Talk:Calf roping

Horse training

I'm not on about the calf treatment issue. What needs sourced emphasis, I think, is the unique phase of horse independent action, acting without command or contact with the rider to judge and maintain tension on the line. AFAIK no other equestrian event asks such a high level task from the horse. Cyranorox (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted material

Stop deleting contributions (which are documented with citations) to mislead users and sway the article to your "pro-rodeo" stance. Further deletions will be reported as VANDALISM. If you have issues, please discuss them on this page before deleting material and replacing it with your "pro-rodeo" contributions. While it's OK to cite rules in the PRCA book to support your various claims that animals are never exploited, bruised, broken, injured, abused, or killed in rodeo, you should not be deleting material from other contributors that fly in the face of your claims. HatAct (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This can begin by having you not delete those viewpoints with which you do not agree. I am restoring deleted material and am keeping most of yours, but toning down some of the POV language. I would appreciate it if you could kindly avoid personal attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Parenthetical phrase

"The ASPCA, taking a position not otherwise addressed either by other animal rights groups nor the rodeo industry , notes that practice sessions are often the location of more severe abuses than competitions. The above italicised phrase should be sourced. We don't know that every animal rights group nor the rodeo industry have not addressed this issue. The cited source does not indicate other animal groups and rodeo have not addressed the issue. The sentence could stand adequately written thus (and in agreement witht he cited source): "The ASPCA notes that practice sessions are often the location of more severe abuses than competitions."

I don't know how one proves a negative, I certainly didn't find anything addressing the practice issue on web sites either on the pro or con side, but I suppose that suggested edit is OK. Notice that in this case I am fine with your edits so far. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References

POV concerns

The material being added to this article is too biased toward a WP:FRINGE view of the sport. There are legitimate critiques of calf roping, but they need very reliable sources. Please re-read WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE before adding material on abuse issues. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The material should stay as long as the pro-rodeo viewpoint is supported by similar sources such as www.prorodeo.com. Please re-read WP:TASTE before going on a deleting spree again. Also, why is Brisbane Times not a reliable source? Additionally, I would suggest you go over the definitions of WP:EDITWAR and WP:VANDAL again and stop making frivolous accusations. D4rkersib (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please look in the mirror and realize you just gave yourself excellent advice. Also notice I kept one of your edits about law in the UK, etc., and also updated one of the links on the rodeo statistics that needed an update, this was not wholesale deletion. The article has a whole section dedicated to abuse concerns and both sides are represented. What has been removed are repeated attempts by you to remove an introductory statement that injuries are statistically rare, and adding (under a different user name) dark blurry photos of poor quality and improper attribution, and then also adding two examples of isolated interviews that constitute WP:UNDUE weight on the issue, one virtually the same material added by HatAct about four years ago, and tossed then for the same reason it's tossed now. This is not edit warring on my side. Even the current version has material sourced to SHARK and PETA as well as the PRCA. So if you want more material on abuse, it needs to not be ancedotal; what is needed are fewer isolated ancedotes and better third-party sources. The Brisbane Times piece was merely quoting the actions of a humane organization, isolated, unsuccessful, and one of dozens. I'm sure they said what they said, but that wasn't the point, a better point would be to say something like "many animal rights organizations have asked tiedown calf roping to be banned, and have gathered documentation to support their claims" [source]. But the claims need to be backed properly with more than ancedotes. For example, how many young steers die in feedlot accidents versus rodeo accidents? How many calves actually had fatal injuries per year in the USA, or Australia, or Canada? Those are useful statistics. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Both sides are represented, but not equally. The majority of the section is devoted to citing two surveys and a dubious quote that trace back to pro rodeo websites and are nowhere else to be found. Frankly, I'd like to see some actual documentation of those surveys from third party websites instead of taking a pro rodeo website's word for it (but I don't go around deleting it). Then the quote from Dr. Eddie Taylor. One, for all we know this guy attended three rodeos in those 16 years. Two, it's completely anecdotal, it doesn't prove anything and it comes from a questionable source. Why is this quote allowed to stay and not the quote I added from industry insider Keith Martin ("Do I think it hurts the calf? Sure I do. I'm not stupid.") that actually has a valid source: "Choosing Champions," San Antonio Express-News, Feb. 6, 2000? Your insistence on injury rates and numbers is also irrelevant here, because the issue for anti calf ropers is not how many of them are hurt, it's the fact that they do get hurt. If it's 1 or 10 or 10.000 doesn't matter. In that light the video evidence presented in the Brisbane Times piece for instance is more than adequate to deserve inclusion.D4rkersib (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have clarified that your position on the issue. However, [{WP:TASTE]] does go both ways. The relevancy of injury rate is highly relevant to the general reader, and is an NPOV statistic, so I view it as POV to remove it. But understanding that you oppose all calf roping (at least all tie-down calf roping), I am seeing a parallel here to the abortion debate -- people wanting to ban abortion say even one is too many, while the pro-choice community cites statistics on the numbers of abortions to the numbers of live births, the numbers of abortions in each trimester, etc.; and perhaps they suggest ways to reduce the rate through education, etc... pro life folks just want to ban all of them, with the force of law. But, both views are relevant to an article on abortion, wouldn't you agree? Same here. we do need the statistics so people can make up their minds for themselves. For the three surveys, they are all sourced and I think the article makes this clear who did them, and people can decide without need for a lot of editorializing that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. I have no problem clarifying documentation if better documentation can be found, but if it isn't, the sources still pass WP:RS and WP:V. If there are additional surveys or studies, I see no problem adding them. For statements of the laws, the section also cites information provided by SHARK and PETA, which easily qualify as WP:FRINGE organizations, so it isn't like they are being suppressed. For your own position, can you provide a source that says banning all calf roping is the official position of a group? (i.e., a statement from someone saying that group X believes all calf roping should be banned because even one injured animal is one too many) You see, it proves nothing to provide various individual quotes or videos as evidence that animals do get hurt, that is already acknowledged; a few animals DO get hurt. Again , I'd be interested in seeing how the abortion issue is handled -- are there video clips of actual abortions linked online from those articles? Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying the statistics can't be used to represent the pro calf roping position, but for the anti calf roping position they are not relevant. The whole section is skewed toward these statistics, but it avoids the heart of the issue. I read the abortion debate page and there is no mention of any numbers, because similar to this debate, to the anti calf roping crowd it's about ethics and not numbers. First and foremost, the controversy is that animal welfare organizations want to abolish calf roping due to alleged injuries and abuse that occur and that they have evidence to support this (the Brisbane Times piece, the Peggy W. Larson article and the Keith Martin quote, for instance). The pro calf roping position could then retort that while they acknowledge that injuries happen, they have evidence that it only happens rarely (cite statistics study, Eddie Taylor quote). That would make for a much more balanced text, instead of the way it reads now - Yeah, there are some concerns over welfare issues, but here's a bunch of numbers to prove that that is just a load of poppycock.D4rkersib (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I view it as an evidence issue. If one dead calf is too many, then it doesn't matter if it's a rate of one-half of one percent, does it? What would be more helpful is a very articulate statement of the key points of anti-calf roping position, saying something equivalent to your comments about ethics, stated by someone who doesn't sound like they are foaming at the mouth -- again, taking the example of the abortion debate, the comparison would be to, say, National Right to Life would be articulate, but not Operation Rescue, which foams at the mouth. In terms of sources, I see one or two isolated videos and one isolated quotation as simply cumulative sources to make the point, already made, that injuries do occur. For that reason, I think that the balance is actually pretty precise, particularly since you added the bit (that I agreed was relevant) about nations banning rodeos or roping. But there may also need to be a need to show comparison to other activities, though I think it will be very difficult to find sources for cattle -- for example, I personally think modern bucking horses actually have better lives than race horses (bucking horses "work" about an hour a year, have few stable vices, and kick back in pasture in the off season; race horses live in stabled isolation, get pumped full of drugs all the time, only about 10% retire sound, far too many are shipped to slaughter when they fade at the track, etc...) But what about the other things people do with cattle? I am curious (and I don't know the answer or if it's ever been studied) to compare things like the injury rate for team roping steers versus injuries to steers at feedlots. I am pretty sure there are no statistics on injuries to calves in other conditions, but I know that branding, castrating, weaning and shipping off the ranch does have a small injury rate too) Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find three of the citations listed on the page on calf roping, and all three of them were dead end links. Surely it is poor practice to have this many claims on an article without any working citations to back them up. Also, there is plenty of published research in reputable scientific journals regarding the topic of animal suffering in rodeo events...None of this is mentioned at all and the article reads as being very one sided in its current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.179.113 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As time permits, we should go to Wayback and get the archived links to put them there. If you have "plenty of published research," the thing to do is to post the links (URLs) to at least the abstracts of these studies and we go from there. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected the page due to the ongoing edit war and content dispute, please work this out on the talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Will post comments above. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Some good reliable sources

Here is the link to the statutes in the UK that basically ban rodeo, though not stated that bluntly. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/24-25/21 This is a better source than PETA for that particular situation.

(1)No person shall promote, or cause or knowingly permit to take place any public performance which includes any episode consisting of or involving— (a)throwing or casting, with ropes or other appliances, any unbroken horse or untrained bull; or (b)wrestling, fighting, or struggling with any untrained bull; or (c)riding, or attempting to ride, any horse or bull which by the use of any appliance or treatment involving cruelty is, or has been, stimulated with the intention of making it buck during the performance; and no person shall in any public performance take part in any such episode as aforesaid.

There appears to be a term of art definition of bull, that includes calves. The Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.

When the lockdown ends, I see no problem updating the statement that calf roping is not allowed in the UK to be updated with this source. Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Rephrase?

My thinking is that the first two paragraphs of the animal abuse section, stating the "official" rodeo position, are more or less OK as they currently sit. So what is needed is a small expansion of the "anti" section, to make it roughly the same length (it's a wee bit shorter, but we have to watch WP:UNDUE on the whole section so it doesn't bloat the article). I think that, in particular, something like the reason Germany banned calf roping, but not other rodeo events, would be especially useful to this section. The UK law is less helpful because it was passed back in the bad old days when a lot of the stuff that current rodeo opponents use actually DID occur. (but back then, they kept zoo animals in tiny cages, you could beat an animal to death, etc...) I don't have any info on the Netherlands. Here is the current text, maybe add some new material and sources (not the old stuff) that adds balance but in an NPOV tone...? Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a more general article on animal treatment in rodeo, I suggest the 'See also' link refer to that instead of the animal cruelty article. That same article contains a statement from veterinarian E.J. Finocchio (Source: Regan, Tom; J. Moussaieff Masson (2004). Empty Cages. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-4993-3. http://books.google.com/?id=PUDXwO22eqgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=empty+cages, page 152), which to me seems like it would fairly balance out the quote from Dr Eddie Taylor. I added it in below and a clarifaction of ASPCA's position with another quote (Source: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372&context=envlaw, page 5). D4rkersib (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The animal treatment article is a poor-quality content fork that is badly sourced. But my point is once again, there is no need for a bunch of quotes. What are needed is evidence, not anecdotes. And it's complete hogwash that 2-3 calves are injured at "each" practice session; they usually rotate calves and steers in and out on a regular basis because if you rope them too often, they either balk in the chute, don't run straight from the chute or just lie down when roped; cows aren't stupid; they figure out REAL fast how to avoid getting roped! The problem is that Finnocchio is NOT a reliable NPOV source, as he is the president of the Rhode Island ASPCA and politifact checks out some of his other statements as demonstrably false. [1] Furthermore, his comments are not verified anywhere else by anyone else. And TK Hardy died 15 years ago. These old guy probably DID see abuses in the old days; things were worse in the past than they are now (similarly, the anti-abortion movement loves to use anecdotal data from pre-Roe v Wade horror stories from illegal abortion clinics) Seriously, what we need are not more anecdotes that can only be sourced to people prone to hyperbole who are closely affiliated with the animal rights movement; we need more reliable sources. The Martin quote might be relevant, as Martin has been inducted into the Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame and thus may be making a "statement against interest," thus more apt to be credible; but the quote needs to be seen in context; the "Choosing Champions" article cannot be accessed other than via a paywall; if a pdf could be located to see it in context, that would help. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if you think the statement by T.K. Hardy is hogwash. I and others believe those PRCA statistics are total hogwash. Like you said yourself, what is needed is evidence and first hand experience from veterinarians is exactly that. If you have reason to believe that his statement is false, then supply us with something other than your own opinion to prove that. If we go by 18 year old PRCA surveys, I see no problem with including a quote from a 1998 article. On the Finocchio issue, I can make the exact same objections to the Dr. Eddie Taylor quote. It is anecdotal and his statement is not verified by anyone else. Furthermore, a single false statement (not 'some of his other statements', like you claim) does not automatically invalidate everything else he says. If 'prone to hyperbole' is your reason for not wanting to include this stuff, then, as long as we don't have the original survey to go by, I suggest we remove the 1994 survey part due to 'prone to understatement' issues. D4rkersib (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of equivalent opinions. The 1994 survey is best evidence, even if you disagree with it. The 1994 study was reported in The Horse which is a highly reliable publication sponsored in part by the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and can thus stand as a neutral, third-party source. Stating that the PRCA funded a study makes clear its POV. As noted, the Martin quote may have some credibility and relevance if the original source can verify it. That gives us three balanced viewpoints. However, objectively, Hardy and Finocchio are clearly weak, fringe sources. Hardy's comments about his own life are isolated remarks that cannot be sourced to anything other than animal rights sites, and if he really did harm several calves every practice session, the man was a brute - with no evidence to show if he was considered mainstream or if he was a noted bastard even in his own time who apparently "came to Jesus" later. Finocchio has been shown by politifact to have a tendency to lie through his teeth. Plus, as a Rhode Island vet, he would know precisely squat about actual rodeo - his statements about "firsthand" knowledge are hyperbole -- if that many calves died, we'd have the sport banned nationwide! And no one disputes that a few animals are injured and die at rodeos, so the issue is a discussion of ethics, viewpoints (still waiting for the credible animal rights statement here, by the way) and statistics. I shall propose an alternative rewrite below, incorporating the Martin quote and suggesting what else could be added. Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just looked in to see that Montanabw is a making a critical point here in this discussion. NPOV is not established or maintained by attempting to add equivalent information, negative and positive, but by adding content per its weight in the mainstream sources. Fringe information, if given article space at all should be given less weight than content based on the majority of sources/ mainstream. Its easy to confuse a research paper which may contain single viewpoints within context of the paper, as well as novel arguments based on those viewpoints, with an encyclopedia article that is based on the available sources on a topic with the more mainstream receiving a majority of article space. Sorry if I sound preachy, not meant, but what I do see in this discussion is a misunderstanding of policy and weight.

Without knowing much about the topic, but with an interest in WP:policy, this rewrite looks to be an improvement.(olive (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

---

Animal welfare proponents claim, however, that examples of injuries caused by calf roping include paralysis from spinal cord injuries, severed tracheas, as well as broken backs, necks, and legs.[7] Veterinarian Dr. E.J. Finocchio wrote the Rhode Island legislature urging a ban on calf roping: "As a large animal veterinarian for 20 years...I have witnessed first hand the instant death of calves after their spinal cords were severed from the abrupt stop at the end of a rope when traveling up to 30 mph. I have also witnessed and tended calves who became paralyzed...and whose tracheas were totally or partially severed...Slamming to the ground has caused rupture of several internal organs leading to a slow, agonizing death for some of these calves."

Tie-down calf roping is not permitted in the state of Rhode Island or in the city of Baltimore.[8] Tie-down calf roping is also not allowed in some localities in Australia, Brazil and Canada and banned nationally in the United Kingdom, Germany and The Netherlands.[9]

The ASPCA notes that practice sessions are often the occasion of more severe abuses than competitions.[10] Veterinarian Dr. T. K. Hardy notes that "two or three calves are injured in each practice session and have to be replaced."

---

Alt rewrite

There are concerns over the welfare of the calves used in professional rodeo, and the industry itself polices events closely, penalizing competitors who "jerk down" a calf with the rope or flip it over backwards.[2] However, viewpoints vary. Dr. Eddie Taylor stated that in 16 years as an attending veterinarian at PRCA rodeos in Arizona, "I personally have not seen a serious neck injury to a tie-down roping calf." [3] Conversely, the San Antonio Livestock Exposition Executive Director Keith Martin once stated, "Do I think it hurts the calf? Sure I do. I'm not stupid."[8]

Deaths and serious injuries are uncommon. Statistically, the rate of injury to the animals is relatively low. In 1994, a survey of 28 sanctioned rodeos was conducted by on-site independent veterinarians. Reviewing 33,991 animal runs, the injury rate was documented at .047%, or less than five-hundredths of one percent.[4] A study of rodeo animals in Australia found a similar injury rate. Basic injuries occurred at a rate of 0.072 percent, or one in 1405, with injuries requiring veterinary attention at 0.036 percent, or one injury in every 2810 times the animal was used, and transport, yarding and competition were all included in the study.[5] A follow up survey conducted by the PRCA of 60,971 animal performances at 198 rodeo performances and 73 sections of "slack" indicated 27 animals were injured at PRCA-sanctioned rodeos, again approximately five-hundredths of 1 percent – 0.0004. [6]

Animal welfare proponents claim, however, that examples of injuries caused by calf roping include paralysis from spinal cord injuries, severed tracheas, as well as broken backs, necks, and legs.[7] However, the evidence presented is primarily from anecdotal accident reports and there are no independent studies that contradict the statistical rate of injury.(cite something) The ASPCA notes that practice sessions are often the occasion of more severe abuses than competitions,[10] but as there have been no studies performed at these settings, both sides rely primarily on ancedotal reports.(cite something)

Tie-down calf roping is not permitted in the state of Rhode Island or in the city of Baltimore.[8] Tie-down calf roping is also not allowed in some localities in Australia, Brazil, and Canada. It is banned nationally in the United Kingdom, Germany and The Netherlands.[9]

Reverting

I commented on a NB at some time on sources for this topic, I think, and still have this article watch listed so jumped in on the little bit of vandalism, even though I'm not a regular. I know very little about the area, so no worries, I won't start editing here on a regular basis :O)(olive (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC))

The vandal revert was much appreciated. Would you also like to link to another low-traffic but persistent vandal magnet? Manure, for obvious reasons. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And good reading too!(olive (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calf roping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123072049/http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo to http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Calf roping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608030150/http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3 to http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084011/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I have to manually fix the links because the Bot cannot correctly fix links that are enclosed in square brackets. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I also fixed some that the Bot didn't identify. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)