Good Craigs List Add!!

[tailwagging]

I can't respect anyone who uses deception to strengthen their agenda no matter how nice their campaign may look.

I can respect someone who got results on a problem issue when no one else was doing much of anything about it. If you are incapable of recognizing the good that your opponent is doing you will never be able to compromise on the areas where there are disagreements.


Oh, and I only mentioned the RHD vac when someone asked "vaccines for rabbits?" Not normal, but more prevalent in large scale commercial rabbitries. Pretty much large scale commercial any species requires some type of vaccination.

Not when the "opponent" is using deception to win. and no I will not compromise, why should I? I am not in the wrong.

why do you think that "other breeders" are not addressing the problem of impulse buys?
lets point out that if we weren't so brainwashed that rabbits are ONLY pets there would be no abuse after they "got tried" of the buy. there would be a dinner. I can have a pet chicken but it doesn't make chickens pets.

sorry I don't mean to be lashie but I have seen too many AR stunts and will not fall for their gooshy goo honey dripping laced with poison.

I bet they would praise someone who "adopted" a pet bunny this time of year.

 

[phillinley]

why do you think that "other breeders" are not addressing the problem of impulse buys?
lets point out that if we weren't so brainwashed that rabbits are ONLY pets there would be no abuse after they "got tried" of the buy. there would be a dinner. I can have a pet chicken but it doesn't make chickens pets.

Because they collectively don't much give a damn, that's why other breeders had not put up a campaign. I'm talking specifically impulse buyers of rabbits on easter who throw them out or neglect them once they understand how hard it is to actually raise a rabbit. It is and was a big issue, and if breeders in general had taken up the cause long ago, you wouldn't have as many friggin crazies out there. So I'm not saying you need to agree with them on all things. But the fact that there are less non-agriculture people impulse buying rabbits as pets on easter is an overall good thing independent of how it was brought about.

Before the HRS and HSUS even existed people bought pet rabbits, and even then many would never see a rabbit as a meal.

I like the chicken comment. Cultural norms are very important on these distinctions. Dogs are the opposite in this country. You can have a dog as a meal but that doesn't make dogs food. Well with rabbits, they are the contradiction to the phrase. You can have a pet rabbit or a meat rabbit and it's not contradictory. If you think otherwise, then you're ignorant to the other side of the issue entirely. That's for both sides of the debate. I see it in the other forums all the time. Feed the zoo animals chicken or cow, but not rabbit that's terrible anyone would consider it food. Damn half-wits.

 

[MamaSheepdog]

I have to wonder how many rabbits are actually "abused and neglected" after purchase, and how widespread it actually is to "dump" them after a couple of months. I haven't seen any huge increase in people trying to rehome rabbits on CL after Easter in our area.

As for abuse and neglect, I believe the AR people have their propaganda geared so that if a rabbit spends its life in a cage and doesn't get out to romp and play they are considered "abused"... in which case, all of my rabbits are.

I bought my kids a broken blue mini Rex AND chicks one year for Easter. We named the rabbit Jewel, and she was a cherished pet for the years we had her. I think it is a shame that all prospective buyers of rabbits at Easter are lumped into the category of irresponsible impulse buyers.

 

[tailwagging]

The main reason I object to praising them in any way shape or form is that it gives the "crazies" an illusion of credibility.
there would be crazies no matter what breeders do/did/didn't. you can't throw that on us.

 

[phillinley]

The main reason I object to praising them in any way shape or form is that it gives the "crazies" an illusion of credibility.
there would be crazies no matter what breeders do/did/didn't. you can't throw that on us.

Yes I damn well can. I'm actually going to talk to some ARBA board members about this. In some ways it is too little too late. But when the largest rabbit group in the country essentially ignored the issue of rabbits as pets and education to proper care 'as pets', then you leave the door open for the crazies to be advocates for it. If the organization that should have been running it in the first place had been more proactive about pet care as much as they were about meat, fur and show, they would have a stronger base of level-headed pet owners. But when only one side is trying to do education, average pet owners only hear that side. So it's no surprise that the house rabbit society has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade and the ARBA and the idea of rabbits as stock animals is an afterthought in the minds of pet owners.

 

[tailwagging]

so now it is ARBA's fault? that buyer doesn't do research in to care? that their are crazies? that people see rabbits as pet only?
there is a very nice FAQ page and articles on their sit as well and their mag if one joins. you can lead a horse to water.....

 

[phillinley]

so now it is ARBA's fault? that buyer doesn't do research in to care? that their are crazies? that people see rabbits as pet only?
there is a very nice FAQ page and articles on their sit as well and their mag if one joins. you can lead a horse to water.....

Again with the excellent phrase at the end. They aren't leading anyone anywhere. If you find them great. But having a faq on their site and having information for members is not advocacy and education for the general public about pet ownership. Efforts to educate before HRS came about would have made great strides for overall rabbit understanding. It won't eliminate the crazy, but it gives two public sides to the issue. There is one side to the issue now. If a crazy person is preaching in the middle of town and no one argues with him, don't be shocked when other people start following him and don't see your point of view.

And I'm not calling all HRS people crazies. Expecting everyone to assume your belief system by force are the crazies I'm speaking of.

 

[DonnerSurvivor]

The last thing I want is the ARBA to be taken over by people with "pet" rabbits. The Sierra club recently came out against trapping animals even if the animal is a invasive species threatening a native species or habitat, This is just one example of how a group can slowly be taken over by ARA and be completely changed.

 

[tailwagging]

I tell you the truth ARBA is already beginning to go "pet"
They had a write up that basically told us not to worry about USDA's APHIS changes to the definition of "retail petshop" and to "just get usda"

 

[phillinley]

The last thing I want is the ARBA to be taken over by people with "pet" rabbits. The Sierra club recently came out against trapping animals even if the animal is a invasive species threatening a native species or habitat, This is just one example of how a group can slowly be taken over by ARA and be completely changed.

Like I said, it's probably too late to even do it now. But having a visible presence to the general public before would have curtailed a lot of the problems we currently have. Being advocates for ethical pet ownership and diversity of rabbits does not invite people to come in and subvert the organization. They can do that now if they wanted to. The ARBA is open to anyone. If HRS thought that ARBA was a true threat to what they want to accomplish and had half a brain, they could set up campaigns to get people to join the arba and vote in leadership that was pet friendly only. If I was a complete jerkoff like some of those militants are I would have done exactly that. So that's a mute point when it comes to the ARBA being more visible publicly. It's not like other organizations where you have to fit some criteria to get in.

 

[tailwagging]

and by who ethics would they be advocating?
are you saying that you want them to make statements that can be twisted and crammed down their throats? like what has happened to AKC when AR saw/see them as a threat?

 

[phillinley]

and by who ethics would they be advocating?

Are you asking " and whose ethics would they advocating"? Otherwise I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[tailwagging]

awww how sweet a correction teacher :angel:
yes and who is going decide what is "ethical"

__________ Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:53 pm __________

Since i edited a post after you posted I'll put it up again

you saying that you want them to make statements that can be twisted and crammed down their throats? like what has happened to AKC when AR saw/see them as a threat?

what i am saying is that you don't want ARBA saying that you should feed(pellet)this if you want to feed that (fodder). because as soon as they do you will be bad if you don't feed what they say to....and ARs will use it against you.
For now they are playing it safe and saying "recommended"

 

[phillinley]

awww how sweet a correction teacher :angel:
yes and who is going decide what is "ethical"

__________ Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:53 pm __________

Since i edited a post after you posted I'll put it up again

you saying that you want them to make statements that can be twisted and crammed down their throats? like what has happened to AKC when AR saw/see them as a threat?

No gosh darnit I'm trying to not misquote you so I can give the proper response and we can have an intelligent non-hostile debate on the subject.

So now that I understand your question. Whose ethics. Ok.
General welfare of rabbits with the understanding that they have a multi-faceted role in society that makes them a unique animal. Look at the last statement they made about their goals in working with the USDA and APHIS:
ARBA was able to emphasize the interconnectivity of pet, show, commercial and textile rabbit
industries; and the intersection of pet and show in cavy. The strongest, and primarily
beneficial, relationship was established with the USDA

Taking the pet part out of that sentence would be ignorant of how rabbits are used in our society. Most people in this country are not vegans. They understand that farms exist. But not everyone understands that rabbits are a part of farms and they wouldn't even exist as domesticated animals if they weren't seen as food first. A forward thinking strategy of how to educate the general public about that was not put into place soon enough to control the debate. Now they are playing catch up.

 

[tailwagging]

here is the link
https://www.arba.net/PDFs/ARBALegUpdate8-7-12.pdf

Karen Horn dose not understand USDA

the write up was in DR mag.<br /><br />__________ Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:31 pm __________<br /><br />

awww how sweet a correction teacher :angel:
yes and who is going decide what is "ethical"

__________ Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:53 pm __________

Since i edited a post after you posted I'll put it up again

you saying that you want them to make statements that can be twisted and crammed down their throats? like what has happened to AKC when AR saw/see them as a threat?

No gosh darnit I'm trying to not misquote you so I can give the proper response and we can have an intelligent non-hostile debate on the subject.

So now that I understand your question. Whose ethics. Ok.
General welfare of rabbits with the understanding that they have a multi-faceted role in society that makes them a unique animal. Look at the last statement they made about their goals in working with the USDA and APHIS:
ARBA was able to emphasize the interconnectivity of pet, show, commercial and textile rabbit
industries; and the intersection of pet and show in cavy. The strongest, and primarily
beneficial, relationship was established with the USDA

Taking the pet part out of that sentence would be ignorant of how rabbits are used in our society. Most people in this country are not vegans. They understand that farms exist. But not everyone understands that rabbits are a part of farms and they wouldn't even exist as domesticated animals if they weren't seen as food first. A forward thinking strategy of how to educate the general public about that was not put into place soon enough to control the debate. Now they are playing catch up.

I am sorry. I am just a tad bit passionate about being able to keep my rights to own animals.
you really truly don't want "clubs" to make the rules.
example
AKC decided that if someone had 7 litters in a year they would atomically go and inspect them. they called them a HVB or high volume breeder.
now according to ARs if you are a HVB you are "puppy mill" no matter the care or # of pups in a litter (could be 7). they use that against AKC and the breeder.
AKC is the only reg that inspect but since ARs see AKC as a threat they want spine a bad light on it. by saying AKC isn't doing enough. AKC's does not have police power to anything other then call AC and if the place is already USDA then not even that would help.

at lest ARBA put this up
https://www.arba.net/PDFs/KnowYourOptions.pdf

 

[phillinley]

at lest ARBA put this up
https://www.arba.net/PDFs/KnowYourOptions.pdf

Hey I'm with you on that. As long as I'm good to my animals, leave me alone. So I understand the passion. One side of the issue people do not want to meddle in other people's business, on the other you have a minority actively pushing to get into other people's business.


There are a couple of statements on Know Your Options that I find pertinent to the convo:
ARBA is not there to do things for us, ARBA is us. We need to do
these things. Contact your director today. Contact the clubs you
belong to and the clubs where you show rabbits and cavies. Get
involved with running the shows. Help with setting up and tak-
ing down. Help with watching each other’s animals. Roll up your
sleeves and become an ARBA activist.

and (with respect to the california bill passed)

When the bills became a hot topic on the chat groups, so many of us
dismissed it, proclaimed “it can’t possibly pass, the state wouldn’t allow
it”, or “someone else is dealing with this so I don’t need to do anything”.
While a few folks sounded the alarm, many of us did nothing while the
bill made its way through the Senate and to the Governor


Not being proactive is eventually going to get the entire hobby shut down. That's why it's not enough to combat the bills at the governmental level, you have to educate the general public. Sadly, the ARBA does not have the advertising resources to do this at the director level. But as they said, we are the ARBA. We can make change happen by being proactive ourselves. It's a little late this year, but next year I'm coming up with my own chocolate bunny campaign that conveys the message without siding on either the anti-producer or show or breeder side. Because if I'm going to keep sitting on here typing that we need to make changes to the approach, I might as well start with some solutions if I'm going to complain about the problem.

 

[tailwagging]

The top statement you quoted is from one of our members here.

Yes we mustn't just sit BUT we mustn't push rabbits as pets either.

can people keep them as pet? yes. people can keep a pig as a pet too.
do i feel ARBA is folding? yes. that is why I am backing lawyers who have gone up against USDA and ARs

 

[phillinley]

Yes we mustn't just sit BUT we mustn't push rabbits as pets either.

If you show the benefits of all areas of rabbits and that it's ok for rabbits to be raised in all of those ways as long as it's humane (and I acknowledge the idea of humane is a subjective one) I don't see the issue. Rabbits are great for meat, great for fur and also great as pets.

Push might be the wrong idea, but promote proper care might be a better way to put it. Also to promote the fact that rabbits are not for everyone.

 

[tailwagging]

I don't see how it could be done. (by ARBA that is)
If you show how wonderful a pet rabbit is then go on to say "oh and they make a great meal!" ......

That would be seen as heartless

if you show the health benefits first then ad "oh that for some they make a good pet" maybe

but the utility MUST be pushed. they must be continue to be viewed as livestock. you do not want them to be considered companion

 

[phillinley]

I don't see how it could be done.
If you show how wonderful a pet rabbit is then go on to say "oh and they make a great meal!" ......

I see the guinea pig as being a prime example of how it can be done. In South America they are a dual purpose animal, and the idea of them not being meat isn't even considered no matter how many whack jobs you could drop into the continent. If anything, they;d tell the whack jobs to give them back their guinea pigs, you're doing it wrong.

Ultimately you can't stop rabbits as a pet culture. It's there, it's growing and it's not going to go away. But raising rabbits for meat and fur isn't going away either worldwide. You need to show people that the animal kingdom is not so black and white as domestic stock vs domestic pet. The guinea pig and rabbit, based on their size and temperament, buck those classifications.