The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 282
  1. #61
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2002
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trubandloki View Post
    You are not really making sense here.
    Ranchers using horses until they are not usable anymore does not equal over breeding.
    Well, unless the fact that having a horse available to use when needed because an old horse is not usable anymore equals over breeding. I would assume someone with logical thinking would realize that the rancher needs a sound horse to do their job and riding a lame horse is not overly nice.
    Yeah, I hardly think 5,000 ranching families are going to be a big contributor of horses to the slaughter industry. There are ranchers that will send their un-usable ranch horses to the auction with a load of cattle. But I know a lot of ranchers, and many of them DO keep their old ranch horses until they die. Cowboys can get attached to a good horse too!



  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    3,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomequine View Post
    Here ya go honey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqYYXswono <-- this is how it really works. Stress in an animal right before slaughter drastically reduces meat quality. It would be absolutely, straight up STUPID to do that -- it means less money. If you'd like more info, please check out www.grandin.com.



    That 5% is not the allowed amount to be conscious when they enter to be exsanguinated, it's the the percentage allowable that need a second stunning/bolt gun shot before being bled. The average. The average, however, is 96%-98% complete insensibility on the first stunning. Typically, the second stun is if the worker is concerned the animal *might* return to sensibility.

    I can't find the info right at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the USDA has a ZERO tolerance policy for sensible animals being bled, limbs removed, etc.
    You are correct. Zero Tolerance.

    I am waiting to see the "new" bolt that is supposed to be 100%. I am sure hoping it is.



  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct. 28, 2010
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cutter99 View Post
    How many slaughter plants have you been in Devon's Girl? How many production agriculture animals have you yourself cared for? Have you ever castrated a pig or docked its tail? They walk away with no hesitation after.

    I don't know ANYONE in the hog industry who kills piglets because they don't grow fast enough as you say. Around here we fight to save every pig that is born to the extent our pigs never farrow alone.

    Where does you information come from? RARA propaganda?
    I'd love to go inside a slaughterhouse but unfortunately that isn't possible. I don't need to work with livestock to know that it's painful for them to be castrated or tail docked. That's just common sense and basic biology.

    Many of the larger factory farms do kill runt piglets. Look it up.

    My information comes from both the agriculture industry and animal rights groups. The truth typically lies in the middle.
    Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.



  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    32,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
    I'd love to go inside a slaughterhouse but unfortunately that isn't possible. I don't need to work with livestock to know that it's painful for them to be castrated or tail docked. That's just common sense and basic biology.

    Many of the larger factory farms do kill runt piglets. Look it up.

    My information comes from both the agriculture industry and animal rights groups. The truth typically lies in the middle.

    I have not seen much in terms of truth coming from AR groups....
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoonoverMississippi View Post
    Um, did you read what I wrote?

    Those who are currently hauling their horses to the auction obviously aren't the ones dumping them, or sticking them in other people's pastures: they are selling them, usually with the knowledge of where they might go.

    But there is a growing segment of owners who are dumping their horses, as I said, and many of those doing so are the ones who are avoiding the "easy" way of taking them to auction, prefering to "assume" that some nice person will be thrilled to take on another mouth to feed.

    So again, what is the solution?
    You are implying that if slaughter were not available 100k+ horses would be needing homes or rescues to take them so they aren't dumped or starved. I am asking you what makes you think that 100k horses will be dumped/starved. All of those horses have owners. Many people have horses die or are put down when no longer useful, without starving or dumping them. So why is that what you think will happen. Both are illegal. What percentage of those horse owners that currently sell to slaughter do you think are criminals, or willing to do criminal acts? Because I would bet that 99.9% of them would not starve or dump their horses. Right now they are sending to slaughter not out of necessity and no other options, but because they are greedy and just want some easy money or lazy and don't want to try to use one of the other options. But I don't think they are all willing to do something illegal. So I want to know what percentage YOU think are willing to starve a horse/dump a horse, both which are criminal acts?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2011
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuppysmom View Post
    Do you suppose that there is any cow, pig, chicken, rabbit, horse, who upon waking up in the morning says to him/her self, "Man! I could be out fishing, shopping, if I wasn't stuck on this Factory Farm!" or do they just hang out eating and making manure?
    Wow, good thing that you own animals since apparently this is what you think entails their emotional capacity: eating and pooping. Of course they can't feel depression, fear, deprivation, and stress from factory farm conditions, because humans monopolize emotion and thought. I hate to be rude, but people never fail to disgust me with their flippant disrespect for the lives of animals.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov. 8, 2011
    Posts
    29

    Default

    What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

    This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    32,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiera View Post
    What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

    This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.
    Because under those regulations 99% of the breeders would be categorized as 'back yard breeder'

    Then you have the big breeders left who - GASP - try to make money....surely we have to regulate them out of business!

    Point is, who gets to decide on who is allowed to breed?

    I am sure you would not consider yourself a BYB for breeding that mare you consider a one in a lifetime, in the hope to duplicate her.
    But everybody else sure would....

    breeding as scapegoat, not cop out.

    Breeders take a calculated risk, with every pairing, that many years down the road their cross will reach the top.

    (and frankly, there is more demand for middle of the road horses than the top one, so even the breeders of those have their justification)

    In the meantime both dam and foal try their best t kill themselves....

    so in 3 or 5 years from the pairing we can hope to see some $$$

    It is the RARAs favorite point of attack, because what is not born, they don't have to kill off. But t has the biggest impact.

    Over the last 5 years breeders have cut back considerably, many have thrown in the towel completely.

    Naturally that will not affect the market right away.....

    but I am expecting we will see a major backlash in the not so distant future.

    When in Ky they lost about 400 foals to the cherry/caterpillar the expert were worried about the quality of the Derby field. I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that, with a whole lot less foals produced as it is....

    Horses (and dogs, the first ti incure the wrath of the RARAs in terms of breeding regulations) are perishable commodities: You have a pretty small window of opportunity to do something with that mare, that stallion in your possession. You can't put it on blocks like a car, hoping for the gas priced to drop. Use it or lose it....
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiera View Post
    What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

    This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.
    What is interesting to me is that anyone would think banning slaughter makes any sense at all, other than crazy animal rights extremists.

    Do we ask HOSPITALS be BANNED?
    Look at all those infections patients get there, even when we know better, we have many regulations to avoid them, but workers there still don't wash hands properly.
    Do we ask POLICE be BANNED?
    Look at all the beating they do.
    Do we ask SCHOOLS be BANNED?
    Right now, they caught yet another teacher with a 14 year old "girlfriend".
    Do we ask RELIGION be BANNED?
    So many priests are molesting kids.
    Do we ask textile/chemical/printing/logging, you name be BANNED, because look how they treat their workers, look how they pollute, look how they keep having some rules not followed properly?

    Why BAN?

    The same applies to how we raise our domestic animals and what we do with them.
    Someone that doesn't know any better may drive by a cattle feedlot and say that is terrible, poor little "calvies" are stuck in jail there, how sad.:rolleyes"

    What they don't realize is that cattle spend all their lives out to pasture and some of them, at a certain age, are slaughtered.
    That is why we raise cattle, so we can use them thru slaughter.
    There is no other purpose to them.
    They are not fast enough to race, quick enough to jump a three day event course, can't goosestep prettily to prance around a ring.

    So, those cattle, that used to be slaughtered off grass at 800 lbs now the past 50 years we found a way to, thru feeding them a grain based ration for a few more weeks, now from the same calf we are getting, in a few weeks, 1/3 more meat.

    Those cattle can only do that if they are healthy and contented.
    Any stress and they won't gain well, that only works with happy cattle.

    There are whole college degrees in how to run a feedlot.
    All kinds of engineers make plans for it, regulatory agencies of all kinds have to give permits and inspect them regularly and demand there be logs kept of all the maintenance to comply.
    There is EPA, OSHA, USDA and so on, a whole alphabet soup of government agencies overseeing CAFO's.
    Some are even using drones today to keep check on them.

    Those cattle, at that stage of their lives, are not slaughtered off grass, but have now some more weeks to live and live in, what for cattle, is the Ritz.
    The pens are engineered with space to very strict specifications as determined by years of studies, not too much space and definitely not too small, with properly aligned mounds for the location, with shed or windbreaks where needed, waterers in the proper places and adjustable bunks the right size for the different cattle.

    Someone comes by before each feeding to "read bunks" and send the requirement for the next ration to the mill and to the maintenance crew if there are some needing cleaning.
    Truck drivers get told what to fed and how much to each pen, according to the bunk reader's order.

    The cattle have the equivalent of room and board in the best place on earth for them, with congenial friends.
    Open the gates to "free" them and you will find few if any will wander off and all will be back in there after a while and the gate can stay open for days and not one will even think to go out.
    Cattle ARE happy in there, room and board and congenial friends, for a few more weeks of the good life.
    Who would object to those weeks more of the good life, for an animal we are raising just to slaughter?

    That is where animal rights extremists come in, those are the ones that have this crazy idea that this little world evolved to keep the human animal separate from all other animals.
    That we depend on each other and each that is alive is eventually going to feed some other at death, is the way the world works.
    Animal rights extremists want to say that doesn't apply to humans and the rest of the animals.
    It is ok for a lion to eat a lamb, it is not ok for a human to eat a lamb.
    Does that really make any sense?

    Now, if a feedlot is not managed properly, if the pens are not cleaned and maintained, if regulations are not followed, that is not because feeding cattle in pens is "bad", is because someone is doing it badly and they won't stay in business long.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul. 28, 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,009

    Default

    Hey Bluey, easy with the name calling. Not everyone who is against slaughter is an animal rights extremist. This is how things get so polarized, with no middle ground or negotiation and you are not helping.

    There are many here who simply think that although we have a problem with unwanted horses, slaughter houses are not the answer. Pretty straightforward, don't you think?

    You like many other pro-slaughter folks that are so vocal here, are also for raising horses for meat. Why don't you just be honest and propose that you have no problem with the horse meat industry instead of hiding behind the "overpopulation" reason?
    friend of bar.ka


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToTheNines View Post
    Hey Bluey, easy with the name calling. Not everyone who is against slaughter is an animal rights extremist. This is how things get so polarized, with no middle ground or negotiation and you are not helping.

    You like many other pro-slaughter folks that are so vocal here, are also for raising horses for meat. Why don't you just be honest and propose that you have no problem with the horse meat industry instead of hiding behind the "overpopulation" reason?
    Hey, easy with the name calling back at you.

    You evidently have not been listening to what I say.
    Obviously you don't know anything about what I do or why I think banning slaughter is a terrible idea, even if I have stated that time and again.

    Give the personal attack another try, that one is not flying too well.



  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct. 28, 2010
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    I have not seen much in terms of truth coming from AR groups....
    And I haven't seen much in terms of truth coming from the agriculture industry. But what can you expect from a multibillion dollar industry whose only goal is to stay in business.

    If you could point me in the direction of this deceitful information you speak of I'd greatly appreciate it. Aside from PETA (don't even get me started on those wackos) I haven't seen a heck of a lot of incorrect information coming from AR groups. Unfortunately we don't need to make things up, sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    That is where animal rights extremists come in, those are the ones that have this crazy idea that this little world evolved to keep the human animal separate from all other animals.
    That we depend on each other and each that is alive is eventually going to feed some other at death, is the way the world works.
    Animal rights extremists want to say that doesn't apply to humans and the rest of the animals.
    It is ok for a lion to eat a lamb, it is not ok for a human to eat a lamb.
    Does that really make any sense?
    The goal of "animal rights extremists" isn't to completely separate people from animals. If that were the case then ARA wouldn't have pets, but the large majority do.

    So it's ok to eat animal's because other animals do? Well then by that logic I guess cannibalism is ok too since many animal species eat members of their own species. It's completely natural. And heck I know some people who deserve to go to slaughter more than an innocent animal

    We have evolved to the point where it's no longer necessary for us to act like wild animals, or at least so I've heard.
    Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
    And I haven't seen much in terms of truth coming from the agriculture industry. But what can you expect from a multibillion dollar industry whose only goal is to stay in business.

    If you could point me in the direction of this deceitful information you speak of I'd greatly appreciate it. Aside from PETA (don't even get me started on those wackos) I haven't seen a heck of a lot of incorrect information coming from AR groups. Unfortunately we don't need to make things up, sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction.



    The goal of "animal rights extremists" isn't to completely separate people from animals. If that were the case then ARA wouldn't have pets, but the large majority do.

    So it's ok to eat animal's because other animals do? Well then by that logic I guess cannibalism is ok too since many animal species eat members of their own species. It's completely natural. And heck I know some people who deserve to go to slaughter more than an innocent animal

    We have evolved to the point where it's no longer necessary for us to act like wild animals, or at least so I've heard.
    Your logic is faulty there.
    The reason some animal rights extremists may have animals and not be vegans is because, well, their logic failed them.

    Animal rights extremists are demanding all animals be hands off, no human use of any animals.
    Those that follow their little battles here and there, here ban slaughter, are not thinking, or they would understand that the main idea behind animal rights extremists is to eventually ban their uses of animals also.

    Thus, some animal rights extremists may have animals, just don't know any better what they are fighting for, lack of foresight.

    "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
    What don't you understand there, to say animal rights extremists are not after all uses of animals?

    Oh, don't tell me that "horses are not domestic animals", so that didn't meant horses, as some clueless animal rights extremist follower said.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2010
    Location
    Where humidity isn't just a word, it's a way of life.
    Posts
    768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiera View Post
    What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

    This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.
    It would be great if there was a solution, but we haven't even managed to take care of the small pet population issues yet, and one would think that would be easier as there are more available homes and they are cheaper.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul. 8, 2011
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
    And I haven't seen much in terms of truth coming from the agriculture industry. But what can you expect from a multibillion dollar industry whose only goal is to stay in business. .

    Umm, no the goal of agriculture is not to stay in business, the goal is to put food on YOUR table every day. Yes, we do have to make a living while doing it.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,560

    Default

    I expect most everyone here is too young to remember when most animal control was managed by a local veterinarian, that euthanized unwanted animals and sold them to industries that used them, labs and fur trade?

    That money went then to help as many more unwanted dogs and cats.
    They had enough to sustain those for weeks and many more had a chance of being adopted.

    Today?
    Animal control is running on three days and euthanizing and sending to the landfill.
    Why?
    Because some ill informer do-gooders thought that selling the poor little dogs and cats after death was not PC enough for them, no matter that such system was letting so many more dogs and cats live.

    What kind of twisted people think like that?
    The same that demand horse slaughter be banned, because such noble animals we may use once more after death should not be used one more time for any other than discarded as we do trash, that is ok.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2010
    Location
    Where humidity isn't just a word, it's a way of life.
    Posts
    768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    You are implying that if slaughter were not available 100k+ horses would be needing homes or rescues to take them so they aren't dumped or starved. I am asking you what makes you think that 100k horses will be dumped/starved. All of those horses have owners. Many people have horses die or are put down when no longer useful, without starving or dumping them. So why is that what you think will happen. Both are illegal. What percentage of those horse owners that currently sell to slaughter do you think are criminals, or willing to do criminal acts? Because I would bet that 99.9% of them would not starve or dump their horses. Right now they are sending to slaughter not out of necessity and no other options, but because they are greedy and just want some easy money or lazy and don't want to try to use one of the other options. But I don't think they are all willing to do something illegal. So I want to know what percentage YOU think are willing to starve a horse/dump a horse, both which are criminal acts?
    I do not think that all or even most of these animals would be "left wandering he streets." But the horses that end up at low-end kill buyer auctions or given away to KBs aren't usually the ones who have owners who will step up and do the right thing.....or why would they be in the pipeline to start with?

    So out of these 100,000 horses whose owners are currently willing to sell cheaply or ship, say 1/2, or 50,000 horses (roughly 4,000/mo.) are now kept at home by owners willing to suddenly do the right thing (or put to sleep by the owners).

    Now say 1/2 of those remaining (or 2,000/mo.) find a regular, non KB buyer for their horses (that's 2,000 more horses sold each month than currently happening, pretty good considering the complaints about no sales and the giveaways currently constantly offered).

    That leaves only 2,000 horses/month whose owners still want them gone, but haven't been able to sell.

    What happens now? Let the owners starve them, and actually hope AC responds before they are dead?
    Look away when they are no- saled at auction and the owner refuses to pick them back up (sucks to be you, auction owner!)

    But heck, now we're down to only 2,000 horses/month!
    Certainly the rescues or well-meaning people can take them in!

    Sounds good, until you consider feeding them or putting them down at a very reasonable rate of $100/each equals $200,000 each and every month (if you can feed or euthanize them for that).
    And remember, next month it's another $200,000 to do it again, plus the cost of feeding the previous month's horses if they aren't euthanized.....

    So now, if over 75% of hose people who are willing to sell their horses at low end auctions (knowing where they will likely go) or give free to anyone who will pick them up suddenly decide to keep those horses and 1/4 of those people find a decent home for theirhorses.....so now 75% of the horses currently going to slaughter are absorbed.....what about the rest?


    Where is the $$ going to come from to absorb the rest? Cut it in 1/2 again, that's still $100,000 every month to feed or kill (at $100/horse/month) the leftovers of the people who didn't care in the first place.

    Do you really expect the type of people who will currently sell their horses for $50-100 less commission, less the cost to haul them there to all be the kind that will shrug and take care of the horses when they now are stuck with the expense of feeding and caring for them?

    Give me a solution that doesn't entail "oh, the people who will currently ship them to slaughter so they can pocket $25 will suddenly care for them".
    Show me that the $$ and homes are available and able to handle these horses and I will be 100% anti-slaughter.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    3,023

    Default

    The 100,000 is the number sent to slaughter. It is NOT the number of excess horses which USDA and the Horse Council have stated is between 800,000 and 1 million. These are horses that may be at great risk due to lack of boarding facilities, money, the economy, the drought etc. They are not factoring in the number of horses (13 million) that are in active use.

    The Rara's do not have a solution except condemn breeders and tax tax tax..of course THEIR groups will handle the money. Watch how quickly they take the money and slaughter the horses.

    No one BREEDS for a horse meat market. This is a very very old story going back to the 80's when slaughter horses could bring up to 600$ depending on the weighjt. UKsual price now is 25-150$

    With hay at 15$ per bale and more in some places...nah...just doesn't happen./

    The horses always presented from the feedlots have not been bred on those properties. These were skinny starving horses or unwanted. and sold at action.

    They do.,.what horses do..stand around and eat.

    And eat

    And eat

    No different that the activity of old Dobbin kept by his owners.

    This has nothing to do with animals. It is all about control. How to control the masses..and move them in the direction a few elitists think they should go.

    There is a vegan agenda. And how about the First Ladies proposed FAT TAX...if you are fat...you will pay a high high tax on all food Not on the approved list.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Your logic is faulty there.
    The reason some animal rights extremists may have animals and not be vegans is because, well, their logic failed them.

    Animal rights extremists are demanding all animals be hands off, no human use of any animals.
    Those that follow their little battles here and there, here ban slaughter, are not thinking, or they would understand that the main idea behind animal rights extremists is to eventually ban their uses of animals also.

    Thus, some animal rights extremists may have animals, just don't know any better what they are fighting for, lack of foresight.

    "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
    What don't you understand there, to say animal rights extremists are not after all uses of animals?

    Oh, don't tell me that "horses are not domestic animals", so that didn't meant horses, as some clueless animal rights extremist follower said.
    But you see Bluey, you are conflating anti horse slaughter with animal rights activist. They aren't necessarily the same thing. If they were, all anti horse slaughter people would not own pets and would be vegans.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post

    This has nothing to do with animals. It is all about control. How to control the masses..and move them in the direction a few elitists think they should go.

    There is a vegan agenda. And how about the First Ladies proposed FAT TAX...if you are fat...you will pay a high high tax on all food Not on the approved list.
    Your politics are showing....and maybe what you watch and read for your news...I'm guessing it's not very objective.

    Mrs. Obama was asked about a fat tax by NBC's Al Roker at a "Let's Move" jumping jack event at the White House on Tuesday.

    Roker: "We just had a story about in Denmark they're planning on instituting, like, a, quote, "fat tax," foods that are either high in sugar or high in fat. Do you think something like that is needed here?"

    Mrs. Obama: "I think folks need information. You know, knowledge is power. And, you know, we're lacking that. I mean, people eat what they eat because they think it's OK. They don't need government telling them what to do. They just need good information and access."
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct. 8, 2010, 03:06 PM
  2. Soccer community supports horse rescue.
    By dab in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec. 17, 2009, 04:38 PM
  3. Doing a Cattle Drive (horse related, of course!)
    By _downpour_ in forum Off Course
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Aug. 31, 2009, 02:40 PM
  4. Horse & Cattle Deaths at Calgary Stampede
    By saultgirl in forum Off Course
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jul. 11, 2009, 12:17 AM
  5. Arabian Horse Ass. supports horse Slaughter
    By fernie fox in forum Off Course
    Replies: 242
    Last Post: Jun. 11, 2009, 01:36 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
  •