Rabbit are considered "POULTRY"???

[desibaba]

Although i have known that hunters do hunt andeat rabbits in rural america i was shocked beyond belief when i readthis article.Disgusting to say the least.Im surprised that noone isupset by this.

http://www.rabbitproduction.com/Rabbits_as_Poultry.html

 

[Spring]

It does happen. Rabbits in somecasesare bred for meat, just like other animals. Personally Iwould never eat rabbit meat for the mental reason, but I know manypeople who do eat rabbit meat.

 

[ec]

By being classed as "poultry" under US law, rabbits are not protected by laws regarding humane slaughter.

It's very difficult for me to think of rabbits as a commodity, and desibaba, I can understand your feelings.

 

[cheryl]

I had actually heard about this on another forumlast year,there were quite a lot of shocked andangry memberson there who just couldn't believe it.

cheryl

 

[Bunnys_rule63]

When I read "Stories Rabbits Tell: ANatural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature " I had tostop halfway through the meat rabbit chapter because I was so shockedand upset by how they are treated. It turns out they have no lawsprotecting how they are treated or killed.:X

 

[Martina]

Speaking of meat/fur rabbits I just saw this the other day...

You might really not want to watch it...

BIG WARNINGgraphic...

.

.

.

.

.

[ame=http://www.collegehumor.com/video:43127]http://www.collegehumor.com/video:43127[/ame]







People are the most patheticbeings on Earth in my opinion,butsadly arethe *only* ones who can stop this, withlittle things likewhat you buy, support and eat. I just wishthe people who do get it could do more.

 

[Pipp]

I know this conversation is civil and notinflamatory, but the subject of rabbit meat is off limits, and I thinkthis thread has to end here.

There's no problem with discussing the issue of rabbits falling underthe poultry laws and what can be done to change that, but not when itleads to graphic descriptions or anything else meat-related.Thatsubject is upsetting to a great many ofourmembers.

I'm not going to move it or lock it, but I will ask that people respectthatfactand not take this any further

Thanks for understanding.



sas

 

[AngelnSnuffy]

I agree Pipp and I wouldn't even think about watching that video.

 

[solebomber]

I honestly didn't care for the Videomyself, but I have no issue with Rabbits being classified aspoultry, I would rather see them classified asLivestock. It hasn't been until rather recentlythat Rabbits have become popular as House Pets. The Domesticrabbit was Domesticated as a Livestock animal for Meat and Furproduction not as a pet - Bonus to all that have them aspets, don't get me wrong but to classify them as pets onlytakes away from and infringes upon others rights to keep them as livestock and as a food source.To compare Rabbits toDogs and Cats isn't a proper comparison as Dogs/Cats were domesticatedfor reasons other meat and fur production.

I am 100% for everyones right to keep rabbits as pets and to love ancherish them but at the same time I am 100% for the rights of those whowish to use them for what they were domesticated in the firstplace. There are alot of food sources man can live withoutbut the right to have the choice is at issue with reclasification aspets.

 

[Pipp]

Does somebody want to outline the differences between the classifications so the discussion is a little more informed?

Good points, but we're still on the edge of 'upsetting'.

sas

 

[NZminilops]

I find this thread pretty disturbing, I can seewhy rabbits are used for meat production but the thought of it makes mevery ill and dizzy.

I don't like hearing reasons why it's ok to do it, so I wont come back and read anything else.

 

[solebomber]

Pipp wrote:

Doessomebody want to outline the differences between the classifications sothe discussion is a little more informed?

Good points, but we're still on the edge of 'upsetting'.

sas

To be classified as Pet would mean the end of Food/Fur production sothose folks who actually do raise them for such would no longer be ableto do so wether that is for thier own use of for commercialpurposes. Which I am sure would be fine for those whoconsider them as pets only but on the other hand it takes away from theoriginal purpose and the rights of others who have been raising themfor purposes other than pet.

To be classified as Poultry/Livestock you can still have them as petsbut it allows for them to be raised as a Food/Fur source for those whoview them as such and for that which they were created for in the firstplace - without which we wouldn't have them available as pets in thefirst place -ie if they weren't domesticated as food/fur than the oddsof them being domesticated is pretty slim. So it is the Domesticationof them as Food/Fur that we have them as pets today.

I have a Pet Rooster and 2 Ducks , They are still poultry and yet theyare also loved by me as pets and I wouldn't dream of eating them - butI also wouldn't consider trying to pass legislation that made them petsonly so that no one else could eat chickens or ducks. I hopethat makes sense.

 

[Pipp]

Under the legislation, as I understand it, thereis a definate difference between the rules for Livestock and the rulesfor Poultry, I thought you were saying there were separate laws forPets, thus the request reutlining the differences betweenthe three, but if you're just referring to the general perception andnot the law, this isn't taking this thread into the 'informeddiscussion' territory, so I'm back to asking that it ends here.

It's notthat the board policy argues your point, it's justthat it's an upsetting topic for a lot of people to read/think about,so the polite thing to do is just not go there.

The thread is closed, sorry. If anybody has any issues with this, please PMme.



sas