I said semantics can get in the way because of this rights vs responsibility vs welfare. Let me put it this way…does anyone who owns a horse have the right to abuse it? I know some of you sticklers will say “well what constitutes abuse? Are spurs abusive?” Let’s take away the shady areas and ask if anyone has the right to starve a horse just because they own him?
Now I’ve seen everything. I’ve heard of feeding trolls, but serving them Mimosas?
Put down the drink and step away from the computer.
Everything alive has an expiration date and is part of a cycle that provides food for some other to live.
We should not cloud the problems with how we live and die with what we do with what is left once dead.
Slaughter is one more way to provide for in that cycle of life.
Growing up, it was considered abusive to keep a horse to the point that it was crippled or of questionable quality of life, for a horse.
Better too early than a minute to late.
Slaughter provided for that, along with a recycling system.
We also didn’t have the resources to keep horses not in work any more around, eating and using even more of the meager resources, that could be used on some that were still giving good service.
I guess right now in the USA we are enough of us rich enough to:
-First, we have the luxury to keep horses past any use, hopefully not past any real good quality of life for them, as the horses they are and once they need euthanizing, using chemicals to do so that cause their own problems, making that carcass a liability to handle.
-Second, to throw away all that renewable, natural produce some usable horse carcasses are, rather than recycle for that one more use thru slaughter.
[QUOTE=xeroxchick;5271985]
Now I’ve seen everything. I’ve heard of feeding trolls, but serving them Mimosas?
Put down the drink and step away from the computer.[/QUOTE]
:: firmly grasps the mimosa and raises it high :: Bless your heart.
[QUOTE=CarrieK;5272342]
:: firmly grasps the mimosa and raises it high :: Bless your heart.[/QUOTE]
And may I ask CarrieK, did you also say that with a syrupy sweet Southern Accent and with charm? 
Why bless your heart!
CarrieK!! I love you and I want to marry you!! :winkgrin:
And aren’t mimosa’s the preferred drink of trainwreck attendees? That’s what I thought…and don’t step away from the laptop. We get so few of these on the Hunting Forum.
[QUOTE=QH_Gal;5272555]
And may I ask CarrieK, did you also say that with a syrupy sweet Southern Accent and with charm? [/QUOTE]
:: averts eyes guiltily :: Well, I am from Michigan, very close to Detroit, so with my regional accent it might have sounded more like “bite me.”
[QUOTE=wateryglen;5274193]
CarrieK!! I love you and I want to marry you!! :winkgrin:
And aren’t mimosa’s the preferred drink of trainwreck attendees? That’s what I thought…and don’t step away from the laptop. We get so few of these on the Hunting Forum.[/QUOTE]
w00t!! I’ve always wanted to be someone’s innerwebz spouse!! Although I feel compelled to disclose–before wikileaks does–that I may be unemployed, either as a result of the state’s budgetary woes or, perhaps, more likely, from my own incompetence. Until then, I make a pretty nice wage and very adequate benefits.
Mimosas are the drink of the klassier trainwrecks, doncha know!
And I’ll be riding a new drama llama next hunt season, just to keep things lively!
CarrieK
We at Snobbington Hunt do love our entertainment in the hunt field and on the web via these lovely train wrecks! Thanks for making these crazy train wrecks worth reading.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programing.
[QUOTE=Beverley;5263421]
It’s only a surprise to the clueless.
Those of us who love animals and promote animal welfare, and who know what constitutes kindness to animals, ought to go and listen to folks like Dennis, whom I’ve known for oh, 25 years or so, and get informed. Because no matter your take on hunting or horse slaughter, if you are a horse owner, PETA and HSUS and the like would like to put an end to that. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
You might want to head back over to ‘Off Course’ and study the gazillions of threads on the subject. You might learn a thing or two, if you want to.
In hunting parlance, you are a babbler, and at some risk of being culled.[/QUOTE]
Nice death threat (and no, the doesn’t magikally make that threat “nice” or even “cool”).
Bless your heart, leaping to conclusions.
‘Culled’ is not an automatic death sentence, dear. If you knew hunting, you’d know that.
Yeah, I took “culled” to mean banned or just ignored on this forum.
At my house is means there is another smelly hound snoring on the sofa.
I have two that were culled from our pack doing just that, JSwan. LOL. But they are elderly so we prefer to call them “retired”. But as you said, it doesn’t always mean death.
[QUOTE=Beverley;5276638]
Bless your heart, leaping to conclusions.
‘Culled’ is not an automatic death sentence, dear. If you knew hunting, you’d know that.;)[/QUOTE]
You’re absolutely right: my mistake. A quick check with google as arbiter for “culled” indicates that “to cull” often means to remove the best of the bunch, not the worst.
Zat what you were aiming for, dear?
Romany,
I would suggest that if you’re interested in learning more about the dynamics of hunting a pack of hounds, google searches are not particularly enlightening. And indeed absolutely wrong in whatever instant internet ‘expertise’ you’ve decided to hang your hat on. I strongly recommend ‘Hounds for a Pack’ by Comte de Vezins, and Beckford’s ‘Thoughts on Hunting.’ As regards culling, the former, in particular.
And by the way, my Webster’s unabridged shows a definition of ‘culling’ as 1) the act or process of sorting out or selecting; 2) anything separated or selected from a mass as inferior; refuse: generally used in the plural.
Harking back (another hunting term:)) to your prior post, nothing at all lethal in the above definition, is there?
:: stuffs black hooded robe under the seat cushion, sticks scythe in the umbrella stand, and whistles nonchalantly ::
[QUOTE=Beverley;5278784]
Romany,
I would suggest that if you’re interested in learning more about the dynamics of hunting a pack of hounds, google searches are not particularly enlightening. And indeed absolutely wrong in whatever instant internet ‘expertise’ you’ve decided to hang your hat on. I strongly recommend ‘Hounds for a Pack’ by Comte de Vezins, and Beckford’s ‘Thoughts on Hunting.’ As regards culling, the former, in particular.
And by the way, my Webster’s unabridged shows a definition of ‘culling’ as 1) the act or process of sorting out or selecting; 2) anything separated or selected from a mass as inferior; refuse: generally used in the plural.
Harking back (another hunting term:)) to your prior post, nothing at all lethal in the above definition, is there?[/QUOTE]
Funnily enough, I also drew upon the expertise of Merriam-Webster for definitions of cull; online version, though, for expedience.
Thank you for the reading suggestions.
You do realise why I queried your use of “cull” in the first place? Perhaps not, so I shall explain. “Cull,” as we’ve now established, can mean different things to different people: generally, it implies separation from the main, whether that leads to a better life, or a worse one.
Modern live fox hunting is fraught with political issues. It appeared from the tone of some of the responses to the OP that there was an assumption that s/he was being provocative in posting such an article with such a title.
My perception of your suggestion of a cull of the OP (with subsequent support from other posters) was that, given the context, you were inadvertently playing into the ill-informed stereotype of the barbaric person who hunts foxes, with hounds, for blood-thirsty pleasure.
I don’t suppose you’re really like that, but I think it’s a shame that, instead of treating the OP with respect and inclusivity, you chose to suggest culling, which can have negative connotations, as we’ve agreed, some of which are fairly brutal. A missed opportunity to educate, perhaps: why not invite him/her to read the books you suggested?
Not to over-simplify, but if sabs are watching this forum, which no doubt some are, do you think calling for the culling of a poster will improve their ingrained concept of people who hunt live, or solidify their negative perceptions?
I hope that clarifies my reaction for you, dictionaries and google notwithstanding!
Romany,
Nice try, but as some wise man, maybe Will Rogers said, ‘When you find yourself in a hole, it is best to stop digging.’
You did not query my use of the word ‘cull.’ Your opening line was quite specifically, ‘nice death threat.’ In essence you falsely accused me of threatening bodily harm to another human being. If you were wise and genuinely interested in hunting you might just go back and withdraw that false accusation. The editing tool is a handy thing.
You might also want to re-read all of the posts since your false accusation. Not a single post in support of your point. Everybody else got it. Carrie K gets some good style points though!
So, no, I call seriously bad manners on your initial salvo, and complete b.s. on your ‘ooh, hunt sabs are reading this’ spin attempt. Because, as apparently everyone on this thread except you knows, to repeat myself and others, culling does not imply a death sentence.
And having just checked the Webster’s online definition, I am going to gently suggest that you read a little more carefully and thoroughly.
[QUOTE=Beverley;5281230]
Romany,
Nice try, but as some wise man, maybe Will Rogers said, ‘When you find yourself in a hole, it is best to stop digging.’
You did not query my use of the word ‘cull.’ Your opening line was quite specifically, ‘nice death threat.’ In essence you falsely accused me of threatening bodily harm to another human being. If you were wise and genuinely interested in hunting you might just go back and withdraw that false accusation. The editing tool is a handy thing.
You might also want to re-read all of the posts since your false accusation. Not a single post in support of your point. Everybody else got it. Carrie K gets some good style points though!
So, no, I call seriously bad manners on your initial salvo, and complete b.s. on your ‘ooh, hunt sabs are reading this’ spin attempt. Because, as apparently everyone on this thread except you knows, to repeat myself and others, culling does not imply a death sentence.
And having just checked the Webster’s online definition, I am going to gently suggest that you read a little more carefully and thoroughly.[/QUOTE]
I disagree intrinsically with so much that you have to say, and find your tone so combative, that I have neither the heart nor the inclination for a dog-fight, so I’ll keep it civil and suggest that we can simply agree to disagree, and leave it at that. I observe that, more often than not, you and I concur in other hunting forum conversations, so no need to let things get out of hand this time.
