Animal Rights Initiatives A Little Scary

[MillIronQH]

Not too many forests out here, lots of desert and desert type flora. Up north they have some forests but not what they have in NY.

Do what??? Some forest??? Only the worlds largest Ponderosa Pine Forest. Which by the way is a couple of time larger then the state of New York. So far you're not showing me that you have even the basist knowledge of Az.Z

 

[auctionboy]

Not too many forests out here, lots of desert and desert type flora. Up north they have some forests but not what they have in NY. As far as the balance, maybe where you live, not here. There has been so much growth that I now have a very large pack of coyotes living behind my office. They come out in the day and attack stray dogs. That is not balance. Every year we get havalina in town.

Incidentally, auctionboy, you stated that you would discredit my knowledge because I do not think with my head. What logic is that?

I am pretty sure that prior to the crop fields the animals were living ok.

As I was saying animals do not need large forests. They need food and some cover. Those animals wouldn't be coming to town if they weren't over populated. Also clean up your town and you wont atract wild animals just like as if you were camping. Urban sprawl is over rated in its harm to animal numbers. I stand by saying you don't think with your head, but your heart. You would like to shutdown a billion dollar if not trillion dollar factory farming system because you do not like the treatment, and the real reason you want things to be like they were fifty years ago. Go be amish and leave this country and its economic system alone.

 

[auctionboy]

Not too many forests out here, lots of desert and desert type flora. Up north they have some forests but not what they have in NY.

Do what??? Some forest??? Only the worlds largest Ponderosa Pine Forest. Which by the way is a couple of time larger then the state of New York. So far you're not showing me that you have even the basist knowledge of Az.Z

Alot of thing Hraz says are falling to peaces and I almost think that hrazs' whole back story may not be true.

 

[Alice]

You know, I've started this response here about 1/2 dozen times.

Hraz, you've found yourself in a position that I've been in more than once...you feel as tho you have to justify your beliefs, and you do not.

I can see that you are not advocating the PETA agenda...if you were you would not have also stated that you raise your own animals for meat. You are simply stating that animals can feel pain and there is no excuse for their mistreatment by anyone, from the big meat growers and processors on down to the small timers.

I personally understand what you are saying and where you are coming from and I think there are many readers here that do also; they just don't want to find themselves in the same situation of feeling they must justify their beliefs and as a result, having their integrity questioned.

Alice

 

[backhoeboogie]

"Life as we know it" cannot ever stay the same. The world is constantly changing. We can, as a society, choose to make the most of the changes or fight them. But the changes will never stop. Take a good look around you. How much closer is the city getting to your house.

So, attack me. I am trying in every way I can to maintain my "country" lifestyle. But, I also have to be able to look at myself in the mirror every day.

Some things will not change. A horse gets hit by a car and is obviously dying. Suffering needlessly. It is now illegal for me to put a bullet in his head and end his misery. So you can put me in jail because I won't let him suffer.

At the same time we continually see some old lady on the news that has 190 house cats living in her home. She can no longer afford to feed them. Then we see horses on the news that someone is starving to death. Hay has gone sky high and now you hear about ladies trading - lets just say ANYTHING - for hay for the horses they so dearly love. Something needs to be done about these people. But that doesn't mean passing legislation that precludes good people from doing the right thing.

I too can look myself in the eye in the mirror. There is no problem with me standing before a jury of my peers either.

Doing the right thing is simply that.

You cannot mandate ethics. Some people just don't have them. Passing all inclusive laws for everyone because a few folks don't have ethics is not the solution.

 

[Ryder]

[quote

You cannot mandate ethics. Some people just don't have them. Passing all inclusive laws for everyone because a few folks don't have ethics is not the solution.

Well said, backhoeboogie.
Pass a law to solve a problem and create another problem.

 

[Jogeephus]

I don't live a "country lifestyle", I live in the country and make a living off the land as my family has done for over 100 years. We love our land, timber, wildlife and cattle. If we take care of these resources, we hope they will take care of us for another 100 years. I am amazed at how many people think government regulation is the answer to any and all problems. It is not a perfect world. Nature is harsh and it can be cruel. Passing idiotic regulations based on "feelings" is utter nonsense. Ten years ago, I could take you to six colonies of redcockaded woodpeckers. Beautiful birds and very interesting. A regulation was created by the DNR to save the bird which required a quarter mile buffer be maintained around each colony. These colonies are now gone even though they could have been saved - thanks to overstringent, uninformed regulations.

Presently, there is a push to protect the gopher turtle. Fantastic little sea turtle that got trapped on land when the ocean receded. We have coexisted with them for generations. Occassionally we will kill one on accident with equipment but they persist and thrive on our land. Under the new regulations, I know of people exterminating them because of the restrictions the new regulations have placed on land having these animals. The sad part is, its not the developement or the cultivational practices that are killing these animals - their demise is due to people's fear of the regulations and the restrictions and inpractical costs associated with the compliance to these regulations.

We just went through one of the worst droughts I can remember. One pasture relied on a hand dug well that went dry. I hauled 1000 gallons of water a day to the cattle. Checked with friend at health department about getting a new well dug. I was told, due to presence of cattle, it was going to take anywhere from six weeks to six months to have everything in order to have a "permitted" well dug that met the regulations!

I do not fear people. I think most people mean well and for the most part are fairly knowledgeable when it comes to their business. What I fear is the government and its view that we the people do not know enough or care enough to be good stewards of the land and need to be regulated to the point that we cannot make decisions.

Laws and regulations are not the answer. Look at the laws regarding drugs. Has it stopped anything? There is a radar station in central america where on most any night you can watch planes leaving "uncharted" airstrips heading north. Very few are stopped. Most just come on in to the US. Gives you a whole new perspective on "controlled substances".

A senator once called the american people - Sheeple. Pretty good analogy I felt. Scare them a little and they will run to the sheppard and stay in line. Good strategy, if you want to control them.

One thing is for sure; though Lassie was a wonderful loving dog, if you keep messing with her - she will bite you! So if we continue to regulate as we are doing, we will be regulating our children out of jobs in the future - unless of course - they become regulators themselves.

 

[Victoria]

I've purposely skipped past this thread numerous times because this topic gets me riled up but it's late, I can't sleep so I figured I may as well jump in. :lol:

Let me start by saying animals are not people. I do not equate even my favourite cow to my least favourite person. However, animals are not rocks either, or even trees for that matter. They are living creatures that do feel pain. They have emotions too, I don't think anyone that has spent any time with animals would honestly deny it unless they were lying to discredit PETA.

Why does it have to be all or nothing though? I just don't get that way of thinking. People should not be allowed to do whatever they want to an animal to make a buck - if they can't make money while being humane they need to get out of the business. At the same time animals should be eaten - just treat them right and kill them quickly. They won't have a perfect life, it is part of living in a sin filled world but it is our duty to treat our animals well.

I attempt to live by the Bible, I fail, but I attempt. I have read every passage numerous times that deal with animals and their welfare, since it is what I do for a living I want to do it right. Proverbs tells me a righteous man treats his animals well. God says they are his cattle. In Jonah when the people of Nineveh repented of their sins the cattle were to fast and be covered in sackcloth as well. God himself asks Johnah at the end of the book if he should not have compassion on the people as well as "many animals". God cares about animals. He shows it time and again throughout scripture. He doesn't treat them as unfeeling creatures, even saying they are to have a day off each week too. He made a covenant with both men and animals by putting the rainbow in the sky. He didn't include the grass or trees in that covenant. We have a responsibility to treat animals right. We are to use them and enjoy them (for companionship and food) but we are not to abuse them. There are just no excuses.

Not putting in laws that protect animals from disgusting treatment because of a fear that the laws will go to far makes no sense to me. That would be like not putting in rape laws because it may mean that men can't have sex with their wives. The two are connected yet so far from each other that any sane person would not see a correlation. The insane PETA people may try to use these laws to ban ranching all together but your average Joe and Jane like meat and don't want to live without it. They do however want to feel good about eating it.

I too want to see the meat industry cleaned up. I want to be able to tell people who eat meat that they can do so knowing the animals were treated well. I do understand that there are some fine lines and some rough areas but I still think that laws should be built on good common sense not on either fanatical side.

If you have actually read to the end of this, thanks for listening to my rant. I think I can now sleep. :lol:

 

[auctionboy]

It is not that I believe in animals being treated poorly, but if you give these people one inch they will take a yard. I do think that broad laws are not the answer and state angencies that are already in place should look at these situations via complaints case by case.

 

[hraz]

Alice, you are right. I was spiraling down quickly. Thanks for pointing it out.

Dun, I drive all over the place in the state and the forests just do not seem that big. But, having now googled my state I see the forests are quite large. Thanks. I live in very dry low-lying desert in south central AZ. I will do well to remember the world is bigger than here. Try googling the growth taking place in this state.

Auctionboy, the state agencies here, prior to the new legislation, could not tell the hog farmer how to house the hog. The legislation is not broad by any stretch of the imagination but is very specific. It reletes only to pregnent sows and calves and how much space they have when housed. That is it.

I know that there are a lot of bad, stupid laws on the books. But that does not mean that all laws are bad or that we should refrain from doing the right thing to avoid potential laws later. The legislation that passed here is good. It will help solve a problem that needs solving.

I have asked several times if people on this board thought that it was wrong to house the sows in a gestation crate. I commend those that answered. The biggest arguments have come from people who will not answer. They only rant about all of the laws they do not like and all of the potential laws they will not like.

Is animal abuse ok? There are laws in place that are designed to help stop animal hoarders and rescue organizations that help take those animals. Most humane societies and animal control agencies will help people care for their animals if they find themselves in a bad situation. People need to speak up when they see a problem. With most hoarding cases the officers find out that other people knew about the problem long before and just never alerted anyone. Many people whose animals are starving have not asked for help, Or they are unwilling to let go of the animals they can no longer take care of. Part of loving an animal is caring for it. Sometimes hard choices have to be made. But the laws and the assistance are out there.

 

[Victoria]

It is not that I believe in animals being treated poorly, but if you give these people one inch they will take a yard. I do think that broad laws are not the answer and state angencies that are already in place should look at these situations via complaints case by case.

auctionboy, I believe you when you say that you don't believe animals should be treated poorly. I can't see people's operations on here but I believe that the majority of ranchers do take proper care of their animals. Unfortunately there are some that don't and there are too many to handle on a case by case basis. I do not want to think I am part of an industry that allows real suffering (not talking PETA garbage here) of animals because of fear or money.

I agree if you give the PETA people one inch they will want to take a mile but how many people will let them? The majority (by a long shot) like their fast food burger and then their steak on the BBQ with a few pork chops and chicken fingers thrown in. They are not going to go along with a meat ban.

 

[john250]

I agree if you give the PETA people one inch they will want to take a mile but how many people will let them? The majority (by a long shot) like their fast food burger and then their steak on the BBQ with a few pork chops and chicken fingers thrown in. They are not going to go along with a meat ban.

Once you give PETA legal precedent, you no longer have the option to withdraw your support. Their agenda is on auto pilot after that, driven by their lawyers. That is why I worry about state initiatives which regulate animal agriculture.

 

[Victoria]

Legal precedent hasn't been given to shut down all meat operations. Their lawyers will try to get it to that point I am sure but it will have to pass one law at a time and most of the lawmakers eat steak.

 

[KMacGinley]

Not too many forests out here, lots of desert and desert type flora. Up north they have some forests but not what they have in NY.

Do what??? Some forest??? Only the worlds largest Ponderosa Pine Forest. Which by the way is a couple of time larger then the state of New York. So far you're not showing me that you have even the basist knowledge of Az.Z

Ya, AZ is known as a forest type habitat in some places, but not mostly, it is mostly high desert type country. Would Indiana be forest or farmland? It is one of the top hardwood lumber producing states in the country but also in the top for soybean production, so which is it? If I said that Indiana was a farmland state would you tell me I don't know anything about Indiana? What if I said it was a timber producing state? Depending on whether you are north or south the answer may vary.

Why don't you argue the issue and not make a meaningless peripheral attack?

 

[auctionboy]

Not too many forests out here, lots of desert and desert type flora. Up north they have some forests but not what they have in NY.

Do what??? Some forest??? Only the worlds largest Ponderosa Pine Forest. Which by the way is a couple of time larger then the state of New York. So far you're not showing me that you have even the basist knowledge of Az.Z

Ya, AZ is known as a forest type habitat in some places, but not mostly, it is mostly high desert type country. Would Indiana be forest or farmland? It is one of the top hardwood lumber producing states in the country but also in the top for soybean production, so which is it? If I said that Indiana was a farmland state would you tell me I don't know anything about Indiana? What if I said it was a timber producing state? Depending on whether you are north or south the answer may vary.

Why don't you argue the issue and not make a meaningless peripheral attack?

He said they didn't have many forests! That is completely different then what you said. That statement was wrong, your exanple statement was correct. What he said was like saying they have a large citrus industry in Indiana.