• 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

  • And, I would highly encourage anyone who thinks that farmers raising free range birds support HSUS & PETA to actually ask a farmer how they feel about them. I raise free range birds, and the only way I can raise them free range without major predator losses is with the help of my livestock guardian dogs. My girls LOVE to work and choose to work; but these HSUS & PETA fools insist that these dogs can only be happy as house pets. My girls have house privileges; but they would be perfectly happy just staying out guarding the sheep and birds.

    Exactly what MistyBlue said - LEARN about the reality of what these people are up to.
    Disclaimer: Just a beginner who knows nothing about nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ldaziens View Post
      And, I would highly encourage anyone who thinks that farmers raising free range birds support HSUS & PETA to actually ask a farmer how they feel about them. I raise free range birds, and the only way I can raise them free range without major predator losses is with the help of my livestock guardian dogs. My girls LOVE to work and choose to work; but these HSUS & PETA fools insist that these dogs can only be happy as house pets. My girls have house privileges; but they would be perfectly happy just staying out guarding the sheep and birds.

      Exactly what MistyBlue said - LEARN about the reality of what these people are up to.

      They don't even want that. I saw a recent posting on W.A.R I believe but don't quote might have been one of the others . Where one person spouted off about how cruel it was to keep a dog as a domestic companion. That we make them sit in the house all day while we go off to work etc forcing them to hold their bladders and be un natural. Then again they try to force their Carnivore only cats to eat a "healty" Vegan diet.

      About 15 years ago there was a study done on the diets of house cats and the diseases most linked to their foods. Diabetes , Renal Failure etc. In the end the study proved out of all the types tested the healthiest cats were being fed "ground mouse". Literally lab raised mice tossed whole into a meat grinder and then fed fresh. So talk about cruel taking an animal that is designed to eat meat and forcing it to eat a plant based diet because of your opinion.

      They don't want house pets they don't want PETS PERIOD.
      "I would not beleive her if her tongue came notorized"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Lynnwood View Post
        They don't want house pets they don't want PETS PERIOD.
        The ultimate goal is no pets; but between now and then it's just about relentlessly harassing people on multiple fronts.

        Vegan dog and cat food -- seriously HOW does this nonsense get any traction.
        Disclaimer: Just a beginner who knows nothing about nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MistyBlue View Post

          The point with those who disagree with some of you is that welfare is fantastic. Rights are not.

          Agreeing and supporting welfare does *not* mean the person is close minded, enjoys seeing animals fighting and most certainly does not mean they only want their personal views of humane only.

          As a matter of fact it means the direct opposite of that. That they agree with welfare laws and want them upheld...they do NOT want a few inexperienced people forcing their opinions into laws. Which is what animals rights are.

          Jetsmom...do you really honestly think that the folks you dislike on here would seriously be for dog and cock fighting for any reason? Honestly?

          The point many have been attempting to make on these ridiculous threads is:

          LEARN exactly what is going on...LEARN it. Do not parrot what the internet says. Get off your duffs, get out there and use reason without bias. The internet...she lies. A lot. Kinda like the silliness of folks posting "HSUS is not animal rights! They don't have that on their website!"

          Because the rhetoric being posted here about fox hunting couldn't be more dramatic & ridiculous if it was a soap opera script.
          Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved. So if you support one, there is no reason they wouldn't support the other. Both end up with dead animals for the people's entertainment. Same thing with trophy hunting when they are doing it just to mount the head.

          And not everyone thinks that the HSUS is an AR organization. Taking some old quotes, often out of context, doesn't make it one. And not donating to shelters doesn't make it one, when their mission statement isn't one of being a shelter. They lobby/fight for bills designed to prevent abuse/make animal use more humane. But you disagree with me on that...so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. But it works both ways. You want to say, "Don't believe the internet/biased sites, but your buddy Bluey trots out the numerous Richard Berman sites all of the time. A paid lobbysist who keeps 92 cents of every dollar donated to one of his faux charities. And yet you and others will never tell her that the site is biased. So you all, have a biased agenda, yet won't admit it. Did you even look at the link allintexas linked on the other thread?.

          Comment


          • The comments were delivered exactly as stated. Pacelle discovered that Joe and Martha thought they were too radical so he toned his comments down to make them "easier to swallow".

            Nice guy...kinda like Bill Clinton...a great conversationalist...

            but...would you trust him with your daughter...alone?

            Then why trust him with your pets or livestock.

            It is all about the M O N E Y

            Having worked from the inside out..what we read and see is hardly what is spoken about behind closed doors.

            There IS a Vegan agenda.
            There is a ban on livestock agenda

            He won't tackle the pet issue as he would like to as most people have a grand mother/father who owns a pet...he wants THEIR money


            a quote from a Nibbler

            "Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved. So if you support one, there is no reason they wouldn't support the other. Both end up with dead animals for the people's entertainment. Same thing with trophy hunting when they are doing it just to mount the head"


            But...but....but....darn it...didn't WAYNE PACELLE HSUS CEO PROCLAIM that Michael Vicks would make a GREAT PET OWNER?

            Vicks has NEVER been remorseful for all of the deaths which were staggering according to the ASPCA...the number of animals...puppies...kittens...cats...wild animals tossed into the pen so a good and violent KILL could be made. Therefore they would LEARN how to kill and if they didn't...he broke their front legs and tossed them back in to be killed.

            and yet....Wayne PROCLAIMS that Vicks is ONE OF THEM...

            Vicks just blames his culture and his mistreatment as a youth...

            Hate to let reality destroy your premise
            The Elephant in the room

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
              Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved. So if you support one, there is no reason they wouldn't support the other. Both end up with dead animals for the people's entertainment. Same thing with trophy hunting when they are doing it just to mount the head.

              And not everyone thinks that the HSUS is an AR organization. Taking some old quotes, often out of context, doesn't make it one. And not donating to shelters doesn't make it one, when their mission statement isn't one of being a shelter. They lobby/fight for bills designed to prevent abuse/make animal use more humane. But you disagree with me on that...so be it. You're entitled to your opinion. But it works both ways. You want to say, "Don't believe the internet/biased sites, but your buddy Bluey trots out the numerous Richard Berman sites all of the time. A paid lobbysist who keeps 92 cents of every dollar donated to one of his faux charities. And yet you and others will never tell her that the site is biased. So you all, have a biased agenda, yet won't admit it. Did you even look at the link allintexas linked on the other thread?.
              Bluey the site is biased.

              Of course it is biased. Every site, every statement, every post, every donation is biased. Seeing past the bias to the facts is what is important and what makes us informed. The facts are still true.

              HSUS presents very few facts. They prey on emotion as they do not have to prove anything that way. HSUS and PETA nibble away at the edges of our rights. Enough little nibbles equal a large bite. RARAs believe and spout the statements they make without verifying the facts. Can you show me a statement made py Mr. Purcell supporting domestic animal ownership? Not the mission statement but a statement he has made to refute the earlier statements.
              I support equine meat processing as an option for those who choose to use it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
                Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement... .
                Wow. You really know nothing about foxhunting, do you? Oh, I'm sure you think you do, but
                Most people don't need a $35,000 horse. They need a $1,000 horse and $34,000 in lessons.

                "I don't have to be fair… . I'm an American With a Strong, Fact-Free Opinion." (stolen off Facebook)

                Comment


                • Could you please explain how foxhunting works? Don't the hounds eventually kill the fox? I thought that is why it was banned. A form of dog(canine) fighting.

                  Comment


                  • And not everyone thinks that the HSUS is an AR organization.
                    The US government does.

                    And HSUS does not hide it. They just don't use the actual word "rights" after learning that the general public views animal rights proponents as mentally unstable, fanatic and in some cases domesticen terrorists.

                    HSUS used to term themselves as Animal Welfare advocates.

                    As soon as Wayne went to work there...he dropped the "welfare" and, on the advice of his legal team, changed it to Animal Protection instead of Animal Rights.

                    Wayne doesn't really hide it. Let's look at his bio he wrote on his own blog:

                    The organization is the 155th largest charity in the United States. The growth has partly been achieved through successful mergers with other animal protection organizations. In 2004, Wayne Pacelle and Michael Markarian (president of The Fund for Animals and now chief program and policy officer of The HSUS) helped engineer the corporate combination of The HSUS and The Fund for Animals, the national organization founded by Cleveland Amory. In 2006, Pacelle was the architect of a combination with the Doris Day Animal League, which was founded nearly 20 years ago by iconic actress Doris Day, and is one of the major American animal protection organizations. He created the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, after the formerly named Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights was brought into the HSUS family.
                    Fund for animals is an Animal RIGHTS org. Started by bigtime Animal Rights activist Cleveland Amory. Taken over after Amory's death by Markarian...also a self avowed animal rights activist.
                    Wayne was pres of peta, animal rights.
                    Wayne also absorbed Doris Day's org...Doris day was a self avowed animal rights activist.
                    Wayne absorbed in the Vets for ANIMAL RIGHTS group and renamed it to remove the rights.

                    To think that HSUS, all top officers replaced by Wayne all from animal rights and wayne himself from Peta, is NOT animal rights is either naive or purposely obtuse.
                    You jump in the saddle,
                    Hold onto the bridle!
                    Jump in the line!
                    ...Belefonte

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      Originally posted by MistyBlue View Post
                      The US government does.

                      And HSUS does not hide it. They just don't use the actual word "rights" after learning that the general public views animal rights proponents as mentally unstable, fanatic and in some cases domesticen terrorists.

                      HSUS used to term themselves as Animal Welfare advocates.

                      As soon as Wayne went to work there...he dropped the "welfare" and, on the advice of his legal team, changed it to Animal Protection instead of Animal Rights.

                      Wayne doesn't really hide it. Let's look at his bio he wrote on his own blog:



                      Fund for animals is an Animal RIGHTS org. Started by bigtime Animal Rights activist Cleveland Amory. Taken over after Amory's death by Markarian...also a self avowed animal rights activist.
                      Wayne was pres of peta, animal rights.
                      Wayne also absorbed Doris Day's org...Doris day was a self avowed animal rights activist.
                      Wayne absorbed in the Vets for ANIMAL RIGHTS group and renamed it to remove the rights.

                      To think that HSUS, all top officers replaced by Wayne all from animal rights and wayne himself from Peta, is NOT animal rights is either naive or purposely obtuse.
                      If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, no matter what it wants to call itself, no matter where it comes from, it is indisputably a duck.

                      I think that is some of what the article that started this thread was saying.
                      Finally even the main media is catching on.
                      Sorry, they can't hide their duckiness any more, no matter how they try to spin it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MistyBlue View Post
                        The US government does.

                        And HSUS does not hide it. They just don't use the actual word "rights" after learning that the general public views animal rights proponents as mentally unstable, fanatic and in some cases domesticen terrorists.

                        HSUS used to term themselves as Animal Welfare advocates.

                        As soon as Wayne went to work there...he dropped the "welfare" and, on the advice of his legal team, changed it to Animal Protection instead of Animal Rights.

                        Wayne doesn't really hide it. Let's look at his bio he wrote on his own blog:



                        Fund for animals is an Animal RIGHTS org. Started by bigtime Animal Rights activist Cleveland Amory. Taken over after Amory's death by Markarian...also a self avowed animal rights activist.
                        Wayne was pres of peta, animal rights.
                        Wayne also absorbed Doris Day's org...Doris day was a self avowed animal rights activist.
                        Wayne absorbed in the Vets for ANIMAL RIGHTS group and renamed it to remove the rights.

                        To think that HSUS, all top officers replaced by Wayne all from animal rights and wayne himself from Peta, is NOT animal rights is either naive or purposely obtuse.
                        This is a very important post because when I posted my concerns regarding Vets having their education paid for by HSUS the standard thought was...who cares!!

                        We are now finding out how insidious this program is.

                        These are vets who REFUSE to euthanize any healthy animal for any reason. We have a pending suit where a vet told a lady he would put down the family dog (both parents laid off work) when they put down one of their children.

                        Another vet arrived at a farm where the owner of an elderly horse stated old "dobbin" could not make it through another winter so he wanted him put down while the temperatures were warm. Dobbin was 32 years old..and was thin as most horses that age become. The vet reported him to authorities and he was charged with ABUSE AND NEGLECT. It was eventaully tossed out because ANOTHER vet had viewed the horse over the years...and had helped develope a special diet.

                        HSUS vets regularly attend auctions looking for old or thin horses that owners have put into the sale KNOWING they will go for slaughter. They contact local authorities and have them charged (we have over 40 cases on this premise alone)

                        HSUS regularly approaches the courts with an explaination as to why THEIR vets should be considered to be the final word during a trial. And, as we found out during the Vess case, the courts can be swayed and the testimony of an equine vet with over 25 years experience was over turned by the testimony of a vet (general practice with only 40 hours of equine study) who was in her SECOND year of practice.
                        The Elephant in the room

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                          HSUS vets regularly attend auctions looking for old or thin horses that owners have put into the sale KNOWING they will go for slaughter. They contact local authorities and have them charged (we have over 40 cases on this premise alone)
                          Charged with what ??????????????

                          Owning old horses is not against the law.

                          Selling horses is not against the law.

                          Selling for slaughter is not against the law.

                          I NEVER saw anyone from HSUS at the auctions I frequented. As a matter of fact, NOBODY of any authority (AG Dept., Auction vet) ever gave a rat's behind what shape the horses were in that came into the sale.

                          So facts please FF.
                          ************************
                          \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

                          Comment

                          • Original Poster

                            The facts here is that, long before the HSUS was active with the abuse card and videos from sale barns and farms and all that for their cause of the moment donation drives, sale barns already had protocols for what animals they accepted or not for their sales.

                            That doesn't mean some animal may not have been kept there from individuals that was not up to those standards, but it was not part of the sale.

                            For a good 30+ years, our sale barn had a sign with that, for the increasingly clueless new animal owners that didn't know what good animal husbandry is.
                            In that sign it was clearly stated any animal having ambulatory problems or open wounds would be rejected.
                            If it was bad, the owner was reported to the sheriff, if the situation was decided to be extreme by the sale vet.

                            Yes, good animal husbandry is what those that care for animals have always done, well before any animal rights extremists groups decided that using abuses was a great way to condemn all animal users, as they have done more and more, even making up some of the abuse, as those stories finally coming to light show, as in the circus lawsuit they lost.

                            Remember, if you see abuse anywhere, including sale barns, speak up and help remedy that.
                            Don't go believing aligning yourself with some animal rights extremist group is going to help the animals, because their intent is not that, but to eliminate all uses, eventually.

                            I think it is idiocy to align yourself with animal rights extremist groups, if you want to keep YOUR rights to have and care for any animals.
                            Hard to understand why anyone would think that makes any kind of sense.

                            Now, if you really think that we need a new world order, where humans don't get to have any animals in their care at all, hands off them totally, then yes, animal rights extremists groups are for you.

                            Then all I will say is that we have to agree to disagree.

                            Each one of us is free to have our own opinions, including the opinion that humans should now quit using animals, as we have evolved doing in this world, as the natural, renewable resource they are.

                            That is what freedom is, each one can have their own opinion.
                            With freedoms come responsibilities, including to respect other's freedoms.

                            That is where I won't agree that animal rights extremists have the right to determine if the rest of us get to have and use animals.
                            I would not demand they have to use animals or else, which would be the other coin of being intransigent and wanting to impose our opinions on others, just as they are trying to do.

                            Comment


                            • Posting again since I'm all about facts. Where, anywhere, please, does/has one of these organizations ever stated they want to end all animal use, pets or otherwise.

                              I need facts to make a decision about anything. It has kept me out of a lot trouble in my life to seek out the real truth.

                              Like MistyBlue stated in an earlier post, don't believe the internet. I believe nothing in general, most people are just plain wrong, they don't look beyond what is in front of them. Even experts in their field.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by luvmytbs View Post
                                Charged with what ??????????????

                                Owning old horses is not against the law.

                                Selling horses is not against the law.

                                Selling for slaughter is not against the law.

                                I NEVER saw anyone from HSUS at the auctions I frequented. As a matter of fact, NOBODY of any authority (AG Dept., Auction vet) ever gave a rat's behind what shape the horses were in that came into the sale.

                                So facts please FF.
                                It IS against the law to have a horse considered to be under weight. When a person sends the horse to the auction, the local authorities DO have the right to charge the seller with neglect and abuse.

                                Most famous case was Axel and Dale Huber. They were charged when they took their old non producing mares to the auction (4 of them) and yes...they were under weight. They were charged with Abuse, Christine Matthews took two thin TB's to a sale in Florida and was charged.

                                This is done to stop individuals from using auctions especially if kill buyers are present. It is all done to intimidate and create and aura of fear
                                The Elephant in the room

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
                                  Sorry, but I see no difference between a foxhunt where you let the hounds kill the fox for the rider's amusement, or where people engage in dogfighting or cockfighting for their amusement. Except the social status of those involved.
                                  You see no difference between a wild animal that can run away, knows the territory, can go to ground, etc. and animals put in a very small confined space with no way to leave that tiny box? Truly? You don't see the difference? Wow.

                                  And "social status"? You're one of those ARs who think that everybody who hunts has is a toff?

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                    sale barns already had protocols for what animals they accepted or not for their sales.


                                    For a good 30+ years, our sale barn had a sign with that, for the increasingly clueless new animal owners that didn't know what good animal husbandry is.
                                    In that sign it was clearly stated any animal having ambulatory problems or open wounds would be rejected.
                                    Signs (rules) are everywhere we go in life.
                                    They mean nothing if they are not enforced.

                                    Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                    If it was bad, the owner was reported to the sheriff, if the situation was decided to be extreme by the sale vet.
                                    And you have seen that happen with your own eyes? Anyone ever been charged?
                                    Don't think so. Not in my corner of the world.


                                    Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                    Remember, if you see abuse anywhere, including sale barns, speak up and help remedy that.
                                    Been there, done that.
                                    Best I ever got: "Let's hope someone will buy the horse and feed it."
                                    .
                                    ************************
                                    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by sunridge1 View Post
                                      Posting again since I'm all about facts. Where, anywhere, please, does/has one of these organizations ever stated they want to end all animal use, pets or otherwise.
                                      “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

                                      "It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” Elliot Katz, President “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

                                      “In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

                                      "But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

                                      “Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

                                      “We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win.” Dr. Steven Best, speaking at International Animal Rights Gathering 2005. The Telegram (UK) July 17, 2005.

                                      Comment


                                      • Here's another: “The cat, like the dog, must disappear….. We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.”
                                        -John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

                                        Now, how can it be clearer than that? It is crystal clear and animal rights advocates are entirely about eliminating domestic animals.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                                          It IS against the law to have a horse considered to be under weight. When a person sends the horse to the auction, the local authorities DO have the right to charge the seller with neglect and abuse.
                                          But they don't.

                                          You and bluey are dilusional.
                                          ************************
                                          \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X