>But there's really NO difference to the animals....... pain and suffering ARE pain and suffering --- whether it's a pampered pet OR a livestock animal. I do understand that people have to make a living. All I am saying here is that the dollar should not take preference over doing the BEST farmers can do to ensure that their livestock (which make money for them) have the VERY BEST quality of life possible. I know there are farmers who truly have no compassion for their animals and care ONLY for the bucks. Conversely, I also realize that there are a lot of farmers who DO care. Let's just not lose sight of the fact that these are living, breathing animals who really DO feel fear and pain........
Just to put this into perspective... If livestock are subjected to pain and suffering, production goes down. Farmers who abuse their livestock do not stay in business, because they go broke. The only way to survive in the livestock business is to ensure maximum production--which involves keeping livestock healthy, unstressed, well-fed, etc. You stated in an earlier post that we don't want folks to get the wrong idea about our sport. Well, folks with a political motive clearly spent a lot of money to influence voters to have the wrong idea about the livestock industry. Bottom line--it doesn't make much difference to the animal if the producer's care is motivated by the dollar or be "really caring"--in most cases, it is a combination of the two. But the ones who don't take care of their stock can't afford to stay in the busines
s. And there IS a big difference between housing livestock in clean quarters, handling them humanely, feeding properly, etc. (all the things the producer has to do to ensure good production) and housing them in "hoggy condos" that fit the visions that some of these off-the-wall animal rights folks seem to have.