Animal rights wackos run rampant

[Melanie_]

There is a difference between exposing kids to life and death and kids being involved in making live-or-die decisions. I see nothing wrong with learning about life through pets in school, which is the situation you describe. However, that's different from asking a six/seven/eight year old 'should we kill the lamb to get some baby pigs.' Bottom line --I wouldn't want my children voting on something they couldn't comprehend. There's really no "learning" value in that.

I think part of my acceptance of this is that I was raised on a farm. I was told many times that the animals weren't pets, they were our food, and I knew that the chicken on the table tonight had been running around the barnyard earlier that morning. I may even have caught it and brought it over to the ax. This probably accounts for my more pragmatic view on sending an animal to slaughter. I can see your perspective, though, as it would be harder for a child to understand their decision without that context.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Melanie_

[Wilber]

This is something a farm kid learns at an early age. Why should other kids be insulated when it comes to the reality of where their food comes from? If they were, maybe more of them would become vegetarians or vegans, whatever that is.

[M.Dancer]

This is something a farm kid learns at an early age. Why should other kids be insulated when it comes to the reality of where their food comes from? If they were, maybe more of them would become vegetarians or vegans, whatever that is.

I grew up a couple of blocks from a poulty abatoir. When we went to the park to play we walked right by it. There was always something to play with there especially in winter, playing hockey with frozen chicken heads or feet. Once a chicken fell off the conveyor, headless. It was all we could talk about for a week, how it ran in circles looking for its head....

Ah precious childhood memories...

[Tawasakm]

American Woman,

I would like to think I am pragmatic about this. I have had opporunity over my life to vist many farms and be exposed to the families living on them (never lived on one myself though). I have never observed even one child to be traumatised in any way, shape or form with the slaughter of livestock. They are often actively involved in the process. My Mum, as a child, used to help her dad pluck the chickens. She thought it was fun to pull the tendons on the legs and make the feet move. I would even go so far as to say that I percieve farm kids as being better balanced, more self reliant and less likely to be swayed by peer pressure. I can not see any harm in giving city kids some of that same exposure to reality. Piaget and others may have a point when they talk about reactions to human death - friends, family and probably even to beloved pets. There is a distinction between that and livestock.

I realise you are going to refer to this as simply being my belief.

Mind you I have seen little from you that is better than something that amounts to, "I am right because this is what the well educated experts say but despite my own deep research into the topic I will provide no evidence and merely assert this is the case."

You may think my argument is weak since I am making it based on my own simple observation but you are doing absolutely nothing to provide any real contradiction. Perhaps you should knuckle down a little. Either that or accept that your argument as it stands is actually only as weak or strong as mine - your perceived reality without any real back up.

[Alta4ever]

The reason they aren't able to grasp the concept of the finality of death is because of their brain development, not because haven't had it explained or haven't been exposed to it.

Really is this so, then why at age seven did I understand what the death of my grandfather ment? You give children too little credit. How and where food comes from is a very important understanding that should be taught at a young age rather then feeding ignorance. Everyone should be taught from a very young were food comes form, how society is fed and what that invovles.

Its not like these kids where taken to the slaughter house to see first hand, to be traumitized by a mass slaughter machine.

[Alta4ever]

But it makes it wrong, doesn't it? And that's what's at issue here, not whether they do it or not.

So is it wrong to take a child out fishing? Same activity just different equipment.

[M.Dancer]

So is it wrong to take a child out fishing? Same activity just different equipment.

Must be terribly wrong to take your kids to visit their grandmother....before and after she died.

[GostHacked]

They might be grasping the concept of mint jelly with their chops a bit better...everything else, including understanding the finality of death, is gravy.

They are learning nothing new that a farm raised child learns at the same age.

This is actually a very good point. Anyone growing up on a farm with stock animals knows about death and which animals are going to slaughter So maybe the schoolkids can understand what it takes to get food to the table. There is a huge disconnect in large cities when it comes to this. I would encourage everyone to work on a farm for some time to understand death as well. Because even as adults some of us don't quite comprehend it.

In the end farming is a costly business and if selling the lamb gets new potential diversified income, then you do it. Give up the lamb for some pork. Pork sells pretty good in many places.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok so it's illegal but it doesn't change the fact that they do it.

quote= American woman: But it makes it wrong, doesn't it? And that's what's at issue here, not whether they do it or not.

Ask one of the kids who go hunting whether it's wrong and they'll think your nuts, ask anyone in my town if it's wrong and they won't care, even the cops.

If kids think I'm nuts for asking if doing something illegal is wrong, then they aren't being taught/raised correctly. As for everyone in your town thinking it's not wrong to do something illegal, then there's something wrong with the town's thinking. As for "even the cops," makes me really wonder about your town. You are all teaching the kids of your town some real good values* if they are being taught that it's not wrong to break the law.

*that's sarcasm, in case it's escaped you.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: But it makes it wrong, doesn't it? And that's what's at issue here, not whether they do it or not.

So is it wrong to take a child out fishing? Same activity just different equipment.

Is it illegal to take your child fishing? Because if it is, then it's wrong. You really don't get that? You really don't understand that doing something illegal is wrong?

[Guest American Woman]

I think part of my acceptance of this is that I was raised on a farm. I was told many times that the animals weren't pets, they were our food, and I knew that the chicken on the table tonight had been running around the barnyard earlier that morning. I may even have caught it and brought it over to the ax. This probably accounts for my more pragmatic view on sending an animal to slaughter. I can see your perspective, though, as it would be harder for a child to understand their decision without that context.

I appreciate what you're saying. I understand that children raised on a farm are exposed from day one to the idea that animals are raised for food, so they most often accept that. They may not even comprehend it completely, but they accept it. It's a way of life. Kids don't always understand everything in their day to day life, but they accept it. You say you were told "many times" that the animals were not pets, and I'm assuming you were told this from the day you were old enough to understand it, so I'm also assuming you never developed an attachment for them, as one can to a pet. You don't say if you bottle fed any of them, but even if you had, from what you said you realized they weren't your pets, and you realized that from experience -- so the issue of the finality of death was never an issue to you because it's just the way it was; it wasn't something that you really gave any thought to, but rather just accepted it.

But being raised with it is different from what the kids in this situation were exposed to, and because of that, I still say that I understand the objection and would have objected myself. Whether or not kids learn where food comes from is not the issue any more than whether or not kids learn about sex would be an issue; it's whether it's 'age appropriate' from a learning standpoint that's the issue.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman,

I would like to think I am pragmatic about this. I have had opporunity over my life to vist many farms and be exposed to the families living on them (never lived on one myself though). I have never observed even one child to be traumatised in any way, shape or form with the slaughter of livestock. They are often actively involved in the process. My Mum, as a child, used to help her dad pluck the chickens. She thought it was fun to pull the tendons on the legs and make the feet move. I would even go so far as to say that I percieve farm kids as being better balanced, more self reliant and less likely to be swayed by peer pressure. I can not see any harm in giving city kids some of that same exposure to reality. Piaget and others may have a point when they talk about reactions to human death - friends, family and probably even to beloved pets. There is a distinction between that and livestock.

Unless one actually lives on a farm, and has learned to make the distinction from day one by experience (ie: day to day life), it's not so easy to make the distinction between the death of beloved pets and livestock at 6/7/8 years old. This is a lamb that the kids helped bottle feed. There weren't flocks/herds of animals around, so this lamb was singularly special. This lamb was named. I don't know of farmers who name all of their livestock. If the teachers involved in this project wanted to teach children to distinguish between livestock and pets, they shouldn't have let them give him a name. That should have been lesson #1.

I realise you are going to refer to this as simply being my belief.

Mind you I have seen little from you that is better than something that amounts to, "I am right because this is what the well educated experts say but despite my own deep research into the topic I will provide no evidence and merely assert this is the case."

It is your belief. As for what the educated experts say, I said I'm not going to take the time to find all that I've learned over a period of time to post online for people who are going to dismiss it out of hand anyway. If people are truly interested, they will take the time to find some information themselves. It's not difficult to do and I have done it regarding many topics on this board. I don't expect people to do my homework for me unless I can't find any information in regards to a claim they are making. Generally if people aren't interested enough to put some effort into finding information themselves, then they are going to simply dismiss any information that I've taken my good time to find and post. I've noticed that everyone has ignored the information that Melanie posted/linked to,.

You may think my argument is weak since I am making it based on my own simple observation but you are doing absolutely nothing to provide any real contradiction. Perhaps you should knuckle down a little. Either that or accept that your argument as it stands is actually only as weak or strong as mine - your perceived reality without any real back up.

You may claim that I don't have any "real" back up, since you simply dismiss the information I did post, and as you ignore the information that Melanie posted, but you don't have any back up at all.

Edited September 17, 2009 by American Woman

[Alta4ever]

Is it illegal to take your child fishing? Because if it is, then it's wrong. You really don't get that? You really don't understand that doing something illegal is wrong?

It is not illegal to take your child hunting.

[M.Dancer]

It is not illegal to take your child hunting.

Nor is it illegal to let a child decide if a lamb should go to slaughter...is there a good reason for this obtuse deviation?

[Alta4ever]

Its fishing something morbid that you should protect your children from. You are fighting and pulling it out of its habitat torturing it as it fights you on the end of a hook, to either be suffocated or clubbed when you get it in the boat until it stops thrashing.

[Alta4ever]

Nor is it illegal to let a child decide if a lamb should go to slaughter...is there a good reason for this obtuse deviation?

replies to statments earlier in the thread.

[Guest American Woman]

It is not illegal to take your child hunting.

According to the web site I found regarding hunting licenses in BC, and confirmation by TrueMetis, it's illegal for an 8 year old to hunt.

[Alta4ever]

According to the web site I found regarding hunting licenses in BC, and confirmation by TrueMetis, it's illegal for an 8 year old to hunt.

Do I live in BC?

[GostHacked]

Its fishing something morbid that you should protect your children from. You are fighting and pulling it out of its habitat torturing it as it fights you on the end of a hook, to either be suffocated or clubbed when you get it in the boat until it stops thrashing.

Whenever my dad and I went fishing, I knew were were going to try to catch something for dinner. That 6 lb pickrel my dad threw over the side of the boat and forgot to clasp the hook closed, dad was not happy and spent the next hour trolling that area. We never picked it up again. That would have been tasty.

I loved sitting on the dock of my grandparents cottage sippin a beer with my line in the water. Fishing does not even need to include catching any fish. I had the beer, sun and the water lapping at the shore.

Grampa - 'So sonny, what did you catch today?!?'

Me - 'Nothing but a nice tan'.

[Guest American Woman]

Do I live in BC?

Do I care? The post I was responding to, the one that you then responded to, was in regards to 8 year olds legally hunting in BC.

[Alta4ever]

Do I care? The post I was responding to, the one that you then responded to, was in regards to 8 year olds legally hunting in BC.

BTW the BC code says that a person under 10 cannot obtain a hunting license, it does not state that they cannot tag along while a parent is hunting.

[GostHacked]

Do I live in BC?

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/2C...L02_168421.html

In Ontario the age in which you can use a firearm is 16. Not sure about actual hunting, but I will assume it is 16 in ontario.

[Guest American Woman]

BTW the BC code says that a person under 10 cannot obtain a hunting license, it does not state that they cannot tag along while a parent is hunting.

And the post I was responding to was in regards to an 8 year old doing the hunting, making that bit of information totally irrelevant.

[M.Dancer]

And the post I was responding to was in regards to an 8 year old doing the hunting, making that bit of information totally irrelevant.

That's okay, the kids in England weren't actually butchering the lamb, making this whole pointless nattering diversion totally irrelevant as well.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/2C...L02_168421.html

In Ontario the age in which you can use a firearm is 16. Not sure about actual hunting, but I will assume it is 16 in ontario.

They are free to strangle the rabbits with their bare hands at any age..