# Greyhound racing



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Was just wondering how you guys felt about Greyhound Racing?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Depends on how the track is run. In some areas people just bring personally owned dogs,which is perfectly acceptable. I`m not even that against regular Greyhound racing being that most of the dogs are now adopted out.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

I think it's fine as long as the owner doesn't abuse their dog. I like to see a Greyhound race. I compare it with horse racing. As long as everyone is having fun and the animals aren't being abused, I say it's a-ok. If there is any abusing going on, I don't support that at all and it should be stopped.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I would love to see a greyhound race but there aren't any tracks around here anymore. There is nothing wrong with letting a dog do what they love. 

Unfortunately a lot of people hear "greyhound racing" and automatically think it's synonymous with "abuse" but the two are very much separate from each other, is there abuse in greyhound racing? yes of course there is, but there is abuse in every aspect of dog ownership not just racing.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Sorry but I'm going to have a bit of a rant because this is something I feel very strongly about.

Any animal that is a mere commodity, exploited by humans for entertainment, is a big 'NO' in my world. 

Whilst a greyhound may be safe during its registered sector racing life, once its considered too old, or can't make the grade, there is a high chance of it being sold off to the unregistered sector. Unregistered sectors are basically rule-less organizations that have no vet in attendance during a race. Injured animals are put on the tracks. Its not uncommon for a greyhound to break a leg or even a neck during a race. 

Don't for a moment believe that most retired racing greyhounds are re-homed by charitable organizations. Although these organizations are fantastic and do a fine job, they can't keep pace with what goes on. Some retired greyhounds are handed over to these organizations but that's by compassionate owners. There's still plenty of un-compassionate people in the racing fraternity. Dogs are drowned, poisoned, starved, abandoned or shipped to Spain to work as Golgas. Google 'why do they hang Golgas in Spain?' and understand that many thousands of these poor dogs are retired racing greyhounds that have been shipped to Spain for the hunting season. 

I would happily stand in protest to prevent a new track from opening because the only way to end greyhound abuse on this mass scale is to end racing.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

Well said PragueRatter!!


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Sorry but I'm going to have a bit of a rant because this is something I feel very strongly about.
> 
> Any animal that is a mere commodity, exploited by humans for entertainment, is a big 'NO' in my world.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with allowing betting at races but making racing dogs illegal in general is ridiculous. Abuse is already illegal, and needs to be better policed, but that doesn't stop people from beating their pets. And just because people frequently beat, starve, shoot, ect their pets doesn't mean pet ownership should be illegal either.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Any dog sport,in fact dogs just being allowed to play could get injured. Injuries are also un-avoidable in human sports.

In the United Kingdom their are vets at the track to check the Greyhounds before races. Grey hound racing has actually improved,I haven't heard of any recent drowning/hanging of dogs.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

*@I don't agree with allowing betting at races but making racing dogs illegal in general is ridiculous. Abuse is already illegal, and needs to be better policed, but that doesn't stop people from beating their pets. And just because people frequently beat, starve, shoot, ect their pets doesn't mean pet ownership should be illegal either.* 

Animal abuse to sporting and coursing animals may be illegal in your country but its certainly not illegal in parts of Europe, namely Spain where many of these dogs get sold. Did you know that the newest way of killing greyhounds in Spain, after they have finished racing and with full permission of the Spanish government under the proviso that its a good way to exercise the dogs, is to tie them to the bumper of a car and to set off at speed? 


*
@ In the United Kingdom their are vets at the track to check the Greyhounds before races. Grey hound racing has actually improved,I haven't heard of any recent drowning/hanging of dogs. *

I used to work for the Department for Environment in the UK. More specifically the welfare of animals during transport. Many thousands of retired greyhounds are shipped from the UK to Spain (off the track and onto cargo). Its ongoing but most people are oblivious to what goes on with these dogs once their racing days are over. 

I'm sorry but this rips my heart out. I am not an animal activist as such but I will be a voice for those animals that need one. 

When it comes to humans and greed, animals will often suffer in our hands.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Not a fan, too many animals that don't make the grade get PTS here.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I love to watch the puppies run.....


I go to greyhound races... I go to horse races as well. 

I bet on both greyhounds and horses. 


I also like to watch greyhounds course. I have had the pleasure of watching them course Jack Rabbits and Coyotes. 

Greyhounds run. That is what they do. And I love watching dogs do what they do.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

PragueRatter said:


> *@I don't agree with allowing betting at races but making racing dogs illegal in general is ridiculous. Abuse is already illegal, and needs to be better policed, but that doesn't stop people from beating their pets. And just because people frequently beat, starve, shoot, ect their pets doesn't mean pet ownership should be illegal either.*
> 
> Animal abuse to sporting and coursing animals may be illegal in your country but its certainly not illegal in parts of Europe, namely Spain where many of these dogs get sold. Did you know that the newest way of killing greyhounds in Spain, after they have finished racing and with full permission of the Spanish government under the proviso that its a good way to exercise the dogs, is to tie them to the bumper of a car and to set off at speed?
> 
> ...



This is so true and we see this time and time again. 
I think man's best friend (and animals in general to be frank) deserve so much better.


Some food for thought (*warning, please note that some people may find these images disturbing*): 

http://www.care2.com/causes/a-win-for-suffering-greyhounds-in-florida.html

http://www.greytexploitations.com/resources-and-reports/call-to-end-greyhound-cruelty

http://www.galgonews.com/2010/05/galgueros-deny-hanging-dogs-lies-heres-the-proof-the-spanish-hunters-hang-their-dogs.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290221/The-heartbreaking-plight-Prince-greyhound-left-tortured-starving-owner-decided-longer-hunt.html

http://animalcrueltyworldwide.com/Greyhound-Racing/Greyhound-Racing.html


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Thank you for putting those links up Mountaindog. 

Unfortunately and tragically, people will deny the truth when it comes to these noble beasts. Horse racing and dog racing may well have a glamorous image but both have a grim reality. Even the champions can and often do end up as 'wastage' (what an awful term).

Having had a lurcher who was three quarters greyhound, 1/4 border collie I know how loyal and loving these dogs are. When I used to do home checks in the UK, we sometimes re-homed an ex racing greyhound and these animals, who had never been house trained, were quick to learn and very eager to be loved and were generally gentle, polite and unobtrusive dogs. 

My lurcher ran like the wind on a daily basis. He caught rabbits and even the odd squirrel. I get the impression that some people think that racing them is something that comes quite naturally to them, it doesn't. Chasing prey comes naturally to them, not racing.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Racing itself isn't an issue. It's what happens to some of the animals after. I have no problem with the racing portion, but I firmly believe more needs to be done with "leftovers". There are lots of people want to adopt Greyhounds (at least in my area). I would love to go see some races. I enjoy horse racing immensely so that carries over. I'm no good with money so I just go to watch. No betting for me.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

People shouldn't be banned from doing sports with their dogs, they should be banned from abusing their dogs. If abuse is a problem then make laws against it, or uphold current laws.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> I get the impression that some people think that racing them is something that comes quite naturally to them, it doesn't. Chasing prey comes naturally to them, not racing.


When they race they are chasing a "rabbit". It is QUITE natural. 

Racing simulates coursing just as field trials simulate hunting, herding trials simulate herding, etc


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> Racing itself isn't an issue. It's what happens to some of the animals after. I have no problem with the racing portion, but I firmly believe more needs to be done with "leftovers". There are lots of people want to adopt Greyhounds (at least in my area). I would love to go see some races. I enjoy horse racing immensely so that carries over. I'm no good with money so I just go to watch. No betting for me.


You're absolutely right. When racing is done within the strict guidelines of the correct governing body its fine. Its the same with horse racing. Unfortunately though, when it comes to money, so many people want a piece of the pie


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

If you see abuses, address those....

But do not damn the sport because some abuse the system.


----------



## TXTorres (Mar 31, 2013)

It's all about money, IMO. 

It is an awesome thing to see sighthound owners come together for a fun day of coursing, hunting, etc. The issue with racing is that people get greedy and don't care. It's a shame that they cannot just enjoy dogs having the time of their life.

I hope one day I can adopt a greyhound or two. They are such gentle souls


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> Unfortunately a lot of people hear "greyhound racing" and automatically think it's synonymous with "abuse" but the two are very much separate from each other, is there abuse in greyhound racing? yes of course there is, but there is abuse in every aspect of dog ownership not just racing.


The problem is that abuse in any sport that involves gambling/big money is much more prevalent than in everyday life. Sadly, the dogs suffer when people turn a blind eye.



> I also like to watch greyhounds course. I have had the pleasure of watching them course Jack Rabbits and Coyotes.


Do you also enjoy watching bait dogs being ripped apart? Same result, different animal.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

TXTorres said:


> It's all about money, IMO.


A LOT of things involving animals is ALL about the money.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Every year, approximately 20,000 greyhounds are killed or put down from the injuries they sustain during racing. This mainly happens when these dogs are pushed dangerously beyond their limits. Many thousands of greyhounds are bred specifically for the track every year. Only a handful will survive. Puppies deemed not suitable for racing are normally destroyed. Ones that don't make the grade in the rigorous training are normally destroyed. When the racing dogs get retired at 4 or 5, most of them are destroyed or sold into the black market where they are often pumped full of steroids in the hope that they will race like a two year old. Many of these dogs will suffer cardiac arrest. 

The good runners are worth a lot of money and are obviously fully insured. When one of those dogs sustains even a small injury, if its thought that its future racing could be jeopardized, the dog is destroyed and the insurance money collected.

If it could be guaranteed that dogs were not pushed beyond their limits, would not be sold to the black market and would have their injuries treated rather than being destroyed. If these dogs were given a decent life after they retire (normally having another 10 years in front of them), then I could go to a greyhound race and happily watch it. That's never going to happen though and so my final word is, I don't agree with the outcome of these dogs, I don't agree with the corruption that goes on for OUR entertainment and to line OUR pockets. 

You guys can think whatever you like but that's my ten cents worth.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

So Cavalier-- Not really... It's pretty natural for predators to go after prey. Totally different situation to watch dogs go after other dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> Do you also enjoy watching bait dogs being ripped apart? Same result, different animal.


No.... And I "could" be offended that you even suggested it. I am not. In fact it is somewhat amusing....



But I certainly appreciate watching terriers go to ground after varmints. 

I enjoy hunting hogs with dogs. I have done it my entire life. Every one of the APBTs I have owned have been "catch" dogs.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Yeah I'm kind of really scratching my head at that comparison... Roxie (a terrier mix) has huge prey drive and I like watching her go after stuff. I also used to let my mom's Dachshunds go after rabbits... It's natural and comes naturally to them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Every year, approximately 20,000 greyhounds are killed or put down from the injuries they sustain during racing. This mainly happens when these dogs are pushed dangerously beyond their limits. Many thousands of greyhounds are bred specifically for the track every year. Only a handful will survive. Puppies deemed not suitable for racing are normally destroyed. Ones that don't make the grade in the rigorous training are normally destroyed. When the racing dogs get retired at 4 or 5, most of them are destroyed or sold into the black market where they are often pumped full of steroids in the hope that they will race like a two year old. Many of these dogs will suffer cardiac arrest.
> 
> The good runners are worth a lot of money and are obviously fully insured. When one of those dogs sustains even a small injury, if its thought that its future racing could be jeopardized, the dog is destroyed and the insurance money collected.
> 
> ...


Many things animals do are for our entertainment. Many things animals do is for profit.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> Yeah I'm kind of really scratching my head at that comparison... Roxie (a terrier mix) has huge prey drive and I like watching her go after stuff. I also used to let my mom's Dachshunds go after rabbits... It's natural and comes naturally to them.


There really is no comparison.... 
It was just a stretch to imply I may be a bad person because it does not bother me to watch what happens at the end of a coursing hunt. Well it does not always happen because the animal being coursed gets away much of the time.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

So Cavalier said:


> Do you also enjoy watching bait dogs being ripped apart? Same result, different animal.


Seriously? You see... no difference between dogs hunting, as they are bred to do, wild animals, in the open.

And someone throwing a domesticated animal, that loves and trusts people, into a confined space to be torn apart for their amusement? 

That's certainly an...interesting view point.



JohnnyBandit said:


> There really is no comparison....
> Well it does not always happen because the animal being coursed gets away much of the time.


And therein you have one of many differences. 

MANY differences. 

I have a hunting breed. They hunt. They hunt bunnies and squirrels and chipmunks and mice and rats and - . Yep. I get a little bugged because I'm a big old softy, but a rabbit or coyote is not a bait dog, is not domestic, is not someone's pet. It's like claiming someone watching a nature documentary and not tearing up at a lion killing an antelope supports dog fighting. The heck?


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> There really is no comparison....
> It was just a stretch to imply I may be a bad person because it does not bother me to watch what happens at the end of a coursing hunt. Well it does not always happen because the animal being coursed gets away much of the time.





> ...seriously? You see... no difference between dogs hunting, as they are bred to do, wild animals, in the open.
> 
> And someone throwing a domesticated animal, that loves and trusts people, into a confined space for their amusement?
> 
> That's... special.


It's not the same. This situation is more like "canned hunting". The prey animal has very little chance of survival. One is survival, the other is not.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

So Cavalier said:


> It's not the same. This situation is more like "canned hunting". The prey animal has very little chance of survival. One is survival, the other is not.


I don't know coursing. A bit of research tells me the animal's given a 100 yard headstart, in an open field. I don't know that that makes it FAIR, but frankly? By the time my Rat Terriers lock onto a rabbit it's effectively dead at this point, anyway. Even worse if some small animal ends up in my fenced in yard. That is, granted, not for my amusement or monetary gain -

but I'm not killing myself over it, anyway.

I WOULD be, if someone's pet kitten ended up on the wrong side of them. It isn't so much that I value wild animals less or think they should be treated cruelly; I don't. But I eat a lot of them MYSELF, so there's obviously a pretty strong disconnect. If what I'm reading about Hare coursing is wrong, then yeah. I'm bothered as heck by the practice. If it's a 'rabbit let lose in a field a hundred yards away and the dogs are set lose on it' ... I'm not sure I can be. That's not even far off a lot of hunting training for various breeds.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

"Bait dogs" serve no purpose, because Pit Bulls do not need to be taught how to fight, and it doesn't test gameness or serve any purpose putting them on a dog that can't fight back. That's just plain dumb.. The whole "bait dog" thing was made up, any dog who came into a shelter or rescue with some scars was automatically called a "bait dog" without knowing any real history of the dog.. I'm sure because it's so advertised some dumb thugs probably actually use bait dogs, but that is most certainly the minority in the dog fighting world, and those thugs have no idea what real pit fights are all about..Not saying that makes it any better, but the original dog men, and the men who still fight dogs to preserve gameness have no use for "bait dogs" it's just stupid HSUS propaganda


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> I don't know coursing. A bit of research tells me the animal's given a 100 yard headstart, in an open field. I don't know that that makes it FAIR, but frankly? By the time my Rat Terriers lock onto a rabbit it's effectively dead at this point, anyway. Even worse if some small animal ends up in my fenced in yard. *That is, granted, not for my amusement or monetary gain -*
> 
> but I'm not killing myself over it, anyway.


I guess you are making my point. Yes, I know dogs are predators. Yes, I know they kill other animals. I have had dogs that killed little animals. I didn't like it. It bothered me. I didn't kill my dog. I would never intentionally set my dogs to hurt another animal for fun. But to say that you like watching a dog kill another animal just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe that's just me. I understand the people hunt. I don't hunt. If you eat what you kill, that's one thing. If you kill something just for fun, that's quite another. My opinion. Everyone is welcomed to their own. Nuff said.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Many things animals do are for our entertainment. Many things animals do is for profit.


So does that make it alright?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

So Cavalier said:


> I guess you are making my point. Yes, I know dogs are predators. Yes, I know they kill other animals. I have had dogs that killed little animals. I didn't like it. It bothered me. I didn't kill my dog. I would never intentionally set my dogs to hurt another animal for fun. But to say that you like watching a dog kill another animal just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe that's just me. I understand the people hunt. I don't hunt. If you eat what you kill, that's one thing. If you kill something just for fun, that's quite another. My opinion. Everyone is welcomed to their own. Nuff said.


Does it bother you when people like to see a lion grab a zebra, or wolves take out an elk as well?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> It's not the same. This situation is more like "canned hunting". The prey animal has very little chance of survival. One is survival, the other is not.


Actually you are beyond clueless here.

"canned" hunting is when an animal is confined in some fashion (a fence, island, etc and/or their is no fair chase. 

In coursing, running game with free running hounds. terrier hunting, etc IS fair chase. 

Greyhounds pursuing wild animals on open ground, free running trailing hounds pursuing game, etc The odds are always in favor of the wild critter. 
(which would be the wild animal's home turf)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> So does that make it alright?


I suppose... I have no problem with dog racing, horse racing, rodeos, etc.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm okay with greyhound racing--for fun. Sighthounds love to run, so why not let them do what they were made for: run fast! 

As soon as money comes into play, I'm not okay with it anymore. Money just tends to be > than the welfare of the animals. Money corrupts. 

But I'm all for dogs having fun on the track. It's just the element of money making that doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> I guess you are making my point. Yes, I know dogs are predators. Yes, I know they kill other animals. I have had dogs that killed little animals. I didn't like it. It bothered me. I didn't kill my dog. I would never intentionally set my dogs to hurt another animal for fun. But to say that you like watching a dog kill another animal just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe that's just me. I understand the people hunt. I don't hunt. If you eat what you kill, that's one thing. If you kill something just for fun, that's quite another. My opinion. Everyone is welcomed to their own. Nuff said.


If this sits so poorly with you, you probably should not have dogs. Dogs are predators, killers of animals. Not liking and embracing all that a dog is.......
If you cannot appreciate the beauty of dogs doing what dogs do, you are missing a big part of dog ownership. 
Seeing a greyhound flying across a field hot on a coyote is a thing of beauty. 
Watching a pack of hounds work out a cold trail, take it hot, jump and pursue game to whatever the outcome is a thing of beauty. 

Man and dogs have been hunting together ever since we crawled out of the caves. Then that dies, humanity dies.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Many things animals do are for our entertainment. Many things animals do is for profit.


So that makes it okay? 

There so many different things dealing with animals that I completely disagree with. 

I mean, what makes sticking animals in a Colosseum to fight to the death barbaric compared to people in Spain watching a man play around with a bull. With the eventual killing of the bull of course. Or what makes it bad to have two dogs fight for money while it's okay to make a dog run to death on a track? 

Where is the line drawn between what is acceptable and what isn't?

By the way, I'm not saying I do or don't agree with certain dog sports or even hunting. I just find ethics and morals to be an amusing concept when it comes to animals. What makes something ethically OK when something relatively similar is unacceptable. Who determined what should or shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Avie said:


> I'm okay with greyhound racing--for fun. Sighthounds love to run, so why not let them do what they were made for: run fast!
> 
> As soon as money comes into play, I'm not okay with it anymore. Money just tends to be > than the welfare of the animals. Money corrupts.
> 
> But I'm all for dogs having fun on the track. It's just the element of money making that doesn't sit right with me.


I am LESS than prepared to draw a line in the sand...

We ALL, unless someone is a non animal owning vegan, use animals to our own benefit. 

The mere act of owning a pet is using the animal to our own benefit. It does not matter that the animal benefits in some cases as well. We still do it because it benefits us. When you obtain a pet, it has no say so in the matter.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> So that makes it okay?
> 
> There so many different things dealing with animals that I completely disagree with.
> 
> ...


It certainly does not make it NOT okay....

It is exploitation... And everyone has their own line..... 
Where that line is.... well it is up to each individual. 
Because owning a pet is exploitation as well. Anything we do, pet ownership, using a herding dog, raising animals for food.... Is exploiting animals to our needs.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

So many dogs are discarded and killed when they are not good enough anymore, or when they were never good in the first place, that I don't see how a dog lover could even support greyhound racing. Not when it involves money, anyway, because that's when it usually gets cruel. I have no problem with dog owners doing lure coursing for fun with their hounds, nor do I have a problem with a dog killing a wild animal when that's what it was bred to do. But it's too easy to make money off an animal and then to send it to rescue where there are thousands of dogs already waiting for homes or to be killed.

I agree with everything PragueRatter said.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It certainly does not make it NOT okay....
> 
> It is exploitation... And everyone has their own line.....
> Where that line is.... well it is up to each individual.
> Because owning a pet is exploitation as well. Anything we do, pet ownership, using a herding dog, raising animals for food.... Is exploiting animals to our needs.


But isn't there a "right" way to exploit animals? Herding dogs aren't (or shouldn't be) discarded when they can't do their job anymore. Farm animals are eaten once they are killed, so their death does in fact serve a purpose. A dead greyhound is not even food. I don't think anyone is saying that using dogs for racing is a problem, but that the way it's done and specifically what happens to the hounds when they can't race for some reason or another is a problem.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It certainly does not make it NOT okay....
> 
> It is exploitation... And everyone has their own line.....
> Where that line is.... well it is up to each individual.
> Because owning a pet is exploitation as well. Anything we do, pet ownership, using a herding dog, raising animals for food.... Is exploiting animals to our needs.


Exactly, that's my whole point. Everyone is going to have their own moral ideals . As a spiritual person I would love to see people and nature become compatible again. With people having a respect for nature and animals, the respect all living beings deserve. 

At the same time I enjoy owning a dog. I would love to do dog sports. I love horses and that's obviously something that comes with it's own set of issues. Like what makes it okay to force my horse to be ridden and whatever else I choose to do as a rider. 

Do I think it's okay to hunt animals for sport? No but at the same time I'm fine with hunters who love nature and animals hunting for food because that's how they survive and they live off that. 

It gets hard at some points to decide what's okay and what's not. I think it's fine to let a greyhound hunt and run but I just don't know how I could morally be OK with the exploitation of an animal for profit when that animal is obviously just a means to an end and nothing more.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

So Cavalier said:


> I guess you are making my point. Yes, I know dogs are predators. Yes, I know they kill other animals. I have had dogs that killed little animals. I didn't like it. It bothered me. I didn't kill my dog. I would never intentionally set my dogs to hurt another animal for fun. But to say that you like watching a dog kill another animal just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe that's just me. I understand the people hunt. I don't hunt. If you eat what you kill, that's one thing. If you kill something just for fun, that's quite another. My opinion. Everyone is welcomed to their own. Nuff said.


Of course you are, and I'm not saying it's wrong - I'm not prepared to draw that line in the sand. I mean, I get upset and tear and shaky if my dogs kill something cute and furry - because it's cute and I'm a big old softy. 

But at the same time - my dogs catching and quickly dispatching an animal is what they're bred to do, and also what I USE THEM FOR. Because that's part of their job around here, I DO enjoy seeing it on some level. That level being primarily 'Job well done". I think, also, that a lot of the disparity in how we respond to animals being killed is entirely arbitrary and based on cute factor. Ie: The cuter it is, the more we get all upset. Squirrels and rabbits no longer bother me; they aren't pet animals for me, but they are food. Mice, voles, moles, and shrews certainly don't. 

The day they killed a chipmunk? I WAS SO UPSET.

But I recognized it was because I found the animal adorable. Not because it was inherently different than them killing a rat.

This isn't saying it's what your issue is; you can have whatever emotional reaction you want. But there really is no comparison to a dog hunting natural prey (even for amusement or money - and frankly if I take down a deer when hunting, I've just bagged several hundred dollars worth of meat, so it benefits me quite a bit), and a dog being locked in a 'pit' with another dog and having to fight it out.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Whistlejacket said:


> But isn't there a "right" way to exploit animals? Herding dogs aren't (or shouldn't be) discarded when they can't do their job anymore. Farm animals are eaten once they are killed, so their death does in fact serve a purpose. A dead greyhound is not even food. I don't think anyone is saying that using dogs for racing is a problem, but that the way it's done and specifically what happens to the hounds when they can't race for some reason or another is a problem.


Johnny said from the get-go, though, that animal abuse is the problem; we have laws for that. Implement them and no more issues. The racing and the money aren't really the problem. Inadequate application of laws already provided is. 

Personally? I find greyhound racing dull as toast, and gambling a bad idea in general, but that ain't the discussion for a dog community.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I suppose... I have no problem with dog racing, horse racing, rodeos, etc.


What is it about horse racing, dog racing and rodeos that's so exciting? Is it a traditional/cultural thing?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

About the discussion above: I was under the impression that a fake rabbit-thingy was used on the track during races? (so not a real rabbit)

Anyway, dogs killing animals doesn't really bother me unless it's illegal. Which is everywhere in my country, so no hunting with dogs here. I feed Mike carcasses now and then, I'm the last person to squirm at dead animals. That said, I'm not into hunting for fun as I don't like bloodsports.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Avie said:


> About the discussion above: I was under the impression that a fake rabbit-thingy was used on the track during races? (so not a real rabbit)
> 
> Anyway, dogs killing animals doesn't really bother me unless it's illegal. Which is everywhere in my country, so no hunting with dogs here. I feed Mike carcasses now and then, I'm the last person to squirm at dead animals. That said, I'm not into hunting for fun as I don't like bloodsports.



Lure coursing, in greyhound racing and on tracks, does use a fake rabbit. 

HARE coursing uses an actual rabbit, in an open field. Hare gets 100 yard head start, then the dogs are set loose.

I'm also not completely sure I'd consider it 'for fun' if you're supplementing YOUR OR the dog's diet with game. People who leave the animal to rot so they can have a trophy, I take issue with. I know quite a few hunters here, and the vast majority either eat the game themselves, or donate it to low income folk. The very, very few I know who do nothing with the animal save mount the head (or nothing at all) I really object to. Of course, this is deer hunting. Rabbit and squirrel, either people or the dog eat in general. The only time that doesn't happen is when it's a pest animal that's being killed to protect crops or livestock.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> Johnny said from the get-go, though, that animal abuse is the problem; we have laws for that. Implement them and no more issues. The racing and the money aren't really the problem. Inadequate application of laws already provided is.


But a lot of it isn't illegal. If they "humanely" kill the excess puppies/bad racers/etc., it's totally legal. They're completely exploiting the animals, but hey, it's humane :/.


----------



## DaisyDC (Feb 24, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> What is it about horse racing, dog racing and rodeos that's so exciting? Is it a traditional/cultural thing?


Have you been on the back of a Thoroughbred going down the track, doing what it was bred to do? There is no feeling like it in the world, it is transcendent. And mine was not a very good race horse. Watching a good horse do what it was bred to do, and do it well, is no different than being able to appreciate a border collie for its herding ability or a police dog for taking down a suspect.

I have the same appreciation for greyhounds that I do for Thoroughbred horses, and I imagine a lot of the issues dog racing has are similar to those of horse racing--people choosing profit over animal welfare, trying to win rather than do the right thing, the issues of retiring animals. Just because some people haven't figured out how to do things right, doesn't mean we should condemn the sport as a whole, any more than we should condemn gymnastics because a lot of the girls participating develop eating disorders. It means those who care about the issue, and enjoy the sport, should work towards finding a solution for the issues.

Maybe I come at this from a different perspective because I have a retired racehorse. What I ask her to do on a daily basis now as a sporthorse (eventing, dressage, jumping) is far less natural to her than racing ever was. I'm also hoping to get the ex-racehorse out fox hunting a little this fall/winter, so in the eyes of some I'm probably just a big ol' monster on a whole lotta levels.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> But a lot of it isn't illegal. If they "humanely" kill the excess puppies/bad racers/etc., it's totally legal. They're completely exploiting the animals, but hey, it's humane :/.


Why are we more concerned with dogs being put down/euthanized for excess, here, when that's what happens in shelters and the result of BYB who breed for proft without the work every day? It's the same situation. Same cause, same source. GREYHOUND RACING isn't the issue in that one. Lack of better safety measures -and they're coming in leaps and bounds, much faster than shutting down puppymills or BYBs.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> Actually you are beyond clueless here.
> 
> "canned" hunting is when an animal is confined in some fashion (a fence, island, etc and/or their is no fair chase.
> 
> ...


So trapping a wild rabbit which is a stressor to the animal to begin with. Holding it in a crate, most likely under horrible conditions which adds additional stress. Then releasing it in an open field without nearby cover is really in favor of the rabbit. 

And because I don't agree with you, then I am clueless? Right, whatever you want to believe.



> If this sits so poorly with you, you probably should not have dogs. Dogs are predators, killers of animals. Not liking and embracing all that a dog is.......
> If you cannot appreciate the beauty of dogs doing what dogs do, you are missing a big part of dog ownership.
> Seeing a greyhound flying across a field hot on a coyote is a thing of beauty.
> Watching a pack of hounds work out a cold trail, take it hot, jump and pursue game to whatever the outcome is a thing of beauty.
> ...


My dogs are much more than killing machines and my life revolves around other things than killing animals. I will own dogs if I want to. I have never lived in a cave and don't ever plan to.


----------



## Aska (Jun 9, 2013)

Okay, I'm against doing it for entertainment, and for betting. I hate it.

But... doing it for the dogs is alright. I do know many Whippet, Saluki and Afghan Hound owners who meet on regular basis and the dogs race. No betting, no prizes, no trophies... just for the dogs to meet and get exercise. That, I don't mind.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

DaisyDC said:


> Have you been on the back of a Thoroughbred going down the track, doing what it was bred to do? There is no feeling like it in the world, it is transcendent. And mine was not a very good race horse. Watching a good horse do what it was bred to do, and do it well, is no different than being able to appreciate a border collie for its herding ability or a police dog for taking down a suspect.
> 
> I have the same appreciation for greyhounds that I do for Thoroughbred horses, and I imagine a lot of the issues dog racing has are similar to those of horse racing--people choosing profit over animal welfare, trying to win rather than do the right thing, the issues of retiring animals. Just because some people haven't figured out how to do things right, doesn't mean we should condemn the sport as a whole, any more than we should condemn gymnastics because a lot of the girls participating develop eating disorders. It means those who care about the issue, and enjoy the sport, should work towards finding a solution for the issues.
> 
> *Maybe I come at this from a different perspective because I have a retired racehorse. What I ask her to do on a daily basis now as a sporthorse (eventing, dressage, jumping) is far less natural to her than racing ever was. * I'm also hoping to get the ex-racehorse out fox hunting a little this fall/winter, so in the eyes of some I'm probably just a big ol' monster on a whole lotta levels.


Well of course its unnatural. Race horses are backed at 2 years old unlike most other sports horses who are backed at 4 when their skeleton is fully formed. They learn walk, trot and canter on their front end and so never form good quarter muscles. They gallop a lot which is known not to be good for the horse over all and they are doing this as adolescents. I would quite happily train a thoroughbred up to 3 day event level so long as it had never raced. 

I'm not proud of this but just so you are in the picture, before I took my BHS exams I worked for Guy Reed, the race horse owner at Copgrove in North Yorkshire. I wasn't an apprentice jockey, though I did help to bring horses up to racing fitness. I have sat on many a race horse and galloped around a track on racing fit two year old's brought up on grain rich diets and I can tell you now that those horses go a lot faster than some retired racer! 

I was young and naive back then though. I didn't realize that all those stable vices came from the horses being cooped up for 20 hours a day, fed on a totally unnatural diet and ridden at such a young age... which puts a tremendous amount of stress on their skeleton. I left the racing fraternity when a promising young horse I had grown to love, pulled up on the practice track with azoturia. They limped him home, made a decision that he would never race, went out into the yard with me hot on their tails and shot him through the head. 

Years on, I was running my own equestrian yard and I've got these clients turning up with ex race horses with all sorts of skeletal problems. Many had broken backs and hock issues as well as bloody awful stable vices. 

Thoroughbreds can do many things. Some make great showjumpers, others event and some even make decent dressage horses... unless of course they have been used for racers where their quarters are too hollow to sit on their ass.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Why are we more concerned with dogs being put down/euthanized for excess, here, when that's what happens in shelters and the result of BYB who breed for proft without the work every day? It's the same situation. Same cause, same source. GREYHOUND RACING isn't the issue in that one. Lack of better safety measures -and they're coming in leaps and bounds, much faster than shutting down puppymills or BYBs.


I, personally, am not more concerned about the greyhound racing issue than about the puppy mill one. I find both situations just equally unfair and frustrating. The thing with greyhound racing is that it's promoted, appreciated, and valued as tradition. Traditions are HARD to get rid of. I live in a country where bullfighting is legal and there's a bullfighting arena within walking distance from my place. People LOVE it. I imagine it's the same with greyhound racing: it's traditional, so the instinctive reaction is that it MUST be preserved, and many people don't think further than that.

Besides, as long as money will be involved, greyhound racing will be competitive. And as long as there is competition, the welfare of the hounds will be largely disregarded. If there was a law stating that all the unsuitable for racing hounds had to be adopted out instead of euthanised, and they were still being destroyed, then yes, it would purely be a matter of legality. But euthing them by thousands is perfectly legal, so it's really ethics that have to be questioned.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> I, personally, am not more concerned about the greyhound racing issue than about the puppy mill one. I find both situations just equally unfair and frustrating. The thing with greyhound racing is that it's promoted, appreciated, and valued as tradition. Traditions are HARD to get rid of. I live in a country where bullfighting is legal and there's a bullfighting arena within walking distance from my place. People LOVE it. I imagine it's the same with greyhound racing: it's traditional, so the instinctive reaction is that it MUST be preserved, and many people don't think further than that.
> 
> Besides, as long as money will be involved, greyhound racing will be competitive. And as long as there is competition, the welfare of the hounds will be largely disregarded. If there was a law stating that all the unsuitable for racing hounds had to be adopted out instead of euthanised, and they were still being destroyed, then yes, it would purely be a matter of legality. But euthing them by thousands is perfectly legal, so it's really ethics that have to be questioned.


It always baffles me when one states that they find something abhorrent, that they think that's all you find abhorrent! Just because we don't like the thought of what happens to greyhounds who are raced doesn't mean we are not disturbed and angry about puppy mills. 

I'm not sure where you are from but they also have bullfighting where I'm from. Its amazing how many tourists visit the bull rings because they believe they have to taste all the culture/traditions and how they leave in horror after the first bull is killed. Bullfighting is indeed barbaric every step of the way.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> What is it about horse racing, dog racing and rodeos that's so exciting? Is it a traditional/cultural thing?


What is not exciting about any kind of racing? The contest, the speed, etc.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> So trapping a wild rabbit which is a stressor to the animal to begin with. Holding it in a crate, most likely under horrible conditions which adds additional stress. Then releasing it in an open field without nearby cover is really in favor of the rabbit.
> 
> .


That is not coursing... If you already have the rabbit caught, why have the dogs chase it. No point....

Still clueless...


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

PragueRatter said:


> It always baffles me when one states that they find something abhorrent, that they think that's all you find abhorrent! Just because we don't like the thought of what happens to greyhounds who are raced doesn't mean we are not disturbed and angry about puppy mills.


There are A LOT of things that make me angry about the dog world; greyhound racing happens to be one of them, but it's certainly not the only one.



PragueRatter said:


> I'm not sure where you are from but they also have bullfighting where I'm from. Its amazing how many tourists visit the bull rings because they believe they have to taste all the culture/traditions and how they leave in horror after the first bull is killed. Bullfighting is indeed barbaric every step of the way.


Judging from your profile, we live in the same country. I live in France, approximately 20 minutes from the Spanish border. The Spanish traditions and way of living are part of my area's culture, hence the enthusiasm for bullfighting. For this reason, I dread to think of what would happen if hunting with sighthounds wasn't forbidden...


----------



## GrinningDog (Mar 26, 2010)

I feel I don't have enough information to form an educated opinion on greyhound racing. I like to hear about the good, the bad, and the ugly in a rational and unbiased way before I come down on a side. I really haven't found an unbiased source on the subject. 

And by "greyhound racing" I mean the mainstream, money-making venture. Obviously, I support lure coursing and races by sighthounds for sport, where the animals are loved win or lose and live in a home environment.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

See, I find this whole thing fascinating. It just interest me the way other people look at the world. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with environment and culture. Tradition is a huge part of it as well. 

There's just so many things. Bullfighting, the taking of sea turtle eggs of the coast of Costa Rica, the killing of wolves, the horrible conditions farm animals are typically kept in when being used for the soul purpose of meat, eggs, dairy, whatever. I mean the list could go on and on. There are just so many things and it's not all black and white. 

Yeah it upsets me that sea turtles are dying off because stupid people feel the need to harvest their eggs in unbelievable amounts, BUT those people are poor and need that money to survive. That's just one example. Certain things though, I just don't see any purpose to whatsoever. What's accomplished from bullfighting? I can't think of one thing. 

Same with greyhound racing. All it's about is money and there no real benefit to it as far as I can see. With so much corruption involved there's obviously something that needs to be done. To just sit there and say it's fine because it's fun or exciting and that's just what greyhounds do, they run... Well that just sounds like a cop out to me. To make yourselves feel better about the fact that you enjoy something that isn't quite all that fair to another living thing. Is all about the worldly things and enjoying life. That's fine. Most people are like that. I mean the world isn't going to get too far like that but whatever, it is what it is.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

90% of racing Greyhounds are adopted out now days.

Heres some good information about live lure coursing. http://neversaynevergreyhounds.blogspot.com/2010/12/coursing-in-england.html


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

IF this is not a thing of beauty..... I do not know what is..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> 90% of racing Greyhounds are adopted out now days.
> 
> Heres some good information about live lure coursing. http://neversaynevergreyhounds.blogspot.com/2010/12/coursing-in-england.html


And from this....

Coursing, at least in the UK benefits the hares...
The farmers would normal kill the hares. But they can charge coursers to hunt on their land. So the hares get to stay.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

This Saluki is SMOKING fast!!!


----------



## Doglover65 (Aug 10, 2013)

I think im going to go with JohnnyBandit on this one. Im not exactly all for it but im not against it. 

I think racings fun and its exciting to watch, but it heart breaking when you're actually "behind the scenes". My grandparents owned race horses and my parents owned race horses until i was 15. And its so sad. The horses arent even developed, its like running a marathon with a puppy, its so bad for their bodies. Also, the sabotage. I've seen people dump out water buckets, put salt in the hay, put stuff i the horses food or water to make them sick, ive seen it all. And yeah, vets are ALWAYS on the track or nearby, but theres no way to prevent something from happening. When a horse breaks a bone, its not as simple as a dog. Even though its still complex and expensive, if a dog breaks its leg its not the end of the word. When a horse breaks its leg the horse gets put down. Either put down right at the track or taken off the track. Horses die from their lungs literally exploding, their cardiac arrest, so many things, and i bet greyhounds do too.

Though i think what they do to the animals is cruel, in guilty of still going to the race track and the rodeo. I wouldnt want another track to open or another rodeo but its fun and its exciting to see, its something new to do with friends. Again Im not all for it, but im not against it. I own a retired racer (Ottb) and hes.. Alright health wise. Hard keeper, terrified of whips and will never be able to jump very high. 

Call me crazy but i love the people who watch it and adopt retired racers but cant stand people who are actually apart of it, putting their dogs or horses on the track. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> 90% of racing Greyhounds are adopted out now days.


Hey, that's really interesting, where is your evidence for this?


----------



## Patterale (Jul 25, 2013)

Hi id just like to jump in here.

there are alot of people around my area in Northern Ireland who keep greyhounds, there is a track like 10 mins from my house, i have seen/heard how people treat the greyhounds, some are fine walk them and look after them properly, some are not they are simply out with the old and in with the new kinda thing if you get my drift (I have been told from people what happens to some dogs who dont perform or grow right)

A short walk from my house in an old field were people tend to walk their dogs there is a greyhound run (could possibly be lurchers for hunting as there is a lot of people who hunt with dogs around here) anyway they are kept in alot of the time although i cannot see them but somtimes at night i can hear them howling/crying/barking i wouldnt say they have much of a life at all... 

I posted up this video a couple of weeks ago but no one really took any notice of it and didnt reply to my thread.

(GRAPHIC CONTENT)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23104869

(GRAPHIC CONTENT)

Most of the dogs i see when they walk past me seem just like they have no life and no no freedom, but in saying all that at the end of the day thats what they are bred for and as long as they are treated right and looked after i have nothing against the sport also.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Patterale, thanks for re-posting the link. I hope people watch that heart wrenching video. It made me cry because its horrifc and its tragic. So long as none sectored racing is legal, this sort of thing will continue to happen. As long as people continue to support non sectored racing, this sort of thing will continue to happen. 

Johnny Bandit, why would I find something exciting to watch when I have galloped on my own horses and watched my own dogs run on natural terrain? Why would I find something like this exciting when I'm an animal lover? 

and Johnny, you put a video up of hare coursing which showed a man walking proudly along a road with his dog and a brown hare kill. Maybe you should read this http://www.channel4.com/news/action-urged-to-protect-brown-hares-from-further-decline. There's nothing beautiful about that, its shameful.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Unless the greyhound racing industry is different in America compared to Ireland and Spain, I definitely don't approve of it. 

Patterale, that's a horrible video. Just goes to show to what lengths people will go to remove traces of them abusing or neglecting animals. 

Anyone wanting an... interesting... read, go visit the following link. Click 'organisation' and read 'situation' and 'history'. An explanation of what goes on in the Irish and Spanish greyhound racing industry. Not unbiased, as it is a rescue group. Still an interesting read. 

Greyhounds in Nood Belgium

I was about to put down a quote... but I realize I want to quote way too much, so go read it yourselves.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

Whistlejacket said:


> I, personally, am not more concerned about the greyhound racing issue than about the puppy mill one. I find both situations just equally unfair and frustrating. The thing with greyhound racing is that it's promoted, appreciated, and valued as tradition. Traditions are HARD to get rid of. I live in a country where bullfighting is legal and there's a bullfighting arena within walking distance from my place. People LOVE it. I imagine it's the same with greyhound racing: it's traditional, so the instinctive reaction is that it MUST be preserved, and many people don't think further than that.
> 
> Besides, as long as money will be involved, greyhound racing will be competitive. And as long as there is competition, the welfare of the hounds will be largely disregarded. If there was a law stating that all the unsuitable for racing hounds had to be adopted out instead of euthanised, and they were still being destroyed, then yes, it would purely be a matter of legality. But euthing them by thousands is perfectly legal, so it's really ethics that have to be questioned.


I couldn't have said it better myself.
Millions of dogs and cats being put down in animal shelters each and every year, puppy mills, people severely mistreating animals (livestock included) all truly bothers me.
Heck it really bothers me how we humans treat one another. 
But this topic is about greyhound racing so that's what we are discussing, doesn't means that the abuse that is happening in that circuit is more or less important than abuse in other circuits. 

And I soooo agree with what you say about tradition. How many times have people used the words "culture" and "tradition" in order to justify cruelty and violence?
(don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a tradition per se, I'm just against traditions that instigate cruelty).




> I guess you are making my point. Yes, I know dogs are predators. Yes, I know they kill other animals. I have had dogs that killed little animals. I didn't like it. It bothered me. I didn't kill my dog. I would never intentionally set my dogs to hurt another animal for fun. But to say that you like watching a dog kill another animal just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe that's just me. I understand the people hunt. I don't hunt. If you eat what you kill, that's one thing. If you kill something just for fun, that's quite another. My opinion. Everyone is welcomed to their own. Nuff said.


Same here, I have no problem with animals killing each other because they are trying to survive or just following their instincts. 
But I do not enjoy watching it and I find it very disturbing when someone does or says they enjoy killing animals themselves. They say see it as a sport, as something fun.
That does not sit well with me either. *JMHO*
It's one thing to kill something because you are hungry. I'm a vegetarian btw, but I have absolutely no problem with people who slaughter their own animals because they want to eat them.
As long as they have treated these animals with respect while they were alive, I have no problem with it.

And that's the bottom line for me: treating animals with respect.
Animals should not suffer in order to entertain us. We humans need to work together towards ending animal cruelty; the animal cruelty humans have caused.
Now one may say it's stupid to focus on animal rights when there are millions of people dying all over the world due to wars, violence, hunger, diseases etc..
But the way we humans treat each other does coalesce with how we treat animals.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated."


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> Hey, that's really interesting, where is your evidence for this?


I looked it up as I was interested in this statistic: http://www.agcouncil.com/content/frequently-asked-questions-about-greyhound-pets

But those are only the registered dogs: http://www.rescuedgreyhounds.com/endracing/why_adoption.html

Unregistered dogs aren't tracked in anyway. We will never know what happens to them statistically.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I looked it up as I was interested in this statistic: http://www.agcouncil.com/content/frequently-asked-questions-about-greyhound-pets
> 
> But those are only the registered dogs: http://www.rescuedgreyhounds.com/endracing/why_adoption.html
> 
> Unregistered dogs aren't tracked in anyway. We will never know what happens to them statistically.


Thanks for the links  though they are American links and not world wide ones.

I think it was my very first post to these forums that stated my main concerns were to the unregistered sections and not the registered ones. The problem with registered sections, at least the ones in Europe is, they still sell off many retired dogs to the unregistered section or ship them abroad to places like Spain. 

When it comes to animal rights, I think we have to be careful not to just support the rights in our own countries and ignore what goes on in others.
An animal doesn't regard itself as being Irish when its being abused, tortured and killed by the human race. Animal rights should have no boundaries.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Most of us here do not support animal rights. We support animal welfare.

And yeah, there's a difference...a big one.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Most of us here do not support animal rights. We support animal welfare.
> 
> And yeah, there's a difference...a big one.


Thank you because I would like to correct what I said to 'animal welfare' and not 'animal rights'.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Most of us here do not support animal rights. We support animal welfare.
> 
> And yeah, there's a difference...a big one.


I seriously get so annoyed with this. I don't like PETA for many reasons but not everyone that believes animals and humans are equal is a freaking idiot. I believe in
reincarnation, so I'm not trying to come back as a cockroach or a freaking rat in my next life. I respect nature and animals because we are all ONE and not one is more freaking important then the other. 

It sickens me how every damn person is only concerned about themselves. "Oh dead dolphins are washing up on shore, that's a shame." Then back to driving around in their huge monster trucks with black smoke spilling out of the huge pipe on the back of their truck.

I hate this world. Our oceans are dying. Our animals are going extinct. We use animals for are own entertainment with no thought in the world about the quality of their life and well being. It's sickening. This world is dying and it's all because of how stupid and selfish the majority of the world population is. 

We're on this earth for a reason and I'm damn sure the majority of the souls on this earth are failing at it.

Reading back this might be overly emotional lol. I'm just pissed about the dolphins. Just leave it at that lol.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> Thanks for the links  though they are American links and not world wide ones.
> 
> I think it was my very first post to these forums that stated my main concerns were to the unregistered sections and not the registered ones. The problem with registered sections, at least the ones in Europe is, they still sell off many retired dogs to the unregistered section or ship them abroad to places like Spain.
> 
> ...


Totally agree that animal welfare should be widespread. But it's hard to change everything all at once. Best to start in a local level, then national, then international. 

Also, it's difficult to find statistics from an International Greyhound Federation because I don't think there is such a governing body. No group tracks greyhound statistics on a global scale that I know of.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't believe a human can truly treat animals humanely unless they, on some level (even subconsciously), believe that the animals have a right to humane treatment. Otherwise they'll just do whatever profits them personally with no regard for the welfare of the animals. So I guess people can argue about the _level_ of rights for animals, but for a being without ANY rights there are no welfare considerations.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Johnny Bandit, why would I find something exciting to watch when I have galloped on my own horses and watched my own dogs run on natural terrain? Why would I find something like this exciting when I'm an animal lover?
> 
> and Johnny, you put a video up of hare coursing which showed a man walking proudly along a road with his dog and a brown hare kill. Maybe you should read this http://www.channel4.com/news/action-urged-to-protect-brown-hares-from-further-decline. There's nothing beautiful about that, its shameful.


If there is shame, it is because of mismanagement of a resource. 

The brown hare issue is a simple management issue. They need to manage the resource better. A closed season, to bring the take down to a sustainable number would resolve the issue. 


As for watching horses, dogs, etc. does not matter to me whether I am hunting with my own dogs, riding my own horses, or watching others. Still a thing of beauty. 

I have never owned sighthounds. I have owned many scenthounds and curs. I ran feral hogs and deer mostly. I do not keep a pack any more but hunt with others that do. So I see it first hand often. 

Where I live, there is little open country for a sighthound to work. Our woods and such are thick. So it is scenthound country. But I enjoy watching sighthounds work. IF I lived in the Midwest, West Texas, etc I would likely keep a few to hunt with. Because it is FUN.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Thanks for the links  though they are American links and not world wide ones.
> 
> I think it was my very first post to these forums that stated my main concerns were to the unregistered sections and not the registered ones. The problem with registered sections, at least the ones in Europe is, they still sell off many retired dogs to the unregistered section or ship them abroad to places like Spain.
> 
> ...



I do not agree with animal welfare issues being widespread. Cultural and social differences occur in different locations. 

I will use your example. Cropping and Docking. It is illegal in many places in Europe. I do not believe that Europeans should be attempting to force the issue here. Nor do I believe we should be forcing issues over there. 

I will use another example you mentioned. Bullfighting in Spain. It is part of their cultural and regional heritage. The people of Spain and Spain only, need to decide if it should continue. 

Continuing on... I have been in several third world countries. And seen HORRID condition and treatment of animals. But then again I have seen HORRID conditions in which humans live as well. It is unrealistic to expect the conditions in which animals live in such places when the humans are living in inhumane conditions. 

There is no one World Rule.... And never will be.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> Totally agree that animal welfare should be widespread. But it's hard to change everything all at once. Best to start in a local level, then national, then international.
> 
> Also, it's difficult to find statistics from an International Greyhound Federation because I don't think there is such a governing body. No group tracks greyhound statistics on a global scale that I know of.


Very true RabbleFox but this thread is titled 'Greyhound Racing' and the op asked us all what we thought about it. People on these boards are from many different countries and some of those countries have barbaric practices regarding racing greyhounds. For those Americans who came back with 'I like and I support greyhound racing', were they meaning, just in America ? I have to doubt that because when evidence was given of the barbaric atrocities happening in other countries, some of those posters came back with a hard stance and not one of them said, 'actually its much more regulated in America, so I support American greyhound racing but not what goes on in other countries'.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I don't believe a human can truly treat animals humanely unless they, on some level (even subconsciously), believe that the animals have a right to humane treatment. Otherwise they'll just do whatever profits them personally with no regard for the welfare of the animals. So I guess people can argue about the _level_ of rights for animals, but for a being without ANY rights there are no welfare considerations.


Animals do have a right to humane treatment. If we bring an animal into our lives, we are obligated to treat it humanely. 
But even that is subjective. 

When I had my cow/calf operation, I was selling off somewhere around 80 head a year to go to feed lots. Some would argue that it is inhumane because the cattle was going to be slaughtered for food. But while in my care, I ensured they were disease free, had proper food, care, etc. And doing that economically benefited me. But I could have cut corners and stretched profit. But that is not the right thing to do. 

But it all depends on an individuals definition of humane. There are several racing greyhound operations near me. I have been on a couple of them. What I saw were clean kennels, quality food, good ventilation, etc. But there are those that will say because the dogs were living in kennels and not on the couch in the AC, they are not being treated humanely.

Many people have a HARD time distinguishing between pet dogs and purpose bred dogs with jobs. (track racing is a job of sorts)

I do not. Much of my life, I have owned both pets and working dogs. And that is the environment I grew up in. So I suppose it is easy for me. Some of my pets have also worked. But all of my workers have not been pets. 

When I had a pack of curs and hounds for hunting, they did not come in the house. They were kennel dogs. They received good food, vet care, conditioning, etc. Were exercised properly, etc. But they were not coming in the house to lounge on the couch. They were not going on a walk with me just for the joy of being together, etc


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Very true RabbleFox but this thread is titled 'Greyhound Racing' and the op asked us all what we thought about it. People on these boards are from many different countries and some of those countries have barbaric practices regarding racing greyhounds. For those Americans who came back with 'I like and I support greyhound racing', where they meaning, just in America ? I have to doubt that because when evidence was given of the barbaric atrocities happening in other countries, some of those posters came back with a hard stance and not one of them said, 'actually its much more regulated in America, so I support American greyhound racing but not what goes on in other countries'.


I will say that I was talking about Greyhound Racing in the U.S. I have never been to to Europe so I do not know what goes on there. But as I said, it is up to the people in Europe to decide, press and enforce how the conditions should be over there.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There is no difference between pet dogs and working dogs. Obviously circumstances will be different, but humane treatment is not. If it is inhumane to not allow your pet dog in the house, than it's inhumane not to allow a working dog in the house (but I don't think anyone is saying that it's inhumane to not allow a dog in the house if he's otherwise well cared for). If it's wrong to dispose of your pet dog when he no longer amuses you, then it's wrong to dispose of your working dog when he is no longer useful to you. If it's inhumane to kick your pet dog when he potties in the house, than it's inhumane to kick your working dog because he messes up some working thing. Etc.

Just as there's no difference between a mail carrier and a cowboy---obviously working conditions will be different but the same basic worker's rights need to be observed.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

@Johnny,

We are all cut from a different cloth thank god!

I've never had this, 'get your own house in order' sort of mentality. 
Lets take bullfighting, which btw doesn't just go on in Spain and is fortunately about to be banned in a large part of Spain because of both internal and external pressure. 

People use that word 'tradition' or 'cultural', like its something good or something outsiders should leave alone! Not all tradition is good. Female circumcision is one that comes to mind. The 'Gadhimai festival' isn't something we should turn a blind eye on and neither is the 'Faroe Islands festival' where hundreds of whales and dophins are killed. What about the 'Peropalo festival' where a donkey is thrown to a baying mob of men and chased through the streets whilst being beaten and tortured to death? 

Tradition and culture suggests the enhancement and enrichment of people or a society, and watching animals being tortured to death doesn’t fall into that description.

Every one of these countries have inside campaigns going on to stop these barbaric practices against animals. These campaigners reach out to the rest of the world for support. Its up to us to support them or not.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Outside pressure is definitely important, especially in European countries. If only enough countries shout loud enough, the European Union can and will enforce animal welfare rules for all of its members. 

I will admit the Netherlands had cruel traditions regarding animals as well, but that was a long time ago. It's why when I went to Spain last year I couldn't help but feel like I'd gone back to the middle ages. Throw a goat off a tower, it's tradition. Fighting bulls, chasing calves into the ocean, hanging hunting dogs from trees as reward for their good services to you. Tradition, yay. 

Nauseating.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I will use another example you mentioned. Bullfighting in Spain. It is part of their cultural and regional heritage. The people of Spain and Spain only, need to decide if it should continue.


This is a very dangerous way of thinking, especially if you apply it to people as well (not saying you do, I'm just extrapolating here). Just because something is socially accepted in another country, or was socially accepted in the past, doesn't make it fundamentally right.

No, the people of Spain are not the only ones that get to decide whether bullfighting stops, because they don't hold all the responsibility - I live in France and bullfighting is legal here, so even though the tradition originated in Spain, if we decided to appropriate it, then we appropriate responsibility as well.

Where I live, cockfighting is illegal. Dog fighting is illegal - in fact, it's forbidden to purposely have an animal fight another one, and this even though it used to be tradition, as well. But somehow, a man fighting a bull is alright. A man fighting a terrified, disorientated, trapped animal is alright. Ugh...


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

PragueRatter said:


> @Johnny,
> 
> We are all cut from a different cloth thank god!
> 
> ...


Yes, yes, and yes! We need to stop using the "oh, but it's tradition" non-argument to try and justify things that cannot be justified. If we lived by traditions, there would have been no social advancement at all, not for animals nor for humans. We need to stop letting traditions get in the way of social advancement. It's perfectly possible to respect and preserve tradition by other means than recreating it - with museums, films, books etc.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Notice how nobody ever cites "tradition" as a reason for doing GOOD, KIND, COMPASSIONATE things?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm very lucky to live where I do and I think it definitely colors my perspective on a wide variety of issues. I feel privileged to live someplace where you can't hide from nature and where, every time you step outside your door...you aren't the top of the food chain anymore. To me, it makes me feel alive and realize that we as humans were never meant to be outside of nature...we are a part of it. We ARE animals. We are predators and we are prey. We are omnivores that have to eat as much as any animal. We are fortunate to have the ability to think beyond our instincts and to make choices, but this idea that there is the animals, and then US, is completely artificial.

In my world, every animal has its place and lives in a balance. The hare is destined to be eaten. In a perfect world, it gets to live a full life, doing what hares were born to do before, eventually, it is eaten by a lynx, a wolf, a bear, or, maybe, a sight hound chasing it down. To the hare, there is little difference between any of these and to the hound, what it is doing is no less natural than what a lynx or wolf is doing. I appreciate watching the dog do what its wild ancestors did and seeing the mark of so many generations of selective breeding that led up to that point. I love seeing my own dog track things. When his nose is deep in a track, it's like I can see the mark of previous generations of dogs of both his breeds as well as the wild dogs that came before. Sometimes, it's a wild animal he's gotten the scent of and is tracking. Other times, it's the hotdogs I've placed among my footprints, teaching him to track humans as well for a very different purpose. When he was trying to catch a salmon, I heartily cheered him on. The salmon would be eaten, one way or another. Either it would be caught by someone, or eaten by a bear, or maybe it would simply die after spawning and its body would be food for so many other parts of the stream. It was its time to die and a death by my dog's jaws was no worse than any other. My dog was finding joy in trying to catch this strange creature and had he done it, that salmon would have been eaten.

I see the abuses of these sports as the problem, not the sports themselves, which give both the dogs and the people watching them a small taste of the world outside our concrete jungles. When I see a horse or dog run, I see a tiny encapsulation of freedom in their stride. My heart beats a little faster and I feel myself preparing for the chase as well. In my own way, I run with them, faster than my pitifully short two legs could take me. I imagine what it would be like to run like that, the sheer joy of movement and the thrill of the chase.

I'm just lucky to live somewhere where we have the real thing so close by and easily accessible. We have no greyhound or horse racing tracks because we'd likely find it pretty boring compared to watching a bear catching salmon or wolves circling a dall sheep.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Notice how nobody ever cites "tradition" as a reason for doing GOOD, KIND, COMPASSIONATE things?


Ancestors are just there so we can blame them for stuff we are too conservative/hypocritical/lazy to change!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> This is a very dangerous way of thinking, especially if you apply it to people as well (not saying you do, I'm just extrapolating here). Just because something is socially accepted in another country, or was socially accepted in the past, doesn't make it fundamentally right.
> 
> No, the people of Spain are not the only ones that get to decide whether bullfighting stops, because they don't hold all the responsibility - I live in France and bullfighting is legal here, so even though the tradition originated in Spain, if we decided to appropriate it, then we appropriate responsibility as well.
> 
> Where I live, cockfighting is illegal. Dog fighting is illegal - in fact, it's forbidden to purposely have an animal fight another one, and this even though it used to be tradition, as well. But somehow, a man fighting a bull is alright. A man fighting a terrified, disorientated, trapped animal is alright. Ugh...


Actually this is the proper way of thinking.... The danger lies in your way of thinking. Forcing a set of values on different cultures is dangerous to say the least. Wars have been started over less. 

I never said anything was right or wrong. I SAID it is up to the people living in those regions to decide if it should continue. 

IF bullfighting goes on in France as well. Then the people of France need to decide the fate of bullfighting in France and the people of Spain need to decide the fate in Spain. And Mexico, and so on....

And the set of morals and rights you choose to live by is up to you. Nothing gives you the right to say what is and is not fundementally right in another culture. You can NOT like the way they live. You can LOATH AND HATE it. But to tell them it is wrong and they can no longer live a certain way? 

How would you feel if the VAST majority of people in the world, decided that dog fighting, ceremonial and ritualistic torture of animals in the public streets was proper and through outside influence, FORCED that set of values on where you lived? 

Playing world morality meter is a slippery slope and a very dangerous one. Because while you may feel you are right and you may even be right, but if you open the door, that same door can be opened on you and how you live.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Notice how nobody ever cites "tradition" as a reason for doing GOOD, KIND, COMPASSIONATE things?


Nature really isn't good, kind, or compassionate. Nature is ruthless in many, many ways. Most young do not survive to adulthood because they are food for other animals. Only the strongest and the quickest survive. Most "traditions" spring from a time when humans lived closer to nature and were painfully aware of that fact. For people whose only contact with what they eat comes from the supermarket, were it is neatly packaged in clean shrink wrap, drained of blood and without a face, the death of a bull is tragic. For people who are often covered in the blood of what they eat as well as worried about becoming something else's food as they try to protect and haul out their own kill, the death of a bull is simply the death of a bull that otherwise would have died in some other way, in some other place. Do I wish the bull had a less painful and quicker death? Definitely. Still, that bull will die...as will we all and often, not the way we'd wish.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Nature really isn't good, kind, or compassionate. Nature is ruthless in many, many ways. Most young do not survive to adulthood because they are food for other animals. Only the strongest and the quickest survive. Most "traditions" spring from a time when humans lived closer to nature and were painfully aware of that fact. For people whose only contact with what they eat comes from the supermarket, were it is neatly packaged in clean shrink wrap, drained of blood and without a face, the death of a bull is tragic. For people who are often covered in the blood of what they eat as well as worried about becoming something else's food as they try to protect and haul out their own kill, the death of a bull is simply the death of a bull that otherwise would have died in some other way, in some other place. Do I wish the bull had a less painful and quicker death? Definitely. Still, that bull will die...as will we all and often, not the way we'd wish.


Honestly, the bull's death is not what I find repulsive about bullfighting. It would be very hypocritical of me, as I myself eat meat. It's that the bull is effectively tortured. And not only the bull; horses are often used in corrida. They are armoured, but the armour doesn't protect the belly, and some of them end up disemboweled when the bull knocks them over and pierces the belly with its horns. I do wish all animals got good care and had a death as pain-free as possible, even the ones that are going to be eaten.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> @Johnny,
> 
> We are all cut from a different cloth thank god!
> 
> ...


Yes thankfully we are cut from a different mold. 

I have not said, what is right or wrong with bull fighting, bashing dolphins, etc What I am saying.... Is people need to police their own house. Because when you start attempting to force your morals and ideals on other cultures you open the door to having their morals and ideals forced back on you. 

And frankly you are an extremely closed minded person. You are against greyhound racing because some animals are mistreated. I have never said there is not. And I have also never said to turn a blind eye.... But to damn the sport because some folks do not do the right thing? 

We want to talk about abuse and point our finger and say this is bad or that is bad.... 

But plain old pet ownership is as filled with abuses, mistreatment of animals, etc as dog racing, or any other animal sport. And in pure numbers, more pet dogs suffer than sport dogs. We all see it. 
Chances are we do not have to look out past our own neighborhood to see abusive conditions of animals. 

If dog racing as a whole is bad because of mistreatment of some animals, then pet ownership as a whole is bad for same reason.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Notice how nobody ever cites "tradition" as a reason for doing GOOD, KIND, COMPASSIONATE things?


 If you think something is cruel, how much nature have you witnessed. 

Mother nature is a cruel bitch. 

Ever seen a couple of coyotes pull down a yearling deer and start eating it without bothering to kill it first? Heck I have seen two coyotes working on a young deer, one is trying to pull the deer down from the front and the one in back just doesn't care. He is pulling chunks of flesh out of the deer's hind quarters and swallowing. 

Ever seen raccoons eating hatchling sea turtles? Trying to pull them out of the shell backwards. Their little heads are still bobbing and their rear legs and tails are gone. 

Humans do not own the market on cruelty. In fact we are pretty much light weights. By and large we have a consious. Nature has no consious.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yes thankfully we are cut from a different mold.
> 
> I have not said, what is right or wrong with bull fighting, bashing dolphins, etc What I am saying.... Is people need to police their own house. Because when you start attempting to force your morals and ideals on other cultures you open the door to having their morals and ideals forced back on you.
> 
> ...


But mistreating your pet is not legal (though I think we'll all agree it's not as enforced as it should be). Euthanising greyhounds by thousands as soon as you have no use for them anymore is legal. Greyhound racing as it exists today encourages that.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Humanely killing cattle and chickens by the thousands is not illegal. Is the difference here that we do not eat greyhound meat?


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Humanely killing cattle and chickens by the thousands is not illegal. Is the difference here that we do not eat greyhound meat?


I would never personally eat dog meat, but if it was used for consumption, it would already be less of a waste. In my opinion, it wouldn't be any more ethical, but it would be more... justifiable, I guess. I don't know how common this is in other countries but in France, we (not me personally, I love them too much) eat horses, including ex-racers, so...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> But mistreating your pet is not legal (though I think we'll all agree it's not as enforced as it should be). Euthanising greyhounds by thousands as soon as you have no use for them anymore is legal. Greyhound racing as it exists today encourages that.


 Humanely euthanizing dogs you do not need any more is not cruel. It may be sad and a waste, but it is not cruelty. Really no different than killing cattle


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Humanely euthanizing dogs you do not need any more is not cruel. It may be sad and a waste, but it is not cruelty. Really no different than killing cattle


It is exploitation. Use the animals for your own enrichment, then take their lives for no purpose. Not to feed anybody, just to save yourself some money. "The love of money is the root of all evil" and all that jazz, I guess--people knew it 2000 years ago. It says very bad things about that person's character if they are willing to take a life/many lives to save themselves some money/inconvenience.

No, nature has no conscience. The question is, are humans better than that? If we weren't, we would be bashing our neighbors every time they annoy us, killing our children/old people/disabled whenever they become a burden, killing our spouses when they no longer meet our desires. I'm sure some cultures are still like that. But most aren't nowadays, and we consider people who wish to dispose of inconvenient humans to be sociopaths. And empathy for animals is closely linked to empathy for humans. And torture/exploitation/callous disregard for life is generally frowned upon in civilized societies. Unless, of course, it means money in our pockets .


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Humanely euthanizing dogs you do not need any more is not cruel. It may be sad and a waste, but it is not cruelty. Really no different than killing cattle


Isn't it being sad and a waste a good enough reason to want it to stop, though? Also, what Willowy said.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

To the dog/cow/horse/chicken, it matters little whether we eat their meat afterward or not. We seem to have little empathy when we eat a steak, given that most steaks come from animals that lived in pretty poor conditions prior to being humanely killed and eaten. In my worldview, a dog that was allowed to run and treated humanely while doing something it loved to do (I'm not getting into the racers that are abused right now) and then killed humanely after, had a much better life than most feedlot cattle that are consumed after they are killed.

Personally, I think it's VERY important to use every last bit of any animal I kill when hunting or fishing or else return that part to the environment where a scavenger will use it or it will help enrich the soil. I think most people out there would be even more upset if they heard that euthanized dogs were being eaten or processed into animal feed.

Are humans better than nature? We are a PART of nature. Most of us eat other animals. Those animals are often mistreated during their lifetimes or at least not given much access to the things that animals prefer, like fresh air, sunlight, natural feed. Most of us can't afford meat that has been really, truly humanely raised. We have animals raised in crowded, artificial conditions so that we can then have them killed and we can pick up a package of their flesh without having to think about it all. At least, in nature, animals have a chance to live and a chance to appeal the death sentence by using their natural skills to try to evade the predator.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It is exploitation. Use the animals for your own enrichment, then take their lives for no purpose. Not to feed anybody, just to save yourself some money. "The love of money is the root of all evil" and all that jazz, I guess--people knew it 2000 years ago. It says very bad things about that person's character if they are willing to take a life/many lives to save themselves some money/inconvenience.
> 
> No, nature has no conscience. The question is, are humans better than that? If we weren't, we would be bashing our neighbors every time they annoy us, killing our children/old people/disabled whenever they become a burden, killing our spouses when they no longer meet our desires. I'm sure some cultures are still like that. But most aren't nowadays, and we consider people who wish to dispose of inconvenient humans to be sociopaths. And empathy for animals is closely linked to empathy for humans. And torture/exploitation/callous disregard for life is generally frowned upon in civilized societies. Unless, of course, it means money in our pockets .



Owning pets is exploitation....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> Isn't it being sad and a waste a good enough reason to want it to stop, though? Also, what Willowy said.


As to what Willowy said... Owning pets is exploitation. 

I never said no one could want it to stop... I only said it is not cruelty.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

-skipped the comments-

If all (or most,at least) of these dogs were treated fairly, treated like dogs and not cars, during their career and allowed to retire in a peaceful home afterwards, I'd have no issue with this. 
But, those dogs are in a severe minority. 
They're used for sport, for entertainment, for gambling, then just thrown away and their future be damned.

Same for race horses. It's a corrupt industry where an animal's life is valued only measured by their dollar value. They're put through rigorous training before they're even physically fit to be ridden or worked (no other horse would be put through that) run on the track (and don't get me wrong, many of them get to where they enjoy it, many are treated like royalty but many aren't) then when it's over,if they were successful they will be whored out for thousands and... eh, treated fairly, as long as they can produce dollar signs. If they weren't as successful, they're sold to whomever would like them to put on truck to the nearest slaughter auction. 

Look at Rachel Alexandra's foal. When Rachel couldn't feed her, they put her on a surrogate mare so she would have the best start possible, because she needed that milk, because she needed the care only a mare can provide. But what of Ojos' filly? She'll be raised by hand, where she will receive less than superb nutrition and socialization. Because Rachel's filly has a higher dollar value than Ojos'. It's a small thing, but it just proves at these animal's are primarily valued for how much money they can rake in. 

And that rubs me the wrong way.


These industries are corrupt and I, personally, won't support them. If they treated the animals better sure, but too many dogs and horses end up being horribly abused and mutilated because they can't bring someone a huge income.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> Look at Rachel Alexandra's foal. When Rachel couldn't feed her, they put her on a surrogate mare so she would have the best start possible, because she needed that milk, because she needed the care only a mare can provide. But what of Ojos' filly? She'll be raised by hand, where she will receive less than superb nutrition and socialization. Because Rachel's filly has a higher dollar value than Ojos'. It's a small thing, but it just proves at these animal's are primarily valued for how much money they can rake in.
> 
> And that rubs me the wrong way.


Bosco is owned by a wealthy owner and Bowser is not. As a result, during his life, Bosco will be fed the best premium dog foods and treated by a holistic veterinarian. Bowser gets grocery store dog food, the best quality his owner can afford, but not as high quality as Bosco. He is only given veterinary care when absolutely necessary and if he gets a chronic condition, rather than pay high vet bills his owner cannot afford, he will likely be put down. Both dogs are loved, given attention, trained, and play with regularly.

Would you resent Bowser's owner for being unable to give him a life equal to Bosco?

This even happens among humans. Life is not uniformly fair to any creatures. Some kids have hand me downs and eat what their parents can afford. Other kids have brand new clothes and the best, most nutritious food out there.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Owning pets may be exploitation. . .I probably would not own pets if not for the fact that someone would kill them if I didn't. I think it can also be a "consensual" relationship, particularly if they are given a chance to leave if they want. Although dogs have been so bred away from their instincts that they'll stay even with someone who mistreats them, even if given a chance to leave :/. Taking advantage of that is definitely exploitation. But it's no different than how marriage and/or parenting can be exploitation or not, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I have a dog for several different reasons, but I'll be perfectly honest...protection from wildlife is one of them. I love hiking with my dog and he loves hiking with me. I also feel safer hiking with him because the animals can smell him and many understand that where they smell a dog, humans are often nearby and will avoid me even more. He also will bark or otherwise give me some sort of heads up when he smells or hears an animal near us, which can be very handy. I have, however, also considered what would happen if we ran into an animal hiking that I couldn't avoid or that didn't avoid us. It would absolutely kill me to do it, but if I had to, I would drop the leash to give myself time to escape a bear or charging moose. I would do my best to protect my dog up to that moment, but part of the reason he is with me is because of the possibility of that moment. It would kill me to see him hurt or killed in that moment and I'll do anything in my power to avoid that situation...but I'm still going out in the mountains and I'm still taking him with me.

Is that exploitation? Maybe to some. To me, it is his place in our family. We love him and care for him, but part of his place with us is as a protector. It is one of the reasons we chose him. When we chose a dog, we chose a bigger dog on purpose, one that could give us just that bit of extra protection when out in the woods. I love him and I hope we never reach that situation, but if we did, I know what I would do. I'd choose human life over canine. I'd mourn him and honor his memory.

Not everyone has the same relationship with their dogs as simply pets. Some people's dogs have other jobs as well and sometimes we do have to put our emotions aside. I know of a SAR person who has to take her dog out in conditions she'd rather not when a person has wandered off into the bitter winter cold. Her dog has had bloody pads when her boots failed her. It doesn't mean she loves her dog any less and her dog loves the work and together, they can help save lives. Is it exploitation? Maybe to some, but to the people they save?

We use animals. We depend on them for food, companionship, protection, and a whole host of other purposes including even entertainment. I think it's up to us each to decide where those lines are between what is acceptable use to us and what is not. Our laws give us guidance, but within those laws, that line is still going to be different for each of us. I'm happy to accept that others may think my relationship with my dog is exploitative as long as they don't try to interfere with it or push their views on me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> I think it's up to us each to decide where those lines are between what is acceptable use to us and what is not.


Up to each person, huh? That includes people who get their kicks torturing animals. People who. . .um. . ."enjoy" animals in a different way. Dog fighters. That would mean no animal welfare laws at all. And. . .

there are a LOT of people fighting against any law that would affect how people can treat their "property", so laws cannot be considered any kind of guidance.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Owning pets may be exploitation. . .I probably would not own pets if not for the fact that someone would kill them if I didn't. I think it can also be a "consensual" relationship, particularly if they are given a chance to leave if they want. Although dogs have been so bred away from their instincts that they'll stay even with someone who mistreats them, even if given a chance to leave :/. Taking advantage of that is definitely exploitation. But it's no different than how marriage and/or parenting can be exploitation or not, depending on the circumstances.


 it exploitation. Pure and simple. The pet does not freely enter into the relationship does not decide limits boundaries etc. can it terminate if it chooses. Nothing consensual about it. We can look at it all sorts of ways but in the end it is still exploitation


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Up to each person, huh? That includes people who get their kicks torturing animals. People who. . .um. . ."enjoy" animals in a different way. Dog fighters. That would mean no animal welfare laws at all. And. . .
> 
> there are a LOT of people fighting against any law that would affect how people can treat their "property", so laws cannot be considered any kind of guidance.


My dog is my property. I bought and paid for him. However, there are plenty of laws that regulate what I do with other things I own. I'm certainly not arguing that the current laws should be turned back. I think they should be enforced to the fullest extent. Beyond that, though? Your rights to tell me or anyone else what to do with their dog end. Most of the things you listed above are illegal, so yes, laws can be considered guidance.

Really...the above is just silly. No one is advocating for animals to be tortured, used for bestiality, or dog fighting.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> it exploitation. Pure and simple. The pet does not freely enter into the relationship does not decide limits boundaries etc. can it terminate if it chooses. Nothing consensual about it. We can look at it all sorts of ways but in the end it is still exploitation


 Under that reasoning, having children is exploitation . They do not freely enter into the relationship. They cannot decide limits/boundaries/etc. They cannot terminate the relationship if they choose (until later teenage years, with good reason). Nothing consensual about it. So, sure, it's exploitation in the same way.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Really...the above is just silly. No one is advocating for animals to be tortured, used for bestiality, or dog fighting.


There are a lot of legal things that could easily be considered torture. Just pointing out that if you think people should be allowed to choose how they wish to treat animals, that means everybody.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Under that reasoning, having children is exploitation . They do not freely enter into the relationship. They cannot decide limits/boundaries/etc. They cannot terminate the relationship if they choose (until later teenage years, with good reason). Nothing consensual about it. So, sure, it's exploitation in the same way.


 never said it was not


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> never said it was not


True, you didn't . But, in general, it's only considered exploitation if you misuse the parent/child relationship in some way (killing, abuse, using solely for profit/fame, etc.). Which is pretty much how I feel about pet ownership as well.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> Nature really isn't good, kind, or compassionate. Nature is ruthless in many, many ways. Most young do not survive to adulthood because they are food for other animals. Only the strongest and the quickest survive. Most "traditions" spring from a time when humans lived closer to nature and were painfully aware of that fact. *For people whose only contact with what they eat comes from the supermarket, were it is neatly packaged in clean shrink wrap, drained of blood and without a face, the death of a bull is tragic. For people who are often covered in the blood of what they eat as well as worried about becoming something else's food as they try to protect and haul out their own kill, the death of a bull is simply the death of a bull that otherwise would have died in some other way, in some other place.* Do I wish the bull had a less painful and quicker death? Definitely. Still, that bull will die...as will we all and often, not the way we'd wish.


I'm someone who lives in the mountains and as near to raw nature as any Alpinist I can happily say that I'm not one of those city people you describe. I only eat meat when I can kill it with my own hands, hence I seldom eat meat but that's by the by! What I bolded in the quote couldn't be further from my truth. You see, the reason I only eat what I kill is because I know that the chickens I raise and who produce eggs for me and who occasionally get eaten, have had good animal husbandry and when they die, to feed my table, it will be swift, clean and humane (or as humane as killing can be!). 

In a bull ring, the bull is brought down from the mountains of Spain and transported to different parts of France Portugal and Spain. Up until its capture its had no human interaction. The modern bull is actually quite a docile beast who would rather flight than fight, so when he arrives at the bull ring they put him in a dark container where he can't lay down and can't move his head round to scratch his sides (something like a veal crate). They stuff his ears with newspaper or cotton wool to stifle his hearing and they rub Vaseline in his eyes so that his eyes become sore and his vision becomes blurred. After 3 days they remove whatever he has in his ears, open the front door of his pen and allow him to rush down a dark tunnel towards the light. The bull believes he is rushing to freedom but what he's rushing out to is a baying audience, loud music and a picadors, who as quickly as possible will cut his neck muscles with a pica. Once the large gaping wound is successful, the bull starts to weaken because he's bleeding to death. The matadors then enter the arena with their banderillas (sharp, harpoon-like barbed instruments like what we see in the Gladiator film). These banderillas are plunged into the bull’s body and as they are plunged in, they are twisted to cause excruciating pain. You will see the bull stop in his tracks and bellows madly and the audience will become ecstatic with excitement. A trumpet signals the final act where the bull is finally killed. The final killing is meant to last about 6 minutes and its done by a matador carrying a large sword. The sword is meant sever the heart but ask anyone who has ever seen a bullfight.... this never happens. First the lungs are punctured so that the bull vomits blood (the crowds like lots of blood). At this stage he often raises to his knees and tries to get up... gasping for breath. When he finally drops to the floor exhausted and dying he has his 
ears and his tail cut off (often when he is fully conscious). The crowds jeer at him and throw beer cans at him.

What about the horses that are used in the bullring? Most people aren't aware that hundreds of horses die long and agonising deaths as they are gored by the pain crazed bull. Horses are blindfolded and have their vocal chords cut. They sweat and tremble from fear because they are animals of flight not fight. 

Anyone who can shrug their shoulders at this sort of suffering and excuse it by saying, well if the bullring hadn't killed it, something else would of, well, Im lost for words.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> There are a lot of legal things that could easily be considered torture. Just pointing out that if you think people should be allowed to choose how they wish to treat animals, that means everybody.


I said within the limits of the law. If you feel laws should be changed, it's your right to work in that direction.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> I'm someone who lives in the mountains and as near to raw nature as any Alpinist I can happily say that I'm not one of those city people you describe. I only eat meat when I can kill it with my own hands, hence I seldom eat meat but that's by the by! What I bolded in the quote couldn't be further from my truth. You see, the reason I only eat what I kill is because I know that the chickens I raise and who produce eggs for me and who occasionally get eaten, have had good animal husbandry and when they die, to feed my table, it will be swift, clean and humane (or as humane as killing can be!).
> 
> In a bull ring, the bull is brought down from the mountains of Spain and transported to different parts of France Portugal and Spain. Up until its capture its had no human interaction. The modern bull is actually quite a docile beast who would rather flight than fight, so when he arrives at the bull ring they put him in a dark container where he can't lay down and can't move his head round to scratch his sides (something like a veal crate). They stuff his ears with newspaper or cotton wool to stifle his hearing and they rub Vaseline in his eyes so that his eyes become sore and his vision becomes blurred. After 3 days they remove whatever he has in his ears, open the front door of his pen and allow him to rush down a dark tunnel towards the light. The bull believes he is rushing to freedom but what he's rushing out to is a baying audience, loud music and a picadors, who as quickly as possible will cut his neck muscles with a pica. Once the large gaping wound is successful, the bull starts to weaken because he's bleeding to death. The matadors then enter the arena with their banderillas (sharp, harpoon-like barbed instruments like what we see in the Gladiator film). These banderillas are plunged into the bull’s body and as they are plunged in, they are twisted to cause excruciating pain. You will see the bull stop in his tracks and bellows madly and the audience will become ecstatic with excitement. A trumpet signals the final act where the bull is finally killed. The final killing is meant to last about 6 minutes and its done by a matador carrying a large sword. The sword is meant sever the heart but ask anyone who has ever seen a bullfight.... this never happens. First the lungs are punctured so that the bull vomits blood (the crowds like lots of blood). At this stage he often raises to his knees and tries to get up... gasping for breath. When he finally drops to the floor exhausted and dying he has his
> ears and his tail cut off (often when he is fully conscious). The crowds jeer at him and throw beer cans at him.
> ...


You forgot to bold the part where I said I wished the bull would have a less painful, quicker death.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> There are a lot of legal things that could easily be considered torture. Just pointing out that if you think people should be allowed to choose how they wish to treat animals, that means everybody.


. People should be allowed to decide how to care for their pets. Some people care for their pets in a fashion that is far beyond the means of others. Not saying such people are better. But some people spend a LOT of money on their animals. Do want that mandated? Your dogs are your property and you decide what is fair and reasonable. And do not throw in abuse because it is illegal to abuse or be cruel to animals.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Edited because Willowy has already said what I had to say!!

Okay, what I said was, to claim that having a dog as a pet is exploiting an animal is the same as saying to have a child is to exploit childhood and that is ridiculous imo


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Edited because Willowy has already said what I had to say!!


 I saw what you said. And no it is not ridiculous


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> And do not throw in abuse because it is illegal to abuse or be cruel to animals.


It isn't. There are MANY things done to animals that would easily count as abuse or cruelty if not for, oh, tradition/"training"/ego/stubborn adherence to machoness/money/etc. For instance, in the training forum, the dog with the shock collar strapped around his abdomen? I'm pretty sure electrodes to the delicates is a technique addressed by the Geneva Convention. Gestation crates for hogs? Yep, I think only being able to move 3 inches in every direction, only able to go down on your knees to sleep, for months at a time, counts as torture. Fur trapping? Every single thing about it counts as torture. So, no. The majority of abuse and cruelty is not illegal. Money money money. . .


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Actually Johnny, you are starting to sound like an animal rights activist. Its the sort of thing they say.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> never said it was not


I don't think exploitation is a particularly accurate word to use for either situation. It connotes using the thing to your advantage and its own detriment. While we definitely use pets to our advantage generally these things are advantageous to the animal as well. There are also many instances when a pet owners well-being is set aside or negatively impacted for the sake of our pets. The same thing is true for children. My sense is this is rarely the case with racing dogs.

Personally, I don't think its an inherent evil. Definitely not more so than raising cattle for the slaughter. As with most things it depends on the manner in which its done. If the dogs have a decent life and are rehomed I think its alright. If they are euthanized afterwards I think its still acceptable although much more morally questionable. There is a very real element of need for meat which changes the equation IMO, that consideration is not present for racing. I do not like the idea of raising generations of dogs to compete for our amusement and die before middle age. Not worthy of being illegal assuming they are euthanized humanely, but not something I like or approve of.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It isn't. There are MANY things done to animals that would easily count as abuse or cruelty if not for, oh, tradition/"training"/ego/stubborn adherence to machoness/money/etc. For instance, in the training forum, the dog with the shock collar strapped around his abdomen? I'm pretty sure electrodes to the delicates is a technique addressed by the Geneva Convention. Gestation crates for hogs? Yep, I think only being able to move 3 inches in every direction, only able to go down on your knees to sleep, for months at a time, counts as torture. Fur trapping? Every single thing about it counts as torture. So, no. The majority of abuse and cruelty is not illegal. Money money money. . .


Who is suggesting the training collar to the dogs middle is nota use. And there is nothing legal about it. As for the pigs and trapping those are your opinions. It does not make them abuse


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Who is suggesting the training collar to the dogs middle is nota use. And there is nothing legal about it. As for the pigs and trapping those are your opinions. It does not make them abuse


Will you volunteer to live in a small box with 3 inches leeway for 3 months, or be out in the elements with a cable snare cut into your leg for 24 hours, and tell us how non-abusive it is? Torture is torture, if you want to do it at least own it.

And if zap collars on the stomach are illegal, that's a lot of people who are in trouble. There was even some support for it in the thread. . .


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Will you volunteer to live in a small box with 3 inches leeway for 3 months, or be out in the elements with a cable snare cut into your leg for 24 hours, and tell us how non-abusive it is? Torture is torture, if you want to do it at least own it.
> 
> And if zap collars on the stomach are illegal, that's a lot of people who are in trouble. There was even some support for it in the thread. . .


Who only checks their snares only once every 24 hours? Every trapper I know walks their trapline twice a day.

You have every right to your opinions. You also have the right to try to get the laws concerning animals made more stringent. You do not, however, have the right to force your opinions on others who are following the laws unless and until you get those laws changed.

I happen to know trappers. Most are more humane and more careful with the animals they trap than people who run feedlots or chicken farms. (Some of whom I also know personally.)

Tolerance is something that also needs to be extended to humans and their ways of life.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Who only checks their snares only once every 24 hours? Every trapper I know walks their trapline twice a day.
> 
> You have every right to your opinions. You also have the right to try to get the laws concerning animals made more stringent. You do not, however, have the right to force your opinions on others who are following the laws unless and until you get those laws changed.
> 
> ...


 I read an article in Fur-Fish-Game that the trappers are fighting legislation that would require them to check their traps at least once every 24 hours, "because some people have too large of a trapline, and can't get their traps checked that often" :/. But no matter---5 minutes with your leg caught in a cable snare or leg-hold trap would count as torture. I've seen animals suffering in traps (trapping is allowed on public land here). I've seen lots of trapping equipment and know trappers. It is torture, no way around it. There are many ways that people make money that I find morally repugnant, and that is one of them. I don't imagine you'd be preaching tolerance for most of the other morally questionable ways people make money. 

But again. . .the love of money trumps all. So the laws will never be changed as long as the state is getting the trappers' license money $$$. Same with greyhound racing $$$ and horse racing $$$ and cram-em-in commercial meat farming $$$$$. 

And what counts as "forcing an opinion on somebody"? I would think trying to change laws would do that more than voicing/writing an opinion. It's just terrible that someone might be forced to read something that disagrees with them .


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I read an article in Fur-Fish-Game that the trappers are fighting legislation that would require them to check their traps at least once every 24 hours, "because some people have too large of a trapline, and can't get their traps checked that often" :/. But no matter---5 minutes with your leg caught in a cable snare or leg-hold trap would count as torture. I've seen animals suffering in traps (trapping is allowed on public land here). I've seen lots of trapping equipment and know trappers. It is torture, no way around it. There are many ways that people make money that I find morally repugnant, and that is one of them. I don't imagine you'd be preaching tolerance for most of the other morally questionable ways people make money.
> 
> But again. . .the love of money trumps all. So the laws will never be changed as long as the state is getting the trappers' license money $$$.
> 
> And what counts as "forcing an opinion on somebody"? I would think trying to change laws would do that more than voicing/writing an opinion.


It is torture _to you_. I do not see trapping as torture, not any more than the same animal being eaten by another wild animal.

And most trappers do not do it to get rich. It's hard work. The price of pelts really isn't that high. Most people I know who trap do so as part of their way of life. It is a way to supplement income in the winter months with other seasonal forms of income aren't available. The trappers I know check their traplines often, at least twice a day if not more, and do their best to reduce the suffering of the animals they trap. If they were out to make big bucks, they'd do something other than trap, but these are people who love the outdoors and would prefer working in the outdoors to getting rich.

It's not the way you'd like to spend your time or earn a living and it doesn't fit with your morals. Fine. Don't do it. Even work to get the laws changed if you feel strongly about it. It still does not mean that those who choose to do it are evil or morally corrupt. Their animals suffer less than most milk cows during a lifetime, but I'm guessing you still eat dairy.

And, to be honest, I do support people making a living in ways I myself wouldn't. Mostly, I support people having more freedom to live a life they choose and less involvement by people outside that life, even if that means that I would not make the same choices they would.

But if one of my trapping friends offers me a pelt? I'd take it. Fur is warm and winter is cold. I'd eat the meat from the animal as well or feed it to my dog. How, exactly, does that make me any more evil than someone eating a steak and wearing a leather jacket?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hopefully the cow providing that steak and leather didn't chew his leg half off because of the excruciating pain of a metal cable cut into it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Hopefully the cow providing that steak and leather didn't chew his leg half off because of the excruciating pain of a metal cable cut into it.


He also likely spent his life on a feedlot rather than living wild and free in the woods. Personally, I'd take the snare at the end to a life full of misery.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It all torture . We're such jerks to animals. We all better hope there's no such thing as a Rainbow Bridge or we're doomed.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It all torture . We're such jerks to animals. We all better hope there's no such thing as a Rainbow Bridge or we're doomed.


Life isn't easy for humans, either, and some more than others. Humans starve to death or die horrible, violent deaths. In the end, human and animal alike, we all one day die. I like to focus on living a life that was worth it and trying to give my animals the same. I feel better when I'm able to eat animals that had a chance to live a life worth living as well. The way I see it, life stuck inside a city is often not much better than one on a feedlot, particularly for the poor in our cities.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Actually Johnny, you are starting to sound like an animal rights activist. Its the sort of thing they say.



Now you are just being silly..
Yea, I am an AR activist.... pet owning, dog breeding, works in the wholesale meat industry, former rancher, hunting, fishing, rodeo going, bet on the ponies and the puppies, Thinking about buying a bucking bull, AR guy...

They should all be like me. The world would be a great place. 

I never said exploitation was always a bad thing... But pet ownership is a form of exploitation. But hey..... I like betting on the puppies so I obviously have no issue with exploiting dogs.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Tolerance is something that also needs to be extended to humans and their ways of life.


There are some ways of life that simply shouldn't be tolerated. Many, MANY of them.

I know nothing about hunting and trapping so I can't really add my point of view, except for the fact that I, too, think checking traps twice a day isn't nearly enough. Yeah, trappers have others occupations so it's not always doable, but in that case doing it at all is cruel.


----------



## Doglover65 (Aug 10, 2013)

cruelty to animals: n. the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.

In other words, animal abuse is causing physical harm to an animal (other than self defence) and is well.. Beyond the necessity of discipline. Abuse also includes neglecting the needs of an animal (food, water, shelter, clean living conditions).

To me, an animal who lives less of quality compared to the next is not necessarily abuse. Someone who feeds their dog purina instead of blue, it does NOT mean theyre being abused.

A dog that is shocked on the stomach is considered abusive because it is causing a dog intended pain. But hunting? Thats a whole other thing. Snares are.. Idk how i feel about them, but i still dont consider them horrible and abusive and think someone is going to hell because they hunt with snares. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And if zap collars on the stomach are illegal, that's a lot of people who are in trouble. There was even some support for it in the thread. . .


I have never in my life seen anyone put a shock collar on a dogs stomach. Never even heard of it. And I came up in bird dogs, where some think you have to use a shock collar. 

Used in an inappropriate manner other than which they were designed to be used, is very illegal. Call the law if you have knowledge of this actually happening.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm honestly not a fan at all of traps that harm animals, if you're going to catch an animal for fur/meat fine, do so in a cage type trap and kill the animal when you get there. Snares and similar devices have the potential to hurt domestic animals, humans, and endangered animals.. The animals that get trapped are not always the ones people are targeting, and i do find them unnecessarily cruel..


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> There are some ways of life that simply shouldn't be tolerated. Many, MANY of them.
> 
> I know nothing about hunting and trapping so I can't really add my point of view, except for the fact that I, too, think checking traps twice a day isn't nearly enough. Yeah, trappers have others occupations so it's not always doable, but in that case doing it at all is cruel.


I spent a day at a trapper's house this winter. First thing in the morning, he got suited up and went out to check his trap line. He came back in, ate lunch, rested for about an hour, then got suited up again and went out to check it again. He came back in the darkness ate dinner and fell into bed. It's hard work. Like a lot of trappers up here, this is all he does every single day during the winter, no matter how cold it gets or how nasty it is out...he has to check his trap line over and over. He is the kind of guy who can't resist adopting a stray dog and does his very best to ensure the animals he hunts are killed quickly and cleanly, not a person out to get rich. He's retired military and lives this way not because he's out to make a buck, but because he loves this way of life.

Even with a trapline of this size, there is no way he could support his family without his retirement from the army. You can bet the animals on his trapline do not stay snared long. Why? Because if he left them there too long another animal would eat them before he could get the pelt. It's actually in a trapper's best interest NOT to leave an animal on the line for very long, besides being ethical.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I read an article in Fur-Fish-Game that the trappers are fighting legislation that would require them to check their traps at least once every 24 hours, "because some people have too large of a trapline, and can't get their traps checked that often" :/. But no matter---5 minutes with your leg caught in a cable snare or leg-hold trap would count as torture. I've seen animals suffering in traps (trapping is allowed on public land here). I've seen lots of trapping equipment and know trappers. It is torture, no way around it. There are many ways that people make money that I find morally repugnant, and that is one of them. I don't imagine you'd be preaching tolerance for most of the other morally questionable ways people make money.
> 
> But again. . .the love of money trumps all. So the laws will never be changed as long as the state is getting the trappers' license money $$$. Same with greyhound racing $$$ and horse racing $$$ and cram-em-in commercial meat farming $$$$$.
> 
> And what counts as "forcing an opinion on somebody"? I would think trying to change laws would do that more than voicing/writing an opinion. It's just terrible that someone might be forced to read something that disagrees with them .


I do not know anywhere you can go more than 24 hours without checking your traps. 

Down here, you cannot use any leg hold or snares. Never was a big deal because our fur quality is low because of the warm weather. 

But now we have a situation where leg hold traps and snares could be a great benefit. To native wild animals as well as domestic. But we cannot use them.

Saying traps are cruel is still your opinion....


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I'm honestly not a fan at all of traps that harm animals, if you're going to catch an animal for fur/meat fine, do so in a cage type trap and kill the animal when you get there. Snares and similar devices have the potential to hurt domestic animals, humans, and endangered animals.. The animals that get trapped are not always the ones people are targeting, and i do find them unnecessarily cruel..


I used to feel this way as well, until I got to know trappers. Seeing things from their point of view changed my perspective. Over time, living among different people has often changed my perspective on things I *thought* I knew about.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> I used to feel this way as well, until I got to know trappers. Seeing things from their point of view changed my perspective. Over time, living among different people has often changed my perspective on things I *thought* I knew about.


I don't care how nice the people seem, i don't care what they need, or why they do it,i find it cruel and it can harm endangered animal populations,pets and people that the trap is not intended for..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I don't care how nice the people seem, i don't care what they need, or why they do it,i find it cruel and it can harm endangered animal populations,pets and people that the trap is not intended for..


Okay I will give you the opposite side... What about when you have non native species severely threatening native species, including some endangered species that will go extinct unless something is done. And leg hold type traps and snares are the only feasible solution. 

Would you still feel the same?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I don't care how nice the people seem, i don't care what they need, or why they do it,i find it cruel and it can harm endangered animal populations,pets and people that the trap is not intended for..


1. There are very, very few pets out where these people are trapping and if these pets are loose out there, then the snares are the LEAST of their problems. We have plenty of things that will happily eat pet dogs and cats. The same goes for people.

2. We have plenty of habitat for species that are considered endangered down in the lower 48. The majority of the US's wolf populations thrive here. In areas where there are endangered species (meaning endangered here) that would be harmed by snares, trapping is not allowed and those laws are strictly enforced.

I understand that both of these are serious considerations elsewhere, but again, that is the danger of creating blanket statements and sweeping generalizations. I didn't change my mind because these people were "nice." I changed my mind because of the thought they put into what they did and the standards they held themselves to, voluntarily. I changed my mind because the reality of what they were doing was so different than the picture I had in my mind of it.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Okay I will give you the opposite side... What about when you have non native species severely threatening native species, including some endangered species that will go extinct unless something is done. And leg hold type traps and snares are the only feasible solution.
> 
> Would you still feel the same?


There are guns and live traps that could work, i understand hogs are a problem they are a problem in a lot of places, but there are other ways of taking care of it without potential harming other animals, pets and people


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> I spent a day at a trapper's house this winter. First thing in the morning, he got suited up and went out to check his trap line. He came back in, ate lunch, rested for about an hour, then got suited up again and went out to check it again. He came back in the darkness ate dinner and fell into bed. It's hard work. Like a lot of trappers up here, this is all he does every single day during the winter, no matter how cold it gets or how nasty it is out...he has to check his trap line over and over. He is the kind of guy who can't resist adopting a stray dog and does his very best to ensure the animals he hunts are killed quickly and cleanly, not a person out to get rich. He's retired military and lives this way not because he's out to make a buck, but because he loves this way of life.
> 
> Even with a trapline of this size, there is no way he could support his family without his retirement from the army. You can bet the animals on his trapline do not stay snared long. Why? Because if he left them there too long another animal would eat them before he could get the pelt. It's actually in a trapper's best interest NOT to leave an animal on the line for very long, besides being ethical.


But how long is "not very long"? (genuine question, I don't think anyone here lives off trapping and I have never discussed it before). I am aware a trapper is a person like another who needs to put bread on the table... but they are still leaving hurt and terrified animals in the cold for hours. My neighbour once trapped our cat. It was in November and he left her in the back of his garden for an entire day and an entire night in the cold and rain. He did not beat her as far as we know, but I can assure you that those few hours alone were extremely traumatising for her. I can't imagine what it must be like for an animal who is, on top of that, slowly and painfully dying.

EDIT: forgot to precise that he had trapped her in one of those tiny cages.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've seen the reality of it too. Those animals SUFFER. Horribly. On purpose. And they can't be given a humane, quick, clean death because it would ruin the pelts. I don't care what kind of thought or standards people put into it (and they probably wouldn't be so quick to check their lines except they KNOW very well that the animals are suffering horribly). 

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so tolerant of something you thought was harmful to children. Even if other people said it wasn't so bad, or, you know, the people causing the harm sure put a lot of thought into it. . .


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> 1. There are very, very few pets out where these people are trapping and if these pets are loose out there, then the snares are the LEAST of their problems. We have plenty of things that will happily eat pet dogs and cats. The same goes for people.
> 
> 
> 2. We have plenty of habitat for species that are considered endangered down in the lower 48. The majority of the US's wolf populations thrive here. In areas where there are endangered species (meaning endangered here) that would be harmed by snares, trapping is not allowed and those laws are strictly enforced.
> ...


So the unlucky person who happens to be walking with their dog in the woods( i go on plenty of DEEP woods hike) should have to just suck it up and deal with it if they or their dog gets snagged by a snare because "people don't go there often"?And i'm sorry having hiked in woods with cougars and grizzles i am much more worried about people than i ever am about walking in the woods with "dangerous" animals
If there was plenty of suitable habitat for all of these endangered species in our world, wouldn't they not be endangered in the first place? or at least be doing a lot better off than they are?I will admit i do not know much about the laws where there are endangered animals in the U.S. i know snares are a HUGE problem for tigers,elephants, ect, but i think the risk is not worth the benefits for animals in the U.S. as well..., and live cage type traps are more humane.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> There are guns and live traps that could work, i understand hogs are a problem they are a problem in a lot of places, but there are other ways of taking care of it without potential harming other animals, pets and people


Not hogs.... Hogs are easy to trap with live trap. Why would anyone want to use a snare or leg hold trap on hogs, and catch only one? When you can use live traps and catch a bunch in a live trap? And my live traps keep catching all night long because I have a one way door... First hog or hogs trips the door but it will still swing in. As long as there is food in there and hogs are rooting around they will push their way in. I have caught over 20 hogs in one night many times in my big trap. Hogs are easy to catch. 

And guns get a few of the critters I am talking about. But I can sit all night and get a shot at one or two. 
Live traps are all but useless. Waste of money and time. 

If we are going to do anything with them, it will be with leg binding traps.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I've seen the reality of it too. Those animals SUFFER. Horribly. On purpose. And they can't be given a humane, quick, clean death because it would ruin the pelts. I don't care what kind of thought or standards people put into it (and they probably wouldn't be so quick to check their lines except they KNOW very well that the animals are suffering horribly).
> 
> I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so tolerant of something you thought was harmful to children. Even if other people said it wasn't so bad, or, you know, the people causing the harm sure put a lot of thought into it. . .


You are tolerant of feral cats and they are harmful to children..


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

What animals can you catch with a snare or a leg hold that would be impossible to get in a live cage trap?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> But how long is "not very long"? (genuine question, I don't think anyone here lives off trapping and I have never discussed it before). I am aware a trapper is a person like another who needs to put bread on the table... but they are still leaving hurt and terrified animals in the cold for hours. My neighbour once trapped our cat. It was in November and he left her in the back of his garden for an entire day and an entire night in the cold and rain. He did not beat her as far as we know, but I can assure you that those few hours alone were extremely traumatising for her. I can't imagine what it must be like for an animal who is, on top of that, slowly and painfully dying.
> 
> EDIT: forgot to precise that he had trapped her in one of those tiny cages.


I do not live off of trapping. But I have been a nuisance wildlife trapper and removal agent for over 25 years. Mostly, raccoons and hogs. I have done a TON of hog work. I have pretty much farmed out all my raccoon and small stuff to a young guy. 
I can trap everything but regulated game species, Bears, alligators. I have done some deer removal under special permit. 

Now I pretty much just do coyote and hogs.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> So the unlucky person who happens to be walking with their dog in the woods( i go on plenty of DEEP woods hike) should have to just suck it up and deal with it if they or their dog gets snagged by a snare because "people don't go there often"?And i'm sorry having hiked in woods with cougars and grizzles i am much more worried about people than i ever am about walking in the woods with "dangerous" animals
> If there was plenty of suitable habitat for all of these endangered species in our world, wouldn't they not be endangered in the first place? or at least be doing a lot better off than they are?I will admit i do not know much about the laws where there are endangered animals in the U.S. i know snares are a HUGE problem for tigers,elephants, ect, but i think the risk is not worth the benefits for animals in the U.S. as well..., and live cage type traps are more humane.


I don't think you understand the terrain we're dealing with here and in winter to boot. This is not land that you'd be out for a leisurely stroll or hike on and it's also private land for the most part or public land that has posted where the traplines are allowed. You would have to be intentionally hiking pretty far, over rugged terrain without roads to get to these places. A dog would have to be pretty lost and very far from any home to be out there as well. Also, many animals that ARE endangered in the lower 48 are NOT endangered here. It really is pretty tough to describe the difference in scale up here to someone who hasn't been out in it. There is just so much space it's hard to comprehend.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> What animals can you catch with a snare or a leg hold that would be impossible to get in a live cage trap?


Not impossible. But VERY hard... Coyotes...


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> What animals can you catch with a snare or a leg hold that would be impossible to get in a live cage trap?


I'm not a trapping expert, but I'm guessing coyotes, wolves, foxes, wolverines, and such would be pretty tough to outsmart with a live cage trap. The bulk of what trappers out here are going after are mink, ermine, beaver, and fox. I've only tried to trap feral cats with a live trap myself and had significant challenges once the cats started to figure out the traps (this was for the purpose of a spay/neuter program, NOT for fur, before anyone jumps down my throat!). These animals are not stupid and frequently do start to outsmart the trappers. A big steel cage can be pretty hard to camouflage.

As far as these animals being out in the cold, um...yeah...they LIVE out in the cold. I can see that they do suffer due to the snare itself, but the trappers I know do their best to get to them as quickly as they can. It's both the ethical thing to do as well as economically the smartest since another animal can and will eat the animal if they can, ruining the pelt in the process.

Have you seen what a mink will do to its prey when it eats them? They're far more cruel than a snare. Back home, they will leave a cat half-eaten, basically turned inside out.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Not impossible. But VERY hard... Coyotes...


Well you said live traps were useless which implied to me it would be impossible to catch one with it.. Sorry.. Somehow I find that hard to believe I figured with a bit of bait and some waiting time you could easily get some coyotes.I know a few coyote hunters around here and they kill a decent amount of them without snares , dogs and guns seem to do the trick.. I'm sorry but I just do not find them nessasary at all and pose too much risk to wildlife and people.. I'm gonna leave it be though cause I haven't experienced it first hand, I just feel that you should be sure of what animal your going to be injuring before you injure it...


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm aware that animals can be wary of live cage traps,but having used them on multiple animals myself, it seems hunger usually gets the best of them at least in my experience with them..A mink does not know the meaning of the word cruel, so I could not consider anything a Mink does cruel


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I'm aware that animals can be wary of live cage traps,but having used them on multiple animals myself, it seems hunger usually gets the best of them at least in my experience with them..


That might be the case very deep into winter when other food sources are less plentiful. I'm doubting most trappers would find it worth their while, though, to change out all their traps. Up here, the chance of trapping something that would not be allowed to be trapped is nil. Either trapping is allowed in an area...or it isn't. Each year, regions are re-evaluated and the rules change according to animal populations. Right now there is a lively debate about enlarging the "buffer zone" which does not allow trapping around Denali National Park to protect wolf populations there. Meanwhile, a wolf hunt is likely to be authorized in another part of the state due to a lack of young growth forest causing a decline in moose populations that will eventually harm the wolf population unless some management is done. It's a fluid process and a complicated one for a state that is the size of the entire lower 48, but has so few people. One of the state's greatest natural resources is its wildlife and it is in everyone's best interest, including the trappers, that the animal populations continue to thrive.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> I don't think you understand the terrain we're dealing with here and in winter to boot. This is not land that you'd be out for a leisurely stroll or hike on and it's also private land for the most part or public land that has posted where the traplines are allowed. You would have to be intentionally hiking pretty far, over rugged terrain without roads to get to these places. A dog would have to be pretty lost and very far from any home to be out there as well. Also, many animals that ARE endangered in the lower 48 are NOT endangered here. It really is pretty tough to describe the difference in scale up here to someone who hasn't been out in it. There is just so much space it's hard to comprehend.


 I didn't pay attention to the fact that you're in Alaska , but I'm talking about the use of them everywhere not just in Alaska and I do not agree with them because they have the potential to harm tons of other creatures that you are not intending to catch. If I had the resources too I would love to go on extreme deep wood hikes for a week or more at a time and rough it, and not having snare traps around would be one less thing to worry about


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I would love to go on extreme deep wood hikes for a week or more at a time and rough it, and not having snare traps around would be one less thing to worry about


 Well, some states don't allow trapping on public lands, so if you stayed off private land in those states you'd probably be safe. It's a terrible thing to stumble on .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Well you said live traps were useless which implied to me it would be impossible to catch one with it.. Sorry.. Somehow I find that hard to believe I figured with a bit of bait and some waiting time you could easily get some coyotes.I know a few coyote hunters around here and they kill a decent amount of them without snares , dogs and guns seem to do the trick.. I'm sorry but I just do not find them nessasary at all and pose too much risk to wildlife and people.. I'm gonna leave it be though cause I haven't experienced it first hand, I just feel that you should be sure of what animal your going to be injuring before you injure it...


I have over six hundred invested in two traps. I have over 400 nights with both traps set in areas with heavy coyote activity. Three guys working this. Over one hundred years local hunting and trapping. experience. We have caught five. I think those five were mentally challenged. And by and large we are using combination of live an dead baits. They are SMART!!! I have taken hundreds of game cam photos of them staring at the bait in the trap. They do not go in. 

We can get them hunting them. Not enough. Our terrain is different. Very thick. I got 17 last year in about 20 nights of hunting. 

I have 22 this year so far. I think in about 20 nights or so. But I had a lucky five that I got in about a 10 second span and with three shots from a shotgun with number 4 shot. 

I have done a little bit of coyote hunting when I have been on other trips in cold climates. But it is MUCH harder down here. Cover and scent control are the biggest issues. It is hot. Much of the year you are going to be sweating while sitting on the stand. Even at night. There are few places you can get a long shot. I have shot a bunch of mine with a shotgun. And they WILL NOT come to a call up wind. I do best through positioning and catching them as they circle down wind on an electronic call.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I didn't pay attention to the fact that you're in Alaska , but I'm talking about the use of them everywhere not just in Alaska and I do not agree with them because they have the potential to harm tons of other creatures that you are not intending to catch. If I had the resources too I would love to go on extreme deep wood hikes for a week or more at a time and rough it, and not having snare traps around would be one less thing to worry about


And there are plenty of places you can legally and safely do that without any snares at all. We have huge parks that are perfect for that purpose, the size of entire states down there. The odds here of you finding yourself in someone's trapline, unless it is intentional, are strikingly slim. You would not only, in almost all cases, have to first trespass on private land, but you'd need to hike in to do it. In the places that trapping is allowed any animal you can catch with the snare IS allowed, so there is no chance of catching anything you did not intend to catch. All kinds of furs sell up here. The snares used up here are only big enough to catch animals up to the size of a small wolf, although that is pretty rare. The wolves are generally too smart to be trapped as well as more interested in larger prey than the bait.

If you're going on extreme deep wood hikes for a week on someone else's land or on land that had signs POSTED on the road in that traplines are there, then I guess I just don't have much sympathy if you stumble upon a trap line. I just can't stress enough the HUGE differences in geography here than what most people are used to. You really do have to go looking to tresspass on someone's trap line and work on finding one to do it. There is so much other land that is wide open for any other use.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I didn't pay attention to the fact that you're in Alaska , but I'm talking about the use of them everywhere not just in Alaska and I do not agree with them because they have the potential to harm tons of other creatures that you are not intending to catch. If I had the resources too I would love to go on extreme deep wood hikes for a week or more at a time and rough it, and not having snare traps around would be one less thing to worry about


You know I have something to say on that... I have not used leg hold traps. But the concept is the same. If a trapper is using a proper setup, the risk of by catch is not really all that great. 

You have specific setups for specific species. 
I can trap raccoons in an area covered up with feral cats and possums without much issue. I can trap a bobcat without catching raccoons. etc...


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Here, this may help a bit. Here is a map of Alaska superimposed on the lower 48 - http://www.ak.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/AKlower48.html

Then, imagine that entire space has fewer people than any major US city, in the entire state and further imagine that the majority of those people were concentrated in a few small areas and that the majority of that space is wide open. No roads, no nothing, just mountains and trees and wildlife. The amount of that space covered by traplines would be tiny. The number of sheer square miles for you to disappear into without traplines and for wildlife to wander without traplines, would show up as immense.

This kind of thing is why Alaskans are SO resistant to any interference from the lower 48. Few people want to try to understand life as people up here live it, they simply want to apply the same rules that apply down there even when they make little to no sense up here.

And even though this has all gotten pretty far off topic, to circle back around, this is exactly why I don't think I should be allowed to decide what other people do with their animals, beyond the laws in place. I have no idea what it is to live in Spain. I leave it to the Spaniards to decide what to do about bull fighting. I'd like to see it end myself, but if I were to try to convince them of that, it would be far better to first try to understand their perspective so that I would be better able to reason with them from that point of view. Similarly, if we're going to further clean up sports like Greyhound racing, it's going to have to come by better understanding the sport itself and coming up with ways that make sense to the people involved, rather than simply shouting at them that their sport is cruel.

Any time you try to make someone else change their ways without first trying to understand those ways, you're pretty much doomed to failure. It's a mistake the US seems to make over and over again when dealing with other cultures.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Similarly, if we're going to further clean up sports like Greyhound racing, it's going to have to come by better understanding the sport itself and coming up with ways that make sense to the people involved, rather than simply shouting at them that their sport is cruel.


But obviously, those involved think the current ways make sense, and they fully understand everything. You don't change the status quo by "understanding". If those involved like things the way they are, they have no incentive to change, unless. . .?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> But obviously, those involved think the current ways make sense, and they fully understand everything. You don't change the status quo by "understanding". If those involved like things the way they are, they have no incentive to change, unless. . .?


If you don't take the time to stop and understand why a man would want to fight a bull...how in the world will you get him to want to listen to why he shouldn't, let alone have compelling reasons that will speak to him, within his cultural perspective?

It's no different than yelling at a dog for its behavior, rather than trying to understand why the dog is doing what it is doing so you can better understand how to convince it not to.


----------



## Patterale (Jul 25, 2013)

Hi, i know the topic has moved towards trapping.

I posted a video earlier about Norman the greyhound who had his ears cut off, essentially a racing greyhound which did not do well in the track.

I thought some of you might like to see how hes doing now, also I saw you took an interest Pragueratter

I found these articles and thought id post them up.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ted-greyhound-norman-a-new-home-29390422.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...home-and-sprints-back-to-health-29431847.html


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Patterale said:


> Hi, i know the topic has moved towards trapping.
> 
> I posted a video earlier about Norman the greyhound who had his ears cut off, essentially a racing greyhound which did not do well in the track.
> 
> ...


What does a dog that was mutilated have to do with racing?

Oh and do you hunt with your Patterdale (s)?


----------



## Doglover65 (Aug 10, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What does a dog that was mutilated have to do with racing?
> 
> Oh and do you hunt with your Patterdale (s)?


The dog had his ears cut off because he didnt make it in the racing world? 

Im still interested what hunting has to do with greyhound racing 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Doglover65 said:


> The dog had his ears cut off because he didnt make it in the racing world?
> 
> Im still interested what hunting has to do with greyhound racing
> 
> ...


People rambling....
And racing simulates coursing (hunting with sighthounds.


----------



## Doglover65 (Aug 10, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> People rambling....
> And racing simulates coursing (hunting with sighthounds.


Hah very true 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Nature really isn't good, kind, or compassionate. Nature is ruthless in many, many ways. Most young do not survive to adulthood because they are food for other animals. Only the strongest and the quickest survive. Most "traditions" spring from a time when humans lived closer to nature and were painfully aware of that fact. For people whose only contact with what they eat comes from the supermarket, were it is neatly packaged in clean shrink wrap, drained of blood and without a face, the death of a bull is tragic. For people who are often covered in the blood of what they eat as well as worried about becoming something else's food as they try to protect and haul out their own kill, the death of a bull is simply the death of a bull that otherwise would have died in some other way, in some other place. Do I wish the bull had a less painful and quicker death? Definitely. Still, that bull will die...as will we all and often, not the way we'd wish.


Or in some cases those people would pray to that animal and ask for its permission to be eaten or they would thank that animal for giving it's life and energy so another being (that human) could survive. A beautiful thing in my opinion.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Just because nature isn't good, kind, or compassionate doesn't make it excusable for people not to be any of those things. Nor is something traditional, untouchable: When you know better, you do better. Cultural relativism only goes so far, as does acting locally.

Also, just because you can't solve ALL the cruelty, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to solve ANY of the cruelty. That is, "Welp, I'd like to object to bull fighting, but FACTORY FARMING EXISTS." Really... just please. 

And for a second I thought people were saying that snares and leg-holds aren't cruel. LOLZ. Sometimes people have to do cruel things to survive, but that doesn't make them not-cruel.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

The adoption rate and treatment of greyhound racing has gone up,so many people are trying to improve these things. Yet people want them banned,if some people treat dogs in specific situations cruelly then it makes it worth it to those kind of people to ban it. Dog racing stadiums are now getting more and more shut down. They don't give them room for improvement,they think their incapable of it and all dog racing is evil.

What is better for the dog is often questionable. How many pet dogs are obese,kept in crates 15 hours a day,and breed for poor and un healthy conformations? How many dogs have become physical wrecks or extinct because their original job became illegal? Its been even proven that working bred dogs are better tempered.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

My argument is that those who eat factory meat really have no standing to claim moral superiority over trappers.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> If you don't take the time to stop and understand why a man would want to fight a bull...how in the world will you get him to want to listen to why he shouldn't, let alone have compelling reasons that will speak to him, within his cultural perspective?
> 
> It's no different than yelling at a dog for its behavior, rather than trying to understand why the dog is doing what it is doing so you can better understand how to convince it not to.


Oh, I'm sure I could guess why a man wants to fight a bull. I could give you dozens of reasons right now. But I still don't understand them. I don't WANT to understand them. The FACT is that bullfighting is cruel. There's nothing noble, glorious or beautiful about trapping a scared animal somewhere it can't escape from and digging harpoons into its flesh. There's nothing noble, glorious or beautiful about doing all of that on an equally scared, blindfolded, vulnerable horse. 

The "but it's in their culture!" argument doesn't fly. If we judged people's actions solely according to the way they were raised... goodness, the world would be an even more dangerous place.


----------



## Patterale (Jul 25, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What does a dog that was mutilated have to do with racing?
> 
> Oh and do you hunt with your Patterdale (s)?


The reason seems to be is the dog did not do well enough at the track they described it as a failed racer so who ever owned him cut off his ears to remove any ID leading back to them and got rid of the dog.

Yeah I made a mistake when making my account I missed the D letter by accident haha.

Nope I dont hunt, She did come from a working dog though. She is a patterdale/lakeland x


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

thanks again for the links Patterdale. Its a heart warming end to a very tragic beginning. 

Matadors and Picadors used to be though of as virile. It was a way of proving their manhood, though why they couldn't go down more conventional lines is baffling! 

Tourist attraction is what's keeping most of Spains bullrings open. Other European countries and visiting Americans who just 'have to taste the culture' are the very people persuading the Spanish Government that bullfighting should continue. If tourists stopped attending bullfights, bullfighting would die because over 75% of Spain agree that bullfighting is a cruel and outdated spectacle that has no place in modern Spain.


----------



## Patterale (Jul 25, 2013)

Haha may aswell explain to him, just wondering may be a bit of an obvious question ? you do ratting with your dog/s?


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Patterale said:


> just wondering may be a bit of an obvious question ? you do ratting with your dog/s?


He's still a pup and so far, only managed to catch crickets and a frog who screamed and was quickly released!. He's already got a very keen nose though and he's started digging when we take him out. Also, my husband is a builder and often renovates old houses and makes lofts into new living spaces. I think he fully intends to take Jaques along so that he can chase away the mice and rats.


----------



## Patterale (Jul 25, 2013)

i have always thought about getting into ratting, as my little terrier is a hunting dog she is from a working earth dog id say now retired or dead tbh as shes 9.

i have a bit of an interest in hunting but wouldnt be a huge fan of it, always liked the thought of ratting though.

i wonder were you would find rats to do it and would the dog automatically pick it up ?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

On the topic of snares and unintentionally caught animals...

It's fantastic that Alaska has the kind of space that it can be done without risk to other animals. However, in a great majority of other places that just isn't the case.

Here for example, snares have been found in dog parks and some dogs have been seriously hurt. Moreover, last winter a dog went into the woods just off their lawn and was snared and killed by a perfectly legally placed snare.

So yea, I'm sure in some areas snaring can be done without threat to other animals. But if you're going to say "you can't say it's bad just because it's bad where you are" than you also can't say "it's good because here it's good, regardless of what happens elsewhere."

I'd love snaring to be handled everywhere like how you describe, but unfortunately that just isn't the case.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Patterale said:


> i have always thought about getting into ratting, as my little terrier is a hunting dog she is from a working earth dog id say now retired or dead tbh as shes 9.
> 
> i have a bit of an interest in hunting but wouldnt be a huge fan of it, always liked the thought of ratting though.
> 
> ...


If the dog has good breed instinct, then it will sense and smell the movement of rodents. Personally, I have never know a Patterdale that isn't on the hard side when it comes to catching vermin and so depending on where you live and what sort of predators could be lurking around, I would be careful what you encourage your dog to hunt. Hard core terriers often end up as the corpse because they are too bold for their own good.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ireth0 said:


> On the topic of snares and unintentionally caught animals...
> 
> It's fantastic that Alaska has the kind of space that it can be done without risk to other animals. However, in a great majority of other places that just isn't the case.
> 
> ...


 I'm of the opinion that it isn't OK to torture the furbearers just because you intend to do so. They suffer no less than the dog (or other non-target animal) who gets caught in the trap.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I know JohnnyBandit hasn't seen the use of e-collars on the abdomen. I have. I find it unacceptable. But I also find the use of e-collars to be appropriate in some situations.

I have no issue with greyhound racing. I, too, enjoy watching hounds course.

I exploit my animals daily. I have service dogs. My dogs love to work. They would be useless to me in a working capacity if they didn't. But their jobs aren't all sunshine and rainbows. I'd be lying to say it were.

Loch hates picking up metal. He had to learn that picking up metal objects (such as my keys), was not an optional endeavor. When I tell him "Pick up", he MUST pick up. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He now picks up my keys. He does so with great gusto.

Does he enjoy picking up metal? The answer is still no. But he does it because he understands he does not have the option to disobey.

Strauss is 9 years old, and will retire next year at the age of 10. I am hoping that he enjoys his 2-5 years of retirement. He will retire to my couch. He won't leave my home. I've had him since he was a baby. Realistically, all of my service dogs have a "better" life than my show dogs. If my show dogs don't work out, they are sold. They are sold into good pet homes, but they are still sold.

My service dogs are "rewarded" for their lifetime of service by holding down my couch after their retirement.

Are my animals exploited? Yeah. Are any ill treated? No.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Xeph said:


> I know JohnnyBandit hasn't seen the use of e-collars on the abdomen. I have. I find it unacceptable. But I also find the use of e-collars to be appropriate in some situations.
> 
> I have no issue with greyhound racing. I, too, enjoy watching hounds course.
> 
> ...


You said it yourself: Strauss will retire soon, and will enjoy his last years being a pet dog. As for your show dogs, they go to homes better suited for them. 

Most greyhounds won't be that lucky, and that's the point of this thread.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> My argument is that those who eat factory meat really have no standing to claim moral superiority over trappers.


 Though i didn't claim i was "morally superior" than trappers, i don't eat meat either but for more reasons than just factory farming, and i have no issue with animals being used for food, though i wish more people hunted/raised their own meat..


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Most greyhounds won't be that lucky, and that's the point of this thread.


Which sucks, but it is what it is.

The ones that go to good homes? I think that's great. I don't know what more can be done to get more retired racers into homes. Greyhounds aren't a terribly popular breed as it is. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I won't condemn the entire sport.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Which sucks, but it is what it is.


It could be so different, though.

I love greyhounds and I love seeing them run. I would have no problem with greyhound racing if the racers were treated correctly and if everything possible was being made to find them good homes once they retire. If owners actually loved and cared about their dogs and just not the sport, and if the hounds' welfare was their priority. But right now, their priority is money. It's sick that thousands of perfectly healthy dogs have to die at young ages to make room for other dogs that will have the same fate, and so on and so on...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I won't deny it sucks.

I will say I do hate the constant whinge of "For love of money". Meh, I don't have a love of money. Definitely have a need for it, though. Greed plays a role, but that's part of making a profit...big or small.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Xeph said:


> I won't deny it sucks.
> 
> I will say I do hate the constant whinge of "For love of money". Meh, I don't have a love of money. Definitely have a need for it, though. Greed plays a role, but that's part of making a profit...big or small.


Except that when you make a profit on living beings, the least you could do is care for them properly. Yes, I know it's not the case nearly as often as it should be - puppy mills are an example of that. I'm aware it's far from restricted to greyhound racing. But while almost everyone on the forum strongly disapproves of puppy mills and backyard breeders (and with reason!), greyhound racing and its consequences are somehow okay? I don't get it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Each person defines what their own limits are. And I keep reading the phrase "Care for them properly". Nobody has defined what "properly" means, really. Honestly, that's an individuals job, within the confines of the law.

I love all of my dogs, but there are plenty of people out there that would say I don't love them enough based on the fact that I sell animals that don't meet my needs, or because I don't feed grain free, or or or or and and and and.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm glad to see that greyhound racing has been banned in six states of America and the whole of South Africa. Continual campaigning against cruelty will keep the continuing fraternities on their toes at least. Greyhound racing is a dying industry in much of the western world.

Greyhound Racing is a business and it is common knowledge that all businesses put profit first. Greyhounds are just the cogs in a very big industry. They are known as livestock and not pets and yet retired racers make magnificent pets. These livestock animals will become loyal companions if just given the chance. 

I don't believe all animal sport exploit animals but those sports aren't for profit. Greyhounds on the other hand are nothing more than a commodity for those greedy bastards. 

You know what I find so hypocritical?-Here we are on a dog site where we can read time and time again about not upsetting your dog, not stressing him, not scolding him and absolutely no hitting him and yet some of those very same people believe they should turn a blind eye on the truth behind greyhound racing and what goes on behind closed doors. Some of those people will even attend greyhound races knowing that their very support is what helps to keep these barbaric practices alive. 

I could understand someone supporting greyhound racing if they were naive about the truth or not animal lovers but to know the truth, whilst being an animal lover and shrug and declare that a race is still a 'beautiful' thing, beggars belief


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Each person defines what their own limits are. And I keep reading the phrase "Care for them properly". Nobody has defined what "properly" means, really. Honestly, that's an individuals job, within the confines of the law.
> 
> I love all of my dogs, but there are plenty of people out there that would say I don't love them enough based on the fact that I sell animals that don't meet my needs, or because I don't feed grain free, or or or or and and and and.


I did imply what I meant by "cared for properly", which is... actually giving the hounds a chance to a future. Apologies if this was not clear. I also dislike the conditions a lot of greyhounds are kept in (caged all day). Yes, I know, they are working dogs and not pets, buuut... more could definitely be done for them. 

And again, your dogs may work and have a purpose but you don't have them killed when they are no longer of use. You give them good lives anyway. Most greyhounds don't. 

This is not directed against you personally, Xeph, but I'm absolutely baffled that many of the same people who despise puppy mills, backyard breeders, and bad treatments inflicted to dogs in general think greyhound racing as it exists today is acceptable.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Each person defines what their own limits are. And I keep reading the phrase "Care for them properly". Nobody has defined what "properly" means, really. Honestly, that's an individuals job, within the confines of the law.
> 
> I love all of my dogs, but there are plenty of people out there that would say I don't love them enough based on the fact that I sell animals that don't meet my needs, or because I don't feed grain free, or or or or and and and and.


This. I think that laws should be made to protect against abuse and to protect endangered species. Beyond that, though? I think we each need to figure out our own way and I also think that what works and makes sense in one place is not always universal.

I carefully think over my own choices, but I don't condemn others for coming to a different conclusion than mine. I feel like more and more, peoples' rights to live their lives the way they choose are infringed upon more and more as we are forced to fit into a tightly constricting mold. Some of us just weren't made to fit that mold.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> I did imply what I meant by "cared for properly", which is... actually giving the hounds a chance to a future. Apologies if this was not clear. I also dislike the conditions a lot of greyhounds are kept in (caged all day). Yes, I know, they are working dogs and not pets, buuut... more could definitely be done for them.
> 
> And again, your dogs may work and have a purpose but you don't have them killed when they are no longer of use. You give them good lives anyway. Most greyhounds don't.
> 
> This is not directed against you personally, Xeph, but I'm absolutely baffled that many of the same people who despise puppy mills, backyard breeders, and bad treatments inflicted to dogs in general think greyhound racing as it exists today is acceptable.


I think every single person on this forum who posted in support of the sport itself DID say that they want abuses cracked down on and laws enforced.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> I think every single person on this forum who posted in support of the sport itself DID say that they want abuses cracked down on and laws enforced.


And yet, several said they went to races, therefore supporting greyhound racing with its current abuses and laws. I think several also said they had no problems with it, though I don't have the courage to reread the 10 pages to make sure.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I've never actually been to a greyhound track. The races I watch? Youtube.

I have gone to lure coursing tests for the hounds though. Beautiful indeed


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Xeph said:


> I've never actually been to a greyhound track. The races I watch? Youtube.
> 
> I have gone to lure coursing tests for the hounds though. Beautiful indeed


Now lure coursing tests are something I'd gladly go see!


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I've never been to a greyhound track or horse racing track. I don't gamble, so there's little point. I have watched races on tv, though.

We have a bingo parlor in town that has a game with a rat that is released and you can bet on which piece of cheese it chooses to eat on which number. I have considered going just to see this for myself.

I know, I am a horrible person.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> And yet, several said they went to races, therefore supporting greyhound racing with its current abuses and laws. I think several also said they had no problems with it, though I don't have the courage to reread the 10 pages to make sure.


Every single poster who said that they enjoy the sport, even those who admitted going to races, also said that they want the abuses cracked down on. I think only one admitted actually betting on the dogs because most admitted they were lousy at gambling.

C'mon...what kind of people do you think we have around here?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Xeph said:


> I won't deny it sucks.
> 
> I will say I do hate the constant whinge of "For love of money". Meh, I don't have a love of money. Definitely have a need for it, though. Greed plays a role, but that's part of making a profit...big or small.


I do have to say, I view euthanizing thousands of perfectly healthy animals needlessly as a _deeply_ morally questionable practice.

I say needlessly because unlike meat slaughter or dog shelters who euth for space, there is absolutely no need to race greyhounds. Its purely for enjoyment. So for everyone who supports it I would pose this question.

What would you think of a pet owner who euthanized a young, healthy dog because they wanted a new puppy?


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Every single poster who said that they enjoy the sport, even those who admitted going to races, also said that they want the abuses cracked down on. I think only one admitted actually betting on the dogs because most admitted they were lousy at gambling.


It's completely useless to say "I think greyhound abuse should be stopped" if you still effectively support it in facts! These people's actions preach against what they say.



packetsmom said:


> C'mon...what kind of people do you think we have around here?


Certainly a lot of people I disagree with on a variety of subjects, including but not limited to greyhound racing. To be honest, there are topics where I can sort of understand why people might disagree with me, but on this particular one... I can't really.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

All this morally superior stuff gets a bit deep. 

Everyone has their own line. I just think folks ought to not judge until they have walked in another person's shoes....

And the "factory farms" thing.... I frankly do not know what that is... A made up AR word.... 
But What do I know. I only sell about five hundred thousand to a million pounds give or take of meat each week. 

The world is not black and white. There is much more grey than black and white. When ever people talk about social issues, here especially, you see many idealistic responses. And idealism is not a bad thing. But it must be tempered with realism. Drawing a line in the sand is not realistic. 
Grey areas. 

I am quite sure there are folks here that may think I am an awful person. I hunt, fish, work in the wholesale meat industry, do nuisance trapping do predator control, etc. 

Do I know that bad things go on in both dog and horse racing? ABSOLUTELY. But I am less than willing to condemn the sports. I see no issue with tightening regulations and better enforcement. 

Can I see how there are those that view leg hold traps and snares as cruel? SURE. But I am not going to be the one that tells a man that pays part of his bills and feeds his family off of pelts, he cannot do it. I am not going to think poorly of him for doing it either. IF you want to point a finger at someone, point it at the end user. If there was no market for pelts, no one would be trapping. And who am I to say? I have sunk heavy treble hooks into the skin of more than a couple of alligators .I have harpooned others. I cannot say snares are bad but me harpooning an alligator is okay. Alligators do not have the cute factor and most people are afraid of them, so few people voice a concern. But I am sure there are those that think it is horrible. And 

And good bad or not, I would SNARE every coyote I could in the state of Florida. If they would let me. They are not native here and will likely be the final cause of a couple of native species going extinct. If that is cruel so be it. But the loggerhead turtle hatchlings that get eaten by coyotes before they hit the water, the Scrub Jay, The Cacaracara, assorted dune rodents, etc. are worth it to me. We have parts of the state where our native bobwhites are gone. Their decline directly coincides with the arrival of coyotes. 
I would far rather be considered cruel by some than lose any one of those species. 

Bullfighting? Rodeos/ another line in the sand I am not going to draw. Seems a bit brutal but I cannot say, I would not go to one if I went to Spain. I was supposed to go to a bullfight, one of the times I was in Mexico. 
Did not make it though. Someone said the VAST majority in Spain, were against bullfights. Seeing how they still exist, I have a hard time swallowing that one. 

Back to dog racing.... Sure there are abusers in the sport. But there are Abusers in EVERYTHING. We can pass laws, but in most of the civilized world governments do a very poor job of legislating morality, or, doing the right thing. Prohibition and our drug policies should have taught us this lesson. We can regulate and have some level of success. But to say we should do away with the sport because some abuse it? Makes about as much sense as saying we are going to do away with driving cars because some folks disregard traffic laws. 


Anyway.... What about running with the bulls? I have always wanted to do that. We are having a running with the bulls in Dade City after the first of the year. I am already signed up. Should be fun.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I'll put myself out there as another "horrible person."

I'll happily hunt and fish and eat what we kill. I'd happily wear a pair of beaver mittens when it gets that cold here. I don't condemn trappers and, if we had the land, I might do some trapping myself. You can bet I'd be checking my traplines at least twice a day, but I would not beat myself up for the animals I took. As much as I prefer wild meat for many, many reasons, I'll eat commercial meat if I don't have any wild meat available and while I wish the conditions were better, I don't condemn farmers trying to feed their families.

As far as humans being above nature...we are a part of nature. When we forget that, I feel like we often commit even worse acts against nature...and each other. We ARE animals ourselves. We are predators and I find it far more honest to accept our role in the natural world than to shy away from it.

I grow weary of having morality decided by some and legislated to others, particularly when the people looking down their noses do not live in the world that they are looking down on. It's easy to look at something from the outside and decide you are better than "those" people and then try to force your ways on them. It's often much harder to do that when you've come down from your tower and tried to actually understand the people involved and why they do the things they do. Often, you discover that the real truth is somewhere in the middle, in those gray areas.

Closed minds, though, are rarely open to finding that middle ground where there can be agreement for change and the more one side is closeminded, the more the other side will respond with the same.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

IF we are no better than animals, we should not penalize people who kill other people. We should not penalize people who indulge base sexual instincts. We should not penalize people for killing their children, especially if they are disabled. Either we are "better" than animals, being capable of moral reasoning, or we aren't. If we are, we have an obligation to behave better than animals, including not inflicting cruelty upon other animals. If we aren't, then we have no right to penalize people for behaving like animals at all. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> IF we are no better than animals, we should not penalize people who kill other people. We should not penalize people who indulge base sexual instincts. We should not penalize people for killing their children, especially if they are disabled. Either we are "better" than animals, being capable of moral reasoning, or we aren't. If we are, we have an obligation to behave better than animals, including not inflicting cruelty upon other animals. If we aren't, then we have no right to penalize people for behaving like animals. Can't have it both ways.


We are animals, but we are gifted with the ability to choose not to follow our instincts. Again with the black and white, either or thinking. Is it impossible for there NOT to be anything in between?

Fundamentalism, in any form, is an evil that gets in the way of both reason and understanding.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There are in betweens and gray areas, yes. I do not see how choosing to make another living being suffer falls into those gray areas.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> There are in betweens and gray areas, yes. I do not see how choosing to make another living being suffer falls into those gray areas.


Every living being suffers in one way or another and many, many of our choices involve causing suffering to some living being or another. I think most of us measure the amount of suffering against the benefits derived from that suffering, but the conclusion we each come to may vary in many situations. To a trapper, in their calculation, the suffering of the animal they snare is balanced by the value of its pelt. For the greyhound racer, the suffering of their dogs is balanced by the value of their race. When I buy a package of meat, the suffering of the cow is balanced by the value of the meat. And so on, and so on. Even a vegan contributes to pollution, but finds their balance where they can.

I don't feel I'm qualified to judge where other people find that balance nor do I appreciate others trying to judge where I find my own. If they have first tried to understand my point of view, then I'm far more willing to listen to theirs.

We each live in gray areas with the choices we make, but some people are far more comfortable pretending that they don't.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Oh, no, I recognize the gray areas. Contributing to pollution, disproportionate consumption of resources, maybe the working conditions aren't so great in the factory that made that thing I bought, etc. I'm pretty sure you have things you would never agree could be moral in any circumstance. I know I'm not going to try to find a common ground with a rapist/child molester. I think I would rather not understand his point of view. And that's how I feel about making animals suffer for entertainment or monetary gain.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

To me there is a HUGE difference between someone racing greyhounds and a rapist or child molester and it is extremely insulting to the victims of such to imply the two are equivalent.

That being said, I'd even support research to better understand why people rape or molest children. If we were able to figure out exactly what made them tick, we might be able to treat that and reduce the numbers of victims. Or at least catch the offenders sooner.

There are very few dark corners in this world that can't benefit by being brought to light.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I could tell you right now what makes them do it---they like it. It brings them pleasure and/or control, or in some other way gets them what they want. And they either feel it isn't harmful to their victims or have some sort of justification about why it's not wrong for them to do it. I'd rather not be understanding about that. I guess I'm mean that way. 

And if we are just animals, why is it soooo much worse when someone does something to a human as opposed to some other animal?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I could tell you right now what makes them do it---they like it. It brings them pleasure and/or control, or in some other way gets them what they want. And they either feel it isn't harmful to their victims or have some sort of justification about why it's not wrong for them to do it. I'd rather not be understanding about that. I guess I'm mean that way.
> 
> And if we are just animals, why is it soooo much worse when someone does something to a human as opposed to some other animal?


I'm done with this debate...it's just not something you're going to be able to understand, no matter how I explain it. I've said it several times now. "We are animals, but animals gifted with the ability to choose not to follow our instincts." You can choose to read into my words whatever you like.

And yes, I do see it a greater tragedy when something horrible happens to a person as opposed to an animal. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, I can live with that.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> To me there is a HUGE difference between someone racing greyhounds and a rapist or child molester and it is extremely insulting to the victims of such to imply the two are equivalent.
> 
> That being said, I'd even support research to better understand why people rape or molest children. If we were able to figure out exactly what made them tick, we might be able to treat that and reduce the numbers of victims. Or at least catch the offenders sooner.
> 
> There are very few dark corners in this world that can't benefit by being brought to light.


And once we understand why people do bad things, what do we do? Do we let them keep doing them or do we stop them? This is a rhetorical question, because you gave the answer yourself with your example: we'd still prevent people from doing bad things.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> And once we understand why people do bad things, what do we do? Do we let them keep doing them or do we stop them? This is a rhetorical question, because you gave the answer yourself with your example: we'd still prevent people from doing bad things.


But IN ORDER to stop people from doing things we think are bad, we have to first understand why they do them in the first place. I guess I find it difficult to understand how people who so easily grasp this concept when it comes to dog training are blind to it when it comes to humans.

Just yelling at someone from another culture that what they do is wrong/bad is unlikely to make them suddenly change their mind and stop. Once you understand the motivation behind the act as well as the culture surrounding it, then you have a larger chance, even if it is small, of changing their perspective toward it. That's true whether that other culture is a foreign country or simply a subculture within our own.

This doesn't necessarily apply to pathology, like child molesters and rapists, who often have psychological issues that are incredibly complicated, but let's say you wanted to stop someone from training greyhounds to race. This person thinks greyhound racing is wonderful. They come from generations of people who have participated in the sport and, for them, it is a cultural tradition that they are proud of. You're not going to get very far by talking at them about how awful and ugly it is. They will simply dig in their heels and protest that you have no idea since you are not a part of the sport and they are. You may get somewhere with some of them by legal means, but others might just take their racing operations to another place where it is legal or simply race underground. However, if you try to understand why racing is so important to that person, you may actually be able to talk with them at their own level and find reasons that make sense to them why they should stop.

Is it profit? Point out other things they could be doing that are more profitable, using the resources they have. Is it that they love watching the dogs run and sincerely believe that they are treating their dogs well? Point out ways they can still watch their dogs run off the track and how they can care for their dogs better. Is it because it is a family tradition? Then you can point out other family traditions that have had to change because we now know more than we did then or help them find other family traditions to celebrate. Is it because they have no other skills or education to do something else? Then you can help them find ways to gain other skills or education.

But ALL of this starts with stopping talking at the people doing what you don't like and starting to listen to them and understand WHY they are doing it.

For my part, though, I'd be fine with just strengthening the existing laws surrounding the racing and providing better enforcement, but that's just my perspective on the issue.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> But IN ORDER to stop people from doing things we think are bad, we have to first understand why they do them in the first place. I guess I find it difficult to understand how people who so easily grasp this concept when it comes to dog training are blind to it when it comes to humans.
> 
> Just yelling at someone from another culture that what they do is wrong/bad is unlikely to make them suddenly change their mind and stop. Once you understand the motivation behind the act as well as the culture surrounding it, then you have a larger chance, even if it is small, of changing their perspective toward it. That's true whether that other culture is a foreign country or simply a subculture within our own.
> 
> ...


Okay, that makes sense. I understand better now. I don't necessarily agree, at least not in any case, because I consider that there are things that just need to be stopped, right now, and I also think that as long as someone is intelligent, they possess the ability to think and to understand that hurting someone is bad, be it only because that person communicates it. But this is probably too philosophical and far-fetched for this thread.

And again, what I am against is greyhound racing _as it exists today._ I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if the dogs weren't killed as soon as they didn't bring any more money in, which is the big problem in my opinion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> And yes, I do see it a greater tragedy when something horrible happens to a person as opposed to an animal.


I believe that too. But my belief is based on a larger understanding of human-ness and morality that includes the obligation to prevent suffering/unkindness whenever possible. I don't understand why a higher value would be assigned to a human life if we don't have that moral obligation to treat other animals humanely. But that's probably falling into a religious discussion so best to leave it at that, I guess.

If the existing laws involving greyhound racing and other entertainment uses of animals were sufficient, I don't think this discussion would have come up. I wouldn't have any trouble with racing if the dogs were treated well and not killed when no longer profitable (which is not illegal).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Oh, no, I recognize the gray areas. Contributing to pollution, disproportionate consumption of resources, maybe the working conditions aren't so great in the factory that made that thing I bought, etc. I'm pretty sure you have things you would never agree could be moral in any circumstance. I know I'm not going to try to find a common ground with a rapist/child molester. I think I would rather not understand his point of view. And that's how I feel about making animals suffer for entertainment or monetary gain.


 holy cow we we t from racing dogs to rapists and child molestors. Talk about two things that have nothing to do with each other


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well. . .I've been told that some of those guys down at the racetrack. . .

Just an example of how everyone has "no-gray-areas" beliefs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Well. . .I've been told that some of those guys down at the racetrack. . .
> 
> Just an example of how everyone has "no-gray-areas" beliefs.


. If you had not already lost everyone you have now


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I think you kind of have to look at how people treat people and how people treat animals separately.

Maybe it's just the way I look at it but I put those two things in different categories. I look at how animals are treated on a more environmental basis. 

Like Johnnybandit mentioned with the coyotes. I see nothing wrong with that. Same with wild boar. Alligators, I can't watch them being shot in the head on that show but I get it. 

When it comes to human survival and people supporting themselves I understand certain things are necessary. I won't buy fur but I get it. 

As far as horse and greyhound racing, I would categorize that as unnecessary. It could be something fun and enjoyable but I won't go to an event as long as scumbags are involved. 

When it comes to killing endangered species, sport hunting, ESC... Just no. Circuses no. Destroying habitats for survival, grey area. 
Killing animals because they're isn't enough room for them anymore because there are too many people overpopulating an area, annoying and upsetting. 

Bullfighting= bullshit. 

Idk, it all seems pretty simple to me to feel the way I do about things. I can't understand how someone that knows how racehorses are treated could go to a horse race. Kind of ridiculous to me honestly.

There are some things were I only see black and white. Destroying a whole ecosystem vs growing hemp. Not really that complex. Or destroying our oceans vs using alternative methods of energy and gas. Again, really not that complex. Not killing a bull vs killing a bull. No shit, how hard is that. 

Idk, I understand people need to make money and survive but idk why someone would support something that isn't necessary and that involves the suffering of any animal. Personally, I wouldn't feel right about myself if I went to a greyhound race knowing that one of those dogs, just one even, could and up in Spain with a noose around it's neck and hanging from a tree branch. But that's just me.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> I'll put myself out there as another "horrible person."
> 
> I grow weary of having morality decided by some and legislated to others, particularly when the people looking down their noses do not live in the world that they are looking down on. It's easy to look at something from the outside and decide you are better than "those" people and then try to force your ways on them. It's often much harder to do that when you've come down from your tower and tried to actually understand the people involved and why they do the things they do. Often, you discover that the real truth is somewhere in the middle, in those gray areas.
> 
> Closed minds, though, are rarely open to finding that middle ground where there can be agreement for change and the more one side is closeminded, the more the other side will respond with the same.


I have just doused my computer with water in case it ignites!

Do you understand what 'moral relativism' is? Of course we are going to disagree with one another on debates such as this. Its called moral diversity and should be tolerated. Accusing others of looking down their noses or being closed minded because their morals don't match yours is short sighted because it assumes there is only one point of view. If there was only one point of view we wouldn't have discussion.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> I have just doused my computer with water in case it ignites!
> 
> Do you understand what 'moral relativism' is? Of course we are going to disagree with one another on debates such as this. Its called moral diversity and should be tolerated. Accusing others of looking down their noses or being closed minded because their morals don't match yours is short sighted because it assumes there is only one point of view. If there was only one point of view we wouldn't have discussion.


There is discussion and then there is equating people who race greyhounds with child molesters.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> There is discussion and then there is equating people who race greyhounds with child molesters.


Willowy never equated people who race greyhounds with child molesters. She used child molesters as an example of behaviours she doesn't even want to understand because of immoral they are in any case (if I understood her correctly).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes ^^. There are some things I'm just not going to be tolerant of. Things I don't want to understand. People do what they want to do, sure, but I will believe (and say) that it's wrong.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> Willowy never equated people who race greyhounds with child molesters. She used child molesters as an example of behaviours she doesn't even want to understand because of immoral they are in any case (if I understood her correctly).


She didn't persay. But given her history. That is where she was heading.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> She didn't persay. But given her history. That is where she was heading.


I don't know her history and I don't think it's really relevant. She said something reasonable and used an example to flesh up her argument. And she stated that she viewed a human's suffering as a greater tragedy than an animal's, so...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> I don't know her history and I don't think it's really relevant. She said something reasonable and used an example to flesh up her argument. And she stated that she viewed a human's suffering as a greater tragedy than an animal's, so...


There is nothing reasonable about bringing rapists and child molesters into this discussion


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> There is nothing reasonable about bringing rapists and child molesters into this discussion


There is, when they are brought up as examples. The discussion had already gotten much more general by that point. Packetsmom was arguing that in order to efficiently and respectfully correct a behaviour, you had to understand it (grossly simplified). Willowy and I disagreed because we think that there are things that are best left ununderstood, FOR EXAMPLE child rape. For example really is the key word here. And given the argument behind the example, yes, it is reasonable.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Oh come on Johnny, emotional behavior is no substitute for rational arguments. 

The problem with this debate is, points aren't being resolved and so we seem to be going around in circles.

At this stage I'm happy to agree to disagree.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> There is, when they are brought up as examples.


Big giant "not really" here. They are so incredibly far on opposite ends of the spectrum.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I don't know about hunting and have no experience so I won't venture an opinion there. But I would be interested in the answer to my question if anyone wants to venture. Since I don't/haven't outright condemned greyhound racing its a double standard I seem to be caught in as well.

I'm betting though if someone came on here and said they were euthanizing their healthy, young dog because they wanted a new puppy they'd be roasted. But how is this any different?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Ok... But aburptly putting a stop to something people find cultural or enjoyable generally ends up with it going underground. Prohibition and moonshine, anybody? The last thing I'd want is for greyhound racing to become illegal and then go completely unregulated. The underbelly of society isn't pretty.

The only way to change someome's mind is to completely understand their side and offer up suitable and obtainable alternatives. 

I'm not sure that rapists and child molesters can be used as a good example. We should strive to understand them so that we might help them and overall prevent their occurrence in society. They don't simply do it because they like it. It's deeper than that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RabbleFox said:


> I'm not sure that rapists and child molesters can be used as a good example. We should strive to understand them so that we might help them and overall prevent their occurrence in society. They don't simply do it because they like it. It's deeper than that.


Being that I unfortunately have family members who fit this category. . .maybe sometimes it's deeper than that. But not always. Not them. They want what they want and like controlling other people and feel entitled to take what they want when they want. There may be some kind of illness causing it in some offenders. But some are just plain bad people. So yeah. I do liken that to other people who are willing to hurt other beings to get what they want. But that's just me, maybe.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Big giant "not really" here. They are so incredibly far on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Rape is certainly an extreme example, but I wouldn't say they are on opposite ends of the spectrum, since in both cases, there's someone unnecessarily hurting an innocent being.


----------



## Whistlejacket (Jul 26, 2012)

Willowy said:


> But that's just me, maybe.


No, that's not just you.

But like PragueRatter, I feel that we are not going to reach an agreement and it's useless to go on. I exposed my point of view quite extensively and I don't think I have anything to add that I haven't already stated or at least implied.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm lost. Where are we? Greyhounds are rapists and we have to trap them?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I'm lost. Where are we? Greyhounds are rapists and we have to trap them?


Yes. I'm glad you followed this thread so closely. What do we do with the greyhounds after we've trapped them? That's what I want to know.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RabbleFox said:


> Yes. I'm glad you followed this thread so closely. What do we do with the greyhounds after we've trapped them? That's what I want to know.


Have we settled on how to trap them? I've been digging big pits.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Have we settled on how to trap them? I've been digging big pits.


All I've got are food lures.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I'm lost. Where are we? Greyhounds are rapists and we have to trap them?


:rockon: /too short


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I have snares, but I've been saving them for the zombie apocolypse, so I'm not about to waste them on greyhounds since greyhounds sound like they are more likely to rape me than eat my brains.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> Originally Posted by So Cavalier
> 
> "It's not the same. This situation is more like "canned hunting". The prey animal has very little chance of survival. One is survival, the other is not."
> 
> ...


In the words of my mother..."Consider the source".

As I reread some this thread, I do realize that you were referring to the so called "sport" of coursing. I was referring to the practice of using live animals as bait in training greyhounds to run.

This is from a Dog Fancy Article published in 1991



> Live Lures
> 
> Donaldson, Baker, and others also dispute industry claims that live lure training is practically obsolete. "I've seen them training these dogs first hand," says Baker, who conducted undercover investigations at farms and tracks. "Ninety percent of them use live lures. They believe the dogs will race faster when they're trained on a live animal rather than an artificial lure."
> 
> ...


Well you say, "that was over 20 years ago"....well this is from 2011.

http://www.care2.com/causes/shocking-new-audio-of-cruel-live-lure-greyhound-training.html

The audiotape and transcript of trainers using a live rabbit placed in a whirligig to train his greyhounds are available as links in this article. The audiotape is horribly disturbing, at least to me. According to the article, the audiotape and transcript were released by the state of Texas. I read several articles on greyhound racing stating that dogs trained on live bait are supposedly banned to race according the NGA but that most racetracks "turn a blind eye".


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> In the words of my mother..."Consider the source".
> 
> As I reread some this thread, I do realize that you were referring to the so called "sport" of coursing. I was referring to the practice of using live animals as bait in training greyhounds to run.
> 
> ...


It was clear that I was talking about coursing all the time. 

Training is not coursing. I would have never used the word coursing if I was talking about training. 

Racing is also not coursing. And frankly I don't care if they use rabbits to train them. What is the difference in using a rabbit to train dogs and feeding a rabbit to a pet boa or python?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Whistlejacket said:


> There is, when they are brought up as examples.



No they are not.... They make about as much sense as comparing an orange to a 1956 Ford Sedan.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I'm lost. Where are we? Greyhounds are rapists and we have to trap them?


greyhounds rape rabbits at bullfights....


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> True.... You, Willowy, Whistle, etc. should heed that advice. Thus far emotion has remained in the way of rational thought.
> 
> My arguments have remained emotionless.


I don't necessarily think that's true. I think it's important to have empathy and compassio n for other living things. Even a silly little rabbit. 

My SO's father gets rabbits at auction and keeps them in the house and fattens then up and then takes them and slits their throat as they make awful crying noises. 

That compared to a quick strangulation from a snake... I don't find comparable. 

Then you have a poor rabbit used as a play thing for training in an unnecessary sport, I don't see that having anything to do with the natural survival of a snake.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> That compared to a quick strangulation from a snake


Having seen such strangulation, there is nothing "quick" about suffocation.

If an animal is dispatched properly using a method that causes the animal to bleed out rapidly, loss of consciousness should (read: should) occur pretty quickly.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Side note... I told my wife, I would take her to Europe Next Summer. I am thinking I may need to see a bull fight in person to see what all the fuss is about...

My wife will not go though...


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Everything makes awful crying noises when you kill it to eat it. Unless you want to be a vegan, it's part of life. Most living creatures don't really want to be killed and eaten. Few creatures are lucky enough to have a quick, painless death, including humans. Personally, I would rather the man live off of his rabbits, providing he feeds and cares for them well up to the point he kills them and that he kills them in the quickest, least painful way he can, than he live off of food shipped across the country from some place where the conditions might have been less humane.

I don't really see anything morally objectionable about feeding live rabbits to animals or killing them and eating them myself. Rabbit stew is rather tasty.

Also wondering why it seems you feel this man is somehow evil for killing and eating his rabbits versus the person swinging through the drive through to pick up their chicken nuggets or big mac. Is it because bunnies are cuter than cows and chickens or because he fed them himself, then killed them himself?

Having grown up petting and naming and feeding several of my meals before it was their time to become my food, I guess I just don't get why it's less objectionable to have someone else do your dirty work for you.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Having seen such strangulation, there is nothing "quick" about suffocation.
> 
> If an animal is dispatched properly using a method that causes the animal to bleed out rapidly, loss of consciousness should (read: should) occur pretty quickly.


I've seen snakes eat. My SO loves snakes and has had quite a few. I've seen them rap themselves around a mouse and eat it. It's not pretty and it's not a painless way to go but I personally feel it's better then getting your throat slit.

Maybe my opinion has a lot to do with the fact that I would personally prefer to die from being suffocated by a pillow compared to having my throat slit. I just see that as a more painful way to go. 

Either way, I feel like animals have evolved to kill as proficiently as possible, including snakes. People, not so much. I have a lot of respect for a hunter that takes the time to make sure they shoot to kill so that the animal doesn't suffer.


----------



## Doglover65 (Aug 10, 2013)

Whistlejacket said:


> And yet, several said they went to races, therefore supporting greyhound racing with its current abuses and laws. I think several also said they had no problems with it, though I don't have the courage to reread the 10 pages to make sure.


Where im from you don't have to pay to go see the horse races. The only money you would pay would be for food and betting. No entry fee. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I've seen snakes eat. My SO loves snakes and has had quite a few. I've seen them rap themselves around a mouse and eat it. It's not pretty and it's not a painless way to go but I personally feel it's better then getting your throat slit.
> 
> Maybe my opinion has a lot to do with the fact that I would personally prefer to die from being suffocated by a pillow compared to having my throat slit. I just see that as a more painful way to go.
> 
> Either way, I feel like animals have evolved to kill as proficiently as possible, including snakes. People, not so much. I have a lot of respect for a hunter that takes the time to make sure they shoot to kill so that the animal doesn't suffer.


You have not seen many animals kill, then. They don't particularly care for limiting the suffering of the animal they are eating. In fact, many enjoy playing with their food.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I don't necessarily think that's true. I think it's important to have empathy and compassio n for other living things. Even a silly little rabbit.
> 
> My SO's father gets rabbits at auction and keeps them in the house and fattens then up and then takes them and slits their throat as they make awful crying noises.
> 
> ...


I used to keep large constrictors... It takes minutes do die in many cases. If the snake does not wrap it up just right, it can be quite a few minutes.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I've seen snakes eat. My SO loves snakes and has had quite a few. I've seen them rap themselves around a mouse and eat it. It's not pretty and it's not a painless way to go but I personally feel it's better then getting your throat slit.
> 
> Maybe my opinion has a lot to do with the fact that I would personally prefer to die from being suffocated by a pillow compared to having my throat slit. I just see that as a more painful way to go.
> 
> Either way, I feel like animals have evolved to kill as proficiently as possible, including snakes. People, not so much. I have a lot of respect for a hunter that takes the time to make sure they shoot to kill so that the animal doesn't suffer.


A throat slit is FAST... Only think that is faster is a blow to the brain.... Either with a bullet or a blunt object. 

And watching a small snake eat a mouse is very different than a 10 foot retic taking a 8 pound rabbit.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

So...to recap. Greyhounds are rapists that need to be trapped and snakes are ethical creatures that go on hunting trips with Senators.

Just keeping track.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Maybe my opinion has a lot to do with the fact that I would personally prefer to die from being suffocated by a pillow compared to having my throat slit.


Sweet baby jesus...suffocating can take a REALLY long time...a lot longer than exsanguination! I certainly wouldn't want to be smothered x.x


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Without being TOO graphic.... 
As far as dispatching domestic animals goes... 
Rabbits, done right go easy. And pretty quietly.
Lambs are probably the worst. And goats are not far behind. 
Cows can be easy or not. 
Hogs are smarter than all the other food animals by a SIGNIFICANT amount. And they seem to know what is coming. It can be loud.



packetsmom said:


> So...to recap. Greyhounds are rapists that need to be trapped and snakes are ethical creatures that go on hunting trips with Senators.
> 
> Just keeping track.


Yes but..... Greyhounds typically only rape at bull fights.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Everything makes awful crying noises when you kill it to eat it. Unless you want to be a vegan, it's part of life. Most living creatures don't really want to be killed and eaten. Few creatures are lucky enough to have a quick, painless death, including humans. Personally, I would rather the man live off of his rabbits, providing he feeds and cares for them well up to the point he kills them and that he kills them in the quickest, least painful way he can, than he live off of food shipped across the country from some place where the conditions might have been less humane.
> 
> I don't really see anything morally objectionable about feeding live rabbits to animals or killing them and eating them myself. Rabbit stew is rather tasty.
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily think he's evil. I just find it weird. He just killed chickens today and my SO was telling me about how they were holding it down in the sink till it stopped kicking, after it's head was cut off. Bothered me about the same amount as the rabbit thing. 

I'm actually interested in getting him to get me some rabbits for my dog. It's not that I don't like it. I just personally couldn't do it myself. I couldn't slit a rabbits throat out cut off a chickens head. I know where my meat comes from and I'm entirely thankful for it but no... I can't do it. 

I've had dead ducks hung on my back deck. I've had a deer hung up on a tree branch in my back yard being skinned. What bothered me was when the guy drove down the road with the deer tied to the back to get rid of the fur and skin. Bugged me out a little. 

My cousins hunt. I love deer meat. My uncle has deer heads, bear skins, and turkey butts( hard to explain but they look beautiful as a wall decor action) on his walls in his house in Montana. 

Trust me, I'm really not all that close minded.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Doglover65 said:


> Where im from you don't have to pay to go see the horse races. The only money you would pay would be for food and betting. No entry fee.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Some tracks you pay.... And most tracks you pay to get into the better sections and clubs. 

I tend to pay to go into one of the clubs within the track at both the ponies and the puppies. That way I can get a nice server to keep my Bombay Sapphire and Tonics coming.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I don't necessarily think he's evil. I just find it weird. He just killed chickens today and my SO was telling me about how they were holding it down in the sink till it stopped kicking, after it's head was cut off. Bothered me about the same amount as the rabbit thing.
> 
> I'm actually interested in getting him to get me some rabbits for my dog. It's not that I don't like it. I just personally couldn't do it myself. I couldn't slit a rabbits throat out cut off a chickens head. I know where my meat comes from and I'm entirely thankful for it but no... I can't do it.
> 
> ...


Killing chickens isn't even the worst part. Removing the feathers? Yuck. 

Still wondering about what all this has to do with greyhounds, though, besides the fact that some people are breaking regulations and releasing greyhounds on live rabbits, which, even so...bothers me far less than a lot of things. If my dog caught a rabbit, I'd let him keep it. :/


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Sweet baby jesus...suffocating can take a REALLY long time...a lot longer than exsanguination! I certainly wouldn't want to be smothered x.x


Really? It always seemed pretty quick. Maybe it's because I've never seen the death of something with its throat cut in real life. They always make those scenes last forever in the movies lol. 

Maybe drowning.. Take a couple gulps and your done. Or smoke inhalation perhaps. That's has to be better then the throat cutting thing lol.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I don't necessarily think he's evil. I just find it weird. He just killed chickens today and my SO was telling me about how they were holding it down in the sink till it stopped kicking, after it's head was cut off. Bothered me about the same amount as the rabbit thing.
> 
> I'm actually interested in getting him to get me some rabbits for my dog. It's not that I don't like it. I just personally couldn't do it myself. I couldn't slit a rabbits throat out cut off a chickens head. I know where my meat comes from and I'm entirely thankful for it but no... I can't do it.
> 
> ...


Chickens And most other birds ALWAYS do that. NO way to get around it. Heck most folks just let them run and flop around.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Really? It always seemed pretty quick. Maybe it's because I've never seen the death of something with its throat cut in real life. They always make those scenes last forever in the movies lol.
> 
> Maybe drowning.. Take a couple gulps and your done. Or smoke inhalation perhaps. That's has to be better then the throat cutting thing lol.




Drowning ain't pretty or quick... Suffocation is not easy or quick.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Killing chickens isn't even the worst part. Removing the feathers? Yuck.
> 
> Still wondering about what all this has to do with greyhounds, though, besides the fact that some people are breaking regulations and releasing greyhounds on live rabbits, which, even so...bothers me far less than a lot of things. If my dog caught a rabbit, I'd let him keep it. :/


See for me it's about unnecessary torment. It's one thing for a snake to eat. That's entirely natural. Same for a person, although I think it takes a certain mindset, that I don't personally have, to do that. When it comes to using a rabbit to train dogs and that rabbit is obviously scared and in pain... It just doesn't seem right to me. 

It's like someone shooting squirrels or birds with a bb gun for fun. Go ahead kill the squirrel and eat it... Don't torment the poor thing though.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> So...to recap. Greyhounds are rapists that need to be trapped and snakes are ethical creatures that go on hunting trips with Senators.
> 
> Just keeping track.


Phew. I almost got lost again. 

Anyone ever watched the nature channel and have seen a lion try to kill a wildebeest? It takes a while for that neck hold to kill the poor beast. Slitting the throat of food animals is very common in slaughter houses. It is often considered both healthier for the human and the animal if they are raised in a non commercial setting. It also cuts down on pollution from trucks carrying both live animals and frozen meat across the country. It's also generally more humane to do a "home slaughter". The food animal is often fed better and almost always has a pasture or appropriately sized enclosure. 

Better to do it yourself. Even if its sad. I worked on a farm for a time in high school. I really do respect people who raise for themselves.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Drowning ain't pretty or quick... Suffocation is not easy or quick.


No but that's not what I was saying. In comparison to having your throat slit though. 

I'll use this for an example, back in the day it was pretty common to drown kittens in a bucket right? My own grandfather did it. Do you think that it would have been better for them to slit the kittens throats instead? 

Not like I agree with either one but I'm just using that as an example. It's a lot cheaper to butchers rabbits yourself. So let's say, in the future, I wanted to buy rabbits and kill them to feed my dog. Would it be better for me to cut it's throat or drown it? Which would be less painful and a faster death?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> See for me it's about unnecessary torment. It's one thing for a snake to eat. That's entirely natural. Same for a person, although I think it takes a certain mindset, that I don't personally have, to do that. When it comes to using a rabbit to train dogs and that rabbit is obviously scared and in pain... It just doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> It's like someone shooting squirrels or birds with a bb gun for fun. Go ahead kill the squirrel and eat it... Don't torment the poor thing though.


Life is FULL of torment in one form or another. When most humans die, it isn't quick or painless. When wild rabbits die, the time it takes varies widely, but usually they are pretty scared and running for their lives before one predator or another catches them and kills them. Rabbits are prey animals. That's just kind of how it goes for them. One moment you're munching on a carrot, the next you're hopping for your life from all manner of predators. It's the reason they reproduce so rapidly and easily.

A rabbit that runs from a greyhound before being eaten arguably suffers no more than a rabbit running from a lynx or a coyote. I highly doubt anyone is sticking bamboo slivers under the rabbit's toenails or subjecting it to Chinese water torture before they let it loose for a dog.



xoxluvablexox said:


> No but that's not what I was saying. In comparison to having your throat slit though.
> 
> I'll use this for an example, back in the day it was pretty common to down kittens in a bucket right? My own grandfather did it. Do you think that it would have been better for them to slit the kittens throats instead?
> 
> Not like I agree with either one but I'm just using that as an example. It's a lot cheaper to butchers rabbits yourself. So let's say, in the future, I wanted to buy rabbits and kill them to feed my dog. Would it be better for me to cut it's throat or down it? Which would be less painful and a faster death?


Cutting its throat, hands down. Drowning is a pretty bad way to go.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

So at least one of you is okay with taking a defenseless animal that feels pain and terror, breaking its legs, strapping it to a whirligig and allowing multiple dogs to rip it apart until it dies...all to train a dog to race....(shakes head and walks away)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> No but that's not what I was saying. In comparison to having your throat slit though.
> 
> I'll use this for an example, back in the day it was pretty common to drown kittens in a bucket right? My own grandfather did it. Do you think that it would have been better for them to slit the kittens throats instead?
> 
> Not like I agree with either one but I'm just using that as an example. It's a lot cheaper to butchers rabbits yourself. So let's say, in the future, I wanted to buy rabbits and kill them to feed my dog. Would it be better for me to cut it's throat or drown it? Which would be less painful and a faster death?


throat slit cuts off blood to the brain IMMEDIATELY (if done right) No blood and no oxygen to the brain consciousness is gone QUICK.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> So at least one of you is okay with taking a defenseless animal that feels pain and terror, breaking its legs, strapping it to a whirligig and allowing multiple dogs to rip it apart until it dies...all to train a dog to race....(shakes head and walks away)


Who is that?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

So Cavalier said:


> So at least one of you is okay with taking a defenseless animal that feels pain and terror, breaking its legs, strapping it to a whirligig and allowing multiple dogs to rip it apart until it dies...all to train a dog to race....(shakes head and walks away)


Yeah...I missed the part where anyone agreed to that. I said I didn't care if they had greyhounds chase live rabbits. I've never seen a whirligig.

It's amazing how quick everyone is to jump to the worst conclusion about perfect strangers. (shakes head and walks away)

Besides the fact, if it's what I'm picturing, how the heck would that teach a greyhound to run after a lure?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

My snakes eat prekilled food, for the safety of my snakes.. But some snakes absolutely will not eat unless fed live so i understand it i just prefer prekilled..And i wouldn't consider death by snake a quick death, i think if i was a rabbit i'd rather be killed by a dog than a snake


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Packetsmom, 

Lmao, I have to admit that's a "delightful" way to put it. I've heard the cry of many a rabbit in the woods behind my parent's house. They're adorable little things and I bring then out old lettuce. They live in the wood pile. Every once in a while I'll be out on the deck and I'll hear that sound and I know one of "My" bunnies have been eaten. 

It's sad but it is nature. 

When my dad had chickens, when I was really young, more were eaten by the foxes behind my house then my own family. Actually they're having a squirrel shortage right now and we're pretty sure the foxes are killing them all. 

Not going to lie, despite what savage killer those foxes are, I can't help but get teary eyed at the sight of one flattened on the side of the road. 

Pretty sure I'll be going to a butcher either way but that's interesting. I always assumed suffocation from drowning would be less painful and even quicker. Hm, good to know I guess.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm not quite the hardbutt I come off as. I usually cry when I kill something to eat it. I take a moment before field dressing to just lay my hand on the animal and be with it. Most of the hunters I know don't cry, but they have small rituals that are somewhat similar. I have a few books on ethical hunting and there are some stories in those books that bring tears to my eyes of the lengths some hunters have gone to honor the animals they hunt and to be able to feel they've done things in a way that fits with their own morals.

LOL...and in this thread, I've been accused of advocating the torture of rabbits, of supporting people no better than rapists and child molesters, of being heartless and insensitive to the suffering of animals. I find that kind of ironic considering the lifestyle I live and how much thought has gone into it and how much of that has to do with my feelings about animals.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Only whirligigs I know about are those little bugs that skitter around on the top of the pond.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> I'm not quite the hardbutt I come off as. I usually cry when I kill something to eat it. I take a moment before field dressing to just lay my hand on the animal and be with it. Most of the hunters I know don't cry, but they have small rituals that are somewhat similar. I have a few books on ethical hunting and there are some stories in those books that bring tears to my eyes of the lengths some hunters have gone to honor the animals they hunt and to be able to feel they've done things in a way that fits with their own morals.
> 
> LOL...and in this thread, I've been accused of advocating the torture of rabbits, of supporting people no better than rapists and child molesters, of being heartless and insensitive to the suffering of animals. I find that kind of ironic considering the lifestyle I live and how much thought has gone into it and how much of that has to do with my feelings about animals.


I'm really the type of person that tries to be open minded. There are some things that I find cruel or that I don't like but I try to see both side of things. I think I've made that pretty clear in my previous post. Although I might not personally be the type of person that can kill an animal I understand it. I've lived around it my whole life so that probably had a lot to do with it. 

I mentioned in another comment on this thread about how in some cultures, think Indian and Native American, it's common to pray to or thank the animal you killed for giving it's life. I absolutely love that. It's really a beautiful thing and I'm glad to hear it's common for hunters outside of those cultures do similar things.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I would like to we it policed a lot better then it is, similar to the at horse racing is policed. There is a vet at the track all the time "policing" the track making sure the horses get the care they need.

But most trainers know the old adage: good treatment may not make a slow horse run faster, but bad treatment can sure make a fast horse slow ... I'm sure it's the same with greyhounds.

I just wish the "leftovers" were treated more like washout racehorses. Many QH's who washout become barrel horses, there is a HUGE market for sound, OOT QH's for barrels. Also many OOTTB's make wonderful hunters, hunter jumpers & show jumpers.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I would like to we it policed a lot better then it is, similar to the at horse racing is policed. There is a vet at the track all the time "policing" the track making sure the horses get the care they need.
> 
> But most trainers know the old adage: good treatment may not make a slow horse run faster, but bad treatment can sure make a fast horse slow ... I'm sure it's the same with greyhounds.
> 
> I just wish the "leftovers" were treated more like washout racehorses. Many QH's who washout become barrel horses, there is a HUGE market for sound, OOT QH's for barrels. Also many OOTTB's make wonderful hunters, hunter jumpers & show jumpers.


There are vets at the tracks when they are open.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Many animals continue to twitch, move, run, etc once they are dispatched. It's just the nervous system shutting down.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Many animals continue to twitch, move, run, etc once they are dispatched. It's just the nervous system shutting down.



This.... If you shoot something and get to it quick. (typical practice is to wait a few minutes after you shoot a large animal when hunting to let it go down and stay down. But sometimes you need to get to them quick) and it is laying perfectly still, you BETTER be careful. Especially if it is something that can hurt you. Laying still right after the shot is a good sign it is still alive.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Laying still right after the shot is a good sign it is still alive.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGs-0EdfqSQ


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm not sure why this thread has taken off down the side of butchering animals but here's my ten cents on that subject.

Personally I have butchered chickens and ducks for my table. I have also stood with many horses whilst the hunts man put a bolt to its head. Running a large equestrian and livery yard meant we did get horses that were old and sick. 

For me, standing with a horse during its last moments was the kindest thing I could do. The owners often couldn't be with their animal because they were too emotional but they wanted the animal to have someone with them who they knew well. 

When something as big as a horse folds to the ground, it seems very violent. When something that big shakes and trembles on the ground, its alarming but I know and understand the animal has gone. It never got any easier but every time I stood with a horse who was being destroyed, I kept my emotions well intact until I heard the gun and felt him fall. I always cried because the death of an old friend is always a sad thing.

I once stood with an owner who was having her horse put down by a vet. The horse hit the ground and then tried to get up. It wasn't a clean kill (that's why I like gun men). The memories of the owner running away from her (not dead) horse, screaming and literally pulling clumps of her hair out will always haunt me. That this animal who was in my care suffered right at the end when it was our responsibility to make sure that didn't happen, will always bother me. If we slaughter an animal, lets at least make sure the kill is a clean one.

I'm actually quite a tough cookie. I was once arrested at a horse show and charged with abh for whipping a woman across the face with the very whip she had been brutally using on her horse. I wasn't sorry and after my arrest I was given a huge amount of support from the police and the RSPCA. 

I don't walk around saying, 'but the fluffy bunny and bambi are too pretty to be eaten. I'm no hypocrite when it comes to meat eating.

What I don't like and what I won't tolerate, if I have any means to do something about it, is what I deem cruelty to animals. That includes making an animal suffer for mans entertainment. It includes neglect and it includes some of the legal practices that still go on world wide in animal consumption. 

That btw doesn't make me some daft mamby pamby bitch. It just makes me someone who cares about animal welfare and was prepared to discuss it in hopefully an intelligent discussion. 

That discussion has now degenerated, as most do on boards such as this if they go on long enough. 

Nobody here is going to change their mind. Many people will of read, without contributing to this thread and will perhaps go away more informed about greyhound racing and for that reason, I'm glad the thread has gone on as long as it has. 

But the argument has become pointless and the poky sticks have come out along with the one line jokes from those who don't have the ability to debate in a sensible manner.

I certainly don't feel like I have lost an argument. My opinion remains intact and it was an interesting debate.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

I used to be a member of a forum about farm life and homesteading. 
Up until there was a thread about dog fighting and anyone who opposed it ended up being called a tree hugging, Peta activist, sissy (people who were not in favor of dog fighting were a tiny minority which is why I left that forum in disgust). 
The pain and suffering of dogs being used for dog fighting was downplayed and ridiculed. 
And frankly I have noticed this same kind of attitude on a lot of sites towards anyone who is in favor of animal welfare or wants to see endangered species preserved.

This topic is unfortunately starting to remind me of the other topic I was referring to above.
To be honest I don't give a rat's patootie if someone will think I am closed minded: but to me if you are not concerned with animal welfare and are fine with animals being severely mistreated, tortured and even killed you are a piece of garbage.
No ifs or buts here.

People who mistreat animals and do not care about their pain are not someone I would ever trust.
I have seen countless times in my life that people who severely mistreat animals have no problem mistreating people either. 
Funny how many sociopaths have started out with animal abuse.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I think I have formed my overall opinion after reading all these posts. (and boy, there were some doozies on both sides of things)

I understand and have no problem with hunting and such for food or for survival. I have eaten rabbit and deer on multiple occasions and where I live it isn't at all an uncommon thing to come across. That said, hunting isn't something I would participate in by choice, but I respect the people who do it as respectfully and humanely as they can. I do not agree with hunting for sport or fun, where the animal isn't used for anything afterward other than a trophy on the wall. People can do it if they want, but for me killing anything for fun or entertainment or bragging rights just... isn't necessary and isn't something I put any value in.

Personally, I would not support a sport where the animals involved were treated poorly, so I would not support greyhound racing. Yea, it would be great if they were all treated well and just had a good time racing but the reality is that it just isn't the case. Since there is such an easy alternative (just don't go and/or bet) which can demonstrate that I don't support or agree with it, I choose that option. I say that because there are other things I don't support or agree with (like treatment of commercially raised food animals) but at this time financially we have to take what we can get to put food on the table, as anything organic or humanely raised/etc is more expensive than we can afford. When that changes, I will be choosing otherwise. (we are also strongly considering raising chickens for eggs once that becomes an option to us)

Just to be clear, I am not saying I think the sport should be banned or outlawed or whatever. I am saying that as it exists now, it isn't something I'm interested in supporting.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

PragueRatter said:


> I'm not sure why this thread has taken off down the side of butchering animals but here's my ten cents on that subject.
> 
> Personally I have butchered chickens and ducks for my table. I have also stood with many horses whilst the hunts man put a bolt to its head. Running a large equestrian and livery yard meant we did get horses that were old and sick.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty much on the same page. I've never killed an animal but I would rather see an animal for food consumption, or even to be put to sleep, killed as swiftly and painlessly as possible. I've always considered a quick shot to the back of the head the best way for that. 

Not so much cutting the throat but since I'm not experienced in that matter I'll just have to hope I'm being told the truth as far as that is concerned. I've heard that cows are hung upside down and bleed out after having their throats slit. I don't know how true that is but it's always been a gruesome image in my mind and I've always wondered why they don't just shoot them in the head to it quick and painless but I guess, from what I'm being told, it's about just as good as a quick shot to the head and I hope that's true. 

My mom grew up on a dairy farm. Her family sold the baby cows for meat. I've seen these baby cows. They look like deer. I've seen them in pavilions with a huge board showing a picture of a cow with all the cuts off meat shown. Those baby cows get auctioned off to go to the slaughterhouse. That's where my food comes from. Sometimes, when I'm overly emotional, I feel like buying them all and setting then free in the woods in some deserted place lol. At the end of the day though, I still eat meat and I can only make sure I purchase meat from farmers who do the best for those animals to make them happy and healthy. I can only hope their death comes as quickly and painlessly as possible. 

As far as greyhound racing goes, my opinion can pretty much be summed up to this:

I don't feel it's right foot an animal lover, a dog owner, to support an event with so much corruption. I don't know why anyone on here would feel it's okay to go to an event where some of those dogs could end up being abused and killed in an awful way after its "career" is over. Even if you're not giving your money to the event you're supporting it, and everything that comes with it, with your presence at the event and I personally don't see anything okay with that. 

As far as other sports dealing with rabbits. As long as the rabbits aren't abused, having their legs cut off and being torn apart for training and such, and as long as it's a fair "game", I'm not really all that concerned about that.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I don't feel it's right foot an animal lover, a dog owner, to support an event with so much corruption. I don't know why anyone on here would feel it's okay to go to an event where some of those dogs could end up being abused and killed *in an awful way* after its "career" is over. Even if you're not giving your money to the event you're supporting it, and everything that comes with it, with your presence at the event and I personally don't see anything okay with that.
> 
> As far as other sports dealing with rabbits. As long as the rabbits aren't abused, having their legs cut off and being torn apart for training and such, and as long as it's a fair "game", I'm not really all that concerned about that.


In what manner are the dogs normally euthanized? I assume it would be injection like at the vet, maybe Johnny can chime in if he knows. If they are euthanized humanely then I don't think there is a cruelty element to the death at least (and how they live is dependent on their caretaker). There is certainly a senselessness as there is no need for them to be raced or killed. Although it should not be illegal as people need the right to kill animals humanely for their own reasons, I do find it objectionable to breed an animal for entertainment and kill it young.

I am also bothered a bit by the double standard applied to 'dog sports' folk and regular pet folk when it comes to rehoming or euthanizing. Rehoming or euthanizing a dog because its not fast enough or doesn't have the drive they hoped or is a little bit old is really no different than doing the same with a pet because their barking is annoying, they got bigger than expected, or you just want a new young puppy. In neither instance is it a need, just a desire on the part of the owner.

While I do eat meat, I don't want to support a sport that uses animals in that fashion. I won't go as far as to say its categorically wrong or should be illegal - but I won't be attending or spending my money there anytime soon.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

aiw said:


> In what manner are the dogs normally euthanized?


That really depends on the area where the dog races are being held. Let's just say that in Spain, the majority of racers at the end of their career do not die by being humanely put down with an injection. Injections cost money, and why would you spend money on a dog that has lost its worth to you? 

Mind you, racing and hunting dogs are not considered the same as a pet dog; they're considered tools. And you don't have to treat tools nicely, like you would do a pet dog. You simply discard them, get rid of them, once you have no use for them anymore. By whatever means you deem fit. 

One of the options is the traditional way: tie them to a tree branch and hang them. If a dog served you well by hunting well or earning you lots of money, you tie it to a high branch so death comes relatively quickly. If the dog was not so lucky, you tie it to a low branch so it will go through a death struggle that lasts for hours. The latter scene is described as 'piano playing', because of the movements the choking dog will make. You can imagine what it looks like. 

The dozens of galgo and greyhound rescue organizations who are trying to do their best to change Spanish people's mindsets and save all those tortured, neglected and abandoned dogs did not just appear out of nowhere and without reason. Many greyhounds in Spain originate from the Irish tracks. 

galgo aid Europe

I don't understand Spanish... but it should be pretty clear regardless.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I have to say that a LOT of people who are not so happy with their dogs' service seem to take pleasure in causing it to suffer (like hanging it from a low branch). I won't even repeat what I've been told happens to some washed-out hunting dogs. One of the milder ones I've heard is to chain it to a fence post on the far part of your property, close enough you can hear him crying (for your own satisfaction, I guess :/) but not so close that it would be annoying, and just leave him. For whatever--coyotes, dehydration, etc. If it's a worthless dog, it deserves to suffer, I guess. But I don't see any difference between that and a snared wild animal, so I guess I should just be tolerant of their lifestyle choices . 

It's really funny what people choose to object to. Strapping a zap collar to a dog's abdomen? Cruel and should be illegal (I could go back to where that was said if anyone wants). I'm pretty sure a snared animal suffers more than that. But that's super and fun and definitely shouldn't be illegal. So apparently the amount of suffering is not the deciding factor for some people. I don't know what is their deciding factor as to what's cruel and should be illegal and what's not.

I have no objection to raising animals for meat if they are treated well while alive and killed quickly and in the least distressing manner possible. I do not agree with tormenting them beforehand. That's inhuman. 

And:


JohnnyBandit said:


> I have watched the Rape of Central Florida by Disney for the last 40 plus years.


I think that some people, at least, are familiar with the analogy.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I have to say that a LOT of people who are not so happy with their dogs' service seem to take pleasure in causing it to suffer (like hanging it from a low branch). I won't even repeat what I've been told happens to some washed-out hunting dogs. One of the milder ones I've heard is to chain it to a fence post on the far part of your property, close enough you can hear him crying (for your own satisfaction, I guess :/) but not so close that it would be annoying, and just leave him. For whatever--coyotes, dehydration, etc. If it's a worthless dog, it deserves to suffer, I guess. *But I don't see any difference between that and a snared wild animal, so I guess I should just be tolerant of their lifestyle choices* .
> 
> It's really funny what people choose to object to. Strapping a zap collar to a dog's abdomen? Cruel and should be illegal (I could go back to where that was said if anyone wants). I'm pretty sure a snared animal suffers more than that. But that's super and fun and definitely shouldn't be illegal. So apparently the amount of suffering is not the deciding factor for some people. I don't know what is their deciding factor as to what's cruel and should be illegal and what's not.
> 
> ...


And how, in the world, is this a fair statement to make? So now, because I am ok with snaring wild animals, I'm supposed to be ok with this?

You know what...I'm done. Just DONE.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I didn't target you personally at all. I just said I see no difference. If you see a difference, why would it bother you if I make a comparison?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> *And how, in the world, is this a fair statement to make? * So now, because I am ok with snaring wild animals, I'm supposed to be ok with this?
> 
> You know what...I'm done. Just DONE.


*raises hand* Oh oh! I know! It isn't 

ETA: Also, did I miss the part where people were advocating snaring because they thought it was fun? I was pretty sure most people were referring to it in terms of survival/making a living/keeping food on the table.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ireth0 said:


> *raises hand* Oh oh! I know! It isn't
> 
> ETA: Also, did I miss the part where people were advocating snaring because they thought it was fun? I was pretty sure most people were referring to it in terms of survival/making a living/keeping food on the table.


Most trappers (fur trapping, not nuisance trapping, etc.) do it as a hobby. Maybe not in Alaska (not sure what pelts go for up there), but definitely Lower 48---there's really no way they could make a living at it. Maybe pocket money. The guys I know who trap for pelts are retired or work it in around their jobs.

But if you think there's a difference, I'd be interested in knowing how you see it. Why it's not a fair comparison. Are dogs "more equal than others"?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Most trappers do it as a hobby. Maybe not in Alaska (not sure what pelts go for up there), but definitely Lower 48---there's really no way they could make a living at it. Maybe pocket money.
> 
> But if you think there's a difference, I'd be interested in knowing how you see it. Why it's not a fair comparison. Are dogs "more equal than others"?


I said it in a previous post, but I'll do a brief recap here.

The difference to me is killing for the sake of killing/for no reason/for sport vs killing for food/clothing/an actual purpose.

I do not support hunting for sport/trophy hunting. I do not have a problem with hunting and subsequently eating the meat/using the other parts of the animal accordingly.

ETA: No, what the animal is doesn't have any bearing for me. The above applies to all.

Also to add again, I do not participate in hunting of any kind because I've never had the stomach to deal with blood/etc (human or animal). If I did, however, I would probably choose to do so vs buying meat in a store if I could. My boyfriend is not a hunter either but if he chose to do that in order to provide meat for our family instead of paying for it in the store from animals raised in god knows what kind of conditions, I would support him in it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Most trappers (fur trapping, not nuisance trapping, etc.) do it as a hobby. Maybe not in Alaska (not sure what pelts go for up there), but definitely Lower 48---there's really no way they could make a living at it. Maybe pocket money. The guys I know who trap for pelts are retired or work it in around their jobs.
> 
> But if you think there's a difference, I'd be interested in knowing how you see it. Why it's not a fair comparison. Are dogs "more equal than others"?


You come up here, live this life, and then you can tell me that trapping is the same as intentionally tying an animal to a fencepost to be ripped apart by predators.

Until you do that...frankly, I have no interest in attempting to explain the difference to you. If it sounds the same to you, then it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm pretty sure that people who kill their washed-out hunting dogs think they have an actual purpose. 

I don't object to the killing of fur animals (well, OK, I do, because I don't think pretty furs are necessary for life, especially nowadays), it's the suffering that bothers me. If they could provide a quick clean death (yes, the death may be quick once the trapper gets there. The suffering between trapping and death), it would be different.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I didn't target you personally at all. I just said I see no difference. If you see a difference, why would it bother you if I make a comparison?


Hmm...let's see, who on this thread was defending trappers? Small list indeed. But of COURSE you didn't target me personally at all. (sarcasm fully intended) If you can't tell the difference, then it's not worth it to try to explain it to you.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> You come up here, live this life, and then you can tell me that trapping is the same as intentionally tying an animal to a fencepost to be ripped apart by predators.
> 
> Until you do that...frankly, I have no interest in attempting to explain the difference to you. If it sounds the same to you, then it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.


I have a question for you since it seems you'll probably know the answer. 
I won't buy fur because I've watched those videos of people ripping the fur off of living animals in foreign countries. I don't want to support that. 

Outside of that though, in America at least, they kill the animal first I would hope. 

If, not likely but IF, I ever wanted to buy something with fur like a cute pair of gloves or whatever, how would I know that fur came from a hunter that killed that animal in a somewhat humans way and did so for their survival and used that whole animal? 

Just curious.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I have a question for you since it seems you'll probably know the answer.
> I won't buy fur because I've watched those videos of people ripping the fur off of living animals in foreign countries. I don't want to support that.
> 
> Outside of that though, in America at least, they kill the animal first I would hope.
> ...


Fur bearers aren't stripped of their fur alive because it would ruin the pelt. If you look on Etsy or other fur selling websites, you can find "humane" or recycled fur. I own a fox tail that is from an old fur coat.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

RabbleFox said:


> Fur bearers aren't stripped of their fur alive because it would ruin the pelt. If you look on Etsy or other fur selling websites, you can find "humane" or recycled fur. I own a fox tail that is from an old fur coat.


Yeah I was thinking something like thrift stores or second hand stores. I know I would never buy anything from stores like Macy's or anything. I won't buy anything made in china anyways but the video's I've seen of them hitting the animals against the ground and still having them be alive... Ugh. 

I was wondering though if maybe small stores, like this little store in Montana I went to, might get their fur items from local hunters or something. I wish their was a way to look into that. I wouldn't mind supporting a hunter who sells the fur of the animals they kill to eat. That's not something I would feel guilty about.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I love, love my fox tail and I'm thinking about another one. It's always cool to ask where their products come from. Many a store will be proud to support local fur trappers who do their job. Leaving an animal on the line too long can damage the pelt. Especially if they start getting picked on by a predator. If for no other reason, trappers check their lines frequently so as not to damage the product! And if for no other reason, trappers kill their animals quickly so to preserve the pelts integrity. Bloody and missing pieces = less $$$$.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Yeah I was thinking something like thrift stores or second hand stores. I know I would never buy anything from stores like Macy's or anything. I won't buy anything made in china anyways but the video's I've seen of them hitting the animals against the ground and still having them be alive... Ugh.
> 
> I was wondering though if maybe small stores, like this little store in Montana I went to, might get their fur items from local hunters or something. I wish their was a way to look into that. I wouldn't mind supporting a hunter who sells the fur of the animals they kill to eat. That's not something I would feel guilty about.


There is no certification agency that I know of that is similar to fair trade or organic. Your best bet is likely to, a rabblefox said, go with fur that is reclaimed from old fur pieces or with a small store that knows their trappers. Most trappers, like hunters, that I know, put quite a bit of thought into how they trap. Most do not eat most of the animals they trap, but the meat does not go to waste. It is fed to dogs and also used to bait with. I don't know many people who would eat a beaver, but the mushers often will buy the meat or the trapper will feed it to his own dogs.

As far as there being no reason to trap fur, well...for most people that is probably true. However, up here, we actually have winters where the warmest you will be will be in fur and synthetics simply can't keep up with the cold. People wear fur coats out on the street up here and no one throws paint on them because it's one of the best ways to stay warm. You can't really tolerate wearing a pair of beaver mittens until it gets to -20 or below...you'd sweat like crazy. I can definitely see where it would be an unnecessary extravagance and unnecessary kill elsewhere.

But then, I've only ever talked about trapping in Alaska. I know absolutely nothing about trapping elsewhere, but I'd happily support our trappers here. The ones I know do their very best with their traplines.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I'm pretty sure that people who kill their washed-out hunting dogs think they have an actual purpose.
> 
> I don't object to the killing of fur animals (well, OK, I do, because I don't think pretty furs are necessary for life, especially nowadays), it's the suffering that bothers me. If they could provide a quick clean death (yes, the death may be quick once the trapper gets there. The suffering between trapping and death), it would be different.


Honestly it seems like you're just determined to not attempt to understand other people's views toward the topic. 

No one and nothing benefits from the dog dying from whatever being tied to the fence and left to rot. That is why, to me, it is different.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I would love to travel to Alaska and I plan on doing so one day so I'll have to keep that in mind. Might be a good idea to get myself some fur products from sources that I can actually feel okay with. Otherwise, I'll probably never buy fur but I know for a fact that Montana was freezing cold at night and that was in the middle of summer so I can imagine that fur trapping there is also probably something that is necessary. I could imagine wanting a nice fur coat to keep me warm in the winters out there.

Either way, it's not like I'm all that ethical when it comes to my clothing. To be honest, I'll always choose a down filled coat because, even if winters in NJ aren't brutal, they can be cold. I've tried other coats without the down and I might as well have been wearing a tank top for how warm that stupid thing actually kept me. My North Face has to be one of the best investments I made for winters around here. I could probably fall asleep in a pile of snow with that thing on and still be warm when I woke up lol.
It's not like no animals are harmed in the making of those products so obviously I can't really be all that judgmental about wearing fur coats in Alaska.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

You know, oddly enough, I don't do much down up here, except for a nice down comforter on the bed. When it gets wet, most down products won't keep you warm anymore. I think people do pretty well with those micro-down coats, though. I use mostly tons of layers of synthetics because I can't afford a fur coat, unless maybe if I made one myself. When it's super cold, though, I've borrowed a friend's fur hat and mittens and it made a HUGE difference in warmth.  I made pouty faces giving them back. LOL


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I have to say that a LOT of people who are not so happy with their dogs' service seem to take pleasure in causing it to suffer (like hanging it from a low branch). I won't even repeat what I've been told happens to some washed-out hunting dogs. .


Some stats or data to support this? You do not hunt, I doubt you are around hunters, etc. 

Once again you read some wild story on the internet and it jived with your negative concepts about such things so you adopted it as gospel. 

But the fact is, you have no clue.....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Honestly it seems like you're just determined to not attempt to understand other people's views toward the topic.


That's kind of her thing


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I am going to try to shed a bit of light on a few things....

I was born with cow terds in my ears. My ENTIRE life I have been around hunters, ranchers, ********, crackers, good ole boys, etc. That is what my family is largely made up of. (despite many of them have advanced degrees) Aside from my dog friends that are from different backgrounds and my wife and her family. These are the types of people I grew up with and the types of people I choose to associate with. We are Crackers, ********, Hicks, Good Ole Boys...

I have traveled around the country for fun and on business. Met many of the same types of folks. 


And when Willowy spouts off about hunters doing this, hunters doing that, etc. I could find it offensive. In reality I find it amusing at just how clueless she is...

There is a thing among country people... I have found it the same in Idaho as it is in Florida, as it is in Maine, as it is in Michigan. There are certain things you just do not do... Lines you do not cross...
And one thing you absolutely do not do, is disrespect a man's dog. You are better off calling his Momma a whore, than saying his dog is sorry. You are better off smacking his kid one time than taking a switch to his dog. 

Anyone doubts me, go up to a good oh boy and tell him his dog is sorry and sucks eggs... But be prepared for a butt whipping. 


Chew on that while I expand on some other issues....


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am going to try to shed a bit of light on a few things....
> 
> I was born with cow terds in my ears. My ENTIRE life I have been around hunters, ranchers, ********, crackers, good ole boys, etc. That is what my family is largely made up of. (despite many of them have advanced degrees) Aside from my dog friends that are from different backgrounds and my wife and her family. These are the types of people I grew up with and the types of people I choose to associate with. We are Crackers, ********, Hicks, Good Ole Boys...
> 
> ...


I know one hunter who loves to hunt ducks. He is also a sucker for any stray dog that comes along. He has been trying to find a stray dog to train as a duck dog, but so far, each one has washed out for different reasons. So, his family now has 4 dogs that don't hunt, but are pets. He didn't string any of them up even though he still bemoans the fact that he can't find a duck hunting dog. He is patient with the strays he takes in, most of which are goofy, half-grown lab mixes that proved to be too high energy for their owners. He makes fun of their intelligence at times, but it's with affection.

Most "*******" people I've known, including the Georgia man I work with up here who is always begging to see my puppy, have a deep and strong affection for their dogs. They can seem all tough on the outside, but you quickly see how soft they are in the inside whenever their dog is old or sick or they talk about something their dog did that made them proud.

I firmly believe that the people who are intentionally cruel to animals are a small minority in ANY population and that people, regardless of background or region, really aren't as different as we often make them out to be.

And yes, I am offended when someone tries to tell me what I think and believe based on what little they know of me online. I do not support torturing animals. My opinions about trapping may be different, but that does not mean I am some kind of monster who could care less if a dog is tied to a post and left for dead. Such a comparison really is insulting.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am going to try to shed a bit of light on a few things....
> 
> I was born with cow terds in my ears. My ENTIRE life I have been around hunters, ranchers, ********, crackers, good ole boys, etc. That is what my family is largely made up of. (despite many of them have advanced degrees) Aside from my dog friends that are from different backgrounds and my wife and her family. These are the types of people I grew up with and the types of people I choose to associate with. We are Crackers, ********, Hicks, Good Ole Boys...
> 
> ...




Same background, lived in more than one state, and YEP.

Does some abuse go on in these areas - YES.

Have I ever seen a HUNTER doing it? No.

They're not keeping their dogs as pets, but they're not stringing them up to die, either. Chains and dog houses, sometimes and some places amongst same hunters. More often kennels. 

And when that ratty old ******* or beagle stopped being able to hack hunting- most of them ended up snoozing on the porch and being loved on by the kids till the end of their lives. 

Every time Willowy says this stuff, I DO get offended, because it is SO STINKING WRONG. Not about Greyhound racing- I don't know anything, and what I do know says I probably don't like it- but hunting? Hunting in rural areas with ********? That I know. There are some differences in lifestyle and attitudes and the keeping of those dogs, than we see here. That doesn't make them cruel. It doesn't make them abusive. It doesn't equate to tying the dog out and shooting it because it won't hunt or it got old. 

That sort of thing is just pure rhetoric, hyerbole, and baloney.

Not saying rural areas don't have issues, with ignorance and abuse - I mean come on, I got Thud out of a garbage dump half dead and found Kylie in one - but note how neither one of them's a hunting dog?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Addressing the "double standard" between dogs in working kennels versus pets. 


I am not saying it is right or wrong. 

But if you have a hunting kennel, racing kennel, etc. Every dog has a job. Young dogs are being trained, conditioned, etc. You then have your core pack. Dogs in their prime. As dogs get older, they slow down. When a dog is done. Can no longer work, it is taking up space, creating additional expense..... If you need ten dogs in their prime, have three or four young up and coming dogs to keep up with your needs, having a half dozen old dogs that can no longer work or hunt is a BIG expense. 

So what do you do with them? Many people put their old dogs down. Is it cold? Yes... Is it inhumane? no.... Frankly if an old dog that cannot hunt or work any more and just sits in a kennel is it better off or worse off? 

I will tell you what my Grandfather did with his old dogs. He kept them.... But he was WEALTHY. And had plenty of kennel runs, and plenty of kennel help... Me for one. So his old dogs had a good old age. Heck, I remember him coming out to the kennels with a big jar of cold butter milk, grabbing a bowl and letting all the old dogs out. They would go out under an oak tree and he would pour part of the buttermilk in the bowl for the dogs and he and the old dogs would sit under the oak tree. Sometimes for quite a long time. Heck sometimes he used to bring left over biscuits as well. My Dad used to say he and the dogs were talking about hunts they went on...

I will also tell you what I did with my old hunting dogs... I kept them. They ATE me out of house and home too. Which is a big reason I let my pack dwindle and fade away. 


But I do not look poorly on a man that puts his old workers down.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

Wow this thread escalated. What topics are there now? Hunting? Fur trade?
Bleh. I'll give my opinions on some of the topics that have been brought up.

Hate, hate sport hunting. Don't support it. Don't see how anyone can get a thrill out of tracking an animal with a gun who basically has no chance. My own opinion.  I'll support those who hunt because that is how they eat. But that's about it, sorry! And if you don't use every bit of the animal? Shame. Haaaate wasteful people.

Fur trade, to me seems absolutely pointless in this day in age. And I have seen many, many videos of animals being stripped of their skins alive. According to someone on here, that's not true? Were those videos photo shopped or edited then?

Canned hunting, can't stand it. 

Poaching. Don't even get me started. Even people who go against fishing rules gets me so upset. No regard to our ecosystem.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Addressing the "double standard" between dogs in working kennels versus pets.
> 
> 
> I am not saying it is right or wrong.
> ...




I don't know, it's not something I see a lot of and don't really approve of. Of course, the people I know who keep hunting dogs keep four or five, not twenty or thirty and frankly if you're keeping a large number of dogs for sport, I don't see how you're rationalizing not being able to afford to feed one more for a few more years and let it retire. But this is me, and my experiences. I don't judge it as horrible, I guess, because it's a humane death and that's not novel, but I'd put on my judgy pants about their priorities. I'd also keep my mouth shut.

I grew up with an elderly beagle that just sort of toodled around the yard being senile and loved on, and when I was in high school the old dog was a big old, scarred up, veteran of '**** hunting, and he moved from the kennels up to the house. The pup or new pups were always around and underfoot, being socialized by him while they were growing up, and up till Rambo was way past 14 he was the dog toddling out with them to teach them to sniff and stay on a tree in easy terrain and to keep him having fun. That's the set up I know - from very, very not wealthy, particularly educated, ******* hunters in the middle of nowhere, Virginia. 

The gun dog, as opposed to hounds, I know less about but still quite a bit. The folks with money, I don't know at all. Good old boys hunting for their table and right above the poverty line, I know. 

I will say kennel hunting dogs doesn't bother me. The big reason: Most of my experience is with hounds. The big downside to a dog outside is two fold, when it comes to pets: They're lonely, and they're at risk. You stick a pack of hunting hounds in a kennel, and they're not either. They're also not under exercised or understimulated, because they're being worked.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

After dealing with several hunting dogs who came into the clinic the other day and lived a life either in the kennel, or working. Wow, they... were not... good? Took two hours just to get them finished with routine stuff. Not socialized, very worked up and high strung.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> After dealing with several hunting dogs who came into the clinic the other day and lived a life either in the kennel, or working. Wow, they... were not... good? Took two hours just to get them finished with routine stuff. Not socialized, very worked up and high strung.


Well, not socialized I'll grant you. I'll also give you stupid high energy. That's... kind of what happens when you're breeding and using dogs to cover rough terrain for 12 hours a day at a decent clip and/or keep up with wildlife that's dashing through said terrain.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I must know different kinds of hunters. The hunters and farmers I know have no tolerance for "useless" dogs, and being that there are almost no options in a rural area for a dog you don't want. . .

Sure you can't insult some guy's dog but if he doesn't like his own dog for whatever reason, it's not going to end well for the dog.

I was going to post this to prove a point


JohnnyBandit said:


> I had a redbone bitch, Bonnie, that never bred and died in her sleep at 14. She never bred because while she was out of a great bloodline, she could not run a deer or hog out of a paper sack. But I kept her because she was sweet and comical. And I had no where to go to her. Only people that want Redbones most times are hunters. I sell her to another hunter, she gets a bullet in her head and I get a reputation for selling off sour dogs.


 but I see he already went there. 

And no. That's despicable. A dog doesn't play your games so you kill it. Even more despicable to kill an old dog who served you well and deserves a good retirement. If a man makes money from something his dogs helped him with, he owes them. if he didn't put money away to keep them fed through old age, he's a poor businessman AND despicable. 

Just ugh. Whatever. People will do what they like to do and I can't stop them. I'll still think (and say) bad things about them though.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Addressing "need"

Grandaddy hunted birds..... Quail. Bobwhites. We also used to run up to the midwest and hunt pheasants. 

Okay so Saturday is coming... We are going Quail hunting. If it is just a family thing.... Grandaddy, me, maybe Dad, Great Granaddy, Maybe a close family friend. 

So call it six hunters. 12 bird limit per person. That is 72 birds. If hunters are hitting 50 percent of the shots they take that 144 birds found. The dogs and hunters bust up the coveys early then you are chasing singles. For everyone to have a decent opportunity and good shooting. Not even talking a limit... 

Early in the season, if we were hunting in Central Florida South... As we often did, Temperatures might be pushing 90 before lunch. And a pair of dogs working well together can point birds for about 3 people. 

So we had four dogs on the ground at a time. Working hard in hot humid temperatures. If you get an hour of of the dogs, without resting them, you are doing good. So you take 8 dogs. You have four resting in the shade with cool water and four working. 10 or 12 dogs is not over kill. 


The next week A friend of the family has family in town. So we have 9 or 10 hunters. The next week, Grandaddy wants to take out the mens group form Church, Some business associates, etc. 

See where the numbers of dogs come from? 

There are parts of the country where a single dog or a pair can provide good hunting for a pair of hunters working slow.... But in the Deep South? 

Come January or February a pair of dogs can probably out work a trio of hunters. They are still wanting to work at the end of the day. But the heat and humidity wears the best dogs down. 

It can be worse with deer and hog dogs...

You put out a strike dog and two bay dogs on a hog track on a September Morning. 30 minutes later, They have the hog bayed up and you go in with the catch dog. The running dogs are done for a couple hours at least. You are contracted to take 30 hogs off a ranch.... You ain't doing it with three running dogs. *you need to suppliment your hunting with live traps, but... You can get by with a single catch dog. Because his job is like five minutes and he has time to rest in between. 

Does that make the picture clear?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I must know different kinds of hunters. The hunters and farmers I know have no tolerance for "useless" dogs, and being that there are almost no options in a rural area for a dog you don't want. . .
> 
> I was going to post this to prove a point but I see he already went there.
> 
> ...



What point does that prove exactly? 

Yea I said that..... But putting a bullet in a dogs head is not cruel? I cannot do it... But it is not cruel. It is VERY quick. Quicker than the pink cocktail. 

And frankly..... I do not think you really know any hunters or farmers....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Don't see how anyone can get a thrill out of tracking an animal with a gun who basically has no chance.


You're kidding, right? More hunters end up with nothing than they end up with a kill. And more shots are missed than they are hit 

My husband went hunting last year and didn't see a single damn deer. He was sorely disappointed, as was I. I am not of the hunting type, but definitely appreciate the benefits it brings for my dogs 

I cannot kill an animal with my own hands, but once it's dead, I'll help handle the carcass.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Addressing "need"
> 
> Grandaddy hunted birds..... Quail. Bobwhites. We also used to run up to the midwest and hunt pheasants.
> 
> ...



I guess for me, at that point, the issue is this - And I'm not judging in a serious way, because you know - shit happens and a humane death isn't the end of the world- just saying I don't get it at that point:

It's a family thing you're doing for fun. Because you want to. That's fine and all, but the guys I know are hunting because it feeds their family, most of the time, and sometimes for fun, but those same old poor ******** that I deal with, would come in earlier or hunt less or with fewer dogs and take less before they'd euth an old dog - and that's with the dog numbers and hunting providing a good portion of the meat on the table (well, the beagles, the coonhounds were pure recreation). It's a loyalty thing for them. The dog worked and did its part for them, they're going to do their part for the dog. Suggesting they do otherwise'd get your mouth busted among these guys. 

So my experiences are vastly different in that regard.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> You're kidding, right? More hunters end up with nothing than they end up with a kill. And more shots are missed than they are hit
> 
> My husband went hunting last year and didn't see a single damn deer. He was sorely disappointed, as was I. I am not of the hunting type, but definitely appreciate the benefits it brings for my dogs
> 
> I cannot kill an animal with my own hands, but once it's dead, I'll help handle the carcass.


Also: THIS. Seriously. I've hunted a lot. Squirrel. Deer. Rabbit. Birds. More get away than get taken. A LOT MORE. Dislike it if you want, but the 'no chance' thing, out in the wild instead of a canned hunt is - just not accurate.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Wild animals are REALLY good at making us humans look like fools xD


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> After dealing with several hunting dogs who came into the clinic the other day and lived a life either in the kennel, or working. Wow, they... were not... good? Took two hours just to get them finished with routine stuff. Not socialized, very worked up and high strung.


They are not pets.... They are not going to act like pets. But if it took two hours to do routine stuff... Hunting dogs are likely to be high strung and cagy... But Something is wrong somewhere.... Was the owner with the dogs? I never had a dog I could not give a shot to,


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I guess for me, at that point, the issue is this - And I'm not judging in a serious way, because you know - shit happens and a humane death isn't the end of the world- just saying I don't get it at that point:
> 
> It's a family thing you're doing for fun. Because you want to. That's fine and all, but the guys I know are hunting because it feeds their family, most of the time, and sometimes for fun, but those same old poor ******** that I deal with, would come in earlier or hunt less or with fewer dogs and take less before they'd euth an old dog - and that's with the dog numbers and hunting providing a good portion of the meat on the table (well, the beagles, the coonhounds were pure recreation). It's a loyalty thing for them. The dog worked and did its part for them, they're going to do their part for the dog. Suggesting they do otherwise'd get your mouth busted among these guys.
> 
> So my experiences are vastly different in that regard.


I also made it very clear that Grandaddy kept his old dogs... As did I. 

The people I know that put old dogs down depend on the meat to some extent. And they still need numbers. Down here anyway.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Realistically, a working huntin' dawg don't need to be socialized.

It's true. I mean, who else are they REALLY around aside from the hunter?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Realistically, a working huntin' dawg don't need to be socialized.
> 
> It's true. I mean, who else are they REALLY around aside from the hunter?


Seriously. Hunter. Family who lives around. Know how to ride in the truck. Not be dangerous at the vet. 

Not even just hunting dogs, but working dogs period. Not like they're taking walks around the block and going to the dog park or doggie day care for exercise, you know?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I also made it very clear that Grandaddy kept his old dogs... As did I.
> 
> The people I know that put old dogs down depend on the meat to some extent. And they still need numbers. Down here anyway.



I'm not criticizing you! Or didn't mean to be. Just explaining that the attitudes I've seen are different. 

The buttermilk made me laugh because yep. My grandpa did that. Down to going to the store to buy it for them in his later years, when HE was the retired hunter with an old dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Hate, hate sport hunting. Don't support it. Don't see how anyone can get a thrill out of tracking an animal with a gun who basically has no chance. My own opinion.



LOL No Chance?? 

The odds are with the animal... ALWAYS. (Other than canned hunting that you mentioned) But fair chase hunting.... The animal always has the advantage.... IF the animal had no chance, there would be NO thrill. 

And for sport hunting... What is the difference? 

I would be called a sport hunter. I hunt because I enjoy it. I eat everything I shoot. Or feed it to my dogs. But I am utilizing everything. But food is not the reason I hunt.... I have a good income, plenty of cash, I can buy it with a lot less effort.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I consider most of the people I know sport hunters. The meat gets used, but they're in it for the thrill, not because hunting is a necessity.

The only hunting I DON'T agree with is canned hunts (duh), and large game exotic hunting (African Elephant, Lion, etc). Go ahead, shoot a few Tommies or some such, but....

Yup, that's where my line is. Predator hunts where the meat really can't be eaten/used.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Realistically, a working huntin' dawg don't need to be socialized.
> 
> It's true. I mean, who else are they REALLY around aside from the hunter?


It is actually a bad thing if they are.... You do NOT want your hunting dogs going to strangers. Because most hunters are good folks. But a few are not.... Lets say my dogs are working a hog and I am 20 minutes behind them. The dogs come out to a logging road and a not good guy has been listening to the race (a race is the dogs chasing game barking as they go) He knows where the dogs are coming out at. He is there waiting.... 

IF your dogs are friendly, he can have them loaded up and be gone before you get close. Heck you may not even hear the truck. And does not matter if you do. Your truck is two miles away through the swamp. 

It happens.



CptJack said:


> I'm not criticizing you! Or didn't mean to be. Just explaining that the attitudes I've seen are different.
> 
> The buttermilk made me laugh because yep. My grandpa did that. Down to going to the store to buy it for them in his later years, when HE was the retired hunter with an old dog.


I did not take it offensive...


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> They are not pets.... They are not going to act like pets. But if it took two hours to do routine stuff... Hunting dogs are likely to be high strung and cagy... But Something is wrong somewhere.... Was the owner with the dogs? I never had a dog I could not give a shot to,


Of course the owners were present. But... it doesn't matter if they're not pets. They should at least be socialized enough to handle a trip to the vet.  They were transported in rates in the back of a pick up in 100 degree weather too.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Of course the owners were present. But... it doesn't matter if they're not pets. They should at least be socialized enough to handle a trip to the vet.  They were transported in rates in the back of a pick up in 100 degree weather too.


Well... as I said, I could manage any hunting dogs I ever had. Even it was holding them still for shots. But there are very good reasons folks do not want their hunting dogs friendly to strangers. Keeps them from being stolen. 

Crate or dog box? 

I used to have dog boxes similar to this.










Mine were not that nice. But got good circulation of air...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Of course the owners were present. But... it doesn't matter if they're not pets. They should at least be socialized enough to handle a trip to the vet.  They were transported in rates in the back of a pick up in 100 degree weather too.


In. What way did they not handle it, exactly, I guess is what I want to know. Because your description sounds like they managed just fine, if not happily - and got necessary vet care. 

As for transportation - standard. Boxes often have cooling fans, water supplies, SOMETIMES AC of some sort, or otherwise cooled (ice blocks in plastic are common around here). Plastic crates in the back not so much, but if they were secured down I wouldn't worry about that one, either. How do you think they get the dogs to wherever they hunt?

Because I found it interesting, this is the description of somene's set up for transporting dogs in extreme heat:



> My dogbox has the following:
> 1. 1-inch foam and Reflectix insulation on roof, sides, back, front, and doors
> 2. Slide-in/slide-out side panels that allow the dogs to stick their heads out
> 3. Perforated center divider to allow air flow from one side through the other
> ...


I doubt most people get quite that extreme, but I still found it interesting.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I am DYING for a dog box/dog trailer!!!

I really am not a big fan of pickups. Hard for me to get in and out of. But man do I love me a good dog box!


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

CptJack said:


> In. What way did they not handle it, exactly, I guess is what I want to know. Because your description sounds like they managed just fine, if not happily - and got necessary vet care.
> 
> As for transportation - standard. Boxes often have cooling fans, water supplies, SOMETIMES AC of some sort, or otherwise cooled (ice blocks in plastic are common around here). Plastic crates in the back not so much, but if they were secured down I wouldn't worry about that one, either. How do you think they get the dogs to wherever they hunt?


The crates were your typical plastic crates you find at Petco, rusty doors, not tied down, and hardly any ventilation, considering the tail gate was covering the front and they were packed in against each other. >.> 

They had to be muzzled, for one... and held still by two people. I dunno. Doesn't seem like it's necessary. I would think someone working dogs were also be able to socialize them for things such as vet visits? They didn't really seem to care... honestly. Maybe a couple of bad apples. *shrug* either way, I sure was not impressed for my first experience meeting hunting dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

In any case I assure anyone... That I did not fly on three airplanes, go through Canadian Customs, fly on on Float Plane, Out of the Tundra, above the tree line to hunt barren ground caribou because I needed the meat. I did ship the meat back. Saved the hide, had it tanned and had a pair of boots made.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> The crates were your typical plastic crates you find at Petco, rusty doors, not tied down, and hardly any ventilation, considering the tail gate was covering the front and they were packed in against each other. >.>
> 
> They had to be muzzled, for one... and held still by two people. I dunno. Doesn't seem like it's necessary. I would think someone working dogs were also be able to socialize them for things such as vet visits? They didn't really seem to care... honestly. Maybe a couple of bad apples. *shrug* either way, I sure was not impressed for my first experience meeting hunting dogs.



The carting to the vet like that would worry me, if only because the equipment was haphazard. Needing to be muzzled? Nah. Socialized for the vet probably isn't... ever going to happen, or be a priority and to be honest given the limited interaction of these dogs with people I don't fault them for that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> The crates were your typical plastic crates you find at Petco, rusty doors, not tied down, and hardly any ventilation, considering the tail gate was covering the front and they were packed in against each other. >.>
> 
> They had to be muzzled, for one... and held still by two people. I dunno. Doesn't seem like it's necessary. I would think someone working dogs were also be able to socialize them for things such as vet visits? They didn't really seem to care... honestly. Maybe a couple of bad apples. *shrug* either way, I sure was not impressed for my first experience meeting hunting dogs.


I had hunting dogs that I took to the vet Muzzled. And I said, hunting dogs get stolen. 

But the transportation seems shoddy.... You have to have proper enclosures.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*drools*

My dream:


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> *drools*
> 
> My dream:


My grandaddy had one that had 8 spots per side, a cooler, fans and held about 80 gallons of water. Double Axle.

More Venatlation thous.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

> I must know different kinds of hunters. The hunters and farmers I know have no tolerance for "useless" dogs, and being that there are almost no options in a rural area for a dog you don't want. . .
> 
> Sure you can't insult some guy's dog but if he doesn't like his own dog for whatever reason, it's not going to end well for the dog.
> 
> ...


Where is Willowy? 

I am still curious what point she thought she was making because I made this statement on a thread some time ago...

Because I kept a dog that would not hunt because if I sold it to another hunter it would get euthanized and I would get a poor reputation for selling a sour dog???


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

JB, that's not the EXACT model I want, but there wasn't a pic of the one I wanted. I only want 6-8 dog slots total, though. Quite honestly, I'm amazed more show people don't utilize them. Seems more cost effective than the ridiculous RV.

For me, it would certainly cut down on the amount of crates I need to haul to shows! It's beautiful <3


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I sell her to another hunter, she gets a bullet in her head



God help me, but I think she's claiming that her point was that dogs that don't hunt get put down and it's awful.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> God help me, but I think she's claiming that her point was that dogs that don't hunt get put down and it's awful.


Well it happens. A cowboy won't keep a horse that will not work on cattle. Same with some hunters. Others.... 
I never could... But I am a softie.... I won't condemn it. 

If she was referring to the method I mentioned..... Harsh yes.... Again, I can't do it to a dog or a cat. But I can most animals without so much at batting an eye. 

Our state wildlife agency recommends a small caliber bullet to the back of the head to humanely dispatch trapped animals, etc. 

People see shooting as brutal. But that does not mean it is inhumane


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Mmmm...caribou are tasty. Yummy, yummy Rudolph!

We hunt because it's cheaper, healthier, more environmentally responsible, and more fun than grocery store meat. Most people up here don't eat bear, but we do. Those that do mostly eat the backstrap. I think it's fine ground up, mixed with other meat, and put into chili. So, even carnivores can be eaten. The wild animals definitely have the advantage, much more so than cows at slaughterhouses. Even if you do kill something, it can be taken from you by a bear as well.

Beyond the meat, though, most people also hunt for the excitement and sport of it as well as a love of the outdoors. When you hunt, you're connected with the land and the animals that live there in a way you just can't be otherwise. You're no longer just a visitor to an ecosystem...you're directly a part of it. You have to learn the ways of the animals you hunt as well as the other predators in a way you don't have to if you're just hiking through. You connect with the land and with generations that came before you, hunting these same places before time.

To me, it's beautiful.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Yes most people don't realize that in some areas, like Texas, hunting is almost essential because WE have killed off or pushed out all the prey's NATURAL predators (wolves, bears, cougars etc ..) . Without hunters deer & the like would suffer from over population & decease.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> Mmmm...caribou are tasty. Yummy, yummy Rudolph!
> 
> We hunt because it's cheaper, healthier, more environmentally responsible, and more fun than grocery store meat. Most people up here don't eat bear, but we do. Those that do mostly eat the backstrap. I think it's fine ground up, mixed with other meat, and put into chili. So, even carnivores can be eaten. The wild animals definitely have the advantage, much more so than cows at slaughterhouses. Even if you do kill something, it can be taken from you by a bear as well.
> 
> ...


Not much more exciting that a hound in full voice out on the swamp on a cold winter morning. 

And I LOVE bear. The bear I shot I ate the entire thing... I had a rug but I put it out on the garage when I was going through my divorce from my first wife. It got Mothy


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Not much more exciting that a hound in full voice out on the swamp on a cold winter morning.
> 
> And I LOVE bear. The bear I shot I ate the entire thing... I had a rug but I put it out on the garage when I was going through my divorce from my first wife. It got Mothy


I'm sorry to hear it got destroyed  bet it was cool


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I have had bear! Our neighbor shot one and made it into a stew! I did feel kinda "wrong" eating it, but I'm not gonna lie. That was a friggin' delicious bear.

JB, though I have not been on a hunt, I have been to hound kennels, and I must agree with you. The sound of a full voice big bay is gorgeous. Can't listen to Beagles (too high), but a good Black & Tan or Bloodhound? Gives me goosebumps


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> I have had bear! Our neighbor shot one and made it into a stew! I did feel kinda "wrong" eating it, but I'm not gonna lie. That was a friggin' delicious bear.
> 
> JB, though I have not been on a hunt, I have been to hound kennels, and I must agree with you. The sound of a full voice big bay is gorgeous. Can't listen to Beagles (too high), but a good Black & Tan or Bloodhound? Gives me goosebumps


Out in the swamp on a cold morning when the air is then. The sound echoing off the water.... Nothing else like it.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> LOL No Chance??
> 
> The odds are with the animal... ALWAYS. (Other than canned hunting that you mentioned) But fair chase hunting.... The animal always has the advantage.... IF the animal had no chance, there would be NO thrill.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't consider that a sports hunter. Or maybe what I don't like I'd referred to is trophy hunting, idk that sounds right. Anyways, as long as someone is hunting animals that they eat that's what matters to me. That's what my family does. The thing that bothers me is the jerks that travel all over the country and world killing exotic animals just to take a picture with it and show off. Seriously, how ridiculous could a person be to feel the need to do something like that. 

Yeah, I have family that takes pictures of their young sons with their first kill. Yeah, it's kind of weird to me. At the end of the day though they're going to be eating that meat. What idiot is going to be eating the dead lion they felt the need to kill...


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

packetsmom said:


> Mmmm...caribou are tasty. Yummy, yummy Rudolph!
> 
> We hunt because it's cheaper, healthier, more environmentally responsible, and more fun than grocery store meat. Most people up here don't eat bear, but we do. Those that do mostly eat the backstrap. I think it's fine ground up, mixed with other meat, and put into chili. So, even carnivores can be eaten. The wild animals definitely have the advantage, much more so than cows at slaughterhouses. Even if you do kill something, it can be taken from you by a bear as well.
> 
> ...


My uncle is crazy about hunting but it's really sweet in a way. He has a whole field of alfalfa for "his" deer. He has cameras set up all over to watch them. He'll go around and collect the antlers that fall off. I mean, the guy really loves those damn deer. He kills them and eats them but he also genuinely enjoys having them around and watching them. 

Of course the other wildlife that he catches on camera and sees around all the time as well. I think that you kind of need to have a serious love for nature and wildlife to live out in the middle of no where like he does. The poor guy had run ins with grizzlies at the garbage dump, how many people need to take a gun with them when they go to throw out the garbage. It's crazy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> My uncle is crazy about hunting but it's really sweet in a way. He has a whole field of alfalfa for "his" deer. He has cameras set up all over to watch them. He'll go around and collect the antlers that fall off. I mean, the guy really loves those damn deer. He kills them and eats them but he also genuinely enjoys having them around and watching them.


That's actually pretty "circle of life" of him


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Eventually when I'm much older and more well off I would like to have a property with enough space for a deer field. I don't hunt but I am a novice photographer and deer are one of my favorite subjects and animals. One of my photos:










And this guy... Young and inexperienced, he was. I got within a few yards of him, lying in a stand of trees, surrounded by scent cover and the smell of doe urine and decked out in camo. I couldn't get a close up pic because the camera I had at the time sucked and the quality wasn't worth it so I just watched. After a few breathless moments he noticed me and raised the alarm and he and his girls disappeared in a flash. Couple weeks later I got some pics of him. He's the only buck I've ever gotten close enough to to take even far away pics, the rest keep their distance far back--older and wiser than this guy. I need to get out there again now that rut's coming around and see if he's still alive and well. He and his does always showed up in the same field every evening.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

DEER!

Its my pet peeve when people feed the deer. It has absolutely *destroyed* the forest up at our cottage and a lot of places are not far behind. No underbrush left below about 6-7 feet its just canopy now, which means bad, bad things to come. There are no more predators since the people came around and even _more_ deer because people feed them and support populations way beyond what the land can manage. Its really sad to see.

Kayota those are lovely photos and I don't know about your area in particular, but... something to think about.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't see a problem with hunting. I allowed deer and pheasant hunters onto my land when I had the farm. When hunting is for food, then I believe those animals are better off living wild and taking their chances with a gun, than being reared in factory farming where they have no chance of getting away.

I also know what fox's do if they get into a chicken pen or eat the tongue of a newly born lamb or calf. I think fox hunting is a necessary evil but not with horses. I have drag hunted many times in my life but never fox hunted and when those hooray henry's jumped my fences shouting 'tally ho' I knew that all hell was about to break loose. If I knew a hunt was coming through my land I would have to have every horse in the yard sedated, at my expense. The thing is with fox hunting on horseback, they are meant to inform you of their route but because the fox deviates, so does the hunt. If they came through my land unexpectedly then there were going to be numerous injuries to my own over excited horses and the vet was going to be spending an afternoon at my place always at my expense.

I like hunting dogs and from what I have seen in the UK, these beasts are well cared for and are working animals. I know what its like to have a working collie and I have looked after many working horses. I think if anything, a working horse gets a riskier deal because a good working horse is often a very valuable beast with a huge insurance policy. When the horse gets an injury that is perfectly treatable, if the owner believes that there is a risk that the animal won't be able to work again to its full potential, their friendly vet will sign the horses death warrant. 

But this argument, which isn't an argument for me, takes us far away from what happens to greyhounds when they have finished racing and how so often they end up in the underground world of unsolicited racing and poaching. 

This is just a whole other topic.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Wow this thread escalated. What topics are there now? Hunting? Fur trade?
> Bleh. I'll give my opinions on some of the topics that have been brought up.
> 
> Hate, hate sport hunting. Don't support it. Don't see how anyone can get a thrill out of tracking an animal with a gun who basically has no chance. My own opinion.  I'll support those who hunt because that is how they eat. But that's about it, sorry! And if you don't use every bit of the animal? Shame. Haaaate wasteful people.
> ...


Those videos aren't photo shopped or edited in any way. Generally the employees are paid to do that stuff for the PETA cameras. Which is sick. Beware the Animal Rights Activists... When you think about it real hard, it doesn't make sense. Skinning an animal alive is messy and takes a much longer time than skinning a dead animal. If you want a nice, clean product with the correct cuts, you don't try and hold down 13lbs of screaming fox. That's just stupid. The best way to get the absolute best product you can in am efficient amount of time, is to kill the fur bearer, then skin it. 

http://shanghaiist.com/2013/08/27/p...a_that_animals_are_skinned_alive_in_china.php


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

That's all well and good but over eighty % of the worlds fur originates from fur farms, not from hunting. Do you know why China is the biggest fur producers in the world? Its because international fur traders and fashion designers have shifted their business to China. China produces cheap labour and no restrictive regulations regarding animal husbandry. 

Fur has taken off again in the last ten years. We now dye it bright pink or baby blue. We add it to many accessories of clothing by adding things like fur collars and cuffs, fur purses and even fur dog coats. 

Animals bred and raised in fur farms are known to suffer from extreme anxiety and pathological behaviours. Offspring are often killed my the mother because of that stress. 

Its factory farming at its most barbaric and anyone who wears shop bought new fur may as well of murdered those animals with their own hands. 

I live in a country where its often minus 30 and sometimes minus 40 during the winter months. People here who seriously climb glaciers and do mountaineering, like myself, don't wear fur, they wear Gor tex and other breathable products that can keep in the warmth and keep out the cold and the wet.

Fur is for the fashion conscious and I say, if all those fur farms had glass walls, only the most callous amongst us would be wearing shop bought fur.

Edited to say, that does not include leather and skins from animals used for meat production. It only includes animals that are farmed for their fur and not their meat.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

At least they aren't being skinned alive. That's a plus. Glad I could clear that up. 

I personally only buy recycled fur. Local furs (trapped locally or bred in the US) are also an option if you are savvy. It's a little tiny big like purchasing from a puppy mill vs. a reputable breeder or rescue. My fox would have been thrown away with the eat of the jacket had not the artist reclaimed it. I don't buy puppies from hellish living conditions and I don't purchase my fur from hellish living conditions.

Good pelts only come from healthy animals. The prevention of eating future product (the kits) is of the upmost importance. I'm sure that some or maybe even many fur farms China allow this to happen but I know it is not the standard in the US. Losing product or having crappy value due to loss of coat and cage aggression is avoided at all cost. 

P.S. Isn't China's animal husbandry issue the same reason why I purchase my meat and dog food products with a big fat American flag on them? I avoid Chinese animal products as often as possible.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have no opinion of greyhound racing at all- don't know enough about it at this point in time. Meh

But one thing I wanted to comment on is hunting and 'sport hunting'. 

My family hunts, always has. We're Texans and I'm one generation out of people that grew up on ranches/dairy farms. My step-family- wheat farmers in kansas. Used to have cattle but they're mid 80s now so can't keep but a small head. 

Our family manages the land and hunts on it. My dad now has land on which he fully intends to hunt. Last year he bagged his quota of deer in 3 states. They do pick and choose who to keep and who to cull. They cull 'problem deer' with bad antler racks and of course go looking for some of the older and more impressive to mount as a 'trophy'. Last year they got one they'd been trying to kill for several years. He was very grey faced and broken antlered. He's now hanging on the wall. I don't LIKE mounting the deer but meh... I like having meat. Our family tends to share meet. My grandpa is sending us a whole cow and the deer always get distributed amongst us all. I still have venison in my fridge. I like knowing that it's from a animal that lived a good life and died a quick death vs my steak that came from the supermarket and I have no idea about what that cow's life was. I will take wild, hunted meat any time. To me it is FAR FAR more humane.

We also have to run herd on the hogs that have been ravaging the land here in OK these last few years. These guys are new in this area (all over Texas). Rooting up everything and just being a nuisance.

Also get turkeys and birds. And eat them too. 

My point is that most people I know that hunt and even keep/mount trophies are outdoorsman who LOVE wilderness and even animals. They may mount an impressive deer but that does not mean the animal goes to waste.

I should add that my family bowhunts without dogs at this time but has used pointers, retrievers, and my uncle has used a plott. We do not NEED to hunt to survive- we could easily just buy our meat. They hunt because they want to and enjoy it. We get meat out of it that we know was killed well and given as free a life as possible.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> My uncle is crazy about hunting but it's really sweet in a way. He has a whole field of alfalfa for "his" deer. He has cameras set up all over to watch them. He'll go around and collect the antlers that fall off. I mean, the guy really loves those damn deer. He kills them and eats them but he also genuinely enjoys having them around and watching them.


That is how all the hunters I know are. They maintain their herds on their lands. Set up game cams, feeders, keep track of what kind of population is in the area and over the years, cull as needed and take a couple trophies here and there. They're not out there shooting every deer willy-nilly.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

I have skimmed 16pgs before stopping because I need to get off soon. But I thought I'd just throw in my two cents.

First off I want to say I totally agree with PragueRatter, So Cavalier, Willowy, xoxluvablexox, and MountainDogs.

Secondly I thought I'd say that I'm not a fan of people hunting UNLESS it's for food consumption. I also don't agree with using a live rabbit for sight hounds to hunt. That rabbit is scared to death, its very stressful for them. I've seen shows where people will rescue raccoons from dogs being told to hunt them. Granted that raccoon is in a cage, but the ASPCA people who rescue them say the animal is very stressed. So to get in the love of racing for a sight hound, who cares about the poor stressed rabbit? Not fair to the rabbit.

Also I've seen some posters here compare wild animals hunting to sight hounds chasing a rabbit. It's something totally different. Wild animals have to hunt, they have to survive. We can't stop them. We can, however, stop our dogs from hunting rabbits. Why not use a fake rabbit, but with a real rabbit scent? 

As far as the OP asked, I already answered my opinion of greyhound racing on page 1.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> That rabbit is scared to death, its very stressful for them. I've seen shows where people will rescue raccoons from dogs being told to hunt them. Granted that raccoon is in a cage, but the ASPCA people who rescue them say the animal is very stressed.
> 
> .


What is this talk about a raccoon in a cage, for training? They do not train coonhounds that way. Nothing a Coonhound can learn from a raccoon in a cage. In fact putting a young dog around a caged wild raccoon might well ruin the dog. 

And have you every been around a caged wild raccoon? One that is agitated? Stressed is not a word that comes to mind. Those things can be like road raged Monkey on Crack..... 

I would be REAL interested in what context these raccoons were used. 

You use varying combinations of experienced coonhounds and raccoon hides to teach a young dog. 

At no point do you want to put a young inexperienced dog in close proximity to a Raccoon. Caged or otherwise. 

I have not trained sighthounds to course live prey. But I would imagine you do it in a similar fashion to scenthounds. Have a young dog run with experienced dogs. They learn from the other dogs. Does not matter what you are hunting. *****, Fox, Deer, Hogs, Rabbit, coyotes. Etc. The young dogs learn from the older dogs. And the big dogs are their with the young dogs at the end of the race to both protect and teach the young dogs. 

As far as using rabbits to train greyhounds, They do use a rabbit decoy. You seldom see it in a video of racing. But there is a fake rabbit on a track that runs along either the inside or outside of the track. So when the dogs are racing, they are really chasing a rabbit. 

I can see the value in using to live rabbit in the beginning of training, to bring out and develop the instinct and drive. 




Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Also I've seen some posters here compare wild animals hunting to sight hounds chasing a rabbit. It's something totally different. Wild animals have to hunt, they have to survive. We can't stop them. .


But why would we want to? Dogs were bred a certain way, drives were desired for a certain reason....

I am not saying every dog of every breed should do what it was bred to do. But Sighthounds are very possibly one of the oldest types of dogs. They have been chasing game for thousands of years. There is no reason for them to stop now. 
IF someone does not like it, they don't have to watch....


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

One day, we will all live in a world that has been sanitized and childproofed to the point where nothing left of wildness remains. We'll each march lockstep along the same worn paths and we'll eat everything prepackaged and synthetic. Any breeds of dogs that have any hint of prey drive or aggression will be banned and extinct. There will be no room for anyone to live as they please without intrusion into every intimate corner of our lives.

And this...will be called progress and a brighter future while the past is regarded as brutal and backward.

I just hope I'm dead by then.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What is this talk about a raccoon in a cage, for training? They do not train coonhounds that way. Nothing a Coonhound can learn from a raccoon in a cage. In fact putting a young dog around a caged wild raccoon might well ruin the dog.


Um, actually - My dad did in fact cage and trap racoons to train dogs with. Now, granted, it was a livetrap, they were held and then released again for the dogs - not young dogs put on a **** in a cage, but they sure were caught and held in live-traps, and then released. And yeah, they're not real friendly about it, and it takes a pair of gloves or good stick to open the cage, and the goal wasn't so much 'catch and tear it apart' as 'do what you do in a more open area and so we can see what you're doing and run that sucker up a tree, but. 

They were trapped, caged, and used to train dogs and it worked pretty well from what I can tell. 

The dogs were also occasionally called upon to kill the raccoon if a shot wasn't perfectly true (in the dark, through trees? It happened) and the '**** got knocked out but not killed, and there were some danged scarred up dogs. Since you can't really shoot into a pack of hounds safely.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

My dogs don't have to hunt for their food, either, but with or without me they do a danged good job of killing wild-life. A lot of people's dogs, do. 

I am totally confused that things like ratting in New York are okay, but killing bunnies isn't. Is this a case of cuter = more sympathetic = more wrong to kill? Because I promise you, the rabbit or deer population exploding is every bit as damaging to human habitation and life as the rat population doing so. People eat deer and bunnies. No one is eating rats.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh, I bet a LOT of people in NYC are eating rats.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

CptJack said:


> My dogs don't have to hunt for their food, either, but with or without me they do a danged good job of killing wild-life. A lot of people's dogs, do.
> 
> I am totally confused that things like ratting in New York are okay, but killing bunnies isn't. Is this a case of cuter = more sympathetic = more wrong to kill? Because I promise you, the rabbit or deer population exploding is every bit as damaging to human habitation and life as the rat population doing so. People eat deer and bunnies. No one is eating rats.


I was wondering about that, too, but I didn't want to bring down the wrath onto that thread as well. Dogs hunting and ripping apart rats = good thing, but dogs hunting and ripping apart bunnies = bad thing?

Oh well...I guess there aren't many gardeners on this site.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Oh, I bet a LOT of people in NYC are eating rats.



Its okay to kill rats... They are not cute and fluffy.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> Um, actually - My dad did in fact cage and trap racoons to train dogs with. Now, granted, it was a livetrap, they were held and then released again for the dogs - not young dogs put on a **** in a cage, but they sure were caught and held in live-traps, and then released. And yeah, they're not real friendly about it, and it takes a pair of gloves or good stick to open the cage, and the goal wasn't so much 'catch and tear it apart' as 'do what you do in a more open area and so we can see what you're doing and run that sucker up a tree, but.
> 
> They were trapped, caged, and used to train dogs and it worked pretty well from what I can tell.
> 
> The dogs were also occasionally called upon to kill the raccoon if a shot wasn't perfectly true (in the dark, through trees? It happened) and the '**** got knocked out but not killed, and there were some danged scarred up dogs. Since you can't really shoot into a pack of hounds safely.


Okay, I can see trapping a raccoon and letting it out in a specific location just ahead of the dogs so they have a hot track and a short race. 

Like taking a young child to a stocked fishing pond, so the child is sure to get good action and quick. Builds interest. 

The way Spirit explained it, that sounds to me like it is being suggested that you work the dogs somehow on a caged raccoon.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> I was wondering about that, too, but I didn't want to bring down the wrath onto that thread as well. Dogs hunting and ripping apart rats = good thing, but dogs hunting and ripping apart bunnies = bad thing?
> 
> Oh well...I guess there aren't many gardeners on this site.


Anyone growing plants for a living. Never mind the damage they do to themselves when their populations boom. 

Oh and trees. 










Here's an argument for the folks who object: Man is conscious, capable, and aware enough to take care of the environment and living things in it. We should, by rights do so. We have removed many of the top predators in the ecosystem, from a great many areas. Are we not now responsible for making sure we do not allow the entire thing to collapse, by allowing prey-animals who no longer have natural predators <i>not</i> have their populations explode and subsequently starve to death? Bullet to the brain, or starvation? Which of those two would you prefer? 

Never mind all the other animals who suffer when their populations explode to such level that they are eating EVERYTHING, and pushing out more delicate animals with more specific diets and habitats? 



JohnnyBandit said:


> Okay, I can see trapping a raccoon and letting it out in a specific location just ahead of the dogs so they have a hot track and a short race.
> 
> Like taking a young child to a stocked fishing pond, so the child is sure to get good action and quick. Builds interest.
> 
> The way Spirit explained it, that sounds to me like it is being suggested that you work the dogs somehow on a caged raccoon.



Oh. Good LORD NO. Yeah, that's not happening. No way, no how. That may be what they meant, but if that's the case the only real answer I have is just that: HOLY HECK NO.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Anyone growing plants for a living. Never mind the damage they do to themselves when their populations boom.
> 
> Oh and trees.
> 
> ...


Moose will do this and eventually, they will starve because they have eaten all the vegetation that is low enough for them to get. Even worse, they will deprive so many other species of things to eat and they will specifically target any young shoots to the point it takes years and years for it to grow back. In the past, this simply happened and eventually wolf populations and other predators would catch up. Often, though, the forest area would have to be abandoned in the meantime and animals would move to another area.

Now, though, the wolf populations are unstable and it's tougher for all the animals effected to migrate. So, we eat moose. The rules set up in most areas, in most years, protect all but the bigger and older male moose, which are easily replaced in the moose world. Together with the wolves, humans help keep the moose population at a healthy level. And...before anyone starts saying "well, if humans had never moved there, there would have been enough wolves," actually, humans and wolves have shared this duty since the first humans moved in here, thousands of years ago over a land bridge from Asia. We have been a part of this ecosystem that long and a natural predator here.

We also hunt and fish invasive species to help protect the native ones. Pike eat baby salmon and are not native to this part of the world. So, you can fish for pike at any time of year and in any way you like with no limits, whereas there are strict limits on salmon fishing with seasons and limits.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Moose will do this and eventually, they will starve because they have eaten all the vegetation that is low enough for them to get. Even worse, they will deprive so many other species of things to eat and they will specifically target any young shoots to the point it takes years and years for it to grow back. In the past, this simply happened and eventually wolf populations and other predators would catch up. Often, though, the forest area would have to be abandoned in the meantime and animals would move to another area.
> 
> Now, though, the wolf populations are unstable and it's tougher for all the animals effected to migrate. So, we eat moose. The rules set up in most areas, in most years, protect all but the bigger and older male moose, which are easily replaced in the moose world. Together with the wolves, humans help keep the moose population at a healthy level. And...before anyone starts saying "well, if humans had never moved there, there would have been enough wolves," actually, humans and wolves have shared this duty since the first humans moved in here, thousands of years ago over a land bridge from Asia. We have been a part of this ecosystem that long and a natural predator here.
> 
> We also hunt and fish invasive species to help protect the native ones. Pike eat baby salmon and are not native to this part of the world. So, you can fish for pike at any time of year and in any way you like with no limits, whereas there are strict limits on salmon fishing with seasons and limits.



I don't live in an area where I can definitely say that humans didn't play a role (major one) in the lack of the apex predators - in fact, I'm pretty sure we did. 

That doesn't mean the answer is to let prey populations explode to uncontrollable levels and further screw things up and crash. We've had some pretty good luck reintroducing some animals near me (raptors, mostly) to help control rabbit populations, and there are all sorts of restrictions on hunting deer but those restrictions vary based on the deer population at any given time. We rely on the hunters to keep those populations in check and not utterly wipe out the vegetation that other animals need for habitat and food. It's just that simple. We're lacking both wolves and the quantities of mountain lions we used to have. Something has to take the job over, and even if we DID screw it up, here? That doesn't let us off the hook for trying to fix it, or at least mitigate the damage, either. 

And those restrictions on when and what you can hunt do their job, too.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> Oh. Good LORD NO. Yeah, that's not happening. No way, no how. That may be what they meant, but if that's the case the only real answer I have is just that: HOLY HECK NO.


Well that is the way I took it... How else would ASPCA rescue a raccoon that was used in training? 
Because any other way, it would be loose in the woods or dead.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well that is the way I took it... How else would ASPCA rescue a raccoon that was used in training?
> Because any other way, it would be loose in the woods or dead.


I don't know? Trapped and sitting in the shade on the back porch waiting for the sun to set? I mean not a whole heck of a lot of RESCUE at that point, IMO, but we certainly left the things trapped for 12 hours or so, sitting somewhere quiet. Usually with a water bottle and covered to keep them from losing their crap in the cage. Not that... they really tended to, unless they were being poked at. (I caught SO MANY FREAKING RACOONS when I was doing feral cat trapping (neutering and releasing). The cats freaked out a lot harder than the *****.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> I was wondering about that, too, but I didn't want to bring down the wrath onto that thread as well. Dogs hunting and ripping apart rats = good thing, but dogs hunting and ripping apart bunnies = bad thing?
> 
> Oh well...I guess there aren't many gardeners on this site.


Well.... Anyone that has ever set out a rat trap, rat bait, hired an exterminator, and for that matter, put out bug spray has no moral high ground over someone that hunts, traps, allows their dogs to kill small animals etc. 

None, zero, zip....

This makes people mad, but animals that are cute, cuddly furry are not any better than a something scaly, ugly, etc. 

Does a bear or deer eating the fruit out of your trees have any more rights than a possum, rats, etc? No... If you are willing to see animals killed or removed for eating your fruit, the deer, bear etc is the same as the rat. 

I kill rats because they can spread diseases to me, my animals, etc. I kill squirrels because they are dang tasty with rice and gravy. The difference? 

Heck some things I do or do not do, drive my wife (and my mother in law nuts.) 

She along with a couple of others like her live in my house. (Leg span about 5 inches) There has to be a male around as well but they are small. 









I will not kill her or the others. There is NO reason. She harms no one, carries no disease, and she actually benefits us by preying on insects. 


Be honest with yourselves.... Would you kill that spider? I would not say you are wrong if that is your wish to do so. 

But that spider is NO different than a rabbit.....


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> Oh, I bet a LOT of people in NYC are eating rats.


That's disgusting. NEVER go to the Chinese section to eat, Chinatown... Ugh, I literally almost got trampled there during the Chinese New Years parade. Anyways, the food is supposed to be authentic Chinese food and let me tell you it taste like crap. I much prefer the Americanized version with cats not rats.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Uhhhh.... I meant like, homeless people. :/


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> That's disgusting. NEVER go to the Chinese section to eat, Chinatown... Ugh, I literally almost got trampled there during the Chinese New Years parade. Anyways, the food is supposed to be authentic Chinese food and let me tell you it taste like crap. I much prefer the Americanized version with cats not rats.



My youngest cousin and her husband spent a year teaching english at a small technical college in China.... She had a VERY hard time eating over there. We sent her care packages of boxes of Mac and Cheese.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Uhhhh.... I meant like, homeless people. :/


Well my folks volunteer with homeless people... I would say more likely they compete with rats.


I will say this... I would not eat a nasty city rat... But a rat in the woods, eating the same things as squirrels.... Why not...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well my folks volunteer with homeless people... I would say more likely they compete with rats.
> 
> 
> I will say this... I would not eat a nasty city rat... But a rat in the woods, eating the same things as squirrels.... Why not...


I'm pretty sure that squirrels are rats with fluffy tails. We don't call 'em 'tree rats' for nothing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I'm pretty sure that squirrels are rats with fluffy tails. We don't call 'em 'tree rats' for nothing.



If I take a mess of squirrels and made up a batch of my fried squirrel and gravy. Put it on a plate and put it on top of someone's head. Their tongue would slap their eyebrows right off their face trying to get to it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Be honest with yourselves.... Would you kill that spider? I would not say you are wrong if that is your wish to do so.


Heck yes, I would. *shudder*


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> Uhhhh.... I meant like, homeless people. :/


Oh lol. I didn't think you actually meant they ate rats on purpose because I just wouldn't think a lot of people do that. I was just thinking Chinese food because people are always saying they use cats instead of chicken and stuff and since there's so many rats in NYC.. well yeah. Oops. Honestly, I doubt that many homeless people eat rats all that much. Maybe if they're really desperate but I'm thinking pigeons would be better, maybe? I know someone who was living under a bridge around here who killed pigeons and cooked them over a campfire and ate them but I don't believe he ever ate a rat in his life... not sure though. It is quite possible. Plus, soup kitchens and stuff are all over the place in NYC. It's sad really, I hate that part of NYC..always makes me sad to see people living in doorways and stuff.

Oh and as far as the spider thing, nope. Wouldn't kill it. Same reasons really. They kill problem bugs. Every time I see a stupid mosquito caught in a web I do a little cheer. Hate mosquitoes though. They will be killed immediately without a second thought.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

So let me get this straight, now several posters (I don't have the time to go back and copy each one's screen name), have the nerve to claim that people who support animal welfare shouldn't have the right to get all worked up over the mistreatment of so many Greyhounds until humans stop killing spiders and rats?
Talk about a hyperbole! lol

Hey following your guy's flawed logic, we shouldn't opposed to the killing and abuse of humans either.
According to some of you here, a spider is no different than a bunny.
Well then, according to the most accepted theory about humans origin out there, evolution, humans are primates of the family Hominidae.
I'm not an evolutionist, but for the sake of the argument I have to mention this theory.
And in a study it was shown that Asian elephants and a small group of animals, including great apes, bottlenose dolphins and magpies, exhibit self-awareness too.

So according to the theory of evolution, we are animals too. If a spider is no different than a bunny, then a bunny is no different than a human.
You see how dangerous it is to think this way?

Now we have a topic with 20 pages and counting all because some people out there so strongly oppose to animal welfare.
And I find this truly tragic and disturbing.
No one here said people can not hunt if they are going to eat what they kill and treat the animal with respect, nor did anyone say we should all become vegetarians or vegans (not even me and I've been a vegetarian for over 16 years now and even before that I rarely ever ate meat).

Posters like me are merely saying: treat animals with respect & animals should not suffer just so they can entertain us, especially not man's best friend: the dog.
Dogs appear to be far more adept than any other species at figuring out what humans are trying to communicate to them. 
Dogs have enriched lives of millions of humans, they deserve better.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> So let me get this straight, now several posters (I don't have the time to go back and copy each one's screen name), have the nerve to claim that people who support animal welfare shouldn't have the right to get all worked up over the mistreatment of so many Greyhounds until humans stop killing spiders and rats?
> Talk about a hyperbole! lol
> 
> Hey following your guy's flawed logic, we shouldn't opposed to the killing and abuse of humans either.
> ...



No. We're talking about people who are saying that hunting game is despicable.

We're no longer talking about greyhound racing. We're talking about people criticizing/condemning people who hunt (and eat!) wildlife and/or allow their dogs to do so.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

MountainDogs said:


> So let me get this straight, now several posters (I don't have the time to go back and copy each one's screen name), have the nerve to claim that people who support animal welfare shouldn't have the right to get all worked up over the mistreatment of so many Greyhounds until humans stop killing spiders and rats?
> Talk about a hyperbole! lol
> 
> Hey following your guy's flawed logic, we shouldn't opposed to the killing and abuse of humans either.
> ...


No that is not what I am saying.... Do not put words in my mouth.

I said, killing a rabbit, or deer, bear etc. Is no different than killing a rat or a spider. 

And if anyone kills rats, spiders, roaches etc. 

They have no moral high ground over someone that choose to kill or allow their dogs to kill rabbits or any other animal.

We are not talking about mistreatment here. We are talking about killing animals. 

Your entire tirade about dogs enriching lives, communication, etc is merely semantics. 

That is what is disturbing...


You say treat animals with respect.... That means all animals. So you are saying that you would not kill a roach on your kitchen floor? 


And since you brought up humans.... I will address that... If human attempts to harm me, my family, or an innocent person.... I have zero issue with taking their life... I might feel bad about it.... I don't know because it has never happened. But I assure you, if someone is trying to get into my home, sticks a knife or gun in my face, attempts to harm me, or someone I know or even an obvious innocent, I would take their life without hesitation.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No that is not what I am saying.... Do not put words in my mouth.
> 
> I said, killing a rabbit, or deer, bear etc. Is no different than killing a rat or a spider.
> 
> ...


Uhm, you are the one who is having a tirade.
And do you even know what semantics means? It is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers.
I was not explaining what a word dog means, I was saying why dogs are so important to many humans all over the world.
So your comment is invalid.

Your example of why you would be able to kill a human perfectly explains why someone who although they have great respect for animal life, has to sometimes kill a poisons snake for example.
But even then one should do it as humanly as possible.

People like you will not stop with their tirades online until they can get everyone to say: you are right, it's ok to inhumanly kill an animal.
Because deep down they know what they are doing is wrong. That is why they get so emotional, start insulting or use hyperboles. 
This is not my first rodeo with the likes like you.

1 more thing, the title of this topic is: Greyhound racing.
If you want to talk about someone else, maybe you should start another topic.
Because if you chose to go off topic, this doesn't means we all have to as well.

Why people who oppose to animal welfare so much chose to become a member of a forum where the vast majority of members is an animal lover is something I will never understand.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MountainDogs said:


> 1 more thing, the title of this topic is: Greyhound racing.
> If you want to talk about someone else, maybe you should start another topic.
> Because if you chose to go off topic, this doesn't means we all have to as well.


No, it doesn't. But you're responding to comments in response to people who brought up hunting /specifically/, and addressing them in the context of the original thread. It is 20 pages in. It had meandered rather a lot. I'm sorry that upsets and confuses you, or you don't feel it's okay, but it's really quite common on internet forums.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

MountainDogs said:


> Uhm, you are the one who is having a tirade.
> And do you even know what semantics means? It is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers.
> I was not explaining what a word dog means, I was saying why dogs are so important to many humans all over the world.
> So your comment is invalid.
> ...



Not my fault you do not know the meaning of semantics. 



There is little to no reason to ever kill a venomous snake.... You are a human, you have two legs, you can move and avoid the snake.

I had no tirade.... And now you have had two....

And I am not asking anyone to agree with me... I am only saying do not put words in my mouth...


And Lastly.... I am not anti animal welfare. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
You do not know me, if you wish to judge me, fine. But you are doing so blindly.... .


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Not my fault you do not know the meaning of semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, hypocrite much?
You have no idea what mood I'm in and yet you have now 2 times claimed that I'm having a tirade. 
You are judging me just the same. 
No I do not know you nor do I wish to, basing on what you wrote on this topic. And that's the thing: on the internet I can only go by what someone writes.

And don't be silly, you can not always avoid snakes.
I have lost count how many times people where I used to live have been bitten by very poisonous snakes simply because they accidentally stepped on it.

As I said before, you used the word semantics in the wrong contest when you quoted me.

You may claim that you are not anti animal welfare, but everything you wrote here tells me otherwise.

Listen, no one can be perfect, especially when we come down to a microscopic level. 
All any compassionate human being can do is try and do his/her best according to each situation. And try to be as fair and as just as they can.


@CptJack, I was not talking to you.
Nothing here confuses me. I was responding to some of the comments made both regarding the original question and what certain posters have said on the last few pages.
Clear enough for you?
Again, just because some of you chose to go off topic, doesn't means everyone has to as well.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

MountainDogs said:


> People like you will not stop with their tirades online until they can get everyone to say: you are right, it's ok to inhumanly kill an animal.
> Because deep down they know what they are doing is wrong. That is why they get so emotional, start insulting or use hyperboles.
> This is not my first rodeo with the likes like you.
> 
> ...


I believe everyone here as agreed that any animal that has to be killed should be killed humanely. Hunters don't let their kills suffer for hours. Fur farmers and trappers don't skin their animals alive. Greyhounds _should_ be euthanized after their career is over, not hung from a tree or something. I think we are all there at this point.

Animal Welfare does not equal Animal Rights. I believe you might be confusing the two. Animal welfare is the belief that all animals should be treated humanely. AKA, if it needs to die (food or old age or not useful), it should be done with minimal suffering. Animal rights is the belief that all animals should be free. Or dead. Because dead is better than being owned or controlled by a puny hooman.


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> I believe everyone here as agreed that any animal that has to be killed should be killed humanely. Hunters don't let their kills suffer for hours. Fur farmers and trappers don't skin their animals alive. *Greyhounds should be euthanized after their career is over*, not hung from a tree or something. I think we are all there at this point.
> 
> Animal Welfare does not equal Animal Rights. I believe you might be confusing the two. Animal welfare is the belief that all animals should be treated humanely. AKA, if it needs to die (food or old age or not useful), it should be done with minimal suffering. Animal rights is the belief that all animals should be free. Or dead. Because dead is better than being owned or controlled by a puny hooman.


Ok, please learn how to read before you go and quote someone.
Show me where exactly did I ever write all animals should either be free or dead?
Please do.

So typical for people who oppose animal welfare to call anyone who supports it an "animal rightist". 
I see this over and over again, it's just laughable. 

As I have said since I first started writing on this thread, *animals need to be treated humanly. *
Not everyone on here agreed hunters do not let their kills suffer for hours, fur farmers do not skin their animals alive etc.. 
There are plenty of hunters who do let their kills suffer for hours and dito for other things you claim.
Besides, there have been posters who from the beginning have said there is nothing wrong with the current situations of Greyhounds.

And why should Greyhounds be euthanized after their career is over? Shouldn't the ones that are suited for adoption be rehomed?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

MountainDogs said:


> Lol, hypocrite much?
> You have no idea what mood I'm in and yet you have now 2 times claimed that I'm having a tirade.
> You are judging me just the same.
> No I do not know you nor do I wish to, basing on what you wrote on this topic. And that's the thing: on the internet I can only go by what someone writes.
> ...


If you judge people on what they wrote... Then you should do that versus reading into it...
Your words and your actions are not the same. 

The "the topic was" argument is an excuse....

as for animal welfare it is not what I say about myself, but rather what I can document about myself...

How much? How many years? of ACTIVE (not talking a good game on the internet. But actually working in animal welfare ) I can document. 

And there is nothing silly about avoiding snakes. If you cannot. Move into the city... End of story..... 

It matters not if I used Semantics incorrectly....

I did not "read into" what other people posted... You did....

I did not go on tirades.... You did.....

I did not judge people on what I read into what they posted.... You did....

I guess when you do not have an argument, attacking the person you are debating with is as good a tactic as any.....


And by the way.... That is tirade number three for you.....


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

MountainDogs said:


> Ok, please learn how to read before you go and quote someone.
> Show me where exactly did I ever write all animals should either be free or dead?
> Please do.
> 
> ...


Oh goodness.

I promise I can read.

AR (animal rights) people most commonly believe that animals are better off free or dead. I don't say you felt that way. I don't think you are an AR activist. I just think that "Why people who oppose to animal welfare so much chose to become a member of a forum where the vast majority of members is an animal lover is something I will never understand." is kind of a AR statement. I love animals, I really do. But I eat them. And I use their hide as my shoes, purse, and accessories. I do my personal best to make sure they come from respectable sources. Thats Animal Welfare. Most people here support AW. But they hunt. And rat. And trap. They do so humanely.

What hunters do you know that let the animal suffer? That seems to be something you kind of just pulled out of nowhere. I think there are very few people who purpose let their dinner suffer. I already pointed out why fur bearers aren't skinned alive. Its not practical and its stupid. So they don't do it.

Earlier posters have said that there is nothing wrong with Greyhound _racing_. The race is not the evil stalking the Greyhounds. I think they might even enjoy it. Earlier posters have said that there is nothing wrong with US legislation on racing. It needs to be *enforced*. Every sport has its flaws. Greyhound racing is far from perfect but it is certainly not the most cruel of sports. I love watching them run and would enjoy going to a track. 

If a Greyhound cannot be rehomed, he should be humanely euthanized. Not strung up from a tree. My stance on Greyhound racing was pointed out much earlier in this thread. Any animal that looses its use should not be tortmented. It needs to be rehomed or PTS. Sometimes PTS is its only option. Sad, but true.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> Oh goodness.
> 
> I promise I can read.
> 
> ...



Rabbie... Do not worry about it.... When someone does not have a valid argument they attack. 

Mountaindogs attacks you by suggesting you cannot read..... But then they CLEARLY read what I typed and posted but then use the excuse about the original topic. My posts in which Mountain Dog was commenting on were PERFECTLY clear. 

But they use the old "original topic" excuse.... If anyone has an issue with reading comprehension it is not you.....


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Rabbie... Do not worry about it.... When someone does not have a valid argument they attack.
> 
> Mountaindogs attacks you by suggesting you cannot read..... But then they CLEARLY read what I typed and posted but then use the excuse about the original topic. My posts in which Mountain Dog was commenting on were PERFECTLY clear.
> 
> But they use the old "original topic" excuse.... If anyone has an issue with reading comprehension it is not you.....


I try not to cry over my poor reading comprehension skills but it really kills me sometimes. :Cry:


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If you judge people on what they wrote... Then you should do that versus reading into it...
> Your words and your actions are not the same.
> 
> The "the topic was" argument is an excuse....
> ...


And you just continue with your little tirades.
Your posts amuse me, everything you accuse me of is something you yourself continue to do.

I did not use the "topic was" argument. What I meant was (something you obviously did not understand), is that you have from the start been saying things that made me think that you oppose animal welfare.
First you opposed to people who said there was a lot of suffering going on in the Greyhound racing world, then you said you want to go and watch Bullfights (to provoke PragueRatter) and then finally you said a spider is no different than a bunny.
So you said all this in 1 topic, and I addressed what you and some other posters have said in 1 message.

When all else fails start knit-picking seems to be your motto, no?

Once again you show how immature you are. If people can not avoid snakes they should all abandon their homes and move to the city, really?
Accidents happen in case you didn't know.
For someone who claims they grew up in country you sure do sound very clueless at times.



> Rabbie... Do not worry about it.... When someone does not have a valid argument they attack.
> 
> Mountaindogs attacks you by suggesting you cannot read..... But then they CLEARLY read what I typed and posted but then use the excuse about the original topic. My posts in which Mountain Dog was commenting on were PERFECTLY clear.
> 
> But they use the old "original topic" excuse.... If anyone has an issue with reading comprehension it is not you.....


You continue to make me laugh, I "attacked"? lol
Talk about being emotional.

FYI I am not "they", I am she.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

MountainDogs said:


> You continue to make me laugh, I "attacked"? lol
> Talk about being emotional.


Well you did say that I lack simple reading skills. Generally, that isn't the nice way to point out that someone (poor ole me) may have missed part of or misunderstood your argument.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

MountainDogs said:


> And you just continue with your little tirades.
> Your posts amuse me, everything you accuse me of is something you yourself continue to do.
> 
> I did not use the "topic was" argument. What I meant was (something you obviously did not understand), is that you have from the start been saying things that made me think that you oppose animal welfare.
> ...


I would go to a bullfight..
Still no tirades by me.....
And I used they because I did not know if you were a he or a she and did not wish to insult... 

Spent my life in the woods... Never had an issue avoiding snakes. The day I have to start killing them, is the day I stay out of the woods. As far as accidents go.... You probably did not see the snake before the accident happened. So at that point why kill it?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I just want to clarify something about this whole animal rights thing. 

It upsets me that people use that term as if it's this horrible thing. I get it because of the fact a lot of animal rights groups are absolutely insane. I also think people need to have a better understanding of people's extreme views about those things. I'm sure a lot of my views could be considered animal rightist. It's more then that though. 

There's a lot of cultures with beliefs, referred to as Monist, who believe everything is one basically. A lot of Hindu people are vegetarian and will literally go a little over board if they have to kill something. I kind of have similar beliefs so I'm the type of person that will try to catch bugs and put them outside instead of killing them. A lot of people would think that's crazy and I understand that. 

So when people on here say it's only upsetting for an animal to killed because it's cute or whatever, no. I try not to kill anything. I tried the whole vegetarian thing but I felt horrible, got really pale, light headed, it just wasn't good. So I try to buy meat that comes from animals that are treated as humanly as possible. I go to local farms and check them out. It's also a lot healthier. I won't buy fur, I personally won't hunt, ESC. 

At the same time I'm not going to throw paint on someone wearing fur and I'm very open minded about the realities in the world. I understand some killing is necessary and even if it might not be, I'm happy as long as an animal isn't killed for no reason. At the very least, eat what you kill. Be thankful for it. Respect that animal that gave it's life for you. 

In a lot of ways I feel hunting is better then buying meat because of how horribly those animals are treated. So it's really not something I judge harshly. I'm not that happy about how hunting dogs are treated like a tool or just property. It goes against what I personally believe is right but I'm not going to tell someone over the internet off for it. That's your business and your the one that'll have to deal with that. I just don't like it. 

In not a believer in the whole "free or dead" thing. I know most pets are completely content and happy being a part of people's lives. I don't think the fact that some people can be down right horrible to animals should have any impact on the overall ownership of animals when there are amazing people who treat their animals as good as family. So in that way I'm not very animal rightist. 

I do think that people need to have a little more respect for living things though. Just because it's ugly and gross doesn't mean you should squish it with your shoe. Get a paper towel and put it outside. It's not that hard lol.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Luvable: Would not hunting be much more natural than farmed animals? I know its hard to do but if you must eat meat, wouldn't hunted meat be the absolute best? The deer or rabbit would have lived a long, natural life before being quickly shot down. If you hunt it yourself, you know he suffered less and the dogs will go home with full bellies and a warm bed.

Local farms are probably second best, far above commercial farming but hunting really takes the cake for me. Thats just how I feel though. Something to consider?

Animal Rights has a terrible connotation, I personally would avoid using the term to explain my views. Nothing against you, obviously. It just sucks to be associated with AR nuts. Much better to be associated with the moderate Animal Welfare peeps!


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

RabbleFox said:


> Luvable: Would not hunting be much more natural than farmed animals? I know its hard to do but if you must eat meat, wouldn't hunted meat be the absolute best? The deer or rabbit would have lived a long, natural life before being quickly shot down. If you hunt it yourself, you know he suffered less and the dogs will go home with full bellies and a warm bed.
> 
> Local farms are probably second best, far above commercial farming but hunting really takes the cake for me. Thats just how I feel though. Something to consider?
> 
> Animal Rights has a terrible connotation, I personally would avoid using the term to explain my views. Nothing against you, obviously. It just sucks to be associated with AR nuts. Much better to be associated with the moderate Animal Welfare peeps!


I eat meat that comes from hunting. I get deer from family who hunt. I just personally can't do it. I'm pretty sure I would start crying and cuddling the animal I killed and just generally be an emotional mess. Have you ever seen Life of Pi when he kills the fish? Lol

Yeah, I don't refer to myself as an animal rightist at all. My point is that people are consistently calling people animal rightist for having similar beliefs as my own. When it comes down to it, I think people need to realize that not everyone who has strong opinions about how animals should be treated is the type of person that's going to be standing naked on the streets of NYC with a sign about not killing animals lol.

Not everyone is that crazy even if their personal beliefs might be a little more extreme then your own.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Leave the personal attacks out of the thread, folks, or I'm going to start having to hand out some temp bans, and I'd really rather not, so disagree all you want, but keep it respectful.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Meat that has suffered while dying doesn't taste as good. When an animal struggles before death, like a moose that didn't completely go down or a road kill moose, the body releases adrenaline. As the animal dies, this is left in the meat and the meat simply does not taste as good. The quicker the animal dies and the less it is stressed in the process, the better the meat tastes.

Besides being ethical, it is in the hunter's own best interest to kill the animal as quickly and painlessly as possible.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Realistically, the spider is no different from the bunny. It's lower than us on the food chain.

Would I kill the spider? No. I hate them, but I'm too terrified to kill them on my own (unless it's by accident in a blind panic). I will, however, have somebody else smush the little bastard for me.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> Meat that has suffered while dying doesn't taste as good. When an animal struggles before death, like a moose that didn't completely go down or a road kill moose, the body releases adrenaline. As the animal dies, this is left in the meat and the meat simply does not taste as good. The quicker the animal dies and the less it is stressed in the process, the better the meat tastes.
> 
> Besides being ethical, it is in the hunter's own best interest to kill the animal as quickly and painlessly as possible.


And the same thing can be said for farmed animals. 

People talk all the time about how horrible the conditions are for farmed animals. 

I have ranched, managed, been in the meat industry most of my life...


Animals that are stressed, lose weight. 
Animals that are stressed get sick and die. 

Animals kept in poor unclean conditions lose weight
Animals kept in poor unclean conditions get sick and die.

Animals that are abused, lose weight
Animals that are abused get sick and die. 


Weight is money....

Happy stock eats. Happy stock stays healthy... Happy stock gains weight...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Well, let's be a bit more realistic, too....our "happy healthy stock" is also injected with tons of antibiotics and hormones to help with weight.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And the same thing can be said for farmed animals.
> 
> People talk all the time about how horrible the conditions are for farmed animals.
> 
> ...


On top of what Xeph said, there's also the fact that they're not fed properly. Cows should eat grass. Chickens should eat bugs and worms they find in the grass. It's not healthy for them to be stuffed full of foods they wouldn't naturally eat if people didn't feed it to them. 

It's also not healthy for the people or animals eating them. That's another reason why I'm so specific of what I eat. I don't want health problems because of all that crap going into my food.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Not my fault you do not know the meaning of semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Disagree

My mum was bitten by an adder back in the 80s. She had no idea what the snake was and neither did my dad, so my dad killed it, put it in a bag and took my mum and the snake to the hospital. She had an acute reaction to the bite and the one thing the hospital were quickly able to identify was, what type of snake it was.

Oh and btw, by saying you would go to a bullfight, you have just stated that you are willing to support cruelty to animals.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> On top of what Xeph said, there's also the fact that they're not fed properly. Cows should eat grass. Chickens should eat bugs and worms they find in the grass. It's not healthy for them to be stuffed full of foods they wouldn't naturally eat if people didn't feed it to them.
> 
> It's also not healthy for the people or animals eating them. That's another reason why I'm so specific of what I eat. I don't want health problems because of all that crap going into my food.





Xeph said:


> Well, let's be a bit more realistic, too....our "happy healthy stock" is also injected with tons of antibiotics and hormones to help with weight.



To be completely realistic. Cattle is raised largely on grass until the finishing stages. And you can purchase grass fed beef that has never been on feed. Production is limited and it is more expensive typically. 100 percent free range chicken is also available. 

Those that eat grass fed and free range meats should be very happy that by and large the public has little interest in these types of products. If free range and grass finished cattle and chickens moved past the point of being a cottage type niche market, the costs would be STAGGERING. 

Free range is already significantly higher, the time to grow out an animal takes so much longer. Put high demand pressures on this and we are talking 30 dollar big macs and 25 dollar chicken mcnuggets. 



And lets talk about these hormones allowed by the USDA. 

A non castrated bull has hormone levels of about ten times what a castrated steer on USDA and FDA approved hormones, has. 

Start talking about a pregnant heifer and we are talking hormone levels that are THOUSANDS of times higher. 



And to put the hormone thing in even more perspective. Take a 50 child. That child would have to each 16 pounds of beef daily, to change their hormone levels 1 percent.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Disagree
> 
> My mum was bitten by an adder back in the 80s. She had no idea what the snake was and neither did my dad, so my dad killed it, put it in a bag and took my mum and the snake to the hospital. She had an acute reaction to the bite and the one thing the hospital were quickly able to identify was, what type of snake it was.
> 
> Oh and btw, by saying you would bullfight then you have just stated that you are willing to support cruelty to animals.



I am sorry your mother was bitten. And that situation would have fallen under little reason in my statement. 


But in any case.... All of the venomous snakes in Europe, and when you say Adder, I assume your mother was bitten in Europe, are of the genus _Vipera_.

Typically the same antivenom is used regardless of which exact species bit. And in many places in Europe only a single species exist. So it is likely doctors could have identified the species by your mothers location. France, Italy, UK, etc. And the point is moot really anyway. Because the doctors are going to use the same treatment regardless of exact species. I do not believe that there is even any monovalent antivenoms for the European Adders. I could be wrong, but I have never seen it on any lists. And there are enough species that it is not really feasable to produce a monovalent treatment. 

Much like the rattlesnakes, copperheads, moccasins in the use. Crofab is typically used for treatment regardless which species bit. 

So killing the snake really did not benefit anyone and exposed another person to risk of being bit. 



As for your comment about me being willing to support cruelty to animals. Well that is your opinion. Me attending out of curiosity, is not going to change anything. The bullfight would happen whether I attend or not. That is not support. 
And the possibility exists it may have the opposite effect than support. I would think if you do not support bullfighting, you might want more of the general public to attend.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> As for your comment about me being willing to support cruelty to animals. Well that is your opinion. Me attending out of curiosity, is not going to change anything. The bullfight would happen whether I attend or not. That is not support.
> And the possibility exists it may have the opposite effect than support. I would think if you do not support bullfighting, you might want more of the general public to attend.


But alas... if you pay to attend, you are supporting the fight. Just like if you pay a BYB or puppymill for a puppy. You are supporting them with your money. Now, if its free, then you technically aren't supporting the bullfight. Some might argue that you are supporting it just based on your presence but it personally doesn't bother me.

Snakes and other scary stuff: I don't know much about snakes but from all the nature TV I've watched (soooo much experience over here), I thought that doctors preferred to know what snake bit the patient. It was TV, so I'm no expert. They don't need to see the snake but it would be useful to know what kind it was, I'd imagine. If the patient didn't know what kind of snake it was, bringing in the body might bring forth some clues. Generally, I'm just thankful that we don't have very many venomous snakes here in Michigan. Eek.

Commercial meat: When I can, I go organic and free range/grass fed. If I go to MickeyD's I don't really expect them to use grade A organic beef in their burgers. After all, I'm only paying a 1$ for it!


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

There are two main snakes in Europe and one very rare one. The grass snake, smooth snake and the adder. The grass snake and smooth snake are harmless. Both snakes look very similar in size and colour but the markings are very different but because its not common to see snakes in Europe, the general public often don't know the difference. 

Because snake bites are so rare in Europe, only the major hospitals hold the antivenom.
My mum was a long way from any major hospital when she was bitten and her first stop was a small town surgery. Once the snake was identified by this surgery, a helicopter was brought in to transfer her to a city hospital. If it had only been a grass snake bite, none of that would of been necessary.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> I was wondering about that, too, but I didn't want to bring down the wrath onto that thread as well. Dogs hunting and ripping apart rats = good thing, but dogs hunting and ripping apart bunnies = bad thing?
> 
> Oh well...I guess there aren't many gardeners on this site.


My gardens have been DESTROYED by the deer. Even the naturally occurring poisonous plants like aconitum are not exempt. 

The gardens at our cottage used to be *beautiful*. 20 ish years ago they were full of lilies, dahlias, irises, asters and black eyed susan. There isn't even any trillium left - it used to carpet the forest floor. I don't even keep them up anymore since its too frustrating to invest all that time just to have it razed to the ground. 

Its not even my gardens that I mind (deer are naturally occurring after all, my garden isn't). Its the HUGE damage being done to the forest and surrounding ecosystem. We have literally no underbrush left. In 15 years or so our forest is going to start dying because new trees are decimated before they get to grow. I have seen not one but TWO three legged deer with fawns. Normally I would say nature will take care of it, but we've run out the wolves and bears with all the human activity - now we have to fill their niche.

I'm okay with hunting when its done for necessity, and in some cases population control is absolutely a necessity.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> But alas... if you pay to attend, you are supporting the fight. Just like if you pay a BYB or puppymill for a puppy. You are supporting them with your money. Now, if its free, then you technically aren't supporting the bullfight. Some might argue that you are supporting it just based on your presence but it personally doesn't bother me.
> !




I can see that. And it all is what it is.



RabbleFox said:


> Snakes and other scary stuff: I don't know much about snakes but from all the nature TV I've watched (soooo much experience over here), I thought that doctors preferred to know what snake bit the patient. It was TV, so I'm no expert. They don't need to see the snake but it would be useful to know what kind it was, I'd imagine. If the patient didn't know what kind of snake it was, bringing in the body might bring forth some clues. Generally, I'm just thankful that we don't have very many venomous snakes here in Michigan. Eek.
> 
> !


Generally I am sure doctors would prefer to know the exact species. But it largely does not matter and not worth the risk of a layperson getting bitten while attempting to catch or kill the snake. 

In North America, we have Pit Vipers and Coral Snakes. The Pit Vipers are all the rattlesnakes, copperheads, water moccasins, etc. Other than a few species of rattlensakes with VERY limited range, Crofab is the antivenom typically used on them. 
A person comes in with a snake bite, it is VERY obvious if it is a pit viper bite. A coral snake bite is very obvious as well. 

Likewise, in Europe, everything venomous is one of several species of Adders. Genus Vipera. The same antivenom would be used on all. And a bite from any of the adders would have very specific characteristics and bite patterns. 

There a bunch of true vipers in Africa and parts of Asia that can all be treated with the same antivenom as well. 

It gets a little more complicated when you get into the venomous elapids. Which is the coral snakes, cobras, mambas, seasnakes, kraits, all the Australian snakes. etc 

Those are the ones that can be downright dicey. Elapids are far and away the most dangerous in terms of venom toxicity. 
It is kind of interesting though. The Vipers, Adders, and especially pit vipers, have a GREAT delivery system but much less toxic venom. The Venomous Elapids have extremely toxic venom but pretty crappy delivery systems.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No that is not what I am saying.... Do not put words in my mouth.
> 
> I said, killing a rabbit, or deer, bear etc. Is no different than killing a rat or a spider.
> 
> ...


I think this is more than a little hyperbole - like the comparison of pets, children and racing dogs/game as equally "exploited". Pretty much everyone agrees that there is a hierarchy of some description that governs the morality of killing. Millions of bacteria in my gut die every day, even vegetarians kill plant life and we *all* kill bugs just by walking around. That's just the cost of life, we can't avoid killing some things around us.

That is not, however, an argument to equate the killing of a spider with the killing of a man. Nor is it an argument justifying every death of any species. Sentience, intelligence, ability to feel pain are just some of the factors which differ between those species and change the morality of their killing. Not to mention, need vs. desire and enjoyment and manner of death. Most people do acknowledge that we have a responsibility to try and minimize the suffering we inflict on other beings - especially those with a great capacity to feel suffering.

I'm not going to say your stance on hunting is wrong, but I think you're being _way_ too simplistic in an attempt to make a point. Someone who once swatted a mosquito is not equally culpable as someone who has killed hundreds of deer/dogs/hogs/coyotes/rats/bunnies or what have you.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> There are two main snakes in Europe and one very rare one. The grass snake, smooth snake and the adder. The grass snake and smooth snake are harmless. Both snakes look very similar in size and colour but the markings are very different but because its not common to see snakes in Europe, the general public often don't know the difference.
> 
> Because snake bites are so rare in Europe, only the major hospitals hold the antivenom.
> My mum was a long way from any major hospital when she was bitten and her first stop was a small town surgery. Once the snake was identified by this surgery, a helicopter was brought in to transfer her to a city hospital. If it had only been a grass snake bite, none of that would of been necessary.


But a bite from a non venomous snakes is not going to look anything REMOTELY like the bite from an Adder. The Adder bite is going to very distinctive. In addition to the bite marks, there is going to be a localized reaction as well as likely systematic reactions by the time a person gets to medical care. It does not take a doctor to recognize the bite of a venomous snake. with some variation they are very distinctive. So a doctor, even a doctor in a part of the world where bites are rare it going to recognize a venomous snake bite. A person comes in to a hospital and says they were bitten by a snake... A doctor is going to be able to take one look at the bite location and know if it was by a venomous or non venomous species. By the time that the victim gets to the hospital it should be obvious if it is a dry bite as well. A percentage of the time venomous snakes bite, the do not inject venom. So you have the distinctive fang marks of a venomous snake bite, but no localized or generalized reaction. Because there is no venom. 

As for the species of venomous snakes in Europe. There are about 4 to 7. But they are all Adders and closely related. All of the genus Vipera and all would be treated with the same antivenom.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> I think this is more than a little hyperbole - like the comparison of pets, children and racing dogs/game as equally "exploited". Pretty much everyone agrees that there is a hierarchy of some description that governs the morality of killing. Millions of bacteria in my gut die every day, even vegetarians kill plant life and we *all* kill bugs just by walking around. That's just the cost of life, we can't avoid killing some things around us.
> 
> That is not, however, an argument to equate the killing of a spider with the killing of a man. Nor is it an argument justifying every death of any species. Sentience, intelligence, ability to feel pain are just some of the factors which differ between those species and change the morality of their killing. Not to mention, need vs. desire and enjoyment and manner of death. Most people do acknowledge that we have a responsibility to try and minimize the suffering we inflict on other beings - especially those with a great capacity to feel suffering.
> 
> I'm not going to say your stance on hunting is wrong, but I think you're being _way_ too simplistic in an attempt to make a point. Someone who once swatted a mosquito is not equally culpable as someone who has killed hundreds of deer/dogs/hogs/coyotes/rats/bunnies or what have you.



I do agree with you that there is some sort of hierarchy in play that makes the killing of a spider different than the killing of a dog or a human and that's a complicated equation I'm not getting into right now-

But let's be honest:

The only difference in the killing of a rat and the killing of a rabbit is how cute it is. They both feel pain. They are both pest animals that create major issues for humans. They both breed/reproduce at astonishing rates. Both are prey animals. Rats are at LEAST as intelligent as rabbits. ONE of them is a food animal (for humans), and it's the one that people object to being killed. 

And that level of hypocrisy exists and is based soley and entirely on how cute the animal is. THAT I have an issue with.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> As for your comment about me being willing to support cruelty to animals. Well that is your opinion. Me attending out of curiosity, is not going to change anything. The bullfight would happen whether I attend or not. That is not support.
> And the possibility exists it may have the opposite effect than support. I would think if you do not support bullfighting, you might want more of the general public to attend.


I agree with RabbleFox's arguments as well. 
Also, as was explained by someone else (PragueRatter I believe), a majority of the Spanish population is against bullfighting. The reason it isn't banned already and the tradition is kept alive is probably because lots of tourists bring in money because they want to see it. So yes, going to a bullfight is supporting cruelty and not helping in getting it banned. How I see it, at least. 

You might find this an interesting read: Will bullfighting survive in modern Spain?
And a short quote from the article that supports PragueRatter's claim about the majority of Spain being against bullfighting: 
_"As evidence, she points to a recent Mori poll which showed only 26 per cent of the Spanish population now supports the sport and 76 per cent oppose the use of public funds to help it. "Supporters say bullfighting's traditional but a lot of traditions have been banned in the past," she says. "We have to keep only the traditions that society accepts."_

Oh, and it's a while back now but your spider picture reminded me of this: 










My reaction? KILL IT WITH FIRE. Then call the fire department. A friend of mine offered this option: 
Place a bucket over the clock, jiggle it around a little so the spider and clock fall into the bucket and close it with some sort of lid. Take the bucket outside and a good deal away from your house. Put the bucket down gently and carefully (wouldn't want the scare the spider now do we?). Then give the bucket a kick and run away in the other direction! Come back later to collect your clock. Your clock might maybe break, but it's better than killing it with fire.  

I consider spiders equal to vermin in my house. I don't care that spiders catch flies. The only one that's doing the vermin control around here is me (or my dear father that's not afraid of spiders). All bugs and spiders in this house die. The end. 
They have the entire world to roam about. Just begone from my house.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Avie said:


> I consider spiders equal to vermin in my house. I don't care that spiders catch flies. The only one that's doing the vermin control around here is me (or my dear father that's not afraid of spiders). All bugs and spiders in this house die. The end.
> They have the entire world to roam about. Just begone from my house.


I guess this is really the thing, ultimately, when it comes to hunting (I'm not touching the bullfighting thing in depth, but I agree with you re: tourist dollars and the fact that it's a major draw): 

Bunnies and squirrels and deer are as much vermin in a whole lot of the world as rats and mice or, truthfully, spiders and bugs. Not that they don't have more intelligence, greater capacity for pain, more emotion than bugs - most mammals do - but the bunnies and deer *don't* have greater capacity than your average rat, and squirrels certainly don't. In the end, and I'm not immune, it's that we think it's furry and fuzzy and endearing and it makes sad sounds when it dies and there is no 'creep out/revulsion' factor and so killing them is 'bad'. 

I BAWLED the day my dogs got a chipmunk, but I recognize it for what it is: It was a cute little animal with an endearing face and it tugged my heart strings.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> ]
> As for your comment about me being willing to support cruelty to animals. Well that is your opinion. Me attending out of curiosity, is not going to change anything. The bullfight would happen whether I attend or not. That is not support.
> And the possibility exists it may have the opposite effect than support. I would think if you do not support bullfighting, you might want more of the general public to attend.


...That's like saying purchasing a puppy from a backyard breeder is not support because it's going to happen regardless. ... Yes, you are supporting it, by enabling it to continue to happen with interest in the activity and most times, money.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I guess this is really the thing, ultimately, when it comes to hunting (I'm not touching the bullfighting thing in depth, but I agree with you re: tourist dollars and the fact that it's a major draw):
> 
> Bunnies and squirrels and deer are as much vermin in a whole lot of the world as rats and mice or, truthfully, spiders and bugs. Not that they don't have more intelligence, greater capacity for pain, more emotion than bugs - most mammals do - but the bunnies and deer *don't* have greater capacity than your average rat, and squirrels certainly don't. In the end, and I'm not immune, it's that we think it's furry and fuzzy and endearing and it makes sad sounds when it dies and there is no 'creep out/revulsion' factor and so killing them is 'bad'.
> 
> I BAWLED the day my dogs got a chipmunk, but I recognize it for what it is: It was a cute little animal with an endearing face and it tugged my heart strings.


That's an interesting way to look at it, and I can absolutely see your point.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> ...That's like saying purchasing a puppy from a backyard breeder is not support because it's going to happen regardless. ... Yes, you are supporting it, by enabling it to continue to happen with interest in the activity and most times, money.


Well thankfully I do not buy puppies from back yard breeders. 

So we only have to worry about me supporting bullfights.... And then only if I ever make it to Europe.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

CptJack said:


> But let's be honest:
> 
> The only difference in the killing of a rat and the killing of a rabbit is how cute it is. They both feel pain. They are both pest animals that create major issues for humans. They both breed/reproduce at astonishing rates. Both are prey animals. Rats are at LEAST as intelligent as rabbits. ONE of them is a food animal (for humans), and it's the one that people object to being killed.
> 
> And that level of hypocrisy exists and is based soley and entirely on how cute the animal is. THAT I have an issue with.


Yes, I agree with you there. "Cuteness" doesn't have much to do with the morality of killing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> I think this is more than a little hyperbole - like the comparison of pets, children and racing dogs/game as equally "exploited". Pretty much everyone agrees that there is a hierarchy of some description that governs the morality of killing. Millions of bacteria in my gut die every day, even vegetarians kill plant life and we *all* kill bugs just by walking around. That's just the cost of life, we can't avoid killing some things around us.
> 
> That is not, however, an argument to equate the killing of a spider with the killing of a man. Nor is it an argument justifying every death of any species. Sentience, intelligence, ability to feel pain are just some of the factors which differ between those species and change the morality of their killing. Not to mention, need vs. desire and enjoyment and manner of death. Most people do acknowledge that we have a responsibility to try and minimize the suffering we inflict on other beings - especially those with a great capacity to feel suffering.
> 
> I'm not going to say your stance on hunting is wrong, but I think you're being _way_ too simplistic in an attempt to make a point. Someone who once swatted a mosquito is not equally culpable as someone who has killed hundreds of deer/dogs/hogs/coyotes/rats/bunnies or what have you.


I never equated killing a man to killing animals. Or vise versa. Killing a human is a whole different ball game. 

And yes my examples are simplistic. Especially when bringing the spider into the mix. But it makes people think. 

And there may be a difference in killing a spider and a rabbit. But there is NO difference in killing a rat and a rabbit, or deer for that matter. 

Killing animals is killing animals..... Rats are creepy and nasty to many. Rabbits are cute. But killing one is the same as killing the other.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> My gardens have been DESTROYED by the deer. Even the naturally occurring poisonous plants like aconitum are not exempt.
> 
> The gardens at our cottage used to be *beautiful*. 20 ish years ago they were full of lilies, dahlias, irises, asters and black eyed susan. There isn't even any trillium left - it used to carpet the forest floor. I don't even keep them up anymore since its too frustrating to invest all that time just to have it razed to the ground.
> 
> ...



Just want to HIGHLY recommend Liquid Fence! It's a deer and rabbit repellent. I'm personally not into gardening but my mother swears by it. My parents house has a back yard full of flowers and woods right behind that. Lots of deer. I can honestly say the flowers are doing great since she started using that though. Oh, and those bushes, I must have missed that originally but my parents planted bushes like that to block out the neighbors... Ha. Let's just say that didn't go well.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

LOL...I actually don't kill spiders. I hate mosquitoes THAT much, so I happily live with spiders who will happily kill insects that invade my home. Growing up, my father also used to intentionally relocate wild bull snakes and garter snakes into our outbuildings because they would eat the rodents that our cats would/could not. So yeah, my decisions on what to kill, eat, and let live have very little to do with cuteness.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Just want to HIGHLY recommend Liquid Fence! It's a deer and rabbit repellent. I'm personally not into gardening but my mother swears by it. My parents house has a back yard full of flowers and woods right behind that. Lots of deer. I can honestly say the flowers are doing great since she started using that though. Oh, and those bushes, I must have missed that originally but my parents planted bushes like that to block out the neighbors... Ha. Let's just say that didn't go well.


We spray Deer Away - its just so expensive though. I'll look into Liquid Fence, thanks!


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I am actually also one of those people who would prefer to relocate an insect than kill it. (unless there is an infestation or something like that, then action needs to be taken)

The bugs that wander into our apartment I let the cats handle if they want to, I chalk it up to natural selection. However I would not kill them myself and I prevent my boyfriend from doing so if I can.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't kill bugs or spiders or mice or anything. I don't think I've ever intentionally killed anything other than fleas and ticks (and slapping mosquitoes off, but that's more a reflex than an intentional squishing). I don't even own a flyswatter. But I do think there's a HUGE difference between shutting a mosquito between the screen and glass and leaving it to die of starvation (or whatever bugs die of in windows ), and what Patrick's owner did to him, ya know? Bugs don't have the same nervous system as mammals. And no emotions that we know of. And I'm particularly fond of reptiles and amphibians, but they also have very different nervous systems than mammals. And are also not real big on emotion . So I think the level of suffering they're capable of experiencing is just not the same as what mammals are capable of. 

I'm also really annoyed that mice and rats are specifically exempt from animal cruelty statutes . They suffer the same as any mammal.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I'm also really annoyed that mice and rats are specifically exempt from animal cruelty statutes . They suffer the same as any mammal.


I agree. Rats are mice within the towns and cities are vermin though and they not only have the potential to transmit several potentially fatal diseases to humans, they cause fires and are very disruptive because of their need to gnaw. A single pair of rats can produce 2,000 offspring a year so the need for them to be culled is imo, absolutely necessary. Unfortunately Rat poison is a barbaric poison. Basically the rat slowly bleeds to death from every orifice. I would far rather set a ratter (dog) on a rat which would insure a quick death, or take a rifle to them but I do understand that would never kill enough for it to be viable. 

No animal should suffer for man's survival but for me that means, animals deserve a swift death and no prolonged agony.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> I agree. Rats are mice within the towns and cities are vermin though and they not only have the potential to transmit several potentially fatal diseases to humans, they cause fires and are very disruptive because of their need to gnaw. A single pair of rats can produce 2,000 offspring a year so the need for them to be culled is imo, absolutely necessary. Unfortunately Rat poison is a barbaric poison. Basically the rat slowly bleeds to death from every orifice. I would far rather set a ratter (dog) on a rat which would insure a quick death, or take a rifle to them but I do understand that would never kill enough for it to be viable.
> 
> No animal should suffer for man's survival but for me that means, animals deserve a swift death and no prolonged agony.


. I am very against poisons. Not that feel bad for the rat but it gets spread around and cs. Have many unintentional victims


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

By the way. I am against poison At bullfights but I am fine with snares and leg hold traps at bullfights


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> By the way. I am against poison At bullfights but I am fine with snares and leg hold traps at bullfights


As long as the bull is a rapist, right?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> As long as the bull is a rapist, right?


I thought the greyhounds were the rapists.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I thought the greyhounds were the rapists.


I've been digging big holes to catch them but I haven't caught a single greyhound in dayssss! How will I stay warm I the winter without a fresh greyhound pelt?!


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> . I am very against poisons. Not that feel bad for the rat but it gets spread around and cs. Have many unintentional victims


My lurcher who was a walking garbage can, ate rat poison. Some stupid cow had filled a dog bowl with the stuff and left it down in the tack room. Once I realized what he had done, I got him straight down the vets who immediately started to administer vitamin K injections. The vet told me that it may not work and if it didn't, after about five days he would start to haemorrhage through the eyes and gums. That was the longest five days of my life. The good news is, he had absolutely no illness and went on to live another 10 years


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I thought the greyhounds were the rapists.


Dang it...I got confused. Greyhounds are the rapists and bulls are child molesters. Fixed that now.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I've been digging big holes to catch them but I haven't caught a single greyhound in dayssss! How will I stay warm I the winter without a fresh greyhound pelt?!


I think you need to change the bait you are using. May I suggest caged raccoons? Or, if you want the REALLY tough greyhounds, upgrade to wolverines in a cage.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

JohnnyBandit--you said this: What is this talk about a raccoon in a cage, for training? 
^I saw a show on Animal Planet that had PB's and other fighting dogs try to go after a raccoon. It was the bait animal, if they're scared, I was saying imagine how scared a rabbit can be with a fast animal on its tail.

Stressed is not a word that comes to mind.
^I couldn't think of any other word. 

But why would we want to? 
^I'm saying the prey is already stressed out and now you're putting them in a position where their stress level is very high. I don't think it's fun for them to be chased. 

There is no reason for them to stop now. 
^I'm not saying to totally stop. Just stop using a real animal. Use a fake one with a real one scent on it.
---------
RabbleFox--you said: If a Greyhound cannot be rehomed, he should be humanely euthanized.
^You can't seriously believe that. 
-------
Okay I have a question for you hunters, aren't you afraid of diseases they carry? Sure you can boil them, but will that get rid of everything? I wouldn't take a chance that there still might be something left. 
------
So yes, going to a bullfight is supporting cruelty and not helping in getting it banned. 
^Totally agree with you Avie!

Wow this has completely gone off topic!


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> -------
> Okay I have a question for you hunters, aren't you afraid of diseases they carry? Sure you can boil them, but will that get rid of everything? I wouldn't take a chance that there still might be something left.
> ------


You'd think the human race did not survive before we had grocery stores! Lol! And who the heck boils their meat?

Wild animals, by and large, have less disease than domesticated animals because they have more space in which to roam and diseased animals get quickly picked off my predators. What wild meat does often harbor are parasites, but these you either cut out from the meat or they die when you cook them. It really just isn't much of an issue and humans have been hunting and eating the meat from hunting since time began.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I wouldn't think wild game would be any more likely to have diseases than domestic meat if you are storing it/cooking it properly. I think most issues with meat period are going to be improperly storing/processing the meat. 

You can always freeze the meat a few weeks before eating it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

And as far as food making people sick, I know more people who got ver ill from eating that contaminated lettuce than anything.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

You'd think the human race did not survive before we had grocery stores! Lol! And who the heck boils their meat?
^Did I say that packetsmom? No. But there's a high chance that many people probably got sick. Boil, fire underneath it...same thing. The heat, I'm guessing, draws out the nastiness (can't think of right word) of the animal. You can't just catch a deer, skin it, and eat without cooking it.

Laurelin--so freezing works to get rid of everything?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I imagine you could eat raw venison as well as you could eat raw beef (not that most people want to). The parasites aren't in the muscle meat so if you've properly cleaned the animal there shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure most wild animals are cleaner than a cow finished in a feed lot or a chicken or hog raised in a confinement. Those places are nasty.

Freezing doesn't kill bacteria. But prolonged or super-cold freezing will kill almost all parasites.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> You'd think the human race did not survive before we had grocery stores! Lol! And who the heck boils their meat?
> ^Did I say that packetsmom? No. But there's a high chance that many people probably got sick. Boil, fire underneath it...same thing. The heat, I'm guessing, draws out the nastiness (can't think of right word) of the animal. You can't just catch a deer, skin it, and eat without cooking it.
> 
> Laurelin--so freezing works to get rid of everything?



You can't eat any kind of ground beef raw, either, but yes. The diseases carried by wild game are parasites and killed by freezing. Not an issue.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> JohnnyBandit--you said this: What is this talk about a raccoon in a cage, for training?
> ^I saw a show on Animal Planet that had PB's and other fighting dogs try to go after a raccoon. It was the bait animal, if they're scared, I was saying imagine how scared a rabbit can be with a fast animal on its tail.
> 
> !


This is comical. If you have the link for the show I would love to see it. I am not saying you did not see this show, but I googled for 30 minutes and could not find any show where they talked about people using raccoons at bait for fighting dogs. I would love some specifics because I would love to talk to the folks at animal planet about such silly mis information. 

First of all the entire "bait" thing in fighting dogs is a flawed concept but I am sure it happens. 

The thing is... IF you are going to use a raccoon as a "bait" animal for fighting dogs, why not use a bobcat, a Tasmanian Devil, A methed up spider monkey with a straight razor? Heck use a wolverine or a grizzly bear for that matter. Maybe a nice honey badger.....

As some point some dumb arse has tried this at some point. But I doubt they would try it a second time. It is one thing to have a dog or dogs run a raccoon up a tree. They will USUALLY run given a chance... But having a dog and a raccoon is something completely different. 

The thing is this... You put a raccoon around a dog and you do not have bait. You have a FIGHT..... With no forgone conclusion that the dog is going to win.... Even odds would be on the raccoon. And while a truly game dog would likely win in the end, the raccoon WOULD hurt the dog. Possibly badly....

Raccoons are pound for pound the toughest critters in the woods. They are SMART, TENACIOUS, FEARLESS, KNOW how to fight, and have plenty of weapons. Raccoons kill coonhounds fairly commonly. Usually in water, but occasionally in other situations. And they injure a BUNCH of coonhounds and other dogs. I have seen a raccoon knocked out of a tree holds its own with three or four coonhounds. For a LOONG time... Like five minutes... I have seen a raccoon one on one against a dog, And put and ABSOLUTE butt whipping on said dog. And not a pet dog, not a hang around the house friendly dog. But a hard arsed, hard hunting, experienced **** dog. 

And speaking specifically of Pit Bulls. I have owned three Pits, Spanky, Stud, and Tank. Plus Runt that was really my dad's dog but was sort of my dog too. He slept with me and I caught my first hogs with him. All were catch dogs and between the four, they had at least 1000 hogs. (I was doing contract commercial hog removal that time in my life and was running hogs a couple times a week at least) All but one eventually had at least one incident where they needed to be stitched. Of those pits, ONE had a single encounter with a raccoon. And the raccoon did not make it. But the dog. Spanky end up with about 50 stitches and two drains. All the bad hogs he caught, all the dog caught. Hogs that could open up a man or dog from throat to belly button and the worst injury to any of them was from a raccoon. 

This whole raccoon "bait" is comical. 
Seriously I would like a link for the show because I could not find it. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> It was the bait animal, if they're scared, I was saying imagine how scared a rabbit can be with a fast animal on its tail.
> 
> Stressed is not a word that comes to mind.
> ^I couldn't think of any other word.


How many trapped raccoons have you been around? Stressed, terrified...... Ummm No... Not commonly anyway....

You catch a bobcat, fox, feral cat, and most other things (not possums - they are stupid) They are highly stressed in the trap. They pee, poop, vomit, etc. They freak out.... 

Raccoons.... They are calm... They do not freak out, they wait, if you were nasty to them while they are in a trap, they will lash out. But they usually wait calmly... Make a mistake and they will bite the fire out of you... Raccoons are very mentally tough, so no I would not use the word stressed. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> But why would we want to?
> ^I'm saying the prey is already stressed out and now you're putting them in a position where their stress level is very high. I don't think it's fun for them to be chased.
> 
> There is no reason for them to stop now.
> ...


Hunting with a fake animal is not hunting... When I was speaking of not making dogs stop, I was talking about hunting. No fake bunnies, deer, hogs, etc. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> -------
> Okay I have a question for you hunters, aren't you afraid of diseases they carry? Sure you can boil them, but will that get rid of everything? I wouldn't take a chance that there still might be something left.
> ------


Nothing to fear... I have been letting my dogs dine out of the gutpile my entire life. As has my father, grandfather, great grandfather. My dogs eat wild game, they catch or I kill, raw, including organ meat. As I said, I let them eat right out of the gut pile as I am cleaning something. Nothing, no diseases, etc to worry about. 

Talk about taking chances? Commercial dog food... That is taking chances... All the recalls, sick dogs... Critters in the woods are healthy food. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> ------
> So yes, going to a bullfight is supporting cruelty and not helping in getting it banned.
> ^Totally agree with you Avie!
> 
> !


LOL still on the bullfighting....


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> Raccoons.... They are calm... They do not freak out, they wait, if you were nasty to them while they are in a trap, they will lash out. But they usually wait calmly... Make a mistake and they will bite the fire out of you... Raccoons are very mentally tough, so no I would not use the word stressed.


I'm going to agree with this, very pointedly. I caught a ton of raccoons while doing TNR at a rural trash dump (one near where we found Thud, actually). They... didn't do anything. The cats were WIGGED OUT. The raccoons stood there and waited to be released, then waddled off. 

Also, I get the impression the raccoon as a bait dog thing was on Animal Cops or something, so some dummy did it, but it's a really stupid practice. Like Johnny said, ***** are serious animals and we had a dog or two get torn up from a **** knocked out of a tree. They are SERIOUSLY not cute, fluffy, sweet cartoon critters. If you're trying to build drive with success in a pit, I wouldn't be using a **** and my understanding is people who are fighting pits (besides being despicable) are using animals that aren't likely to tear the dog's eyes out of its head.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

CptJack--interesting about the freezing, thank you.
------
JohnnyBandit:
If you have the link for the show I would love to see it.
^I can try. But I saw it years ago on Houston's SPCA show. It had to be one of the earlier Houston SPCA shows cause I can't find a link for it either. I just remember it because it was odd.

You put a raccoon around a dog and you do not have bait. You have a FIGHT
^The raccoon was in a cage and a few feet from the dog. So the dog would go after it to get it in fighting mode, but never catch it; they'd be running in a circle. You know how horses exercise by walking round and round, it was sort of like this but minus the horses. 

Raccoons are pound for pound the toughest critters in the woods.
^What would you say about Possums? They're nasty too! 

How many trapped raccoons have you been around?
^None. I've seen squirrels and cats, but that's a different animal. 

Critters in the woods are healthy food.
^Really? But they eat animals that could carry diseases and/or have parasites, worms, might eat their own feces, etc. That doesn't gross you out or concern you? :/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Critters in the woods are healthy food.
> ^Really? But they eat animals that could carry diseases and/or have parasites, worms, might eat their own feces, etc. That doesn't gross you out or concern you? :/


...What do you think chickens and cows eat? And how many worms do you think end up in muscle tissue? The parasite remark, even, is down to ANIMALS eating it, because they eat the intestinal track.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

CptJack said:


> ...What do you think chickens and cows eat? And how many worms do you think end up in muscle tissue? The parasite remark, even, is down to ANIMALS eating it, because they eat the intestinal track.


Agreeing here. I think dogs eat their own poop more often than wild animals.  All animals have parasites to some extent. That's why we don't eat raw meat. Cooking the tissue destroys both parasites and harmful bacteria. I took a Microbiology course last semester and we focused on food safety.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Pork... That's all I have to say, just pork. There's a reason why a lot of people won't eat it, it's seriously one of the most disgusting and dirty meats you could eat. Ugh, oh and fish sandwiches from McDonalds. Can not tell you how many times my mom has bit into one of those and find worms, ugh so nasty.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm just going to agree that anything you catch in the woods has a pretty darn high probability of being a heck of a lot better for you than the crap you get in the grocery store. 

Obviously providing it is cleaned and stored properly, as with any food.

Animals with diseases get taken out quickly by predators, the elements, or other natural causes (or a combination of any of those), getting one while hunting is pretty unlikely.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> I'm just going to agree that anything you catch in the woods has a pretty darn high probability of being a heck of a lot better for you than the crap you get in the grocery store.
> 
> Obviously providing it is cleaned and stored properly, as with any food.
> 
> Animals with diseases get taken out quickly by predators, the elements, or other natural causes (or a combination of any of those), getting one while hunting is pretty unlikely.


I cant agree more! Not to mention the hormones, antibiotics, medications, altered genetics, unnatural feed provided, unsanitary conditions, chemicals and preservatives added, anything that is not from the woods or raised on your own farm is not healthy at all.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> You put a raccoon around a dog and you do not have bait. You have a FIGHT
> ^The raccoon was in a cage and a few feet from the dog. So the dog would go after it to get it in fighting mode, but never catch it; they'd be running in a circle. You know how horses exercise by walking round and round, it was sort of like this but minus the horses.
> 
> 
> ...



Seems strange.... But I can see how that might agitate a raccoon. But I could also see a **** just watching a dog and figuring out the dog is not going to get to them and making a game of it. We have all seen squirrels intentionally torment dogs and cats. Raccoons do it as well. I still do not see a raccoon falling apart over that... Especially with just one dog. Maybe more frustrated than anything. Raccoons like to fight. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Raccoons are pound for pound the toughest critters in the woods.
> ^What would you say about Possums? They're nasty too!
> 
> :/


Possums are slow and stupid.... Not tough... they have serious teeth but the are too slow and dumb to use them. 




Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Critters in the woods are healthy food.
> ^Really? But they eat animals that could carry diseases and/or have parasites, worms, might eat their own feces, etc. That doesn't gross you out or concern you? :/


Gross me out? I can eat a spam and mayo sandwich while I am skinning a hog.... Baby poop..... Baby poop grosses me out. 
Critter guts? No.....

No it does not concern me..... When I say I let my dogs eat out of the gut pile I am literally talking about hanging up a deer or a hog, to begin skinning it, opening the body cavity, letting the organs fall out, and letting the dogs eat their fill right there at my feet. Small game I toss the innards on the ground. 

My father, grandfather, great grandfather did the same thing, as do my uncles, great uncles, cousins, friends. All do it.

Hundreds of dogs, hundreds of years. No sick dogs. It is a long held belief among some hunters that use dogs, that if the dog shares in the kill, it will make them hunt harder. I know hunters that will open a kill up right where it falls and give the dogs their share. Usually the heart, liver, kidneys or something along those lines. 
Actually the most desired item for many dogs is the stomach of a deer. Raw feeders pay big money for green tripe. I get it for free. Anyway.... I am not absolutely sure if it helps a dog hunt better or harder. But it dang sure does not hurt. 

So no I have no concern over my dogs eating raw wild meat. Obviously if I see an animal that is outwardly obviously sick or notice something while I am dressing it, then no I would not let the dogs eat it, or eat it myself. 

I have fed strictly raw for over 15 years now.. What would make me nervous and gross me out was feeding a commercial dog food.....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think she's talking about humans eating wild game meat? Not dogs?

Anyways, I eat wild caught/killed meat often as do my dogs. lol


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I think she's talking about humans eating wild game meat? Not dogs?
> 
> Anyways, I eat wild caught/killed meat often as do my dogs. lol


I eat wild game MORE often than my dogs do. I don't get a ton of it, and when I do I don't really...share most of it. Except the small animals they catch themselves, which I suppose might even things out.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> I eat wild game MORE often than my dogs do. I don't get a ton of it, and when I do I don't really...share most of it. Except the small animals they catch themselves, which I suppose might even things out.


mia only really catches bugs. I let her eat those. lol

Deer are yummy. I'll give them some quail/deer/pheasants but yeah... I keep most of it myself. I like it too much. I really do need to learn how to hunt. I'm not sure if I'm capable of hunting deer but man.... it would be nice to bag a couple deer every year. As it is, I have enough hunting relatives that I end up with a lot of it. 

I also need a full freezer though before I do that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I think she's talking about humans eating wild game meat? Not dogs?
> 
> Anyways, I eat wild caught/killed meat often as do my dogs. lol


I will eat certain cuts raw myself.... Venison Backstrap still warm is my favorite. 

I also like to take a deer heart, trim off the outer membrane and fat, slice about a quarter inch thick and put it in a very hot cast iron pan for the count of 20 on each side.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> mia only really catches bugs. I let her eat those. lol
> 
> Deer are yummy. I'll give them some quail/deer/pheasants but yeah... I keep most of it myself. I like it too much. I really do need to learn how to hunt. I'm not sure if I'm capable of hunting deer but man.... it would be nice to bag a couple deer every year. As it is, I have enough hunting relatives that I end up with a lot of it.
> 
> I also need a full freezer though before I do that.


I typically take about 6 to 8 deer a year. I eat the parts I like best and the dogs get the rest. 

I get all the hogs I want. Same thing. I eat what I want and the dogs get the rest. 

I get two wild turkeys a year. (Spring Limit is two gobblers per person) I take the breasts and fry them in strips. The dogs get the back, necks, legs, thighs, innards. 

Small game, dove, squirrel, ducks and quail (I do not duck and quail hunt too often any more. Maybe a trip or two a year for each species. ) The dogs get the heads, scraps, etc. 

I DO NOT feed my dogs any freshwater fish. Raw or cooked. But they get raw saltwater fish a least once a week.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Why no fresh water fish??? *curious* Im not very savvy into what's what in the raw meat department. I stick to chicken bits for the dogs.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I typically take about 6 to 8 deer a year. I eat the parts I like best and the dogs get the rest.
> 
> I get all the hogs I want. Same thing. I eat what I want and the dogs get the rest.
> 
> ...


Do you feed raw pork to your dog's? I'm terrified to give my dog raw pork. 

Then again, you kill wild hogs so they're probably not eating garbage and filled with as many parasites and worms.


Rabblefox, 

I'm going to assume worms. My SO won't even eat fish after he opened up a pond fish and found it filled with worms. Salt water fish don't have them as bad as far as I've personally seen. I would never feed a raw fish caught out of a pond or lake to my dog for that reason. He only gets sardines occasionally.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> Why no fresh water fish??? *curious* Im not very savvy into what's what in the raw meat department. I stick to chicken bits for the dogs.


Because.... that is the one place dogs can seem to get parasites from wild animals. It might never happen. But if a coyote or fox has something, it gets into the water through their feces, something eats the feces and it goes up the food chain and end up in the fish..

I do not know anyone that has had a dog get sick. But it is documented. Especially with salmon in the PNW...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Do you feed raw pork to your dog's? I'm terrified to give my dog raw pork.
> 
> Then again, you kill wild hogs so they're probably not eating garbage and filled with as many parasites and worms.
> 
> ...


Yea.... Raw pork both wild and domestic.... Does not worry me...


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Because.... that is the one place dogs can seem to get parasites from wild animals. It might never happen. But if a coyote or fox has something, it gets into the water through their feces, something eats the feces and it goes up the food chain and end up in the fish..
> 
> I do not know anyone that has had a dog get sick. But it is documented. Especially with salmon in the PNW...


Good to know! Thanks.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

So I decided to do some reading on bullfighting.

I learned that the bulls aren't really "wild". They're bred on farms, and they're free range....that's not really the same as wild, to me. They're specifically bred for the purpose of bullfighting.

I also learned that in Portugal, it is illegal to kill a bull in the ring. It is removed and either professionally slaughtered, or treated and sent back to the farm to live out its days (exceptional circumstances).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> So I decided to do some reading on bullfighting.
> 
> I learned that the bulls aren't really "wild". They're bred on farms, and they're free range....that's not really the same as wild, to me. They're specifically bred for the purpose of bullfighting.
> 
> I also learned that in Portugal, it is illegal to kill a bull in the ring. It is removed and either professionally slaughtered, or treated and sent back to the farm to live out its days (exceptional circumstances).


I always figured they were bred along specific lines. Much like Rodeo bucking bulls.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Xeph said:


> So I decided to do some reading on bullfighting.
> 
> I learned that the bulls aren't really "wild". They're bred on farms, and they're free range....that's not really the same as wild, to me. They're specifically bred for the purpose of bullfighting.
> 
> I also learned that in Portugal, it is illegal to kill a bull in the ring. It is removed and either professionally slaughtered, or treated and sent back to the farm to live out its days (exceptional circumstances).


I thought the objection to bullfighting is what happens in the ring. Does it matter how they're raised?

Honest question.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> I thought the objection to bullfighting is what happens in the ring. Does it matter how they're raised?
> 
> Honest question.


Well I just watched two full length bull fights.....

I was less than impressed. Not what I envisioned. I was thinking one man against the bull. That is not the case. They are a bunch of weenies....


BTW.... To the notion and comments that bull fighting only exists in Spain because of tourism... Hogwash.... Those stadiums were filled with locals. NOT tourists.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

If the bulls where not actually tortured before death,and eaten afterwards. I wouldn't be really against it,but that doesn't seem to be the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Wv***2j8E


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> If the bulls where not actually tortured before death,and eaten afterwards. I wouldn't be really against it,but that doesn't seem to be the case.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Wv***2j8E


What I envisioned was one matador versus one bull... But there are multiple men, men on horses with spears and the bull looks worn down before he enters. 

I have a LOT of time with cattle and those things are moving slow. Plus the matadors continually turn their back on the bulls. Something you would never want to do with a torqued off bull. 

Between the slow motion, the heavy mouth breathing, and the men turning their backs, something does not add up. They have been worn down and possibly drugged. 


Think what you want of me, if it was one healthy bull versus one man with a cape and sword, I would have no issue with it. 

All those guys and the worn down bulls.... eh not so much.... Those guys are just weenies.. .


They need to come to Florida and I can introduce them to some real bulls.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What I envisioned was one matador versus one bull... But there are multiple men, men on horses with spears and the bull looks worn down before he enters.
> 
> I have a LOT of time with cattle and those things are moving slow. Plus the matadors continually turn their back on the bulls. Something you would never want to do with a torqued off bull.
> 
> ...


Yeah,its not exactly fair,no wonder people applaud when a bull actually manages to harm one of those bastards.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

The animals aren't drugged, they're bleeding profusely. They're weak from blood loss and pain. Each stab from the bandilleros and picadors is meant to weaken the bull.

I also watched a couple fights on youtube, to get a better idea. I've always thought the practice was barbaric, and I think the matador looks like an idiot. I do not see this as an art form at all. I just wanted to dispel some misinformation that had been propagated earlier in the thread.

I absolutely do NOT support bullfighting, and believe it is a practice that should be banned, regardless of cultural significance.

Those are beautiful animals, and they do not deserve such cruelty. Not only is their pain prolonged, but it is incredibly rare for the matador to successfully end the life of the bull with the first thrust of his sword. It often takes multiple attempts to pierce him through the heart.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> The animals aren't drugged, they're bleeding profusely. They're weak from blood loss and pain. Each stab from the bandilleros and picadors is meant to weaken the bull.
> 
> I also watched a couple fights on youtube, to get a better idea. I've always thought the practice was barbaric, and I think the matador looks like an idiot. I do not see this as an art form at all. I just wanted to dispel some misinformation that had been propagated earlier in the thread.
> 
> ...



I dunno..... I have a ton of time on cattle. And have the scars, broken bones, near death experiences and the hospital stays to know what one moment of misjudgement will cost you. 

If you asked me, at least on the videos I watched... It was more than blood loss.... The blood running down their sides is not all that significant. Those small spears they poke in their backs do not do significant damage. Lots of muscle tissue up there. 

So with the heavy mouth breathing, if you asked me... I would say those bulls got a dose of ketamine before they went in the ring. You can run a bull HARD, in hot weather and it still won't mouth breath most of the time. You dose a bull with ketamine and it mouth breaths within minutes.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

How long were the fights you saw? What I saw was only a few minutes, and fights apparently last much longer than that.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I was told that bulls weren't fed, were kept in the dark(so when they did come out the sun was a shock to them) and drugged before being "fought"..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> How long were the fights you saw? What I saw was only a few minutes, and fights apparently last much longer than that.


I watched a couple from Madrid, Barcelona..... 20 to 30 minutes. 

I am telling you.... I found the thought interesting.... But those guys are WEENIES.... I did more daring stuff with bigger, faster, meaner bulls by the time I was 10 years old. 
And some matadors get hurt... You would have to just about be blind and hop on one leg to get hurt by one of those bulls... 

I would walk out there right now with any I saw. With my middle aged, overweight tired self. And slap grab the bull by the tail .


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

You don't need to tell me they're weenies. The bull is largely helpless. I already know they're weenies.

Bullfights can last almost three hours.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> You don't need to tell me they're weenies. The bull is largely helpless. I already know they're weenies.
> 
> Bullfights can last almost three hours.


Heck I have owned bulls that would have whipped in matador I watched... As I said, they can come to Florida and I can introduce them to some bulls.


----------



## Antje (Sep 1, 2013)

I am a new member and already i wonder how certain amongst you can speak good of these terrible dog owners that use their grey hounds until they dont win anything anymore, and then dump them. 
I live as wel in Belgium as in Spain.....terrible things spanish or irish owners do with thes gentle dogs, and all in favor of winning and winning and winning.....a dog is not a thing as a handfull of playing carts. A dog is a living friend. No i am strongly opposed against all gambling with living things, horses as well. Sorry if i write mistakes, not my mother language. But the language of love is universal. That is for sure.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

The bulls are specifically bred and taught to go after the cape. They did try to use some Highland cattle but could never get them to go after the cape, they went after the Matador.


----------



## Antje (Sep 1, 2013)

Clever Highland bulls .....


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

CptJack--What do you think chickens and cows eat?
^I meant wildlife. Domesticated animals don't count because as humans, we wouldn't allow any of that to get into our food. People would be sick and sue the company. As wild animals don't have humans watching over what they eat, it'd be unsafe to eat an animal raw. 
--------
JohnnyBandit--since you're used to it, it doesn't gross you out. But from my point of view, since I'm not, can you see how I'd be grossed out? Or think that it'd disguising for a dog to eat that stuff? If you say it's safe, than I guess it's safe. 

I typically take about 6 to 8 deer a year.
^Bucks right? I heard somewhere it's illegal to kill a doe. 

--------
I meant both Laurelin. And I don't think I could ever kill an animal unless I was starving. 
------
I've only been near a cow. I was already afraid because of the stories I heard on Buttercup and so I would always bring in a zapper with me. I never used it on her, just the sound she wouldn't like. Well one day, as I was cleaning her poop I saw her in the corner of my eye jumping up. She was going to rear up on me, thankfully I moved. I couldn't go in with her again and it was one cow, now we have a bull where I used to work and I can't imagine how he is. I also can't imagine how you worked with them JohnnyBandit. You must of had nerves of steel! 

It's cruel for any animal to be injured and just thrown into a ring and expect to fight. So that got me thinking since most of us are against bullfighting, I'm also against bucking brontos because they tie the strap near the horse's private areas and people think its fun to watch. What do you all think of that sport? I say ban that one too. 
------
Antje--most of us here don't support greyhound racing. I know for myself and a few others, we've stated that we don't support the abuse that goes on in there.


----------



## Antje (Sep 1, 2013)

Sorry then , and a big smile for all the other members that dont support .


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The more you know about the commercial meat industry, the less safe you'll think it is. Eww. True, they are given antiparasitics. But the conditions are not very clean and are overcrowded. Such conditions cause a lot of diseases. That's why they tell you to cook all meat to a minimum temperature, and have warnings at restaurants about how you can't sue if you order your meat less-than-well-done and it makes you sick. Garbage from human food production (including candy and heavily processed foods), farm waste, and even poop from other animals (chicken litter is frequently fed to cows, for instance), are all allowed in livestock feed. There is also nobody monitoring the animals to make sure they don't eat their own poop . At least wild animals aren't kept in dirty overcrowded conditions.

And. . .if you think it's disgusting for a dog to eat from a gut pile, you really don't want to know what's in dog food . 

It's not illegal to kill does---in fact it's necessary to take some does for population control. Antlerless deer licenses are practically forced on people some years (they have to take a doe for every buck they want to get, etc.). In places with smaller deer populations, they probably don't want many does taken.

Plus cows don't "rear up" like horses. I don't know what Buttercup had in mind but pretty sure rearing up wasn't it .


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> I typically take about 6 to 8 deer a year.
> ^Bucks right? I heard somewhere it's illegal to kill a doe.


I am not familiar with all state regulations but no, it is not illegal to kill a doe. In fact in Oklahoma, only 2 of your deer can be 'antlered'



> The combined season limit for deer archery, youth deer gun, deer muzzleloader and deer gun seasons is no more than six deer per individual. This limit may include no more than two antlered deer.





> Antlered Deer: Any deer, regardless of sex, with at least three inches of antler length above the natural hairline on either side.


2 bucks, 4 doe total here.

I haven't killed a deer but dang I like eating them. I think they taste great, they're healthier, I love knowing that I am eating the most cruelty-free meat possible. Win-win for me. I'm hoping my family bags the max this year so I get more.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

There is also nobody monitoring the animals to make sure they don't eat their own poop . At least wild animals aren't kept in dirty overcrowded conditions.
^I thought there were always people to monitor them. Maybe what I read was a bad article. Thanks for explaining it nicely, Willowy. 

you really don't want to know what's in dog food
^I thought they got better with that too. Great. :/

Plus cows don't "rear up" like horses. I don't know what Buttercup had in mind but pretty sure rearing up wasn't it 
^What I meant was, she was in heat and since there wasn't a bull around, I was the next best thing. I kept telling her we're two different species, but she wasn't listening.

Laurelin--maybe it's illegal to kill a fawn? I'll check NJ laws, I thought one of my coworkers said it was illegal. I checked and I guess it isn't.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hunting season is in fall and it's illegal to take a deer out of season. So, yep, it would be illegal to kill a fawn because they wouldn't still be fawns by the time hunting season came. 

I'm not sure how much monitoring you expect there to be in a 1000-head hog operation. Or how someone would stop a 600-pound hog from eating poop if he wanted to . Poultry confinements aren't cleaned the entire 8-14 weeks the chickens/turkeys are in it. The farmer goes in as seldom as possible, just to make the food, water, and ventilation systems are still working. Hog confinements are run about the same, but they have different waste-management systems. Feedlots are generally just outdoor pens, no grass because of the crowding, and poop is removed at certain intervals (the one I drive by every day seems to remove it twice a week. The other days they just pile it in the corner of the pens). So, yup, lots of opportunity for poop contact.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> CptJack--What do you think chickens and cows eat?
> ^Oh c'mon CptJack, I meant wildlife. Domesticated animals don't count because as humans, we wouldn't allow any of that to get into our food. People would be sick and sue the company. As wild animals don't have humans watching over what they eat, it'd be unsafe to eat an animal raw.
> .


This thought process you have that wild animals are somehow dirty, unclean, or unsafe to eat is somewhat baffling to me. As a general rule in MOST cases wild animals are going to be cleaner, safer, and have a better diet than domestic animals. 

In most cases it is not what the animal has eaten that can harm you. Once their digestive tracts have broken it down, it is just proteins, carbs, amino acids etc. A wild hog could have been dining on a three day old road killed possum and hour before you kill it. The thought is not very appetizing I suppose. But no bacteria or harmful substances are going to get from the decaying possum into the flesh of the hog. It is all going to be dealt with in the hogs digestive tract. 

Most other animals we eat other than bear are herbivores. Deer, rabbits, squirrels (they will eat small critters and bugs) etc So no real worry there. And Hogs are just opportunistic omnivores. Their diet largely is made up of plant matter. But if they get an opportunity they will readily eat flesh. When the fawn deer are born, they eat a fair share of them. 
I have at times had contracts to remove and reduce feral hogs at landfills. The thought of eating hogs that have been feeding on human garbage bothers me. I have never and would never eat a landfill hog. Kind of creeps me out. But I know people that do without a second thought. 

The big concern in meat is getting toxins, poisons, hormones, etc that have passed through the animal and built up in their system. This occurs in domestic meat. Pretty much absent in wild meat in most cases. 

Wild meat, is safer, cleaner, and healthier for you than domestic. 

I like some things raw. I am MORE likely to eat a cut of deer raw than domestic beef. I have done and occasionally do both. But I feel much better about the deer. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> CptJack--
> --------
> JohnnyBandit--since you're used to it, it doesn't gross you out. But from my point of view, since I'm not, can you see how I'd be grossed out? Or think that it'd disguising for a dog to eat that stuff? If you say it's safe, than I guess it's safe.
> 
> -


I could see how it could gross people out. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> I typically take about 6 to 8 deer a year.
> ^Bucks right? I heard somewhere it's illegal to kill a doe.
> .


In some places it is illegal to kill does. But in MOST places the harvesting of a certain number of doe deer is encouraged. It is needed to keep the population healthy and balanced. In many places humans are really the only predator on a given deer herd. If strictly bucks are taken, then the population gets out of balance and it can be unhealthy. When you get way more does than bucks, many does go unbred and the bucks that do remain about kill themselves trying to breed all the does. Fertility goes down, fawn counts go down, etc. You actually adversely affect a population over time by taking only bucks. In proper game management the population is monitored and harvests are adjusted both in numbers and in ratios of bucks to does taken. Different populations for some reason seem to drop different percentages of doe fawns to buck fawns. All of that is taken into consideration. On some properties the number of does taken is higher than bucks. I have seen properties where no bucks at all are taken, only does, for several years. I once hunted a property in which they did not take a buck off the property for four years. But each of those four years 50-75 does were taken. That was about a three thousand acre tract. Since that occurred the fawn counts are up, the deer appear outwardly more healthy, larger, more robust, better physical condition. 

On private cattle ranch I hunt, I exchange some hog control for deer hunting rights. I am allowed to take three deer a year off of that property. But it has always been 2 does and one buck. That specific population has always seemed to throw about 75 percent doe fawns. So it is very easy to get things out of whack.

So I shoot both bucks and does. In an average year it is usually about 50/50 give or take. Last season I took seven deer. Three bucks, four does. 
BTW... as a rule, does are better eating. 



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> ------
> I've only been near a cow. I was already afraid because of the stories I heard on Buttercup and so I would always bring in a zapper with me. I never used it on her, just the sound she wouldn't like. Well one day, as I was cleaning her poop I saw her in the corner of my eye jumping up. She was going to rear up on me, thankfully I moved. I couldn't go in with her again and it was one cow, now we have a bull where I used to work and I can't imagine how he is. I also can't imagine how you worked with them JohnnyBandit. You must of had nerves of steel!
> .


I do not know about nerves of steel. It is pretty much what you are used to I guess. No critters scare me. Well the first moose I saw that was coming at me concerned me. But other than that... Nothing. Bears, cattle, etc. Frankly, I think a horse will hurt you quicker than a cow. But horses do not concern me either. And I have been hurt, badly, as in nearly died, by a bull. Did not effect me and how I feel about cattle or being around them. I realized I made a mistake and I paid for it. I do not plan on making that mistake again. 




Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> It's cruel for any animal to be injured and just thrown into a ring and expect to fight. So that got me thinking since most of us are against bullfighting, I'm also against bucking brontos because they tie the strap near the horse's private areas and people think its fun to watch. What do you all think of that sport? I say ban that one too.
> ------.


I like and attend rodeos. In fact I am thinking of investing in a bucking bull or two. (people own them much like people own racehorses, show dogs etc. ) They will not live with me, but I will be part owner. Something I have always wanted to do. 
I like the bull riding the best, followed by the bronc riding and the team roping. I also like the "bullfighting" that happens at some rodeos. Where the clowns go in the arena with a bull and the bull chases them. They sort of tease the bull into chasing them. But no swords, spear or capes involved. 

These guys ain't weenies..





And they save bull riders arses all the time


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Here is a clip of rodeo bull fighters doing what they do. There is not a bull rider out there that has not been saved from serious injury or death by a bullfighter. 
They literally put themselves between the bull and the downed rider..... No weenies here ..


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

Willowy--I'm not sure how much monitoring you expect there to be in a 1000-head hog operation.
^I guess I'm thinking if three of us can manage a wildlife farm/nature center then the farmers could. Of course it's all about the people too and how much they care. Maybe I'm expecting too much. *shrugs*
------
JB (hope you don't mind me shortening your sn): This thought process you have that wild animals are somehow dirty, unclean, or unsafe to eat is somewhat baffling to me.
^I watch animal shows a lot. That's where I get my animal info from, unless I've worked or studied the animal. Obviously that info was now wrong or I took it the wrong way.

BTW... as a rule, does are better eating. 
^Why?

No critters scare me.
^I'd like to see you up against a bird we had at the nature center. Well I would and wouldn't; I wouldn't want you to get hurt, but this particular pheasant (I know you said you were near bulls and birds are no biggy to you probably), but this animal hated everyone! I finally found his species (I have to look it up again, he was pretty too) and first line near their temperament: this animal doesn't care for humans and other animals, it'll be aggressive with them. Finally all of us outvoted our boss to get rid of it! Sometimes it was funny though, in winter when the water bowls would freeze, we'd go in and knock out the ice and pour fresh water in. Well this guy, I'd crack open the door and make sure it wouldn't make a sound, I'd have a rake for protection, and throw really big rocks at its water bowl to break it, lol.
Ha--I found him! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeve's_Pheasant Beautiful and deadly they are! 

I think a horse will hurt you quicker than a cow.
^I think all animals can sense fear and Buttercup, the cow, sensed mine. I wasn't fearful of the horses (one Mustang, 3 minis, 3 mini donkeys) and were fine with them. They never went to hurt me. That's good that you learned from your mistake.

That video still shows how the rope is around the bull's private areas. Or sometimes it looks as if it is; on the pictures of the feral horses it is around them there. That must really hurt them, but I read the horses are feral and will buck anyway. Yeah I've heard of them getting in front of the bull to save the rider, talk about having no fear!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> BTW... as a rule, does are better eating.
> ^Why?


Testosterone. The same reason male farm animals are castrated. Testosterone builds muscle and burns fat. This makes meat from a mature uncastrated male animal somewhat tough and gamey. For good meat from a deer, you want a yearling buck or a doe. A trophy buck will have nasty meat---the tougher he is, the tougher his meat, too .


----------



## SDRRanger (May 2, 2013)

Love watching the rodeo clowns at work. I've worked with beef and dairy cattle (dairy bulls have been far more dangerous in my experience) and I wouldn't want to climb into a pen with any of them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> That video still shows how the rope is around the bull's private areas. Or sometimes it looks as if it is; on the pictures of the feral horses it is around them there. That must really hurt them, but I read the horses are feral and will buck anyway. Yeah I've heard of them getting in front of the bull to save the rider, talk about having no fear!


You are talking about the flank strap. It is not on there tight and it can only be put on by the stock contractor. Those bulls are worth big bucks and have long careers. Bulls at the top level may be worth over a quarter of a million bucks. I am not going to say that a flank strap is not an irritant. But it does not harm the animal and is not on their privates.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> CptJack--What do you think chickens and cows eat?
> ^I meant wildlife. Domesticated animals don't count because as humans, we wouldn't allow any of that to get into our food. People would be sick and sue the company. As wild animals don't have humans watching over what they eat, it'd be unsafe to eat an animal raw.



Um. No. You can't eat any chicken raw because, you know, salmonella. You can't get ground beef raw, because bacteria from the surface is spread throughout (it's why many places won't serve a burger below medium well). They dont' eat better, and things that are present in wildlife are very, very much present in domesticated livestock and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed or intentionally oblivious, but it's there. There is no difference, except wild animals often have much cleaner living environments.

**ETA:** and you certainly can, and many people do, eat raw, wild, fish.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> Um. No. You can't eat any chicken raw because, you know, salmonella. You can't get ground beef raw, because bacteria from the surface is spread throughout (it's why many places won't serve a burger below medium well). They dont' eat better, and things that are present in wildlife are very, very much present in domesticated livestock and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed or intentionally oblivious, but it's there. There is no difference, except wild animals often have much cleaner living environments.



I get medium rare and rare burgers all the time... I ain't skeert...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I get medium rare and rare burgers all the time... I ain't skeert...


I do too, but a lot of places (mostly chains) refuse to serve them because of the risk associated. I've never had a problem and think it's dumb, but you know. It is what it is.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Here you have to have a 'Doe license' to kill does in addition to the regular hunting license. Fawns are right out, of course.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

JB: But it does not harm the animal and is not on their privates. 
^Then someone better let the animal shows I watch know. Because that's where I'm getting my info from. 
-----
CptJack: Um. No. You can't eat any chicken raw because, you know, salmonella. 
^I'm not stupid. And I'd appreciate it if your tone didn't sound sarcastic and make me out as if I don't know a thing. I know it's hard to tell tone of voice on the internet, but you're coming off as condescending. 

very much present in domesticated livestock and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed or intentionally oblivious, but it's there.
^I guess I'm misinformed then b/c I watch animal shows and that's where the majority of my animal info comes from, besides books and internet.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

-----


> CptJack: Um. No. You can't eat any chicken raw because, you know, salmonella.
> ^I'm not stupid. And I'd appreciate it if your tone didn't sound sarcastic and make me out as if I don't know a thing. I know it's hard to tell tone of voice on the internet, but you're coming off as condescending.
> 
> very much present in domesticated livestock and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed or intentionally oblivious, but it's there.
> ^I guess I'm misinformed then b/c I watch animal shows and that's where the majority of my animal info comes from, besides books and internet.


...stop watching animal shows/reading animal books and start watching ones about food safety? They're separate issues.

And no, I'm not trying to be patronizing. I am, however, completely _confused_ by some of the things you've said here, and maybe a little exasperated.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> JB: But it does not harm the animal and is not on their privates.
> ^Then someone better let the animal shows I watch know. Because that's where I'm getting my info from.
> -----
> CptJack: Um. No. You can't eat any chicken raw because, you know, salmonella.
> ...


It seems to me you give a bit much credence to what you see on tv. Most shows..... Most "documentaries".... Have some sort agenda or at least point of view. 

It really makes no sense that someone would let any harm come to a bucking bull. They are quite valuable. And given the value of the semen of a good bucking bull, NO ONE is messing with their privates. Most current bulls are sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc of other top performing bulls. 

A bulls value is based on his appearances. So again, the owner, stock contractor, etc are not going to do anything harm it. 


At all levels that I am aware of, a bull is not ridden more than once a day. 

The PBR (The Professional Bulls Riders - Like the world series of bull riding, only the very best riders and very best bulls)
Reports the following. 
1) A bull is likely to suffer a minor injury, cut, bruise, pulled muscle once in 786 rides (one bull does not do that many rides in its career but that is an average of how often a bull has a minor injury) 

2) A bull is likely to suffer a career ending injury once in 9833 rides. And every effort made to give the bull a chance to recover. They are not going to say oh he can't buck any more so he is going to be put down. If he is a good bull, he will be a stud. I know when the PBR comes to Tampa, the big Racehorse Surgical Hospital in Ocala, has vets on site and they have their Horse Ambulance on hand in case they have to transport an animal back to the hospital. 

3) Since the PBR started in 1992, four bulls have been Euthanized due to an injury. 


In my life, I have always been a rodeo freak. I have been to a BUNCH of rodeos. I have never seen a bull get hurt badly. Seen one two limp a little, saw one break a horn (not really and injury per say). I have seen quite a few bull riders hurt badly. I know of a couple I witnessed that ended up with a brain injury and never recovered his senses. Remained brain damaged. In the last 20 years rider safety has gotten better. Most wear helmets and vests. They still get hurt, but in the old days it could be wild. The rodeo clown now commonly called bullfighters have gotten better and better as well. They used to just be some crazy guy in a clown suit. Now these guys are athletes, the best are WELL paid and do a good job of protecting the rider on the ground. Usually all getting thrown does is knock the wind out of a rider. It is what the bull does to the rider while he is on the ground that causes serious injury. 

I wanted to ride when I was a young man but I had already nearly been killed by a bull. So every time I would talk about it, my mother would get me to promise I would not


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I watch rodeos. Often the Bull after bucking the person off,will move and run without acting very irritated. They even has a tub of water the bulls would go over and drink out of.

It is somewhat of a irritant. While riding a horse while back one of the straps loosened and got too near the crotch,causing the horse to buck. The horse was never hurt,and calmed down pretty quickly at least.


You know how many people get seriously injured and even die in sports,a couple jockies die a year from horse racing. A small amount of deaths is not going to put me off from a sport.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It seems to me you give a bit much credence to what you see on tv. Most shows..... Most "documentaries".... Have some sort agenda or at least point of view.
> 
> ot


And the same thing could be said about greyhound racing. I do not have a ton of inside details on greyhound racing. But do not believe every negative thing you hear about it.

The value of the dogs alone and the futurity alone tells me the dogs are not taken care of terribly.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I don't trust much of what they say on animal rights/welfare sites or books. Its easy to fall into it,I did for short time,but after doing more research I found a lot of faults into their beliefs. 
They exaggerated or find some bad incident that happened once or twice and consider that normal. 

You can't get away with saying that because some dogs are neglected or abused by their owners,that all are that way. No-one will believe you,but take something you don't have hands on experience with,that you don't know anyone personally involved with,something that you're in a high enough class to avoid,something perhaps you never even seen in person. 

Working,sporting and even dog management such as using tie outs are much easier to blame. Now its not even just tie outs but kennel use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hknKYZnXfhI


----------



## linneke (Sep 2, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Was just wondering how you guys felt about Greyhound Racing?


I have a friend who breeds whippets and every now and then does racing. I say every now and then because she doesnt push her dogs over their limits, her dogs run for fun not for money. it disgusts me that poeple or blind for the abuse of greyhounds in countries like spain and still bed on dog racing. these races or only for money and a lot of the dogowners only care for the dog as long as they can get money out of it, once the dogs are done whit racing the a lot of the owners just dump the dog, abuse it or kill it in a brutal way.

as long as it's just for fun it's ok, other then that it should be forbidden.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> *The value of the dogs alone and the futurity alone tells me the dogs are not taken care of terribly.*


*
*

Having worked in the race horse industry (which is similar in many ways to greyhound racing) and having run an eventing yard, where those valuable animals are molly coddled to the extreme, I can tell you, that its the value of those animals that puts them at such a high risk of a bullet to the head. When a valuable animal is insured to its value and sustains an injury that could jeopardize its racing days, Its preferential for the animal to be destroyed (even if the injury is perfectly treatable) or have its documents falsified so that an insurance claim can be made.

I don't think anyone said that greyhounds that are running in licensed racing are abused or put down unnecessarily during its racing life. Only when its racing life is over. 

I was once jump judging at 3 day horse event when a horse took a stumble at a ditch and ended up with its head stuck in the water and its body in such a precarious position it couldn't get up. The rider got up and walked away, whilst myself and two men tried desperately to get the horses head out of the water. As the horse was rescued, he staggered to his legs and apart from being shaken up, he was fine. 

The owner of the horse approached us and told us that we should of left the horse to drown because the horse would now be too afraid to jump water ditches and what the hell was he going to do with him now?


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> I don't trust much of what they say on animal rights/welfare sites or books. Its easy to fall into it,I did for short time,but after doing more research I found a lot of faults into their beliefs.
> They exaggerated or find some bad incident that happened once or twice and consider that normal.
> 
> You can't get away with saying that because some dogs are neglected or abused by their owners,that all are that way. No-one will believe you,but take something you don't have hands on experience with,that you don't know anyone personally involved with,something that you're in a high enough class to avoid,something perhaps you never even seen in person.
> ...


But lets not get carried away and put suspicion and mistrust on all animal welfare groups. If you do that, then you are no better than those animal right atavists that harm animals to produce emotional videos.

Animals who are being abused, such as the Spanish Greyhounds, need a human voice and not a shrug.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> *those animal right atavists that harm animals to produce emotional videos*.
> 
> .


What perfect propaganda against animal rights activists!! Never heard of this until reading this thread and would be very interested to see some evidence?


----------



## Antje (Sep 1, 2013)

Those amongst you that say that animal rigths overreact and even create false info, let me tell you that I with my own eyes have seen in Spain the terrible things done to old greyhounds or to dogs that no longer win. And I have neighbors in Spain, Irish people who confirm that in Ireland the same terrible things happen. This is always the result of those races. No races, no animal abuse afterwards. You should see further than the game only.....
Ofcourse there must be some owners who do love their dogs and look for rehoming at the end of their running career, but not to many I guess.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> No races, no animal abuse afterwards.


Riiiiiight

Because that's TOTALLY how it works.



> Never heard of this until reading this thread and would be very interested to see some evidence?


Google/Bing it. Seriously.


----------



## SDRRanger (May 2, 2013)

PragueRatter: are you against horse racing as well? Sorry, I've read every page originally, but can't remember.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Sorry I missed all this...we were out moose hunting.  dh got his bull for the season.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Oh...just one note about PNW salmon. Salmon are an odd fish that are both fresh and saltwater. They spend most of their time in the ocean. Salmon from south of most of Alaska are known to have a parasite. You can still eat them raw and feed them raw if you freeze them. Salmon from most of Alaska have not yet been found to have this parasite. You can also feed it dried or in jerky as treats.

Just FYI for the salmon lovers. My dog loves salmon.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

SDRRanger said:


> PragueRatter: are you against horse racing as well? Sorry, I've read every page originally, but can't remember.


I worked in a racing yard SDRRanger and I saw first hand what happens when a horse 'fails' its owner. Yes, I am against horse racing when its done for profits. I'm especially against races like 'the grand national'.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Thanks Xeph but that show any results.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> What perfect propaganda against animal rights activists!! Never heard of this until reading this thread and would be very interested to see some evidence?


From Huffington Post earlier this year: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2979220


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

"Animal Rights" activists "freed" a Siberian Tiger from the zoo up here a couple of years ago. The problem is that Siberian Tigers could happily live in this climate, but they are not a native species AND they let it loose in a residential area. Zoo staff tried to use tranquilizers to safely recapture the tiger, which was part of a captive breeding program aimed at helping to repopulate the tigers in their natural habitat, but were unable to do so. One person was seriously injured and the tiger had to be shot.

I'm not seeing how this selfish act was in any way in the tiger's best interest, nor his species.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> "Animal Rights" activists "freed" a Siberian Tiger from the zoo up here a couple of years ago. The problem is that Siberian Tigers could happily live in this climate, but they are not a native species AND they let it loose in a residential area. Zoo staff tried to use tranquilizers to safely recapture the tiger, which was part of a captive breeding program aimed at helping to repopulate the tigers in their natural habitat, but were unable to do so. One person was seriously injured and the tiger had to be shot.
> 
> I'm not seeing how this selfish act was in any way in the tiger's best interest, nor his species.


Dingdingding!

Animal Rughts activists, on multiple occasions, have freed fur farm animals from this prison. Those animals were all found several days later. Dead. In the wild. Yay for "freedom"!

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970709&slug=2548662


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> Dingdingding!
> 
> Animal Rughts activists, on multiple occasions, have freed fur farm animals from this prison. Those animals were all found several days later. Dead. In the wild. Yay for "freedom"!
> 
> http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970709&slug=2548662


And it's these kinds of things that really give AR a bad reputation. To me, all too often, it seems like these are the types of people who simply do not understand the animals that they are claiming to want to support and often act selfishly and for political reasons rather than trying to do what is in the animals' best interest. The extremists who do things like this or who put a higher value on animal life than human life are the ones that create the noise that everything else gets lost in.

We get some of these people up here who decide to go out into the woods and "be at one" with the bears. That problem tends to take care of itself.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> From Huffington Post earlier this year: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2979220


Thanks. I have heard a lot of bad things about PETA. England has an equivalent called the RSPCA (another multi million industry that are not as ethical as they portray themselves to be)

What about the animal rights activists though? the ones who pay industries to torture animals so they can capture it on camera?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> Thanks. I have heard a lot of bad things about PETA. England has an equivalent called the RSPCA (another multi million industry that are not as ethical as they portray themselves to be)
> 
> What about the animal rights activists though? the ones who pay industries to torture animals so they can capture it on camera?


That's still PETA. I'll find a link after work.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> Thanks. I have heard a lot of bad things about PETA. England has an equivalent called the RSPCA (another multi million industry that are not as ethical as they portray themselves to be)
> 
> What about the animal rights activists though? the ones who pay industries to torture animals so they can capture it on camera?


Often, they capture just one person or one workplace acting in an extremely unethical manner, and then make the generalization that ALL of them are like that. If we went by that rationale, then every veterinarian's office is a cruel, inhumane place. After all, I once saw a video of a vet tech beating a dog.

I think there are competing interests at play any time an industry involves animals. On the one side, we want the most humane treatment possible for the animals. On the other side, that kind of treatment often costs more and that cost gets passed on to consumers of that industry, whatever it is. I think most industries that involve animals try to find a balance between the lowest cost methods and the most humane methods. There is also the balance between having to pay your workers as little as possible, which then also leads to more abuse, and paying them more, which often leads to better conditions for the animals, but again, higher cost. It's a balancing act.

I visited a musk ox farm this weekend. It was a perfect example of a wonderful, humane operation. The animals were raised with great care and their quiviut (the musk ox equivalent of wool) was harvested by hand with combs, taking hours to harvest. It was clean and the animals had wonderful grazing pens with large grassy fields and at least an acre per animal.

And the quiviut cost $99 for one skein of yarn.

Few of us will ever be able to afford a sweater made of musk ox, but this was a non-profit operation aimed primarily at research, education, and preservation. Most farmers/ranchers/trappers, etc have to turn a profit in order to feed families and keep themselves in business.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't have a good word for the extremists. Many hunting horses have been fatally injured by these do gooders who put trip wire down so the horses legs get torn off. These people couldn't really give a rats ass about animal welfare and more realistically enjoy the hippy communes these sort of groups attract. 

I am not an extremist and personally I don't know anyone who is. I am however, the voice of sanity and compassion when it comes to known and recognised animal abuse. I'm neither embarrassed or about to apologise for showing my concerns and doing what I can to help stop animal abuse.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

PragueRatter said:


> I don't have a good word for the extremists. Many hunting horses have been fatally injured by these do gooders who put trip wire down so the horses legs get torn off. These people couldn't really give a rats ass about animal welfare and more realistically enjoy the hippy communes these sort of groups attract.
> 
> I am not an extremist and personally I don't know anyone who is. I am however, the voice of sanity and compassion when it comes to known and recognised animal abuse. I'm neither embarrassed or about to apologise for showing my concerns and doing what I can to help stop animal abuse.


Well, lets not be too hard on the hippies or those who "commune with nature". The vast, vast majority are pacifist idealistic types. We've had some pretty impassioned defense of alternative lifestyles and self-determination in this thread. That should apply at least as much to those of us who may participate in a commune.

As for the AR supporters, I'm not dead set against the more moderate on the spectrum but I despise those who feel justified in using violent or cruel means to their end. I also think many in AR don't really understand a lot of the animals they are seeking to "liberate".


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

aiw said:


> Well, lets not be too hard on the hippies or those who "commune with nature". .


I agree. I'm married to an ex sea gypsy who, when on land, spent many years repairing and building the inner structures of troglodytes!! We still spend many a night sleeping under the stars, decking out caves, climbing trees, living in a tepee and joining rallies but that's not what I meant when I said that the extremists enjoy the hippy commune mentality. 

What I meant is, extremists often form hippy type groups because its an alternative lifestyle and not that all hippies and alternative groups are extremists.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

PragueRatter said:


> But lets not get carried away and put suspicion and mistrust on all animal welfare groups. If you do that, then you are no better than those animal right atavists that harm animals to produce emotional videos.
> 
> Animals who are being abused, such as the Spanish Greyhounds, need a human voice and not a shrug.


I more like try to read into both sides and figure it out for myself,on article or book is not good enough.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> But lets not get carried away and put suspicion and mistrust on all animal welfare groups. If you do that, then you are no better than those animal right atavists that harm animals to produce emotional videos.
> 
> Animals who are being abused, such as the Spanish Greyhounds, need a human voice and not a shrug.


I have been involved with the political side of dogs, hunting, ranching, fishing, etc for all of my adult life. I have been given little choice other than to protect my interests. 
I have witnessed lie after lie. Fabrication after fabrication. Both by animal rights groups and animal welfare groups. 

I do not trust any of them any more.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> [/B]
> 
> Having worked in the race horse industry (which is similar in many ways to greyhound racing) and having run an eventing yard, where those valuable animals are molly coddled to the extreme, I can tell you, that its the value of those animals that puts them at such a high risk of a bullet to the head. When a valuable animal is insured to its value and sustains an injury that could jeopardize its racing days, Its preferential for the animal to be destroyed (even if the injury is perfectly treatable) or have its documents falsified so that an insurance claim can be made.


That makes no sense.... At least if it is an intact animal. The animals value goes beyond competing. 
Insurance does not cover offspring....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Antje said:


> Those amongst you that say that animal rigths overreact and even create false info, let me tell you that I with my own eyes have seen in Spain the terrible things done to old greyhounds or to dogs that no longer win. And I have neighbors in Spain, Irish people who confirm that in Ireland the same terrible things happen. This is always the result of those races. No races, no animal abuse afterwards. You should see further than the game only.....
> Ofcourse there must be some owners who do love their dogs and look for rehoming at the end of their running career, but not to many I guess.


A dog that no longer wins means that the dog at one time did win. Dogs get old, slow down, etc.
But winners breed winners... An old dog that was fast but is not longer fast, can make other fast dogs...


Oh.... And no races, no racing dogs... .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Thanks. I have heard a lot of bad things about PETA. England has an equivalent called the RSPCA (another multi million industry that are not as ethical as they portray themselves to be)
> 
> What about the animal rights activists though? the ones who pay industries to torture animals so they can capture it on camera?


Here is how the AR propaganda gets their "footage" they find some local dumb ass in some hole in the wall dirty sub standard facility that is not USDA inspected doing something dumb and cruel and pass that off as what really goes on.

Going back to 1986 I have been in I do not know how many facilities. Production, feed lots, farms. etc. 
Its not at all like what the AR nuts would have you believe. 


I will tell you this as well...... You, me, all of us pay MORE for meat because of AR.... AR increases our costs for meat. Here, Europe, etc.... And not because AR makes people do the right thing...
Costs increase because of the cost of security to protect facilities against sabatage


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Speaking of AR nutjobs.

This is current.
SIMCOE - Animal rights activists have taken credit for the mass release of fox and mink at a fur farm east of Simcoe this week.

Nearly 500 animals in all were released sometime early Monday morning at the Bollert Fur Farm on Highway 3 west of Renton.

The culprits did not leave clues to their identity. However, the Animal Liberation Front has taken responsibility for the incident, which the Norfolk OPP are treating as a break-and-enter.

“In the early morning of August 26, ALF raided (the Bollert farm) in Simcoe,” a posting at the Direct Action website says. “We approached the fur farm and laid down in the tall grass so we could watch the guard’s building for any sign of movement. Once we were satisfied it was empty, we cut the bands that attach the chain link fence to the poles and then tore a large area of fence down at the back of the farm and opened the front gate. We estimate we released about 750 mink and 50 fox.”

The Bollert farm is located on Highway 3 on the west side of Renton. The owner is Robert Bollert. Bollert referred all inquiries to the Canadian Fur Council.

CFC spokesperson Nancy Daigneault said about 500 animals in all were released. Most have been rounded up. The Ministry of Natural Resources is assisting with the effort.

Eighty of the released animals were foxes. Of these, 25 remained on the loose as of Tuesday afternoon. Another 140 mink are missing.

Crimes such as this are not common in Canada. Daigneault said there was one animal release last year. The release in Renton is the first in Canada reported to the fur council this year.

“It’s so disappointing what’s happened to him (Bollert),” Daigneault said. “It’s a nuisance and an act of extremism that strikes fear into the heart of any farmer. And it’s a criminal act. It creates a lot of stress for the farmer because it’s an attack on his livelihood. It’s terrorism. They are terrorizing the farmer. That’s what they are doing.”

Daigneault added those responsible are not doing the affected animals any favours. These are domesticated animals that rely on humans for survival. They are not, she said, suited for life in the wild.

Animals raised on fur farms gravitate to highways when they escape, possibly because the sound of traffic reminds them of a food cart as it approaches their cage. Daigneault expects many of the missing animals will die on the road. In their news release Tuesday, the Norfolk OPP said the missing animals pose no danger to the public.

In their posting on the Internet, those claiming responsibility said they will not stop until fur farming in Canada is brought to its knees.

“The fox almost seemed to understand what was happening because – once they realized they were free – they wasted no time leaving their cages and escaping through the holes we made in the fence.

“After the fur farmer’s house lights flicked on, we quickly started pulling off breeding cards and tossing them around the empty cages and then made our retreat through the corn fields with a noisy group of mink experiencing their first taste of freedom. We won’t stop until this and all fur farms are empty.”

The statement ends with the initials “ALF.”

http://www.delhinewsrecord.com/2013/08/27/foxes-minks-sprung-from-fur-farm


----------



## EarleenMccown (Sep 2, 2013)

its simply the torture of the dogs and i am completely against it. so better would be to stop that nonsense


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

EarleenMccown said:


> its simply the torture of the dogs and i am completely against it. so better would be to stop that nonsense


If people were torturing dogs, they would be in jail.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> That makes no sense.... At least if it is an intact animal. The animals value goes beyond competing.
> Insurance does not cover offspring....


Breeding is hugely selective and very complex, at least within the horse racing circles. People are employed full time to work out suitable blood lines for a horse that has proved itself on the track and is being retired into breeding. They don't take any old horse that hasn't done particularly well. Offspring from an up and coming but unproven race horse isn't worth the time and effort it takes to breed a foal, especially when its worth more dead. There is a hell of a lot of wasted prodigy.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If people were torturing dogs, they would be in jail.


The world is a bigger place than north America and because this site is international, your last statement is wrong.

Blatant acts of cruelty are not currently illegal in Spain, because the country’s animal protection laws apply only to dogs that are considered to be pets. Sporting and hunting dogs are not classified as pets, and thus not protected by anti-cruelty laws.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

I fully get that animal rights extremists are idiots who make little to no difference to animal welfare. If anything they harm it because anyone who cares about animal welfare will be accused of being an ARA. AR extremists have thrown a questionable shadow over the people who really care and patiently work to change laws on animal husbandry. 

I think the lesson here is, don't confuse the two.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If people were torturing dogs, they would be in jail.


I suppose it depends where you live. . .in a state without felony animal cruelty laws, you'd have to really poor to end up in jail over a misdemeanor (maximum fine is $2000). And I doubt it would even go that far.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I suppose it depends where you live. . .in a state without felony animal cruelty laws, you'd have to really poor to end up in jail over a misdemeanor (maximum fine is $2000). And I doubt it would even go that far.


Unfortunately yes, there are lots of places where animal cruelty is simply met with a fine and no jail time at all.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Breeding is hugely selective and very complex, at least within the horse racing circles. People are employed full time to work out suitable blood lines for a horse that has proved itself on the track and is being retired into breeding. They don't take any old horse that hasn't done particularly well. Offspring from an up and coming but unproven race horse isn't worth the time and effort it takes to breed a foal, especially when its worth more dead. There is a hell of a lot of wasted prodigy.


I never said that breeding was not selective. 

Also as someone who has insured animals against loss, I can tell you that you are seriously oversimplifying the entire insurance thing. Insurance is there to protect you against loss, but it is not a guarantee.... Horse gets stolen, it pays. Horse gets killed by someone not associated with you, it pays. Horse suffers a life ending injury while racing, training, being transported, etc, it pays. Horse becomes sick despite quality care, it pays. etc.

This type of insurance does not allow you to put the horse down because it did not turn out quite as you had hoped, not winning etc. You cannot decide you don't want the horse any longer, put a bullet in its head, have it euthanised etc and collect. 
If the horse is injured and you do not make your best effort to treat it and help the horse make a full recovery, it will not pay. 

So your statements on horses being allowed to die, be put down etc because of insurance money is WAY overstated to say the least.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> The world is a bigger place than north America and because this site is international, your last statement is wrong.
> 
> Blatant acts of cruelty are not currently illegal in Spain, because the country’s animal protection laws apply only to dogs that are considered to be pets. Sporting and hunting dogs are not classified as pets, and thus not protected by anti-cruelty laws.


Spain keeps coming up. IF it is in fact the case in Spain, then it is up to the people of Spain to come together and work to end that.



PragueRatter said:


> I fully get that animal rights extremists are idiots who make little to no difference to animal welfare. If anything they harm it because anyone who cares about animal welfare will be accused of being an ARA. AR extremists have thrown a questionable shadow over the people who really care and patiently work to change laws on animal husbandry.
> 
> I think the lesson here is, don't confuse the two.


There is NO confusion on my part....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I suppose it depends where you live. . .in a state without felony animal cruelty laws, you'd have to really poor to end up in jail over a misdemeanor (maximum fine is $2000). And I doubt it would even go that far.


And I ask you, what have you done, what steps have you taken, what efforts have you made, in to change this in your state? 

And do not say it cannot be done. It can. And it can start with one person. 

All it takes is ONE person to stand up and say ENOUGH!! And actually DO something about it, rather than complain about it. 

Laws are changed EVERY day because someone stood up and said enough! You live in a state with less than a million people. 
I WISH I had it that easy. If it can be done in this 20 million person monster, it can be done there.


----------



## Antje (Sep 1, 2013)

People breed winners ? your saying.....

Then I say people that use these dogs are perhaps not clever enough to breed as you suggests.  ...must be , otherwise where do all these dogs come from, that we see so many here on the streets and in shelters, not speaking of those that lie dead and tortured somewhere in the campo ?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Antje said:


> People breed winners ? your saying.....
> 
> Then I say people that use these dogs are perhaps not clever enough to breed as you suggests.  ...must be , otherwise where do all these dogs come from, that we see so many here on the streets and in shelters, not speaking of those that lie dead and tortured somewhere in the campo ?


Now you are just being silly. Of course folks breeding race dogs are clever enough to breed winnners. If they are not they do not stay in the game long. Only a percentage of offspring, whether it is dogs, horses, or what have you, is going to turn out to be what the breeder is looking for. 

If someone does not know what they are doing, does not have good stock, they may luck into a decent dog now and then. But to consistently get what you are looking for, there has to be some knowledge...


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I never said that breeding was not selective.


You insinuated that horses and dogs are not put down for insurance purposes if that animal can breed. 


JohnnyBandit said:


> Also as someone who has insured animals against loss, I can tell you that you are seriously oversimplifying the entire insurance thing. Insurance is there to protect you against loss, but it is not a guarantee.... Horse gets stolen, it pays. Horse gets killed by someone not associated with you, it pays. Horse suffers a life ending injury while racing, training, being transported, etc, it pays. Horse becomes sick despite quality care, it pays. etc.
> 
> This type of insurance does not allow you to put the horse down because it did not turn out quite as you had hoped, not winning etc. You cannot decide you don't want the horse any longer, put a bullet in its head, have it euthanised etc and collect.
> If the horse is injured and you do not make your best effort to treat it and help the horse make a full recovery, it will not pay.
> ...


Ok let me have one last bash but after that do a little of your own research. 

A racing yard employs a vet/vets who deal specifically with race horses. He is present for virtually every birth, every minor ailment and major ailment and he is their to sign the death certificate of a race horse. Without his signature the insurance wouldn't pay up but let me explain a little about how that insurance works. Lets keep things simple and take a horse as an example. This particular horse during its training gets an exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage. The attendant vet treats the horse and puts it on box rest. The owner makes a claim from the insurance company. The problem with this sort of pulmonary hemorrhage is, it has a very high chance of reoccurring if the horse continues to train on the track and each time it has a bleed, it has to be rested and treated for longer periods of time. The insurance company will insure the horse for one year and after that, although they will insure it for everything else, pulmonary hemorrhage will be exempt. The insurance company will make this very clear to the owner, who has btw, taken out a very specific and very expensive racing insurance. Now lets say this horse is a youngster who hasn't yet got any silver on the shelf. The value of the horse isn't a lot and he may as well cut his losses by trying to sell the horse on to an unsuspecting novice (lots of people buy ex race horses with broken wind). On the other hand this horse had a very promising future. Its just qualified to be up their with the big boys and along with its insurance policy, his price has just gone through the roof. The insurance company fully expect the owner to make a claim on the horses value but they will always give him a choice. Treat the horse and make a claim for a year but your on your own after that or have the horse passed by the vet as no longer suitable for racing and have the horse euthenized. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> Spain keeps coming up. IF it is in fact the case in Spain, then it is up to the people of Spain to come together and work to end that.


Spain isn't my country either but unlike you, some of us don't just fight for whats happening in our back yard.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And I ask you, what have you done, what steps have you taken, what efforts have you made, in to change this in your state?
> 
> And do not say it cannot be done. It can. And it can start with one person.
> 
> ...


The state is owned by ag producers and hunters/trappers. The ag producers have all the money and own all the politicians. It probably will happen someday, as Sioux Falls gets bigger and more city people move in. But you can't oppose the big ag guys. It wouldn't turn out well for that person. I'd need a bodyguard .


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And I ask you, what have you done, what steps have you taken, what efforts have you made, in to change this in your state?
> 
> And do not say it cannot be done. It can. And it can start with one person.
> 
> ...


They way you say that makes it sound like you think that if the laws don't support your point of view, you can't express that point of view other than in protests/petitions.

That's just silly, there are lots of laws and/or lack of laws that I don't agree with, that doesn't make me a complainer when I voice my opinion in conversation or debate.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> You insinuated that horses and dogs are not put down for insurance purposes if that animal can breed.
> 
> 
> Ok let me have one last bash but after that do a little of your own research.
> ...


Now you are talking in circles. This specific ailment is serious and will have an impact on the horse. 

Before you were making claims of horses being put down for any little treatable ailment, insurance fraud, etc.

You are saying two very different things here..... 


PragueRatter said:


> [/B]
> 
> Having worked in the race horse industry (which is similar in many ways to greyhound racing) and having run an eventing yard, where those valuable animals are molly coddled to the extreme, *I can tell you, that its the value of those animals that puts them at such a high risk of a bullet to the head. When a valuable animal is insured to its value and sustains an injury that could jeopardize its racing days, Its preferential for the animal to be destroyed (even if the injury is perfectly treatable) or have its documents falsified so that an insurance claim can be made.*
> ?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Spain isn't my country either but unlike you, some of us don't just fight for whats happening in our back yard.


What you do not get here, is that you have no voice in Spain, no vote, do not have the ear of anyone in power, etc. This is something for Spain to clear up. Involvement by foriegners is as likely as not to have the opposite effect than what you desire. 


And my back yard is plenty big. More than I need to worry about here.... When all the ills and problems are solved here, then I will worry about other places.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ireth0 said:


> They way you say that makes it sound like you think that if the laws don't support your point of view, you can't express that point of view other than in protests/petitions.
> 
> That's just silly, there are lots of laws and/or lack of laws that I don't agree with, that doesn't make me a complainer when I voice my opinion in conversation or debate.


IF you do not like the laws and feel they are unjust, wrong, etc. And you speak out against them, but do nothing else, then all you are doing is complaining. 

And petitions will only get you so far. And protests are a waste of time.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IF you do not like the laws and feel they are unjust, wrong, etc. And you speak out against them, but do nothing else, then all you are doing is complaining.
> 
> And petitions will only get you so far. And protests are a waste of time.


Ok now I'm curious. What exactly do I have to do in order to be able to express an opinion on a law or lackthereof?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The state is owned by ag producers and hunters/trappers. The ag producers have all the money and own all the politicians. It probably will happen someday, as Sioux Falls gets bigger and more city people move in. But you can't oppose the big ag guys. It wouldn't turn out well for that person. I'd need a bodyguard .


This is just more excuses. I was in a group that started with about 10 people. We got together and took on commercial fishing in our State. And being that is a HUGE industry in our state, filled with salty, crusty, and very unsavory types. When we started, folks said we were going to end up as crab bait. People encouraged us to stay off the water and away from fishing circles. People were convinced we were going to be deep sixed. None of us were. We got some hate mail, nasty comments, but that is it. I think one guy had his truck vandalized. 

When we ran into a wall with our elected officials, we did not give up. We walked right around them and got the issue on a statewide ballot as a constitutional ammendment. And WON!

The issue was gill netting in state waters. It was a common practice and far and away the most common method of taking inshore species. Trout, pompano, mullet, shad, redfish, spanish mackeral, whiting, etc. 
This was a method of fishing that resulted in millions of pounds and employed thousands of people. 
Problem with a gill nets is that they rape the waters. Take everything. By catch is off the charts, harms non targeted species, etc. 

Well we got gill nets OUTLAWED in all state waters. Overnight we put thousands out of work because of it. Not just the fishermen but fish houses, wholesalers etc. 

If we survived banning gill nets, I am sure you have little to worry about from farmers when it comes to making animal cruelty a felony. 
In fact it should be very easy......


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ireth0 said:


> Ok now I'm curious. What exactly do I have to do in order to be able to express an opinion on a law or lackthereof?


Depends on the law.... And no one said you could not express your opinion.... But take it for what it is.... Expression without action comes down to just complaining. 

If you believe your opinion is correct, why would you not act on it?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Depends on the law.... And no one said you could not express your opinion.... But take it for what it is.... Expression without action comes down to just complaining.
> 
> If you believe your opinion is correct, why would you not act on it?


I didn't say you shouldn't, but you seem to have some sort of list of what actions are acceptable and what aren't. If someone is a single mother and spends all their time taking care of their kids and working, I'm not going to reduce their opinion down to 'complaining' because they aren't taking action on the subject.

Having a discussion and sharing opinions and viewpoints isn't complaining. Helping to educate people and show them why their beliefs were incorrect isn't complaining.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ireth0 said:


> I didn't say you shouldn't, but you seem to have some sort of list of what actions are acceptable and what aren't. If someone is a single mother and spends all their time taking care of their kids and working, I'm not going to reduce their opinion down to 'complaining' because they aren't taking action on the subject.
> 
> Having a discussion and sharing opinions and viewpoints isn't complaining. Helping to educate people and show them why their beliefs were incorrect isn't complaining.


. It is still expression without action. We all have personal issues to overcome. Do you think no single mother, working two jobs ever takes action to cause change? If is important and they feel strong enough about it they will find a way


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> . It is still expression without action. We all have personal issues to overcome. Do you think no single mother, working two jobs ever takes action to cause change? If is important and they feel strong enough about it they will find a way


Expression without action does not equate to complaining.

If I had to take action on every cause I had an opinion about in order for that opinion to be valid I would have no time for a job.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If it were so easy, then why hasn't it gone through all the other times it's been introduced in a bill? Somebody powerful is opposing it. Combine that with a populace who doesn't want the gummint telling them what to do, and it's just not going to happen without a lot of money and someone backing it who can't be ruined if sued for "harrassment" (what big ag does to people who annoy them). They also control the labor laws, and I think we all know how heated that can get, and what lengths they're willing to go to protect their interests. There is nothing I can do and I'm willing to admit that. If some lawsuit-proof legal scrapper wants to get into it, I'd support it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ireth0 said:


> Expression without action does not equate to complaining.
> 
> If I had to take action on every cause I had an opinion about in order for that opinion to be valid I would have no time for a job.


. Complaining is exactly what it is. There are thousands of ways to take action. All of them do not take boatloads of time. Writing a letter to an elected official. To a newspaper editorial section. Making statements on social media and encourage others to do the same. Making a donation to a group that shares you point of view, erc


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> If it were so easy, then why hasn't it gone through all the other times it's been introduced in a bill? Somebody powerful is opposing it. Combine that with a populace who doesn't want the gummint telling them what to do, and it's just not going to happen without a lot of money and someone backing it who can't be ruined if sued for "harrassment" (what big ag does to people who annoy them). They also control the labor laws, and I think we all know how heated that can get, and what lengths they're willing to go to protect their interests. There is nothing I can do and I'm willing to admit that. If some lawsuit-proof legal scrapper wants to get into it, I'd support it.


. Lol. Sued for harassment ? That is a good one. No merit there. Heck if they tried it would just make them look like bullies and bring attention to your cause. And money is not the answer. It is not that you can't do anything. It is that you will not do anything


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Heck. North Dakota passed it South Dakota is the last state where it is not a felony. And there are groups pushing it your state. So why not join them?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Spain isn't my country either but unlike you, some of us don't just fight for whats happening in our back yard.


Which is probably why nothing improves in our respective countries. Everybody's too busy trying to be the damn world police.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Heck. North Dakota passed it South Dakota is the last state where it is not a felony. And there are groups pushing it your state. So why not join them?


Who says I haven't?  But I'll also point out that the existing laws are not enforced so even if felony cruelty laws pass, the chances of someone actually being charged and convicted of a felony for cruelty is just about zero. In most of the states that do have felony cruelty laws, enforcement is still lacking, and when it is enforced, the penalties are minor. 

And are you really ssaying that if those who raise Greyhounds (for example) were found to be systematically mistreating their dogs, that someone would go to jail? I really doubt it. I'm sure they have LLCs set up and all that to keep anyone from being held personally liable. If someone did go to jail, it would probably be some poor kennel boy they set up to take the fall.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Who says I haven't?  But I'll also point out that the existing laws are not enforced so even if felony cruelty laws pass, the chances of someone actually being charged and convicted of a felony for cruelty is just about zero. In most of the states that do have felony cruelty laws, enforcement is still lacking, and when it is enforced, the penalties are minor.
> 
> And are you really ssaying that if those who raise Greyhounds (for example) were found to be systematically mistreating their dogs, that someone would go to jail? I really doubt it. I'm sure they have LLCs set up and all that to keep anyone from being held personally liable. If someone did go to jail, it would probably be some poor kennel boy they set up to take the fall.


 An Plc or corp is not something you can hide behind after committing a criminal act. Do you realize how ridiculous that notion is?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Who says I haven't?  But I'll also point out that the existing laws are not enforced so even if felony cruelty laws pass, the chances of someone actually being charged and convicted of a felony for cruelty is just about zero. In most of the states that do have felony cruelty laws, enforcement is still lacking, and when it is enforced, the penalties are minor.
> 
> And are you really ssaying that if those who raise Greyhounds (for example) were found to be systematically mistreating their dogs, that someone would go to jail? I really doubt it. I'm sure they have LLCs set up and all that to keep anyone from being held personally liable. If someone did go to jail, it would probably be some poor kennel boy they set up to take the fall.


 You said you have not joined anyone.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

This blog post has the names of the "ag entities" who are opposing the bills, if you're interested: http://sdfact.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-are-ag-entities-for-animal-cruelty.html?m=1


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> An Plc or corp is not something you can hide behind after committing a criminal act. Do you realize how ridiculous that notion is?


And who would go to jail? The entire corporation? One act of cruelty could be traced to one person, but if they were systematically mistreating their animals. . .everybody on the Board of Directors? Only the president? All the shareholders? Only those responsible for daily care of the animals, even if they were only following orders?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Yes, PragueRatter doesn't live in Spain, neither do I. But we do live in the European Union and our countries have voices. Like I said a while back in this topic; if enough countries shout loud enough, the EU, of which Spain is a member, can and will enforce change. 

In fact, there was recently a vote in the European commission regarding the matter of greyhounds and galgos (Spanish greyhounds) and there was a surprising amount of animo among the member countries. Unfortunately a majority wasn't reached, but the fact that it was even brought up for voting should alarm Spain: Europe is watching.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Now you are talking in circles. This specific ailment is serious and will have an impact on the horse.
> 
> Before you were making claims of horses being put down for any little treatable ailment, insurance fraud, etc.
> 
> You are saying two very different things here.....


 Circles?!? I think you are the sort of person who argues black when its clearly white. 

I gave an example early on in this thread when a racehorse I was personally training pulled up with azotorrhea. Azotorrhea is a treatable condition as is a pulmonary hemorrhage providing you don't endure the horse through the same stress levels that caused the initial condition. If you repeatedly bring on an exercise educed pulmonary hemorrhage then you will inevitably break the horses wind. You can however, prevent that from happening (remove the horse from the track and find something its better suited for). Its the same with azotorrhea, another condition that is usually treatable but is likely to reoccur when the horse is put under extreme stress. 

A 4 year old eventer in my old yard was put down because he had a mite in his hoof and the only cure was to remove his shoes and put him to grass for a year. His value was around £50,000 and the insurers gave her a choice.... put him down and claim his full value now, or accept his hoofs will not be insured a year from now. She didn't want him to be destroyed but she couldn't afford the risk of his hooves not being insured.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Which is probably why nothing improves in our respective countries. Everybody's too busy trying to be the damn world police.


I thought pretending to be the world police was the American dream!!


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Avie said:


> Yes, PragueRatter doesn't live in Spain, neither do I. But we do live in the European Union and our countries have voices. Like I said a while back in this topic; if enough countries shout loud enough, the EU, of which Spain is a member, can and will enforce change.
> 
> In fact, there was recently a vote in the European commission regarding the matter of greyhounds and galgos (Spanish greyhounds) and there was a surprising amount of animo among the member countries. Unfortunately a majority wasn't reached, but the fact that it was even brought up for voting should alarm Spain: Europe is watching.


A voice of reason. 

I think what really gets me here is, because we feel enough compassion to stand up against this very specific abuse (Spanish Galgos) we have a few people here and fortunately its only a very few, that have mocked us for being over emotional, tried to defend the abuse of these gracious creatures, said its not their business and more or less accused us of complaining! 

The only reason I keep coming back here is, I know lots of people are reading this who had no previous idea about the plight of the Spanish galgos.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I worked in a Spanish shelter in the summer of 2012 and learned a lot about the situation there. The cruelty inflicted on galgos and podencos cannot be downplayed. It is horrible. 

I rarely get in a heated discussion... I don't think I'm in one right now... but I feel some things just need to be said. So I post. By the way, I recognize myself in a lot of your posts.  Maybe it's a European thing, lol.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I thought pretending to be the world police was the American dream!!


Uh. No. The American dream is to make money and survive while avoiding persecution from whatever the issue of the year is.

I have never been a supporter of the USA as the world police. It annoys the freaking crap out of me. Quite honestly, I generally do not give a crap about what is going on in other countries unless it could negatively affect me here.


----------



## linneke (Sep 2, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If people were torturing dogs, they would be in jail.


ow how I wish this would be true... unfortunately in most countries things are very different. here in Belgium they only realy do something if you have hard evidence and even then all they do is take the dog away from the owner.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And who would go to jail? The entire corporation? One act of cruelty could be traced to one person, but if they were systematically mistreating their animals. . .everybody on the Board of Directors? Only the president? All the shareholders? Only those responsible for daily care of the animals, even if they were only following orders?


The person or persons that committed the acts of cruelty. If supervisors, management, executives had knowledge of it happening, the would be guilty of conspiracy. 


By your way of thinking, people could commit acts of violence and murder and get away with it as long as it was done that was systematically within the operation of a corporation. 

You do not see just how far out there that way of thinking is?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Circles?!? I think you are the sort of person who argues black when its clearly white.
> 
> .


Yes circles... And I am not arguing with anyone. I am pointing out in all the directions you go..

Yes again circles..



PragueRatter said:


> [/B]
> 
> Having worked in the race horse industry (which is similar in many ways to greyhound racing) and having run an eventing yard, where those valuable animals are molly coddled to the extreme, *I can tell you, that its the value of those animals that puts them at such a high risk of a bullet to the head. When a valuable animal is insured to its value and sustains an injury that could jeopardize its racing days, Its preferential for the animal to be destroyed (even if the injury is perfectly treatable) or have its documents falsified so that an insurance claim can be made.*
> ?


You are talking about horses being put down willy nilly, insurance fraud, etc. 

Then you give a specific example to support what you are trying prove. Yet you do not. You give an example of a specific serious condition. That is neither willy nilly nor fraud... 

Yes you are all over the place.... Circles...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Who says I haven't?  But I'll also point out that the existing laws are not enforced so even if felony cruelty laws pass, the chances of someone actually being charged and convicted of a felony for cruelty is just about zero. In most of the states that do have felony cruelty laws, enforcement is still lacking, and when it is enforced, the penalties are minor.
> 
> .


And you have some documentation showing lack of enforcement? Minor Penalties? Any documentation or proof what so ever?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think anyone could look at the penalties being handed down and see that they're minor. Let's see. . .Patrick's owner got 18 months probation: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/205674-patricks-abuser-sentenced.html. 

I'd have to say that documentation on lack of enforcement is hard to come by, LOL. I do know personally of a guy who left his dog in his apartment when he moved out and the dog died of starvation/dehydration. The landlord had the cops remove the dog's body, but nothing was done to the guy. At all. Well, he probably lost his deposit because his landlord was pretty peeved about the decomp smell :/. But nothing legal. I have called the sheriff or cops a few times on animal situations, and they never do anything.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Avie said:


> Yes, PragueRatter doesn't live in Spain, neither do I. But we do live in the European Union and our countries have voices. Like I said a while back in this topic; if enough countries shout loud enough, the EU, of which Spain is a member, can and will enforce change.
> 
> In fact, there was recently a vote in the European commission regarding the matter of greyhounds and galgos (Spanish greyhounds) and there was a surprising amount of animo among the member countries. Unfortunately a majority wasn't reached, but the fact that it was even brought up for voting should alarm Spain: Europe is watching.


And it is doubtful a majority will be reached. 
And if it is? And Spain tells the EU to go pound sand? What then? 

Unless I am missing some ability to enforce things that the EU does not appear to have, nothing happens. 
A quick google search shows Spain is no stranger to being at odds with the EU. 

Heck the Federal Government in the U.S. has way more juice than the EU and states tell the Feds to pound sand Quite Frequently... At the end of the day there is not a lot the Fed can do about it in most cases. 

Just look at states in which marijuana use is legal at some level... That is a violation of federal law... And the Federal Government has repeatedly said so... Yet the laws remain.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I think anyone could look at the penalties being handed down and see that they're minor. Let's see. . .Patrick's owner got 18 months probation: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/205674-patricks-abuser-sentenced.html.
> 
> I'd have to say that documentation on lack of enforcement is hard to come by, LOL. I do know personally of a guy who left his dog in his apartment when he moved out and the dog died of starvation/dehydration. The landlord had the cops remove the dog's body, but nothing was done to the guy. At all. Well, he probably lost his deposit because his landlord was pretty peeved about the decomp smell :/. But nothing legal. I have called the sheriff or cops a few times on animal situations, and they never do anything.



One case is not proof...... 

Maybe the police have not done anything when you have called because there was nothing to do anything about. Given comments you make on here, I can see that it would be quite possible that you over reacted and called on things that were not criminal acts.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> A voice of reason.
> 
> I think what really gets me here is, because we feel enough compassion to stand up against this very specific abuse (Spanish Galgos) we have a few people here and fortunately its only a very few, that have mocked us for being over emotional, tried to defend the abuse of these gracious creatures, said its not their business and more or less accused us of complaining!
> 
> The only reason I keep coming back here is, I know lots of people are reading this who had no previous idea about the plight of the Spanish galgos.


PragueRatter, thank you for your posts. They are thoughtful, informative and well written.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Can you prove people do get harsher sentences for animal cruelty? I can't find any. . .I'm having trouble finding any cases in which people were actually sentenced or I'd link to more. There's always a story about the cruelty and no follow up about sentencing.

And if you think I'm so freakishly oversensitive, tell me what you think is cruelty and I'll tell you if I've ever called on that. I'm guessing no food, water, shelter, etc. might count but I'm such an animal rightsist bleeding heart that maybe I'm wrong about that .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> A voice of reason.
> 
> I think what really gets me here is, because we feel enough compassion to stand up against this very specific abuse (Spanish Galgos) we have a few people here and fortunately its only a very few, that have mocked us for being over emotional, tried to defend the abuse of these gracious creatures, said its not their business and more or less accused us of complaining!
> 
> The only reason I keep coming back here is, I know lots of people are reading this who had no previous idea about the plight of the Spanish galgos.


Now it is this very specific abuse. Yet you have made statements condemning the entire dog and horse racing world. 

More circles. 

Actually you are willing to condemn an entire sport worldwide because of what may occur in some countries. 

Who has mocked you? I have not seen anyone do it. I doubt anyone has accused you of being over emotional either. 

Mocking and over emotional. Your words... 

And who has defended what happens in Spain? 
I missed that one... 

And it is none of my business... Really none of yours. Unless your own back yard is squeaky clean and spotless...

You have to clean your own yard first. 


I can assure you, I do not particularly care for whaling done by the Japanese, Clubbing Dolphins, ( I have zero issue with people that have traditionally hunted whales and dolphins for food to continue to do so ) I abhor the practice of shark finning, Taking bears for gall bladders ( Have zero issue with taking them for food) Taking of rhino horns, big cats for their skins......

I am sure I would not agree with the farming practices when it comes to livestock in much of the third world. etc. 

But my country is not clean. Heck my county is not clean. I have those to work on first.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I agree with both sides. 

Greyhounds in SPAIN need serious help. It's unclear how I, as an American, can change the ways of people across the pond. The only thing Ive been able to conjure up are facts. That's what I've to offer. 

Greyhounds in AMERICA need better law enforcement. There are laws set in place to protect them here that aren't being used. We need to focus on our Greyhound issues before we rally against Spain's. 

PragueRatter brought up some wonderful points and so did a lot if other posters. It's interesting to hear everyone else's opinions and read the articles. I still can't hate the game (racing) but I can hate the players (abusers of the system and animals).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Can you prove people do get harsher sentences for animal cruelty? I can't find any. . .I'm having trouble finding any cases in which people were actually sentenced or I'd link to more. There's always a story about the cruelty and no follow up about sentencing.
> 
> And if you think I'm so freakishly oversensitive, tell me what you think is cruelty and I'll tell you if I've ever called on that. I'm guessing no food, water, shelter, etc. might count but I'm such an animal rightsist bleeding heart that maybe I'm wrong about that .



Sure I can.... But it is not up to me... I did not make the statement.

But anyway stuff pops right up with google. 

This man got four years.
http://www.strayrescue.org/node/4742

This man got 30 months
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/loca...cle_1c7d64da-cefb-11e2-9eda-001a4bcf887a.html

This woman got a year but really needs a mental hospital
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/08/16/north-texas-woman-sentenced-for-animal-abuse-hoarding/

This guy got ten years for killing a kitten.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...udge-decides-pavement-was-deadly-weapon.html/

This man was sentenced to 30 years.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mon...reeder-sentenced-to-prison-for-animal-cruelty

Five years for this man
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vi...6aa78-4f12-4743-bac9-6ab4ea44e6fa%7c%7c%7c%7c

Ten years for this woman
http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/08/...years-in-prison-for-animal-cruelty-and-theft/

two years six months.
http://herald-review.com/news/centr...cle_a5bcc32e-cf8e-11e2-9200-0019bb2963f4.html

Five years
http://www.examiner.com/article/lea...mal-cruelty-case-sentenced-to-five-years-jail

Two years
http://www.examiner.com/article/memphis-animal-shelter-workers-sentenced-to-prison-for-animal-abuse

Two years
http://www.examiner.com/article/kitten-kicker-sentenced-to-2-years-prison-for-felony-animal-cruelty

Seriously... How many do you want? You did not look very hard.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I could point out that most of those involve another charge (the one lady got 10 years for grand theft, not the animal abuse charge; the one guy shot at his girlfriend for pete's sake, besides all the animals he tortured, and still only got 30 months) and usually probation violation, but I'm sure that won't do any good.

I still really doubt they'll step up enforcement here if it becomes a felony. Rural crimes (even domestic/child abuse) are really hard to catch/prove/prosecute.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I could point out that most of those involve another charge (the one lady got 10 years for grand theft, not the animal abuse charge; the one guy shot at his girlfriend for pete's sake, besides all the animals he tortured, and still only got 30 months) and usually probation violation, but I'm sure that won't do any good.
> 
> I still really doubt they'll step up enforcement here if it becomes a felony. Rural crimes (even domestic/child abuse) are really hard to catch/prove/prosecute.


A couple had other charges. Most did not...
Did you bother to read the judges statements on the man that shot at his girlfriend. 


In any case how many do you want? 

Because you really did not look.... At least not hard.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I could point out that most of those involve another charge t.


I count three that included another charge... So you could point that out... But you would be wrong as usual.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yes circles... And I am not arguing with anyone. I am pointing out in all the directions you go..
> 
> Yes again circles..
> 
> ...



But in reality I made perfectly good sense and you didn't have a counter argument because all three ailments I mentioned were perfectly treatable. 

Fraud is common place in the racing world. The death of an animal and the forging of that animals passport for a live but condemned animal. The dealings in large amounts of cash for signatures is another big scam.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Now it is this very specific abuse. Yet you have made statements condemning the entire dog and horse racing world.
> 
> More circles.


 Post 17 I clearly said; 'When racing is done within the strict guidelines of the correct governing body its fine. Its the same with horse racing. Unfortunately though, when it comes to money, so many people want a piece of the pie.' 


JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually you are willing to condemn an entire sport worldwide because of what may occur in some countries.


 Refer to post 17


JohnnyBandit said:


> Who has mocked you? I have not seen anyone do it. I doubt anyone has accused you of being over emotional either.
> 
> Mocking and over emotional. Your words...


 Generally your posts are condescending and you tend to home in on the weakest link, making everything else that was said, invalid. Its clever online debating, Ill give you that but saying things like, I think Ill go and see a bullfight when I'm in Europe, shows the sort of game you are playing. 


JohnnyBandit said:


> And who has defended what happens in Spain?
> I missed that one...


Going to see a bullfight was a good start. Animal abuse is animal abuse regardless of it being for sport, entertainment of just god darn sadism. 
The fact that you didn't once say, 'what happens to the Spanish greyhounds is a terrible thing but continually came back with counter argument gave me at least, the impression you couldn't care less.



JohnnyBandit said:


> And it is none of my business... Really none of yours. Unless your own back yard is squeaky clean and spotless...
> 
> You have to clean your own yard first.


I disagree. Loving and rescuing animals doesn't stop at borders. Asociación Baas Galgo, a rescue organization in Spain and run by Spanish people, are delighted and grateful that many countries around the world, including America are promoting awareness about what happens to these dogs.




JohnnyBandit said:


> I can assure you, I do not particularly care for whaling done by the Japanese, Clubbing Dolphins, ( I have zero issue with people that have traditionally hunted whales and dolphins for food to continue to do so ) I abhor the practice of shark finning, Taking bears for gall bladders ( Have zero issue with taking them for food) Taking of rhino horns, big cats for their skins......
> 
> I am sure I would not agree with the farming practices when it comes to livestock in much of the third world. etc.
> 
> But my country is not clean. Heck my county is not clean. I have those to work on first.


Please never assume that because a person sticks their neck out to help people or animals in another country, doesn't mean they don't do the same on their own doorstep.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

So Cavalier said:


> PragueRatter, thank you for your posts. They are thoughtful, informative and well written.


Thank you very much


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> But in reality I made perfectly good sense and you didn't have a counter argument because all three ailments I mentioned were perfectly treatable.
> 
> Fraud is common place in the racing world. The death of an animal and the forging of that animals passport for a live but condemned animal. The dealings in large amounts of cash for signatures is another big scam.


No you were all over the place. you used a broad brush, then attempt to support broad brush statements with a narrow example, you throw in fraud which is another issue entirely.

Not too much for me to counter argue on. You do a fairly good job of contradicting yourself.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

PragueRatter said:


> Thank you very much


I agree, you are awesome!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Generally your posts are condescending and you tend to home in on the weakest link, making everything else that was said, invalid. Its clever online debating, Ill give you that but saying things like, I think Ill go and see a bullfight when I'm in Europe, shows the sort of game you are playing.


Nothing condescending in my posts. You read into it what you wish and what serves your purposes. 

Exactly what game am I playing? 



PragueRatter said:


> Going to see a bullfight was a good start. Animal abuse is animal abuse regardless of it being for sport, entertainment of just god darn sadism.


I would have to actually go to a bullfight first. And I guess you missed my detailed comments after I watched two full length bullfights on youtube.....
I made several posts on the subject and was very critical once I saw how it was. I envisioned on man versus a bull. What I saw was a bunch of guys, a couple on horseback versus a very lethargic bull. Given the lethargic behavior of the bull, combined with the heavy mouth breathing, makes me suspect they dosed the bulls up on something. Most likely Ketamine. Mouth breathing is a telltail side effect of ketamine use in cattle. 
Having a LOT of time around cattle and nearly being killed by a bull (literally -multiple broken bones, head injury, bruised heart, etc) I say with confidence that the bulls were dosed. 

I will also say, I think statements that bullfighting only continues to exist because of tourists, is a load of crap. The fights I watched were recent fights. The stands were full, and it was largely locals. I also did some research and found nothing to suggest that tourism is causings bullfights to continue. OTHER than on sites dedicated to ending bullfights. And they provided no proof of their statements. 



PragueRatter said:


> The fact that you didn't once say, 'what happens to the Spanish greyhounds is a terrible thing but continually came back with counter argument gave me at least, the impression you couldn't care less.


Again..... You are reading what you wish into the conversation. Never once did I say I could care less about what happens in Spain. I did say it was none of my business, etc. But NEVER that I did not care. In doing this you are validing your opinion on something that is simply not there.




PragueRatter said:


> Please never assume that because a person sticks their neck out to help people or animals in another country, doesn't mean they don't do the same on their own doorstep.


I did not assume that. Unlike you I don't read into what folks say. The point is though.... I gave a laundry list of issues around the world that I would be at odds with. 
But a person only has so much time and so many resources. If I placed my neck into the issues at home as well as on a global scale, my resources and time could get stretched so thin I help nothing. 
Like I said, I will focus on my own back yard as it is far from clean. 

And in the end, I strongly suspect Spain is going to tell all outside interests and the EU to go pound sand on this matter.


And one last comment on my "condescending" tone. 
Early on you made a comment about the fact that you and I were thankfully nothing alike. Repeatedly read into and put your own spin on things I have said.

Does not bother me, but one could easily say your comments and actions towards me are quite condescending. But it is all good as far as I am concerned .


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I don't really think it's necessary to refer to people as complaining just because they are sharing an opinion on a specific matter. Obviously, in most of these cases there isn't much a person can do. 

I doubt anyone on here is going to be able to stop bullfighting or stop the sale of racing greyhounds to Spain. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to talk about their dislike of either. 

I'm actually taking an Ethics class this semester and I found it pretty amusing today when my professor mentioned bullfighting. He considers it torture. He also mentioned the Iditarod and how he considers that torture as well. I wouldn't consider that complaining, it's just sharing an opinion of something from an ethical standpoint. 

I can think a lot of things are unethical and shouldn't exist and state that opinion without being able to do anything about it. It's simply a discussion. A sharing of opinions. There is no reason to be so uptight about it and tell people they need to be doing something in order to have an opinion about something.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I don't really think it's necessary to refer to people as complaining just because they are sharing an opinion on a specific matter. Obviously, in most of these cases there isn't much a person can do.
> 
> I doubt anyone on here is going to be able to stop bullfighting or stop the sale of racing greyhounds to Spain. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to talk about their dislike of either.
> 
> ...


I am not in the least uptight about it. Nor did I tell anyone they should not do it. 
I simply stated, that expression without action is complaining. 

Heck I complain about a lot of things...

But it is what it is...
com·plain/kəmˈpleɪn/ Show Spelled [kuhm-pleyn] Show IPA 
verb (used without object) 
1. to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault: 
2. to tell of one's pains, ailments, etc.: to complain of a backache. 
3. to make a formal accusation: If you think you've been swindled, complain to the police.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Johnny.... enough! lets just agree to differ


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

PragueRatter said:


> Johnny.... enough! lets just agree to differ


I never thought we were not agreeing to differ.....

I certainly did not expect to change your opinions or point of view....


----------



## linneke (Sep 2, 2013)

funny how some of you think that it's only a big problem in Spain when in Ireland the situation is just about the same. 
Johnny, I don't just complain... I give my opinion and give money to organisations that rescue greyhounds. I would adopt one but it's just not my type of dog, I'm more of a pitbull person.


----------



## PragueRatter (Aug 6, 2013)

Linneke, Ireland and how they treat ex racing greyhounds has been mentioned a lot in this thread. Its also been said that many of the Spanish Galgo's have been imported to Spain from Ireland.


----------

