The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 21 of 50 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 993
  1. #401
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    51,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    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.
    Maybe you think so, that is not what was talked about, but horses that was nothing wrong other than the owner could not care for them any more, tried to sell and give away and no one wanted, thus ended up in animal control or turned loose, now had the option of euthanizing clinics.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #402
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    51,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    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
    Now that makes so much sense, right?



  3. #403
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    16,735

    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.

    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.
    Who on here has supported violence or threats?

    The stmt by Chavez is an exaggeration. While I have no doubt they have been threatened by some loons, EVERY one has not threatened them. And most of the vocalizations are not credible threats. Even on threads here, where someone posts about horrific abuse, you have posters saying things like, "Someone should set him on fire, and see how he likes it". Or someone should "(do the same heinous thing, ie beat with pipe, lock in shed and starve)" to him and see how it feels." Yet those posters would never actually do anything cruel to that person...it's a way of venting their anger at an action they find horrendous. I've got no doubt in my mind that the SH has received plenty of those types of comments. But they are harmless and not really valid threats.
    Hillary Clinton - proven liar, cheat, traitor and defender of rapists! Anyone but Hillary 2016! https://www.facebook.com/AntiHillary2016


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #404
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,498

    Default

    But you see, you are being facile and dismissive. Hanging upon a phrase and ridiculing. Look past the obvious misstatement; and see that the person who uttered it did not intend for it to be taken literally.

    The point is that people, perhaps someone you know, has been making threats.

    That's not acceptable. Ever. If you think it is, you are not the person I thought you were.



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    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
    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
    -Rudyard Kipling


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #405
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    refinery?



    Good God....mercy me.

    A power plant in ICELAND is probably not running on fossilized fuels, since they tap into the - renewable - energy their volcanic island offers.

    Public education at work?
    That's all you got? Excuse me for not reading the caption to picture. What is it they say...when you are losing a debate you degenerate into name calling and misspelling. I believe that falls under the fallacy of red herring, ad hominem.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  6. #406
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    ---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.
    Please show me reputable resource where it deems domesticated livestock a"natural" resource, not just propaganda used to make antis appear to be greedy SOB's for not sharing their horses flesh.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #407
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    But you see, you are being facile and dismissive. Hanging upon a phrase and ridiculing. Look past the obvious misstatement; and see that the person who uttered it did not intend for it to be taken literally.

    The point is that people, perhaps someone you know, has been making threats.

    That's not acceptable. Ever. If you think it is, you are not the person I thought you were.
    Someone I know?
    Oh yes, of course... EVERYONE who is against slaughter is a RaRa whack job. So since I am anti-slaughter, I MUST know these people calling this plant with threats. Gotcha'

    With that attitude, do you really think I would care that you don't think I am the person you thought I was... whatever that means?
    Careful with that broad brush, it can get messy using them.

    ETA
    On second thought, I thank you for that insulting remark... it tells me that the information I've posted that addresses the actual topic surely must be troublesome and proving my point well for the only recourse to be lumping me with a group I'm not associated with and casting insults.
    Last edited by Angela Freda; Mar. 23, 2013 at 05:02 PM. Reason: second thought


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #408
    Join Date
    Jun. 12, 2009
    Location
    Up north
    Posts
    3,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    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...
    H
    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.

    If the pro slaughter folks are scaring off posters, than the anti slaughter folks are neck and neck. I call it a tie.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  9. #409
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Jingle Town
    Posts
    35,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    That's all you got? Excuse me for not reading the caption to picture. What is it they say...when you are losing a debate you degenerate into name calling and misspelling. I believe that falls under the fallacy of red herring, ad hominem.
    No, I do not excuse you for not reading the capture of the picture.

    This should be the FIRST thing to read before using it to make your point, ESPECIALLY since it seemed out of place in the context.


    Oh, right

    context.....
    sorry I mentioned it....
    never mind

    carry on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
    GNU Terry Prachett


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #410
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2010
    Location
    Where humidity isn't just a word, it's a way of life.
    Posts
    913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    Many of the horses that are bought for slaughter COULD be useful if given the opportunity.
    So where are the opportunities?
    Anyone could easily go to the auction or even place an ad in a paper stating they are looking for a cheap horse, so why aren't they?

    How do you make someone give that animal an opportunity to be useful, an opportunity that hasn't reared its head before the animal ended up in the pipeline?

    Every single horse that passes through an auction or is sold to whoever shows the money on Craigslist has that opportunity,
    so why aren't the people who are going to support all these different ways to take care of these horses if slaughter/transport to other countries for slaughter is eliminated just buying these horses already?

    Wouldn't that eliminate this entire discussion?
    Take all those people who are going to support rescues, donate for gelding and euthanasia clinics, support programs to provide feed and care for those unable to, etc., and send them to spend that $$ outbidding the killbuyer now at the local auction, and hey, problem solved!
    Of course, Camelot rescuers have to beg, beg, beg, every week to get people to step up for the few that go through their doors, but I'm sure it'll be easy to round up a few more thousand people to give the rest of the horses that opportunity.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #411
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,974

    Default

    How about this: You want your horse to go to slaughter, you PAY for that "service".

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


    3 members found this post helpful.

  12. #412
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Jingle Town
    Posts
    35,589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    How about this: You want your horse to go to slaughter, you PAY for that "service".


    why on earth would you suggest something like that?

    It would be like an oil company paying me to take their gas...not that I object, mind you....


    Ok, you made a funny....not back to the discussion!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
    GNU Terry Prachett


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #413
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2010
    Posts
    903

    Default

    OK, so horses are livestock. I don't consider my horses to be livestock, but if you do, that's certainly your perogative.

    Other livestock industries receive huge government subsidies. So why not provide funding to county animal shelters so that people can surrender their horses? The horses could be held for a short period of time for possible adoption and then euthanized. The horses could then be rendered (solving the waste of the renewable resource problem).

    We are not talking about thousands, or even hundreds, of horses per animal shelter. Obviously some areas would have more horses than other areas. However, even many urban animal shelters already have the capacity to take horses, but it's usually limited to strays and seizures. Provide some funding and open that up to surrenders. Provide some funding for low-cost geldings as well.

    Owners would NOT be paid for surrendering their horse (just as we don't reward people for surrendering cats and dogs). There would be extra benefits as well... Owners could post horses on Craigslist and other sites and not have to worry about the true intentions of the people who show up to see the horse. This would be especially true for people who genuinely can't afford the horse anymore but do care where it ends up. Horses would not be transported long distances and most counties do have animal control facilities. There would less incentive for theft.

    Why the insistence that they be sent overseas for meat? Oh right, there's no PROFIT to be made in the above solution. And it might require TAXES. Well, my taxes currently support any number of activities I don't believe in. For example, the livestock industry.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  14. #414
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    16,735

    Default

    Dallas Crowne used to charge 75.00 to take and kill an emaciated horse...
    Moonover Miss- Many horses are taken to an auction and dropped off with no bio telling about horse's training, or not ridden in. Depending upon weather/advertising, some auctions are not well attended, so KB's buy most. Some people refuse to attend auctions because they are depressing...Kind of like that one in NM with the 4 horses that were down and struggling for a couple of days with no one taking care of them or humanely euthing them. So some people just won't go, even though they might be willing to buy a horse.
    Some racehorse trainers/owners sell horses straight to kill, rather than attempting to find them a home or contacting the breeder to see if they would like them.
    Some people run a horse thru an auction with no reserve, not aware that KB's attend/buy there. The local auction here intentionally hides the name of the buyer so people that don't attend regularly wouldn't know their horse just got sold to kill.
    Some KB's answer CL ads for free or cheap horses and misrepresent what their intentions are for the horse. Some even bring a kid with, so they say it"s for little Susie, then send to slaughter. We have one here that advertises on CL like that.
    Hillary Clinton - proven liar, cheat, traitor and defender of rapists! Anyone but Hillary 2016! https://www.facebook.com/AntiHillary2016


    3 members found this post helpful.

  15. #415
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Posts
    13,312

    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.

    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.
    Your my hero! So very well stated! I wish I could express myself so well.
    Your words are not lost on all.
    I think it would be wonderful to meet you some day.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #416
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    25,455

    Default

    Reading without emotion 101:
    I would imagine that meant "every animal rights organization" they knew about from in and out of this country has called in threats at one time or another, which is believable.

    Not that they meant every individual activist on the planet has called them.

    If it's believable that people stating online (from all over the world) that they'd like to beat someone for abusing an animal but they don't actually mean to do that...it's also believable that the person who stated that meant more than a few AR orgs in more than one country has called in threats.

    FWIW...
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte


    3 members found this post helpful.

  17. #417
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2000
    Posts
    13,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    Someone I know?
    Oh yes, of course... EVERYONE who is against slaughter is a RaRa whack job. So since I am anti-slaughter, I MUST know these people calling this plant with threats. Gotcha'

    With that attitude, do you really think I would care that you don't think I am the person you thought I was... whatever that means?
    Careful with that broad brush, it can get messy using them.

    ETA
    On second thought, I thank you for that insulting remark... it tells me that the information I've posted that addresses the actual topic surely must be troublesome and proving my point well for the only recourse to be lumping me with a group I'm not associated with and casting insults.
    Sorry Angela but you get as good as you give.
    You may not proclaim yourself to be an ARA but your words on these threads make one wonder.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #418
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    As I was saying, the economic impact of live horses is huge:

    Economic Impact generated by the New York Equine Industry reached $4.2 billion in 2011, yielding roughly 33,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

    State & Local Taxes $187 Million

    ECONOMICIMPACT $4,197,623,086
    JOBSIMPACT 32,991

    RECREATIONDIVISION- DIRECTIMPACTSUMMARY
    Total $782,086,443


    http://www.nytbreeders.org/pdf/EquineStudy.pdf



    MOST COMPREHENSIVE HORSE STUDY EVER REVEALS A
    NEARLY $40 BILLION IMPACT ON THE U.S. ECONOMY

    by
    The American Horse Council
    June 28, 2005

    The significance of the industry is reflected in the following:

    ? The horse industry contributes approximately $39 billion in direct economic impacts to the U.S. economy on an annual basis.

    ? Racing, showing and recreation all generate between $10 billion and $12 billion in annual direct impacts.

    ? When considering indirect and induced spending, the horse industry annually generates
    approximately $102 billion for the U.S. economy.

    ? Of the total $102 billion in economic impacts reported, approximately $32.0 billion is generated from the recreational segment, $28.8 billion from the showing segment, $26.1 billion from the racing segment and $14.7 billion for other industry segments.

    ? Approximately 1.96 million people own horses, with another 2 million people involved as volunteers or through a family affiliation.

    ? The horse industry sustains approximately 1.4 million full-time equivalent jobs on an annual basis, with over 460,000 of those jobs created from the direct spending within the industry.


    ? The horse industry pays approximately $1.9 billion in taxes on an annual basis to all levels of government.


    This study was commissioned by the American Horse Council Foundation in 2004.

    The estimated contribution to the GDP from the U.S. horse industry is approximately $39.2 billion per year.

    Table 7 illustrates several key points about the annual operation of the horse industry, including;
    ? Contributions of nearly $40 billion to the U.S. GDP.
    ? Stimulates approximately $63 billion in indirect and induced impacts.
    ? Attracts investments of nearly $25 billion in capital equipment and structures.
    ? Creation of over $4.1 billion in taxes and land purchases.


    When considering indirect and induced expenditures, the racing, showing and recreational
    segments all generate over $26 billion dollars in economic impacts.

    Table 10
    Direct, Indirect and Induced Effects on
    Full-Time Equivalent Employment(1)
    TOTAL 1,428,692


    In total, approximately $1.9 billion in taxes are paid on an
    annual basis by the horse industry to various levels of government.


    Jurisdiction Taxes Paid Percent
    Federal $588 31.26%
    State $1,017 54.12%
    Local $275 14.61%
    TOTAL $1,880 100.00%
    (1) Numbers shown in millions
    Table 13
    Taxes Paid by Tax Jurisdiction(1)


    http://www.manesandtailsorganization...005_Report.pdf



    Horse industry significant to Texas economy

    Texas

    The Texas horse industry has a statewide economic impact of more than $5.2 billion a year, said Clay Cavinder, Ph.D., an assistant professor of equine science at Texas A&M University.

    "Horses are valued at $4.2 billion just in the state of Texas," Cavinder said. "In terms of comparison with other industries and their effect on the GDP, we are on the same level as the motion picture industry, apparel manufacturing and tobacco industry. So, the horse industry brings a lot to the table."

    http://www.hpj.com/archives/2011/nov...ntUniversi.cfm


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #419
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    9,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sannois View Post
    Sorry Angela but you get as good as you give.
    You may not proclaim yourself to be an ARA but your words on these threads make one wonder.
    That's your loss then....



  20. #420
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post


    why on earth would you suggest something like that?

    It would be like an oil company paying me to take their gas

    Actually, it would be like you paying for euthanasia and pick-up by the renderer.

    If the demand for horse meat did not exist, no American could make a buck off their equine by selling to a kill buyer.

    Business 101.

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


    3 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
  •  
randomness