Bronc busting: Allegations of cruelty to animals at this year's Grand National Rodeo

|
(78)
Tail twisting, poking, and possible prodding by a Hot Shot PowerMite were afoot at this month's Grand National Rodeo.
PHOTO COURTESY LGBT COMPASSION

When the Grand National Rodeo was in town Oct. 14-15 and 21-22, we wrote about the presence of animal rights advocates lofting signs in the parking lot of Cow Palace outside the vernerable event. But it turns out the activists got to catch the show too -- the Guardian has been sent videos from a local animal advocate that suggest that animals were in fact being mistreated at the event. The video shows a man prodding a bronco that's waiting to be ridden with a long, angular object. Broncs are also shown having their tail twisted and at one point, being touched with a black object by a cowboy that Andrew Zollman of animal rights group LGBT Compassion says the video is "clearly showing two instances of electric shocks administered to animals" -- and that's illegal.

But when contacted for comment Lindsay Branquinho, press liasion for the Grand National stuck by what she had told this reporter on the sidelines of the very event in the video.

"For these animals their quality of life far exceeds that of most. They are fed the highest quality feeds, given frequent regular medical attention (i.e., check-ups, vaccinations, etc). The amount of time, money, and love that is wrapped up in these animals is huge and the people that own them do all that they can to protect them. These animals are their livelihood, and they would not jeopardize that." She denied that the black object seen in the video was an electric prod, and said she'd get back to us about what it really was.

But Zollman wasn't surprised by the contents of the video at all. He says that abuse from the kinds of offenses he sees in it -- in addition to "painful caustic ointments" and stabbing, all which he says are violations of California's penal code section 597(b) which bars tormenting, needless suffering, and unnecessary cruelty towards animals with the exception of slaughter for food -- is endemic to all rodeos. He leads a campaign against the Golden State Gay Rodeo Association as well. A history of the Grand National Rodeo's past offenses can be found here

The official response from the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association was as follows (yawn): 

The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) is committed to the proper care and handling of all animals that participate in our sanctioned rodeos.  There are 60 rules governing the treatment of the livestock are enforced by on-site rodeo officials.  A veterinarian is in attendance at all rodeo competition.  In addition to the PRCA rules, we are aware that the Grand National has additional standards for livestock care. 

The PRCA and the management of the Grand National were contacted regarding videotapes taken by those who wish to ban many uses of animals, including rodeo.  The videotapes have been reviewed by officials at the Grand National, the PRCA  as well as experts on the care of livestock and upon initial review the overall opinion is that the livestock were properly handled in accordance with standard livestock practices and PRCA rules.  There were, however,  a few instances where the care and handling of the livestock was not up to Grand National standards.  In one case, a livestock handler’s actions did not meet Grand Nationals standards for livestock care and was dismissed from working the remainder of the show.  

 The PRCA will continue to work with local officials, rodeo judges, on-site rodeo veterinarians, rodeo livestock owners and our members to insure that the livestock at PRCA sanctioned events is afforded proper care and handling. 

Calls for comment from the SFPD Mounted Unit (who ride at the Grand National and were also forwarded Zollman's emails) and the Peninsula Humane Society, the organization who handles animal cruelty law enforcement for San Mateo County Animal Control, have so far gone unanswered. We'll update when they get back to us. 

But is tail twisting inexcusable abuse? Akin to a horseback rider's spurs? This reporter attended the rodeo and was standing quite close to the bronco pit as the above video was being taken -- the tail twisting seemed a little harmful, but it's hard to say with animals this large how much permanent damage that could cause to a 1,700 pound bull. Of course, some would say that any abuse to animals, regardless of severity, counts as cruelty. And the cattle roping -- in which calves are lassoed around the neck as they run at top speed through the ring and thrown to the ground -- definitely gave me pause. How much discomfort should animals have to endure to lead cushy lives (as doubtless the broncs' are, bred as they are for generations to be in top form for the events). 

Thoughts from the cowpokes?

 

Comments

Caitlin, on behalf of these abused animals, thank you so much for reporting on this. I hope it brings some much-needed attention to cruelty in rodeos as well as enforcement of and improvements to state laws.

Besides the small black Hot Shot brand "PowerMite" seen used in the linked video (then placed in the back right pocket of the man in the black hat, as seen in the video still), this video from October 14, 2011 shows a "Magrath Yellow Hot Shot" being used at 0:55 (which you can clearly see in the man's hand afterward): http://youtu.be/N-nMqMayjeo.

This same rodeo company (Flying U, owned by Cotton Rosser) was previously caught in 2008 using electric prods at Rowell Ranch Rodeo in Hayward, and was fined by the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD): http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000860. This clearly was not a deterrent. Unfortunately, it seems that the District Attorney did not charge them in that case. We hope that the San Mateo County D.A. does charge them for both counts of electric prod use, and the 7 instances of tail-twisting/pulling documented on video.

Posted by LGBTcompassion on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 8:45 am

How did they get video?
No Cameras are allowed in cow palace.
Hopefully Cow Palace presses charges against the photographer

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:08 am

F#ck Cow Palace.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:11 am

That's what's bothering you? Your morals guide you to hope people recording abuse get in trouble.

Posted by Genevieve on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

It's not illegal to take photographs. In fact, I commend the photographer(s) for documenting the cruelty and holding rodeos accountable.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 9:29 am

private and public places. That law can be upheld.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 10:23 am

This is my first time go to see at here and i am truly
pleassant to read all at single place.

Posted by water damage restoration on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

I am wondering how they got this film, there are no cameras allowed in cow palace.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:06 am

or worked on a ranch, as I have. Bulls routinely have their tales pulled, cows "poked" to get them moving and breaking a horse - well that would likely send many people over the metaphorical edge.

There's little-to-no understanding in this article on rodeo techniques and the relationship between rider, ropers and animals. And the agenda behind the groups involved in this manufactured "scandal" is very clear - it's total animal liberation including the banning of pet ownership and the enforcement of a vegan lifestyle for everyone.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:20 am

And let's consider that the ranching and violent murder of other animals so that we can eat them for pleasure is inherently screwed up and inhumane.

No one should be subjected to such immoral treatment.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:39 am

There is no way, without ranches, to supply the demand for meat. You're demanding that everyone live a vegan lifestyle and that raising animals for food be banned.

Just be clear and upfront about it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

make eating meat illegal. People that convinced that their narrow ideology is the only true one are responsible for most of the opporession that has ever occured.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

His statements are clear and he's not denying them: Eric Brooks wants to criminalize the eating of meat and then use the state to enforce a vegan lifestyle. Eric wants to see non-vegans sentenced and imprisoned.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

I don't seek to make eating meat illegal. (Although some time in the 22nd century, I imagine that animal slavery will indeed go the way of human slavery and in fact be made illegal.)

And this is about far more than ideology, it is about not harming others for mere pleasure.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:15 pm

That would not solve the problem. People would just rebel against the prohibition.

However, anyone who thinks deeply enough about the matter will come to realize that it is fundamentally immoral to harm other creatures simply to have fun or experience pleasure.

Hence, ranching and rodeos are immoral.

That was my point, and I seek only to convince people of that, not force them.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:10 pm

I oppose the herding and containment of animals, the genocide of insects and the tending of vegetable, fruit and grain plots. There is strong evidence that plants feel pain and as a sentient being I cannot be involved in slavery of other species for my own benefit. I get very weak at times because ethically I cannot eat anything which isn't left on the ground as a gift - I'm calorie-starved, but I feel this lifestyle choice is right for me. I also expend a great amount of energy trying to keep animals and insects from attacking and eating one another and occasionally I've had severe infections as well as suffered from diseases like mumps because I refuse to use vaccines to stop the natural life trajectory of innocent microbes - why is the life of a polio virus worth more than my mobility?

On Friday I ran around Golden Gate Park scaring the hawks away from the squirrels and rats - thus preventing a rodent genocide. The hawks didn't seem to appreciate my actions but I did leave a few tofu squares out for them (which they ignored) as an enticement. This can be quite exhausting and dispiriting and the animals don't seem to appreciate my hard work, but I feel the day is close when they will - when they understand we must share the earth and not try to consume each other to live.

I support Eric's position and wish I could bring everyone around to mine. Plants, insects and animals deserve entirely equal rights with humans and I long for the day when all species can share the earth without any one trying to eat one another.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 12:16 am

The point of radical ecological veganism, is to live a healthy life, while doing as little damage to the planet, and causing as little harm to other animals as possible. Simple.

Your little demeaning cartoon rant, is just that. And is incredibly juvenile, like all of the other crap that you so frequently spew all over these blogs.

Why don't you stick to territory you understand better, like claiming that poor people don't deserve to live in San Francisco, and that undocumented citizens should be thrown out of the country. At least then, what you are ranting about will follow some sort of twisted logic...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 2:53 am

I'm supporting your views - and your reaction is to scorn me?

There will come a time, and I feel it's soon, when the worldwide slavery of animals, insects and plants will end and we'll all learn to exist with one another without killing - without murder. If a mosquito can eat nectar, offered lovingly by the plant - then why cannot mammals learn to do the same thing?

I found out today I have a blood infection which was probably acquired after an angry hawk bit me when I pulled a still-living mouse from its beak in Golden Gate Park. I know the hawk was just living the wrongly-identified ways it had learned from its parents, but the rodent happily leapt into someone's picnic basket after I released it, and hopefully my attempt to unlearn those incorrect behavioral patterns will go some way towards ending rodent genocide all over the world.

Regardless - I'm going to nurse myself with warm water heated from the sun and occasionally sip sea water to give myself strength. I will not take an antibiotic and contribute to the genocide of microbes which currently goes on in the world - think good thoughts for me brother!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:35 pm

Look prick. No one is impressed by your junior high school mentality ideological equivalent of a fart joke. You're not making a point, you're just making a fucking idiot of yourself.

Now. Let's see how long it takes for you to give up addictively trying to get in the last word on this one eh?

Of course, you could always surprise everyone and actually get a life.

But then, you don't have the slightest idea what that would mean, do you?

Posted by Aragorn on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 1:39 am

You're posting at 1:45 AM on a Saturday and you feel you're in a position to lecture others as to "getting a life?"

LOL - turn the microscope inward.

Posted by Cutter on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

And I was referring to his mentality, not his time spent on the internet.

Posted by Aragorn on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 11:08 pm

"a loser with no friends who gets off on threatening people on message boards while using the name of a studly Lord of the Rings character." LOL - now that sounds like a person everyone would want to be friends with!

Hey - what level are you up to in D&D now? ;-)

Posted by Cutter on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

Specieism is disgusting...This is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. This person has no understanding of life on the planet. Imagining that a time will come when predatory animals will not seek prey for food will only occur when the predators are DEAD. It is their natural instinct of hawks to seek prey. Their bodies were DESIGNED to eat other animals, not tofu burgers!

What I find really irritating is that vegans want to turn everyone else into vegans and say it will save animal lives. No, it won't. Here's why. More land will need to be turned into farm land...when that happens MILLIONS of small animals and birds and other creatures are killed in the process or starve when their food supply is gone, or have no place in which to nest and reproduce. Total veganism would only stop farm animals from being bred and killed for food.

BUT, another issue is human health. Vegan mothers do not seem to be able to produce healthy children. At least recent studies indicate that some vegan mothers cannot even produce healthy breast milk for their babies. Other studies indicate that insufficient amounts of omega 3 are provided in the diets of vegans...so their children grow up to be less intelligent. Is this the plan? Turn humans into vegans and thus slowly eliminate humans from the earth???

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 9:50 am

Guest, your comments are simply inaccurate, and the first comment is even a logical absurdity, which for some reason nearly every person seeking to justify meat eating foolishly pounces upon.

First, the blatant reality that you are missing around agriculture, is that food animals have to be fed plants so that they can actually grow to later be eaten. And in fact, because animals burn energy constantly while they are alive, it takes -vastly- more land, energy, resources and water to raise plants for meat production, than it takes to simply grow vegan food plants to feed directly to humans instead. Because of this dynamic it takes multiple times more land, water, energy and resources to grow plants for a meat diet, than it does to grow plants for a vegan diet; thereby, of course, creating multiple times the environmental consequences and destruction. So your agriculture claim is clearly absurd.

On your health claim, you are simply completely wrong. There is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever to indicate that vegan mothers raise unhealthy children. Period. And in fact, there are huge amounts of study evidence indicating that vegans are far healthier than meat eaters.

I challenge you to post the link to any credible source for that specious argument.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 11:02 am

No links + regular babble = Eric Brooks at his best.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 11:36 pm

People should eat whatever they want. Problem?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 1:51 am

And it is.

Here are a couple of links that cover the information which you two slack jobs could have looked up on your own with a search engine, and which back up quite well what I am talking about, in great detail.

World Watch Institute - 'Is Meat Sustainable?' at:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

and

'UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet' at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 2:15 am

Much of that is known by most anyone who has looked into it.

But they don't care.

-matlock

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 4:02 pm

Most people who say that are either ignorant or psychopaths.

Farm animal feel pain and sadness. They love their children and go to great lengths to protect them, even in horrific farm conditions. Read this.

"A Bovine Sophie's Choice...

"I would like to tell you a story that is as true as it is heartbreaking. When I first graduated from Cornell’s School of Veterinary Medicine, I went into a busy dairy practice
in Cortland County. I became a very popular practitioner due to my gentle handling of the dairy cows. One of my clients called me one day with a puzzling mystery: his Brown Swiss cow, having delivered her fifth calf naturally on pasture the night before, brought the new baby to the barn and was put into the milking line, while her calf was once again removed from her. Her udder, though, was completely empty, and remained so for several days....."

"...Finally, on the eleventh day post calving, the farmer called me with the solution: he had followed the cow out to her pasture after her morning milking, and discovered the cause: she had delivered twins, and in a bovine’s “Sophie’s Choice,” she had brought one to the farmer and kept one hidden in the woods at the edge of her pasture, so that every day and every night, she stayed with her baby — the first she had been able to nurture FINALLY—and her calf nursed her dry with gusto. Though I pleaded for the farmer to keep her and her bull calf together, she lost this baby, too—off to the hell of the veal crate."

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-bovine.html

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:25 am

Don't you think you should be clear and upfront about what you want? You're demanding that animal abuse be accepted because you don't want to stop eating animals. Just be clear and up front about it.

Posted by Genevieve on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

As a bow-hunter I regularly shoot deer in the head and then eat them after - sometimes for up to a year if I can have them butchered quickly enough and their meat frozen. There's no suffering - a buck dies in 1/10 of a second after my arrow hits their head. He dies for my subsistence - such is the way of the hunter.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:41 pm

What a crock!

Study after study show a crippling loss of better than 50% with bow hunters, surely one of the more brutal and ineffective ways to kill an animal. Most bow-show animals suffer a lingering death of blood loss, shock and/or gangrene. When's the last time you saw a native American use bow and arrows? High-powered rifles with scopes are FAR more effective and humane. I seriously doubt that you or anyone else could guarantee a "head shot" with any consistency.

Bow hunting should be outlawed nationwide.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

Bow hunters should feel what it's like.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

And let's consider that the ranching and violent murder of other animals so that we can eat them for pleasure is inherently screwed up and inhumane.

No one should be subjected to such immoral treatment.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:43 am

Or just killing animals for food? Aren't both variants of "pleasure?"

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

My opinion is that we should phase out keeping animals very gradually over time. (However mild, it is a form of slavery.)

I suggest we first institute adopt-only animal companion laws, so that we are not breeding them anymore and only rescuing them from shelters.

Over many decades (as stray problems thereby largely disappear) this could lead to a very gradual phasing out of keeping animals as 'pets'.

This is important not only because of morality, but also because keeping animals simply to have them as companions, has a huge and unnecessary negative impact on the environment.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:25 pm

Because dogs and horses as they exist today have evolved in co-dependent relationships with humans - as have many other animals. For example - there is no separating dogs from human companionship - they are as intrinsic to us as we are to them.

You are the complete antithesis of radical environmentalism as constructed by the founders of the movement, people like Dave Foreman and Edward Abbey - who were hunters and who considered eating animals to be entirely acceptable amongst humans. Your lack of knowledge of the radical environmental movement, and especially deep ecology, is shocking considering how learned you consider yourself on almost every issue.

More and more you unmask yourself as the complete opposite of every single thing which you claim to profess.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

I grew up in the mountains actually, and know nature like the back of my hand.

I have spent my entire adult life digging deeply into environmental and ecological analysis.

And I assure you, I have also studied and understand evolution quite thoroughly.

Evolution has led to the modern cow, chicken, pig, etc, bred to live miserable unhealthy lives on factory farms. Does the fact that this was a result of co-evolution with humans make such farming right? Or environmentally wise?

For that matter - everything that life -does- is a result of evolution.

So, because modern war is a result of evolution, does that somehow make it ok, or smart, for us to engage in it? Something we should simply continue because it is 'natural' to human evolution?

As to deep ecologists, most of them are proposing human behaviors that cannot possibly be scaled to the 7 billion people who live on this planet, and that therefore would wipe out the entire living world in a decade if we all tried to live that way. Highly intensive permaculture and biodynamic agriculture are now the only way for us to escape the progress trap we have gotten ourselves into.

On animal companions; however symbiotic, even the relationship between human and companion is unfair, essentially amounts to slavery, and furthermore is an unnecessary burden to the biosphere that we must phase out over time because we are already impacting the planet so heavily that every high impact life choice that we make which is not -necessary- has got to go.

Along those lines there is also a huge environmental need for veganism. When we were far smaller in number and our tools of death were far less effective, there may have been a time in which hunting and fishing were appropriate to our way of life.

But now we are far too powerful and numerous for all of us to be eating at the top of the food chain with hunting, fishing and farming techniques that are so overly powerful that they are rapidly destroying life on Earth. Because of the state of this planet, we now need to all eat as low on the food chain as we possibly can, in order to make it possible to save our world.

For example: Any person who becomes a vegan, in doing so, cuts his or her greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20%. (And reduces other environmental impacts of his or her diet by between 10 to 20% as well.)

This stuff is reality. And based in -real- science. Unlike your bogus anti-civ bullshit.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 2:37 am

Cowboys need to get their tails twisted and see how it feels.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:15 am

I am sorry if working on a ranch made you insensitive to bad treatment of animals. And total animal liberation would not be necessary if we didn't breed animals for profit, including entertainment.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

It's one thing to prod and twist a cows tail when working or living on a farm or ranch. I live on a farm myself and yes gettin cattle up an moving thats fine, but that is using the animal for meat and income....doing it for peoples entertainment is wrong and unethical. There is no real need for it to make a show out of it.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 23, 2012 @ 6:08 am

This is terribly unfair to the animals. They are utterly innocent and totally defenseless. Putting another being in a defenseless position and then abusing him/her is morally repugnant. This is illegal activity. The laws must be enforced.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's that simple.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 11:42 am

Doing what people have been doing since we climbed down from the trees?

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

What? What does eating bananas have to do with what we're talking about? You see we're talking about animal abuse, not bonobo humans climbing out of trees.

Posted by Genevieve on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

No they are not defenseless ! They are able to kick and bite.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

You'd kick and bite too if they were doing those things to you. Too bad the animals are put in a position where they really can't defend themselves.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:06 am

So it's okay to abuse others if they're able to kick and bite?

Posted by Genevieve on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 8:39 pm

Humans don't have tails so it's hard for us to imagine the pain. The tail has the end of the spinal cord. Of course it's outrageously painful. Want more proof? The reason why tails are twisted is because of the immense pain it causes. If it didn't hurt, no one would twist tails to get compliance.

Why is it when whistle blowers want the laws enforced, some people respond with "how did you smuggle cameras"? Would these same people be upset if a camera was smuggled into a child or elder day care to help guard against child or elder abuse? What's the difference?

Is it a vegan conspiracy to have rodeos obey California laws? That's a weird theory.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 28, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

There was a video today on facebook from "***WORST ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE*** Conklin Dairy Farms" that showed living cows being dropped still alive from a construction backhoe loader into a giant meat grinder and being slowly ground up while thrashing a screaming which was so horrific it changed my life. It was apparently from Malaysia, from a meat factory that contracted with McDonalds, if I recall correctly.

Someone reported it and the entire facebook page was taken down. I wish i had saved the video. It was REAL and SHOCKING. I had no idea someone would do such a thing.

here is the link...

https://www.facebook.com/OhioFarmCruelty

(another reason to distrust facebook by the way for taking that important page down)

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 12:31 am

The video showing cows going into a meat grinder was showing dead cows, with other cows bawling in the background of the facilkity...and it is obvious that the meat being ground up was NOT for human food. Since this video was shot in another country and I do not understand their language, it is unclear whether this ground up cow was going to be used for animal food or was going to be sent to a land fill...perhaps the cows died of some disease. This video is not of an Ohio Farm.

By the way, the actual Ohio Farm video was filmed under very suspicious circumstances. Here's why...

A mentally handicapped farm worker (a new hire) is shown taking a pitchfork and "sticking" cows with it, he is also shown beating calves. Then he comes toward the camera and states he "did a good job."

Since Ohio has many large farms, and on each large farm there are several barns with cows in them, and during the day the farm workers milk the cows and provide food and water....SO...how is it that on X day, on X farm, in X barn, at X time, a videographer just HAPPENS to be present when a farm worker is apparently abusing animals???? Well, when you look at the whole matter, and at the response of the worker, it is clear that this video event was STAGED!

Finding a mentally incapacitated person, paying him to go work on a farm, paying him to abuse the animals for a film, well, that works if you want to show abuse.

Most farm workers do their jobs and move on, they don't spend extra time abusing animals...that makes no sense as it takes time and energy.

Then you have the Australian case where the animal rights radicals went to Indonesia where the cattle and sheep from Australia were sent to be slaughtered. And the animal rights radicals returned to Australia and presented to authorities videos of terrible abuses. Further investigation on the part of Australian authorities revealed that the Indonesian slaughter house workers had been PAID to perform abusive behaviors on the farm animals.

Looks to me like the animal rights radicals are not content to show actual events, but go to great lengths to provide fraudulent videos of abuse so that they can prove their point. This does not indicate an honest approach to animal issues or to animal welfare, but does indicate some kind of character fault, along the line of...the ends justify the means.

In a civilized society we cannot make laws and regulations based on fraud and lies...we need to base laws and regulations on scientific fact.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2011 @ 10:17 am