• 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.

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 more
See less

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

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

  • Thanks for sharing this.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joanne:
    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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Comment


    • Scientific conclusions can be altered at any moment that a new discovery is made and therefor they are not facts but speculation as is everything else.

      It is unscientific to say that because there is no evidence that they rode a horse that it is not so unless you have evidence that they did not ride a horse.

      We all believed there were no such things as munchkins, leprachauns or elves but now we have found that there was a society of humans who were that tiny full grown so the legends may be more accurate than the science.

      Velikovsky speculated based on legends that Venus was a comet captured by our solar system. He was the only one who guessed that when we got there Venus would be an excesively hot planet. Science changes and grows as it gets new information and the lack of information is not science.

      You can quote what the current thinking of prople in science think but you cannot call that science. The Mayan calendat ends in the year 2012. Considering the accuracy of their science there is reason then to believe that the world will end in 2012.

      We found Lucy and have evidence that she was the original mother of us all. Yet, later we discovered that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnan lived at the same time and interbred. There are still Neanderthals amongst us and perhaps Mr.Stoval that is your heritage and why you are so closed minded to other possibilities than than what you learn personally.

      There is some evidence that birds are what is left of the evolved dinosaur but there are missing pieces to a perpetual puzzle. We have found villages that are 13,000 years old and yet we count time as we know man starting much later than that. There is evidence that the Sphinx could be 1000's of years older than the pyramids and carved at a time when the desert was a water basin.

      The laws of science keep changing with new discovery it is not dogma. Science always has an open mind.

      Whenever there is not a clear cut chain there are missing links. This is not an abstract concept.
      http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

      Comment


      • To add to Snowbird's comments, carbon dating has some varients. Accuracy of the test depends on certain conditions and the conclusion of the tests can be inaccurate under some of these conditions.

        Comment


        • Please folks, your help is needed TODAY!

          Last night CBS Evening News ran the story about the current plight of the Wild Horse.

          This story has thankfully helped to initiate the groundswell of support we need to reach the President. President Bush is the only remaining chance we have to get this amendment removed.

          PLEASE, call the White House comment line today and respectfully request that President Bush insist that Senator Burns remove amendment 142 to the Omnibus Appropriations bill before he signs this bill into law. 202-456-1111

          Please follow your call up with a faxed letter requesting the support of the President.
          202-456-2461

          Thanks in advance for all your help!

          Gail Vacca
          www.horse-protection.org
          www.horse-protection.org

          No Horses to Slaughter Clique

          Comment


          • On the issue of no one having proved that Native Americans did not ride horses prior to contact with Europeans: as a historian I'll comment that it is difficult to impossible to "prove" a historical negative, i.e. that something never happened. One can only infer from the lack of evidence. This means that one has to have an open mind, in case some new piece of evidence comes to light, but in the absence of physical evidence to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with saying that early Native Americans (i.e, pre-Columbian) did not ride horses.

            One problem with relying solely on oral history (and since I work on African history I have some training on using oral historical sources), is that the time frame in historical narratives tends to be telescoped: significant events from the past are often pushed farther into the past to give them a greater "timeless" or "traditional" quality. Thus, if an informant tells you that the such and such people have "always" done this and that, or have done this and that since the world began, it may not be a fully accurate description of what actually happened in the past. You need to have some other sources of another type to corroborate the statement.

            As to evolutionary theory, there actually is a pretty dramatic example of cause and effect that relates directly to the use of antibiotics--the creation of drug-resistant bacteria. This process is evolution in action, and is a strong and measurable support for evolutionary "theory."

            I also, in keeping with the real purpose of this thread, emailed my senators and the white house.
            "The formula 'Two and two make five' is not without its attractions." --Dostoevsky

            Comment


            • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandyVA:
              Cats and dogs don't go to slaughter because it's not a viable option.

              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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

              Cats and dogs may not be slaughtered, but they are euthanized in the millions, yearly. Which is a slaughter of its own. So, do we go with slaughter of cats and dogs, to match that of horses, so that humans can knowingly dine on cat and dog at (some) Chinese restaurants? I'm not willing to say that euthanizing millions of animals annually is less revolting than slaughtering thousands.

              Where do you get the notion that rescues don't euthanize?

              I think the *attitude against euthanasia* is more of an attitude against paying a vet to take care of it, versus getting bucks from the slaughterhouse. And IMO what keeps slaughter around, in addition to certain chattel-tudes, is the American propensity to say "it's mine and I can do whatever I darn well want with it, including breed it with no thought to offspring welfare, and no one will hold me responsible for my irresponsibility to the cat/dog/horse/world at large, and besides, in the case of a horse I'll get paid to kill it."

              As to a euthanized horse having no value while a slaughtered one does, I think the rendering plants might disagree. Valley Protein (Winchester) gets paid not only for picking up the carcass, but also for any by-products it can market from the carcass.
              Proud adopter of Win
              http://www.defhr.org
              Days End Farm Horse Rescue
              Protection for Horses - Education for People

              Comment


              • Y'all, Stovall is just yankin' your collective chains. For the record, I'd be happy to be one of his farrier's tools - he treats them better than most people treat their horses.

                I want wild horse policy written and discussed by people who know something about them, in public; it should not be written and inserted by a single senator under cover of a 14 inch thick appropriations bill.
                If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                Comment


                • But poltroon, if they did that, then the policy wouldn't have made it into the appropriations bill.

                  Comment


                  • If they did that, it wouldn't have been discussed or passed at all.

                    It's a time-honored tactic for passing otherwise unpalatable legislation. At the moment there are no checks and balances left against such maneuvers in the current situation other than the outrage of the general public.
                    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                    Comment


                    • When I saw him (Burns) speak last night on CBS, my first thought was "he's a cattle man." This may already been talked about in this lengthy thread.

                      Anyway, FYI, here is his biography.

                      http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0521103
                      The virtual "woodshed" seems the only remedy for willful fools .

                      Comment


                      • As a fellow historian and sociologist your position is a non-issue. Of course one does not take these things literally but within the abstract concepts there are things that are just as true as might be untrue since there is no evidence.

                        Art and legend was the way stories came down to us. For example the archeologists have discovered an island off shore in the Mediteranean that has more human bones than found anywhere. Apparently it was a popular choice for burial. They also believe that several thousand years ago it was lush green full of vegetation which to desert people would have been a particular delight. In the old papers it says the island was called paradise.
                        So when people said when I die want to go to paradise it might not have meant the same thing as we think of as paradise. This may alter the context but not the concept.

                        Yo cannot say it is more true there were no horses because we do not have any evidence of the horses than it is to say there must have been horses that were ridden. Some will theorize one and others will theorize another and until there is evidence one way or the other it is not a fact in either argument.

                        YES! we know about anti-biotics and we also know that many eons before then people tied moldy bread to their open cuts. There are legends of herbs which have turned into today's pills and approved by the FDA.

                        Imagine they used maggots 5000 years ago and today the doctors have discovered the advantage of still using maggots and leaches. The door is always open and the mind should also stay open.

                        What is the benefit to science to deny what the Native Americans legends say was unless we can prove it wasn't. In Tibet they believe in recyling the human body so the corpse is left exposed for the vultures to use as food. If there are no cemetaries in Tibet does that imply that no one ever died?

                        Einstein proved that everything is relative to our perspection of reality and is not necessarily the only reality. If what you have looks like a horse, makes noise like a horse, it rides like a horse and you think it's a horse! Is it really a horse? If no one tells you it's a big donkey? Is it a donkey or a horse with big ears? The names we use are our names not their names.

                        From superficial observation I suspect we have a few mules passing as horses at the shows. But all of this is irrelevant to the issue of slaughtering any animals for any reasons.

                        What is relevent is should they be supported by tax money when we have children who are not? If the money gained from their sale is put to a good use and they are humanely treated for the better good of the whole system why not let them be recycled as feed for zoos? Why put them in a landfill with garbage. If we bury them do we damage the water or the land?

                        We have to measure the loss against the gains because they are farm animals and as such they serve use as food or fiber. We give our pets characteristics that are human because we need to do that.

                        I don't want to see any animal slaughtered uselessly or painfully. In the best of all possible worlds we would live to be eternal because I don't want to die. BUT that is not reality.
                        http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                        Comment


                        • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                          Originally posted by Snowbird:
                          Yo cannot say it is more true there were no horses because we do not have any evidence of the horses than it is to say there must have been horses that were ridden. Some will theorize one and others will theorize another and until there is evidence one way or the other it is not a fact in either argument.
                          <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                          No ma'am, that's not how it works. You are claiming something exists on the basis of personal conjecture, you have no evidence. You could just as easily claim the Amerinds rode tame dinosaurs because a similar amount of evidence exists in support of that claim as exists in support of your claim they rode horses.

                          None.

                          The fact NO evidence exists to support your claim offers substantial support to the contention that Equus caballus did not exist in the New World in pre-Columbian times. If evidence supporting your contention were discovered at some time in the future, then your claim would have some validity. Until that time, it is without merit.
                          Usual disclaimers, your mileage may vary, farriers lie.

                          Comment


                          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom Stovall CJF:
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rescuemom:
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I like horses well enough to have devoted most of my life to their well being, but I could no more love a horse than I could love my shoeing box.

                            Horses are chattels, not people.

                            The best horses I've ever owned - and I've owned some VERY good horses - was not worth a single human life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                            How very sad for you.
                            <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                            No ma'am, how very, very sad to think more of a chattel than a fellow human. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            You think horses are only personal possesions? So you give no more value to horses than a say your car or your shoes? You must be the worlds most kind and caring man.

                            Comment


                            • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, you digress: at issue are feral horses, not humans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              No ma'am - at issue is what humans, in the US at least, are going to do about the feral horses. You have an opinion, others have a different opinion. You are being quite rude about the opinions of others.

                              You have stated your opinion - that horses are a tool to be used and analogized to your tool box. You feel that is an apt analogy. IMO - it is not. But in any event, the issue is not one of someone figuring out a predetermined correct answer. It is a matter of people having opinions as to how they would like the Wild Horse situation handled. You basically revert to repetitively invoking the great God of Chattelry as somehow being an "answer" and then are obnoxious to people who don't share your opinion.

                              In the end, it boils down to your opinion and other people's opinions and a forum for expression of those opinions(and your continuing incorrect use of chattel in reference to wild animals, but since you're not my horse you don't need to get your leads right). If you can only express your opinion with nastiness and "old-biddiness" ma'am, at some point you may have the opinion, but not necessarily the forum.

                              Comment


                              • QUOTE]Originally posted by mbp:
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, you digress: at issue are feral horses, not humans. No ma'am...
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                Ma'am? Drat! I can't pass the physical. In my end of the sandpile, in polite discourse, womenfolks are referred to as, "Ma'am"; menfolks are referred to as, "Sir." One displays one's breeding by one's choices - as you have.
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                                - at issue is what humans, in the US at least, are going to do about the feral horses. You have an opinion, others have a different opinion. You are being quite rude about the opinions of others.
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                Rude? I thought I've been exceedingly polite. I've avoided ad hominem and been been careful to state facts when it was tempting to point out that only a blithering idiot would attempt to argue on the basis of ignorance.
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                                You have stated your opinion - that horses are a tool to be used and analogized to your tool box. You feel that is an apt analogy. IMO - it is not.
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                Ma'am, we are the product of different cultures. I cannot remember not knowing how to ride, and riding has always involved work. I respect the opinions of folks who cannot conceive that riding could possibly be work; do me the courtesy of respecting the fact that to folks such as myself, any riding involves accomplishing some task. You are not required to like this fact, but it is, nonetheless, a fact.
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                                But in any event, the issue is not one of someone figuring out a predetermined correct answer. It is a matter of people having opinions as to how they would like the Wild Horse situation handled. You basically revert to repetitively invoking the great God of Chattelry as somehow being an "answer" and then are obnoxious to people who don't share your opinion.
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                Please spare me your nonsensical hang-ups relative to my use of the term "chattel". A chattel is a form of property. If your horse is not your property, what'n hell are you doing riding somebody else's horse?
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                                In the end, it boils down to your opinion and other people's opinions and a forum for expression of those opinions(and your continuing incorrect use of chattel in reference to wild animals...
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                Livestock are not "wild animals." While I realize it's fashionable amongst the ignoranti to describe feral horses as "wild", all horses, feral and domestic, are livestock.
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                                but since you're not my horse you don't need to get your leads right...
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                No ma'am, my not being your horse enables me to point out that you don't know which lead to take.
                                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
                                If you can only express your opinion with nastiness and "old-biddiness" ma'am, at some point you may have the opinion, but not necessarily the forum.
                                <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                I post to please myself, not to adhere to anyone's concept of political correctness. Folks can read the exchanges and form their own opinions.
                                Usual disclaimers, your mileage may vary, farriers lie.

                                Comment


                                • &lt;sigh&gt; Am I the only one that sometimes wishes that we or the moderators could/would run this forum like Survivor? I know who my vote would be for

                                  Comment


                                  • Sir Stoval I think it is safe to say it is rude to call anyone who disagrees with you and your facts which are clear to you but which at best are theories "a blithering idiot".

                                    You may dress up your bad manners in Ma'm and Sir but they are still bad manners and crass attitudes. I do not share your view of any four legged creatures including the deer in my backyard. Nothing alive is our property we are their caretaker and thereby more their service provider than they are our chattel.

                                    You on the other hand I think I might be able to qualify as chattel because the opinion of the tools in your travel case can probably think out a problem more directly than you. You may masquerade behind the ol' down home cowboy image but that is a diservice to every real western cowboy I have ever known because a redneck may hide in chaps but that doesn't a cowboy make!

                                    If you are being provocative then you are insulting people who want to have a serious dialog about an issue about which there is concern. You're treating lightly the existence of a live beings that need to be considered because they are alive and not a hammer to be thrown on the ground. Many of us consider that all life is entitled to being treated respectfully. At best it is bad manners to insult us with your abstractions.

                                    Do you also think that because it's your dawg you can tiye him to the back of your truck to see how long he would laast if you dragged him behind the truck on a chain or rope? If a horse is like your old shoes then you wouldn't care if'n yor hoss wis dumped on the garbage pile after you run his legs down.
                                    http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                                    Comment


                                    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rescuemom:
                                      I'm not willing to say that euthanizing millions of animals annually is less revolting than slaughtering thousands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                      It's sad, but not revolting. It is far more humane and euthanasia is what the very unfortunate TRUELY necessarily evil might be, not slaughter. (but I think you'll agree with this)

                                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the *attitude against euthanasia* is more of an attitude against paying a vet to take care of it, versus getting bucks from the slaughterhouse. And IMO what keeps slaughter around, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                      This is EXACTLY what it is about - ALL of it and absolutely NOTHING else. The almighty dollar. All other excuses are just that - excuses. You NEVER hear anyone say "We should slaughter them instead of euthanize them because we can make money instead of having to spend it."

                                      Comment


                                      • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
                                        If you are being provocative then you are insulting people who want to have a serious dialog about an issue about which there is concern. You're treating lightly the existence of a live beings that need to be considered because they are alive and not a hammer to be thrown on the ground. Many of us consider that all life is entitled to being treated respectfully. At best it is bad manners to insult us with your abstractions.
                                        <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                        You appear to be tilting mightily at non-existent windmills while evading the issue at hand. At issue is a bill that would allow feral horses on BLM land to be sold at public auction instead of being held for "adoption."

                                        The fact that excess numbers of feral equids damage their habitat is indisputable: at issue is the disposal of the excess. The general consensus is that the method of gathering, holding, and "adopting" is not working.

                                        Folks often blame the cattleman grazing cattle on BLM land for the plight of feral horses,but less than 3% of all US cattle production is on BLM land, the number of cow/calf units is strictly regulated, and cattle are not grazed year 'round. Cattle or no cattle, the numbers of horses exceed the carrying capacity of the range.

                                        What to do? Contraception does not appear to be a viable alternative because of the distances involved. Simply shooting excess numbers would be probably be the most cost effective means of thinning the herds, but would be politically incorrect. Gathering and holding will most likely continue - but what happens then?

                                        Do we continue to stockpile thousands of feral horses that nobody wants?

                                        The anti-slaughter faction would like to see horses euthanized and their carcasses either buried or utilized in some manner that does not involve human consumption.

                                        I have no such prejudices. If their excess numbers can't be shot and left where they lay on the range, I'd like to see feral horses treated in exactly the same manner as domestic horses and have lobbied my representatives to that effect.
                                        Usual disclaimers, your mileage may vary, farriers lie.

                                        Comment


                                        • AARGG!! Mr. Stovall's tone became sarcastic in his posts AFTER he came under attack for posting intelligent, thought provoking posts. You all got your toes stepped on when he mentioned considering horses chattel and you closed your mind to his opinion at that point. His last post was very well put and educated and I'm sure you will all flip out at the mention of shooting the horses. Do I agree with just shooting them? NO! But I am not going to be rude to Mr. Stovall because he has a point that differs from mine. Are people mad because he can make so much sense while having such a polar view from the majority? He has directed his comments back to the subject at hand like we all should instead of attacking one another.

                                          Unfortunately, I will be away from a computer for the next four days so will not get to see how this plays out until Sunday night.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X