The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun. 21, 2008
    Posts
    1,692

    Default

    Forgive my ignorance, but what does the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs do? Does it regulate animal stuff?

    If it is another department-like the treasury or some such-their animal views don't matter.

    You can never tell-it was the bush administration's EPA that brought the fart tax on livestock. So who knows-lets wait. I doubt with the economy in the toilet, two wars, trillion dollar estimated deficit this year, Obama is going to spend his time trying to outlaw hunting.

    But you never know. I was reading in the other thread about them bugging show dogs and going and bugging horse riders who used a crop. That is scary-it is one thing if they are in the fringe-but with banning a circus-it is just a bit worrying, that they may be coming into the mainstream.
    I think it is too controversial a topic and will turn off more mainstream people. Personally certain things I agree with-like some of those undercover videos-you know if it helps in creating better conditions for livestock in slaughter/feedlots, science research animals -so be it. But the more you learn that they want to end all animal use-pets/livestock/everything-I think it will unite everybody-hunters, vegetarians who own pets, ranchers-because it affects everybody.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul. 17, 2000
    Location
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    Posts
    273

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You are a HSUS member and think they are there to help animals, when the stated goal of their president, by his own words in interviews, is "to end all use of animals by humans and not soon enough for him?"

    If you have horses, or an interest on them, as I assume being a poster here, I would think the HSUS or any of those non-profits that are working against us having and using animals would definitely not be who to support.
    Bluey - since you put that in quotations, am I to believe that is a direct quote from Mr. Pacelle? Because in an earlier thread, YOU quoted him differently:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    As their president himself said: "One generation and no more animal slaves and none too soon for me".

    So how about we get our story straight? Owning an animal and having it be your "slave" - two very different things.

    I have horses, and I am their master, but they are not my slaves. Doesn't mean I'm against owning animals though!

    As I've said, I know people who work at HSUS, and I've worked with them in my line of work. They own pets! They own and RIDE horses! Ohmygosh! Don't spread nonsense if you don't know it's true.

    Of course I love horses, and that's why I support animal welfare orgs like HSUS, ASPCA, and AWI that share some of my common beliefs and goals. Animal welfare is something I feel very strongly about, as I'm sure you can tell.



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug. 21, 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horsecrazy View Post
    As I've said, I know people who work at HSUS, and I've worked with them in my line of work. ...Of course I love horses, and that's why I support animal welfare orgs like HSUS, ASPCA, and AWI that share some of my common beliefs and goals. Animal welfare is something I feel very strongly about, as I'm sure you can tell.
    if you are going to champion HSUS:
    1) the people you know that work there, what is their job ? ie what do they actually do ?
    2)"animal welfare org" - if you support them, let us know what HSUS actually does that contributes to animal welfare.

    I am not being facetious, I do want to know. I am trying to keep an open mind...



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    44,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horsecrazy View Post
    Bluey - since you put that in quotations, am I to believe that is a direct quote from Mr. Pacelle? Because in an earlier thread, YOU quoted him differently:




    So how about we get our story straight? Owning an animal and having it be your "slave" - two very different things.

    I have horses, and I am their master, but they are not my slaves. Doesn't mean I'm against owning animals though!

    As I've said, I know people who work at HSUS, and I've worked with them in my line of work. They own pets! They own and RIDE horses! Ohmygosh! Don't spread nonsense if you don't know it's true.

    Of course I love horses, and that's why I support animal welfare orgs like HSUS, ASPCA, and AWI that share some of my common beliefs and goals. Animal welfare is something I feel very strongly about, as I'm sure you can tell.
    For your information:

    http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...ew.cfm/oid/136

    Here are some quotes, still looking for the exact words of the one I mentioned and where the interview happened.
    It is a much quoted phrase.

    http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...es.cfm/oid/136

    http://www.tebreezcockers.com/page27.html

    If you just google for quotes by the HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, you will get an eye full of who he is and even who he was before he went to work for them.
    Here is one place with some quotes:

    ---"About Wayne Pacelle – He is a radical animal rights fanatic, who follows the "Vegan" religion – eat vegetarian, wear no animal products, and hold animals above all humans. One of his ultimate goals is to force all mankind to eat vegetarian. However, he ignores the fact that billions of birds, mammals, bison, rodents, insects and other animals are displaced, even made nearly extinct, as land is used up to grow the favorite vegetarian crops like soy beans and wheat instead leaving the land as healthy, natural wildlife habitat.

    "For the sake of animals, there’s nothing more powerful than changing your diet." - 1998 interview with Pacelle by Erik Marcus published on www.vegan.com.

    In college (Yale), he formed an anti group, the Student Animal Rights Coalition, where "we protested deer hunting."

    Pacelle started another anti group in Connecticut, the Animal Rights Alliance. He even used animal rights issues when he ran for city council as a Green Party candidate.

    As National Director of the Fund For Animals, he claims that he "did a lot of work on wildlife issues, particularly against sport hunting." His specialty there seemed to be hunter harassment:

    "We did a lot of field protests against hunting where we would walk with hunters and talk with them about hunting. And in the process they were seldom able to make a kill (the distraction and six people tromping with a hunter scared away the animals). We also challenged the constitutionality of state hunter harassment laws." – 1998 interview with Pacelle by Erik Marcus published on www.vegan.com.

    Pacelle’s preferred state referendum tactics include:

    "Tabling, hosting house parties, and distributing literature near polling sites are all essential ingredients of a successful statewide initiative." - 1998 interview with Pacelle by Erik Marcus published on www.vegan.com.

    Ultimately, he views humans as the big problem, and Nazi-like population control as the means to place animals above people:

    "Human population growth is ultimately one of the most significant that we as a movement have to grapple with." - 1998 interview with Pacelle by Erik Marcus published on www.vegan.com.

    Pacelle doesn’t even want you to have pets, and not only wants to ban all pet breeding, he wants pets to be extinct:

    "We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." – Animal People News, May 1, 1993.



    I consider these animal rights issues a serious concern for all of us that want to keep our rights to have animals, here we are talking horses.
    Other people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say humans just can't do right for animals, so animals have to go, other than a few in their natural settings, to live and die there.
    I disagree that natural settings ever were or are any more "kind", if not less than domesticated ones, bar direct abuse, of course.

    We as humans are who we are because we learned to use animals for what we need.
    We can tweak those uses so there is no abuse, but use alone, in my opinion, is not abuse and our use of animals doesn't need to be discarded just because someone else may think it is.

    Your right to believe what and who you want, others to not believe the same.

    As for the HSUS, they are learning that information thru the internet is laying them bare, warts and all and I expect that they are going to change in significant ways how they operate so there won't be anyone able to show who they really are, what they have stood for before, as it is too radical for most people and, once word is getting out, they are starting to lose the important donations they live with and for.

    Just my very biased opinion, as I am and have been all my life an animal caretaker by profession.
    Last edited by Bluey; Jan. 17, 2009 at 04:04 PM.



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul. 6, 2005
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkhawk View Post
    Personally certain things I agree with-like some of those undercover videos-you know if it helps in creating better conditions for livestock in slaughter/feedlots, science research animals -so be it. But the more you learn that they want to end all animal use-pets/livestock/everything-I think it will unite everybody-hunters, vegetarians who own pets, ranchers-because it affects everybody.
    To me, this is the essence of the whole animal rights / animal welfare can of worms. There is so much capacity for animal organizations to do good. So many animals suffer in factory farm situations, the entertainment industry, science labs, etc. We need to stop the abuses that are occurring. But many times the animal rights groups get so wrapped up in promoting veganism and/or the completely unattainable goal of returning all animals to a state of nature, that they are then written off by the public as weirdos and castrated of their ability to effect positive change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    please - if you think HSUS is a fine organization, dig a little deeper.
    www.humanewatch.org/
    Those two links are actually to different sites designed by the same group - The Center for Consumer Freedom. If you look at some of the other organizations that they describe on the activistcash site, a pattern of criticizing liberal groups quickly becomes apparent. Now, some people will agree with the CCF's opinions about the various groups listed, and some won't. But CCF is definitely not a detached, objective source. They have an agenda of their own. They say on their About Us page that they are committed to exposing 'anti-consumer' groups. LOL. Anti-consumer?

    That's not to say that there aren't problems with HSUS, of course. Just that the CCF is not impartial.



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    44,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaresNest View Post
    To me, this is the essence of the whole animal rights / animal welfare can of worms. There is so much capacity for animal organizations to do good. So many animals suffer in factory farm situations, the entertainment industry, science labs, etc. We need to stop the abuses that are occurring. But many times the animal rights groups get so wrapped up in promoting veganism and/or the completely unattainable goal of returning all animals to a state of nature, that they are then written off by the public as weirdos and castrated of their ability to effect positive change.





    Those two links are actually to different sites designed by the same group - The Center for Consumer Freedom. If you look at some of the other organizations that they describe on the activistcash site, a pattern of criticizing liberal groups quickly becomes apparent. Now, some people will agree with the CCF's opinions about the various groups listed, and some won't. But CCF is definitely not a detached, objective source. They have an agenda of their own. They say on their About Us page that they are committed to exposing 'anti-consumer' groups. LOL. Anti-consumer?

    That's not to say that there aren't problems with HSUS, of course. Just that the CCF is not impartial.
    Yes, but I was looking for quotas and found many.
    Those were the first ones I found, definitively not the only ones.

    The HSUS will change if it wants to continue being the largest such non-profit, but I don't believe that they will let their president's long stated goals be forgotten and those ought to be a warning to all of us that think that humans do have a right to use animals.

    By the time we quit fighting between ourselves because someone likes to do this but is aghash at what someone else does, the dressage people that can't stand rodeos, the saddlebred riders that think jumpers are crazy, the trail riders that think racing is cruel, etc., there won't be anyone else left to stand for any manner we may use our horses.



  7. #27
    Join Date
    May. 11, 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    Jaeger -

    That's very interesting. My step sister is a VA state trooper and was active in the Vick investigation. Her experience is much different than yours. Isn't that interesting?

    Then there's the case.... I think in LA... where HSUS obtained a helicopter from Homeland Security and conducted a "raid", seizing a whole bunch of pit bulls.

    Unfortunately every single animal was put down immediately - including puppies.

    Even more unfortunate was that the defendant was... geez.... I don't remember. Either acquitted or charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. But all his dogs are dead.

    HSUS disappeared after the raid - did not assist with the dogs or cared what happened to them. I think they did get plenty of photos of their staff in the helicopter though.
    My stepdad worked on this case. I don't believe HSUS was the one that got a helicopter, that was the state police. The HSUS was also not responsible for putting all the dogs down. That was the ASPCA, who got thousands of dollars of donations and dog supplies, that believed that fighting dogs were born with bad temperaments and put the puppies down. Boudreaux was the defendant and he was not convicted because the judge presiding over the case admitted to being into hog-dog fighting. (Setting dogs to attack and eventually kill a chained up hog. Usually beating the dogs in the process to make them meaner.) Unfortunately, that piece of information was disregarded and whodathunkit *sarcasm* he doesn't get convicted.

    I still don't like the HSUS, but I just want you to get your facts straight.
    Smileys, the internet's botox



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug. 21, 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkhawk View Post
    Forgive my ignorance, but what does the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs do? Does it regulate animal stuff?
    If it is another department-like the treasury or some such-their animal views don't matter.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_...latory_Affairs
    and..
    www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/

    Its part of the Executive Branch, under OMB - with a fairly broad mandate to review and recommend regulatory policies.

    like any other Executive Branch high-profile job, the director SHOULD be implementing the president's policies and priorities, not his own. So we'll see.



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    10,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    also... Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. ..Consider this tidbit:
    “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than
    The American Puritanical Streak peeks through again!

    The Old Puritanism was about sex. The New Puritanism is about everything but sex.

    HSUS is an extremeist organization where everybody wears coats and ties. Do they do some good? Probably. But, then, Mussolini made the trains run on time.

    G.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    44,798

    Default

    “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
    — Animal People News


    “My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”
    — HSUS grassroots coordinator John “J.P.” Goodwin

    Remember that horses fall under domestic animals, those they want to become extinct.

    Those of us in agriculture have gone from the general public understanding where their food comes from to now being seen as rapers of the earth and abusers of animals.
    That is now flowing into what we do with any other animals, including horses.
    One of the latests surveys of teenage kids in high schools asked them how they felt about our use of animals and one in 200 said they were vegetarians.
    They don't realize that losing our use of animals includes the dogs, cats and yes, even their fish in tanks at home and definitely the horses some of them may want to ride, or all other we aquire from our use of animals directly and from their miriad of products.

    The problem seems to be that the animal rights groups keep muddling the issues of use with abuse in the mind of the general public, so they send in donations, which is their main goal in all this controversy.

    Guess that all of us have an image and PR problem, the HSUS and those of us, that have animals, that it targets.

    Answering the OP, yes, the HSUS is also against our use of horses, as per horses being domestic animals.



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jun. 24, 2005
    Location
    Lorena, Texas
    Posts
    4,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horsecrazy View Post
    Again, might want to do some research here - in particular try looking up the Black Beauty Sanctuary and the Duchess Sanctuary - both developed by HSUS.
    Wrong. The Black Beauty Ranch was developed by Cleveland Armory and the Fund for Animals. MUCH later (after Armory's death), Fund for Animals merged with HSUS. HSUS now runs Black Beauty (I was going to correct those who said HSUS didn't run any shelters). But they didn't start it nor develop it. And when the Fund for Animals still existed, they actually worked with rescues to take in unadoptable and even dangerous horses (we sent a dangerous horse there). Now that HSUS has the ranch, they have no room, have a huge waiting list and aren't helping the rescues help horses. It is sad because I have some feral ponies that would do best in a setting like that, but I can't get them in there.
    Visit us at Bluebonnet Equine Humane Society - www.bluebonnetequine.org

    Want to get involved in rescue or start your own? Check out How to Start a Horse Rescue - www.howtostartarescue.com



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,478

    Default

    I've worked with HSUS in a professional sense too. I used to work directly with them, matter of fact. Not on equine issues specifically - but at the corporate level on much different issues. Who I worked with, what we worked on, and what we discussed is none of your business.

    I don't know what your snotty comment was meant to convey, because I've started no thread bashing HSUS or any other entity. A person asked a question and I answered it.

    If you don't care for the response, fine. But don't assume I don't have any direct knowledge. What HSUS markets itself to be and what it is are two different things.

    When they find a high profile issue, they come and and get their name in the papers and leave a mess behind. Dead dogs, chaos, lawsuits from people trying to get their animals back, and rescues and shelters that are left to pick up the pieces. More and more lawsuits. More and more lobbying on issues that are not about welfare, but about animal rights. And money. Always money. It happens over and over. And I've seen plenty of outright lies they've put forth as immutable truths. And people believe everything as if it came from the burning bush. Never question what they read.

    Since Wayne Pacelle took over it has transitioned into championing animal rights. It's a cause I don't believe in and I think HSUS is not being honest about their mission. They haven't been honest about it for a long time.

    The OP asked for information and I gave it, along with my opinion. It's an educated opinion that differs from yours.

    It's possible to dislike HSUS and PETA and still strongly believe in animal welfare. If that was their mission, and they were honest about their goals, I'd respect them more.






    Quote Originally Posted by horsecrazy View Post
    1. Don't assume. Your first statement is actually laughable to me. I've worked with HSUS in a professional sense (I work in the horse welfare industry), I know (as in first name basis) and respect a lot of people there. I referred to their website because the OP had a question about which horse sports HSUS frowned upon, and their website provided that info that I didn't know offhand. As a reminder, THAT was the original topic, though as usual you've turned it into a bashing.

    2. So what type of "interaction" have you had with them? Since I apparently only know what I know about HSUS through the internet maybe you can elaborate on your direction interaction and just why you hate dealing with them so much?





  13. #33
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,478

    Default

    You describe the actual circumstances much better than I did. My point was that it is an example of HSUS sweeping in to get the headlines, and then not staying around to follow through. No guidance, no commitment, no follow up.

    Just get the photo op of HSUS employees performing an investigation with a Homeland Security helicopter..... and then POOF - they go back to DC.

    It takes commitment and a heck of a lot of money and time to really and truly help animals in need. They didn't really help any animals. They're dead. They could have worked with the shelter, trying to help them evaluate the dogs, or could have offered legal assistance with interpreting the conflicting statutes. They didn't. They left. They could have worked with rescues or offered assistance with trainers. They didn't. They left.

    There was no justice, there was no "saving" of anything or anyone. They have an entire litigation section and a big law firm on the side that never lifted a finger. They have full time lobbyists in each state.

    They came in, got their picture taken, and left a mess behind - which a dysfunctional community had to "fix."



    Quote Originally Posted by Delaneythehorsegirl View Post
    My stepdad worked on this case.



  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    44,798

    Default

    The plot of the HSUS and horses, as per the OP's question, thickens:

    ---"January 13, 2009

    by Stacy Segal

    Rescued horses across the country have gained a great ally through a special joint venture of The Humane Society of the United States and Parelli Natural Horsemanship. For decades, world-renowned natural horsemanship trainers, Pat and Linda Parelli, have been helping horse owners reach new levels of communication and partnership with their horses through humane and caring training techniques.

    Now, they've joined forces with The Humane Society of the United States to spotlight the intelligence and trainability of rescued horses and help them find forever homes.
    Celebrate Horses With The HSUS and the Parellis!

    Find a Parelli Celebration Near You"---

    My question, why would the Parelli group align themselves publicly with an animal rights group, that has declared domestic animals, as our horses are, superfluous?

    Why not help unwanted horses on their own and leave it at that?



  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Out for Lent
    Posts
    34,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    The plot of the HSUS and horses, as per the OP's question, thickens:

    ---"January 13, 2009

    by Stacy Segal

    Rescued horses across the country have gained a great ally through a special joint venture of The Humane Society of the United States and Parelli Natural Horsemanship. For decades, world-renowned natural horsemanship trainers, Pat and Linda Parelli, have been helping horse owners reach new levels of communication and partnership with their horses through humane and caring training techniques.

    Now, they've joined forces with The Humane Society of the United States to spotlight the intelligence and trainability of rescued horses and help them find forever homes.
    Celebrate Horses With The HSUS and the Parellis!

    Find a Parelli Celebration Near You"---

    My question, why would the Parelli group align themselves publicly with an animal rights group, that has declared domestic animals, as our horses are, superfluous?

    Why not help unwanted horses on their own and leave it at that?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA, Parelli and HSUS.....gawd....marketing pure.

    Not knowing what or who HSUS was a few years back I ran them through google. I did not read all of the pages, but the original HSUS site didn't even pop up on top....and it was the only one saying anything nice about them.

    And as for the quotes....these PR guys have a perpetual diarhea from the mouth, they say a lot of things when the day is long. Fine if you like what they tell you, personally I didn't like what else I read. They are not as high profile as PETA - especially in the nutjob department, but that makes them rather more dangerous. I prefer to keep my money locally, with people who actually do the work and really apreciate the contribution! (had it out with a statetrooper collection person one time, I pledged 10 bucks and they got nasty because I didn't send the check yesterday. needless to say the check never left the house after that, if you can't be nice about getting money, screw you)

    (Obama supporting HSUS....GAWD NO!!! Time to write letters?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
    GNU Terry Prachett



  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    44,798

    Default

    I think that the HSUS is trying to change it's stripes, which it seems it has done before, following what the market best determines for their main goal, fund raising from donations and the membership they sell.

    So, I would say, stay tuned, it is going to get more interesting.
    I just hope that some unwanted horses will be ahead after all the dust clears, which is a distinct possibility.



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul. 1, 2008
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    You won't see much direct evidence of anything. But rest assured they're there.

    PETA like to run around naked and shout "Murderer" all the time and collect money. They target youth.

    HSUS is PETA in a Brooks Brothers suit. They have a more palatable image - which is very carefully cultivated and marketed.

    They sent "observers" to the Olympics to make sure no horses were abused.

    They love to come in on high profile sexy issues. They sweep in and conduct a few press conferences, some interviews, and then sweep back out - counting the money they made and leaving a mess behind for real animal welfare advocates to clean up. Don't get me started on Katrina.

    There, I've said it. If you're interested in donating money for animal welfare I'd suggest maybe the ASPCA... they're a bit more moderate.
    You have everything here rite. That is everything but this last little bit. ASPCA. There just as bad, infact ASPCA and PETA are together. I witnessed an ASPCA raid on a woman last yr. The Vet was a PETA vet out of NY CITY. The woman called us to inspect her mares and foals while they were there. The vet I work with said the SPCA had no right to raid this woman and they wer wrong to accuse her of anything. He knew the PETA vet at least she is always on the job for them. He told me she is a bitch.



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep. 17, 2002
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaegermonster View Post
    I
    but anyway, HSUS gets a ton of $$ from people who see the cute mailings with puppies and kitties and they think that HSUS is somehow affiliated with their local humane society, which couldn't be further from the truth.
    HSUS runs no shelters, no kennels, no rescues. They will, however, jump right in for the photo op, and throw money at a case in the public eye, like housing Michael Vicks' dogs.

    They are primarily a lobbying group and their agenda is way out there and very radical. I remember a few years ago when they got a bunch of dogs from a rescue/shelter somewehre on the east coast that they were going to "place" but instead they EU'd all of them in the van as they were driving away and were seen by citizens dumping the bodies in a dumpster.


    HSUS is really something else.

    I

    I once sent some research to my farrier and others who were urging me via email to support the HSUS... NO WAY!!!

    They are a radical group, make no mistake. Their beliefs are watered down for public viewing, but, the people behind the group are adament. They want to abolish any form of dog breeding, they believe everyone should be a vegatarian, etc. Trust me, those of you who do not keep your horses in feral situations (ie, those of us who keep horses in barns or at home and actually ride them), the people who run HSUS are no friends of yours. The quotes that I have read indicate that they fundamentally oppose it privately, if not publicly.

    I'll see if I can find some of the quotes from the HSUS powers that be and post them.
    Jill
    www.eurofoal.homestead.com
    European bloodlines made in America



  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2002
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    the big concern so far that I have seen re Obama is the appointment of Cass Sunstein. see http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/3807

    Great. Animal Rights agenda brought in to head Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). here we go!

    Lots of folks on Foxhunters on-line were against Obama. they were particularly appalled at his support for HSUS. I stuck up for him, thinking he just needed more education on the org and the subject. I mean, I gave them $ too, thinking it went to shelters, until I researched it. And, I thought that it was ridiculous to vote for president based on preserving foxhunting. Now, there is not alot that I would give up hunting for, but Obama vs that other guy...no brainer!

    But I digress. I have to say, I am pretty worried. “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school.

    also... Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. ..Consider this tidbit:
    “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”

    He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his “more ambitious animating concern” that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.” straight out of the PETA playbook.
    This is interesting to me. I have to say while the guy does sound like a fruitcake, what exactly is your beef with any of these actual statements? You don't think the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture should be extensively regulated? I mean, they pretty much are already, though underenforced.

    I thought hunting was primarily for keeping the populations of animals with no remaining natural predators low. What sort of hunting is done purely for sport and fun, and is there really a legitimate reason to preserve that? I don't think the case could even be made that foxhunting is purely for sport and fun.

    He's going kinda far with the unconscionable barbarity concept. Surely not all livestock suffer horribly. I thought his contention that animals should have the right to bring suit with a human as their guardian was outright ridiculous until it occurred to me that it might actually be useful for things like going after slaughter dealers who routinely ship horses in violation of USDA regs and aren't adequately prosecuted. Where the voice the animals are supposed to have--law enforcement--isn't speaking up for them, why not have another avenue?

    I dunno...I think there are probably valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue of this guy's appointment to regulatory czar or whatever. Curious to hear more about what other posters think.
    \"Non-violence never solved anything.\" C. Montgomery Burns




  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    44,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MandyVA View Post
    This is interesting to me. I have to say while the guy does sound like a fruitcake, what exactly is your beef with any of these actual statements? You don't think the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture should be extensively regulated? I mean, they pretty much are already, though underenforced.

    I thought hunting was primarily for keeping the populations of animals with no remaining natural predators low. What sort of hunting is done purely for sport and fun, and is there really a legitimate reason to preserve that? I don't think the case could even be made that foxhunting is purely for sport and fun.

    He's going kinda far with the unconscionable barbarity concept. Surely not all livestock suffer horribly. I thought his contention that animals should have the right to bring suit with a human as their guardian was outright ridiculous until it occurred to me that it might actually be useful for things like going after slaughter dealers who routinely ship horses in violation of USDA regs and aren't adequately prosecuted. Where the voice the animals are supposed to have--law enforcement--isn't speaking up for them, why not have another avenue?

    I dunno...I think there are probably valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue of this guy's appointment to regulatory czar or whatever. Curious to hear more about what other posters think.
    I think that people should decide as a society if we want to use animals and how, or decide that any use is wrong for the animals, as it is, philosophically and ban all use of animals by humans.

    Up to right now, it seems that most people are fine with how our human societies have been evolving and the general use of all kinds of animals.
    We are changing and more and more people don't like the IDEA of us using animals, comparing them to how we people would feel in their shoes.

    If we are going to be using animals, bar outright abuse, that is clearly legalize against already, we should let people do what they want, as long as it is legal, with those animals they own.

    If we don't, the rest of the discussion is moot point, shoot all animals until they are all dead, ban raising any more and so we will not have any more in the hands of humans.
    Leave the wild ones left to fend for themselves and keep on best we can with what we won't have from all the miriads of uses we make of our animals and their products, including the horses we ride.

    Most people I knew growing up with Disney cartoons full of cute animals grew up and, being all for kindness and humane handling of animals, still understood that they were acceptable for us to use as one more renewable resource we had, raised and used for our needs as the humans we are.

    Today, people seem to want animals to have the same rights as humans have and still have them to use.

    Sorry, it doesn't work both ways.
    We can't make omelettes without breaking eggs, really, pun intended.

    In these discussions, someone always brings abuse to ban use.
    No one wants abuse, of course, but use at times implies unpleasantness, without being outright abuse and that should be ok.
    That is so in our own lives, that are not always pleasant either.
    That is what life is, for all of us.



Similar Threads

  1. Which Horse Sports Are the Most Expensive
    By Beentheredonethat in forum Off Course
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Jun. 22, 2012, 09:21 PM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Apr. 23, 2012, 05:05 PM
  3. Update:Triangle Horse Sports
    By jesseh in forum Off Course
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep. 29, 2011, 06:09 PM
  4. Replies: 126
    Last Post: Apr. 11, 2011, 11:16 AM
  5. HRTV showing other horse sports
    By iloverocky in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb. 16, 2010, 01:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness