• 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

PETA - What your donations buy

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

  • PETA - What your donations buy

    Check out this article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63246,00.html#top

    It reminds me of the new anti-drug PSAs on TV, where it traces back from "Dan's joint" to the dealer, the supplier, the cartel, to the family shot and killed because they got in the way.

    So, for all of you on this board who have said that they sent PETA money, you have helped support an attempted murder of a medical executive, assault on a police officer, and multiple firebombings. Way to go.
  • Original Poster

    #2
    Check out this article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63246,00.html#top

    It reminds me of the new anti-drug PSAs on TV, where it traces back from "Dan's joint" to the dealer, the supplier, the cartel, to the family shot and killed because they got in the way.

    So, for all of you on this board who have said that they sent PETA money, you have helped support an attempted murder of a medical executive, assault on a police officer, and multiple firebombings. Way to go.

    Comment


    • #3
      Once again I feel the need to say:

      PETA is NOT the animal rights movement. I am an animal rights person and abhor PETA, used to work for them.

      Keep this in mind:

      PETA IS TO ANIMAL RIGHTS AS JIM AND TAMMY BAKER ARE TO CHRISTIANITY.

      Just because there are unethical things going on in the christian community, does not make the whole system corrupt.

      Thanks for listening.
      \"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a wand and a strip search.\"

      Comment

      • Original Poster

        #4
        hoodoo, I'm surprised that as an animal rights person you would ride horses. AR policies are against the keeping of pets and definitely against riding and/or competing horses. AR means you believe that animals have the SAME rights as humans. IOW, you don't have a right to buy & sell me, or to ride me or jump me (no comments please!!!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] )and therefore since animals have the same rights, you have no right to get on a horse's back. I've read enough issues of Animal Agenda plus everything else AR I can get my hands on to know this is true. Perhaps you are an animal welfare perseon, not an AR person?

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
          hoodoo, I'm surprised that as an animal rights person you would ride horses. AR policies are against the keeping of pets and definitely against riding and/or competing horses<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


          That's like saying all Christians are Pro-Life. Are they?

          If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'- A Cowboy's Guide to Life
          The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bgoosewood:

            That's like saying all Christians are Pro-Life.
            <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Uh, no, it's not like saying that at all.

            Animal rights, by the definitions set out by the animal rights people themselves, means that animals have equal rights to humans. Therefore, among other things, they cannot/should not be owned, eaten, ridden, bred, anything, by humans.

            I certainly don't believe that all animal rights people want to murder people and blow things up, but BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION, animal rights people want to give animals human rights, which means no riding, no ownership.

            Comment


            • #7
              I thought it was rather humorous when Maryland's well publicized problem with the snakehead fish arose last month and the state took action to destroy them PETA actually supported the extermination.

              I guess if it was a cute and fuzzy animal you'd have oodles of the PETA flock out there chanting to save them. Nothing like picking and choosing what is popular ...

              Comment


              • #8
                Anne, I disagree.

                I believe an Animal has rights. Not all animal rights groups say that they have to have the same rights as humans. They have a right to a decent quality of life. Therefore, I don't believe in Factory farming. In My opinion they should not be used to test cosmetics and it is not kind to wear fur. And IF we are testing on Animals, they need to be taken care of in a Humane way. And we need to monitor the testing that is done. There have been cases where grants are given for years to run tests that have absolutely no positive results.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the animal rights = human rights view is probably a very simplified view of the AR movement. Yes, they think animals should have rights, but there's more to it than that.

                  I'm not an animal rightist by any means, but I've been meaning to do an article on the movement for a long time... and just from doing some cursory research, I can tell you it's a very complicated "theology," for lack of a better word. I don't think it can just be boiled down to "they think animals are the same as humans."

                  From the FAQ at www.animal-rights.com (which I found on Google, don't know how reputable they are):

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals
                  deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and
                  exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat
                  animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It
                  says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and
                  exploitation, just as humans possess this right. The withholding of this
                  right from the nonhuman animals based on their species membership is
                  referred to as "speciesism".

                  ....

                  It is important to realize that, although there is a basis for speaking
                  of animals as having rights, that does not imply or require that they
                  possess all the rights that humans possess, or even that humans possess all
                  the rights that animals possess. Consider the human right to vote. (On the
                  view taken here, this would derive from an ethical imperative to give humans
                  influence over actions that influence their lives.) Since animals lack the
                  capacity to rationally consider actions and their implications, and to
                  understand the concept of democracy and voting, they lack the capacity to
                  vote. There is, therefore, no ethical imperative to allow them to do so,
                  and thus they do not possess the right to vote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  I would think that riding is probably not consistent with the very strictest view of AR, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. (Would love to hear hoodoo's thoughts, though. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ) But, as in everything, people probably ascribe to the beliefs to the degree that they're comfortable. Just like some very religious people still support gay rights, even though it goes against what the church teaches.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe that animals have certain rights...the right to good care, a quality of life, and humane treatment. I do believe that we have the right to own them and use them for specific purposes such as horse shows, rescue work, and even in limited circumstances for medical purposes, research. I do believe than frivolous animal research such as in the cosmetics industry is unethical and should be stopped. I do eat meat and try to buy organically raised meat, eggs, and milk products whenever possible. I've turned down a job offer from a cosmetics company when I found out that they used animals for research so I will stand behind what I believe. What does that make me? A half way animal rights activist? I think like bgoosewood is saying is that you can be an animal rights proponent and not believe 100% like PETA and other radicals just like every christian isn't a fundamentalist or is PRO LIFE, there are varying degrees of belief and practice in any religion's followers. I think it's wrong to jump on hoodoo for stating that. I think you can be an animal rights activist and not be 100% like PETA.

                    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself." D.H. Lawrence

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      pretty much sums up what Ann just said. The word "exploitation"can be broadly defined to include nearly everything, from just being ridden or trained, to being made to perform in shows, to circuses and theme parks. And having to stretch to find the "right to vote" as a human right that animals do not posess (because they can't) reinforces to me that the movement believes animals SHOULD have every right that humans have that they physically can.

                      I do agree that PETA is not representative of animal rights groups in general and that many of these groups despise PETA for skewing the message they are trying to convey with its antics. But nonetheless, this movement strives to put some serious obstacles in the way of animal/pet ownership and what we can/should do with them.

                      And who, when it comes down to it, gets to define what is cruel? What is not natural? I submit that it isn't natural for me to have to get up and go to work every day, but I do it a) to survive and b) because it is expected of me. So, are we out of line in asking an animal to work, too, just because it isn't natural?

                      And when an animal CLEARLY enjoys what it is doing, does that influence the animal rights people? Or is it a blanket condemnation of what it considers unfair to the animal?

                      Very tough questions among animal lovers.

                      Laurie
                      Laurie

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        #12
                        <<The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and
                        exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It
                        says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and exploitation, just as humans possess this right. >>

                        EXACTLY. Going "further than just saying that we should treat animals well". Of course everyone should agree with that, but they want to go further. "free from human cruelty and exploitation" - Yes, from cruelty; now, define 'exploitation.' If you read AR writings, exploitation is defined as any contact with humans - it would cover riding.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Again from the FAQ:

                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A loving relationship with a proper companion animal, a relationship
                          that adequately provides for the animal's physical and psychological needs,
                          is not at all inconsistent with the principles and advocacy of animal rights.
                          Indeed, animal rights advocates have been leaders in drawing attention to
                          some of the abuses and neglects of our "beloved" pets. Many of the taken for
                          granted practices do need to be reexamined and changed. The questions that
                          animal rights raises about companion animals are important questions:
                          * Can we maintain animals as companions and still properly address their needs? Obviously, we can't do this for all animals. For example,
                          keeping birds in cages denies those creatures their capacity and
                          inherent need to fly.
                          * Is manipulating companion animals for our needs in the the best
                          interests of the nonhuman animal as well? Tail docking would thus be
                          a practice to condemn in this regard.
                          * Might some of our taken-for-granted practices of pet keeping be really
                          a form of exploitation? Animals in circuses or panhandlers using
                          animals on the street to get money from passersby would arguably be
                          cases of exploitation.
                          * Which attitudes of human caretakers are truly expressions of our
                          respect and love towards these animals, and which might not be?
                          Exotic breeding is one example of this kind of abuse, especially when
                          the breeding results in animals that are at a greater risk for
                          certain diseases or biological defects.

                          All that animal rights is really asking is that we consider more deeply
                          and authentically the practice at hand and whether or not it truly meets
                          the benchmark that BOTH the needs of human AND nonhuman animals be
                          considered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          So, contrary to popular belief, keeping pets is not in conflict with being an animal rightist.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
                            <<The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and
                            exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It
                            says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and exploitation, just as humans possess this right. >>

                            EXACTLY. Going "further than just saying that we should treat animals well". Of course everyone should agree with that, but they want to go further. "free from human cruelty and exploitation" - Yes, from cruelty; now, define 'exploitation.' If you read AR writings, exploitation is defined as any contact with humans - it would cover riding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            Anne FS, I posted that paragraph in response to your assertion that animal rightists believe that animals should have rights equal to humans.

                            Yes, I think it's pretty obvious that AR's don't think we should "exploit" animals, which would probably include riding.

                            But no, being AR does NOT necessarily mean you believe animals have all rights humans do, or that you believe they shouldn't be pets, or that they shouldn't be spayed/neutered, etc.

                            I'm just trying to clear up the generalizations and misconceptions here. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

                            Anyway, so what if the strictest view of AR says that we shouldn't ride horses? Maybe the strictest view of human rights says we shouldn't have to work and should live in communes with no material possessions. Extreme views are extreme for a reason -- they aren't practical, and most people don't want them. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              More from the FAQ... sorry for the long quoting, but it's really pretty interesting! (Sorry, I enjoy philosophical/ethical discussion... it's an interesting brain exercise. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

                              This is from a section talking about the use of animals in entertainment, and horse/greyhound racing.

                              Interesting to see how the actions of a few "bad apples" like George Lindemann and Barney Ward are being used to portray the whole horse industry in a bad light. (Hmm... much like how the actions of a few PETA wackos are used to paint the animal rights movement... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] *stir, stir, stir* )

                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For horses, especially, the track itself poses dangers; falls and fractures
                              are common in both flat and jump races. Often, lame horses are doped to
                              allow them to continue to race, with the risk of serious injury.
                              And at the end of it all, if the animal is not a success, or does not
                              perform as brilliantly as hoped, it is disposed of. Horses are lucky in that
                              they occasionally go to a home where they are well treated and respected, but
                              the knackery is a common option (a knackery is a purveyor of products derived from worn-out and old livestock). (Recently, a new practice has come to light: owners of race horses sometimes murder horses that do not reach their "potential", or which are past their "prime", and then file fraudulent
                              insurance claims.) The likely homes for a greyhound are few and far between.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              And one more quote relevant to lauriep's post:

                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A simple approach to this question might be to suggest that we all must
                              work for a living and it should be no different for animals. The problem is
                              that we want to look at the animals as like children, i.e., worthy of the
                              same protections and rights, and, like them, incapable of being morally
                              responsible. But we don't force children into labor! One can make a
                              distinction, however, that goes something like this: The animals are
                              permanently in their diminished state (i.e., incapable of voluntarily
                              assenting to work); children are not. We do not impose a choice of work for
                              children because they need the time to develop into their full adult and
                              moral selves. With the animals, we choose for them a role that allows them
                              to contribute; in return, we do not abuse them by eating them, etc. If this
                              is done with true concern that their work conditions are appropriate and not
                              of a sweat-shop nature, that they get enough rest and leisure time, etc.,
                              this would constitute a form of stewardship that is acceptable and beneficial
                              to both sides, and one that is not at odds with AR philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              Hmm. There goes my argument that it's okay for me to ask my horse to participate in the relatively "dangerous" sport of eventing in exchange for being doted upon and given the best of care. Oh well. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

                              [This message was edited by Erin on Sep. 17, 2002 at 10:29 AM.]

                              Comment

                              • Original Poster

                                #16
                                Look, AR people themselves aren't for animal welfare. Listen to their own words; read PETA's Statement on Companion Animals, there's no room for horseback riding in there. I'm not making this stuff up; know what you are supporting:

                                Gary Francione, The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2:

                                "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare...Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights."

                                Gary Francione and Tom Regan, The Animals' Agenda:

                                "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences...the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights...Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved."

                                PETA's statement on companion animals:

                                "In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme."

                                Peter Singer, AR supporter and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton:

                                "Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong."

                                "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs,cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals."


                                Ingrid Newkirk, national director, PETA:

                                "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

                                "One day,we would like an end to...the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild."

                                "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

                                "The bottom line is that people don't have the right...to breed dogs and cats...If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."

                                NJ Animal Rights Alliance:

                                "...it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as pets."

                                John Bryant, PETA:

                                "The cat, like the dog, must disappear."
                                Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA:

                                "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animal cause."

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  #17
                                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
                                  Maybe the strictest view of human rights says we shouldn't have to work and should live in communes with no material possessions.
                                  <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                  Erin, show me this in writing by human rights advocates and you'll have a point. Maybe this, maybe that...no 'maybe' about it, this is what these people are working for. I gave you direct quotes. Look at what's happening in England with Huntingdon labs - banks and pension plans were threatened with bombings and personal injury unless they removed their investments. And they did remove them! The official AR movement = terrorism. If a person says "I am a part of this movement" then they are a part of this. You can't say, oh, I'm a part of the movement but not of this or not of that. Ask John Walker Lindh. It doesn't work that way.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Anne FS, will you stop and READ the posts here for a second?

                                    What hoodoo is saying is that PETA is not representative of the AR movement. So using quotes from PETA to define AR isn't really proving anything.

                                    What *I* am saying is that AR is not as it is often portrayed. No, they don't necessarily think animals should have all the rights humans do. No, they don't necessarily think animals should not be kept as pets.

                                    Yes, I think PETA is completely off its rocker. And yes, I think many AR people would not want us to ride horses. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. However, you are also making statements that are not true, which I am trying to refute purely as a devil's advocate. (And no, I do NOT support "animal rights," in the generally accepted sense of the term.)

                                    BTW, when the PETA site says that AR is inconsistent with animal welfare, that is because they believe the animal welfare movement does not go far enough. It does not mean they are anti-animal welfare or that they think it's okay to abuse animals.

                                    Sorry, it just irks me when people generalize. It's no more fair for us to paint all AR people as PETA wackos than it is for the PETA wackos to paint all of us as being like George Lindemann.

                                    [This message was edited by Erin on Sep. 17, 2002 at 10:57 AM.]

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Erin,
                                      I don't see this as horsey and it is getting Political. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        I posted, in a reply, a warning about PETA and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) on this BB back in July:

                                        http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/Op...726#8473078726

                                        Yes, I do animal research. Yes, our labs are targets of PETA, ELF, ALF... Because of their actions, the animal research laboratories around the US have developed a pretty good monitoring system of groups such as PETA so we get some advanced warning about possible attacks. Now, however, these groups have started to attack the researchers themselves. This scares me plenty.

                                        Why do I mention this here? Again, it is a warning to ALL horsemen/women that these groups are NOT benign! They have shown that when they target a specific activity, e.g. competitive horse competitions, if they do not get their way, they tend towards extremist measures to get their point across. I really think that one day they may consider the targeting of upper level riders as justifiable attacks if the horse industry does not cowtow to their desires.

                                        I find PETA's "innocent" ads on the radio, utilizing famous personalities, very misleading- even if they have valid points embedded; and therein lies the rub. The general public will respond favorably to someone like Tom Cruise touting "save the animals" more than they will to David O'Conner wining the gold in Sydney. Thus, as an industry/lifestyle, we will always have to be ready to defend our choices to the majority of the population in the US as a result of various "animal rights" groups lunacy.

                                        Reed

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X