Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM, swpgh01.t21<swpgh01.t21 wrote: > Would you use horses as beasts of burden? I'm not sure how feasible it would be for me to be a farmer at a scale where I would need to choose between using " beasts of burden " vs. using fossil-fuel-burning mechanical equipment. As a general principle, I think it makes sense that if I'm providing for an animal's food, shelter, veterinary care, physical and emotional comfort, companionship, and whatever else the animal needs to have a good quality of life, and *if* there's something the animal can do in turn to make a contribution to the household it's benefiting from being a part of, and *if* making that contribution would not impose harm or suffering on the animal, then it's reasonable to expect the animal to make such a contribution. Suppose I had the land and the money to be able to take in a rescued horse. Suppose I also had enough land to grow crops, which I would use either directly as feed and bedding for the horse, or indirectly to sell to paying customers so I could buy things to provide for the horse. Suppose, after being treated for any effects of previous maltreatment, the horse is in a condition to be able to pull a piece of farm equipment without suffering harm or distress. Suppose I am able to find or make or custom-order any necessary tack that isn't made of leather. If I can humanely train the horse to help in the growing and harvesting of crops, then I wouldn't need to depend on environmentally destructive machinery, and I wouldn't need to pay for fossil fuels to burn in environmentally destructive machinery. If any able-bodied rescue horses were working either to earn additional income for me, or to reduce my expenditures (e.g., for fossil fuels), that just might make it possible for me to afford to take in more rescue animals. I think that would be a good thing for the animals in my care. It seems to me to be plausible that, at least on the small scale of an individual homestead, it is reasonable to expect animals to make contributions which are not harmful to the animals' well-being, and which the animals themselves benefit from (either directly in terms of helping to produce their own food, or indirectly in terms of helping to earn money which is used to provide for the animals' needs). This is part of cooperative co-existence between humans and domesticated animals. Of course this is a very different matter from commercial breeding of animals to be bought and sold as commodities, used to make maximum profit for their owners and without regard for the animals' own well-being, then abandoned or killed when they cease to be " useful. " Jim Sinclair jisincla www.jimsinclair.org http://moosepuppy.petfinder.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I suppose that as a vegan I am against man using animals or exploiting animals. Does making them work , whether it be as a guide dog , or pulling a plough count? Peter vv Jim Sinclair <jisinclavegan-network Sent: Monday, 20 July, 2009 8:23:52 PMRe: [100% veg*n ] If you were a vegan farmer On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM,swpgh01.t21@ btinternet. com<swpgh01.t21@ btinternet. com> wrote:> Would you use horses as beasts of burden?I'm not sure how feasible it would be for me to be a farmer at a scalewhere I would need to choose between using "beasts of burden" vs.using fossil-fuel- burning mechanical equipment.As a general principle, I think it makes sense that if I'm providingfor an animal's food, shelter, veterinary care,physical and emotional comfort, companionship, and whatever else theanimal needs to have a good quality of life, and *if* there'ssomething the animal can do in turn to make a contribution to thehousehold it's benefiting from being a part of, and *if* making thatcontribution would not impose harm or suffering on the animal, thenit's reasonable to expect the animal to make such a contribution.Suppose I had the land and the money to be able to take in a rescuedhorse. Suppose I also had enough land to grow crops, which I would useeither directly as feed and bedding for the horse, or indirectly tosell to paying customers so I could buy things to provide for thehorse.Suppose, after being treated for any effects of previous maltreatment,the horse is in a condition to be able to pull a piece of farmequipment without suffering harm or distress. Suppose I am able tofind or make or custom-order any necessary tack that isn't made ofleather. If I can humanely train the horse to help in the growing andharvesting of crops, then I wouldn't need to depend on environmentallydestructive machinery, and I wouldn't need to pay for fossil fuels toburn in environmentally destructive machinery.If any able-bodied rescue horses were working either to earnadditional income for me, or to reduce my expenditures (e.g., forfossil fuels), that just might make it possible for me to afford totake in more rescue animals. I think that would be a good thing forthe animals in my care.It seems to me to be plausible that, at least on the small scale of anindividual homestead, it is reasonable to expect animals to makecontributions which are not harmful to the animals' well-being, andwhich the animals themselves benefit from (either directly in terms ofhelping to produce their own food, or indirectly in terms of helpingto earn money which is used to provide for the animals' needs). Thisis part of cooperative co-existence between humans and domesticatedanimals.Of course this is a very different matter from commercial breeding ofanimals to be bought and sold as commodities, used to make maximumprofit for their owners and without regard for the animals' ownwell-being, then abandoned or killed when they cease to be "useful."Jim Sinclair jisincla (AT) syr (DOT) eduwww.jimsinclair. orghttp://moosepuppy. petfinder. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Peter VV<swpgh01.t21 wrote: > > > I suppose that as a vegan I am against man using animals or exploiting > animals. Does making them work , whether it be as a guide dog , or pulling a > plough count? Does " making " people get a job, in order to earn money, so they can pay for food and shelter and other needs, count as exploitation? I think it depends on whether the work required is reasonable given the worker's capabilities, and on who's benefiting from the labor. Jim Sinclair jisincla www.jimsinclair.org http://moosepuppy.petfinder.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I dont have a problem with an animal doing a bit of working for a living, as long as they are not being asked to do something that would harm them, they are not being pushed beyond what they should be asked to do and they are well treated and are retired at the end of their working abilities. 'Do what thou wilt, but harm none'. Each individual is responsible for discovering his or her own true nature and developing it fully, in harmony with the outer world. Goddess Bless. Peter VV <swpgh01.t21vegan-network Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:31:22 PMRe: [100% veg*n ] If you were a vegan farmer I suppose that as a vegan I am against man using animals or exploiting animals. Does making them work , whether it be as a guide dog , or pulling a plough count? Peter vv Jim Sinclair <jisincla (AT) syr (DOT) edu>vegan-networkMonday, 20 July, 2009 8:23:52 PMRe: [100% veg*n ] If you were a vegan farmer On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM,swpgh01.t21@ btinternet. com<swpgh01.t21@ btinternet. com> wrote:> Would you use horses as beasts of burden?I'm not sure how feasible it would be for me to be a farmer at a scalewhere I would need to choose between using "beasts of burden" vs.using fossil-fuel- burning mechanical equipment.As a general principle, I think it makes sense that if I'm providingfor an animal's food, shelter, veterinary care,physical and emotional comfort, companionship, and whatever else theanimal needs to have a good quality of life, and *if* there'ssomething the animal can do in turn to make a contribution to thehousehold it's benefiting from being a part of, and *if* making thatcontribution would not impose harm or suffering on the animal, thenit's reasonable to expect the animal to make such a contribution.Suppose I had the land and the money to be able to take in a rescuedhorse. Suppose I also had enough land to grow crops, which I would useeither directly as feed and bedding for the horse, or indirectly tosell to paying customers so I could buy things to provide for thehorse.Suppose, after being treated for any effects of previous maltreatment,the horse is in a condition to be able to pull a piece of farmequipment without suffering harm or distress. Suppose I am able tofind or make or custom-order any necessary tack that isn't made ofleather. If I can humanely train the horse to help in the growing andharvesting of crops, then I wouldn't need to depend on environmentallydestructive machinery, and I wouldn't need to pay for fossil fuels toburn in environmentally destructive machinery.If any able-bodied rescue horses were working either to earnadditional income for me, or to reduce my expenditures (e.g., forfossil fuels), that just might make it possible for me to afford totake in more rescue animals. I think that would be a good thing forthe animals in my care.It seems to me to be plausible that, at least on the small scale of anindividual homestead, it is reasonable to expect animals to makecontributions which are not harmful to the animals' well-being, andwhich the animals themselves benefit from (either directly in terms ofhelping to produce their own food, or indirectly in terms of helpingto earn money which is used to provide for the animals' needs). Thisis part of cooperative co-existence between humans and domesticatedanimals.Of course this is a very different matter from commercial breeding ofanimals to be bought and sold as commodities, used to make maximumprofit for their owners and without regard for the animals' ownwell-being, then abandoned or killed when they cease to be "useful."Jim Sinclair jisincla (AT) syr (DOT) eduwww.jimsinclair. orghttp://moosepuppy. petfinder. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 While I am very much opposed to the use of animals in "entertainment", I have no such objections to service animals and working animals, provided they are treated well. For instance, K-9 officers and their dogs are partners. The dog stays with his human partner. He is typically given positive reinforcement during training (you found the planted drugs and gave the signal, good boy). I have also heard that some drug-sniffing or bomb-sniffing dogs are rescues, but I could be wrong. So if a vegan farmer used a horse to pull his plow (instead of the fossil-fuel burning tractor), and he made sure his horse got plenty of rest, water, what-have-you, I probably wouldn't object. Danielle EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me vegan-network From: winterchill57Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:40:34 -0700Re: [100% veg*n ] If you were a vegan farmer I dont have a problem with an animal doing a bit of working for a living, as long as they are not being asked to do something that would harm them, they are not being pushed beyond what they should be asked to do and they are well treated and are retired at the end of their working abilities. 'Do what thou wilt, but harm none'. Each individual is responsible for discovering his or her own true nature and developing it fully, in harmony with the outer world. Goddess Bless. Peter VV <swpgh01.t21 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com>vegan-network Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:31:22 PMRe: [100% veg*n ] If you were a vegan farmer I suppose that as a vegan I am against man using animals or exploiting animals. Does making them work , whether it be as a guide dog , or pulling a plough count? Peter vv Jim Sinclair <jisincla (AT) syr (DOT) edu>vegan-networkMonday, 20 July, 2009 8:23:52 PMRe: [100% veg*n ] If you were a vegan farmer On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM,swpgh01.t21@ btinternet. com<swpgh01.t21@ btinternet. com> wrote:> Would you use horses as beasts of burden?I'm not sure how feasible it would be for me to be a farmer at a scalewhere I would need to choose between using "beasts of burden" vs.using fossil-fuel- burning mechanical equipment.As a general principle, I think it makes sense that if I'm providingfor an animal's food, shelter, veterinary care,physical and emotional comfort, companionship, and whatever else theanimal needs to have a good quality of life, and *if* there'ssomething the animal can do in turn to make a contribution to thehousehold it's benefiting from being a part of, and *if* making thatcontribution would not impose harm or suffering on the animal, thenit's reasonable to expect the animal to make such a contribution.Suppose I had the land and the money to be able to take in a rescuedhorse. Suppose I also had enough land to grow crops, which I would useeither directly as feed and bedding for the horse, or indirectly tosell to paying customers so I could buy things to provide for thehorse.Suppose, after being treated for any effects of previous maltreatment,the horse is in a condition to be able to pull a piece of farmequipment without suffering harm or distress. Suppose I am able tofind or make or custom-order any necessary tack that isn't made ofleather. If I can humanely train the horse to help in the growing andharvesting of crops, then I wouldn't need to depend on environmentallydestructive machinery, and I wouldn't need to pay for fossil fuels toburn in environmentally destructive machinery.If any able-bodied rescue horses were working either to earnadditional income for me, or to reduce my expenditures (e.g., forfossil fuels), that just might make it possible for me to afford totake in more rescue animals. I think that would be a good thing forthe animals in my care.It seems to me to be plausible that, at least on the small scale of anindividual homestead, it is reasonable to expect animals to makecontributions which are not harmful to the animals' well-being, andwhich the animals themselves benefit from (either directly in terms ofhelping to produce their own food, or indirectly in terms of helpingto earn money which is used to provide for the animals' needs). Thisis part of cooperative co-existence between humans and domesticatedanimals.Of course this is a very different matter from commercial breeding ofanimals to be bought and sold as commodities, used to make maximumprofit for their owners and without regard for the animals' ownwell-being, then abandoned or killed when they cease to be "useful."Jim Sinclair jisincla (AT) syr (DOT) eduwww.jimsinclair. orghttp://moosepuppy. petfinder. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.