Sunday, April 6, 2008

Change for the better

Kathy's cheerful blog on all things "girly" came to my attention when she wrote about her upcoming visit to New York, and her Top 10 list of things to do--including a carriage ride. After we talked by email, she changed her plans and decided against a carriage ride.
"You didn't bring me down. You made me aware," Kathy wrote following her visit. "I saw buckets of food. But no water for the horses. Where was the water?!!!! I know I'd be thirsty after hauling fat people around the park all day!"
I hear this from so many tourists and visitors to New York City. Most informed individuals will not willingly support the mistreatment of animals. New York City is a great place to visit and a great place to live, in spite of its embarrassing shortcomings such as a failure to ban this miserable industry. Other world-class cities have already done so.

Kathy is fortunate to have not witnessed a gruesome accident. She also was spared other sad sights of blatant abuse that we sometimes witness, such as a driver slapping his horse's face for spilling a few crumbs of food.

2 comments:

abigail said...

Its nice to see you are perpetuating myths and lies to others. Why didnt you explain to her that the carriages have buckets of water underneath them? You should surely know, considering all the time you spend following Ian around (or is it considered stalking at this point?)You are one sick lady, Mary alice Kellogg!

Mary Alice said...

Thanks for your comment, Abigail. I didn't explain so much to her. She came to NYC on a visit, she saw the horses. She asked the question: Where's the water???

Do you wonder why Frommer's travel guidebooks recommend against taking a ride in a horse-drawn carriage? The mistreatment of the horses. It's that simple.

Stalking that great yakking Ian? LOL! Now, THEN I would have some wild stuff to report. I wonder if he's the one who misled the NYTimes about the code on how many hours a day horses can work (it's 63 hours a week, as you surely know), or did the Times screw that information up themselves, in the puff piece they did?