary expenses, or the value (cost) of the animal if it dies, but cannot be awarded any money for “pain and suffering” of the animal as a result of the abuse, no matter how horrific it might have been. :(

county
May. 9, 2007, 09:00 AM
I always wonder why some whine if cattle are brought up they certainly don't seem to mind when anti slaughter people bring up cats and dogs. But regardless if its not supposed to be wouldn't one think the moderators would have stopped it by now?

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 09:11 AM
I always wonder why some whine if cattle are brought up they certainly don't seem to mind when anti slaughter people bring up cats and dogs. But regardless if its not supposed to be wouldn't one think the moderators would have stopped it by now?

Probably because cats and dogs are essentially in the same catagory as horses in this country as far as animals are concerned - they are NOT BRED AND RAISED AS PART OF OUR FOOD CHAIN. The purpose of having horses (or dogs and cats) is NOT so that we can eat them!!! :rolleyes:

I don't get why the pro-slaughter people keep bringing up cattle in the first place. Beef IS eaten here, it IS part of our food supply, and cattle ARE brought in to this world as part of the food chain - HORESE ARE NOT!

county
May. 9, 2007, 09:22 AM
I don't see your point at all. Either you care about animal welfare or you don't.

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 09:34 AM
I don't see your point at all. Either you care about animal welfare or you don't.

So we can assume that you don't care about animal welfare, correct?

You cite time and time again, that all of the "problems" within the slaughter industry affect not only horses but cattle, as well as other slaughtered animals. Yet you continue to participate in that system (you do raise beef cattle do you not?) So why would anyone who cares about animals and animal welfare have anything to do with a system that is perpetuating abuse or inhumane treatment of horses, cattle, pigs, sheep - whatever? :confused:

county
May. 9, 2007, 09:38 AM
Do I care? Yes but not nearly enough to stop eating meat or raising it. Same as the vast majority of people including those who eat horse. There is no differance except some of you place one species over another. Personally I feel there all the same.

SaturdayNightLive
May. 9, 2007, 09:38 AM
Such as the American Revolution and the American Civil War? The latter of which was fought to stop one group of people from selling, breeding, owning and exploiting another?

Sorry to be jumping in so late, but I had to say something - stuff like this absolutely drives me nuts. The American Revolution was not domestic terrorism (unless you consider wasting perfectly good tea terrorism). It was that whole lack of representation thing that set it off and in order to make your parallel work, it would have to be the animals commiting the acts of terrorism, not people commiting them on the animals behalf.

As for the American Civil War...well, you are completely wrong about why the war was fought. The confederate states seceded from the union following Lincoln's election because they felt it was their right to do so. Unfortunatly, the federal government disagreed and went to war in an attempt to bring the rogue states to heel. The Emancipation Proclamation was an ultimatum, not an actual "lets free the slaves" thing. It said, come back to the Union before this date or suffer the consequences (loss of your slaves). It did not include those border slave holding states which had remained loyal to the union. Again, the civil war was NOT about slavery - it was about states rights to defy the federal government.

county
May. 9, 2007, 09:43 AM
Actually Lincoln was more then willing to allow the southern states to keep slaves if it would avoid a war. He wasn't really anti slavery at all.

SaturdayNightLive
May. 9, 2007, 09:47 AM
Actually Lincoln was more then willing to allow the southern states to keep slaves if it would avoid a war. He wasn't really anti slavery at all.

Exactly. :yes:

JSwan
May. 9, 2007, 10:06 AM
Who better to be an advocate? And who better to lead by example?

The people within an industry who have a vested interest in its success. Do you really think that farmers are not eager to embrace technologies and improvements? Who do you think comes up with the ideas? They do. The stall mattresses that horse owners are snapping up - those were developed for DAIRY COWS. Farmers are often the most ardent conservationists. The most outspoken about welfare. Most have college degrees. They participated in 4-H. They work with universities on studies - continually improving the lives on the animals in their care.

It's pretty evident that most of you know absolutely nothing about farming. How y'all can hope to appear to be an authority on farming and ranching is beyond me. Yet you keep trying to come off as an expert. Hilarious.

This is what I find amazing. Y'all consider the horse unique because of YOUR relationship to the species. The cow is not worthy of the same consideration because after all - it's raised for meat.

What you fail to understand (and if so I can try and dumb this down) is that the animals do not perceive that difference.

Y'all seem to base your love or attachment to an animal based your perception of the animals HUMAN qualities. The animal is not appreciated for its own qualities - just those that are cute, or can be anthropomorphized.

Farming and ranching is a way of life - not a hobby to be indulged in on the weekends. It's 24/7. Crop failures. Delivering calves in the middle of a snowy night. Delivering hay and water to stranded cattle. Struggling to keep the farm in the face of overwhelming taxes and development pressures.

They are not saints, and they are not devils. If people on this BB bring up the slaughter of other species - it's because they have a sincere interest in the humane treatment of ALL animals - whether or not they are destined for a dinner plate. And they don't believe that an animals treatment should be dictated by how much we love it. They ALL deserve humane treatment. On the farm, during transport, and at slaughter. The human's attachment to a particular species is not enough to justify singling it out at the expense of other species.

For those who are pro-slaughter - they are merely saying that the concept is not an anathema. When extraordinary amounts of money and time are spent banning slaughter of one species (the horse), perhaps some of feel that this energy is better directed at improvements for ALL species.

In short - we're not speciest.

Appassionato
May. 9, 2007, 12:42 PM
Probably because cats and dogs are essentially in the same catagory as horses in this country as far as animals are concerned - they are NOT BRED AND RAISED AS PART OF OUR FOOD CHAIN. The purpose of having horses (or dogs and cats) is NOT so that we can eat them!!! :rolleyes:

I don't get why the pro-slaughter people keep bringing up cattle in the first place. Beef IS eaten here, it IS part of our food supply, and cattle ARE brought in to this world as part of the food chain - HORESE ARE NOT!

Should we talk about rabbits and goats instead? They are raised in my area for food as well as for pets.

Appassionato
May. 9, 2007, 12:44 PM
As for the American Civil War...well, you are completely wrong about why the war was fought. The confederate states seceded from the union following Lincoln's election because they felt it was their right to do so. Unfortunatly, the federal government disagreed and went to war in an attempt to bring the rogue states to heel. The Emancipation Proclamation was an ultimatum, not an actual "lets free the slaves" thing. It said, come back to the Union before this date or suffer the consequences (loss of your slaves). It did not include those border slave holding states which had remained loyal to the union. Again, the civil war was NOT about slavery - it was about states rights to defy the federal government.

Thank you, that stuff drives me nuts too.

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 01:52 PM
Should we talk about rabbits and goats instead? They are raised in my area for food as well as for pets.

Sure, if you want to. But maybe you should take it to a rabbit or goat BB instead of this horse BB.

bird4416
May. 9, 2007, 02:15 PM
For those who are pro-slaughter - they are merely saying that the concept is not an anathema. When extraordinary amounts of money and time are spent banning slaughter of one species (the horse), perhaps some of feel that this energy is better directed at improvements for ALL species.

JSwan, you managed to put into words exactly what I feel. Thanks for a great statement.

Bluey
May. 9, 2007, 03:11 PM
---"For those who are pro-slaughter - they are merely saying that the concept is not an anathema. When extraordinary amounts of money and time are spent banning slaughter of one species (the horse), perhaps some of feel that this energy is better directed at improvements for ALL species. "---

We have had this discussion in the dog world also, where many donations go to the large national associations, that definitely don't share with anyone, except to offer somethimes a pittance as a PR move, as in the horses they were going to "save" when Cavel closed.

When we have drives to get donations, many people and business tell us they already donated to them, leaving us to scramble to do the real work of caring for the animals, best we can.

For those big associations, the first item in their agenda is their existence and growth, the rest the "causes of the moment" to achieve that first goal.
They have done well, we have to agree, the millions in donations they rake in every year, thanks to hiring some top promoters.

JSwan
May. 9, 2007, 03:32 PM
Yes, there is this great void between the actual work - and the big orgs fundraising.

The perfect case in point would be Hurricane Katrina and HSUS. They raised millions of dollars - and corporations were extraordinarily generous with in-kind donations. The thousands of brand new dog crates, for example. A poster showed us where those crates went. DUMPSTERS. And HSUS T shirts were on the workers - brand new, unopened packages of dog crates.

Yet HSUS, on their website, begged for money for crates. Animal lovers responded.

And HSUS would not give those crates to the rescues that were down there actually going into houses and saving dogs from drowning.

The groups I work with almost killed themselves saving animals - using their own money when rescue funds ran out. (and they ran out fast). Then came the really hard work - fostering, vet care, finding homes if we couldn't reunited the dogs with their owners.... and not ONE penny came from any big organization.

You can do a search on it if you don't remember.

But the real doozy was last winter - out West. They got hit with a huge blizzard - and livestock were stranded without food or water. Ranchers were desperate to save their livestock. So desperate that even a governor of a state affected asked HSUS for help. The answer - it's not really their mission. The animals were going to be slaughtered anyway so it wasn't worth it.

Check it out - I don't make this stuff up.


---"For those who are pro-slaughter - they are merely saying that the concept is not an anathema. When extraordinary amounts of money and time are spent banning slaughter of one species (the horse), perhaps some of feel that this energy is better directed at improvements for ALL species. "---

We have had this discussion in the dog world also, where many donations go to the large national associations, that definitely don't share with anyone, except to offer somethimes a pittance as a PR move, as in the horses they were going to "save" when Cavel closed.

When we have drives to get donations, many people and business tell us they already donated to them, leaving us to scramble to do the real work of caring for the animals, best we can.

For those big associations, the first item in their agenda is their existence and growth, the rest the "causes of the moment" to achieve that first goal.
They have done well, we have to agree, the millions in donations they rake in every year, thanks to hiring some top promoters.

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 05:09 PM
Unfortunately, *the money not being used for the "cause" is a problem with many, many organizations that accept donations. Some even go to elaborate lengths to solicit donations from people who think that they are giving money to help the cause directly. However, do the people who donate actually do any background checking to see just how much of their donations actually go toward the "cause" that the organization stands for? Usually not - and this is exactly why such groups get away with such nonsense.

Legitimate organizations will disclose what percentage of your donation is actually used to directly benefit their solilcited "cause". If they don't want to disclose this information - look for another group that is on the "up-and-up" and donate your money there!

I will only donate money to a group who offers to tell their supporters upfront just what percentage of their donations are used directly for their cause. If a group takes in $100 and 85% of the donation goes to "operating expenses" - that is totally unacceptable to me. But if 85% goes toward feeding and veterinary care (in the case of an animal rescue) than I know my money will directly benefit the animals.

Complaining "after the fact" does no good. As I said, the solution is to only give where your money does the most "good" for your intended cause, which especially in the case of animals, is usually your smaller, grass-roots groups, who are doing the real "leg work" to make a difference for animals.

rcloisonne
May. 9, 2007, 05:48 PM
Sorry to be jumping in so late, but I had to say something - stuff like this absolutely drives me nuts. The American Revolution was not domestic terrorism (unless you consider wasting perfectly good tea terrorism).
Forgotten the burning of the British ship, the HMS Gaspee in 1772, have we? It is considered by some to be the first act of “patriotism” in the US. Depending on your point of view, of course, it could also be considered an act of terrorism. In these parts, we re-enact the event on a yearly basis. ;)

http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/hq/history/gaspee.html

And, the Boston Tea Party was about far more than dumping tea into Boston Harbor. Consignors who didn’t go along were terrorized and their warehouses and homes burned. They don't teach that part in school. Imagine that. Today we consider those involved heroes, but again, I’m sure many thought them “terrorists” at the time. :eek:


It was that whole lack of representation thing that set it off and in order to make your parallel work, it would have to be the animals commiting the acts of terrorism, not people commiting them on the animals behalf.
Are you as thick as this sounds? The so called parallel is that it sometimes takes extreme measures to get desired results. It means sometimes you need to step out of your comfort zone and fight for what is right and what is fair. Animals can't fight us. They have no voice or legal standing and are completely at our mercy. Have we abused that trust?


As for the American Civil War...well, you are completely wrong about why the war was fought. The confederate states seceded from the union following Lincoln's election because they felt it was their right to do so.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Learned this stuff in 5th grade. :rolleyes: The ACW started because several southern states, particularly SC, threatened to secede from the rest of the country (and actually did). However, it can’t be denied the issue of slavery and the proposed expansion thereof, were at the heart of the matter. And, I’m certain the average plantation owner believed he was taking real good care of his darkies too. "How dare them damn Yankee "n" lovers tell me what I can and can't do! They're chattel; nothing more, nothing less! They don't have feelings like us." Sound familiar?


The Emancipation Proclamation was an ultimatum, not an actual "lets free the slaves" thing. It said, come back to the Union before this date or suffer the consequences (loss of your slaves). It did not include those border slave holding states which had remained loyal to the union. Again, the civil war was NOT about slavery - it was about states rights to defy the federal government.
Your interpretation and grasp of history is inspiring. :no:

JSwan
May. 9, 2007, 05:50 PM
I agree. The best work I've seen done is by the smaller non-profits. The big ones ending up just like Enron. Which is a shame considering the billions in endowments, estates, trusts, that they have. Not even counting annual giving - that's just gravy. The smaller non-profits can be a bust though too - the IRS just give out that c3 status a little too generously - and with over 9 million nonprofits in the US, is not able to monitor them.

But still - generally I think you get measurable results by sticking with the smaller nonprofits.


Unfortunately, *the money not being used for the "cause" is a problem with many, many organizations that accept donations. Some even go to elaborate lengths to solicit donations from people who think that they are giving money to help the cause directly. However, do the people who donate actually do any background checking to see just how much of their donations actually go toward the "cause" that the organization stands for? Usually not - and this is exactly why such groups get away with such nonsense.

Legitimate organizations will disclose what percentage of your donation is actually used to directly benefit their solilcited "cause". If they don't want to disclose this information - look for another group that is on the "up-and-up" and donate your money there!

I will only donate money to a group who offers to tell their supporters upfront just what percentage of their donations are used directly for their cause. If a group takes in $100 and 85% of the donation goes to "operating expenses" - that is totally unacceptable to me. But if 85% goes toward feeding and veterinary care (in the case of an animal rescue) than I know my money will directly benefit the animals.

Complaining "after the fact" does no good. As I said, the solution is to only give where your money does the most "good" for your intended cause, which especially in the case of animals, is usually your smaller, grass-roots groups, who are doing the real "leg work" to make a difference for animals.

Appassionato
May. 9, 2007, 07:20 PM
Sure, if you want to. But maybe you should take it to a rabbit or goat BB instead of this horse BB.

Certainly! Just as soon as this thread can get back on track with the OP. Which wasn't slaughter to start with. But hey, so long as it isn't Black Beauty dying, didn't matter to start with. :rolleyes:

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 08:40 PM
Certainly! Just as soon as this thread can get back on track with the OP. Which wasn't slaughter to start with. But hey, so long as it isn't Black Beauty dying, didn't matter to start with. :rolleyes:

Hey, talk to Bluey about that. This thread was right on target with it's original post until Bluey entered (page 6, post #112). And as always, Bluey had to bring her pro-slaughter slant to the discussion.....and you see where it went from there don't you! :sigh:

Bluey
May. 9, 2007, 09:08 PM
Hey, talk to Bluey about that. This thread was right on target with it's original post until Bluey entered (page 6, post #112). And as always, Bluey had to bring her pro-slaughter slant to the discussion.....and you see where it went from there don't you! :sigh:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are a good one to talk about bringing the slaughter ban to all threads, since YOU do that, as soon as you can manage.

Here was that post of mine you alluded to, that is about PETA, as this thread was at that time, the slaughter reference perfectly in topic, unlike those YOU keep adding to YOUR posts.:winkgrin:

---"I know an active charter member of PETA, that worked at the top of the organization, that defended them for many years and finally, once she opened her eyes to what was happening, admitted that they had changed into an organization that she could not support any more and has not for many years now.

Those that support them today are either for violence in the name of expedience or DON'T KNOW what they are supporting.
Here are some FACTS on what PETA has done:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/2088

PETA received, as reported to the IRS in 2004 and yes, that is some 30 millions.
I have heard it was double that by 2006, mostly because of the donations the "ban horse slaughter" publicity brought.

http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...als.cfm/oid/21 "---

SaturdayNightLive
May. 9, 2007, 09:32 PM
Forgotten the burning of the British ship, the HMS Gaspee in 1772, have we? It is considered by some to be the first act of “patriotism” in the US. Depending on your point of view, of course, it could also be considered an act of terrorism. In these parts, we re-enact the event on a yearly basis. ;)

http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/hq/history/gaspee.html

And, the Boston Tea Party was about far more than dumping tea into Boston Harbor. Consignors who didn’t go along were terrorized and their warehouses and homes burned. They don't teach that part in school. Imagine that. Today we consider those involved heroes, but again, I’m sure many thought them “terrorists” at the time. :eek:


Are you as thick as this sounds? The so called parallel is that it sometimes takes extreme measures to get desired results. It means sometimes you need to step out of your comfort zone and fight for what is right and what is fair. Animals can't fight us. They have no voice or legal standing and are completely at our mercy. Have we abused that trust?


Yeah, yeah, I know. Learned this stuff in 5th grade. :rolleyes: The ACW started because several southern states, particularly SC, threatened to secede from the rest of the country (and actually did). However, it can’t be denied the issue of slavery and the proposed expansion thereof, were at the heart of the matter. And, I’m certain the average plantation owner believed he was taking real good care of his darkies too. "How dare them damn Yankee "n" lovers tell me what I can and can't do! They're chattel; nothing more, nothing less! They don't have feelings like us." Sound familiar?


Your interpretation and grasp of history is inspiring. :no:


Oh, honey, you aren't helping your case. :no:

Claddagh
May. 9, 2007, 10:39 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are a good one to talk about bringing the slaughter ban to all threads, since YOU do that, as soon as you can manage.

:rolleyes: Uh, I hardly think so Bluey! There has never been even one instance where I brought up slaughter on a thread that was not about slaughter. It just doesn't consume my every thought as it seems to yours. I have an interest in horses, lots of different aspects of horsemanship and horse ownership. Whereas, the impression that you give is that your primary interest in horses is slaughtering them so as "not to waste a resourse"! :eek: In fact, I can recall threads that had nothing whatsoever to do with slaughter that you joined in on and immediately started your pro-slaughter speel. I actually posted about this, basically pointing out that you needn't bring slaughter into every discussion people are having (that has nothing to do with slaughter). But you just keep it up, which is your right - free speech and all. It's just that I know lots of people are really getting tired of it - just read some of the responses to your posts! :yes:

Appassionato
May. 9, 2007, 11:56 PM
Hey, talk to Bluey about that. This thread was right on target with it's original post until Bluey entered (page 6, post #112). And as always, Bluey had to bring her pro-slaughter slant to the discussion.....and you see where it went from there don't you! :sigh:

Oh no, I won't play the game of "who started it." :lol: In any case, so long as people will play the game of slaughter debate then backpeddle when other animals are involved since Black Beauty must not die, I call foul. Animals are animals. They have no choice in our culture what is eaten and what isn't, but the pure fact of the matter is that we attribute emotion and fear only to those we love. Ya know, beef, chicken, and pork come on styrofoam...not real animals. That's where I have a problem with folks and anti-slaughter. Do what you will with chickens, they're meat animals, by golly! And my child won't live in a country without his/her McNuggets! But Black Beauty...call a whambulance! :lol:

Bluey
May. 9, 2007, 11:56 PM
May. 7, 2007, 06:34 PM
Claddagh
Working Hunter Join Date: Aug. 23, 2006
Posts: 533



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a story! I'm so glad that the two mares were able to be saved. Ava looks very sweet. I'm sure she will learn to trust once she realizes that she no longer has to fear people. Being blind makes it that much harder, she never knew when the fearful things were near. Poor thing.

And for all those who couldn't be saved - Godspeed.

Hopefully the brutality of the slaughter industry will end forever, at least in this country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess that you forgot to have posted this, derailing a thread that was not about slaughter until you introduced your comments there.

Now, who did you say is obsessed with slaughter?:lol:

Trakehner
May. 10, 2007, 07:26 AM
The ALF (animal liberation front) is PETA...it's just their terrorist wing.

Kind've like Sien Fein is the political arm of the IRA (Irish Republican Army...the marxist terrorists in Ireland).

ALF gets a lot of it's money from PETA and legal support.

Bad guys wrapping their evil in puppies & kittens.