The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 279
  1. #221
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    From another thread:

    "But if you support the IDEA of AR, as opposed to animal welfare, you are still supporting the group in spirit, which has an effect also, and is likely to result in tolerance of their actions."

    I think this is supposed to mean that by calling yourself a believer in animal rights, you by default lend support to the extreme wing of the movement. Using this train of thought, by supporting the idea of foxhunting, then you also support the Real Countryside Alliance, the violent extreme wing of the moevement.



  2. #222
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    GDG, I am not against fox-hunting. As a matter of fact, I do not see it as an AR issue at all (my brand of AR) but an animal welfare issue. As an animal welfare issue, one could question, is it cruel?? Which animal is more important, the lamb or the fox? IMO, the fox does have his rights. Unlike the fox raised in a "puppy mill" for fur. Foxes are wild animals, whether you stick them in a cage or not.

    If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'- A Cowboy's Guide to Life
    The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde



  3. #223
    Join Date
    Oct. 23, 2000
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAyers:
    How do these people know that what they are doing is what the animals want? I want proof! It is not just about minks. It is as much about horses, dogs, rats, cats,.... That does not constitute enforcing "will" on anything.

    ...if you want to discuss your views with me then please use verifiable FACTS so that I may, in an unbiased manner, re-evaluate my choices and perhaps change my point of view...

    It is this same disingenuous and specious logic that endangers, not just veterinary/human research, but also competitive equine sports.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Like most people on this board, I don't condone releasing lab animals (or mink, for that matter, although I don't necessarily support mink ranching). I agree that they've been selected and bred for life in captivity and aren't likely to survive if released.

    BUT... how do we know they thrive/enjoy life/don't notice a difference when they're in research or on a factory farm? Why is it up to the loyal opposition to prove that there is a problem? How long has the Animal Welfare Act been in existence? And isn't it an evolving document? Standards change.

    When I was taking Animal Husbandry courses as an undergrad, I accepted what the professors told me about agricultural practices. The standard for whether a practice was harmful or not was (and still is) partially growth rate, but primarily cost efficiency. If you can pack them at X density, still have them grow fairly fast, and not have more than Y% of them die, then the practice is a success. If the stocking density results in higher rates of disease, but you can keep the animals on continuous low dose antibiotics, and the antibiotics are cheap, and it remains profitable, then pack them in and feed them antibiotics.

    That was 20 years ago (okay, maybe even 22 years ago... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] ) It's only recently that the wisdom of factory farming practices, eg, antibiotic use and the development of highly resistant strains of bacteria has started to surface as a mainstream issue.

    It's taken this long to decide that what we considered an appropriate measure of animal well-being (feed efficiency, cost effectiveness) maybe wasn't so good after all.

    I am a science person. I love scientifically sound studies as proof. But I question our ability to design studies to adequately measure animal well-being, and I don't think it hurts to ask questions, and to anthropomorphize a bit.

    Isn't the trend in animal behavior and neurology to find an increasing number of similarities between our brains and those of other animals? And if you believe in evolution, why would you think that our humans thoughts and emotions appeared wholesale in our species? Sure, anthropomorphizing can be carried overboard (I really question whether Snoopy knew that much about World War II, much less how to fly a fighter plane), but surely there are forms and rudiments of our emotions and feelings in other species as well.

    (Oh, and aren't mice, rats, and to a large extent, livestock species like horses, exempt from the AWA?)



  4. #224
    Join Date
    Jan. 29, 2000
    Location
    ~the back of my horse, where the view is best!
    Posts
    4,139

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeyYouNags:
    I am not an evolutionary biologist, nor have I ever played one on TV, but I think those of you arguing in favor of a meat-heavy diet may be overreaching a bit about the diets of our ancient ancestors.

    .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually, No.

    Archaeology has always been a field of interest for me. (Ties in surprisingly well with my Geol/Geog degree) I have taken numerous anthropology and archaeology courses and you can tell not only by the way human's teeth have evolved that we have always been a meat-eating species, but also by the wear patterns of the actual teeth of early hominids. You can tell those who ate more meat, vs those who ate more grains by the striations or lack thereof, and by the wear patterns of the molars. Combine the teeth with the conditions of the bones and you have a pretty good idea of how the individual lived, diet-wise

    Humans need both meat and plants in their diets. Those older hominids who regularly ate both had the best bones. The bones were robust with no signs of rickets or other nutritional issues. Those societies whose diets were not so well balanced had nutritional issues that were reflected in their bones, from thin bones to bone deformation, etc.

    Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution show human's needs for a varied and balanced diet of both meat and plant materials. Dispatching an animal with a bullet is more humane than running them of a cliff, don't you think?


    ~<>~ Remember, the Ark was built by a rank amateur; the Titanic was built by a team of experts~<>~



  5. #225
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    I'm not arguing the evolution of meat eating, but humans don't "need" meat. Vegetarians/Vegans as a statistical group are quite healthy. Lower incidences of cancer/obesity/heart disease. Perhaps they are just healthier than average because they take care of themselves better, but they certainly don't need meat or milk for that matter.

    BTW, I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't play one on TV either..... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'- A Cowboy's Guide to Life
    The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde



  6. #226
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Who cares what we ate a zillion years ago? It is plain to see that we've evolved to eat chocolate and pizza as the principal feature of our diet.

    Mmmmmmm....time for lunch.



  7. #227
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2000
    Posts
    1,070

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not arguing the evolution of meat eating, but humans don't "need" meat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Where's Erin when this sort of generalization is being made? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Vegetarians/Vegans as a statistical group are quite healthy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Quite probable that those who can live on that diet are healthy on it. Otherwise, they'd hardly stay on it.
    Then again, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]



  8. #228
    Join Date
    Oct. 23, 2000
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    That is interesting info, Creseida. I wasn't arguing that we didn't evolve to eat meat. But some of the previous posters make it sound like humans evolved to eat meat as our primary food source, as opposed to an omnivorous diet. The notion that humans need meat has morphed into this notion that anything less than meat at every meal makes one practically a vegetarian.

    Do we know how much meat early humans ate, or what ratio of meat to plant foodstuffs seemed healthiest? Other than that they ate a lot less of everything than we do.

    Hobson! Chocolate... now there's a miracle of modern science. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]



  9. #229
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    We may not need meat specifically but we need protein. There are other sources of protein available nowadays like soy that are available for a person to eat who wants to avoid meat. This is mainly a product that has come about in the last half century or so in the West. In underdeveloped countries, I doubt that your average person could be a healthy vegetarian as their mainly available protein sources are animal products and they can't always go get tofu at the local supermarket.

    I think, psychologically people crave meats..the tastes and the texture... and I doubt that many people would voluntarily give up the pleasure of eating a steak for tofu. It's how we evolved as hunters and scavengers and several million years of evolutionary hardwiring is hard to change.

    As for lab animals...I personnally believe that necessary medical research should be allowed and all other testing on consumer products such as cosmetics should be banned. I also think we should look at banning research on some of the higher species such as the great apes. I'm not so sure that they are "animals" in any true sense when they can talk with us in our own sign language. Are they truly sentient? I don't know enough about reseach to know if it's feasible to use species other than chimps and gorillas (our closest relatives) or not but I think we should if possible.

    I have a friend who works in a research lab here in RTP and she tells me that even lab rats have "enrichment" activities now and toys just like zoo animals. It made me feel better to hear that.

    I know it's not a perfect world and some things like animal testing are necessary for the good of all people as well as other animals. For the WNV vaccine testing thread I noticed on another page, horses were innoculated, challenged with virus and then destroyed and checked out. So how many horses died to help save ours? If they hadn't of done that testing, how many 1000's more horses would die from WNV? That's the sort of necessary testing that I believe is right.

    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself." D.H. Lawrence



  10. #230
    Join Date
    Aug. 23, 2000
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Actually, what humans ate a lot less of was refined carbs - stuff that had to be grown and processed. No fries, spaghetti or pizza. No bread or crackers. Just stuff that could be hunted or gathered, i.e., berries, fruits. Hunters and gatherers... get it?
    'Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.'
    - Pablo Picasso



  11. #231
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    OK, only pt is allowed to make generalizations.

    I actually am one of those strange people who love tofu, properly prepared of course. The only meat I like is a very, very fine quality (and expensive) steak, poultry or fish. And I only crave it on ocasion, not every day. Hate pork or ground beef. Tofu, or bean curd, is eaten more in Asian people, like in Japan & China. Actually, there are millions of vegetarians in Asia. Cravings, IMO fluctuate widely. If I am exersizing a lot, I crave vegetables, beans, whole grains and WATER. If I'm thinking about red wine, then a steak may do it.

    If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'- A Cowboy's Guide to Life
    The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde



  12. #232
    Join Date
    May. 19, 2000
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Actually, in other countries, insects get eaten. Protein. Wasn't it Ghandi that said that he felt as revolted at eating a cow as we did a bug?

    Not trying to gross you guys out, don't go there if you?re still eating breakfeast, but it's a reality. Sent to me via a co-worker who knows I have a fear of these things

    Cambodia's caviar


    I'm sticking with cheeseburgers, thank you.



  13. #233
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    Doesn't sound any grosser than eating a soft shelled crab. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    Why are people revolted by eating a person? I am revolted by eating a monkey (because it's so much like a person) yet many cultures eat monkey all the time.

    Just wondering...
    The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde



  14. #234
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    OMG, I would starve if I had to eat spiders! I can't even get close to one much less eat it!

    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself." D.H. Lawrence



  15. #235
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2000
    Posts
    1,070

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>OK, only pt is allowed to make generalizations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nope, you can make generalizations too, BG.
    No-one else can, though. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]
    Apparently my generalizations are among the ones which Erin disagrees with enough to gripe about...

    Soy allergy is one of the most common allergies at least in western man. For example, if I eat soy - well, did you read the thread on Jake's bloat? Believe me, it hurts! And when it finally "relieves", well, let's just say you wouldn't want to be within a quarter mile. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]



  16. #236
    Join Date
    May. 19, 2000
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Bgoosewood, repeat after me, Soylent Green was only a movie...



  17. #237
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    Heheeee.....okay..

    Um, I never said vegetarianism was for everyone.
    The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde



  18. #238
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2000
    Location
    189 Jersey st. Addison VT 05491
    Posts
    1,122

    Default

    Bwood, Animals do have "rights"....Season legnth, bag limits and "fair chase" are a few that come to mind.

    Humans don't "need" to eat meat. Nor do we "need" to use the technology [computers, roads, cars, planes, buildings, cities, hair driers bicycles etc.] and the millions of other things that people use everyday that have/will impact wild animals thousands of times over more them hunter ever will.

    *Make SURE your right before you decide everyone else is wrong.*

    *Lord please save me from those trying to save me!*



  19. #239
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Posts
    6,703

    Default

    I will respond to the questions involving laboratory animals. I agree it is always good to ask questions. Any conscientious researcher has to. Why? Because if the animals are suffering or in pain, it is quite likely that the data for the study will be invalid. As researchers we understand the benefits of having healthy and well taken care of animals. They provide better and more accurate data.

    While rodents are not part of the AWA, ALL research facilities are governed under federal guidelines found here: http://oacu.od.nih.gov/. Lab animals other than rodents are still subject to the AWA: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/9CFR99.html but the AWA guidelines are still required to be followed when using rodents.

    Every research institution must have an Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) that oversees ALL activity at the institution and must answer to the federal government bi-annually. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/olaw/r...ces/phspol.htm. And here is the government policy on the use of animals in experiments that all researchers must follow: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/olaw/r....htm#principle

    While some people may say, well that is only applied to universities, these rules are applied to ANY and EVERY organization, public or private that receives federal money (and how doesn't when it comes to medical research), i.e. Johnson and Johnson must follow the same rules I do.

    If one were to closely examine these laws and regulations, one would realize that the care required for animals used in research outstrips the care many people give their pets. I would love to see how many horse boarding facilities can even come close to meeting these guidelines.

    Anyway, my own methods to determine the comfort of my animals go beyond growth of the animal. It includes social interaction with other animals (thriving animals will maintain their social structure), activity, coat feel/color, and several other criteria. From my experiences both in industry and in academia, I believe this is becoming the norm in research.

    Reed



  20. #240
    Join Date
    Aug. 23, 2000
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Thank you, GDG.

    Sleepy wanders off, admiring her new hunting license, acquired after taking the hunter safety course this week.
    'Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.'
    - Pablo Picasso



Similar Threads

  1. PETA - are they really that bad?
    By Kate66 in forum Off Course
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: Sep. 10, 2012, 10:36 AM
  2. WETA in DC PETA ad
    By red mares in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun. 28, 2012, 09:35 AM
  3. Holy cow, PETA is #$%^ offensive!!!!
    By JoZ in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Feb. 15, 2012, 02:47 AM
  4. PETA Wants $360 fee added...
    By ThisTooShallPass in forum Racing
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: Jun. 1, 2011, 10:13 AM
  5. Lea Michele/PETA/ Carriages in NYC
    By BlueBobRadar in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jan. 7, 2011, 10:26 AM

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