Good, we're getting somewhere

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

Thanks very much for all our inputs.

 

Along with continual inputs what is really needed are

those experts in the field to analyse our ideas and

point the way forward with their added vision of

expertise.

 

Obviously, each country has its own regulations

regarding charity, business and public support. The

experts in each country know the game, as they work

the game in their work. Obviously, at the moment

no-one wants to pay for an expert, so they must be

found within the devotee community, to join the

conference either directly or indirectly.

 

Or we could raise some money and have a true expert

analyse the proposals - which is what I think we

should really do, as it's that important - to me!

 

Thus a framework for charity, business and public

support can be found upon which various variants can

work.

 

An interesting point is to define what seperates

business activity from charity (or to that extent

public), if it would be possible for all the

activities to be charitable (or state - but not in our

case), why do business?

 

Personally, as someone who would want to do business,

I would be happy to lease animals along with the lease

conditions and then to add-on value to my business,

being free to innovate and to take risks with capital

that is not tied to the welfare of the animals.

 

There is therefore a fine line between what should be

business and what charity. Personally, I think the

charities main obligations should be to ensure minimum

welfare standards for the animals for their lives, and

leave the rest to the business people.

 

The less conditions stated the better, eg. basic (but

good) welfare standards and lifetime protection.

Anything else in terms of devotee etiquet and

behaviour I find is detrimental to the project and

quite unnecessary in the goal - which is lifetime farm

animal protection. Each group, religion, business

person then adds on their extra requirements, could be

biodynamic, ISKCON regs, christian morals - who knows?

It is just that the bricks and mortar, nuts and bolts,

cow in field should not be mixed with more human

societal, religious limitations or expectations.

 

--- Mark Middle Mountain <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com> wrote: >

 

> >

> > Upon potential failure of the business that the

> > charity has leased the cows to, as they are not

> > business property, they would be returned to the

> > charity, where its minimum needs are covered.

>

> Like that. And the oxen placed with farmers who

> would be paid to care

> for them, thus having free use of ox power, which

> makes it much more

> competitive with fossil fuels.

>

 

The second function of the charity should be training,

and subsidising the conditions to allow training, eg.

poor crop yields in the first years.

Subsidy, though, is a dirty word open to abuse.

Training is a good word, if you pass - you're capable,

fail - you're not. Simple.

 

My opinions,

 

Keep them coming,

 

Mark

 

__________

 

Get your free @.co.uk address at http://mail..co.uk

or your free @.ie address at http://mail..ie