Re: [RC] QUALITY OF LIFE VS. MONEY - FASTGraphic
In a message dated 11/13/2002 5:38:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, Suvut@xxxxxxx
<< 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.
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
If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the Director at Large
and By Laws Elections.