| Why I Disapprove of KHC
Having an "Animal Communicator" as a Presenter at Equifest
I think if someone wants to
throw their money away at an "animal communicator," that is
their private affair. But I do personally disapprove of the
Kansas Horse Council engaging one to appear as a presenter
at the next Equifest. Why have a "psychic", instead of a
legitimate, published scientific authority in the field of
equine psychology and behavior? Why not instead someone like Marthe Kiley-Worthington
for example?
A few "animal communicators" are clever enough to make no
published claims stronger than referring to themselves as
"animal intuitors." That is fair enough! But some have the
temerity to refer to themselves as "telepathic."
In my experience, those of you who want to believe that
there "psychics" can not be persuaded otherwise with logic.
As I stated above, that is OK for someone on a personal
basis as long as that belief isn't hurting anyone else. But
I think it is irresponsible for an institution that is
designed to educate, to promote woo to the public. I would
hope that if there are any "psychics" out there (I think
there are none in this universe, based on the available
evidence), that they would not demean their gift by charging
people for "readings", and that they would use it only for
noble purposes. I think that if an individual person finds a
conversation with an AC to be helpful, even though the AC is
not psychic, that is the individual's private affair. But it
is not necessary to believe that the AC is a "psychic" to
garner the same "benefits."
You may find this article of interest, about how
people hang on to their beliefs even when presented with
evidence that disproves those beliefs. The article
and the research was done from a political perspective, but
is nonetheless relevant as to why people think the way they
do:
How Facts Backfire
Don't give me that tired old BS about how "science can't
explain everything," because science does offer some very
good explanations about "psychic" ability, and they all have
to do with why people will believe BS. Moreover, why is it
that we designate some people as "mentally ill," and
medicate or lock them up when they think they are psychic,
yet we will casually fork over $40 to someone who claims to
be able to read our horse's mind during a telephone call
with us while Ol' BattleAx stands in her stall at the
boarding barn 20 miles away?
People who choose to think there are "psychics" tend to
become very upset with me. One woman accused me of
conducting "a campaign against horse psychics." I don't know
how she could type that out with a straight face. 
I emailed the KHC pres that I think she ought to ask her
AC to take the James Randi challenge. I once asked another
popular AC to take it. I told her that if she would complete
the preliminary challenge, that whether or not she
passed it, I would donate $500 to a charity that
benefits children. She refused, saying, "It would be too
painful for me." Yeah, too painful to earn $500 for a
children's charity, imagine that!
In our society, a large number of people are of the
Christian faith, and the Bible tells us that Christians
should not engage the services of "psychics." This is
something that falls, as so many things do, into one of the
areas that many Christians selectively ignore. An atheist
told me that I shouldn't be surprised at that, because from
his perspective, religious beliefs are woo, and so it is not
that big a step for a religious person to also believe that
psychics are real. (I wonder why they discarded their
beliefs in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?)
More info:
Here is a video of the KHC's AC conducting a session. You
will need to fast
forward past a few minutes of irrelevant stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgYo8QRfeB0
Watching, I wondered why anyone thinks that schtick is worth
$40 for
each 15 minutes. ::::shrug:::::
She begins, by saying, as any well-practiced Cold Reader
will do, that
anyone can do what she does. And indeed they can, there is
no special
talent or paranormal ability involved. (It may, however,
take some
theatrical ability, and some actual knowledge of the subject
matter in
order to be convincing.)
I addition, I will point out that to feign modesty and to
downplay, as
it were, one's "psychic" ability is a well established part
of
successful Cold Reading technique.
I observed that insofar as concerns that video, the
AC relied heavily on
the "fishing" technique. Moreover, her human clients were
practically
falling over themselves to provide her with unsolicited
information.
Ever see the movie, "Best In Show?" The couple reminded me
of Parker
Posey's neurotic yuppie character and her husband and their
dog and
the "busy bee."
The AC told them stuff about their dogs that was completely
harmless and
obviously just made up, such as that the one dog wanted a
"birthday
party with cake." (Note that the AC did not include a
warning not to give the dog a CHOCOLATE birthday cake, which
could be fatal to the dog.)
The AC gave the dog owners a tip or two about handling their
dogs that
was just common sense and had nothing to do with paranormal
ability.
The dogs appeared to be nearly oblivious to the AC's presence.
--------------------
I would suggest that if one wants to engage the services of
a
"psychic" that one ought to spend a few minutes to acquaint
oneself
with the techniques that "psychics" use, so those techniques
will be
recognized when the practitioner trots them out.
More information about Cold Reading:
http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=207
Guide to Cold Reading
I have read and recommend these books:
http://www.thecoldreadingbook.com/index.php?p=hm
http://coldreadingtechniques.com/
A typical AC website photo:
Why does the AC have to HOLD the animal in place?
Shouldn't the animal be perfectly happy to stand there and
commune psychically with the AC w/o being restrained?
WHY do we need to TRAIN our animals? If ACs are "real"
psychics, why not just call one up on the phone, pay them
$50 or whatever, and have them communicate to the horse what
we want. Then all you'd have to do is go out and throw a
saddle on and go. Your dressage horse not elevating its
shoulders well enough? Why waste time on training and
conditioning the horse? Why not just have the AC tell the
horse what you need him to do?
A professional stage mentalist told me that he has found
that quite frequently, even when he is very up-front about
being a Cold Reader, that people will insist that he is
psychic.
Penn & Teller's 'BULLSHIT!' episode about ESP and yes,
'animal communicators' too! "As ludicrous as this
telepathy crap is, there's no shortage of sincere pet lovers
that line up..."
The Problem With Anecdotes
But ya know, I would much rather that people be so concerned
about and dedicated to their animals that they are inclined
to consult ACs, than have them be people who are unkind and
uncaring!
Cheers!
|
|
A Horse Lover's Thoughts About Slaughter For Human
Consumption
Note from webmaster: I read this post
on the
Paint & Quarter Horse List and thought it to be a
very rational and reasonable overview of the points in
favor. Ms McGowan gave me permission to post her article
here. I added bullet number 11 to the article from
another of her posts. I especially want to point out
that I agree with bullet number 10. "Humane veterinary
euthanasia" is not always the "peaceful" release that
some might think.1) The vast majority of horse owners are
involved with horses for 5 years or less....stats from
American Horse Council research
2) The largest demographic group in the
country, the baby boomers, drove the horse market for
about 20-25 years. This group is now reaching
retirement age and if they want a horse they want one
that is healthy, sound, sane, well trained and does not
have problems that they don't want to deal with. They
no longer want to "fix" problem horses. They have
started to be aware of the cost of old injuries and to
be wary of getting more....healing is a longer and more
painful process while injuries are easier to get due to
slower reflexes, decreasing strength and more fragile
bones.
3) There have historically been 100,000
horses sent to slaughter for years. Since horses live
about 25 years on average the production of 100,000
extra horses per year for the years prior to, say 2005,
will continue to influence the numbers for another 20
years.
4) Stunning animals for slaughter
essentially disrupts brain function to the point that
the animal is unaware of what is happening...not so
different from the human brain post seizure. It is
possible that for those killed by kosher methods such as
cutting the throat to bleed them out would be able to
feel briefly the act of cutting...but lack of blood to
the brain along with the stun effect would make this
time period minimal. By the way....kosher laws don't
allow for horsemeat.
5) Adoption is not a realistic goal for
the numbers of horses involved..... the numbers of
people who have horse experience, the financial ability
to properly care for animals and the long term interest
(remember the 5 year life span of most horse ownership
from the AHC mentioned above) is minimal and growing
fewer. There ARE many who have an idealistic view of
horse ownership but who quickly give it up when they
discover reality. BLM for instance, has been trying for
years to control the numbers of mustangs by way of
adoptions....and failed. The prices they charge have
been decreasing lately and still they have 25,000 or so
too many mustangs for the rangeland to support (no, not
getting into the cattlemen vs mustang debate here....I'm
on the side of the cattlemen who work themselves silly
maintaining what range there is that is usable....and I
love a good steak at a reasonable price). If those who
wanted to adopt and could do so were so easy to find
then BLM should be able to find 25,000 of them pretty
easily out of 300 million people in this country. Add
that number to the 100,000 domestic horses that are not
wanted or no longer productive.
6) Euthanasia for unwanted horses is not
always an option....or at least a reasonably priced
one. In some areas of the country this option is
several hundred dollars plus the costs of disposing of
the carcass (which in more and more areas of the country
cannot be buried due to contamination of ground water
with the drugs used to kill the horse). I just had a 2
year old who died of rattle snake bite the end of the
week buried this morning by a neighbor with a
backhoe....cost me $75 even so (and took me three days
to find someone to do it). Last horse I had euthanized
was a foal with a broken leg....cost over $100 plus $15
for carcass dump at the landfill. I live in an area
where vet calls are $200 to drive in the driveway (the
colt with the broken leg was less as the local small
animal vet did the job...did it poorly but did it...so I
didn't have to pay the large animal vet to drive 70
miles) plus the cost of whatever you are having done.
For many people now, with a poor economy and double
digit unemployment, this is far more than they can
manage to pay. In addition, some vets refuse to put
down a healthy animal even at the owners request,
forcing the owner to seek other ways of getting rid of
an animal he may no longer be able to afford to keep or
care for. Domestic horses are being turned loose in
record numbers...and out here in the desert they don't
live long.
7) People want to make breeders the bad
guys....and in some ways we are. If you have a breeding
business and include it in your taxes you have to
meet certain IRS rules....and keeping your breeding
stock out of production for years is not one of
them....will cost you your business status (and
therefore your legitimate tax deductions for the costs
of doing business). You may get away with it for a year
or two....but longer than that and an audit will be your
pleasant experience. The IRS doesn't give a rats hind
toenail if there are too many horses and you are trying
to cut down on production to help the problem. You
produce or you aren't a business. Change the laws!
8) Research on humane slaughter is
progressing. Stunning and then a bullet would probably
be one good method. NO slaughter is pretty. It used to
be something that people, raised on farms, were familiar
with and recognized as necessary. Now our population
lacks that experience and has been raised on Walt Disney
and Animal Planet and many times have totally
unrealistic views of the world of livestock and even of
pets.
Starvation, neglect, turning loose to
run in the desert until crippled and then eaten alive by
coyotes when they go down and can't get up...those
aren't pretty either. The choices are often a quick
humane death and a slow, painful, lingering one.
9) The videos on how awful slaughter is
are most often produced by organizations with the agenda
of stopping all use of animals for any reason. If they
stop horse slaughter by appealing to sensitive types
with horrendous videos then they will next go to
stopping slaughter of chickens or lambs or pigs or
cattle or whatever. These organizations don't have the
animals welfare at heart...they have fund raising and
pushing through their agenda at heart. Follow the
money. If they were truly concerned about animals why
don't they operate shelters?
10) Euthanasia isn't always pretty
either...yep, those same organizations will put up
videos of peaceful scenes where horses that are aged
buddies are put down next to each other in quiet and
serenity. They don't show the procedures where the
paralytic drug doesn't work and the animal seizes for
minutes. Or the botched ones (like the vet did on my
broken legged foal a couple years ago) where the first
dose is not enough or didn't get completely into the
vein and the seizures last about two minutes and at the
end the horse is still breathing and still has a corneal
reflex and has to be rolled over and injected in the
vein on the other side (meanwhile flailing a broken leg
to the point that the lower 1/3 of the leg was attached
by a shred of skin only).
11) Another point....if we assume 500 pounds of usable meat per horse the slaughter of 100,000 horses a year is 50 million pounds of meat....low cost, low fat, high protein meat. Wyoming is looking at horse slaughter with the end product going to state facilities (prisons etc). This would provide a useful, usable end to those unwanted horses and at the same time reduce the costs of feeding prisoners, low income people, nursing homes, schools etc at a time when state budgets are seriously strapped. I have absolutely no problem with a horse carcass being used for food....whatever it was that made that horse an individual and a special friend is gone....the remaining body may as well be used rather than just dumped.
Dorothy McGowan
Colored Cowhorse
Ranch
Lovelock, NV
|
|
A Horse, Of Course
By
Don Blazer
Speed
kills.
It's
a common phrase among race horse trainers.
It
can mean "rushing a horse's training" causes injuries. It can mean a horse that
runs too fast early in a race will have nothing left for the finish. It can
mean too much speed by any horse is going to end in physical breakdown. And
physical breakdown for a horse can mean the end of a career, a lifetime of
lameness, euthanasia.
Speed
kills.
Yet
we exalt speed constantly.
We
glorify the capture and "competition-training" of a horse in three days,
praising the clinicians' horsemanship skills, when in actuality they've done
nothing but "flooded" the horse into submission. A horse can be subdued in
three hours, yet all horses require a "lifetime" of training.
Farrier competitions are not about the balancing or understanding of the horse's
hoof, but about the speed with which a shoe can be shaped and tacked into
place. Farrier competitions are about the speed of using tools, not about time
and consideration for a healthy hoof.
When
a horse is suffering joint problems or other aches and pains, there's a rush to
get the horse back into competition and we "hail the supplements" that allow us
to continue a "speedy" destruction.
(Article continued below--scroll down)
We
know speed kills, so why don't we slow down?
For
most of mankind, life and the world are about faster, higher, stronger, longer.
When
we're young, everything is about speed. We can't wait to get there, have this,
enjoy that. We don't want to do one thing at a time; we want to do 10 things at
once.
We
want to jump on our horses (bareback because we can't take time to groom and
saddle) and race to the far end of the property. We don't have time to "stop
and smell the roses" because we are too busy rushing to accomplish nothing.
When
we start to get a little more serious about our horsemanship we start looking
for all the short cuts to success.
Videos are going to show us how a horse can go from green to a championship, and
it's only going to take one hour and 20 minutes. (We seldom read about
horsemanship, training and health care because reading is too slow, and everyone
knows you can't learn horsemanship from a book.)
We're
going to go to the weekend "expo" and see seven different clinicians each of
which as the magic bullet, carrot stick, down-under wand, resistance free
bridle, be good halter and clicker tricker.
Or
we're going to take private lessons and speed up our arrival at "expert" in
riding and training. And if this instructor should fail in getting us to the
top, then we can quickly change to someone else; there is never a shortage of
speed merchants.
But
there will come a time when you will know that speed kills.
And
then you will no longer be impressed by speed.
Instead, you'll be impressed by the art of horsemanship practiced over a
lifetime.
You'll be pleased by the fact no horse's training is ever finished; there is no
need to rush. You're never going to complete the journey, so you can enjoy the
journey.
Whatever you want to teach your horse, whatever you want to accomplish, it isn't
going to get done in a day, or a week or even a month. What you can teach, what
you can accomplish today is a tiny bit more understanding by your horse. And
that's enough.
Slow
down! Speed kills!
Visit A Horse, Of Course on the Internet at
www.donblazer.com
|
|
|
|
A
Cowboy's Faith
By
Frank J. Buchman
What Goes Up Can Come Down
"They won't make any more land."
That's a frequent comment during conversations about land values.
It is true. However, emphasis of the statement is generally to encourage one to
think, because of that fact, it doesn't matter how much is paid for land.
"Land values will never go down." There's another emphatic remark
that has been made frequently in years gone by. It is a falsehood, plain and
simple. Those who said that have been proven wrong time and time again.
An example is in past weeks when tracts have sold at reduced
prices from a year ago. Even better illustration is the difficult economic times
of the early '80s, when in certain locales there was seemingly no value attached
to agricultural real estate.
Prices at that point were frequently lowered 50 percent, and
probably much more in certain instances we're not aware of, and there were no
takers. It seemed "cheap," compared to just months earlier, when there seemed no
end to increasing values.
"Oh, it'll always be worth this. It'll keep going higher, just
watch it." Those combined sentences have been quoted as well, and they too have
repeatedly been proven wrong. Now our hindsight isn't as far as others much more
in the know, but we'll never forget when we were begging for a place to keep our
first horse in 1962.
All we needed was a pen, really, and our folks finally got two
acres within the city limits. It cost $700, which had to be a record price, but
it was due to the location with several farm structures. Actually, they were
paying city lot values. To us, it was a ranch. One would have thought we owned
the whole state. Besides, we could have a horse.
Not only was a city kid who wanted to be a cowboy thrilled, but
looking back, it had to be a real milestone for our parents as well. They owned
two houses and a store in town, but they'd never owned a farm. Though farmers at
heart they always were, unpreventable circumstances long before we arrived
forced them to become city dwellers.
Horse inventory outgrew that miniature ranch in a few years, so
Dad and Mom looked for more land and found a "40," just two miles north up the
country road. Again, what must have been a record for the times, they paid $100
an acre for those Flint Hills.
While the two land purchases in our early years seemed like a lot
to us, they must have seemed like a fortune to our parents. We'll never forget
Dad telling us land was $5 an acre in the '30s, and we couldn't understand why
he didn't buy up the whole countryside. It was simple to him: "I didn't have $5,
let alone more than that."
It's highly unlikely that agricultural real estate will
deteriorate to that level. But, even if God doesn't make any more, land can
certainly go down drastically from what it has been at peak points. Looking back
at history could give an insight to value percentage of the amount, if not much
more. We're no economist, but we are a realist.
Actually, the best analysis is given in Job 28:13: "Man does not
know its value. Nor is it found in the land of the living." Likewise, one should
not forget the threat in Leviticus 27:18: "Its assessed value is reduced each
year."
+++ALLELUIA+++
Feb. 21, 2010
Read more at FrankBuchman.com
|
|
|
The article that has given the stock
horse world a good whup upside the head:
Dr. Jim Heird's speech to his fellow
AQHA judges at their conference in Dec.
2009! Read the PDF:
http://tinyurl.com/yaejxnm
In "Do Right By The Horse," Dr. Heird
(formerly of Colorado State University
and now with Texas A & M University)
said, "As we become more deeply
entrenched in the showing/winning aspect
of our industry, we often lose contact
with why we entered the industry in the
beginning and shift our emphasis to
winning rather than on the well-being of
the horse." |
I recommend The Quarter Horse
Directory as a useful resource for Quarter Horse breeders!
|
|
|
|
| Tribute to Freckles Playboy This
article was first published in March of 2003, by C.L.
Collins, who will judge our
online horse show.
The news of Freckles Playboy's passing has
flooded me with memories.
 The
first time I ever saw him was at the 1976 NCHA Futurity
where he and Lynx Becky were Co-Reserve Champs. Colonel
Freckles was the Champion. I actually always thought that
Lynx Becky should have won, Freckles Playboy second and
Colonel Freckles, third...but they didn't ask me to judge it
:o)
A few weeks later, Freckles Playboy easily won the AQHA Jr.
Cutting at the Sand Hills Rodeo and Stock Show at Odessa,
Texas. Mr San Peppy Won the Senior cutting. Back in those
days, they had a work-off between the Jr. & Sr. winners for
the Champion Cutting Horse of the show. Freckles Playboy was
young and bright...Mr San Peppy was tired from years of
hauling...he had just won his second NCHA World Championship
and had become the first cutting horse to earn $100,000.
Freckles Playboy won the work-off and made Mr San Peppy look
like a novice horse that day.
A year or two later, Freckles Playboy won the huge AQHA
Senior Cutting at the Houston Livestock Show with a score of
152, I think. That doesn't sound all that high, as scores
go, today. But, in those days, judging was much more
conservative and a score of 146 to 148 would have usually
won any cutting contest that had two judges. Freckles
Playboy was awesome.
Probably my most vivid memory concerning Freckles Playboy
was not really about him...but here it goes...I became
acquainted with a man who had a stallion who was a full
brother of Colonel Freckles. He asked me what I thought of
Colonel Freckles and I told him that I thought he was a very
good horse...that any horse that won the NCHA Futurity was a
top notch horse in my opinion. And I could have, and should
have, let it go at that...but I didn't.
I went on to say that, in my opinion,
Freckles Playboy was the best son of Freckles (Jewel's Leo
Bars). I thought nothing more about it...we were just having
a conversation.
A few weeks later and about 1:00 AM, I
received a phone call from the owner of Colonel Freckles. He
was mad. He said he heard that I didn't like his horse and
if thought that Colonel Freckles was not a great horse, I
could just come and ride him and then I'd know what a great
horse he was...or some words to that effect. I guess I
should have taken him up on it...it was the only chance I've
ever had to ride a NCHA Futurity Champion...but I didn't. I
apologized for any misunderstanding, said that I liked his
horse very much (which was the truth) and said that I had
never said I didn't like him. I also told him that I still
liked Freckles Playboy better...which I guess was OK with
him since he said goodbye and never called me again.
Freckles Playboy was a great horse and a great breeding
horse...a treasure to the world of performance horses. I,
for one, thank Marion Flynt, his breeder and owner for the
first years of his life, Terry Riddle, who trained and
showed him, and Kay Floyd, who loved him, promoted him and
made him into the legend he was.
C.L. Collins
TwentyTwo Ranch
Read additional information about Freckles
Playboy at the
Quarter Horse Directory. |
Horse & Rider Magazine Has New Owner
"AIM
acquired EQUUS, Horse & Rider, Practical Horseman, Dressage Today,
Arabian Horse World, Discover Horses and EquiManagement print magazines.
Source’s online properties included in the deal are Equisearch.com,
Equine.com, HorseBooksEtc.com and DiscoverHorses.com.
From the Horse Media Group, AIM purchased Spin to Win Rodeo and Trail
Rider magazines as well as MyHorse.com, HitchUpMagazine.com and
HorselinkMagazine.com. Horse Media is a partnership between Belvoir
Media Group and Winsor Publishing."
Read more...
| Business Models and the
Interwebz
--Lil Peck
Some people operate from the
Exclusivity Mode and others operate from the
Non-Exclusivity Mode, or Sparseness of Resources vs.
Abundance of Resources.
With 'non-exclusivity,' you allow, *with permission*,
your articles (or snippets of them) to be reprinted,
your videos to be embedded, and so on. Therefore, the
more your articles/videos are shared, the more people
learn of your products and services. Hopefully, this
open and friendly sharing model leads to a sense of
shared purpose and exchanged favors. [Remember 'The
Godfather?' Exchange of favors was more valuable than
money. ;) "Some day,and that day may never come, I
may need to ask a favor from you."] It is rude to
ask a favor '(tell all your friends about my new
service') and then not return it in kind when asked.
A few folks still subscribe to the philosophy of
exclusivity, or sparseness of resources. They set
themselves up as gatekeepers to information and if one
pays their fee, then one is given access to the
information. There are some services and products for
which that makes sense, such as webinars and ebooks and
so on. Exclusivity would be effective, I think, for a
top-league competitive horse show coach, or horse
trainer. Exclusivity would be effective for a custom
show clothing designer.
The sparseness-of-resources model is also sometimes used
in this way: "Pay my fees and I'll let you be one of the
cool kids." Oddly, that seems to work well for some
people, and I'm totally puzzled by why.
But in other cases, people just make themselves look
like money grubbing jacka$$es when they do that. For
example, if one has a forum, then the content of that
forum is generated by the people who participate in it.
Wielding restrictive rules over those forum members,
such as not allowing links to non-sponsor sites and so
on, makes a person look like they are a control freak,
and is out of touch with reality (yes, there really is a
huge interwebz on the other side of that hill!).
Another example is that little no-right-click javascript
that many people put on their websites. I use right
click to open a link in a new window, and whenever I get
that little no-right-click alert box, I usually snarl,
"Oh, you stupid jacka$$!" ;) I don't appreciate being
treated like a criminal by the people whom I am doing an
honor by visiting their website. Furthermore, that
no-right-click script is totally ineffective in
preventing anyone from copying anything if they so
desire. If I decide that I still want to see the linked
page, then I press shift+click, but usually I'm so
annoyed that I just leave the site. |
|
