Horse Slaughter and $35 for Four 'Stud colts' [Archive]

annikak

Oct. 4, 2007, 08:18 PM

therein lies my confusion/frustration with the issue. It would seem that people would breed with responsible intentions, however, it it evident that does not happen. So, I don't enter any of the debates, as I just don't see any other solution but humane slaughter and then, education.

It is the most horrible thing in the world for anything to starve or die of thirst. I have nightmares about things like this. I am a bleeding heart and would have every darn one of them but the fact remains that horses are indeed expensive to care for- IF you do it somewhat in the correct manner. This year and the drought and hay prices- I fear we will see a great deal of this in the future- and the near future at that.

Cruelty comes in so many forms....

Just today at the state hospital a vet asked me if I would "adopt" another colt. The owner has just disappeared. I am sure its hard for any of us COTH'ers to imagine, but it happens. It Sucks.

county

Oct. 4, 2007, 08:23 PM

Lori T

Oct. 4, 2007, 08:45 PM

This is one of the reasons why we are starting a rescue facility:
www.heartlandhorserescue.org

Blueshadow

Oct. 4, 2007, 11:45 PM

If someone starves a horse its against the law and they should be jailed and fined. Slaughter has nothing to do with it either way. Neither does what a product sells for, if the demand isn't there then it isn't there same as if its being over produced. The number of horses bred in the U.S. with a profit in mind is very very small today.

Another great observation, County. There is no relationship. They are two separate issues. And the low prices you observe locally are a function of the price of hay which is due to the drought. Just as many US horses are being shipped to slaughter today - in Mexico and Canada - as were in the US last year pretty much. There is still a very active slaughter market. You cannot blame low prices on the absence of a US plant.

county

Oct. 4, 2007, 11:52 PM

I don't think the low prices here are from drought theres still lots of hay around although the quality this year isn't as good due to alot of meadow hay being put up. I think by far the biggest reason for decline in prices here and accross the country really is over production. Horse numbers are up over 33% since 15 years ago but ownership numbers have leveled off. Now how to change that is the million dollar question. I'm totally against restricting who can breed or what can be bred. And today very few people breed for profit so low prices really don't bother most people.

Pat

Oct. 4, 2007, 11:59 PM

Not being able to get a decent price at a back water auction doesn't automatically mean that horses are automatically being abused/neglected. And just because you have a drought doesn't mean horses automatically starve. We've had our fair share of drought up here in the last ten years. That's just bad horsemanship and if you can't afford to feed a horse when the paddock goes to crap then you should probably not have a horse to start with. But since that can't be policed, the rest of us just have to pick up the peices when it happens. Sucks.

No offense, Gully, I went to VI and while I didn't stay in Bristol after graduation, I liked the area and became pals with several cool locals. And I've also been to the Kingsport auction. I saw a perfectly lovely, sound, healthy, attactive matched pair of pinto driving horses go no sale down there 15 years ago. They couldnt get the $1500 they were looking for and took 'em home. $1500 for the pair for broke horses without a significant issue other than the owners needed the money. I've seen single horses go for that much at New Holland, close to the same time period. Auctions are auctions and you live in a somewhat depressed area.

I don't know how long you've lived in the Tri-Cities, but there's more going on there than a drought. The big money corporations like Sperry-Rand (Unisys) that did have bases in that area have long since pulled up stakes. About the only thing left is Eastman-Kodak, unless they've left too.

I'm starting to understand the concept that ending slaughter isn't a cure. However, I do take offense when an out of the country entity wants to regulate our industry for the benefit of a product only they want. If they are worried about the "quality" of the meat they import then they should be farming them on thier own shores in the same manner as cattle, swine, chickens and so forth are done.

Pat

Oct. 5, 2007, 12:08 AM

Restricting breeding is pretty much the answer, County. But how the heck could you put a lid on it? And can't you see all the lawyers all over that one?

The AQHA tried to put a limit on how many biological foals a mare can have registered in one year, putting a cap on embryo transfers. The breeders who do it went NUTS!! The practice was also threatend in the Standardbred world, but I don't know what happened in the end. I can ask at work in the AM. Some owners were considering and probably doing transfers from mares that were still in training. The time off is minimal, and then the critter goes back to the track. URGH. I was also told (back when I was in college) that some Arab breeders were getting very young mares in foal, doing transfers, and then carring on with training and halter showing, thereby shortening the generation gap.

With this kind of mentality going on with the people with the money and presumably high quality horses, what's stopping Joe Schmo with a stud colt and a mare from breeding his two orangutangs?

Blueshadow

Oct. 5, 2007, 12:27 AM

Yeah, actually, that's right as a general assertion. Basically, you gotta lower the supply to raise the average price of a horse (although if you talk to people in the worst affected states by the current drought they will cite hay prices as the reason for low prices - low demand, high supply to horse markets, lots of reduction in the size of breeding programs and hence lots of culls).

I still believe that only if you take slaughter out of the equation will you get a significant response from breeders and breed associations. County's right - while there are a few breeders out there doing so profitably, most don't, and many cull a lot of horses - especially when there are tight conditions in feed supply, or adverse changes in tax laws.

And horse abuse and neglect will be there under any market conditions. The absolute numbers might change, but I doubt the percentages will.

J Swan

Oct. 5, 2007, 06:01 AM

I'm not going to get into the whole slaughter thing again.

I'll point out that in general, things are pretty tough around the US this year for several reasons. Drought, fuel prices, feed prices, ethanol production, just to name a few.

Prices of many animals have dropped. Horses would most likely be the worst affected - as a species they are pretty "useless" in comparison to an animal like a goat or cow.

Yes, I have seen prices on auction horses plummet locally. Nice riding horses, too.

But not just horses. Farmers have wells running dry, and can't afford the feed and hay to keep their animals through the winter. It's not simply a matter of cutting back on movies or lattes to afford feed. For example, in this area many hayfields were converted to corn to meet the demand for ethanol. Then - the crops failed. So now - less hay and no corn. Hay prices are extremely high and are rising.

Simple economics.

sidepasser

Oct. 5, 2007, 06:44 AM

It is not just a "slaughter" issue..

It is an issue of no jobs, layoffs, high feed prices, high hay costs, no available local hay, drought, the housing market which is tanking in many areas leading to job losses in the financial sector, jobs sent overseas which means less high paying jobs in the US..(I am in a high tech industry..our industry has suffered tremendous loss of jobs in the past five years), and whatever is going on in the "local" economy.

Also - there is an aging market for horses out there it appears. Look at it this way..

I have 3 grown children (well the boy is almost grown)..none are "into" horses, none ride. They say they are too expensive and require too much land to keep at home, and neither girl who is grown and gone wants to commit to a that much expense when they have small children at home..so the wee grandchildren aren't growing up with ponies either..so probably out of the six grandchildren I have..maybe one might ride. (I am thinking of getting the kids a pony since I do have the land for it)..

but it does appear that economics and land availability and job loss are affecting the YOUNGER generation of future horse owners and many are opting not to get involved.

If the demand for horses is less overall (not just your top quality show horses, but for trail horses and leadline ponies, etc.)..we are seeing a glut of horses still being bred but no one to buy them.

Hurts everyone - thankfully I quit breeding horses in 1991 and the only foals I've had here came with mares I bought which were 2 in the past 15 years.

Over population hurts all levels of the horse market, but particularly the "average" horse market as there are just so many horses that are broke to ride but not particularly well bred or outstanding in the show ring, or particularly useful on the trail. There are less people looking for horses and in the past, I don't believe there were as many free horses either. Those horses generally went to the "sale barn" and either someone bought them or they went to slaughter..but in any event, if you want a "leadline" pony or horse..you can generally get one for free..lots of "can't compete, but suitable for light riding or occasional riding/leadline horses".

I think the market will stabilize as feed prices continue to rise along with gas prices and lack of hay..but it will take awhile as I am sure we are going to see ads soon that say "must sell to make room for next years foals"..

titan

Oct. 5, 2007, 11:17 AM

Well annika - did you say yes?????

Bluey

Oct. 5, 2007, 11:47 AM

This is one of the reasons why we are starting a rescue facility:
www.heartlandhorserescue.org

Who do you think will have the resources to help you run and support your rescue?

I would think that, if resources are short for people to keep horses, they are also short to help others keep horses, even rescues.

Good luck, maybe you can make it fly.:yes:

philosoraptor

Oct. 5, 2007, 12:10 PM

Okay, guys--until recently I would have said I was opposed to horse slaughter. Now I'm not so sure. Recently: 1) the last slaughterhouse in the US shut down; 2) our immediate area got hit with the worst drought in its recorded history; 3) locally, pastures which used to support horses nearly year-round have entirely died, and hay prices have skyrocketed as most of it must be imported. So this week our local paper ran an article about the increase of horse neglect cases, and the fact that at the local horse auction this week, the average sale price was around $40, and in one case four stud colts sold for a combined total of $35.

Which is worse--slaughter or slow starvation? What's the solution here?

I am also in the drought region, one of the worst in decades. Hay prices are 25-50% higher now at most sources, IF you can find it. Farmers are running out already -- it's only October -- and some won't sell to you if they don't know you. I've been feeding hay since summer because it's just not raining here... period. :sigh:

The answer is to plan for the bad times not just the good. Some years hay will cost more than other years. A rise is prices is not an excuse for criminal neglect.

When grain prices went up 15-30% last winter in my area we didn't see the panic and pro-slaughter posts. We also didn't see a spike in starvation. Hmmm.

The market is weak for many types of horses and so many breeders just don't get it. The market is also shifting to a different kind of horse, as baby boomers retire, but the sellers are slow to realize this. Do you think bringing slaughter back to the US will really fix everything?

I have not seen the $40 horses here, so I've got think a price drop that big is a fluke. Prices are still strong, even at New Holland, the east coast's big low-end horse auction. Don't forget there are still horses being bought up in big groups for export to slaughter. The only difference is they're shipped farther. I think you're drawing an incorrect conclusion.

You're also assuming people will intentionally starve their horses if hay goes up in price. You forget that people can still sell, lease, give away, donate to a college, or euthanize their horses. Or how about the owners just try to suck it up and give up a few other luxuries to make up for the difference in hay prices? I am not rich. I just drive an older truck and pack my lunch instead of doing fast-food.

I think you're really making big jumps in your conclusions and perhaps not looking at the whole picture.

Angela Freda

Oct. 5, 2007, 12:24 PM

Lori T

Oct. 5, 2007, 12:41 PM

Who do you think will have the resources to help you run and support your rescue?

I would think that, if resources are short for people to keep horses, they are also short to help others keep horses, even rescues.

Good luck, maybe you can make it fly.:yes:

Resources are not short for everyone. You do not know me, do not know my bank account or the people I know. Right now, I cannot make public who is behind our efforts, but their pockets are deep and their generosity endless.
We hope it will fly :)

Bluey

Oct. 5, 2007, 12:57 PM

Resources are not short for everyone. You do not know me, do not know my bank account or the people I know. Right now, I cannot make public who is behind our efforts, but their pockets are deep and their generosity endless.
We hope it will fly :)

How come I get the impression that a certain group may be behind that, as a good PR move?;)
Just a wild guess and best wishes.
Glad to find respite for any horse in need, wherever it comes from.

I personally am already maxed out on supporting rescues and be sure they are those that, as a rescue, don't have a stand on political issues, are for the truly needy horses only, no matter where they come from.

philosoraptor

Oct. 5, 2007, 01:06 PM

I personally am already maxed out on supporting rescues and be sure they are those that, as a rescue, don't have a stand on political issues.

Sorry to detour the thread...

Bluey: how can you find rescues with zero political stance on any issues? EVERY rescue has a stance whether they admit to it or not. Can you give me some examples of horse rescues which have no stance on any issues?

Supporting or opposing welfare laws is politics. How you work with AC, especially if you don't agree with how they handle it, is local politics. Whether a cruelty case goes to trial depends on politics.

Rescues do animal welfare work and working within the framework of the law is an integral part of it. How can you be working within the law & with welfare standards and not have a single opinion, stance, or thought? Even if the organization agrees with the status quo of every welfare law & regulation, that is a stance.

Bluey

Oct. 5, 2007, 01:21 PM

Sorry to detour the thread...

Bluey: how can you find rescues with zero political stance on any issues? EVERY rescue has a stance whether they admit to it or not. Can you give me some examples of horse rescues which have no stance on any issues?

Supporting or opposing welfare laws is politics. How you work with AC, especially if you don't agree with how they handle it, is local politics. Whether a cruelty case goes to trial depends on politics.

Rescues do animal welfare work and working within the framework of the law is an integral part of it. How can you be working within the law & with welfare standards and not have a single opinion, stance, or thought? Even if the organization agrees with the status quo of every welfare law & regulation, that is a stance.

I know, you say your rescue supports the ban horse slaughter bill.
That is what I am talking about.
There are other rescues that won't give in to taking sides, or bow to pressure to do so, although the people running them as individuals will have an opinion, of course.

For me, the true rescue work is that of taking in truly needy horses others can't care for.

That a rescue limits itself to taking the truly needy horses in, not compete in the market, buying healthy, fine horses that anyone else may buy, some just because a horse trader said "he is going to slaughter", which may or not be so, that is the kind of rescue I think I need to be supporting.

Those, like yours, that will take sides in issues I don't believe in, someone else can support.
There is some controversy about what is rescue work today, as I am sure you are well aware.
It is my right to put my money where it will be used the way I believe does best, just as you have a right to do also.

There are laws against abuse and when someone goes to court presenting a case, that I don't call being "political".:confused:

DopyDgz

Oct. 5, 2007, 01:22 PM

paohatch

Oct. 5, 2007, 01:34 PM

I have heard that in some parts of the country, people wake up and look in their pasture, only to find a few extra horses there. Dropped off in the middle of the night by folks who can't feed and don't have other options available. Either we encourage some sort of breed registration fund which generates fees which go towards subsidizing euthanasia and disposal or we will have starvation and neglect. we can't just make a useless but true statement that
"neglect is a crime and it should be punished" or " no one should own a horse without the resources to pay for its medical, feed and death expenses. Those kinds of statements are not helpful. :no:

Lori T

Oct. 5, 2007, 01:48 PM

How come I get the impression that a certain group may be behind that, as a good PR move?;)
Just a wild guess and best wishes.
Glad to find respite for any horse in need, wherever it comes from.

I personally am already maxed out on supporting rescues and be sure they are those that, as a rescue, don't have a stand on political issues, are for the truly needy horses only, no matter where they come from.

Nope, no motive intended...otherwise I would be releasing the names making the donations. If they eventually wish to be known, then so be it. We have just one goal and that is to help horses in what we foresee as an increasing problem in our area. 20 horses were seized and another horse died from starvation in the past month in Central Florida, plus the 2 we just took..how many are out there that don't get help?
But I will say that one thing I have learned is that it does help to have a darling of the media involved...and we have two...Michelle Akers, who is a favorite of the local media (google her name if you don't know her) and Calvin Borel (hopefully you know who he is!).
When Michelle became one of our fosters and now a part of our efforts, the media kept the story of Zoe in the news for 6 days straight! But neither are the deep pockets I referred to, they just want to help with our cause.
As for political issues, we just want the laws changed. In Lady's case, 2 other horses were left behind and I just found out the woman bought another horse. And Zoe's owner still has yet to be charged with trying to bury the other horse alive and he too has horses still in his care. The laws need to be changed.

county

Oct. 5, 2007, 02:00 PM

philosoraptor

Oct. 5, 2007, 02:01 PM

I have heard that in some parts of the country, people wake up and look in their pasture, only to find a few extra horses there. Dropped off in the middle of the night by folks who can't feed and don't have other options available.

I am inclined to think that by far these stories are exaggerated. Just like that story about the vast herds of dumped horses in Kentucky that The Horse ran without checking facts. (Sidenote: The Horse is the AAEP's mouthpiece, and the AAEP is one of the groups fighting hardest to keep slaughter legal in the US, so read what The Horse writes with that in mind) It turned out later it was camp/ranch herds that were turned out for the winter and collected up each spring.

There are ALWAYS other options available. Sell him or give him away. With freecycle you can post an un-rideable horse and have him claimed the next day (whether this is right or wrong is another story). Meat brokers happily would give people money for their horses. If it's a horse you can't sell or lease, you can have him put down. The rescue I volunteer for has a euthanasia program set up just for those kinds of horses, and the rescue pays 100% of the costs of putting down & disposing of the suffering horse.... yet not a single person has taken this offer.

The kind of people who'd even consider dump horses off in the middle of the night on someone else's property are the same ones who push their old dog out of a car door on a back-country road. These kinds of people don't care about the responsible options; they want what's easiest for them. Having a dog shelter nearby doesn't stop people from turning their dogs & cats loose all the time around here.

Either we encourage some sort of breed registration fund which generates fees which go towards subsidizing euthanasia and disposal or we will have starvation and neglect.

I am just not getting this line of thinking. Why can't the owners be responsible? You can pay to euthanize & dispose of a horse for less than a month's winter hay/feed. If all else fails, you can ask a skilled marksman to shoot the horse and the deceased can be buried or composted for free. If you don't have backhoe, it costs only a gallon or two of diesel to run one, and a sympathetic neighbor will dig the hole for the cost of an apple pie or case of beer.

That's like saying if we don't tax everyone, some parents will just not feed their children and it'll be our fault if their kids die of starvation. Why aren't we punishing anyone?

county

Oct. 5, 2007, 02:06 PM

So what happens if you don't have a neighbor with a backhoe who doesn't like pie or beer? Beleive it or not theres people in this country that don't have one.

Sithly

Oct. 5, 2007, 02:54 PM

Restricting breeding is pretty much the answer, County. But how the heck could you put a lid on it?

Everyone thinks its their god given right to breed animals and to have kids. But if you look around, it's quite obvious that we're short on neither. :lol:

If all else fails, you can ask a skilled marksman to shoot the horse and the deceased can be buried or composted for free. If you don't have backhoe, it costs only a gallon or two of diesel to run one, and a sympathetic neighbor will dig the hole for the cost of an apple pie or case of beer.

Wow. How old are you?

Bluey

Oct. 5, 2007, 03:07 PM

RU2U

Oct. 5, 2007, 03:21 PM

My thoughts are we need to less'n the supply as the demand is not there. Hay has always gone up or down - I remember in the 80's it was such a bad year the states offered the farmers to mow medium strips down the center of the high ways so animals would not starve. Not many farmers took the states up on it, but the offer was made. Now whats different - large amount of horses, kids today are not interested. I think we are going to see a decline in the kids who participate in horse activities, cities are taking over our farmlands, subdivisions are moving in, farmlands are getting eatin up. Now problem is we have a glut of horses, so why shouldn't the buzzards (slaughter houses) come in a dispose of OUR problem. Then you have the animal activist saying OHHH I don't want that going on in my neighborhood so we'll put it where we can't see it in Mexico and Canada and they are more than willing to make a quick buck off us.

Answer: Stop the impulse breeding, get your kids out from in front of the TV and get them involved in the real world and control the suburban sprall, be active in your community (our zoning is 10 acres/350 ft frontage - unheard of anywhere). Then maybe the horse has a chance to stay part of the family. It amazes me the number of children we know that don't have ANY animals. Not even a dog or cat why would they even consider having a horse. Its scary the future we're headed for, but then again our kids will all be fat in the house and existing in their computer comminities! The horse doesn't stand a chance!

equineelders

Oct. 5, 2007, 03:31 PM

I am just not getting this line of thinking. Why can't the owners be responsible?

Because, unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Human beings have faults. Some people don't take responsibility for the effects of allowing their dogs to run at large. Some people don't take responsibility for a moment of poor judgement that results in new human life. Some people don't take responsibility for things as dire as driving while impaired. And some people don't take responsibility for the welfare of their horses. You cannot make human beings become responsible for a certain action merely by saying that's the way it should be. Unfortunate, frustrating, maddening, but true.

Then the question becomes how to handle the results of someone else's irresponsibility, whether it is neglect, abandonment or irresponsible breeding. Unfortunately (again) there is seldom one clear-cut or easy answer.

SleepyFox

Oct. 5, 2007, 05:11 PM

[QUOTE=MayS;2722760]Why can't the owners be responsible? You can pay to euthanize & dispose of a horse for less than a month's winter hay/feed. If all else fails, you can ask a skilled marksman to shoot the horse and the deceased can be buried or composted for free. If you don't have backhoe, it costs only a gallon or two of diesel to run one, and a sympathetic neighbor will dig the hole for the cost of an apple pie or case of beer.QUOTE]

Are you kidding?? I'm sorry to be rude, but this just is not an argument grounded in reality. It may be like this where you are, but I assure you, it is not the norm.

We can't force people to be responsible, either. I mean, we live in a society where we can't get people to take basic care of their own children and you think we can make them take care of their horses in a manner that suits you? (Becasue, as someone else said, to many people, taking a horse to the auction is being responsible.)

Well, we had a new "litter" of goldfish (irresponsible breeders that we are) and I'd like a new pond for them - a kiddie pool, if you will - so I'm off to the neighbors to see if I throw in an apple pie and a case of beer, if he'll dig me one. :lol:

vineyridge

Oct. 5, 2007, 06:52 PM

People sell livestock at auctions because theirv greedy? Bullshit, people sell livestock at auctions because they want the money to pay bills and buy things same as people that have any job or sell things. Heres a news flash, its called making a living around here we call it being responsable for ones self.

Well, I think people sell horses at auction because they really don't know how else to move them when the horses are a) not working out for them, b) too expensive to keep, or c) not going to be used in the future. I know a guy here who has seven or eight horses and is going out of the riding game. His grandchildren have moved and aren't interested, his best friend has given up on pleasure riding, and he just isn't interested any more. So now he has seven horses to "get rid of". People around here aren't big into horses, so the auction option is a reasonable one for him.

Forgot to say that except for one nice, papered TWH, the horses are all just grade, gaited nice pleasure horses that came to him either cheap or free.

Pat

Oct. 5, 2007, 07:27 PM

Yeah, uh, you can't just dig a hole and dump a horse in it in MANY MANY places. I know people have done it in my area, but very much on the QT, and it's majorly illegal to do so.

BUT, I do agree that if you can't afford to put down a horse and have the renderer come get it, you shouldn't have a horse. How the heck did ya manage to feed it if you don't have the bucks to put it down? Sheesh. I don't always have two nickles to rub together, but I can manage to deal with a horse properly when the time comes. Matter of fact, I had to put my SO's horse down two years ago, when our financial situation was quite dire. But I got it done, properly and expediantly.

I dunno. I do still have a little problem with the idea that horses will be left to starve... 6 of my 7 were give aways, and there were 2 others here that were also freebies. We only paid "real money" for three horses, Lucky ($3000ish at FInger Lakes) Mackenzie ($1500) and Snickers ($1000). And I sold Snickers for $5000. (and I know where he is still) Not too terribly much wrong with any of them either. Nothing that rest and/or proper work and training didn't fix in short order. THier previous owners managed to find me....

When it comes to horse values and prices (which aren't the same) it's all relative. We sold several "nice" horses at the SUNY Standardbred sale last month, none for over $20k, most for under $10k. I was a little shocked, actually. All come from great families, one of them were "dogs" or were crooked, and I'll eat my hat if they don't all go out and make thier new owners some decent cash. We'll see what the "fancy" ones will bring in November. But a TB colt just went at a recent auction for $3.7mill. Will he win it back? Will be retire peacefully? We he wind up in a can? Can't really say, can we?

county

Oct. 5, 2007, 07:40 PM

One of the things I hear on this forum alot is " if people can't afford to have a horse killed and buried they shouldn't have one ". Literally makes no sense to me. I can easily afford it fact is I can easily afford to do so to all 80 head of animals I have. But why in the world would I so? If someone chooses to do that with their animals thatsd certainly their business. If someone chooses to sell them legally thats certainly no one elses and I know this will shock some of you but.

Theres people who sell livestock including horses to make a living. Now why the hell would thet just kill them and bury them? Anyone burn their paychecks up lately?

Pat

Oct. 6, 2007, 04:27 PM

County, I think you are missing the point. I'm not saying you should euthanize a horse instead of selling it if you feel the need (for whatever reason) for it to move along. I'm saying rather plainly that if you can't afford to properly euthanise and dispose of a horse if it needs to be destroyed, then you can't afford to own a horse. It's irresponsible and goes along the lines of "I can finally afford a horse now" (because I can buy these here colts for $35)

County, that's like saying you don't mind seeing sick and injured horses at the sales. Why is that ok?

Christ, if you can legally shoot and bury the poor creature, I'd much rather see that happen than what I've seen at New Holland and Kingsport.

I don't begrudge a person making a living. I DO begrudge a person for letting an animal suffer instead of doing the right thing by an ill or severly injured animal.

I had my horse chemically euthanized not simply because I couldn't bear the thought of him in the slaughter house. He was acutely ill from EPM, and down in his stall. Treatment was not much of an option in his condition and he would have needed to be in a sling to start. Not physically possible in the barn I was in and that isn't always much better for them than being stuck down.

By LAW that horse could NOT have been sold to slaughter, and who in thier right mind would have purchased a horse in that condition? Even if I have gotten him up and dragged him to New Holland, what do you think would have happened? And all to get a lousy $200 for him instead of paying $800 to put him to sleep and removed? That makes *very* little sense to me and does smack some of greed.

I can't bury an equine in NJ, it's against the law. I had the rendering plant come and get him. He's glue now, and while it hurts me a little, there wasn't much I could do about that.

Furthermore, a second horse of mine also came down with EPM less than a month after Lucky was destroyed. He was in a less frightening state, but still lame and obviously impaired. So I ask the same questions again about him. So I did have only 2 choices, euthanasia or treatment. I choose treatment and got my horse back too. It cost me money (horrors) and took me a long time to pay it back too.

I am not an amateur and I do buy and sell horses. It's not my main source of income, not by a long shot. But I feel I have a moral and ethical obligation to DO RIGHT by each and every one of them while they are under my roof. That includes proper medical care when needed and proper disposal when it comes to it.

county

Oct. 6, 2007, 04:32 PM

I totally agree but not everyones idea of " proper " or " the right way " is the same. To me all animals are equal I'd never sell sick ones to slaughter injured depends on the injury. If its wrong to transport an injured horse then its also wrong for a cow, pig, or sheep. I'll never get on the bandwagon to prevent one and not others.

philosoraptor

Oct. 6, 2007, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by MayS http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=2722760#post2722760)
If all else fails, you can ask a skilled marksman to shoot the horse and the deceased can be buried or composted for free. If you don't have backhoe, it costs only a gallon or two of diesel to run one, and a sympathetic neighbor will dig the hole for the cost of an apple pie or case of beer.

Wow. How old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything? :confused:

I have a small backhoe of my own. I know how much diesel it uses in an hour. If a neighbor asked me to dig a hole for a pet or horse, why wouldn't I do it? (just don't ask me to shoot anything!) My neighbors still bury their pets/horses. I don't see what the big deal is?

Where it isn't legal to bury below ground, it may be legal to compost (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050123/NEWS/501230301/1013). Do you really think the dairy farmers pay $500 every time one of their old cows goes down? No. This doesn't have to bankrupt someone.

Still not an option you like? Here it costs only $100 to drop off the animal yourself at the rendering plant, and some locations will shoot the animal for you. (Not pretty, I know, but we've got to cover all the bases) If you live in my area, you can have the horse put down and the carcass hauled to the rendering plant and the total fee incl disposal is $175. Nothing about horses is cheap. $175 won't buy me a pickup truck load of hay.

It's almost as if every time we point out solutions, someone comes along and says "oh no that's too hard" or "people will never be responsible." Maybe we can't force them some people to be responsible, but we can't condone the abusive US slaughter system because it helps them -- two wrongs do not make a right.

Bluey

Oct. 6, 2007, 06:50 PM

---"It's almost as if every time we point out solutions, someone comes along and says "oh no that's too hard" or "people will never be responsible." Maybe we can't force them some people to be responsible, but we can't condone the abusive US slaughter system because it helps them -- two wrongs do not make a right."---

Except that you are wrong there, saying that the US slaughter system is abusive.:rolleyes:
You are believing too much of that propaganda you hear at the HSUS conventions you participate in.;)

Remember, it is not the system that is abusive, just because you hear of a very rare case of abuse, any more than horse trainers are abusive, because that one down the road you know is abusive, or all drivers are killers, because a drunk driver killed someone.

You want people to do with THEIR horses what YOU want.

People will fight for the right to do what they see is their right.
Selling their horse where they want to sell it is their right, even if it is to slaughter.

Coyoteco

Oct. 6, 2007, 07:58 PM

Owner's shouldn't own horses if they cannot afford to feed them.
If their situation changes and they can't afford to care for them properly, they have a responsibility to find the horse a responsible home. If they can't they should euthanize it. It is GREED that leads to people dumping them at auction.

Yeah, simple isn't it?

You have the people who think taht it takes too much money to feed it and too much money to kill it, So they want to preserved their option to sell it to slaughter and GET money instead of spending it.

And then you have the people who are afraid that not slaughtering horses will cause their horses to be worth less, or will cause their horses to cost more (feed costs and vet/farrier costs resulting from more demad).

lep

Oct. 6, 2007, 08:06 PM

This blog has euthanasia as today's topic:

http://fuglyhorseoftheday.blogspot.com/

It's definitely worth a read.

Bluey

Oct. 6, 2007, 08:26 PM

This blog has euthanasia as today's topic:

http://fuglyhorseoftheday.blogspot.com/

It's definitely worth a read.

Nope, it is a rehash of someone that has read too many animal rights propaganda.
She uses the same old videos of slaughter, unnamed where and of questionable veracity.
I know for a fact that the lines and the end are not as that video shows, that it had to be someone waiting long for a bad moment to happen, or worse, set up so it would show a bad moment.

Sure, there is abuse in the slaughter process also, as there is in any humans do, to humans and animals.
In general, the process of slaughter is not as the animal rights sites say it is.
On the contrary, it is well regulated and supervised and most of it, as most in life, is done properly.

As long as people use those animal rights propaganda videos and stories to make a point, sorry, they are just not believable.

Someone told me that slaughter is a gruesome process and so people are willing to believe that all sorts of abuse surely occurs there.
Well, it doesn't, even if it really is gruesome to see animals being dismembered.
As I said before, gruesome is much of medicine also and not for the faint hearted, but we understand it's place, don't have a choice.

We either agree that we will use animals or we don't, we need to make our collective minds and not let animal rights people eventually keep us from having animals to use, starting with horse slaughter, rodeos, racing and all and any other we do with our horses now.

Since she demands people sign their name to any comments, I bet she won't get many against her position.
People following the animal rights propaganda don't have to fear those that don't to come after them.
People against those animal rights people know they better lay low or some of those nuts may attack them in person, they are such zealots in their midst.:(

I did think that her llama filly was a real find.:lol:

county

Oct. 6, 2007, 11:43 PM

Sithly

Oct. 7, 2007, 12:20 AM

In this state its against the law to drop off dead animals at a rendering plant yourself. Also against the law to take live animals there. Approved trucks only can pick up dead animals and take to the rendering plants. In many areas its against the law to bury them because of the high water tables here ( you know land of 10,000 lakes ) and beleive it or not everyone doesn't have neighbors with backhoes. The world is a tad bigger then someones back door.

That's exactly what I was going to say, which makes sense, since we live in the same state.

I'm closer to the cities than county, though, and most of the horse farms here are small acreages sprinkled between housing developments. Not many of them need a backhoe to manage their five acres. :lol:

Really, I'm glad you have such an easy time disposing of horses, MayS. That's great. But not everyone has those options. A friend of mine put her beloved old horse down, then had to watch him bloat under a tarp for five days until the renderer could get there. Not my idea of fun. (Guess her neighbors didn't like beer or apple pie.)

county

Oct. 7, 2007, 12:27 AM

I'm only 17 miles from the largest rendering plant in the upper midwest so a pickup here is only $50. But I know people that have had to pay as much as $500 to have a dead horse picked up besides paid the vet $150 to kill it. Thats 100% their choice to do and also their business. But its also 100% someones choice to go another route and also their business as long as its legal. And like it or not selling a horse at auction is legal even if it goes to slaughter. Myself I'll sell over paying that $650. But then I raise livestock, eat meat, and don't try to control what someone else eats.

ProzacPuppy

Oct. 7, 2007, 12:02 PM

Legal and ethical appear to be the difference here.

In Houston we have something called the Moses Law which allows new mothers to go to places such as fire houses that have a little "drop box" and they can get rid of their unwanted newborns without penalty under the law by putting them into the drop box (rather than leaving them in trash bins etc). A case of refusing to accept responsibility for ones actions - possibly they feel they don't have the money to properly care for a child etc.

Whatever the reason - in Houston it is perfectly legal to dump your newborn in a Moses drop box. Is it ethically correct to drop your newborn in a drop box and walk away? Most people would say no.

The same applies to people with horses that they no longer want or feel that they can no longer care for or cannot find a buyer for. Is it legal to dump the unwell horse at New Holland? Yes. Is it ethically and spiritually a correct choice? Not for alot of people.

Sithly

Oct. 7, 2007, 02:10 PM

The same applies to people with horses that they no longer want or feel that they can no longer care for or cannot find a buyer for. Is it legal to dump the unwell horse at New Holland? Yes. Is it ethically and spiritually a correct choice? Not for alot of people.

That's absolutely true,but everyone has a right to make their own moral decisions within the confines of the law.

I would not send my personal horse to slaughter, but I don't begrudge others the option. And if I was running a business, I would have no problem putting unwanted horses on a truck. The animals are treated with respect, but they are not pets: you don't get attached. It's a different mindset.

ProzacPuppy

Oct. 7, 2007, 04:00 PM

I agree completely. And that is where alot of the anti-slaughter argument comes from - the people who own horses as a hobby, for entertainment, sport, companionship etc. Whose connection with horses is personal, one on one.

It is very common knowledge that the pet industry as a whole has become a billion dollar industry due to people who treat whatever animal they own as part of the family and lavish attention and the best that money can buy on their animals. Not just a growing population but a growing population with quite a bit of disposable income.

So you have the farming population that views each horse as merely part of the business, a number in the total, a dollar and cent value and you have those that view Bubba as part of the family, budget for his carrots and health insurance and buy him blankets for every sort of possible temperature. Not gonna see eye to eye on the slaughter issue obviously.

So actually the division is more than what one feels is the moral and ethical thing to do. The slaughter issue also has a socio-economic divide.

I have never in my 10 years in H/J barns met anyone who has ever sent a horse to auction (other than high dollar sport horse auctions). Retirement farms are usually the choice made for the old or infirm horses if they don't just remain in the show barn as a "pasture ornament". And surprisingly alot of us are not rich. We just feel responsible for the horses we have owned.

Bluey

Oct. 7, 2007, 04:36 PM

---"So you have the farming population that views each horse as merely part of the business, a number in the total, a dollar and cent value and you have those that view Bubba as part of the family, budget for his carrots and health insurance and buy him blankets for every sort of possible temperature. Not gonna see eye to eye on the slaughter issue obviously.

So actually the division is more than what one feels is the moral and ethical thing to do. The slaughter issue also has a socio-economic divide.

I have never in my 10 years in H/J barns met anyone who has ever sent a horse to auction (other than high dollar sport horse auctions). Retirement farms are usually the choice made for the old or infirm horses if they don't just remain in the show barn as a "pasture ornament". And surprisingly alot of us are not rich. We just feel responsible for the horses we have owned."---

Are you then assuming the high moral ground for those people you describe and calling farmers uncaring and poor caretakers of their horses?:eek:
Do you think that those in H/J barn are the only ones that care properly for their horses?;)

I was in plenty of H/J barns that moved their horses as needed, including some that did come from and went to auctions. Where do you think some of those cinderella story auction horses in the H/J world came from?
I have seen plenty of H/J barns where horses were traded back and forth as they could fit different riders and win with little regard to the horse being anyone's pet as much as some horses being someone's pet to keep into retirement.
Take a good look around, before you assume all in H/J barns love their horses for life and will mantain them past their current use and that "farmers" won't.

There is another concern here, is it right to spend that kind of social resources, even if private ones, on horses?
Do we need to demand that all people now thru our taxes and donations, even those that don't own horses, support retirement homes/rescues/animal control without euthanizing of last resort for horses, with what amounts to medicare and medicaid for all horses born, when no one can use them?
All those unwanted horses and as we do BLM horses now, in horse feedlots, at taxpayer's cost?

Remember, we don't care too well for all people, can we afford to demand and expect now that our society does such for ALL horses?

county

Oct. 7, 2007, 06:56 PM

Has anyone met someone who feels their not responsable for their horses? In over 40 years of owning horses I've never met anyone yet. I've met lots of people that think others aren't to their standards but that hardly means much.

ProzacPuppy

Oct. 7, 2007, 10:04 PM

While I've seen horses bought and sold in H/J barns I've never seen it happen with any frequency and most of the people I've known in these barns tend to keep the old or outgrown horse when they purchase the new horse. Most of the time the only reason to sell the original horse is if it is worth so much that you need to get your money out of it to purchase the "step up" horse.

Not saying that all farmers are poor caretakers of their horses. I've known many that were excellent equine caretakers. But consider the Amish farmer and his horses. Can you honestly say that he cares about his horse in any sense of the word except as much as one can "care" about their tractor or their car. His "care" is the bare minimum allowed by law and to keep the animal alive and working for him because if the animal is injured or ill it is a major inconvenience to the farmer (akin to my car not starting in the morning before work). And when it can't do for him it is sent to New Holland to be sold by the pound.

How can anyone who has watched Animal Cops Houston believe that all horse owners think that they being responsible pet owners. For some horse owners it is a matter of money and saving a buck here and there (even if it is at the animal's expense) is all they consider.

It still comes down to a certain socio-economic level - if you can't afford to keep a horse you have no business getting one even if it is a great deal (4 colts for $35). If a rise in the price of hay means the difference between living and starving to death for your horse - you can't afford a horse.

Of course here in America there are plenty of people who can't afford children either but they have them and then expect someone else to support them.

Wouldn't America be a great place if we could get the government to help us support our horses too? Equicare or Equicaid? For the old or unemployed horse?

Bluey

Oct. 7, 2007, 10:14 PM

---"How can anyone who has watched Animal Cops Houston believe that all horse owners think that they being responsible pet owners. For some horse owners it is a matter of money and saving a buck here and there (even if it is at the animal's expense) is all they consider."---

I don't generally watch TV, so don't know what you are seeing there
I doubt that those people abusing horses on the TV shows are "farmers", more like backyard people, I would say.

Abuse can happen in the best, fanciest barns as it may happen in a farm or any other place.
Try not to confuse abuse with people buying and selling horses, which is part of how all of us aquire our horses.
I expect that you also didn't raise and train your own and that is what you are riding now, along with having the sire and dam of your horses and their sires and dams at home.
Most people I know bought their horse from one or several people that raised and trained it so they now can have a good, usable horse to enjoy.

Keeping a horse from birth to death is a luxury few can afford.

county

Oct. 7, 2007, 10:21 PM

I already think America is a great place and sure don't want my tax dollars going to support old livestock. If someone wants to keep livestock from birth to death they certainly should I know I have. But if they want to sell them thats great also and I've done that many many many times. We call it making a living pretty popular concept in these parts.

Rt66Kix

Oct. 7, 2007, 10:47 PM

---"Either we encourage some sort of breed registration fund which generates fees which go towards subsidizing euthanasia and disposal or we will have starvation and neglect. "---

We had a perfectly good system to take care of those unwanted horses and at a profit to our society, slaughter.
Now you want to close that industry and have the rest of us take care of those unwanted horses?
Why?:confused:

Uh, because it was inhumane, self-serving and brutal. I am not opposed to slaughter; just inhumane transport and method of killing. Not to mention the environmental impacts of slaughter plants on the water supply, et al.

What is just incredible to me is that the slaughter industry did NOT see this coming. If the slaughter industry is necessary to keep the horse population in check, then so be it. But for God's sake, make it humane! And I feel the same way about cows, pigs and chickens.

I support closing down the borders. The slaughter process in Canada and Mexico is worse than the US. But had the US slaughter plants followed the laws (which they broke with the cooperation of the USDA), made slaughter more humane (including the transportation et all), then we wouldn't be seeing the grassroots "angst" against slaughter. They shot themselves in the foot, IMO. Ever read the book, "The Other Guy Blinked" regarding Coke vs. Pepsi?????

If the slaughter industry is so necessary and "pure," then why are they in the position they currently are in? IOW by their arrogance and lack of respect for the current laws, and just plain "humane treatment," they allowed themselves to become vulnerable to attack. They have only themselves to blame.

I am "pro-humane" treatment of ANY animal which is consumed for their meat, regardless of whether I CHOOSE to eat it or not.

county

Oct. 7, 2007, 11:00 PM

Exactly which laws did the horse slaughter industry break that no other slaughter indusrty has broken?

Bluey

Oct. 8, 2007, 09:05 AM

---"Uh, because it was inhumane, self-serving and brutal. I am not opposed to slaughter; just inhumane transport and method of killing. Not to mention the environmental impacts of slaughter plants on the water supply, et al."---

All that is right out of the animal rigths propaganda. Myths and taken out of context stories, to make a cause of the moment and gather donations, that's what this ban horse slaughter bill is basically, or certain organizations, that don't really care as per their own words, would have not involved themselves in this controversy.

Sorry, you bought the myths, if you really think slaughter is inherently "inhumane and brutal and needs to be banned".

Even if a small part of that was true, work to change what you don't like, not ban the whole industry that was serving a purpose.

Again, why ban driving, because some drive drunk?:confused:

ProzacPuppy

Oct. 8, 2007, 10:13 AM

Bluey

Oct. 8, 2007, 10:42 AM

At least here in Texas it is a thin line between "backyard" and "farm" according to the tax rolls.

The issue of slaughter has not changed alot in the last century. Give a read to "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair (1906) for a pretty chilling description of the slaughterhouse then. A book that turned peoples stomachs and made them think.

And still a valid read today.

Sorry, no, it is not valid to compare that time with how vastly different things are done in today's world.

The issue of slaughter itself is do we raise and use animals for food thru slaughter, or do we demand we still go out there with sticks and stones to chase our meat proteins?;)

Doing without is really not an option, until we can manufacture it in labs and make all accept it as a pill supplement and then we can get by eating only vegetables.

Now, when it comes to horse slaughter, a protein we don't really need in this rich country, you have a point.
Except that horse slaughter sure has been an important part of the horse industry, to dispose of the unwanted horses thru that system at an economic advantage thru selling the products from that process.
Without it, we will have to find other ways to dispose of those many unwanted horses.

As the AVMA and over 200 other associations have said, to stop slaughter as that one bill proposes is done is NOT in the best interest of horses or the horse industry.
I happen to agree with them.:yes:

philosoraptor

Oct. 8, 2007, 11:26 AM

Really, I'm glad you have such an easy time disposing of horses, MayS. That's great. But not everyone has those options. A friend of mine put her beloved old horse down, then had to watch him bloat under a tarp for five days until the renderer could get there.

What you're saying is that she loved this horse so much it was unfair she had to look at a tarp for 5 days... so she should've instead shipped him to slaughter to show how much she loved him?

The gist of this whole thread is what happens when slaughter is banned. But I am not seeing the least bit of outrage that their own local governments have banned horse burying and have banned direct drop-offs at rendering plants... but nobody is fighting those laws? That's crazy you can't drop off a dead animal at a rendering plant... why??? And you're surrounded by cattle farms... how do the cattle ranchers do it?

Are you saying that nationwide we need to keep brutal handling of LIVE horses legal because some aren't fighting to keep their local disposal options of dead horses legal?

I do not have an "easy" time. I did quite a bit of research, talking to vets, farmers, and learned what other local horse owners did. I take the time to have good relationships with neighbors, farmers, backhoe owners, and the livestock removal service. I have friend who will help me out. I'm not waiting until the day of euthanasia to figure out what I can or can't do. Maybe I have the added 'advantage' of having to make The Call a few times a year for the rescue? But I am willing to do what it takes to find a solution without whining "I have no choice but to ship them to slaughter".

I'm sorry to hear that some feel it's a really "hard" thing, but maybe all those good at lobbying for PRO-slaughter can use some of that lobbying energy to lobby for better local large-animal disposal laws?

I am not going to say no to burial or whatever because someone on a message board somewhere thought it wasn't legal. Too many armchair lawyers. If it's so illegal, what is the penalty? Show me your state government's web page which states that law. It's always "I heard it from some reliable source". Or "everyone knows..." :rolleyes:

This is not rocket science. Even in only a partially rural area you've got to have some cattle/dairy farms around. Where do you think a down cow goes? They can't take sickly dying cows to normal slaughter. The cows have to go somewhere. You mean in 99% of the US, the cow must die on its own slowly and then the large carcass must bloat in the sun for a week while scavengers gnaw at its extremities? That's the best solution your area offers? The problem isn't horse slaughter; the problem is your area's laws & options.

Either way US horse slaughter is not coming back and a ban on transport isn't far behind, so get used to it. The sooner people accept this, the sooner the market will adapt & people will be more educated. We accept that if your dog is suffering, there's a cost involved in the vet putting him down & disposal... so why are horses any different? Why do some horse owners want everything free and handed to them?

county

Oct. 8, 2007, 11:32 AM

Your right its not rocket sceince work why you can't figure it out is beyond me. The reason just anyone can't drop off dead animals is for disease control. If you have 100's of vechicles coming and going each day you run a very high risk of transporting disease. Cattle producers here use a rendering service for the most part some that are in remote areas take dead stock out to wooded areas and let the wolves, coyotes, and fox eat them.

And why would you think others don't take the time to have good realations with people? Thats pretty much a given with most folks. I have freinds that are in many differant feilds to make a living and freinds with them. That hardly means I expect them to do work for me free. I raise cattle, horses, and sheep but I'm not giving them away to my freinds.

county

Oct. 8, 2007, 11:35 AM

BTW May S just when will this fed. ban be taking place/ I've been hearing for years now its going to be. And exactly how will it stop horses from going to slaughter out of the country? If I want to haul horses to Can. all I need is a coggins and health papers signed by a state vet. Not exactly expensive or hard to get theres loads that go from this area up there every month exactly like that.

Angela Freda

Oct. 8, 2007, 12:01 PM

Uh, because it was inhumane, self-serving and brutal. I am not opposed to slaughter; just inhumane transport and method of killing. Not to mention the environmental impacts of slaughter plants on the water supply, et al.

What is just incredible to me is that the slaughter industry did NOT see this coming. If the slaughter industry is necessary to keep the horse population in check, then so be it. But for God's sake, make it humane! And I feel the same way about cows, pigs and chickens.

I support closing down the borders. The slaughter process in Canada and Mexico is worse than the US. But had the US slaughter plants followed the laws (which they broke with the cooperation of the USDA), made slaughter more humane (including the transportation et all), then we wouldn't be seeing the grassroots "angst" against slaughter. They shot themselves in the foot, IMO. Ever read the book, "The Other Guy Blinked" regarding Coke vs. Pepsi?????

If the slaughter industry is so necessary and "pure," then why are they in the position they currently are in? IOW by their arrogance and lack of respect for the current laws, and just plain "humane treatment," they allowed themselves to become vulnerable to attack. They have only themselves to blame.

I am "pro-humane" treatment of ANY animal which is consumed for their meat, regardless of whether I CHOOSE to eat it or not.

Excellent.
County you know, from having participated in these arguments ad nauseum, what regulations the equine slaughter industry has broken (and one could assume the industrys involved with the slaughter of other naimals are also guilty.) as they have always been part of the argument that the industry has to be shut down since they have basically been left to self regulate and pro-slaughter folks argue that enforcing the regulations is impossible due to manpower issues among other arguments.

The simple USDA regulations for shipping to slaughter, in particular that an animal must be able to bear wt on all 4 legs and walk unassisted is a commonly ignored one. GO look at ANY rescue website for those rescues who 'rescue' off a feedlot/dealer lot and you will see horses advertised right there as lame, blind, or pregnant and yet shipping to slaughter. Charlie Carter comes to mind immediately. Because the industry chose to thumb their collective noses at the regulations they have painted themselves into a corner, leaving banning the industry as the only option that appears to offer compliance.

They have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy, and yet now questions why they are not trusted to make changes to regulations and comply with them? Perhaps one needs to suggest they look in a mirror.

ProzacPuppy

Oct. 8, 2007, 12:06 PM

Bluey, have you read the book lately? The point I make is that we HAVEN'T COME SO FAR from that point in the way we go about slaughtering. You can expound all you want on the captive bolt but aside from that piece of equipment the biggest factor in the slaughterhouse is the human factor and that is still the same.

county

Oct. 8, 2007, 12:10 PM

Angela Freda

Oct. 8, 2007, 12:36 PM

Angela I agree horse slaughter has broken laws, but the exact same laws are broken by slaughter of other species. I just can't see a logical reason to ban one unless you want the others banned also. One species is not more important then another. Its either acceptable or its not and from the amount of money people spend on meat I'd say the vast majority feel its acceptable.
You have to start somewhere.
Banning horses first is an easy one cause horses are considered pets more often than pis, cows, etc.
I am not saying the ultimate goal IS to ban all, nor am *I* for banning all slaughter.

It's just that, right or wrong, MOST people see horses as pets and not as "livestock" and therefore as deplorable as we would find shipping cats and dogs to China for the table, MANY also find shipping our pet horses who were not and are not bred/raised, for the most part, in this country for consumption. THAT simple concept is what makes this issue not the same as the atrocities I am certain happen in the chicken/cow/pig/younameit slaughter industries.

TPC Ranch

Oct. 8, 2007, 12:54 PM

Go to google, click news, type in horse slaughter. Enjoy:(

Tell me, anti-slaughter peeps, how exactly did banning horse slaughter in the US help horses?

Angela Freda

Oct. 8, 2007, 12:56 PM

Go to google, click news, type in horse slaughter. Enjoy:(

Tell me, anti-slaughter peeps, how exactly did banning horse slaughter in the US help horses?
It is not presently banned in the US.
Anyone who wishes to can legally ship their horse to slaughter in Canada and Mexico.
"The Ban", when it passes, includes restrictions on shipping to slaughter across borders that WOULD protect horses from slaughter in other countries.

However, whatever you are seeing in the news today (and the media is SOOO reliable, right?) is while slaughter is still legal.

Bluey

Oct. 8, 2007, 01:01 PM

You know what I am seeing?
We close slaughter and all those unwanted horses end up in all those rescue's hands.:rolleyes:

Many of those rescues are not on the level, have questionable management procedures of the horses and worse accounting practices.
Anyone can call themselves a rescue and some of those don't have any idea how to care for horses and horses end up in worse conditions than the chance they may have been abused thru the slaughter system that, believe it or not, didn't abuse horses.:no:
Any abuse in that system was rare and not any more than there is the rare abuse of horses in any other place, as in rescues themselves, as we can see by the regular threads right here about it.:(

Not only that, the rescues that will now supposedly take in those horses, that before ended up being an asset as a produce we sold, now will have to run with donations and goverment assitence, if not directly, when rescues fail and by the tax breaks rescues get as non-profit.

In the end, all of us, even those without horses or any interest in them, end up paying for a new way to care for and dispose of all those unwanted horses, when in the slaughter system they were an asset to all.

And why? One reason, because they became a ready made "cause of the moment" for certain animal rights associations, helping them with their donation drives and PR campaigns and so getting bigger and bigger and aquire even more power to, guess what, keep getting bigger.

Much of that propaganda against horse slaughter are myths and stories taken out of context, as anyone with any sense can see.
I think that what we will have now, without slaughter and with rescues running the show, will be worse in any measure to what the few stories of abuse in the slaughter process ever were.
The few good, honestly run rescues will be drowned in the sea of all those springing up, some with good intentions but clueless, others seeing a way to make some easy money for little work, since PR on on the case of one horse brings such riches in donations, riches if you keep the money, don't use it for the horses that need help, as some people have already figured up before today.

The horses are the losers, all around and in the end, us too.

TPC Ranch

Oct. 8, 2007, 01:04 PM

Of course it will. The meat man isn't smart enough to say he is exporting horses for pleasure. What I'm reading is an 369% increase in exports of horses for slaughter to Mexico, where they are not killed with a captive bolt, but are stabbed in the spine to be paralized, then hoisted, alive, to have their throats cut. And you didn't answer my question.

Angela Freda

Oct. 8, 2007, 01:12 PM

Much of that propaganda against horse slaughter are myths and stories taken out of context, as anyone with any sense can see.

The same can be said for the Pro-slaughter propaganda... those mythical loose horses roaming the state of VA for example.

Bluey

Oct. 8, 2007, 01:19 PM

The same can be said for the Pro-slaughter propaganda... those mythical loose horses roaming the state of VA for example.

That was not propaganda, but someone making some assumptions that some were wrong.
There WERE some dumped horses in there, along with the ones freeloading by custom on those ranges.
You must not have followed the story to the end, like the animal rights people involved, that quickly dropped it, when it didn't suit THEIR story any more.;)

SleepyFox

Oct. 8, 2007, 01:27 PM

[QUOTE=Angela Freda;2727275]You have to start somewhere.
Banning horses first is an easy one cause horses are considered pets more often than pis, cows, etc.QUOTE]

WOW.

And, MayS, laws regulating disposal of large animal carasses are a good thing from an environmental perspective. When one of the major arguments for closing the US plants was their pollution, urging people to fight for repeal of fairly common sense environmental laws is sort of silly.

county

Oct. 9, 2007, 07:31 AM

gully's pilot

Oct. 9, 2007, 07:46 AM

I'm glad that so many people are putting up thoughtful posts--I do see this as a complicated issue. Yesterday I read a recent entry on the fuglyhorseoftheday blog (www.fuglyhorseoftheday.blogspot.com) that I really liked. She suggests banning double-decker trailers as a way to halt shipments to Mexico and Canada--read her post, it's a reasonable idea.

I completely believe that most caring horsepeople will not send a horse to auction and will euthanize over letting a horse suffer. However, I live in Appalachia--I could take you a half hour's drive from my house and show you rural poverty like you wouldn't believe--and these are the folks that have a bit of poorly fenced land and will buy four stud colts for $35, or sell them, and all our internet hand-wringing ain't gonna stop them. Trust me on this.

I also fully believe that those who let horses starve should be sent to jail--but know firsthand that it isn't always so easy to get them there. All my tack was stolen in June, and I spent a day riding around with a detective looking for it; it happened to be very shortly after a woman was charged with starving 20 horses in our area. The detective was THRILLED that they'd finally gotten an arrest warrant, rather than a citation, but admitted that it probably only happened because this was the third time the woman was charged with starving herds of horses. That case still hasn't gone to court; the woman's out on bail, and the horses are being cared for by a variety of rescue agencies. I wish courts would take this more seriously, and I'm not sure why they don't, but they don't.

It's a complicated problem. I'm still looking for the answers.

county

Oct. 9, 2007, 07:49 AM

Double deck trucks are already banned for slaughter horses. The feedlots here ship them in stock trailers.

Bluey

Oct. 9, 2007, 07:52 AM

The vast majority of horses slaughtered in Mex. are also done with the captive bolt. More propoganda that there all killed by knife.

But can someone explain just how this ban when and if it ever passes will halt horses from being sent to slaughter in Mex. and Can. All its going to do is have them get a coggins and health papers to cross the border which most from here have now anyway. There sold to a ranch in Can. they select what they want for potenial riders and haul the rest to slaughter. Whats going to change because of this wonderful proposed ban?

This ban horse slaughter bill is a poorly piece of legal work, with more holes than swiss cheese and with consequences that will be harmful to horses, beyond any the slaughter industry was ever accused of.
It is a bill definitively not in the best interest of horses, as the AVMA and over 200 other associations understand and so are against it.

Ask all you want, but no one will be able to answer your question reasonably.

Why was this bill not better drafted? I give you some guesses:

First, maybe, being generous, ignorance, the ones drafting it didn't know any better, are not professional horsemen, don't understand horses and the horse industry, could not foresee the obvious consequences.

Second guess, they left it so poorly drafted because they believed making it any tighter would not have passed scrutiny at all, the consequences too obvious and hard to defend such a bill.

Third, they intended for it to be controversial, so it would be contested and thru all the publicity gain much support, that equals donations, that equals gaining power and keep being some of the larger non-profit organizations, the real ultimate goal of some organizations behind it.

Whatever reason this misguided bill was presented as it is and directed as it has been thru the process to get it passed, many have profited from the whole controversy, except the horses it is intended to help.

Who is this controversy obviously helping right now?
Certain associations, that made it their cause of the moment, by bringing them a home run in donations and free publicity and all those rescues, the old ones, that have ridden the coats of the publicity of needy horses and all those new ones springing up every day.
At least some out of this mess is helping some horses, we hope.

I guess the process is called free market.:winkgrin:

Angela Freda

Oct. 9, 2007, 10:03 AM

That was not propaganda, but someone making some assumptions that some were wrong.

More pro-slaughter propaganda:

"These unwanted horses are often sick, unfit or problem animals," said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn. "Many of them are already living in pain or discomfort, and tens of thousands more could be neglected, starved or abandoned if their owners no longer have processing available as an end-of-life option."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/politics/main1982770.shtml

Meanwhile the facts state the opposite.
There is a study done by Temple Grandin that reviewed horses to slaughter and stated that 90% were fit and of good weight and healthy. I'll find the link to this for you.

Pro-slaughter:
"PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the engines driving this bill, are trying to prevent owners from seeking affordable humane euthanasia for unwanted animals – animals that are often unruly and dangerous.

The 60,000-90,000 additional unwanted horses each year would compete for adoption with the 32,000 wild horses that U.S. taxpayers are already paying $40 million to shelter and feed."

http://www.commonhorsesense.com/

When actually:
Over 99% of the horses that die each year in the area from natural causes or euthanasia.* The pro-horse slaughter side wants everyone to believe that horse slaughter is a vital part of the horse industry when, in reality, slaughter probably contributes little to the overall situation.

http://www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/dodmanqa.php

Pro-slaughter:
"If you ban slaughter more horses will be abandoned and abused/neglected"

Whereas:
There is no evidence that the welfare of horses will be adversely affected by prohibiting equine slaughter in the .* A lot of the supposed evidence that banning slaughter will increase abandonment and neglect is trumped up scare tactics by cattlemen and slaughter house aficionados who stand to benefit financially from continuing this malpractice.
*
California, the largest state and second in horse population banned horse slaughter in 1998 amid the same “sky is falling” predictions, but none of them turned out to be true.* Horse theft dropped dramatically while there has been no increase in cruelty, neglect or abandonment cases.

In fact, in Texas, when the slaughter plants were operating, equine abuse and neglect was higher in that state than in any other.* Also, when the Cavel plant closed following a fire, equine abuse and neglect in Illinois actually fell slightly. It is illegal to abandon and neglect animals in the US.* We should work to enforce those laws and not reward individuals we know will be abusing animals.

http://www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/dodmanqa.php

I wish the pro-slaughter side would cite sources for their information, so that it could be verified and qualified.

Angela Freda

Oct. 9, 2007, 10:09 AM

Who is this controversy obviously helping right now?
Certain associations, that made it their cause of the moment, by bringing them a home run in donations and free publicity and all those rescues, the old ones, that have ridden the coats of the publicity of needy horses and all those new ones springing up every day.
At least some out of this mess is helping some horses, we hope.

I guess the process is called free market.:winkgrin:

Think about this,
There are many, MANY rescues out there who buy horse at inflated prices (prices way over and sometimes double or triple 'meat price') from feedlots or dealers who sell to feedlots in order to 'rescue' them and 'adopt' them out.
THOSE rescue will be out of business (as they know it today) when the ban goes into effect and they can redirect their attention to all those abandoned, neglected and abused horses. Or they can go find another industry to ride off of, but that is another thread entirely. At a minimum at least, perhaps some of these scam rescues who pray on the emotion of slaughtering horses will be out of business.

Bluey

Oct. 9, 2007, 10:17 AM

Think about this,
There are many, MANY rescues out there who buy horse at inflated prices (prices way over and sometimes double or triple 'meat price') from feedlots or dealers who sell to feedlots in order to 'rescue' them and 'adopt' them out.
THOSE rescue will be out of business (as they know it today) when the ban goes into effect and they can redirect their attention to all those abandoned, neglected and abused horses. Or they can go find another industry to ride off of, but that is another thread entirely. At a minimum at least, perhaps some of these scam rescues who pray on the emotion of slaughtering horses will be out of business.

But think also of all the rescues and layers upon layers of overseeing rescue groups springing now to take care of those unwanted horses the slaughter process took in.

Angela Freda

Oct. 9, 2007, 10:24 AM

But think also of all the rescues and layers upon layers of overseeing rescue groups springing now to take care of those unwanted horses the slaughter process took in.
Ah yes but without the "Ugly truck coming" to take those horses to slaughter there will be much less urgency in the situation.
And by urgency, you know I mean money, right?
:wink:

Bluey

Oct. 9, 2007, 10:46 AM

Ah yes but without the "Ugly truck coming" to take those horses to slaughter there will be much less urgency in the situation.
And by urgency, you know I mean money, right?
:wink:

I doubt that there will be enough rescues to take in all those horses, but we will see.

I think you may have swallowed the anti-slaughter propaganda.
I know the local horseshoer that took horses for local people to the slaughterhouse 6 1/2 hours away would not like you calling his nice trailer "ugly truck".:no:

jetsmom

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:17 AM

The vast majority of horses slaughtered in Mex. are also done with the captive bolt. More propoganda that there all killed by knife.

That's true. The facility that uses "Pithing" (severing the spinal cord with a knife), is not licensed to sell meat overseas, so there are only a small percentage of horses slaughtered there. The meat from there is sold within Mexico. The facilities that sell overseas do use the Captive bolt.

rescuemom

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:31 AM

Now, on the eve of slaughter being banned (incl shipping to Canada/Mexico) we have people worried about horses being neglected and abused.
There are also laws regarding those situations.
Get them enforced!

Horse neglect/abuse isn't necessarily related to slaughter. I do believe that the closure of the slaughterhouses will, however, add to the excess horse problem, and the incidence of neglect/abuse. Add the drought, the economy, etc., etc. . . . If someone can't/won't afford to feed their animals they darned sure won't spend hundreds of dollars to have them euthanized. We have already had one of our adopted horses returned recently, because the adopter can't afford hay.

In some places there are laws. In some places they are enforced. The degree of enforcement also varies. And you cannot get laws enforced when there is no interest and/or no funding. If it is difficult to have any sort of reliable, consistent response from AC (across counties) here in Maryland, fairly affluent with mostly well-funded animal control departments, just how easy will it be in, say, Mississippi, or Montana?

Saying that folks should make the laws be enforced is a spit in the ocean. There's nothing wrong with the suggestion, but it isn't going to make a difference in the short run, and the horses in need don't care about the long run.

rescuemom

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:38 AM

Double deck trucks are already banned for slaughter horses. The feedlots here ship them in stock trailers.

They've been federally banned for years, and the law is not enforced, nor is there funding to enforce it. There are a few states, PA and NY among others, that do actively enforce the ban on double-decker trailers.

county

Oct. 9, 2007, 12:00 PM

Well since the ban on double deck trucks has gone into effect I've seen none used to haul horses to slaughter before that virtually all of them from here were. Which feedlots do so now? Should be very easy to track them as very few horses go to slaughter these days.

BTW could someone explain how this propsed ban will prevent horses from going to slaughter? The bill itself has huge holes in it.

rescuemom

Oct. 9, 2007, 12:04 PM

county, I just realized that I was incorrect about double-decker ban. In fact, the unenforced federal laws were about transport conditions. Thanks for the prod.

county

Oct. 9, 2007, 12:17 PM

I've yet to figure out why the ban on double deck trucks for slaughter horses but not show, rodeo, or private horses? Never did make sense to me. One thing it has done is now virtually all horses slaughter are top grades hauling smaller loads the sellers need to get as much as they can for a load so only top grades are hauled any distance.

horse crazy inTX

Oct. 9, 2007, 12:32 PM

They've been federally banned for years, and the law is not enforced, nor is there funding to enforce it. There are a few states, PA and NY among others, that do actively enforce the ban on double-decker trailers.

The Federal ban DID NOT take effect until Dec 2006.

RainyDayRide

Oct. 9, 2007, 12:53 PM

PA, MA, NY and VT ban the use of double-deckers for horse transport... the federal regs only ban their use on the last leg of the ride to slaughter.

Attempts to have the fed regs ban their use everywhere failed... and the portions addressing hours between feeding & watering are regularly ignored. (Animals Angels (http://www.animals-angels.com/index.php?pageID=start_us&sessionLang=us) is just one organization that has documented this.)

J Swan

Oct. 9, 2007, 03:28 PM

That's true. The facility that uses "Pithing" (severing the spinal cord with a knife), is not licensed to sell meat overseas, so there are only a small percentage of horses slaughtered there. The meat from there is sold within Mexico. The facilities that sell overseas do use the Captive bolt.

Good point, jetsmom. Any facility selling to European markets has to meet EU requirements. The video we see are horses intended for domestic (Mexican) production.

Y'all do realize that Mexico and Canada are thrilled about the closure of US plants, right? I recently read an article about a Canadian company that is hiring like crazy and even building new plants.

People were very upset at a European company owning or having any control over a US facility - but now our neighbors to the north and south have complete control over the entire industry - and a heck of a lot more political clout than a bunch of Belgians.

I don't think that bodes well for horses, or for any other species, to be honest. I'd much prefer our livestock were processed within our own borders.

fabulousfred

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:30 PM

Well, I'm sure the foreign horses are eating well..since most of our hay is exported..causing the left overs to be so expensive people can't afford it. It was $18 a bale for Timothy the other day..maybe the American people such as growers and exporters shouldn't be so friggin greedy. Unbelievable.

Angela Freda

Oct. 9, 2007, 06:25 PM

My point is that there are laws on both sides of this argument.
Those pro say we should not ban but enforce the existing laws.
*I* say if they think those can effectively be enforced, then they should also agree that the abuse/neglect laws can ALSO (equally) be enforced (insert eye roll here)

I know enforcement does not happen, on either front. But it should. And the fact that laws were ignored for so long, and will not anytime soon be complied with has been the impetus behind banning the slaughter industry.

That laws for abuse/neglect are not enforced does not excuse that the slaughter industry regulations are routinely ignored.

Horse neglect/abuse isn't necessarily related to slaughter. I do believe that the closure of the slaughterhouses will, however, add to the excess horse problem, and the incidence of neglect/abuse. Add the drought, the economy, etc., etc. . . . If someone can't/won't afford to feed their animals they darned sure won't spend hundreds of dollars to have them euthanized. We have already had one of our adopted horses returned recently, because the adopter can't afford hay.

In some places there are laws. In some places they are enforced. The degree of enforcement also varies. And you cannot get laws enforced when there is no interest and/or no funding. If it is difficult to have any sort of reliable, consistent response from AC (across counties) here in Maryland, fairly affluent with mostly well-funded animal control departments, just how easy will it be in, say, Mississippi, or Montana?

Saying that folks should make the laws be enforced is a spit in the ocean. There's nothing wrong with the suggestion, but it isn't going to make a difference in the short run, and the horses in need don't care about the long run.

Angela Freda

Oct. 9, 2007, 06:33 PM

I doubt that there will be enough rescues to take in all those horses, but we will see.

I think you may have swallowed the anti-slaughter propaganda.
I know the local horseshoer that took horses for local people to the slaughterhouse 6 1/2 hours away would not like you calling his nice trailer "ugly truck".:no:

Ok let me spell it out for you, something important is getting lost in translation here.
Yes many rescue devotees like to call the slaughter trucks "the ugly truck".
I think many of them have become addicted to the adrenaline rush of 'saving horses off feedlots/dealer lots'. Meanwhile the dealer/lot owner and his rescue friends are happily filling their pockets with oodles of cash that comes in by the bunches. If you want a real dose of this reality Google Alex Brown Racing, click on the Chat, and read the "rescue Issues" section. I believe if you have your sound on you will hear the sound of a cash register with many of those threads.

My point is that these scam rescues who are cashing in on the 'rescueing' of slaughterbound horses will be out of business (thankfully) when the ban goes into effect and that very emotional, highly charged and timely push for loads of horses is no longer part of the equation. That is a good thing, imo, in the end as they have been funding the industry, and making the profit margin larger. They were not/are not real rescues who would have been involved if there was not a slice of the moneypie to be had.

Bottom line, every horse in the slaughter pipeline had an owner before the dealer/plant bought it. THAT OWNER will now be left holding the leadline and the responsability of that horse.

Bluey

Oct. 9, 2007, 07:13 PM

Ok let me spell it out for you, something important is getting lost in translation here.
Yes many rescue devotees like to call the slaughter trucks "the ugly truck".
I think many of them have become addicted to the adrenaline rush of 'saving horses off feedlots/dealer lots'. Meanwhile the dealer/lot owner and his rescue friends are happily filling their pockets with oodles of cash that comes in by the bunches. If you want a real dose of this reality Google Alex Brown Racing, click on the Chat, and read the "rescue Issues" section. I believe if you have your sound on you will hear the sound of a cash register with many of those threads.

My point is that these scam rescues who are cashing in on the 'rescueing' of slaughterbound horses will be out of business (thankfully) when the ban goes into effect and that very emotional, highly charged and timely push for loads of horses is no longer part of the equation. That is a good thing, imo, in the end as they have been funding the industry, and making the profit margin larger. They were not/are not real rescues who would have been involved if there was not a slice of the moneypie to be had.

Bottom line, every horse in the slaughter pipeline had an owner before the dealer/plant bought it. THAT OWNER will now be left holding the leadline and the responsability of that horse.

Do you really think so? Others don't agree:

Daily News Update, Oct. 9, 2007

AVMA addresses consequences of horse-processing ban

Efforts to shut down horse processing plants in the United States have led to increased abandonment and neglect of horses in this country and the inhumane death of horses in Mexico, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).
Dr. Mark Lutschaunig, director of the AVMA Governmental Relations Division, says that the AVMA, far from being pro-horse slaughter, opposes bills banning slaughter because there are no provisions to take care of the more than 100,000 horses that go unwanted annually in the United States.

"If they think that by passing one of these bills they'll get rid of the problem of unwanted horses, they're simply fooling themselves," Dr. Lutschaunig said.

Efforts by groups calling for an end to horse slaughter, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have led to the closure of the three remaining processing plants in the United States. Now, as the AVMA has repeatedly warned, horses are being abandoned in the United States or transported to Mexico where, without U.S. federal oversight and veterinary supervision, they are slaughtered inhumanely.

"The reality is, the HSUS has done nothing to address the real issue here, and, in fact, by seeking to ban horse slaughter, they have made things significantly worse," said Dr. Lutschaunig. "If they really wanted to do something productive to improve the welfare of horses, they would address the issue of unwanted horses in the United States."

Even if a bill passes banning the transport of horses for slaughter, it would be nearly impossible to enforce. Such a law could easily be circumvented by transporting and selling horses as "working" or "pleasure" horses, only to have them end up in an unregulated foreign slaughter facility.

"The AVMA does not support horse slaughter," Dr. Lutschaunig said. "Ideally, we would have the infrastructure in this country to adequately feed and care for all horses. But the sad reality is that we have a number of horses that, for whatever reason, are unwanted. Transporting them under USDA supervision to USDA-regulated facilities where they are humanely euthanized is a much better option than neglect, starvation, or an inhumane death in Mexico."

luvmytbs

Oct. 9, 2007, 09:03 PM

Bluey, you might have missed this one:

America's Leading Vets call on AVMA to Stand Down on Horse Slaughter

For Immediate Release:

Washington, DC (October 9, 2007) - Veterinarians for Equine Welfare, a group opposed to the slaughter of horses for human consumption, today called on the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) to end its opposition to the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, a bill that will prohibit the domestic slaughter of horses for human consumption as well as their export for slaughter elsewhere.

"It is intolerable that our professional association continues to support horse slaughter. The abject cruelty that our horses are being exposed to in Mexican slaughterhouses is beyond imagination and anyone concerned for the welfare of our horses ought to be doing everything he or she can to support quick passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act," said Dr. Nicholas Dodman, a renowned veterinary behavioralist.

Dodman's comments come on the heels of recent investigations documenting the brutal slaughter of American horses at Mexican slaughterhouses. The horses are being shipped to Mexico in increasing numbers following recent closure of the three remaining US horse slaughterhouses under state law. Reports of horses being repeatedly stabbed in the spinal cord with a "puntilla" knife by Mexican slaughterhouses workers until they are paralyzed and then hung, drawn and quartered have outraged Dodman and his colleagues, as well as Members of Congress and the general public.

"It appears that the AVMA would rather support those profiting from this cruel industry than work effectively with the welfare community to protect horses. While they profess concern for the welfare of horses their action in this regard falls far short of the mark," stated Dr. Nena Winand, a leading equine veterinarian and geneticist. "The AVMA has recently been quoted as saying that banning horse slaughter in the US has led to an increase in animal suffering because of the terrible conditions awaiting horses on their trip to Mexico, yet they and the merchants buying and shipping horses to Mexico for slaughter continue to lobby Congress against passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act."

Dr. Dodman, a founding member of Veterinarians for Equine Welfare recently attended a national equine rescue conference hosted by the Animal Welfare Institute and Humane Society of the United States in Washington, DC to discuss ways to engender and further professionalize the growing horse rescue/sanctuary community. The conference brought together organizations from across the US dedicated to ending horse slaughter and ensuring equine welfare. Initial goals from the meeting include development of a comprehensive resource website and an accreditation program for equine rescue facilities based on the 2004 sanctuary/rescue guidelines created by AWI and the Doris Day Animal League.

"It is time for the AVMA and other pro-horse slaughter groups to stop stonewalling and join with the majority of veterinarians, Americans, horse owners, welfare organizations and equine rescues in supporting passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. It is not too late to come clean and make a difference for the horses. If the AVMA truly cares about the welfare of these horses they have the power to make their suffering stop immediately," said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Animal Welfare Institute. "I commend Veterinarians for Equine Welfare for truly speaking on behalf of vets across the country."

While state laws in Illinois and Texas have put a recent stop to the domestic slaughter of horses for human consumption, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S. 311/H.R. 503), will prohibit their export for slaughter in Mexico, Canada and further abroad. The bill enjoys broad bi-partisan support with 31 cosponsors in the United States Senate and 186 cosponsors in the United States House of Representatives to date.

Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW) was created by a group of veterinarians from all disciplines who are concerned about misinformation being transmitted to the public regarding the national debate on horse slaughter. For more information please visit: http://www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/

horse crazy inTX

Oct. 10, 2007, 05:47 AM

"It is time for the AVMA and other pro-horse slaughter groups to stop stonewalling and join with the majority of veterinarians, Americans, horse owners, welfare organizations and equine rescues in supporting passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. It is not too late to come clean and make a difference for the horses. If the AVMA truly cares about the welfare of these horses they have the power to make their suffering stop immediately," said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Animal Welfare Institute. "I commend Veterinarians for Equine Welfare for truly speaking on behalf of vets across the country."

That is a bogus statement! Those that truly care about horses' welfare are all for reopening US slaughter houses and for making sure things are carried out as regulated!

Sending horses to Mexico and professing to sacrificing a few for the betterment of all horses is a CROCK! Where is the puke smiley?:mad:

county

Oct. 10, 2007, 07:13 AM

So now hay growers are greedy? How many people on here have refused a raise in wages at their job?

Cielo Azure

Oct. 10, 2007, 07:23 AM

""It is time for the AVMA and other pro-horse slaughter groups to stop stonewalling and join with the majority of veterinarians, Americans, horse owners, welfare organizations and equine rescues in supporting passage of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act."

Let me get this straight, the AVMA no longer represents the majority of veterinarians, it is the "Veterinarians for Equine Welfare." At least according to the Veterinarians for Equine Welfare's own press release. Snort!
Don't you love the twisting of facts and data?

Total AVMA Members (U.S. and territories): 74,178

Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW) does not list how many members they have but based on quality of their website, I would estimate in the 100s, not 1000s. Does anyone have a number so that we can actually determine if the above statement is true or false?

Oh, BTW, the leading vet that is calling for the end to slaughter (mentioned in the press release) and stating that the majority of Veterinarians support his position is none other than a FOUNDING executive member of the "Veterinarians for Equine Welfare." Sigh. I liked his books but I am disgusted by his Machiavellian politics on this issue.

Also, see:
http://www.aaep.org/position_HR503_S311.htm

or from other thought leaders within the MAIN_STREAM veterinary assocs speaking before Congress:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/07252006hearing1992/Corey.pdf

When groups try to manipulate me and John-Q-Public, I cringe and get mad. I am not stupid.

county

Oct. 10, 2007, 07:35 AM

horse crazy inTX

Oct. 10, 2007, 07:50 AM

Could someone explain just how this ban if its ever passed ( I see nothing that indicates it will be ) will stop horses from going to slaughter? Unless you ban them from leaving the U.S. its not going to do much of anything.
:D Let's see how many times has that question been asked with no real answer?

One of the responses I recall - it costs TOO MUCH to export horses as breeding stock/riding horses with coggins and health certificates.

Oops, isn't that what was said about exporting to MX in general? The cost is prohibitive - the numbers to MX will NOT increase if slaughter is shut down in the U.S. :confused:

county

Oct. 10, 2007, 07:55 AM

I hardly think $13 is going to stop anyone from sending a horse somewhere.

Cielo Azure

Oct. 10, 2007, 08:14 AM

"Yes many rescue devotees like to call the slaughter trucks "the ugly truck".
I think many of them have become addicted to the adrenaline rush of 'saving horses off feedlots/dealer lots'. Meanwhile the dealer/lot owner and his rescue friends are happily filling their pockets with oodles of cash that comes in by the bunches. If you want a real dose of this reality Google Alex Brown Racing, click on the Chat, and read the "rescue Issues" section. I believe if you have your sound on you will hear the sound of a cash register with many of those threads."

Boy...You got it.

Having been in an industry that has been dealing with the draft PMU fall out, that is exactly what happened there. Greed rules and the general public are suckers.

In my personal experience, I have witnessed that PMU farmers now actually breed for the foal slaughter ships (their crap babies) and the USA market! They have expanded foal breeding operations based on rescue $$$$ and decreased their PMU herd. Seriously, rescue is money in their pockets, as they have very low overhead. Talk to them in person, and they laugh at the crazy Americans, who buy foals to "save" them. All the while, they are still breeding and selling foals to the meat market! Argh!

Personally: this is what that translates into for me and for other quality draft horse breeders: I can't sell (for $1500 bucks), an All American nominee reg foal with has won reserve Ch stallion at a "big" show as a FOAL because people who want a draft foal would rather "rescue" a PMU horseee babeee. All over you see it, people bragging about their wonderful PMU "rescue" foal (hairy, big headed, legs like stumps, etc.), who wouldn't dream of supporting the actual breed by buying a quality animal from a QUALITY breeder, who cares for their animal! Better to rescue and support a "horsee mill" than keep a breed going! Who cares, if another animal is being bred in crap conditions to fill the place on the ship that their animal left vacant! Why think?, when emotions can rule you? Eh?

So, I advertised this fantastic yearling for a month (with husband upset that I was making a mistake). I looked at him again, looked twice. Raised his price to $3500. Put him in the GA National Draft Horse Show, and the NC state fair next week. I am sure he will do well. I will probably hold on to him now until he is four. I will sell broke to ride, started in dressage training and driving and I will sell him probably closer to $8,000 or more, with wins at the National Perch show on him. I am not a "big" breeder, and I breed quality. I have the money to hold on to the nice foals and bring them up -that is my plan for now.

Bluey

Oct. 10, 2007, 08:22 AM

---"Veterinarians for Equine Welfare (VEW) does not list how many members they have but based on quality of their website, I would estimate in the 100s, not 1000s. Does anyone have a number so that we can actually determine if the above statement is true or false?"---

I don't know NOT ONE veterinarian and there are many around here, that doesn't understand slaughter is part of how we manage animals and horse slaughter as being part of the horse industry.
They know that slaughter is part of how we use our horses.
I doubt that any vets here belong to that new vet association.
Every one I have talked to, when mentioning the slaughter ban bill, have less than polite words about the efforts of some misguided individuals to push for that bill.:eek:

I would guess that there are very few veterinarian belonging to that new vet group, that mostly probably come from the bigger cities, are small animal vets and are also active in other kinds of extreme political issues.

Slaughter is like surgery, as one vet told me, disagreable and sad to contemplate, but a necessary part of life, for the needs we have.

horse crazy inTX

Oct. 10, 2007, 08:23 AM

"Rescued from slaughter" horses are the NEW hot marketing ploy. Someone even threatened in an ad on Craigslist to slaughter and eat their own horse if it didn't sell. :sigh:

Bless you Cielo Azure, I wouldn't want to be in the horse business for anything these days!

3horsemom

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:00 PM

county

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:05 PM

The Jockey Club is preventing TB's from slaughter? Not that I've seen in any numbers. The 3nd largest breed asso. is TB's. The 3nd largest breed slaughtered is TB's. Pretty much stands to reason to me.

3horsemom

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:21 PM

not disagreeing. just asking where are all the qh etc rescues? at least some tbs find good homes thru the efforts of organized rescue groups dedicated to rehoming tbs. do qh people do the same? arabian breeders? the paint people? if tbs are 3rd in number, what are 1 and 2 doing to alleviate the number of horses going to slaughter?
i do not think for a minute that the jockey club has funded rescues or retirements out of altruism. avoiding bad p.r. is very motivational. i just do not understand why the aqha ... has not recieved the same bad publicity.

Curley07

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:27 PM

it seems to me that there was a ton of pressure put on the tb racing industry to "re-home" track rejects(for lack of a better description) yet the aqha,the apha and the arabian breeders association have not been held accountable for the number of horses bred with their encouragment. just as the akc pays lip services to banning puppy mills(while taking the money for registering the same puppies) the aqha, et al make millions in registration fees. it makes for a good business model to keep encouraging breeding when that is where the money is and disposal is not their problem. what happens to all the qhs used for racing? arabians used for racing? where do they go? is anyone holding these associations accountable like the jockey club has been?

It depends on what side of the fence you sit on ... in some breed associations the majority of members support slaughter ... not because they aim to breed for that purpose, but for many other reasons. Many of these breeders are "agriculturalists" so the idea of an animal meeting it's end in this manner isn't obscene to them. And perhaps I agree that they are sort of "horse economists" ... and not at all surprised by the terrible sale prices that are the result of the imposed ban.

county

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:27 PM

Are their people who rescue QH's? Of course there are we have here I know many others that do. The vast majority of horse people I know do what they feel is the responsable thing to do. That doesn't mean everyone thinmks the same way nor should they. But if what they choose to do is legal I see no problems with it. Slaughter, kill them and bury, give them away, send them to a retirement home, what ever. Same as any other species of animal.

Bluey

Oct. 11, 2007, 07:33 AM

We trained and raced both TB and QH.
When thru running, some became breeding stock and the rest were sold to ranch, show or pleasure riders.
Most of our QH had a list of people waiting for them, especially those we raised here, started on cattle, then legged up and ran.

The last stallion we had here we started working cattle lightly as an early two, then went to the track with him that summer and thru next winter, to get a speed rating and several months later, when he came home we kept using him regularly as a cowhorse.

You can't paint all racing with the same brush of the uncaring trainer and/or owner dumping horses when one is not serving him any more, any more than anyone else that has a horse they at some time won't or can't keep any more.

There are all kinds of trainers, believe it or not, in any we do with horses, be it racing, hunter/jumper, dressage, cutting, reining, whatever.
The truth is that there are many, many horses started at something and some that won't work for that job.
Most trainers I know then try to sell them and if they can't in a reasonable time, they put them in all kinds of horse sales, where they will have a wider range of bidders, even if they won't then know where the horse may end up.

That is one reason we quit breeding and later training, because people over the years were becoming less and less horsemen and more pet owners, with little experience with but a few horses and we were not feeling comfortable with where some of our horses may end up.
Slaugthter was the least of our concern, as that is a quick end to a horse that is not of service any more, or should not be around if too rank and dangerous towards people or horses.

Remember that the animal rights propaganda of slaughter being terrible is just that, propaganda.
The fellow here that took horses to the slaughterhouse 6 1/2 hours away was a farrier and horse trainer, as was his wife.
They had show and rodeo horses and taking horses to slaughter was a side line to him.
The horses were well cared for and taken there in the same trailer his horses traveled.

Multiply that by hundreds of such people and the idea of those few traders that abuse horses at some time, as the stories go, become then only an abuse situation, not an abusive slaughter problem.

Remember, abuse may happen any place, but we don't ban all use of our horses because of it, where is the sense in that?
The same applies to the slaughter process, that was taking care in a profitable way of a small percentage of our horse population, which is still a large number of horses.

Slaughter is not inherently abusive, but I am sure that you can find some abuse there, as you can in anything people do.
That doesn't mean we need to ban it, any more than banning driving cars because a few DWI.

3horsemom

Oct. 11, 2007, 09:51 AM

admittedly i am on the fence on the slaughter issue. do kind, deserving horses end up at the slaughter? absolutely. ultimately it all comes down to econmics. as the demand for horses declines one would think that breeders would breed less. however, that seems counterintuitive to the purpose of the aqha...the more quarter horses the better. not just the aqha...any breed organization would have the same philosophy i would think. i do not mean to single out the aqha...they are the biggest stick(and the easiest to type). as long as there are organizations encouraging breeding we will have more horses than we need. just like dogs and cats.
thanks curley 07 for the term "agriculturalists" . just a city girl here. and bluey thank you for your post. well written and informative. i always am interested in what you have to say.may not always agree but am interested.