Monday, November 24, 2008

Is This Statutory Rape?







Or just a Moose-demeanor?

.

8 comments:

Kate H. said...

Hi Terrierman, What do you think about the emails going around the dog lists encouraging people to pressure Obama to choose Charles Stenholm for Secretary of Agriculture? The argument is that Stenholm is anti-HSUS so therefore is the best choice for dog owners/breeders. I looked him up and he is a democrat but helped defeat the downed animal protection act and also helped keep horse meat factories in the U.S. from being shut down. While I am very anti-HSUS and PETA, I do donate money to HFA and would like to see farming move in a more humane direction...so I'm not sure what to think about this and I value your opinion. If you haven't seen the article I can forward it to you, but it's on this site:

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.american sportingdogalliance.org

Thanks, Kate Harker in WA state

Anonymous said...

Gee, it reminds me of what we've been letting Cheney and his mouthpiece do to us for the past 8 years, right down to our feet in cement.
On the other hand waht Al sees (Alces alces) he does get!

Susan Fox said...

Re: the post- Shameless.(Giggle)

PBurns said...

When pictures like this come along, you just HAVE to post em!



Kate, you ask a question unrelated to the Moose-demeanor, but let me take a shot at it anyway:

A few thoughts:


1. Dogs as dogs are not subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. What IS in the pervue of the Dept. of Ag are puppy mills and large commercial breeding facilities and kennels. Sorry, but I feel no need whatsoever to insulate these folks from very minimum (and very rarely inspected or enforced) Department of Agriculture standards. I am a "Dogs First" kind of guy, and their welfare is NOT going to be harmed by some minimal standards at large commercial facilities. Sorry if the paperwork is long; so too is the damn driver's license test. Cowboy up!


2. Because the HSUS is opposed to something does not mean I am for it, or vice versa. I do not relenquish common sense to anyone.


3. As for farm stock such as chickens, pigs, horses, and all the rest, I think they should be treated humanely, and that INCLUDES giving them space to turn around in, and access to light and decent air, companionship for herd animals, and clean food and water and protection from the elements. The economics of bacon and eggs does not preclude doing right by the animals.

4. I could find nothing on the site you sent me to; it appears to be virtually a shell of an organization. That said, where is The American Sporting Dog Alliance on the REAL issues facing dogs: Rising Coefficients of Inbreeding and predictable defect from the same; breed standards that call for canine deformity and selection that results in disease and defect; the continuing "big wink" given to puppy mill operations by the AKC and other breed registries, and all of the quick-to-kill shelters? Where is The American Sporting Dog Alliance on such basic hunting issues as the Conservation Reserve Program, Open Fields legislation,a and full funding for state wildlife agencies? If the ASDA has looked over the world of dogs and is focusing on who is the next Sect'y of Agriculture while ignoring the "big wink" given to puppy mills (and I saw nothing to suggest that was true), then they have lost their way. If, as it appears, that their main concern is getting free access to public lands for bird dog trials, I am not opposed in concept, but I am curious as to why there has been a change by a state DNR, and I am also curious why, in a land of a million farms, private land cannot be found for a field trial.


Patrick

Anonymous said...

Of course, in my line of work, the next Ag Secretary is a big deal and my farming lists are burning up as it appears Obama was thinking about several someones who favor GMOs and/or Monsanto policies.

The push now in sustinable ag is to e-mail Obama's tean here and let them know what is important. This is the generic form, but telling your issues seems to be making a difference as several names for Ag Secretary have suddenly disappeared.

If y'all want to talk about puppy mills, I bet the transision team will listen.

http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision

Dorene

PBurns said...

There's nothing wrong with genetically modified crops or critters, per se. Most of the corn, soy and cotton this country grows is genetically modified, and you cannot eat a meal without comsuming it, or get dressed without wearing it.

That said, I am a huge fan or organic farms. On the other hand, we are not going back to lower yields because we can't; the world population is growing by leaps and bounds. Nor are we dropping corn and soybeans as our major crops, because we make EVERYTHING from them from paint to plastic, nondairy creamer to Captain Crunch and the eggs I had for breakfast. Eating just fruits and vegetable is a nice idea, but our cities do not have the land to grow them, and our countryside does not have the people to pick then, and no one has a thick enough wallet (or enough time) to commute 120 miles a day between a semi-rural home and their urban jobs.

The Ag job is less than you think and more than you think. Most Ag policy is set by Congress and the Pork is loaded up there. It's pretty obscene. The Dept of Ag also control the U.S. Forest Service, however, and for those interested in keep America wild, this is a HUGE deal.

Truthfully, the last Sect' of Agriculture that made a difference (and he was a DISASTER) was Earl Butz under Nixon. Ann Venneman? You never even hear of her. And I bet no one can name the previous Sect'ty of Ags without looking them up.

P

Anonymous said...

Glickman was under Clinton -- I know this because I had a huge argument with him. Clinton wanted to do a push for community gardens for the millenium and the Administration seemed a bit shocked when the American Community Gardening Association actually had the audacity to provide a list of funding requests!

As Glickman wanted to "encourage" us without providing any funding, I decided to be helpful and told him that the best support he could offer ACGA was to start inserting into his speeches that "community gardens are a legitmate, permanent use for land" which would cost him nothing and give those of us on the ground (;-)) the support we needed to change zoning, deal with developers, etc so that our gardens could be preserved as parkland/open space instead of being sold/given to whatever developer decided they wanted to build on them.

Horrified at the idea that developers couldn't just clear out gardeners when they were "finished" with them, Glickman refused and the USDA hasn't done anything with community gardens since.

Supposedly, the Federal Reserve has been making noises that they'd like community gardeners to "make use" of "empty land" but hopefully, with the new MetroAg Alliance, there will be some protections in the new leases so that people's hard work doesn't get washed out once the economy starts building again. . .

Dorene

Anonymous said...

There is a LOT wrong with genetically modified crops!!!!!! I used to wonder what the big deal was regarding such crops, till I read Jane Goodall's book "Harvest For Hope", which I recommend to everyone as a source of enlightenment....L.B.