• 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

Disgusting - Video of a horse shot in the head by a slaughter proponent in New Mexico

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by BigMama1
    Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
    GNU Terry Prachett

    Comment


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

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


      but I see you are a quick study...eventually reading with some comprehension...
      Originally posted by BigMama1
      Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
      GNU Terry Prachett

      Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Comment


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

          I wasn't nasty. It was a suggestion.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
            That is like insisting we ban driving because, look at the local news, every week there are several killed by drunk drivers!
            Actually, the true analogy would be banning alcohol because of drunk driving, not banning driving. But then, alcohol is highly restricted if you're driving, so it's really not an accurate comparison.

            Comment


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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                I wasn't nasty. It was a suggestion.
                well, in that context it wasn't nice either
                Originally posted by BigMama1
                Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
                GNU Terry Prachett

                Comment


                • Thank you jetsmom...I was struggling with that analogy...you nailed it.

                  Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Definition of renew:

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

                    Comment


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

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

                      Comment


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

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

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

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


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

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

                        Highlights of the national study include:

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

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

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

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

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

                        Numbers of Horses

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

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

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

                        Participation

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

                        The Size and Impact of the Industry

                        Gross Domestic Product

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

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

                        Employment

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

                        Taxes

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

                        The Diversity of the Industry

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

                        Income Levels

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

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



                        THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE HORSE INDUSTRY

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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




                        September 2011

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

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

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

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

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


                        http://www.vet.purdue.edu/esmc/files...Study-2011.pdf
                        Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

                        http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

                        Comment


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

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

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

                          You are not serious, are you.

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

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

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

                          Comment


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

                            Myopic way to look at this issue.

                            NO ONE is demanding we slaughter ALL horses.

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

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

                            Comment


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

                              Bluey...

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

                              I do not think the word means what you think it means.

                              Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                Maybe y'all should think on that a little.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                Comment


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

                                  Myopic way to look at this issue.

                                  NO ONE is demanding we slaughter ALL horses.

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

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

                                  Further, the majority of horses running through slaughter plants are sound, and young... so to say no one can use them is probably not accurate of many or most of them.
                                  Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

                                  http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

                                  Comment


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

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

                                    Comment


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

                                      Myopic way to look at this issue.

                                      NO ONE is demanding we slaughter ALL horses.

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

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

                                      Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        Maybe y'all should think on that a little.

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

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

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

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

                                        If exaggerations on one side aren't ok, then they aren't ok from either side.
                                        Or perhaps they have a database of EVERY activist in the WORLD? Funny, I didn't call the plant... hmmmmm
                                        Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

                                        http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

                                        Comment


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                          Maybe y'all should think on that a little.

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

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

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

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

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X