The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 484
  1. #301
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    Here's another example.

    My state created a minimum care standard for livestock not too long ago. It was part of a larger effort to update the animal care code. (as time went one changes here and there had made a bit of a muddle out of it - which was NOT helpful for anyone.)

    It wasn't an "agribusiness" bill. The bill was the result of a cooperative effort between animal care professionals, veterinarians, and yes, ag interests. But note - leadership within the animal shelters were at the forefront of the effort.

    It was a good Bill. No longer was the mere presence of food or water on the premises sufficient to thwart animal control officers, even when the animal was starved or dehydrated. The animal COULD NOT be starved or dehydrated. There was a lot more to the Bill - including an exception for Acts of God (massive flooding with stranded livestock, hurricane, etc.)

    But it was a big improvement, it was reasonable, it balanced the desire to protect animal welfare with the need to have exceptions for Acts of God, and did not venture into animal rights territory, and it had the full support of law enforcement, shelter leadership, the AG's office, the ag community, etc.


    Who opposed the Bill and put a lot of money and effort into defeating it?


    HSUS.
    What did they object to? Sounds like it would've been a good bill...



  2. #302
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,011

    Default

    Wow - did they have any reasoning behind that decision or was it a "just because" kind of thing.
    Really gives the lie to it's all about the animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    Here's another example.

    My state created a minimum care standard for livestock not too long ago. It was part of a larger effort to update the animal care code. (as time went one changes here and there had made a bit of a muddle out of it - which was NOT helpful for anyone.)

    It wasn't an "agribusiness" bill. The bill was the result of a cooperative effort between animal care professionals, veterinarians, and yes, ag interests. But note - leadership within the animal shelters were at the forefront of the effort.

    It was a good Bill. No longer was the mere presence of food or water on the premises sufficient to thwart animal control officers, even when the animal was starved or dehydrated. The animal COULD NOT be starved or dehydrated. There was a lot more to the Bill - including an exception for Acts of God (massive flooding with stranded livestock, hurricane, etc.)

    But it was a big improvement, it was reasonable, it balanced the desire to protect animal welfare with the need to have exceptions for Acts of God, and did not venture into animal rights territory, and it had the full support of law enforcement, shelter leadership, the AG's office, the ag community, etc.


    Who opposed the Bill and put a lot of money and effort into defeating it?


    HSUS.



  3. #303
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    What did they object to? Sounds like it would've been a good bill...
    HALLELUJA

    seems you are finally getting it.

    what did they object to?
    Who knows. They did not come up with it, the evil farmer people were behind it, it woould take their bread and butter away from them, you know, the cases of abuse, while still being within the law.

    It is not about the animal to them. It's about their bottom line and the agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  4. #304
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE View Post
    Climate Change and the Livestock Industry - Eleanor Boyle
    http://eleanorboyle.com/articles/ClF...SheetDec07.pdf



    This is only part of what she has to say on the subject.
    I'm not finished reading it yet.

    Modern industrial meat production causes global warming by several means, including:
    1) Deforestation. Unknown to most citizens, the livestock industry is “the major driver of
    deforestation” (FAO, 2006, p.xxiii). Most of the Amazon rainforest that has been cut
    down is used for livestock pasture, and much of the rest is used to grow the huge amounts
    of feed needed to fatten cows and pigs to produce steak and pork chops. Not only does
    deforestation cause environmental problems such as loss of biodiversity, but it removes a
    link in the carbon cycle in which trees would naturally take some of the atmosphere’s
    excess carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen. Deforestation therefore decreases nature’s
    ability to mitigate global warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    HALLELUJA

    seems you are finally getting it.

    what did they object to?
    Who knows. They did not come up with it, the evil farmer people were behind it, it woould take their bread and butter away from them, you know, the cases of abuse, while still being within the law.

    It is not about the animal to them. It's about their bottom line and the agenda.

    You know, I have debunked that old "cows cause global warming" before.
    It is a bit disingenuous to bring that again.
    Either you have a very bad memory or you can't keep from bringing up things you think make your point, even knowing they are not true.

    Let me tell you again why that came to be.
    There was this international meeting on global warming in the United Nations.
    Political expedience indicated they found someone to blame and cattle came in handy, a bogus study was presented and used to try to force some countries to vote a certain way.

    AFTER that meeting, the study was questioned and debunked, the science was terrible and clearly the results not valid and the UN apologized.
    By then the UN didn't care, the votes had been cast, nothing resolved anyway, the gamble didn't pay after all.

    Now, for some reason, those with certain agendas and those with very, very poor memory keep linking to those articles out there as if they were some kind of environmental Bible.

    The reality, US greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sectors break down this way:

    As percentages of total:

    Industry: 29.80%
    Transportation: 27.13%
    Residential: 18.10%
    Commercial: 17.28%
    Agriculture: 7.69%


    That is ALL of agriculture, not just cattle.

    Yes, those old "cows is the cause global warming" is not true by far.
    Only those with a bad memory can still insist that one old study years ago is valid.

    -
    As for abuse cases, well, do we really need to keep putting abuse in perspective?
    Do we need to ban driving, because some abuse their rights to drive by driving drunk, against the already existing laws?
    Didn't think so, well, the same applies to any other place you may find abuse.

    FIX the abuse.
    Don't use the abuse card to ban whatever you don't like.
    If you do, don't expect what others don't like that you do, not to become someone else's target, using your actions for a precedent.



  5. #305
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,011

    Default

    Please Bluey don't bother. You obviously are not paying attention to the conversation. Fairfax brought it up. I was just curious and if you had read it and not reacted all I said was I hadn't finished reading it. Or am I only allowed to read Bluey approved reading material????

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    Yes, the wolrd is much better than it used to be.
    At least in terms of pollution and chemicals.
    We have made great strides in eliminating many such contaminants.
    And don't bring in China. They ar eout of our reach and sadly have not paid any attention to the failures of ours from the 60s and 70s.

    The 'chemicals' of today ar emuch more targeted than in the past. Also, due to cost, they are used much more sparingly.

    The GMO crops? Well, the jury is out on them still. They have not been out long enough. And while some suspect them in having a hand in certain conditions, so far it's annecdotal evidence (Much of it supported by Rodale Press...but not many more) The Monsanto angle is much more worrisome, but for a different reason.

    Seriously, read more real sources and less of the populistic ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You know, I have debunked that old "cows cause global warming" before.
    It is a bit disingenuous to bring that again.
    Either you have a very bad memory or you can't keep from bringing up things you think make your point, even knowing they are not true.

    Let me tell you again why that came to be.
    There was this international meeting on global warming in the United Nations.
    Political expedience indicated they found someone to blame and cattle came in handy, a bogus study was presented and used to try to force some countries to vote a certain way.

    AFTER that meeting, the study was questioned and debunked, the science was terrible and clearly the results not valid and the UN apologized.
    By then the UN didn't care, the votes had been cast, nothing resolved anyway, the gamble didn't pay after all.

    Now, for some reason, those with certain agendas and those with very, very poor memory keep linking to those articles out there as if they were some kind of environmental Bible.

    The reality, US greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sectors break down this way:

    As percentages of total:

    Industry: 29.80%
    Transportation: 27.13%
    Residential: 18.10%
    Commercial: 17.28%
    Agriculture: 7.69%


    That is ALL of agriculture, not just cattle.

    Yes, those old "cows is the cause global warming" is not true by far.
    Only those with a bad memory can still insist that one old study years ago is valid.

    -
    As for abuse cases, well, do we really need to keep putting abuse in perspective?
    Do we need to ban driving, because some abuse their rights to drive by driving drunk, against the already existing laws?
    Didn't think so, well, the same applies to any other place you may find abuse.

    FIX the abuse.
    Don't use the abuse card to ban whatever you don't like.
    If you do, don't expect what others don't like that you do, not to become someone else's target, using your actions for a precedent.



  6. #306
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,437

    Default

    Jetsmom-

    I think someone posted the action alert on this BB when it happened.

    From what I recall, they told the public that it lessened protection for livestock.

    Also read elsewhere that " it didn't go far enough."

    Well, which is it.

    A little bird told me that they were pissed because our state came up with a good Bill without their involvement. We stole their thunder,maybe?

    It IS a good law. It struck the right balance, which a good animal welfare law will do. It doesn't go after anyone. It's not ideology driven. It was part of a larger effort to update the code. No flash, no media blitz, no headlines.
    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
    -Rudyard Kipling



  7. #307
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,011

    Default

    Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    Jetsmom-

    I think someone posted the action alert on this BB when it happened.

    From what I recall, they told the public that it lessened protection for livestock.

    Also read elsewhere that " it didn't go far enough."

    Well, which is it.

    A little bird told me that they were pissed because our state came up with a good Bill without their involvement. We stole their thunder,maybe?

    It IS a good law. It struck the right balance, which a good animal welfare law will do. It doesn't go after anyone. It's not ideology driven. It was part of a larger effort to update the code. No flash, no media blitz, no headlines.



  8. #308
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    HALLELUJA

    seems you are finally getting it.
    Get what?

    Oppose anything that comes from one side? Support everything that comes from the other?

    You need to look at each and every piece of legislation individually.
    Then you need to determine how it COULD be interpreted if it's not clear enough down to the nitty gritty.

    The fail in interpretation happens a lot when legislation is written without knowledge of every little detail of what legislation is supposed to address and what the concequences could be.

    My prior example (KY minimum care standards for equines) would eliminate shelter requirements some counties have adopted in local ordinances.

    Health issues would only require 'healthcare' without defining the actual care.

    To some KY good ole boys healthcare means giving tobacco to wormy horses.
    Feeding destillery slop to emaciated horses (had a case two years ago - several horses had to finally be euthanized).

    Then there is the other side - pro industry, not pro horse - constantly opposing legislation to benefit animal welfare.

    It's never black and white; but some just form an opinion based on who is involved.

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  9. #309
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    Thanks luvmytbs. I am SOOOOOO sick of the side thing. I don't like choosing sides in anything being it a divorce or politics. I am completely turned off by ANY entity telling me I must do so to be valid. I do not! I don't follow anyone's dogma except my own. Yeah I know I'm weird/eccentric/trusts very little etc. Everybody lies. Kill me now....



  10. #310
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,011

    Default

    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Get what?

    Oppose anything that comes from one side? Support everything that comes from the other?

    You need to look at each and every piece of legislation individually.
    Then you need to determine how it COULD be interpreted if it's not clear enough down to the nitty gritty.

    The fail in interpretation happens a lot when legislation is written without knowledge of every little detail of what legislation is supposed to address and what the concequences could be.

    My prior example (KY minimum care standards for equines) would eliminate shelter requirements some counties have adopted in local ordinances.

    Health issues would only require 'healthcare' without defining the actual care.

    To some KY good ole boys healthcare means giving tobacco to wormy horses.
    Feeding destillery slop to emaciated horses (had a case two years ago - several horses had to finally be euthanized).

    Then there is the other side - pro industry, not pro horse - constantly opposing legislation to benefit animal welfare.

    It's never black and white; but some just form an opinion based on who is involved.



  11. #311
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2010
    Posts
    2,437

    Default

    Well, the law has already stated that corporations are people, so are animals really all that far of a leap?

    My apologies if this has been brought up already--I meryl skimmed the first page.



  12. #312
    Join Date
    Sep. 6, 2002
    Posts
    167

    Default

    You think that these people should be allowed to do this too? Maybe everyone that is pro slaughter is a 'slaughter extremist'......

    http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html



  13. #313

    Default

    Lovemytbs -

    Thank you.

    and to those who think/call -all- vegans and/or animal rights peeps are "x" - that is so ridiculous. It's like calling -all- Americans fat.

    I could say all people who eat meat are evil velociraptory horrible terrible people - but that's ridiculous. Probably 99% of you are wonderful people who have stuck by tradition. I can't fault you that.

    But going back to animal rights - I do believe that animals should have basic rights - like the right to live, without pain and suffering. etc.

    So even as a long term horse owner, I still do struggle with "do we really have the right to use animals for our own means?"

    Most of what we do does have roots in ego - I mean it makes us feel really good, it boosts our self esteem, some of us make money out of it..etc

    BUT

    I don't know about your horses, but mine is treated like gold. He's my partner, my best friend - and most importantly he's a happy horse. He gets fed hay, grain, supplements, 24/7 turnout in a nice field with clean water - that's better than a LOT of people have it - and he really doesn't work that hard most of the time, and not only that - he enjoys to work.

    But

    not all horses (or other animals have it that good) some are mercilessly abused. Is it our right to abuse our animals if we own them?

    Just because something is tradition/something we've done for thousands of years - does that make it okay to continue doing something like ritual sacrifice because "we've always done it"? Where do we draw the line?

    I'm all for owning animals - but perhaps it's the people that need licensing

    and food for thought:

    HORSES' HOOFS ARE MADE for treading frost and snow, their coats for keeping out wind and cold. To munch grass, drink from the stream, lift up their feet and gallop this is the true nature of horses. Though they might possess great terraces and fine halls, they would have no use for them.

    Then along comes Po Lo.1 "I'm good at handling horses!" he announces, and proceeds to singe them, shave them, pare them, brand them, bind them with martingale and crupper, tie them up in stable and stall. By this time two or three out of ten horses have died. He goes on to starve them, make them go thirsty, race them, prance them, pull them into line, force them to run side by side, in front of them the worry of bit and rein, behind them the terror of whip and crop. By this time over half the horses have died.
    ~Chuang Tse/ZhuangZi
    “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
    Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night



  14. #314
    Join Date
    Mar. 18, 2005
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Echo View Post
    You think that these people should be allowed to do this too? Maybe everyone that is pro slaughter is a 'slaughter extremist'......

    http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html
    These actions are already against the law. What is your point?
    I support equine meat processing as an option for those who choose to use it.



  15. #315
    Join Date
    Jan. 29, 2010
    Location
    Satan's Steam Sauna
    Posts
    626

    Default

    I have tried to read most of this, and I would beg all of you to watch "If A Tree Falls", because it is a great movie and absolutely relevant to this discussion.

    http://www.amazon.com/If-Tree-Falls-...f+a+tree+falls

    I am very interested in reading reactions to this movie and discussion about how it relates to this discussion.

    For me, my perceptions and views now that I am over 40 and living on a small farm are very different from my views as a suburban raised college student who believed that food came "from the store".

    My epiphany regarding animal rights came when I was researching a group called Project Coyote, who flew in to train the animal control officers and head up community meetings in New Orleans. They caught my attention because the information they were spreading via the local news did not at all match the scientific coyote research that I was aware of by Robert Timm of University of California, Hopland Research Center.

    Anyway, I came across what I call the "Crazy Cat Lady" paper that was presented at a Wildlife Management Conference --
    http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...dm_wdmconfproc

    I started to read it and thought, "No Way - this woman is a crazy loon". But, as I checked out each wild assertion; she was right. The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

    For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

    Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

    Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.
    Disclaimer: Just a beginner who knows nothing about nothing



  16. #316
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldaziens View Post
    I have tried to read most of this, and I would beg all of you to watch "If A Tree Falls", because it is a great movie and absolutely relevant to this discussion.

    http://www.amazon.com/If-Tree-Falls-...f+a+tree+falls

    I am very interested in reading reactions to this movie and discussion about how it relates to this discussion.

    For me, my perceptions and views now that I am over 40 and living on a small farm are very different from my views as a suburban raised college student who believed that food came "from the store".

    My epiphany regarding animal rights came when I was researching a group called Project Coyote, who flew in to train the animal control officers and head up community meetings in New Orleans. They caught my attention because the information they were spreading via the local news did not at all match the scientific coyote research that I was aware of by Robert Timm of University of California, Hopland Research Center.

    Anyway, I came across what I call the "Crazy Cat Lady" paper that was presented at a Wildlife Management Conference --
    http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...dm_wdmconfproc

    I started to read it and thought, "No Way - this woman is a crazy loon". But, as I checked out each wild assertion; she was right. The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

    For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

    Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

    Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.
    Watch it, you will be told you live in the basement and wear a tin foil hat, don't know what you are talking about, and how do you dare question the holy animal rights extremist gods and their prophets.

    As you may have already figured, there are here some that are blindly animal rights extremists defenders, seem to have their fingers in their ears, wear rose colored glasses and WON'T LISTEN.

    Very strange that they think they make any sense to bring animal rights extremist talk to, from all places, a horse training forum.
    That seems like some kind of very basic reality disconnect, makes as much sense as if I was to go post my ideas on an animal rights extremist forum.

    Your story reflects what those of us in animal agriculture see every day, what the OP article was talking about, what so many have been saying for decades now.

    Thank you for speaking up, not many are that brave today.
    Why?
    Animal rights extremists have made enough inroads with their false logic using the abuse card to incense the crazy element.
    That can become a personal safety problem, as so many in agriculture have found out.
    From putting animal rights extremists plants in places of work, that foment abuse to get videos for their agendas, to getting personal threats to having fences cut and your animals shot, as, according to those extremists some here defend, shame on them, they are better of dead than "slaves".

    The news have stories about some teacher abusing a student most every day any more.
    The difference here, people understand that we don't need to quit trying to educate students, but to try to avoid abuses.
    There are not some extremely rich non-profits making their living out of showing gruesome abuse videos, many well edited for impact, from students being abused by teacher/coaches and lobbying to "stop schooling kids, insisting it is all abuse, kids need to grow up without interference from grown ups, that can be abusers, see here".

    That is where we are those of us with animals we own and use today, with such as the animal rights extremist groups out there trying to make dirty abusers, second class citizens of us with their propaganda.
    Gullible people fall for their song and dance and have made them the very influential, immensely rich groups they are today.

    They say that intelligence is gaining points in general today over half a century ago.
    The evidence out there makes that hard to believe.
    Amazing, as a certain fellow said, there is still one born every minute, is it.

    Remember, folks, there is a chasm between good animal husbandry, using animals as the natural, renewable resource we all alive are in this world, called also animal welfare and extremists like animal rights groups, where animal welfare is just a convenient stepping stone to gain power and influence for their ultimate goal of eliminating all animal use.

    That is clearly shown in the post above, one more of so, so, so many stories out there, including the OP article.
    Glad that some any more are starting to say, "hey, wait a minute, something is not right with the way animal rights extremists and their groups are trying to further their agenda! It is not all about saving that sad puppy in their propaganda. "



  17. #317
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,437

    Default

    I'm glad to see there is someone else who knows about Rewilding.

    It's the latest and greatest fashion trend in conservation biology - the adoption of the neo-pagan, neo-luddite, eco-feminisim claptrap.

    Funded by taxpayer dollars, in addition to private donations by people who think these groups are about real conservation.

    One of the main proponents of the movement is the guy who founded Earth First - you know - the domestic terrorist. Dave Foreman. The one who helped plan to sabotage water pumping stations.

    He and others like him receive millions of dollars of taxpayer money to pursue their crazy agenda. It's always couched in the most benign terms, of course. No one would give any of these groups money if they knew the plan was to release elephants on US soil.

    Restoring wildlife corridors and restoring habitat, protecting species - all that is mainstream conservation - including the conservation of apex predators. Rewilding proponents adopt that mainstream thinking - but go to the extreme. Literally.

    Rewilding is controversial within the conservation community. It's largely driven by ideology; not by science. It may sound terrific if you're the self-loathing, guilt ridden, hand wringing type - but those large carnivores don't just eat wild animals. And releasing elephants and zebras onto the land is just plain crazy. And yet... these folks ARE aggressively pursuing their agenda - largely with taxpayer money. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...gRedux.kr.html



    Quote Originally Posted by ldaziens View Post
    The paper is extremely "cat-centric", but the writer points out that Project Coyote is brought to you by folks straight out of radical environmentalism and eco-terrorism; whose big plan is Pleistocene Rewilding. I feel 100% confident that the vast majority of Project Coyote donors and the local governments allowing Project Coyote to come in and "train" police and animal control officers and to write coyote legislation have never heard of Pleistocene Rewilding.

    For those that think that animal rights activists are not writing and enacting legislation, Project Coyote absolutely dominates coyote legislation and policy throughout the country. And that legislation does not allow for lethal control of habituated coyotes. I am not a coyote hater; I'm not even a hunter; and I use livestock guardian dogs on my farm to deter predators. So, I am pretty much a left leaning, animal loving, tree hugger. However, I have a very real problem w/ a group that is "educating" people and lying about the risks of habituated coyotes; which are much more of a problem in urban / suburban areas than in the country.

    Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

    Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.
    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
    -Rudyard Kipling



  18. #318
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldaziens View Post
    Anyway, it is important to understand the animal rights players and their agendas; because these groups absolutely are enacting legislation and raising tremendous amounts of money to use to lobby politicians and to "educate" the public.

    Somebody mentioned the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein; which is the model for Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army. But, at least, if you were supporting Earth First! or Sinn Fein; you knew you were also supporting the ELA & the IRA. The animal rights groups are NOT transparent about their agendas.
    <the above snipped for brevity>

    That would be me!

    I've not heard of Project Coyote but will look it up. We have them around here, too. They've not been coming too close to the barn (we know this because or cat population is stable; they are the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to coyote activity ).

    Wild animals have an instinctive fear of humans. Even domestic animals have a wariness; consider the behavior of most foals at birth. Part of the domestication process is to overlay that instinct with new instinct via selective breeding.

    Habituated wild animals may be the Worst of All Possible Worlds. Now you have a powerful, aggressive predator with no fear of a potential prey with very modest inherent defenses. I'm not sure I like the idea of children becoming the "canary in the coal mine" when it comes to the activity of local predator populations.

    The core of the animal rights movement is made up of zealots. Increasingly, the core of the animal welfare movement is attracting the same persons/types. They are merging. You cannot argue with a zealot. They have closed minds and no tolerance for anyone who does not "toe their line." They actively attempt to harness the power of the State to advance their agenda. Pseudo-science pervades their thought. They are never to be trusted.

    This is a sad state of affairs, but just one more bit of evidence that our society is fast losing its ability to tolerate a diversity of views.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão



  19. #319
    Join Date
    Sep. 6, 2002
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderhorseguy View Post
    These actions are already against the law. What is your point?
    Are they? What part do you believe is against the law? It is not against the law to slaughter your own animals for personal use. It is very difficult to get regulatory authorities to act in real animal abuse cases. Too often the animal has to be down before they will do anything.
    Some here are bent on aligning anyone opposed to horse slaughter as a RARA and defend the current horse slaughter system as 'humane'. According to some, everyone or any organization opposed to horse slaughter is a RARA - burning buildings and setting animals free, which is absurd.
    If this is true, than everyone that is pro slaughter, is a pro slaughter 'extremist' and animal abuser.
    What about all of the laws that are broken in the current horse slaughter system?
    How can it be legal to take unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated, horses and fabricate foreign EID or Equine Identification Documents concerning a horses medical history and knowingly terrorize a human food chain with adulterated meat?
    Some here defend horse slaughter and never once tried to alter the system to be humane for the horses. They had many many years to do so. They don't care. They just want the current system and those opposed to horse slaughter to 'work' on making it more humane.

    Propose a system that the majority of horse owners would support. Everyone opposed isn't a RARA anymore than those that are pro-slaughter are 'slaughter extremists'. The current system is inhumane and terrorizes a human food chain with adulterated meat. Attempting to align everyone opposed as a RARA just makes some of you a 'slaughter extremist' or animal abuser.



    http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html



  20. #320
    Bluey is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,895

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Echo View Post
    Are they? What part do you believe is against the law? It is not against the law to slaughter your own animals for personal use. It is very difficult to get regulatory authorities to act in real animal abuse cases. Too often the animal has to be down before they will do anything.
    Some here are bent on aligning anyone opposed to horse slaughter as a RARA and defend the current horse slaughter system as 'humane'. According to some, everyone or any organization opposed to horse slaughter is a RARA - burning buildings and setting animals free, which is absurd.
    If this is true, than everyone that is pro slaughter, is a pro slaughter 'extremist' and animal abuser.
    What about all of the laws that are broken in the current horse slaughter system?
    How can it be legal to take unregulated, unwholesome, adulterated, horses and fabricate foreign EID or Equine Identification Documents concerning a horses medical history and knowingly terrorize a human food chain with adulterated meat?
    Some here defend horse slaughter and never once tried to alter the system to be humane for the horses. They had many many years to do so. They don't care. They just want the current system and those opposed to horse slaughter to 'work' on making it more humane.

    Propose a system that the majority of horse owners would support. Everyone opposed isn't a RARA anymore than those that are pro-slaughter are 'slaughter extremists'. The current system is inhumane and terrorizes a human food chain with adulterated meat. Attempting to align everyone opposed as a RARA just makes some of you a 'slaughter extremist' or animal abuser.



    http://thepersianhorse.wordpress.com...t-make-arrest/

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/H...162676766.html


    As long as you are using the tired abuse card to ban what others do that is legal, be it slaughter, whatever you don't like others may do with their horses, you are right in step with animal rights extremists.

    Don't be surprised then if you are bundled right along with them, because you are de facto one of them by pushing for their agendas, no matter how much you may want to convince yourself you are not.

    If you were working to help make legal processes better, the ways we use our animals, here horses, legally as already determined by the many current laws and regulations, then that would be different.

    Obviously that is not what you are doing, when all you want is to ban slaughter or else.

    You need to learn to differentiate between a perfectly good process to use some horses one more time, that doesn't need banning as the process it is, from someone, somewhere, abusing any animals, which can happen any place.

    Do you, once slaughter was banned, then move on to ban, what, eventing, rodeo, racing, owning horses?
    There is abuse there too, there is abuse in all we do in life, sadly, but that doesn't mean we should quit doing anything because someone may be an abuser.



Similar Threads

  1. Rights of a half-leaser
    By Aria in forum Off Course
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Aug. 10, 2012, 11:54 AM
  2. HELP! What are my legal rights?
    By JumpEmHigh in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2011, 09:08 PM
  3. Water rights for wild horses questioned
    By poltroon in forum Off Course
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jan. 16, 2011, 04:22 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
  •