Stampede 2012

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

Umm... ok? So... if you have no rebuttal about the actual topic attempt to divert the conversation?

There is no rebuttal to someone who believes horses are better off in dog food bags than racing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Sure, some of what you say is true, but you can't ignore reality. If these horses weren't racing they would have all been killed, in a rather equally terrible way, many years ago.

So, on a purely philosophical level your argument can make sense. But on a utilitarian basis there really is no comparison between the glue factory and racing.

I don't get why it always has to be a horrible death in the glue factory and a horrible death racing.

How about a life with no horrible death?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don't get why it always has to be a horrible death in the glue factory and a horrible death racing.

How about a life with no horrible death?

Because, sadly, we live in the real world. Horses cost a lot of money and as of yet no one is willing to pay to have thousands horses living for free.

Thus, we have to face reality, and for these horses that's the choice we have.

[Ne7en]

Simply put, some people would rather blanket the event lastnight with..
The horse receieved an extended life in exchange for entertainment, and
The vets euthanize the horse immediately after the crash therefore the horses suffering is minimal.

[The Goon]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don't get why it always has to be a horrible death in the glue factory and a horrible death racing.

How about a life with no horrible death?

That would be ideal, but as I understand it, all of these horses would have been long dead if not for the Chuckwagon racers.

From this article:

"The truth is, the chucks save the lives of thousands of horses. Thoroughbreds are used for the chucks. Horses that are bought of race tracks around the continent. Horse racing is a game for 2-5 year old ponies. Once they’re older than that, they’re not worth racing with jockeys anymore.

Most of the horses are sold to Europeans who turn the track castoffs into food. Chuckwagon riders buy as many horses as they can, and let them run."

It's terrible that these horses died. No one feels worse about it than the guys in charge of the outfits. But I don't think the problem is with the fact that there are chuckwagon races.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

Simply put, some people would rather blanket the event lastnight with..
The horse receieved an extended life in exchange for entertainment, and
The vets euthanize the horse immediately after the crash therefore the horses suffering is minimal.

And some would rather horses are only used for dog food and glue, and that the lives of thousands of horses isn't worth the entertainment they can provide, thus they should have been killed long ago, or better yet never even born.

[Ne7en]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

There is no rebuttal to someone who believes horses are better off in dog food bags than racing.

....right, because every horse has been saved by the chuckwagon drivers.

These horses have ONLY 2 uses:
Chuckwagon races or used for dog food.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Because, sadly, we live in the real world. Horses cost a lot of money and as of yet no one is willing to pay to have thousands horses living for free.

Thus, we have to face reality, and for these horses that's the choice we have.

Who is "we"? Pretty sure everyone lives in the real world. And how do you know no one is willing to adopt these horses? And why would you even suggest that there are only 2 choices of horrible death via glue factory and chance of horrible death via rodeo? My whole point is that it is silly to say that there are only 2 choices.

The reality is that people like rodeo and have justified this based on the fact that entertainment for people is more important than the well being of the animals.

And I'm kind of ok with that. But why pretend that the rodeo people are doing something noble? They aren't. They are using animals for human entertainment and the animals are put at risk and sometimes die horrible deaths.

The worst argument against these animals rights people is one that straight up lies to them. I'd prefer an honest answer.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

....right, because every horse has been saved by the chuckwagon drivers.

These horses have ONLY 2 uses:
Chuckwagon races or used for dog food.

Sad, but true. How many horses do you have?

[Jbo]

I've tried to stay out of this argument, because really, both sides have valid points. I do truly believe that the animals are treated well. Being on many farms and ranches in my life, the horses are treated as if they were family. Caring for these beautiful creatures takes so much time, money and work, it would be difficult (if not impossible) not to be attached to them.

I also believe that while yes, the Stampede is entertainment, they do take many precautions for the animals. Right there is the difference between say "bullfighting" which people in the abuse camp like to pull out.

It breaks my heart though to see animals injured or killed in this event, and sadly it seems like the chucks do have the most high-profile injuries. It seems like every year an accident is unavoidable. Do I think it should be banned? no, but we must continue to work to make it safer. Maybe making the track wider, or having the chucks smaller...I don't know, I'm not an expert in the sport.

Finally, I like to address the red neck and hill billy comments. Comments like this expose you and your argument quickly. Nothing destroys an argument quicker for me then some plug that read a headline in the paper pulling out the red neck comment. You know what? I'm a born and bred Calgarian, and proud to be one. I find that this comment is used by losers trying to take up a soap box, and if you actually understood this city or culture, rather then sterotype everybody, you would be ahead.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by The Goon

That would be ideal, but as I understand it, all of these horses would have been long dead if not for the Chuckwagon racers.

From this article:

"The truth is, the chucks save the lives of thousands of horses. Thoroughbreds are used for the chucks. Horses that are bought of race tracks around the continent. Horse racing is a game for 2-5 year old ponies. Once they’re older than that, they’re not worth racing with jockeys anymore.

Most of the horses are sold to Europeans who turn the track castoffs into food. Chuckwagon riders buy as many horses as they can, and let them run."

It's terrible that these horses died. No one feels worse about it than the guys in charge of the outfits. But I don't think the problem is with the fact that there are chuckwagon races.

I never said I have a problem with the chuckwagon races. I have a problem with people defending chuckwagon races as some sort of miracle saviour for these horses.

Last time I checked if you are saving someone but also putting them in a position to die a horrible death then you aren't exactly their guardian angel.

Is being killed for food better than being a chuckwagon race? Probably not. And I think that the horses don't have too terrible of lives either. But lets not pretend for a second here that humans aren't putting the horses at danger for our own amusement. Pretending that it is for the horses is lame.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Who is "we"? Pretty sure everyone lives in the real world. And how do you know no one is willing to adopt these horses? And why would you even suggest that there are only 2 choices of horrible death via glue factory and chance of horrible death via rodeo? My whole point is that it is silly to say that there are only 2 choices.

The reality is that people like rodeo and have justified this based on the fact that entertainment for people is more important than the well being of the animals.

And I'm kind of ok with that. But why pretend that the rodeo people are doing something noble? They aren't. They are using animals for human entertainment and the animals are put at risk and sometimes die horrible deaths.

The worst argument against these animals rights people is one that straight up lies to them. I'd prefer an honest answer.

If you read the blog posted above, it explains the reality quite well. Thoroughbreds are bred to RACE. Once they are done racing as ponies there is just one main market for them: food production.

The very few that get to race chucks, or breed, are the luckiest of them all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010052804823

At least 3,000 such racehorses are retired each year, usually by age 6 if not younger, the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation estimates. Given that most horses live well into their 20s, the question of what to do with them for the next 15 or more years looms. I learned that, frequently, the answer is one most horse lovers would rather not think about: Approximately two out of every three thoroughbreds that come off the track -- even those that are sound and healthy -- are euthanized, abandoned on public land or in empty fields, or slaughtered -- their meat exported to Europe and Japan for human consumption.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I never said I have a problem with the chuckwagon races. I have a problem with people defending chuckwagon races as some sort of miracle saviour for these horses.

Last time I checked if you are saving someone but also putting them in a position to die a horrible death then you aren't exactly their guardian angel.

Is being killed for food better than being a chuckwagon race? Probably not. And I think that the horses don't have too terrible of lives either. But lets not pretend for a second here that humans aren't putting the horses at danger for our own amusement. Pretending that it is for the horses is lame.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I personally don't really have a huge issue with the rodeo or chuckwagon races -- but the animal rights activists are right. These events endanger animals, and a certain amount of animal injury or death is inevitable. Its laughable when the Stampede side of the equation try to argue otherwise.

Just accept the fact that this spectacle is not very humane to animals and puts human entertainment as its primary focus. Fair enough. You can't have it both ways.

[Ne7en]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

Finally, I like to address the red neck and hill billy comments. Comments like this expose you and your argument quickly. Nothing destroys an argument quicker for me then some plug that read a headline in the paper pulling out the red neck comment. You know what? I'm a born and bred Calgarian, and proud to be one. I find that this comment is used by losers trying to take up a soap box, and if you actually understood this city or culture, rather then sterotype everybody, you would be ahead.

My intent was not to stereotype everyone in Calgary as a hill-billy, and if you go back and read my comments I believe I made no reference to that. However, the Stampede for putting it on and the Chuckwagon event are in my opinon Hill-billy. The mentality to continually do the same event with the same risks year after year. Anyone would be foolish to think the drivers don't push these horses well-being beyond what would be considered humane, money and enteraintment is on the line.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I personally don't really have a huge issue with the rodeo or chuckwagon races -- but the animal rights activists are right. These events endanger animals, and a certain amount of animal injury or death is inevitable. Its laughable when the Stampede side of the equation try to argue otherwise.

Just accept the fact that this spectacle is not very humane to animals and puts human entertainment as its primary focus. Fair enough. You can't have it both ways.

True. It could also be argued that most sporting entertainment has this risk. We pay money and watch hockey players get there brains scrabbled with concussions and what not. Players have died and had heart attacks etc.

The real difference in the argument is choice I guess. In humans case, they are making the decision to play, where a horse does not get that option. However, I can't imagine that sitting around a pasture all day would be fun for a horse either. I wonder what the time line on horses would be in the wild with zero help from man.

Honestly, you could loop back and forth all day. Yes, you are right, animals (and humans) are putting there lives at risk for entertainment.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by rohara66

I've had one for a couple years.... it is amazing!

Yeah it's definitely worth the money.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Dead horses?

Ferris Wheel!


Ferris Wheel 2 by apeddle1982, on Flickr

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Just accept the fact that this spectacle is not very humane to animals and puts human entertainment as its primary focus. Fair enough. You can't have it both ways.

I agree that it puts human entertainment as the primary focus and carries a risk for horses but to say its not very humane I think doesnt look at the whole situation.

If someone were breeding horses for Chuck wagon racing then you may have a case that we have to accept that it is not humane and you are breeding animals to die but and I think this is where the disagreement comes in there are many who will argue that the extra live span the horses enjoy because of chuckwagon races outweighs the risk that these horses under go.

Maybe it is because Calgary doesn't have a big Horse Racing industry but how come animal rights protesters don't target thouroughbred racing rather than the end game of chuckwagons. If you get rid of the Chucks the same number of horses die each year. If you get rid of thourghbred racing you would have 3000 less horses born and die each year.

Beyond that it really comes down to if you eat meat. Because if you eat feed lot meet Chucks, rodeo, hunting, etc are all more humane than feed lot meet.

[Locke]

I always find that 'Entertainment' is frequently used as a dirty word.

'Its only entertainment, its not important.'

That is so delusional as to be hilarious. We dont need entertainment, its nothing, its frivolous and unimportant, it is not essential to the survival of any species.

And yet its one of the single largest economic sectors, I wonder why that is....

[J pold]

Anyone going to The Oxford Stomp/have an extra ticket for me?