Being a rancher, my observation is: it
depends on whether the hog farmer has the extra money to do whatever it takes to
satisfy the animal rights activists. Farmers are generally not getting
rich on their business. The middlemen make money, but the producer is the
poorest of the bunch in the lineup from producer to consumer, and he's the
one who takes the biggest risks and has to deal with whatever weather is handed
out. There's a big difference between people who keep animals for pets and
those who have to make a living producing them for market. We are both,
and our horses and dogs and cats are as pampered as we can help them to be, but
the cattle have to rough it a little. They tough it out in a rainstorm,
they calve unassisted. We DO supplement feed them when the grass is
short. Your statement "What if it costs the hog farmers money" would be
dependent on whether the hog farmer has the extra money to spend.
Animal rights activists speak from their
hearts, but have absolutely no experience with raising livestock. I'm not
attempting to start a discussion on this subject, just shed a little light into
the practical side of the issue.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:38
Subject: [RC] QUALITY OF LIFE VS.
<This year on the FL ballot there was a constitutional
amendment. It had
to do with how breeding hogs are kept. The petition
process was funded
by the animal rights activist and if enacted will cost
the hog farmers
of FL tons of money - may even put them out of business.
When I read it
I didn't think it had a snowballs chance in hell of
passing. But the ads
on TV were very powerful images that implied abuse.
Well, sorry about
that! I don't know anything about this amendment, but if it improves
conditions for these poor hogs, SO WHAT IF IT COSTS THE HOG FARMERS
MONEY!!! I don't want to incur any flames here, but IMO, quality of life
for these poor animals should count for more than $$$$$.....
Susan Vuturo -- Mom to Sadie, Encore, Rocky, and