• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Assaulting our rights to own and use horses:

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JSwan View Post
    Here's another example.

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

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

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

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


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


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

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by JSwan View Post
      Here's another example.

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

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

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

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


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


      HSUS.
      The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
      H. Cate

      Comment


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

        seems you are finally getting it.

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

        It is not about the animal to them. It's about their bottom line and the agenda.
        Originally posted by BigMama1
        Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
        GNU Terry Prachett

        Comment

        • Original Poster

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



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

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

          seems you are finally getting it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          As percentages of total:

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


          That is ALL of agriculture, not just cattle.

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

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

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

          Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            As percentages of total:

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


            That is ALL of agriculture, not just cattle.

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

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

            FIX the abuse.
            Don't use the abuse card to ban whatever you don't like.
            If you do, don't expect what others don't like that you do, not to become someone else's target, using your actions for a precedent.
            The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
            H. Cate

            Comment


            • Jetsmom-

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

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

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

              Well, which is it.

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

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

              Comment


              • Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm

                Originally posted by JSwan View Post
                Jetsmom-

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

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

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

                Well, which is it.

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

                It IS a good law. It struck the right balance, which a good animal welfare law will do. It doesn't go after anyone. It's not ideology driven. It was part of a larger effort to update the code. No flash, no media blitz, no headlines.
                The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                H. Cate

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                  HALLELUJA

                  seems you are finally getting it.
                  Get what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  It's never black and white; but some just form an opinion based on who is involved.
                  ************************
                  \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

                  Comment


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

                    Comment


                    • Thank you.

                      Originally posted by luvmytbs View Post
                      Get what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      It's never black and white; but some just form an opinion based on who is involved.
                      The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                      H. Cate

                      Comment


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

                        My apologies if this has been brought up already--I meryl skimmed the first page.
                        Topline Leather -- Bespoke, handwoven browbands & accessories customized with Swarovski crystals, gemstones, & glass seed beads. The original crystal braid & crystal spike browbands!

                        Comment


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

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

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

                          Comment


                          • Lovemytbs -

                            Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

                            BUT

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

                            But

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

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

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

                            and food for thought:

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

                            Then along comes Po Lo.1 "I'm good at handling horses!" he announces, and proceeds to singe them, shave them, pare them, brand them, bind them with martingale and crupper, tie them up in stable and stall. By this time two or three out of ten horses have died. He goes on to starve them, make them go thirsty, race them, prance them, pull them into line, force them to run side by side, in front of them the worry of bit and rein, behind them the terror of whip and crop. By this time over half the horses have died.
                            ~Chuang Tse/ZhuangZi
                            Let us eat, drink, and be merry. For tomorrow we die.

                            Comment


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

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

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

                              Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

                                    Comment


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

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

                                      That would be me!

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

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

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

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

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

                                      G.
                                      Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                                      Comment


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

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



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

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

                                        Comment

                                        • Original Poster

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X