Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Horse Registry Forced To Accept Cloned Horses

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the yea-or-neigh dept.

Biotech 164

kdryer39 writes "U.S. District Court Judge Mary Lou Robinson said she will sign an order requiring the American Quarter Horse Association to begin allowing cloned animals to be placed on its registry, according to the organization. A jury last month ruled that the horse association violated anti-monopoly laws by banning cloned animals. The quarter horse association issues and maintains a pedigree registry of American quarter horses, a popular breed associated with cowboys riding on the range in the 19th and early 20th centuries."

cancel ×

164 comments

Remember when Dolly and CC were big news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560731)

Damn I'm old.

Re:Remember when Dolly and CC were big news? (5, Funny)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year ago | (#44560925)

Forget this common, everyday cloning stuff... Come back to me when they invent the nanotech to restore the other three-quarters of the horse.

Re:Remember when Dolly and CC were big news? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561047)

Forget this common, everyday cloning stuff... Come back to me when they invent the nanotech to restore the other three-quarters of the horse.

you especially want the horses COCK dontcha? you sick bastard, makes me wanna PUKE!!!11!!!!11!oneone

Re:Remember when Dolly and CC were big news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44563415)

You have an unhealthy fixation on horse cock.

Ok, sure... (1)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44560737)

...but good luck getting the Japanese horse racing community to follow that lead...

Re:Ok, sure... (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44560853)

I don't see it. Horse breeding is not Horse cloning. Bad idea. Very bad. I can't even fathom the idea that they can force them to take cloned animals.

Re:Ok, sure... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560883)

What I'd like to know is how are they creating a monopoly by banning cloned horses from being accepted in there registry?

Re:Ok, sure... (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44561657)

Imagine if a quarter horse was cloned and became a hot breeding item. By restricting the registry to the master copy only, there would be only one source of "official" sperm, thus a monopoly.

Re:Ok, sure... (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#44562727)

It's not a monopoly if the item is scarce. What if I built an exact replica of a vintage Bugatti and then insist on having it registered as an official Bugatti? What if I built a hackintosh and insist on apple putting a serial number and a logo on it? The proper answer is "No, f*ck you!".

Do the official registry prevent the creation of a cloned animals registry? Let the damn market choose which registry to consider.

In freedom, one could create the registry of ogm free stuff, male-only (or female-only, or white-only) clubs, and so on. As long as I don't hurt anybody, directly or with negative propaganda, nobody has any business interfering.

Re:Ok, sure... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44563293)

It's not a monopoly if the item is scarce.

What? You're nuts. Completely nuts. That has nothing to do with anything. It's a monopoly if you are the sole source. The whole point of a patent or a trademark is to grant a monopoly for the purpose of creating artificial scarcity! And that's precisely what the situation is here; anyone with the technology could theoretically clone one of these horses from something they found in a turd.

Re:Ok, sure... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#44562975)

SHHHHhhhhhhh, be quiet or the NFL will start getting into horses too...

Re:Ok, sure... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44562783)

..they have a monopoly of horse registry, so they can decide what is a horse according to them.

a cloned horse is still a horse, so they'll need to register it.

Re:Ok, sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44562967)

When someone in the U.S. wants a good outcome in court, they either threaten or pay the judge for it. DUH!

Re:Ok, sure... (4, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#44560897)

I don't see it. Horse breeding is not Horse cloning. Bad idea. Very bad. I can't even fathom the idea that they can force them to take cloned animals.

The point of getting them registered is to allow them to breed, and their offspring to be on the registry, and to race. You don't necessarily have to race the clones for registration to be worthwhile, and given the premature senescence of clones such as Dolly, they likely are not very good for racing in any case.

Re:Ok, sure... (-1, Flamebait)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44561095)

Well, it will definitely be a case of nature vs nurture now won't it? In any case, clones are a bad idea. The copy will always suffer genome degradation over the span of many generations. Something akin to making a copy of a copy in the analog world. There will be errors in transmission. In fact, it's why all living things eventually die. You can only divide the cell so many times before it dies of corruption, or becomes cancerous and kills the entire organism anyways.

Re:Ok, sure... (1, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year ago | (#44561149)

The copy will always suffer genome degradation over the span of many generations.

Tell that to bacteria. Heck, your individual cells. No real limit. It occasionally goes wrong, but a bit of testing could easily keep that under control.

Re:Ok, sure... (2, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44561261)

The copy will always suffer genome degradation over the span of many generations.

Tell that to bacteria. Heck, your individual cells. No real limit.

Say, WHAT [wikipedia.org] ?

It occasionally goes wrong, but a bit of testing could easily keep that under control.

You sound like most of the managers I met: their wording always used a bit and easily when it comes to testing and QA.
(not to mention the display of varying amount of ignorance about the actual process they are suppose to support and control).

Re:Ok, sure... (0)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year ago | (#44562351)

It's not the same, dolly the sheep had shortened lifespan. The cloning is not perfect and no-where as good as nature does it

Cloned animals should not be allowed back in to the general population until either the scientific method is fixed and perfected / or the long term effects are fully understood. To do otherwise could be disastrous and it could take decades to see the disaster unfold.

Re:Ok, sure... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44562511)

Cloned animals should not be allowed back in to the general population until either the scientific method is fixed and perfected

The scientific method [wikipedia.org] works just fine, why, thank you, and it has nothing to do with the minutiae of applied zootechnics, even if it happens in a lab.

Re:Ok, sure... (0)

MickLinux (579158) | about a year ago | (#44561343)

I suspect that it isn't just degradation, but also a disconnect between the mitchondria and the rest of the cell, using the cell to be, well,allergic to itself per se.

Which then results in the animal growing overlarge in many cases. Such things may well not be resolved in following generations.

But genetic damage does seem to have a high rate of giantism. I'd say that if they want to list cloned animals, therefore, they need to mark it cloned, genetic percent thereof, and genetic percent in matrilineal / patrilineal line.

That way, if it lates turns out that cloning was a disaster, the line of horses #might# stand a chance of recovering.

Stupid decision by clueless jury (4, Informative)

Camael (1048726) | about a year ago | (#44561407)

Salient facts from TFA :-

Two Texas breeders, rancher Jason Abraham and veterinarian Gregg Veneklasen, sued the American Quarter Horse Association last year, asserting the group was operating a monopoly by excluding clones. No other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals.

The quarter horse association issues and maintains a pedigree registry of American quarter horses... stated in court that it is a private organization and has the right to decide its membership rules.

What is more compelling is the statement from AQHA [equinechronicle.com] after the verdict :-

When individuals with shared interests, goals and values come together to form a voluntary association to serve a common purpose, the members have a right to determine the rules for their association. The wisdom of our membership – which is largely not in favor of the registration of clones and their offspring – has not been upheld by this verdict.

Seriously, now. If you don't like the rules of a voluntary association, work from within to change the rules. Or talk to them, negotiate to get them to accept you. Or leave, and form your own association with the rules you like. Going to court to force others to put up with you is so wrong.

And yes, I dont't see where is the monopoly. The plaintiffs can still whatever they want with their cloned horses, breed them, sell them, race them etc. They just can't be registered with the AQHA.

Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (3, Insightful)

pthisis (27352) | about a year ago | (#44561513)

One issue is that AQHA runs large commercial races that are open only to its members. They're excercising market control by excluding certain animals based on arbitrary criteria; whether that's a monopoly power or not depends on your view of what constitutes the market in this case (the courts ruled that it is).

For instance:
In 1993, AQHA launched Quarter Horse horse racing's first series of races with a championship-ending day, called The Bank of America Racing Challenge. It is a series of 60 races run throughout North and South America with the winners of each race earning a starting berth into a season-ending Championship Day. The Bank of America Racing Challenge currently offers nearly $6 million in purse and bonus awards.

Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561891)

They already disallow all horses who do not meet their arbitrary criteria for what a quarter horse is. How is a no clone rule any different to no horses less than 14 hands? Part of these associations purpose is to protect and maintain the integrity of the breed. Forcing them to take clones which they cannot prove are as viable long term as the original is wrong, and potentially dangerous to the breed. Imagine a truly magnificent stud, who wins a lot of races and whose children demand high prices. Someone comes in and start cloning him, and the clone offspring end up making up a significant portion of the breeds population. This is immediately dangerous because it destroys the breeds genetic diversity, and what if 3 or 4 generations later they find that descendants of the clones are developing a terrible disease, or have far less longevity. The clones material could be spread throughout half the breed at that point and could cause the entire thing to collapse. I think they should be allow to protect their breed from the unknown effects at least until a mulch-generational study has been done on clone offspring.

Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year ago | (#44562101)

This is immediately dangerous because it destroys the breeds genetic diversity, and what if 3 or 4 generations later they find that descendants of the clones are developing a terrible disease, or have far less longevity. The clones material could be spread throughout half the breed at that point and could cause the entire thing to collapse. I think they should be allow to protect their breed from the unknown effects at least until a mulch-generational study has been done on clone offspring.

Through insemination, we can already get a lot of offspring from one stud, endagering the genetic diversity. There was a case of this in cattle, where one bull that was extensively used turned out to have bad knees. As its sperm was used to inseminate a lot of cows, this lead to an insane amount of trouble down the line. We learned from that, and have become much better at keeping stock of which bulls are the fathers and grandfathers of which cattle. I don't see how cloning affects the situation significantly.

Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (3, Informative)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year ago | (#44563173)

We learned from that, and have become much better at keeping stock of which bulls are the fathers and grandfathers of which cattle. I don't see how cloning affects the situation significantly.

Ok, first up when you fertilise an egg you have no real control over what bits of genetic material comes from which parent in many cases. Sometimes it is predetermined by dominant / recessive genes but for other stuff there is a huge element of chance in there. Cloning completely removes this from the equation which is actually the whole point.

Secondly, if you start allowing clones you really need to keep a sample of genetic material from the donor as well to ensure it was not altered as part of the cloning process. Like maybe you want a horse to run faster and can find someway to tweak it's genetic makeup to make this possible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not personally against cloning, genetic modification or any other amazing new technology like this. I do think you have to be a little careful though at how it is applied when money is involved and horse racing is certainly in that category. It seems that if a bunch of a majority of trainers do not want to pit their animals that have been bred in a similar way for hundred of years against a horse that is grown in a lab that should be their prerogative just like most athletes don't want to compete against someone drugged up to eyeballs.

Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561573)

Not arguing, per se... But I assume you then feel the same way about the Boy Scouts allowing openly homosexual scouts and leaders?

Re:Stupid decision by clueless jury (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44563191)

The monopoly is that if a horse is registered with them it and its offspring are more valuable. It has become a kind of de-facto monopoly because registration carries such weight and is required by many buyers and some other organizations.

It's a monopoly because there is no alternative registry, and getting a new one accepted would be extremely difficult.

Re:Ok, sure... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about a year ago | (#44562311)

I have to side with the AQHA on this, if for no other reason than the lineage/pedigree 'family tree' would get unwieldy and chaotic fairly quickly.
IMHO, that would diminish the benefits of registering a horse with the AQHA, and cause major disruption.

Not to mention, after a certain point, many folks would start to speculate on what else was happening during the cloning process....as in genetic manipulation. That's just the nature of folks that aren't educated/knowledgeable in that area of science.
I remember the recent spectacle of the world ending this past December just because that was the last date on an ancient Mayan calender.

Re:Ok, sure... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#44562959)

They shouldn't comply and appeal it further. There are just some things the government needs to stay out of and things it needs to regulate from within, like the lawyer who made this about some farcical monopoly nonsense or the judge who let it stand. There needs to be a regulatory commission for the bench and the bar that watches for silly loophole misinterpretations and rectifies the situation with baseball bats and garden shears when violated. Hey, tomato plants produce better fruit when beaten and pruned, why shouldn't we enjoy honest public servants who do the right thing for a change?

Re:Ok, sure... (2)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year ago | (#44563097)

I don't see it. Horse breeding is not Horse cloning. Bad idea. Very bad. I can't even fathom the idea that they can force them to take cloned animals.

It's very simple:

The US has a great many companies involved in genetically modifying or cloning stuff. These companies donate substantial sums to the political parties that judges are appointed by. Any judge who allowed these companies to be put at any sort of commercial inconvenience would find themselves very unpopular with the people who ultimately have a large say in them getting a promotion.

Some judges might hold firm on matters of principle safe in the knowledge that they cannot be easily removed from office but that may well remove any chance of them making it to the supreme court.

Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560741)

It's a quarter horse? What are the other 3/4?

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

Telecommando (513768) | about a year ago | (#44560819)

Hamburger filler, corn starch, mono-sodium glutimate, red dye # 7,...

Just read the label, dude.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44563339)

salt, artificial honey roasting agents, pressed peanut sweepings

Re:Obligatory (1, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#44560829)

It takes 4 of them to make an entire horse.

Re:Obligatory (2)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year ago | (#44561143)

It's a quarter horse? What are the other 3/4?

It's a metric hating faster horse, designed to run a quarter mile faster than other type of horses.

Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560805)

I just had a flash of what the "coming out" issue of the 2nd half of the 21st century will be.

Whoopy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560863)

Whoopy, allow them into the registry with a mark of cloned, problem solved.

how is this a monopoly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560907)

anyone can start up their own horse registry. if i ran a horse registry i likewise would not ant cloned or GMO animals to be a part of it.

Re:how is this a monopoly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560953)

anyone can start up their own horse registry. if i ran a horse registry i likewise would not ant cloned or GMO animals to be a part of it.

Yeah, but it's so much easier to force someone else to do the work.

You're here to serve whomever the state says you must serve -- unless you renounce your citizenship.

You can buy your freedom for a mere $450 fee and you must pay an expatriation tax.

At least there's no wall to keep you in, citizen (yet).

Re:how is this a monopoly? (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year ago | (#44562131)

Anybody can code their own operating system. If I had made Windows, I would not want other office suits to work on it.

Anybody could make their own rail company. If I ran Standard Oil, I would not like the railroad companies to ship the products of my competitors.

Re:how is this a monopoly? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#44562455)

And I will go to court to force you to also allow horses cloned by ants.

Greed knows no bounds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560949)

Another indication that our civilization is doomed by greed. A couple of Texans want to get into the lucrative horse racing market and think their cloned animals will give them an unfair advantage over legitimate horse breeders. But the current national rules forbid it, quick sue to get the rules changed!

No other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals ...

That SHOULD have been all the defense needed, but alas, greed trumps all. Whats next, cloned pets at cat & dog shows?

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1, Flamebait)

mfwitten (1906728) | about a year ago | (#44561089)

The problem is not greed. The problem is government dictating how people should run their lives.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561209)

Don't you anti-government people ever get tired of this same screed? From what I've seen your types are one of the very first at the federal trough whenever one opens up. But I bet you have a rationale for that too.

Praise Jesus!!

Re:Greed knows no bounds (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about a year ago | (#44561253)

The problem is not greed. The problem is government dictating how people should run their lives.

Greed for money or goods is a material form of avarice. The lust to have and perpetually expand power at every opportunity is just a non-material form of greed. The latter is more dangerous by far because it is backed by the police power of government and there is no counter-force causing it to retreat. There is only incremental advancement.

This isn't a road or an essential utility or a national security issue. There is no real public interest here. Ergo, the correct solution would have been to dismiss the suit and tell the plaintiffs that they are free to form their own clone registry. The fact that the current registry is a monopoly would be immaterial because said monopoly excludes clones and thus wouldn't compete with a clone registry. The clone registry would probably find itself entirely without competition. Then those who are interested in cloned horses know where to look while those wanting horses bred the old-fashioned way also know where to look.

Apparently that's just not as fun as forcing people to do what they explicitly don't want to do.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (3, Insightful)

c (8461) | about a year ago | (#44562797)

Ergo, the correct solution would have been to dismiss the suit and tell the plaintiffs that they are free to form their own clone registry. The fact that the current registry is a monopoly would be immaterial because said monopoly excludes clones and thus wouldn't compete with a clone registry.

The problem usually comes not because of the registry, but because there may be other organizations which only "recognize" horses from that registry for their purposes. For example, if a race organization requires that a horse be "pure bred", and only accepts AQHA pedigree, then things start getting messy. And very likely, AQHA rules don't allow AQHA-registered horses to breed out-of-registry, which massively restricts the breeding pool for any competing registry.

In other words, sometimes these sorts of registries act as gatekeepers for a whole host of things, and it makes more sense to change the registry than the change the practices of everything "downstream". Particularly if the registry isn't keeping up with industry practices, or the rules start to introduce health issues with pedigree animals (i.e. reduces the breeding pool excessively).

Re:Greed knows no bounds (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44563305)

The problem usually comes not because of the registry, but because there may be other organizations which only "recognize" horses from that registry for their purposes.

Great. File a suit against those organizations, seeking to force them to recognize horses from other registries. That makes sense. Forcing a registry for bred horses to accept cloned horses is unacceptable.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44563049)

The problem is not greed. The problem is government dictating how people should run their lives.

The real problem is people telling government to dictate how other people should run their lives.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44563057)

... The problem is not greed ...

Right, so I can rent your wife for a few nights. I am so tired of the washing, cooking, cleaning. Plus I get lonely and want to ... talk.

... The problem is government dictating how people should run their lives.

Right on! I have the right to drive my car without brakes or headlights and if you are in my way, that is your problem.

The problem IS greed. This is one business saying another business owes them a business model: Sound familiar? If cloned horses are so fabulous they will have no problem attracting punters and building infrastructure. They don't want to carry those costs but the high-failure rate of clones is mysteriously acceptable.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561259)

Horse feathers! Hope this horse meat registry is paid by horse owners and not another tax payer expense. Wonder if they will make better burgers?

Re:Greed knows no bounds (4, Insightful)

Migraineman (632203) | about a year ago | (#44561315)

The quarter horse association, which has a registry of 751,747 animals, stated in court that it is a private organization and has the right to decide its membership rules.

I'm with the Quarter Horse Association on this one. They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone. I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals ..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town. Start your own damned registry if you don't like the current offerings. If the incumbents run you out of Dodge on a rail, then you have an actionable claim based on anti-competitive business practices. But I don't see how you can claim "monopoly" simply because you don't like a private organization's rules.

Hey, I just started the "No Clones Alllowed Horse Registry." Can these two horse breeders sue me and force my no-clones registry to accept their cloned animals?

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

metlin (258108) | about a year ago | (#44561509)

I'm with the Quarter Horse Association on this one. They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone. I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals ..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town. Start your own damned registry if you don't like the current offerings. If the incumbents run you out of Dodge on a rail, then you have an actionable claim based on anti-competitive business practices. But I don't see how you can claim "monopoly" simply because you don't like a private organization's rules.

Hey, I just started the "No Clones Alllowed Horse Registry." Can these two horse breeders sue me and force my no-clones registry to accept their cloned animals?

"I'm with the Quarter Horse Restaurant on this one. They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone. I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse restaurants allow blacks ..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town. Start your own damned restaurant if you don't like the current offerings. If the incumbents run you out of Dodge on a rail, then you have an actionable claim based on anti-competitive business practices. But I don't see how you can claim "monopoly" simply because you don't like a private organization's rules.

Hey, I just started the "No Blacks Allowed Restaurant." Can these two blacks sue me and force my no-blacks restaurant to accept other black people?"

Arguing against government intervention for the sake of arguing is silly -- regulations exist because people make choices based on outdated values and judgments, and no private enterprise is completely isolated from its social setting.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44561581)

If you want to argue that horses are people, I'll agree with you, but you've got a hard row to hoe. In the meantime, this is basically equivalent to saying that NASCAR can't ban vehicles based on their characteristics.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561899)

My Formula 1 Race car appreciates this new rule change

Re:Greed knows no bounds (2)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year ago | (#44563203)

My Formula 1 Race car appreciates this new rule change

Screw that, I am entering a tank. Lets see how many laps you manage before you get crushed.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44563561)

You open a really interesting point. NASCAR is extreamely limiting (re: controlling) of its product. Cars are inspected both pre and post race. Any type of modification that can potentially change the outcome they wan...I mean...gain advantage to a team is punished.

Now, thanks to the way our courts work, this judge as opened the door for a NASCAR team to sure NASCAR if they don't allow alternate modifications to the cars. Forcing a Breeding Registry to accept Clones would be little different from forcing NASCAR to accept hybrids or alternate body shapes. NASCAR, even as a private entity cannot hold a monopoly on how a car is propelled or steered, or built.

This really needs to be appealed to stop precedent. More so, as an owner of horses I find what the Texan's are doing is disgusting. By cloning a horse they are treating it as an object, not a living creature. It is something to be "made" for a specific purpose, thus ripe for abusive behaviors. Bad enough we already have too many horses being neglected from over breeding, these assholes want to clone them for no other purpose, but to make money. If the horse don't produce, kill it, we'll make another.

(posting AC for I moderated on this thread)

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561767)

Arguing against government intervention for the sake of arguing is silly -- regulations exist because people make choices based on outdated values and judgments, and no private enterprise is completely isolated from its social setting.

Arguments against government intervention aren't made for the sake of arguing.

People argue against government intervention because they get pissed off when someone else tries to tell them who they can and cannot associate with, even in a economic context. It's irritating. If I don't want to serve some people then I shouldn't be forced to. I wasn't born to be a servant and I don't like being second-guessed by busybodies that think they have the right to control me because they believe my values and judgments are "outdated".

You disagree with how I use my own body in an economic context? You have your own body. Leave mine alone.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#44561997)

There is a basic human right not to be discriminated on te basis of skin colour. Horses are not human and there is no right with respect to cloning or not cloning. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44563325)

There is a basic human right not to be discriminated on te basis of skin colour. Horses are not human and there is no right with respect to cloning or not cloning. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Congratulations on your utter lack of reading comprehension; you have got me entirely wrong. I am pointing out that horses are not legally considered people, and therefore they have no right to protection from discrimination. You are comparing bananas to rutabagas.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44563531)

There is a basic human right not to be discriminated on te basis of skin colour. Horses are not human and there is no right with respect to cloning or not cloning. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Congratulations on your utter lack of reading comprehension; you have got me entirely wrong. I am pointing out that horses are not legally considered people, and therefore they have no right to protection from discrimination. You are comparing bananas to rutabagas.

It's a good thing he didn't post that in reply to you, but to the same post you replied to. Congratulations on your utter lack of threaded discussion system comprehension.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44563563)

It's a good thing he didn't post that in reply to you, but to the same post you replied to. Congratulations on your utter lack of threaded discussion system comprehension.

Whoops! You're right. I take it all back. I guess I failed to click "parent". I will wear the ass hat today.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

dabadab (126782) | about a year ago | (#44562067)

They're not the government. They have no "fairness" obligation to everyone.

But they are a business and as such, they are subject to business regulations.

I don't see how they can be accused of holding a monopoly when "no other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals ..." indicates that they ain't the only game in town.

To be a monopoly, you don't have to have 100% of the market - just like Windows does not have 100% of the desktop OS market and there are quite a few other desktop OSes, yet it definitely has a monopoly in that area.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year ago | (#44562263)

If the government didn't break down monopolies, you'd be paying everything you made for basic survival items from the company store which was your only option.

Airline tickets would be double or triple what they are now.

Monopolies make things more expensive.

There is a barrier to entry around expensive or very old businesses.

Breaking up monopolies is in the government's responsibilities since we had the trust busters.

Re:Greed knows no bounds (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44562925)

Can these two horse breeders sue me and force my no-clones registry to accept their cloned animals?

Apparently so. :p

This is so wrong... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560975)

Cloning is wrong because the Bible says so. A cloned horse does not have a soul, and is therefore an abomination. Also, the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is flat (this can be proven by looking at pictures of the Earth taken from space; it is clearly a flat, circular disc), and a woman's place is barefoot, pregnant, and wearing a burqa in front of the oven.

Is there no governmental limits anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560981)

WTF do they have a monopoly on? A list?

If the Boy Scouts can keep gays out since they're a private organization, someone should be able to make a horse list according to their criteria.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561153)

WTF do they have a monopoly on? A list?

If the Boy Scouts can keep gays out since they're a private organization, someone should be able to make a horse list according to their criteria.

a better question is, why do so many gays (and others) want so very badly to be in a place where they are so clearly not wanted and appreciated? reminds me of shannon faulkner suing to get into VMI (and dropping out soon after btw). why would you sue to get into someplace instead of finding a place where you are wanted and appreciated? course VMI accepted public money so faulkner won that suit. but really i just don't understand this desire.

another question: we would not allow a straight man to sleep in a tent in close proximity to young girls who are not his offspring because he might be a sick fuck. he probably isnt but it is not something to take chances with. you just dont see this being done anywhere. why should we allow gay men to sleep in tents in close proximity to young boys who are not their offspring? treating gays as equals would mean not allowing either scenario.

but really boy scouts are dominated by christians and others who generally follow traditional judaeo-christian morality. christianity and the bible is very clear about how they feel about gays. gay men suing to try to get into boy scouts is a lot like a ham company suing to get into a mosque or synagogue, it just doesn't make sense.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (1, Insightful)

FrankSchwab (675585) | about a year ago | (#44561799)

I'm not gay, but I'm not welcome in the Boy Scouts for odious discriminatory reasons. So why do I hang around?

Because I feel that, other than the discrimination they engage in (and that they will be hugely embarassed about 20 years from now), they have an excellent program for my son. Rather than dropping him off at the door, and picking him up later, or sending him on campouts, I participate. I have explained to the scoutmaster why I can never be an adult leader in the BSA program, and he understands. I expect that my honorable service will help change the opinion the organization holds against me and move it in a more inclusive direction.

I think gay parents have the same desires to participate in their childrens lives as I do. And I will call you out on your question:

why should we allow gay men to sleep in tents in close proximity to young boys who are not their offspring?

Gay doesn't equate to pedophile. Say that again: Gay doesn't imply Pedophile.

The Boy Scouts as a private organization has every right to set rules for membership, as numerous court cases attest to. But, then, the Ku Klux Klan is also a private organization that has every right to set rules for membership. Having the right to do so doesn't imply that it's done using criteria that I consider civilized.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44562219)

I'm not gay, but I'm not welcome in the Boy Scouts for odious discriminatory reasons. So why do I hang around?

May I ask why? Feel free to give a list of other discrimination they practice if you'd rather not be specific, as I ask so I can be better informed, rather than trying to poke my nose into your personal life.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#44562465)

Wow, it must be something really creepy.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (2)

stoploss (2842505) | about a year ago | (#44562541)

I'm not gay, but I'm not welcome in the Boy Scouts for odious discriminatory reasons. So why do I hang around?

May I ask why? Feel free to give a list of other discrimination they practice if you'd rather not be specific, as I ask so I can be better informed, rather than trying to poke my nose into your personal life.

I'm not the GP, but one possibility is that the poster is an avowed atheist. Though there is no particularly mandated religion in Boy Scouts (e.g. Hindus are welcome), atheism is not allowed.

The poster could also be a Quaker, as Boy Scouts have a Scout Oath that must be repeated and Quakers adhere to the biblical command from Jesus not to swear oaths.

These are just off the top of my head, so there may be others.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44563347)

I expect that my honorable service will help change the opinion the organization holds against me and move it in a more inclusive direction.

But that's not how it works. Helping to develop a competing scouting organization would do that. Supporting the bigots only justifies their bigotry. "Obviously," they'll say, "people want us to carry on as we have been carrying on, even if they say otherwise; their actions tell us the truth." You're working against your stated goal, and helping to sell out the future (open scouting for everyone) in exchange for short-term gain today (your child in scouting.)

If you have any questions about human nature that still lead you to believe that this works the way you think it works, check out Bonus army [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (3, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#44562073)

a better question is, why do so many gays (and others) want so very badly to be in a place where they are so clearly not wanted and appreciated?

It could be due to the fact that they were Scouts when they were younger and want to carry on the tradition. In many areas the Boy Scouts are the only organization that offers outdoor activities. Many gay fathers would like to be a Scout Master in the troops of their children.

we would not allow a straight man to sleep in a tent in close proximity to young girls who are not his offspring because he might be a sick fuck

At coed camps adults of the opposite gender sleep near children all the time. There are female Scout Masters [nytimes.com] who are allowed to sleep in a tent in close proximity to boys; why not gay men? You are also incorrect as the Girl scouts allow male volunteers [girlscouts.org] .

Q: Who can volunteer?

A: Membership is open to women and men 18 and over who accept the Girl Scout Promise and Law.

Re:Is there no governmental limits anymore? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44562211)

a better question is, why do so many gays (and others) want so very badly to be in a place where they are so clearly not wanted and appreciated?

Why do gay people want to get married, an institution to which (until relatively recently) they were never welcome? Why did black people want to sit at the front of the bus where they weren't welcome?

Why do Anonymous Cowards keep posting stupid shit on a site when everybody thinks they're idiots?

let me guess, these horses ate monsanto grain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561033)

Makes much more sense now.

Can't we just give this country back to the fuck'n indians and call it even?
I mean this whole thing started out pretty good for some people but now we have judges named mary fuckin lou!
Fuckin fuck me, you fucks.

What if it were Microsoft? (2)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44561037)

If this registry were Microsoft, I wonder how the tone of the comments would change. Apparently, they have a monopoly on the registry. That opens them up for regulation. The cloned horses are legal, but their owners can't register them without creating a whole new register and trying to compete, which is too steep a hurdle because... it's a monopoly. So. As long as the registry is allowed to mark the horses as clones, I don't see a problem with this ruling. That way, the clone owners get to register their animals, and people who don't want clones in a bloodline can look it up and exclude it.

Re:What if it were Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561173)

If this registry were Microsoft, I wonder how the tone of the comments would change. Apparently, they have a monopoly on the registry. That opens them up for regulation. The cloned horses are legal, but their owners can't register them without creating a whole new register and trying to compete, which is too steep a hurdle because... it's a monopoly. So. As long as the registry is allowed to mark the horses as clones, I don't see a problem with this ruling. That way, the clone owners get to register their animals, and people who don't want clones in a bloodline can look it up and exclude it.

it would be just like Monsanto and other corpos pouring millions of dollars to prevent having the cloned/GMO crops labeled as such so consumers can know what they're buying, like what hapened in california. same thing would happen with cloned horses.

apparently denying people information with the intent of forcing them to buy something they don't want is a corporate right these days.

Re:What if it were Microsoft? (2)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44561299)

Now that I think about it, the question of concealing the clone is moot. I know virtually nothing about animal registries, but I'm willing to wager that registered animal's records include the parents. If it's a clone, it has only one parent. If they work around that by claiming that the clone has two parents (the parents of the original animal) that would likely create several animals born within an unnatural timeframe. I don't know how common it is to use surrogates with livestock. If they do, is that normally recorded in the registry? Either they record the clone, or they cast aspersions upon other members who crossed and used a surrogate. It seems like they would almost *have* to label the clones to avoid conflicts among members, even if they didn't want to. It's getting late... maybe I'm missing something.

OBderail... Re:What if it were Microsoft? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#44561357)

If this registry were Microsoft

... then every time a horse on the registry got a virus, the registry would become corrupted.

Re:What if it were Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561539)

If you think the byproduct of heavy interbreeding and all the deleterious effects are bad now, wait how the situation will be in 50 years after the whole horse market is commoditized and the one-great-steed (or a few branches) will effectively wipe out the breeding programs that exist today. Thank of the current issue with effectively-cloned bananas, the issue of monoculture in lots of crops, etc. Seriously, in this case, the registry is a *good* thing because it creates an artificial ceiling in place that makes mutt horses a common enough occurrence that even if the pure breeds all die off, there's still plenty of healthy mutt stock to draw from. Meanwhile, if the best of the best are nearly the same cost as a mutt, then a lot of mutts might well never breed.

Or to extend your analogy, what if to counter Microsoft's monopoly position, the courts had made Windows XP free? Where do you think we'd be today with Linux or open source software?

Re:What if it were Microsoft? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#44563187)

I think Horse '95 would have put the company out of business. A horse that crashes each day will not mature enough to be sold.

Ok... sure.. cloned horses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561061)

Can we eat them?

Re:Ok... sure.. cloned horses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561239)

Sure, my cat says they're durn tasty!

Ok (1)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44561235)

"The horse association violated anti-monopoly laws."

For anyone to state with a straight face that there are enforceable anti-monopoly laws in 2013 America needs to immediately start a career as a comedian.

Re:Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561311)

"The horse association violated anti-monopoly laws."

For anyone to state with a straight face that there are enforceable anti-monopoly laws in 2013 America needs to immediately start a career as a comedian.

Wouldn't matter -- Al Franken is already in the Senate.

Re:Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561361)

It just means the AQHA doesn't own enough members of Congress to be exempt from anti-monopoly laws.

Re:Ok (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#44562719)

There are plenty of perfectly enforceable laws, and occasions where they are enforced, no problem there. The problem is some people and entities are apparently above or outside the law.

This is so backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561303)

Just like the theme to Mr. Ed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHbHpz3KwnM

Will they find a way to make the clones fail drug (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44561371)

Will they find a way to make the clones fail drug tests so they can't race?

Re:Will they find a way to make the clones fail dr (4, Insightful)

nbritton (823086) | about a year ago | (#44563247)

If you had ten clones of a proven track horse you could increase your winnings by driving the horse harder, at the risk of damaging them because you have backup copies. For the welfare of the animals, this should be banned from horse racing... or any other sport that involves animals being commanded by people.

I'm sure /. will deliver (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44561553)

Now this story, I want to read again in a slashdot dupe. Just for the irony.

It's a good ruling ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44562047)

Why all the long faces?

Counterfeit horses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44562065)

I guess it would be smart to allow clones to register anyways, as if you are trying to track the breeding getting clones registered and in the books will really help compared to using clones in breeding instead the "ran under a truck" original. You know it will happen. The clne is basically a same horse genitically, right? So it's offspring would look the same in genitical test as the original? How can you really tell then if the resulting offspring really is a "genuine" or from a clone?

One of these Clones is not like the other. (3, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44562365)

So, as I understand it, a cloned horse is where you take the DNA from a horse and put it into a donor egg to fertilize it with a complete chromosomal genome. Right, so, as we all know, the cell has other genetic material (mitochondrial DNA, for example). So, it's a fact that the initial cloned animal cell does not have ALL the same DNA that the initial fertilized egg had. If only the clone's chromosomal DNA is the same as the donor, then the cloned animal fertilized with nuclear DNA is not completely identical to the parent, and the clone WILL NOT produce the exact same genetic lineage that the host did -- Unless in the case of a female cloned via its own eggs? Registering studs means they of course do not produce their own eggs for cloning...

Mitochondria are key to the ATP energy cycle of cells; Thus the cloned animal and its offspring may not perform the same athletically as the parent.

In other words: It means that the Cloned Horses should be marked as such in the registry, and the Mother cell donor should be listed -- It's a whole other connectivity graph whereby instead of mixing the nucleic genomes, we are preserving the nucleic genome of the father and mixing it with the non-nucleic genome provided by the egg donor...

And you thought re-engineering a database to allow more sexes than just M or F was a pain? Yeah, I can see why the other registries would put off accepting clones.

Note: I work with artificial cybernetic genomes. I'm not a geneticist, but I felt this needed to be stated since I didn't see such posted above.
Today's cloning is not like calling Object.clone(); It's more like overriding most of the inherited object's methods having to do with appearance and structure, etc. but not all of them. Oh fine, it's like copying a complete car, but modifying the fuel injectors... Normal folks won't care but if you're racing them it might make a big difference.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

, can accept cloned ... (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about a year ago | (#44562609)

What about if they start tweaking it ?

How are they defining a horse? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year ago | (#44562715)

Are we still limiting the registry to horses with only four legs?

Cloning isn't a big deal until it happens to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44562793)

What will you do when you meet your clone for the very first time? I know what I would do, but the question is... Is it considered incest or masturbation?

This is a good thing for rare breeds... (1)

nbritton (823086) | about a year ago | (#44563149)

I don't understand why you would go to the effort and expense to clone a common quarter horse, but some of the more rarer breeds, particularly those with closed stud books, have to resort to in-breading on occasion to maintain the breed. this is a good thing for them.

Re:This is a good thing for rare breeds... (3, Informative)

LDAPMAN (930041) | about a year ago | (#44563639)

You wouldn't clone a common Quarter Horse. You would clone an exceptionally valuable Quarter Horse. Some of them are worth millions of dollars.

Send in the clowns (1)

Zanadou (1043400) | about a year ago | (#44563969)

The all still taste the same.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...