“The greatest deterrent
to freedom are men and women of zeal, well-meaning, but
without knowledge or understanding.”
~Justice Louis Brandeis~

"People are so quick to defend their own agendas, but they so often fail to realize we must protect the rights of all if we are to continue to have any rights of our own."
~Jenqu~

Ranch meaning, in general, any real world dwelling probably not involving full care board. Kind of a rural voice of real horse owners, trainers, traders, auction owners, rodeo contractors, etc.. all of us who have taken a verbal beating and called greedy ass hats. Back at the Ranch contributors, moderators, subjects, and so on, are pro-horse, pro-owner, and pro-slaughter.
Back at the Ranch was formed by a group of like minded horse / livestock owners. It is a place for us to try to educate, a place to vent our frustrations with the current equine industry, a place to share humor and snark, and in general try to open the eyes of the public who seem to be anti-agriculture.We do have a section for comments of course, and if you would like to email us you can do so directly or through the contact us form. We like to hear from our readers. I hope you enjoy reading our blog as much as I enjoy managing it.
Sincerely,
Ranch Manager
manager_back_at_the_ranch@yahoo.com

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Happy Holidays Fugly and Friends

First off I want to apologize for the time we have taken off from the blog. It doesn't mean we have lost interest in horse welfare. Far from it. We are all busy during the Holidays but especially during the winter months. Livestock care takes a bit more time in these cold months!

I hope everyone had a great Christmas and will have the best New Year.

Here is a post I found on a horse forum that I liked enough to post here. Permission to cross post was given :)

Happy Holidays from all of us Back at the Ranch !!



For months now fugly has censored my comments. She doesn't not fear the backyard breeder because they are uneducated, childish, and easily angered. But she fears more than anything is an intelligent conversation. Those of you who agree should cross post this.

What I said to fugly today:

What happens to the horses who don't have homes? What happens to all those fifty dollar horses? What happens when rescues are overwhelmed? When animal control can't place them? Where do they go?
The number of these cases seems to be on the rise. Yet despite this fact, no one is talking about why hoarders have so many more horses than they can afford. Everyone must assume its the economy. It's an easy scape goat, what do you think will happen when the economy does improve? Will the price of horses really go up. Will there be more hoarders or fewer? Why?
What is the base value of a horse these days? This is a trick question, because their isn't one. When websites like dream horse has added a desk top link to "free horses" isn't that saying something?
Fugly believes with faith reserved on to the fanatic that ending slaughter would improve the lives of horses. I don't which is why I'd be shocked if you ever see this. (I have posted many times and every comment censored ) But I don't write this for all eyes, I write this to the coward who runs the fugly blog.
Wake up fugly. You scream and throw temper tantrums about how "tired" this makes you. This is only the beginning. As the economy its going to get worse. Set your jaw, let that voice scream "you're wrong!" But ask yourself this, what happens when people have more money? What happens who people feel more secure and you can still buy a horse for fifty-bucks? Do you really thing fewer people will buy these horses?
"But when the economy improves so will the price of horses?"
I ask you why is that? Think about it. Will a better economy really increase the number of knowledgeable homes to provide for these horses? How's your war against back yard breeders going? Has there been a measurable drop in equine births since you started this one man war? Or have the numbers risen because everybody can afford to buy a horse?
What of these fifty dead horses? How many months did they suffer? How long did it take them to die?
Starvation
Starvation results from the inadequate intake of nutrients or the inability to metabolize or absorb nutrients. It consists of three phases. The events of the first two phases occur even during relatively short periods of fasting, but the third phase occurs only in prolonged starvation and can end in death.
During the first phase of starvation, blood glucose levels are maintained through the production of glucose from glycogen, proteins, and fats. At first glycogen is broken down into glucose. However, only enough glycogen is stored in the liver to last a few hours. Thereafter, blood glucose levels are maintained by the breakdown of proteins and fats. Fats are decomposed into fatty acids and glycerol. Fatty acids can be used as a source of energy, especially by skeletal muscle, thus decreasing the use of glucose by tissues other than the brain. Glycerol can be used to make a small amount of glucose, but most of the glucose is formed from the amino acids of proteins. In addition, some amino acids can be used directly for energy.
In the second stage, which can last for several weeks, fats are the primary energy source. The liver metabolizes fatty acids into ketone bodies that can be used as a source of energy. After about a week of fasting, the brain begins to use ketone bodies, as well as glucose, for energy. This usage decrease the demand for glucose, and the rate of protein breakdown diminishes but does not stop. In addition, the proteins not essential for survival are used first.
The third stage of starvation begins when the fat reserves are depleted and there is a switch to proteins as the major energy source. Muscles, the largest source of protein in the body, are rapidly depleted. At the end of this stage, proteins, essential for cellular functions are broken down, and cell function degenerates.
In addition to weigh loss, symptoms of starvation include apathy, listlessness, withdrawal, and increased susceptibility to infectious disease. Few creatures die directly from starvation-they usually die of some infectious disease first. Atrophy (wasting away) of the stomach weakens the perception of hunger, since the perception is controlled by the percentage of the stomach that is empty. Victims of starvation are often too weak to sense thirst, and therefore become dehydrated.
All movements become painful due to atrophy of the muscles, and due to dry, cracked skin caused by severe dehydration. With a weakened body, diseases are commonplace. Fungi, for example, often grow under the esophagus, making swallowing unbearably painful.
The energy deficiency inherent in starvation causes fatigue and renders the victim more apathetic over time. As the starving horse becomes too weak to move or even eat, his or her interaction with the surroundings diminishes.Foods high in bulk but low in protein content often cannot reverse the process of starvation, thus hay (assuming the horse can eat) is not an adequate food source for horses once starvation has begun.
The second stage of starvation can be prolonged indefinitely, but once the third stage is reached, horses can suffer up to fifty days before dying.
Do you still deny that this is happening to more horses? On a larger scale than previously? The economy is your excuse but its theirs too and don't they use it to effectively, retaining horses longer because the "economy did it."
What happens when you can't blame the economy.
Must we bring back slaughter? No. Not if someone mounts a campaign among the rescues with an effective euthanization program. And we're not talking ten horses, or twenty. Approximately one hundred thousand a year. Such a program will force the price of low end horses back up to six or seven hundred dollars. I fear the day when horses were worth 1000 just because they're a horse is over. But the low end market needs shoring up because it protects horses from danger. Sure there will always be hoarders. It cannot be stopped, but it can be mitigated. For this to happen you either need a massive ethanization program, or a massive "catch and release" where tens of thousands of horses are bought then gelded or spayed, and resold into the general population- rescue horses regardless of quality are spayed and neutered. Obviously these animals will not be desirable to breeders, but that alone will drive the price of breeding stock up and out of reach for many to most back yard breeders. The result will be volatile as back yard breeders scream for their rights.
Of course this solution isn't good for people addicted to the high of "rescuing." Instead it would have to be someone who really cares about horses. Who here really cares about horses? Who here really wants to end the suffering? Who here can step up to the plate?
The way I see it Fugly is in a unique position to actually change things better for horses. Instead she is weak, concerned only with the high of making fun, the feel good of rescue, and indignation of being "tired of this expletive." But she is not about solution. She is about rhetoric.
Her rhetoric did not help these horses. Oh many of you will step in to "help" now, but that's after fifty died. And there are so many cases out there- I know her mailbox is full- that the suffering of one is forgotten because the hundred is better news, will get more outrage, and ultimately fugly more attention.
What scares you so much about my words fugly?
Written By -
http://forums.delphiforums.com/dreamhorse/messages?msg=118890.1