The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 49 of 62 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 980 of 1239
  1. #961
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    You have stated many times on other threads or forums you have NEVER sent a horse to slaughter. So if you eat meat...chicken..pork...lamb...you are dining due to slaughter.
    Don't forget that we get so much more than just "food" from animals, all kinds of products come from slaughter.

    Yes, horses are one more natural, renewable resource.

    That you don't see that horses are "natural" is truly amazing, no matter how you came to that conclusion.



  2. #962
    Join Date
    Apr. 3, 2006
    Location
    Spooner, WI
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Maybe because the modern horse only exists because of human intervention. They are genetically engineered by humans, a domesticated species.

    Do I need to 'splain it further? Or do we need to digress into the philosophy of domestication?



  3. #963
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    Maybe because the modern horse only exists because of human intervention. They are genetically engineered by humans, a domesticated species.

    Do I need to 'splain it further? Or do we need to digress into the philosophy of domestication?
    Really?

    Do I need to explain what "genetically engineered" is, or can you look that up all by yourself?



  4. #964
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    4,092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You do realize that we have been slaughtering horses for millennia, are still and shipping them off and people are really not falling all over dead from eating horse meat?
    Can you show studies that prove this? Don't forget that in Europe, the major horse meat distributors advertised their horse meat as coming from mustangs raised specifically for meat in lush green pastures.

    If drug laden meat were okay, why the need to lie about its origin?

    Quote Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE View Post
    Actually she kinda does.
    I seriously call BULL that Beef magazine has no agenda.
    Whatever you're smoking, please share.
    No agenda? Riiight. Please pass whatever you are smoking this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE View Post
    I don't want to be forced to document every drug ever given to my horses either because someone somewhere somehow wants to use slaughter processing as an option.
    It also does no good to have the regulation if it's not followed.
    And we already know how little regulations are followed to begin with. (Refer to above post about smoking...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    That you don't see that horses are "natural" is truly amazing, no matter how you came to that conclusion.
    That you don't see that not everyone feels the same as you is also truly amazing.
    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg



  5. #965
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post
    Can you show studies that prove this? Don't forget that in Europe, the major horse meat distributors advertised their horse meat as coming from mustangs raised specifically for meat in lush green pastures.

    Are you serious?
    I was raised in Europe and know that people didn't die all over from eating horse meat, don't need any studies to prove it to you.
    And no, people have been eating horses for millennia, only importing them into Europe from the USA "lately" in those millennia and there was no advertising for them until, yes, again, "lately" in those millennia.


    If drug laden meat were okay, why the need to lie about its origin?

    And how does that statement make sense to you?

    Ever occur to you that maybe "drug laden meat" is one more animal rights propaganda and myth you are required to swallow, along with all other, as a follower of those groups?
    Really, I would think you should know by now that obvious myth won't fly here, where we have thinking people, not clueless animal rights followers.




    No agenda? Riiight. Please pass whatever you are smoking this way.



    And we already know how little regulations are followed to begin with. (Refer to above post about smoking...)



    That you don't see that not everyone feels the same as you is also truly amazing.
    Oh, excuse me, I didn't know that now we are to suspend thinking and go on "feelings" to be listened to here.

    I still can't get over anyone insisting horses are not "natural".



  6. #966
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Trouble with Dad...
    Posts
    29,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Oh, excuse me, I didn't know that now we are to suspend thinking and go on "feelings" to be listened to here.
    the whole gig rides on emotions because there is no rational explanation, is there.

    I still can't get over anyone insisting horses are not "natural".
    I can see it when Dobbins has more clothes than Madonna and more supplements than a bodybuilder...can't leave the stall without bell boots etc...has more baths than an Olympic swimmer.

    But I am with you, that is indeed a new low in this 'discussion'

    But somebody really needs to look up 'genetic engineering' or buy a clue...or stalk one during clue season....
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  7. #967
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    the whole gig rides on emotions because there is no rational explanation, is there.


    I can see it when Dobbins has more clothes than Madonna and more supplements than a bodybuilder...can't leave the stall without bell boots etc...has more baths than an Olympic swimmer.

    But I am with you, that is indeed a new low in this 'discussion'

    But somebody really needs to look up 'genetic engineering' or buy a clue...or stalk one during clue season....
    I sadly agree, this "discussion" is past absurd by now, which may be what some wanted to achieve, as their untenable position was made clear.



  8. #968
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Trouble with Dad...
    Posts
    29,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    I sadly agree, this "discussion" is past absurd by now, which may be what some wanted to achieve, as their untenable position was made clear.

    It's certainly entertaining.
    Grab a Samuel Adams Octoberfest beer and let's see where this is headed..

    (I think this thread has jumped a school of sharks about a week ago...)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  9. #969
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    It's certainly entertaining.
    Grab a Samuel Adams Octoberfest beer and let's see where this is headed..

    (I think this thread has jumped a school of sharks about a week ago...)
    Maybe this would help:


    ---Robert H. Ennis, author of The Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, offers this very streamlined version of what is a good critical evaluator:

    -Open-minded and mindful of alternatives.
    -Tries to be well-informed.
    -Judges well the credibility of sources.
    -Identifies conclusions, reasons and assumptions.
    -Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions and evidence.
    -Can well develop and defend a reasonable position.
    -Asks appropriate clarifying questions.
    -Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well.
    -Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context.
    -Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution.
    -Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do."---



  10. #970
    Join Date
    Sep. 18, 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Ok, that eliminates Fox News and their viewers !!!
    Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength



  11. #971
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Trouble with Dad...
    Posts
    29,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Maybe this would help:


    ---Robert H. Ennis, author of The Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, offers this very streamlined version of what is a good critical evaluator:

    -Open-minded and mindful of alternatives.
    -Tries to be well-informed.
    -Judges well the credibility of sources.
    -Identifies conclusions, reasons and assumptions.
    -Judges well the quality of an argument, including the acceptability of its reasons, assumptions and evidence.
    -Can well develop and defend a reasonable position.
    -Asks appropriate clarifying questions.
    -Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well.
    -Defines terms in a way appropriate for the context.
    -Draws conclusions when warranted, but with caution.
    -Integrates all items in this list when deciding what to believe or do."---

    Love it!

    Aggie4bars and I had a forum going for a short time. We tried to implement a discussion structure she had leaned about I am guessing (it's been a couple of years now) through corporate training:
    Assign each aspect of the argument a 'hat' of a different color, including one to just vent. Basically everybody had to think at least through some of the other aspects of the problem. It was rather detailed, as there were not yes/no and 'this makes me so mad' but 3 more aspects of it.

    Of course, nobody took us up on the offer (and we folded a couple of weeks before the epic COTH Mod walkout....)

    and then I like to post an old set of rules a bunch of kids put together for serious debates. Almost all of the teenagers of that site stuck to it, presented some serious thought provoking arguments.

    And in the years since I converse with 'mature' people who would have been reprimanded by those kids for being childish and not sticking to the topic AND not contributing to the debate...

    1. No swearing or name calling. There are other ways to get a point across than swearing. Petty name calling and insulting someone’s ideas or arguments is an answer for lazy debaters, and it serves as a substitute for a real answer to the issue presented. There will be no more of it.

    2. No derogatory religion-based comments or racism. While it hasn’t been a huge issue yet, it may pop up in the future.

    3. No Republican vs. Democrat wars. Only debates about issues being discussed in the thread are allowed, without mention of your own political affiliation. No threads dedicated to wars of political affiliation are allowed either.

    4. Stay on topic. The need to emphasize this point is immense. When a thread begins to rot because of the negative energy created by people going on off-topic rants, it creates tension between members and grounds for fighting. Not good.

    5. If something extremely offensive is geared at you, PM a staff member. We will handle it. If the offense is minor, try to breathe it off. While you're steaming and need to get your mind on something else, I'm sure the pens on your desktop need inspecting.

    6. Only post if you can contribute something to the topic/debate. This means no more: "What <insert name> Said" , or "I agree/disagree".

    7. Do not take anything personally. No flaming.

    8. Please, use spell check, or at least form sentences that make sense. Pretend that you are writing an Essay for class.

    9. Since this is a Critical Thinking Forum use evidence to back up your statement if needed. This means no more: "The Bible says so." Actually find the verse that says so (just an example).

    Expanded Rules: These rules are for people who have never really debated in a forum before.

    1. I have noticed a ton of arguments being taken personally. Critical Thinking is a place for discussion and debate. Debate is where someone refutes an opinion and supports his or her own. There is no reason to take offense about a reasonably presented debate. I know if someone insults what you believe in you tend to get insulted, however part of what makes humans sentient is the ability to control instinctive reactions. If someone debates with you, debate back. Don't insult them. Sure, put a harsh twinge on your comments, it makes it more fun, but do not insult the person for having an opinion.

    However on the flip side, if you present your opinion in a juvenile, disrespectful or just plain stupid way; you should expect to be made fun of.

    If you keep arguing about something that people have just completely disproved, you should expect some insults. No one is going to respond politely to the same opinion over and over again.

    2. If you state a fact that is not your opinion or common knowledge, be sure you have the sources to back it up. A common way to discredit an opponent is to ask where they got their sources. If they cannot cite their sources then it discredits their opinion.
    Interesting little read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  12. #972
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    2. If you state a fact that is not your opinion or common knowledge, be sure you have the sources to back it up. A common way to discredit an opponent is to ask where they got their sources. If they cannot cite their sources then it discredits their opinion.

    And this ^ is a point the pro slaughter side seems to ignore, or, in most cases, they do NOT HAVE A LEGIT SOURCE.

    But, carry on........

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  13. #973
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Trouble with Dad...
    Posts
    29,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    2. If you state a fact that is not your opinion or common knowledge, be sure you have the sources to back it up. A common way to discredit an opponent is to ask where they got their sources. If they cannot cite their sources then it discredits their opinion.

    And this ^ is a point the pro slaughter side seems to ignore, or, in most cases, they do NOT HAVE A LEGIT SOURCE.

    But, carry on........
    butbutbut

    sorry, the rule pertaining to your argument is further down the list.

    BTW, because you don't like the source, because it's not saying what you want does not make it not a source.

    And when your source is being picked apart - with arguments that are viable, don't come back crying.


    However, your argument relies on emotions which can't be debated. That is the long and the short of it. But emotions cannot be allowed into policy making. It leads to bad law. And bad law is no good to anybody.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  14. #974
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    However, your argument relies on emotions which can't be debated. That is the long and the short of it. But emotions cannot be allowed into policy making. It leads to bad law. And bad law is no good to anybody.
    And you show me ONE post of mine relating to this subject in all the years we have discussed this topic, that is based on emotion. Just one.

    You can't, because I work with facts and facts only. Most of them from my personal experiences, on the ground, in the pipeline; something you have not even considered exposing yourself to, and never will.

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  15. #975
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    And you show me ONE post of mine relating to this subject in all the years we have discussed this topic, that is based on emotion. Just one.

    You can't, because I work with facts and facts only. Most of them from my personal experiences, on the ground, in the pipeline; something you have not even considered exposing yourself to, and never will.

    As I see this debate if to ban or not horse slaughter, I think that NO ONE for the ban has presented NOT ONE valid reason for a BAN.

    All your facts and personal experiences are about horse slaughter not conducted properly.
    That is remedied by doing the job well, by fixing what you don't like, not by BANS.

    That is my point all along.

    I know slaughter is what we make of it, just as with any other we do.

    Slaughter is not inherently bad, as animal rights propaganda has everyone that can't see past that propaganda believing.
    Animal rights propaganda keeps trying to make "facts" to ban slaughter, all animal uses if you pay attention, out of abuse and mismanagement.

    A BAN is overkill, like banning religions because some abuse the power they give them, like banning schools because you find abusers there, like banning driving because some keep driving over the speed limit.

    Right, when you look at the big picture here, we can see that calling for a ban is absurd.
    A BAN plays into the hands of animal rights extremists, that under the guise of animal welfare, lets help the poor abused animals, are really after eliminating, banning, all use of animals, one at the time, here horse slaughter.
    Slaughter is an easy target for them, slaughter being what it is, a distasteful, gruesome topic, just as so many others in our lives are.
    Sensible people don't go around wanting to ban the processes we have for so much we do because of the "ick" factor.



  16. #976
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    And you show me ONE post of mine relating to this subject in all the years we have discussed this topic, that is based on emotion. Just one.

    You can't, because I work with facts and facts only. Most of them from my personal experiences, on the ground, in the pipeline; something you have not even considered exposing yourself to, and never will.
    There is a problem here.

    When I have provided you with the links..or others have..you claim biase...If there are points made...I do give you credit...you are about the only one who has acknowledged them

    NONE of you...AGAIN...NONE of you have been to a Canadian slaughter plant. Period

    I have stated over and over and over...changes made...how the import process works at the border...meat horses versus individual certificates...new chutes/./// new processes....

    and then...we get the .....but they are ABUSED...which is nonsense...they have no more fear than a horse going to a new stable...a new activity...

    The "mustang"" label according to the MAJOR importer of horsemeat...was a MARKETING TOOL used by the importer...not the exporter...we have no control over that...same as we do not have control over "organic" produce sold in North Americva



  17. #977
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Trouble with Dad...
    Posts
    29,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    And you show me ONE post of mine relating to this subject in all the years we have discussed this topic, that is based on emotion. Just one.

    You can't, because I work with facts and facts only. Most of them from my personal experiences, on the ground, in the pipeline; something you have not even considered exposing yourself to, and never will.
    Considering that I don't know you from Adam's dog, I take past performance as indicator and remain skeptic about your experience.

    However, I hope you ride better than you debate, because once again you missed the mark wide, see below:


    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post

    That you don't see that not everyone feels the same as you is also truly amazing.

    Again: Rational argument against horse slaughter.

    Don't bring abuse.
    it has been to 90% debunked, the other 10% need working on.

    Don't bring drugs.
    Also, it has been pointed out that what you already put in your mouth meat wise has most of the same medications in it. Just because the label says different does not mean it's bad, it only means the pharma company did not spend the $$$$$$ to have it approved.

    'We' don't eat it.
    Also proven wrong. In a country that eats anything that isn't running fast enough that one does not fly.
    Deer, snake, Gator, Possum, ground hog....horse sounds outright civilized in this context. And as the ongoing crimes in Southern Florida prove: there is a market.
    And if Walmart stocked it, I bet more people would eat it, too.

    Drugs, false advertisement, etc....

    You know, you just can't have it both ways. There are enough threads on here complaining about how horses are 'abused' because they don't change clothes more times a day than the queen and don't get a truck load from Smartpack every month.
    Not everybody gives powder for every boo-boo. And those are likely the kind of people who don't mind if the horse that is a $$ asset on a farm brings in a bit to offset cost. It's lifestock.

    Also, if you don't eat it, what do you care what's in it?

    The ban discussion encompasses the gambit of bully argument:
    I don't like it, so you can't do it.
    I think it's abusive, so you have to stop it.
    But hey...the argument is that bute is a known carcinogen.
    I am sure that is true when directly consumed by the human.
    But please then explain why everybody is holding steadfast onto this medication. And don't give me the 'people live longer than horses' line. People are also exposed to a number of carcenogenic substances over the prospective 70-80 years, plus horses do now routinely live into their 30s...so bute ought to be eliminated from the medicine chest all together, no?


    Alas, I let myself get sucked back into the argument which is non, while I was happy just pointing out the flaws in style.


    In short, your tag team partners are not doing you any favors by playing the emotion card.

    But when you strip the house of cards down, that's the one and only foundation to the 'argument'
    'we feel it is abusive'


    and again:
    You play that card, you will get it back in spades (And the pun is unavoidable):
    I think a lot of things are abusive in the industry, starting with smothering a horse in layers of blankets the majority probably never needs.
    I don't think it is healthy for a horse to constantly bathed either.

    Constantly jumping, doping (yeah, i consider giving a horse bute at a competition doping), mane pulling, sewn in braids, lungeing for hours....you know it happens...

    Then there are certain trainers who's methods are questionable at best.
    Practices like tieing a horse to the rafters, 'raining' it not to flinch so the inspector won't be able to tell that unlawful chemicals were used on the animal....

    Then we have the people who 'think' racing is cruel, Eventing....even Dressage....after all, you use spurs, right and that mean curb bit....

    Then our friends in NYC are under siege, because some people who could not find their behind with both hands 'believe' the horses are abused. Talk about useful idiots!

    Ok, how comfortable are you now with your feelings?


    (never mind, i can hear you already: butbutbut...)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  18. #978
    Join Date
    Dec. 21, 2008
    Location
    Longing to be where I once was.....
    Posts
    2,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudyandcallie View Post
    I read an article in the AQHA "official" magazine in either 2005 or 2006, which explained why horse owners should eek out that last little bit of money out of their old broodmares by not euth-ing them and burial, but by selling the old horses off to slaughter. To the AQHA, apparently, old horses who produced foals for year after year are just so much $ till they are slaughtered. They seem to only be interested in saving that last vet bill.

    I guess that's why the AQHA people refer to some of their horses in ads as being "cow" like?

    Not for me. I would hope that broodmare owners would at least feel that they should pay out the money to euth and bury old mares who "produced" foals that sold for $.

    I've been anti-slaughter since I was a child and my parents did not buy alpo as it was made from dead horses. And I am pretty much against most horse breeding, as too many are starved and neglected and/or go off to slaughter when they cannot produce more foals or become sick or lame.

    The AQHA should republish that article that I read back then. It's very revealing as to the AQHA's position on slaughter.

    This makes no sense to me. You can't expect every person who owns a horse to think of them as their " family" . The horse is their property and they are free to end that horses life as they choose.

    You are right, If everyone would just stop breeding than we won't have a problem years later. We also won't have horses either.

    The biggest problem with this whole mess is treating horses like humans. Giving them human thoughts, feelings, reactions and emotions. This is the big gun the anti- slaughter groups use to sucker people in.



  19. #979
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    3,686

    Default

    You and Bluey really want to point fingers about bully arguments?? Wow

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    Considering that I don't know you from Adam's dog, I take past performance as indicator and remain skeptic about your experience.

    However, I hope you ride better than you debate, because once again you missed the mark wide, see below:





    Again: Rational argument against horse slaughter.

    Don't bring abuse.
    it has been to 90% debunked, the other 10% need working on.

    Don't bring drugs.
    Also, it has been pointed out that what you already put in your mouth meat wise has most of the same medications in it. Just because the label says different does not mean it's bad, it only means the pharma company did not spend the $$$$$$ to have it approved.

    'We' don't eat it.
    Also proven wrong. In a country that eats anything that isn't running fast enough that one does not fly.
    Deer, snake, Gator, Possum, ground hog....horse sounds outright civilized in this context. And as the ongoing crimes in Southern Florida prove: there is a market.
    And if Walmart stocked it, I bet more people would eat it, too.

    Drugs, false advertisement, etc....

    You know, you just can't have it both ways. There are enough threads on here complaining about how horses are 'abused' because they don't change clothes more times a day than the queen and don't get a truck load from Smartpack every month.
    Not everybody gives powder for every boo-boo. And those are likely the kind of people who don't mind if the horse that is a $$ asset on a farm brings in a bit to offset cost. It's lifestock.

    Also, if you don't eat it, what do you care what's in it?

    The ban discussion encompasses the gambit of bully argument:
    I don't like it, so you can't do it.
    I think it's abusive, so you have to stop it.
    But hey...the argument is that bute is a known carcinogen.
    I am sure that is true when directly consumed by the human.
    But please then explain why everybody is holding steadfast onto this medication. And don't give me the 'people live longer than horses' line. People are also exposed to a number of carcenogenic substances over the prospective 70-80 years, plus horses do now routinely live into their 30s...so bute ought to be eliminated from the medicine chest all together, no?


    Alas, I let myself get sucked back into the argument which is non, while I was happy just pointing out the flaws in style.


    In short, your tag team partners are not doing you any favors by playing the emotion card.

    But when you strip the house of cards down, that's the one and only foundation to the 'argument'
    'we feel it is abusive'


    and again:
    You play that card, you will get it back in spades (And the pun is unavoidable):
    I think a lot of things are abusive in the industry, starting with smothering a horse in layers of blankets the majority probably never needs.
    I don't think it is healthy for a horse to constantly bathed either.

    Constantly jumping, doping (yeah, i consider giving a horse bute at a competition doping), mane pulling, sewn in braids, lungeing for hours....you know it happens...

    Then there are certain trainers who's methods are questionable at best.
    Practices like tieing a horse to the rafters, 'raining' it not to flinch so the inspector won't be able to tell that unlawful chemicals were used on the animal....

    Then we have the people who 'think' racing is cruel, Eventing....even Dressage....after all, you use spurs, right and that mean curb bit....

    Then our friends in NYC are under siege, because some people who could not find their behind with both hands 'believe' the horses are abused. Talk about useful idiots!

    Ok, how comfortable are you now with your feelings?


    (never mind, i can hear you already: butbutbut...)



  20. #980
    Join Date
    Dec. 21, 2008
    Location
    Longing to be where I once was.....
    Posts
    2,157

    Default

    [QUOTE=Bluey;6532047]
    We watch all those pretty, well edited wildlife documentary, that we all enjoy watching, about how idillic it is in the wild, the weather is always sunny, everyone gets along, rarely something dies and then it is quickly.

    Sorry, that is not what real nature is, it is brutish and full of anxiety for al most of the time, the lower on the hierarchy of predator and prey, the less your chances of a good quality or much length of life.
    There is no old in nature for most, it is either fast and strong or dead.
    Many don't even make it to grow up.( Quote)


    I saw a show on Nature ( i think) where a wolf pack took down a moose. It was so awful and pure torture for the moose as they were eating him alive. I was almost sick and I am not naive about how animals in the wild die.



Similar Threads

  1. Cross-country horse sales- how to receive funds?
    By Spectrum in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Jan. 19, 2012, 10:29 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Nov. 1, 2011, 06:53 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2011, 02:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness