I hate life how about you

My horse gets a frickin heated grooming bay when I clean her, do not tell me that horses are abused what so ever you clueless moron

I work with horses medically.

I hope to own and care for horses in future.

I know you can’t fathom someone being a horse person and being against riding, but now you’ve met me and can modify your current understanding of the world around you. Isn’t that great? Progress.

Plus, I never even mentioned the word “abuse”.

How NOT to interact with a interact with a horse:

We’re not saying that you can’t horse back ride, we’re just saying that there are more humane and gentle ways to do it other than race them, beat them, and push their bodies far past what they are capable of. Don’t ride all the time, and don’t force the horse to do anything outside of it’s abilities. Don’t hold their necks in a constraint and don’t think of them as an item that you can use. Don’t strap them to in city carriages where they are stressed and placed in very dangerous positions for profit. 

Horses are a very bad evolutionary design. Their hooves basically function as  elongated fingertips (it’s like standing on your toes like a ballerina for your whole life), they can’t breathe through their mouths, and their lungs bleed when they run for too long or too fast. You’d think that an animal that evolved to outrun predators wouldn’t also be it’s downfall, but hey, homosapiens are a poor evolutionary design too. 

Race horses in huge competitions are also drugged to be able to run that long, ignore being whipped/tasered, and continue running even on fatal injuries. So that’s the kind of stuff we want banned. Not your small farm with your pet horse who is fed, has heated shelter, and given free roam. Horses are masters at hiding their pain, because they are prey animals. The law of nature is “to survive” and non-self aware animals don’t know the difference. 

Just please, treat your horses with respect, they were here long before us and never needed us on their backs. Any animal that has to be “broken” in order to be used, shouldn’t have been interfered with in the first place. When we say “horses don’t need you on their backs” it’s because we’ve seen so much abuse and horror involving horses, because people have a sense of power when they can fully control the animal. It means we have seen so much stuff, that at this point it would just be best to ban it all together. 

My friend, who was a horse wrangler at a rodeo used to argue that his horses were loved and cared for after the show, but when he invited me to my first (and last) show, I witnessed him and some others whip, taser, and kick the horse in stall to rile it up before jumping on it’s back. People actually cheered that on. The rougher you were with the horses, the more people cheered. The noise and people surrounding at every angle scares them. If people truly “loved” their horses, why would they put them in these stressful positions in the first place? The only answer is for profit. Doesn’t matter if it’s tradition, because if your tradition is causing harm, you’re blinded by your own greed. 

But why, just wondering, is it that these kinds of “put-down” responses always seem to crop up exclusively with veganism? When I say “More people should go vote in elections!”, nobody answers with “Well, not everyone can manage to go to elections, it’s a lot of effort for some people”, etc. When I say “People should donate money to hurricane victims”, it is understand that I don’t mean people about to starve themselves, so of course nobody replies “Well, some of us are poor you asshole!”.

So please, can we stop this convenient “remembering poor people in food deserts whenever they are a good prop for me refusing to even consider a vegan diet”?

It’s not a “but I’m poor!” thing, it’s an “I’m afraid of change because I’m comfortable where I am!” 

A discussion similar to the sheep point was posed a while ago and I actually agree with you. If the money is funneled completely back into the animal’s care and well-being then it’s not done for personal gain and isn’t exploitative in my eyes.

The abuse is “they’re not fucking feeding her right”, probably giving her shitty hay because grain is eeeeebil. She also probably has some sort of illness, such as Johnes. Or a retained placenta or some other issue, which if you watch the horrid video of the man pulling the calf the way he did it was bound to cause issues.

You cannot blame the industry for this one. She was a decent looking heifer when they first brought her in.

She’s also 2 years old. At 2 years old they’ve typically had only one calf are are still trying to grow while they’ve had to redirect massive energy stores into producing their calf and sustain a full lactation. Most dairy farmers struggle to keep weight on first-calf and even second-calf dairy cattle, or even on their older cattle. 

One of my heifers six weeks out from calving :) she actually has meat on her bones.

Watch the damn videos dude. Seriously.

I watched the damned videos, she looks like heifers and even cows that I saw just the other day which were not in the middle of winter and were on lush tropical pastures. Heifers, let alone dairy heifers, look skinny and certain angles and the presence of snow can make them seem more exaggerated than they are. Heifers and cows alike struggle to keep condition on during lactation and losing condition during peak lactation (around 6 weeks post-calving) is common. You seriously need to be there yourself to accurately assess this heifer, and I trust the person who was.

If tumblr breaks that link like they did to the one above, copy and paste:

http://gofundme.com/carrizocomecrudotribeoftexas

😪 can confirm bulldozers were parked on the property earlier this week. Remember, this portion of the wall was already funded last year, but the feds have repeatedly violated the rights of private landowners by tresspassing and destroying vegetation even *before* they obtained legal routes to do so.

I have heard this portion of the wall was funded only because the GOP presented it as “levy wall reinforcements” designed to safeguard land from the effects of flooding. In reality, it will magnify effects of flooding, massively worsen erosion, devastate the area, and every non-flying, non-swimming animal south of the wall will drown the next time the river floods.

For those unfamiliar with Texas and our relationship with our rivers: they flood. They flood regularly. They flood massively. When it rains in Texas, the downpour is torrential, if you don’t have an umbrella, you may as well have walked fully clothed into a shower. Every river and stream with a low road crossing is accompaniedby a flood gauge, some go up to 6 feet, some go higher, and some have been completely submerged.

We get these kinds of floods several times a year. Even in Austin, there are several days a year I have to work from home because parts of the major highways are underwater. All of this rain goes into the streams, which go into the creeks, which ultimately go into one (or more) of the rivers. They all flood. They all flood regularly. You can count on it. That’s why we have things like levies.

If this wall is built, the next time the Rio Grande floods in Mission, the loss of wildlife will be catastrophic. I saw so many cute javelina cleaning up under the bird feeders. Every single one will drown.

Guys, I can’t.

These aren’t pigs. They’re their own thing. They live in packs of 50 or so and this was my first time ever seeing them and it breaks my heart thinking every single one will be dead the next time the valley gets a hard rain.

I’m planning to write up my post(s) from the trip I made last week after tomorrow night. This month is horrible.

Also, this arises another concern how those collars look much too tight to eat or drink normally, and how starving wildlife are denied food because “we need to keep livestock alive in order to profit from them”. The dogs cant even lay down without straining their necks. These types of dogs, especially the Kangal dog (last image) who was first depicted wearing spiked collars, was not domesticated out of love, but out of abuse and only to work for us originally. If it was unconditional love, they wouldn’t have put them in harms way to fight in the first place. 

~ Fish are known to develop cultural traditions and can even recognize themselves and others.

~  The level of mental complexity that fish display is on a par with most other vertebrates and they can feel pain in a manner similar to humans.

~ They also show signs of Machiavellian intelligence, such as cooperation and reconciliation

~ The primary senses of many fish are “just as good” and in some cases better than that of humans.

~ Crayfish actually feel stress in the same way that humans do!

~ Fish actually have pretty good memories, so saying you have the memory of a fish..not that bad.

~ Here’s a fab article by @acti-veg that goes into great detail about both the ethical issues and environmental of eating fish. and here’s another article on fish sentience. Fish may not look like those mammals, those species we most often develop emotional attachments to, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t equally sentient beings deserving of the same compassion as other mammalian species. Eating fish is unnecessary and their slaughter therefore unjustified, leave the fish alone, go vegan.  

~ More info about how commercial fishing is devastating the world’s oceans. 

~ More info on the cruelty of the fishing industry

Hey guys, first of all I’m not talking about the fishing industry. Big ocean fisheries contribute a LOT to the destruction of ocean floor ecosystems and they devastate populations of fish. I’m just talking about people who enjoy heading to the lake and catching a few fish to feed their families.

I know that fish are intelligent to a degree! That’s literally why I made this post… but I don’t believe that we need to stop eating them because of it. I believe in reducing the pain and fear of animals used for food as much as physically possible. I also believe in reducing the impact to the environment as much as possible.

Humans have probably been eating fish literally for hundreds of thousands of years. It’s a really healthy source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and other vitamins and minerals. And when fished or farmed sustainably, it can be healthy for the environment. It’s definitely better than tearing up huge swaths of native grassland to plant a monoculture of soy.

Honestly, I didn’t really consider the stress of being hooked and brought out of the water. That should probably not take that long, and you should either immediately release it or kill it once you get it out of the water. The two methods of humanely killing a fish are stunning them with a blunt object and then cutting the arteries, or driving a spike through the brain to immediately cease all nerve action. Both of these methods are over in a second and if done correctly the fish shouldn’t feel anything. It’s honestly in the fisherman’s interest to instantly kill the fish, because there is a visible difference (and difference in taste) in the meat between a fish that has been instantly killed and a fish that has been under stress for a long period of time. That’s really visible proof that the fish experiences WAY less stress when it is instantly killed, because there is no visible buildup of lactic acid in the muscles.

~ The vast vast majority of sealife slaughtered and eaten is brought, not caught, also two of your statements seem to contradict each other, at the beginning you claim to not be referring to the fishing industry but later on in your response, you claim that “sustainable fishing” can be healthy for the environment? I’m glad that we both recognize the disastrous effects of commercial fishing has both on the fish and on the environment however it’s important that  “sustainable fishing” is a myth. I get that over the past few years, ‘sustainable fishing’ (much like “sustainable animal farming”) has become a buzzword for the fishing industry, a not surprising reaction to these destructive, unsustainable and cruel practices and heightened awareness from the public.  Biodiversity organizations across the world have developed lists of ‘good fish’ and ‘bad fish’, sustainable catching practices, and ones to avoid. This is a step in the right direction but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Evidence shows that these animals simply cannot recover from overfishing fast enough to meet demand, even using “sustainable” fishing practices. We have simply passed the point where these “sustainable” fishing practices might have worked in terms of biodiversity and the environment. Today’s fish populations are just too low for any of these “sustainable” methods. In the words of one of the world’s leading marine biologists, Dr. Sylvia Earle, “every fish counts at this point”,  “if we value the ocean and the ocean’s health at all, we have to understand that fish are critical to maintaining the integrity of ocean systems, which in turn make the planet work.”  I would recommend anyone reading this to watch this fab video from bitesizevagn bellow on fishing! 

~  I know that fish are intelligent to a degree! That’s literally why I made this post… but I don’t believe that we need to stop eating them because of it. I believe in reducing the pain and fear of animals used for food as much as physically possible. I also believe in reducing the impact on the environment as much as possible.” So the reason why it’s unethical to needlessly slaughter these animals is not due to intelligence, but due to their sentience. If we used intelligence as an indicator of value that’s very obviously super problematic and a road you do not want to be going down. Fish are sentient beings, they have the ability to perceive their environment, and experience sensations such as pain and suffering, or pleasure and comfort, this sentence is the reason why it is wrong to needlessly slaughter them. Since we have no need to eat them any slaughter of them for food is the violence taking of a sentient life, and is wrong. Killing animals, thus depriving them of their right to life, for no necessity, is wrong. The argument of “reducing pain before and during slaughter is a welfarist argument. I would recommend anyone reading to check out this fab article by @acti-veg on welfareism here.    

~  “ Humans have probably been eating fish literally for hundreds of thousands of years.” This is an appeal to tradition fallacy, and a very problematic argument because you could justify just about anything using this logic. Our ancestors did many things that we’d find disturbing for hundreds of thousands of eyars, including killing each other and other violent acts. Basing our ethics on our ancestors is not a road we want to be going down. Our knowledge and way of life have improved and evolved and our ethical behavior should improve accordingly.

~ “ It’s a really healthy source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and other vitamins and minerals. “  Our hearts don’t need fish, our brains don’t need fish and our health is far better served by plant EFAs. Fish flesh contains omega-3 fatty acids which appear to be heart-protective. however, there are healthier plant based sources of these acids that also provide health-promoting fiber and antioxidants. and don’t contain the toxic heavy metals and carcinogens found in fish flesh today Fish flesh today is badly contaminated with harmful toxic chemicals as they live in water that is extremely polluted. Eating fish flesh has actually become a major health hazard. Pollutants that concentrate in fish include pesticides, PCBs, toxic metals and radioactive substances. These have been linked to many health problems, including impaired behavioral development in children, cancers, nervous system disorders, fetal damage, and many other damaging health effects. It’s also worth noting that in many cases farmed fish contain even more contaminants than flesh from wild-caught fish. More info into the health effects of fish here and here and here and here. 

~  “ Eating meat is natural and healthy, and can be healthy for the environment too” This “eating meat is natural” argument is an “appeal to nature fallacy”. We don’t do things solely because they’re natural. The idea that since we have adapted to be able to do something so we therefore should do it, is obviously incredibly problematic and a road you do not want to go down.. Just because something is natural, does not make it right. We are not hunter-gatherers anymore, we live in a technologically advanced and evolved society.  We use many things that are not natural in modern life and we don’t do “natural” things because we now recognize them as wrong. We should do what’s ethical, not what’s natural. Exploiting and slaughtering animals when we don’t need to is unethical. Also, there is nothing at all ‘natural’ about eating animal products in this modern day society since the animals we eat are forcefully and systematically bred into existence in bodies genetically engineered to the extreme detriment of their health, animals that most of which will be loaded with drugs and antibiotics and whose flesh, after being slaughtered by a stranger in a slaughterhouse, will be cut up and bought pre-packed from a supermarket. When it comes to health, eating animal flesh/secretions are the furthest from healthy you can get. We have an ever growing scientific understanding that the evidence for dairy causing cancer is as strong as processed meat causing cancer. Processed flesh being a class 1 carcinogen and other flesh being a class 2 carcinogen. The impact on hormones being linked to chronic disease. The effect of estrogen in dairy products on human health(including fertility and eye health). Increased risk of parkinsons.Heart disease. diabetes etc. More information here and here.  

~ When it comes to the environment, animal agriculture is extremely damaging.   While there are many problems in crop growing, such as industrial sized monocrops, even the very lowest impact animal flesh products and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing).and a vegan diet is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth, this according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the effects of agriculture on the planet. Not only are these industries causing massive detriment to people health, both by consuming these animal products and for local communities living in areas with factory farms and slaughterhouses, but they are the second largest contributor to human-made greenhouse gas emissions after fossil fuels and is are the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction

~ You bring up soy production, yes, soy production requires vast amounts of land, and there are many other issues as well, to both the environment and for those workers who grow the crop that need to be addressed. The fact is though that  About 70% of soy produced globally is fed to livestock (in the US this figure is 98%, and 90% in the EU) Considerably more soy and other crops are fed to farmed animals than we ever eat ourselves and farmed animals take in far more calories in crop feed than they will ever produce, meaning the average carnist diet that includes animal flesh and secretions requires significantly more crops, including soy than a vegan one does. If soy production is of a big concern to you (which it should be for the reasons mentioned above) then changing to a plant-based diet would be one of the most effective means of lowering your soy consumption as much as possible. Also worth noting that you don’t have to consume soy in order to be vegan. Plenty of alternatives to soy include beans, lentils, chickpeas, peas, nuts, and seeds etc. 

~  “ I won’t tell you what to eat, but please don’t tell me what to eat either.”  Its really important to recognize that this isn’t a “to each their own” situation, that this isn’t simply a matter of personal choice and preferences because personal choice stops being a matter of simple preference when those choices have victims and when it comes to consuming animals and their secretions (and buying their byproducts) it’s a fact that other beings are being directly and needlessly victimized by being bred, kept captive, exploited, and slaughtered as a result of the decision to eat them and their secretions/byproducts. How you style your hair, your favorite color, these are personal choices. Who you choose to abuse, exploit, and slaughter, however, are not. I doubt you would take the same view when it comes to other needless acts that harm animals, such as the dog meat trade, dog fighting, animal abuse of “pets”, bullfighting, skinning animals for fur, etc.

~ You bring up the exploitation of workers, as mentioned above, considerably more plants are fed to farmed animals than we ever eat ourselves and farmed animals take in far more calories in crop feed than they will ever produce out in when slaughtered meaning the average carnist diet that includes animal products requires significantly more labor (and therefore involves more exploitation and human harm) than a vegan one does. If we were looking for a diet which requires the least crop labor (and therefore exploitation)) as possible it would be a vegan diet. It’s also important to note that the animal agriculture industry is one of the most exploitative in the world in terms of labor exploitation. Slaughterhouse workers are much more likely than average to have problems with drug and alcohol abuse and with mental health issues like PTSD from working under extremely stressful conditions. They also have astonishingly high rates of injury due to the high pressure, dangerous working environment. Communities with slaughterhouses in also see higher rates of domestic violence than average as well as increased water and air pollution and lower land value. These workers also are very often poor immigrants with few other choices. As vegans we are fully aware that like everyone else we cannot be 100% cruelty free in our actions as consumers, the definition of veganism even acknowledges this (to avoid exploitation as far as is possible and practicable) It’s unfortunately not possible to be a consumer in the modern world without causing some harm, but veganism is about reducing this harm as much as we are able to.The exploitation of agriculture workers is a massive issue that needs addressing (exploitation is rampant throughout so many industries) but to use this argument  about vegans when they aren’t able to avoid this exploitation as consumers, while also both contributing to more crop labour AND exploitation in the animal ag industry, when its possible and practicable to avoid doing so, is a bit disingenuous.      

Some more links to resources below!

~ Fishing severely damaging local ecosystems

~ Livestock’s Long Shadow UN Report

~ Environmental impact of food study

~ A Century of Fish Biomass Decline in the Ocean

~ Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets

~ 46% of ocean plastic is from the fishing industry

~ Livestock is the world’s largest user of land resources

~ For every 1 pound of fish caught up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species caught and discarded as by-kill