by Amanda Schinke
What's more important to the racing industry: horses or money?
If you thought horses, we've found two recent news stories that will change your mind.
Consider this: Thanks to a lawsuit involving the co-owners of former Kentucky Derby favorite I Want Revenge, it's become even clearer how often horses used in the racing industry are dangerously overmedicated. Horses are given anti-inflammatory steroids and painkillers to keep them running even after they've been injured—and of 20 trainers interviewed by The New York Times, only three were willing to turn over their veterinary records.
The New York Times also reports, "[T]here is a consensus among equine researchers and surgeons that legal medications and cortisone shots, over time, leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown."
In other words, even the legal drugs that the racing industry pumps into horses make horrific incidents like the one at last year's Kentucky Derby more likely. This is what PETA has been saying since Eight Belles crashed to the track with two broken ankles in the 2008 Kentucky Derby.
Meanwhile, ESPN reports that the owners of Lava Man—a famous horse forced to "retire" early because of injuries—are trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of the old fella by bringing him back onto the track. According to ESPN, because of his previous injuries, Lava Man is at great risk of suffering a catastrophic breakdown on the track and says that while "[n]ot a single national media outlet will cover Lava Man's comeback race," "every single one would cover a disastrous outcome. … Pick your letters: ESPN, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, or, worse yet, PETA."
Darn skippy.
Time after time, the racing industry risks animals' lives for an extra dollar. Forget the finish line—it's all about the bottom line.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Horse Racing -- Money More Important than Horses' Health
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you God?
Lava Man is at great risk of suffering a catastrophic breakdown on the track.
No he is not.
He has lived and will live a better life than most humans do in the United States.
THe average racehorse is cared for better than the average human.
- Moses1
October 12, 2009 3:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Success is Rare, and So is the Good Retirement
The successful racehorse lives better than most humans. Those who can breed have it far better than geldings, as they can generate money for years and "earn their keep" many times over. Successes are a TINY fraction of racehorses.
The average racehorse works until he breaks down and then often gets abandoned, lives in squalor, or even gets euthanized before it's necessary. Some get lucky and get rescued by wonderful people at sanctuaries, but there aren't enough of those to accommodate all of them.
The racehorses who show little promise at the start probably have it best, before they get too injured by racing they often get re-trained to become the beloved partner of a rider who rides for fun or competes in non-racing disciplines, where the horses are more partners than tools for making money. I'm not saying there aren't shady folks in every discipline , just that the ratio is higher in racing because there is SO much more money at stake.
- CraftLass
October 21, 2009 12:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ROFLMAO
Funny how all the benefits you mentioned help the owner not the horse. FYI, a gelding is far happier in life because he isn't kept in solitary. Stallions have a very lonely life because other than breeding times, he must live alone. Occasionally owners will put in an old barren mare to keep him company but most of the time they live alone. I have no problem with racing - I do however have a problem with starting them so young and then disposing of them if they don't make any money .
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 2:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ban Horse racing!
I am a member of PETA and I am totally opposed to the horse racing industry. It is a profligate and shady business that absolutely does not put the equine athletes' welfare and health in the forefront. After the senseless and tragic death of the magnificent Eight Belles, there were so many things that were supposedly going to be changed in the industry. The formation of the Safety and Integrity Alliance is merely a lot of "window dressing". 1200 horses broke down on tracks in this country in 2008. These statistics are disgraceful. The very idea that Lava Man would come back to race is APPALLING!! Ban horse racing across the boards!! I certainly agree with "forgetting the finish line-it's all about the bottom line." The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mahatma Gandhi
- Playa Dominical October 12, 2009 9:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA
PETA is doing more harm than good in the prevention of animal abuse. Extreme cults like PETA are ugly and make me want to go out and shoot a duck in the face plate just to get under your skin.
I am for a good amount of your ideas, but some are so extreme I just have to ignore everything that comes out of any of your minds.
You guys are almost as bad as the door to door religion salesmen.
- ttut21
October 13, 2009 5:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA
As you well know, most organizations have members who can act and react to situations and causes in radical, and yes, sometimes ugly and unlawful ways. Shooting a duck in the face plate, for example, whould be what I would consider a radical way to make a point. Just for the record, I am not one of those members who try to create extreme actions. I do disagree with you that PETA does more harm than good in the prevention of animal abuse. Returning once more to the subject of banning horse racing, being a native of Louisville, Ky. home of the Kentucky Derby , I have been around many of those involved in the industry and have first hand knowledge and information regarding the sufferings and inhumane practices that are inflicted on the equines. Though I no longer reside full time in Kentucky, it is a place I love in spite of the fact I would like to see no more racing at Churchill Downs. That is why I will continue to protest. Blessings.
- Playa Dominical October 13, 2009 12:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
Horse racing and just about all other uses of animals should be banned. It is selfish and cruel to use animals the way we do.
- jordon
October 13, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't know
I don't know much about the way race horses are treated. I'll give you that and have to look into it.
I do know how my family treats their horses on their ranch and what they've taught me over the years. Wide open spaces with plenty of food loving owners and safety from attackers.
So, I cannot argue with the race horses point except I know if a horse could make my family that kind of money they wouldn't abuse the horse.
Killing off an entire sport because of a few teams training methods is a bit extreme to me. I would support you fully to look into the teams that were mistreating their horses and have some sort of punishment if found guilty. Isn't there rules on horse training in the sport?
- ttut21
October 13, 2009 5:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No real governing commission
I could write chapters on the problems presented in the governing of the tracks and the practices and I encourage you to research it. I will however state a few facts. Even though the NTRA created The Safety and Integrity Alliance last October in an effort to make sweeping changes in the industry, which included uniform medication rules for each racing state, ban of steroids from racing competition, out-of-competition testing for blood and gene doping agents and pre-racing testing, uniform penalities FOR ALL MEDICATION INFRACTIONS, mandatory installation of protective inner safety rail, mandatory pre-and post- race security, and adoption of a placement program for Thoroughbreds no longer competing. Very lofty aspirations. However, the rush to improve safety by this new Alliance did little to improve the number of horses dying at American racetracks in 2008, The Associated Press found in a national count. Obviously, there is still quite a bit of highly questionable practices. Yes, if a trainer is "caught" using illegal meds, he is suspended and fined. However, you never hear of him being "banned from the barn". There are some medications that are legal , such as anti-inflammatory drugs that can mask injuries. Thus, a horse can be given the green flag of good health to run when they are not 100%. There are "watch dog" vets at the tracks who are pressured by owners and trainers to run horses even if they are not 100%. Perfect setting for disaster. Last but certainly not least, it is argued that more fragile horses are being bred because of injury-prone genetics or blood lines. There has been a priority placed on creating good race horses based on speed, and over time, race horses have developed into very light boned animals because they are more efficient at speed. These equines weigh at least 1,000 pounds, they have legs supported by ankles the size of a human's, and they're forced to run up to 40 miles per hour carrying a person on their back. I was recently in Louisville and had the opportunity to meet the groomer and exerciser of the late, magnificent Eight Belles. She relayed some information to me regarding a problem they had with her in training. They also believe it may have caused her untimely death. I believe this groomer cared deeply about Eight Belles. I believe that her trainer, Larry Jones cared deeply about her and was devastated by her death. However, I think she was too young to be racing and certainly if there was a training problem she shouldn't have been at Churchill Downs on that terrible day. I am concerned about Mine That Bird, the winner of this year's Derby who is set to race here in California at the Breeder's Cup. He has had some health issues recently and who really knows if he will be in optimum health for a grueling race. With all that being said, I much prefer horses running in fields,being ridden for joy, and taken care of without dollar signs as motivation. Glad to hear that your family know how to take care of them. So do we. I hope that I have shared some useful information. Actually, I think you could qualify this as at least one chapter! Blessings
- Playa Dominical October 14, 2009 1:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you
I've got to hit up google for a while. Yea, First chapter I've read since college . Good information.
I'll find you on here later I'm sure.
- ttut21
October 14, 2009 6:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
skippy
There are adoption programs in place for ex racers check out rerun.com. As far as it be total adoption I would not like to see that. Some horses off the track sale for $50,000 and up for hunters in the show horse circuits. Some hold a place in a childs heart for her first show horse. The animal rights movement wants it all put into adoption so the horse industry can't make a dime. According to the animal rights code of conduct "No own shall own them, eat them, wear them or make any money from them". Dito for ALL animals .
- skippy
October 21, 2009 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Golly...
Let me make sure I understand you clearly.
You oppose the ugliness and harm done by PeTA, and in your mind, this opposition would take the form of taking a firearm and discharging it into the face of a living being that is in no way involved with the situation in order to have a strong emotional impact upon members of the group you are opposing?
And it is PeTA that is extreme? I disagree with nearly all of PeTAs methods, and I think that their message is skewed and logically inconsistent. But certainly this fact would never stir violence or hatred within me.
- mike
October 21, 2009 11:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA
Is PETA that extreme? Check out some of Ingrid Newkirk's quotes over the years:
“Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.”
— The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 1999
“I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment .”
— ABC News interview , Apr 2001
“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
— Harper's, Aug 1988
“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. [emphasis added]”
— The Washington Post, Nov 1983
“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS , we’d be against it.”
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue, Sep 1989
“Eating meat is primitive, barbaric, and arrogant.”
— Washington City Paper, Dec 1985
“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986
- donnawatkins
October 21, 2009 2:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fallacist's fallacy
As I said, I do not agree with or support PeTA. The inconsistent and often reprehensible things that occur in the name of PeTA, however, do nothing to disprove the validity of animal rights .
The hatred expressed in the post to which I was replying was bizarre and disturbing.
If anything remotely logical can be drawn from the more hateful quotes above, you can at least see that the hatred Newkirk expresses is towards the actual perpetrators. The post made by ttut21 indicated a desire to kill an innocent creature in order to upset the guilty. I liken that to the mafia killing family members of their victim so as to force them to suffer a pain greater than death.
That said, there are some logical statements made above.
1) There IS, in fact, no rational basis for special rights. That doesn't mean that special rights don't exist in our society .
2) I am against testing medicine on humans AND nonhumans against their will regardless of what good may come of it. That doesn't mean that I would not take a cure that had been created already. It also doesn't mean that I wouldn't act irrationally and do anything necessary to save my daughter's life if she were ill, but this does nothing to speak to the moral justification of such actions. It is the testing that is wrong, and justifying it by an unknown potential of the successful creation of medical cures is a poor justification.
3) The comment regarding pet ownership is poorly worded. I would argue that the pet *industry* is what is abysmal. That said, the industry is only meeting the demands of the public, so I can see how she drew the conclusions.
Newkirk likes to get a rise out of people. Her organization likes to be as visible as possible and pretend to make big changes so that they can rally financial support. If they change their methods, I'd consider supporting them. I know they will never change, though, because the corporation that is PeTA has taken on a life of its own and must survive however possible. It's not about change. It's about survival at all costs. That makes them no better than their opponents.
- mike
October 22, 2009 10:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animal right
Animal rights, as a concept, are so irrational to me that I don't even think there is any point in discussing it. I posted that list solely to point out to people that may be teetering on the verge of becoming PETAphiles that their leader is a nutjob who loathes herself and all of humanity. That is something that seems to be common among the AR faithful, a hatred of people. They don't seem to love animals either- Ingrid lives alone with no pets , the last I heard.
- donnawatkins
October 22, 2009 11:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Non-arguments
It seems to me that someone who will not discuss the merits of an argument due to a subjective sense of irrationality is not someone who should be making statements of presumed fact.
You've made a sweeping generalization based on personal opinion, and you've passed a judgment on an entire theory of natural rights based on a feeling you have.
You posted to a debate site the following:
a) Animal rights is irrational to me
Therefore:
b) There is no point in discussing it
You have epitomized the very stagnation of logic and reason found in today's society .
I, too, would encourage people not to join PeTA, but I think it would be just as healthy to encourage people not to form logical conclusions based on the generalizations, opinions, and unfounded statements of someone unwilling to support them.
- mike
October 22, 2009 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh4CryinOutLoud
hahahahahahahahahah..........you are scary dude and I'm guessing you didn't score well in your English classes.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 2:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freespirit
I am a very strong animal rights advocate, love animals intensely, and I can tell you that you are very wrong in what you are saying about horseracing. yes, there are some shady people in it who could care less about the well being of a horse and only care about the money , but believe me, most of us in it do it because we love the horses. Thoroughbreds love to run and they love to compete, most of them anyway. And maybe you should really read up on what is going on with Lava Man and why they are bringing him back to training before you comment on it.
And I have a T-shirt with what Gandhi wrote on it, love it!
- Freespirit
October 19, 2009 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sticking to my Convictions
I have read about Lava Man and I still don't think he should return to racing. As I noted in my "chapter" above, it is an industry I would love to see banned. I know that horses love to run, but not while being whipped and medicated and forced to run around a track while being exploited for MONEY. Blessings
- Playa Dominical October 19, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Convictions
Who are you to speak for what horses love?
- donnawatkins
October 21, 2009 2:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Know your Horses
If you have ever been around or trained horses, you know they love to run. However, they will also let you know, in their own way, when they are having a bad day or simply not feeling well and have no desire to run. Blessings
- Playa Dominical October 21, 2009 2:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Know your horses
I do, and that is why I asked. I do not think you can make them do things they are totally unhappy with.
- donnawatkins
October 21, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Basically what I am saying
I absolutely believe that you cannot make them do something they are totally unhappy with. That was basically what I was saying when I stated that they let you know in ways however subtle that something is amiss and they don't want to run. Sentient beings that require humans to take the time and effort to pay attention to their needs. That being said, we are both steering off the real subject matter of the article which is about the racing industry. I have already written my thoughts on that in my "chapter" above. Blessings
- Playa Dominical October 21, 2009 3:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wrongo
Horses are lazy and only run typically when they are afraid of something. You are showing your ignorance now.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 2:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Making the connection
Can someone logically be "a very strong animal rights advocate" while purchasing animals as property?
No matter how well you treat the animal that you own, it is the ownership, itself, that is in direct violation of rights. Just as recognizing that humans cannot be owned is a recognition of basic human rights.
When you support this industry, you support the commodity status of animals. When you support this status, you support the ramifications of supply and demand: too much demand? Mass horse breeding operations. Too much supply? Euthanasia, slaughter, neglect. These are unavoidable consequences of the industry.
But more than that, when you support the ownership of a sentient being, you are saying that this animal has less of a right to freedom than you do.
- mike
October 21, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are looped.
Animals (with apes and dolphins being the rare exceptions) are not sentient. Sentient (Unless you mean the definition of sentient where in Eastern philosophy refers only to the ability to feel emotion) means to be self aware, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, display desire, will, consciousness, ethics , personality, insight, and many other human qualities.
And for most people who have pets it's less about ownership and more about companionship. Not to mention many of the animals sold as pets today could not live in the wild. Ferrets being one of the most known examples (Don't get them confused with black footed ferrets. They are very different in terms of survivability).
You're talking like people are buying a being that have human level intelligence. If you truely believe animals can think like people do then you need help.
You're just one of those extremists who want to villify anyone who doesn't hold to your, and only your, beliefs.
- Songbird21
October 21, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmm.. (part 1)
Your ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance or support a logical debate. They are also wholly unnecessary. Please refrain from them.
As for your arguments, you make a blanket statement that animals are not sentient, but you then make two exceptions without explanation. You then go on to say that nonhuman animals are not self aware. I'm not sure what you based this on, but the scientific community is still struggling to find a feasible way to test this, let alone coming to any sort of consensus on the issue. If you're basing your conclusion of results of a mirror mark test, then there are a few issues to consider: 1) other mammals besides your exceptions have passed such a test. 2) some birds have passed it, as well. 3) To fail the test does not logically indicate a lack of sentience. 4) To not have taken the test does not indicate a lack of sentience, either.
- mike
October 22, 2009 12:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmm.. (part 2)
You make a circular argument by saying that humans are sentient because they have "human qualities."
You equate intelligence with sentience. This is an incorrect equation even by your own definition. In addition, there is no such thing as a "human level of intelligence," since human intelligence is not only a continuum, but research in cognitive abilities has begun to recognize that there are multiple intelligences through which humans learn and interact with the world.
Finally, you produce a red herring fallacy by mentioning a companion animal's inability to survive unaided in the wild. This is irrelevant to my contention.
- mike
October 22, 2009 12:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Those who can - do
Those who can - do
Those who cannot get on sites like this with all their fancy practiced words thinking they are impressing someone. Get a life
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 3:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh brother....
Well, you insulted me by saying, in essence, that I am cruel by having pets . I respond to insults with insults. If you don't with a response like this don't make insults in the first place.
I shouldn't have to explain dolphins and apes. It's rather widespread knowledge. Use google and look them up if you want reasonings. Yes I left out a few animals . I was, however, only attempting to give examples.
Other than what scientists have said for years I also base the self aware argument on my observations of my own animals over the years. I've lost track of how many times I have been in a situation where if my pets were sentient they would not have done the things they did. My husband's late cat for example: If he had been sentient he would have figured out at some point, after being yelled at and put in the litter box to do his business in the proper place, that peeing on the rug isn't the smart thing to do. Simple deductive reasoning isn't even present.
"Finally, you produce a red herring fallacy by mentioning a companion animal's inability to survive unaided in the wild. This is irrelevant to my contention."
No it's not. My point was that if we simply set those particular animals free they would be dead in a matter of days so not keeping them as pets *would* be cruelty.
And yes, the mirror test *is* proof of being self aware. And being self aware is a very important qualification for sentience--therefore the mirror can be used as a test for sentience (Along with other tests. I'm not saying the mirror is the only way, just that it is valid). I have lost track of how much I have read books about, and watched videos on, this subject.
As for "human level of intelligence" I was only using humanity as a measuring stick. You're over analyzing things.
- Songbird21
October 22, 2009 4:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The essence of insults...
If you read the post to which I was responding, you will see that I was challenging the statement that someone can be an advocate for animal rights and still support the breeding of animals . If you purchase animals, you are financially backing a paradigm that will, by its very design, violate the rights of animals. No insults. Just logical connectivity.
You don't have to explain your apes and dolphins argument. I agree with you that they are sentient. What I find illogical is that you would draw your line based on popular consensus and make a sweeping generalization of animals that are not on the list of animals generally accepted as sentient. Even cursory research on the topic would at least uncover the fact that scientific understanding is shifting in this area.
Furthermore, an argument that an animal's sentience can be based on its seeming inability to recognize and follow your instructions is a weak one. By your argument, a baby who still poops her pants after being yelled at not to and put on the toilet is not sentient.
In addition, you've misunderstood my comment regarding the mirror test. What I said was that while passing the test is proof positive of self awareness, failing the test is NOT proof positive of the LACK of self awareness. Gorillas, for instance, fail this test. There is little debate over the sentience of Gorillas.
Using humanity as a measuring stick is a fundamental error in scientific discovery and research. It is at the core of the issue and should absolutely be analyzed. It is this same rubric that helped stagnate popular belief in a geocentric view of the universe. While evidence began to point elsewhere, humans formed a conclusion and then worked backwards to explain the discrepancies (think apes and dolphins, for instance).
- mike
October 22, 2009 10:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sentient Being - ROFLMAO
Do you really understand how ignorant and far removed from reality you sound? Domesticated animals have a far better life than animals in the wild. Where have you been? Been watching soap operas instead of the Discover Channel perhaps? If every single person like you would go out and adopt an animal and care for it rather than spending time on sights like this ranting and raving about something you obviously know nothing about, we wouldn't have any problems now would we?
Animals enjoy how we have advanced them from living a very tough life in the wild. If you don't believe that, maybe you should go live in a cave and go back to your pre-domesticated life you must find so distatesful.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 3:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
When you're done rolling on the floor...
Perhaps you can get up, dust yourself off, and stop being so unnecessarily insulting. You've made peculiar and inaccurate assumptions about my life. I can't understand what would have drawn you to do such a thing. If you disagree with something I've said, counter with a logical argument instead of getting so angry.
1) I have never said that domesticated animals cannot live a good life.
2) If you think that I am against adopting animals, you clearly don't understand the basis of my argument.
3) Your justification regarding the "advancement" we've brought upon animals living in the wild is incredibly hubristic (that's a fancy, practiced word for arrogant). This same thinking is what Europeans applied to the Black and Native America "savages" to whom they brought a more "civilized" manner of dress, speech , and behavior. They should be grateful, yes?
- mike
October 23, 2009 4:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Havent said that
I am against horse racing just as I am against eating mammalian meat . I'll agree to either if the mammals involved somehow make clear they don't mind getting eaten before slaughter/racing career. I don't wany any part in it and I state this for the record, but I don't utter a single syllable if someone devours a steak in front of me.
Having said that, I am more against PETA and the climate of uncompromise in PETA than either of the aforementioned. PETA is overrun by people who WILL get in my face for wearing leather. PETA has destroyed its PR appeal.
- Khannea Suntzu
October 22, 2009 1:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
pssssssssst
You might want to eliminate the fact that you are a PETA member - that causes most *normal* folks to giggle at you.
I'm not surprised at your answer though given your radical if not naive beliefs when it comes to animals . You'd make a far better mark on this earth by adopting an animal and caring for it rather than reciting the verbal diarhia of a radical group such as PETA. Isn't it PETA that confiscated a bunch of animals claiming the owners were neglecting them only to secretly kill them and stash them behind some building. And where is PETA when it comes to caring and dealing with the over 170,000 abandoned/abused horses each year due to PETA's support of slaughter abolishment? Hmmm?????? PETA & HSUS were the top 2 organizations that lobbied to end slaughter yet neither of those groups has lifted even a little finger to help the horses they forced into a life of suffering. Ask any horse and he will tell you - he doesn't fear death - he fears pain. If an owner can't afford a $6 bale of hay - how do they afford to pay a vet to euthanize and then either a hauler $250 to haul to the dump or pay $200 to a backhoe to come out and bury the carcass?
Leave animal decisions to those of us with alot of knowledge and experience. You screw up everything you touch because you are led by emotion rather than common sense
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA - Reform Racing
Racing in the US needs to be reformed, no question. And PETA 's have brought attention to what's wrong with racing in the US - mainly drugs . But PETA's methods often do more harm than good. For example, after the death of Eight Belles, and without any real evidence of wrongdoing, PETA attacked her trainer, Larry Jones - one of the most ethical trainers in the business. Autopsy results subsequently proved that Eight Belles wasn't on steroids when she broke down. By going after Jones - the wrong target - PETA did more harm than good to the cause of reform. People with the power to actually do something about reform pointed at the attack on Jones, and the fact that Eight Belles hadn't been juiced, and sloughed off everything else PETA had to say on the subject.
The I Want Revenge drugs story is a much better example of veterinarians gone wild in American racing. Both vets involved in the lawsuit - Northrop and Bramlage - approved IWR's post-Wood, pre-Derby drug regimen and called it typical.
I love Thoroughbred horseracing. Horses are naturally competitive and love to run. Instead of trying to kill the sport, PETA ought to be focusing on reform. Get rid of drugs, stop abuse, end slaughter.
- NoelleD
October 19, 2009 9:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freespirit
Very good post. I couldn't agree more on Peta going after Jones was ridiculous and totally misguided. And the last paragraph is right on totally. We need reform in this industry, and we need rid of drugs , abuse, and an end to horses that can't run anymore going to slaughter.
- Freespirit
October 19, 2009 10:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freespirit
Actually, now that animal rights extremists have pushed through legislation outlawing horse slaughter plants, the horses that would have at least gone to a humane death are now shipped to places like Mexico.
- donnawatkins
October 21, 2009 12:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question for donnawatkins
What humane horse slaughter ever existed in the US? Euthanasia is a humane death. Slaughter is NOT humane, not as it was done at the US plants. Maybe they were better than Mexico, but that's not saying much.
- NoelleD
October 21, 2009 1:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
question
I agree and I would no more send a beloved horse to slaughter than I would my mother . But the fact remains that people in Europe and Japan eat horse meat and I would rather have the horses at least have a better chance of an easy death, as opposed to going to a country where they do not value animals like we do.
- donnawatkins
October 21, 2009 2:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA
I've followed LavaMan's career and can give the following information. He was treated with stem cells because of ankle problems. The vet in charge of the stem cell procedure says his ankles are now like a three year-old's. However, because of his age, now 8, I'm also concerned. I'm hopeful he still doesn't run. His owners have said he won't run unless he can return to the high standards he set before in his career. Not many 8 or 9 year-old's can return after a year and a half off. I hope this information helps.
- comet7
October 19, 2009 10:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA
I agree that he may not be able to race at the same level but there are many sport horses and jumpers that are able to jump and compete as they get older.
- donnawatkins
October 21, 2009 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Know your subject
While I have often criticized the racing industry for just the issues which you have highlighted, there is a place in our lives for the therapeutic use of varied pharmaceuticals and herbals. One way to view herbals is that they are simply unrefined pharmaceuticals. As a biochemist, my understanding of the physiology of healing suggests that much more sophisticated approaches are necessary in equine medicine than cortisone and similiar therapies.
Lavaman was treated with stem cell therapy, and with his own cells as well. His behavior suggested to his groom, his owners, and outsiders that he wanted to run; horses are very competitive, and like to express that desire. They are very well qualified to make a judgement in the horses best interests, and the lack of any credential other than emotion lacking knowledge discredits the preceding comments.
Horses are not pets , but livestock; I love them, and they return mutual grooming nuzzles to express their trust. They lead rich emotional lives as well. This, nearly every horseman whom I know, is respected and honored.
Horseracing needs to rid itself of those found to abuse their trust, and who violate sound veterinary ethics . Horseman in general ought to oust anyone from their discipline who works a horse which is sore, or who uses a drug to continue training without that "tincture of time, iodine of neglect" which long ago was taught to me as the best medicine. Having healed properly, Lavaman ought to go back to the track, train, and if he continues sound, win again.
- horseman
October 20, 2009 8:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
skippy
People who know nothing of sports medicine should not speak. Open mouth stick foot in it. The medicine used to reduce swelling is like aspirin. A pulled muscle stays sore for 24 hours. After 24 hours light exerzise. A couple of days go bye all is well. Compare a human injury to it. A couch doesn't kick his star runner out because he sprained his foot three days ago. PETA and the rest of the nuts want all animals to go into extinction. Look at what the AR movement just did to the meat and dairy producers. They caused them millions in expenses. It's coming back on the public with a %25 increase across the board on all meat and dairy prices.
The animal rights movement doesn't care about animals the socialist outfit wants control of a nation.
- skippy
October 21, 2009 11:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah, now animal rights is a "socialist" movement
Give me a break, Skippy. You obviously either have your proverbial head up your a$$, or you refuse to acknowledge the ways humans treat animals .
Check out the pig farmers in Canada that are torching their barns because pork prices aren't what they think they should be. California just had to enact a law to prevent callous "taildocking" of cows (without anesthesia, I might add ). How about the undercover video that brought to light in vivid color the abuses that were rampant at Hallmark slaughterhouse and meatpacking plant? Sure, PETA , is extremist--it has to be to shake the living daylights out of cruel, harsh, souless people who treat animals as objects rather than living, FEELING beings that experience so many of the same emotions that we do. The number of cruelties and ways in which man is unconscionably cruel to beings that are essentially helpless is mindboggling.
Humans have a choice to particpate in sports . The horses do not. I have mixed feelings about horses as I have two Arabians and did enjoy watching them perform in various disciplines. They are both just retired and doing "horse" things. If given the choice between just grazing in their pasture and rolling in the dirt, or having a saddle slapped on them and made to carry me and do my bidding,
THEY'D CHOOSE THE FIRST CHOICE and with more than 50 years of experience with horses and many other types of animals, I now feel we need to change the way we relate and treat these beings.
BRAVO, PETA! If loving animals and being a strong voice for them portrays me as a nutcase, then I am supremely proud of the title. I'll take a person who has a kind and gentle heart over any super achiever, macho-fighter with a soul that begs for awakening any day of the week.
Horse-racing is not about the finish line--it's about the "bottom" line as a previous poster so eloquently stated. Thanks, Friend!
You hit the nail squarely on the head.
- Catsruhl
October 21, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They're Too Darn Young
I worked with horses all through my childhood and teen years, including training ex-racehorses to be suitable mounts for children in equestrian programs. Most of the horses had clearly been well-cared-for, but they all had physical issues that come from being ridden too young. In many other horse sports horses don't even get broken until they are around 3, when they are physically developed to the point where it is safe (and the decision is usually made by watching how developed the horse is, instead of an arbitrary number). Racing starts far too young, especially for those horses born later in the year (all horses technically "age" on the same day of the year, so one born in March is the same age as one born in June or later, even though they mature at different times).
If the thoroughbred racing industry just moved the ages up by one year ( baby racing at 3, major races like the Kentucky Derby at 4 or older) there would be a much smaller need to over-medicate and far fewer breakdowns. Unfortunately, they want the horses to start making money as early as possible and barely seem to care about the 2-year-olds who never got to prove themselves before breaking down. Of course the trainers care about the horses, you don't get into any horse field for the money! For every successful trainer there are dozens barely making ends meet. However, the owners are often a whole different sort and trainers have to make all sorts of bad decisions to keep their clients happy, making even the most honest trainers develop a little shadiness. The horse is almost invariably the loser (except for the super-rare successful ones who live out their lives in luxury).
Horses LOVE to work with and for humans, they really do, and they like nothing better than racing (they do it for fun in their paddocks all the time without human intervention), so I think racing could be a fine and wonderful sport if a few simple changes were made. If you've ever been around a racehorse gearing up for a race you know that they enjoy it.
Personally, I stopped supporting the sport the first time I watched a young filly break a leg purely because her legs hadn't developed enough. No accident, no stumble, just one moment she was running and the next she had fallen down with a broken leg. That's not right. Completely preventable, really, just a few more months off before training would have done the trick and she would have lived, most likely.
There is inherent danger to any horse sport, to both humans and equines, but there are plenty of ways to minimize the risk if we just act a little less greedy and a little more responsible.
- CraftLass
October 21, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lethal
Bottom Line>>>
There are on average, 3 horse fatalities per day, on the racetrack.
- Dawnstar
October 21, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question for Dawnstar
Where did you get your information about the 3 fatalities per day?
- NoelleD
October 21, 2009 1:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Horse racing deaths
I knew the death rate of race horses for years. Information gained by advocates in the field and data.
To verify from news articles, etc. do a Google search...
http://www.google.com / and in the SEARCH BAR, type in: horse racing deaths soar.
You will then see a number of articles/sources reporting the large number of race horse deaths per day, per year. .
- Dawnstar
October 21, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good call
This article clearly spells out why your numbers are bogus:
http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/figures-lie-and-liars-figure-2621.htm
- JKM121
October 22, 2009 7:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Horse Racing Business
Please take note of what publication wrote the article: "HORSE RACING BUSINESS." Most in the horse racing business protect the horse owners, trainers...and NOT the horses, ie, biased reporting.
It is not unusual, more the norm, to have a thoroughbred (TB) have injuries, severe arthritis, etc. and race again and again on Bute...painkillers. They race to make the almighty dollar for the mostly wealthy owners, until it becomes obvious to all that the horse is clearly disabled and/or the horse just cannot walk or run.
At this point, most horses go to claiming races. The death knell. Or, right off to the kill buyer for the brutal transport to heinous slaughter. The owners cannot even pay for a humane death by veterinary injection. Slaughter. This is the reward for the horse that made so much money for the owner.
So yes, at least 3 fatalities per day on the track, and the " meat man" comes by all race tracks once a week with his trailer...meat wagon. This is a little know FACT. Just like horse slaughter is "America's Dirty Little Secret."
That said, there are a few racetracks with "zero tolerance" for shipping horses off the track to the meat rack. One is Suffolk Downs, East Boston, Ma. An owner is found to be shipping horses off the track to slaughter, is not allowed to race a horse at that track again. However, concessions have been made.
The racing industry is corrupt as all get--go. Two years ago Congress was going to step in. But Promises, Promises from the NRA to do better at monitoring and changes to be made. But still, same ole, same ole.
Enjoy your bets and races. However, with all said, the TB race horse is a most beautiful animal. And to see them race with the wind and with their heart is magnificent. The horses do love to race and with their high intelligence know what to do.
- Dawnstar
October 22, 2009 1:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biased sources
can still make valid points.
- JKM121
October 22, 2009 11:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA SUPPORTER
I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH PETA - ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR US TO USE AND ABUSE. I PROMOTE VEGETARIANISM BECAUSE OF THE CRUELTY TO THE ANIMALS WHICH ARE SLAUGHTERED INHUMANELY FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. I AM 60 YEARS OLD AND HAVE BEEN A VEGETARIAN FOR APP. 32 YEARS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK PETA, I AM BEHIND YOU 100%
ALAYNA STAGGERS
- Alayna Staggers
October 21, 2009 3:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you
I appreciate the words of support . Brought a smile to my face PETA will remain strong and an advocate for the animals . Blessings
- Playa Dominical October 21, 2009 5:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
THANK YOU
I am so glad to hear words of encouragement for those who truly CARE for animals and have a sensitive heart for the suffering they endure for the pleasure and profit of people,
We live in a very callous and heartless world where greed and self centeredness supercedes compassion. Alayna Staggers, nurse and mom.
- Alayna Staggers
October 21, 2009 6:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Best to You
Once again, thank you for the words of encouragement, Alayna. Being a PETA member and outspoken animal activist can really generate some angry and unsettling reactions from some. It is always wonderful to hear from someone who shares and understands your passion. Blessings
- Playa Dominical October 21, 2009 7:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA is no friend to animals
As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( PETA ) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.
PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.
Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost -saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.
PETA has a $32 million annual budget . But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat , drinking milk, fishing , hunting , wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”
The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the nearly six pets they kill on average, every single day.
The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.
Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.
Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 21,339, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.
- donnawatkins
October 22, 2009 7:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Or how about THIS gem?
PETA Employees Face Felony Animal Cruelty Charges
In the early hours of June 15, 2005, two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were arrested in Ahoskie, North Carolina, and charged with 31 felony counts of cruelty to animals . A Grand Jury later indicted each defendant on 21 counts of Animal Cruelty and 3 counts of Obtaining Property By False Pretenses. PETA employees Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle are expected to face a trial in Hertford County (NC) Superior Court on November 13, 2006. A few days after the arrests, local authorities told Greenville, North Carolina's WNCT-TV News that they had found more than 70 additional dead animals that may be connected to PETA.
When Ahoskie police arrested Cook and Hinkle, they discovered 18 dead animals in a shopping-center dumpster (including a bag containing dead puppies), and 13 more dead animals (including two kittens) in the PETA-owned van the two were driving . Police observed them throwing several dark-colored bags into the dumpster before the arrests were made. The animal-cruelty investigator for the Northampton County (North Carolina) sheriff's department shared her outrage with the Virginian-Pilot a few days after the arrests: "Some animals have to be euthanized," she told the paper, "but the way this crowd did it is sick."
Witnesses from the Bertie County (NC) Animal Shelter and the Ahoskie Animal Hospital later confirmed that the defendants had collected animals earlier that day on the promise that PETA would find them adoptive homes. And a Bertie County deputy sheriff told reporters that Cook and Hinkle assured the shelter "they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes," later adding that persons identifying themselves as PETA representatives have picked up live dogs from that shelter during the last two months.
Ahoskie veterinarian Dr. Patrick Proctor told reporters that his staff gave a perfectly healthy cat and her two newborn kittens to Hinkle and Cook. "This cat and two kittens I gave them last week," he said, "were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens." Dr. Proctor later added in the Virginian-Pilot: "These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."
One Norfolk television station aired a heartbreaking interview with the manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs ... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."
Another TV news report in PETA's home town revealed in June 2005 that Hinkle and Cook were not licensed to euthanize animals. "We have no records of training PETA employees," a Virginia Department of Agriculture spokesperson told Norfolk, Virginia's WAVY-TV10 News, "because we were informed that euthanasia was being done by a local veterinarian." Neither defendant has a veterinary degree.
- donnawatkins
October 22, 2009 7:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I Care
I can only speak for myself and what I do. If I see an animal in need, I do my best to care for it. I have 3 dogs and they get the best my money can buy. I will do without to provide for them.
I prefer to see the good that others do. I know that "People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals" makes people angry. Why? I am PETA . I do what I can for the animals . Just as in the church I belong to; I am responsible to God for what I do and how I live my life. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I am....a vegetarian ; I am the best nurse, mom and grandmom I can be. God only asks of me to follow my moral values even if others in an organization fail. I am all of these things at the exclusion of other people's opinion. It is how I live my life that matters and I am for the ethical treatment of animals and saving unborn babies from abortion and preserving the dignity of the elderly at the end of their life. To look at others and compare my actions and beliefs only gives me an excuse not to do my best.
- Alayna Staggers
October 22, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA
makes people angry because their leaders are hypocrites (i.e. former VP MaryBeth Sweetland using insulin, a drug tested on animals but that she excused for her own use because she was helping the animals). They euthanize more than 95% of the pets that were given to them to find good homes. They use misogynistic stunts for publicity.They take in millions of dollars in donations but do not do anything to actually do hands on work to help animals. They hate people. They try and sway people's emotions with graphic pictures of one time abuse and then say that that same abuse is wide spread in any industry they wish to abolish. They have been accused of staging pictures and videos . They compare chickens to people who died in the Holocaust and farm animals to blacks who were victims of lynching.
That is just off the top of my head.
- donnawatkins
October 22, 2009 12:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegetarian
I know that animals are mistreated and killed inhumanely for meat . I choose not tp partake of that suffering. It has nothing to do with PETA . I have my own belief system which is influenced by noone.
- Alayna Staggers
October 22, 2009 12:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The reason PeTA makes people angry
PeTA makes people angry because they are forceful and aggressive in making people confront the disconnection in their lives.
If someone purchased a Hershey's bar, and I sent you pictures of all the people and animals hurt at the hands of Hershey's, Monsanto, and other giant organizations involved in the process of bringing you that candy , you would be angered. You may make excuses for your behavior. You may even simply ignore what you've learned. Now imagine that you and your family have been taught your entire lives that Hershey's bars are necessary to live a healthy life, your traditional holidays are centered around Hershey's bars, and nothing on television has ever shown you anything but the bar, itself; and not what was involved in making it. You would resist the information you were receiving at all costs. But, if through logical reasoning, investigation and research, and nonviolent discussion with others, you came to learn about all of the atrocities involved in producing a Hershey's bar, you would most likely stop purchasing them. Especially if there were an equally delicious option that supported values you align with.
PeTA makes animal rights proponents angry, because PeTA has become the face of the movement, and it is not a pretty face. It causes people to blindly disregard facts and reason, dismiss discussion on unsubstantiated grounds, and develop a counter-movement with no real goal other than to contradict or resist PeTA. All the while, PeTA has done very little in the way of helping eliminate the property status of animals (the main cause of all the heinous ways we use animals).
PeTA sells animal welfare propaganda, and it's not something that people naturally align with. It's something most people instantly reject.
Instead, why not spread a message of reason, logic, and empathy? Why not connect with the values people already have. There are very few people who think that unnecessary harm brought upon animals is acceptable. So, then, it is simply a matter of breaking down social and religious constructs that blind people, and helping them to live in a way that is connected with their values.
- mike
October 22, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sometimes We Are Wrong
Cherished values are sometimes wrong. To grow, we must be open to new ideas. It's like the suicide bombers, they think they are right and noone will change that. But, we know their values are wrong.
- Alayna Staggers
October 22, 2009 5:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yea Donna - you go girl
EXACTLY!!!
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 3:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How many animals do you care for???
How many animals do you care for? How much time to you personally give going out and caring for animals? Or do you just sit on you behind and type out what everyone else should be doing when you are not?
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh For The Love Of God
There is your answer. For the Love Of God, we just try to do our best.
- Alayna Staggers
October 23, 2009 3:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Didn't answer the question - what no pets?
I'm guessing you don't have any pets ?
- OhForTheLoveOfGod October 23, 2009 3:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pets
I have 3 dogs and have had dogs my whole 60 years.
- Alayna Staggers
October 23, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.