The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 20 of 50 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 993
  1. #381
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I've apologized for the nasty comments and not playing nicely...maybe you should give it a try.
    The apologies don't count when you keep on keeping on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  2. #382
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    No that be you, not understanding. A picture of a geothermal plant ain't it.

    LOL, ah, too bad, you said refinery first.


    but I see you are a quick study...eventually reading with some comprehension...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  3. #383
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EKLay View Post
    I am perfectly okay with euthanasia via well placed gunshot. I am perfectly okay with eating horsemeat. I am perfectly okay with my cats/dogs eating horsemeat. (Assuming, of course, the meat is actually free from drugs.)

    However, I also think that anytime a large business has to choose between profit and doing the right thing, profit will inevitably win out. (In the case of horse slaughter, I would personally define "the right thing" as always providing humane, respectful transport and slaughter.) Because of this, I cannot support horse slaughter as it is currently available. If there were small, local places that could do the job, I would absolutely support them.

    For the record, I do eat meat and I do get it from small, local places I can trust. Interestingly, everyone I personally know who does not support horse slaughter refuses to support it for the same reasons - not trusting that large companies are always humane and not being able to be sure that there are no drugs in the meat. Not a single person I know is refusing to support horse slaughter just because it's horses getting slaughtered, but that is a statement/accusation that seems to come up a lot. I know 'the plural of anecdote is not data', but it is interesting.
    So you think that it makes sense to ban horse slaughter, just because some of the richest non-profit animal rights groups say it is not done right?

    There were hundreds of thousands of horses slaughtered, most for many years hauled to the plants in trader's trailers, a handful at the time, slaughtered without any issues, according to regulations, one of the most inspected slaughter kinds, per the inspector's own words.

    Now animal rights groups, rich beyond measure, make ban horse slaughter one of the best "causes of the moment" as far as bringing them publicity and so more riches, present some fabricated and other true cases of abuses, misrepresent inspection reports and everyone has to believe it was all a hoax, slaughter was all abusive and inspectors didn't know what they were doing?

    I say, if you have a problem with some in the process of slaughter, does that mean you will insist to ban slaughter makes sense?

    That is like insisting we ban driving because, look at the local news, every week there are several killed by drunk drivers!

    Remember, these discussions are not about how to make slaughter better, but about if to BAN slaughter or not.
    Don't let the well used and abused "abuse card" muddle the real issue here.



  4. #384
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    The apologies don't count when you keep on keeping on.

    I wasn't nasty. It was a suggestion.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #385
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    That is like insisting we ban driving because, look at the local news, every week there are several killed by drunk drivers!
    Actually, the true analogy would be banning alcohol because of drunk driving, not banning driving. But then, alcohol is highly restricted if you're driving, so it's really not an accurate comparison.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #386
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Actually, the true analogy would be banning alcohol because of drunk driving, not banning driving. But then, alcohol is highly restricted if you're driving, so it's really not an accurate comparison.
    The accurate comparison is "People driving drunk (ie commercial horse slaughter for human consumption) resulting in banning drunk driving. People can still use their cars for everything else. Banning horse slaughter for commercial human consumption will still allow people to use their horses for everything else.
    The analogy Bluey gave would be valid only if driving cars was banned, and all use of horses was banned.
    Or in the case of child porn photos, we banned minors from having pornographic photos taken, but didn't ban the use of a camera or taking pictures of children.
    You can ban one act (horse slaughter for human consumption)without banning all acts (use of horses).


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #387
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I wasn't nasty. It was a suggestion.
    well, in that context it wasn't nice either
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  8. #388
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,805

    Default

    Thank you jetsmom...I was struggling with that analogy...you nailed it.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #389
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    The reason the anti crowd is so verbal against the pro crowd is they have NO solution. But they have no solution..so they hate those who do and support slaughter.
    Fairfax, I am respectfully asking you to get your head out of the sand. There have been PLENTY of solutions suggested, yet you seem determined to find fault with every one. The word hate is a very strong word. I don't think any of us opposed to slaughter feel hatred toward those who are in favor of it and I wish you would apologize for that extreme accusation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Too bad this administration felt it had to pay back animal rights extremist supporters with hand picked key positions, where they could fight against all our uses or animals, one of them, from all places, as Secretary of Agriculture.
    Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chicken house.
    Ah yes, first slaughter will be banned and no doubt the next bill presented to congress will be the one in which it's illegal to ride horses...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    Horses for vetrans...might work...who is going to pay for it. The taxpayer?

    Okay..you are against human consumption. How about if the meat is thrown away and the rest of the horse is used for fertilizer, hide, hair etc? Make ya feel better?
    As a tax paying citizen, I would gladly contribute money to a horses for veterans program if one were created. And as has already been pointed out, the non meat part of horses ARE already being used. Jeez.

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    Well slaughter IS available NOW. Yet horses are still starving. So that is yet another fallacy. Slaughter does not and has never stopped neglectful husbandry.
    Very true, yet it is one of the strongest arguements supporters of slaughter repeatedly use.

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    If you are looking for suggestions how to reduce the numbers of horses, there have been many. Whether or not anyone is willing to change "their own" horse husbandry is another story.

    Here's a pretty cool blog from someone who has put some thought into it:

    http://heatherclemenceau.wordpress.c...the-horses-go/
    Someone putting time and effort into coming up with ideas that the pro-slaughter crowd will find a way to fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Yes, for those that still don't get it, horses are one more natural, renewable resource we humans have in this world.
    That means a resource that is natural, not fabricated from other, like your computer, also not finite, like oil and gas, but one that we can keep renewing, like a forest.
    Bluey, you incorrect in stating horses are a renewable resource. To refresh your memory, a renewable resource by definition is:

    a re·new·a·ble re·source
    1.resource that can be sustained: a resource that can be renewed as quickly as it is used up and can, in theory, last indefinitely.

    In order for a horse to be a renewable resource, you would have to find a way to grow a new one from a dead one. Last I heard, once a horse is dead, it's dead. How the heck can a dead horse be renewed? Am I missing something?

    Definition of renew:

    re·new [ ri n ] 1.return to doing something: to begin something or doing something again, or be begun again
    Last edited by jenm; Mar. 23, 2013 at 04:01 PM. Reason: added words
    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #390
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    The accurate comparison is "People driving drunk (ie commercial horse slaughter for human consumption) resulting in banning drunk driving. People can still use their cars for everything else. Banning horse slaughter for commercial human consumption will still allow people to use their horses for everything else.
    The analogy Bluey gave would be valid only if driving cars was banned, and all use of horses was banned.
    Or in the case of child porn photos, we banned minors from having pornographic photos taken, but didn't ban the use of a camera or taking pictures of children.
    You can ban one act (horse slaughter for human consumption)without banning all acts (use of horses).
    Wrong logic, we have banned abusing alcohol during driving, drunk driving, not alcohol.
    We don't need to ban slaughter because someone, somewhere abused a horse in the slaughter process, just as we don't ban driving because someone drove drunk.

    Anyway, you can object to alcohol without banning it for everyone else, just because you may think some could possibly abuse alcohol, here driving drunk.
    The same with slaughter, no need to ban it because of some abuse.
    Curb abuse, there are already laws and regulations for that.



  11. #391
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    Horses for vetrans...might work...who is going to pay for it. The taxpayer?

    Lets see...more taxes for the tax payer OR send them to slaughter..and have companies pay taxes, employ workers (even if it is only 5 workers..that is 5 more than before) and those workers pay taxes and consume. Slaughter plants use truckers to deliver the horses and also ship out the meat.

    Vetran gets married..can;'t afford the horse...it goes back into the chain. GREAT alternative. Politicians have never been known for "thinking outside of the box"

    Okay..you are against human consumption. How about if the meat is thrown away and the rest of the horse is used for fertilizer, hide, hair etc? Make ya feel better?
    Live horses generate way more jobs and make a far larger economic impact than slaughter plants...


    The economic study done by Deloitte Consulting LLP for the American Horse Council Foundation in 2005 validates what the industry has known for some time, that the horse industry is a highly-diverse, national, serious and economically significant industry that deserves the attention of the general public, the media and federal, state and local officials. (Please note that all figures are accurate from the time the study was done and may have changed slightly)

    View state statistics for the following states:
    California*|*Colorado*|*Florida*|*Indiana*|*Kentuc ky*|*Louisiana
    Maryland*|*Missouri | New Jersey*|*New Mexico
    New York*|*Ohio*|*Oklahoma*|*Texas*|*Wyoming
    Order the Complete National Economic Impact Study

    Highlights of the national study include:

    There are 9.2 million horses in the United States.
    4.6 million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees and volunteers.
    Tens of millions more participate as spectators.
    2 million people own horses.
    The horse industry has a direct economic effect on the U.S.of $39 billion annually.
    [That's money kept right here in the US, not taken to Europe as profit that avoids taxation]

    The industry has a $102 billion impact on the U.S.economy when the multiplier effect of spending by industry suppliers and employees is taken into account. Including off-site spending of spectators would result in an even higher figure.

    The industry directly provides 460,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs.
    Spending by suppliers and employees generates additional jobs for a total employment impact of 1.4 million FTE jobs.

    The horse industry pays $1.9 billion in taxes to all levels of government.

    Approximately 34% of horse owners have a household income of less than $50,000 and 28% have an annual income of over $100,000. 46% of horse owners have an income of between $25,000 to $75,000.
    Over 70% of horse owners live in communities of 50,000 or less.
    There are horses in every state. Forty-five states have at least 20,000 horses each.

    Numbers of Horses

    The study concludes that there are 9.2 million horses in the U.S., including horses used for racing, showing, competition, sport, breeding, recreation and work. This includes horses used both commercially and for pleasure.

    Specifically, the number of horses by activity is:
    Racing - 844,531*
    Showing - 2,718,954*
    Recreation - 3,906,923*
    Other - 1,752,439*
    Total - 9,222,847*

    “Other” activities include farm and ranch work, rodeo, carriage horses, polo, police work, informal competitions, etc.*

    Participation

    4.6 million people are involved in the horse industry in some way, either as owners, employees, service providers or volunteers. This includes 2 million horse owners, of which 238,000 are involved in breeding, 481,000 in competing, 1.1 million involved in other activities, 119,000 service providers and 702,000 employees, full- and part-time and 2 million family members and volunteers. That means that 1 out of every 63 Americans is involved with horses.*

    The Size and Impact of the Industry

    Gross Domestic Product

    The study documents the economic impact of the industry in terms of jobs and contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    The study’s results show that the industry directly produces goods and services of $38.8 billion and has a total impact of $101.5 billion on U.S. GDP.
    It is strong in each activity with racing, showing and recreation each contributing between $10.5 and $12 billion to the total value of goods and services produced by the industry.
    Specifically, the GDP effect for each (in billions of dollars) is:
    *
    Direct
    Total
    Racing
    10.6
    26.1
    Showing
    10.8
    28.7
    Recreation
    11.8
    31.9
    Other
    5.5
    14.6
    Total
    38.8
    101.58

    Employment

    The industry employs 701,946 people directly. Some are part-time employees and some are seasonal so this equates to 453,612 full-time equivalent jobs.
    The industry supports a total of over 1.4 million FTE jobs across the U.S. as follows:
    *
    Direct
    Total
    Racing
    146,625
    383,826
    Showing
    99,051
    380,416
    Recreation
    128,324
    435,082
    Other
    79,612
    212,010
    Total
    453,612
    1,411,333

    Taxes

    The industry pays a total of $1.9 billion in taxes to federal, state and local governments as follows (in millions of dollars):*
    Federal - $588*
    State - $1,017*
    Local - $275

    The Diversity of the Industry

    The results of the study show that the horse business is a highly diverse industry that supports a wide variety of activities in all regions of the country. It combines the primarily rural activities of breeding, training, maintaining and riding horses with the more urban activities of operating racetracks, off-track betting parlors, horse shows and public sales.

    Income Levels

    The study dispels the misperception that the horse industry is an activity only for wealthy individuals. In fact, the horse industry is a diverse activity with stakeholders including recreational and show horse riders, and moderate-income track, show and stable employees and volunteers.
    Approximately 34% of horse owners have a household income of less than $50,000 and 28% have an annual income of over $100,000. 46% of horse owners have an income of between $25,000 to $75,000.
    Community Size
    Over 70% of horse owners live in communities of 50,000 or less.
    Order the Complete National Economic Impact Study*
    *

    http://www.horsecouncil.org/national...horse-industry



    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE HORSE INDUSTRY

    Back Country Horsemen of America published results of a study of recreational horse trails in rural America. Here are some interesting statistics from the report 1:

    There are 123,799 miles of trail for recreational and pack horse use available on federal and state land in the lower 48 states.
    85% of the trail mileage is on federal land and 69% of that is managed by the USDA Forest Service.
    Most of the nation’s trail mileage is in the West, with 67% located in eight western states.
    The eastern United States has just 22% of the trail mileage, but 56% of the nation’s more than 9 million
    horses. (American Horse Council, 2005).
    AHC estimated that 3.9 million of the 9.2 million horses in the U.S. are used exclusively or primarily for recreation.

    “The recreational horse industry contributes $11.8 billion a year directly to the economy and directly employs nearly 130,000 people nationwide.
    Indirectly the industry contributes an additional $20.1 billion and generates another 307,000 jobs. That is extremely significant and
    important in these economic times”.
    - AHC President Jay Hickey, 2009


    As reported by the American Horse Council, 42% of the approximate 9.2 million horses in the United States are owned and used for recreational trail riding purposes. Over 2 million people are horse owners
    contributing to nearly 4.6 million people who are involved in the industry either as owners, breeders, trainers, service providers, or otherwise. 3

    Virginia itself is home to over 170,000 horses. The average Virginia
    horse owner spends $2,969 per horse yearly. Horse owners spend $505
    million in annual expenses and support approximately 20,000 jobs
    statewide.
    Nearly 700 equine events are held in Virginia each year,
    attracting over 800,000 participants and spectators who spend more
    than $167 million at these events. In total, Virginia’s horse industry has
    a $1 billion impact on the state’s economy according to the 2001 Equine
    Survey conducted by the Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service. 4


    In 2008, a study was conducted by the Virginia Horse Council in which 822 Virginians completed a survey.

    A few of the findings from the study are provided below:

    24.4% of the respondents revealed that they ride more than 500 miles each year. 39.3% indicated that they ride 200-500 miles annually. 36.3% rode less than 200 miles annually.
    Of the 697 respondents, 691 (or 99.6%) identified that they took trips within the State of Virginia.
    However, 555 (or 79.6%) respondents identified they also took out of state riding trips.

    Responders identified their typical trail riding trips as:
    65.1% - day trips 17.8% - 1-2 day trips 14.6% - 3-4 day trips 2.5 % - 5 or more days.
    Over 60% of the overnight trips riders camped. Breakdown is provided below:
    48.2% - Camping with trailer 6.1 % - B&B
    9.7% - Hotel/motel 12.5% - Camping (no trailer)
    22.3% - Stay with friends or family
    Trail types in order of preference: Forested, Loops, historic, public, high
    country/mountain, open land, private, and linear.
    Trail markings: 82.6% felt that trail markings were important.
    Riders indicated a preference for trails marked with estimated distances or ride times.
    Ideal length of trails: Two categories were presented: 1) Day Trip; and 2) Multiday Trip. Day Trips:
    Out of approximately 695 respondents a majority (35.8%) indicated that 10-15 miles would be ideal for
    day trips. A nearly equal number (35.7%) indicated 5-10 miles would be ideal.
    Minimal length of trail: The majority (50.7%) of respondents from the day trip category identified their
    desired minimal length trail is 5-10 miles.
    For multi-day trips: A majority of 26.4% agreed on the ideal trail length of 20-30 miles. Trails of 15-20
    miles were a close runner up (22.8%).

    http://www.trailsrus.com/swvirginia/...equestrian.pdf




    September 2011

    Table 2.1 Estimated 2010 Race Horse Breeder Revenues By Revenue Category
    TOTAL: $340,560,283

    Table 2.2 Estimated Race Horse Breeder Expenses Total For 2010
    TOTAL: $406,833,749

    Table 2.9 Economic Impact of Equine Enterprises 2010
    Employment 3,537
    Labor Income $48,122,806
    GDP Output $346,016,833

    Table 2.10 Direct and Indirect Taxes Derive From Equine Enterprises 2010
    Total State and Local $ 13,704,073
    Total Federal $ 14,548,075

    Table 2.22 Economic Impact of Equine Owners 2010
    Employment 3,834
    Labor Income $109,253,392
    Contribution to
    State GDP $617,831,550


    http://www.vet.purdue.edu/esmc/files...Study-2011.pdf



  12. #392
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,864

    Default

    ---Bluey, you incorrect in stating horses are a renewable resource. To refresh your memory, a renewable resource by definition is:

    a re·new·a·ble re·source
    1.resource that can be sustained: a resource that can be renewed as quickly as it is used up and can, in theory, last indefinitely.

    In order for a horse to be a renewable resource, you would have to find a way to grow a new one from a dead one. Last I heard, once a horse is dead, it's dead. How the heck can a dead horse be renewed? Am I missing something?"---

    You are not serious, are you.

    Yes, you are missing much, but I am afraid I can't help you there, try again, google is your friend, if you can think thru what it brings forth in a sensible manner.

    Yes, horses, by any definition, are the poster child for natural, renewable resources, as the domesticated animals they are.

    No, a dead horse is not "renewable" itself, but is part of that which makes it a natural, renewable asset to us humans.
    A bit like the paper in your book and the wood table you may be using are part of the natural, renewable resource a tree is for us humans.
    Trees also have many other uses while alive.



  13. #393
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,864

    Default

    ---Live horses generate way more jobs and make a far larger economic impact than slaughter plants..."---

    Myopic way to look at this issue.

    NO ONE is demanding we slaughter ALL horses.

    OF COURSE we have many uses for horses, but SOME horses, those that some here want to euthanize in killing clinics, etc. are of NO ECONOMIC USE to anyone other than thru proper slaughter.

    There are plenty of horses out there no one can use.
    SOME of those are now going to slaughter for one more use, not wantonly killed at cost.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #394
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,805

    Default

    And once again, pro-slaughter people have managed to scare off a lot of posters who might have something meaningful to add to the conversation. I don't know why you (the pro-slaughter people) think you are winning just because you out shout the others. You're not changing anyone's mind you know.

    Bluey...

    wan·ton
    /ˈwäntn/
    Adjective
    (of a cruel or violent action) Deliberate and unprovoked

    I do not think the word means what you think it means.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #395
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    “They’ve been threatened — every activist in the world has threatened the company at one time or another,” Chaves County Sheriff Rob Coon told the Los Angeles Times.
    You know, there is a reason people take threats seriously. Because once in a while, someone acts on their threat.

    I guess y'all don't give a damn that AR activists in the UK broke into a kennel, beat a hound to death, and tossed it in the driveway of its Master, after making threats. It's ok as long as it's for "the cause".

    Regardless of one's position on hot topic issues (horse slaughter being among them), a line is crossed when people threaten to commit an act of violence.

    Judging by how absolutely crazy some of you act, just on a silly BB, it's apparent that a few are as mentally disturbed as the same folks who make or act on their threats.

    If one disagrees with horse slaughter - that's fine. If one is active in a ban, that's ok too. Shout out support for a ban, write letters, take an ad in the paper, be active politically. That's all legal, moral, and ethical behavior.

    But all of you must allow others to engage in the same behavior; and advocate for their position as well.

    I don't doubt for one second that animal rights activists have tormented the company and its employees. Not for one second. And they've no doubt done it for a long time. At some point those employees are no longer the bad guys. The activists are.

    Because the activists have crossed the line from advocacy into criminal behavior.

    I do not excuse what the person did, because he crossed a line too. If he committed a crime, he should be punished. If what he did was legal (but morally and ethically questionable), maybe just let the world see him for the person he is but leave him alone.

    I feel very strongly about a great many things. I get angry about great injustice and cruelty in this world.

    What I don't do is call or write the objects of my anger and derision and threaten to kill them or their children.

    Maybe y'all should think on that a little.

    Consider that overzealous activism, while understandable, attracts a lot of mentally unhealthy or even unstable people. The internet provides a forum for such people to meet up, to exchange information, and to act out. Often anonymously. Perhaps you think that's ok if it's for a cause you personally believe in or endorse. I don't.

    Because the person on the receiving end has no way of knowing if the threat is idle or if they're going to wake up in a burning home, or with a dead or missing child or family member, or a dead or missing pet or livestock.

    Some of you seem so facile and dismissive about the notion of a company or its employees being threatened. Which indicates you may be as sociopathic as the jerk in the video. Think about it.

    Think about how you would feel and react if people called your home and threatened to harm you or someone or something you cared about. I doubt you'd laugh about it.

    And for the record - I'm not "scaring" anyone off, and I'm not shouting. Nor am I particularly pro-slaughter. I don't give a rip if a foreign company makes money in the US or not. And I think there are all kinds of ways to solve this problem without selling horses for human consumption. Most large problems do not have a simple solution.

    But I am not an idiot, and I can discuss this subject intelligently and rationally.

    What I don't put up with is lies and people who cannot communicate without screeching that I or others brag about slitting horse's throats, or write similar hyperbolic crap that offers nothing of substance.
    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
    -Rudyard Kipling


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #396
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    ---Live horses generate way more jobs and make a far larger economic impact than slaughter plants..."---

    Myopic way to look at this issue.

    NO ONE is demanding we slaughter ALL horses.

    OF COURSE we have many uses for horses, but SOME horses, those that some here want to euthanize in killing clinics, etc. are of NO ECONOMIC USE to anyone other than thru proper slaughter.

    There are plenty of horses out there no one can use.
    SOME of those are now going to slaughter for one more use, not wantonly killed at cost.
    Silly, No one said you said to slaughter all horses... however, if ALL horses generate more money alive than if ALL of them are dead/via slaughter, then 100,000 will generate more money alive than 100,000 will generate dead/via slaughter.

    Further, the majority of horses running through slaughter plants are sound, and young... so to say no one can use them is probably not accurate of many or most of them.



  17. #397
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    Silly, if ALL horses generate more money alive than if ALL of them are dead/via slaughter, then 100,000 will generate more money alive than 100,000 will generate dead/via slaughter.
    Except you missed that not all horses have uses alive, SOME are going to be euthanized ANYWAY, thus the call for "euthanizing clinics".

    Thus, if you are going to kill them anyway, WHY NOT properly thru slaughter, where you can have that one more use for SOME of those that are going to be killed anyway, if that is one more use their owners want to make?



  18. #398
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    ---Live horses generate way more jobs and make a far larger economic impact than slaughter plants..."---

    Myopic way to look at this issue.

    NO ONE is demanding we slaughter ALL horses.

    OF COURSE we have many uses for horses, but SOME horses, those that some here want to euthanize in killing clinics, etc. are of NO ECONOMIC USE to anyone other than thru proper slaughter.

    There are plenty of horses out there no one can use.
    SOME of those are now going to slaughter for one more use, not wantonly killed at cost.
    Actually, the horses that would be euthed at euth clinics are not the same horses that are currently being slaughtered. Euth clinics would euth sick, 3 legged lame, blind, emaciated horses. Killer buyers are not buying those because it is illegal to transport them to slaughter or in the case of emaciation, it isn't profitable. Many of the horses that are bought for slaughter COULD be useful if given the opportunity.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #399
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    You know, there is a reason people take threats seriously. Because once in a while, someone acts on their threat.

    I guess y'all don't give a damn that AR activists in the UK broke into a kennel, beat a hound to death, and tossed it in the driveway of its Master, after making threats. It's ok as long as it's for "the cause".

    Regardless of one's position on hot topic issues (horse slaughter being among them), a line is crossed when people threaten to commit an act of violence.

    Judging by how absolutely crazy some of you act, just on a silly BB, it's apparent that a few are as mentally disturbed as the same folks who make or act on their threats.

    If one disagrees with horse slaughter - that's fine. If one is active in a ban, that's ok too. Shout out support for a ban, write letters, take an ad in the paper, be active politically. That's all legal, moral, and ethical behavior.

    But all of you must allow others to engage in the same behavior; and advocate for their position as well.

    I don't doubt for one second that animal rights activists have tormented the company and its employees. Not for one second. And they've no doubt done it for a long time. At some point those employees are no longer the bad guys. The activists are.

    Because the activists have crossed the line from advocacy into criminal behavior.

    I do not excuse what the person did, because he crossed a line too. If he committed a crime, he should be punished. If what he did was legal (but morally and ethically questionable), maybe just let the world see him for the person he is but leave him alone.

    I feel very strongly about a great many things. I get angry about great injustice and cruelty in this world.

    What I don't do is call or write the objects of my anger and derision and threaten to kill them or their children.

    Maybe y'all should think on that a little.

    Consider that overzealous activism, while understandable, attracts a lot of mentally unhealthy or even unstable people. The internet provides a forum for such people to meet up, to exchange information, and to act out. Often anonymously. Perhaps you think that's ok if it's for a cause you personally believe in or endorse. I don't.

    Because the person on the receiving end has no way of knowing if the threat is idle or if they're going to wake up in a burning home, or with a dead or missing child or family member, or a dead or missing pet or livestock.

    Some of you seem so facile and dismissive about the notion of a company or its employees being threatened. Which indicates you may be as sociopathic as the jerk in the video. Think about it.

    Think about how you would feel and react if people called your home and threatened to harm you or someone or something you cared about. I doubt you'd laugh about it.
    I was pointing out the of the exaggeration in the comment that EVERY AR folk in the WORLD had called and threatened:
    Originally Posted by Angela Freda
    “They’ve been threatened — every activist in the world has threatened the company at one time or another,” Chaves County Sheriff Rob Coon told the Los Angeles Times.

    If exaggerations on one side aren't ok, then they aren't ok from either side.
    Or perhaps they have a database of EVERY activist in the WORLD? Funny, I didn't call the plant... hmmmmm


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #400
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    You know, there is a reason people take threats seriously. Because once in a while, someone acts on their threat.

    I guess y'all don't give a damn that AR activists in the UK broke into a kennel, beat a hound to death, and tossed it in the driveway of its Master, after making threats. It's ok as long as it's for "the cause".

    Regardless of one's position on hot topic issues (horse slaughter being among them), a line is crossed when people threaten to commit an act of violence.

    Judging by how absolutely crazy some of you act, just on a silly BB, it's apparent that a few are as mentally disturbed as the same folks who make or act on their threats.

    If one disagrees with horse slaughter - that's fine. If one is active in a ban, that's ok too. Shout out support for a ban, write letters, take an ad in the paper, be active politically. That's all legal, moral, and ethical behavior.

    But all of you must allow others to engage in the same behavior; and advocate for their position as well.

    I don't doubt for one second that animal rights activists have tormented the company and its employees. Not for one second. And they've no doubt done it for a long time. At some point those employees are no longer the bad guys. The activists are.

    Because the activists have crossed the line from advocacy into criminal behavior.

    I do not excuse what the person did, because he crossed a line too. If he committed a crime, he should be punished. If what he did was legal (but morally and ethically questionable), maybe just let the world see him for the person he is but leave him alone.

    I feel very strongly about a great many things. I get angry about great injustice and cruelty in this world.

    What I don't do is call or write the objects of my anger and derision and threaten to kill them or their children.

    Maybe y'all should think on that a little.

    Consider that overzealous activism, while understandable, attracts a lot of mentally unhealthy or even unstable people. The internet provides a forum for such people to meet up, to exchange information, and to act out. Often anonymously. Perhaps you think that's ok if it's for a cause you personally believe in or endorse. I don't.

    Because the person on the receiving end has no way of knowing if the threat is idle or if they're going to wake up in a burning home, or with a dead or missing child or family member, or a dead or missing pet or livestock.

    Some of you seem so facile and dismissive about the notion of a company or its employees being threatened. Which indicates you may be as sociopathic as the jerk in the video. Think about it.

    Think about how you would feel and react if people called your home and threatened to harm you or someone or something you cared about. I doubt you'd laugh about it.
    Thank you.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 347
    Last Post: Oct. 17, 2012, 07:54 PM
  2. Stallion Book Photos: Head shot, Conf shot, Action shot???
    By Emy in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Oct. 13, 2011, 06:07 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec. 25, 2010, 09:57 PM
  4. Horse shot in the head.
    By Bluey in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jan. 23, 2010, 11:30 PM
  5. Replies: 231
    Last Post: Oct. 5, 2007, 12:42 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
  •