Ridecamp: Re: [RC] QUALITY OF LIFE VS. MONEY

In a message dated 11/13/2002 5:38:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, Suvut@xxxxxxx 
writes:

<<  But the ads 
 on TV were very powerful images that implied abuse. It passed.>
     
 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 $$$$$.....    >>

I think there is a broad line between abuse of the animals and not keeping 
them in the lap of luxury on the way to slaughter.  The amendment supporters 
implied abuse by the farmers when I do not believe there was any in order to 
appeal to those who care about animals.  These are animals raised for food.  
They need not be abused - indeed they are not in most cases - and the farmers 
do not need the input of those who, in reality, just want them out of 
business and a nation of avowed vegans.  Sorry.  I love my dog and my horses. 
 I also love my bacon and my pork chops.  I believe this amendment was a 
"foot in the door" of those who would take away even your right to own and 
ride a horse, let alone chomp on some good jerky as you go down the trail.  
:o)
Scott (an avowed omnivore)
Solitaire (Thank God he's not Belgian.....)

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

 If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the Director at Large 
 and By Laws Elections.

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