"PLEASE DO NOT use the donkeys (in Santorini) for transportation…these poor animals are abused on a regular basis. The donkey men use sticks with nails to prod or whip them into moving along their way.”
Mar 9th, 2006, 07:27 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Add me to the list which would prefer to see proof of this mistreatment. I too have seen dozens of donkeys doing those trips up and down at Santorini. I'm not saying it isn't a possibility, but for people to rave that they'd never take them just because someone said it is true, seems a little silly to me. The idea that whipping them with sticks with nails on them can't be spotted even if you were right there makes me wonder how on earth the donkeys hide their feelings so no one can tell they're being abused.
Mar 9th, 2006, 07:35 PM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don' t care who posted this-
Since I had the misfortune to witness a Carriage horse in NYC falling to the ground and dying ..and it does not always take a stick with nails to do it...I prefer to get my Tourist kicks without some poor animal being involved . Does one really find that watching a poor donkey work makes their vacation that much more delightful?
Since I had the misfortune to witness a Carriage horse in NYC falling to the ground and dying ..and it does not always take a stick with nails to do it...I prefer to get my Tourist kicks without some poor animal being involved . Does one really find that watching a poor donkey work makes their vacation that much more delightful?
Mar 9th, 2006, 07:52 PM
#24
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did the donkey ride in Santorini. Fortunately I did not see any cruelty displayed by the handler. He used voice commands and I never saw him strike the animal. If indeed he used a stick with nails I would have snatched it from him, jumped on his back and used it on his backside! I don't doubt there are cases of cruelty but thankfully I never saw any incidents. The donkey issue gets a bit of coverage in this forum. However even more barbaric is the bullfight "spectacle" in Spain. This surprisingly does not get much attention from animal rights activists.
Mar 9th, 2006, 08:12 PM
#25
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Such a variety of responses.
First of all Akin excerpted a posting of mine from Feb. 8 to use for the heading if his own thread. Obviously he was successful in grabbing your attention. Applause for that.
Attempting to discredit his desire to bring attention to the abuse of the donkeys on Santorini by denigrating PETA is akin to a blanket condemnation of Islam because of the activities of a minority of fanatical and misguided Muslims who exploit their religion for their own twisted agendas.
It doesn't take a statistical analysis to recognize animal abuse. It's a reality, not a theoretical exercise in data sampling. I know what I saw, and I'm not the only one who has.
The donkeys don't hide their reactions. They occasionally buck and kick when being jabbed with the stick. They occasionally snap at those around them (some are even wearing muzzles--I wonder why?), and they sometimes attempt to scrape their riders off their backs along the walls of the steps. Plenty of tourists have had to visit the local medical facilities for treatment of their cuts and abraisions from the donkey ride.
The abuse doesn't happen every time someone gets on a donkey, and it's not surprising that a rider wouldn't spot the abuse since the donkeys are in front of their handlers. Most likely only the straggler would receive any prodding by the handler who would be behind the rider's back.
Thank all of you for your responses. They keep this abuse in the public eye regardless of which side of the fence they're on, since each posting takes this thread "To The Top."
First of all Akin excerpted a posting of mine from Feb. 8 to use for the heading if his own thread. Obviously he was successful in grabbing your attention. Applause for that.
Attempting to discredit his desire to bring attention to the abuse of the donkeys on Santorini by denigrating PETA is akin to a blanket condemnation of Islam because of the activities of a minority of fanatical and misguided Muslims who exploit their religion for their own twisted agendas.
It doesn't take a statistical analysis to recognize animal abuse. It's a reality, not a theoretical exercise in data sampling. I know what I saw, and I'm not the only one who has.
The donkeys don't hide their reactions. They occasionally buck and kick when being jabbed with the stick. They occasionally snap at those around them (some are even wearing muzzles--I wonder why?), and they sometimes attempt to scrape their riders off their backs along the walls of the steps. Plenty of tourists have had to visit the local medical facilities for treatment of their cuts and abraisions from the donkey ride.
The abuse doesn't happen every time someone gets on a donkey, and it's not surprising that a rider wouldn't spot the abuse since the donkeys are in front of their handlers. Most likely only the straggler would receive any prodding by the handler who would be behind the rider's back.
Thank all of you for your responses. They keep this abuse in the public eye regardless of which side of the fence they're on, since each posting takes this thread "To The Top."
Mar 9th, 2006, 08:32 PM
#26
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you suppose will happen to these donkeys when their owners can no longer make money from them? Do you think that they will be pampered in their retirement and treated as pets? Most likely they will be destroyed.
Mar 9th, 2006, 08:57 PM
#28
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is apparent to me that the posters on this thread have never tried to make a donkey or mule do something that animal was reluctant to do. As one who "skinned" mules in Yosemite in my youth, I can tell you that gentle persuasion makes absolutely no impression. Some sort of more affirmative physical action is required at times. Whether it be a poke, prod, or slap on the flank, one sometimes neads to get the beast's attention. Like spurs for a horseman, a stick or switch is a necessary part of a mule skinners outfit.
Having said that, there is a clear line between motivating a stubborn animal and cruelty. As my trainer said, "Never beat a mule to make him move. If he won't go, just shoot him."
Anyone with a lick of sense can tell if the guide is being cruel to an animal. If you see someone harming an animal, as apposed to motivating it, you and I are abliged to step in and stop it. In the case of the nails in the end of the stick, I probably would take the stick to the guide.
If one wants to make the animal rightist's argument that it is immoral to take advantage of animals as beasts of burden, then we have a more serious and perhaps more compelling arguement. Your choice is clear in that case; simply do not support the activity, and walk up the hill instead.
Having said that, there is a clear line between motivating a stubborn animal and cruelty. As my trainer said, "Never beat a mule to make him move. If he won't go, just shoot him."
Anyone with a lick of sense can tell if the guide is being cruel to an animal. If you see someone harming an animal, as apposed to motivating it, you and I are abliged to step in and stop it. In the case of the nails in the end of the stick, I probably would take the stick to the guide.
If one wants to make the animal rightist's argument that it is immoral to take advantage of animals as beasts of burden, then we have a more serious and perhaps more compelling arguement. Your choice is clear in that case; simply do not support the activity, and walk up the hill instead.
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:56 PM
#30
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scarlett makes an excellent point. Whether or not the donkeys are whipped with nails (and there are obviously enough people who can attest to the fact that they sometimes are), it seems that forcing an animal to work for hours at a time in the heat of the sun is cruel in itself. This is why I would never patronize the carriage rides that Scarlett mentions or the Santorini donkeys.
And yes, PETA is a very in-your-face organization. That's how they market themselves. But if you go on their website you can read about their many victories against animal abuse. There is that less suffering in the world due to their hard work. Too bad they are targeted by huge corporations and individuals who are somehow threatened by the compassion of others.
I'm not sure why worldinabag thinks PETA and other organizations don't work against bullfights. I know for a fact that they do. Just as they do against the myriad of abuses that take place in Spain in the name of "culture," from dropping goats from church towers to setting firworks off that are tied to the horns of bulls. But the human animal will try to justify just about anything.
And yes, PETA is a very in-your-face organization. That's how they market themselves. But if you go on their website you can read about their many victories against animal abuse. There is that less suffering in the world due to their hard work. Too bad they are targeted by huge corporations and individuals who are somehow threatened by the compassion of others.
I'm not sure why worldinabag thinks PETA and other organizations don't work against bullfights. I know for a fact that they do. Just as they do against the myriad of abuses that take place in Spain in the name of "culture," from dropping goats from church towers to setting firworks off that are tied to the horns of bulls. But the human animal will try to justify just about anything.
Mar 9th, 2006, 11:24 PM
#32
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, OK. Thanks Guy that's reassuring to hear. The bull cult is very much part of Spanish culture so I can understand how difficult it is to stop. I believe Barcelona has put a stop to it so - "Go the Bulls"
Mar 10th, 2006, 12:09 AM
#33
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nukesafe: exactly what I was thinking. Human society would be a lot worse off if we hadn't figured out how to domesticate animals a long time ago, and some degree of force is often necessary for that, but there's no reason to just torture animals for some sick, twisted pleasure.
Mar 10th, 2006, 12:35 AM
#34
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guy 18.
This is turning into a bit of a side issue - and I speak as someone who actually got off the Santorini donkeys halfway up, because I was horrified at how they were treated.
But there's a very good reason PETA is being "targetted" (or, as many of us prefer to put it, exposed) by many reputable companies.
Its objectives aren't for compassionate use of animals. They're to stop ALL use of animals.
"PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." (www.peta.org/about/)
That means, of course, no bear baiting or cock fighting.
But it also means no animal farming. No milking. No horseriding. No pets.
No cats to kill the mice that eat grain-farmers' crops. No dogs to guard against marauding wolves.
In other words, no future for most of the human race.
There are plenty of legitimate groups campaigning against animal cruelty. PETA isn't one of them.
This is turning into a bit of a side issue - and I speak as someone who actually got off the Santorini donkeys halfway up, because I was horrified at how they were treated.
But there's a very good reason PETA is being "targetted" (or, as many of us prefer to put it, exposed) by many reputable companies.
Its objectives aren't for compassionate use of animals. They're to stop ALL use of animals.
"PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." (www.peta.org/about/)
That means, of course, no bear baiting or cock fighting.
But it also means no animal farming. No milking. No horseriding. No pets.
No cats to kill the mice that eat grain-farmers' crops. No dogs to guard against marauding wolves.
In other words, no future for most of the human race.
There are plenty of legitimate groups campaigning against animal cruelty. PETA isn't one of them.
Mar 10th, 2006, 01:51 AM
#35
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CotswoldScouser--Thanks for your respectful reply, but I think that you're a bit misinformed. Yes, that is Peta's mission statement (one which I happen to agree with). But Peta is not targeting small farmers, those farmers who raise cage free fowl, for instance. Instead, they are assiduously targeting factory farms which are horrifically cruel and ruinous to the environment. And while I have heard some extreme animal rights people decry the ownership of pets, Peta SELLS pet merchandise and encourages people to adopt abandoned and abused animals from shelters. Again, the ones they target are the puppy mills where breeder dogs often live a lifetime of misery. So, while you may not choose to live your life by Peta's mission statement, and while some Peta members may take stronger stands than you are comfortable with, that does nothing to undermine, once again, the good this organization does.
Mar 10th, 2006, 03:21 AM
#36
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good "for instance" ocurred to me...Did you know that PETA is responsible for several fast food restaurants and supermarkets agreeing to require stricter standards for humane treatment of animals in the slaughterhouses they use? These standards include euthanizing wounded animals and stunning animals before they are killed. They are way too practical to try to shut down slaughterhouses altogether, as much as they might wish they'd disappear. Farmer Jones and his family aren't even on their radar.
Mar 10th, 2006, 03:47 AM
#37
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In making reference to PETA, I am simply responding to the reference introduced by the OP.
brotherleelove2004
"I know what I saw, and I'm not the only one that has."
That is precisely my point. Other people have seen things, and they likewise might maintain that they 'know' what they saw. So where does that leave us? Am I to automatically assume that one or the other party is attempting to mislead me for whatever reason? I have to have some means of deciding that doesn't involve a faith-based belief.
I think the issue is important enough to have a civilized debate about it, and yes, to have proper studies. If you are convinced that it is happening, you have nothing to fear from controlled independent observation and statistically valid samples. Of course, this assumes that your worst fear is that you might be wrong, not that the donkeys are being abused. (In other words, the possibility that there exist instances in which animals are not being abused, I would have thought would bring joy.)
Re getting attention: Yes, publicity pays, and in more than one way. Research that generates a negative result rarely gets press, whether it is a substance that doesn't cause cancer or an animal that isn't being abused. Does this mean that no substances cause cancer or that no animal gets abused? I'm not going to insult thet collective intelligence of those reading by making this anything other than a rhetorical question.
I'm glad you raised the example of extreme Islam. In a civilized debate, one remains open-minded to the possibility that many possible scenarios exist, and that many possible solutions exist. Of course, you are free to believe what you wish without proof, just as many people take the existence of God on faith. I have nothing but respect for most faith-based beliefs, but I can't support the application of religious-style doctrine, be it Koranic law or any other, to society at large, including the role of animals therein, via a belief-based organization. I am not interested in creating a utopia of any type; I prefer a messy world in which things get discussed and argued about, not decreed or coerced by some authority holding itself as moral authority.
Tourism can be used beneficially, in many ways. If it cannot, then we had best all cancel our registrations and depart forthwith, and I don't mean for Greece.
Meanwhile, I am open to persuasion. I'm quite happy to hear your point of view, as I'm happy to hear others. But may I say that the more self-righteous the stance of those trying to persuade, the more difficult they might find their task. I'm not issuing a challenge here, just stating what is true for me and many people. And surely you can't afford to risk losing the support of anyone, for something so important.
brotherleelove2004
"I know what I saw, and I'm not the only one that has."
That is precisely my point. Other people have seen things, and they likewise might maintain that they 'know' what they saw. So where does that leave us? Am I to automatically assume that one or the other party is attempting to mislead me for whatever reason? I have to have some means of deciding that doesn't involve a faith-based belief.
I think the issue is important enough to have a civilized debate about it, and yes, to have proper studies. If you are convinced that it is happening, you have nothing to fear from controlled independent observation and statistically valid samples. Of course, this assumes that your worst fear is that you might be wrong, not that the donkeys are being abused. (In other words, the possibility that there exist instances in which animals are not being abused, I would have thought would bring joy.)
Re getting attention: Yes, publicity pays, and in more than one way. Research that generates a negative result rarely gets press, whether it is a substance that doesn't cause cancer or an animal that isn't being abused. Does this mean that no substances cause cancer or that no animal gets abused? I'm not going to insult thet collective intelligence of those reading by making this anything other than a rhetorical question.
I'm glad you raised the example of extreme Islam. In a civilized debate, one remains open-minded to the possibility that many possible scenarios exist, and that many possible solutions exist. Of course, you are free to believe what you wish without proof, just as many people take the existence of God on faith. I have nothing but respect for most faith-based beliefs, but I can't support the application of religious-style doctrine, be it Koranic law or any other, to society at large, including the role of animals therein, via a belief-based organization. I am not interested in creating a utopia of any type; I prefer a messy world in which things get discussed and argued about, not decreed or coerced by some authority holding itself as moral authority.
Tourism can be used beneficially, in many ways. If it cannot, then we had best all cancel our registrations and depart forthwith, and I don't mean for Greece.
Meanwhile, I am open to persuasion. I'm quite happy to hear your point of view, as I'm happy to hear others. But may I say that the more self-righteous the stance of those trying to persuade, the more difficult they might find their task. I'm not issuing a challenge here, just stating what is true for me and many people. And surely you can't afford to risk losing the support of anyone, for something so important.
Mar 10th, 2006, 04:27 AM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the OP persuades some, or most, of the people who read these boards to stop using the donkey rides on Santorini, I don't think that will stop the way the animals are treated. Because there are lots more tourists who will continue to use them.
I think that the abusive behavior will only change if the donkey men are persuaded as to why they should change it.
It reminds me of the Sea turtles of Culebra. There used to be widespread killing of the turtle by local fishermen, in spite of the fact that they were and are endangered. A biologist I spoke to on the island related that the only thing that succeeded in changing the hunting and killing was a LOCAL grassroots campaign, (not PETA-based) of persuasion that it was more "macho" NOT to kill them. Once the hearts and minds of local fishermen were brought into an alliance with the thinking of environmentalists, the behavior changed. And it didn't happen through confrontation, rather through persuasion. Now the perception on the island is that it is more "macho" to protect the turtle habitats, with the same enthusiasm that was dedicated to hunting them years ago.
I think that the abusive behavior will only change if the donkey men are persuaded as to why they should change it.
It reminds me of the Sea turtles of Culebra. There used to be widespread killing of the turtle by local fishermen, in spite of the fact that they were and are endangered. A biologist I spoke to on the island related that the only thing that succeeded in changing the hunting and killing was a LOCAL grassroots campaign, (not PETA-based) of persuasion that it was more "macho" NOT to kill them. Once the hearts and minds of local fishermen were brought into an alliance with the thinking of environmentalists, the behavior changed. And it didn't happen through confrontation, rather through persuasion. Now the perception on the island is that it is more "macho" to protect the turtle habitats, with the same enthusiasm that was dedicated to hunting them years ago.
Mar 10th, 2006, 08:28 AM
#39
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Make your message easy to find: Give it a clear, identifying title..” That is what I hoped to do because I found this quote deep within another post and was so glad I did. I wanted to assure it was SEEN. Wow, had I known mentioning PETA would cause such a stir, I would have taken the time to type: The Humane Society of the United States or the World Wildlife Fund, both of which I also support, but picked and organization with less letters. Like Brotherleelove said, whatever your opinion, and there are many, at least animal abuse, and ABUSE is what I wanted to draw attention to, is being discussed, especially in relation to providing “pleasure” to humans. Please do not get side-tracked from the message. Again, I was just passing along INFORMATION to educate so we can make our own decision. Ultimately, we truly answer to our own conscious. By the way, I am a “she”.
Mar 10th, 2006, 09:20 AM
#40
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I belong to WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals). They go into the most wretched countries to try and teach the locals how to care for their animals and change the views of many people that animals are here soley for our use.
The U.S. slaughters 85,000 horses/donkeys/mules yearly and sells the meat to Europe for food. Canada still clubs seals for fur, and let's not even talk about China! I will never visit China because I believe their culture is so cruel to so many animals for the dumbest reasons (take Viagra for god's sake-leave the poor creatures alone!)
I don't know why some people wet their pants when PETA is mentioned. I read that the 2 ways people deal with the morality of animals is by avoidance and denial. They don't want to know how their food is killed. They don't want to feel like bad people because, hey, they love their dog! Deep down we are all complicit in the suffering; it's just that some of us choose to acknowledge this and change, while some want to shoot the messenger.
You are not a moral person because you believe in someone in the sky who watches over you and grants wishes like Santa Claus. Your morality is based on actions. The people who are angered over animal rights know this, that's why they're angry. Their defensive because they know they're wrong.
Aren't gluttony and vanity deadly sins?
The U.S. slaughters 85,000 horses/donkeys/mules yearly and sells the meat to Europe for food. Canada still clubs seals for fur, and let's not even talk about China! I will never visit China because I believe their culture is so cruel to so many animals for the dumbest reasons (take Viagra for god's sake-leave the poor creatures alone!)
I don't know why some people wet their pants when PETA is mentioned. I read that the 2 ways people deal with the morality of animals is by avoidance and denial. They don't want to know how their food is killed. They don't want to feel like bad people because, hey, they love their dog! Deep down we are all complicit in the suffering; it's just that some of us choose to acknowledge this and change, while some want to shoot the messenger.
You are not a moral person because you believe in someone in the sky who watches over you and grants wishes like Santa Claus. Your morality is based on actions. The people who are angered over animal rights know this, that's why they're angry. Their defensive because they know they're wrong.
Aren't gluttony and vanity deadly sins?
