On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:27:30 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
<nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:

>My child came home recently telling me about an animal rights video she had
>been shown in Religious Education. It contained scenes of animal abuse in
>slaughter houses and had the effect of putting other pupils off meat eating.

The exposure of abuse in the farmed meat industry has had the same
effect on many of us.

>As far as I can tell there was no attempt at balance - eg to show footage
>of happier events during the animals life or footage from a well run
>slaughter house

What happy life can an animal have in a slaughter house? Stupid!

>or to point out that the animals would't have a life in the
>first place if it wasn't for meat eaters

So you weirdoes are actually doing the animals a favour? LOL just how
dumb can dumb be!

> or to point out that animals are
>normally treated humanely and compasionately in slaughter houses (They are
>aren't they??? - its a good while since I visited one)

No. You could try watching the video yourself.

>Is this normal throughout Scottish Schools - or could we have an animal
>rights extremist in charge of the RE dept at the local school??

Animal abuse is no longer acceptable anywhere. Do you watch TV?

>
>The class were also told that meat eating is bad for the environment.

Quite correct.

> I can
>understand there is an argument for increased efficiency where animals eat
>food that humans could eat, but humans do not graze the hills and grassland
>can get along fine without the high energy inputs of cereal production - so
>is this rubbish??



http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm

Question 28: Grazing animals on land not suited for agriculture
increases the food supply; how can that be considered wrong?

There are areas in the world where grazing of livestock is possible
but
agriculture is not. If conditions are such that people living in these
areas cannot trade for crops and must raise livestock to survive, few
would question the practice. However, such areas are very small in
comparison to the fertile and semi-arid regions currently utilized for
intensive grazing, and they do not appreciably contribute to the world
food supply. (Some would argue that it is morally preferable not to
live in
such areas.)

The real issue is the intensive grazing in the fertile and semi-arid
regions. The use of such areas for livestock raising reduces the world
food supply. Keith Acker writes as follows in his "A Vegetarian
Sourcebook":

Land, energy, and water resources for livestock agriculture range
anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to
produce an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock
agriculture does not merely use these resources, it depletes them.
This is a matter of historical record. Most of the world's soil,
erosion, groundwater depletion, and deforestation--factors now
threatening the very basis of our food system--are the result of this
particularly destructive form of food production.

Livestock agriculture is also the single greatest cause of world-wide
deforestation both historically and currently (between 1967 and 1975,
two-thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest went to grazing).
Between
1950 and 1975 the area of human-created pasture land in Central
America
more than doubled, almost all of it at the expense of rain forests.
Although this trend has slowed down, it still continues at an alarming
and
inexorable pace.

Grazing requires large tracts of land and the consequences of
overgrazing and soil erosion are very serious ecological problems. By
conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S. grasslands are
overgrazed,
resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each year. The amount of
U.S.
topsoil lost to date is about 75 percent, and 85 percent of that is
directly associated with livestock grazing. Overgrazing has been the
single largest cause of human-made deserts.

One could argue that grazing is being replaced by the "feedlot
paradigm". These systems graze the livestock prior to transport to a
feedlot for final "fattening" with grains grown on crop lands.
Although
this does reduce grazing somewhat, it is not eliminated, and the
feedlot
part of the paradigm still constitutes a highly inefficient use of
crops
(to feed a human with livestock requires 16 times the grain that would
be
necessary if the grain was consumed directly). It has been estimated
that
in the U.S., 80 percent of the corn and 95 percent of the oats grown
are
fed to livestock.
TA



> Before I complain to the school, Education dept or first minister, I'd be
>grateful for some informed opinion/facts here.

You'll only make yourself look sillier than you did here, still you
might get to see a good video.

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:tmpg92pa112ddi6kv9kke45m25nba20av2 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:27:30 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
> <nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:
>
>>My child came home recently telling me about an animal rights video she
>>had
>>been shown in Religious Education. It contained scenes of animal abuse in
>>slaughter houses and had the effect of putting other pupils off meat
>>eating.
>
> The exposure of abuse in the farmed meat industry has had the same
> effect on many of us.
>
>>As far as I can tell there was no attempt at balance - eg to show footage
>>of happier events during the animals life or footage from a well run
>>slaughter house
>
> What happy life can an animal have in a slaughter house? Stupid!
>
>>or to point out that the animals would't have a life in the
>>first place if it wasn't for meat eaters
>
> So you weirdoes are actually doing the animals a favour? LOL just how
> dumb can dumb be!
>
>> or to point out that animals are
>>normally treated humanely and compasionately in slaughter houses (They are
>>aren't they??? - its a good while since I visited one)
>
> No. You could try watching the video yourself.
>
>>Is this normal throughout Scottish Schools - or could we have an animal
>>rights extremist in charge of the RE dept at the local school??
>
> Animal abuse is no longer acceptable anywhere. Do you watch TV?
>
>>
>>The class were also told that meat eating is bad for the environment.
>
> Quite correct.
>
>> I can
>>understand there is an argument for increased efficiency where animals eat
>>food that humans could eat, but humans do not graze the hills and
>>grassland
>>can get along fine without the high energy inputs of cereal production -
>>so
>>is this rubbish??
>
>
>
> http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm
>
> Question 28: Grazing animals on land not suited for agriculture
> increases the food supply; how can that be considered wrong?
>
> There are areas in the world where grazing of livestock is possible
> but
> agriculture is not. If conditions are such that people living in these
> areas cannot trade for crops and must raise livestock to survive, few
> would question the practice. However, such areas are very small in
> comparison to the fertile and semi-arid regions currently utilized for
> intensive grazing, and they do not appreciably contribute to the world
> food supply. (Some would argue that it is morally preferable not to
> live in
> such areas.)
>
> The real issue is the intensive grazing in the fertile and semi-arid
> regions. The use of such areas for livestock raising reduces the world
> food supply. Keith Acker writes as follows in his "A Vegetarian
> Sourcebook":
>
> Land, energy, and water resources for livestock agriculture range
> anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to
> produce an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock
> agriculture does not merely use these resources, it depletes them.
> This is a matter of historical record. Most of the world's soil,
> erosion, groundwater depletion, and deforestation--factors now
> threatening the very basis of our food system--are the result of this
> particularly destructive form of food production.
>
> Livestock agriculture is also the single greatest cause of world-wide
> deforestation both historically and currently (between 1967 and 1975,
> two-thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest went to grazing).
> Between
> 1950 and 1975 the area of human-created pasture land in Central
> America
> more than doubled, almost all of it at the expense of rain forests.
> Although this trend has slowed down, it still continues at an alarming
> and
> inexorable pace.
>
> Grazing requires large tracts of land and the consequences of
> overgrazing and soil erosion are very serious ecological problems. By
> conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S. grasslands are
> overgrazed,
> resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each year. The amount of
> U.S.
> topsoil lost to date is about 75 percent, and 85 percent of that is
> directly associated with livestock grazing. Overgrazing has been the
> single largest cause of human-made deserts.
>
> One could argue that grazing is being replaced by the "feedlot
> paradigm". These systems graze the livestock prior to transport to a
> feedlot for final "fattening" with grains grown on crop lands.
> Although
> this does reduce grazing somewhat, it is not eliminated, and the
> feedlot
> part of the paradigm still constitutes a highly inefficient use of
> crops
> (to feed a human with livestock requires 16 times the grain that would
> be
> necessary if the grain was consumed directly). It has been estimated
> that
> in the U.S., 80 percent of the corn and 95 percent of the oats grown
> are
> fed to livestock.
> TA
>
>
>
>> Before I complain to the school, Education dept or first minister, I'd be
>>grateful for some informed opinion/facts here.
>
> You'll only make yourself look sillier than you did here, still you
> might get to see a good video.

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:tmpg92pa112ddi6kv9kke45m25nba20av2 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:27:30 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
> <nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:
>
>>My child came home recently telling me about an animal rights
>>video she had
>>been shown in Religious Education. It contained scenes of
>>animal abuse in
>>slaughter houses and had the effect of putting other pupils off
>>meat eating.
>
> The exposure of abuse in the farmed meat industry has had the
> same
> effect on many of us.
============================
Sure, the insane are easily manipulated, eh killer?


>
>>As far as I can tell there was no attempt at balance - eg to
>>show footage
>>of happier events during the animals life or footage from a
>>well run
>>slaughter house
>
> What happy life can an animal have in a slaughter house?
> Stupid!
======================================
What kind of happy life does an animals have whit its guts
turning to mush for several days after being poisoned just to
keep your veggies, clean and cheap? I'd take the bolt to the
brain any day, killer.


>
>>or to point out that the animals would't have a life in the
>>first place if it wasn't for meat eaters
>
> So you weirdoes are actually doing the animals a favour? LOL
> just how
> dumb can dumb be!
=============================
Not as dumb as you, killer. Afterall, you provide vast fields of
easy food and cover that allow for an unnatural explosion in
numbers of wide animals. Then just when the numbers are higest,
you take away all the food and cover! The animals that escaped
the machineries grinding, slicing and dicing, are now left to die
from starvation and predation. Again, the bolt to the brain is a
far more humane death, killer.


>
>> or to point out that animals are
>>normally treated humanely and compasionately in slaughter
>>houses (They are
>>aren't they??? - its a good while since I visited one)
>
> No. You could try watching the video yourself.
> ===============================
What, the same 30 year-old video shot by AR extremists just to be
as bad as they can make it? What a hoot! You really are this
brainwashed, or dead, aren't you, killer?


>>Is this normal throughout Scottish Schools - or could we have
>>an animal
>>rights extremist in charge of the RE dept at the local school??
>
> Animal abuse is no longer acceptable anywhere. Do you watch TV?
> ==============================
Really? Now you are lying, killer. If that were really the case
then you wouldn't be here on usenet proving your ignorance for
all the world to see, killer.



>>
>>The class were also told that meat eating is bad for the
>>environment.
>
> Quite correct.
> ===========================
LOL Crop farming is the definition of habitat destruction, fool.


>> I can
>>understand there is an argument for increased efficiency where
>>animals eat
>>food that humans could eat, but humans do not graze the hills
>>and grassland
>>can get along fine without the high energy inputs of cereal
>>production - so
>>is this rubbish??
>
>
>
> http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm
>
> Question 28: Grazing animals on land not suited for agriculture
> increases the food supply; how can that be considered wrong?
>
> There are areas in the world where grazing of livestock is
> possible
> but
> agriculture is not. If conditions are such that people living
> in these
> areas cannot trade for crops and must raise livestock to
> survive, few
> would question the practice. However, such areas are very small
> in
> comparison to the fertile and semi-arid regions currently
> utilized for
> intensive grazing, and they do not appreciably contribute to
> the world
> food supply. (Some would argue that it is morally preferable
> not to
> live in
> such areas.)
>
> The real issue is the intensive grazing in the fertile and
> semi-arid
> regions. The use of such areas for livestock raising reduces
> the world
> food supply. Keith Acker writes as follows in his "A Vegetarian
> Sourcebook":
>
> Land, energy, and water resources for livestock agriculture
> range
> anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to
> produce an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock
> agriculture does not merely use these resources, it depletes
> them.
> This is a matter of historical record. Most of the world's
> soil,
> erosion, groundwater depletion, and deforestation--factors now
> threatening the very basis of our food system--are the result
> of this
> particularly destructive form of food production.
>
> Livestock agriculture is also the single greatest cause of
> world-wide
> deforestation both historically and currently (between 1967 and
> 1975,
> two-thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest went to grazing).
> Between
> 1950 and 1975 the area of human-created pasture land in Central
> America
> more than doubled, almost all of it at the expense of rain
> forests.
> Although this trend has slowed down, it still continues at an
> alarming
> and
> inexorable pace.
>
> Grazing requires large tracts of land and the consequences of
> overgrazing and soil erosion are very serious ecological
> problems. By
> conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S. grasslands are
> overgrazed,
> resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each year. The
> amount of
> U.S.
> topsoil lost to date is about 75 percent, and 85 percent of
> that is
> directly associated with livestock grazing. Overgrazing has
> been the
> single largest cause of human-made deserts.
>
> One could argue that grazing is being replaced by the "feedlot
> paradigm". These systems graze the livestock prior to transport
> to a
> feedlot for final "fattening" with grains grown on crop lands.
> Although
> this does reduce grazing somewhat, it is not eliminated, and
> the
> feedlot
> part of the paradigm still constitutes a highly inefficient use
> of
> crops
> (to feed a human with livestock requires 16 times the grain
> that would
> be
> necessary if the grain was consumed directly). It has been
> estimated
> that
> in the U.S., 80 percent of the corn and 95 percent of the oats
> grown
> are
> fed to livestock.
> TA
>
>
>
>> Before I complain to the school, Education dept or first
>> minister, I'd be
>>grateful for some informed opinion/facts here.
>
> You'll only make yourself look sillier than you did here, still
> you
> might get to see a good video.
=======================
You've left no doubt as to your ignorance though, killer. How
much water does it take again?

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:tmpg92pa112ddi6kv9kke45m25nba20av2 [at] 4ax.com...

Dear George,

I object to the video as the extreme examples it showed were emotive and
atypical - as well as against the law. The perpetrators should have been
prosecuted anyway as cruelty to animals is wrong, but I'd suspect the animal
rights extremists who filmed it staged it in the first place. (and given the
current fashion for banning images, its a wonder possession of it is not an
offence)

Having a considerable degree of farming myself, and having developed a
rappore with many animals over the years, I can tell you that most of them
live happy lives. Death is of course sad and unpleasant in any creature, but
please note the only way to prevent it is to prevent birth (- which is of
course your agenda).

Have you ever compared the slow lonely lingering death of humans with the
quick painless death of animals, surrounded by their peers up until the
final moments?? We do not allow termination of human life however much they
suffer. It could be argued that we treat animals more humanely than
ourselves - and certainly than our enemies. Why does no one show footage of
abuse of old people in schools??? Should that not be of greater concern to
most??

You apparently advocate total dependance on vegetable matter, production of
which is highly dependant on oil input, whereas production from grassland
can continue without any oil input whatsoever. It is a very stable, safe and
traditional way of producing food. Abandon it at you and your childrens
peril. (You blithering idiot)


Regarding your other points and as you have cross posted this to many other
groups, allow me to paste in a few other points already made:



> I think so. Having worked on sheep, beef and dairy farms, I felt that
> animals raised for meat had an idyllic life, free from predators and a
> quick death.

> There may be an argument that efficiency can be
> increased a little by reducing meat eating, but it's a very weak one.
> Very little cereals can be grown in Scotland, and one of the principle
> reasons for the quality of scotch beef is that it is raised on grass.
> The same applies to Welsh lamb of course. Even low lying clay can be
> too heavy for economic crop production, and certain soils and climates
> are unsuitable for the production of food grade cereals.
>
> If eating meat was banned globally it would take a huge amount of land
> out of production altogether. I don't know the percentage, but I think
> about 30-40%. This would probably reduce net food production and feed
> fewer people worldwide.


> not only that but an enormous amount of food production byproducts, such
> as
> maize gluten or sugar beet pulp are fed to livestock which would otherwise
> end up in landfill



> Quotes from the RSPB's website:
>
> "The extensive cattle farming traditions are vital to maintain a wide
> range of special habitats in the Scottish Highlands and islands, which
> in turn support a diverse range of species. Red-billed chough, corn
> bunting, lapwing, snipe, redshank and corncrake have all benefited from
> and depend on the continuation of cattle farming to provide the habitats
> they need."
>
> "We have campaigned for many years for better support for the suckler
> cow sector, particularly in the remoter and upland areas of Scotland.
> Significant benefits to biodiversity can arise from well-managed
> extensive cattle grazing in these areas."
>
> "An important element on each Vocational Training Course is to show
> farmers the positive effects that grazing animals, especially cattle,
> can have for habitat management. Cattle grazing creates the ideal
> tussocky and varied sward, which is essential to many of our farmland
> species, including breeding wading birds. Cattle are also the ideal
> 'tool' for controlling invasive rushes which need to be controlled to
> avoid a grass sward becoming too rank and dense. "



>> "The extensive cattle farming traditions are vital to maintain a wide
>> range of special habitats in the Scottish Highlands and islands,
>
> Same goes for the uplands in the UK IMO. The reduction in grazing by sheep
> has had a drastic impact on wild bird populations both on the Downs and in
> areas such as the Peak District.
>
> Unfortunately most dimwitted wannabee "greens" think that the way to
> conserve wildlife and landscape is to do nothing. Whereas the way to
> achieve those ends is to continue to manage in the same way until one
> understand what can be changed and how.



> As with cattle, there's a fine balance to be made between sheep and the
> habitat. There are many examples in Scotland where over-grazing by sheep
> has destroyed former heather moorland, bringing about a considerable
> reduction in red grouse numbers on some moors. Equally, the total
> absence of sheep grazing quite quickly allows scrub to take over and,
> eventually, trees. Some think this is a good idea, but it certainly
> isn't on, e.g., flower-rich downland where sheep do a great job. The
> Scottish Wildlife Trust have a "flying sheep" flock, which is shifted
> from reserve to reserve as needed.


> On the Downs near Winchester I can see scrubification[1] taking place
> where
> there is no longer grazing. Another headache is that as sheep grazing is
> reduced and arable takes over there is no habitat for several ground
> nesting species. The lapwings have moved into my garden since it has
> suitable mix of long grass, scrubby bits and a wall to keep the cats at
> some distance, sadly it only supports a pair and the numbers have reduced
> in the area year on year.


>> My child came home recently telling me about an animal rights video she
>> had
>> been shown in Religious Education. It contained scenes of animal abuse in
>> slaughter houses and had the effect of putting other pupils off meat
>> eating.
>
> It is, sadly part of a trend amongst teachers in the UK who believe that
> they have the right, possibly the duty to push ill-informed propaganda
> onto
> children. I have so far become aware of this taking place for pressure
> groups such as PETA who distribute material to schools which misrepresents
> the pharmaceutical industry, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that
> the anti-meat propaganda was also from PETA who seem to have decided to
> brainwash children.
>
> I also have concerns about the simplistic and inaccurate presentation of
> environmental information and even about food is portrayed in school. I
> have been reviewing a "food technology" course offered in a local school
> which makes *no* reference to farming. It is an entirely supermarket/food
> processor based approach to the subject and I'm disgusted that the course
> material is mostly blatant plugs for pressure groups and food processing
> companies.

I do not believe you are interested in learning or discussing - your rabid
cross posting and your deliberate misunderstanding of my comments suggests
that you are an arm chair expert who likes the sound of your own voice and
only wish to castigate. I do not believe you know what you are talking about
and I'm posting this single reply for the benefit of any you have misled in
the groups you have cross posted to.

In article <4freadF1kbc7vU1 [at] individual.net>, Billy Bullseye
<URL:mailto:nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:
>
> "George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
> news:tmpg92pa112ddi6kv9kke45m25nba20av2 [at] 4ax.com...
>
> Dear George,

Dear BB, You might like to google for 'Pete the troll' before going to far
down this thread.

Cheerio,

--

>> derek [at] farm-direct.co.uk
>> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:17:53 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
<nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:

>
>"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
>news:tmpg92pa112ddi6kv9kke45m25nba20av2 [at] 4ax.com...
>
>Dear George,
>
>I object to the video as the extreme examples it showed were emotive and
>atypical - as well as against the law.

Don't talk nonsense. It's reality, it's actually happening.

> The perpetrators should have been
>prosecuted anyway as cruelty to animals is wrong,

Quite right.

> but I'd suspect the animal
>rights extremists who filmed it staged it in the first place. (and given the
>current fashion for banning images, its a wonder possession of it is not an
>offence)

I suggest you try and see some other slaughterhouse videos. The BBC
did a very good one recently, it was horrendous and legal, but imagine
if you were one of the animal victims?

>Having a considerable degree of farming myself, and having developed a
>rappore with many animals over the years, I can tell you that most of them
>live happy lives.

Sadly untrue.

> Death is of course sad and unpleasant in any creature, but
>please note the only way to prevent it is to prevent birth (- which is of
>course your agenda).

No agenda, just stop animal abuse.

>Have you ever compared the slow lonely lingering death of humans with the
>quick painless death of animals, surrounded by their peers up until the
>final moments??

You really need to visit some slaughterhouses.

> We do not allow termination of human life however much they
>suffer.

People always have suicide if life gets too bad for them. We have a
choice, animals don't.

> It could be argued that we treat animals more humanely than
>ourselves

Nonsense.

>- and certainly than our enemies.

What do you mean?

>Why does no one show footage of
>abuse of old people in schools??? Should that not be of greater concern to
>most??

Why greater? abuse should be shown wherever it occurs, what does
priority have to do with it?

>You apparently advocate total dependance on vegetable matter, production of
>which is highly dependant on oil input, whereas production from grassland
>can continue without any oil input whatsoever. It is a very stable, safe and
>traditional way of producing food. Abandon it at you and your childrens
>peril. (You blithering idiot)

Only a stupid farmer could say that, talk about agenda!

>
>Regarding your other points and as you have cross posted this to many other
>groups, allow me to paste in a few other points already made:

>> I think so. Having worked on sheep, beef and dairy farms, I felt that
>> animals raised for meat had an idyllic life, free from predators

What predators do beef herds have in the UK?

> and a
>> quick death.

How glorious, far better they don't die at all, especially to feed the
fat face of someone.

>I do not believe you are interested in learning or discussing - your rabid
>cross posting and your deliberate misunderstanding of my comments suggests
>that you are an arm chair expert who likes the sound of your own voice and
>only wish to castigate. I do not believe you know what you are talking about
>and I'm posting this single reply for the benefit of any you have misled in
>the groups you have cross posted to.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win: Gandhi.

It would appear, despite the efforts of a minority of seriously
disturbed pro hunt nuts, that DRAG is in after all. In fact I went
drag hunting recently and found it a rather spiffing day, the whole
family enjoyed themselves and not one animal harmed.

Well done to DRAG.


http://www.nfdh.org.uk/draghunting.html

Your Questions Answered

What is it?
Drag hunting is a fun and traditional equestrian sport that involves
mounted riders following a pack of hounds across country in pursuit of
an artificial scent.

How does it work?
Drag hunts works in the same way as any other hunt except that they
don't chase a live animal, just an artificial scent. A runner or a
mounted rider lays the scent in advance. Then the pack of hounds
chases the scent while followed by mounted riders (the field). This
way, the route can be controlled and the master can ensure that the
hunt does not stray into sensitive areas or trespass on private
property.

Is drag hunting a new sport?
Drag hunting has existed in the UK since the 19th Century and it is
growing in popularity. Since 1965, the number of live quarry packs has
dropped while the number of drag and bloodhound packs has trebled. The
original New Forest Drag hunt was established at the turn of the last
century and records are kept in the Lymington museum. The hunt was
disbanded because of the First World War and re-established by Michael
Thomas about a hundred years later.

Are drag hunts traditional?
Most drag hunts follow the traditions normally associated with live
quarry hunts. Many wear traditional livery, organise the same social
events, take part in point-to-point racing, hold hound shows and use
the services of local business such as farriers, feed suppliers and
vets. The New Forest Drag Hunt also employs staff to help care for its
hounds and is keen to follow the traditions established by its
predecessor, the New Forest Buckhounds which disbanded in 1997. Drag
hunting is an excellent means of retaining hounds and tradition and
helping to support the rural economy.

Isn't drag hunting fast and dangerous?
Drag hunting in its current form has evolved as a different sport to
live quarry hunting because some people like to participate in both.
However, the beauty of drag hunting is that it can be organised to
suit the riding ability of those taking part. Older and slower hounds
can be used for novice riders and the "stopping and starting" of live
quarry hunting can be duplicated by "breaking" the line of scent so
that the hounds have to search an area to pick up a new line. As the
routes are planned in advance, drag hunts can make the best possible
use of land by doubling back on themselves or arranging a circular
course. At the New Forest Drag Hunt, the emphasis is on having a fun
day out with riders and hounds, not on speed.

People who hunt live quarry say that drag hunting isn't a replacement?
Why is this?
It's not in the interests of those who hunt to admit now that they
would switch to drag hunting in the event of a ban. But the experience
of Scotland shows that once hunting is banned people are prepared to
go drag hunting instead as it's the most similar equestrian sport
available.

Can hunting hounds be retrained to hunt an artificial scent?
The New Forest Drag Hunt has successfully retrained a number of
foxhounds to follow an artificial scent. Not every hound can be
retrained or rehomed, of course, but the NFDH believe that, wherever
possible, hounds should be given a second chance.

Do hunts shoot their hounds when they grow too old for hunting?
Some hunts shoot their hounds once they are considered too old for
hunting, but not all. The New Forest Drag Hunt condemns the practice
of shooting hounds just because they reach a certain age and believes
that older hounds have an important role to play in drag hunting. They
tend to be run at a slower pace and can provide an "easier" ride for
those who are new to the sport or those with limited riding ability.
Any hounds that don't show aptitude for hunting or are unable to stand
the pace get to retire with the pack at the NFDH or are found loving
new homes.

Do drag hunts organise point-to-point?
Many drag hunts already organise their own point-to-point meetings in
the same way that live quarry hunts currently do.

Are farmers willing to allow drag hunting on their land?
A number of landowners have banned live quarry hunting on their land
and would be more likely to allow drag hunting instead. If drag hunts
were to pay farmers a proportion of their cap, paid on the day, many
more would agree to allow drag hunts on their land. The Burns
Committee reported that:
"As far as farmers are concerned, the RACE survey suggests that a
substantial proportion of those who do not, or would not
allowdrag/bloodhound hunting would reconsider their position if
offered a direct
payment"

What sort of person goes drag hunting?
The New Forest Drag Hunt, along with most other drag hunts, welcomes
people from all walks of life. We encourage people who are currently
involved in a live quarry hunt to take part so that they can
experience for themselves that drag hunting is a fun and
non-controversial way of continuing their sport. We also, of course,
attract a number of riders who like the idea of riding with hounds but
object on moral grounds to chasing wild animals.

When do drag hunts operate?
Drag hunts usually operate between September and March each year. Most
go out on Saturdays or Sundays and some even hunt on two days each
week.

What Should I wear when I ride out with the NFDH?
Both turn out and discipline are important when riding out, but the
NFDH is a family hunt. Most of all horses should be well groomed and
in good condition. Tack should be clean and riders may either ride in
traditional hunt livery or ratcatcher kit.

What about insurance?
Insurance is terribly important these days and it is the
responsibility of every rider to ensure that he or she is covered by
insurance for all eventualities before riding out with the NFDH.
Riding can be hazardous. The New Forest Drag Hunt does not accept any
resposibilty for any damage, injury or loss that may occur during
hunting.

What happens at the start of a drag hunt?
Before setting off, hunts traditionally gather at a local pub. This
gives them a chance to meet and chat with the other riders before the
hunt begins. The hunt normally sets off about an hour later.

How long does a drag hunt last?
Depending on the tastes of those taking part it can last for anything
from a couple of hours to most of a day.

What is bloodhound hunting?
Bloodhound hunting, known as "hunting the clean boot", is similar to
drag hunting but it involves following a runner instead of a scent
that is laid in advance. Bloodhounds are reared to follow a human
scent so they are often used for tracking people.

"Billy Bullseye" <nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote in message news:4freadF1kbc7vU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
> news:tmpg92pa112ddi6kv9kke45m25nba20av2 [at] 4ax.com...
>
> Dear George,
>
> I object to the video as the extreme examples it showed were emotive and
> atypical - as well as against the law. The perpetrators should have been
> prosecuted anyway as cruelty to animals is wrong, but I'd suspect the animal
> rights extremists who filmed it staged it in the first place. (and given the
> current fashion for banning images, its a wonder possession of it is not an
> offence)
>
> Having a considerable degree of farming myself, and having developed a
> rappore with many animals over the years, I can tell you that most of them
> live happy lives. Death is of course sad and unpleasant in any creature, but
> please note the only way to prevent it is to prevent birth (- which is of
> course your agenda).

You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
not have lived and benefitted from that life experience. The vegan agenda
is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.

> Have you ever compared the slow lonely lingering death of humans with the
> quick painless death of animals, surrounded by their peers up until the
> final moments?? We do not allow termination of human life however much they
> suffer. It could be argued that we treat animals more humanely than
> ourselves - and certainly than our enemies. Why does no one show footage of
> abuse of old people in schools??? Should that not be of greater concern to
> most??
>
> You apparently advocate total dependance on vegetable matter, production of
> which is highly dependant on oil input, whereas production from grassland
> can continue without any oil input whatsoever. It is a very stable, safe and
> traditional way of producing food. Abandon it at you and your childrens
> peril. (You blithering idiot)
>
>
> Regarding your other points and as you have cross posted this to many other
> groups, allow me to paste in a few other points already made:
>
>
>
>> I think so. Having worked on sheep, beef and dairy farms, I felt that
>> animals raised for meat had an idyllic life, free from predators and a
>> quick death.
>
>> There may be an argument that efficiency can be
>> increased a little by reducing meat eating, but it's a very weak one.
>> Very little cereals can be grown in Scotland, and one of the principle
>> reasons for the quality of scotch beef is that it is raised on grass.
>> The same applies to Welsh lamb of course. Even low lying clay can be
>> too heavy for economic crop production, and certain soils and climates
>> are unsuitable for the production of food grade cereals.
>>
>> If eating meat was banned globally it would take a huge amount of land
>> out of production altogether. I don't know the percentage, but I think
>> about 30-40%. This would probably reduce net food production and feed
>> fewer people worldwide.
>
>
>> not only that but an enormous amount of food production byproducts, such
>> as
>> maize gluten or sugar beet pulp are fed to livestock which would otherwise
>> end up in landfill
>
>
>
>> Quotes from the RSPB's website:
>>
>> "The extensive cattle farming traditions are vital to maintain a wide
>> range of special habitats in the Scottish Highlands and islands, which
>> in turn support a diverse range of species. Red-billed chough, corn
>> bunting, lapwing, snipe, redshank and corncrake have all benefited from
>> and depend on the continuation of cattle farming to provide the habitats
>> they need."
>>
>> "We have campaigned for many years for better support for the suckler
>> cow sector, particularly in the remoter and upland areas of Scotland.
>> Significant benefits to biodiversity can arise from well-managed
>> extensive cattle grazing in these areas."
>>
>> "An important element on each Vocational Training Course is to show
>> farmers the positive effects that grazing animals, especially cattle,
>> can have for habitat management. Cattle grazing creates the ideal
>> tussocky and varied sward, which is essential to many of our farmland
>> species, including breeding wading birds. Cattle are also the ideal
>> 'tool' for controlling invasive rushes which need to be controlled to
>> avoid a grass sward becoming too rank and dense. "
>
>
>
>>> "The extensive cattle farming traditions are vital to maintain a wide
>>> range of special habitats in the Scottish Highlands and islands,
>>
>> Same goes for the uplands in the UK IMO. The reduction in grazing by sheep
>> has had a drastic impact on wild bird populations both on the Downs and in
>> areas such as the Peak District.
>>
>> Unfortunately most dimwitted wannabee "greens" think that the way to
>> conserve wildlife and landscape is to do nothing. Whereas the way to
>> achieve those ends is to continue to manage in the same way until one
>> understand what can be changed and how.
>
>
>
>> As with cattle, there's a fine balance to be made between sheep and the
>> habitat. There are many examples in Scotland where over-grazing by sheep
>> has destroyed former heather moorland, bringing about a considerable
>> reduction in red grouse numbers on some moors. Equally, the total
>> absence of sheep grazing quite quickly allows scrub to take over and,
>> eventually, trees. Some think this is a good idea, but it certainly
>> isn't on, e.g., flower-rich downland where sheep do a great job. The
>> Scottish Wildlife Trust have a "flying sheep" flock, which is shifted
>> from reserve to reserve as needed.
>
>
>> On the Downs near Winchester I can see scrubification[1] taking place
>> where
>> there is no longer grazing. Another headache is that as sheep grazing is
>> reduced and arable takes over there is no habitat for several ground
>> nesting species. The lapwings have moved into my garden since it has
>> suitable mix of long grass, scrubby bits and a wall to keep the cats at
>> some distance, sadly it only supports a pair and the numbers have reduced
>> in the area year on year.
>
>
>>> My child came home recently telling me about an animal rights video she
>>> had
>>> been shown in Religious Education. It contained scenes of animal abuse in
>>> slaughter houses and had the effect of putting other pupils off meat
>>> eating.
>>
>> It is, sadly part of a trend amongst teachers in the UK who believe that
>> they have the right, possibly the duty to push ill-informed propaganda
>> onto
>> children. I have so far become aware of this taking place for pressure
>> groups such as PETA who distribute material to schools which misrepresents
>> the pharmaceutical industry, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that
>> the anti-meat propaganda was also from PETA who seem to have decided to
>> brainwash children.
>>
>> I also have concerns about the simplistic and inaccurate presentation of
>> environmental information and even about food is portrayed in school. I
>> have been reviewing a "food technology" course offered in a local school
>> which makes *no* reference to farming. It is an entirely supermarket/food
>> processor based approach to the subject and I'm disgusted that the course
>> material is mostly blatant plugs for pressure groups and food processing
>> companies.
>
> I do not believe you are interested in learning or discussing - your rabid
> cross posting and your deliberate misunderstanding of my comments suggests
> that you are an arm chair expert who likes the sound of your own voice and
> only wish to castigate. I do not believe you know what you are talking about
> and I'm posting this single reply for the benefit of any you have misled in
> the groups you have cross posted to.
>
>
>

beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>not have lived and benefitted from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.

It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.

Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
strange or un-natural.

In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
>
> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
>
> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
> strange or un-natural.
>
> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.

I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
live as a result of it.


> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:i2th92lar7uq4jqmn3r9hfdhsnig55n3nj [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:17:53 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
> <nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:
snip
>>Having a considerable degree of farming myself, and having developed a
>>rappore with many animals over the years, I can tell you that most of them
>>live happy lives.
>
> Sadly untrue.

No, it's very true. Only a very small minority of beef animals suffer during
their lives and at the abattoir. The vast majority of them live happy lives
and suffer nothing at all.


>> Death is of course sad and unpleasant in any creature, but
>>please note the only way to prevent it is to prevent birth (- which is of
>>course your agenda).
>
> No agenda,

Yes there is. The vegan's agenda is to prevent animals from being born,
simply because they don't want them to be killed, but what they fail to
grasp is that the beefeater ensures future generations of happy animals
that die far less painfully than if they were set free to face starvation and
non-human predators.

>just stop animal abuse.

I agree. We should stop animal abuse where it occurs.

snip

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
wrote:

>
>"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
>> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>>>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
>>
>> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
>>
>> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
>> strange or un-natural.
>>
>> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
>> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
>> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
>> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
>
>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,

And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?

> and a painless death

No death at all is far better.

>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>be if vegans had their way and set them free,

But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given the
benefit of life, make your mind up

> ignores the fact that eating them
>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>with them.

What benefit is abuse to any species, apart from a few weird humans
for personal gratification?

> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>live as a result of it.

It's called thinking about yourself, in that I doubt you have any
other thoughts, which is the very point.

Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you feel.

"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...

> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death

'Cattle slaughter

The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
concussive blow.

If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
conscious.

In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.

Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
for quite some time.'

In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
cause pain.

Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
then this does not matter.
.....'
Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.

Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram

Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram

Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
....
http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm

> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would

True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.

> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
> live as a result of it.

'Beef' Cattle

There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.

At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.

To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
"wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.

http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html

Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :

>No death at all is far better.

Everything has to die.
--
Tim C.

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
>>> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>>>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>>>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>>>>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>>>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
>>>
>>> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
>>>
>>> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
>>> strange or un-natural.
>>>
>>> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
>>> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
>>> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
>>> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
>>
>>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,
>
> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?

To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
and give them a humane death before we eat them?

>> and a painless death
>
> No death at all is far better.

I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.

>>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>>be if vegans had their way and set them free,
>
> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given the
> benefit of life, make your mind up

I'm talking about the deaths of beef animals that have already been born
and then set free by the vegan agenda.

>> ignores the fact that eating them
>>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>>with them.
>
> What benefit is abuse to any species

Farming beef animals and then slaughtering them humanely isn't abusing them.
They benefit from the life experience we provide them, and so do we when
their lives are brought to a humane end to then eat them.

, apart from a few weird humans
> for personal gratification?
>
>> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>>live as a result of it.
>
> It's called thinking about yourself,

No, I also think about the benefits animals get out of it as well. They would
not have lived if I didn't ask farmers to breed them for me.

in that I doubt you have any
> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>
> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you feel.

lol

>

"pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...
>
>> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
>
> 'Cattle slaughter
>
> The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
> captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
> both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
> The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
> on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
> concussive blow.

That sounds pretty humane to me.

> If

Yes, IF.

an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
> not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
> Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
> effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
> animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
> stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
> conscious.

Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.

> In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
> either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
> However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
> that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
> restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
>
> Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
> are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
> are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
> wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
> the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
> for quite some time.'
>
> In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
> goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
> refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
> cause pain.
>
> Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
> they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
> inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
> novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
> slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
> considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
> then this does not matter.
> ....'
> Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
> of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
>
> Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
>
> Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
> Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
>
> Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
> http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
> ...
> http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>
>> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>
> True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.

No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten alive
by a bear?

>> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
>> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>> live as a result of it.
>
> 'Beef' Cattle
>
> There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
> being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
> put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
> are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
> feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
> have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
> iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
>
> To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
> on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
> common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
> stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
> way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
> "wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
> for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
>
> http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
>
Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.

"pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...

> Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
> they are killed.

They may also have a painless end - unlike worn out humans who are denied
such a luxury. I hope you don't happen to give birth Pearl - or die in a car
crash, get captured in Iraq, or turn into a hedgehog and get eaten alive by
a badger. Wouldn't all of those be very much worse than 2 goes with a
captive bolt?? - or simply having your throat cut?? I doubt if having your
throat cut ranks very highly on the scale of less than perfect ways to die.

If you want to avoid any chance of pain, please stop breathing now. How DO
you want the animals to die?? or do you not want them to be born at all??

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:38:07 +0100, "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...
>
>> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
>
>'Cattle slaughter
>
>The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
>captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
>both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
>The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
>on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
>concussive blow.
>
>If an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
>not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
>Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
>effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
>animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
>stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
>conscious.
>
>In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
>either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
>However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
>that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
>restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
>
>Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
>are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
>are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
>wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
>the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
>for quite some time.'
>
>In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
>goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
>refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
>cause pain.
>
>Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
>they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
>inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
>novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
>slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
>considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
>then this does not matter.
>....'
>Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
>of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
>
>Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
>
>Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
>Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
>
>Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
>http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
>...
>http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>
>> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>
>True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
>
>> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
>> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>> live as a result of it.
>
>'Beef' Cattle
>
>There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
>being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
>put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
>
>At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
>are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
>feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
>have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
>iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
>
>To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
>on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
>common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
>stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
>way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
>"wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
>for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
>
>http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
>

I guess this just about covers it and should dispel any misguided
myths about good animal welfare being paramount in meat production.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger [at] aon.at>
wrote:

>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>
>>No death at all is far better.
>
>Everything has to die.

OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
felt before the bolt.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
wrote:

>
>"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
>>>> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>>>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>>>>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>>>>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>>>>>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>>>>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
>>>>
>>>> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
>>>> strange or un-natural.
>>>>
>>>> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
>>>> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
>>>> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
>>>> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
>>>
>>>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,
>>
>> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
>
>To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
>and give them a humane death before we eat them?

We don't. I suggest you take a good look at
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml

>
>>> and a painless death
>>
>> No death at all is far better.
>
>I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.

It certainly is in my diet.

>
>>>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>>>be if vegans had their way and set them free,
>>
>> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given the
>> benefit of life, make your mind up
>
>I'm talking about the deaths of beef animals that have already been born
>and then set free by the vegan agenda.

We'd happily look after them.

>
>>> ignores the fact that eating them
>>>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>>>with them.
>>
>> What benefit is abuse to any species
>
>Farming beef animals and then slaughtering them humanely isn't abusing them.
>They benefit from the life experience we provide them, and so do we when
>their lives are brought to a humane end to then eat them.

Stop deluding yourself http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml

>
>, apart from a few weird humans
>> for personal gratification?
>>
>>> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>>>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>>>live as a result of it.
>>
>> It's called thinking about yourself,
>
>No, I also think about the benefits animals get out of it as well. They would
>not have lived if I didn't ask farmers to breed them for me.

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml

>in that I doubt you have any
>> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>>
>> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you feel.
>
>lol

See.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:33:42 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
<nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:

>
>"pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>> Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
>> they are killed.
>
>They may also have a painless end - unlike worn out humans who are denied
>such a luxury. I hope you don't happen to give birth Pearl - or die in a car
>crash, get captured in Iraq, or turn into a hedgehog and get eaten alive by
>a badger. Wouldn't all of those be very much worse than 2 goes with a
>captive bolt?? - or simply having your throat cut?? I doubt if having your
>throat cut ranks very highly on the scale of less than perfect ways to die.
>
>If you want to avoid any chance of pain, please stop breathing now. How DO
>you want the animals to die?? or do you not want them to be born at all??

Nothing should be born to abuse.

Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :

>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger [at] aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>>
>>>No death at all is far better.
>>
>>Everything has to die.
>
>OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
>felt before the bolt.

What did I say to annoy you?
Everything has to die one way or another. Saying "No death at all is far
better" is simply naive, or at the best sloppy arguing style.
--
Tim C.

Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :

>>> No death at all is far better.
>>
>>I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.
>It certainly is in my diet.

The poor plants stay alive after you've eaten them?
--
Tim C.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:09:27 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger [at] aon.at>
wrote:

>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger [at] aon.at>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>>>
>>>>No death at all is far better.
>>>
>>>Everything has to die.
>>
>>OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
>>felt before the bolt.
>
>What did I say to annoy you?

Smart comment.

>Everything has to die one way or another. Saying "No death at all is far
>better" is simply naive, or at the best sloppy arguing style.

You're missing the point.

Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :

>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:09:27 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger [at] aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:40:07 +0200, Tim C. <tim.challenger [at] aon.at>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>>>>
>>>>>No death at all is far better.
>>>>
>>>>Everything has to die.
>>>
>>>OK you get dragged to the slaughterhouse and send us a note how you
>>>felt before the bolt.
>>
>>What did I say to annoy you?
>
>Smart comment.

Touchy!

>>Everything has to die one way or another. Saying "No death at all is far
>>better" is simply naive, or at the best sloppy arguing style.
>
>You're missing the point.

I know what your point is, but I think you're not helping yourself convince
anyone by sweeping statements like that.
--
Tim C.

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:v6di92tr7oija210danjibrqkro9lfg60m [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
>>>>> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>>>>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions of animals would
>>>>>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The vegan agenda
>>>>>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit by preventing
>>>>>>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration is the fact
>>>>>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be eaten.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not shocking,
>>>>> strange or un-natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths is that
>>>>> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free compared to the
>>>>> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and painful and
>>>>> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,
>>>
>>> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
>>
>>To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
>>and give them a humane death before we eat them?
>
> We don't. I suggest you take a good look at
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml

Campaign for better conditions if you think they're not up to your standards.

>>>> and a painless death
>>>
>>> No death at all is far better.
>>
>>I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.
>
> It certainly is in my diet.

No.

>>>>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
>>>>be if vegans had their way and set them free,
>>>
>>> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given the
>>> benefit of life, make your mind up
>>
>>I'm talking about the deaths of beef animals that have already been born
>>and then set free by the vegan agenda.
>
> We'd happily look after them.

That's nice.

>>>> ignores the fact that eating them
>>>>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
>>>>with them.
>>>
>>> What benefit is abuse to any species
>>
>>Farming beef animals and then slaughtering them humanely isn't abusing them.
>>They benefit from the life experience we provide them, and so do we when
>>their lives are brought to a humane end to then eat them.
>
> Stop deluding yourself http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml

I was just about to say the same, George.

>>, apart from a few weird humans
>>> for personal gratification?
>>>
>>>> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
>>>>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
>>>>live as a result of it.
>>>
>>> It's called thinking about yourself,
>>
>>No, I also think about the benefits animals get out of it as well. They would
>>not have lived if I didn't ask farmers to breed them for me.
>
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>>in that I doubt you have any
>>> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>>>
>>> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you feel.
>>
>>lol
>
> See.

beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>
>"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvad

>> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
>
>To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
>and give them a humane death before we eat them?

Er, no.

Animals MUST die to match those being born.

Animals get born, the area can only support a certain number, therefore
we DO need to kill the surplus. This can be done naturally (starvation,
disease, parasites etc) or humanely in an abattoir.



--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
news:OAOMIkDo1TmEFwLk [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>
>>"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
>>news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvad
>
>>> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
>>
>>To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their lives happy
>>and give them a humane death before we eat them?
>
> Er, no.

Er, yes, and I'm sure you'll agree that current animal welfare standards do
provide happy lives for livestock and humane deaths.

> Animals MUST die to match those being born.
>
> Animals get born, the area can only support a certain number, therefore
> we DO need to kill the surplus. This can be done naturally (starvation,
> disease, parasites etc) or humanely in an abattoir.
>
>
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsnecF1jn911U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...
> >
> >> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
> >
> > 'Cattle slaughter
> >
> > The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
> > captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
> > both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
> > The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
> > on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
> > concussive blow.
>
> That sounds pretty humane to me.

You are not standing in the killing line.

> > If
>
> Yes, IF.

WHEN.

> an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
> > not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
> > Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
> > effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
> > animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
> > stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
> > conscious.
>
> Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
> inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
> instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
> abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.

No it isn't. Unecessarilly curtailing the life of a healthy young animal,
- no matter how it is done, demonstrates utter contempt for that life.

Animals are routinely mutilated, confined and abused. It is bullying.

> > In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
> > either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
> > However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
> > that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
> > restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
> >
> > Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
> > are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
> > are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
> > wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
> > the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
> > for quite some time.'
> >
> > In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
> > goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
> > refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
> > cause pain.
> >
> > Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
> > they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
> > inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
> > novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
> > slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
> > considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
> > then this does not matter.
> > ....'
> > Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
> > of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
> >
> > Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
> >
> > Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
> > Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
> >
> > Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
> > ...
> > http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
> >
> >> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they would
> >
> > True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
>
> No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten alive
> by a bear?

I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting chance.

> >> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
> >> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
> >> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
> >> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
> >> live as a result of it.
> >
> > 'Beef' Cattle
> >
> > There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
> > being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
> > put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
> >
> > At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
> > are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
> > feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
> > have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
> > iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
> >
> > To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
> > on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
> > common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
> > stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
> > way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
> > "wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
> > for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
> >
> > http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
> >
> Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
> all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.

It's no life at all for the vast majority. Agony, boredom, discomfort, fear, pain,
then the merciful peace of death. In their place I'd rather never have been born.

"pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:e7bg4e$mfl$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
> "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
> news:4fsnecF1jn911U1 [at] individual.net...
>>
>> "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
>> > news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...
>> >
>> >> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
>> >
>> > 'Cattle slaughter
>> >
>> > The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol.
>> > Penetrative
>> > captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
>> > both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
>> > The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
>> > on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
>> > concussive blow.
>>
>> That sounds pretty humane to me.
>
> You are not standing in the killing line.

They are stunned before slaughter, and that's the humane way to do it.

>> > If
>>
>> Yes, IF.
>
> WHEN.

No, IF. "IF an animal is not correctly stunned" If they are stunned properly
before being slaughtered I see no problem with it. WHEN they aren't stunned
properly before being slaughtered I do see a problem with it. But rather than
call for the abolition of beef farming I would campaign for improvements
instead.

>> an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
>> > not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
>> > Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
>> > effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
>> > animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
>> > stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
>> > conscious.
>>
>> Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
>> inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
>> instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
>> abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.
>
> No it isn't. Unecessarilly curtailing the life of a healthy young animal,
> - no matter how it is done, demonstrates utter contempt for that life.

Or it could demonstrate a love of life generally and a way of ensuring the lives
of future generations to come.

> Animals are routinely mutilated, confined and abused. It is bullying.

If welfare standards are followed, those kind of things don't happen. If you
have a problem with animal welfare standards, campaign for higher ones.

>> > In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
>> > either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
>> > However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
>> > that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
>> > restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
>> >
>> > Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
>> > are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
>> > are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
>> > wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
>> > the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
>> > for quite some time.'
>> >
>> > In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the
>> > electric
>> > goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
>> > refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
>> > cause pain.
>> >
>> > Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
>> > they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
>> > inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
>> > novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
>> > slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
>> > considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
>> > then this does not matter.
>> > ....'
>> > Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
>> > of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
>> >
>> > Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
>> >
>> > Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
>> > Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
>> >
>> > Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
>> > ...
>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>> >
>> >> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they
>> >> would
>> >
>> > True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
>>
>> No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten
>> alive
>> by a bear?
>
> I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting
> chance.

I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins, then.

>> >> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating
>> >> them
>> >> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our
>> >> relationship
>> >> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about
>> >> their
>> >> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals
>> >> that
>> >> live as a result of it.
>> >
>> > 'Beef' Cattle
>> >
>> > There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least
>> > intensive
>> > being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and
>> > then
>> > put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
>> >
>> > At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
>> > are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer
>> > and
>> > feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually
>> > castrated and
>> > have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
>> > iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
>> >
>> > To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
>> > on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
>> > common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
>> > stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals
>> > this
>> > way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
>> > "wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
>> > for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
>> >
>> > http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
>> >
>> Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
>> all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.
>
> It's no life at all for the vast majority. Agony, boredom, discomfort, fear,
> pain,
> then the merciful peace of death. In their place I'd rather never have been
> born.

In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were in
their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of comparisons.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:53:53 +0100, "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer>
wrote:

>
>"pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:e7bg4e$mfl$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
>> "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
>> news:4fsnecF1jn911U1 [at] individual.net...
>>>
>>> "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>>> news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> > "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
>>> > news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...
>>> >
>>> >> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
>>> >
>>> > 'Cattle slaughter
>>> >
>>> > The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol.
>>> > Penetrative
>>> > captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
>>> > both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
>>> > The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
>>> > on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
>>> > concussive blow.
>>>
>>> That sounds pretty humane to me.
>>
>> You are not standing in the killing line.
>
>They are stunned before slaughter, and that's the humane way to do it.
>
>>> > If
>>>
>>> Yes, IF.
>>
>> WHEN.
>
>No, IF. "IF an animal is not correctly stunned" If they are stunned properly
>before being slaughtered I see no problem with it.

How would you like it?

>WHEN they aren't stunned
>properly before being slaughtered I do see a problem with it. But rather than
>call for the abolition of beef farming

Why not, we don't need it.

> I would campaign for improvements
>instead.

But you don't. You just complain about those that do!

>>> an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
>>> > not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
>>> > Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
>>> > effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
>>> > animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
>>> > stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
>>> > conscious.
>>>
>>> Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
>>> inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
>>> instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
>>> abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.
>>
>> No it isn't. Unecessarilly curtailing the life of a healthy young animal,
>> - no matter how it is done, demonstrates utter contempt for that life.
>
>Or it could demonstrate a love of life generally and a way of ensuring the lives
>of future generations to come.

I'd call it sick.

>> Animals are routinely mutilated, confined and abused. It is bullying.
>
>If welfare standards are followed, those kind of things don't happen. If you
>have a problem with animal welfare standards, campaign for higher ones.

You don't like that either.

>>> > In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
>>> > either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
>>> > However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
>>> > that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
>>> > restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
>>> >
>>> > Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
>>> > are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
>>> > are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
>>> > wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
>>> > the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
>>> > for quite some time.'
>>> >
>>> > In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the
>>> > electric
>>> > goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
>>> > refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
>>> > cause pain.
>>> >
>>> > Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
>>> > they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
>>> > inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
>>> > novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
>>> > slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
>>> > considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
>>> > then this does not matter.
>>> > ....'
>>> > Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
>>> > of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
>>> >
>>> > Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
>>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
>>> >
>>> > Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
>>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
>>> > Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
>>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
>>> >
>>> > Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
>>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
>>> > ...
>>> > http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
>>> >
>>> >> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they
>>> >> would
>>> >
>>> > True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
>>>
>>> No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten
>>> alive
>>> by a bear?
>>
>> I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting
>> chance.
>
>I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins, then.
>
>>> >> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating
>>> >> them
>>> >> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our
>>> >> relationship
>>> >> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about
>>> >> their
>>> >> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals
>>> >> that
>>> >> live as a result of it.
>>> >
>>> > 'Beef' Cattle
>>> >
>>> > There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least
>>> > intensive
>>> > being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and
>>> > then
>>> > put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
>>> >
>>> > At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
>>> > are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer
>>> > and
>>> > feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually
>>> > castrated and
>>> > have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
>>> > iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
>>> >
>>> > To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
>>> > on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
>>> > common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
>>> > stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals
>>> > this
>>> > way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
>>> > "wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
>>> > for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
>>> >
>>> Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
>>> all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.
>>
>> It's no life at all for the vast majority. Agony, boredom, discomfort, fear,
>> pain,
>> then the merciful peace of death. In their place I'd rather never have been
>> born.
>
>In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were in
>their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of comparisons.

So being dumb makes it OK to be abused does it? Ignorance is no
defense, not even in law.

"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4ft1beF1kb993U1 [at] individual.net...


> In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were
> in their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of
> comparisons.

Yes - another good point.
The animals don't know that slaughter house = death or share our horror of
death.
I'd guess that children watching a video of animal slaughter would usually
find it more traumatic than the animals themselves. Humans are mostly able
to look ahead and anticipate or dread coming events and most would not be
keen on the idea of being sent to a slaughter house, but to an animal,
surely death is less traumatic than a human going into hospital for an
operation and not waking up again.

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater"
> <back [at] ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
>>news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
>>> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions
>>>>of animals would
>>>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The
>>>>vegan agenda
>>>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit
>>>>by preventing
>>>>them from being born. What they don't take into consideration
>>>>is the fact
>>>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy animals.
>>>
>>> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be
>>> eaten.
>>>
>>> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not
>>> shocking,
>>> strange or un-natural.
>>>
>>> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated deaths
>>> is that
>>> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free
>>> compared to the
>>> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow and
>>> painful and
>>> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
>>
>>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,
>
> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
===============================
Hey georgie, then why are you on usenet spewing your ignorance
around the world? Afterall, you're killing animals here for no
more reason than your ENTERTAINMENT, killer!



>
>> and a painless death
>
> No death at all is far better.
=======================
Everything dies, fool...


>
>>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals,
>>which they would
>>be if vegans had their way and set them free,
>
> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given
> the
> benefit of life, make your mind up
>
>> ignores the fact that eating them
>>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from
>>our relationship
>>with them.
>
> What benefit is abuse to any species, apart from a few weird
> humans
> for personal gratification?
======================
You tell us, killer. You're the one defending killing animals
for entertainment but not food. Can you support your killing,
hypocrite?



>
>> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about
>> their
>>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to
>>the animals that
>>live as a result of it.
>
> It's called thinking about yourself, in that I doubt you have
> any
> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>
> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you
> feel.
============================
Try it yourself fool. You kill as many animals as anybody else,
killer.


>
>

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:v6di92tr7oija210danjibrqkro9lfg60m [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:22 +0100, "beefeater"
> <back [at] ya.spammer>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
>>news:5s6i92hnf6gmkiu2kvadu7j9oac5q4um9d [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:46:37 +0100, "beefeater"
>>> <back [at] ya.spammer>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Oz" <Oz [at] farmeroz.port995.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:GTH+cODN3QmEFw7I [at] farmeroz.port995.com...
>>>>> beefeater <back [at] ya.spammer> writes
>>>>>>You're right. If it weren't for the eating of beef billions
>>>>>>of animals would
>>>>>>not have lived and benefited from that life experience. The
>>>>>>vegan agenda
>>>>>>is to deprive future generations of animals of this benefit
>>>>>>by preventing
>>>>>>them from being born. What they don't take into
>>>>>>consideration is the fact
>>>>>>that eating them ensures future generations of happy
>>>>>>animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, of course, the destiny of all animals to die and be
>>>>> eaten.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the destiny of all living things, so this is not
>>>>> shocking,
>>>>> strange or un-natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact the only un-natural thing about human-mediated
>>>>> deaths is that
>>>>> they are in general astonishingly pain and stress free
>>>>> compared to the
>>>>> natural deaths. Deaths in nature are usually rather slow
>>>>> and painful and
>>>>> definitely against all animal cruelty legislation.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths,
>>>
>>> And why not! Why kill an animal when you don't need to?
>>
>>To eat. They're going to die anyway, so why not make their
>>lives happy
>>and give them a humane death before we eat them?
>
> We don't. I suggest you take a good look at
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>>
>>>> and a painless death
>>>
>>> No death at all is far better.
>>
>>I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.
>
> It certainly is in my diet.
=========================
You're a liar, hypocrite. You kill more animals for your food
than many that eat meat do. Why are you so monumentally
ignorant? Is it willful or just terminal?



>
>>
>>>>it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals,
>>>>which they would
>>>>be if vegans had their way and set them free,
>>>
>>> But hang on you just claimed they would never have been given
>>> the
>>> benefit of life, make your mind up
>>
>>I'm talking about the deaths of beef animals that have already
>>been born
>>and then set free by the vegan agenda.
>
> We'd happily look after them.
>
>>
>>>> ignores the fact that eating them
>>>>ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from
>>>>our relationship
>>>>with them.
>>>
>>> What benefit is abuse to any species
>>
>>Farming beef animals and then slaughtering them humanely isn't
>>abusing them.
>>They benefit from the life experience we provide them, and so
>>do we when
>>their lives are brought to a humane end to then eat them.
>
> Stop deluding yourself http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
========================
You're the deluded fool, killer. You're concerned about some
1000s of calves while posting to usenet! What a hoot! Power
generation, distribution and communications kill billiond upon
billions of animals every year. Why is there no concern on your
part about that, killer? Oh, yeah, that means YOU would actually
have to make some chnages in your life. It is far easier to spew
your hate about others instead, isn't it, hypocrite?


>
>>
>>, apart from a few weird humans
>>> for personal gratification?
>>>
>>>> When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about
>>>> their
>>>>painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to
>>>>the animals that
>>>>live as a result of it.
>>>
>>> It's called thinking about yourself,
>>
>>No, I also think about the benefits animals get out of it as
>>well. They would
>>not have lived if I didn't ask farmers to breed them for me.
>
> http://www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml
>
>>in that I doubt you have any
>>> other thoughts, which is the very point.
>>>
>>> Put yourself in the place of the animal and see how smug you
>>> feel.
>>
>>lol
>
> See.

"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message news:4ft1beF1kb993U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:e7bg4e$mfl$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
> > news:4fsnecF1jn911U1 [at] individual.net...
> >>
> >> "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
> >> > news:4fsirrF1jkpotU1 [at] individual.net...
> >> >
> >> >> I agree. The vegan's preoccupation with their deaths, and a painless death
> >> >
> >> > 'Cattle slaughter
> >> >
> >> > The majority of cattle are stunned with the captive bolt pistol. Penetrative
> >> > captive bolt stunners drive a bolt into the skull and cause unconsciousness
> >> > both through physical brain damage and the concussive blow to the skull.
> >> > The bolt on a non-penetrative stunner is 'mushroom-headed' and impacts
> >> > on the brain without entering the skull. Unconsciousness is caused by the
> >> > concussive blow.
> >>
> >> That sounds pretty humane to me.
> >
> > You are not standing in the killing line.
>
> They are stunned before slaughter,

They sense what's coming.

> and that's the humane way to do it.

To kill unecessarilly.

humane

adj
Definition: kind, compassionate

Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
...'
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67

What's humane about killing - for no good reason?

> >> > If
> >>
> >> Yes, IF.
> >
> > WHEN.
>
> No, IF. "IF an animal is not correctly stunned" If they are stunned properly
> before being slaughtered I see no problem with it. WHEN they aren't stunned
> properly before being slaughtered I do see a problem with it. But rather than
> call for the abolition of beef farming I would campaign for improvements
> instead.

It is happening now. What exactly are you planning to do about it?

> >> an animal is not accurately stunned or the correct cartridge strength is
> >> > not used, the stun will not be effective. The EU Scientific Veterinary
> >> > Committee estimate that around 5 to 10% of cattle are not stunned
> >> > effectively with the captive bolt - or up to 230,000 animals a year. These
> >> > animals experience the pain of being shot in the head and will either be
> >> > stunned again (a difficult procedure) or continue on for knifing whilst
> >> > conscious.
> >>
> >> Then let's campaign together for more thorough stunning methods if they're
> >> inadequate. Abolishing the beef industry because of poor stunning practices
> >> instead of campaigning for better and more thorough methods is akin to
> >> abolishing schools because of poor anti-bullying methods.
> >
> > No it isn't. Unecessarilly curtailing the life of a healthy young animal,
> > - no matter how it is done, demonstrates utter contempt for that life.
>
> Or it could demonstrate a love of life generally and a way of ensuring the lives
> of future generations to come.

Classic doublespeak. Love of life = needless killing. Unbelievable.

> > Animals are routinely mutilated, confined and abused. It is bullying.
>
> If welfare standards are followed, those kind of things don't happen. If you
> have a problem with animal welfare standards, campaign for higher ones.

'Animal welfare standards' allow mutilations without anaesthesia, and confinement.

> >> > In an attempt to improve accuracy, legislation requires that cattle are
> >> > either confined in a stunning pen or have their heads 'securely fastened'.
> >> > However, head restraint systems can cause great distress. The MHS says
> >> > that 17% of abattoirs either do not use a restraint or use an "inefficient"
> >> > restraint which can result in the stun being delivered ineffectively.
> >> >
> >> > Says abattoir vet Gabriele Meurer, 'Not many animals stand still. They
> >> > are all upset, some very frightened and some move violently. The animals
> >> > are never given time to calm down. Sometimes the slaughterman misses,
> >> > wounding the animal terribly instead of stunning it. It may happen that
> >> > the second shot cannot be done immediately and the animal is suffering
> >> > for quite some time.'
> >> >
> >> > In addition to the stress of being in an unfamiliar environment, the electric
> >> > goad can legally be used on the hindquarters of cattle and pigs if they are
> >> > refusing to move forwards. This cruel device is intentionally designed to
> >> > cause pain.
> >> >
> >> > Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience before
> >> > they are killed. It is becoming increasingly common for novice artificial
> >> > inseminators to 'practise' on cull cows in abattoirs. For welfare reasons,
> >> > novice inseminators are advised to practise only on cows who will be
> >> > slaughtered on that day. The message here is that this practice is
> >> > considered distressing for cows - but that if they are about to be killed
> >> > then this does not matter.
> >> > ....'
> >> > Viva! has been able to obtain video footage of stunning and killing
> >> > of farmed animals from within UK slaughterhouses.
> >> >
> >> > Cattle Slaughter (0.5MB / 34s)
> >> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/cattle.ram
> >> >
> >> > Pig Slaughter Part 1 (0.5MB / 31s)
> >> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigst.ram
> >> > Pig Slaughter Part 2 (1MB / 1m 18s)
> >> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/pigsl.ram
> >> >
> >> > Sheep Slaughter (1MB / 1m 07s)
> >> > http://www.viva.org.uk/video/lambs.ram
> >> > ...
> >> > http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm
> >> >
> >> >> it clearly is when compared to the deaths of wild animals, which they
> >> >> would
> >> >
> >> > True predators, with few exceptions, kill very quickly and efficiently.
> >>
> >> No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or eaten alive
> >> by a bear?
> >
> > I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting chance.
>
> I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins, then.

That's a film/movie.

> >> >> be if vegans had their way and set them free, ignores the fact that eating them
> >> >> ensures all future generations will continue to benefit from our relationship
> >> >> with them. When I sit down to eat my roast dinner I don't think about their
> >> >> painless deaths, I think about the benefits my diet brings to the animals that
> >> >> live as a result of it.
> >> >
> >> > 'Beef' Cattle
> >> >
> >> > There are many different systems for raising cattle for meat, the least intensive
> >> > being the suckler herd. The calf is kept with its mother until weaned and then
> >> > put on grass until it is heavy enough to be killed at about two years old.
> >> >
> >> > At the other end of the spectrum, the most intensive method is where calves
> >> > are taken from their mothers at birth and reared in pens on milk replacer and
> >> > feed pellets. During the first week of their lives they are usually castrated and
> >> > have their horn buds chemically burnt out. In the case of older cows a hot
> >> > iron might be used and, theoretically at any rate, an anaesthetic.
> >> >
> >> > To put weight on before slaughter they are taken to fattening sheds and fed
> >> > on high quality cereals. There may be straw bedding but it is becoming
> >> > common to use slatted concrete floors on which cattle find it difficult to
> >> > stand, often resulting in lameness. Some farms keep up to 8,000 animals this
> >> > way, cramming them into sheds to stop them from moving around and
> >> > "wasting" energy in keeping warm. They gain weight quickly and are ready
> >> > for slaughter at only 11 to 12 months old.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.factoryfarming.org.uk/beef.html
> >> >
> >> Yes, I agree that some farm animals suffer, but you haven't persuaded me that
> >> all do, or that it's the norm in beef production. Far from it.
> >
> > It's no life at all for the vast majority. Agony, boredom, discomfort, fear, pain,
> > then the merciful peace of death. In their place I'd rather never have been born.
>
> In their place you wouldn't have the mental capacity to realise you were in
> their place, and you wouldn't be able to make those kind of comparisons.

You're wrong.

'Cows hold grudges, say scientists

By Jonathan Leake
February 28, 2005

ONCE they were a byword for mindless docility. But cows have a complex
mental life in which they bear grudges, nurture friendships and become
excited by intellectual challenges, researchers have found.

Cows are capable of strong emotions such as pain, fear and even anxiety
about the future. But if farmers provide the right conditions, they can also
feel great happiness.

The findings have emerged from studies of farm animals that have found
similar traits in pigs, goats and chickens. They suggest such animals may be
so emotionally similar to humans that welfare laws need to be reconsidered.

The research will be presented to a conference in London next month
sponsored by animal welfare group Compassion in World Farming.

Christine Nicol, professor of animal welfare at Britain's Bristol University,
said even chickens might have to be treated as individuals with needs and
problems.

"Remarkable cognitive abilities and cultural innovations have been
revealed," she said. "Our challenge is to teach others that every animal
we intend to eat or use is a complex individual, and to adjust our farming
culture accordingly."

Her colleague John Webster added: "People have assumed intelligence
is linked to the ability to suffer, and that because animals have smaller
brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic."

The Bristol researchers have documented how cows within a herd form
friendship groups of between two and four animals with whom they spend
most of their time, often grooming and licking each other. They will also
dislike other cows, and can bear grudges for months or years.

Donald Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University, will
tell the conference how cows can become excited by solving intellectual
challenges.

In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had
to find how to open a door to get some food. An electroencephalograph
was used to measure their brainwaves.

"The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some
even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment," Professor Broom
said.

The assumption that farm animals cannot suffer from conditions that would be
intolerable for humans is partly based on the idea they have no sense of self.
Latest research suggests this is untrue.

"Sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated
to seek it," Professor Webster said.

"You only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure
when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's
day. Just like humans."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12390397-13762,00.html

Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
by David DeGrazia
<review>

Most people who approach Taking Animals Seriously will share an
unspoken presupposition. This is that animal activists take animals too
seriously. They lack a sense of proportion. It's not that gratuitous cruelty
to members of other species is morally defensible. Surely it isn't. If
pressed, then all but the amoral, sociopathic or philosophically bewitched
are likely to grant that wanton animal-abuse is best discouraged. Instead,
the pervasive assumption is simply that animal suffering doesn't really
matter much compared to the things that happen to human beings - to us.
They, after all, are only animals: objects rather than our fellow subjects.
Animal consciousness, insofar as it exists at all, is minimal and
uninteresting.

Contrast one's likely reaction on learning that the infant or toddler next
door is being abused. Let's suppose that the abuse is being inflicted for
fun or profit - or, more broadly, for purposes that can be described only
as frivolous. In such a case, then one's intuitions are equally clear. The
suffering of the victim has to be taken very seriously. One has a duty
actively to prevent it. The interests of the child take precedence over the
wishes of the abuser. In extreme cases, the adults involved in persistent
abuse may need to be legally restrained or even locked up. Indeed, it is
cases of failure on our part to take action to prevent it - or failure to take
action by the social services or child-protection agencies - that demand
justification. To treat the suffering caused by child-abuse lightly would be
to show a sense of disproportion when confronted with the nature of the
practices involved - and our capacity to do something about them.

Yet here lies the crux.

After Darwin, a huge and accumulating convergence of physiological,
behavioural, genetic and evolutionary evidence suggests - but cannot
prove - an appalling possibility. This is that hundreds of millions of
the non-human victims of our actions are functionally akin - intellectually,
emotionally and in their capacity to suffer - to very young humans. In the
light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their also
being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful; in fact,
almost too ghastly to think about.

When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much more
convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to them,
there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise our actions.

Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
examination to be surprisingly thin.
....
http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm

"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
>> Animals MUST die to match those being born.
>>


This not happening to the human race would appear to be a major risk to
the planet.
The green lobby would have us believe the over use of cars and people
taking flights for holidays is the problem The thing we need is a really
devestating war.

"Tim C." <tim.challenger [at] aon.at> wrote in message
news:godi921jgr5gk3cicrs8tsi0hl50cq2fvf [at] 4ax.com...
> Following up to George <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> :
>
>>>> No death at all is far better.
>>>
>>>I'm afraid that that's not possible, George.
>>It certainly is in my diet.
>
> The poor plants stay alive after you've eaten them?
======================
It's far more than the plants that die. Mono-culture cropping
starts with habitat destruction and goes downhill from there.
It's dependent on the petro-chemical industry, and the machinery
causes death and suffering through the entire process. Plowing,
seeding, spraying, harvesting. Then there are the direct,
deliberate deaths by poisoning just to keep the veggies clean and
cheap. Add power for processing processes and transportation to
kill more animals. It's easy to have a meat-included diet that
causes less death and suffering of animals overall.



> --
> Tim C.

"George" <87rfguy4rgf [at] kjwerkhwir.com> wrote in message
news:6gdi921vujcmb3lhunbpghur6hcdqa1cej [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:33:42 +0100, "Billy Bullseye"
> <nospamthanks [at] none.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>>news:e7b7an$jtt$1 [at] reader01.news.esat.net...
>>
>>> Worn out dairy cows may be subjected to a painful experience
>>> before
>>> they are killed.
>>
>>They may also have a painless end - unlike worn out humans who
>>are denied
>>such a luxury. I hope you don't happen to give birth Pearl - or
>>die in a car
>>crash, get captured in Iraq, or turn into a hedgehog and get
>>eaten alive by
>>a badger. Wouldn't all of those be very much worse than 2 goes
>>with a
>>captive bolt?? - or simply having your throat cut?? I doubt if
>>having your
>>throat cut ranks very highly on the scale of less than perfect
>>ways to die.
>>
>>If you want to avoid any chance of pain, please stop breathing
>>now. How DO
>>you want the animals to die?? or do you not want them to be
>>born at all??
>
> Nothing should be born to abuse.
==============================
ROTFLMAO You really really are this stupid, aren't you
little-boy?



>

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:44:36 +0100, "Demon" <adv [at] voldedaer.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
>>> Animals MUST die to match those being born.
>>>
>
>
> This not happening to the human race would appear to be a major risk to
>the planet.
> The green lobby would have us believe the over use of cars and people
>taking flights for holidays is the problem The thing we need is a really
>devestating war.

Be patient it's coming.

"beefeater" <back [at] ya.spammer> wrote in message
news:4ft1beF1kb993U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea [at] signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
<snip>
> >>
> >> No, they do not. Which would you prefer, a bolt through the head or
eaten
> >> alive
> >> by a bear?
> >
> > I'll take my chances with the bear, TYVM. At least I'd have a sporting
> > chance.
>
> I take it that you haven't watched "The Edge", starring Anthony Hopkins,
then.
>

If she had, she'd know that Hopkins' character survived by killing the bear.