Home Current News News Archive Shop/Advertise Ridecamp Classified Events Learn/AERC
Endurance.Net Home Ridecamp Archives
ridecamp@endurance.net
[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]

Re: [RC] [RC] slaughter vs consumption - Terry Banister


What is also clear is that the author has never had to make the hard choices faced by those whose fortunes have suffered a severe decline. The criticism of "living in an ivory tower" applies
here.

Ahhh, but that is just the opposite of what is true of the "author"! The author left family 3,000 miles behind and came alone to a strange place without a car, and worked to buy a house and, and raised a child alone as a single parent. She works fulltime and struggles constantly to keep from losing everything. The author has just made CHOICES. The author loves horses, but chose to only have one horse. She chooses not to acquire a "backup" horse or two or three. Instead, she chose to spend the $$ to have that one horse fully insured, and when he was injured she was able to make the time to rehab on a daily basis. If she had accumulated multiple horses, she would not have been able to divide herself and give them the time and attention they needed and deserved. Everyone has the choice whether to have multiple horses that they cannot afford to insure and vet properly, or give fewer animals ultimate care, OR ride other people's horses who need attention and exercise if one cannot literally afford to own any horses.

While the citations below display amazing arrogance . . .

Apoligize if "arrogance" was the perception. The truth is that it came from the voice of experience.

Terry
"May the Horse be with you"



From: Diane Trefethen <tref@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ridecamp <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RC]  slaughter vs consumption
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:57:33 -0800

While the citations below display amazing arrogance, I don't think it is because the author is mean-spirited. Quite the opposite, the author cares a great deal about the ultimate fate of unwanted horses. What is also clear is that the author has never had to make the hard choices faced by those whose fortunes have suffered a severe decline. The criticism of "living in an ivory tower" applies here. It is almost always tragic when those who know nothing of a problem, except the surface symptoms, take it upon themselves to impose a solution born of their compassion... and ignorance.

...there is NO NEED to eat dog and horses in this country, so
this should be a dead issue.

Only one who has never been hopelessly poor could make this statement.
When you don't have the money to feed your family, you will do almost
anything you can to get free food.  Getting "gov'mint" help is often not a
choice because of fear/distrust of the Feds/law.  So while dumpster diving
is pretty much reserved for urban dwellers, the rural poor hunt and kill
whatever they can.

Based on this fact...acquiring excess animals that cannot be cared for
as one would care for one's own child, is going to become econimically
unprofitable, and the people who are doing it will eventually think twice.

"...one's own child"?  Animals are not children.  While a human may form a
parent-like bond with her/his animals, this doesn't change the animal's
status to that of a child nor can the same standards of care be expected.
A cat goes missing and the owner files a police report expecting an APB to
go out?  Not hardly.  Nor is treating an animal like a child usually wise.

"...think twice"?  Most animal owners, judging by the kill rates for pounds
and "shelters", don't think even once about what will happen to the
creatures that come into their possession.  The notion that cramming
unwanted animals down society's collective throat will change the
perceptions of the millions of people who see animals as disposable
commodities is unjustified by any known facts.

But it will take time for the new habits and practices to become
established...  I am confident that the next generation will do things
more efficiently and humanely.
And this is the worst. What you are saying here is that while indifferent
animal owners learn to be responsible, it is acceptable for the horses to
pay the price for the change. There is absolutely no proof, anywhere in
human history, to indicate that punishing one group has ever influenced
another group to change its moral compass, yet you are willing to torture,
starve and allow to die a most painful death, hundreds of thousands of
horses, every year, in the vain hope that the least conscientious members
of our society will awake to the suffering. Even if this plan had a ghost of a chance of working, which it doesn't, the means (the horrible suffering of horses) irreparably tarnishes the postulated noble end (the next generation being more humane).



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


_________________________________________________________________
Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN Presents today. http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline&ocid=T002MSN03A07001


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Replies
Re: [RC] slaughter vs consumption, Diane Trefethen