Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
Accidents like that in the bull dogging are rare though. And to have two animals injured in the same go around is very rare. There are a lot of steer's wrestled every weekend in the summer months. Stampede is just one of many rodeos held throughout North America. In all the Rodeos I have been to over the years or watched on TV, I can count on one hand how many I have seen critically injured in the arena. I have seen a lot more cowboys suffer serious, although not life threatening injuries.
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
I would have to look up the details, but steer wrestling was eliminated from the stampede and possibly all rodeo in Canada for a time. If you see footage of the Stampede before they built the current grandstand, you will see that the steer wrestling is replaced by steer undecorating. Not the steer undecorating you see woman competing in at high school or college rodeos. But an event where the cowboy rides along and drops onto a steer much like bull dogging. Instead of wresting the steer to the ground, the cowboy must remove a ribbon or ribbons from the steers horns. This was before my time, so I don't know why they went away from steer wrestling or why it returned. But is was gone for a period of time.
People really need to realize the stampede is NOT a necessity. It is for sheer entertainment. Terrible comparison.
Ahh yes, the arrogant "you disagree with me, therefore you must not understand" card.
What you need to realize is that we understand the Stampede is for sheer entertainment. And we are fine with that. There is no amount of smug superiority you can come up with that will be convincing as a counter argument.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Ahh yes, the arrogant "you disagree with me, therefore you must not understand" card.
What you need to realize is that we understand the Stampede is for sheer entertainment. And we are fine with that. There is no amount of smug superiority you can come up with that will be convincing as a counter argument.
Do you even read the posts? Accidentally killing an animal on the highway and killing an animal for entertainment is a terrible comparison. I'm not here to convince people, I just can't hack the "heroic" label people put on these riders.
Do you even read the posts? Accidentally killing an animal on the highway and killing an animal for entertainment is a terrible comparison. I'm not here to convince people, I just can't hack the "heroic" label people put on these riders.
The animal isn't killed FOR entertainment, it's accidentally killed in a rare occurrence during the course of performing.
The comparison is actually pretty close if you're not trying to pretend animals are killed for entertainment.
Last edited by Chill Cosby; 07-14-2014 at 11:23 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
I don't mind the rodeo so much, but I don't watch the Chuckwagon races because I'm really not interested in seeing a massive accident. I'm leaving for Spain in a couple months, and the one part of their culture I have no interest in is the bullfights. I won't judge them for it ... I'm just not interested in seeing it
The animal isn't killed FOR entertainment, it's accidentally killed in a rare occurrence during the course of performing.
The comparison is actually pretty close if you're not trying to pretend animals are killed for entertainment.
Rodeo = Entertainment. Animal dies at rodeo, essentially meaning it died for entertainment purposes. The rodeo serves no other purpose. I don't think the same can be said for someone driving on the highway. Unless you believe we drive just for entertainment?
I guess its a difference of opinion as what you define as a rare occurrence. Seems to be a death every year, to me that doesn't seem rare.
Rodeo = Entertainment. Animal dies at rodeo, essentially meaning it died for entertainment purposes. The rodeo serves no other purpose. I don't think the same can be said for someone driving on the highway. Unless you believe we drive just for entertainment?
I guess its a difference of opinion as what you define as a rare occurrence. Seems to be a death every year, to me that doesn't seem rare.
Again: If, as previously said, you're purposely disingenuous about the facts, then you're not going to come off as a having a reputable opinion on the matter.
The animals do not die FOR entertainment purposes. Their death is an accident. Does a patient that accidentally dies during routine surgery die for medical purposes? Does a man crossing the street, killed by a car, die for transportation purposes? The death of these animals is not at all part of the entertainment. Claiming otherwise isn't honest. I get that you're making an attempt at some moral weight, but you need to do it honestly if you hope to convince people.
Seems to be that animals being killed by cars happens much more often as a result of vehicle based entertainment than animals being killed by the rodeo:
One of those strikes took place on Saturday, when a tour bus travelling about 30 to 40 km/hour along Highway 93 N. reported hitting a grizzly bear.
This is, of course, one of multiple deaths of bears in Alberta and BC listed in the article, but it's the only one that we can absolutely guarantee was injured or died accidentally while "entertainment" was the prime goal.
One can assume due to the overwhelming popularity of tourism in the area, that animals are killed many MANY times per year while people seek to be entertained.
This is, of course, one of multiple deaths of bears in Alberta and BC listed in the article, but it's the only one that we can absolutely guarantee was injured or died accidentally while "entertainment" was the prime goal.
One can assume due to the overwhelming popularity of tourism in the area, that animals are killed many MANY times per year while people seek to be entertained.
You think that's effective, but when you're reaching to make a statement like that, it's actually diminishing your argument. You don't need to make extreme comparisons to defend the Stampede.
There's a pretty significant difference and I'm pretty sure you know that.
You think that's effective, but when you're reaching to make a statement like that, it's actually diminishing your argument. You don't need to make extreme comparisons to defend the Stampede.
There's a pretty significant difference and I'm pretty sure you know that.
It was in response to the statement that road kill is not the result of entertainment, which it certainly can be.
I wasn't comparing it to the Stampede for the purpose of making a point, simply to address the previous post, so I assume you misread or that it wasn't clear. No worries!
Last edited by Chill Cosby; 07-14-2014 at 11:59 AM.
Animals are here for our enjoyment. Be it for companionship, entertainment or for food. Maybe the steers could be trained to like these bears, there lives don't seem to be in danger at all
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
It was in response to the statement that road kill is not the result of entertainment, which it certainly can be.
I wasn't comparing it to the Stampede for the purpose of making a point, simply to address the previous post, so I assume you misread or that it wasn't clear. No worries!
I agree some animal deaths on the highway are a result of entertainment. At the same time I would say driving on a highway is allot more of necessity than having a rodeo. It's an unfair comparison.
How long do you think the rodeo would go on if it were dogs in the competition instead?
I haven't read through this whole thread, but I see the argument a lot that chuck horses would have been off to the glue factory after racing if they didn't get into chucks.
I know someone who farms and all of their horses are ex-thoroughbreds. If these horses are so useless, wouldn't all sorts of horse enthusiasts be willing to pick them up for cheap and have the fastest horse in the whole county to cruise around on?
I haven't read through this whole thread, but I see the argument a lot that chuck horses would have been off to the glue factory after racing if they didn't get into chucks.
I know someone who farms and all of their horses are ex-thoroughbreds. If these horses are so useless, wouldn't all sorts of horse enthusiasts be willing to pick them up for cheap and have the fastest horse in the whole county to cruise around on?
I think what you meant to say is the horse was an ex-race horse. Once a thoroughbred, always a thoroughbred.
Not all thoroughbreds make good trail riding horses. Some have a very high energy level...they are called hot, and they are not as easy to ride. They are harder to rein in and want to go faster all the time. If in groups, they like to be in front. If not in front, they "jig"...meaning they are tense, they trot in place and so on. It is not that they are not rideable...but they do need an experienced rider. I don't think you would want to cruise around on a horse that used to race tracks if you are not an experienced rider. These horses tend to be tall as well, usually 16+ hands and not everyone wants or can ride a horse that tall.
Not all ex-race horses make good ranch horses either. Most ranchers want the type of thoroughbred that has heavier hind quarters and not all race horses are built that way nor are they necessarily bred to have that type of confirmation.
The Following User Says Thank You to redforever For This Useful Post:
I agree some animal deaths on the highway are a result of entertainment. At the same time I would say driving on a highway is allot more of necessity than having a rodeo. It's an unfair comparison.
How long do you think the rodeo would go on if it were dogs in the competition instead?
It is unfair. The numbers do not accurately represent the fact that driving is a necessity and that many of the road kill numbers are a result of that instead of entertainment. There is however a whole different argument to be had regarding our "need" for obstructing the natural environment to suit particular ways of life.
As for your question:
It's a bit of a hard hypothetical to comprehend. Again, I get what you're trying to do, but it doesn't quite make sense. You can't ride a dog, nor do you use dogs in the same way you use horses and bulls in farming.
Let's say, however, that for as long as the rodeo was around, it was actually an event with dogs, with events that were more suited to the capabilities of dogs, and accidental deaths occasionally occurred.
In that case, I think it would be no different. But in that scenario, you're asking what it would be like if part of human history was entirely changed, so it's hard for me to make that leap and give a definitive answer. For all I know in this scenario, we eat dogs regularly and don't keep them as pets.
Last edited by Chill Cosby; 07-14-2014 at 12:39 PM.
