Congress passes bill that allows Americas wild horses to go straight to slaughter.

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.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

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 2/8/18)

See less

Snowbird

Schoolmaster

Join Date: May. 15, 1999

Posts: 12539

Location: The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
#81

Nov. 30, 2004, 10:12 PM

The first sign of somene who doesn't know what he's talking about is the fact that he considers his view the only one. Any true student of science knows that facts are as fluid as the evidence that is presented.

You did mention missing links when you said there was no evidence for the evolution of the tiny equinus to the full size one we know today. You demean the legends of the Native Americans because in your limited knowledge you have not heard of fossils that might prove to the contrary nor are you aware of geological factors which may have destroyed the relics of such ponies.

You jump to the conclusion that they walked only because we have found no evidence and not because we have eveidence that they walked and did not have horses they rode from the areas where they were migrating. You assume that "Equus Caballas" did not exist here because you say so because you have not seen any evidence.And you are?

It is not an indictment, it is a clarification that despite your assumption of total and ultimate knowledge it is not necessarily true. There were people equally convinced that the earyth was flat and the sun and moon revolved around the earth. So sure they killed anyone who disagreed like Galileo who was lucky and only went to prison.

Actually I wondered if you had considered some help with your narcissism. You realize I think that the first symptom of serious illness is when you believe you have the only correct answers and the rest of the world is wrong and that you are the ultimate authority for all knowledge.

Let's start with the premise that there are things about which you could have some doubt
and then this could be a stimulating conversation and dialog of ideas all equally unprovable ands pure speculation.

Before you give tag lines to subjects you should really understand the theology of the times. I really find it very rude to imply that I have no knowledge of the biological titles given to what are theological concepts. What separates us from the animals is the complexity of our brain and our capacity to imagine and create. I find yours lacking a few important connections.

http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org
Comment
Beezer

Schoolmaster

Join Date: Nov. 19, 2000

Posts: 5902

Location: The Southern California freeway system, stuck in an endless commute
#82

Nov. 30, 2004, 10:57 PM

Wow, Snowbird! You GO, girl!!

Congratulate me! My CANTER cutie is an honor student at Goofball University!
Comment
Tom Stovall CJF

Working Hunter

Join Date: Oct. 7, 2004

Posts: 367

Location: Katy, Texas
#83

Dec. 1, 2004, 06:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
The first sign of somene who doesn't know what he's talking about is the fact that he considers his view the only one. Any true student of science knows that facts are as fluid as the evidence that is presented.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Science is knowledge (not belief) obtained and tested in adherence with the scientific method.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You did mention missing links when you said there was no evidence for the evolution of the tiny equinus to the full size one we know today.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, "missing links" is your construction. I wrote that Equus evolved in the Americas, but that Equus caballus evolved on the steppe of Eurasia. I wrote that because that's what the fossil evidence suggests and that's the published consensus of the scientific community. Evidence aplenty exists suggesting the pre-Columbian presence of various species of Equus in the New World, but none of are Equus caballus.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You demean the legends of the Native Americans because in your limited knowledge you have not heard of fossils that might prove to the contrary nor are you aware of geological factors which may have destroyed the relics of such ponies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you really consider it "demeaning" that I've pointed out that no physical evidence exists in support of your position?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You jump to the conclusion that they walked only because we have found no evidence and not because we have eveidence that they walked and did not have horses they rode from the areas where they were migrating. You assume that "Equus Caballas" did not exist here because you say so because you have not seen any evidence. And you are?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To my knowledge, no evidence exists that suggests the moon is made from green cheese, despite legends to the contrary.

Similarly, no evidence exists that supports your position, but you're attempting to take me to task for pointing out that no evidence exists.
Hie yourself to a library!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
It is not an indictment, it is a clarification that despite your assumption of total and ultimate knowledge it is not necessarily true.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you have any physical evidence - not meaningless supposition and conjecture as to why none exists - please post it here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There were people equally convinced that the earyth was flat and the sun and moon revolved around the earth. So sure they killed anyone who disagreed like Galileo who was lucky and only went to prison.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny you should mention Galileo. He is considered to be one of the fathers of the scientific method and was labeled a heretic by the Church for pointing out no evidence existed supporting the Church's teaching that the earth was the center of the universe, while a great body of evidence existed suggesting the earth revolved around the sun. Sound familiar?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Actually I wondered if you had considered some help with your narcissism. You realize I think that the first symptom of serious illness is when you believe you have the only correct answers and the rest of the world is wrong and that you are the ultimate authority for all knowledge.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I fear you've miscalculated the odds somewhat: relative to the evolution of equids, science and the evidence are in one corner, while your unsupported conjecture and lack of evidence is in the other.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Let's start with the premise that there are things about which you could have some doubt and then this could be a stimulating conversation and dialog of ideas all equally unprovable ands pure speculation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No ma'am, let's start with the scientific method and go from there.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Before you give tag lines to subjects you should really understand the theology of the times. I really find it very rude to imply that I have no knowledge of the biological titles given to what are theological concepts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all due respect, all theology is based on dogma.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
What separates us from the animals is the complexity of our brain and our capacity to imagine and create. I find yours lacking a few important connections.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm somewhat comforted we find ourselves in opposite camps.

Usual disclaimers, your mileage may vary, farriers lie.
Comment
HeyYouNags

Advanced

Join Date: Oct. 23, 2000

Posts: 1914
#84

Dec. 1, 2004, 06:40 AM

Quick question - is anyone actually bothering to read all that sh*t full of quotes that Tom Stovall CJF is posting?

Because just looking at the screen makes my eyes go
Comment
MandyVA

Advanced

Join Date: Jun. 7, 2002

Posts: 1215
#85

Dec. 1, 2004, 07:17 AM

I'm with you HYN. WAY too much time on some peoples' hands...

\"Non-violence never solved anything.\" C. Montgomery Burns
Comment
Susan P

Grand Prix

Join Date: Oct. 31, 2004

Posts: 4785
#86

Dec. 1, 2004, 07:32 AM

Scientific theory is not fact, only theory. What I sent you contains scientific theory as well. Did you read it entirely before you judged it? Are you saying that if someone is a Christian, they can't be objective, they can't be a scientist?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Susan P:

REFERENCES
O. C. Marsh, "Recent Polydactyle Horses", American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 - as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125.

Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While each of us is entitled to our beliefs, belief is not knowldge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Comment
BabyGoose

Grand Prix

Join Date: May. 5, 2002

Posts: 4121
#87

Dec. 1, 2004, 07:35 AM

Okay, here is a thought. I think Mr. Stovall's comment about horses being chattel has closed people's mind to his points. If you DO read his posts his arguments are generally good.

However, I think we have strayed very far off subject. I think it would be safe to say that the majority of us don't want to see all those horses got to slaughter. Some of us agree that there is a problem and too many horses to be placed in suitable homes. So say enough pressure is put on the government to stop this. What are some other solutions for all these horses?

On the other side of the coin. Say the new law stays in effect. They send a bunch of horses to an auction, the majority of them go to slaughter, the horses are at a more manageable number. How do we keep it that way? How do prevent this from happening all over again?

Lets try and come up with some good solutions. I think the topic of evolution of horses is an interesting one and Mr. Stovall has started a new thread on the subject. Time to take a breath and open up our brains to some sharing of ideas, opinions, and knowledge.
Comment
jackie

Working Hunter

Join Date: Jan. 25, 2002

Posts: 434
#88

Dec. 1, 2004, 07:35 AM

I have not read the last 4 pages-so if this is redundant I apologize-I will cut to the chase so to speak.

The law has not been signed and become public law yet- that may not happen until Dec 6 - so if one does not agree with this law - arguably there is time yet to express ones' displeasure to your congress person. Anotherwords- I dont know whether it is true that "Tragically, it is too late to have this language pulled from the
Omnibus legislation which will be signed by the President."

That may be a practical fact -- but it has not yet been signed into public law and will not probably for another week. Outrage certainly got the politicans to move on the fiasco involving the tax return/privacy waiver provision.

Just a thought!
(I will just post this as a separate topic-as this one seems to have frizzled out)
Comment
MandyVA

Advanced

Join Date: Jun. 7, 2002

Posts: 1215
#89

Dec. 1, 2004, 07:50 AM

Good point on thinking about solutions. Here's an idea: cats and dogs are the same way. Too many, not enough homes. SPCAs take them all in, euthanize the ones that aren't fit for adoption, charge a fee and screen adopters for the ones that are. I have no problem with this and adopt from the SPCA whenever I have room. It's unfortunate that they can't all get homes but I'd rather see them humanely euthanized than starving or langquishing in a cage. And I appreciate that the ones that are simply not suitable as pets get put down first leaving room for the ones that are.

I see no reason horses shouldn't be treated with the same courtesy. Our local SPCA took on about 50 horses several years ago who had been neglected. All of the adoptable horses were eventually placed. I think some that were too far gone were euthanized. It worked out fine and no one went to slaughter. Now why can't more SPCAs fill such a gap? Why can't the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act be amended to include funding for SPCAs to take on horses just like they do dogs and cats? Sure it would be expensive, but some of the costs are offset by adoption fees. And we certainly fund a lot more useless BS than that with out tax money right now.

\"Non-violence never solved anything.\" C. Montgomery Burns
Comment
HeyYouNags

Advanced

Join Date: Oct. 23, 2000

Posts: 1914
#90

Dec. 1, 2004, 08:05 AM

Some SPCAs or animal control agencies *do* take in horses, MandyVA. And some animal control agencies cooperate with horse rescue non-profits, like Days End Farm in MD. Unfortunately, though, adoption fees don't go very far to offset the tremendous expense of caring for horses. Nor for dogs and cats, for that matter, especially when they're spayed/neutered by the agency.

There has been some work done on use of injectable immunocontraceptives in wild horse populations. It's been successful on the MD side of Assateague Island (the VA side does the pony penning thing). But that's a population of animals that is maintained in a small and limited geographical region.

I have mixed emotions on the wild horse issue. Sending them to slaughter totally contradicts the intent of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, for starters.

Wonder why BLM can't euthanize excess horses, rather than sending them to slaughter, if there is absolutely no place for them. (A big if ) I can't imagine these completely untamed animals handling the stress of gather, transport, and movement through the slaughter facility without significant injury.
Comment
rescuemom

Advanced

Join Date: Jan. 3, 2000

Posts: 1979

Location: FL, still working for DEFHR
#91

Dec. 1, 2004, 08:18 AM

All of this is getting a bit far afield from the original topic, but I wanted to address comments.

Mandy, there is language in the Anti-Slaughter Act to include funding for rescues who can take in some of the horses previously marked for slaughter. Of course, just because an Act passes doesn't mean it will actually be funded. That is a part of the problem for those of us who are not anti-slaughter (in the sense that we don't want it outlawed) - how in the heck are we going to find funding to care for all these horses? I don't know of a single rescue that doesn't have a constant struggle to get funds to care for the horses it currently takes in, much less a flood of horses in the event slaughter is outlawed. For example, Days End is a fairly *successful* rescue, but even now, with said *success* there are times we must close our doors to all but the most critical cases of abuse/neglect, because there is only so much money and so much space available. What will happen when the thousands of horses who would have been slaughtered have *no where else* to go?

On the adoption fees offsetting costs comment, no, not reality. It is a rarity that the adoption fee comes remotely close to what the rehab costs were. For most rescues the adoption fee isn't even about recouping rehab costs, but more about dissuading those who think they can easily get a free/cheap horse from a rescue, and the theory that something, cat, dog, horse, whatever, is more valued if it is paid for than gotten free.

While funding specifically for SPCAs is in theory a good idea, in reality most SPCA workers are like most Animal Control personnel - they don't know diddly about horses, much less abused and neglected horses.

Proud adopter of Win
http://www.defhr.org
Days End Farm Horse Rescue
Protection for Horses - Education for People
Comment
Tom Stovall CJF

Working Hunter

Join Date: Oct. 7, 2004

Posts: 367

Location: Katy, Texas
#92

Dec. 1, 2004, 08:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by HeyYouNags:
[...]
Wonder why BLM can't euthanize excess horses, rather than sending them to slaughter, if there is absolutely no place for them. (A big if ) I can't imagine these completely untamed animals handling the stress of gather, transport, and movement through the slaughter facility without significant injury.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I haven't read the Act lately, but IIRC correctly, I don't think the BLM can legally euthanize a heathy feral horse. However, in pragmatic terms, probably the most cost effective means of controlling an overpopulation of feral horses in any given range would be simply to shoot any number that exceeds the carrying capacity of their range.

As you point out, penning, transporting, and holding feral horses, whether for "adoption" or slaughter, is not without its perils; I will add that whatever the end result, the process entails significant expense.

Usual disclaimers, your mileage may vary, farriers lie.
Comment
BabyGoose

Grand Prix

Join Date: May. 5, 2002

Posts: 4121
#93

Dec. 1, 2004, 08:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by HeyYouNags:
There has been some work done on use of injectable immunocontraceptives in wild horse populations. It's been successful on the MD side of Assateague Island (the VA side does the pony penning thing). But that's a population of animals that is maintained in a small and limited geographical region.

Wonder why BLM can't euthanize excess horses, rather than sending them to slaughter, if there is absolutely no place for them. (A big if ) I can't imagine these completely untamed animals handling the stress of gather, transport, and movement through the slaughter facility without significant injury. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There has been some testing with using contracetive methods on mares and it is very successful. While the feral horses of the west are spread out more I think it would be possible to use it. It would be costly initially but I think would help in the long run by reducing the number of animals.

Unfortunatly HYN there are A LOT of feral horses in long term holding facilities. We are talking thousands. These are feral horses that generally take a lot of work, knowledge, and patience to make them usable. And not many people are looking for just a pasture ornament that they can't even put a halter on. Some of the more adoptable horses are taken to adoptions all over the country with the unadopted ones making the trip back the holding facility, so transport is not really that big a deal. I think the reason for sale rather than just euthanizing is trying to recoup some of the huge cost of keeping these horses. I agree, I would rather see them euthanized than taken to a sale barn.
Comment
DMK

remain.com

Join Date: May. 17, 2000

Posts: 24350

Location: Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
#94

Dec. 1, 2004, 08:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by HeyYouNags:
Wonder why BLM can't euthanize excess horses, rather than sending them to slaughter, if there is absolutely no place for them. (A big if ) I can't imagine these completely untamed animals handling the stress of gather, transport, and movement through the slaughter facility without significant injury. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wondered the same thing, but I thought maybe the proper disposal of the carcasses would be difficult/expensive and not doing it of course would be hazardous to other wildlife. Truthfully, even proper disposal isn't without impact on the wildlife.

Bottom line, we need to get the cattle off the lands and natural predators back ON the lands! (But of course it is much simpler to say that than live it).

bryn, whoever - I don't believe the democrats refused to sign the omnibus bill - it's been signed, sealed and delivered. They did, however, refuse to verbally agree to remove the infamous Istook Amendment (where Congress can snoop into your tax returns). They required that the Republicans return to vote it back out or do whatever it is that elected officials do to fix shockingly bad legislation.

Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.
Comment
Posting Trot

Schoolmaster

Join Date: Jun. 6, 2000

Posts: 6112

Location: Amherst, MA
#95

Dec. 1, 2004, 08:58 AM

Just as a sidenote: when scientists use the word "theory" it has a more precise meaning than when the average person in casual conversation uses the word. All science is based on theories; scientists then go about setting up experiments (or collecting data in other ways) that will either support or disprove a working hypothesis based upon the theory. Thus, to call all of evolutionary thought wrong (or unlikely or unproven) just because scientists refer to it as a "theory," is a result of a basic misunderstanding.

After all, the use of antibiotics is based, ultimately, on the germ "theory" of disease. There's a lot we don't know about diseases and the full effects of antibiotics and related medications. So, logically, if you reject evolutionary theory because there are "holes" in the "theory," you ought also to reject the use of antibiotics.

Just a thought.

"The formula 'Two and two make five' is not without its attractions." --Dostoevsky
Comment
MandyVA

Advanced

Join Date: Jun. 7, 2002

Posts: 1215
#96

Dec. 1, 2004, 09:06 AM

I hear those who oppose banning slaughter when they say "where will the money to care for all those horses go?" but I still don't see why it's any different than cats and dogs. And don't tell me about the expense because there are way more cats and dogs going through shelters than there will ever be horses and they manage to find the money. Cats and dogs don't go to slaughter because it's not a viable option. There isn't enough room or money to care for them all indefinitely so some get euthanized. If slaughter wasn't a viable option for horses, then when the space ran out at the SPCAs and rescues or the BLM holding pens, some would get euthanized. Why is that seen as such an unworkable solution?

I would rather see the unwanted horses getting culled, humanely, to make room for ones that have a chance at adoption than see perfectly nice OTTBs end up slaughtered simply because rescues don't want to euthanize any of the horses they take in. If the goal is the humane care of the animals, why cling to this notion that rescues don't euthanize? Wouldn't their mission be better served housing animals that may get adopted than turning away adoptable animals who instead go to slaughter?

I hate to be so harsh but I think the attitude against euthanasia is what is keeping slaughter around. And clearly SPCAs don't subscribe to the notion that euthanasia is cruel. So fund them to take care of the horses. How great of an improvement would it be to the life quality of horses if all you had to do when your horse was three legged lame and you couldn't afford to euthanize it was, instead of taking it to the kill auction, take it to the SPCA? I myself would never take any animal to the SPCA, but I would rather the irresponsible owners who let their cats and dogs breed uncontrolled have that option than have no choice but to shoot or drown them.

\"Non-violence never solved anything.\" C. Montgomery Burns
Comment
Susan P

Grand Prix

Join Date: Oct. 31, 2004

Posts: 4785
#97

Dec. 1, 2004, 09:09 AM

Not at all, because there is a cause and effect that proves the value of antibiotics. There is inadequate evidence to prove most of the evolutionary theory and there is new evidence to alter that theory dramatically.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Posting Trot:
Just as a sidenote: when scientists use the word "theory" it has a more precise meaning than when the average person in casual conversation uses the word. All science is based on theories; scientists then go about setting up experiments (or collecting data in other ways) that will either support or disprove a working hypothesis based upon the theory. Thus, to call all of evolutionary thought wrong (or unlikely or unproven) just because scientists refer to it as a "theory," is a result of a basic misunderstanding.

After all, the use of antibiotics is based, ultimately, on the germ "theory" of disease. There's a lot we don't know about diseases and the full effects of antibiotics and related medications. So, logically, if you reject evolutionary theory because there are "holes" in the "theory," you ought also to reject the use of antibiotics.

Just a thought. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Comment
katarine

Banned

Join Date: Apr. 17, 2002

Posts: 14495

Location: between the barn and the pond
#98

Dec. 1, 2004, 09:18 AM

You know what this looks like?

What I'm seeing in a quick drive by is a well spoken man surrounded by hysterical women.

You all might not *like* what Tom's posting, but I tell you, he's posting clearer, more interesting, and frankly more fact based posts than his detractors. Yall think about that. Who would sound more intelligent in person? The one staying objective and thoughtful, or the person telling him to crawl back under a rock while hugging their horsie's neck
Comment
MandyVA

Advanced

Join Date: Jun. 7, 2002

Posts: 1215
#99

Dec. 1, 2004, 09:21 AM

Maybe if you drove a little slower you'd be able to pick up on his attitude.

\"Non-violence never solved anything.\" C. Montgomery Burns
Comment
Joanne

Grand Prix

Join Date: May. 17, 2001

Posts: 3766

Location: It's hot
#100

Dec. 1, 2004, 09:29 AM

The topic of the wild horses was shown on the CBC news last night. Here is a link to a video of it. According to what I saw last evening, any unadoptable horse over the age of 10 could (maybe would) be sent to slaughter. I took an instant dislike to Senator Burns whose attitude to me was that the horses were an expense and a great bother to the US.

WARNING: There is a brief scene of a horse just slaughtered.

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q...&sp-s=doc_date

The virtual "woodshed" seems the only remedy for willful fools .
Comment

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Next

Announcement

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

Congress passes bill that allows Americas wild horses to go straight to slaughter.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment