The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 279
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MargaretF:
    I will probably get in trouble for this, but I am going to say it anyway. My personal opinion is that this thread should be locked. I don't think it is horse related, it is political and I don't feel like it has any business on the bb.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    When I said to lay off the political threads last week, I meant the NON-HORSE political threads. Like the PC thread, threads on Bush and Iraq, etc.

    I have no problem with discussing political issues that relate to horses. As long as this doesn't become a thread about the Atkins diet, [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] it's perfectly appropriate here. Obviously the animal rights movement could have an effect on the horse world.



  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep. 21, 2001
    Location
    Parker, Colorado
    Posts
    2,648

    Default

    I like to think of the riding and training of my horses as supplying them with a valuable education that will hopefully ensure them a happy and comfortable life as a valued member of society.

    The same thing I would do for my children.

    I would force my child to go to school because that is what is best for him. But I wouldn't force my child to major in medicine if he wants to become an artist instead. The same way I wouldn't force a horse to jump if he hates it.
    where are we going, and why am I in this hand basket?



  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,062

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MargaretF:
    My personal opinion is that this thread should be locked. I don't think it is horse related, it is political and I don't feel like it has any business on the bb.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    IMHO it is horse related because of the increasing calls for the banning of rodeos and circuses, and yes, the call to ban Eventing after the Barcelona Olympics. I do not doubt for a moment that once circuses and rodeos are banned, other animal activities will be banned, too. Horse shows, events, hunts. Mounted foxhunting is already banned in Scotland and may soon be banned in England. Not foxhunting, you can still hunt foxes, you can still use dogs, only foxhunting on horseback has been banned. You just can't use the horse!

    Yes, I think any 'political' issues that affect horse ownership and what we may or may not do with our horses, is appropriate discussion on the forum. When people are tired of talking about it this time, it will drop off the page. No one is making anyone read this thread. But for those of us who are interested, it is really helpful. I really appreciate reading the quotes and the thoughts provided by Erin and others - they keep my mind broadened to what other people believe and think and help me to understand better. A few years ago PETA was the golden voice of the AR movement. It is educational to see the movement repudiating the violence to people and the banishment of pets and trying to take control of the AR movement and put it back where they feel it should be. That's a good thing to have happen. I think these discussions help.



  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daydream Believer:

    If factory farming and the treatment of dairy and meat cows, poultry, and swine bothers you and you don't want to give up meat, then I suggest you support organic farmers and livestock raisers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    There have actually been some threads about this on the BB as well, I think as offshoots to the discussions on horse slaughter. Obviously it's only tangential to this thread, but anyone interested should do a search and see if they can come up with any of them. Maybe we'll resurrect the issue for the next OT Day. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]



  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    I was passing through Balto. one rainy morning while Ringling Bros. were in town and driving past the Civic Center saw an elephant chained in the parking lot, just standing there with some hay. I was depressed the rest of the day.

    Won't catch me at any circuses like that. Cirque de Soleil, yes, Ringling Bros. no.....not me. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.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. #66
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    Flower,

    Your comments about wild horses reminded me of Shy Boy, Monty Roberts' mustang. He received a lot of criticism from animal rights folks for capturing Shy Boy and taking him from the wild so he decided to give the horse a choice to return to the wild or stay with him. So they took him back to the same range he came from, set up camp, and within sight of his old mustang buddies turned him loose. Off he went kicking up his heels and he rejoined his old herd. Come the next morning, Shy Boy turned up a feeding time looking for breakfast. He did not choose to leave and go back to his herd after that initial venture back and remained with the camp. So much for horses "wanting" to be free and wild. They know a good situation when they've got one, they know what it's like to be hunted by mountain lions, what it's like to be hungry and thirsty... they're not stupid. Shy Boy chose captivity, work and comfort over freedom and a hard life...definitely not a stupid horse.

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



  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
    As long as this doesn't become a thread about the Atkins diet, [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] it's perfectly appropriate here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hint taken! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

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



  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec. 14, 2000
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    People all have their own beliefs and are free to believe what they want. If you want to be vegan, fine. If you want to let your animals roam freely, just make sure you have enough land that they are not on my property. The main thing I believe in is that you shouldn't and don't have the right to inflict your views whether it is animal rights, religion, gun control, etc. on me. Live your life the way you want to and I'll live mine.

    I do think it is abhorrent when "rights" groups defend violent actions as necessary to achieve their goals. At that point they just become thugs.

    "I'd be more tactful, if I were wrong."



  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov. 7, 2001
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,290

    Default

    Erin, MBStark, bgoosewood, HYNags, hobson, Daydream, thanks for demonstrating the spectrum, the appreciation for philosophical challenges, and the tenor of your posts.

    Things don't have to get personal and ugly. Nice of you guys to show that.

    I hate arguments that lump all people who disagree with you into one extremist camp. I don't think all people who are concerned about animal rights or animal welfare have all the exact same beliefs and ideas and it is simplistic to take that approach. Does every anti-choice advocate espouse sniper fire to kill doctors? Is every Republican a clone of Newt Gingrich? Every Democrat a clone of Hilary Clinton? Not that either of those would, necessarily, be "bad" things [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

    The "those people" arguments never make it out of the box with me. Lots of spectrum to cover. BUt it is an issue every horse owner addresses at some point - where do I draw the line in my own conscience and with an understanding of the larger ramifications.

    I think it was worthwhile to let the conversation go on without closing - it is a topic horseowners need to think about.



  10. #70
    haywire Guest

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MB Stark:
    American's would be much healthier if they ate Less Meat.

    Read Diet for a new America by John Robbins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Not true for everyone. My husband has suffered from ulcerative colitis for years until he started restricting his diet to "The Specific Carbohydrate Diet". This diet includes LOTS of meat of all kinds along with vegatable and fruits. This diet that is saving his life wouldn't be possible without meat.



  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep. 14, 2000
    Location
    Goochland, VA
    Posts
    8,566

    Default

    that our celebrities endorse organizations like PETA and HSUS. Don't they read about a cause, research it before they decide to put their name on it? Obviously, they have the same access to information we do, perhaps more, so why don't they see what is really going on? I don't believe they are just airheads! So, why?

    Laurie
    Laurie
    Finding, preparing, showing and training young hunters, in hand and performance.
    www.juniorjohnsontrainingandsales.com



  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    I'm not sure the slippery slope "circuses today, horse shows tomorrow" argument holds up very well, at least here in the US. Dogfighting and chicken fighting have been illegal in most states, but I have not heard anything to indicate that state legislators are now giving the hairy eye to standard horse sports based on their success in banning patently cruel animal "sports".

    And in my own opinion, it certainly would not hurt the horse show world (or would it?) to clean house with respect to animal welfare. Soring walkers, nasty western pleasure training practices, the post-hunter-show tide of used needles....all these give the animal rights movement a reason to focus on horse ownership. I've always said that if we want to avoid or at least minimize public objection to our sports, then we should be very very sure that our practices are beyond reproach in the ethics department. Unfortunately we're not there yet.



  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2000
    Location
    Milford, CT
    Posts
    948

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
    that our celebrities endorse organizations like PETA and HSUS. Don't they read about a cause, research it before they decide to put their name on it? Obviously, they have the same access to information we do, perhaps more, so why don't they see what is really going on? I don't believe they are just airheads! So, why?

    Laurie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Maybe they believe in the cause. Why if they do, would you refer to them as "airheads". Read previous posts. Just because You don't agree with them does not make their beliefs wrong.



  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,062

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mbp:

    I hate arguments that lump all people who disagree with you into one extremist camp. I don't think all people who are concerned about animal rights or animal welfare have all the exact same beliefs and ideas and it is simplistic to take that approach.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No one here is doing that. I'm certainly not, if you meant me, since you left me out of your list.

    What I *am* saying is that people can spout all day about AR doesn't mean that and AR doesn't mean this, and it seems to me that you're simply denying what not one or two, but many AR groups are saying. It seems to me that people don't understand what AR is. They *think* it's about taking care of animals, yet when they're shown official statements from AR organizations like HSUS, PETA, ALF, ELF, LACS, NJAA, Hunt Sabs Assoc.; publications like The Animals' Voice, Animal Agenda; and individuals like Dr. Peter Singer, Dr. Tom Reger, Dr. Michael Fox, Gary Francione, Wayne Pacelle and Tom Bryant, you say, well, that's not AR, he's not AR, they're not AR. What? ALL of these are not AR? C'mon. Talk about only hearing what you want to hear. All these groups/individuals *are* AR, just like you, and you need to know who you're associating with.



  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    So do you think that all anti-choice [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] folks have an agenda to kill doctors who perform abortions?

    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



  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    I guess I don't understand why so many of you feel the need to wear the Animal Rights badge. What, exactly, is it that has you so enamored of the term that Animal Welfare does not serve?

    Here is how I understand it:

    Animal Rights == PETA (and assorted terrorist groups) ... espouse the end of ownership, domestic breeding, all recreational or industrial "use" of animals - from slaughter to horseback riding.

    Animal Welfare ... animals should be treated with respect and care for their needs. Humane use is acceptable.

    I recognize there is a gray area between these... for example, someone who believes that eating animals is always wrong but that ownership and riding are OK, or that euthanasia is OK. But why pick the label of the ARs who have killed people, destroyed property, and in their way have also directly caused more animal suffering (by forcing research to start over, by inappropriately releasing animals, etc).

    I personally think that slaughter in principle is acceptable. We all die - I'm for a happy life with a quick and painless death - but slaughter as practiced in the US is horrible and inhumane and dangerous to the animals, to the workers, and even to the people consuming the meat.

    I think we could do more to make the world a better place for people and humans by reforming slaughter practices. It will probably make meat a little more expensive... but I think this is probably better for everyone concerned.

    Meanwhile, I buy beef from natural foods stores, with the hope/belief that these animals are treated better and slaughtered more hygenically, if not also more humanely. I'd rather buy it from a local farmer, but I live pretty deep in the city.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket



  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2000
    Location
    Charm City, hon
    Posts
    5,234

    Default

    Who are some animal welfare groups? I would certainly be interested in supporting them.

    BTW, I don't wear an AR badge [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



  18. #78
    Join Date
    Nov. 12, 2001
    Location
    Lemont, Il, USA
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Exactly, poltroon!!!



  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    6,062

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bgoosewood:
    So do you think that all anti-choice [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] folks have an agenda to kill doctors who perform abortions?

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What are you talking about?

    In the abortion doctor killings, ALL pro-life groups denounced the killings/bombings, which were done by individuals on their own. In this AR discussion, it's the other way around.

    In the abortion debate, you have a few crazed individuals doing violent, evil things, obviously NOT supported by the official pro-life groups. In AR, it's the official organizations burning and advocating crazy things, and a few individuals saying that's not right. Can you see the difference?

    If the Catholic church or whatever, I don't even know the names of any pro-life groups, but if official pro-life groups or the Cath. church comes out and proclaims that we should be shooting abortion doctors, then we've got a much different, larger problem. But in AR, it's the AR groups and prominent spokespeople saying awful things. You can hardly equate the nuts in the abortion shootings as having the same stature as spokespersons with the university profs. and HSUS, PETA, etc.



  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb. 24, 1999
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    16,625

    Default

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
    It seems to me that people don't understand what AR is. They *think* it's about taking care of animals, yet when they're shown official statements from AR organizations like HSUS, PETA, ALF, ELF, LACS, NJAA, Hunt Sabs Assoc.; publications like The Animals' Voice, Animal Agenda; and individuals like Dr. Peter Singer, Dr. Tom Reger, Dr. Michael Fox, Gary Francione, Wayne Pacelle and Tom Bryant, you say, well, that's not AR, he's not AR, they're not AR. What? ALL of these are not AR? C'mon. Talk about only hearing what you want to hear. All these groups/individuals *are* AR, just like you, and you need to know who you're associating with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    *sigh*

    Anne FS, those were hardly "official statements" you cited. They were quotes that may or may not have been taken out of context.

    Yes, I suppose you will say that the quotes prove these groups' "hidden agendas"... moreso than their "official" mission statements do. Well, sorry, but I don't buy that. As you said yourself, you can't understand these things unless you read them in FULL for yourself. So why are you encouraging us to do just the opposite?

    As far as I know, the groups you cite (with the exception of HSUS, who, even if you think they are AR, you have to concede they are less radical) are the extreme edge of the AR movement. Yes, they are the loudmouths who garner all the media attention -- that's exactly what their sabotage plots are calcuated to do, keep them at the forefront of the media.

    I'm not enough of an expert on AR to know about all of the various groups out there. Like everyone else, I only hear about the ones pulling stupid stunts. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] However, I think it's pretty logical to assume that there ARE middle-of-the-road animal rights groups that do NOT advocate violence, that DO think animals have SOME rights, and DO think it's okay to have/use companion animals for SOME things. Hell, it seems like there's a good portion of the BB that thinks this. Why would I assume there are no organizations out there that represent these people's interest? That, to me, seems to be a very narrowminded assumption.

    And no, I don't think ANYONE here thinks that AR is about taking care of animals. Over and over again, people have said they think PETA is a bunch of kooks, and yet you're still out here telling us we don't know what they're about and we support them.

    Not every pro-lifer thinks that it's OK to kill doctors. Likewise, not everyone who identifies with portions of the animal rights movement thinks that it's OK to bomb research labs, or thinks that companion animals have no place in society.

    Again, I want to stress that I do not support ANY animal rights group that has been mentioned here. I do NOT think that there is ANY justification for violence in the name of a cause. I DO think that animals have certain rights and deserve better treatment in this country than they get.



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