It's like saying sex with animals in general is either right or wrong. There are so many different shades of grey, not black and white at all.

I don't see how anything can be wrong with neglected animals no one cares about being happy to get attention, and a caring animal lover, being happy to give this attention. If it is done in such a way to make sure the animal's needs always comes in the first place, and if it is done in a place where no one will ever find out.

(Yes this is a long post, it includes a number of quotes, and so I have broken it into smaller sized paragraphs)

Wonderful dialogue!

Thanx rololover!

I think that svanfall may have been saying something different of what you thought, you may have a line he was quoting. I have to say that because I mention his views further on.

If I may posit a couple of observations:
Two pairs of major aspects of these views:

First Pair
Regards people who 'visit' livestock, there is the "Friends ONLY OR First" synthesis. (As for those truly disturbed individuals who plan nocturnal quickies with buckets and camo. I think we almost all agree that the 'bucket brigade' are thoughtless cruel exploiters. I dont think anyone with mind or heart would act like this (blew my mind really :crying:) )
Who, I am refering to are people, like svansfall, myself, gunslinger and a few others who have technically fence hopped. (Im going by their posts - Im willing to be corrected. Please read them here and in FHU thread) This is the "Shades of Grey" view within the "Friends Only OR First" synthesis. That would make for the SOGFOOF camp! (I KNOW its a serious subject, but Im a believer of whistling in the dark sometimes! :whistling: ) This synthesis infers that the reasons the SOGFOOFian "hops a fence," if it all, is NOT for Sex first, or at all

Second Pair
The other pair of ideas is the Black and White, Wrong is Wrong camp.
(A totally admirable position of which I totally agree with in places and have creeping shades of grey in others) And within that is the "Go And Get Your Own" point as a solution (ready? The BWWWGAGYO synthesis!!)

Yes these are arbitrary categories and generalizations, but I constructed them to help process all of this.

Let the processing begin.

As I lean 'SOGFOOFy', (not pro-fence-hopping...SOGFOOFic) Im mostly concerned about what the 'BWWWGAGYO-ists' consider the actions of 'SOGFOOFians'. Which, if any or all, of the SOGFOOF experiences listed would you say cross the line into wrong, and which would you say, given whats said, isnt Fence Hopping so much?

Wirehair said: " 99 % of what you mention would not be what most here understand with fencehopping. If just petting and scratching makes a fencehopper, then many more of us are, together with a lot of non-zoos. "

He mentioned reaching over a fence to scritch, but what if you "hop" too ? Are there circumstances where non-sexual visits to over a fence well out in pasture that would be ok? In these situations, sex isnt planned, companionship is. If eros emerges, THEN does it becomes fence-hopping? What if I know the owner and (s)he doesnt mind me 'scritching' even on his/her property, but probably wouldnt like it if I 'pet beyond the flank?' Im not talking about those delicate expensive horses that have to be put down after a leg injury, that already has a nearest and dearest who brushes, curries, grooms and loves them. Like svansfall, Im talking about field animals. His post describes well how I feel on some of these issues too.

Ive never 'fence hopped' and had sex with a field 'animal' , (Ive aroused a few boy horses when working at stables, and OK for the record; a lonely donkey friend that I passed by daily on the way home and visited sometimes. I have literally fence-hopped, a lot, though, to visit socially, scritch and perhaps "cuddle" :heart: But the sweet boy-donkey was the only friend with whom anything got 'frisky'. Otherwise, these rendez-vous were all PLATONIC. Sex was not even attempted or desired. And it never came up in our discussions anyway. ^_^ I definitely felt arousal to have warm friendly contact, but it wasnt dick centered.

And these arnt little hobby farms or highly structured stables or turn-outs. These are huge and rough pastures, where the animals have about 5 minutes a day of human interaction. Most of the time its daylight too. Im also unlikely to run from a farmer/rancher even if seen visiting. (Though I might well try to stay out of sight) I let them confront me, I apologize and explain what Im doing. I leave when (s)he tells me. I wont talk back and if they want to hold me till the police arrive for a trespassing fine; I'll do that as well. Its worth the trouble and fine to me; though Ive been seen in fields dozens of dozens of times visiting animals but only been stopped maybe 2 or 3 times. Never a ticket; just a Get Off! But that was mostly in Canada where the sense of open space ownership isnt so aggressively territorial. Also for some reason, Canadians dont go in for such misuse and extreme abusiveness with animals nearly so much as Americans. So maybe thats why they arnt so worried for 'their' 'animals'. And yes, Im talking about per capita and even in highly densely populated areas.* But thats another story. At any rate, farmer's are less likely to be so territorial and gun-happy. (America ever feels embattled!)

*{I always argue to my Canadian friends though, that there are more decent, love and life affirming Americans, than there are Canadians all together. So there.}

And here's my explanation (not reasons or excuses) for why its worth the risk of troubles and fines;

First, I guess Im just un-American when it comes to property rights in certain situations. I love the Swedish model. Some will say that most Americans cannot handle the responsibility with that right. And I tend to agree. But maybe thats because of the mentality of 'private property' to begin with. AGAIN, Im not talking about ALL property. Just like the Swedes arnt. "
As Svanfall said:

"In Sweden, it is not allowed to forbid people to walk on your property. The law states that the nature is here for everyone to enjoy. There are only two places where people are not allowed to walk: A. Inside someone's garden, right outside their house, and B. In fields of crops. All the rest, forests, pastures, lakes, meadows, etc... are all allowed to walk through."

"Somebody got footy prints ALL over MY Desert!" - Yosemite Sam
Im talking about ranches often 10's of thousands of acres in size. Sorry, but I believe that, at least in this scale "Private Property is Theft." :pirate: (I must be one of very few anarcho-lefties here! Which does surprise me!) Once again, though, I feel compelled to pre-defend my statements. None of this entitles me to go where I will, but neither do I feel prohibited by a moral sense of right and wrong regards it (again, as in Sweden only in wide spaces away from homesteads, gardens and outbuildings). Below is a couple of small paragraphs describing just where in Hell I get off thinking this way - outside of political discourse - (the forum breathes a sigh of Relief!)

(Ive had to write clips, (below) the subject is just too overwhelming for me to create a coherent answer that addresses all of this. So many fine points from others to consider. Im not talking of the Fence Hopper Freedom Fighters Bucket Brigade, (FHFFBB!) They seem to be just animal abusers from what i can tell - their points were just the matches that lit far better Lamps of Illumination. So anyway the clips below may seem non sequitorial or re-emphasizing what I posted before.)

Feelings of Specialness or I Just Cant Wait for Swedish Style Land Laws to be Passed
Another factor regards the notion of trespass (not sexual use) is that I am an incorrigible Naturalist (not a bloody naturist, a Naturalist! :D )(I have a graduate degree in Biology: Community Ecology) and explorer/hiker (with the exception of course of areas that are delicate, damaged, or endangered. And, indeed I do do my homework regarding those, as it is my passion!) But scarcely EVER at night. If I do night hiking or naturalist exploration its seldom on someone elses property.

And, all sex aside, Im also an incorrigible lover of fellow earth beings. If Im hiking through a 25,000 acre ranch of cattle/horses and while I lunch some of them wander close, I may try to coax an interaction with an apple or some such. (And im not talking about fine animals like hobby, dressage, race or other 'fine' horses that can get collicky from dietary changes.) But I never approach them, that never works anyway(unless they know you well). Unlike Sweden, as evidenced by the frighteningly violent, but candid responses in the other (FHU) thread, I have to be well on my toes, even in day time and know damned well Im trespassing and have the good sense not to disturb ANYthing! (gates especially!!) I always am respectful and apologize if caught, but Ive learned that If I want to pretend America is like Sweden, its easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask permission when just day-using.

Platonic Fence Hopping?

And WHAT of a lonely or neglected shaggy work horse or someone similar? Someone argued that some farmers treat their horses poorly so he felt justified (not svansfall's). Well, regards the rest of his postings I didnt sense any humane compassion at all. But I would argue that a poorly treated (neglected is more than enough!) horse needs a friend! I dont mean a friend who drops by to use you. A true friend. Ive had animal pals adozen through my life fitting this description. Sometimes the owners know, many of them didnt. Sometimes I do end up trespassing to visit. But Never, for the Love of Petey , did I ever go without permission onto a horsey stable/farm! Not only is it risky to for everyone to be messing about such a highly structured operation, those horses seldom need extra attention anyway, the prisses! :angel: )

Im thinking about an old drunken farmer's (Ive known aplenty) horse who he treated like sh*t (his cows, his family, his land) and then 2 years ago quit working with the horse all together and now the horse spends its days alone and uncared for, burred fetlocks and a ratty mane. Im unlikely to approach the old bastard (the farmer!) for permission and I do feel, in some ways, he HAS relinquished his Right of Control with the relinquishment of his Responsibility of Care. This isnt only 'property'; its a unique living individual. It doesnt entitle me to anything. It doesnt make it Right. It just makes the ethical quandry for me a little less problematic. I feel in certain circumstances, spiritually compelled to bring a little love to this kind of horse, cow, chicken, duck, goose, pig, cat, dog, goat, stoat, coatl, fruitbat, wombat or old Gnu.

But these were always situational. I dont go looking for it miles away. Ive lived in the countryside most of my life, and I just get to know my animal neighbors, especially the neglected ones. On many a lonely night I have gone for walks and visited animals in the cozy darkness of night as I passed their farms with huge acreage (again: field animals.) Havent any of you besides Svanfall and I crossed apasture before and said Hi to the livestock? Where I grew up, there wasnt a person who hadnt that I knew. I know, thats the same as having sex with them, but its still a type of "fence-hopping" by definition...or is it to us all?

With the exception of some dogs (that were not 'mine') (that I knew and they and their 'owners' me, if casually) and a s
Lastly, these, as I said, are not dearly held cherished beliefs. Im exploring the intricities. Its more of a processional discussion than a stance.

Thanks to all for your thoughts and feelings. What a sensitive, big :heart: ed, thoughtful bunch this is. No matter most of the points of view, compassion seems the rule: (With the exception of the FHFFBB! :ph34r:) :badwords:

Here below is Gunslinger's post. I include it for ease, forgive me for the length of my post. Svanfall's notes I think also argue well the SOI just cant, after reading that FHU thread, say 'a little'. It starts with my opening paragraph from the other thread, as I am trying to exceptionally clear on aspects of my (evolving!) attitudes.
.
<><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><>
WOW!
What a terrific thread! INTENSE! Educational. Thought Provoking. Must See. (ok, I know enuff already!)

I CANT keep up! I just read the whole thread, I laughed. (I did!) I cried (I did.) (Thank 'the-powers-that-be' for digital storage. I see that the cool Racoolman has had this thread BUMPed up by Hamble (Can I call you that? Im not George 'W', I try not to assume nic-names). Thanks to Hambletonian! I had responded to Racoolman's thread and we've been having a great discussion on this subject. But this thread...is 'de riguer' for further discussion.
However, Im a little confused as to what falls under the Fence Hopper heading.
As of recently I have made posts which sounded fence-hop defending. The route through which we learn of something often shapes our perception of it. (McCluhan all over again eh?) I had defended not fence-hopping as it is presented in this thread by and large but what i took for fence-hopping as might be described by one poster whose succinctness (a skill I still struggle with! Notice?) said most all of my points of concern. They are not dearly held or cherished by me (nor him it seems)

Anyway Gunslinger said:
........................................................................................................................................
Like many others ive worked with/around horses for awhile, and yes, ive spent my share of evenings with them both sexually and otherwise. I owned a stallion, and due to my work hours would go riding at night quite often, thus it wasnt uncommon for my car to be parked out by the barn/pasture long after the owners of the stables were asleep. Until i could get him gelded 9that sucked by the way, barn rules though) he had to remain in the stall. Well there were mares on all sides and needless to say the sexual tension in the barn was pretty think between him and the mares. So, one evening i decided that the mare i'd been cleaning up after next to him (got a cut on the boarding rate by doing chores for full boarders) was showing all the right signals, and yes, i responded in kind.

So in that way i fencehopped. I dont try to justify it, it happened and thats all there is to it. The only thing i will say is this, never once did i consider tying her up or forcing anything upon her, nor was it simply for the sex, as we had a great relationship for years afterwards with NO sex at all. Though me and my horse played often.

I dont believe in trespassing on someone elses property just to get your rocks off with thier horses because you dont have the time/desire/whathaveyou to get a horse of your own, you mentioned the "thrill" well based on that one statement you in my opinion qualify for placement in the catagory of the ignorant fools who cause more harm to both the animals involved (i.e. you [the thread starter of FHU]**LEFT a black painted ladder in a pasture full of horses) and this lifestyle as a whole. Unlike the others who warned you to be careful lest you get caught, i for one wish the horses owners luck in catching you before you hurt one of the horses you obviously care so little about.

Id dearly love to spend that type of quality time with a horse again, but until i can once again get my own, i'll do without.

Guns
.............................................................................................................................................

** My, Singing Dog's, addition.

Whew! Time for an India Pale Ale!. I feel like I just ran a marathon!

:heart: :heart: :heart:

Singing Dog

Next Time: "Thy Neighbour's Dog" by Gay Tail-ease (pun) (Gay Talese was known for his daring pursuit of "unreportable" stories, for his exhaustive research, and for his elegant style. ...(His real book was "Thy Neighbour's Wife." Yes he wrote about sex. Yes thats his real name and no he wasnt gay.
"Ive only known him for years..and the neighbours know me, they know I play with him...but they dont know that I Play with him. What happens when small 'p' play becomes large 'P' Play with a dog you are allowed to play with." Singing Dog Speaks :D

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Mar 31 2006, 04:44 AM

Attached Image ( Click on thumbnail to view full size image )

singing dog, darling..........carpal tunnel can be quite painful you know :lol:

Offtopic :D :D :D



AHA! Thats how it works...once somebody reads your post...its over baby, no more editing priveleges.

Canto Canis

Interesting thread to read.

Tell me I'm wrong, but I see this "fence hopping" thing like this:

Potential Benefit - sex for you, companionship for the animal.

Potential Cost to you - discovery, arrest, humiliation, fines, jail time.

Potential Cost to the animal - injury (in the event you are trying to be too hasty, unprepared, clumsy, or just careless), depression (in the event you bond but rarely have time), distancing from its actual owners (presuming you don't know them well enough to know), distancing from other animals (in the event your scent "offends" them)

Potential Cost to the community - ridicule, anger, furthering the image of everyone as deviant predators and criminals, passage of increasingly more dramatic legal penalties, classifications, sex offender watchlists, etc...

Someone might say the risks are the same regardless of the circumstances, but if you're on someone else's property with someone else's animals... you either see how very different those situations are or you do not.

In my opinion, if you don't see the differences, the reason is about 20% honest subjectivity and 80% self-delusion. Too harsh? I do wish you well. :police:

I think it would be real nice if this Topic was "pinned" here in the Zoophilia Forum.....



....what do you think, Mod's?



:please:

Thank You For your Support.

This post has been edited by racoolman on Mar 31 2006, 10:32 AM

Pariah Dog's last words on the subject: :ph34r:

Cohort said: "Tell me Im wrong"

No need to say if you are right or wrong from my point of view Cohort. Those are valid points. Particularly within the general context you provided. But I and some others have mentioned scenarios that I think are rather different than your typical stealth animal abuser or even your typical 'fence-hoppers' None of the people I am talking about went over a fence specifically for sex, or had sex at all, some didnt even have to hop a fence, some knew the 'owner', all I refer to clearly, are intelligent (moral/philosophical disagreement is not cause for judging intelligence - its cause for considering ethics) all clearly have a deep and abiding love for animals and life, by the sense of their posts. They are anything but delusional. Their posts were well considered and carefully written.
You disagree with the notion; thats great, but a lot of points are being left out and or ignored that these people(and myself) brought up. Maybe you didnt really read very many other opinions. If you had, you might have seen that many many people like yourself have already read the Riot Act regards this subject. And you might have seen that, despite disagreeing with the arguments made in other posts, you might have seen that they were worth addressing like a 'human being'. Maybe not me, but there are others here who are worth treating like a 'human being'.
.
.hmmmm... :thinking:

Let me try another tack;

Im not vegan, I eat meat myself. And I know this isnt a vegan forum. So I invoke this example as exactly that, an example only.
Now suppose this were a food lover's site (comidaphile?). A vegan could come into a thread and wrap our a$$es in knots (not about zoo issues - its a food lover's site, remember?) around the ramifications of what meat eating does to the planet. In short order, if whomever listened, they would realize that their lifestyle has a devastating impact against not only all kinds of and untold numbers of animals and the environment (both on a massive massive industrial level) but also a crime against the third-world and directly contributes to the 30,000 daily(sic) deaths of children around the world. And then there is your health, the medical costs to society...
And all those things and loads more are true.
Even a cursory study of the material demonstrates beyond all doubt the truths of what vegans say. As a result;

We really have no right to do it.
Its a threat to all of us.
Its a terrible and unethical thing to do.
Its inarguable. Its black and white.

The Point
Now if this were a food lovers site, do you think that pile-driving home generalities into people talking about how they at least try to eat free-range (!) would be considered, if not sanctimonious, at least hostile and thus be ineffective?
Most people by now would respond that they are not here to 'please' and 'be gentle' with what they think...errr... Know ...is wrong.
But dont you see what happens? The dialogue is gone and ears close. Learning stops. Understanding Stops.

Cohort said:
"In my opinion, if you don't see [the truth in this]*, the reason is about 20% honest subjectivity and 80% self-delusion. Too harsh? I do wish you well."

*(my minor change, see previous 'Cohort' post for exact quote - SD)

Not liable to win too many converts in a vegan forum or a zoo/beast forum. And that is what you would like, no? .
My and some others views have never been talked about or have been Studiously ignored. Ive been basically shunned by certain members.
(I wonder about that; are the experiences described just a little 'too close to home for comfort'? - (ie creeping hypocrisy) or is it that its too close to something somebody could say sounded a little different than fence hopping per se, and that maybe it DID fall into a grey area?) I wouldnt want to think that in such a site some people 'cliqued up' while pretending good faith to openess. I prefer drinks that are thrown in my face to at least contain a drink!

Nah, your right I'm Wrong. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts about it; all the strident vehemence around 'fence-hopping' is correct.
Just like veganism is.


Singing Dog
now aka Pariah Dog

(For those that need it clear, Im not saying that because some zoos eat meat its ok for other zoos to 'fence hop', - if you think Im saying this, please reread) (note: I also said I eat meat)

And, Hambletonian, I dont see a firm need to 'pin' this, not when the prevailing mood is as it is.
You could just ask to put up a notice that says:

Go Ahead And Make Posts About Fence Hopping Mister, But Around Here, , Fence Hoppers eeiz Fence Hoppers eeiz Fence Hoppers!!! and Deserve "Hot Lead Poisoning!"* and Dont Bother Trying To Have A Sincere Dialogue, Because You'll Just Get The Terrific Cold Shoulder and You Dont Want That Now, Dooo You? No I Didnt Think So"

*Quote from Yknot, a sentiment shared by many gun owning posters. (And before anyone jumps down my throat on why this attitude may be justified go read the FHU thread and see why its a really stupid thing to do around 'your' 'animals'.)

And being assured this will be pinned; A note to anyone wanting to add to this thread that wants intelligent dialogue on situational ethics around zoosexuality or sincerely discuss your experiences and views around what may or may not be "fence-hopping". (That is, anything NOT of the Wrong is Wrong Principle)..go ahead and try if you want, but you'll be made a monster of and be left with your 'dick hanging out in the wind' And you wont have had to Fence hop to end up that way :rolleyes: (see? at least I can maintain a sense of humor(even a poor one), even when Im bummed; its the Irish in me ;) )

I still love this site and all, and I still think that everyone here (even the BAWWWGGYO camp) are wonderful people for their compassion towards 'animals', their passionate feelings and the loving way they see and practice sex. :heart: (there's a troubled word eh?) But as far as this subject is concerned, and Im sure this will make some folks very happy indeed. Im done.

Oh, one more thing... Erleichda!
(Quick! Google or Wiki it and see what he just called us!! :crying: )


See ya amongst the (other) threads!......... ......... ....... ..... .... . ... . . . . ... .. . .. . .. . .

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Mar 31 2006, 01:19 PM

Attached Image ( Click on thumbnail to view full size image )

I just want to make it clear, regarding my last post that NONE of this is laid at Racoolman's feet. The thread maker. The feet of those folks I do 'lay' it at, I believe are well known to the individuals who own them. :huh:

Oh, wow, what a bummer that was! Even if you won't reply Singing dog, I know you'll read this.

I'm really upset that you feel that way, and I can't see what caused all that anger. We were having a great discussion, and you were getting your views across so well. Maybe something has happened I haven't seen, but I see nothing that offensive in the posts.
I may disagree with you on philosophy, but I respect you and your attitude.

I'd like to continue the debate, but in another reply.

This one's for Singing dog. :friends:

rololover

I think the root of our disagreement here goes beyond sexand even beyond animals. It comes down to respect for peoples rights. I just can't accept that it is ok to go onto someones property and interact with their animals in any way without their permission. I love your desire, Svansfall, to bring comfort and a degree of happiness to neglected animals and I admire you for it, but why not ask the owners permission? If your aim is to help the animal would he say no? If you asked me face to face I would know you were an honest and caring person and I would have no problem with it - and I'm very possessive of my animals! If they are happy so am I. It goes back to what I said in my last post about sharing. But if I found you, as a stranger, in with my animals without my permission I would not be pleased!!!
And if he said no, then don't go there because it is his land and his animals and he has the right to say no. I'm afraid I still see no grey (but my eyesight isn't what it was).

I don't feel happy to argue points in Singing Dogs post when he's not here to reply, so I guess that's about all I have to say really - till next time anyway.

Thanks for a great subject Racoolman. Sorry if it's got a bit sidetracked. And thanks for a good argument Svansfall, you're a gentleman!

I must admit I was 20 years old before I even knew that in some countries, it was not allowed to walk anywhere you wished. I thought this was the same all over the world. In my view, you can 'own' property in a sense, but you cannot really own the nature. Forests, meadows, lakes and the entire ecosystem does not let itself be owned. It is there for all of us, and even though someone may officially 'own' the area, they still have to treat the nature with respect, as does anyone else wishing to walk through the nature.

In the way I see it, when owning a piece of land, you have a contract which means you are allowed to sell trees to make money from this piece of land, but you are also obliged to plant new trees (this is in the Swedish law), and you are also forbidden to ruin the land for whatever reason you desire.

I was talking to an old man who owned a large concrete-making company. He bought two entire (large) islands in a lake close to where I live, to dig up all the gravel and use it in concrete. The government intervened, and now those islands are a nature reserve due to housing rare plants and fauna. A tiny bit of one island is dug up. He still owns the islands but cannot destroy them further. He's pissed off, but I am cheering, and so are 99% of the people in the county because the lake is one of the most visited lakes by tourists that gain income to the entire area. So money in the pocket to all of us, instead of money in the pocket for one greedy man.

I own forest and pastures, and so does my mother, and I used to spend a lot of my childhood on the farm my mother (partially) owns. But we were always used to the fact that, even though we have a lot of land, it is not really ours. We're just borrowing it from the rest of the eco-system. All the moose, deer, foxes and other animals living in our forest have the right to live there, and any other human can come and pick the fungus. It has always been so natural to me, that I've never felt anything else.

Also, where I live, there is a lot of nature, and there is very few people. The population density is 12 people per km2, and that is taking into account that 25% of the population in the area lives in the biggest town, and 15% live in other small towns, and since those are counted into the statistics, it is even less densely populated around me, since I live in the middle of the forest. So we've never had lots of people running around anyway, it's never been a problem.

So, respect for walking on other people's property, I have not. I will freely admit that. I have respect for the environment, the nature and the ecosystem, and I will show that respect, just as much, wheter I am walking on my own property, or someone elses.

I've been to England a few times, and while I was there, I admit I was terrified of walking anywhere at all, since I did not know wheter it'd be allowed or not. Wheter it was public or private. So, I did not run about on anyone's property where it has not been allowed. I do not like to break laws.

Yes, he would. A lot of farmers have the attitude of: "I know best how I take care of my animals, and no one else is going to come and tell me how to do it, or even imply that I don't treat them well!" I believe there is a slim chance that there would be a good reaction from an uncaring animal-owner if someone asked them. Now, if the animal owner would come up to me as I was petting his animals, in the pasture, the worst I could do would be to run. The best I could do, would be to stay, and when he asks what I am doing there, I would simply answer: "I was walking past, and your animals came up to me, so I decided to pet them." There is seriously nothing suspicious at all about this. He will not know that I was actively planning to meet them to pet them, whereas if I asked him before, he knew it'd be my active choice, and it would be suspicious, or seem like an insult to him.

I did approach a farmer once, after having noticed a calf having a bad leg injury, limping badly and being left behind, not able to walk as fast as the others. So I got up to the farmer's house and spoke to him, telling him about the calf with the limp. All he said was that: "Yeah, I know. If he stops gaining weight, I'll send him to slaughter." If I hadn't been a calm person, I would have probably done something really nasty to this farmer, for this blunt statement, so obviously only caring about the calf having as much meat as possible, to gain income for the farmer, and not caring at all wheter the calf is in pain or not, not bothering to call the vet and having to pay vet bills to have the calf's leg looked at.

*sighs angrily in rememberance* But this is all too common, unfortunately. In the farmer's defence, I have to say that it is almost impossible to make a living from farming here anymore, with short summers and not too prosperous harvests, and with the payment for meat and milk constantly getting lower due to the EU having complained that Swedish food prices were too expensive.

To start with, I would never even consider to be with your animals, because as I passed by your place, I would see your animals were well cared for, and I would assume that they probably belonged to someone who cared about them. I would assume there's a great possibility that they have a good relationship with their owner, that I would not wish to get in the way of. If you saw me, you would not know that I was a zoo, and that I admire animals in the way I do, and you probably would not trust me if I asked if I could pet your horses. Also, I wish to get to know animals well, and any owner of animals would be highly suspicious of someone like me wanting to spend a lot of time with his animals so often.

I have a lot of neighbours who have horses, who take good care of their horses, and it shows. But I will not ask any of them if I can pet their horses, because it would just be too suspicious. One thing that I am not good with, is to hide my thoughts and feelings, it shows in my face expression, and in the way I speak and act. I would not be a good poker player, people can read me like an open book. I am aware of this, and therefor I am scared of interracting with someone's animals when they are watching, because they would see I loved them "too much", even while just petting them.

And again, I would not be found with animals who seemed likely to have a good relationship with their owner. I would not wish to interfere, and possibly mess up a good relationship. It'd be very bad for the animal, and for the owner.

I do have respect for an owner who treats their animals well, and basically, a lot of owners do.

I thank you for expressing your thoughts in such an excellent way, Rololover. It made it easy to understand how you feel, and I understand your reason for feeling the way you do on the topic of fencehopping. Although I still feel exactly the same about the issue as I did before. But it is interesting to debate it. :)

You're saying a lot of kind words to me, and I thank you for that, although I am not sure I feel I deserve them, but I certainly consider you to be a gentleman also. I apologize for my post being so lengthy, I had to stop myself from making it even longer. I am not as good with expressing myself clearly and briefly, as you are.

I guess our definitions of what exactly fencehopping is, may vary a bit from each other.

In my opinion, fencehopping is when you are on the same side of the fence as the animals, without the approval of the owner.

I define it as fencehopping, wheter you are being sexual with the animal or not. Sometimes the fencehopper may fencehop without the intention of having sex, but the encounter leads to sex anyway, if the animal would initialize it. And often, I would guess a fencehopper would have in mind that there might be a sexual encounter, but then again there might not be. So, if a fencehopper would be defined only as someone who fencehopped for sex, would a fencehopper be defined by his actions, or by his intentions?

As I said before, I believe that many cases of fencehopping are wrong, and I believe non-sexual fencehopping can be bad also. For example, an inexperienced fencehopper with the intention of getting to know a herd of cattle, may make the entire herd unncessarily stressed, by not being slow and patient enough, and by not learning their body language.

I am not saying that I believe fencehopping is always right, I am saying that I believe fencehopping is sometimes right. I agree with most of you here on what you say regarding careless people who are out with buckets just to get their rocks off. It is definately very wrong.

Well then. With all due respect, I think that you are wrong on most of what you have said.

First, Yes it a reproductive thing, But they do enjoy it.

Males, weather Human or Animal, do get pleaser out of mating. Most, not all, human males could not care less about reproduction. They do it because it feels good.

Male Animals, though they are driven by instinct, are also doing it because it feels good. They are not, for the most part, are not thinking about reproduction, instinct dose play a roll on it, but there is pleaser to be had, and this is also a driving force behind mating.

Case-in-Point. I knew of a painted stallion. The owner believed that the greatest way to maximize his earning potential was to have a vet come by and draw Semen from him by hand so that she could sell the straws to prospective breeders. The vet would hardly slow up on the same day or at the same time. But without fail every time the vet pulled up into the drive, the stallion would become very aroused, knowing what was to come. According to you, I guess that the stallion was under the belief that he was reproducing with the male vet.

Note: to think that this stallion was never to know the joys of covering a mare, talk about curl. :(

Now, females can and do feel pleaser when properly stimulated. All the times that I have been with my mare, there have been times when I have brought her to Orgasm. I also have been able to bring my female canine companion to Orgasm. There is nothing that you can tell me that would convince me that they did not enjoy it. Just because you may have not been able to do it, does not mean that it can not be done.

As far as relationships, one of the things that I love about animals is they have a greater since of relationships then we humans. Unlike animals we humans have the tendency to throw away relationships when they no longer suit us. Like when a woman runs off with the pool boy or a man runs off with his secretary. In some ways animals care more about relationships then us.

There are many spices out there that mate for life. Some wolves, huskies mate for life. The alpha male will only mate with the alpha female and vise versa. Most Whales mate for life. Eagles, penguins are but a few bird spices which mate for life. There are many different animal spices that mate for life.

Dolphins, they are a very intelligent spices. They are well aware of there environment. They will have sex for other purposes other then reproduction. Females will have sex in and out of her cycle, and with multiple males, and even if she is pregnant. Male dolphins will have sex with multiple females, even when they are not in their cycles, and they will also have sex with other male dolphins. And dolphins, to my knowledge, is the only mammal that will knowingly seek out man for the purpose of having sex with them. don’t get me wrong, they enjoy the friendship and companionship that they can get from us, but dolphins do enjoy sex. To them it is a social tool used to bond them to the pod.

Maybe you do, but I and many others here, really care for our companions and the joy that we can bring them. We care for their emotional well being as well as their physical well being.

I am sorry that you feel this way, but mostly I feel for any woman that you may have been with in the past. I, and I know that there are many others here that will back me up on this, but I believe in bring my companion just as much if not more pleaser then I can get from them.

Hope this Helps.

This post has been edited by racoolman on Apr 1 2006, 06:27 PM

:blink:

well hasn't this just spiraled -err spiraled somewhere :unsure:

I thought I could get away with skimming this thread - but it's obvious I can't - it is being temporarily locked until I read it thoroughly and digest.