Montanabw is making sweeping, unsourced statements - statements that appear as facts that everyone knows, and thus need no sourcing. Mbw's profile page indicates he/she is a horse person living in Montana. I think Mbw's is approaching the subject with a proprietary bias and simply does not want a researched, documented "Animal Abuse in Rodeo" controversy presented. Mbw is minimizing my contributions while maximizing his/hers. Mbw is very slightly altering my contributions to reflect a "this is an animal nut" statement sort of thing. In one contribution I named a veterinarian with work inrodeo and included her credentials. Mbw reduced the contribution to "a spokesman for an animal rights group." So how come you are supporting someone who is actually damaging the article, and coming down hard on someone who is trying to improve and cover all the bases in the discussion?