No one is saying we should not be for animal welfare, it is animal rights extremists agendas we are at times questioning.
Any abuse is wrong, in slaughter, in rescue, in any anyone does, with horses, other animals, humans, abuse is always wrong and we have laws against that already.
Trying again to brand those that think to ban slaughter because someone found abuse there makes as much sense as banning rescues because there has been plenty found to be abusing and mismanaging their horses, none at all.:no:
That is why to ban slaughter with the excuse that few may use that produced thru that process and so waste all that deserves a second thought.
Already touched a time or thousands why the abuse and mismanagement card also are not sensible reasons to ban, but fall under working on stopping abuses and mismanagement thru animal welfare, not following animal rights extremists to ban use.
This is a debate, many are listening, all have a right and should have a chance to state their opinions and all to make their own mind what makes sense to them.
I think that is what these debates are all about.:yes:
You do realize Bluey, that repeating your redundant mantra does nothing to change anyone's mind, right?
The lesson Bluey is simple - drop the term "animal rights extremists" and you will speak your mind and your own sense without offense.
Or rather: If it actually IS a carcinogen, why on earth do you still feed it to your horse?!
Again, straw man argument.
You do realize LauraKY, that repeating your redundant mantra does nothing to change anyone's mind, right?
Now that also is not acceptable?
So, what do you want me to write when I am talking about the, well, animal rights extremists?:confused:
Those who document the cruelty are for the WELFARE of the animals, not their RIGHTS
Many, many, posters, including myself, have said they are not against slaughter, but ARE against the inhumane treatment.
Since you seem to agree that abuse is wrong, then I submit that you too are a RARA.
Just state your own position. Since you are not an animal rights extremist out there lobbying for law change - no need to state their position. I think you can simply state your view of the info other's present without label. Like maybe just let a post stand on its own merit.
It makes for great discussion and education.
For one thing, horses live about 1/3 shorter lives than humans. If horses lived into their 70s, 80s and 90s you might see diseases from use of these drugs we do not use in humans or animals for human consumption. But they don't.
There are many factors determining how drugs effect differing subjects.
And I've already explained, with links to references, why even though there may be no studies of humans taking Bute how it was still, without 'studies', shown to be harmful to humans.
Some substances don't require an actual study to show that they shouldn't be ingested... are there studies in which the results of people ingesting rat poison showed that people shouldn't eat rat poison?
Or did we come to that conclusion via instances where the harm of ingesting rat poison was obvious enough without a large subject group, a large placebo group and various dosage levels of rat poison being administered to humans to make it clear it was a bad idea? Extrapolation [not a study] of 'if it does ___ to rats, it will do ___ to humans'?
Some things you don't need to conduct a study of to determine it's a bad idea.
Furthermore, your belief that it's not harmful is irrelevant. My belief that it most likely, based on the side effects/damage done to patients who used it in the past, is harmful is irrelevant.
The EU, the USDA, the MHLW, and other agencies do not want certain substances in the meat they import for human consumption.
That alone should be enough reason to make sure those substances aren't in it.
Insisting that this [existence of banned substances in the meat] is a straw man argument, is actually the straw man argument.
why are animal rights ALWAYS considered extremists? Do we go and blow up anything? Shoot at people who disagree with us? NO... We stand by the animals, for the animals. They are entitled to care to the end, however the end may be.
It is interesting to see this thread with so many posts on ignore.. Too bad some people still feel the need to quote though...
The FDA list of drugs that are not to be used in horses intended as food animals. Yes, a couple of them are also used for cattle, however, because we don't raise horses as food animals in this country, withdrawal times have not been tested.
Been there - done that. It does make for an easy read. What was it sannois said about a wreck... I think there is good reason to discuss these matters - but it seems the ignore works well to block noise.
I see the problem with assigning animals "rights" legally. It would be an absolute mess simply because we eat them. But I sure would like to know someone would pay dearly if they slaughtered or intentionally maimed one of my horses. As it now stands, most laws would just give them a swat.
Ban slaughter is what animal rights extremists, for lack of a better way to name them, do as part of their drives to eventually eliminate all uses of animals by humans.
That is an important difference some seem to muddle repeatedly.
and just by definition, Animal Rights are about as extreme as it gets.
Another point where reading comprehension is failing on a larger level:
I - as about anybody else here is all for a species appropriate treatment of any given animal. In good as in bad times.
However 'rights' do imply something completely different and as much as I love my animals, they are not little fur people, they are still animals. And at the end of the day I am the owner and make the decisions to the best of my knowledge and ability.
You are mistaking welfare with rights. These two terms are - regardless what HSUS and PETA trying to tell you - NOT interchangeable!
trust me, you don't want to go down that 'rights' road. Not really.
because it could mean that somebody like me could work the system and tell you how to treat your animal.
As for animal rights people:
yes, there are plenty who do blow stuff up, instigate others to blow stuff up, harass and threaten, stalk people, terrorize people.
And yes, it is official, PETA has spend money on animal rights terrorists. Paying lawyer bills for ALF and ELF members. Of course they officially proclaimed they had not a thing to do with it :rolleyes:
Head lady of WAR (Win Animal Rights) was at one time so busy cussing a driver out and getting in his way she forgot she was a vet....forget helping the horse, she had to video the poor thing....
Yes, you claim kinship to Animal Rights, you also claim kinship to the more radical elements who do blow stuff up and terrorize people. You support PETA and HSUS, you send money toward terrorism.