Newspaper article on slaughter in Mexico - destined to change US attitudes?

[Blue Yonder]

So, fwiw, I'm not one to partake of the slaughter threads generally. My quiet opinion stays to myself. I'm afraid of mean posters. ;-)

Also fwiw, I think transport to Mexico for slaughter is the worst-of-the-worst solution for unwanted horses. I've formed my own generally-educated slaughter opinions, impacted by discussions on this board.

But this morning, there is a new angle for the public-at-large to consider, and I'd be surprised if it isn't reprinted in other papers b/c of its sensational nature, and surprised if it doesn't generate a huge public outcry to open the US slaughter houses with full support, at least in TX. Well, with perhaps majority support, as "full" won't ever come. Horse slaughter will never be NOT divisive.

I opened my San Antonio Express News (our main paper) this morning to an actual picture of two horses in a squeeze chute with a worker in Juarez about to stab a knife into the back of a horse. Um, good morning San Antonio. Holy. Cow. :-(

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/mexico/stories/MYSA093007.01A.horseslaughter.3496288.html

The picture in the online article lacks the man-with-raised-knife, at least currently.

With apologies in advance for a potential trainwreck, it seems like if ever horsepeople will be asked questions about slaughter and have folks ready to hear the "best" options we've considered on the slaughter issue, it might be now.

[Bluey]

The last notice I read a little while ago was that a judge had closed the last plant, again, so right now, there is no horse slaughter for human consumption in the USA, at all:

---"The last active horse processing plant in the U.S. has apperantly been shut down by a federal appeals cour ruling.
The Chicago Tribune reports the appellate panel expressed some reluctance about its decision to uphold an Illinois state law that prohibits harvesting horses for human consumption.

According to the opinion written by Judge Richard Posner:
"States have a legitimate interest in prolonging the lives of animals that their population happens to like."---

[hipy]

This is not about horses being slaughtered in the US, it is about the fact that now the go to Mexico and get murdered. Watch the video if you dare, it is horrific. You thought the captive bolt was horrible, how about stabbing a horse to death........go look. IT is was is happening now to all the horses that were "saved".

For those interested: USDA Horse export to Mexico for WE: 9/22/07

Horses
Slaughter 1,111 1,393 29,741 6,331
Breeding Males 33 84 468 360
Breeding Females 46 79 681 507
Geldings 88 35 2,482 1,385
Burro/Mule/Pony 0 0 1 4
Total Horses 1,278 1,591 33,373 8,587

29,741 horses YTD compared to 6,331 same period last year.

[county]

I can never understand why these deals get people up in arms. Theres not one thing done at a Mex. slaughter plant that isn't done in a U.S. plant.

Beleive it or not livestock is killed with a knife here also if you don't beleive it come to the plant in town here every Friday morning.

[work4horse]

I hold my own views on slaughter, but that article indicated that the kill buyers buy the old/crippled/blind ect.....it didn't say that the kil buyers also like to buy the young healthy ones who are going for really cheap prices. When it comes to the kill buyers they will pick up the good ones to fill their quota. You don't get any meat off a starving horse.

[county]

BTW the majority of horses killed in Mex. are also killed with the captive bolt, some with a gun, and some with a knife. Thats exactly the same as in the U.S. for all livestock.

[Nuguum]

Let me start this off by saying that I am by no means pro slaughter.

I have been saying for awhile that until they make it illegal to transport horses out of country for slaughter, closing the slaughter houses int he US is really doing no good. Horses will still be slaughtered in Mexico and Canada. The was forseeable.

From January 1, 2006 to Sept. 30, 2007, 5908 horses were sent to Mexico for slaughter, compared to the 28,630 that have been sent so far this year.

People can not expect to just close the slaughter houses down in the US without setting up protection for the horses. As long as people continue to over breed horses, and there is nowhere for them to go when they are considered no longer useful or wanted, there is going to be problems and slaughter.

[county]

If over breeding causes slaughter then we've over bred since horses came here. Thats how long we've slaughtered them. Same as cattle, the reason for slaughter of any animal is two fold. Demand for the meat and money to be made from it. Take away either one and it stops. Keep them both and no matter how many head there are it will continue.

[LCR]

Yes, killed with a knife BUT THEY ARE PUT IN A CHUTE AND THEIR SPINAL COLUMN
IS SEVERED! Then they are hoisted by chains and THEIR THROATS ARE CUT!

All of you who are against horse slaughter and lobbied to have the Federal Inspected
plants closed should be cringing at what you have created! At least the captive bolt,
used under the supervision of people who were in charge and had the power to
close down a plant if they observed any cruelty, made certain the horse was unconscious
before the final cut was made IS HUMANE!

CONTRAST THAT TO A HORSE THAT CANNOT MOVE, BUT KNOWS EVERYTHING THAT
IS HAPPENING TO IT!

IF ONLY THE MONEY THE PETA FOLK TOOK IN STOPPING AND CLOSING THE slaughter
plants had been used to update and find ways to use even more humane methods here
in the U.S. -- you would have not instead condoned the MURDER PROCESS that is underway in Mexico!

I hope all of you that wrote letters and signed petitions are happy now!

[county]

LCR, livestock is killed the exact same way in the U.S. every Friday morning at the slaughter plant here in town for instance. Why is it worse that its done in Mex.?

[LCR]

NO, you are wrong--absolutely an incorrect statement! The State and Federal controlled
slaughter plants in the U.S. have inspectors, that supervise anti-mortum and post-mortum
processes at their plants. Their job description to to insure that the animals, ALL
animals, including horses, pigs, sheep, cattle etc. are rendered unconscious by with
the captive bolt process or by in some cases shooting. They are also in charge of humane handling, which includes feed and water and doing anything possible to insure the animals are comfortable.

NEVER would an animal have it's spinal column severed to render it unable to move!

Where did you get this idea, anyway? The only time it varies from the captive bolt
method is in the case of KOSHER SLAUGHTER, which as far as I am concerned is almost
as inhumane as the Mexican methods.

Can one even contemplate, someone reaching down to a horse in a chute and stabbing
at it repeatedly, until the spinal column is severed! This is bone chilling to me and should
be to you also!

[county]

Where do I get this idea? Because I work part time on the kill floor at the slaughter plant in town. And every Friday morning we do Kosher and Hamas slaughter and its not with a captive bolt. Also small private plants can use a gun not a captive bolt. Theres is not one thing done in Mex. thats not done right here in the U.S. I see it all the time. If you buy meat you support it.

[LCR]

Yes, you are correct, but horses are not slaughtered for KOSHER purposes and if you are actually working in a Kosher plant you know the difference and you are working with
state or federal inspectors.

It would seem that you want people to believe that horses are slaughtered this way in the U.S. but that is not true and is false and misleading. There is much cruelty in hoisting an 1800 pound BEEF animal by one leg and performing the Kosher cut that is condoned by religious freedom and the opposite--the slaughter done routinely in the majority of the plants in the U.S. under the supervision of meat inspectors.

It is a very small percentage of the animals that are actually Kosher processed this way. Really has nothing to do with closing the horse plants in the U.S. where horses were humanely treated and the barbaric method that is happening right now in Mexico.

But all of the do- gooders got what they wanted and now I hope they think about what is
happening because of them not really thinking what would happen after the plants were
closed!

[equinelaw]

No. I'll be happy when the federal ban passes.

[county]

I in no way, shape, or form, ever said horses were killed Kosher. I said livestock, you may place the welfare of one species over another but I don't. Either its right or its wrong what side of a border its on makes no differance.

[BabyGoose]

LCR, livestock is killed the exact same way in the U.S. every Friday morning at the slaughter plant here in town for instance. Why is it worse that its done in Mex.?

No. What they do in Mexico is barbaric at best. They run a horse into a chute and stab at its neck from above until they severe the spinal cord, rendering the animal unable to move, but from what I have heard, still consious of everything going on around it. For a flight animal like the horse that must be torture in the extreme, probably even worse than any pain it is going through. It makes me sick to think of all the horses that are going down there to be slaughtered now.

While the captive bolt may not be ideal, especially for horses that tend to duck their heads from anything coming from above, it is better than Mexico's method. And as far as animals being killed with a knife in the US, it involves slitting the throat, not stabbing at the spinal cord. We raise sheep and occasionally sell them to Muslim people and they follow some rituals that involve slitting the throat of the animal without the benefit of stunning it. While I have not made up my mind how humane that is either, I would put it a step above severing the spinal cord by stabbing away at the neck.

Personally I wish that there wasn't another horse slaughtered ever again anywhere, but that isn't reality and to me humane transporting and killing should be what we are focusing on, not sending horses to Mexico to horrible deaths. Mexico has even less standards thant the US on anything to do with treating livestock humanly.

I watched the HSUS video of slaughter in Mexico, US and Canada. Seems to me the Canadian plant in that video was the most humane by having a person standing in front of the chute with a rifle shooting the horses. There was no ducking from something coming from over their heads. The horse just stood there while it was shot. Probably the most humane way.

Edited to add that I also think humane raising, transport, and slaughter of any livestock should be important. This country is lacking on humane treatment of farm animals too. But believe me it could be worse, and is in Mexico.

[county]

So " exactly " how do you think the animals killed with a knife here in the U.S. are done?

[BabyGoose]

So " exactly " how do you think the animals killed with a knife here in the U.S. are done?

The knife is used to slit their throats, either with or without the animal being stunned before hand. It is a slice across the jugular vein. It does not involve stabbing at the spinal cord. Again, I am not sure how humane it is without the benefit of the animal being stunned, but it is better than being stabbed. I have read a couple studies that slitting the throat of an animal is actually pretty humane. Nowhere do I know of anywhere in the US where animals are killed or stunned with knife by STABBING AROUND THE NECK UNTIL THE SPINAL CORD IS SEVERED. That is the difference.

[county]

Well you may not know of any places but I assure you there around the U.S. Theres one 17 miles from here come get a job there and on Fri. mornings find out for yourself. Does it go like clock work everytime? Hardly and thats on both sides of the border I assure you.

[carolprudm]

So " exactly " how do you think the animals killed with a knife here in the U.S. are done?
I take my excess goats to a Halal butcher. There are very strict rules for Halal slaughter. Here is some info I found interesting
http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/an/an_slaughter.htm

[Experimental Details:
1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of thebrain.
2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.
3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid Arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and esophagusHalal Method.
4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol humane slaughter by the western method.
5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.


Results and Discussion:
I - Halal Method
1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.
2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.
3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.
4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.
II - Western method by C.B.P. Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.
2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.
3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood inthe meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.
(Many thanks to Muslim Students Organization - University of Miami)

[county]

And ideally it goes like clock work. Real life isn't ideal when a place kills over 1000 animals a day theres mistakes made. And fact is here about 75% of the workers on the kill floor come from Mexico theres no magic that changes when they cross the border.

[ProzacPuppy]

I don't see how anyone can eat any flesh esp in light of these stories of the horrific suffering that occurs. Doesn't matter if it is horse, cow, chicken, or hog - there are terrible things done to these innocent souls under the name of slaughter.

The article was on the front page of our local paper. It took me 3 tries before I could bring myself to read it. The kill buyer in the article says he is doing a service to the people trying to get rid of a horse who would otherwise have to pay a few hundred dollars to have the animal euthanized by a vet and the body disposed of.

Perhaps having to take responsibility for the ultimate humane end and disposal of your horse would make more people treat horse ownership as a privilege and not a right.

[carolprudm]

I don't see how anyone can eat any flesh
because I don't feel well without some meat in my diet

[CarouselPony]

That every time the S word is brought up, people dismiss the facts that are put forward.

1) You eat meat, you are supporting the 'industry', unless you are rallying for humane treatment of all slaughter bound creatures, you're talking out of both sides of your face.

2) I don't always agree with Country, or the opinions he puts forward, but I respect the fact that he remains level headed, and doesn't often go shrieking into the night like so many 'anti slaughter' folks.

3) If you REALLY want to support change - you rally for humane farming, and support of the small farmer as apposed to the big factory organizations that treat animals as objects, not livestock - yes, as they are livestock, that means they will be slaughtered, and used as food and other things.

4) Stop howling about the actual end - 3 seconds, 30 seconds... perhaps if they had been 'raised' and shipped with care in the first place, people wouldn't have to be so up in arms about slaughter in the first place.

FWIW - I haven't eaten meat in over ten years - I don't begrudge those that choose to, but I'd rather see people *think* more about WHERE their food comes from, and make their choices accordingly. If I was still a meat eater, I'd ask people like country where to find the best product that was taken care of from start to finish, and not worry so much about the very very end.

[county]

I don't see how anyone can tell someone else what they should and should not eat.

[Blueshadow]

Any society is perfectly able to dictate to its members what they "should" and "should not" eat - eg. human flesh is not eaten in industrialized nations, but is in some societies. Social values dictate what we eat and do not eat, what is taboo and what is not. This varies by country. We don't eat cats and dogs here, but in some countries people do. We eat cows, in some countries people don't. And what is acceptable changes over time, along with social norms and other factors. In England, horsemeat was eaten extensively after the second world war due to shortages of other meats. In England, horsemeat is now taboo, despite the fact that it is eaten in other European countries (just as it is taboo in the US, but not in Canada and Mexico). I'm amused to see that article reference Harvard University's preference for serving horseflesh "until" the late 1970s. The relevant point isn't that Harvard University USED to serve horsemeat to its faculty members. The relevant point is that it no longer chooses to do so.

I'm tired of being accused of hypocrisy as an anti horse slaughter advocate. I care very much about the humane transportation, treatment, and slaughter of all farm animals. I don't know why anybody would assume that I don't care, or that I don't lobby for it. Why assume that? Animal Angels, by the way, are doing a great job of monitoring systematic violations of humane standards in the slaughter industry - particularly in transportation and holding - for all farm animals, and of horses.

[ProzacPuppy]

Not telling anyone what they should eat. Just asking how the anti-equine slaughter people can still eat meat. Slaughter is slaughter and as you yourself said, county, the floor of the slaughter house is the same for the various species. If we find it inhumane for one we should howl in protest for all.

I'm not crazy. I know that America is a "meat and potatoes" nation. But if we fight to make the end more humane for horses we should also be fighting to make the end more humane for chickens, hogs and cattle too.

I agree that the huge commercial farms are part of the problem and inhumane practices begin there (chickens beaks are seared off to keep them from pecking each other and handlers for example). Bill Engvaldt's visions of "free range chickens roaming the land" aside, supporting the small farms, the "organic" "free-range" etc would be a start since anything would probably be more humane than the huge commercial farms.

Too many people don't think about where their food comes from or what is in the food they eat. Particularly in recent months with the recalls of practically everything for various contaminants I think it is time that Americans open their eyes and really LOOK at where their food comes from and what is done to it before it reaches them (flesh products and plant products alike).

Regarding horses and slaughter - I really would like to see horse owners made to accept responsibility for their animals in life AND in death. Unless the animal is raised as a food stock I think the owner has a responsibility to those lives he has willingly assumed ownership of. Compared to the cost of horse ownership the cost of euthanizing a horse is infinitesimal.

[Sithly]

I was pro-slaughter in the first place, and this does not come as a surprise. I'm glad it's getting attention. It serves as a lesson on the law of unintended consequences.

[equinelaw]

I read the article, and I don't see it as pro or anti slaughter. I see it as a reason to get the federal ban in place ASAP.

The killer buyer's profits were so small, it makes you wonder why he still bothers. When that gap closes a little more, he wont bother.

[CarouselPony]

I don't see how anyone can tell someone else what they should and should not eat.

It's very funny - when I go out with freinds they ask if I will get offended if they eat meat, but I don't think dinner time is the time to talk about choices. (In the nutshell, diet/lifestyle choices are like religion - don't try to preach and everyone to their own). Hell, last night we went out for a belated birthday party (for me) and I chose a place that was renown for it's Prime Rib - thankfully, they also have a generous vegetarian menu so it made a great meal for all of us.

[philosoraptor]

We need to have a national ban and end this nonsense once and for all.

The knife is used to slit their throats, either with or without the animal being stunned before hand. It is a slice across the jugular vein. It does not involve stabbing at the spinal cord.

Some Mexican slaughterhouses do kill by cutting the spinal chord, sometimes called "pithing". An extremely sharp knife is plunged in the upper neck and a quick cut severs the cord and the horse is paralyzed. The bleed-out isn't done until after the horse is down. (I've watched the videos of this and it's nightmare material.)

IF ONLY THE MONEY THE PETA FOLK TOOK IN STOPPING AND CLOSING THE slaughter plants had been used to update and find ways to use even more humane methods here in the U.S.

Respectfully disagree. PETA is NOT who is fighting for the end of horse slaughter; go to their site and you'll have a hard time finding US horse slaughter. It's the HSUS, welfare groups, rescues, and just plain old horsepeople.

The TX plants shut down not because of a PETA protest but because the folks in texas were finally fed up with it and a 60 yr old law banning it was finally enforced. This plants were so awful their own hometowns were suing them.

The only other slaughterhouse for horses was in IL. Again it was being sued for other things for years, sanitary issues, nuisance issues, etc. It was closed by an IL state law when IL citizens decided they were tired of it. It was the representatives in IL, again not a PETA campaign, which ended this.

Technically you could go to another state and try to open one and it would still be legal.

And the bigger picture is that the industry isn't interested in humane methods. They've had decades to consider peoples' complaints, and they change nothing. They're looking at one simple thing: maximum profit.

you would have not instead condoned the MURDER PROCESS that is underway in Mexico!

Technically all slaughter is condoned murder. The US process was not a whole lot better. From here it's a good 1000 mile ride to the nearest US slaughter plant, in all weather in an overcrowded truck. Captive bolt on an unrestrained, unsedated animal that is locked in a knock-box and thrashing for his life is not going to be accurate. Some needed repeat hits, whacking holes in their skull each time. Some were temporarily stunned and woke back up as they're chained from the ceiling and the neck is cut. Not pretty!

What about the slaughter buyers doing us a service by getting rid of the suffering horses? Nope.

Here's an example of a pony the killbuyers left behind at New Holland. Equihab bought her to put her down humanely because NOBODY else bid on her, not even the killbuyers.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/jenna-eats.jpg
(ancient cushings, bad melanoma blocking defecation, probably internal cancer)

Here is an example of a healthy, sound, broke 6 yr old horse the KB almost got if Equihab had not intervened, thanks to a sponsor. Healthy, trained, sound horses like this sweetie are shipped to slaughter every week. Young meat is tender and young fit bodies have more meat on them.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/fobhorse/sargent-92307b.jpg

Every week at every low-end auction they buy up our fit horses and leave the elderly & suffering behind.

The ones killed aren't picked because they cannot find a home otherwise. They're not like a dog shelter who gives the dog a few weeks to find a home and only puts down the un-placeable ones. These people are shopping for MEAT and could care less if the animal is still young and usable. The criteria for selecting for slaughter is wrong (assuming you're saying slaughter is a good thing for horses).

There is NO check for stolen horses at borders or slaughterhouses. If your horse disappeared out of his field, you may never see him again unless you're shopping in Belgium in a gourmet meat market. Even if you're not sure you're against others slaughtering horses, visualize your own horse and then imagining him there killed against your will.

All attempts to institute basic welfare reforms on the industry were ignored. Some were even laughed at. The idea that suffering horses should be locally put down instead of hauled to New Hollland and then shipped 1000 miles to slaughter was a big joke by the auctioneer last time I was there in June; auctioneer was advertising how much nicer it was that a child didn't have to see his pony put down. The industry doesn't even follow the most basic existing laws, such as not overloading their double-deckers. Read some of the Animals Angels reports (http://www.animals-angels.com/Investigations,449.html) on how the horse slaughter industry is repeatedly caught ignoring USDA and DOT laws.


Plain and simple: the industry is run by foreign corporations who built processing plants here for the simple reason they can buy horses cheap. They're in business to make profits supplying a gourmet product and they could care less about Americans' objections or the pain their "product" is feeling. They don't care the meat is full of banned drugs, and they don't care if the next horse they kill is your own horse who recently vanished out of your field. Money, money, money.

[county]

What " exactly " makes anyone think the fed. gov. is going to pass this ban thats been talked about all this time. Someday? Maybe, maybe not but I see nothing that indicates it will be very soon or that they even care. I've heard slaughter will be banned since the 60's.

[county]

May S the exact same thing happens with cattle should we ban them for slaughter for the same reasons?

[philosoraptor]

I was found in a well-known NY killbuyer's killpen. I am well broke to harness and to ride. I am healthy, sound, and sane. I am only 15.3 so I'm a perfect size for most riders. My name is Red:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/fobhorse/red-rides2-sept.jpg
I was almost shipped from the pen in NY to be killed for meat. Even know I had an active Strangles infection, it would not have stopped them from shipping me. Instead I was shipped with strangles and without a neg Coggins to southern PA. It was freezing temps and I was run down, but killbuyers don't spend money on giving horses' rest or vet care. Thanks to Friends of Barbaro, I am alive today.

My name is Cletus. I was dumped at New Holland and auctioned near the end of the day, when the meat-buyers shop. Thanks to sponsors who wanted to pull a few horses from auction, I was purchased for a mere $250. I am such a sweetheart that I was promptly adopted:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/fobhorse/hay-cletus.jpg
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/fobhorse/cletus-92307.jpg

10 yr old healthy TWH with papers, also sold at end of day with the other 'meat' quality horses at New Holland... almost bought by the killers. I am safe for most beginners and well trained, but I was born with imperfect front leg conformation. My last owner traded me in with a broker who dumped me at the sale:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/fobhorse/walker-92307b.jpg

5 yr old, sound, broke-but-green grade QH whose only reason for being shipped to a killer sale was because a farm in Oklahoma had too many. (Why do some Qh ranches breed everything with a uterus?) He's now filled in & muscled up, been trained, and is an awesome all around horse for a nice family in Baltimore. Look at that face... does he really deserve that kind of fate?
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/NewHorse.jpg

The Amishman was about to send me to the butcher because he got a younger team. I am well broke to ride & drive, no soundness or health issues, easy keeper, & sane. I'm now the steady-eddy trail horse for a family in NJ.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/bettyboop/betty-ride.jpg


If they could talk they'd ask ... "I deserved to be sent to the butcher why?"

[county]

Think cows feel any differantly?

[Sansena]

Where do I get this idea? Because I work part time on the kill floor at the slaughter plant in town.

'Nuff said.

And ferpity's sake, it's:

d i f f e r *E* n t

[ProzacPuppy]

Stupid Question but I really would like to know the answer - How do they know that the horses that they purchase for slaughter have not been taking drugs that someone may not want to eat? For example- say you were treating a horse for cancer. Or perhaps a horse receiving hormone treatment regularly for years.

I am assuming that it all ends up on the table somewhere, drugs or no drugs. Correct?

[county]

That says it all? Don't know what you mean?

Drugs in meat? Each country has regulations about what can and can't be in their food supply. Each country has their own system of control. Haven't heard of people dying or getting sick from horse meat so thinking its not been a problem. Can't really say the same for some of the food supply here in the U.S. Maybe our system needs to be changed?

[county]

Sansena your post seem to change like magic. And to be honest I have no idea what they mean?

[Blueshadow]

I'm not crazy. I know that America is a "meat and potatoes" nation. But if we fight to make the end more humane for horses we should also be fighting to make the end more humane for chickens, hogs and cattle too.


Some of the people most active in the anti horse slaughter campaign right now are fighting just as hard for a humane end (shipping/holding/slaughter) for other slaughter species. If you have not been to animal angels' website,
you should check it out. It's very interesting reading.

Agreeing wholeheartedly with you however - if you can afford to own a horse, then you can damn well afford to give it a dignified end to its life. I don't care who wants to argue otherwise. Perhaps if every horse that was slaughterbound was obviously malnourished/starved etc., I might believe that their owners were unable to afford euthanasia and disposal. However, the USDA tells us that is NOT the case for 92 percent of horses slaughtered.
They are perfectly healthy. If their owners could afford to keep them in a good state of health, they could afford to euthanize and dispose of them.

[Bluey]

---"There is NO check for stolen horses at borders or slaughterhouses. If your horse disappeared out of his field, you may never see him again unless you're shopping in Belgium in a gourmet meat market. Even if you're not sure you're against others slaughtering horses, visualize your own horse and then imagining him there killed against your will."---

For those that read these slaughter threads, remember that those against slaughter don't have many of their facts right, are parroting animal rights propaganda only, like the above.

The two plants in TX had a TSCRA inspector, as do every cattle and horse sale in the state, that looks every animal over as it comes into the plant or sale grounds.
If a horse has been reported stolen, the inspector will look at every horse that resembles that horse especially carefully and if it seem a match, pull it until it ownership is cleared.

Much that is being said here, even by County as first hand, is relative to the place and circumstances.
Sure, you can find plenty that goes wrong anyplace, but most slaughterhouses, especially those horse ones, were some of the most regulated places, more than most people seem to know.

Many of those propaganda videos have been altered or taken out of context to make what happens look bad and look common, when in reality the lines go practically without a hitch, animals are not abused and are killed swiftly, with the very rare miss.
Most horses go down the line without fuss and are gone in no time, definitely quicker and less stressfull than much that is done in the name of handling, training or competing with horses.
Pretty is not, it is slaughter after all, but abusive it is not either.

As far as horses going to Mexico in great numbers now, those were not "unintended consequences", but done despite clear warnings, ignored in the zealots rush to close the slaughterhouses "right now or else".

[ProzacPuppy]

But since horses aren't part of the "food supply" in this country does anyone actually test to see if there are drugs? Or do they test on a steak by steak basis?

Just curious because there are experimental treatments for various things that are used here in the US, particularly cancer treatments and behavioral treatments for companion animals that are using drugs off-license. Granted the people that would pursue such treatments for their horses probably wouldn't let them end up in an auction but the possibility does exist of some pretty "odd" drugs getting into the food chain.

[county]

I can very well afford to kill my horses if I want same as my cattle and sheep. But it makes no sense to me to do so we raise livestock for a living. I know people who make $250,000 a year at their job. I'm sure they could get by just fine on $150,000 but why should they if they can make more?

I've yet to meet even one person who thinks their not being responsable for their livestock. Beleive it or not everyone doesn't think the same way. And thats not only a good thing its very normal.

[Peggy]

With respect to horses and kosher killing methods, horsemeat is not kosher by Jewish dietary law; therefore, it would be a contradiction to kill a horse via kosher methods.

[ProzacPuppy]

You raise your horses for food?

I would hesitate to compare a $100,000 drop in ones income to the difference euthanizing your horses for a year vs sending them to slaughter for the last few dollars they can earn for you would make in your income or standard of living.

And at that point, doesn't it feel tainted, like blood money?

[county]

No i don't raise horses for food but its no more blood money then any other species of liverstock. I don't raise dairy cattle for food either but when they no longer milk here many are bought by someone who sells them for food. I don't see that as blood money either. Same as ewes, I have no problem with people that eat differant things then I do.

[philosoraptor]

But since horses aren't part of the "food supply" in this country does anyone actually test to see if there are drugs? Or do they test on a steak by steak basis?

haha... not! And if the EU knew the kind of crap that's in US horse meat, it would be rejected faster than a Chinese lead-painted toy. It's not a question of testing to remove the horse meat with contaminants. ALL US US horse meat would have contaminants except for the few freshly-caught wild horses. Who here has never used de-wormer on their horse (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/funchy/fobhorse/dewormer.jpg)?

Many of our common equine drugs are NOT approved for use in food animals. It's not about withdrawal period... these drugs are simply not suitable for use on any animals intended for people to eat.

.

[county]

I use the exact same wormer on my cattle and sheep as I do my horses virtually everyone I know does. Also use many of the same drugs on all species of livestock we raise. My horse vets and cattle vets do also. Anyone that thinks livestock eaten in the U.S. is drug free has their head in the sand.

[Blueshadow]

For information on current (farm) animal transportation and other legal violations observed by this group of independent inspectors. They have horse related stuff (see transportation investigations at the top of the page) as well as other farm animal investigations...

Apologizing if someone has already posted this...

http://www.animals-angels.com/index.php?pageID=start_us

[horse crazy inTX]

Perhaps if every horse that was slaughterbound was obviously malnourished/starved etc., I might believe that their owners were unable to afford euthanasia and disposal.


Thank God most responsible owners don't wait until a horse is starving and neglected to sell it when they can no longer afford to keep it. Auction is often the last resort for many owners when they can't sell or give away a horse. Without slaughter there will be no one to buy the unwanted horses. Recently 2,000 horses a week have been going to Mexico and Cavel. That doesn't include Canada.

Many seem to forget that in 1990 350,000 horses went to slaughter. Why? Because the bottom fell out of the horse market. It is a fantasy that all horses live a life with one loving owner. There are many horses that move from home to home because of behavioral problems.

Stopping breeding is all fine and dandy for the future but what about the current horse population? The horse population has grown by 3.2 million over the past 9 years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the fate of many horses will be with a huge over population and a diminishing market. Without slaughter, starvation and abandonment will increase. Anyone with any sense can figure out the number of unwanted horses is about to explode!

[Sithly]

I meant "unintended consequences" as in: the type of person who is against slaughter in the US is probably even MORE against slaughter in Mexico. I did not mean that the unintended consequences weren't obvious. Probably should have been more clear.

[Blueshadow]

Thank God most responsible owners don't wait until a horse is starving and neglected to sell it when they can no longer afford to keep it. Auction is often the last resort for many owners when they can't sell or give away a horse. Without slaughter there will be no one to buy the unwanted horses. Recently 2,000 horses a week have been going to Mexico and Cavel. That doesn't include Canada.

Just to be a little careful here, and get our facts absolutely straight, these horses ARE sold through auction. You must mean that they end up there if and when their owners cannot sell them privately? If they were willing to give them away privately, and could not, then presumably they would simply donate them to the auction, donate them to the KBs. But they do not. They SELL them through the auction.

And these horses are, notably, SOLD at auction i.e. the horses command a positive (non-zero) market price, and hence they are not "unwanted" in any economic sense that I can think of. Kill buyers bid on them. And, finally, who said that NON kill buyers don't attend auctions and bid? How often is it that the kill buyer bids against no-one whatsoever? Current market prices in the US for slaughter bound horses average around 25 cents per pound, something like that. The bidding could conceivably start AND END at zero cents per pound, were there really noone else to buy these horses, and noone else to give them away to. It does not. The presence of kill buyers at auctions raises the market value of these so called "unwanted" horses. That is what the demand for horsemeat does in the horse markets of this country.

Sorry, but I can make no sense of your post.

[equinelaw]

Wow Blueshadow. That makes a lot of sense. If they had no value then wouldn't we have to pay the kill buyers to come and take them from us?

[Blueshadow]

Wow Blueshadow. That makes a lot of sense. If they had no value then wouldn't we have to pay the kill buyers to come and take them from us?

Or, at least, if we shipped them down to our local auction there would be noone but the KB to bid, and the bidding would never get beyond the first raise of the KB's hand. Presumably, since these horses are "unwanted" by absolutely everyone else, that first bid would be roughly $0 plus some tiny positive "epsilon" amount...And by the time we add in the cost of gas and the cost of our time to ship 'em down there, then yes, equinelaw, I believe you may be correct...

[equinelaw]

So instead of the kill buyer now making a measly $50 profit, he could be making more money by offering to come and get the horses for, say $125, and save the owners the gas money to go to the auction too?

Huh. I wonder why they still bother to have auctions? Around here it only costs $85 to put a horse down, but I suppose in places where they don't have as many tractors or nice Vets, the kill buyers could be making a profit just driving around and collecting all those free horses:) Or even charging for the service!

[county]

Theres a number of free horses around here that KB's get. Its $50 just for a vet call and another $100 to kill the horse. Then if thery use the rendering service thats up to another $100 now. Plus some people just don't want to deal with the horse so they give them away. Markets way down hay is way up my guess is you'll see more of it.

[Blueshadow]

County, I don't doubt the truth of that i.e. that there are a few free horses that the KBs get. Don't get me wrong. That does not imply that, were the horse sent to public auction, and all potential bidders permitted to bid, it's market price would be zero. In addition, you know as well as I do that by far the largest source of horses to slaughter are livestock auctions. They centralize the market, and equilibrium prices are far from zero.

If KBs had to drive around figuring out where all the free horses were, I doubt there would be a slaughter industry in this or any other country - the transactions costs of doing so are far too high.

[Blueshadow]

If over breeding causes slaughter then we've over bred since horses came here. Thats how long we've slaughtered them. Same as cattle, the reason for slaughter of any animal is two fold. Demand for the meat and money to be made from it. Take away either one and it stops. Keep them both and no matter how many head there are it will continue.

And County, this is by far and away the most accutely perceptive and accurate post I have ever seen from you. You are ABSOLUTELY correct. The reason for slaughter is not over-breeding. The reason that horses are slaughtered is that there is a demand for their meat, and profit to be made from trade in their meat. It doesn't matter how many or how few horses we breed. As long as horse slaughter is legal, horses will be killed for their meat.

[county]

Oh I totally agree I'm just saying theres horses around here this year that people give away. Some would get less for them at auction then the gas to get them there. They know who the KB's are or ask around, call them up and tell them they have a horse to give away.

[Blueshadow]

Yes, the availability of KBs does make it relatively easy and cheap to dispose of a horse.

[Rahesi]

THis whole thing boils down to Owner responsibility. WE are taxed on our horses like dogs and cats . the tax money is not spent on horse inspections, rescue facilities,or state inspectors, it goes into the Dept of Ag kitty and probably is used to shore up cows and other projects. THe cow owner does not pay tax on the cow food -we do. That should irritate all horse owners especially when the state says we can't help -we are not prepared. Euthanasia is a simple, cheap process and very humane. there are no other ways except to shoot one in the pasture...point blank..Both articles said about 1/2 the time the Mexican captive bolts don't work.,,,Cavel slaughterd 140 horses 1 morning in 90 minutes. I don't believe for 1 second they were properly stuned at that rate. most studies indicate a horse if stunned regains
conciousness 30 seconds later....If you own a horse plan for his end of life too. Slaughter is a subsidy that needs to go away...

[horse crazy inTX]

Just to be a little careful here, and get our facts absolutely straight, these horses ARE sold through auction. You must mean that they end up there if and when their owners cannot sell them privately? If they were willing to give them away privately, and could not, then presumably they would simply donate them to the auction, donate them to the KBs. But they do not. They SELL them through the auction.



I think you understood exactly what I was saying about selling at an auction as last resort. Let me be more specific - when a horse owner can't SELL through other channels (privately or through an agent) or give a horse away, selling at an auction is often a last resort. There ARE people that have left their horses at auction houses, abandoning them there when they didn't sell. Yes, KB's buy at auction, now for a lot less than what they have had to pay in the past. I think some owners still want to pretend if they sell at auction someone other than the KB might buy them and the horse will live happily ever after. I guess it is great for KBs if people are willing to just 'give' horses to them directly.

[county]

Maybe you get taxed on your horses but I don't. And " exactly " who says 140 horses were slaughtered in 90 minutes? And whats their proof?

[county]

BTW we can kill 1000 head of cattle in about 8 hours at the slaughter plant in town.

[J Swan]

No offense, but how on earth can anyone act surprised at this article?

First, it was being done before the US plants closed - a fact which was pointed out by many people during the hullaballoo about the US plants closing. Many people said - it would increase the numbers of horses going to Mexico where few to no welfare considerations are in place.

The answer - well, some horses will have to be sacrificed for the greater good. An answer I found repugnantl

Second, people said closing the US plants was inadvisable because there was no plan in place to house the horses normally destined for that end.

Answer - pro slaughter people are evil monsters who don't care about horses.

Third - many people said that letting those horses die in Mexico would bring attention to the problem.

Answer (by me, anyway) - Well, I had said that it was part of an overall strategy to do that - the welfare of the horses being a secondary consideration to AR groups - more important is "the cause".

I'm not going to get into the debate again - I'm going to point out that I'm just disgusted that anyone would act surprised at the numbers increasing, the acts of horrendous cruelty, or any other unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences to the US plants closing.

Halal and kosher slaughter are performed much differently that the acts occurring in Mexican slaughterhouses. I'd suggest not comparing the two.

I don't want any animal slaughtered in that country - and every day, more US livestock is enduring worse conditions than US equines by going to that godforsaken country. If you want to end suffering - support US agriculture - including US slaughterhouses. Even if you don't eat meat, at least if the animals are in OUR country, we, as citizens, can have some say in their welfare.

[luvmytbs]

JSwan,

you cannot blame the general public fighting to end horse slaughter for the US slaughter houses closing before the Federal Ban is passed. Blame the politicians in congress who are sitting on their lazy behinds argueing over the cost of energy saving light bulbs. :confused:

Instead of suggesting to reopen US plants, everyone should unite and get this Federal Ban pushed through once and for all.

As was mentioned earlier, Mexico and Canada were slaughtering our horses before the US plants closed. And I believe the pro-side has always had issues with that as well.
There are kill buyers who have never sent their horses to an American slaughter house. For example Jaron Gold from Michigan. Don Nickerson from New York. Chuck Walker from Washington. Monserat Munoz from Texas. Dennis Chavez from New Mexico.
And the list goes on and on.
And then on the other hand, you had the kill buyers, who didn't ship to the closest US slaughter house, instead they sent the horses on a 1,000 mile trip to the plant they had a contract with.

As far as the USDA and other regs are concerned, we know that they will never be inforced when it comes to horses. The USDA does NOT care about animals that do not enter the US food chain. If you have any doubts about that, make some phone calls to Dr. Cordes and his staff.

[MandyVA]

Yes, killed with a knife BUT THEY ARE PUT IN A CHUTE AND THEIR SPINAL COLUMN
IS SEVERED! Then they are hoisted by chains and THEIR THROATS ARE CUT!

All of you who are against horse slaughter and lobbied to have the Federal Inspected
plants closed should be cringing at what you have created! At least the captive bolt,
used under the supervision of people who were in charge and had the power to
close down a plant if they observed any cruelty, made certain the horse was unconscious
before the final cut was made IS HUMANE!

CONTRAST THAT TO A HORSE THAT CANNOT MOVE, BUT KNOWS EVERYTHING THAT
IS HAPPENING TO IT!

IF ONLY THE MONEY THE PETA FOLK TOOK IN STOPPING AND CLOSING THE slaughter
plants had been used to update and find ways to use even more humane methods here
in the U.S. -- you would have not instead condoned the MURDER PROCESS that is underway in Mexico!

I hope all of you that wrote letters and signed petitions are happy now!

Then I suppose you would support what the anti-slaughter activists have been asking for all along, which is the federal ban? All of us who "wrote letters and signed petitions" were asking for Congress to pass the horse slaughter prevention act. IT DID NOT PASS. The slaughter houses closed down because of unrelated efforts to the ban.

The AQHA and the meat industry are still lobbying against the ban even though now it would do only one thing: stop the export of horses for human consumption. So effectively the pro-slaughter groups are in favor of the inhumane conditions in Mexico, because the federal bill would end the export and yet the pro-slaughter organizations still oppose it.

There is a solution to this problem making its way through the US Senate right now. How 'bout you quit accusing the "activists" of creating the problem, and pick up the phone and call your senator and ask him or her to co-sponsor S. 311?

[philosoraptor]

Many seem to forget that in 1990 350,000 horses went to slaughter. Why? Because the bottom fell out of the horse market.

You're looking at the issue the wrong way.

Horses are killed for meat because there is a demand for horse meat. If the demand for horse meat fell to zero, there would be zero horses slaughtered no matter how many "extra" we debate there might be.

Slaughterhouses are not city dog pounds only putting down the unadoptable dogs that nobody else wants.

It is a fantasy that all horses live a life with one loving owner. There are many horses that move from home to home because of behavioral problems.

I don't think anyone here is saying horses only ever have one owner. But there is a bazillion other options than slaughter: resale, lease, giveaway/free-lease, give to a shelter, put out to retirement, donate to vet school, or euthanize.

I can tell you firsthand from my own experience that those we're seeing in kill pens are not dangerous monsters. They are unlucky. They had an owner who got tired of the horse, "moved up", went of to college, got divorced, lost a job, stopped riding, or just plain didn't know what a low-end auction was all about. The most common reason people are calling the rescue to give up a horse is because they can't ride the horse the way they want to & they do not want to pay to feed a horse they can't use without restrictions, eg. change of discipline, loss of soundness, older age, temporary layup, etc.

Stopping breeding is all fine and dandy for the future but what about the current horse population? The horse population has grown by 3.2 million over the past 9 years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what the fate of many horses will be with a huge over population and a diminishing market. Without slaughter, starvation and abandonment will increase.

There is NO link between neglect/abandonment and slaughter. I challenge you to find one study that shows it. When California passed a statewide ban they examined the numbers. Neglect/abandonment did not go up, but theft went DOWN by over 30%.

On the years when slaughter took only 30,000 horses lives, where did the other 70,000 or whatever number you say is excess go? They weren't roaming the streets. This is a total myth/misunderstanding which keeps getting repeated by the pro-slaughter side in an effort to scare us into keeping it legal.

In my area Equihab has a program whereby a horse who needs to be euthanized will be done (incl disposal) at Equihab's expense -- all you have to do is ask. Number of people who have taken this offer: zero. The whole "unwanted" horse thing is a myth. Heck if horses were that unwanted, why are rescues paying $200 and $300 to save lives at the auction? If these horses are so "unwanted" owners should be paying the killbuyers to take them, not the other way around.

Or how about this: why don't owners take responsibility for their own animals? These aren't alley cats having kittens under the back deck... these are horses who were intentionally created. Horse community created these lives, so I feel the horse community needs to find a way to take responsibility for them.

I also don't understand how we can talk about the bottom keep falling out of the market at the same time we say there are record numbers or new registrations of horses. Which is it? Right now it's the "hay crisis" that people are using as an excuse to promote slaughter. Years back it was a change in the tax code. Then it was the quick collapse of certain breeds' popularity. Seems like there's always a crisis and the market is always going bad.

[county]

So May s is that why cows are in kill pens? How about hogs, sheep, any other species/ Why is one species placed above the others other then its one you don't personally like to eat? Why should the world conform to anyone elses desires for what they choose to eat?

[county]

BTW does anyone know of a person who says their not taking responsablity for their animals? I've yet to hear one say so. I know lots of people that say someone else isn't to their own personal standards but thats it. I sell lots of animals to slaughter and take a great deal of responsablity for each one.

[ProzacPuppy]

The economy has been down and horse sales are slow. (I would definitely say the market has been off for "middle price range" horses - say $35,000 to $75,000).

I think the concept of "responsibility" is alien to some people. If they are unable to accept responsibility for their own lives they cannot accept responsibility for the lives of other living things.

There are many many people in this country who do not accept personal responsibility for their lives. Unfortunately many of them are too mentally unenlightened to be aware that they are not taking responsibility.

And so the vicious circle begins....

[summerhorse]

So May s is that why cows are in kill pens? How about hogs, sheep, any other species/ Why is one species placed above the others other then its one you don't personally like to eat? Why should the world conform to anyone elses desires for what they choose to eat?

They are there because they are raised JUST for it. If people didn't eat them most of them wouldn't be here at all.

Many of the slaughtered horses wouldn't be here EITHER without that easy out of $200-400 at the auction. If they couldn't dispose of them for money a LOT of people would cut breeding right this minute and their "products" would also cease to exist (eventually). It would be different if there was a viable market here for horses but there is not.

And since very very few of these horses are free then very very few of them can be classed as "unwanted" even. Someone somewhere would take most of them.

[philosoraptor]

A little off the topic but...

The economy has been down and horse sales are slow. (I would definitely say the market has been off for "middle price range" horses - say $35,000 to $75,000).

To me middle price horses are the $3,000 ones. I guess it's all what you're used to? I don't think I know anyone personally who owns a $35k horse. The $20k Friesians are a big deal in my area. Funny what a different perspective I have. I complain if I have to pay more than $500 for a trail horse. :lol:

[J Swan]

Someone somewhere would take most of them.

They why has this not happened? This is the result predicted by anti-slaughter groups - that ending slaughter in the US would result in excess horse simply being "absorbed". Additionally, the high cost of fuel would have made export to Mexico (and Canada) prohibitive.

The problem is that every time some "result" is obtained, horses continue to be slaughtered, continue to be neglected, starved, etc. Each time the anticipated result (horse being "absorbed") does not happen, another argument is developed to explain the reason.

The arguments for ending slaughter were that it is inhumane (as performed in the US), that the horses are trucked too far, that we don't eat horses (some do - and that segment of our population is growing), horses are pets (yet pet pigs are devoured every day and no one seems to have a problem with that contradiction), foreign owned companies shouldn't have a say in our economic decisions (I don't even know where to start to refute that one)......

Yet every single "argument" and its "solution" has resulted in not fewer horses going to slaughter, but more of them. So now they are trucked FARTHER. They are slaughtered with NO regard to their welfare - and certainly out of US jurisdiction. The price of fuel has NOT decreased the number of horses going to slaughter. The federal ban is nowhere NEAR being passed - y'all are incredibly naive if you think it is going to pass anytime soon.

Actually - the closure of the plants has resulted in Canada and Mexico having a stronger incentive to pressure the US Government to NOT pass a ban. An economic incentive. They are building more plants, reopening closed ones, and hiring more people. More livestock of every species are being slaughtered in both these countries. It's a huge industry - and growing.

So the result - the real result - is that more horses are subjected to truly inhumane deaths and will continue to do so because a ban isn't going to pass if those two countries have anything to say about it. And they do - a great deal.

I don't write this to tick anyone off or to start the old "I'm better than you" stuff all over again. These are just observations - not of right and wrong, but of political realities. And it is political, whether we like it or not.

[RAyers]

Where do I get this idea? Because I work part time on the kill floor at the slaughter plant in town. And every Friday morning we do Kosher and Hamas slaughter and its not with a captive bolt. Also small private plants can use a gun not a captive bolt. Theres is not one thing done in Mex. thats not done right here in the U.S. I see it all the time. If you buy meat you support it.

I have to ask, does this mean you have a rabbi on staff every Friday? Or is there somebody well educated in Jewish Law as required in the Torah to be a shochet? If not, then your methods are not Kosher.

Reed

[ProzacPuppy]

No personal experience but I would think that if a downward trend in the economy has put mid-priced horse sales waaay down, it has also slowed sales of the lower priced horses, possibly all the way down to the quite inexpensive ones. True? Credit is tightening, more people are facing foreclosure etc. Possibly there are more inexpensive horses that aren't finding a market and therefore are going to auction by owners in financial straits in a bad equine market? Explain the numbers of horses to slaughter?

[MandyVA]

They why has this not happened? This is the result predicted by anti-slaughter groups - that ending slaughter in the US would result in excess horse simply being "absorbed". Additionally, the high cost of fuel would have made export to Mexico (and Canada) prohibitive.



It hasn't happened because slaughter is still legal. We haven't had to absorb those horses yet. The predictions that shipping to Canada and Mexico will be too expensive are based on the ban passing--it will not be economically feasible to attempt to make all those horses look like they're not going to slaughter to get around the ban on export.

Rescues don't take them all in because they don't have the kind of resources to buy them that the meat packers do. These horses aren't free, remember. Kill buyers BUY them. And I can assure you it's the meat packing industry with its very deep pockets that is holding up the slaughter bill, not the Mexican and Canadian governments. Show me one person from Mexico or Canada lobbying against the ban and I'll show you hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the likes of Smithfield Foods.

[horse crazy inTX]

I was typing a long response and lost my post so I'll make it brief.

The slaughter industry does not drive the horse market. The slaughter market will beef up it's capacity to meet the supply from the horse industry. It happened in the late 80s and early 90s when the tax code change prompted many investors to get out of horses. Just as now, the slaughter industry is gearing up in Mexico and Canada to handle the U.S. excess horses.

There are many FREE horses, cheap horses available for those that want to rescue them. You don't have to buy from a KB or bid against them. There are plenty of horse websites to choose from. Have at it!

I know a little about selling horses and/or placing rescues. Here in Texas rehoming is not that easy to do. Yes, high profile cases may get more attention.

Last year in Texas, many ranchers sold off all their cattle because there was no water and no grass. What were these same people to do with their horses? Keep them at any cost because a handful of animal rights activists think that horses are somehow more important?

Comparing horses to dogs and cats is really not a good comparison until there are animal shelters for horses in every town and city willing to take them in and adopt them out or put them down. Animal shelters don't make pet owners more responsible any more than banning slaughter will make horse owners more responsible.

[luvmytbs]

The slaughter industry does not drive the horse market. The slaughter market will beef up it's capacity to meet the supply from the horse industry. It happened in the late 80s and early 90s when the tax code change prompted many investors to get out of horses. Just as now, the slaughter industry is gearing up in Mexico and Canada to handle the U.S. excess horses.


Absolutely incorrect. Demand drives the slaughter market, not supply. Just as with any other industry. You can't sell products the consumer doesn't want, and horsemeat's "shelf live" is not unlimited, even frozen.

If there is no demand for horse meat, the slaughter industry will not stick around to "provide a service" for people who want to dump a horse for a buck. Last I checked, slaughter plants aren't charitable institutions.

The numbers you are referring to in the 80's and early 90's are in direct relation to the mad cow desease that spread across much of Europe.

[J Swan]

You know, I'm tired of seeing all this backpeddling.

Based upon your argument, closing every shelter in the US would have the same result. Simply banning a practice does not result in its cessation. Which is one concern of pro-choice advocates; abortion was not invented when it became legal. And making it illegal will not result in its end.

Rescues do not, and will not, have the resources to house the nations unwanted horses. We put millions of pets to death every single year; if there was any argument that banning this practice would result in those animals being "absorbed" by the population, it would have been done.

And that is for little dogs and cats - not horses; animals that require large amounts of land and money to maintain.

It would be nice if the anti-slaughter folks could just act like adults and admit this is a screw up. The folks involved in the TX and IL legislation knew full well this was going to happen. And I have no doubt the more jaded among them figured they'd just use the Mexican horrors to fundraise and agitate. It's not ok that horses are being slaughtered in this manner; we know it, they know it, and the anti-slaughter groups sure as hell knew it - and knew that it would increase.

For the rank and file animal welfare advocate, it's a disgusting development. For those who know anything about politics, the fact that Canada and Mexico will have a greater stake in the export of animals for slaughter is extremely troublesome.

What I'm reading from the rest of you is that same old tired crap that's been floating around the Internet for years. Think about the fact that plants are being built in Mexico and Canada, people are being hired, and old plants are being reopened. Now think about how much influence and power those governments hold over the US government..... and think about how likely it is those governments will stand idle if their economy is threatened in any way. And by threatened, I mean efforts to stop the export of any species of animal to their countries for slaughter.







It hasn't happened because slaughter is still legal. We haven't had to absorb those horses yet. The predictions that shipping to Canada and Mexico will be too expensive are based on the ban passing--it will not be economically feasible to attempt to make all those horses look like they're not going to slaughter to get around the ban on export.

Rescues don't take them all in because they don't have the kind of resources to buy them that the meat packers do. These horses aren't free, remember. Kill buyers BUY them. And I can assure you it's the meat packing industry with its very deep pockets that is holding up the slaughter bill, not the Mexican and Canadian governments. Show me one person from Mexico or Canada lobbying against the ban and I'll show you hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the likes of Smithfield Foods.

[philosoraptor]

Last year in Texas, many ranchers sold off all their cattle because there was no water and no grass. What were these same people to do with their horses? Keep them at any cost because a handful of animal rights activists think that horses are somehow more important?

They can still sell them, lease them, donate them, give them to a vet college, keep them by importing hay, or any other way except shipping them 1000 miles to be butchered. There are options. You have horse traders buying cheap horses in one region to supply the camps and lesson barns in another; there is a market. If you don't have the money to fee the horse and you can't give him away, humanely euthanize him. Nobody is trying to stop you from putting down a starving, suffering horse.

Right now hay is VERY scarce in my area. It hasn't rained in weeks. Farmers lost a cutting of hay. Lawns are fading to brown. Hay is already selling at 25-50% higher than last year IF you can find it. Farmers are losing corn and other crops, so expect feed to go up too. And I don't make much money. How will I afford to feed horses? Maybe I'll just cut back on the Starbucks or not get a new SUV this year. Maybe I'll make sacrifices in other areas. I'm not doing it because the "animal rights activists" told me to. I am doing it because it's the right thing to do.

So, if dog food prices spike, can I take Rover and toss him out my car on a country road? When do you draw the line that says it's not ok to discard an animal to an unpleasant death for money reasons?

Comparing horses to dogs and cats is really not a good comparison until there are animal shelters for horses in every town and city willing to take them in and adopt them out or put them down.

Why isn't it the horse OWNER's job to put their horse down, if that's really what's needed? Nobody forced the owner to buy that horse. Unless you're Amish (which I suspect you are not), a horse is not a necessity.

Has it come to Americans becoming so feeble we now need the government to pay to pick up any pets or horses we get bored of or don't feel like feeding? Is it really the government's job to take care of our pets? What's next... a service to pick up any children a parent needs to get rid of? 1-800-GET-RID-OF will pick up any unwanted dog, horse, child, or spouse... mother-in-law removal available at a small additional charge.

There are many FREE horses, cheap horses available for those that want to rescue them. You don't have to buy from a KB or bid against them. There are plenty of horse websites to choose from. Have at it!

You start by arguing that people should not have to undergo an unfair burden giving up needed money feeding their horses when hay prices go up. But now you tell me they're going to give away their sound, trained, rideable horse instead of taking the quick $200 at the killbuyer's lot?


Please show me these websites full of sound, trained horses that are free?

I am interested in seeing these free horses you mention. Would you mind listing a few of the sites? (Excluding, of course, the freebies who really should've been retired or euthanized at owner's expense.) Thanks!

[Sithly]

Thank you, J Swan. Excellent posts. You said it way better than I could.

I think part of this conflict is due to the fact that some people do not see horses as pets. I really, honest-to-god, truly believe that horses should forever remain classified as livestock. From my perspective (i.e., not emotionally attached), it makes absolutely no sense for a business owner to give away horses, let alone pay to euthanize them. That's no excuse for cruelty, but I personally don't think slaughtering livestock is cruel. If I did, I wouldn't be eating so much delicious meat. ;)

Why isn't it the horse OWNER's job to put their horse down, if that's really what's needed? Nobody forced the owner to buy that horse.

Hahahah. Ha. Ahem, pardon me. That was a good one.

In this country, the notion of personal responsibility has gone so far out the window we couldn't see it with a Mars rover. As J Swan pointed out, the sheer volume of dogs and cats in shelters should give you an idea of how responsible we, as a collective, are. My god, the number of children in foster homes is astounding.

I think you're right that lack of responsibility is the problem, but I challenge you to pass a law that will fix that. It's spilt milk -- the best we can do is provide practical options for mopping it up. Horse slaughter is one of those options, like it or not, and IMO it is one of the most practical.

I am interested in seeing these free horses you mention. Would you mind listing a few of the sites? (Excluding, of course, the freebies who really should've been retired or euthanized at owner's expense.) Thanks!

Come to my barn with a six-horse trailer, and I can fill it up for you. I have friends who are more tuned in to the market who could find you a dozen more. And that's not even counting the neglected ones.

Also, check the giveaways section right here on COTH.

[IveGotRhythm]

Thank you, J Swan. Excellent posts. You said it way better than I could.

I think part of this conflict is due to the fact that some people do not see horses as pets. I really, honest-to-god, truly believe that horses should forever remain classified as livestock. From my perspective (i.e., not emotionally attached), it makes absolutely no sense for a business owner to give away horses, let alone pay to euthanize them. That's no excuse for cruelty, but I personally don't think slaughtering livestock is cruel. If I did, I wouldn't be eating so much delicious meat. ;)



Hahahah. Ha. Ahem, pardon me. That was a good one.

In this country, the notion of personal responsibility has gone so far out the window we couldn't see it with a Mars rover. As J Swan pointed out, the sheer volume of dogs and cats in shelters should give you an idea of how responsible we, as a collective, are. My god, the number of children in foster homes is astounding.

I think you're right that lack of responsibility is the problem, but I challenge you to pass a law that will fix that. It's spilt milk -- the best we can do is provide practical options for mopping it up. Horse slaughter is one of those options, like it or not, and IMO it is one of the most practical.



Come to my barn with a six-horse trailer, and I can fill it up for you. I have friends who are more tuned in to the market who could find you a dozen more. And that's not even counting the neglected ones.

Also, check the giveaways section right here on COTH.

I thought J Swan was my hero. Actually, still is.

But now so are you.

Sorry, but you can't force a person to be responsible any more than you can force a person to CARE. And BTW, for some people, sending a horse to auction (or a cat or dog to a shelter, rather than shooting/drowning/starving, etc...) IS being responsible.

And BTW, it costs over $300 to have a horse euthanized here. And about $300 to have it hauled off...or to rent the eqiptment(sp?) to bury it. In the highest welfare recipient/ highest foreclosure rated county in the state. Where damn near everyone, no matter how poor, has a horse in the backyard (no zoning restrictions, amish country). Think these people have the money to euthanize humanely(by YOUR terms?? beginning to see what I mean about feeling responsible by sending them to auction?)

Come to rural Ohio, and I'll not only find you as many free horses as you want within 15 minutes (or you can just listen to our local morning radio show, TRADIO) but I'll also show you horses living in conditions you wouldn't condone for one second whose owners havn't yet decided that they "can't keep them." And I worked with animal control/humane society for five years. Trust me, the reason abuse/neglect isn't reported is that it isn't happening where people give a damn. In my county, you toss them a flake of hay, lecture the owners, then forget about it because...what else are you going to do? There isn't a county horse pound...

[Blueshadow]

I'm not sure where this became a thread about horse abuse (which presumably we all abhor and which - yes - is the result of a miserable and reprehensible failures of owner responsibility). According to the USDA, 92 percent of slaughtered horses in this country have been perfectly healthy. Temple Grandin's independent study of horses at slaughter in Texas generated almost exactly that number, with only about 6 percent showing evidence of "owner abuse". Somehow, though, (I am inferring from these posts), if we impose a federal ban on shipping to slaughter suddenly all of the healthy horses that people currently ship to slaughter every year will become members of the ABUSED horse population. I have never, not once, seen a shred of evidence to support that contention. NOT ONCE. Not on this forum. Not on any other forum. Not in any government statistics. Not in any data presented by any pro-slaughter organization. Not anywhere. You either need to give that one up, or show me some evidence.

I see abused and severely neglected horses every time I visit the local auction, as everyone that frequents auctions does. These horses do not constitute the vast, vast majority of horses that are subject to slaughter.

[equinelaw]

BS, surely you aren't suggesting abuse, neglect and slaughter are not all the same problem. Because if you are suggesting there might be two independant problems then there can never be a solution!

I mean, its not possible to solve more then one problem at a time, is it? How do you expect people to handle the problems of abuse and neglect if they can't expect slaughter to cure them?

I mean, really, 2 problems at once? Thats just not possible. No, it MUST be just one big problem or our brains would have to try and work on. . gasp. . 2 different problems concurently!

Come back down to earth where we can only see one problem at a time:D

[Blueshadow]

Equinelaw, imagine - less than 1 % of the US horse population is slaughtered. And 6-8%, of less than 1% of the horse population of the US, is both slaughtered and abused/neglected. That is, let me see, 0.0006-0.0008 % of US horses that are both slaughtered and abused - according to the USDA, that is, and Temple Grandin. That's a pretty small intersection of two sets. My guess is that there are many more horses in the US that are abused or neglected, and not slaughtered - I infer that is the concensus on this thread actually. So I guess, yes, I would argue that in fact we have two largely separate problems here - both requiring new solutions (JMVeryHO).

[horse crazy inTX]

What percentage of horses were slaughtered in 1990 when 350,000 went to the slaughter houses? The number of horses slaughtered is not stagnant. It is not easily forecasted. We all have the same information. Some just choose to think that 'no matter what' there will be homes for ALL horses. I am NOT a pessimist. In fact most people that know me well know that I am an eternal optimist and also an animal lover, but I also happen to be very practical and realistic. I also understand how businesses work and understand simple economical principles. If there is NO market besides slaughter and you remove the only option for relieving an owner of an unwanted horse, in essence you are forcing an owner to keep a horse they might not be able to afford to keep. That is where neglect comes into play. Forcing ownership on someone who may not be able to cope with it.

MayS, you keep insisting that there are avenues to take to sell or give a horse away. I really think that depends on what area of the country you are in. When an area is drought stricken, very few people want another mouth to feed. Why are so many rescues in such dire need if there isn't an excess horse problem? Why are so many horses going to slaughter?

Hmmm, just read the Canter Ohio thread - how many horses will they be able to take this year???

As far as where to find free horses - I'm not in the market for any horses so I couldn't be specific, but I read stories daily on the many websites I peruse about 'free' horses. BTW, I said nothing about horses being broke and rideable, that was your comment. Hearing that horses are being abandoned at auctions is a pretty good indication of 'free' horses being available! Also, I've read of 2 for adoption specials and other rescue specials. Honestly, rescuers don't have to pay KBs to save horses.

I've heard of some awesome deals - a $300 buckskin, rideable with no holes in it's training.

[equineelders]

Honestly, rescuers don't have to pay KBs to save horses.

Boy, you got that right! Of the last three horses we've accepted, two were abandoned at boarding farms (different owners, different boarding facilties,) and one was apparently moved to a "back field," away from the other horses, where he got thinner and thinner and thinner......... Actually, we have a standing policy that we don't buy horses, period. There are too many being "dumped," for lack of a better word, to pay people for their unwanted horses when we need every last resource to care for those whose owners abandon their responsiblities. While its true that rescues don't have the resources to buy all the horses potentially going to slaughter, the bigger issue is that rescues don't have the resources to care for that number of horses long-term.


I've heard of some awesome deals - a $300 buckskin, rideable with no holes in it's training.

A neighbor recently went to a QH sale in Lexington, VA told us horses that would have brought $10K two years ago were going for about $1500.

[luvmytbs]

A neighbor recently went to a QH sale in Lexington, VA told us horses that would have brought $10K two years ago were going for about $1500.

And that tells us what?

That the market is sagurated with certain breeds and breeders should consider that going forward.

If you produce a million Rolex watches, you can't expect to fetch several thousand dollars for each.

[sidepasser]

I used to question what would happen to the horses when the slaughter plants were closed in the US.

I got these answers: "someone will take them", "they will be absorbed", and also I read that one response that J. Swan posted regarding "some must be sacrified for the greater good" - paraphrased here.

Well I see that "someone" (killbuyer) does take them and they are absorbed into Mexican and Canadian slaughter plants and are being sacrified for some greater "good" (improving the foreign economy).

I doubt seriously that a federal ban on exportation will happen anytime soon. Look how long it took to get the US slaughterplants closed, mmm over 20 years I'd say. Long as I can remember in any event. Well that was successful wasn't it? Now the horses can go further and die harder.

[Marcella]

The article posted is absolutely horrendous. It makes me so angry that the horse processing plants were shut down. People thought they were doing something "good" and said horses won't be shipped across the border, but we all knew better. Now look at it.

County--are the animals really killed with a knife in their back in US processing facilities? Your point about the Mexicans working in the plants and not changing their ways certainly makes sense, but I just hope that other workers wouldn't let that practice go on.

I have to say Canada is on to something (for once! ;) ). I like the idea of a .22. Why don't we use that instead of a captive bolt? That makes so much more sense of just putting it on the forehead and pulling the trigger. The bullets don't cost that much either, and the recoil on a .22 is nothing.

[MandyVA]

Marcella, no one said horses wouldn't be shipped across the border WITHOUT the ban. Horses will be shipped across the border as long as it's legal and as long as kill buyers can still make a profit buying them and re-selling them for slaughter.

"I think you're right that lack of responsibility is the problem, but I challenge you to pass a law that will fix that. It's spilt milk -- the best we can do is provide practical options for mopping it up. Horse slaughter is one of those options, like it or not, and IMO it is one of the most practical."

Lost track of who posted the above...but again, horse slaughter's PURPOSE is not to dispose of unwanted horses. It's not horse welfare. It's not the SPCA. It is a for-profit business. The kill buyers don't take in freebies that are sick, old or injured and their owners just want to hand them over. They buy them at auctions, and will continue to do so as long as horses are cheap enough to be worth more when sold at the slaughter house than the buyer has to pay for them at auction. Their being sufficiently inexpensive doesn't justify the inhumane conditions of the slaughter market.

It isn't like cats and dogs because cats and dogs don't have clear ownership. Horses at the slaughter house aren't strays that wandered onto someone's property and got turned over to the dog pound. SOMEONE shipped thim there, in a trailer. They don't have litters of babies every year. Horses are the least fertile of all domestic animals. There happens to be one giant, pro-slaughter breeding association that pumps out the vast majority of the horses that get slaughtered. But god forbid anyone look down on their over-breeding practices and make their culls worth $0 instead of the $200 they can currently get from the meat man. That's what this is about.

We have an industry that makes money buying and re-selling horses (that happens to be the biggest campaign contributor of a few pro-slaughter congressmen), and a breed association that's more than happy to keep the market full of cheap horses. We can't legislate responsible breeding, but we can legislate away this guaranteed disposal option. It's NOT a safetly valve for people that are too poor to euthanize their horse. It's a way for one money hungry breed group to look the other way and keep turning out sub-standard horses and pocketing their registration fees.

[horse crazy inTX]

Marcella, no one said horses wouldn't be shipped across the border WITHOUT the ban.

Actually the TB Retirement Foundation Whitepaper stated just THAT. Page 3 if you have the link!

The gist of it "If U.S. slaughter houses shut down there WOULD NOT be an increase of horses shipped to Mexico."

It sounds pretty black and white to me!

Dogs and cats don't have clear ownership? I have animals that have chips. Pretty darn sure that shows clear ownership.

Actually, I think many would beg to differ that horse slaughter is exactly for disposing of unwanted horses. I know people who have hand walked their horses in as they thought that was the humane thing to do. I have heard similar stories of individuals taking their steers directly in also.

I doubt if the Pro side has spent any more lobbying than the so called animal welfare/rights activists. There are people on both sides of the fence fighting for what they believe is right without any money exchanging hands.


At least AQHA is up front with their intent, unlike other organizations who are in it to to be PC and popular because it benefits their agenda to market to a seemingly non-horsey sector of the population.

[MandyVA]

Actually the TB Retirement Foundation Whitepaper stated just THAT. Page 3 if you have the link!

The gist of it "If U.S. slaughter houses shut down there WOULD NOT be an increase of horses shipped to Mexico."

It sounds pretty black and white to me!

Dogs and cats don't have clear ownership? I have animals that have chips. Pretty darn sure that shows clear ownership.

Actually, I think many would beg to differ that horse slaughter is exactly for disposing of unwanted horses. I know people who have hand walked their horses in as they thought that was the humane thing to do. I have heard similar stories of individuals taking their steers directly in also.

I doubt if the Pro side has spent any more lobbying than the so called animal welfare/rights activists. There are people on both sides of the fence fighting for what they believe is right without any money exchanging hands.


At least AQHA is up front with their intent, unlike other organizations who are in it to to be PC and popular because it benefits their agenda to market to a seemingly non-horsey sector of the population.

HC...your shot gun approach really addresses none of the actual points involved in the slaugher issue.

1. I don't know what white paper you're talking about but I bet it was referring to the actual ban, which includes a prohibition on export.

2. Stray dogs and cats don't have chips implanted in them. They're what the SPCA is primarily for.

3. Anyone who wants to lead their horse or steer to a place that will dispose of it for them can take it to a hunt club for the hounds. The slaughter ban won't prevent that. 90,000 horses aren't being hand-walked to Mexico every year for their owners' convenience.

4. Figure out who these "animal rights lobbyists" are, go to FEC.gov and see how much they've contributed. Then take a look at a few big meat companies' contributions. Try looking up Smithfield Foods. Don't "doubt", do some research.

5. The AQHA is not at all up front about their reasons for supporting slaughter, they feed you the exact propaganda you clearly believe, that it's purpose is to get rid of excess horses. Never mind that they created the excess horses in the first place.

6. What group is "in it to be PC and popular"??

[equineelders]

1. I don't know what white paper you're talking about but I bet it was referring to the actual ban, which includes a prohibition on export.


Here's the link: http://www.trfinc.org/news/TRF_WhitePaper.pdf
Get some coffee.....its 54 pages long. (Detailed discussion of exports to MX begins on page 10.)

[horse crazy inTX]

HC...your shot gun approach really addresses none of the actual points involved in the slaugher issue.

1. I don't know what white paper you're talking about but I bet it was referring to the actual ban, which includes a prohibition on export.

2. Stray dogs and cats don't have chips implanted in them. They're what the SPCA is primarily for.

3. Anyone who wants to lead their horse or steer to a place that will dispose of it for them can take it to a hunt club for the hounds. The slaughter ban won't prevent that. 90,000 horses aren't being hand-walked to Mexico every year for their owners' convenience.

4. Figure out who these "animal rights lobbyists" are, go to FEC.gov and see how much they've contributed. Then take a look at a few big meat companies' contributions. Try looking up Smithfield Foods. Don't "doubt", do some research.

5. The AQHA is not at all up front about their reasons for supporting slaughter, they feed you the exact propaganda you clearly believe, that it's purpose is to get rid of excess horses. Never mind that they created the excess horses in the first place.

6. What group is "in it to be PC and popular"??

Sorry, you don't like my quick responses. Most were in direct response to what you wrote.

I can't believe a bona fide anti-slaughter proponent hasn't read the TRF Whitepaper. Now you can since equineelder posted the link.

Animal control, humane societies are there to take in the unwanted dogs and cats - whether they are strays or just no longer wanted by their current owner. As far as I know only Kentucky has a facility for horses similar to facilities for dogs and cats.

Perhaps the animal rights haven't spent as much on lobbying but I 'd bet the farm they have spent plenty on advertising to get the word out and solicit MORE donations to continue their cause. The name of the game for them is donations.

As for the AQHA - they are driven primarily by their members. I happen to be a member. I am not unhappy with their stance on slaughter. I fully support the AAEP and the AVMA in their being against a slaughter ban.

What organization benefits from being anti-slaughter? It has long been thought that the TB Racing industry has a vested interest in being popular amongst the none horse crowd. I read an article years ago of which the gist was being anti-slaughter is a media 'PR' ploy to distract against the fact that race horses are run at a very young age and that the average use of a race horse is for a very limited time. The throw away horse that many talk about. An interesting concept that I can't claim to disagree with.

I don't have time to write a book but I hope that explains some of my short responses.

[luvmytbs]

I doubt if the Pro side has spent any more lobbying than the so called animal welfare/rights activists. There are people on both sides of the fence fighting for what they believe is right without any money exchanging hands.




Unfortunately I have found ONLY pro-slaughter lobbying. It's not like Joe Schmoe horse owner has tens of thousands of dollars to invest in a lobbyist.

AQHA, first half of 2007: $ 40,000 to "defeat horse slaughter legislation"

Beltex, first half of 2007: $ 40,000 to "Oppose HR 503 and S 311"

Cavel, first half of 2007: $ 40,000 to "amend HR 503 and S 311"

AVMA, first half of 2007: $ 460,000 , three out of the 10 issues addressed in this lobbying report, address the AHSPA.

There are plenty more.

Please be my guest and show me lobbying in favor of the AHSPA. I can't find any.

[J Swan]

Millions have been spent by groups like HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, horse specific protection groups, etc. Specifically for lobbying, filing lawsuits, paying lobbyists, and so on.

You're not finding it because you're not looking for it. HSUS, for example, is an enormous moneymaking and political machine. And while, as a "charity", they are restricted on how much lobbying they can do - they do indeed lobby a great deal. Much more than you are giving them credit for.

Same with PETA and all the others. Every one of them lobbies.

[county]

If ANYONE actually beleives either side doesn't have groups that lobby for what they want there are not being realistic about the issue what so ever and wear blinders.

[luvmytbs]

HSUS, PETA and ASPCA lobby for many issues in the animal world, not just horses.

Looking at opensecrets.org I can't find any lobbying money going to politicans in regards to passing the AHSPA.

[J Swan]

Do you really believe that no one in the United States, no group or umbrella group, has lobbied for passage of this Act?

The money doesn't go directly to politicians, except for campaign contributions. Nonprofits can't do that.

But they can lobby - and they spend millions on it - and yes - a helluva lot of money has been paid to lobbying firms at the state and federal level on banning slaughter.

Please don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

[county]

Its deals like this that have convinced me so many anti people have no clue of the reality of the issue and I just can't think about supporting their position regardless of my feelings that some aspects are bad. The " all or nothing ' attitude and " the " anti groups are all squeky clean " is so out of reality its a joke.

[luvmytbs]

Did I say it wasn't being done? I said "I can't find it". Sheesh

If you know where to look for it, please point me to it.

[J Swan]

Contact the groups you're curious about. Just about everything is on-line these days - but you might have to ask for specific information related to the slaughter issue. Nonprofits really dance a fine line on the lobbying thing.

Your state might have a site similar to this:

http://vpap.org/index.cfm

I find it helpful in figuring out what's what in Virginia politics - and who is lobbying for whom and for how much. It can be an eye-opening experience to find out how much money is being spent on lobbying by your local or national "nonprofit" groups. For example, one large nonprofit has 4 full time lobbyists in Virginia. Four. Just for anything that might come up during the year.

[county]

Ask the groups directly, if their 100% honest they will tell you without the spin behind it. But don't hold your breath I've seen very few non profits not use a spin.

[CelticReinRescue]

The two plants in TX had a TSCRA inspector, as do every cattle and horse sale in the state, that looks every animal over as it comes into the plant or sale grounds.
If a horse has been reported stolen, the inspector will look at every horse that resembles that horse especially carefully and if it seem a match, pull it until it ownership is cleared.

REALLY.........so, because I have a chestnut QH gelding who is 9 years old with absolutely NO white markings, scars or anything distinguishable except for his swirls and whoorls on his coggins, they would hold back EVERY chestnut QH gelding, approximately 9 years old? They will pull them to the side to check teeth as well because I know his age? Cause damn Bluey, theres only what, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of chestnut QH geldings landing in slaughter plants weekly. Would they listen to me on the other end of the phone telling them where to look for his swirls and whoorls and go through each and every chestnut QH gelding there? Why oh why do I just HIGHLY doubt that? Sometimes you are so completely off the wall. Ugh.

[county]

Well I can tell you the sales and slaughter plants here do not look over livestock when it comes in. I don't think anyone really beleives that there going to check over 7000 or 8000 head each sale day. Not even close to practical.

[CelticReinRescue]

Well I can tell you the sales and slaughter plants here do not look over livestock when it comes in. I don't think anyone really beleives that there going to check over 7000 or 8000 head each sale day. Not even close to practical.

Thank you County - although we do not agree on many aspects of this situation, at least you are honest with what you say and have a good working knowledge on what is and isn't true.

[county]

Almost everything in the livestock and slaughter industry is just plain common sense. Leave out the hype and BS from both sides of the issues and its really not that hard to figure out. People have been eating meat for awhile now and that fact just isn't going away. I really doubt the Fed. Gov. is ever going to step in and change that either despite what the zealots want. You'd think after all these decades the two sides would work together to both get part of what they want. Of course animals would have to be the top prority to both sides rather then neither side.

[Bluey]

Thank you County - although we do not agree on many aspects of this situation, at least you are honest with what you say and have a good working knowledge on what is and isn't true.

Sorry, this discussion doesn't has anything to do with honesty.
Remember that you don't know at all, County is only talking about in his area and I said in OUR area.

Here, the TSCRA inspectors look at every animal and if there is a sorrel of certain description stolen, they look every sorrel of that description over very carefully.
We just shipped over 700 head of cattle in less than one hour a few days ago and we saw every animal and it's brand as they were loaded.
No trick to it if you are used to doing that.
We did cut four animals of three neighbors out, easily.

Just because you are not used to numbers of animals, that doesn't mean that others can't look at them and in a few seconds know what they are seeing.
Yes, an inspector can look at several thousand head in a sale barn and know what they see and what they are looking after.
So can the sale barn personel.:cool:

[luvmytbs]

J

I am using this for my research: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp

You enter a client, i.e. the Amcerican Quarter Horse Assn, you then get their page and then you click on "view report images", you then can click on the recorded lobbying report, which was filed with the Secretary of Senate.
No such records exist for HSUS etc. :confused:

[county]

So you honestly beleive there are no anti slaughter groups that lobby the gov.?

[Bluey]

J

I am using this for my research: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp

You enter a client, i.e. the Amcerican Quarter Horse Assn, you then get their page and then you click on "view report images", you then can click on the recorded lobbying report, which was filed with the Secretary of Senate.
No such records exist for HSUS etc. :confused:

The president of the HSUS himself took credit for their attorneys to have found that obscure law to close the TX slaughterplants and for spearheading the lawsuits there.
That was when he was giving interviews to the Dallas newspapers.

Hard to claim that they are not somewhat involved.;)

[county]

If the anti groups don't lobby the gov. no damn wonder they can't get a ban passed.

[CelticReinRescue]

Sorry, this discussion doesn't has anything to do with honesty.
Remember that you don't know at all, County is only talking about in his area and I said in OUR area.

Here, the TSCRA inspectors look at every animal and if there is a sorrel of certain description stolen, they look every sorrel of that description over very carefully.
We just shipped over 700 head of cattle in less than one hour a few days ago and we saw every animal and it's brand as they were loaded.
No trick to it if you are used to doing that.
We did cut four animals of three neighbors out, easily.

Just because you are not used to numbers of animals, that doesn't mean that others can't look at them and in a few seconds know what they are seeing.
Yes, an inspector can look at several thousand head in a sale barn and know what they see and what they are looking after.
So can the sale barn personel.:cool:

Give me a break Bluey, please......that is just rediculous & you will never convince me of it.

I can see the sale personel now, sooooo terribly concerned because there may be a missing 9 Y/O chestnut QH gelding going through their sale, unbranded BTW. I can just see them falling over themselves to help little ol' me find my one in a bazillion chestnut QH's. Tell your story walking cause I'm not buying it.

I have been to way too many sales to ever believe that statement. I don't care WHERE you're from.

[luvmytbs]

Months ago I offered to send bluey a copy of the 2006 HR 503 hearings during which the slaughter house representative admitted they don't look for stolen horses. Bluey never took me up on my offer. ;)

[Bluey]

Months ago I offered to send bluey a copy of the 2006 HR 503 hearings during which the slaughter house representative admitted they don't look for stolen horses. Bluey never took me up on my offer. ;)


And I told you to contact the TSCRA ( http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/Default.htm ) and ask their inspectors about their programs at sale barns and stolen horse recoveries.
Did you ever check with them?;)

[luvmytbs]

And I told you to contact the TSCRA ( http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/Default.htm ) and ask their inspectors about their programs at sale barns and stolen horse recoveries.
Did you ever check with them?;)

What has that got to do with looking for stolen horses at the plants?

And around here no-one at an auction looks for stolen horses. Which entitity do you sugesst should have that in their job discription?

[Bluey]

What has that got to do with looking for stolen horses at the plants?

And around here no-one at an auction looks for stolen horses. Which entitity do you sugesst should have that in their job discription?

Really, that is why I don't care to keep posting here, no one of for the ban seems to read the posts, just attack at random.

The TSCRA, I keep mentioning, is in charge, in our area, of looking at the animals sold at sales and looking for stolen animals.
They also had inspectors at the horse slaughter plants, that saw every horse entering those premises.
And yes, they did hold over any horse that was a match with a reported stolen horse, as that of my neighbor's.
Sadly, it was not his horse, after all.

Ask them if you don't belive me, that's all I have been trying to say. :confused:

[equinelaw]

The ironic thing is that Texas pursued a criminal action to close its plants. That means they used state attornies--not priviatly funded ones. So who paid for closing the plants down?

For starters it was Bluey and HCT:D Texas did it all on its own with Texas money and Texas votes. Kind of funny when you want to point fingers at people who do not live in Texas.

You tax dollars at work!

[county]

And what lawyers would other business places use if the same thing were done to their business?

[Sithly]

The kill buyers don't take in freebies that are sick, old or injured and their owners just want to hand them over. They buy them at auctions [...]

Um, are you saying that the type of person who would hand over horses to a KB is NOT also the type of person who would dump horses at an auction? Or are you saying that KBs would rather pay for horses than take them for free?

There happens to be one giant, pro-slaughter breeding association that pumps out the vast majority of the horses that get slaughtered. But god forbid anyone look down on their over-breeding practices and make their culls worth $0 instead of the $200 they can currently get from the meat man. That's what this is about.

Slaughter is a good place for culls, in my opinion. That's why we call them culls. Then again, I don't think slaughter is inhumane. I believe that the conditions surrounding the transport of animals could be improved, but I certainly don't think slaughter itself is inhumane.

Also, remember that individuals are doing the breeding (translation: it's the evil AQHA members, not the evil AQHA overlords). Sounds like you're a little confused about that. The AQHA does not breed horses: the members do. The AQHA is not forcing breeding farms and backyard owners to pump out horses; they are simply providing a service for their members and capitalizing on horses that would be there with or without their organization.

[county]

I've never figured out why some think " culls " are bad. Every species of livestock and poultry have them and people eat them. Whats the mystery other then theres people who don't personally like eating at least one of the species? Personally I don't like goat but none of my business if someone else does.

[Blueshadow]

Um, are you saying that the type of person who would hand over horses to a KB is NOT also the type of person who would dump horses at an auction? Or are you saying that KBs would rather pay for horses than take them for free?

Slaughter is a good place for culls, in my opinion. That's why we call them culls. Then again, I don't think slaughter is inhumane. I believe that the conditions surrounding the transport of animals could be improved, but I certainly don't think slaughter itself is inhumane.

Also, remember that individuals are doing the breeding (translation: it's the evil AQHA members, not the evil AQHA overlords). Sounds like you're a little confused about that. The AQHA does not breed horses: the members do. The AQHA is not forcing breeding farms and backyard owners to pump out horses; they are simply providing a service for their members and capitalizing on horses that would be there with or without their organization.

1. I don't know what she would say...However, I agree that if a person wants to dump a horse, they will do so in whatever way is most profitable for them. I'm sure that KBs would rather pay $0 than $x where x>0, however, evidently on average they don't do so. The average auction and feedlot prices nationwide are a testament to that fact. While some rescues may "refuse" to pay for a horse right now, there are many many more that do, as well as private individuals that purchase out of auctions.

I would note, however, that several people on this thread have noted that auction and other prices have recently declined. This is despite the fact that (and many of the same people seem to agree on this) there remains a very active slaughter market. You cannot have it both ways; prices are low NOT because the slaughter option is gone, but for other (very obvious) reasons: hay and feed is expensive, demand for horses declines and supply increases.

2. Good for you.

3. Naughty, naughty individual AQHA members being so indiscrimate to breed indiscrimately. Naughty naughty people for culling thousands of weanlings and yearlings and in foal broodmares (and even stallions) that are not considered profitable. Lucky for them that their angelic AQHA overlords so passionately pursue the continuation of slaughter for exactly that purpose - that their naughty members can continue to breed NOT for profit, but exactly as they choose; afterall, who could possibly argue that culling a weanling or yearling is profitable, when you tell me that many of these horses are literally given away to kill buyers. Or would you now prefer to argue that slaughterbound culls are SOLD for a positive price - which, by the way, would be significantly lower were it not for the presence of the slaughter market buyers.

I wonder, since you guys are such fountains of information on this thread, how many of the weanlings and yearlings culled each year are actually registered for fee with the AQHA? Now THAT would be interesting information.

[Sithly]

1. I don't know what she would say...However, I agree that if a person wants to dump a horse, they will do so in whatever way is most profitable for them. I'm sure that KBs would rather pay $0 than $x where x>0, however, evidently on average they don't do so. The average auction and feedlot prices nationwide are a testament to that fact. While some rescues may "refuse" to pay for a horse right now, there are many many more that do, as well as private individuals that purchase out of auctions.

I would agree with that. If KBs were getting enough horses for free, they wouldn't need to be lurking around auctions at all. And yes, obviously, plenty of people other than KBs also buy and sell from auctions.

I would note, however, that several people on this thread have noted that auction and other prices have recently declined. This is despite the fact that (and many of the same people seem to agree on this) there remains a very active slaughter market. You cannot have it both ways; prices are low NOT because the slaughter option is gone, but for other (very obvious) reasons: hay and feed is expensive, demand for horses declines and supply increases.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with that assessment. Absolutely, feed prices are high right now. Horses are dirt cheap, which I'm sure makes it much easier for KBs to offset their rising fuel costs. Not sure what point you're trying to make by stating the obvious.

I'd rather not see the option of slaughter removed from the bottom of the market because it is exactly that -- an option. If you have a grand high moral objection to slaughter, that's fine. Some of us don't. Since we now have evidence that slaughter will still happen whether you like it or not -- in this country or the next -- I would note, as others have noted, that I'd rather American horses were slaughtered in America where we can regulate and improve their treatment.

3. Naughty, naughty individual AQHA members being so indiscrimate to breed indiscrimately. Naughty naughty people for culling thousands of weanlings and yearlings and in foal broodmares (and even stallions) that are not considered profitable. Lucky for them that their angelic AQHA overlords so passionately pursue the continuation of slaughter for exactly that purpose - that their naughty members can continue to breed NOT for profit, but exactly as they choose; afterall, who could possibly argue that culling a weanling or yearling is profitable, when you tell me that many of these horses are literally given away to kill buyers. Or would you now prefer to argue that slaughterbound culls are SOLD for a positive price - which, by the way, would be significantly lower were it not for the presence of the slaughter market buyers.

I'm not sure how to respond to this, other than being mildly amused. What exactly are you trying to say? Perhaps you could dumb it down for me. Use smaller words and shorter sentences.

For your convenience, I will paraphrase what I've been saying on this thread so you can keep your argument straight.

1. Culling for quality control or economic reasons is not inhumane. (I understand that some people have moral objections to it, and that is their right.) I did not imply that culling was profitable. It's more of a "cut your losses" sort of thing.

2. When I posted about free horses, I was responding to a poster who asked where to find sound, healthy, trained horses for free, since she (apparently) didn't believe they existed. I know of several. I think the part you missed was the implication that these horses are free BECAUSE their owners are not willing to dump them at auction.

3. I implied that a person who would give their horse to a KB for free, just to get rid of it, would probably not be above dumping a horse at auction.

4. The person talking about the rescue was not me. But based on the connections I have (admittedly limited), I would agree. The rescues I know in my area are overflowing with free horses. They certainly don't have to buy them.

5. The AQHA is providing a service for its members and is making money in the process. Not a crime.

6. The comments about evil AQHA overlords were tongue-in-cheek. Some of my best friends are evil overlords! :lol:
/\
|
(Also tongue-in-cheek.)

[Gayla]

Some of my best friends are evil overlords! :lol:
/\
|
(Also tongue-in-cheek.)
That is obvious.

[Sithly]

Yeah, I thought the other one was obvious, too.

[J Swan]

J

I am using this for my research: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp

You enter a client, i.e. the Amcerican Quarter Horse Assn, you then get their page and then you click on "view report images", you then can click on the recorded lobbying report, which was filed with the Secretary of Senate.
No such records exist for HSUS etc. :confused:


It's a PITA, isn't it! I found the same thing searching on the state version. HSUS has lots of other organizations affiliated with it. You'll see a difference between how nonprofits lobby and how for profit groups lobby - mostly due to laws and regulations. It's easy to find out if John Doe's slaughterhouse gave $ to a firm to lobby on its behalf - because it is reported differently than a nonprofits.

I may be wrong; because I haven't checked this on the website. But if you search for The Nature Conservancy, you may come up with the same result. But I know for a fact that they lobby all the time - I helped. It's the way they did it that was different.

For example, if a group does its own lobbying in-house, and doesn't hire a firm, it won't appear on this database. HSUS does appear in this database, however, if you look up HSUS leaders, you'll see HSUS money going from national to local chapters - lobbying money. You'll have to dig into that database to come up with the totals, as the information is scattered everywhere.

Unlike something like an equine slaughterhouse. They'll only be able to give x dollars to joe schmo firm for a single purpose, which makes finding the information easier. Not so with nonprofits that have chapters, subsidiary corporations, affiliations with other organizations, PAC's, etc.

Hope that helps your search. I'm not confident you can get and apples to apples comparison, because of the multipurpose nature of the big organizations. You might have better luck with a purely equine organization. Rest assured big nonprofits are spending millions on pushing their agenda. Particularly a group like HSUS, which is every bit as big, and rich as any other large corporation.

Edited to add an example:

I looked up TNC. No lobbying.

Then I looked up lobbying by industry - agriculture.

The Nature Conservancy is right up there with the big time ag lobbyists. 500K and they have 10 lobbyists. That's not in-house folks working on political stuff - that's $ going to lobbying firms.

If you want to get an eye opener - look for Humane USA PAC. Again, nonprofits have to be careful on PACS. But if you really dig, you'll see that the big nonprofits don't spend a dime on actually helping any animals - it's all going towards lawsuits, staff, lobbying, PAC, more lawsuits..... and yet they still beg for money as if it's actually going to help a starving kitten.

It will really make you think about exactly who and what is running this country - it's nothing but lobbyists. Bleh.

[horse crazy inTX]

No other organization has the strengths of The HSUS. Our scientists,
lobbyists, investigators, attorneys, disaster specialists, veterinarians,
and others have the experience, training, and resources to do the work
you expect of us. We are now some 10 million members strong, and
we are putting that influence to good use each day with lawmakers,
corporate CEOs, and other decision-makers.

Is it just coincidence HSUS has an office in D.C.? Do you think Wayne Pacelle sits in on hearings and such without getting paid a salary? Sounds like fulltime lobbying to me. I guess it doesn't show up the way a company who has to pay from the outside for lobbyist.

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization with more than 9.5 million members and constituents. The HSUS protects all animals through education, advocacy, litigation, investigation, legislation, and fieldwork. The non-profit organization is based in Washington, D.C. and has representatives across the country. On the web at www.hsus.org.

No comments on the PR ploy behind the TB racing industry who also has deep pockets by the way. ;)

As far as what happened in TX with our politicians and legislative - asinine. But it was all propagated by our good buddies at HSUS and other similar organizations for the good of the horses. They are probably thrilled horses are going to Mexico so they still have a cause to fight for and ways to rack in more donations and money. Perhaps they can even give themselves a hefty pay raise this year for a job well down.

HSUS's involvement in the TX case:
http://www.hsus.org/in_the_courts/legal_victories/tx_horseslaughter.html

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/animal_protection_group_asks.html

[Bluey]

Try not to lose sight of why the American Veterinary Medical Association, the AQHA and over 200 other associations are against this poor example of legislation called the ban horse slaughter bill.

Their stance is that this bill, AS WRITTEN, is NOT in the BEST interest of the horses themselves and our current horse industry.

Why is that such a sorry bill? Being a cynic, I would say that maybe because it was intended for other purposes than to stop slaughter.
Maybe horse slaughter is a controversy that gave certain animal rights association their greatest run for their money in donations and it is all FREE publicity to them, for a small cost of lawyers and lobbying to keep things sirred up.
Some posters here sound like they work for them, or want to.;)

Ever think what the first concern of those animal rights associations is, what keeps them viable and made them one of the largest non profit associations in the USA?
Their first job is to stay alive as an association and keep growing.
They would not exist without these controversies, that bring them donations by the millions, over 100 millions, YEARLY. Their budgets are larger than those of some small contries.:eek:

They are happy to support and promote such a sorry slaughter horse ban bill, that destroys one part of our horse industry, without providing for the horses that part was using.
The animal rights association bosses know the horse industry would not be able to support such and would fight it, knowing how it will impact the horses and so they had one more made to order PR campaign to ask for donations from the clueless public, to "fight the good fight".

Those that like to blame the AQHA for the overbreeding, remember that there are much larger numbers of grade horses born that all the associations put out.
Yep, some of those are those horses so many here like to breed to have those crosses they then call warmbloods.;)

Those that blame the AQHA are going by figures gathered at sales and slaughter houses, that say "of quarter horse type", but are not AQHA registered horses, could and are most anything out there.
Look at all those unregistered "quarter horses" for sale in dreamhorse and other such web sites.:p

There are so many points to touch in these discussions and we have rehashed them time and again, the same people repeating the same myths, copied right out of those animal right sites, won't learn the facts.
Can't really debate, when facts are not taken in consideration, anyone can make things up.

[equineelders]

in the USA?
Those that blame the AQHA are going by figures gathered at sales and slaughter houses, that say "of quarter horse type", but are not AQHA registered horses, could and are most anything out there.


This is something I often wondered about. When we see charts outlining how many of which breeds are slaughtered, who is doing the labeling? Who decides what breed a particular horse is? Does that happen at the plant? Are the horses itemized in some way on a bill of sale as they arrive at the plant?

I keep thinking of a statement I heard several years ago, during a "pit bull ban" frenzy. When reporting dog bite statistics, a local animal "official" (not identified) was quoted as saying they classified any stocky, short-haired dog as a "pit bull" on the report.

Unless a horse shows up at the sale, feedlot or plant with papers, a tattoo or a freeze brand, do we really know what breed it is? We've had several horses come in that might possibly be called "Quarter Horse type," but I doubt they were purebred Quarter Horses (one has a natural pace :D )

[horse crazy inTX]

About breeds...

I switched vets a few years back and he was writing up the coggins on one horse. Our one grade horse looks like an Arabian. The vet wrote under breed Quarter - Grade or something like that. I said I think she's more Arabian. He looked at me kind of funny and said "I didn't want to offend you if she wasn't Arabian."

This is Quarter horse country and I guess QH people don't want their horses mistaken for Arabian. LOL :D

[Bluey]

About breeds...

I switched vets a few years back and he was writing up the coggins on one horse. Our one grade horse looks like an Arabian. The vet wrote under breed Quarter - Grade or something like that. I said I think she's more Arabian. He looked at me kind of funny and said "I didn't want to offend you if she wasn't Arabian."

This is Quarter horse country and I guess QH people don't want their horses mistaken for Arabian. LOL :D

How funny! The same happen to me, except my horse was a registered arabian.
Both vets must have had the same teacher.:lol:

I wanted to ad that some here think that, because I defend the AQHA from unfounded attacks so common here, I work for them.
Laughable idea. I live less than 50 miles from their headquarters and museum, we bred, raced and competed in other avenues with our horses since the association was formed and still know people that work there, that's all.
We use mostly AQHA horses here because we take care of cattle and AQHA horses have been bred to be the best at this, but also have at times had other breeds and mixes.
A good using horse is a good horse, no matter what other characteristics we are looking for as far as breed, sex, size or color.
I learned that with jumpers, where a horse either is good at it, no matter what it looks like, or better find it another job.

I think that some here are defending the animal rights associations because they do work with them, as some have said.
To each their own, that is what makes the world go round.

I have yet to see someone for the ban, in the face of the facts, admit it was a terrible idea to close the slaughter houses, without provision for the many horses they absorbed.
As if rescues needed any more horses to sell, taking now even more the place of horse traders.:(

[MandyVA]

I'm always surprised by the arguments that certain groups are pushing the ban for their own popularity or to increase their number of members/contributions. I find that to be ridiculous, but I have to say, so what if they are? Let's assume that the HSUS is only drumming up anxiety among the non-horse owning public to increase its popularity and dues.

So. What.

That doesn't change the fact that horses are being inhumanely slaughtered and the ban would end that. For those of us that support the ban, that's all that matters. Horses are needlessly suffering, and we can make it go away with legislation. It's that simple as I see it. You can cry about where those horses will end up, but it won't be as bad as what's happening to them now.

The whole argument about who spends what on lobbying is actually something I'm glad to see being discussed. I just wanted to point out that you will have more luck looking at a specific candidate on fec.gov and seeing what's been given TO them, than trying to get an idea of who gives how much overall. If you look up AHSPA sponsors, you will find animal friendly contributions to them. If you look up horse slaughter promoters, like Bob Goodlatte, you will see tons of money from the likes of Smithfield Foods (which has as its subsidiary the biggest distributor of horse meat in Europe).

Both sides give a lot, but groups like the HSUS can't use member dues or contributions to give contributions to members of Congress. Money that goes into the HSUS PAC has to be raised specifically for that purpose and the contributor has to know that that's where it's going. They can't just write a big check from their general fund into their PAC. That would be illegal. They can, as some have pointed out, pay a lot of lobbyists. They can lobby quite a bit as nonprofits. Depending on their 501 status, they can at the very least spend less than half their overall expenditures on lobbying. Lobbying is not the same thing as giving money to candidates. It's the giving money to candidates that makes the bigger impact on their vote.

My only point in bringing that whole thing up several pages ago about the campaign contributions was that the interests of Mexico and Canada in keeping the flow of horses into their country for slaughter legal are not the interests that are blocking the slaughter ban. It's all the contributions from the meat industry that are making politicians think twice about voting for the ban.

[J Swan]

My only point in bringing that whole thing up several pages ago about the campaign contributions was that the interests of Mexico and Canada in keeping the flow of horses into their country for slaughter legal are not the interests that are blocking the slaughter ban. It's all the contributions from the meat industry that are making politicians think twice about voting for the ban.


You simply don't get it. This is politics. You think it's about animal welfare. At the level you are referring to - it's nothing but politics.

And if you think our neighbors to the north and south have no influence over a federal ban, you are gravely mistaken.



Ahem - please indicate how the ending of horse slaughter has improved the welfare of these horses. HSUS made a calculated decision to pursue legal action knowing FULL well what was going to happen if they succeeded. So did ALL the other equine and animal rights groups involved in litigation.

You are quibbling over trivial matters. The fact that a nonprofit is somewhat limited on how much they can spend on lobbying does not mean they do not peddle their influence.

You also don't know how nonprofits work. Because they can and do spend member money on lobbying and giving to PAC's. It's all in the accounting.

I think it's pretty sad that none of the anti-slaughter groups or activists can accept the fact that they may have made a strategic error.

Maybe they won the battle, but they may lose the war. Of course - it's all a great fundraising tool so who knows how much they're going to try and stop it.

Quit blaming AQHA, the AVMA and pro-slaughter groups for this major fu**-up. They're not the ones that created it. But they did warn, many times, that this would happen.

It's pathetic - just pathetic. No one here can simply say - hey - we screwed up. You still gotta search for someone else to blame or rehash old arguments to deflect criticism from the honest to God truth - that the closure of US plants has not had the hoped for result. Combined with severe drought, rising feed prices, and an economic downturn, more horses are going to slaughter. And two bordering countries have a greater stake in the economics of horse slaughter than ever before - and they are going to protect that interest.

Just admit that it's true.

[MandyVA]

Bluey said "Those that blame the AQHA are going by figures gathered at sales and slaughter houses, that say "of quarter horse type", but are not AQHA registered horses, could and are most anything out there."

Bluey, do you really think it's more logical to assume that all those horses that were identified as QH type by the people who actually processed them at the slaughterhouse are some other breed? The AQHA supports slaughter because it's in their best interest to continue to see as many quarter horses bred each year as possible. If people can't dump their culls at auction they won't breed as many and AQHA will lose registration revenue. Surely you can see through their argument that it's in horses' best interest to be shipped for days to Mexico and brutally slaughtered. They are supporting that practice by opposing the AHSPA, which would now have no effect except to close the borders to these exports.

Whatever posters think about the humaneness or necessity of having a place for culls to go, I wonder why you don't see other breeders endorsing this practice. Could you imagine the American Hanoverian Society's members dumping thousands of hanoverian weanlings at auction each year because they weren't quite nice enough to make it to the big shows? And justifying that practice as being best for the breed? No, because they breed selectively in the first place, and even the less than perfect hanoverians will sell to private buyers.

I'm not saying warmbloods never end up at auctions, they do, I'm just saying they're not there in the numbers that quarter horses are, because warmblood breeders don't take a shotgun approach to breeding. They do it carefully to minimize bad results. QH breeders are not as selective. They wouldn't need to have a place to throw away culls if they only bred the best to the best. Could QH breeders just for one moment consider that it might be in the best interest of horses to stop breeding so many, rather than justify slaugther by continuing to breed too many?

[MandyVA]

JSwan, it's not about politics to those of us that want to see the ban pass. And I do know how nonprofits pay for lobbying. I lobby for a nonprofit (not a horse related one).

This issue wouldn't raise such emotion if it was just some political posturing on the part of a few nonprofits. There wouldn't be a bunch of COTH regulars fighting about it day after day if it was just about politics. It's about people that own horses, love them, and can't understand why anyone would be so callous as to think the way they're being disposed of is tolerable.

Quit blaming the anti-slaughter groups for "creating this f up". We've been trying all along to pass the ban. It's the pro-slaughter side that is creating this export nightmare by opposing the ban.

[J Swan]

If you'd read for content - I said "at that level".

At the grassroots level - yes, both sides care about their horses. I don't argue about it regularly - if I did I'd be the one starting threads on this subject. I never do.

But I don't consider slaughter "callous". Not inherently. That is the only difference between us. At the core - that's what it boils down to.

What the pro-slaughter lobby has been saying all along is that a ban is not in the best interest of the horse population and industry as a WHOLE.

No one is arguing over anything right now except the Iraq War and immigration. Perhaps a better strategy would have been to wait until a ban was closer to passing before litigating at the state level.

Ask yourself why any of these groups would stop slaughter in the US when it was clear a ban did not have the impetus it needed. In the US, at least we had some control over other issues such as transport, identification and welfare. Not perfect - but the US had jurisdiction. Many groups are constantly working to improve animal welfare from birth to earth - and those groups were also active in equine welfare too. University's, private citizens, true welfare groups....... there was a lot of activity.

Now there is NOTHING. Now their welfare is TRULY out of the hands of US animal welfare regulations or any oversight.

Ask yourself why on earth would a group like HSUS want that to happen. It was clear, absolutely clear, that for whatever reason there was no political will for a federal ban. Believe it or not, as much as the polls say Americans like horsies there are more important things on the national agenda.

And yet..... they pressed on.

Now we're supposed to act as if it's some sort of revelation that animals are stabbed in the spine in some Mexican hellhole? Everyone knew that BEFORE the US plants closed.

For the record - that method is not halal or kosher. Nothing like it.







JSwan, it's not about politics to those of us that want to see the ban pass. And I do know how nonprofits pay for lobbying. I lobby for a nonprofit (not a horse related one).

This issue wouldn't raise such emotion if it was just some political posturing on the part of a few nonprofits. There wouldn't be a bunch of COTH regulars fighting about it day after day if it was just about politics. It's about people that own horses, love them, and can't understand why anyone would be so callous as to think the way they're being disposed of is tolerable.

Quit blaming the anti-slaughter groups for "creating this f up". We've been trying all along to pass the ban. It's the pro-slaughter side that is creating this export nightmare by opposing the ban.

[horse crazy inTX]

Since we were discussing what horses sell most at auction...

I found this part of the linked article rather interesting:

Mike McBarron is one of about a dozen such buyers in Texas. Fifteen of the 21 horses he snapped up in Stephenville the first Friday of September failed to convince him they had some quality more valuable than the 20 cents to 30 cents a pound they would command at slaughter.

"Every one of them is either cripple or crazy or don't ride at all," McBarron said, surveying his latest acquisition of mostly thoroughbreds.

So who is dumping horses at auction? Seemingly not only the 'scourge of the earth' AQHA affiliated horse owners.

[MandyVA]

I see what you are saying about the grassroots v. within Congress motivations, JSwan, I was referring to the motivations of the anti-slaughter individuals, not the political complexities of actually passing legislation. Obviously very different things, my point was that regardless of the political barriers to getting it passed, it's not about posturing or getting attention for those of us that want to see the ban pass. I just find it distracting when pro-slaughter posters try to paint individuals like myself as city dwelling PETA freaks that don't know where their big mac came from.

I don't know the answer to why state law suits were pursued before the federal ban was closer to passage. I'm not acutally a member of HSUS or any other animal rights group, and I don't get their emails or follow their strategies. I just call and email my own members of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor the AHSPA. Perhaps it's because the ban will be easier to pass now that no one can object to it on grounds that it will take away american jobs, be perceived as a threat to the slaughter of other animals, etc. It now has only one effect and that is to end the export of horses for slaughter under much less humane conditions in other countries. That simplifies the argument a lot. Who can object to that? Also, I don't think you can say that as many horses are being slaughtered now, overall, as were being slaughtered when the U.S. plants were open.

[MandyVA]

HorseCrazy, the question isn't which horses sell most at auction. It's which ones wind up at the slaughterhouse the most, and that is clearly not thoroughbreds, regardless on one anecdote about buying some at auction.

[J Swan]

Last time I checked USDA numbers - they were a lot higher than usual.

So yes, lots of animals are going over our borders. And not only horses. Increasingly, more and more US livestock is traveling across our borders for slaughter.

If it's inhumane for horses, it's inhumane for all of them.

Litigating isn't done without a plan and as part of an overall strategy. There was a strategy, and it worked.

The article referenced is a case in point. Now we are seeing information being disseminated on the horrors of slaughter in Mexico. Well, no sh**. That was nothing new, and it wasn't new to those of us very familiar ag matters.

We will start seeing more "mexico hellhouse" type of fundraising material and action alerts in the future. Because it's great for raising money. Anyone who has ever worked in philanthropy knows that it's all about fundraising and marketing. When I worked in that field - we were pretty darn frank about it too. The public is very carefully manipulated in order to get them to write those checks.

[horse crazy inTX]

Perhaps it's because the ban will be easier to pass now that no one can object to it on grounds that it will take away american jobs, be perceived as a threat to the slaughter of other animals, etc. It now has only one effect and that is to end the export of horses for slaughter under much less humane conditions in other countries. That simplifies the argument a lot. Who can object to that? Also, I don't think you can say that as many horses are being slaughtered now, overall, as were being slaughtered when the U.S. plants were open.

Mandy - you have NO concern about the numbers of horses that are currently going to slaughter and what their fate will be if all slaughter is shut down including exports? If you have been following the numbers to MX, currently over 1,000 horses per week are going to MX. Cavel was slaughtering close to 900 a week during their appeal. We don't know the numbers going to Canada.

Who is going to care for these large numbers of horses? People don't sell or give their horses away for the fun of it, there are reasons behind it. And the reasoning is not that they are evil and relishing the thought their horse might go to slaughter.

HSUS and other AR groups are directly responsible for feeding the U.S. public the mis-information about the process of slaughtering being inhumane in the U.S. The information is riddled with lies from the length of time for travel to the actual process itself.

[horse crazy inTX]

HorseCrazy, the question isn't which horses sell most at auction. It's which ones wind up at the slaughterhouse the most, and that is clearly not thoroughbreds, regardless on one anecdote about buying some at auction.

Well, just by using percentages, since the largest breed is Quarter horses it would stand to reason the most horses going to slaughter of a specific breed would be Quarter horses.

I was actually surprised a Stephenville auction would have a larger number of TBs.

[MandyVA]

I'm not opposed to any group using the horror stories about Mexican slaughter houses to raise awareness (and money) if they are ultimately successful at getting the ban passed. Sometimes that's what you have to do to get the job done. That's a tactic that works, and it's not as if HSUS invented it.

I think you are saying that it is evil for the HSUS to cause all those horses to be diverted to Mexico and suffer much worse fates than they would have at U.S. slaughter houses while the ban is still awaiting passage. That's a fair point. Maybe they felt it was the only way to get it passed. I guess that just comes down to one's personal opinion about which is worse, causing the extra suffering of the horses that are now going to Mexico so that the ban can finally pass, or keeping slaughter and export legal forever.

[MandyVA]

HorseCrazy, it's not that I haven't thought about what will happen to horses that would otherwise go to slaughter. I just view it differently than people who think they are entitled to make a living breeding horses. Those people simply will have to get new jobs. It will take time but people will stop breeding so many horses when the light bulb finally goes off in their heads that they can't sell the ones they already have. A lot of people will realize if you want to sell horses, they need to be halter broken at the very least. I know some people think it is impractical to assume that very low end breeders will see the light. The fact is that they will have no choice. People treat horses the way they do now because they can.

In the meantime, every horse that goes to a low-end auction was brought there by someone that owns it already. What happens to the horses that they can't sell is their own personal problem. I find the figures about the millions of extra horses that will accumulate and have to be housed at government expense very amusing. That won't happen unless the government decides to take on that responsibility. We have animal cruely laws for those who neglect horses. If the government stays out of it, the market will correct itself.

I do think rescues will have to change their operating practices somewhat. They can't have this mentality that every horse should get to live out its natural life on a green pasture. More horses will have to be euthanized. The market will adapt. It won't be the end of civilization as we know it. In the long run, it will be better for the horses.

[philosoraptor]

Come to my barn with a six-horse trailer, and I can fill it up for you. I have friends who are more tuned in to the market who could find you a dozen more. And that's not even counting the neglected ones.

Maybe in your local hometown things are vastly different than here, I don't know? I'm puzzled why you cannot sell six good horses for any price? Have you tried equine.com, dreamhorse.com, etc? You mention COTH Giveaway forum: are your horses listed there?

In my area, you will never find six free sound, trained, rideable horses sitting around with no takers. Those who know how to sell horses, sell them to individuals or schools/camps. Those who don't, may resort to sale at auction. I am an hour from New Holland, one of the east coast's largest low-end horse auctions. From a financial standpoint, why would you give away 6 good horses if you can run them through New Holland and get $200 or $300 each? If they're well trained, you may even fetch $600 for each one at New Holland.

BTW, I checked the COTH giveaway forum. I don't see any ridable horses in my area at the moment.

In our area, there are free racehorses coming from some trainers, but these are straight off the track. This means a suitable place for them to come down, and then an experienced re-trains them for a riding horse. Too bad the horse's owner won't pay, and yet again responsibility is passed on to those individuals who do care about horses' welfare. It doesn't help that there is no guarentee on soundness or temperament, either. Many don't allow you to spend time getting a PPE and others won't let you test ride.

The only other steady stream of free horses are those who suddenly need to "get rid of" their family's horse when he's no longer sound. Forget paying for retirement or treatment or layup. Funny how people can afford a horse to ride but as soon as they can't ride him, they "can't afford to keep him."

The flip side of the coin is that those coming to an adoption program such as the one here ask for something they can ride, usually prefer more beginner-safe & calmer, and many want a horse that can carry weight. But the extra quarterhorses are being slaughtered by the tens of thousands. Most Amish sell their extras to the killers for the money, yet ex-amish horses are very well trained and easy to place. These are the breeds the buyers are looking for. It's a shame we'd rather see them dead.

You seem to be blaming the horse market as a whole... Let me give you an analogy : the lower-end horse market a lot like the used car market. If a person wants to sell a used car, logicially you'd clean it and make it as nice looking as possible. The seller would never show a car with four flat tires and a dead battery. So why are horse sellers showing horses who haven't seen a farrier this year? Never seen a dentist? Saddle fit so bad there are sores? You wouldn't show your car to a buyer if it had no gas in the tank, so why are people advertising horses that are nothing but ribs and rainrot? And we all know how hard it is to sell a dusty, musty, creaky car that hasn't been started up in a year; horse sellers: you need to ride the horse occasionally and keep him in shape. However, the horse sellers complain "there is no market for low-end horses". :rolleyes:

Except unlike cars, the horses feel quite a bit of suffering when they're neglected and unfed. If you absolutely can't sell it, it's ok to euthanize it but the horse deserves at least a humane end. But don't send him off to be disassembled while still alive, which is what happens to those going to slaughter.

[Blueshadow]

Since we were discussing what horses sell most at auction...

I found this part of the linked article rather interesting:



So who is dumping horses at auction? Seemingly not only the 'scourge of the earth' AQHA affiliated horse owners.

Absolutely a large fraction of TBs end up at slaughter, although they don't constitute the largest breed group slaughtered (about 16 percent by most estimates). It's appalling to me, actually, that people that can afford to own and race a TB simply cannot do without the 20-30c per pound they obtain from the KB. However, if you think I'm going to take the word of a KB about the likelihood of these TBs being retrainable, or not usable, think again. Why the heck would I believe his opinion?!! Not that it's cheap to retrain a TB. However, the very trainers and owners that dump them to KBs whether through auction or otherwise do not bear the costs of that. All they have to do is make a call to the local or national TB adoption programs. And they don't. I hope you don't think that they are "cutting their losses?" Given the cost of maintaining a horse at the racetrack - this is chump change. It's a combination of willful ignorance and greed. Or perhaps you don't care about these guys? It's being attacked as an AQHA member that bothers you. I don't discrimate, believe me. It's all unecessary, and you don't need to tell me that it's driven by economic incentives. Those pesky things change when policy changes.

And equinelaw, I love it when you call me BS.

[MandyVA]

Blueshadow, I'm not disagreeing with you, but how do you know it was their trainer/racing stable owner that took them to auction? I wouldn't assume those horses hadn't been owned by someone else between racing and going to auction. Not all tb's ever even go into race training.

[J Swan]

I think it's also a bit unfair to say that TB industry cares nothing, either. There are, and continues to be, a great many owners, trainers and breeders that care a great deal about the welfare of these animals.

It's like saying the reason so many pets end up at shelters is because German Shepherd breeders don't give a crap about their dogs.

There is blame and responsibility everywhere; just like anything else. You could even go so far to say that the reason is that people like horses - and horse sports. Eliminate all horse sports, close trails to horses, and basically negate the reason for their existence, and you'll have to play sim games instead.

Excess always has to go somewhere. Trash goes to landfills, livestock goes to our table, pets go to shelters. And equines? Somehow the entire nation is supposed to accommodate this animal because...... it's somehow more special than the others?

Just because I happen to think the sun rises and sets on horses doesn't mean the rest of the world is supposed to.

What I see lacking in all these ban arguments is simple common sense. All of you want a practice stopped because you think it's cruel. So you agitate until it's stopped in the US. But now it really IS cruel, because it's being carried out elsewhere.

So now what. You can't go back and admit you screwed up - because you still think it's worth sacrificing those lives to get what you want????? Exactly who is being cruel?

When is it ok to allow cruelty in the name of a political goal? Isn't that what you've accused the pro side of doing all these years? Now there is no USDA inspection. Now they are traveling longer distances. The rescues that were supposed to swoop in and take on these animals are NOT doing so - because they never did and never will have the money to save them all.

There will always be the unwanted - as sad as that is. Homeless people wander the streets, pets are euthanized at the shelter, and horses are put down at clinics, on the farm or kennel, or sent to auction. You think they shouldn't be sent to slaughter - great. Outbid the KB.

It's not breeders overproducing horses that is causing an excess. There is always excess. The horses going to slaughter are mostly adults. Go to any horse forum and you'll see people who are very specific about their wants when choosing a horse. And every discipline is different. A certain size, color, age, soundness, ability, temperament, markings - and fashion changes.

Y'all are rehashing the same old tired chestnuts. They weren't relevant then, and sure as hell aren't relevant now. That bill is dead. There is no chance of it being passed, at least until after the next election, if then.

That means years of horses going over the border. As more time passes, the industry in those countries becomes more entrenched.

And this is yet another reason why a true animal lover would never have supported the closure of US plants. This result was plain to see; even predicted.

So y'all continue to blather on about how people should just skip their latte and use the money to buy hay, or how AQHA is led by devil worshippers. Look busy and hope no one else notices that all your efforts have led to disaster.

[Bluey]

---"So y'all continue to blather on about how people should just skip their latte and use the money to buy hay, or how AQHA is led by devil worshippers. Look busy and hope no one else notices that all your efforts have led to disaster."---

Not disaster for all.
Lets see how the animal rights associations will suffle all those millions in donations they received with this big push for the latest cause of the moment, to save horses from slaughter, even if they really never save a horse themselves.:(

[Blueshadow]

Blueshadow, I'm not disagreeing with you, but how do you know it was their trainer/racing stable owner that took them to auction? I wouldn't assume those horses hadn't been owned by someone else between racing and going to auction. Not all tb's ever even go into race training.

I'm not claiming that every single TB that ends up at auction is from the racetrack. But many of them are. At least in my local auctions, they still have racing plates attached and are tattoed. All my comments should be applied to these horses. And I'm afraid that when they come from the track, whether it is the owner, or trainer, that actually ships them off to auction or calls the KB is irrelevant. If it's not them, and they want to claim ignorance, then they are willfully ignorant of what happens to their horse. What do they think? He goes to the same nice farm that all of the children that take lessons think their former lesson horses go to?

And I've noted on other threads that the only equine discipline that seems to have a coherent and nationwide adoption/rehoming/retirement prorgam is the racing industry. There are individuals and non-profits that at least are trying to deal with their part of the problem. I also know how hard it is for TB adoption farms around here to persuade trainers to donate their TBs at the end of their careers. Now why is that so hard?

[MandyVA]

JSwan, I realize it's more convenient for you to blame the existence of horse slaughter on the anti-slaughter groups' efforts, but that really doesn't make much sense. To say rescues should be swooping in and outbidding the killer buyers is nonsense and you know it. The slaughter bill is not dead, it has already been passed out of committee in the Senate. If you were as vocally calling your senators and asking them to co-sponsor it as you have been about blaming the anti-slaughter crowd for the exporting then I think you'd have a little more credibility. Don't wring your hands about the horses that are going to Mexico and use that as some indictment against the anti-slaughter efforts. That's just a smokescreen.

[J Swan]

--
Not disaster for all.
Lets see how the animal rights associations will suffle all those millions in donations they received with this big push for the latest cause of the moment, to save horses from slaughter, even if they really never save a horse themselves.:(

Well, it is October. Time for them to start end of year mailings. I wonder what I'll be seeing in the mail this season, and how they spin this "victory".

[MandyVA]

Well, it is October. Time for them to start end of year mailings. I wonder what I'll be seeing in the mail this season, and how they spin this "victory".

Again...why. do. you. care.

So what if some associations raise money by raising awareness, even if we assume it's sensationalized? That has nothing to do with whether slaughter is humane or necessary. Do you think COTHers get their views on slaughter from those associations? Do you think those associations convinced 30 senators to co-sponsor the AHSPA thus far through a bunch of progaganda? If you do, I think you are giving those groups way too much credit. I think for myself, thank you very much, and my Congressman was an original co-sponsor of the AHSPA because he thinks horse slaughter is unhumane. What is your issue with that?

[J Swan]

JSwan, I realize it's more convenient for you to blame the existence of horse slaughter on the anti-slaughter groups' efforts, but that really doesn't make much sense. To say rescues should be swooping in and outbidding the killer buyers is nonsense and you know it. The slaughter bill is not dead, it has already been passed out of committee in the Senate. If you were as vocally calling your senators and asking them to co-sponsor it as you have been about blaming the anti-slaughter crowd for the exporting then I think you'd have a little more credibility. Don't wring your hands about the horses that are going to Mexico and use that as some indictment against the anti-slaughter efforts. That's just a smokescreen.


I'm not blaming it on anti-slaughter groups. I'm approaching this from a different perspective. I am a proponent of humane treatment of all animals, and do not distinguish between the horse and other species of livestock. There is a great deal of work being done to improve conditions for livestock within the US, which includes improved designs, housing, methods of slaughter - and it's not all being done by Temple Grandin, either.

I am not the one who insisted that rescues would absorb all these animals. Anti-slaughter groups and leaders have insisted, time and time again, even on this BB, that horses WOULD be absorbed. That rescues WOULD take in the animals. Some of those folks don't post here anymore - but you can go back in look for those posts. Links to papers. Numbers. Plans. People who worked in rescues would say - oh yeah - we got it covered.

Well? I'm waiting - and so are the horses. It's time to step up and deliver on those promises.

Do you see any of those folks posting now? Isn't it amazing how quiet it's gotten?

If I sound peeved, I am. I don't care if people eat horsemeat, or pork, or mutton. I think it's more important to ensure livestock continues to be treated humanely - and continue to improve our knowledge on caring for and slaughtering them humanely. I don't single out the horse because its prettier than the other species.

I'm not happy that any of our nations livestock is going over our borders for slaughter - the fact the horse is going there bothered me long before the US plants shut down. Now they are ALL going there.

I see nothing has improved. And it's not going to. Because it's part of a larger issue; and one that anti-slaughter groups have no interest in.

You know what the hot button issue is right now? Illegal aliens. Tie that to horse slaughter and you might get some politicians attention. Otherwise - they'll just pay you lip service. They got bigger fish to fry.

The reason I "care" is because I don't call it "raising awareness". I call it lies. Manipulation. Spin. I did it for a living - I recognize it when I see it. If they wanted to really raise awareness, I'd expect the mailings to mention that they are responsible for the animals dying that way and to help them rectify their error. How much do you want to bet they don't mention that?

Oh - a lot of politicians piled on to that little bandwagon. Mine too. Easy way to please the voters, but didn't actually have to do anything. Don't you know how things work on the Hill?

[county]

I can never figure out why its a surprise to people that QH's or that type is the most common slaughtered? The AQHA is by far and away the largest breed regestry in the country where the hell is the mystery that they would also be the largest number slaughtered? The Angus breed is the largest beef breed and guess what? Their also the breed that has the highest number slaughtered. I think your average 9 year old can figure this out without any surprise.

[Bluey]

JSwan, I realize it's more convenient for you to blame the existence of horse slaughter on the anti-slaughter groups' efforts, but that really doesn't make much sense. To say rescues should be swooping in and outbidding the killer buyers is nonsense and you know it. The slaughter bill is not dead, it has already been passed out of committee in the Senate. If you were as vocally calling your senators and asking them to co-sponsor it as you have been about blaming the anti-slaughter crowd for the exporting then I think you'd have a little more credibility. Don't wring your hands about the horses that are going to Mexico and use that as some indictment against the anti-slaughter efforts. That's just a smokescreen.

I think that if that bill tryes to pass as written, you will have some trade issues with other countries to contend with, since it will be against NAFTA, a trade barrier, to stop Mexico and Canada from buying US horses without a real reason and try to make them do what the USA wants "just because".
You can stop movement of animals because of a disease, like mad cow or foot and mouth, but you can't stop movement because you don't like the way the other country conducts THEIR business.
That is none of OUR business.

Even if that bill passed and now horses could not be exported, do you really think that we are ready to make a big bone fire for all those horses that our horse industry doesn't want or need?

Don't try to do the same you already did once, to stop slaughter without provision for those horse's fates, now to stop exports without provisions for all those horses no one wants or can use.

Remember, it is never smart to put your cart before the horse.
You have done it once and didn't learn from it, I guess?:eek:

Oh, yeah, we can donate to all those animal rights associations so they can find a way to care for all those horses, right?:lol:

[MandyVA]

I don't see how you can point your finger at rescues. How do you expect them to even get their hands on all the horses going to Mexico? Have staff attend every auction, every day, recognize every possible KB, and outbid every one of them, every time?

[MandyVA]

Bluey...please. Stop trying to blame the anti-slaughter groups for the continuation of slaughter. Keep your silly blue gasping face and don't accuse me personally of putting horses on the road to Mexico. I've been asking my members of Congress to put a stop to it for a long time, and I had nothing to do with the Illinois and Texas plants shutting down.

How about asking the AVMA and AQHA to withdraw their opposition to the ban. The bill does not interfere with international trade because it does not distinguish between transport that is within or without the country. It prohibits all transport of horses for the purpose of slaughter for human consumption.

Again, like JSwan, stop pointing fingers and make a call to your members of Congress and ask them to support the ban. Until then you're just as guilty as anyone of allowing export to Mexico to continue. The blood of those horses is on YOUR hands, not the anti-slaughter crowd. We're doing all we can while you stand around and make stupid accusations.

[county]

I highly doubt the U.S. gov. will ever ban the export of livestock including horses. And I highly doubt their ever going to make it any differant then now to export say to Can. We need a cogginms and health papers and the vast majority of horses slaughtered in Can. from the U.S. have that now when they cross the border. " Exactly" how does one propose to stop a citizen of Can. from buying a horse here in the U.S. and then stop them from selling it to slaughter in Can?

[J Swan]

I don't see how you can point your finger at rescues. How do you expect them to even get their hands on all the horses going to Mexico? Have staff attend every auction, every day, recognize every possible KB, and outbid every one of them, every time?

I don't know any rescue that doesn't have volunteers are most of the auctions (which are not every day), and know all the KB's.

Again - I'm know they don't have that ability. I never expected them to be able to absorb the horses. One of my horses came through New Holland.

I'm repeating statements made by anti-slaughter groups, including some rescues - which has people on this BB. I didn't make this stuff up.

I'm saying - promises were made and now it's past time to own up to them. I WANT to be proven wrong. If I'm wrong - the horses win.

That bill is dead. Calling your reps is a waste of your time right now.

I'm not quite sure how folks who work on improving the welfare of animals can be accusing of having blood on our hands. I save animals in distress and work to ensure their lives and deaths are humane. You have me confused with someone else - I didn't support the ban or the closure of plants because I did not think it was in the best interest of horses in the long run. I arrived at that conclusion after great deliberation. I had no involvement in deciding to proceed with litigation knowing that horses would be trucked to Mexico if we won.

[MandyVA]

It's not fair to expect the rescues to operate as if slaughter were illegal. It's still legal. They're not living up to promises to absorb horses once slaughter was outlawed because it hasn't been. You can't assume that if there really was no outlet for these horses and they were being widely given away or abandoned that rescues wouldn't step up. There is a big difference between their ability to accept them for free and to go around buying all of them.

[Bluey]

I don't see how you can point your finger at rescues. How do you expect them to even get their hands on all the horses going to Mexico? Have staff attend every auction, every day, recognize every possible KB, and outbid every one of them, every time?

Just think about what so many of today's rescues are.
They buy and sell horses, make a profit so they can buy and sell some more.
Someone's dream horsey job, with someone else's paying for it in donations.
That is the ones on the level, not dipping in the funds for their own luxuries.

Rescues used to take care of truly needy horses, not those someone was willing to pay for, even if that someone was a horse trader, that would cull thru the horses and recycle some back as riding horses and send the rest to slaughter.

[county]

The vast majority of so called " resues " I see are just horse dealers. Only differance is instead of a ' sale Price " they call it a " donation " or " adoption fee ". Money exchanges hands for a horse, there all the same thing.

[J Swan]

Bluey - well now that's a whole nuther ball of wax, isn't it.

That really ticks me off - because a great many rescues, real rescues, are begging for donations while horse traders in disguise take advantage of c3 status to operate tax free. Makes me sick. The IRS really and truly needs to crack down on that. Complaints go unanswered.

[Bluey]

The vast majority of so called " resues " I see are just horse dealers. Only differance is instead of a ' sale Price " they call it a " donation " or " adoption fee ". Money exchanges hands for a horse, there all the same thing.

Remember, pointing out that some emperors have no clothes can get you lynched around here.:winkgrin:

[CelticReinRescue]

I highly doubt the U.S. gov. will ever ban the export of livestock including horses. And I highly doubt their ever going to make it any differant then now to export say to Can. We need a cogginms and health papers and the vast majority of horses slaughtered in Can. from the U.S. have that now when they cross the border. " Exactly" how does one propose to stop a citizen of Can. from buying a horse here in the U.S. and then stop them from selling it to slaughter in Can?

Horses shipping into Canada or Mexico need a current coggins & health certs?

I was under the impression that they did not once the federal tag was applied?

I thought it was a 'sealed' truck when the green fed. tag is applied and because of that, coggins are not required as those passengers are going directly to kill or feed lots awaiting kill.

If that is the case and it is required, I know a whole lot of KB's at NH who will be in a bit of hot water.

I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive that federally tagged horses are not required to have a coggins. Will double check that.

[Sithly]

I think that some here are defending the animal rights associations because they do work with them, as some have said.

I had a friend from school who was paid very well to go on public Internet forums and debate on the side of a particular political organization (not animal related). I found that interesting.

Whatever posters think about the humaneness or necessity of having a place for culls to go, I wonder why you don't see other breeders endorsing this practice.

Because their culls can often be sold to private buyers for a profit. If WBs were suddenly no longer able to command the prices they do, I have no doubt that the less scrupulous breeders would be dumping them at auction.

Maybe in your local hometown things are vastly different than here, I don't know? I'm puzzled why you cannot sell six good horses for any price? Have you tried equine.com, dreamhorse.com, etc? You mention COTH Giveaway forum: are your horses listed there?

Yep, I'm guessing things are different. Free horses are not hard to find here, at all. Many of them are backyard horses whose owners don't want them to go to sales, but don't want to feed them all winter, either. Many are given away due to lack of hay. Someone offered me a free horse a few weeks ago for that very reason.

The horses at my barn aren't selling because we're not trying to sell them. :lol: They are not owned by individuals, but by the business. During the busy season, the horses that can't hack it with beginners (who can blame them) sit around eating hay because no one has the time to deal with them. After the busy season, they might be reassesed and given more time, brought to auction to try to recoup the loss, or more commonly, given back to the dealer they came from. Meanwhile, the business lost money feeding them all winter.

Personally, I would get rid of them right away, but I can't blame the barn for waiting, either. They have reasons. Their trailers are booked every weekend from September until January, so that rules out sales. Also, none of the employees are going to put up an ad for a cheap or free horse and then deal with 8000 tire kickers. Selling horses is time consuming.

Bottom line is, the loss from these horses is not that important to the business owners, so they tend to stick around much longer than they need to. There is not a lot of motivation to move them.

Funny how people can afford a horse to ride but as soon as they can't ride him, they "can't afford to keep him."

Yep, count me as one of those people. I have limited funds, and I don't want to pay for a horse that can't be used. I want a horse to ride -- if I wanted a pet, I'd get a hamster. Though if I had the money to keep an expensive animal like a horse as a pet, I would probably change my mind.

I agree that some horse sellers are downright backwards. But most don't have the time, talent, or knowledge to train a horse, and that's how they got into trouble in the first place. Any idiot can drive a car.

But don't send him off to be disassembled while still alive, which is what happens to those going to slaughter.

That thought must keep you up at night. Especially now they're being stabbed in the back.

[CelticReinRescue]

County & Bluey -

While I do definitely sympathize with you both on the way some rescues act, please do not lump every rescue into that category. Generalizing is unfair - there are many out there that work their butts off daily and do truly 'rescue' and do not EVER make a profit.

There has not been one horse here that we've made a profit on, not a single one, EVER.

In the last year, we have paid out over $15,000 in veterinary, farrier, dental, feed, hay, etc...bills and in the last year, we've pulled in less than half of that in donations, to include adoptions and goods donated (halters, feed buckets, blankets, etc...). Nobody here is paid, heck, I don't even reimburse myself for things that I personally buy for the horses in our facilty.

Our rent for the barn and property is $600 a month.......that is a gift to the rescue every single month from my husband and I out of our personal money, so donations do not even go towards that.

Horses here are quarantined for a minimum of 30 days, completely vet checked, vaccinated, UTD on dental, farrier and worming and fed the best feed & hay we can buy. We take in intense rehabilitation cases to include serious illness, injuries and psychological issues. The take in is NEVER CLOSE to the output of funds - it is something that myself and our board members love to do and it's a labor of love.

Our horses are adopted with a contract, within 2 hours driving distance of our facility, homes are site checked before adoption, follow-ups are conducted on a very regular basis and any horse is welcome to come back here if the need arises.

We charge MINIMAL adoption fees - many horses that come in here don't get adopted because of the issues they came in with. There are not many homes available for horses that are extremely expensive to maintain or that can't play well with others.

We stay small in numbers so that we can afford these opportunities to the horses we help. Yes, we could pull in 30-100 horses and send them out to the first person willing to offer up a decent price for them, but we don't, we never have and we never will.

Show me a dealer/trader with the same principles and I'll eat my words.

Yes, I know you're both absolutely correct that there are many out there that broker under the guise of a 501 status and it's sad and it's disgusting, but seriously, don't put us all under that umbrella. It is totally unfair and wrong.

I have quite a few friends who rescue horses from bad situaitons, rehab them, train them and sell them for a hefty profit to new homes -they don't collect donations and they admit what they do.

[county]

Celtic, any horse going directly to slaughter doesn't need a coggins. But many many of the horses from here that go to slaughter in Can. first are bought by horse dealers in that country. There sorted out for potential riders the rest then are taken to slaughter by the dealer. Those horses all have coggins and health papers. The last year or so most horses hauled from this area just get run through the chutes and have coggins and health papers drawn up. Its very cheap and theres no hassles about what horses go over the border.

As far as this notion that people can't afford to keep a horse after its use is over. I can easdily afford to same as my cows and ewes. And if their pets thats what I do but it hardly makes sense to me to keep them all if I did then after not many years I wouldn't be able to afford much of anything I've esily culled out 100 head of livestock over the past 10 years. If someone wants to support 100 head with no return thats certainly their business. If i don't want to thats certainly mine.

[county]

So Celtic, if people should not lump all rescues as one should people lump all pro slaughter people and places as one?

BTW many pro slaughter people also do exactly what you describe. Myself for instance

[J Swan]

Mandy - I don't think you realize that horse rescues often have to turn away horses that are offered FREE right now.Because they are full or close to capacity.

It's not the cost of the horse - it's the cost of upkeep. Any horseman knows that. Many rescues could easily outbid the KB regularly, if they didn't also have to factor in the same costs of upkeep as any other horse owner. Often more - because of the extensive vet and farrier care these horses often need.

Then they have to try and adopt them out when many of them cannot be anything but companion horses or light riding only. Many horses stay at a rescue facility for many months; even years in some cases.

Ask any rescuer on this forum - or call your local rescue to verify. Most horses in rescue now have little to no potential as a sound riding horse.

There was never any ability for rescue groups in the US to absorb all unwanted equines - whether free or purchased for a few dollars at auction. It was irresponsible for any anti-slaughter group to make that assertion.

Just like no small animal rescue can absorb all the unwanted pets if animal shelters closed. It's a nice idea - but not a realistic one.

The first rule in rescue work is that you can't save them all.

[MandyVA]

J Swan, you're the one trying to hold rescues' feet to the fire for an alleged promise that hasn't come due yet. Slaughter is still legal. Stop blaming rescues for slaughter existing. It's not their fault. Whether they might hypothetically change their practices to accommodate more horses if slaughter were illegal is irrelevant at this point. Whether there would be a great outpouring of public support to take in the horses immediately displaced, who can say. I for one am not relying on any guarantees about who will house the horses that don't sell at auction if the ban passes to formulate my views on slaughter. Even if we assume that 100,000 horses will all on the day the ban goes through suddenly be homeless, I'd still support the ban. Throw your worst case scenario at me, it's still preferable than the ride to Mexico.

[CelticReinRescue]

Ok County, why is this question being directed at me? No person can be boxed up and put into a tidy, neat category - we are all individuals.

I don't lump any individual into any catergories. Although I don't agree with slaughter, I know plenty of people who are pro-slaughter and am able to maintain friendships although we differ greatly on our positions. I don't agree with them and they don't agree with me, but we can respect one another enough to agree to disagree. They understand some of my points, I understand some of theirs, and we agree to disagree on the rest.

The same question can be asked of the pro-slaughter side......should people lump all anti-slaughter people and organizations together as one?

I know that you rescue and have helped many horses and I give you credit for that and I thank you as well. What I can't understand (and I don't mean this in a negative way, I just honestly don't understand) is how you can take a horse in, see it through its rehabilitation and allow it to possibly go to slaughter? I think I recall you saying that whoever buys it, buys it - whether that be a private individual or someone who will in turn sell the horse to slaughter. From my perspective of rescue, I'd just like to try to understand your logic on that and I honestly am trying to understand.

If I am wrong and you do place horses with contracts/site checks, etc... to insure their safety and don't sell than please correct me. I would truly like to know more about what you do.

[J Swan]

You have not understood one word I've posted. I'm not throwing any scenarios at you. I'm putting the OP's article into context with the present situation.

You can call your reps all you want. The bill is dead and nothing is going to happen, if at all, until sometime in the next administration. Meaning - years from now.

You are making assertions, I am refuting them. I'm not blaming rescues - I am restating what anti-slaughter GROUPS promised horse owners if they succeeded in closing the US plants.

Before that, anti-slaughter GROUPS promised that a political maneuver designed to stop the funding of USDA inspectors would shut down the plants. People pointed out that it wouldn't.

It didn't. Well, that's what folks like me said in the first place.

The scenarios have not played out the way they were portrayed by anti-slaughter GROUPS. Each time they have been wrong.

You think a federal ban is going to going to be like some magic wand?


I'm not trying to change your mind. It's obvious its closed to any new thoughts on this subject. What I'm writing is refuting the tired and all too familiar litany of reasons slaughter should be ended. It's an old tune, and every one of those "reasons" has proven to be false.



J Swan, you're the one trying to hold rescues' feet to the fire for an alleged promise that hasn't come due yet. Slaughter is still legal. Stop blaming rescues for slaughter existing. It's not their fault. Whether they might hypothetically change their practices to accommodate more horses if slaughter were illegal is irrelevant at this point. Whether there would be a great outpouring of public support to take in the horses immediately displaced, who can say. I for one am not relying on any guarantees about who will house the horses that don't sell at auction if the ban passes to formulate my views on slaughter. Even if we assume that 100,000 horses will all on the day the ban goes through suddenly be homeless, I'd still support the ban. Throw your worst case scenario at me, it's still preferable than the ride to Mexico.

[MandyVA]

JSwan...you haven't posted one single reason why slaughter should continue. All you've done is point fingers at the other side. And the USDA funding bill is why the Illinois plant is closed, so that promise was true. I'd like you to show me where one anti-slaughter group said "we will find all the horses homes." And then tell me how that even matters since the day has not yet come when all those horses have any chance at finding homes. They're still on trucks headed to Mexico.

[J Swan]

Well geez, Mandy, if all it takes is closing down something for all the animals to find homes - we should close all the animal shelters. After all, millions of dogs and cats die every year in those places.

I haven't given you any reason for slaughter to continue because you're not interested in anything but your own opinion.

And you still have not understood one word I've posted.

And if you really and honestly think that anti-slaughter groups have not asserted that excess horses will be absorbed - then you not been reading up on the subject.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I'd respect if if I thought it was an educated one.

[MandyVA]

JSwan, I have read and understood everything you've said. What you don't seem to understand is that for you to assert that anti-slaughter groups aren't living up to the promises you feel they made should slaughter be outlawed just makes me scratch my head. Slaughter is still legal, so what is it that the anti-slaughter groups are supposed to do to prove that their assertions were correct? That can't happen until slaughter is illegal. Again, you have no actual logical arguments for why slaughter should continue, so you try to blame the other side for not fixing it already. That doesn't make any sense.

[Bluey]

JSwan...you haven't posted one single reason why slaughter should continue. All you've done is point fingers at the other side. And the USDA funding bill is why the Illinois plant is closed, so that promise was true. I'd like you to show me where one anti-slaughter group said "we will find all the horses homes." And then tell me how that even matters since the day has not yet come when all those horses have any chance at finding homes. They're still on trucks headed to Mexico.

If you don't approve of slaughter as a way to use those horses we don't have other uses for, there is no talking to you about good reasons for slaughter, since you won't agree to any of them.:winkgrin:

An overview is that all animals in their natural state have short lives, eventually eaten sooner or later by something, not tended to when injured or cared for in times of hardships.
There is no such thing as a geriatric wild animal, really.

We domesticate them for OUR uses, care and tend to them and one of those uses for most animals, especially those we can consume readily and have other uses for, depending on how our cultures evolved, demands that we slaughter some of them.
Many, on the other hand, get to live to a well cared for old age.

Every civilization has some animals it may eat more readily than others, in hard times all have been eaten by any culture, even against tradition.

Up until the last Wald Disney generation, animals were cared for and used and slaughtered when appropiated without controversy, people having grown understanding our care and management involved that one disagreable thought of ending a life for our purposes.

That is still customary with horses in most places in the world, except here, where slaughter has been part of the horse industry, accepted by all, without question, until lately, when it was made the cause of the moment by animal rights, for their own purposes.

Since slaughter is inherently gruesome, it is a ready made cause, makes anyone trying to defend it look like an uncaring, bloodthirsty killer, if that part of what slaughter is is what you want to concentrate in using on the propaganda against it, drowning the words of those that say that there is so much more to using a horse thru slaughter than the process.

Now you add that, like everything in life, slaughter, no matter how well the ones handling the process manage it, there will be the ocassional mistake, accidents happen in the best run universe, really, then you can use those RARE instances when a horse is mistreated or mishandled, something that happens in any area of horse handling, even in the best stables, when you make those few instances sound like the norm in the slaughter process, well...

That is what the slaughter industry and those trying to say it is a valid use of our unwanted horses are up against, the strident, taken out of context wild tales of abuse in US slaughter houses as if such was the norm, etc.

Those that think slaughter IN TODAY'S horse industry is a necessary and appropiate part of it can't be heard, amongst the strident zealot animal rights people, egged on by those that thrive by the controversy, since their jobs depend on it and using all those myths in their propaganda.

Now, you add sending horses to Mexico for slaughter, under definitely not very humane conditions there, well, I can just see what the next drive for donations is going to be like.:yes:

It is all a game for some and it is sadly played on the backs of our horse industry, horses the losers all around, in more and worse ways than some of them going to slaughter in the USA, as they were before this controversy.:(

Above all, don't forget what the animal rights people say, now horses, next the rest.

If we fight to ban things we do with horses, all we do are suspect, since we know that any we do can be in the right light be considered abusive.
Even keeping a horse as a pasture ornament is not in the best interest of horses, as a species that evolved "to live wild and free", in the eyes of many.

[MandyVA]

Bluey, take off the tin foil hat. No one is coming for all your livestock. You actually are the poster child for believing the ridiculous propaganda about changing the status of horses as livestock animals and their ultimately not being legal to own at all. You're far more guilty of buying into your side's sensational arguments than anyone on the anti-slaughter side is.

Horses are inherently different from the many types of animals bred to be eaten. And you're right about one thing, those of us that think slaughter of horses is inhumane won't change out minds. I for one have never seen any of the videos or read the propaganda on the HSUS site. I have, however, moved my horse to a new barn, or taken him to a show, and seen how scary even those things are for him. That is enough to convince me that the whole auction, feed lot, trucking, and assembly line, even when it works at its best and no regulations are broken, is not appropriate for horses. Jump up and down and call me an activist all you want.

Now I have some legislators to meet with, so carry on with your craziness.

[J Swan]

Well, I guess that's what separates us.

I don't believe horses are inherently different than other animals. All are entitled to humane treatment from birth till death.

Any distinction is a purely human imposed one. A pig feels fear as much as a horse. So does a goat. A dog. They all feel pain, they all feel fear.

Which is why so much money and time is spent on ensuring that slaughter remains as stress free as possible.

You're singling out the horse because YOU think they are somehow special animals because you have one and keep it as a pet.

I think ALL animals are special.

I resent the implication that my pet pig and goats are not worthy of humane treatment just because some people like to eat those species.


You think writing that you have to meet with legislators is supposed to scare me? The big news today is another Bush veto. Politicians don't give a crap about a dead bill.

[Sithly]

Slaughter is still legal, so what is it that the anti-slaughter groups are supposed to do to prove that their assertions were correct? That can't happen until slaughter is illegal.

Better get up early tomorrow. You have a lot of lobbying to do if you want to ban exportation of horses.



Reasons why I believe slaughter should be legal in this country:

1. It is a viable option to dispose of unwanted horses. Key word is "option." If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.

2. Trying to legislate away viable options for unwanted horses is not going to solve the problem of unwanted horses.

3. Aforementioned horses can be put to use (i.e., becoming a resource, instead of euthanizing, burying, etc. and draining resources).

4. If slaughter happens in this country, we can regulate it. Our system is not perfect, but it's a far cry from what's happening in Mexico.

5. Even though our system is not perfect, it's not NEARLY as bad as the animal rights groups would have you believe. Much of the "information" they disseminate is outright propaganda.


Believe it or not, I used to be vehemently against slaughter when I was younger. I would have been all over this thread back in those days, posting the same kind of redirections and ill-reasoned appeals to emotion I'm reading now. That was then. I have since changed my position after working in the horse industry for a while and learning some of the practical aspects. I have come to respect and appreciate the role of livestock in this country.

[horse crazy inTX]

Bluey, take off the tin foil hat. No one is coming for all your livestock. You actually are the poster child for believing the ridiculous propaganda about changing the status of horses as livestock animals and their ultimately not being legal to own at all. You're far more guilty of buying into your side's sensational arguments than anyone on the anti-slaughter side is.

Mandy, if you spent time reading on HSUS and other animal activist websites you would understand WHY many are concerned about the overall intent. AR people do not want horses used for SPORT or ENTERTAINMENT purposes. Bye, bye riding horses.

You are right, not all anti-slaughter folks are equal but what you fail to see is that the leadership, the driving force behind the movement is not all squeaky clean as you seem to think.

Horses are inherently different from the many types of animals bred to be eaten. And you're right about one thing, those of us that think slaughter of horses is inhumane won't change our minds. I for one have never seen any of the videos or read the propaganda on the HSUS site. I have, however, moved my horse to a new barn, or taken him to a show, and seen how scary even those things are for him. That is enough to convince me that the whole auction, feed lot, trucking, and assembly line, even when it works at its best and no regulations are broken, is not appropriate for horses.

I don't for the life of me understand why people think horses react so differently than cattle? Their behavior is very similar. Training methods are very similar. If anything, horses would be less disturbed by the whole slaughter process because they have been exposed to different situations, to different human handling and usually under better circumstances than cattle. Most horses are used to having their faces and ears messed with, they aren't frightened by humans the same way cattle are. There is the exception of show cattle who get as much care and handling as any horse.

Actually, I have encountered many anti-slaughter people that changed their minds when they read unbiased reports and articles. Education can change one's mind. It happens all the time.

[Sithly]

Actually, I have encountered many anti-slaughter people that changed their minds when they read unbiased reports and articles. Education can change one's mind. It happens all the time.

I am proof of that. Not ashamed to admit it, either.

[Bluey]

---"Horses are inherently different from the many types of animals bred to be eaten. And you're right about one thing, those of us that think slaughter of horses is inhumane won't change out minds. I for one have never seen any of the videos or read the propaganda on the HSUS site. I have, however, moved my horse to a new barn, or taken him to a show, and seen how scary even those things are for him. That is enough to convince me that the whole auction, feed lot, trucking, and assembly line, even when it works at its best and no regulations are broken, is not appropriate for horses."---

My neighbor spent two days at the horse slaughterhouse, when he was called there on a match for his old horse, that had been stolen from his pasture.
Sadly, the horse was not his, but he told me that, in all the time over two days he watched several hundred horses go down the line and be slaughtered, there was not one miss, the horses walked down the chute with less fear than he has seen in many handling and training situations.
The people were good at running the horses smoothly and without distress, as is their job and the ones doing the deed would have been really disturbed if they had missed, their job was NOT to miss.
They also changed stations regularly, so the same man didn't have to use the gun for very long, it is really hard, even if it is your job and you try not to think about it.

Horse slaughterhouses were one of the most regulated of slaughterhouses, had continuously running videos and inspectors and foremen trained to see that all was done according to regulations and the meat was tested and inspected continuously, as is demanded of the US plants that sells to the european market.

It is still slaughter and ugly to our sensibilities, as any such process is, even abdominal surgery would be for most, even in a clean hospital surgery room.

Now, tell me where you know from how horribly the horses suffer thru the slaughterhouse, other than those fanciful, gutwrenching stories of the animal rights propaganda mailings we all get, along with a plea for donations to the cause?:confused:

[J Swan]

I am proof of that. Not ashamed to admit it, either.


Me too.

[Sannois]

---"Horses are inherently different from the many types of animals bred to be eaten. And you're right about one thing, those of us that think slaughter of horses is inhumane won't change out minds. I for one have never seen any of the videos or read the propaganda on the HSUS site. I have, however, moved my horse to a new barn, or taken him to a show, and seen how scary even those things are for him. That is enough to convince me that the whole auction, feed lot, trucking, and assembly line, even when it works at its best and no regulations are broken, is not appropriate for horses."---

My neighbor spent two days at the horse slaughterhouse, when he was called there on a match for his old horse, that had been stolen from his pasture.
Sadly, the horse was not his, but he told me that, in all the time over two days he watched several hundred horses go down the line and be slaughtered, there was not one miss, the horses walked down the chute with less fear than he has seen in many handling and training situations.
The people were good at running the horses smoothly and without distress, as is their job and the ones doing the deed would have been really disturbed if they had missed, their job was NOT to miss.
They also changed stations regularly, so the same man didn't have to use the gun for very long, it is really hard, even if it is your job and you try not to think about it.

Horse slaughterhouses were one of the most regulated of slaughterhouses, had continuously running videos and inspectors and foremen trained to see that all was done according to regulations and the meat was tested and inspected continuously, as is demanded of the US plants that sells to the european market.

It is still slaughter and ugly to our sensibilities, as any such process is, even abdominal surgery would be for most, even in a clean hospital surgery room.

Now, tell me where you know from how horribly the horses suffer thru the slaughterhouse, other than those fanciful, gutwrenching stories of the animal rights propaganda mailings we all get, along with a plea for donations to the cause?:confused:
Get the Antis to believe that. Even if they saw it they would not believe it.
But gee its so nice now that American horses are not being slaughtered and now their blood and misery is on Foreign soil. But they FEEL so much better that it is not HERE. Well gee I call that train of thought totally hipocritical. The good old not in my back yard mentality.
:lol: And gee LAst week I lloked at the website for the Illinois house., they are still slaughtering for zoos and such. So whats the difference. Still slaughter. :eek:

[horse crazy inTX]

How the grass roots lobbying works without spending any accountable money...

Dear all-
Below is part of an email from Liz Ross who now works with Chris at AWI/SAPL. Liz knows the slaughter issue very well and work on this issue while she was with Doris Day Animal League. Sorry I didn't get the contact info for the Senators, but most of you probably have it already. Please bombard the below Senators with fax and phone calls and ask for support
and co-sponsorship of S. 311.
Thanks-
Julie Caramante

Here's our target list in the Senate. All but Corker voted for our FY 06 Ag Approps amendment but their support on another Ag Approps amendment or S 311 is certainly not a given. We need letters and calls to these offices from all walks - equestrians, rescues, general public, kids, VIPs, etc. As I said, we need to be creative - Op Eds or letters to the editor in local papers are just one tactic. Of course, any communication should be respectful
Thanks again.

1. Evan Bayh (D/IN).
2. Robert Bennet (R/UT) - Ranking Member (i.e., senior R) on Senate Ag Approps
3. Jim Bunning (R/KY) -
4. Richard Burr (R/NC) -
5. Saxby Chambliss (R/GA) -
6. Bob Corker (R/TN) - unkown quantity - he wasn't around when FY 06 Ag Approps came up for a vote.
7 Elizabeth Dole (R/NC)
8. Judd Gregg (R/NH)
9. Chuch Hagel (R/NE)
10. Tom Harkin (D/IA) - Chair of Senate Ag Cttee
11. Orrin Hatch (R/UT)
12. Johnny Isakson (R/GA)
13. John Kyl (R/AZ)
14. Lisa Murkowski (R/AK)
15. Gordon Smith (R/OR)
16. Jim Webb (D/VA)
************************************************
Liz Ross
Federal Policy Advisor
Animal Welfare Institute
P.O. Box 3650
Washington, D.C. 20027
Tel: (703) 836-4300 ~ Cell: 202-497-6780 ~ Fax: (703) 997-1134

[county]

How can I rescue horses and yet not care if a buyer sells one to slaughter? Same way I can with cattle, hogs, and sheep. I don't place one species of animal above another either something is right for all or its wrong. And as I've said before thev biggest reason I'm pro slaughter is I've yet to hear a logical reason not to be. Keep in mind as I said I do not place one species over another, I'm not against the import/export business, and I really don't get into trying to control what others eat as long as its legal. And slaughter is legal.

[ProzacPuppy]

The US has never embraced horse as a food yet we will slaughter our horses for foreign palates and justify the slaughter because there is a market SOMEWHERE. Why don't we do the same with unwanted dogs in the US as there is an overseas market for it.

People in the US could make a couple bucks off unwanted dogs, puppy mills would have a ready market for large breed pups. And most Americans would be horrified. The same is true for Americans who use horses for sport, hobby etc.(As opposed to those who use horses for work, survival- greatly diminished in number since the West was settled),

Just because there is an overseas market doesn't mean we have to cater to those tastes. America doesn't feed the taste for dog, nor does it feed the overseas market for child porn.

[J Swan]

Could y'all please come up with something new? This is the same stuff people have been saying for years. At this point I'm starting to think y'all are just copying and pasting from a Word document.

And you're wrong about the market for horsemeat in the US. There is a segment of the population that does eat it - and that population is growing.



The US has never embraced horse as a food yet we will slaughter our horses for foreign palates and justify the slaughter because there is a market SOMEWHERE. Why don't we do the same with unwanted dogs in the US as there is an overseas market for it.

People in the US could make a couple bucks off unwanted dogs, puppy mills would have a ready market for large breed pups. And most Americans would be horrified. The same is true for Americans who use horses for sport, hobby etc.(As opposed to those who use horses for work, survival- greatly diminished in number since the West was settled),

Just because there is an overseas market doesn't mean we have to cater to those tastes. America doesn't feed the taste for dog, nor does it feed the overseas market for child porn.

[philosoraptor]

1. It is a viable option to dispose of unwanted horses. Key word is "option." If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.

How about the stolen horses, horses taken under false pretenses, horses with broken buy-back causes, or clueless people who think auctions are safe places?

At the very least they need to pull the stolen horses out of the chute. But they don't. It's too much work to check and after all, they're just horses.

Wouldn't it be nice if anyone who sold to slaughter had to disclose this in writing before buying your child's beloved-but-outgrown pony? Why doesn't my local low-end horse auction warn sellers they cater to killbuyers? (yes, there still are horse people who don't know this still goes on!)

Some of these guys love the "free to good home" ads. They've perfected their act. Nothing is safe.

2. Trying to legislate away viable options for unwanted horses is not going to solve the problem of unwanted horses.

Nobody worried about the "unwanted horse" problem until the horse meat industry was threatened and reacted with propaganda.

Horses going to slaughter are killed for MEAT. Not because a city shelter is full and it's that horse's 30th day unadopted. Not because nobody will take him free. If eating horse meat suddenly became pase in Europe, slaughter would be drop to zero... would that prove to you there must therefore be zero unwanted horses?

If there really is a population problem, why not just let owners handle it instead of relying on some European companies to solve our "problem"' for us? Nobody is stopping you from putting your horse down. You talk about owner choice -- you don't get any more choice with the horse right in front of you. Once he's sold anything can happen to him, whether you agree with it or not.

3. Aforementioned horses can be put to use (i.e., becoming a resource, instead of euthanizing, burying, etc. and draining resources).

A live horse is far more useful than a stack of shrink wrapped cartons and a pile of guts. Ever try to ride a dead horse? Not fun. Kind of dull on the leg aids and talk about having a dead mouth.

4. If slaughter happens in this country, we can regulate it. Our system is not perfect, but it's a far cry from what's happening in Mexico.

Slaughter was happening in this country up until a few weeks ago, and technically it is still legal in most states. "Regulation" was a joke. We asked them to change voluntarily and they laugh. The few laws out there are rarely enforced. Most of these regulations are either DOT or USDA laws. DOT laws only cover things like overweight trucks. USDA protects meat producers, so it's not like the USDA is going to come down hard on the guys supplying meat horses. Talk about the fox guarding the hen-house!

Why to you bring up Mexico? First you say if you don't like it, "don't participate" Now you're saying we need to be scared of Mexican slaughter. Isn't it enough that owners "not participate"?

5. Even though our system is not perfect, it's not NEARLY as bad as the animal rights groups would have you believe. Much of the "information" they disseminate is outright propaganda.

Yes, everything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "propaganda".

I have since changed my position after working in the horse industry for a while and learning some of the practical aspects. I have come to respect and appreciate the role of livestock in this country.

And I started out not knowing what horse slaughter is and being told it was a necessary evil. My first wake up was visiting New Holland, one of the largest "livestock" horse auctions east of the Mississippi. It opened my eyes forever. From there I started working with what you'd call "unwanted" horses, in the killpens and at livestock auctions. I saw some unspeakable horrors committed at a public auction and the things they did when they thought nobody were looking were beyond reproach. No horse, no matter how rude or untrained, deserves this.

What does it say about us as civilized humans to be able to do this to horses, which we say we love & value so much? Are we barbarians? And worse, to fight to keep this system in place?

Nobody is trying to take away your livestock. Nobody is trying to stop you from working cattle from your horse.

All we're saying is that if a horse is suffering, he deserves a HUMANE, fast death.


Think of it this way:
Would a horse owner get away with hauling their horses 2-3 days without a single stop or any food/water?
Do you usually haul your riding horses in a double-decker? and crammed hip to hip, stallions mixed in with mares, foals, and elderly? hauled in all temperatures and even if some of the horses are sick?
If while in transit your horse got badly hurt or broke a leg, would you not care? Vet care is now totally optional?
If a horse needed to be put down, would you or I legally be able to stun the horse, shackle it up by a back leg, and cut the neck open while he is still alive as legal form of "humane euthanasia"?
In my area, I would be up on criminal charges for these acts; why do we tolerate it in the name of commerce and profits???

[MandyVA]

MayS, what you describe seeing at New Holland is exactly why I oppose slaughter. If horses were slaughtered the way the beef cattle were on the farm where I grew up, I wouldn't oppose it at all. They rode, with their buddies, in a roomy stock trailer, maybe two miles to our local slaughterhouse and were shot in the head the same day individually (i.e. not on an assembly line). Having been raised around cattle who were tame and many of them pets, however, I sure as heck wouldn't say they react the same way as horses.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that there is no closer relationship between humans and animals than when one is riding a horse. There is no such relationship between humans and cattle, or pigs, or sheep, or chickens.

I sympathize with those who regret the closing down of so many local slaughter houses because the nimby's don't like them. What I don't get is why the pro side still opposes the ban. That's supporting the continued slaughter in Mexico. Like it or not, the U.S. slaughterhouses are not going to open back up. Why does any one who claims to care about horses have an issue with ending their export under such deplorable conditions? I just don't understand that.

It also still suprises me when I talk to non-horsey people about this issue that they have absolutely no clue that there is such a thing as horse slaughter, but are immediately horrified when they hear about it. And I don't tell gruesome stories, I describe the transport. They are always appalled.

JSwan--not trying to scare you...I lobby in states, not congresss. I just didn't want everyone to think they'd scared me off yet while I was away from my computer. ;)

[J Swan]

Well, in order to understand why some people and industries are still pro-horse slaughter, you have to step back and see a larger picture.

But whenever anyone mentions the larger picture, we get shot down because this is a horse BB.

I find that a very weak argument. The truth is - few horse people nowadays know little to nothing about animal agriculture.

As I've said - I don't see this as purely a horse issue. It's larger. Focusing on one species to the detriment of others is simply not logical to me.

[MandyVA]

How would ending horse slaugter be to the detriment of other species? I would think the attention on the issue would be good for all species. But then I don't subscribe to the propaganda that the overall goal is to end all animal slaughter or make it harder to own horses, and I do base that on my experience as a lobbyist. Some groups may have that as their ideal, but they would get laughed out of any (state, federal, or local) policymaker's office if they tried to suggest an outright ban on animal slaughter/use. That's more than a slippery slope argument, that's just ridiculous. That's why it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black for the pro side to argue that the anti's have just bought in to a bunch of bs propaganda.

[county]

Child Porn is illegal. Dog slaughter is illegal. Horse slaughter is legal. How hard can it be to figure out its rather senseless to compare illegal things with legal things?

And if anyone thinks the slaughter of other species is all rosy your only kidding yourself. The slaughter of all species is pretty much the same and hardly squeky clean., We kill them, bleed them, cut their heads off, skin them, then cut them up so we can stuff our face with the meat. Horses have it no worse then any other species and heres a news flash for some of you.

We export all species not just horse.

[Bluey]

Well, in order to understand why some people and industries are still pro-horse slaughter, you have to step back and see a larger picture.

But whenever anyone mentions the larger picture, we get shot down because this is a horse BB.

I find that a very weak argument. The truth is - few horse people nowadays know little to nothing about animal agriculture.

As I've said - I don't see this as purely a horse issue. It's larger. Focusing on one species to the detriment of others is simply not logical to me.

Watch it, you will be accused of wearing a tin hat.;)

I have posted links to articles explaining in lenght about the stated ultimate goals of those behing the push for this ban, in their own words:

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm

Sadly, some people won't listen if what is pointed out doesn't fit their agenda, as they didn't about horses going to Mexico.

[J Swan]

How would ending horse slaugter be to the detriment of other species? I would think the attention on the issue would be good for all species. But then I don't subscribe to the propaganda that the overall goal is to end all animal slaughter or make it harder to own horses, and I do base that on my experience as a lobbyist. Some groups may have that as their ideal, but they would get laughed out of any (state, federal, or local) policymaker's office if they tried to suggest an outright ban on animal slaughter/use. That's more than a slippery slope argument, that's just ridiculous. That's why it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black for the pro side to argue that the anti's have just bought in to a bunch of bs propaganda.

Really? They get laughed out of any policymaker's office?

Then 'splain why some animal products have been outlawed in some jurisdictions.

Let's see - how about the "humane education" that is increasingly being foisted upon schoolkids. You'd think humane education was just teaching kids how to properly approach a strange dog, or how to care for a pet hamster.

Nope. It's about how meat is murder. Teaching kids to challenge authority, that eating meat is equal to the Holocaust, and if you want, I'll show you comic books that show a blood covered woman knifing a rabbit. The title of the comic book is "Your Mommy is a Murderer". It's for elementary kids.

I don't make this crap up. People send it to me. Parents complain to school boards when their kids bring the stuff home and show their parents.

So please -don't tell me that the elimination of animal agriculture and domestic animals isn't the end goal. It is - and the proof is all around you. All you have to do is open your eyes.

If a farmer's kid comes home and says, Dad - my teacher says you're a murderer because you raise beef cattle - exactly what is that farmer going to do? Maybe he might be a little ticked off if he's told he's wearing a tin foil hat - I'll tell you that much.

You'd do better to keep an open mind rather than swallow all the AR bull that's being shoved down your throat.

[ProzacPuppy]

County- You take a far too literal and simplistic view of my post. While one thing may be illegal it is possible that trafficking in a componant of that thing is not. I also question your statement that dog slaughter is illegal. Dogs are slaughtered every day often just to lessen the population but also to harvest organs for other canines (yes it does happen). No one regulates the slaughter of dogs and cats right now.

The argument that US horses are slaughtered because there is a market is not valid. Dog slaughter could easily be made legal for export except that every politician knows that the American public would be rabidly against it. Culturally Americans are against using dogs and cats in that way. Is it such a mindbender to understand that times have changed since we started slaughtering horses and in the more affluent cosmopolitan US population (as opposed to the farm based society of the early 20th century) the cultural view of the horse has changed as well making the idea of slaughter for its flesh particularly odious to many people- much as dog slaughter would be viewed.

[county]

I used the term " slaughter " in the sense that its legal to do so for human consumption not to slaughter just to get rid of them. And yes it could be made legal just as everything illegal could be. But that hardly means it will same as anything else.

I understand some think horse slaughter is bad. Theres just as much right for others to think the opposite and until its made illegal thats not going to change nor should it. Some people enjoy horse meat same as any species. Personally I find eating Lutefish disguisting but I'm not going to try and control those who like it.

[IveGotRhythm]

County- You take a far too literal and simplistic view of my post. While one thing may be illegal it is possible that trafficking in a componant of that thing is not. I also question your statement that dog slaughter is illegal. Dogs are slaughtered every day often just to lessen the population but also to harvest organs for other canines (yes it does happen). No one regulates the slaughter of dogs and cats right now.

The argument that US horses are slaughtered because there is a market is not valid. Dog slaughter could easily be made legal for export except that every politician knows that the American public would be rabidly against it. Culturally Americans are against using dogs and cats in that way. Is it such a mindbender to understand that times have changed since we started slaughtering horses and in the more affluent cosmopolitan US population (as opposed to the farm based society of the early 20th century) the cultural view of the horse has changed as well making the idea of slaughter for its flesh particularly odious to many people- much as dog slaughter would be viewed.

ProzacPuppy, your post hit me like a slap in the face good,(in a good, eye-opening way) . I worked for our local humane society for 5 years and met weekly with our county commissioners until they agreed that dogs should die by lethal injection rather than in a gas chamber. Then I got to be the one to hold them when they died (if I wasn't, in fact, the one administering the injection -and am licensed to do so. I don't think I had ever made that mental leap between dogs sold for food vs. horses before).

Sadly, this does not change the fact that there isn't a "pound" for unwanted horses, that there isn't an easy way to dispose of bodies:and that, for those economically unfortunate enough to try to be responsible for their unplacable horses and financially unable to do so, auctions may be their last shot. It costs about $300 around here to dispose of a body (and that's assuming you shot the horse and didn't incurr vet fees) whether its to the renderer or for the equipment to bury it (which is technically illegal). If you don't have the money to feed a horse, I'll bet you don't have that $300....


I live less than an hour from Sugarcreek. Big time tack, horse, Amish trading auction. You take the kill buyers away and I'll bet there's a lot more starving, lame horses in my rural county. That Animal Control will never report. Trust me.

[horse crazy inTX]

How about the stolen horses, horses taken under false pretenses, horses with broken buy-back causes, or clueless people who think auctions are safe places?

Clueless people shouldn't own horses. If you can't sell or give your horse to someone you trust - your option is to keep it. Stolen horses are so over exaggerated. Step back and look at the cattle market. Don't you think theft for slaughter would be a much bigger factor? Angus cattle are almost indistinguishable from each other. Where is the supporting data to uphold this 30% of slaughter horses are stolen. All BS for the scare factor!

At the very least they need to pull the stolen horses out of the chute. But they don't. It's too much work to check and after all, they're just horses.

Did you glaze over the explanation of the inspection process in Texas by the TSCRA? Visit BEHS for Cowgirl Jenn's recommendation on using the TSRCA. Have you read the 'California Unwanted Horse' article by Dr.Carolyn Stull? It discusses how horses WERE inspected for theft prior to the passing of the ban in California? Many stolen horses were recovered because of the inspection process. Guess what? No more inspection in CA and horses are still being shipped to slaughter out of California.

Wouldn't it be nice if anyone who sold to slaughter had to disclose this in writing before buying your child's beloved-but-outgrown pony? Why doesn't my local low-end horse auction warn sellers they cater to killbuyers? (yes, there still are horse people who don't know this still goes on!)

Some of these guys love the "free to good home" ads. They've perfected their act. Nothing is safe.

Simple answer for the naive and gullible - don't sell.



Nobody worried about the "unwanted horse" problem until the horse meat industry was threatened and reacted with propaganda.

Bull Crap! There has always been concern for animal welfare.

Horses going to slaughter are killed for MEAT. Not because a city shelter is full and it's that horse's 30th day unadopted. Not because nobody will take him free. If eating horse meat suddenly became pase in Europe, slaughter would be drop to zero... would that prove to you there must therefore be zero unwanted horses?

If there really is a population problem, why not just let owners handle it instead of relying on some European companies to solve our "problem"' for us? Nobody is stopping you from putting your horse down. You talk about owner choice -- you don't get any more choice with the horse right in front of you. Once he's sold anything can happen to him, whether you agree with it or not.

A live horse is far more useful than a stack of shrink wrapped cartons and a pile of guts. Ever try to ride a dead horse? Not fun. Kind of dull on the leg aids and talk about having a dead mouth.

How many horses have you owned? How many horses have you trained? You sound very unknowledgeable about horse behavior in general. Some horses are dangerous. I've met my share. They pass from owner to owner because they aren't safe, suitable riding horses. Many people think they can fix a difficult horse. Some are just not fixable. Many GOOD trainers will not waste their time on a dangerous horse. It is too risky. So what if they are put down humanely and their carcasses are used for whatever purpose. Once they are slaughtered they are dead.



Slaughter was happening in this country up until a few weeks ago, and technically it is still legal in most states. "Regulation" was a joke. We asked them to change voluntarily and they laugh. The few laws out there are rarely enforced. Most of these regulations are either DOT or USDA laws. DOT laws only cover things like overweight trucks. USDA protects meat producers, so it's not like the USDA is going to come down hard on the guys supplying meat horses. Talk about the fox guarding the hen-house!

What specifically are you talking about? Double deckers were outlawed for SLAUGHTER transportation only. Some stock contractors use them still for hauling to rodeos. Some DDs have a floating floor which makes them convertible to a single trailer. The DD ban didn't take effect until Dec 2006. Transport has been limited to maximum of 28 hours when traveling in the U.S. There are no such regulations once across the border.


Yes, everything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "propaganda".

It is not the differing viewpoint, it is the lack of supporting evidence and mis-construed FACTS that make it propaganda.


And I started out not knowing what horse slaughter is and being told it was a necessary evil. My first wake up was visiting New Holland, one of the largest "livestock" horse auctions east of the Mississippi. It opened my eyes forever. From there I started working with what you'd call "unwanted" horses, in the killpens and at livestock auctions. I saw some unspeakable horrors committed at a public auction and the things they did when they thought nobody were looking were beyond reproach. No horse, no matter how rude or untrained, deserves this.

Such as what unspeakable horrors? So you go to one low end auction and decide to rework the entire horse industry because of your experience there? Maybe you and Mr. Holland should have concentrated on fixing the New Holland auction first and maybe learning a little more about the way the rest of the horse world operates before going off the deep end with lack of forethought and very limited knowledge pushing for a ban based on lies.

What does it say about us as civilized humans to be able to do this to horses, which we say we love & value so much? Are we barbarians? And worse, to fight to keep this system in place?

Nobody is trying to take away your livestock. Nobody is trying to stop you from working cattle from your horse.

All we're saying is that if a horse is suffering, he deserves a HUMANE, fast death.

HELLO! The AVMA and the AAEP support the slaughter of horses with a penetrating captive bolt as a form of humane euthanasia. Now why would vets, who would gain more financially by outlawing slaughter say it is humane if it is not? Vets would benefit financially if ALL horses had to be put down by them.


Think of it this way:
Would a horse owner get away with hauling their horses 2-3 days without a single stop or any food/water?
Do you usually haul your riding horses in a double-decker? and crammed hip to hip, stallions mixed in with mares, foals, and elderly? hauled in all temperatures and even if some of the horses are sick?
If while in transit your horse got badly hurt or broke a leg, would you not care? Vet care is now totally optional?
If a horse needed to be put down, would you or I legally be able to stun the horse, shackle it up by a back leg, and cut the neck open while he is still alive as legal form of "humane euthanasia"?
In my area, I would be up on criminal charges for these acts; why do we tolerate it in the name of commerce and profits???

I already addressed the mis-information about hauling above. The penetrating captive bolt implodes the brain. The horse is dead of all sensation. I have a few links to the aesthetics of slaughter but I'm sure you wouldn't be open minded enough to read them.

Have you read anything written by Dr Temple Grandin or Dr Carolyn Stull? Dr. Stull watched 306 sequential kills. All were achieved on the first hit.

Where are you getting your wealth of information from? Larry King live - like when Mrs. Jackson said horses are transported for up to 36 hours? WRONG! Just because a celebrity or spokesperson says something doesn't make it true. Get the documented facts and quite believing the AR hearsay that gets repeated so many times that people think it is true.

About stallions being hauled with other horses - the percentage of stallions going to slaughter is relatively small, I think I read at most 8%. An alpha mare can be way worse than any stallion as far as aggression goes.

[county]

I have to say the thought that no one cared about unwanted horses until slaughter was thretened is one of the more ignorant things said here yet. I've been around horses since the mid 60's and can assure you people cared then and ever since.

And why would anyone want slaughter banned because some livestock is stolen? Does this make sense to anyone who eats meat? Cattle, hogs, shhep there all stolen does anyone really feel the slaughter of them should be banned because of it? People steal cars hope we don't ban them.

[horse crazy inTX]

... if you want, I'll show you comic books that show a blood covered woman knifing a rabbit. The title of the comic book is "Your Mommy is a Murderer". It's for elementary kids.


There was a similar campaign about fishing and "Your DADDY is a Murderer!" :eek:

[Sithly]

horse crazy inTX -- thank you so much! I was getting tired just looking at the post you responded to.

MayS -- a few questions for you.

First off, the issue of stolen horses is separate from the issue of slaughter. Yes, some horses are stolen and end up slaughtered. We also know that some people steal prescription drugs and sell them on the street to drug abusers. Should we now ban all prescription drugs because a small percentage of criminals abuse them?

Nobody worried about the "unwanted horse" problem until the horse meat industry was threatened and reacted with propaganda.

People have always worried about the unwanted horse problem. Some people are worrying about it even more now, because one of the options for dealing with the problem is being removed.

With all due respect, I have not seen NEARLY the amount of propaganda from the meat industry as I've seen from the AR groups. There are thousands of AR propaganda sites; they're everywhere. By nature, the "propaganda" from the meat industry will be based on logic and economics. There is no emotional reason to be pro-slaughter (that I can think of). Not too many people want to go around killing animals. On the other hand, there is an emotional reason to be anti-slaughter, which is greatly exaggerated by the AR groups when they put their spin on it. They are whipping people up into a frenzy, and people forget to use their heads.

A live horse is far more useful than a stack of shrink wrapped cartons and a pile of guts. Ever try to ride a dead horse? Not fun. Kind of dull on the leg aids and talk about having a dead mouth.

So, basically, you're acknowledging my point. Let's break this down. We know that a live horse consumes resources to stay alive. You said that a dead horse is not good for riding -- I agree. ;) But a dead horse that is slaughtered can be used for food, hide, etc. A dead horse that is euthanized can be used for ... nothing. That seems wasteful to me. The horse is dead either way.

Since you asked me why I thought horse slaughter should be legal, I'd like to turn that around and ask you why, exactly, you think horse slaughter is inhumane. I would like logical reasons, please. "Because it makes me feel icky" does not count as a logical reason.

From reading the rest of your post, I gathered -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that you are not against killing horses. The specific issues you object to are mostly about the transport of horses to the slaughter plants (I'm not counting the comment about the captive bolt -- your assumptions about that process are incorrect). But those conditions could potentially be resolved to your satisfaction, since I'm assuming that you're not against ALL transport of horses.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the BLM mustang program?

Is it such a mindbender to understand that times have changed since we started slaughtering horses and in the more affluent cosmopolitan US population (as opposed to the farm based society of the early 20th century) the cultural view of the horse has changed as well making the idea of slaughter for its flesh particularly odious to many people- much as dog slaughter would be viewed.

This is the most honest reply I've read. Props.

You're right that most people have no clue how a farm is run and never have to think about how an animal is slaughtered. Personally, I think that is a major deficit in our education. But do you honestly think it's right that we should ban horse slaughter because people who know nothing about livestock are grossed out by it? That's an interesting argument because if the trend in this country continues, farms will become increasingly corporate and increasingly isolated from the population.

[horse crazy inTX]

Sithly - That was giving me a headache responding. Thanks for chiming in!

I decided to come back and add some links anyway:

Definition of Humane Euthanasia

http://lacs.vetmed.ufl.edu/HumaneEuthanasia/defn.htm

“Euthanasia” is a Greek term meaning “good death”. In this context, its objectives are met when death is induced which causes no pain or distress to an animal. To avoid pain and distress requires that the techniques which are used cause immediate loss of consciousness followed by cardiac and respiratory arrest that ultimately results in loss of brain function. Persons who perform this task must be technically proficient and have a basic understanding of the anatomical landmarks and equipment used for humane euthanasia of animals.

Aesthetics of Humane Euthanasia

http://lacs.vetmed.ufl.edu/HumaneEuthanasia/ae.htm


Both gunshot and penetrating captive bolt are aesthetically displeasing procedures. Euthanasia by either technique results in involuntary movements, and occasionally vocalization, that may be inaccurately interpreted as painful to an inexperienced person. Therefore, when and where possible, it is recommended that such procedures be performed in areas out of the public view.

H.E. by gunshot or captive bolt

http://lacs.vetmed.ufl.edu/HumaneEuthanasia/gun.htm

Properly applied, euthanasia by either gunshot or penetrating captive bolt, causes less fear and anxiety and induces a more rapid, painless, and humane death than can be achieved by most other methods. However, both methods may involve human risk, and therefore, require skill and experience. Neither method should be attempted by untrained or inexperienced persons.

-----------------------------------

California and the Unwanted Horse

Excerpts below link.

https://www.aaep.org/images/files/Stull%20Paper-%20AAEP%20Summit%202005.pdf

Director Belcuore has not experienced any change in the number of horses presented to the facility following the passing of Proposition 6. She feels that Proposition 6 has extended the “agony” of the horses going to slaughter, since there is no mechanism or financial commitment for enforcement of Proposition 6’s regulations. Horses in California may be collected, loaded and then shipped to an intermediate site out-of-state, and subsequently transported to slaughter facilities.

Conclusion - ban did nothing to IMPROVE condition for horses still ultimately going to slaughter, actually made it worse with longer travel times. Does this sound familiar?

Prior to Proposition 6, approximately 300 horses per year were sold with more than 90% as usable riding horses at the auction facility. Since Proposition 6, less than 30 horses per year are sold at the facility. Currently, horses appear at the auction to be much older and have experienced a loss in care and ability. This may be due to owners losing interest in horse activities, but still considering the horse a companion animal within the family. Then as time marches on, this relationship weakens, often with horses placed in pastures or other facilities with less care and training. Subsequently, a decision is made to sell the horse through the auction. Since the horse is now older and less fit with a guarded potential physical activity level, its market value and the number of new prospective owners are also compromised. Thus, the value of equine candidates at auction is depressed due to the older age, and loss of fitness with extended length of ownership prior to making the decision to market the horse.

Conclusion - owners kept horses for longer periods of time but horses had LESS care and horses were no longer as serviceable when sent to auction.

Since 1991, The California Department of Food and Agriculture had the authority to enforce the California Equine Protection Act which included mandatory inspection of all horses leaving the state for slaughter. This program was designed to assist in detecting and recovering stolen horses. But the program has been dissolved since the passage of Proposition 6, thus modifying the mechanism to recover stolen or missing horses. In the years of 1994 through 1998 prior to Proposition 6, 199 horses were reported missing or stolen and 90 of these horses (45%) were recovered. This compares to years of 1999 through 2004 following the passage of Proposition 6, when only 138 horses were reported stolen and 36 horses (26%) were recovered

Conclusion - more stolen horses were recovered prior to Prop 6, 45% vs 26%. Disproves the idea horse inspections weren't done or didn't work.

[luvmytbs]

What specifically are you talking about? Double deckers were outlawed for SLAUGHTER transportation only. Some stock contractors use them still for hauling to rodeos. Some DDs have a floating floor which makes them convertible to a single trailer. The DD ban didn't take effect until Dec 2006. Transport has been limited to maximum of 28 hours when traveling in the U.S. There are no such regulations once across the border.


Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 49 CFR, Part 395 (Hours of Service): Property carrying CMV drivers may drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty.

If you review the DOT violation data base, you can find many violations in regards to this rule, not only from kill buyers. If you travel beyond that time frame, the hauler is required to have two CDL drivers on board. Again, if you review the DOT violation data base, this is ignored. Leroy Baker has been in violation of that rule on more than one occassion when traveling from Sugarcreek, OH to Texas.

Commercial Transportation of Equines for Slaughter Regulations 9
CFR Sec. 88.4:
(a) Prior to the commercial transportation of equines to a slaughtering facility, the owner/shipper must:
(1) For a period of not less than 6 consecutive hours immediately prior to the equines being loaded on the conveyance, provide each equine appropriate food, potable water and the opportunity to rest.
(4) Load the equines on the conveyance so that each equine has enough floor space to ensure that no equine is crowded in a way likely to cause injury or discomfort.

This is also a rule, that is not observed.

Excert from a investigative report:
Animals’ Angels investigation on March 9, 2007 revealed a similar violation: Roping J Ranch started loading 2 hours after the auction was over and left the auction 4pm. None of the horses received any water or food prior to transport. (Horses were shipped from Shipshewana to Richelieu in Quebec)



Animals Angels report on Charlie Carter, CO shipping to Cavel due to come out soon:

2007-08-26 | USA | Longmont, CO
The Animals’ Angels inspectors observe the loading of approximately 40 horses at the main collecting feedlot for “slaughter” horses in Colorado. The feedlot contains over 100 horses, several in poor condition. The loading is rough with direct hits to the heads of the horses. The inspectors trail the horses the 850 miles to Cavel Slaughterhouse in DeKalb, Illinois. Driving time is 19 hours and by the time the horses are unloaded at the slaughterhouse, the sole-driver is awake over 25 hours violating the Department of Motor Vehicle guidelines for commercial truck drivers. The horses were provided with no water, feed or break during the entire journey. Animals’ Angels will report this violation to the authorities as it poses not only a risk to the welfare of the animals involved but also the general American public on our busy roadways.

I have plenty more violations that are recorded; I could write a book. :(

So while the regulations are clearly on the books, they are ignored on a daily basis.

[Bluey]

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 49 CFR, Part 395 (Hours of Service): Property carrying CMV drivers may drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty.

If you review the DOT violation data base, you can find many violations in regards to this rule, not only from kill buyers. If you travel beyond that time frame, the hauler is required to have two CDL drivers on board. Again, if you review the DOT violation data base, this is ignored. Leroy Baker has been in violation of that rule on more than one occassion when traveling from Sugarcrewek, OH to Texas.

Commercial Transportation of Equines for Slaughter Regulations 9
CFR Sec. 88.4:
(a) Prior to the commercial transportation of equines to a slaughtering facility, the owner/shipper must:
(1) For a period of not less than 6 consecutive hours immediately prior to the equines being loaded on the conveyance, provide each equine appropriate food, potable water and the opportunity to rest.
(4) Load the equines on the conveyance so that each equine has enough floor space to ensure that no equine is crowded in a way likely to cause injury or discomfort.

This is also a rule, that is not observed.

Excert from a investigative report:
Animals’ Angels investigation on March 9, 2007 revealed a similar violation: Roping J Ranch started loading 2 hours after the auction was over and left the auction 4pm. None of the horses received any water or food prior to transport. (Horses were shipped from Shipshewana to Richelieu in Quebec)


Animals Angels report on Charlie Carter, CO shipping to Cavel due to come out soon:
2007-08-26 | USA | Longmont, CO http://www.animals-angels.com/upload/img_e9407_1_SG_USA_DEKALB_SLAUGHTERPLANT_27.8.07.J PG
The Animals’ Angels inspectors observe the loading of approximately 40 horses at the main collecting feedlot for “slaughter” horses in Colorado. The feedlot contains over 100 horses, several in poor condition. The loading is rough with direct hits to the heads of the horses. The inspectors trail the horses the 850 miles to Cavel Slaughterhouse in DeKalb, Illinois. Driving time is 19 hours and by the time the horses are unloaded at the slaughterhouse, the sole-driver is awake over 25 hours violating the Department of Motor Vehicle guidelines for commercial truck drivers. The horses were provided with no water, feed or break during the entire journey. Animals’ Angels will report this violation to the authorities as it poses not only a risk to the welfare of the animals involved but also the general American public on our busy roadways.


I have plenty more violations that are recorded; I could write a book. :(

So while the regulations are clearly on the books, they are ignored on a daily basis.


And that proves what?
That some people break laws, big news.:rolleyes:

Do we now need to ban cars because some drive over the speed limit, or drunk and get in accidents that kill people?
As above, do we need to quit making medications, so some won't abuse them?

Have you read the threads about rescue abuses? Do you want to ban all rescues, because some are abusing their horses and misleading the people that donate to them?

I assume if you are against this misguided slaughter ban you are surely at least supporting rescues.
Well, the traders I know keep ALL their horses in the same, nice conditions they keep their personal and trading horses and haul them in the same trailers to rodeos, shows, sale barns and yes, the slaughterhouse, just as there are plenty of rescues that do conduct their business above reproach.:yes:

[county]

Should we also ban the slaughter of every species thats had transport laws broken? If so we have to ban every species there is. I can't place one above the other either its all or nothing which has been the stance anti slaughter groups have taken. But looks like they don't actually mean it.

[luvmytbs]

Fact is, when you talk to the USDA, they will clearly tell you, that they are ONLY concerned with the welfare of the animals that are consumed in this country.

And yes, regulations should be upheld for ALL animals. But we are not discussing their fate here.

Maybe the cattle producers etc, should address these issues with USDA and DOT as well. But it seems THEY don't think it is an important enough issue?

[county]

Some do and some don't, exactly the same as horses.

[horse crazy inTX]

When you start taking transportation into consideration, you have to take the whole package not just bits and pieces. For instance - how long was the time of transportation after the auction? Was it less than 28 hours?

Most auctions I've been to have water troughs in the holding pens? There are too many facts missing to know if the rules were truly broken or not. It is not the public's responsibility to be law enforcement especially when they aren't UP on all the facts or the law.

The point is IF rules and regulations are being broken - why does it make it better to add even longer, less regulated trips to slaughter across both borders, Mexico and Canada? How is that helping the horses? Wouldn't it have made more sense to work on enforcement of the laws here instead of banning it so they are shipped instead out of the country? Please explain the logic behind that?

[Bluey]

---"Maybe the cattle producers etc, should address these issues with USDA and DOT as well. But it seems THEY don't think it is an important enough issue?"---

Hey, I am "a cattle producer" and resent that, just as you would if you were a teacher and someone said teachers are doing a sorry job, look at all those stories of teachers abusing/molesting students.:rolleyes:

We do a fine job of caring for our cattle and my neighbor, that hauls them for a living, would be offended if you say he is not very careful how he keeps his trucks, loads and hauls the cattle.
In fact, around here, if a cattle truck driver is not good, he doesn't get any calls.
When someone calls one trucker to haul, many times it takes several trucks for that order and that initial trucker will call around to get more trucks and only the good ones stay in business.
Just knowing how to drive any truck won't get you a job hauling cattle.

I understand where County lives there is less accountability, but that will some day also catch up with them, it is not the norm for the industry.
That would be like hearing about a two bit horse trainer ocassionally abusing his horses and some calling for more horse trainer suprevision, when we know that most horse trainers are really taking very good care of their horses and would never think of abusing them.

Remember, every time cattle are transported, just as when people travel, there is stress and that means in cattle loss of weight and weight is what those owning the cattle have to sell, is our paycheck.
You don't really think that we would not be very careful how the trucker hauls and cares for the cattle, when, not only would that be not right for the cattle to overstress them (yes, we care for them) and some may then get sick for the next owner from a bad hauler.
A bad trucker can cost you easily hundreds of dollars off your paycheck on each load in shrink.:eek:
That weeds wannabe cattle truckers out in a hurry.

Remember, when you hear some statements like the one above, that doesn't make sense that anyone would on purpose mishandle their animals, think that maybe the one speaking doesn't has a clue what they are talking about.;)

[county]

Less accountability where County lives? Once again Bluey you have no clue what your talking about and since your going on about being offended I am with your ignorant statement. Why not try and actually learn something before opening your mouth.

[horse crazy inTX]

I have seen first hand a rancher that moves his stock via DDs every fall and spring. He winter pastures in NM and summer pastures in Colorado. His cattle are shipped exactly the same way they would be shipped to slaughter. I saw no violations or potential problems with his transport.

[county]

Most people I know here haul all their livestock the same way, show horses, slaughter horses, cattle, shep, theres no differance. Load them in stock trailers and go to their destination be it 1 mile or 1000.

[Bluey]

Less accountability where County lives? Once again Bluey you have no clue what your talking about and since your going on about being offended I am with your ignorant statement. Why not try and actually learn something before opening your mouth.

County, lasst time I was telling how cattle were transported, YOU told me that many in your area are not that good, some even not acceptable haulers.
That is why I didn't want you to again say that when I was talking about how good they are here, so mentioned that in your area, as YOU told me before, there are some less than stellar, careful drivers, that need to do a better job.
Try not to be offended when someone repeats YOUR own words.:no:

[county]

I never told you any such thing. What I said was theres haulers that haul to the packing plant here that do not follow all regulations never said they were from here. We kill about 1000 head a day here. On average 60 come from this area. The rest are hauled in from as far away as Mont and Wa. many from Neb., Kan, and Mo. The haulers I'm talking about are from all those areas. The notion that cattle are only hauled a short distance is BS some get hauled 100's and even 1000 miles. And no they don't get off loaded for water and feed. If anyone buys beef then they support that system I don't care who you are.

[luvmytbs]

When you start taking transportation into consideration, you have to take the whole package not just bits and pieces. For instance - how long was the time of transportation after the auction? Was it less than 28 hours?

Most auctions I've been to have water troughs in the holding pens? There are too many facts missing to know if the rules were truly broken or not. It is not the public's responsibility to be law enforcement especially when they aren't UP on all the facts or the law.

The point is IF rules and regulations are being broken - why does it make it better to add even longer, less regulated trips to slaughter across both borders, Mexico and Canada? How is that helping the horses? Wouldn't it have made more sense to work on enforcement of the laws here instead of banning it so they are shipped instead out of the country? Please explain the logic behind that?

None the auctions I frequent, provide water or food for horses (nor for sheep etc). This has been addressed by the local APHIS; however, change only lasted for two auctions, and back to the good old ways. :(

Whether the trip from Shipshi to Richelieu takes less than 28 hours, is irrelevant, when the water, rest and feed requirements of 6 six hours prior to shipment are disregarded in the first place.
Shipping from anywhere in the US to either Mexico or Canada is not going to take 28 hours, except if the driver was to obey the 11 hour driving/10 hour rest rule as required.

It is NOT the publics responsibility to enforce the law, but any entity that should, doesn't give a hoot about the regs in the first place.
So looking at the rules on the books, the treatment of horses as seen, constitutes animal abuse, which is illegal.

And this is where you get contradictive: It is not the public's responsibilty to enforce the law (and they are NOT when they are merely reporting laws being broken), but the public should work to have them enforced?

Which is it?

[county]

So your saying we should ban anything that has to do with transport laws being broken? Were not going to have much transported in this country if thats the case.

[luvmytbs]

So your saying we should ban anything that has to do with transport laws being broken? Were not going to have much transported in this country if thats the case.

No county. But we need to address the issues with the entities not enforcing the laws!!!!! Unless these issues are brought out to the open, as has been done with hauling horses to slaughter, everything gets swept under the rug.

[county]

Well first thing I think that needs to be done is convince the tax payer to pony up millions more tax dollars from their pay checks to hire the number needed. Or else convince them that enforcing livestock transpoort laws are more important then the many things law enforcement has to do now.

Good luck with either one.

[Bluey]

No county. But we need to address the issues with the entities not enforcing the laws!!!!! Unless these issues are brought out to the open, as has been done with hauling horses to slaughter, everything gets swept under the rug.

You are coming to that from a poor premise, that hauling horses to slaughter is not done according to regulations.

That would be like saying that, because there are some tickets given to drivers for DWI, now all people on the road should be stopped and checked to be sure they are driving legally.:rolleyes:

Or worse, ban driving, so no one will be DWI, as you want to ban slaughter, so no one sometime may break existing laws and haul horses in an illegal manner.

Back to the throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that started the push for this ban horse slaughter.:eek:

[Thomas_1]

I can't help feeling that its better to concentrate effort and legislation on ensuring that the animal (cow, sheep, horse whatever....) is transported humanely whilst its alive and with conditions that are scrutinised and policed and folks called to account if they break the law. If the animal is injured or unsound it should be euthanased or "home killed" same as we have to do here. We're not allowed to transport lame or unsound cattle or sheep to an abatoir. We have to pay for them to come to the farm and slaughter on site. e.g. we've strict rules about travel time and travel distance and law with regard to provision of food and water and rest time, how they're transported and handled (no electric prods etc etc), no triple decking for cattle or double decking for horses.

Likewise conditions at abbatoirs should be rigourously determined and monitored and premises should be closed and owners/staff prosecuted where there are issues of cruelty and abuse occurring.

[county]

All those things are the same here some just feel enforcement is not as good as others.

[Thomas_1]

No your transportation and handling legislation isn't anywhere near the same e.g. look at your transportation distances and stacking systems and the requirements for rest and provision of water and feed.

Look at the absence of law for the likes of moving cattle at their own pace and use of dogs to move and use of electric prods

Here no animal is allowed to go on a truck for transportation unless its sound and can bear its weight evenly on all 4 feet. If one arrives at an abbatoir lame or unsound, then its immediately reported and the owner is sanctioned.

[Bluey]

I can't help feeling that its better to concentrate effort and legislation on ensuring that the animal (cow, sheep, horse whatever....) is transported humanely whilst its alive and with conditions that are scrutinised and policed and folks called to account if they break the law. If the animal is injured or unsound it should be euthanased or "home killed" same as we have to do here. We're not allowed to transport lame or unsound cattle or sheep to an abatoir. We have to pay for them to come to the farm and slaughter on site. e.g. we've strict rules about travel time and travel distance and law with regard to provision of food and water and rest time, how they're transported and handled (no electric prods etc etc), no triple decking for cattle or double decking for horses.

Likewise conditions at abbatoirs should be rigourously determined and monitored and premises should be closed and owners/staff prosecuted where there are issues of cruelty and abuse occurring.

It is the same here, believe it or not.

The animal rights people just have been going on a witch hunt for several years now, making up much up also, to find the few people that are breaking those regulations and laws and painting the whole industry with them as the norm, an industry that by it's nature can't defend itself (who can defend slaughter to people that faint if they stick their finger and bleed a little?).

Much of this push for the ban horse slaughter bill is definitely based on donation drives to all sorts of organizations and rescues, a great PR move.
Sadly, true interest in the well being or fate of horses is suspect, mostly good window dressing.:(

When someone can post that it is ok for so many to suffer now, in the hope that others won't later, how is that any different than saying a horse slaughtered properly is not any different than one euthanized by a vet, plus we get to use the body, rather than discard it.

The controversy boils down to a different of opinions, not a higher moral ground in any one position.;yes:

[Sithly]

I can't help feeling that its better to concentrate effort and legislation on ensuring that the animal (cow, sheep, horse whatever....) is transported humanely whilst its alive and with conditions that are scrutinised and policed and folks called to account if they break the law. If the animal is injured or unsound it should be euthanased or "home killed" same as we have to do here. We're not allowed to transport lame or unsound cattle or sheep to an abatoir. We have to pay for them to come to the farm and slaughter on site. e.g. we've strict rules about travel time and travel distance and law with regard to provision of food and water and rest time, how they're transported and handled (no electric prods etc etc), no triple decking for cattle or double decking for horses.

Likewise conditions at abbatoirs should be rigourously determined and monitored and premises should be closed and owners/staff prosecuted where there are issues of cruelty and abuse occurring.

Completely agree. Being pro-slaughter does not make you pro-cruelty.

[Bluey]

Laws and regulations are fine, but we should expect all to do what is right, not cut corners or be stupid about the way they do things, in all areas of our lives, with our jobs, families, driving, any we do, not just horses.

The reality is that there seems that some people will be stupid anyway, or cut corners or be right down uncaring if not evil.

We need to keep trying to raise better people.:yes:

[Blueshadow]

No your transportation and handling legislation isn't anywhere near the same e.g. look at your transportation distances and stacking systems and the requirements for rest and provision of water and feed.

Look at the absence of law for the likes of moving cattle at their own pace and use of dogs to move and use of electric prods

Here no animal is allowed to go on a truck for transportation unless its sound and can bear its weight evenly on all 4 feet. If one arrives at an abbatoir lame or unsound, then its immediately reported and the owner is sanctioned.

I couldn't agree more with this. Somehow the US is way behind the UK on both the standards in place for humane shipping, and the enforcement of existing standards. Maybe some of this is a function of the sheer size of this country - which would suggest an even greater need for high standards and resources for enforcement. At least slaughter bound horses in the UK rarely have long journeys to withstand for example. Although, I recently spoke to my father about this issue (he's in England, where I grew up) and he did mention that there are some big concerns about livestock being shipped to other EU countries for slaughter - long journeys, variable standards.

[Bluey]

I couldn't agree more with this. Somehow the US is way behind the UK on both the standards in place for humane shipping, and the enforcement of existing standards. Maybe some of this is a function of the sheer size of this country - which would suggest an even greater need for high standards and resources for enforcement. At least slaughter bound horses in the UK rarely have long journeys to withstand for example. Although, I recently spoke to my father about this issue (he's in England, where I grew up) and he did mention that there are some big concerns about livestock being shipped to other EU countries for slaughter - long journeys, variable standards.

When I was living in Europe, we received many shipments of horses from Ireland a year.
They were on a long journey and fared fine, no one worried about the long transport being inhumane.

Are any new laws really necessary and how would they impact the regular shipping of horses around countries in Europe?

There are many more horses by possibly hundreds of thousands hauled around the USA for other purposes than those going to slaughter, I would guess, some of them, when appropiate, in double deckers also, like some dude ranch, rodeo and BLM stock.

Why are current practices and regulations not good enough?

Don't give me the animal rights propaganda of abuses, mostly a few blown out of context examples.
Abuses are breaking the already existing laws and regulations, so no need for more laws and regulations.

That would be like demanding new regulations that police man sobriety test stations by every place in the US that sells liquor, so no one may drive intoxicated.

You can rule and legislate only so much, before it becomes burdensome beyond reason.
May as well bubble wrap society as a whole and forbid all and any we do, in the name of protecting people, animals and everything else.