# Is the Stampede cruel to animals?



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Since I'm already unpopular with the Albertans here...

Debate topic: Be it resolved that the Calgary Stampede and other organizations using animals for entertainment should be held to the same standards of animal welfare as scientific research.

I'm arguing for this resolution. Anyone is welcome to join in on either side.

My contention is that, as a scientific researcher I have to demonstrate that the animals I use for my research do not suffer unnecessarily, and so should organizations like the Calgary Stampede. I have to account for each individual animal (zebrafish, which anyone can buy at the pet store and kill or maim at their whim) to a committee that has the power to block access to all my research funding and prevent me from applying for funding. If four fish died of heart attacks and broken backs over the course of two days in my lab, I'd be in serious trouble. Why is the Stampede, which is killing horses and steers rather than fish, not held to the same standard?

While I feel sorry for the people hurt in these accidents, they had a choice about participating. The horses and steers didn't. I think it's time civilized people recognized that rodeos and chuck wagon races are only slightly less disgusting than cock fights and bear baiting. We don't need that kind of entertainment anymore, and those that do should do so under the watchful eye of the SPCA and face stiff penalties when they fail to safeguard the animals under their care.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

It's a tradition, much like fishing, hunting, and eating meat. I'm sure that yummy steak or chicken breast or salmon fillet on your plate didn't get there on its own will. Four horses died at the Stampede, tens of millions of cows, chickens and pigs are slaughtered every year. If we wanted to hold some animal cruelty free standard, we might as well ban the use of animals for anything, period.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dona83 said:


> It's a tradition, much like fishing, hunting, and eating meat. I'm sure that yummy steak or chicken breast or salmon fillet on your plate didn't get there on its own will.


You presume I eat meat. But regardless, there's an ethical distinction between humanely killing an animal for food, and running it until it's heart explodes for entertainment.

Furthermore, that's not the question. The question is, should the Stampede be required to submit animal care protocols like scientific researchers do, have those protocols approved, be audited to ensure that they're adhering to those protocols, and be subject to fines or loss of permits if they fail?

If not, why should researchers using animals be held to higher standards than entertainers using animals?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

dona83 said:


> It's a tradition, much like fishing, hunting, and eating meat. I'm sure that yummy steak or chicken breast or salmon fillet on your plate didn't get there on its own will. Four horses died at the Stampede, tens of millions of cows, chickens and pigs are slaughtered every year. If we wanted to hold some animal cruelty free standard, we might as well ban the use of animals for anything, period.


Good point. Were any of us given the choice, I'd wager we'd rather be the bucking bronco at the rodeo than the cow between two pieces of bread. Society accepts the slaughter of animals for a variety of reasons (perhaps unnecessarily, depending on your viewpoint, as there are viable synthetic alternatives). The Stampede rodeo is very small potatoes.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> The Stampede rodeo is very small potatoes.


So given that there are greater evils in the world, we should ignore and accept this one?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"My contention is that, as a scientific researcher I have to demonstrate that the animals I use for my research do not suffer unnecessarily ...." As a social scientist in education, we have to ensure the same safe treatment of persons involved in our research studies. Still, I see your point, bryanc.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> So given that there are greater evils in the world, we should ignore and accept this one?


'Evil'? I do not think either of the two are evil - neither does society as a whole. Thus they persist.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> 'Evil'? I do not think either of the two are evil - neither does society as a whole. Thus they persist.


Agreed. 

I don't like the idea behind Marineland, so I vote with my wallet. More people still think it's great, therefore not evil.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> 'Evil'? I do not think either of the two are evil - neither does society as a whole. Thus they persist.


You think it's good that we kill sentient animals for pleasure?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> More people still think it's great, therefore not evil.


Ah, so evil is defined by what people "think is great."

So when the Myans sacrificed virgins to their volcano gods, that was not evil because most people thought it was great. And slavery was not evil until people stopped thinking it was great. And when most Germans thought Hitler was great, he wasn't evil.

Have I got it right?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Ah, so evil is defined by what people "think is great."
> 
> So when the Myans sacrificed virgins to their volcano gods, that was not evil because most people thought it was great. And slavery was not evil until people stopped thinking it was great. And when most Germans thought Hitler was great, he wasn't evil.
> 
> Have I got it right?


That's right. Within that society it wasn't considered evil. 

Stealing is evil, but you support confiscation of funds through taxation. 

Just as history is written by the victors, evil is defined by the majority.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

bryanc said:


> You think it's good that we kill sentient animals for pleasure?


Isn't the proper word "risk' animal welfare for pleasure? Nobody is intentionally killing them or making them suffer at the Stampede.. (i.e. Bull fighting). 

Then the question is, what's an acceptable level of risk for these sometimes unwilling participants? 

Of course the SPCA, and other like organizations are present there to ensure proper treatment. Have been for many years.

As long as enough people are willing to pay the money to view these events, they will continue.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You presume I eat meat. But regardless, there's an ethical distinction between humanely killing an animal for food, and running it until it's heart explodes for entertainment....


The animal whose heart exploded was in a cutting competition. This is hardly full out racing but rather a test of the animals intelligence and agility. It is also an important aspect of ranching even today. This was a family team and I am sure the gal that owned and trained this horse is absolutely heartbroken, but it would have happened sooner or later to this particular animal.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

KC4 said:


> Isn't the proper word "risk' animal welfare for pleasure? Nobody is intentionally killing them or making them suffer at the Stampede.. (i.e. Bull fighting).


My comment was with regard to the statement that killing animals for food is not evil.

I think the problem here is with the definition of the word "evil."

Most people tend to view good and evil as black and white opposites, whereas most moral philosophers view good and evil as ends of a continuum, with all choices falling somewhere in that spectrum.

If we accept that unnecessary suffering is an evil (and I think most of us would), then the use of animals for food, entertainment, research, or anything, has an evil aspect. The question becomes, does the good (the nutrition, enjoyment, knowledge, etc.) outweigh the evil?

But my question is not wether the entertainment value of the Stampede is enough to justify the deaths of the animals used (56 horses since 1986, if anyone's interested... I didn't catch the statistics for steers or other animals). My question is wether animal use for entertainment ought to be held to the same sorts of standards that animal use for research is held to?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Macfury said:


> That's right. Within that society it wasn't considered evil.
> 
> Stealing is evil, but you support confiscation of funds through taxation.
> 
> Just as history is written by the victors, evil is defined by the majority.


+1 :clap:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Stealing is evil, but you support confiscation of funds through taxation.


No argument. I think it's trivial to show that at least in principle, the good can outweigh the evil, so it's a justifiable evil.



> Just as history is written by the victors, evil is defined by the majority.


Not in any moral philosophy I've studied.

Certainly what is viewed as acceptable behaviour is defined by a society, but the relationship between acceptable behaviour and ethical behaviour is very much akin to the relationship between laws and morals.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

bryanc said:


> You presume I eat meat. But regardless, there's an ethical distinction between humanely killing an animal for food, and running it until it's heart explodes for entertainment.
> 
> Furthermore, that's not the question. The question is, should the Stampede be required to submit animal care protocols like scientific researchers do, have those protocols approved, be audited to ensure that they're adhering to those protocols, and be subject to fines or loss of permits if they fail?
> 
> If not, why should researchers using animals be held to higher standards than entertainers using animals?


I presume most people eat meat unless they say they do not. I do commend you for it, I was a vegetarian for nine months but it was a great nine months, never felt healthier in my life.

I can see your point though. Perhaps the Stampede spectators don't have very high ethical standards so as long as they keep coming and pouring in money into the Stampede, the Stampede shall prevail. If for whatever reason Alberta goes through a renaissance where they won't put up with poor animal treatment then the Stampede will suffer and either fold or make changes to appease the crowd.

Unfortunately for researchers, the people who pour in money likely have a higher ethical standard that needs to be adhered to. There is no central body who really controls these things, it's the person with the money and money speaks.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

bryanc said:


> My comment was with regard to the statement that killing animals for food is not evil.
> 
> I think the problem here is with the definition of the word "evil."
> 
> ...


I agree that unnecessary suffering is evil, or at least wrong. 

Now, what's the line between necessary suffering and unnecessary suffering?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I recall watching an interview a while ago with one of the drivers of the Chuckwagons, who said 'the horses love to run', and they don't have to do anything to 'make' them run - it's more holding them back and making them run as a team. According to him most of the horses are thoroughbreds who would have been sent to the knackers at the end of their racing careers if they weren't 'recycled' into this career.

As was mentioned previously, one of the horses that died was a cutting horse - a highly trained animal that depends on quick reflexes and responding to its rider. These horses are working horses - this could have happened at any time, it's just unfortunate it happened when it did.

From what I've read and seen, the horses are treated well - they have regular veterinary inspections and good care.

Yes, it's a terrible thing when animals die, and all care should be taken to ensure that the races and other events are run in such a way as to eliminate all but 'acts of God' as far as the animals health is concerned. 

I don't know who is to decide arbitrarily that the animals aren't enjoying what they're doing, and would just as soon be doing this as the alternative option (the knackers).


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> My question is wether animal use for entertainment ought to be held to the same sorts of standards that animal use for research is held to?


Short answers to a broad-based question like yours are always the same: it depends. Are we talking dancing bears? Snake charmers? Alligator wrestlers? Shamu and his cetacean cousins? Rodeo? Something else?

I won't speak to the others but, seeing as the Stampede seems foremost in your mind, as far as rodeos are concerned, no. 

With very few exceptions (the most notable being bull riding), rodeo events are tuned up versions of what happens on a daily basis on any cattle ranch in the world. Many of the animals return home to the same job after the rodeo is done. What happens at home can happen at the rodeo & vice versa. I've seen broken legs on horses and cattle on the ranch, too. Heart attacks as well. Far worse, to be honest. It's part & parcel of animal care.

As has been mentioned, the presence of the SPCA insures proper treatment of the animals at the event.

Leave the rodeos be.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can speak from first hand experience as one who raised and rode quarter horses and competed in junior rodeo back in the 60s.

There are horses and then there are horses who live to work. A cutting horse loves to work cattle as much as a border collie loves to work sheep. It is as natural an instinct to that horse as it is to the dog, both a man made phenomenon through years of breeding.

Similarly, bucking horses inherit the genes from their forefathers, again engineered by selective breeding. Ditto for the stock that pulls chuck wagons.

A good roping horse is worth its weight in gold as is a hazer's horse in steer wrestling.

Animals love to please their masters and none is more apparent in dogs and horses. Anyone who has grown up around either animal can witness the behaviour at countless minor repetitive tasks in daily ranch life.

Rodeos celebrate that relationship between man and animal with, as noted elsewhere, the exception of bull riding. That is pure entertainment, be it on a bull's back or facing one on foot in the ring in Spain. At least in rodeo, the bull does not have a one performance career and die by the sword.

Sometimes do-gooders who oppose such things do more "do" than good.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






think the stampede is cruel....try eating at KFC....stampede looks like an animal paradise...plus horses like to run and get excersise


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Nascar pisses me off more than the stampede, but I guess we can both crack a smile when things go bad for the participants.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A good cutting horse is something else indeed.

For those eastern gorpies who have no clue as to exactly what a cutting horse does, take a look at this video. As mentioned previously this is an art that is very useful part of everyday ranch life.

YouTube - 2008 Augusta Cutting Horse Futurity Winner


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> You think it's good that we kill sentient animals for pleasure?


Admittedly, my view may be somewhat anachronistic. Up until, say 75 years ago, in the western world, animals were simply viewed as machines that lived and breathed, often worked until their "heart exploded". Who's to say this view is wrong and the current is right?, a little roughhousing a al Roman empire is wrong? (rodeos are a bit Roman aren't they?) Look at Spain, an integral part of the "progressive" European community. Odd that spearing bulls to death in the name of entertainment hasn't been sanctioned, isn't it? (I assume it is because bull fights are an essential component of Iberian culture). 

But to your original point: possibly the community at large takes issue with animals used in the name of science, more usually un-euphemistically put "animal experimentation" I think, because the common perception is that of injecting shampoo into Beagles' eyes, or causing early onset dementia in mice. Your juxtaposing this alongside chuck wagon racing and calf-roping hardly seems fair. At least the beast in these instances stands a good chance of emerging unscathed. Lab animals? It would seem to me the very point of their existence is for them to be destroyed, or suffer unimaginably.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> ...If we accept that unnecessary suffering is an evil (and I think most of us would)





KC4 said:


> I agree that unnecessary suffering is evil, or at least wrong.
> 
> *Now, what's the line between necessary suffering and unnecessary suffering?*


I don't accept the the notion that all unnecessary suffering is wrong or evil. bryanc makes mention of black and whites and yet he applies one here.

Human beings willing experience all manner of unnecessary suffering. I most certainly have. Every time I raced in a bicycle race I experienced some of the greatest suffering in my life, not to mention the training regime I went through. Was it necessary that I go through this? Not in the least.

There are countless other examples of how human beings suffer unnecessarily, does it make these activities wrong or evil? 

So I do not accept your premise bryanc, I think you need to come up with a better definition of what constitutes evil as the one you present is fundamentally lacking.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Likewise, I've watched people build homes, destroying the homes of birds, ants, termites and snakes. I've seen worms cleaved in two. Was this suffering necessary? No. Just expedient to humans who want homes. Pure evil.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Since I'm already unpopular with the Albertans here...
> 
> *Debate topic: Be it resolved that the Calgary Stampede and other organizations using animals for entertainment should be held to the same standards of animal welfare as scientific research.*
> 
> ...


I would argue FOR this proposition also. If I or one of my students ran four rats, hedgehogs, cats, pigeons or aplysia (all of which I have been involved with in laboratory situations in earlier times) to death or harmed themin just about any other way I would be facing a major, full blown inquiry in my home institution and from the national animal care governing body. I'd very likely be out of business at the least and charged with various criminal offences at the worst.

I don't buy the "tradition" argument. Taken to its ultimate, "tradition" would allow us to still be feeding christians to the lions or burning witches at the stake....

An "entertainment" spectacle that depends at least in part on the potential for viewing catastrophic accidents in which animals are considered collateral damage is egregious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> An "entertainment" spectacle that depends at least in part on the potential for viewing catastrophic accidents in which animals are considered collateral damage is egregious.


I heard someone was killed while riding a roller coaster.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> ...An "entertainment" spectacle that depends at least in part on the potential for viewing catastrophic accidents in which animals are considered collateral damage is egregious.


So you would then categorize all contact sport, auto/motorcycle/speedboat/etc. racing, downhill skiing, air shows, Cirque de Soleil, etc., etc. as such as well? Oh wait, these are human lives at risk as opposed to animals, I guess that is where the difference lies.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> An "entertainment" spectacle that depends at least in part on the potential for viewing catastrophic accidents in which animals are considered collateral damage is egregious.


Hmmm, for someone with a penchant for high speed auto racing where human beings are routinely killed participating in an entertainment spectacle, that is indeed an odd position to take. Last I checked, we ARE animals.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Human beings willing experience all manner of unnecessary suffering. I most certainly have. Every time I raced in a bicycle race I experienced some of the greatest suffering in my life, not to mention the training regime I went through. Was it necessary that I go through this? Not in the least.


You're missing the point. Firstly, since it was your _choice_ to engage in these activities, rather than having this suffering inflicted upon you by some other agent, it doesn't really pertain to this discussion. But more importantly, presumably the enjoyment and/or health benefits (i.e. good) you got from this process outweigh the pain (i.e. evil), or at least you expected it to, or you wouldn't have done it.

This same logic applies to the examples others have given in this thread about disrupting anthills to build a home, etc. Disrupting anthills for no reason would be a net evil, but disrupting anthills to make a good home for humans would be a net good (largely because of the greater sentience of humans).

This is called the Principle of Utility... if any of you want to read up on ethics, it was first proposed by John Stuart Mill and forms the foundation of the most coherent form of consequentialist ethics.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, for someone with a penchant for high speed auto racing where human beings are routinely killed participating in an entertainment spectacle, that is indeed an odd position to take. Last I checked, we ARE animals.


Of course we are animals. But we make choices and accept the consequences. If we choose to participate in these sorts of sports, and we suffer and/or die, that may be tragic, but it is not unethical.

In contrast, if we induce some other creature to participate in these sports and they suffer and/or die, that _is_ unethical.

Do you see the difference?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I heard someone was killed while riding a roller coaster.


Yeah, and if we want to pursue that direction, backyard swimming pools (a.k.a septic tanks without lids ) kill more people that firearms......



SINC said:


> Hmmm, for someone with a penchant for high speed auto racing where human beings are routinely killed participating in an entertainment spectacle, that is indeed an odd position to take. Last I checked, we ARE animals.


Actually this is not true. People are very rarely killed or even injured in motor racing such have been the safety innovations in recent years. NASCAR cars routinely hit the wall at upwards of 40G and drivers walk away. Same thing in open wheel (Formula one and whatever IRL/CART is calling itself these days) where all the outer bits scrub off leaving the driver maybe bruised and cut up a little but otherwise safe inside the main body affectionately known as the 'coffin'.

And yeah people ARE animals - often the worst sort - but people are the animals IN CONTROL of the event and endanger themselves as a matter of choice. The horses (in the case under discussion) have no choice and are considered expendable by the so-called humans. It has been pointed out by many commentators that humans are the only species that kill and maim for pleasure.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not only that, but I hear that some people purchase canines, breed them to live in homes and then mutilate some of their offspring through castration. They are tricked into believing that humans are their pack. Thankfully bryanc has never done such a thing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Of course we are animals. But we make choices and accept the consequences. If we choose to participate in these sorts of sports, and we suffer and/or die, that may be tragic, but it is not unethical.
> 
> In contrast, if we induce some other creature to participate in these sports and they suffer and/or die, that _is_ unethical.
> 
> Do you see the difference?


How then do you justify the fact that auto racing and perhaps more pointedly motorcycle racing endangers spectators and kills them as well, our dear friend McNutt being the prime example.

I suppose that is ethical because a human being chose to ride a bike at high speed which resulted in the death of an innocent spectator? 

Have you never read of fans being killed by tires flying off racing vehicles, or the vehicle itself catapulting into the stands? How ethical is that then?

Even hockey pucks have killed spectators.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> It has been pointed out by many commentators that humans are the only species that kill and maim for pleasure.....


That's total nonsense. I've seen house cats toying with mice that they torture and kill without any desire to eat them. I've seen dogs toying with squirrels that are discarded when they no longer move. 

This is just like the lie that humans are the only animals that foul their own nests. Ever smell a bird's nest?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> How then do you justify the fact that auto racing and perhaps more pointedly motorcycle racing endangers spectators and kills them as well, our dear friend McNutt being the prime example.
> 
> I suppose that is ethical because a human being chose to ride a bike at high speed which resulted in the death of an innocent spectator?
> 
> ...


I think you are still missing the point of 'choice'. The spectators of these events CHOSE to be there. The risks are obvious. And if a spectator dies or is injured, that is not unethical.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> This is called the Principle of Utility... if any of you want to read up on ethics, it was first proposed by John Stuart Mill and forms the foundation of the most coherent form of consequentialist ethics.


As I always understood it, the utilitarianism espoused by JS Mill and his father was not concerned with animal welfare. In fact they would have argued that were the abuse of animals (circuses, rodeos, bullfights, etc) to cause human pleasure -which they apparently do- it is completely acceptable. Would the utilitarians not frame it as such: e.g.: medical science benefits mankind therefore the destruction of animals in its name is tolerated, even encouraged. Arts & culture benefit mankind, therefore animals may suffer similarly in their name. Speaking as Millian utilitarian, the death or maiming of an animal at Stampede would only be of concern if it affected the livelihood of its human owners. The value of the animal's life in itself is nil.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> I think you are still missing the point of 'choice'. The spectators of these events CHOSE to be there. The risks are obvious. And if a spectator dies or is injured, that is not unethical.


I understand the choice aspect, but animals too make choices. Release a border collie in a flock of sheep and watch what happens. Ditto for a cutting horse in a herd of cattle.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

rgray said:


> And yeah people ARE animals - often the worst sort - but people are the animals IN CONTROL of the event and endanger themselves as a matter of choice. The horses (in the case under discussion) have no choice and are considered expendable by the so-called humans.


It's been pointed out already, but perhaps it bears repeating. 
As a former barrel racer and cutting horse rider, I can attest that these animals enjoy and would rather participate than not. Most times the challenge was to hold them back from prematurely running at the barrels and many cutting horses (mine included) would play practice the cutting skill with dogs, humans,and other animals while riderless in the pasture. 

Sometimes cutting horses have to be put in a separate paddock to give the poor other animals a break from being constantly sorted. 

I'm also not sure why you believe that human rodeo competitors consider their prized animals, (and sometimes livelihood) expendable. That couldn't be further from the truth. 



rgray said:


> It has been pointed out by many commentators that humans are the only species that kill and maim for pleasure.....


You've never dealt much with weasels, have you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> The value of the animal's life in itself is nil.


In effect, we as individuals, decide on the value of the animal's life. If the human species were to disappear from the face of the Earth it doesn't much matter to me what happens to the remaining animals. Their value is based entirely on how we see them. 

I worry about my dog's health. I don't mourn the million-year old agony of a dinosaur gored by some relative of a Triceratops.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> You're missing the point. Firstly, since it was your _choice_ to engage in these activities, rather than having this suffering inflicted upon you by some other agent, it doesn't really pertain to this discussion. But more importantly, presumably the enjoyment and/or health benefits (i.e. good) you got from this process outweigh the pain (i.e. evil), or at least you expected it to, or you wouldn't have done it.
> 
> This same logic applies to the examples others have given in this thread about disrupting anthills to build a home, etc. Disrupting anthills for no reason would be a net evil, but disrupting anthills to make a good home for humans would be a net good (largely because of the greater sentience of humans).
> 
> This is called the Principle of Utility... if any of you want to read up on ethics, it was first proposed by John Stuart Mill and forms the foundation of the most coherent form of consequentialist ethics.


Ha, not at all, you are now merely catching up to the point I am making and now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the change in your definition of what constitutes evil. 

Ethics/morals are a human construct, they do not exist in nature. *We* decide as individuals and as societies what constitutes ethical/moral behaviour. I am very well versed in the philosophy you speak of despite your condescending tone to which you are so often prone. You are not the only one here with a university education although at times you seem to like to speak as though you were. 

Sea otters are well known to lop the heads off of penguins and then use the bodies as play things. In your moral construct that would make them evil. Or would it? Would they not have to have an ethical/moral construct that presupposed that such an activity was evil for it to be so, otherwise are they not simply doing that which they find to be "entertaining" without regard for any such preexisting mores?

So be it for those at the Stampede using their animals for entertainment purposes. Their mores have no such ethical/moral boundaries for the use of their animals for entertainment purposes. What they do goes against *your* moral/ethical constructs, not necessarily or essentially against any *objective* set of moral/ethical principles. I am surprised that someone who over and over again has expressed themselves to be an atheist and an empiricist cannot see the fundamental flaw in the logic you are using. But then again you use your "god" (western scientific standards/principles) to be the ultimate judge and jury.

Animals can be made to suffer so long as their suffering fits within your ethical guidelines which you seem to be quite willing to advocate imposing on the rest of society and the world.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> I understand the choice aspect, but animals too make choices. Release a border collie in a flock of sheep and watch what happens. Ditto for a cutting horse in a herd of cattle.


Indeed. But they have no choice about entry into a wagon race.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> Indeed. But they have no choice about entry into a wagon race.


Nor does the penguin being used as a play thing by a sea otter or a wayward chimp entering into another troops territory and then is subsequently beaten to death.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

rgray said:


> Indeed. But they have no choice about entry into a wagon race.


You make it sound like they go out into the fields and round up four random horses and make them run in a race that afternoon, whipping them into submission. Not so.

These are _teams_ of horses. There's training, matching horses (for stride, speed), and all sorts of other things long before race day. 

If they don't _like_ to run, they're _not_ going to be in a race. It's not just a 10 day thing - these horses are cared for year round, and live a pretty good life relatively speaking to most horses. I wish people would educate themselves just a bit and maybe listen to people who have actually been around horses instead of getting all 'oh, the poor horseys ...'


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> If they don't _like_ to run, they're _not_ going to be in a race. It's not just a 10 day thing - these horses are cared for year round, and live a pretty good life relatively speaking to most horses. I wish people would educate themselves just a bit and maybe listen to people who have actually been around horses instead of getting all 'oh, the poor horseys ...'


The problem is that the argument gets more and more convoluted. If you agree that you will never make the poor horsey run again, next thing you know, they'll tell you it should be allowed the human right to self-determination and require you to leave the barn door open.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Ha, not at all, you are now merely catching up to the point I am making and now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for the change in your definition of what constitutes evil.


I wasn't trying to change the definition; just trying to clarify.



> Ethics/morals are a human construct, they do not exist in nature. *We* decide as individuals and as societies what constitutes ethical/moral behaviour.


Agreed. Which is why the discussion of wether sea otters bitting the heads off penguins is 'evil' or not is absurd on a philosophical level. Unless I'm mistaken, it's also absurd on a biological level, because sea otters (Enhydra lutris) live only in the northern hemisphere, and penguins live only in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, sea otters eat shellfish, urchins, crustaceans and various other things, but I don't think they've been known to catch or kill birds.



> I am very well versed in the philosophy you speak of despite your condescending tone to which you are so often prone.


I apologize for being condescending. That was not my intent.



> Sea otters are well known to lop the heads off of penguins...


See above.



> So be it for those at the Stampede using their animals for entertainment purposes.


Well, the question of wether the humans (most of whom presumably *do* have some sort of ethical construct that governs their choices) are behaving unethically in their use of animals for entertainment is certainly arguable. I would contend that the evil outweighs the good, but I will certainly concede that this is a close call.

But my question is, given that other organized uses of non-human animals are strictly governed by animal welfare provisions (the example I used was the animal use protocols required for the use of animals in research), why should this use of animals for entertainment not be similarly regulated?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I wasn't trying to change the definition; just trying to clarify.
> 
> Agreed. Which is why the discussion of wether sea otters bitting the heads off penguins is 'evil' or not is absurd on a philosophical level. Unless I'm mistaken, it's also absurd on a biological level, because sea otters (Enhydra lutris) live only in the northern hemisphere, and penguins live only in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, sea otters eat shellfish, urchins, crustaceans and various other things, but I don't think they've been known to catch or kill birds.


I have seen the video footage, can't recall the documentary source at this time and I may have the species of bird involved incorrect, I am working from memory here. No they don't eat them. That is the point, they kill them for sport and then play with the dead bodies. I will have to get back to you on the details if I can find source reference on the web.




bryanc said:


> IWell, the question of wether the humans (most of whom presumably *do* have some sort of ethical construct that governs their choices) are behaving unethically in their use of animals for entertainment is certainly arguable. I would contend that the evil outweighs the good, but I will certainly concede that this is a close call.
> 
> But my question is, given that other organized uses of non-human animals are strictly governed by animal welfare provisions (the example I used was the animal use protocols required for the use of animals in research), why should this use of animals for entertainment not be similarly regulated?


I agree they absolutely should be regulated but not by a body that has absolutely nothing to do with or understanding of the activities involved. There are animal cruelty laws both federally and provincially. Many would argue they are inadequate and ill enforced and I would tend to agree. Personally I would never go to the Stampede because of the risk of seeing animals harmed. I am an animal lover and would probably start bawling in public. But I also have no desire to impose arbitrary standards on the treatment of these animals that I know nothing about based on standards that are used in a completely different context.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I have seen the video footage, can't recall the documentary source at this time and I may have the species of bird involved incorrect, I am working from memory here. No they don't eat them. That is the point, they kill them for sport and then play with the dead bodies. I will have to get back to you on the details if I can find source reference on the web.


Sea otters kill and play with grebes:

Sea Otter Attacking a Western Grebe JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

screature said:


> I have seen the video footage, can't recall the documentary source at this time and I may have the species of bird involved incorrect, I am working from memory here. No they don't eat them. That is the point, they kill them for sport and then play with the dead bodies. I will have to get back to you on the details if I can find source reference on the web.


I also would like to know the source as such behaviours in the animal kingdom are extremely rare. In fact most so-called examples are fabricated much as the Disney lemming footage.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sea otters kill and play with grebes:
> 
> Sea Otter Attacking a Western Grebe JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography


Ah, grebes... I can understand mistaking them for penguins. I know orcas will play with penguins, and I've seen Stellar's sea lions playing 'Frisbee' with a flounder and then leaving it uneaten. I certainly wouldn't argue non-human animals don't do anything that I would consider unethical. Heck, lots of people do things I would consider unethical, and I sometimes fail my own ethical standards. But that doesn't make any of these things less unethical, it's simply either a case of ethics not pertaining (to animal behaviour), different ethical systems at work, or irrational behaviour.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Ah, grebes... I can understand mistaking them for penguins. I know orcas will play with penguins, and I've seen Stellar's sea lions playing 'Frisbee' with a flounder and then leaving it uneaten. I certainly wouldn't argue non-human animals don't do anything that I would consider unethical. Heck, lots of people do things I would consider unethical, and I sometimes fail my own ethical standards. But that doesn't make any of these things less unethical, it's simply either a case of ethics not pertaining (to animal behaviour), different ethical systems at work, or irrational behaviour.


Seems grebes is what it must have been... Been scouring the web and can't come up with anything about sea otters and penguins (as you say they live in different parts of the world). At any rate the documentarians were astounded by the behaviour as was I watching it.

I always think of otters as such cute and playful wild animals, and indeed even in this particular murderous behaviour (I only use the word murderous because they weren't seen to be eating them just playing with their decapitated bodies) they seemed to be having the greatest of times, tossing the body up into the air and catching it as they floated peacefully and gleefully on their backs.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Sea otters kill and play with grebes:
> 
> Sea Otter Attacking a Western Grebe JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography


The author of that link specifically notes how unusual this is and also specifically notes that the otters were eating the Grebes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> The author of that link specifically notes how unusual this is and also specifically notes that the otters were eating the Grebes.


This is not the same source that I saw which was twenty years or more ago now and if the otters were eating it then the behaviour was different from that which was previously documented.

The Stampede happens one a year, if you were an alien documenting human behaviour you would conclude it was pretty unusual as well.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

screature said:


> This is not the same source that I saw which was twenty years or more ago now and if the otters were eating it then the behaviour was different form that which was previously documented.
> 
> *The Stampede happens one a year, if you were an alien documenting human behaviour you would conclude it was pretty unusual as well. *


Point taken, however I also agree with brianc's point which is to ask why the use of animals for entertainment receives less scrutiny and regulation than does use of animals for scientific research. Based on the discussion here so far, IMHO the question still stands.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

rgray said:


> Point taken, however I also agree with brianc's point which is to ask why the use of animals for entertainment receives less scrutiny and regulation than does use of animals for scientific research. Based on the discussion here so far, IMHO the question still stands.


#1 - scientific research usually always results in the death of the animal at some point. The object of the use of the animal is scientific, and is using the animal for a third objective - the scientific research.

#2 - who says animals used for entertainment receive less scrutiny and regulation? The SPCA is all over this, and veterinarians are doing health checks on a regular basis. This is just closer to their natural habits and natures.

Scientists doing research may have less of an incentive to care about the health and wellbeing of their 'research animals' than people who are working in 'teamwork' with an animal of another species.

IMO the amount of regulation required is relative to the potential for abuse, and therefore comparing the level of regulation for both is like asking why people driving cars don't have pilots licenses.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Fair points. But let me add that as a member of my universitie's animal care committee, I see *all* the animal care protocols that are submitted and it's certainly not true that most animals used are killed during experimentation.

Any research involving observing animal behaviour in the wild, tagging/tracking animals in the wild, or keeping animals in the laboratory to make observations involve the same extensive paperwork that is required for all research involving animal use.

In my own work, I need my fish to be healthy and happy so that they will spawn and provide me with embryos for my research. I do my utmost to provide them with optimal water conditions, optimal food abundance and variety, and tanks with structures and designs that minimize stress on the fish. Most of my fish die of old age.

In most cases, the interests of the scientists are that the animals they use are representative of 'normal' physiological states, so great efforts are made to ensure the animals are cared for as well as possible.

In those cases where sacrificing the animal is necessary for the research, we are required to justify the numbers of animals used, and demonstrate that no fewer animals could be used for the research. We are audited to ensure we don't use more animals than we say, and the conditions in which the animals are housed is inspected by veterinarians, representatives of the SPCA, and members of the general public on a regular (and surprise) basis.

I'm not saying that animals never suffer in the context of research. I'm just saying that scientists have a very strong incentive to ensure whatever suffering occurs is minimized and the data that results is maximized.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> The author of that link specifically notes how unusual this is and also specifically notes that the otters were eating the Grebes.


No. He says he saw them eating grebes in December, but this time noted that they were killing and playing with the bird:



> In the instance documented below it seemed as though the Sea Otter was playing with the bird rather than hunting it outright.


Read more: Sea Otter Attacking a Western Grebe JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Honestly, Bryan do you have a clue about the real world cloistered in that lab of yours? Nature itself can be infinitely more sadistic and cruel than what we humans could ever possibly inflict on nature's creatures...including researchers or slaughterhouse employees.

Rodeo horses and even the bovines are far more loved and cared for than your silly fish or the embryos you kill in your daily routine, but wait...you're serving science, you're entitled..aren't you? You resent the rules you have to abide by because public concern over animal research now holds you to what you consider a higher standard. You resent everything else that has the mere appearance of animal abuse...without really knowing anything about it. Am I close on that?

Years ago, in the early 80s I worked for a cargo airline (as I do now 30 years later), and it was a big deal when the live monkeys, destined for scientific research, arrived. They went on to Connaught Labs, currently known as Sanofi Pasteur (Aventis). It was a big deal, but many were screaming their little heads off, some were dead from shock, some were trembling and quiet. I often wondered what unspeakable horrors awaited these poor creatures when they arrived at Connaught, but it's all in the name of science, eh? Saving out pathetic human lives so we can continue to abuse horses and bovines at rodeos.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Honestly, Bryan do you have a clue about the real world cloistered in that lab of yours? Nature itself can be infinitely more sadistic and cruel than what we humans could ever possibly inflict on nature's creatures...including researchers or slaughterhouse employees.
> 
> Rodeo horses and even the bovines are far more loved and cared for than your silly fish or the embryos you kill in your daily routine, but wait...you're serving science, you're entitled..aren't you? You resent the rules you have to abide by because public concern over animal research now holds you to what you consider a higher standard. You resent everything else that has the mere appearance of animal abuse...without really knowing anything about it. Am I close on that?
> 
> Years ago, in the early 80s I worked for a cargo airline (as I do now 30 years later), and it was a big deal when the live monkeys, destined for scientific research, arrived. They went on to Connaught Labs, currently known as Sanofi Pasteur (Aventis). It was a big deal, but many were screaming their little heads off, some were dead from shock, some were trembling and quiet. I often wondered what unspeakable horrors awaited these poor creatures when they arrived at Connaught, but it's all in the name of science, eh? Saving out pathetic human lives so we can continue to abuse horses and bovines at rodeos.


Could not be put any better kps.

I salute you. 'Bout time too. 

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Scientists doing research may have less of an incentive to care about the health and wellbeing of their 'research animals' than people who are working in 'teamwork' with an animal of another species.


While I am prepared to defer to 'those who know' regarding the care and use of rodeo animals I cannot allow this statement to go uncommented.

The statement is blatantly untrue and reflects a lack of understanding about animal research. An animal researcher has literally thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in each subject, taking into account all sorts of factors such as (huge amounts of) time spent developing research rationale (often literally years, sometimes whole working lifetimes), developing, pilot testing and obtaining peer approval for study protocols, animal care facilities and people, training students, ethical rationales, supervision, sourcing and/or developing technology, obtaining required approvals, clearing restrictions (drugs in particular) and so on and so forth _ad nauseum_. Each animal represents a massive investment in time and dollars and the integrity and quality of a project can hinge in a single subject. Careers are made or broken depending on the quality and diligence of a researchers attention to his/her animals. A researcher and his assistant/associates and their animals are very much a 'team'.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Dark day for Canada geese in New York: Hundreds gassed at airports

Just sayin'...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Dark day for Canada geese in New York: Hundreds gassed at airports
> 
> Just sayin'...


Too bad they can't find a way to make use of this 'resource' like instead of just killing and trashing why not butcher them properly and give them to food banks.... Just sayin'....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> A researcher and his assistant/associates and their animals are very much a 'team'.


Sure. Just like a butcher and the pork chops in his refrigerator are a team.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> ...Every living thing is trying to eat another living thing.


Not quite... I haven't seen too many plants chowing down on other living things (there are of course the very rare exceptions e.g. Venus Fly Trap). Just sayin'...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

rgray said:


> A researcher and his assistant/associates and their animals are very much a 'team'.





Macfury said:


> Sure. Just like a butcher and the pork chops in his refrigerator are a team.


It always amuses me to watch people who seem to enjoy displaying their collosal ignorance of a subject in public!!! 

It might temper the discussion here to realize that every single person who has had an immunization, has received any sort of medical treatment, has taken a medication or who has had a surgical procedure (which taken together includes just about everyone) owes their life and well-being to animal research!!!!!!!

No one owes their life to a rodeo.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

rgray said:


> Too bad they can't find a way to make use of this 'resource' like instead of just killing and trashing why not butcher them properly and give them to food banks.... Just sayin'....


So, if all the horses, steers, whatever that died during a rodeo were butchered and given to a food bank, the whole concept would be more umm...palatable to you?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

rgray said:


> It always amuses me to watch people who seem to enjoy displaying their collosal ignorance of a subject in public!!!


Agreed.



rgray said:


> No one owes their life to a rodeo.


Perhaps not a rodeo directly, but definitely many of the skills displayed at a rodeo.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Indeed there are a *few* carnivorous plants but they are the *very rare* exception.... I think I said that didn't I?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> What about the rest of the post other than the carnie bit?


The only thing I commented on was:



> Every living thing is trying to *eat* another living thing.


Just because a plant derives nutrients form the soil from other decomposed biological material (most of which is way, way by far and large other decomposing plant material and not animal) does not mean they *eat *anything.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

This is certainly a clash of cultures. I've lived in an area which has had a "rodeo" culture, and I've also lived in an area which has a "scientific" culture and these discussions will go on forever it seems. But I do know this from experience, there are good keepers of animals and there are bad ones. Anyone who makes their living from their animals, and I'm talking about the "used car-salesman" types, looks after them. You can take any argument to the extreme, I don't see protested rallying in the streets because of the terror inflicted on carrots as they are yanked screaming from their ground dwelling family members. And in the natural world ..... let me tell you if fish could scream the ocean would be the loudest place on earth...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> It might temper the discussion here to realize that every single person who has had an immunization, has received any sort of medical treatment, has taken a medication or who has had a surgical procedure (which taken together includes just about everyone) owes their life and well-being to animal research!!!!!!!


I have no problem with either research, carried out under careful observation, or the rodeo. To call the animal a "partner" in research is ludicrous.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, it is. That's just a tad anthropomorphic. Not as if a lab animal stuck out a friendly paw and said, 'yeah, let's do this. I had a feeling it was gonna be a short life anyway."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, there goes the "choice" argument right out the window.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Yeah, it is. That's just a tad anthropomorphic. Not as if a lab animal stuck out a friendly paw and said, 'yeah, let's do this. I had a feeling it was gonna be a short life anyway."


After bryanc uses his flawless reasoning to prove to the animal that there is no God, they're so distraught that they'll put their paw print on anything.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Ah, so evil is defined by what people "think is great."
> 
> So when the Myans sacrificed virgins to their volcano gods, that was not evil because most people thought it was great. And slavery was not evil until people stopped thinking it was great. And when most Germans thought Hitler was great, he wasn't evil.
> 
> Have I got it right?


Indeed Bryan. MF, you committed quite the logical fallacy there. That of popularity. The LSAT would not reward you for such an argument.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Honestly, Bryan do you have a clue about the real world cloistered in that lab of yours? Nature itself can be infinitely more sadistic and cruel than what we humans could ever possibly inflict on nature's creatures


And that is of what relevance to the discussion, exactly?

Remember, I'm asking: should the use of animals in entertainment be held to similar ethical standards to the use of animals in research?

This has nothing to do with the cruelty of animals to each other, the eating of animals, wether horses enjoy racing, wether the skills demonstrated at rodeos are valuable to society, wether research is valuable to society, wether humans who choose to participate in dangerous sports suffer more than the animals we use for entertainment etc. 



> You resent the rules you have to abide by because public concern over animal research now holds you to what you consider a higher standard.


I certainly do not. I'm an active participant in the enforcement of those rules. While I think some of the rules governing the use of animals in scientific research are too broad (basically all invertebrates, except for cephalopods, are not covered at all, and all vertebrates, including fish and amphibians, are treated the same), I'm a great proponent of the strict enforcement of animal care legislation. My wife spends a great deal of time volunteering for the SPCA and we financially support that organization as our means allows.

I certainly do think rodeos and other uses of animals for entertainment should be held to the same standard as research, but not because I think the standards for animal use in research should be lowered.



> Rodeo horses and even the bovines are far more loved and cared for than your silly fish or the embryos you kill in your daily routine, but wait...you're serving science, you're entitled..aren't you?


And people accuse _me_ of being condescending


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> But I do know this from experience, there are good keepers of animals and there are bad ones.


Yes, and bad ones should be prevented from keeping animals, regardless of their business. Furthermore, the definition and detection of 'bad ones' should be consistent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Well, there goes the "choice" argument right out the window.


Not if you even remotely understood the argument. Maybe you should re-read what was posted and think a little.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Not if you even remotely understood the argument. Maybe you should re-read what was posted and think a little.


I understand it very well. Anti rodeo types claimed animals do not have a choice to pull a wagon. MF and Max pointed out research animals do not have a choice to be used as guinea pigs. That is one and the same.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Remember, I'm asking: should the use of animals in entertainment be held to similar ethical standards to the use of animals in research?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I certainly do think rodeos and other uses of animals for entertainment should be held to the same standard as research, but not because I think the standards for animal use in research should be lowered.


Oh! I get it now! 

You didn't want our opinions. You wanted us to agree with you. 

Sorry - not happening. Moving on ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I understand it very well. Anti rodeo types claimed animals do not have a choice to pull a wagon. MF and Max pointed out research animals do not have a choice to be used as guinea pigs. That is one and the same.


Right... but the choice argument was about wether the fact that people participating in sports also suffer is relevant to this discussion. It's not because they have a choice. The animals don't.

I'm saying that rodeo animals and research animals are similar in this and other regards, and that the people using them ought to have to meet similar standards of ethical treatment.

Now do you get it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> O
> You didn't want our opinions. You wanted us to agree with you.


How is my posting a topic for discussion and saying what I think about it not asking for your opinion? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?

If you don't agree, that's fine, but I'd like to know why.

So far, it seems that people are saying they don't agree because people also suffer in sports (not relevant because people can choose wether they participate), animals are cruel to each other in nature (not relevant because we're discussing the ethics of animal use by humans), people kill and eat animals (not relevant because we're discussing wether the use of animals for entertainment is ethically comparable to the use of animals for research), etc.

So, again to refocus the discussion; should the use of animals for entertainment be regulated like the use of animals for research? If not, why?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Let the British worry about their own animals in their own country is what I say. We have enough animal rights groups on this side of the ocean to take care of our animals.

As many have said, many of these animals are performing the same task they would as when they are at home on a ranch. Many of these animals are treated better than people with the best of everything as they are expensive to replace and do their job when they are at their best. Even the people who work with these horses want to know what happened, so that they can prevent this from happening. Some of these animals are rescued from being put down after doing a previous job.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Kosh said:


> ...many of these animals are performing the same task they would as when they are at home on a ranch. Many of these animals are treated better than people with the best of everything...


So are you saying that because 'many of these animals' are well treated, no systematic regulation or oversight is necessary?

If I could demonstrate that 'many of the animals' used in research are well treated, would you agree that there should not be any system to ensure that all animals used in research are well cared for?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> How is my posting a topic for discussion and saying what I think about it not asking for your opinion? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?
> 
> If you don't agree, that's fine, but I'd like to know why.
> 
> So, again to refocus the discussion; should the use of animals for entertainment be regulated like the use of animals for research? If not, why?


Please read my previous comments: Who says they're not regulated? You say they're not regulated. We say they're regulated adequately. 

Also, regarding 'regulation to the level of animals used in research': Please see my previous comments regarding 'asking why the drivers of automobiles don't have pilots licenses'.

You're being intransigent because you have skewed the questions to your perception of the need, and nothing we say will satisfy your questions.

The end.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Indeed Bryan. MF, you committed quite the logical fallacy there. That of popularity. The LSAT would not reward you for such an argument.


It isn't a logical fallacy. If most people see something as acceptable, it isn't evil until they realize it is or decide that it is. There needs to be intent to be evil in order to define evil. 

When I was a kid I saw a Popeye cartoon in which Popeye swings an elephant by the tail and tosses it in the ocean. When i saw the elephant as the aggressor, I thought: "Good for Popeye." I look at it now and ask, "What the hell is Popeye doing in darkest Africa bothering an elephant."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Who says they're not regulated? You say they're not regulated. We say they're regulated adequately.


I did not say they were not regulated. I *asked* if they *ought* to be regulated in a similar way as is the use of animals in research.

If you say they're regulated adequately, that's an interesting point, but it has not been supported. Please tell us more about how the use of animals in entertainment is regulated, monitored and enforced, and why you think it's adequate.



> You're being intransigent because you have skewed the questions to your perception of the need, and nothing we say will satisfy your questions.


You are being unfair. I'm not being intransigent, I'm simply asking that people address the question rather than making a bunch of irrelevant analogies. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that I'm wrong (as always), but I need evidence and logic, not emotional outbursts and irrelevant analogies.

If this is uninteresting to you, or if you can't contribute to the discussion rationally, you're under no compulsion to participate.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It isn't a logical fallacy.


I think what was being pointed out was that popularity is not an ethical justification.



> If most people see something as acceptable, it isn't evil until they realize it is or decide that it is.


I think you're mixing concepts here...



> There needs to be intent to be evil in order to define evil.


In most consequentialist systems this is true; it is the _intent_ of the agent that determines the ethical value of a choice (although Hobbes would argue otherwise).

So I think I partially agree with you; until someone realizes that a given choice or behaviour is having undesirable consequences, they cannot be held ethically accountable for that choice. However, this is only tangentially related to the popularity of a given choice or behaviour, in that it may be less likely that someone would realize that what they're doing is causing harm if it is something that "everyone else is doing."

This is part of the reason that it's better to be smart than stupid.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> How is my posting a topic for discussion and saying what I think about it not asking for your opinion? Am I not allowed to have an opinion?
> 
> If you don't agree, that's fine, but I'd like to know why.
> 
> ...


I won't comment on other people's comment's but merely to say that because of the "nature" (pun intended) of the points that many have raised you dismiss them as being irrelevant.

I disagree. While they may not address the "specifics" of your question they represent a portion of their general "world view" (weltanschauung) and how that view relates to your question. They are very relevant and essentially question the significance (basically asserting your question is moot) of your question given the state of the natural world, of which you seem to want to separate us... they do not.

As to answering your specif question... I did. To repeat:

Post #49



> ...I agree they absolutely should be regulated but not by a body that has absolutely nothing to do with or understanding of the activities involved. There are animal cruelty laws both federally and provincially. Many would argue they are inadequate and ill enforced and I would tend to agree. Personally I would never go to the Stampede because of the risk of seeing animals harmed. I am an animal lover and would probably start bawling in public. But I also have no desire to impose arbitrary standards on the treatment of these animals that I know nothing about based on standards that are used in a completely different context.


Edit: I would now add:

"but not by a body *or in the manner of a body* that has absolutely nothing to do with or understanding of the activities involved. There are animal cruelty laws both federally and provincially."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

excellent post. thanks Screature.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> So I think I partially agree with you; until someone realizes that a given choice or behaviour is having undesirable consequences, they cannot be held ethically accountable for that choice. However, this is only tangentially related to the popularity of a given choice or behaviour, in that it may be less likely that someone would realize that what they're doing is causing harm if it is something that "everyone else is doing."
> *
> This is part of the reason that it's better to be smart than stupid.*


You just significantly diminished the value of your argument. There is a world of difference between intelligence and awareness (ignorance). You should know better and are merely being a smart ass with a comment like that.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The perils of text... it was intended as a joke.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> The perils of text... it was intended as a joke.


That's where winkies () come in handy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> excellent post. thanks Screature.


Thank you.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

bryanc said:


> So are you saying that because 'many of these animals' are well treated, no systematic regulation or oversight is necessary?


I didn't say that did I. You shouldn't make up stuff.

What I did say is that we have several animal rights groups in our own country, that we don't need animal rights groups from other countries that have similar events butting their noses where they don't belong. Worry about their own country.

There are just as much if not more regulations and oversight at the stampede than any other sporting event. There are severe penalties for excessive agression and misconduct, etc. One year, 2 of the most reputable Chuckwagon racers were kicked out of the races and fined when they had horse(s) killed for excessive agression, I believe. I can't remember how many horses were killed that year, it may have been as little as 1.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Kosh said:


> I didn't say that did I. You shouldn't make up stuff.


Please read more carefully. I was asking if that's what you meant.



> There are just as much if not more regulations and oversight at the stampede than any other sporting event. There are severe penalties for excessive agression and misconduct, etc. One year, 2 of the most reputable Chuckwagon racers were kicked out of the races and fined when they had horse(s) killed for excessive agression, I believe. I can't remember how many horses were killed that year, it may have been as little as 1.


This is specifically the kind of information that is relevant to this discussion. I don't know what regulations are in place, what monitoring is done, or what enforcement provisions are available. If you know, please enlighten us. It would be nice, however, if you could provide something more substantial than your vague recollections.

I have noted that the Calgary SPCA is suspiciously quiet about the Stampede (whereas the Vancouver SPCA and other animal welfare groups are vociferously opposed to it). Given that the SPCA is a community-funded charity, and that the Stampede is popular with Calgarians, it seems to me that if the Calgary SPCA did not have concerns about the Stampede, they would take advantage of the opportunity to gain favour with their community and raise their profile by making a statement to that effect. In contrast, they remain silent, which, if they are opposed to the Stampede, is the only reasonable course of action, because they cannot risk offending their supporters. It's not an enviable position.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I have noted that the Calgary SPCA is suspiciously quiet about the Stampede (whereas the Vancouver SPCA and other animal welfare groups are vociferously opposed to it). Given that the SPCA is a community-funded charity, and that the Stampede is popular with Calgarians, it seems to me that if the Calgary SPCA did not have concerns about the Stampede, they would take advantage of the opportunity to gain favour with their community and raise their profile by making a statement to that effect. In contrast, they remain silent, which, if they are opposed to the Stampede, is the only reasonable course of action, because they cannot risk offending their supporters. It's not an enviable position.


You should read this then. The Calgary SPCA actually has full access to all of the stampede's facilities.

Calgary Stampede - Animal Care


_oops, that should have been the Alberta SPCA._


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I don't know what regulations are in place, what monitoring is done, or what enforcement provisions are available.


So up until now you've been arguing from a stance of ignorance? That's prime.

From the Calgary Stampede's own website, easily googled:



> We take a disciplined approach to animal care, focused on meeting three distinct standards:
> 
> - _The regulations set out in Alberta's Animal Protection Act;_ these are regulations monitored on-site each year by the Calgary Humane Society and Alberta's SPCA;
> - The codes of best practices for each animal species as recommended by Canada's industry experts; and
> ...


Italics mine.

So, there are regulations.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Kosh said:


> You should read this then. The Calgary SPCA actually has full access to all of the stampede's facilities.
> 
> Calgary Stampede - Animal Care


Thanks for the link... I will read it in more detail and get back to you.

One thing that does strike me as odd, from having skimmed some of the information there, is that they have a PR expert on their "Animal Care Advisory Panel." Why would they want the president of a their PR firm giving them advice about how to care for their animals?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> So up until now you've been arguing from a stance of ignorance?


I have some expertise in ethics, and substantial expertise in the regulation of animal use in research. I happily admit my ignorance of the regulation and enforcement of animal welfare rules with respect to the entertainment industry, apart from having expressed my opinion that it doesn't seem to be working very well WRT the stampede, given the regularity with which this event kills the animals being used for the amusement of the spectators.

I have asked the question: should the regulations governing animal use for entertainment be similar to those governing animal use in research because I want to understand your position on this.

If you feel the current regulation regime is adequate, why is it that this event chronically kills and injures the animals being used?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If you feel the current regulation regime is adequate, why is it that this event chronically kills and injures the animals being used?


Chronically? Sort of like 'people are killed in car accidents chronically despite the regulations that should actually ensure that they don't?'

The answer to this question has been supplied ad nauseum previously in this very thread. For instance: One horse had the equivalent of a heart attack - it was just luck of the draw that this horse had the heart attack herding cows at the Stampede instead of herding cows at home. 

**** happens. Regulations can only regulate what is regulable.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

bryanc said:


> If you feel the current regulation regime is adequate, why is it that this event chronically kills and injures the animals being used?


What says this event killed the horses? How many horses die on ranches in Alberta (or Calgary) in a two week timeframe? How many horses die in the Morris Stampede? How many horses die in any other Stampede? Why are people picking on this one rodeo?

As well you're looking at a concentration of horses and other animals, unknown in any other instance. The death rate is going to be higher.

Heck, they don't even know what the 4th horse died from yet, as the post-mortem hasn't been done yet.

At least 2 of the deaths weren't even in an event. One was during a normal morning exercise session and one was after an event.

How old were the horses? Maybe it was just there time in a couple of cases.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Seems to me all this fuss is yet another example of city slickers being clueless about rural life. Have the same thing happening in Ontario where the latte drinking residents of Toronto force their ideals on those in the north and countryside. Clueless to the problems caused by pie in the sky ideas. 

Farm animals die all the time. Cows die, horses die, pigs die, sheep die. As has been noted already, the Stampede has a higher than normal concentration of animals, specially work horses. Not surprising at all to see a few deaths.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Mentioned earlier that Bull Riding was one event that does not really relate to daily rodeo life.

Should also be noted that the bulls frequently win in this event. On the first day the bulls bucked seven of the nine riders. 

This is a testosterone event pure and simple. The big difference when compared yuppielets racing through the streets of TO or Richmond BC, is that the only ones getting hurt here are the cowboys. Believe me the rider that gets the day money has paid dearly for his win. Busted balls and sore back at a very minimum.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

adagio said:


> Seems to me all this fuss is yet another example of city slickers being clueless about rural life. Have the same thing happening in Ontario where the latte drinking residents of Toronto force their ideals on those in the north and countryside. Clueless to the problems caused by pie in the sky ideas.


So we've decided the latte drinkers are a problem?... oh, dear. Now I understand... it's the _latte_ that's the real issue! Thank heavens that's been cleared up.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> And that is of what relevance to the discussion, exactly?
> 
> Remember, I'm asking: should the use of animals in entertainment be held to similar ethical standards to the use of animals in research?
> 
> This has nothing to do with the cruelty of animals to each other, the eating of animals, wether horses enjoy racing, wether the skills demonstrated at rodeos are valuable to society, wether research is valuable to society, wether humans who choose to participate in dangerous sports suffer more than the animals we use for entertainment etc.


Ooookayyyy, as long as you remember that it wasn't me who took this thread on a philosophical tangent about "evil". lol

But, I'll answer your "remember" question. First, your thread title made it clear this was about the Calgary Stampede...a rodeo and not about animals in (what you call) "entertainment" as a whole. A rodeo is a competition as much as something that could be called entertaining.

Not at all a spectacle like a Spanish bull fight, which could be defined as pure entertainment. 

Now that we defined it a little more closely, we can look at the ethics. It would appear that you did not know there were ANY regulations wrt the animals participating in the competition prior to Mleh's link. That makes my point about some ingrained resentment quite obvious, or It tells me you have no clue whether these regulations are any more or less ethical than your research animal regulations. What if they're more stringent than those for research animals...what then Bryan? 



> I certainly do not. I'm an active participant in the enforcement of those rules. While I think some of the rules governing the use of animals in scientific research are too broad (basically all invertebrates, except for cephalopods, are not covered at all, and all vertebrates, including fish and amphibians, are treated the same), I'm a great proponent of the strict enforcement of animal care legislation. My wife spends a great deal of time volunteering for the SPCA and we financially support that organization as our means allows.
> 
> I certainly do think rodeos and other uses of animals for entertainment should be held to the same standard as research, but not because I think the standards for animal use in research should be lowered.
> 
> And people accuse _me_ of being condescending


Hmmm, your support of the SPCA almost seems like guilt. <wink,wink>
Also wonder why you did not comment on my little "sentient" primates story and Connaught labs? Were there any "ethical" regulations for animal research back then or just regulations on how to properly dispose of the carcasses?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> This is a testosterone event pure and simple. The big difference when compared yuppielets racing through the streets of TO or Richmond BC, is that the only ones getting hurt here are the cowboys. Believe me the rider that gets the day money has paid dearly for his win. Busted balls and sore back at a very minimum.


If he's lucky. There's been many a PBR rider that has been trampled on and had broken ribs, legs, concussion, etc.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> ...
> 
> This is a testosterone event pure and simple. The big difference when compared yuppielets racing through the streets of TO or Richmond BC, is that the only ones getting hurt here are the cowboys. Believe me the rider that gets the day money has paid dearly for his win. Busted balls and sore back at a very minimum.





Kosh said:


> If he's lucky. There's been many a PBR rider that has been trampled on and had broken ribs, legs, concussion, etc.


You are quite right hence the "at the very least" qualifier. 

If you watch these events you will notice the bull riders tend to be in their early twenties. Any older and either the brain kicks in, or their accumulated injuries force them to give it up.

Good friend of mine was a calf roping champion one year. Asked him if ever did the bronc bit and he said it took him less than a season to figure out he preferred coming home in one piece.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> First, your thread title made it clear this was about the Calgary Stampede...a rodeo and not about animals in (what you call) "entertainment" as a whole. A rodeo is a competition as much as something that could be called entertaining.


If its not entertainment, I have no idea what the Stampede is. Hockey is a competition, but it's purely an entertainment. If we made animals play hockey, I'd take an equally dim view of it.



> Not at all a spectacle like a Spanish bull fight, which could be defined as pure entertainment.


On the contrary, I see the stampede as only a slightly less egregious example of the use of animals for entertainment. The stampede at least does not intentionally torture and kill the animals, but it's definitely full of events (steer wrestling, calf-roping, etc.) that are 'culturally justified' animal abuse.

Not as bad as bull fighting, but not good either.



> What if [animal care regulations for the stampede are] more stringent than those for research animals...what then Bryan?


That would be great. I'd be very happy to learn that the stampede is being held to a high standard with regard to animal care. However given the monotonous regularity with which animals are killed and injured at these events, this seems unlikely to be the case. Wouldn't you agree?



> Also wonder why you did not comment on my little "sentient" primates story and Connaught labs? Were there any "ethical" regulations for animal research back then or just regulations on how to properly dispose of the carcasses?


Why would you expect me to comment on your anecdote? I have no knowledge of the events or circumstances, so I have no opinion on the subject.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> If its not entertainment, I have no idea what the Stampede is. Hockey is a competition, but it's purely an entertainment. If we made animals play hockey, I'd take an equally dim view of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not going to address each point. I'll just reply with one blanket statement.

Bryanc, the vibe I'm getting from you is that because you don't like something or approve of it , no one else should either and those that disagree with you are somehow intellectually inferior or challenged and culturally backward.

I'm a firm believer in "leben und leben lassen" (live and let live). As mentioned by others already, a rodeo competition mimics much of everyday ranch life. Is it 100% representation of a modern cattle ranch? Probably not, but ranchers provide most of us (who still eat meat) with a vital commodity necessary to our survival. Thus providing an equally vital service to humanity as any scientist using (or abusing) research animals to benefit human kind. I see very little difference in terms of how the animals are used. I accept either usage, but I would say that the animals used in a rodeo competitions live a better life than those in a laboratory.

Because you choose not to eat meat, or enjoy hockey, or ride horses, or raise cattle, or shoot guns, or jump out of an airplane, or climb rock faces, or watch NASCAR, or run an ATV through mud....don't get on your high horse (<--pun) and thumb your nose down at them.

You live your life and let others live theirs, there's room for all of us.

Don't over analyse it, don't philosophise about it....accept the diversity of the human spirit. ( the non religious kind  )


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> Because you choose not to eat meat, or enjoy hockey, or ride horses, or raise cattle, or shoot guns, or jump out of an airplane, or climb rock faces, or watch NASCAR, or run an ATV through mud....don't get on your high horse (<--pun) and thumb your nose down at them.


:clap:

Life is far too short to be single minded and obsessed with all one views that is wrong with other's behaviours. Since there is no God, (nor flying spaghetti monster), there are no rewards for such lifestyles either.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Well said kps.

While I have never lived the ranch lifestyle I do know a handful of ranchers. To a man (women as well) they have earned my respect and I am proud to have earned their friendship. 

These are people who work hard to make a living and if their humour is on the bawdy side and they enjoy ball busting sports, I gotta say they have more than earned the right to live as they damn well please.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Absolutely! My brother-in-law lives in S. Alberta and by their standards he's nothing more then a "hobby farmer", even though he's got like 200 head of cattle and at least 30 horses. 

He does not make his living ranching, but he loves his critters, especially the horses. Horses are his life, but he's not beyond putting one down when necessary. He has no qualms when they die of natural causes, he has no issue if the new borns die, he understands the way it is.

His favourite horse lived a great life of 30+ years. A horse he rode to 8000 feet in the mountains for years, he retired him and gave him...everything...including a bullet in the head when the time came. Just the way it is.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I have no idea what the Stampede is.
> 
> I have no knowledge of the events or circumstances, so I have no opinion on the subject.


If only these two thoughts were directly related in your brain. It certainly sums up my opinion of your extent of knowledge of the actual situation and your ability to form an objective opinion.

But, as kps stated so eloquently, you're not going to let the world escape your sense of moral superiority just because you don't really know anything about what really goes on.

We've given you links to the level of regulation they're subjected to. We've explained how 'animals die'. You just don't listen because you're right.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> [MISQUOTE]


Please don't edit people's quotes. You're entitled to your opinions but putting words in other's peoples mouths is unfair and uncalled for.

As it happens, I'm quite familiar with the Stampede. Having lived in rural Alberta for 18 years (about twenty minutes outside Devon), raised quarter horses and competed in barrel racing myself, I couldn't be completely ignorant of the Stampede. I only ever went once, but it was certainly enough to get a sense of it (I never saw any SPCA monitors, though I did see a vet putting a horse down after a crash in the chuckwagon race).



> We've given you links to the level of regulation they're subjected to. We've explained how 'animals die'. You just don't listen because you're right.


That was informative and a contribution to the discussion. If you could keep your opinions of me out of this discussion and focus on the questions at hand, that might help (it might also help several of you to read the definition of the Ad hominem fallacy).

The link you provided appears to be primarily a PR site where the Stampede organizers put up some web^H^H^Hwindow dressing to show that they care about the animals. There is no substantive information about the regulations to which they adhere, the monitoring that is undertaken, or what, if any consequences there are for failing to meet any regulations. Furthermore, the empirical fact that animals are routinely killed in "accidents" at these events argues rather forcefully that whatever systems are in place to protect animal welfare are inadequate.

Finally, I'd like to address KPS' 'blanket statement' and aspersions on my support for the SPCA


kps said:


> Hmmm, your support of the SPCA almost seems like guilt.





kps said:


> Bryanc, the vibe I'm getting from you is that because you don't like something or approve of it , no one else should either and those that disagree with you are somehow intellectually inferior or challenged and culturally backward


I'm tempted to respond with some sarcastic comment about the 'vibe' I get from you, but I won't. How about reading what I posted, rather than projecting your own issues on me?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

kps said:


> I'm a firm believer in "leben und leben lassen" (live and let live).


Interesting turn of phrase when the general topic of the thread is about killing...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

rgray said:


> Interesting turn of phrase when the general topic of the thread is about killing...


It's also about tolerance and understanding...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Finally, I'd like to address KPS' 'blanket statement' and aspersions on my support for the SPCA
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to respond with some sarcastic comment about the 'vibe' I get from you, but I won't. How about reading what I posted, rather than projecting your own issues on me?


I did read what you wrote Dr. Freud Jr. and it might have been more fun if you did post about the vibe you get from me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> As it happens, I'm quite familiar with the Stampede. Having lived in rural Alberta for 18 years (about twenty minutes outside Devon), raised quarter horses and competed in barrel racing myself, I couldn't be completely ignorant of the Stampede. I only ever went once, but it was certainly enough to get a sense of it (I never saw any SPCA monitors, though I did see a vet putting a horse down after a crash in the chuckwagon race).


Beginning to sound a like a personal vendetta against The Stampede. 

To be fair the only event that sees a significant number of animal injuries and deaths is; The Chuckwagon Races. I honestly expected this thread to hone in on that after it was pointed that cutting competitions are anything but a flat out race and could not in any sense be considered abusive. At every other event except CW Racing the animals generally fare better than the cowboys. So since the attacks continue to be against the entire Stampede it does seem that your issue is has more to do with the Stampede than your concerns over animal welfare.

As to the Chuckwagon races rules are constantly evolving in an attempt to make the event safer. Since this was an event that Guy Weadick introduced along with the Stampede, it seems very unlikely that it would ever be dropped alotogether. Especially as it remains a crowd favourite.

Having lived in ranch country these past few years another thought has occured to me. Like it or not some horses were born to and live to buck. Would your approach to dealing with these studs be castration to be followed by quick export to the European Gourmet market? Somehow letting these old boys work for a couple of minutes a week pounding the 5h!t out of willing riders seems much more humane than that likely alternative.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Beginning to sound a like a personal vendetta against The Stampede.


What is with all you guys speculating about my motivations? Even if this was remotely true (and it's not), of what relevance is it to the question? Again; go read up on the Ad homenium fallacy.



> To be fair the only event that sees a significant number of animal injuries and deaths is; The Chuckwagon Races.


Yes, that an the roping competitions are the most egregious offenders, but that's only tangentially relevant to the question of what sorts of standards and oversight the Stampede and other rodeos and events that use animals for entertainment ought to be subject to.



> Would your approach to dealing with these studs be castration to be followed by quick export to the European Gourmet market?


How can you go from "I think the entertainment industry ought to be more strictly regulated and monitored WRT animal welfare" to "I think we should export horses to the European Gourmet market"? Seriously dude, WTF?!?

A few people here directly or indirectly answered the question; Dr. G., rgray, andscreature. Everyone else seems to be evading the question, tossing aspersions at my motivations, and discussing unrelated ethical or practical issues. However, as a result of the more considered postings, my position has changed somewhat. I agree with screature that the systems of animal welfare protection governing research is probably not ideally suited to protecting animal welfare in the entertainment industry. This is not to say that I think the entertainment industry ought to continue to be held to lower (or no) standards, but simply that the regulations, monitoring and enforcement ought to be conducted by people with good understandings of the activities involved. (In a sense, this _is_ like the CCAC standards governing research, in that we are monitored by people with some research expertise, as well as representatives of the SPCA, veterinarians, members of the general public and animal welfare advocates).

So, for those of you who have yet to weigh in on this issue, what say you? *Should the entertainment industry, including the Calgary Stampede and other rodeos, be held to stricter standards of animal care, provided those standards are set, monitored and enforced by people with suitable* expertise?*

* e.g. large animal veterinarians, horse trainers, animal wranglers from the film industry, etc. as well as the SPCA, interested members of the public, and international observers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So, for those of you who have yet to weigh in on this issue, what say you? *Should the entertainment industry, including the Calgary Stampede and other rodeos, be held to stricter standards of animal care, provided those standards are set, monitored and enforced by people with suitable* expertise?*
> 
> * e.g. large animal veterinarians, horse trainers, animal wranglers from the film industry, etc. as well as the SPCA, interested members of the public, and international observers.


I could agree with that statement if the asterisk and noted so-called "suitable expertise" restrictions were altered by removing the following:

** "animal wranglers from the film industry, etc"* (produce fantasy and have zero idea what constitutes rodeo.)

** "interested members of the public*" (could be animal rights activists also with zero idea what constitutes rodeo.)

** "international observers"* (are just that. People from other countries with zero idea of what constitutes rodeo.)

Get rid of those know-nothing factions and I would be fine with it. To have "suitable expertise", one has to have intimate knowledge of the sport and how the animals are used in the sport, something for which none of the above would qualify.

Veterinarians, horse trainers and the SPCA are logical good choices.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> I could agree with that statement if the asterisk and noted so-called "suitable expertise" restrictions were altered by removing the following:
> 
> ** "animal wranglers from the film industry, etc"* (produce fantasy and have zero idea what constitutes rodeo.)
> 
> ...



^^^THAT^^^

Have to agree with SINC's assessment as to who should oversee the regulations if stricter standards are to be implemented.

I wouldn't mind reading some of the research regulations. If you can provide a link to those that affect you directly that be best.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What is with all you guys speculating about my motivations? Even if this was remotely true (and it's not), of what relevance is it to the question? Again; go read up on the Ad homenium fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still I see you have no viable alternative proposed for an animal that just plain loves to buck. Truth is other than the occasional animal that is pastured for sentimental reasons ranchers expect their livestock to be either useful or productive. beejacon

As to standards had you looked into it you would see that the Stampede and most larger rodeos do indeed adhere to far tougher standards than your posts imply.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Get rid of those know-nothing factions and I would be fine with it. To have "suitable expertise", one has to have intimate knowledge of the sport and how the animals are used in the sport, something for which none of the above would qualify.


Apart from the bombastic language, this is a valuable and reasonable contribution to the conversation, and is certainly worth further discussion.

I'm not going to argue against your take on this, as I came up with these ideas 'off the cuff' but I don't think they should be so cavalierly dismissed.

Animal wranglers who work for the film industry presumably have a lot of experience training and facilitating animals performing stunts while preventing them from being injured. The fact that their expertise is in producing fantasy and spectacle makes them all the more suited to working with the Stampede (did chuckwagon races *EVER* happen in real life?) Indeed, I'd be surprised if there aren't people with that sort of background working for the Stampede now.

Interested members of the public are essential to any animal welfare oversight committee. Community standards are the foundation of animal welfare standards, and the transparency of these organizations is essential to their function. It's not at all unusual to have animal rights advocates on animal care committees governing the use of animals in research, and I don't see any reason why the members of the public most concerned with the welfare of animals should be excluded from organizations ostensibly serving that purpose in the entertainment industry.

International observers are also very valuable in the function of animal care committees. While there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to these issues, knowing what standards are enforced in other jurisdictions (and what, if any issues arise therefrom) is invaluable. Furthermore, a significant function of such an organization would be to allow the Stampede and other rodeos to demonstrate that they aren't as bad as they're being made out to be, and by allowing international observers into their process, they can prove that they have nothing to hide.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Have to agree with SINC's assessment as to who should oversee the regulations if stricter standards are to be implemented.


Okay, would you like to rebut the follow-up points I made?



> I wouldn't mind reading some of the research regulations. If you can provide a link to those that affect you directly that be best.


The main CCAC site is here.

Most of the stuff that I deal with directly is here (basically everything there except the wildlife stuff and the stuff dealing with mammals).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Still I see you have no viable alternative proposed for an animal that just plain loves to buck.


I didn't respond to that, because like some much in this thread, it is of zero relevance to the discussion.



> As to standards had you looked into it you would see that the Stampede and most larger rodeos do indeed adhere to far tougher standards than your posts imply.


From the link provided, I could find no substantive information regarding the standards to which rodeos are held, how those standards are monitored, or what the consequences of failing to meet those standards are. If you have a more substantive link, please provide it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Okay, would you like to rebut the follow-up points I made?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link and after a very, very quick glance at that massive content, I didn't see where your "guidelines" have international over site, non-expert-member-of-public over site or Hollywood special effects over site.

Also notice peer review and peer guidelines. So researchers are to be trusted to regulate themselves, but rodeo organizers are not. Isn't that like the oil industry regulating themselves in off-shore drilling?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Thanks for the link and after a very, very quick glance at that massive content, I didn't see where your "guidelines" have international over site, non-expert-member-of-public over site or Hollywood special effects over site.


While international oversight is not stipulated (it is highly desirable, but can be logistically difficult to obtain), community members are required. You can find the make up of animal care committees here. Obviously my suggestion that animal wranglers for the film industry ought to be considered for the committees overseeing animal welfare at rodeos was specific to that circumstance. Wouldn't you agree that the people who ensure the horses who fall down from a full gallop after being "shot" in a western might have some relevant expertise with regard to ensuring horses at a rodeo don't get hurt?



> Also notice peer review and peer guidelines. So researchers are to be trusted to regulate themselves, but rodeo organizers are not.


I really think you could be a lot more constructive about this. Obviously we need scientists to review the science. Who else is going to say "this protocol should not be approved because that experiment does not have the correct controls?"

I have no problem with the idea of people with rodeo expertise serving on a committee charged with ensuring animal welfare at rodeos. But, just like researchers, they shouldn't be setting the rules by themselves; just participating in deciding what the rules ought to be, and wether a specific case meets those standards.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> While international oversight is not stipulated (it is highly desirable, but can be logistically difficult to obtain), community members are required. You can find the make up of animal care committees here. Obviously my suggestion that animal wranglers for the film industry ought to be considered for the committees overseeing animal welfare at rodeos was specific to that circumstance. Wouldn't you agree that the people who ensure the horses who fall down from a full gallop after being "shot" in a western might have some relevant expertise with regard to ensuring horses at a rodeo don't get hurt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quite frankly, there is a huge difference in animal testing and rodeo competition. Should safety be paramount in rodeo competitions, absolutely. That as far as I'm concerned is the only issue here. The safety of both animals and human participants.

Animal research is a whole different endeavour where other factors play a major role. I've been continuing to read from the link you posted and this section is particularly indicative of some of the major differences:



> • Currently death and moribundity are legally acceptable endpoints in obligatory toxicity and safety tests, and pain and distress are not routinely treated in these studies.
> • Toxicology and safety evaluations are one of the main uses of primates in research.
> • Humane endpoints are defined as the earliest indicator of pain, distress or ensuing death.
> • Use of more humane endpoints allows animals to be treated and reduces the need for euthanasia.
> ...


No one who enters a roedo with their prized animals want that kind of a result or considers such outcome.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> No one who enters a roedo with their prized animals want that kind of a result or considers such outcome.


I've never argued that entertainment and research use of animals should be treated the *same*. Just that there ought to be a similar system mandating and overseeing the welfare of animals being used for either purpose.

Yes, lots of animals are killed for research. Just like we kill lots of animals to eat. When animals are killed for research, there are rules and oversight to ensure that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. Breach of these rules results in loss of research funding.

Accidental deaths of research animals is exceedingly rare, at least partially because the conditions under which lab animals are kept and used are so rigorously monitored.

I think the whole point of this discussion is that the chronic cases of 'accidental' death and injury of animals at the Stampede suggests that whatever standards and/or enforcement of animal welfare monitoring that is in place is inadequate. I proposed the model of animal welfare regulation in research because I know it works well. I'm open to other suggestions, but it does not seem to me that the current system is working very well at all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, who do you suppose is taking more abuse and is in greater danger here, the horse or the human?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I've never argued that entertainment and research use of animals should be treated the *same*. Just that there ought to be a similar system mandating and overseeing the welfare of animals being used for either purpose.
> 
> Yes, lots of animals are killed for research. Just like we kill lots of animals to eat. When animals are killed for research, there are rules and oversight to ensure that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. Breach of these rules results in loss of research funding.
> 
> ...


No system ever works 100%, 100% of the time. To answer the question of whether animals in rodeo competitions should be held to the same or higher standards than research animals, the answer is no.

Should the safety of rodeo competition be increased and monitored so both human and animal participants do not get killed, maimed or suffer needlessly? The answer is yes. If the levels of competition from year to year increase where the current safety regulations or guidelines are no longer effective, then there has to be a review and changes brought up to better standards.

I don't want to bring morality back into this discussion, but on a personal level, I see no difference from a moral or ethical perspective with either activity --be it scientific research or a rodeo competition. I do however have a different opinion on certain circus use of animals and some culturally specific uses where the abuse is highly pronounced and even expected.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> So, who do you suppose is taking more abuse and is in greater danger here, the horse or the human?


The human. How is that relevant?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> To answer the question of whether animals in rodeo competitions should be held to the same or higher standards than research animals, the answer is no.
> 
> Should the safety of rodeo competition *be increased and monitored* so both human and animal participants do not get killed, maimed or suffer needlessly? The answer is yes.


(my bold)

Okay, I think we're pretty close to agreement.

I personally see scientific research as making a far more valuable contribution to society than rodeos, which I see as a purely unnecessary entertainment. So I'd like to see more stringent animal welfare regulations enforced for rodeos than research, on the ethical grounds that rodeos are entirely frivolous uses of animals, so the "good" is much less, making any animal suffering that much less justified. But if we disagree on this, it is only in terms of magnitude, as we both agree that standards and monitoring of rodeos should be increased.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> (my bold)
> 
> Okay, I think we're pretty close to agreement.
> 
> I personally see scientific research as making a far more valuable contribution to society than rodeos, which I see as a purely unnecessary entertainment. So I'd like to see more stringent animal welfare regulations enforced for rodeos than research, on the ethical grounds that rodeos are entirely frivolous uses of animals, so the "good" is much less, making any animal suffering that much less justified. But if we disagree on this, it is only in terms of magnitude, as we both agree that standards and monitoring of rodeos should be increased.


The only point that we agree on is that in either activity the prevention of UNNECESSARY cruelty and/or suffering of the animal should be considered at all times. Comparing the two directly is comparing apples to oranges. Only similarity is that they're round.

From the beginning your contention that non scientific use of animals is frivolous and unnecessary sparked a lot of what appeared to you as ad hominem attacks. Science does not take precedence over every human activity. That elitist outlook is what caused the issue in the first place. We almost came full circle here...once again.

Rodeo organisers and those who oversee the safety and use of animals will more likely step in after this year's record number of incidents at the Stampede. I have no qualms about the current group/committees handling the issue themselves.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> From the beginning your contention that non scientific use of animals is frivolous and unnecessary sparked a lot of what appeared to you as ad hominem attacks. Science does not take precedence over every human activity. That elitist outlook is what caused the issue in the first place.


I never said any of that.

There seem to be a lot of people here arguing against their own imaginations.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I never said any of that.
> 
> There seem to be a lot of people here arguing against their own imaginations.




You just said it 30 minutes ago:



> *I personally see scientific research as making a far more valuable contribution to society than rodeos, which I see as a purely unnecessary entertainment. So I'd like to see more stringent animal welfare regulations enforced for rodeos than research, on the ethical grounds that rodeos are entirely frivolous uses of animals, so the "good" is much less, making any animal suffering that much less justified*.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> You just said it 30 minutes ago:


I said that I thought the rodeo was frivolous, not that all non-scientific use of animals was frivolous.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

^^^ 
Yes that is also what led me to believe that what you wanted was to see rodeos shut down. 

Making my question as to how you proposed to deal with honest to God bucking broncos very relevant indeed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> ^^^
> Yes that is also what led me to believe that what you wanted was to see rodeos shut down.


That is certainly not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is wether the existing efforts to ensure animal welfare at the Stampede and other rodeos is adequate. I think not.



> Making my question as to how you proposed to deal with honest to God bucking broncos very relevant indeed.


Well, as an off-topic tangent, in my idea of a perfect world, in which I readily admit most of what goes on at the Stampede would no longer occur (not because it was outlawed, but because there would be no market for it), horses that like to buck would be put out to pasture and allowed to buck to their heart's content for the rest of their natural lives. But they wouldn't likely be bred, because no one would be buying horses that bucked their riders off all the time.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I said that I thought the rodeo was frivolous, not that all non-scientific use of animals was frivolous.


Good grief man, the whole frigging discussion I've been having with you the whole morning is about rodeos and animal research. 

I'll reiterate my position, specifically targeting your question of whether rodeo use of animals should be treated to the same standards as research animals, and this I do for the last time:

The short answer is NO! (for reasons already given) However, if the current safety and animal usage guidelines/regulations/sops etc. are inadequate due to any increased levels of competition from previous years and/or there is/was an introduction of new technology or practices which contribute to increases in injuries, suffering or death of animal participants, then yes, review the current practices of these events --provided it is done by experts in the field and make the appropriate inclusions which will satisfy the issues.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Good grief man, the whole frigging discussion I've been having with you the whole morning is about rodeos and animal research.


Yes, and how you could have concluded from my contention that more stringent standards of animal care need to be applied to rodeos to the idea that I think all non-scientific uses of animals are frivolous is beyond me.



> if the current safety and animal usage guidelines/regulations/sops etc. are inadequate due to any increased levels of competition from previous years and/or there is/was an introduction of new technology or practices which contribute to increases in injuries, suffering or death of animal participants, then yes, review the current practices of these events --provided it is done by experts in the field and make the appropriate inclusions which will satisfy the issues.


Great, as I said when you posted this before, we're in agreement.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Yes, and how you could have concluded from my contention that more stringent standards of animal care need to be applied to rodeos to the idea that I think all non-scientific uses of animals are frivolous is beyond me.


I didn't conclude anything, since our discussion specifically referred only to rodeos, my use of the term "non-scientific" only referred to rodeos and nothing else, but I can see where the confusion might have occurred.




> Great, as I said when you posted this before, we're in agreement.


You mean to tell me that all those previous post were for not?

But, I still disagree with your position that the rodeo is frivolous and unnecessary.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> You mean to tell me that all those previous post were for not?


I don't think so. You made some good points, we refined our positions, and came to an agreement. I don't know about you, but that's something I consider both valuable and entertaining, unlike rodeos


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I don't think so. You made some good points, we refined our positions, and came to an agreement. I don't know about you, but that's something I consider both valuable and entertaining, unlike rodeos


Good. Glad you see it that way.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...Well, as an off-topic tangent, in my idea of a perfect world, in which I readily admit most of what goes on at the Stampede would no longer occur (not because it was outlawed, but because there would be no market for it), horses that like to buck would be put out to pasture and allowed to buck to their heart's content for the rest of their natural lives. But they wouldn't likely be bred, because no one would be buying horses that bucked their riders off all the time.


Ah the Ritalin approach. Still I guess there is no place for the truly spirited in this Brave New World you envision.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't see any need to irritate horses enough that they're in danger of breaking their backs to get rid of me in order to test my spirit. YMMV.


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

The Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth


----------

