"Track dog"

[Debbie Meier]

For example, I think there is a big difference between a dog gathering sheep in a field, even if done more times than is necessary to get the sheep where you want them (as Deb mentioned), and a dog chasing sheep who have been conditioned through the infliction of pain to panic and run from him. I'm sure there are folks at PETA who would see no difference, but I would be much more comfortable defending that difference in the court of public opinion than trying to justify the latter practice.

 

 

The whole back and forth up and down the field just for the purpose of training a dog would be considered poor stockmenship by those that raise sheep/cattle for a living, I wasn't thinking about PETA, that's an entirely different can of worms.

 

I was approaching it from the direction of other livestock producers, they use electric prods, we use teeth. They use dogs and prods to exercise the stock to help prove the genetics of their livestock we do it to prove the genetics of our dogs.

 

ETA: If the stock refuses to move it ok for our dogs to grip, in their case if the stock does not move in a fashion to help develop more body condition, it's ok for their dogs to grip. Both inflicting pain and fear for not moving.

 

Deb

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

In the case of the dog gripping to move stubborn stock, a proper grip occurs when there's an "out" for the stock. Turning away from the pressure gives space for the stock to relax and think. I don't want my sheep running from fear. I prefer that they move because they trust that moving away from the dog will result in the least amount of pressure.

 

What do you suppose would happen if the sheep were given any other choice than forward motion? A frustrated sheep will do it sometimes to a dog that's pushing too hard, not giving it any out. Or a sheep that's learned to do it. They lay down - "Fine! You want to kill me? Go right ahead!" Sheep that does that a couple times learns that dogs actually won't follow through, or that they aren't allowed.

 

Sheep aren't stupid and I much prefer allowing them to use their brains when working them.

[Eileen Stein]

The whole back and forth up and down the field just for the purpose of training a dog would be considered poor stockmenship by those that raise sheep/cattle for a living,

 

Deb, I'm so old I can remember when nearly all of those training a dog WERE people who raise sheep/cattle for a living. They didn't think it was poor stockmanship because it served a purpose that, in the end, advanced their ability to raise sheep/cattle for a living.

 

ETA: If the stock refuses to move it ok for our dogs to grip, in their case if the stock does not move in a fashion to help develop more body condition, it's ok for their dogs to grip. Both inflicting pain and fear for not moving.

 

I'm afraid the more you try to show there's no difference, the bigger a difference I see, both in the method used and the value of the purpose for which it's used.

[Lenajo]

If the stock refuses to move it ok for our dogs to grip, in their case if the stock does not move in a fashion to help develop more body condition, it's ok for their dogs to grip. Both inflicting pain and fear for not moving.

 

We're lambing right now, and there is a vast difference in the stock's response to a fair clean grip, as opposed to an abusive punishing one. Stock can only be managed so far out of fear - once you crank that adrenline up they hurt themselves, their young, humans and dogs around them. It really doesn't matter which species - though obviously the extent of the damage is greater with bison as opposed to goats...

 

The dog I value most rarely grips, and when he does the stock understand that they have safe reasonable options. They don't stay "bug eyed", they just move off from the pressure applied. Move off might be at most a trot, but mostly those big old mammas just walk off.

 

The same goes for heel bites. My youngest dog helping right now is a whiz at heeling lambs and kids at just the right time and pinching method to startle them along with Mom. Panic them with pain and fear and it'll be a job for us both to get things settled down. Not to metion the snowball affect...that is their Momma will hit fight zone in less than 10 seconds too, and if she's a yearling she'll probably try flight zone instead. She'll bolt away from the unreasonable pressure back to the main herd, then try to steal another baby, which sends that mum into a fit, and in less time than you can says "oh sh*t" your prebreakfast chores just became a whole morning of clean up.

 

In real situations panic and fear just make more work at best, and cost money in injury, mismothering, and weight loss at worst

 

I agree that no trainer is perfect, that mistakes can happen, and good dogs and good people can loose their temper or make stupid mistakes. If you train enough dogs you will find isolated situations where huge pressure, to the point of fear, might be required to make a specific point. But they should be isolated...if they aren't something's wrong with the primate in charge.

 

To use fear and panic deliberately to manage animals for anything boggles the mind. It goes against any form of decent stockmanship or humane care.

 

I wonder, with your cattle loading, if you were forbidden to use the cattle prod or touch the animals at all if you would find ways to deal with the loading more effectively. I've watched neighbors and family do all you describe, and more, to pen and load stock. It's hard on people, harder on fences, and the hardest on the animals.

 

The same chores can often be done in less time, with less damage to everything involved, by less people and dogs with quieter methods. Proven. But people have to see the value in it. Some stock people, particularily guys with hot prods and cow-dawgs, prefer not to change the status quo.

[Sue R]

The whole back and forth up and down the field just for the purpose of training a dog would be considered poor stockmenship by those that raise sheep/cattle for a living, I wasn't thinking about PETA, that's an entirely different can of worms.

 

I can't speak for others but I can say that I have moved sheep or cattle around for training purposes. In the scheme of time, that has been a very tiny portion of the animals' daily lives. What I try to do is do my training "for a purpose" - in other words, I don't just go out and work cattle but I may be feeding, mineraling, or changing pastures and that provides an opportunity to accomplish a job and do some training, moving the stock when they would need to be moved anyway.

 

I was approaching it from the direction of other livestock producers, they use electric prods, we use teeth. They use dogs and prods to exercise the stock to help prove the genetics of their livestock we do it to prove the genetics of our dogs.

 

ETA: If the stock refuses to move it ok for our dogs to grip, in their case if the stock does not move in a fashion to help develop more body condition, it's ok for their dogs to grip. Both inflicting pain and fear for not moving.

 

Deb

 

We've never owned a prod (in almost 30 years of having cattle) although, in the chute or loading into a trailer, it has been an awful temptation sometimes to get one. However, we have managed to do the job without one, although it might have reduced frustration and the time it took to get the job done sometimes.

 

As for teeth, they are only there when needed and, to me, that means when a job can't get done any other reasonable way. There is always an alternative (as Becca pointed out) for the stock to move. It should never be done on stock that cannot appropriately move away from the pressure.

 

I can think of perhaps three grips that have drawn blood, and quite a few more "grabs" that haven't even broken skin, in working our cattle with dogs off and on for about 20 years. We work to keep our cattle pretty gentle and I am sure that is not at all the case for many stockmen who work with larger herds and other situations.

 

The worst injury I have experienced a cow of ours receiving was from a mis-swung stock cane that got a nose, not from a dog with an appropriate grip. Nevertheless, I just can't condone what I think is bad stockmanship in the name of showmanship. JMO, and worth nothing more than you paid for it.

[Little Bo Boop]

Debbie Meier wrote

They use dogs and prods to exercise the stock to help prove the genetics of their livestock

 

 

Debbie, can you explain to me how forcefully running an animal, any animal, sheep, goat, pig, cow...around a track is going to "help prove the genetics of their livestock". That makes no sense to me whatsoever. So please enlighten me ;-)

 

 

Betty

[Debbie Meier]

I can well understand stockmen wanting to disassociate themselves from track dog training and use.

 

 

I can actually see where some stockmen would not have a problem with it because there is a purpose to it, it may not be what they are willing to do. But, they understand that it is being done to condition the animal, if the animal is stressed by the method too much it would be counter productive, which would then stop it short of abuse. Now if they ran and ran until animals lost condition, fell ill, then a stockmen would consider it abuse, the running went past constructive purpose as related to the livestock. Which, I've seen happen with people training trialling dogs, and not just AKC. When sheep are driven acrossed a field to the point of panting just for the benefit of displaying a dogs ability it would be considered abuse to a stockmen way before doing it for the benefit of building condition or to proof the ability to handle stress, it's testing the stock, not the dog.

 

Things are falling into place for PETA, any process that encourages an animal to change from it's will is considered inhumane. Basically if the animal does not want to play we won't be able to do anything to make it change it's mind. Think about it once, we can't inflict fear, pain or discomfort...how do you protect yourself from those you can't speak to, animals don't understand words?

 

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Deb, your statement "they use dogs and prods to prove the genetics of their stock" confounds me. Do you know of any real production sheep/cattle/goat folks who actually regularly run their animals around (not talking bucking bulls here) to put muscle on them? Most producers I know, even small one like myself, don't run our animals around, pump them full of feeds and supplements, or withold or force water in order to present an "ideal" animal at some pre-specified time (e.g., right before slaughter). Most of the folks I know expect their animals to grow and muscle out sufficiently on largely grass-based systems with minimum input in the way of grain or other supplements. They expect them to birth and raise their lambs without extra help, and they expect those lambs to grow to market weight on pastures too. If you can somehow show how production flock breeders actually use club show lambs to improve the genetics of their production flocks, then I might buy one small part of your argument, but on the sheep productions lists I read, most production folks state very clearly that they wouldn't touch show genetics with a 20-foot pole, so trying to claim that the mistreatment of show animals is necessary as a means to help improve production stock is laughable at best. If the average livestock producer put the time, money, feed, etc., into his/her animals the way the club lamb folks do, do you suppose they'd make anything off those animals? I think you know the answer to that. Club lamb showing is an end unto itself that has no basis in the reality of real meat production, and the lengths they go to just to win a ribbon and sell a lamb to the highest bidder at prices that are grossly inflated does nothing for anyone except perhaps the egos of those few who win. It's certainly NOT about creating good production genetics, not by a long shot.

 

Twice I have been offered prods to use on sheep while performing the job of set out at a trial. Both times I made it clear to the person offering (at least one of whom I thought should know better) that I thought use of a prod was unnecessary and inappropriate. So I am not being inconsistent in my thoughts regarding the use of such. If you haven't read books by or about Temple Grandin on how to move livestock with the minimum of pain, confusion, balkiness, etc., you might find it a good education. As Wendy said, mistreatment even at the last minute (just before slaughter) doesn't *inprove* the quality of the meat. I'm not saying that using prods is always inappropriate, but I think that often those implements are in the hands of folks who have little or no stock sense and they end up being inappropriately or incorrectly used. And you can bet that the animals they're being used on are feeling little stress.

 

I think Eileen has stated my position better than I could. I think we all accept that there are poor trainers and poor producers, but I don't think that means we need to make excuses for them, put our heads in the sand rather than point out that the practices don't make sense from a humane livestock care perspective, or make blanket claims like "everyone does it."

 

Yes, my sheep (at least some of them) do get used for dog training. But I also recognize that my stock are animals that deserve a life of the least amount of stress I can afford them. That means that I don't let even young, inexperienced dogs run them pointlessly, savage them, or even interact with them in a way that causes bug-eyed fear. Sheep don't see my dog or other people's dogs as a reason to run in panic, which should mean that they have never been given a reason to suppose that a dog stepping out onto the field is a trigger for that panic. Most people view and practice stockdog training as pressure and release, where the minimum amount of pressure needed to get the reqiured response is the ideal. Yep, my dogs will grip, but as Wendy pointed out, if the dog is scaring the crap out of sheep, it's not really helping me to get the job done. Sheep (or other livestock) that are scared witless aren't going to be easy to handle, load, or anything else. And they will be a danger to themselves and others.

 

At any rate, my reaction to this whole discussion was actually from the "methods used to prepare club lambs for show" perspective, and as Sue has stated repeatedly, the things that go on in that world are just mind-boggling. To the person who asked what those of us who are complaining are doing about it, I can tell you that I will speak up whenever I see such practices. I have a friend who is a 4-H leader and I regularly talk with her about things like super short docks and the like. Again, despite what some would like to believe about what they see as inconsistency of thought or hypocrisy, I say that I always strive for humane treatment of livestock--at trials, at home, and anywhere else that I can influence. Maybe I have failed at that on occasions in the past, but that makes me human and I at least try to learn from past mistakes and try not to repeat them. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to institutionalize them in any way.

 

My two cents and more.

 

ETA: Deb, I see you have posted more while I was writing this post. Again, I think that the purpose to which you refer is suspect. As I stated above, if the purpose was a viable one, then I imagine all sorts of producers would be out there running their sheep around to muscle them up and "prove their genetics." It seems the exact opposite of the way most livestock is raised for meat in this country--that is, by confinement methods. They don't move around much under most paradigms, do they? (Heck, we could then even argue that running sheep around for dog training is necessary and good for those sheep--we're just muscling them up and proving our genetics!) That only seems to happen in the club lamb show world (and perhaps for bucking bulls?).

 

J.

[ImWithAlice]

Things are falling into place for PETA, any process that encourages an animal to change from it's will is considered inhumane. Basically if the animal does not want to play we won't be able to do anything to make it change it's mind. Think about it once, we can't inflict fear, pain or discomfort...how do you protect yourself from those you can't speak to, animals don't understand words?

Deb

 

This is the unfortunate "slippery slope" argument that is often heard. It goes like this "If we object to ANY pain inflicted on an animal, then pretty soon ALL pain inflicted on animals will be considered inhumane/outlawed/etc." Yes, I agree that there are some extremists that would/could believe that but 90-some-odd% of the "Animal Loving" population out there still eats meat, wears leather shoes and yells at their dog occasionally. THESE are the people that have real influence on laws and policy. If an area of the "animal industry" goes too far in IGNORING unnessary cruelty, then they will be motivated to legislate against it. The history of the Tennessee Walker show industry is a good example of this.

[Debbie Meier]

Debbie Meier wrote

Debbie, can you explain to me how forcefully running an animal, any animal, sheep, goat, pig, cow...around a track is going to "help prove the genetics of their livestock". That makes no sense to me whatsoever. So please enlighten me ;-)

Betty

 

First off you have to be willing to look at it from other perspectives regardless as to how extreame you may think it is, and then consider all the different things that effect health and condition. One perspective, is a value to the ability to handle stress and maintain body condition or gain weight while under stress. Confinement facilities, hauling to market, vaccinations are all stressful, some breeds have been developed for the their ability to recover or to continue gaining in high stress environments, you don't want animals that need a stress free environment in order to gain weight or maintain pregnacy. The better the animal is wired to handle the stress the better chance of profitablility. Our friend with the rodeo bulls, the stress imposed with us conditioning them is nothing compared to hauling to the rodeos, if the bull can't take conditioning it won't take the road, so it's double benefit, the bulls needs muscle to perform and the conditioning acts as a culling program, he does not want the lack of ability to handle stress in his genetics. And I will say, when a bull decides it does not want to go anymore, it's gets pretty ugly and dangerous, they have no problem inflicting pain. My one show mare was considered a hot house flower, she was great in the show ring, but couldn't handle the stress of hauling, the noise and rigores of training, she only flourished under the most perfect controlled environments, pain in the butt is what she was.

 

Just to relate to our working dogs, I think it was Lana that mentioned that a rancher asked her if her dog could go all day while working. Now those of us the work our dog for 15 minutes and let it jump in the tank arn't going to know that. Now those that risk their dogs, work them all day, let them figure out how to pace and rate themselves will, the dogs that can't won't survive. Which would have the better working dog genetics?

 

As for the sheep running around the track to get conditioned, the person in control of the situation has to know just how much stress his/her sheep can take without the exercise resulting in detramental consiquenses but still enabling them to build condition, their not going to abuse their animals, at least not from my viewpoint. I don't consider abuse as pushing an animal to do what it does not want to to get something accomplished. I see abuse as pushing an animal beyond it abilities just for the sake of doing it. Relate it to running a barrel horse, the horse decides it does not want to run the pattern, you use spurs in inflict pain making the outside of the arena hotter then the inside, is that abuse? Some will say yes, I say no, there is a purpose, and it's not being done beyond the animals ability to handle it and the horse is given an out, the pattern. Just like running around the track, run around the track and there will be no problem. It's all personal opinion and views. It's just frustrating because society is leaning toward being so sensitive that it is affecting a persons ability to do what needs to be done. We all want our animals to be handled in a low stress manner, but, at what point is it counter productive and whose right is it to judge based on seeing a demonstration without understanding more of the situation?

 

Deb

[toney]

In the case of the double muscled club lamb, can the pioneering of the genetics of that lamb help to improve carcass weight and condition of the commercial lambs, yes, so things are still in sinc.

 

Actually, a double muscled lamb will not place well in the show ring, nor will it normally be welcome in a commercial herd. Even cattle that were originally imported from Europe ( two of many breeds that were double muscled there- Charolais and Chianina, as an example) were bred to decrease the incidence of double muscling. A double muscled lamb,or steer, for that matter, grades extremely low on carcass quality,and also brings with it inherent problems at calving and lambing times, requiring quite often to be pulled mechanically, rather than delivered naturally.

 

 

 

Terry Toney

[Sue R]

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that running a meat animal on a track (we're not talking horses here) will demonstrate good genetics (or lack thereof) and ability to take stress, nor will I agree that some other practices ("conditioning" for the show ring, not the market) are reasonable or humane. I do not agree that the animal that is conditioned that way and wins at show is demonstrating good, commercial-application genetics. Compare show-winning Suffolks with those found in a good. productive, economically-viable herd and tell me if they look like the same breed? The show Suffolks may be able to run but they sure don't look capable of turning forage into meat.

 

I think that subjecting animals to what I would consider abusive practices for the sake of the show ring is abhorrent. Normal, necessary animal husbandry practices (and thank you, Julie, for bringing up Temple Grandin and her work) may not always be pleasant but they have a real. productive purpose. I think people are beginning to realize that some practices that are common now (like some types of confinement) will be counterproductive in the long run even when they seem productive in the relatively short term.

 

I think I've said all that I should say on the subject, and I hope I can keep my fingers off the keyboard for here on out. That's doubtful, though.

[juliepoudrier]

I see abuse as pushing an animal beyond it abilities just for the sake of doing it. Relate it to running a barrel horse, the horse decides it does not want to run the pattern, you use spurs in inflict pain making the outside of the arena hotter then the inside, is that abuse? Some will say yes, I say no, there is a purpose, and it's not being done beyond the animals ability to handle it and the horse is given an out, the pattern. Just like running around the track, run around the track and there will be no problem. It's all personal opinion and views. It's just frustrating because society is leaning toward being so sensitive that it is affecting a persons ability to do what needs to be done. We all want our animals to be handled in a low stress manner, but, at what point is it counter productive and whose right is it to judge based on seeing a demonstration without understanding more of the situation?

 

Deb

This seems inconsistent to me. First you say that abuse is pushing an animal beyond its abilities for the sake of doing so. Then you use an example of a barrel horse having pain inflicted so that its only out is to go run the pattern. What, pray tell, is the purpose of running a barrel pattern? Maybe it has some foundation in useful work, but I'm pretty sure now that nost barrel racing is done for the sake of the race (the "sake of doing it") and I personally don't think that's a "purpose" worthy of inflicting pain on an animal. If the horse refuses to run the pattern, couldn't it possibly be because the horse has been pushed beyond its limits? Maybe you're just using a very bad example, but in my mind it sure doesn't support your argument that pain may sometimes be necessary in order to get things done. I could even agree with that in general, but only if other options were tried and failed and someone at least took a reasonable look at the situation and determined that the safest, most humane method was to inflict pain *briefly* in order to accomplish something *necessary* that couldn't be accomplished by any other means. And even then there would have to be some very strict criteria so that human nature wouldn't take over and make excuses for using pain as an expedient and not as a last resort. Talk about slippery slopes--if you in general feel that inflicting pain and excessive stress is okay, then where do you draw the line? I prefer to try not to inflict either if I can help it, because then at least I'm more likely to err on the side of humane treatment than the alternative, and that's how I can live with myself when raising and handling livestock.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Everyone brings a different view, I'm presenting a view as I see it. Some of us have justified their reasons for being against the practice, I have justified my reason for not having a problem with it, but I'm not going to say that everyone that is involved with it is an angel, no more then everyone that is involved with trialling.

 

Take what you want, leave what you don't, no skin of my rear.

 

Deb

[Lenajo]

It seems Debbie, that a lot of your argument revolves around defending how you and your close associates treat your livestock. Everyone who disagrees is peta-bound, silly, sensitive lamb-huggers.

 

Just because it's what you've always done, doesn't make it right.

Just because it's what we do, doesn't make it wrong.

 

It's all about profit in the end. Whether it's a barrel horse that you are trying to force to run, or a cow you are trying to bully on the trailer - stressed animals perform poorly. They produce less speed, less meat (quality and quantity), less viable young. In the right (wrong?) circumstances they hurt themselves and others.

 

You can change the system - i.e. lamb shows where virtually all the animals are poorly treated, so we have no real basis to judge against such- but it doesn't change the realities of it.

[Debbie Meier]

If the horse refuses to run the pattern, couldn't it possibly be because the horse has been pushed beyond its limits?

 

 

Could of been, but typically not, they just go through the box sweats and decide they don't want to, though it's always entertaining watching the rider get off and check all the feet, and blame the saddle, and think oh poor Flame is just having a bad day . I suppose I should have specified mental vs. physical limits in my description, awe heck, just stuff an anti-depressant down her throat and she's be happy to do what you want, resistant free training.

 

Deb

[Lenajo]

I have to comment on the barrel horse example.

 

Over the years some of the most specatular blow-ups I've seen with horses have involved burned out game horses.

 

They get raced and raced until they are plain old tired, sore, and fed up. The guys/gals riding them associated their increased reluctance to run as "stubborn" and "lazy" almost 100% of the time. Perhaps 1% is that way, but most of the time it's physical or mental burn out. The riders that give those horses a break and some care usually came back well - baring of course that you cannot make a 20 year old 5 again. Those that decided to "make" that horse perform either gave up and sold the horse to someone else (where the choice repeats itself - fix the problems or force) or they sold the horse ot another person who equates motivation with the strength of the leg supporting the spurs. This may continue through a half dozen more riders.

 

There always comes a day (and how long that takes is a credit to horses) when the horse has had enough. 1200 lbs of ENOUGH. He will either fight or flee. And he will do it to a level that will escalate until someone is hurt or killed - or he is. Usually the horse.

 

I think it was Don McCaig who quote about horse people going to dogs because you can be stupider with dogs and not get hurt. Perhaps its a pity that's true - for sheep in particular. It would certainly change how we treat them.

[Little Bo Boop]

Debbie Meier wrote:

I have justified my reason for not having a problem with it,

 

Expcept your justifications don't hold water. You didn't really answer my question, "how does the forced running of a livestock animal, around a track, prove its genetics?"

 

I'm lazy, and Julie said it all,

 

Do you know of any real production sheep/cattle/goat folks who actually regularly run their animals around (not talking bucking bulls here) to put muscle on them? Most producers I know, even small one like myself, don't run our animals around, pump them full of feeds and supplements, or withold or force water in order to present an "ideal" animal at some pre-specified time (e.g., right before slaughter). Most of the folks I know expect their animals to grow and muscle out sufficiently on largely grass-based systems with minimum input in the way of grain or other supplements. They expect them to birth and raise their lambs without extra help, and they expect those lambs to grow to market weight on pastures too. If you can somehow show how production flock breeders actually use club show lambs to improve the genetics of their production flocks, then I might buy one small part of your argument, but on the sheep productions lists I read, most production folks state very clearly that they wouldn't touch show genetics with a 20-foot pole, so trying to claim that the mistreatment of show animals is necessary as a means to help improve production stock is laughable at best. If the average livestock producer put the time, money, feed, etc., into his/her animals the way the club lamb folks do, do you suppose they'd make anything off those animals? I think you know the answer to that. Club lamb showing is an end unto itself that has no basis in the reality of real meat production, and the lengths they go to just to win a ribbon and sell a lamb to the highest bidder at prices that are grossly inflated does nothing for anyone except perhaps the egos of those few who win. It's certainly NOT about creating good production genetics, not by a long shot.

 

Does all that really not compute with you? I mean it makes total sense to me. And just as an aside, if all of this isn't enough to convince you that you might think about going another route ;-) These are usually young animals we're talking about correct? young lambs and kids? How wise do you think it is to be putting that much stress on young bones,muscles, joints etc...we try not to do that with horses, I know its an issue with young dogs...do we just not care about livestock in the same manner? Or do we leave it all up to those 'good genetics' and hope for the best ;-)

[Debbie Meier]

It seems Debbie, that a lot of your argument revolves around defending how you and your close associates treat your livestock. Everyone who disagrees is peta-bound, silly, sensitive lamb-huggers.

 

Just because it's what you've always done, doesn't make it right.

Just because it's what we do, doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

I'm not trying to defend anything, just sharing how I see it, is that defending? As far as everyone disagreeing being "peta-bound, silly, sensitie lamb huggers", no, I don't think that, far from it, though I often ask myself if my feelings towards something has been clouded by other agendas.

 

As far as right or wrong, does it have to be that way? I guess I don't look at right or wrong, but maybe I'm flawed. Nobody has to change what they are for or against, just realize for one reason or another that not everybody is on board with them for varing reasons, some might be polically justified, some morally, some just don't care and who know how many other reasons people have, the reasons are probably as different as the people.

 

I'm not going to bother with the rest, then would be trying to defend and there's no point, especially as it relates to this thread.

 

 

Deb