Legislation to improve lives of egg laying hens

[chickened]

Maybe pre-whiteman era but most if not all adapted to the new foods available. Read Lewis and Clark journals sometimes or history of certain tribes. Horse meat was used as well. You are right the hunter gathers of the plains did migrate with the game.

Not many American Indian tribes ate dog meat, chickened. Mainly those who were practicing some form of agriculture. The fully hunter-gatherer tribes did not keep animals for food; they hunted wild game, fish and fowl and were on the move seasonally to follow the meat.

My reference was to the "career" hunter-gatherer Native Americans, not the tribes that heavily practiced horticulture, agriculture and/or pastoral food raising for the bulk of their food. There is a different mindset and ethos between peoples who grow/raise their food, and those who are completely dependent on the availability of game and the necessity of truly knowing its nature.

 

[chickened]

We have a site here in Oregon called Celilo Falls it is under a reservoir now but in its heyday it was a very popular place where Indians would fish for salmon. That particular tribe would catch as many fish as it could by whatever means and stockpile it by drying it and leaving the guts to rot in the sun. Lewis and Clark wrote in their journals that they could smell the villages long before they got there and the origin of the smell was from human feces, rotting excess food, and food byproducts as they had no knowledge of food preservation other than drying. They would gather 3 or 4 times what they needed to compensate for losses and more. The only difference I see is factory farms deal with the waste in a better way but the idea of mass production with available knowledge to make their life easier was the main objective. The Indians would gladly have taken advantage of factory farming knowledge as an alternative to starvation which did happen in bad game/crop years. What is spoken today about Native American beliefs is a far cry from how they operated 300 years ago. They did not turn down most modern conveniences and took full advantage of most. The ones that didn't suffered the most. I am sure there was something learned from this by most Native Americans. The modern Indians that I know personally for the most part do not hold the beliefs that their tribal elders do.

Um, no - nothing about Native American food production even remotely resembles factory farming. In fact, factory farming is in direct opposition to most Native American value/belief systems.

 

[RHRanch]

We have a site here in Oregon called Celilo Falls it is under a reservoir now but in its heyday it was a very popular place where Indians would fish for salmon. That particular tribe would catch as many fish as it could by whatever means and stockpile it by drying it and leaving the guts to rot in the sun. Lewis and Clark wrote in their journals that they could smell the villages long before they got there and the origin of the smell was from human feces, rotting excess food, and food byproducts as they had no knowledge of food preservation other than drying. They would gather 3 or 4 times what they needed to compensate for losses and more. The only difference I see is factory farms deal with the waste in a better way but the idea of mass production with available knowledge to make their life easier was the main objective. The Indians would gladly have taken advantage of factory farming knowledge as an alternative to starvation which did happen in bad game/crop years. What is spoken today about Native American beliefs is a far cry from how they operated 300 years ago. They did not turn down most modern conveniences and took full advantage of most. The ones that didn't suffered the most. I am sure there was something learned from this by most Native Americans. The modern Indians that I know personally for the most part do not hold the beliefs that their tribal elders do.

Louis and Clarke wrote from the perspective of white europeans and their interpretation of native american life (like that of many explorers) is written from a european perspective. Often time these early explorers drew conclusions that were very incorrect or innacurate. What they interpreted from their observations is not nessasarily accurate. I have no idea what indians you know and what their beliefs are - like everyone else, beliefs vary from person to person. However, as someone heavily involved in the native american culture thru my ethnicity and relationships, it is my experience that the "old ways" are still being practiced, cherished and handed down, in fact there is a huge return to cultural values as native people are starting to be able to communicate with each other and gather for cultural celebrations. As for modern conveniences, sure they took advantage of some, but that has nothing to do with belief or culture. I can use a chopstick, it doesn't mean I forsake my culture or ethnicity by doing so.

 

[chickened]

How does gambling fit in Native American culture? I find no history of such practice and the Indians I know like the money but say it goes as against their beliefs.

Louis and Clarke wrote from the perspective of white europeans and their interpretation of native american life (like that of many explorers) is written from a european perspective. Often time these early explorers drew conclusions that were very incorrect or innacurate. What they interpreted from their observations is not nessasarily accurate. I have no idea what indians you know and what their beliefs are - like everyone else, beliefs vary from person to person. However, as someone heavily involved in the native american culture thru my ethnicity and relationships, it is my experience that the "old ways" are still being practiced, cherished and handed down, in fact there is a huge return to cultural values as native people are starting to be able to communicate with each other and gather for cultural celebrations. As for modern conveniences, sure they took advantage of some, but that has nothing to do with belief or culture. I can use a chopstick, it doesn't mean I forsake my culture or ethnicity by doing so.

 

[NixNoodleNumbat]

I guess the question is:
Is this a step in the right direction, or are they creating an unfair agreement?

 

[chickened]

edited

 

[rufus]

My gut instinct tells me that the last thing we need is another federal law and an officious bureaucracy to enforce it. The law of unintended consequences will kick in, and most of us will be classified as criminals. Some sanctimonious lady thought I was horrible because I let my chickens walk on the dirt.

When people make laws based upon emotions and not the needs of society things always go wrong.

We can't eat horse meat anymore. That offended horse owners. But now, people are giving horses away because they cannot feed them.

Some lady in Colorado was hauled into court because she was killing and eating rabbits. That offended the House Rabbit Society and the Humane Society.

I don't trust the federal government. Control the food supply and you control society. Stalin starved the Ukraine into submission. Remember what happened to the Kulaks.

Rufus

 

[newfoundland]

Over regulation has not killed the UK economy since it still retains it AAA credit rating!

 

[GardenerGal]

Well, we're going far off topic here.
But to compare native peoples centuries after they were subjugated by European conquerers and colonists, to their ways of life and belief before their cultures were crushed and forced to assimilate, is pretty over the top! I mean, come on!

Back to the original subject. Now that I know more about the bill and the motives behind it, I am not a supporter of it. Besides the issues of humane practices, it also sets a dangerous precedent for excluding the people from the process of determining where their food comes from and how it is produced.

How does gambling fit in Native American culture? I find no history of such practice and the Indians I know like the money but say it goes as against their beliefs.

 

[chickened]

I would agree and take it a step further by saying trying to recreate that culture in today's society would be counter intuitive both economically (reservation poverty) and socially (higher drug and alcohol abuse rates on reservations). Sorry about the off topic.

As for the bill we agree if just in principal I see no real benefit to the animals welfare but more regulations, a new bureaucracy and fees. Basically the government coming in telling you what to do and offering no protection to the farmers from further regulation.

In a stagnant economy our elected people should be focusing on creating jobs not having us spend more money on food. Just seems out of touch and dealing with a problem that really does not exist. I can think of worse situations that animals are in but attacking and villainizing corporations seems to be popular now days.

Well, we're going far off topic here.
But to compare native peoples centuries after they were subjugated by European conquerers and colonists, to their ways of life and belief before their cultures were crushed and forced to assimilate, is pretty over the top! I mean, come on!

Back to the original subject. Now that I know more about the bill and the motives behind it, I am not a supporter of it. Besides the issues of humane practices, it also sets a dangerous precedent for excluding the people from the process of determining where their food comes from and how it is produced.