The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 648
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    39,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ADM7040 View Post
    Theoretically, I do believe it is possible to improve the welfare of horses destined for slaughter. There are currently rules and regulations regarding the handling, transport and actual slaughter. I do believe that these are not adhered to often enough and that offenders are rarely prosecuted, but theoretically, it could be enforced to improve the welfare.

    I do have an issue with slaughtering for human consumption an animal that has not been raised for food. We currently do have rules and regulations regarding how more "typical" animals are raised and what can be fed or administered to these animals. This is done to ensure the integrity of the human food chain. I believe it is entirely wrong to have lesser standards for horses intended for human consumption. Current testing standards are entirely too lax. According to USDA published standards, every horse must be visually inspected to ensure that it is ambulatory and does not outwardly appear diseased. After that visual inspection, only 1 in 300 horses (or minimum of 1 per week) is all that is required to actually be tested for drug residues, etc. That is no where near a statistically relevant sampling of a population that has mostly individual histories of feed/medications, by that I mean that they were not raised by the same source farm/ranch.

    The current EID documents are inadequate as well. First of all, if answered truthfully to the spirit of the document, it still only requires 6 months of history and there are plenty of commonly administered substances which are, by regulation, never to administered to animals intended for human consumption. In actual practice, the document is pretty meaningless as illustrated by the fate of Backstreet Bully and many, many others.

    I do not understand how the pro-slaughter faction can continue to push that breaking these regulations is a non-issue. If regulations regarding possible contamination of the human food chain are blown off, how in the world can the industry expect the general population to believe their other promises to improve compliance on past infractions.

    If we are to believe in the inevitablity of Bluey's constant repetition of the slippery slope argument, then that would mean that if we allow the rules to be less stringent for horses, then the next thing that is going to happen is that the ag industry is going to want to lower the standards for other animals for human consumption as well. Hmmm, that is not something I want happening in my country and to our food supply.

    Fairfax constantly alludes to new testing that will allow them to test every horse while it is still alive. I have asked for him to tell us more about this, but he has ignored every one of my requests so I have to question if this is really being developed. A test such as this would be important and would show that the industry is truly trying to improve.
    Did you ever play ball, any kind, basketball, volleyball, tennis or such?

    What any coach will tell you and keep repeating is: "Keep your eye on the ball!"

    The same applies here.

    All that is distracting from the real issue, the drive by animal rights extremists to eliminate all uses of animals, one at the time, here handily because they have some abuses and, since horse slaughter is the most regulated of them, well, many inspector reports and all that they can use for their propaganda, etc.

    The goal here in these drives to ban?

    Distracting you from seeing the ball for all the hand waving, that here is just that, regulations and inspections and how the process works and what can be made better where it doesn't.

    I will insist, horse slaughter is just a process, as good as the ones managing it and as such, definitively not perfect, but also not "all abuse!", as some may want you to think.

    Why work on banning a perfectly good way to get one more use from SOME horses after they are dead?
    Those same horses will then be killed in euthanizing clinics and wasted and that is more objectionable than at least, thru slaughter, make their lives and death mean something more than discarded as trash in a landfill.

    We are not talking about your horse or mine or the next one standing there, but those the horse industry is not using any more for any other, thus the euthanizing clinics or animal control killing them, if we don't have slaughter.

    Now, back on the topic of this horse, that seems to be a horse that some wanted, had a different use than dead and he fell thru the cracks, which he would have done if there was slaughter or not, as it seems several of his owners were quick to dump him when convenient.

    That this happened to this horse and happened thru slaughter, that, again, is no reason to want to ban slaughter, but to tighten the requirements so that doesn't happen, as with others in such situations, with someone wanting them, as I know happen in the Dallas plant, they were held back until their situation was resolved, the owner sorted out.
    That is assuming the story as told is the whole story, there is not more to explain why things ended like they did.

    Par for the course, one horse was killed because someone didn't wait to resolve what the situation was, against others where, even when questionable, the horses were held to clarify the situation, as they should.

    Make regulations better, so horses like the first one are not killed, don't take that situation out of context to brand all slaughter as evil and ban it because, see, some times mismanagement happens.

    Where does that make any sense, but in the eyes of animal rights extremists, that see any such story as a good way to eventually eliminate all uses of animals, one at the time, as their current president said several times over several years: "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".

    Right.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,609

    Default

    Here's the entire quote Bluey, before you pro-death people edited it for effect...

    Out-of-context and selectively edited quotes are a staple of the smear campaign against animal welfare. Here's another favorite of HumaneWatch and its followers:

    We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. One generation and out.

    That's pretty damning evidence, isn't it? A bold confession of Wayne Pacelle's hatred for animals and desire to see them wiped out, and proof of the HSUS agenda to eliminate animals...

    In reality, this quote dates back to a 1993 agricultural forum, where an attendee asked whether heirloom breeds of cattle (outdated breeds of livestock no longer used for commercial purposes) should be protected from extinction. Pacelle explained that he did not believe we needed an endangered species act specifically for rare livestock breeds.

    "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    4 members found this post helpful.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    39,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Here's the entire quote Bluey, before you pro-death people edited it for effect...

    Out-of-context and selectively edited quotes are a staple of the smear campaign against animal welfare. Here's another favorite of HumaneWatch and its followers:

    We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. One generation and out.

    That's pretty damning evidence, isn't it? A bold confession of Wayne Pacelle's hatred for animals and desire to see them wiped out, and proof of the HSUS agenda to eliminate animals...

    In reality, this quote dates back to a 1993 agricultural forum, where an attendee asked whether heirloom breeds of cattle (outdated breeds of livestock no longer used for commercial purposes) should be protected from extinction. Pacelle explained that he did not believe we needed an endangered species act specifically for rare livestock breeds.

    "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
    Now, that is what WP said years later, when now it was not PC any more to be a radical.
    The reality, he had been saying that for years and did after that quote in that one interview and it was there maybe about certain domestic animals, but it was definitely before and after not in that context.

    You can make history, but it is a bit harder to re-write it once it happens and too many remember hearing that phrase as a stock phrase, used repeatedly, time and again.

    Guess you really did fall off the fence you kept insisting you were sitting on, now defending the HSUS.



  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2010
    Posts
    629

    Default

    I actually looked into the Humane Society after the last thread. Over the years, reading these threads, I had started to think there might really be a problem with HSUS. I had heard of Humane Watch (what a reasonable sounding name). Then, after doing a little digging, I found out who is behind Humane Watch. No need to go into here... Then I found out the the HSUS does, in fact, get good ratings from other organizations that rate non-profit organizations.

    They spend a lot of money on lobbying. So what? Both sides of every issue have paid lobbyists. Isn't that what United Horsemen is doing? Is only the side you agree with entitled to spend money on lobbying?

    And I really and truly don't believe that the HSUS is trying to take my horses, cats, and dogs away. Can we just think about that rationally for a second? Doesn't it seem obvious that their donations would vanish overnight if they started advocating for no pets?

    What about the ASPCA? Are they also RARA's?


    4 members found this post helpful.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct. 21, 1999
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    12,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ADM7040 View Post
    Theoretically, I do believe it is possible to improve the welfare of horses destined for slaughter. There are currently rules and regulations regarding the handling, transport and actual slaughter. I do believe that these are not adhered to often enough and that offenders are rarely prosecuted, but theoretically, it could be enforced to improve the welfare.

    I do have an issue with slaughtering for human consumption an animal that has not been raised for food. We currently do have rules and regulations regarding how more "typical" animals are raised and what can be fed or administered to these animals. This is done to ensure the integrity of the human food chain. I believe it is entirely wrong to have lesser standards for horses intended for human consumption. Current testing standards are entirely too lax. According to USDA published standards, every horse must be visually inspected to ensure that it is ambulatory and does not outwardly appear diseased. After that visual inspection, only 1 in 300 horses (or minimum of 1 per week) is all that is required to actually be tested for drug residues, etc. That is no where near a statistically relevant sampling of a population that has mostly individual histories of feed/medications, by that I mean that they were not raised by the same source farm/ranch.

    The current EID documents are inadequate as well. First of all, if answered truthfully to the spirit of the document, it still only requires 6 months of history and there are plenty of commonly administered substances which are, by regulation, never to administered to animals intended for human consumption. In actual practice, the document is pretty meaningless as illustrated by the fate of Backstreet Bully and many, many others.

    I do not understand how the pro-slaughter faction can continue to push that breaking these regulations is a non-issue. If regulations regarding possible contamination of the human food chain are blown off, how in the world can the industry expect the general population to believe their other promises to improve compliance on past infractions.

    If we are to believe in the inevitablity of Bluey's constant repetition of the slippery slope argument, then that would mean that if we allow the rules to be less stringent for horses, then the next thing that is going to happen is that the ag industry is going to want to lower the standards for other animals for human consumption as well. Hmmm, that is not something I want happening in my country and to our food supply.

    Fairfax constantly alludes to new testing that will allow them to test every horse while it is still alive. I have asked for him to tell us more about this, but he has ignored every one of my requests so I have to question if this is really being developed. A test such as this would be important and would show that the industry is truly trying to improve.
    I'm going to quote this one more time, in the, vain I know, hope that Fairfax, Bluey and their ilk will actually read it. I am not anti-slaughter. I believe it has a place. I am anti-slaughter regarding the way it is conducted at this time. I believe in being humane, which, by the way, is not a bad word, and does not belong to HSUS exclusively.

    I believe in safety in the food chain, and I believe that sufficient precautions are not being adequately exercised in the processing of horses at this time. Make it humane, and safe for the human beings who will be consuming it and they can open all of the horsemeat burger joints they want, wherever they want. I won't eat there, but I won't begrudge others their opportunity.

    But, I know that's not good enough for some. So, jens, if you will have someone who isn't a rabid pro-slaughter fanatic, but isn't a rabid anti-slaughter fanatic either, I would be proud to call myself Comrade Louise.
    Originally Posted by Alagirl
    We just love to shame poor people...when in reality, we are all just peasants.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newhorsemommy View Post

    What about the ASPCA? Are they also RARA's?

    For starters, the ASPCA is based in NYC, and is not national.

    And do ask the carriage folks about their status. I think you will get a resounding 'Yes' on your question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    For starters, the ASPCA is based in NYC, and is not national.
    Say what?


    The ASPCA works to rescue animals from abuse, pass humane laws and share resources with shelters nationwide.

    Amazing how some are making statements that are completely false and hope they can get away with it.

    Or perhaps, they truly ARE THAT clueless.

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


    8 members found this post helpful.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    39,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newhorsemommy View Post
    I actually looked into the Humane Society after the last thread. Over the years, reading these threads, I had started to think there might really be a problem with HSUS. I had heard of Humane Watch (what a reasonable sounding name). Then, after doing a little digging, I found out who is behind Humane Watch. No need to go into here... Then I found out the the HSUS does, in fact, get good ratings from other organizations that rate non-profit organizations.

    They spend a lot of money on lobbying. So what? Both sides of every issue have paid lobbyists. Isn't that what United Horsemen is doing? Is only the side you agree with entitled to spend money on lobbying?

    And I really and truly don't believe that the HSUS is trying to take my horses, cats, and dogs away. Can we just think about that rationally for a second? Doesn't it seem obvious that their donations would vanish overnight if they started advocating for no pets?

    What about the ASPCA? Are they also RARA's?
    I beg to disagree.
    Do you realize that the HSUS is the richest animal rights extremist non-profit group in the world, worth millions and getting millions every year in donations?
    Do you realize they have many lawyers employed, last I heard, some 50?

    Now, you may not like who is behind this site, but tell me, do you think that what this site is explaining is not so and if so, it would still be standing, not already be closed down by a group with the power and money and attorneys they have?

    http://activistcash.com/organization...united-states/

    This is a very inconvenient site for them, bad PR and as you know, that counts for so much, when you are living off donations from the public.

    As for those that rate non-profits, last I heard they had downrated the HSUS for using too much of their money to support their association.

    The HSUS is extremely powerful right now, has people in key positions in this administration in regulatory and other positions and that is helping them.

    You say, "they do some good" and yes of course they do, but their ultimate goal really is to have a vegan world and no more use of animals by humans, that no one that wants to really see what they are doing can deny is so.

    I knew people that worked with those animal rights groups and what they were telling was not pretty and yes, their goal as stated was to end animal use, no more slaves.

    You can keep your ears and eyes open and decide for yourself as you learn more, but the information is out there and it definitely is clear that they are an animal rights extremist group.

    Now, some agree with them, humans should not have any animal to use, but whoever thinks so is ignoring how this world works, that is all in it is part of a whole, in all ways, including using each other, from the smallest organism to the most advanced one, when it comes to manipulate it's environment, humans.

    To deny that humans may use animals is like denying the colors we see include yellow, just because someone may not like yellow, which would be a bit of nonsense.



  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,514

    Default

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

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


    9 members found this post helpful.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2009
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Take any kind of commercially slaughterable animal, cow, pig, sheep, chicken. Now if someone called the slaughter house saying that an easily identifiable animal had mistakenly entered the food chain or had the potential to do so (and offered to send written proof of same), wouldn't the processing come to a screeching halt until the animal was found and pulled from the slaughter process?

    Furthermore, wouldn't it be in the company's best interests if said information surfaced, to apologize and reassure everyone that the problem had been taken care of and the animal did not get processed for human consumption?

    There always seems to be a huge silence with regard to horse slaughter. Either the plants feel no need to explain anything or try to reassure everyone (and are thus above the law), or perhaps they are so afraid of uncovering a huge mass of deception that they won't touch it with that proverbial 10 foot pole. Either way, it does not seem geared to inspire trust in the product they are selling.

    Comrade betonbill


    13 members found this post helpful.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Say what?


    The ASPCA works to rescue animals from abuse, pass humane laws and share resources with shelters nationwide.

    Amazing how some are making statements that are completely false and hope they can get away with it.

    Or perhaps, they truly ARE THAT clueless.
    Yes, you are that clueless....

    The ASPCA is actively working against the use of horses in NYC.
    The delicate part:
    They were founded to oversee the well being of the working horse and are one of the four agencies in charge of overseeing compliance with the regulations.

    Oh, one of their top brass people gave NYCLASS nearly a half a million....

    And maybe they do pass some money along, but they are not a nationwide organization. I think Cowgirljenn mentioned they supported her efforts in te past. But no: the SPCA in your town is not affiliated with that club.


    And yeah, the humane laws....

    http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S5013-2011

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



  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr. 22, 2006
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Hey Jenm, now you have a group too! That's you, me and Angela. Anyone else want to join the commie, socialist, vegan (did I leave anything out) RARAs?

    Comrade readers of the communist, vegan Toronto Star (the most widely read paper in Canada, by the way) unite!

    Comrade Laura
    Count me in!
    "The captive bolt is not a proper tool for slaughter of equids they regain consciousness 30 seconds after being struck fully aware they are being vivisected." Dr Friedlander DVM & frmr Chief USDA Insp


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,514

    Default

    Copied from guidestar:

    Mission Statement


    The mission of the ASPCA, as stated by our founder, Henry Bergh, is to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States

    Impact Summary from the Nonprofit :

    Highlights of our 2012 successes include:

    · Providing rescue, resources and care to people and their pets in areas most impacted by Hurricane Sandy. The ASPCA has rescued more than 300 animals and treated or provided supplies to nearly 60,000 since the storm. In addition, we opened an Emergency Boarding Facility to provide temporary sheltering for hundreds of animals displaced in the aftermath of Sandy.

    · Feeding an estimated 2,900 horses impacted by widespread drought and rising costs through our Hay Bale-Out grants.

    · Rescuing 50 dogs from a fighting ring in Bronx, NY and helping place the majority of them with response partners who will find homes for them.

    · [B] Funding life-saving programs at over 1,000 animal welfare groups nationwide with more than $14 million in grants.[/B]

    · Mentoring and supporting our nine active Partnership communities to help an estimated 242,000 dogs and cats and welcoming Louisville, KY into the program.

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


    4 members found this post helpful.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptownevt View Post
    Count me in!
    Me too, even though I like my steaks medium rare.

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


    4 members found this post helpful.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    30,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Mission Statement


    The mission of the ASPCA, as stated by our founder, Henry Bergh, is to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States

    Impact Summary from the Nonprofit :

    Highlights of our 2012 successes include:

    · Providing rescue, resources and care to people and their pets in areas most impacted by Hurricane Sandy. The ASPCA has rescued more than 300 animals and treated or provided supplies to nearly 60,000 since the storm. In addition, we opened an Emergency Boarding Facility to provide temporary sheltering for hundreds of animals displaced in the aftermath of Sandy.

    · Feeding an estimated 2,900 horses impacted by widespread drought and rising costs through our Hay Bale-Out grants.

    · Rescuing 50 dogs from a fighting ring in Bronx, NY and helping place the majority of them with response partners who will find homes for them.

    · [B] Funding life-saving programs at over 1,000 animal welfare groups nationwide with more than $14 million in grants.[/B]

    · Mentoring and supporting our nine active Partnership communities to help an estimated 242,000 dogs and cats and welcoming Louisville, KY into the program.
    Sandy impacted the North East. Certainly their area
    The Bronx is...oh, wild guess here....NYC....

    and frankly, 14 million is pittance.
    They certainly solicit funds nationwide. It's only right to funnel some of what they skim off the donor pool back into the general population.


    2900 horses? sheesh, REALLY!

    Yes, to somebody who has only one horse, that sounds huge.
    But when you pull up the BIG PICTURE you realize it is more like taking that proverbial leak into a forest fire.

    They also sponsor horse shows....

    Still, they have taken a turn for the radical. I am sure the VP of the Carriage people can fill you in more closely on who is running the show...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2006
    Location
    The rocky part of KY
    Posts
    9,121

    Default

    We raise small animals for meat and we abide by the rules, which are pretty comprehensive. We have to feed the pigs a commercially made feed with the ingredients list clearly available, and our pastured pork buyer wants us to maintain a care custody and control chain that extends all the way to the birth of the animal so we have to keep the sows and breed here, no raising weaner pigs for them. . The rabbits have to be in the care custody and control of the person doing the slaughtering for the 30 days previous to slaughter so DH has to be present and participate.

    I suppose we could just LIE, but that's shocking, that's why all these PITA rules are in place is to protect the public from mad cow disease and other illnesses. I know of a guy who works at a hospital and brings home the scraps from the patient meals to feed his pigs and he lies, I'm sure, if he's even asked. Would you want meat from a pig that's been in somebody's backyard eating the leftovers from hospitalized patients? YUCK, not me!

    I guess I'll have to be an honorary member. Call me Comrade Jessie. I can deal with the idea of slaughter but the blatant disregard of good business practice (not selling the horse back for more money) and public health (LYING about ccc, feed, all that - these guys are no better than someone who poisons) that's so not right.
    Courageous Weenie Eventer Wannabe
    Incredible Invisible


    12 members found this post helpful.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    39,954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReSomething View Post
    We raise small animals for meat and we abide by the rules, which are pretty comprehensive. We have to feed the pigs a commercially made feed with the ingredients list clearly available, and our pastured pork buyer wants us to maintain a care custody and control chain that extends all the way to the birth of the animal so we have to keep the sows and breed here, no raising weaner pigs for them. . The rabbits have to be in the care custody and control of the person doing the slaughtering for the 30 days previous to slaughter so DH has to be present and participate.

    I suppose we could just LIE, but that's shocking, that's why all these PITA rules are in place is to protect the public from mad cow disease and other illnesses. I know of a guy who works at a hospital and brings home the scraps from the patient meals to feed his pigs and he lies, I'm sure, if he's even asked. Would you want meat from a pig that's been in somebody's backyard eating the leftovers from hospitalized patients? YUCK, not me!

    I guess I'll have to be an honorary member. Call me Comrade Jessie. I can deal with the idea of slaughter but the blatant disregard of good business practice (not selling the horse back for more money) and public health (LYING about ccc, feed, all that - these guys are no better than someone who poisons) that's so not right.
    So, sounds like you are with the ones that think, because your neighbor is lying about what he feeds his pigs, against regulations, now all such pig feeding should be banned, yours too, because you can't trust anyone to do it right?



  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    4,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptownevt View Post
    Count me in!
    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Me too, even though I like my steaks medium rare.
    Welcome to the trenches, Comrades!
    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


    4 members found this post helpful.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Me too, even though I like my steaks medium rare.
    We're inclusive..vegans, vegetarians, omnivores and carnivores. You'll have to ask Jen about cannibals...I suspect they're banned from participating.

    Welcome Comrades.
    "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
    16,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    So, sounds like you are with the ones that think, because your neighbor is lying about what he feeds his pigs, against regulations, now all such pig feeding should be banned, yours too, because you can't trust anyone to do it right?
    Bluey, I don't think you can see the forest for the trees.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    10 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Hoof cracks
    By Perchmom in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May. 25, 2011, 02:39 PM
  2. quarter cracks...HELP!
    By TwistofRed289 in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 19, 2010, 03:45 PM
  3. Cracks in the foundation
    By snoopy in forum Eventing
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: Jun. 22, 2010, 11:09 AM
  4. Quarter Cracks
    By EquestrianRunner in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Feb. 17, 2010, 03:39 PM
  5. Hoof cracks - what can be done to help?
    By Live2Jump in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep. 23, 2009, 05:12 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
  •