Double Decker levels were only 5ft.tall .

[fernie fox]

I cant cut and paste the article,because it would be illegal.

Apparently the decks on the accident vehicle were only 5 ft tall according to an article I just received.

The driver has been issued with citations.

One of the crews working on the case is checking into the legality of moving these horses under these conditions.

Here is a link,to one of the latest articles I can find,but I am still trying to find a link to the article I was e-mailed[it was on AP]..


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-horse_weboct29,1,3813887.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[fernie fox]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/news/624788,5_1_WA29_HORSEACCIDENT_S1.article

[Glimmerglass]

I don't believe sharing excerpts of an article are illegal (if so I'd be in "trouble") provided proper credit is provided. Yea, yea I've read the newspaper disclaimers. If the Tribune company wants to chase after me have at it. I'm sure Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom will be happy to represent me ;)

Anyhow regarding the horrible circumstances of that wreck, there was a lengthy and seemingly heated thread on it that has come and gone - it was locked.

No idea how folks can bicker about something as downright disgusting as that wreck.

Cruel and unusual punishment for animals to be transported in that fashion, regardless of the source of origination or ultimate destination. The trucking firm engaged in that practice should be barred from hauling in the State of Illinois and the driver's CDL revoked.

Even for those people who don't care about horses - they could be hauling coal for that matter - the stability of such a rig and the risk to ALL drivers on the highway comes into debate. That's where is becomes a concern for all motorists and should be addressed as such.

[Angela Freda]

the stability of such a rig and the risk to ALL drivers on the highway comes into debate. That's where is becomes a concern for all motorists and should be addressed as such.
BINGO!
That the last few wrecks did NOT take out any other motorists is just lucky for these haulers who are driving on roads they are not legally on, or overloaded, or whatever rule they opted to ignore.

[Marcella]

What law was being broken? You can haul horses in double deckers...if they aren't going to a processing facility. Since these horses were supposedly going to a sale, then it is OK. (I mean OK by law...not getting into OK by standards created by opinions in the equine industry).

[Angela Freda]

In the case of the MO wreck that was not a road legal for those size rigs.
In this case, I would say it is illegal to run a red light for starters, which he did-leading me to wonder if he was speeding. And there may well be state laws incl those about double deckers for any hauling of horses there. NY, for example, does not allow it.

[RU2U]

This topic came up regarding slaughters and what not and many don't see a problem with it. According to others alot of ranchers haul their personal horses in DD's all the time and don't have a problem with it.

Personally, I wouldn't want my horses in it, but whatever...

Now as I am learning more about "MEAT" (my husbands dream is to become a "real" farmer. I am learning different ways of how beef is raised. Now a common way around here in OHio is to put a young cow in stocks (with the head locked in place) like in a dairy barn. The cow is kept in stocks until it reaches full slaughter weight. Cow can stand, cow can lay down but cow can not run around as he could loose weight being a happy cow. WE would never raise cows like this.

But my questions is why don't they haul animals in stocks with bars (solid walls would be even better) dividing cows, or horses and this way the animal can not interfere with other animals. Why don't haulers have dividers? Seems to me this would be more economical (could pack more animals in a truck) Animal could balance better on his own with out neighboring animals bumping into him. Animals would come to the slaughter houses in better condition. So why isn't this done?

[Luckydonkey]

adding more dividers to a trailer adds a lot of extra weight. Extra weight on the truck means less livestock weight can be hauled- not to mention a lot harder to load and unload a bunch of animals from small single "pens"....

[Angela Freda]

Now a common way around here in OHio is to put a young cow in stocks (with the head locked in place) like in a dairy barn. The cow is kept in stocks until it reaches full slaughter weight. Cow can stand, cow can lay down but cow can not run around as he could loose weight being a happy cow.
This is how vealers (male Holsteins) were handled on my grandmothers dairy farm... it was a cart on wheels that they were on, and in stocks.

[Angela Freda]

adding more dividers to a trailer adds a lot of extra weight. Extra weight on the truck means less livestock weight can be hauled- not to mention a lot harder to load and unload a bunch of animals from small single "pens"....
However, stallions ARE suppoesed to be segregated per USDA law.
Those horses on the Texarkansas trailer cited last year? the year before? were mostly stallions, all unsegregated

[RainyDayRide]

Please let's keep this thread to the subject of the wreck and its aftermath .... straying into other topics will only result in the closure of this thread also.

[fernie fox]

This thread was started because I am disgusted that horses were being tranported in such terrible conditions.

Even if the height in these trailers was 5 ft 6" it is not high enough.

Please no slaughter comment on this thread.

These horses were being transport to be sold.

Lets leave it at that.

[RainyDayRide]

Reports - text and video - at http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5731185

Three more horses were put down this morning. The driver was charged with "disobeying a traffic control device and for failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. "The way they were transported and whether or not it was a cause or the proximate cause of their death is something that clearly needs to be looked into," said Curran."


Dr. John Hanover, an equine specialist was on the scene Saturday and said the way the horses were transported was excessive and contributed to their death.
"This is unique. This is not the norm, I don't think. The final determination of what's going to happen with the animals will be up to the IDA and USDA," Hanover said.

The Wisconsin vets now handling the case say some of the horses have serious injuries, and they will have to look at them on a day-to-day basis to determine what happens to them.

[Anne FS]

In this case, I would say it is illegal to run a red light for starters, which he did-leading me to wonder if he was speeding.

Not necessarily. Look at the other thread on traffic lights:

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=119785

People talk about how when lights go from yellow to red sometimes you just cannot stop due to the weight. He may have been doing what a lot of COH readers do: just blow through the intersection (not at high speed), but this time he didn't make it.

[Marcella]

Frankly, when hauling horses, I start honking and blow the light instead of stopping and slamming on the brakes.

This stretch of road where the accident occurred is 55 and a 4 lane hwy...pretty hard to stop here. I've run the light numerous times here with a full trailer (and that is just 2 horses...not 59!).

[horse crazy inTX]

What were the weather conditions? Something I read made it sound like the roads were slippery.

IMHO, most truckers don't drive like they are driving a heavy truck that needs a long distance to stop. I hate to see truckers tailgating.

[Angela Freda]

Not necessarily. Look at the other thread on traffic lights:

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=119785

People talk about how when lights go from yellow to red sometimes you just cannot stop due to the weight. He may have been doing what a lot of COH readers do: just blow through the intersection (not at high speed), but this time he didn't make it.

Uhhhhh, yeah.
But it is still illegal to run a red light. And he was cited for that and failure to slow down.
Supposedly if you are traveling at the proper speed, from the time it goes yellow to red you SHOULD have time to stop.

[Marcella]

What were the weather conditions? Something I read made it sound like the roads were slippery.

IMHO, most truckers don't drive like they are driving a heavy truck that needs a long distance to stop. I hate to see truckers tailgating.

I am pretty sure it was raining Sat. night, as I cleaned out my paddock in the afternoon before the rain. But I guess it started raining after the accident? Not a lot, but we had sprinkles at our house and we are 20 min. from the accident.

[RainyDayRide]

Photo of the interior of the still-on-its-side trailer.

http://tinyurl.com/2akh4k

[fernie fox]

I studied that pic. carefully.

The headroom is "barely 5 ft.:mad:

[Luckydonkey]

Uhhhhh, yeah.
But it is still illegal to run a red light. And he was cited for that and failure to slow down.
Supposedly if you are traveling at the proper speed, from the time it goes yellow to red you SHOULD have time to stop.

Not with 50,000 pounds behind you.

[fernie fox]

Any vehicle should be driven within it's braking distances.

This was at traffic light at 7 oclock at night,wet roads apparently,he should be driving according to road conditions.

He should be able to stop at a light,

[luvmytbs]

To see the size of the horses pulled from the wreck, view the clip here. 59 if them? :(

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5731185

[I'm EBO]

And these 59 large horses who were crammed into a double-decker truck were supposed to have been going to another auction???????? That really does stretch credibility when you see how many are injured on these trucks. If they were going to auction, it would seem to me to be more profitable to haul them in such a manner that would protect them rather risk something like that.

Wonder if the driver signed up for unemployment benefits this morning? Wonder if the hauling company folded up its tent and moved north? Or, I wonder if there were some fat insurance policies on these horses?

[vpstevens]

What were the weather conditions? Something I read made it sound like the roads were slippery.

IMHO, most truckers don't drive like they are driving a heavy truck that needs a long distance to stop. I hate to see truckers tailgating.

Road conditions were perfect. Clean and dry! It is rumored that these trailers were on that route to avoid weight stations and log checks.

I just had communication with the farm housing the horses. No owner has yet to come forward, only insurance which is coming out to discuss the horses with the farm owner tomorrow (Tuesday).

Hmmmm, why wouldn't an owner come forward? If the owner was someone or something that would classify the movement of these horses in the manner they were being transported to be considered illegal might be one reason.

[citydog]

Not with 50,000 pounds behind you.

Bullshit. He should be driving SLOWLY ENOUGH that he can.

It boggles the mind that there are folks on here who think it's perfectly OK to run lights. As Fernie Fox said, any vehicle should be driven within its braking distance.

[carosello]

What were the weather conditions? Something I read made it sound like the roads were slippery.

IMHO, most truckers don't drive like they are driving a heavy truck that needs a long distance to stop. I hate to see truckers tailgating.


It was very nice over the weekend..no rain and the temps were not too cold (no frost).

[Glimmerglass]

Looks like - thankfully or atleast fingers crossed - the trucker will face more charges.

Per ABC7-Chicago's 10 pm news report three more horses were euthanized today.

Chicago Tribune 10-29-07 (updated 9:10 CST) (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-horse_weboct29,0,5960426.story?coll=chi_tab01_layo ut)

[the destination] could be key to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A spokeswoman said the department has strict regulations about the way horses are transported to slaughter. Otherwise, states make their own rules about humane methods of transport.

Illinois investigators also were concerned about the manner in which the animals were being transported.

"We'll be looking at whether there was any violation of the Humane Care for Animals Act," said Mark Ernst, the Illinois state veterinarian, whose office is part of the state Department of Agriculture. "If there was animal cruelty, when we get done with our investigation we'll provide that information to the Lake County state's attorney."

Curran said aggravated animal cruelty is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison.

I wonder how long before the owner is disclosed?

Nelson, who works at Bristol Vet Service in Kenosha County, Wis., said Monday that he talked to the animals' out-of-state owner. He did not disclose the owner's name, citing the ongoing investigation and confidentiality concerns.

"The guy was very pleasant," Nelson said. "He didn't want any of the horses to suffer. He told me to do what I could."

Wadsworth veterinarian Gary Koehler, who is also working with the animals, said the intense interest in their future, plus the investigation, should ensure that their fate is watched carefully.

"This is not something that's going to be swept under the carpet," he said.

Amazing that the owner can make such a statement as "didn't want the horses to suffer" - isn't that rich! So shipping them in the equivalent of a sardine can for a four + hour trip is not suffering? Does this guy ride around with his entire family in a two seater car?

[I'm EBO]

I'm so sorry that the USDA will call the shots on this. That's the same USDA who cooked up the scheme for foreign-owned slaughter houses to pay for their own inspections; the same USDA that's been in the pocket of Big Ag and Big Chem for decades; the same USDA who doesn't enforce its "strict regulations" about how animals are transported to slaughter, any animals; the same USDA which prohibits cattle ranchers from testing thier own animals for mad cow disease.

The best hope is that it will be determined that the horses were not being shipped to slaughter because Illinois has better laws on animal welfare than USDA.

[Liberty]

From posts on the thread over on the Alex Brown forum:

A poster from there who was on the scene helping to rescue the horses talked to an eyewitness, a female employee of the BP station. The eyewitness said there were 3 other trailer loads of horses that just "kept on going" after the one crashed. :(

Furthermore, the following was mentioned about the driver of the rig who crashed:

"...the driver showed absolutely no remorse whatsoever Saturday night.

...I remember her saying that initially when this first happened they assumed the driver was going to take charge of this and they tried to give him the names of veterinarians to call, and names of people who could help. He wouldn't take them and just wanted to leave. He was completely uninterested in helping rescue the horses... and didn't.

...that jerk just left. People on the scene said he had no care about the horses, he refused medical treatment and literally ran away. He even told one of the police officers on scene "my company's insurance will take care of it". And then he flew home to North Dakota.

Well gee, of course he hightailed it out of there. He knew he was in the wrong.

There were also at least a couple of Clydesdales and a Percheron on that trailer as well as the Belgians. One of the Clydesdales was euthed on the scene since it had a broken leg. At least two more horses were put down at the farm yesterday. Last count I could find was 42 still surviving.

This article has a video that shows a couple of horses that you'll see are of substantial size, certainly WAY larger than any animal that should have been transported in a conventional livestock DD:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5731185

And here is a link to a post on the Alex Brown forum that contains a list of links to related articles, pics and videos:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/alexbrown/messages?msg=16294.299

More pics:
http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s144/allison1620/Tractor%20Trailer%20crash/

IMO, there is no way in H*ll that those horses were being hauled in a humane manner. Probably illegal as well, but can't say for sure since I'm not sure of the laws (or lack thereof) in the state of Illinois and/or regarding interstate transportation between the involved states.

As for "blowing through" a red light, a tractor-trailer driver, especially when hauling a 50 to 60K lb load, should be careful enough to judge and drive accordingly, expecting every upcoming light to turn red. That's what I do, no matter what I'm driving or hauling. Our lives, our horses' lives, and the lives of everyone else on the road depend on it.

I hope the driver of that rig, along with all others who share the blame for that mess, are judged and dealt with accordingly, to the fullest extent of the law.

Kudos to all who were there and were/are helping, and I pray that no more of those horses die and that they end up in homes where they can find safety, love, and appreciation.

[LarkspurCO]

This article has a video that shows a couple of horses that you'll see are of substantial size, certainly WAY larger than any animal that should have been transported in a conventional livestock DD:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5731185


I noticed at the very end of the news video clip an empty double-decker trailer drives by. How ironic.

To those who get up in the morning and start telling everyone how cattle are so much larger than horses, and do so well in the DDs, therefore it's okay for horses, I would like an answer to this question:

How TALL is an average cow? Standing at rest, my tallest horse (16:2) needs minimum of 6 1/2 feet of head room.

How many cows are this tall?????

[gwenrowdy]

I wonder if the police got a chance to check Mr. Safety for alcohol before he split the scene.

[county]

Like it or not the fact is the size of the truck was legal, hauling in DD in the states involved is legal ( except for horses going to slaughter ), the head room was legal. Is it good? Bad? Thats all opinion but they were hauled in a legal truck and trailer. Should the driver be fined? Of course same as any driver of any vechicle that runs a red light or stop sign should. The rest of it like or not was legal. Should the laws be changed? Thats up to those in the states involved to change if they see fit to do so.

[horse crazy inTX]

I noticed at the very end of the news video clip an empty double-decker trailer drives by. How ironic.

To those who get up in the morning and start telling everyone how cattle are so much larger than horses, and do so well in the DDs, therefore it's okay for horses, I would like an answer to this question:

How TALL is an average cow? Standing at rest, my tallest horse (16:2) needs minimum of 6 1/2 feet of head room.

How many cows are this tall?????

Cattle are measured at the hip not the withers but some breeds measure 60" (15 h) at the hip.

Here is a photo for size reference: http://www.premierlonghorns.com/RidingLonghorns.html

Scroll down to ...It's the Texas Longhorn
that put the "COW" in "COWBOY"!

This was one DD out of 4. The only reason we are even talking about it because this one was engaged in an accident. How many accidents occur annually with horses being hauled? I had a friend that over turned a 2 horse taking a turn too fast. Unfortunately accidents happen.

Would there have been as much outrage if this would have been 60 head of cattle? Just wondering?

[MistyBlue]

OT here...but how fun are those riding steers? :D

[horse crazy inTX]

OT here...but how fun are those riding steers? :D

I've never gotten to ride one but we had a longhorn bull that had the smoothest looking trot and he could also jump a 4 1/2' fence from a stand still. Very athletic!

Longhorns can get HUGE, they don't quit growing until they are 6. If you ever get to the Fort Worth stockyards there is usually a saddled longhorn and cowboy hanging out to have pictures taken. :D

Back to your regular scheduled program...

[Liberty]

Like it or not the fact is the size of the truck was legal,

How do you know? Laws vary from state to state.

Here's what I've been able to find out so far (bold emphasis by me):

1. Gross Weight: Maximum allowable total gross weight for trucks on U.S. Interstates is 80,000 lbs, including tractor weight, chassis and container weight, cargo weight, etc. Off-interstate limits are typically lower. Please refer to to the American Trucking Association's "Summary of Size and Weight Limits". 2. Axle Weight: Allowable gross weight on a single or set of axles is regulated by individual states. States typically allow 34,000 lbs per tandem axle and 20,000 lbs per single axle. Please refer to the American Trucking Association's "Summary of Size and Weight Limits". Note : Over 50% of all U.S. citations issued are for axle weight violations, usually the result of uneven distribution of the load inside the container.

Additional Weight Considerations: As a general rule, gross weight (tractor/tare weight/cargo weight) for 40' equipment should be 80,000 lbs., with a cargo weight of 45,000 depending on tractor.

Illinois' max weight limit for a trailer is 40,800 lbs.

http://www.horizon-lines.com/inland/overweight.htm

Some states do allow greater weight limits, as long as a permit has been applied for and granted. However, Illinois doesn't allow it if the cargo is "divisible" (i.e., not one solid mass).

Furthermore, note that while the max length of a semi trailer is 53' in IL, it's only 48.6' in IN (the originating state of this rig) and 48' in MN (the original destination of this rig). I know I saw a post somewhere that stated the trailer in this wreck was a 53-footer.

I hope the true legalities (or illegalities as it may be) can be determined for that rig. Might be kinda hard, though, if it never passed through a weigh station since it's original load weight cannot be duplicated/recreated now.

[Luckydonkey]

[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;2769241]I noticed at the very end of the news video clip an empty double-decker trailer drives by. How ironic.

To those who get up in the morning and start telling everyone how cattle are so much larger than horses, and do so well in the DDs, therefore it's okay for horses, I would like an answer to this question:

How TALL is an average cow? Standing at rest, my tallest horse (16:2) needs minimum of 6 1/2 feet of head room.

How many cows are this tall?????[/QUO
average holstein dairy cow is taller than me at their withers, and I am 5'4...beef breeds are shorter, bulls are not- holstein bulls i have seen are taller than 16 hh, and the average holstein dairy cow weighs 1300 pounds... this is from my auction yard working years, and the wekly ones I attend...

I don't feel this driver was right by any means- and obviously he has been cited for various things- however- I still feel that stopping on a dime with 50,000 pounds behind you is impossible. I am married to a trucker- and let me tell you, I hear way more about the perrils of trucking and the idiots in their little sardine cans who like to jump in front of them, etc.... than I like to hear. As for this situation and 'blowing the light' well, I was not there, so do not know the exact situation- all i can do is read what was written, or read the pasted articles that get posted... bottom line it was a tragic accident that should not have happened- regardless of the where's and why's of it all. I live clear across the country from most of the people on here, and things happen a little differently over here....I do find it shocking though that so many people here think it is ok to run a red light with a loaded horse trailer because they do not want to chance injuring the horses they have on board. I wonder how you all will feel about that when you run a red light and hit and kill a family with little kids. You people running red lights with loaded trailers are playing roulette- you are no different than the trucker doing it- although his roulette game is over this time - maybe next time yours will be too!

[Angela Freda]

Like it or not the fact is the size of the truck was legal, hauling in DD in the states involved is legal ( except for horses going to slaughter ), the head room was legal. Is it good? Bad? Thats all opinion but they were hauled in a legal truck and trailer. Should the driver be fined? Of course same as any driver of any vechicle that runs a red light or stop sign should. The rest of it like or not was legal. Should the laws be changed? Thats up to those in the states involved to change if they see fit to do so.

Ah, but what is the weight of that vehicle loaded wth 59 heavy horses, and what are the weight requirements for that tractor/trailer and road?
Obviously less than he had, since he could not stop for a red light.

[Angela Freda]

Illinois' max weight limit for a trailer is 40,800 lbs.

Well in that case the avg wt of those animals would have to have been 813.559 #
Ya think they weigh less than my slab sided, 16hh TB?

[Angela Freda]

however- I still feel that stopping on a dime with 50,000 pounds behind you is impossible. I am married to a trucker- and let me tell you, I hear way more about the perrils of trucking and the idiots in their little sardine cans who like to jump in front of them, etc.... than I like to hear.
More reason to be watching other cars, the light that has gone yellow, and other road hazards and signs incl weather/road conditions.
Also more reason to be of proper weight and on the right road (ie one you are allowed to be on with that rig/wt).
I do find it shocking though that so many people here think it is ok to run a red light with a loaded horse trailer because they do not want to chance injuring the horses they have on board.
I agree.
I do not want my horse injured because you had to slam the brakes on to stop- which is why my horse generally travels with a self professed "Grandma Driver" who is a VERY good driver, aware of her surroundings (unlike Grandma!)

[Daydream Believer]

Well in that case the avg wt of those animals would have to have been 813.559 #
Ya think they weigh less than my slab sided, 16hh TB?

Actually not counting the weight of the trailer, just taking 40,800 lbs and dividing it between 59 horses gives you a weight of 692 lbs per horse...not much for a draft horse. I don't know what a trailer like that weighs but I'm sure 15,000 - 20,000 lbs by itself is not excessive. Are you all sure of those weights for Illinois? That would only leave cargo weight of 25,800 (assuming 15k weight for the trailer) or about 26 1000 lb animals or about 13 tons.

On the stopping for red lights bit. I pull a very heavy and large LQ trailer with a heavy duty pickup and I simply have got to slow down on roads with lights. I can't stop in those couple of seconds of amber unless I really stop hard...so I just go slower. The tractor trailers are usually blowing past me too on roads like that.

[Angela Freda]

You're right on that math (and I even used a calculator!).
I searched last night and could not find any Ill laws re: hauling horses either for slaughter or otherwise. Ill calls their DOT 'IDOT', just like Idaho, and even with that tidbit I could find nothing.

[carolprudm]

On the stopping for red lights bit. I pull a very heavy and large LQ trailer with a heavy duty pickup and I simply have got to slow down on roads with lights. I can't stop in those couple of seconds of amber unless I really stop hard...so I just go slower. The tractor trailers are usually blowing past me too on roads like that.

Yup, everytime I approach a stoplight I look to see if there are cars waiting at the intersection for their light to turn green. If there are, I assume that it's going to be red for me by the time I get there and plan accordingly. And I leave extra stopping distance between me and the car in front of me, if I can, but it's unreal how many drivers think I am leaving that spot just so they can squeeze in there:mad:

[I'm EBO]

You will have the usual crew on here, making excuses for anything anyone wants to do as long as it involves profits for livestock producers and their attendant businesses. That's to be expected.

However, I hope that every concerned person will call or otherwise contact their federal legislators today to encourage them to put an end to the use of double decker trucks for ALL animals except for pigs and sheep. There's no need to torture animals before you kill them.

[Glimmerglass]

You will have the usual crew on here, making excuses for anything anyone wants to do as long as it involves profits for livestock producers and their attendant businesses. That's to be expected.

I did note the same old voices oozing out of the woodwork on this thread protecting their turf and chastising anyone for saying otherwise. At what point is someone so sterile to any suffering that they are utterly oblivious to the circumstances here and just shrug their shoulders?

We might occupy the same planet but couldn't be further away in terms of decency towards life.

[county]

Making excuses? Haven't seen that at all have seen people stating facts such as theres only speculation as to how much the load weighted. Anyone can speculate about it but facts are facts.

[county]

BTW if you want change as far as whats hauled and how the best way is never buy that product. Every time you do you support the system. You want cattle to not be hauled a certain way stop spending your money on beef.

[Liberty]

Actually not counting the weight of the trailer, just taking 40,800 lbs and dividing it between 59 horses gives you a weight of 692 lbs per horse...not much for a draft horse. I don't know what a trailer like that weighs but I'm sure 15,000 - 20,000 lbs by itself is not excessive. Are you all sure of those weights for Illinois? That would only leave cargo weight of 25,800 (assuming 15k weight for the trailer) or about 26 1000 lb animals or about 13 tons.

The 40,800 max weight limit (can be less, depending upon the type of trailer) was for cargo weight, not total weight of trailer and cargo.

I got that figure, and other info, from the following chart:
http://www.horizon-lines.com/inland/overweight.htm

[horse crazy inTX]

BTW if you want change as far as whats hauled and how the best way is never buy that product. Every time you do you support the system. You want cattle to not be hauled a certain way stop spending your money on beef.

Many animals have been hauled in DDs without even minor injuries. No responsible owner would risk harming VALUABLE animals by hauling in a means that was MEANT to cause harm.

From a Chicago Tribune article...

Younger, smaller horses seemed to take the brunt of the collision, said Vickie Wancho of Lindenhurst, who cares for horses at the Carney farm. The horses include geldings and mares and range from 6 months to 6 years old. Despite their injuries, they were in good condition, Wancho said. Their hooves had been smoothed and rounded, their coats shined, their tails trimmed and the hairs along their jawlines cut.

"That means someone thought something of them at one time," Wancho said.


So what about the 3 other truckloads???

[Cielo Azure]

Liberty,

I went to the site you had and found that actually what you "quoted" ins't right. For each of those states, there were asterisks showing that higher weight and longer sizes were allowed. You needed to go down to the "fine print" at that bottom of the page

"Illinois' max weight limit for a trailer is 40,800 lbs."
That is without permit, with permit it is:
[2] Illinois will permit on a sliding scale as follows:
73,281 lbs - 80,000 lbs
80,001 lbs - 88,000 lbs


http://www.horizon-lines.com/inland/overweight.htm

"Furthermore, note that while the max length of a semi trailer is 53' in IL, it's only 48.6' in IN (the originating state of this rig) and 48' in MN (the original destination of this rig). I know I saw a post somewhere that stated the trailer in this wreck was a 53-footer."

Again, go down to the bottom of the page:
Indiana 48-6 **
** Semitratilers up to 53 feet in length may operate without a permit by conforming to a kingpin-to-rearmost axle distance of 40 feet 6 inches. Semitrailers that are consistent with 23 CFR 658.13(h) may operate without a permit, provided the distance from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle is 46 feet or less.

There are a lot of caveats listed at the bottom of the page, which allow for all sorts of weight/length adjustments. It wouldn't surprise me if he was illegal but reading what you posted was a little misleading. There is a lot more to that page, with a lot of ways to go around the non-permiting limits (including getting a permit for excess weight/length -varying by state).

[Liberty]

Making excuses? Haven't seen that at all have seen people stating facts such as theres only speculation as to how much the load weighted. Anyone can speculate about it but facts are facts.

BTW if you want change as far as whats hauled and how the best way is never buy that product. Every time you do you support the system. You want cattle to not be hauled a certain way stop spending your money on beef.


Yes, facts are facts, and I'm hoping the facts can be determined for this situation. However the weight issue may not be able to be definitely determined since many of the horses are dead and, mostly likely, already disposed of. But if that trailer was, in fact, a 53-footer, the driver was violating legal size limits in the originating state (IN) and would have been again had he made it to MN (which the other 3 trailer loads probably did).

As for the beef issue and "supporting the system", there is such a thing as local butcher shops that process only locally raised beef and don't accept large quantities such as would be transported via semi trucks. The livestock farmers deliver the animals themselves in stock trailers. I don't eat much meat, but when I do, it comes from my local butcher, not a big chain supermarket that supports factory farming.

[county]

Your not going to feed 300,000,000 people via the local butcher shops plain and simple. Myself I butcher my own livestock and I totally agree very few animals are injured in DD trucks same as stock trailers. What is the max. length for trilers in Mn? I thought it was 54 feet I know it used to be.

[Liberty]

Liberty,

I went to the site you had and found that actually what you "quoted" isn't right. For each of those states, there were asterisks showing that higher weight and longer sizes were allowed. You needed to go down to the "fine print" at that bottom of the page

"Illinois' max weight limit for a trailer is 40,800 lbs."
That is without permit, with permit it is:
[2] Illinois will permit on a sliding scale as follows:
73,281 lbs - 80,000 lbs
80,001 lbs - 88,000 lbs


http://www.horizon-lines.com/inland/overweight.htm

"Furthermore, note that while the max length of a semi trailer is 53' in IL, it's only 48.6' in IN (the originating state of this rig) and 48' in MN (the original destination of this rig). I know I saw a post somewhere that stated the trailer in this wreck was a 53-footer."

Again, go down to the bottom of the page:
Indiana 48-6 **
** Semitratilers up to 53 feet in length may operate without a permit by conforming to a kingpin-to-rearmost axle distance of 40 feet 6 inches. Semitrailers that are consistent with 23 CFR 658.13(h) may operate without a permit, provided the distance from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle is 46 feet or less.

There are a lot of caveats listed at the bottom of the page, which allow for all sorts of weight/length adjustments. It wouldn't surprise me if he was illegal but reading what you posted was a little misleading. There is a lot more to that page, with a lot of ways to go around the non-permiting limits (including getting a permit for excess weight/length -varying by state).

Cielo,

While you may have a point about the size limitation in IN (but not sure since I'm not familiar with the terminology nor the truck in question), everything else was accurate.

For instance, if you go to the chart and scroll across for Illinois, you will see the following under the "Legal Gross Weight W / Permit" heading:

"Will not Permit if cargo is divisible"

59 horses are certainly divisible and not a solid object, so the oversize weight permit is inapplicable in this case as qualified in comment [11] below the chart (which was referenced in the "Comments" column as applicable for Illinois):

"[11] This state does not provide overweight/over dimensional permits unless cargo is not able to be broken up (one solid unit), at which point, special arrangements have to be made with a specialized carrier. 80,000 is legal in AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA; however, there may be issues with axle weights if not loaded correctly."

While that rig *might* have been legal in IN, it still was not in IL, nor would it have been in MN since there were no caveats listed below for size limits of trailers in MN.

[Liberty]

Your not going to feed 300,000,000 people via the local butcher shops plain and simple. Myself I butcher my own livestock and I totally agree very few animals are injured in DD trucks same as stock trailers. What is the max. length for trilers in Mn? I thought it was 54 feet I know it used to be.

County, I was not talking about feeding 300,000,000. I was addressing your comment that I assumed was directed at each of us reading it. I cannot speak for everyone; only myself, and as such, it IS possible to eat meat and not support factory farming and the inhumanity it can entail.

I already posted the max length for trailers in MN, along with a link to the chart that lists lengths and weights for the rest of the states. Here's the link again, so you can see for yourself:
http://www.horizon-lines.com/inland/overweight.htm

[luvmytbs]

Liberty,

the GVW on the cab of this truck was listed at 89,000, which would also reflect its restriction on breaking capacity?

[Liberty]

Liberty,

the GVW on the cab of this truck was listed at 89,000, which would also reflect its restriction on breaking capacity?

Certainly appears that it would, based upon the info I've been able to dig up so far.

[horse crazy inTX]

It IS possible to eat meat and not support factory farming and the inhumanity it can entail.


So you think only evil, cruel Factory Farmers use DDs? Geesh!

DDs were used by a rancher I know who transports his broodcows and baby calves from winter pasture in NM to summer pasture in Colorado. He uses DDs. I think we loaded 3 or 4 DDs. He separates the pairs, then when he is assured all the babies are with the correct mamas he separates the mama cows from the babies. The mamas go on the bottom and the calves go on the top. This is a rancher that I witnessed with my own eyes go over and HUG one of his older original cows while it was drinking at a trough. YES indeed, cruel and inhumane.

Sorry, but I can't sit back and listen to lies. If it was only the 2 sides posting I wouldn't waste my time typing but there are MANY impressionable people reading this stuff that need to hear the truth.

[Liberty]

So you think only evil, cruel Factory Farmers use DDs? Geesh!

Sorry, but I can't sit back and listen to lies.

I never said "only evil, cruel factory farmers use DDs". Please go back and re-read the posts closely before you insinuate that anyone is lying here. Thanks!

[Alice]

Aside from the transportation legality issues, would there not be a humane issue above and beyond that?

I mean, even if all the laws were being technically being followed, could the operator not be charged with cruelty to animals?
Even if his load/size were within allowed limits, is there not some room in US law that would allow for animal cruelty charges?

It is legal to keep your dog chained to a dog house 24/7, but if they do not use it for protection from the elements and freeze to death, you could still be charged with cruelty. And you had followed the laws and given it "shelter".

[I'm EBO]

Liberty--I'm confused about how you go about buying beef from a local butcher. I'm under the impression that all beef slaughtered in the US must be "processed" at a facility that has a USDA inspector hanging around. Is that not true? (I'm a Whole Foods shopper & just hope I'm getting meat that was slaughtered as humanely as possible.) The one reason I don't order from the "grass fed & finished ranches" is that I don't want to support factory farming and factory killing--if they have to send their cattle to a factory-type slaughter house. (IMO, some of our rancher posters have probably done more to support the move towards vegetarianism among horse owners than anything else I can think of.)

[horse crazy inTX]

If the mode of transportation alone was illegal - minus the accident - then someone should have pursued and detained the other 3 trucks preceding this one. Right?

[Alice]

Yeah right, they should have jumped right on that.

After you know, determining no one was hurt, calling emergency workers, blocking off the road, getting the horses out of the tin can er, truck.

I believe an investigation is done, which determines whether or not things were done correctly. Investigations do take time...

What an obscure thing to say.

[horse crazy inTX]

Alice - there are other officers and police on the road aside from those involved in being hands on at the accident. I believe that a simple phone call can put out an APB if a law is being broken.

[Liberty]

Liberty--I'm confused about how you go about buying beef from a local butcher. I'm under the impression that all beef slaughtered in the US must be "processed" at a facility that has a USDA inspector hanging around. Is that not true? (I'm a Whole Foods shopper & just hope I'm getting meat that was slaughtered as humanely as possible.) The one reason I don't order from the "grass fed & finished ranches" is that I don't want to support factory farming and factory killing. (IMO, some of our rancher posters have probably done more to support the move towards vegetarianism among horse owners than anything else I can think of.)

The butcher shop I patronize is USDA inspected, but I'm not sure they're required to have an inspector on the premises at all times. I'll ask them the next time I'm there.

The other meat source I use occasionally is a local farmer who sells beef and chicken at the local farmer's market. He said his farm is "certified humane", but he does not do the butchering himself. He takes his live stock to a local butcher shop (could even be the one where I shop!) to have it processed for him.

I know what you mean about "grass fed and finished" ranches. If all you have to judge it by is the label on the package, there's no telling what actually was involved in the pipeline from hoof to package. But it's still probably better than the generic packages put out by big supermarket chains.

Check your local area for butcher shops. Ask around w/friends and acquaintances. If you find a shop, go and ask some questions or do some research on the net. You might be surprised at what you can find. Good luck! :)

[Liberty]

Alice - there are other officers and police on the road aside from those involved in being hands on at the accident. I believe that a simple phone call can put out an APB if a law is being broken.

From the eyewitness account I was reading on the Alex Brown forum thread, the other 3 trailer loads were traveling WITH the one that wrecked, and just kept on going. So there weren't any police officers at the ready to give chase, not that they would anyway unless those other trucks also ran the light.

I doubt an APB would have been issued soon enough to catch the other trucks considering the magnitude of the accident and the inability to determine exactly who was at fault and what exact laws had been broken. They still don't know all the laws that may have been broken even now, and I'm sure the investigation will take quite a while longer and may not even uncover everything it could or should.

[RainyDayRide]

One take-away from this accident is the benefit that can be derived from the training of first responders in handling incidents involving horses & trailers. Some articles/first hand reports have mentioned the training the local fire dept had recently received on extricating horses from trailers, including the use of plywood sheets. The fire chief was quoted saying how much the training had helped them assist the horses.

IIRC, the training was done by a local horse group. Altho' I imagine they were thinking more in terms of possible mishaps involving smaller trailers, the knowledge was obviously put to use in this case. Just as barn fires have acted as triggers for training local depts in horse handling under stress, perhaps this sad situation could inspire similar training efforts elsewhere.

[Alagirl]

From the eyewitness account I was reading on the Alex Brown forum thread, the other 3 trailer loads were traveling WITH the one that wrecked, and just kept on going. So there weren't any police officers at the ready to give chase, not that they would anyway unless those other trucks also ran the light.

I doubt an APB would have been issued soon enough to catch the other trucks considering the magnitude of the accident and the inability to determine exactly who was at fault and what exact laws had been broken. They still don't know all the laws that may have been broken even now, and I'm sure the investigation will take quite a while longer and may not even uncover everything it could or should.


Why would they search for trucks with no involvement in the wreck? :confused:

[gwenrowdy]

As long as there is an idiot out there who is willing to keep hauling horses in these conditions, emergency responders are going to need this kind of training. The first double decker wreck I recall hearing about was in New York State in the early '80's. The floor of the overstuffed truck broke apart and was spllling horses and their various bodyparts all over the road while drivers in other vehicles were frantically honking at the driver to pull over. It was amazing that a 300 lb. chunk of horse didn't go through somebody's windshield. Unfortunately, it seems it will take someone being killed by one of these trucks before any serious enforcement is done. Even if I didn't give a rat's south end about how horses were hauled along the path to slaughter, I wouldn't want to have to drive beside or behind one of these deathtraps. Give these trucks a wide berth, and be aware they always seem to travel at night.

[horse crazy inTX]

Give these trucks a wide berth, and be aware they always seem to travel at night.

They probably travel at night due to it being cooler for the animals.

Personally I steer clear of most trucks and motorcycles. I don't like to live dangerously.

As to why go after the other trucks - it seems that many think laws were being broken. ONLY because there was a horrific accident did anyone even know about the DDs trucking these horses.

[gwenrowdy]

They probably travel at night due to it being cooler for the animals.


Ahuh, and I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too. It's late October.

[I'm EBO]

HorsecrazyinTX--Even if you only joined this forum a couple of months ago, I can't believe that you think the rest of us weren't aware that horses are hauled in double decker trailers! (According to some of your cohorts, horses LIKE to be carried that way; they prefer it! :lol:)

No matter what the big rigs are hauling, they are all too often a menace on the roads. The truckers are in such a rush to get their loads from point A to point B that they, or the owners of the companies for which they work, forget that the main point is to get to point B with an intact load and a living driver.

IMO, the US highways would be much safer, and more affordable in terms of repair, if long distance shipments of cargo were made by rail, with only local deliveries made by trucks. Our air quality would also be vastly improved, along with our fuel "shortage". Sorry if my opinion conflicts with your family's livelihood.

[Glimmerglass]

As an aside, it looks like the brilliant shipping company behind this hauling plan may have an outpost in South Africa - or maybe this US firm was inspired by them? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7067548.stm), either way "great minds" think alike:

Police in Zululand say they seized two cows and two goats found squashed into the back of a tiny Fiat Uno.

The authorities say the use of ever-smaller vehicles came after police stepped up surveillance of larger vans.

Police chased one overloaded Fiat Uno into the night, after receiving a tip-off at around 0300.

The driver abandoned the car after he realised he was being followed and ran off into the bushes.

All the seats except the driver's had been taken out and the cows and goats loaded in their place.

Or as the Associated Press said (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5htYxgLKuH1OX2SftmgD7QCRqydHA): "It was a real stock car, but the driver was the only one racing."

I'm sure some on this thread would counter and say "well provided no laws were broken, it's just fine by me" ..."if it wasn't for those brave FIAT drivers people would be paying much more per lb of beef" ..

[Lora]

[QUOTE=horse crazy inTX;2770181]They probably travel at night due to it being cooler for the animals.


Yeah right - they could care less about the animals - more likely to hide what their doing from the public.

[horse crazy inTX]

EBO - you make a lot of assumptions - you know what they say about assuming.

I don't make a living ranching. I have cattle and horses and goats because I enjoy being around animals.

If you really want to learn about someone with differing views than you on slaughter please learn a little about me and my one horse Diamond. It might give you a little insight into the horrible person I am.

http://forums.horsecity.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010979;p=1

[Liberty]

Why would they search for trucks with no involvement in the wreck? :confused:

I have no idea. The post of mine you quoted was in response to two previous posts (#62 & 64) by "horse crazy in TX" where she mentioned police giving chase to/issuing APBs for the other trucks that were traveling with the one that wrecked.

[caffeinated]

she mentioned it because of people saying the DDs are illegal for transporting horses. The question is "if they are illegal why were no police sent after the other trailers to pull them over?"

I think she's being hypothetical, not sure why this is causing so much confusion for people.

[Liberty]

she mentioned it because of people saying the DDs are illegal for transporting horses. The question is "if they are illegal why were no police sent after the other trailers to pull them over?"

I think she's being hypothetical, not sure why this is causing so much confusion for people.

Well, until she clarifies what she meant, we can only guess.

What caused the confusion for me is that while the legality of DDs hauling horses has been touched on, the subject has been concentrated more towards the legality of the size and weight of the rig, not the type. Therefore not likely cops will just go after a rig they *think* might be a few feet too long or a few lbs too heavy. That's what weigh stations are for, the one on the accident road being closed, which is very likely why that trucker was on that road in the first place rather than the interstate.

Besides, unless a cop has eagle eyes or ends up at a traffic light next to the rig, it would be difficult for him/her to ascertain that there were horses in the truck and not either pigs or cattle, assuming he would even look and wonder in the first place.

[Alagirl]

Ahuh, and I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too. It's late October.


There are usually less idiots on the road cutting in front of you late at night. and less chance of someone having to be at a red light...

[I'm EBO]

HorsecrazyinTX--I apologize because I confused you with poster LuckyDonkey who says she is married to a trucker, thus the comment I made about my opinions conflicting with your family's livelihood.

I don't know what assumptions you're talking about otherwise, unless you think that pro-slaughter people are all lumped together as apologists for animal cruelty. You'll no doubt get to defend yourself on that in another forum.

But this thread is supposed to be about a tractor-trailer wreck that doesn't portend well for many facets of the animal transport business.

[wasagroom]

Livestock hauling is a lifestyle means to an end for many. Bullpullers and horse transporters sometimes aren't even animal savvy let alone able (willing?) to help out when their "cargo" wrecks. There are a lot of factors to play in. Lots of people say you should drive slower if you're carrying a heavy weight... are you willing to pay the incurred cost of goods because it takes longer to haul, thus costs more money on the whole for shippers and brokers?

Consider that the speed limit is a guide for "if conditions are perfect" - by that right, rain, fog, anything like that should slow you down a lot - how many of us REALLY slow down when driving our personal cars when they run into a little bit of "not so perfect" conditions?

The trucker himself, was not responsible for lining up that load, I doubt. He may have been doing something wrong but he was making a paycheque, possibly to feed wife and kids at home, and that is it. There was a big controversy a while back when several pigs died when a truck broke down and the trucker REFUSED to unload them... can you imagine what the brokers/livestock managers would say if he UNLOADED those pigs and then couldn't get them back on, they got seized, etc? That would be the end of his job for sure.

It's also unfair to say that he was not affected just because he was not immediately remorseful. A car accident, for those of you who have been in one, may not affect you emotionally immediately, but it might damn well keep you awake for weeks with nightmares.

[luvmytbs]

Unfortunately most officers are not educated on DOT regulations. IF you are lucky you may have one DOT certified officer in your area.

[Alagirl]

Livestock hauling is a lifestyle means to an end for many. Bullpullers and horse transporters sometimes aren't even animal savvy let alone able (willing?) to help out when their "cargo" wrecks. There are a lot of factors to play in. Lots of people say you should drive slower if you're carrying a heavy weight... are you willing to pay the incurred cost of goods because it takes longer to haul, thus costs more money on the whole for shippers and brokers?

Consider that the speed limit is a guide for "if conditions are perfect" - by that right, rain, fog, anything like that should slow you down a lot - how many of us REALLY slow down when driving our personal cars when they run into a little bit of "not so perfect" conditions?

The trucker himself, was not responsible for lining up that load, I doubt. He may have been doing something wrong but he was making a paycheque, possibly to feed wife and kids at home, and that is it. There was a big controversy a while back when several pigs died when a truck broke down and the trucker REFUSED to unload them... can you imagine what the brokers/livestock managers would say if he UNLOADED those pigs and then couldn't get them back on, they got seized, etc? That would be the end of his job for sure.

It's also unfair to say that he was not affected just because he was not immediately remorseful. A car accident, for those of you who have been in one, may not affect you emotionally immediately, but it might damn well keep you awake for weeks with nightmares.


QFE


Pretty much my own thoughts. The man might very well have suffered a shock or similar. and the sentiment on this thread does not make me want to blame him for heading home.

[wasagroom]

QFE?

[Alagirl]

quoted for emphasis

[Glimmerglass]

The trucker himself, was not responsible for lining up that load, I doubt. He may have been doing something wrong but he was making a paycheque, possibly to feed wife and kids at home, and that is it.

Cry me a river, please.

Any dolt should be able to walk around that rig and think - that isn't right. 59 horses stuffed into something not designed for that animal, likely kicking one another, and this guy thinks "well I've gotta pay my bills".

Sorry I don't cut slack for folks who make a bad choice like that. I'm sure a drug dealer says "gotta pay the bills" or a human-traffic smuggler from Mexico says "gotta pay the bills" or a hooker says "gotta pay the bills" or the embezzler at the Church says "gotta pay the bills" ... hey I'm sure Tommy 'The Sandman' Burns even said to himself "gotta pay the bills". It is dumb logic that won't win any support.

I sleep soundly at night based upon the daily choices I make. I'd walk from that assignment and most truckers would too but there is always someone who will crawl out from under a rock who would ship an unsafe load or on just 5 hours sleep over 72-hours.

[wasagroom]

Ahha! And here I thought I was quite savvy to the web-lingo. :) Thanks for that alagirl. :)

[Alagirl]

Cry me a river, please.

Any dolt should be able to walk around that rig and think - that isn't right. 59 horses stuffed into something not designed for that animal, likely kicking one another, and this guy thinks "well I've gotta pay my bills".

Sorry I don't cut slack for folks who make a bad choice like that. I'm sure a drug dealer says "gotta pay the bills" or a human-traffic smuggler from Mexico says "gotta pay the bills" or a hooker says "gotta pay the bills" or the embezzler at the Church says "gotta pay the bills" ... hey I'm sure Tommy 'The Sandman' Burns even said to himself "gotta pay the bills". It is dumb logic that won't win any support.

I sleep soundly at night based upon the daily choices I make.


Have an aspirin, that halo looks a tad tight.

[wasagroom]

Cry me a river, please.

Any dolt should be able to walk around that rig and think - that isn't right. 59 horses stuffed into something not designed for that animal, likely kicking one another, and this guy thinks "well I've gotta pay my bills".

Sorry I don't cut slack for folks who make a bad choice like that. I'm sure a drug dealer says "gotta pay the bills" or a human-traffic smuggler from Mexico says "gotta pay the bills" or a hooker says "gotta pay the bills" or the embezzler at the Church says "gotta pay the bills" ... hey I'm sure Tommy 'The Sandman' Burns even said to himself "gotta pay the bills". It is dumb logic that won't win any support.

I sleep soundly at night based upon the daily choices I make.

Well I'm glad you've never had to make that choice.

Consider that it is also SAFER to haul horses so they have less room to move (not talking head space here, talking side by side), bite, and kick, than in a looser area with other horses... end result would be a lot worse off if you hauled horses NOT "stuffed" in a trailer. Imagine the injuries!

[fernie fox]

They earn good money,are serious horseman and cattlemen.they do not break the law .

They drive pretty fast when conditions allow,but are very experienced in loading their DD correctly.

The stock owners pay a premium to use them.

The stock arrives at their destination,safely,quickly and in good condition.

[wasagroom]

They earn good money,are serious horseman and cattlemen.they do not break the law .

They drive pretty fast when conditions allow,but are very experienced in loading their DD correctly.

The stock owners pay a premium to use them.

The stock arrives at their destination,safely,quickly and in good condition.


Yes, there are many professionals out there... but not ENOUGH. Like I said, many livestock haulers (for commercial outfits anyways) have no experience with the animals that they're hauling. If the criteria for hauling a bullpen or a load of horses or chickens to a slaughter house was having experience with and being serious about the animals that you're hauling, the cost of any meat that is hauled in that fashion would rise exponentially.

[fernie fox]

I guess 3 what I am trying to say is.

The proper vehicle for the livestock being hauled,and competant drivers would avoid these catastrophies.

[Liberty]

Lifestyle or not, shock or not, how can anyone with any sense of decency leave the scene of such extreme suffering without even trying to help or attempting to summon someone who can?

According to an eyewitness account, he was quickly offered the names of vets and local horsepeople to contact to assist in tending to the frantic, injured horses trapped in the trailer, but he wanted none of it. Instead, as soon as the police he showed up, he reportedly told them "his insurance" would "take care of it" and scrammed on out of there, catching a quick flight home to ND.

How could he turn and run and not even TRY to help those injured/dying animals who were reported to be quite noisy, both vocally and physically (kicking, banging, etc.)?

We all have to make a living, however we can, but that doesn't excuse us from acting in a responsible manner. So he's a trucker? So maybe he's working long hours to feed a wife and kids? How does that excuse his refusal to help living beings in distress, particularly since it was his negligence that caused the suffering?

Maybe he should rethink his choice of cargo. It's not like there is a shortage of CDL OTR trucking options. I see ads for them ALL the time, for ALL types of cargo, both local and long distance. One of the news stories stated that he was the owner of the rig; whether that meant both the tractor and trailer, I don't know, but either way, with his own rig, he could call his own shots on what type of cargo to haul. And why didn't he have a bill of lading? Being an owner/operator, surely he is familiar with that basic law of trucking.

I *do* blame him for running from the scene and feel he should be held fully responsible for his actions. I also feel he knew he was in the wrong. He had already received two citations for speeding this year too. He could have easily killed that guy in the pick-up truck he hit. Would those who feel sympathy and/or understanding for him feel that way if it was one of your family members he obliterated while driving recklessly?

We make our own choices; as such, we need to take responsibility for those choices.

JMO.

[wasagroom]

Someone who has no experience with horses or just plain doesn't like animals might NOT be moved to action by vocal distress of animals. For many people, whether we like to admit it or not, horses are a mere commodity - talk to any of your race horse trainers raising 80+ foals a year. If it doesn't cut the mustard, it hits the canner, and that's fine, it's just a monetary investment, not an actual living, breathing, being, and you have to recognize that. Not everyone feels the same kinship to animals that many of us on this BB do.

I didn't know the facts surrounding owning his own rig - might be a different story. Maybe when he said his "insurance would take care of it", he was talking about his rig and nothing else.... those horses were just cargo.

Truckers are so frequently demonized in these situations by people who don't have any concept of what actually happens other than what "they" would do in the situation, having only the experience of having driven a passenger vehicle.

[Lori]

The other meat source I use occasionally is a local farmer who sells beef and chicken at the local farmer's market. He said his farm is "certified humane", but he does not do the butchering himself. He takes his live stock to a local butcher shop (could even be the one where I shop!) to have it processed for him.
:)


The meat must be processed (butchered) at a USDA facility to be sold to the public (farmers market, store, etc). You can take it to a local farmer like I did if you are butchering meat not to resell once butchered.
If I sold you the livestock, then you can have it butchered at the local farmer, too, since I was not selling you the meat.
The local farmer had a complete facility, stainless steel/concrete/clean, but did not go through with the USDA cert because of the costs involved. He would take local growers livestock or deer and butcher it for you for a set fee. The USDA facility was expensive. I think we had 2 goats done there one year. There is a butchering fee and then a cutting/processing fee. It worked out to more than the goats were worth to resell!
Someone asked about buying only from local butcher shops. Are you willing to pay 5 plus dollars a pound for meat? Most people aren't. To make "local grown" cost effective, you'd have to raise it yourself as I did, but most people can't do that, either. Hence, factory farms. As County said, local shops cannot feed the masses.
So, we went back to selling just the livestock "on the hoof".
I do not think there is an inspector on site all the time, the farmer never mentioned that to me.

[Alagirl]

I guess 3 what I am trying to say is.

The proper vehicle for the livestock being hauled,and competant drivers would avoid these catastrophies.


Well, that's why they call it an accident. I am sure the driver was not planning on it.

As to the other posters who are happy to cite the driver...and then throw him to the wolves: This man has, too, been in the same accident as the horses and may have suffered injuries as well, like a concussion and other such things. I don't think it is fair to judge him without further knowledge of his condition. A bump to the head can make you act unreasonable. And if the police would have thought he was guilty of more than running a light he would have spend the night in jail or the hospital under a deputy's supervision! Not like he conjured a plane up out of thin air!

so far we have assumptions:

DD = illegal, inhumane, criminal,
drafts = BIG and heavy
DD+ drafts = slaughter
driving at night = evil
I am sure I left a few things out...

Anyhow...

[luvmytbs]

The driver's company has the word "Ranch" in it, so what do you all think he hauls for a living? It's not computer desks. ;)

[Alagirl]

Salad dressing?

[wasagroom]

The driver's company has the word "Ranch" in it, so what do you all think he hauls for a living? It's not computer desks. ;)


Still doesn't make him savvy or experienced. Just means that he hauls livestock.

[Liberty]

As to the other posters who are happy to cite the driver...and then throw him to the wolves: This man has, too, been in the same accident as the horses and may have suffered injuries as well, like a concussion and other such things. I don't think it is fair to judge him without further knowledge of his condition. A bump to the head can make you act unreasonable. And if the police would have thought he was guilty of more than running a light he would have spend the night in jail or the hospital under a deputy's supervision! Not like he conjured a plane up out of thin air!

so far we have assumptions:

DD = illegal, inhumane, criminal,
drafts = BIG and heavy
DD+ drafts = slaughter
driving at night = evil
I am sure I left a few things out...

Anyhow...

If he sustained suspected head injuries, all the more reason he should have been detained in order to be sent to the hospital for an examination, not let off to just walk away. Then again, injury notwithstanding, the police really couldn't hold him anyway, not for "just" running a red light, unless the driver exhibited signs of being mentally altered (injury, alcohol, etc.).

Besides, imagine the chaos of that scene. The police had their hands absolutely full trying to deal with the situation, and as luvmytb's mentioned, how many policemen do you think are well-versed in DOT rules and regs regarding trucking? Not many, I would guess. The authorities had to put their might and effort towards the most immediately urgent matters - that of extricating those horses and getting the scene cleaned up and the road reopened. They had the driver's identification and knew where to find him.

Yes, we have assumptions, but there are also the facts:

A serious accident had happened due to negligence.
There were injuries to be tended to, both human and animal.
There was a considerable amount of livestock that needed to be transported (and found a place for in the case of the survivors).
A major highway was shut down and needed to be reopened.

I'm sure this will all be fully investigated, but until then, yes, there will be assumptions, many of them based upon facts. No doubt about that.

[MandyVA]

Those that are familiar with the MN sales, have you checked into whether 150 draft crosses were unloaded since the accident and what sort of buyers bought them? Might give us all a clue where these horses were headed, maybe even who owned them.

[horse crazy inTX]

It's also unfair to say that he was not affected just because he was not immediately remorseful. A car accident, for those of you who have been in one, may not affect you emotionally immediately, but it might damn well keep you awake for weeks with nightmares.

I bet the guy was really shook up. He refused to go to the hospital. Maybe he should have gone so as not to be criticized as uncaring. From what I read he did indicate that he wished the horses well. He probably was in no shape to help.

It always amazes me at how judgemental people can be when someone makes a mistake. God forbid any of those doing the condemnation do something wrong.

I feel bad that horses were hurt and some died. I feel bad for the guy that was driving the truck and his family. I feel bad for the others involved in the accident. I feel bad for those that had to witness such a horrific scene. In the end it was a tragic ACCIDENT but still an accident!

[citydog]

?) Lots of people say you should drive slower if you're carrying a heavy weight... are you willing to pay the incurred cost of goods because it takes longer to haul, thus costs more money on the whole for shippers and brokers?

Yes, because I believe that quality--in all its many forms, including safety--costs.

Consider that the speed limit is a guide for "if conditions are perfect" - by that right, rain, fog, anything like that should slow you down a lot - how many of us REALLY slow down when driving our personal cars when they run into a little bit of "not so perfect" conditions?

The smart ones sure do.

[I'm EBO]

wasagroom wrote:

Still doesn't make him savvy or experienced. Just means that he hauls livestock

BINGO!!!! That's the PROBLEM and the CAUSE of this tragedy.

You would think if you hauled livestock around long enough in your bright red truck with "Ranch" written on the side, you might somehow gather some experience of what it was you were doing. You'd think.

If our driver did get a bump on his head, it wasn't nearly hard enough to suit me. Anybody who could walk away, or even crawl away, after causing that carnage is truly a waste of oxygen, and certainly isn't even fit to haul luvmytbs' computer desks across town. Makes you wonder if CDLs are passed out in cereal boxes.

[horse crazy inTX]

Well, until she clarifies what she meant, we can only guess.

Besides, unless a cop has eagle eyes or ends up at a traffic light next to the rig, it would be difficult for him/her to ascertain that there were horses in the truck and not either pigs or cattle, assuming he would even look and wonder in the first place.

Let me clarify. Early on there were reported 3 other trucks hauling the same cargo - horses. Everyone is slicing and dicing and dissecting to prove this ONE driver was doing something illegal ie: hauling too many horses, with too much weight, to slaughter in a double decker trailer, etc, etc. Since many are so convinced, besides unfortunately running a stoplight, many other laws were being broken, I am just trying to understand why the other rigs weren't pursued. A simple 911 call gets more people involved. If truly anyone on the scene thought criminal activity was involved the others would have been pursued and stopped.


Anyway, the early reports I read said road conditions were slippery. Someone posted earlier, yes it was raining Saturday night, someone else said NO, conditions were perfect? Weather conditions do effect stopping capabilty. I've never met a perfect driver yet, including myself that sometimes makes misjudgments when it comes to driving especially in poor conditions.

Does anyone know how the driver just 'walked away' and managed to be magically transported to an airport where he could get a flight home? Now who do you think drove him to the airport? He was released from the scene.

[J Swan]

The butcher shop I patronize is USDA inspected, but I'm not sure they're required to have an inspector on the premises at all times. I'll ask them the next time I'm there.


I think Liberty and I must shop at the same butcher. If it's the place I'm thinking of - it is a very well run,quiet, clean place. And yes, they do have a USDA inspector there. It's the law. Unfortunately, this also makes the cost of processing extremely high - so high that many farmers cannot afford to take their animals there any more.


As an aside - I think we can all agree that the laws regarding transport of livestock should be obeyed - but I'd like to point out that accidents do happen. Even if all the laws had been followed in this case, proper headroom, segregated by sex, etc - they still do happen. Heck - we just had a schoolbus full of kids crash on a rainy day. Driving wasn't even driving fast - she just slid on a wet road covered in leaves.

I can also think of many threads, just on this BB, in which folks have had horrible accidents with their horse trailers. Even when we learn that the person was driving too fast, or driving a SUV, we still have empathy for them. The driver of the rig in question may feel terrible at causing so much injury - but I'm not sure it makes him some sort of evil monster.

I'll leave it to y'all to go on a slaughter diatribe - I don't think the destination matters. These accidents happen with all species - not just horses. It's horrible for them - and I'm just glad there were people to help the horses in need.

[wasagroom]

Yes, because I believe that quality--in all its many forms, including safety--costs.



The smart ones sure do.


Well you can certainly say so but unfortunately you can't speak for the rest of the population. Many people couldn't AFFORD to eat if the real costs were factored in for having what they have.

Liberty - who says how long the driver has been hauling livestock?

People just love placing the blame on truck drivers... they're all crooked as hell, on mind altering drugs to keep them awake, and now, to top things off, they can get their CDL's out of cereal boxes!

Take them away and imagine what the world would be like. Trains pretty much cease to exist in my part of the world....

What people don't understand is that the things most drivers do are not an individual choice, not even in the least bit. Brokers and owners do a LOT of dictating... and if you don't follow direction, your family goes hungry.

[Liberty]

J Swan,

Yes, probably the same butcher shop ("Fauquier's Finest" off of Rt. 17, south of Bealeton). Thanks for the clarification that they do have a USDA inspector on site; helps explain their high prices (but it's worth it to me). Sad, though, that it's become out of reach for a lot of local farmers. :-(

[I'm EBO]

MandyVA, I don't think anyone YET knows where the horses would have been unloaded. However, I did find a Belgian farm that held a "production sale" in western Ohio on Friday, and Saturday morning. To get to Wadsworth, IL (where the wreck happened). from there, the route would take you through northern Indiana, then up 94/41 to bypass Chicago. Maybe just a coincidence?

Regarding the cost of non-factory food: As I mentioned earlier, I try to buy "organic" meats from Whole Foods, and carefully watch the sales. Yesterday, their ground beef was $3.99 a pound, about 20 cents higher than what my local supermarket charges. I'm not in love with Whole Foods, but in the sticks it's difficult to find anything to eat that isn't processed beyond all recognition. And, boohoo, the farmers' markets are closed for the season. Since I have PLENTY of fertilizer, I suppose I ought to buy a green house.

[Liberty]

wasagroom,

Doesn't matter to me how long he's been hauling livestock. I don't see what that has to do with anything. He chose his cargo and should have remained responsible for it, particularly since it was live cargo. He was not a CDL newbie driving a company's rig. He was an owner/operator, driving recklessly and without proper papers.

For all of you who are expressing empathy for the driver, that's admirable from a humanity standpoint, for sure.

However, let me ask you this:

Would you feel the same if, instead of that pick-up truck, he had broadsided your loaded horse trailer, leaving your horses screaming and thrashing trapped inside a mangled mess? Worse yet, what if it had been a family member who was killed in the wreck he caused?

If, when he said his "insurance would take care of it" and left the scene, leaving you standing there to deal with the aftermath, would you have been understanding towards him to the police, saying you didn't blame him for leaving? After all, he could have been in shock or sustained a concussion or some other type of injury.

If so, you're a better person than I. Had that been me, I'd have wanted to do FAR more than "throw him to the wolves".

[Alagirl]

wasagroom,

Doesn't matter to me how long he's been hauling livestock. I don't see what that has to do with anything. He chose his cargo and should have remained responsible for it, particularly since it was live cargo. He was not a CDL newbie driving a company's rig. He was an owner/operator, driving recklessly and without proper papers.

For all of you who are expressing empathy for the driver, that's admirable from a humanity standpoint, for sure.

However, let me ask you this:

Would you feel the same if, instead of that pick-up truck, he had broadsided your loaded horse trailer, leaving your horses screaming and thrashing trapped inside a mangled mess? Worse yet, what if it had been a family member who was killed in the wreck he caused?

If, when he said his "insurance would take care of it" and left the scene, leaving you standing there to deal with the aftermath, would you have been understanding towards him to the police, saying you didn't blame him for leaving? After all, he could have been in shock or sustained a concussion or some other type of injury.

If so, you're a better person than I. Had that been me, I'd have wanted to do FAR more than "throw him to the wolves".


Like the average soccer mom and her minivan/SUV isn't more likely to do that...flying fruitbats lady, you are grasping for straws to build the bonfire on which to roast that driver!

[Liberty]

I'm not grasping at any straws or trying to "roast" anyone. Just inserting a bit of closer-to-home reality and another perspective. Doesn't matter if it was a tractor trailer or minivan, man or woman driver, although the truck would tend to cause a bit more damage.

So, are you going to answer the question? Or not?

[horse crazy inTX]

Being compassionate isn't something one picks and chooses - IMHO, I think you either are or aren't.

I have to wonder about those that claim to be so compassionate about animals but then wish death and harm on humans. I just don't think a person can truly be compassionate if they pick and choose where their compassion falls.

Have I had harm done to me and any of my animals? Yes. Have I forgiven those that were responsible even when negligence was involved? Yes.

[horseandhound]

I'm not grasping at any straws or trying to "roast" anyone. Just inserting a bit of closer-to-home reality and another perspective. Doesn't matter if it was a tractor trailer or minivan, man or woman driver, although the truck would tend to cause a bit more damage.

So, are you going to answer the question? Or not?


Liberty, I totally agree with you with regards to the driver. He is a professional who should know if he is overloaded or not (he's used to hauling and eyeballing his load). When he accepts a load, irrespective of whom he works for, it his his drivers license on the line. Sometimes weight distribution on a load can be all that he has to think about but it his responsibilty to make sure he is LEGAL. Forget feeding the wife and kids, if he works for a company that encourages illegal practises he needs to look for a new job as it's just a matter of time before he loses his license.

Soccer moms and professional tractor trailer drivers doesn't equate, sad that somebody would try to even put them in the same paragraph.

[IAPonyGirl]

Those that are familiar with the MN sales, have you checked into whether 150 draft crosses were unloaded since the accident and what sort of buyers bought them? Might give us all a clue where these horses were headed, maybe even who owned them.

I'll let you know when they show up in IA at the next sale with their 3rd hip number.

btw, I heard that the guy who dumped this rig was hauling ass to catch up to the other 3 trucks, that's why he ran the red light.

What's makes anybody think that these drivers are thinking about anything other than getting home and cracking open a beer and sitting in front of the TV?

[Liberty]

Being compassionate isn't something one picks and chooses - IMHO, I think you either are or aren't.

I have to wonder about those that claim to be so compassionate about animals but then wish death and harm on humans. I just don't think a person can truly be compassionate if they pick and choose where their compassion falls.

Have I had harm done to me and any of my animals? Yes. Have I forgiven those that were responsible even when negligence was involved? Yes.

IMO, being compassionate or not is not so black and white. It depends upon the situation and level of involvement.

It is a natural reaction to feel adversely towards someone who does harm to your loved ones, especially when due to negligence. However, those adverse feelings don't automatically equate with wishes of death or harm.

In the hypothetical situation I posed above, I would want the person who caused the injury/death to be held responsible for it and dealt with accordingly. Doesn't mean I wish harm or death on that person. After all, if that person isn't held responsible, who's to say s/he won't do the same thing next week, with even more dire consequences?

I don't think anyone here would be able to say, given the hypothetical situation I described above, that they would not blame the person responsible. I don't think they would be able to accept that person just walking away, justifying that person's actions as the result of a possible injury, possibly being in shock, "just trying to make a living", or because it was "just an accident". Not something of that magnitude when it hits close to home, directly affecting what is near and dear to you.

[Liberty]

Liberty, I totally agree with you with regards to the driver. He is a professional who should know if he is overloaded or not (he's used to hauling and eyeballing his load). When he accepts a load, irrespective of whom he works for, it his his drivers license on the line. Sometimes weight distribution on a load can be all that he has to think about but it his responsibilty to make sure he is LEGAL. Forget feeding the wife and kids, if he works for a company that encourages illegal practises he needs to look for a new job as it's just a matter of time before he loses his license.

Soccer moms and professional tractor trailer drivers doesn't equate, sad that somebody would try to even put them in the same paragraph.

Absolutely.

Also, not only could it be just a matter of time before he loses his license, but it could also just be a matter of time before he kills more than his cargo.

IMO, to not hold him totally responsible, and treated as such, is irresponsible.

[horseandhound]

Absolutely.

Also, not only could it be just a matter of time before he loses his license, but it could also just be a matter of time before he kills more than his cargo.

IMO, to not hold him totally responsible, and treated as such, is irresponsible.

Accountability...Let's hope that he is punished to the fullest extent of the law. No matter who he is or whom he works for he still has the last say as to whether or not to take the load out. Many will say he has to keep his job, get a pay check, support his kids etc, but the reality is decent haulage companies hire good drivers, they run by the law and don't encourage illegalities. Many "cowboy" operations employ young, inexperienced drivers who are willing to accept less pay so they can get the experience under their belt to eventually get a decent job where they are not expected to run day and night or accept over weight loads etc. The story lines are endless but the reality is the driver is ultimately accountable for his load...Period.

[horse crazy inTX]

The driver was given a citation for running a red light. Other charges are yet to be determined if any.

Why not let the officials do their jobs and determine what laws were broken and who is to be punished if anyone.

[Blueshadow]

Just for fun - here's an animal rights perspective for you (and I'm sorry that tonight I don't have the energy to read this entire thread so forgive any repetition).

Bottom line is - if this HAD been a coach full of kids, the driver had allegedly run a red light, irrespective of road conditions, and 15 had died; I doubt that the driver would have been allowed to leave the scene as he did; and I'm sure that the parents of the kids would have come forward to identify the kids, denigrate the driver, and insist on prosecution (or at least threaten law suits). Accountability (of officials, driver, media)? Yeah, right.

Helpless individuals killed. Who care what the laws are. Official responses are very different when the victims are animals.

And, exactly, why are we surprised?

[Alagirl]

Absolutely.

Also, not only could it be just a matter of time before he loses his license, but it could also just be a matter of time before he kills more than his cargo.

IMO, to not hold him totally responsible, and treated as such, is irresponsible.


WTF? isn't that jumping to conclusions?!

He had a wreck, that's what happens when you spend a lot of time on the road, your risk increases. so now he is a serial killer?! :no: I have a heck of a lot more problems with soccer moms hanging on the cell all the time, and there are a lot more out on the road every day...oh, because they don't drive a semi... they don't kill you as dead...seriously, I can't blame the man you taking off! I bet he heard the lynch mob gathering!

Driving a bus full of kids is a wee bit different, and it's not like they don't wreck. we had a buss fall off an over pass not to long ago in Huntville...killing a few kids and injuring many. I did not notice such an outcry over that driver...I am sure he/she must have messed up, too.

[horseandhound]

The driver was given a citation for running a red light. Other charges are yet to be determined if any.

Why not let the officials do their jobs and determine what laws were broken and who is to be punished if anyone.


This is merely a discussion and an airing of opinions as are many subjects on this BB. As in many tragic accidents, the media will play out different scenarios whilst waiting for the official determination, the opinions here are no different than those offered in newspapers, etc.

People will naturally speculate and discuss, that's human nature. The wheels of justice are slow to turn and it may be many weeks before all charges are handed to this driver. In the meantime many will offer opinions and speculate but it certainly won't interfere with the officials doing their jobs and making determinations.

[J Swan]

Sorry to burst your bubble - but a driver in your example would indeed have been permitted to leave the scene of an accident with human fatalities.

Being released from the scene of an accident is just that. You are free to go. It doesn't mean that you will not be held responsible, or be made to account for any transgressions. It had nothing to do with whether or not the victims are humans or animals.

This was not an accident that resulted from a high speed chase, a robbery, or any other crime. The driver was not obviously intoxicated, or had illegal firearms, or attempted to flee the scene. In those cases - the suspect would have been arrested after being apprehended.

It was just an accident - just like you'd see on the way to or from work on any day of the week.

What you don't understand is a traffic violation is just a traffic violation. It's part of the accident report - but in no way precludes further charges upon completion of an investigation. The driver may just pay a fine for running the red light - yet face many more serious charges arising from this accident.

In short - don't get your feathers ruffled because you think the mean old police officers don't care about the cute horses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Police officers and EMS see this sort of horror every day - and they have a job to do - and they do it very well. This type of charge and treatment is typical of accidents involving human fatalities as well. It has NOTHING to do with animals versus humans. Law enforcement is there to perform certain tasks - and as far as I can tell in this case, they did an admirable job.

Again - any person involving in a collision with human fatalities is going to be released at the scene - barring any reason to arrest the person (assaulting an officer, attempting to elude, fleeing the scene, failing a sobriety test, driving on suspended, etc.)

Look at it this way - if the other vehicle involved had caused the accident - that driver would also been released at the scene.



Bottom line is - if this HAD been a coach full of kids, the driver had allegedly run a red light, irrespective of road conditions, and 15 had died; I doubt that the driver would have been allowed to leave the scene as he did; and I'm sure that the parents of the kids would have come forward to identify the kids, denigrate the driver, and insist on prosecution (or at least threaten law suits). Accountability (of officials, driver, media)? Yeah, right.

Helpless individuals killed. Who care what the laws are. Official responses are very different when the victims are animals.

And, exactly, why are we surprised?

[RainyDayRide]

The driver was given a citation for running a red light. Other charges are yet to be determined if any.


Actually, he received two citations ... the second was something like "driving at a speed that left him unable to stop in a controlled manner"

[gwenrowdy]

WTF? isn't that jumping to conclusions?!

He had a wreck, that's what happens when you spend a lot of time on the road, your risk increases. so now he is a serial killer?! :no: I have a heck of a lot more problems with soccer moms hanging on the cell all the time, and there are a lot more out on the road every day...oh, because they don't drive a semi... they don't kill you as dead...seriously, I can't blame the man you taking off! I bet he heard the lynch mob gathering!

Driving a bus full of kids is a wee bit different, and it's not like they don't wreck. we had a buss fall off an over pass not to long ago in Huntville...killing a few kids and injuring many. I did not notice such an outcry over that driver...I am sure he/she must have messed up, too.


I'm sure his insurance company will be just as understanding as you are, Alagirl.

[J Swan]

I'm sure his insurance company will be just as understanding as you are, Alagirl.

It's not about being "understanding". Don't be obtuse. The fact is that accidents happen all over this country every darn day - and some of those accidents involve animals. I'm glad so many people were there to offer assistance - I'm always amazed at how many people will stop at accidents and help out.

The driver is just a driver - not a monster. Chances are most posters on this BB have had their fair share of tickets, too. And I've seen some of the most horrific driving from horse owners driving their own trailers - improperly loaded, and unsafe rig, improperly maintained, and the driver is yakking on the friggin cell phone and weaving in and out of traffic. Yet God forbid anyone point out that a poster here isn't maintaining their trailer properly.....

It's a horrible accident. It's a terrible thing to see any living creature suffer. Just put this accident and the driver into context and try and discuss it without the hysteria.

[gwenrowdy]

It's not about being "understanding". Don't be obtuse. The fact is that accidents happen all over this country every darn day - and some of those accidents involve animals. I'm glad so many people were there to offer assistance - I'm always amazed at how many people will stop at accidents and help out.

The driver is just a driver - not a monster. Chances are most posters on this BB have had their fair share of tickets, too. And I've seen some of the most horrific driving from horse owners driving their own trailers - improperly loaded, and unsafe rig, improperly maintained, and the driver is yakking on the friggin cell phone and weaving in and out of traffic. Yet God forbid anyone point out that a poster here isn't maintaining their trailer properly.....

It's a horrible accident. It's a terrible thing to see any living creature suffer. Just put this accident and the driver into context and try and discuss it without the hysteria.

You mean in less than 5 paragraphs, JSwan?

[Alagirl]

I'm sure his insurance company will be just as understanding as you are, Alagirl.


Don't fool yourself! I am not understanding. I am a cold hearted cynical witch.

[Angela Freda]

WTF? isn't that jumping to conclusions?!

He had a wreck, that's what happens when you spend a lot of time on the road, your risk increases.
I was a professional driver for 7 years as a pharmaceutical rep, logging 9 or more hours of windsheild time every day.
I had 0 accidents, even both times I was approached by a vehicle going the wrong way in my lane. I also do not recall any of my co-workers in my district (about 10 drivers in each) or in my co-district having an accident. Professional drivers should be better drivers than average drivers, and no, hours on the road does not necessarily increase the number of accidents.

He ran a red light and due to running the red another vehicle (that had a green light) struck him. Not hard to figure out that this accident was his fault and preventable or due to lack of diligence.

[MSP]

Well, I just flipped through this whole thread, and it isn’t readily apparent what all the fighting is about! It appears the thread is supposed to be about DDs and that was why I clicked on it so here goes!

For anyone wanting a good idea of how a horse fits into a DD here is a diagram. http://www.igha.org/dd.html

Yes, horses fit into them but they can not raise their heads. If you compare a cow to a horse you will see a cow’s back may be as high as a horse but they do not have long necks and can not raise their head to hit it on the top deck as a horse would.

Some people use DDs to transport their horses but often do not put them in the belly. The max load for a DD should around 40 horses. I think it is safe to say this trailer was overloaded.

Here is an old study if anyone would like to read it, I don’t know who funded the study so not sure if it was bias or not. But I would guess that everyone involved was on their best behavior and conditions were at their best! http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/77/11/2925.pdf

Personally, I have a problem with DD’s. I think they can be used humanly for horses but they are too easy to abuse, too easy to over stuff and the bottom line is that horses are suffering. I would like to see them banned for commercial use of transporting horses; I don’t care where they are being shipped to. And, I would like to see it illegal for anyone to transport a horse in the pot belly. So if rancher Joe wants to take his horses to the Rodeo in a DD on the upper deck then have at it but don’t sell any horses when you get there! I prefer to ship my horses in something they are less likely to get injured in!

[wasagroom]

I was a professional driver for 7 years as a pharmaceutical rep, logging 9 or more hours of windsheild time every day.
I had 0 accidents, even both times I was approached by a vehicle going the wrong way in my lane. I also do not recall any of my co-workers in my district (about 10 drivers in each) or in my co-district having an accident. Professional drivers should be better drivers than average drivers, and no, hours on the road does not necessarily increase the number of accidents.

He ran a red light and due to running the red another vehicle (that had a green light) struck him. Not hard to figure out that this accident was his fault and preventable or due to lack of diligence.

Statistically, being on the road for several hours per day more than the average driver does give you a higher risk of accidents. Did you know, depending on the company, it can be more expensive for a CDL certified driver to get regular auto insurance than someone who is not? You would think with all those miles logged and all the "experience" behind the wheel, they would be great examples, but for whatever reason, insurance companies do not feel so.

I am not denying that this driver may have done something, or several things wrong, but it was an accident - declared an accident. It hasn't been declared as ANYTHING else YET, and so that means we do not have free reign to speculate about the personality, morals and values of said driver.

You know, a driver may have the right to choose a load pending the loss of his driver's license if he hauls something illegal but when you're down to the wire and choosing between a run to buy groceries that may cause you to lose your license and just breaking the law for the hell of it, there's a huge difference there.

[horseandhound]

MSP, you have a good point about the difference between a cow and a horse. The cows neck is definitely shorter and a cow doesn't throw it's head like a horse can as their range of motion is so different. I can say I've never seen a cow rear up, I don't think they're capable of rearing! They buck, kick and twist but can't say I've seen them rear. I'm sure they do O.K in the DD's headroom wise although it has to be pretty tight for them too. Shame more states don't follow in the steps of NY and PA and ban them for equines as they appear to be totally unsuitable in nearly every way, from headroom to flooring and everything else inbetween.

[chai]

Sweaty Saddlepad, I was moved to tears by your post. Thank you for being so brave and kind to save so many of those horses. I was telling Mr. chai about this story at lunch because it has stayed with me since I read the first post.
This is a horrific thing. How can we work to change the law on the federal level regarding double decker trucks? The cruelty and lack of any empathy for living creatures shown by the owners of those horses is sickening.
Is there any update on how the survivors are doing and what is in store for them? Thank you again for doing what so many of us wish we could have done when we heard about this. And thank you to your boyfriend and all the other amazing people who helped.
About ten years ago, a double decker loaded with cattle flipped on I-95 in Maine. It was a horrific accident. These trailers should be outlawed.

[horseandhound]

Sweaty Saddlepad, I was moved to tears by your post. Thank you for being so brave and kind to save so many of those horses. I was telling Mr. chai about this story at lunch because it has stayed with me since I read the first post.
This is a horrific thing. How can we work to change the law on the federal level regarding double decker trucks? The cruelty and lack of any empathy for living creatures shown by the owners of those horses is sickening.
Is there any update on how the survivors are doing and what is in store for them? Thank you again for doing what so many of us wish we could have done when we heard about this. And thank you to your boyfriend and all the other amazing people who helped.
About ten years ago, a double decker loaded with cattle flipped on I-95 in Maine. It was a horrific accident. These trailers should be outlawed.

DITTO...

[luvmytbs]

Reports are that the owner of the farm where these horses are currently located, is a great horseman and they are receiving the best of care.

[LarkspurCO]

MSP, you have a good point about the difference between a cow and a horse. The cows neck is definitely shorter and a cow doesn't throw it's head like a horse can as their range of motion is so different.

That was the point I was getting at when I asked early on about the height of cattle.

Yes, there may be some that are 16:2 hands (one freakishly huge beast!) but that animal would not require the additional two feet of head room that a horse of the same height does.

Obviously cattle are proportioned with a lower center of gravity, having shorter legs relative to body size.

I still do not understand how my 16:1 hand OTTB survived the double-decker ride with 51 others. (Well, he barely did, actually.)

[I'm EBO]

It amazes me that there are any people here who are falling all over their fingers trying to make excuses for this tragedy; yet before my eyes I see: Oh, the driver has poor little children to feed. Oh, accidents happen all the time. Oh, lots of people get speeding tickets and run red lights. Oh, the driver has to do what his boss tells him to do (in this case he owned his own truck). Oh, how can the rest of you be so uncompassionate?

Oh, What Bullshit!

The driver, of his own free will, crammed 59 large horses in a double decker truck and went speeding through the night, only slowing down when some poor guy in a pickup happened to cross his path because the pickup had the green light. This caused many, many people to risk their lives and their emotional well being by working through the night to save at least some of those 59 horses. It cost the community thousands of dollars, at least, in man hours and equipment use.

If you can spare a little of that understanding and compassion being showered on the driver of the double decker, you could direct some toward the rescuers and, oh yeah, the horses they helped to survive.

[Alagirl]

It amazes me that there are any people here who are falling all over their fingers trying to make excuses for this tragedy; yet before my eyes I see: Oh, the driver has poor little children to feed. Oh, accidents happen all the time. Oh, lots of people get speeding tickets and run red lights. Oh, the driver has to do what his boss tells him to do (in this case he owned his own truck). Oh, how can the rest of you be so uncompassionate?

Oh, What Bullshit!

The driver, of his own free will, crammed 59 large horses in a double decker truck and went speeding through the night, only slowing down when some poor guy in a pickup happened to cross his path because the pickup had the green light. This caused many, many people to risk their lives and their emotional well being by working through the night to save at least some of those 59 horses. It cost the community thousands of dollars, at least, in man hours and equipment use.

If you can spare a little of that understanding and compassion being showered on the driver of the double decker, you could direct some toward the rescuers and, oh yeah, the horses they helped to survive.


And I want to hear the COTH community should this innocent pick up driver happen to pull out in front of one of their right, traffic signal or not


Obviously he managed to punch it between three rigs that had already crossed the intersection and the forth rig...can you say death wish? I know I usually don't pull out unless I have enough room or the other car is stopped...and yes, I was spared one time being a doofus on the green light, when I look up a straggler guns it across the 4 lane high way...

There is enough blame to go around.

[horse crazy inTX]

It amazes me that there are any people here who are falling all over their fingers trying to make excuses for this tragedy; yet before my eyes I see: Oh, the driver has poor little children to feed. Oh, accidents happen all the time. Oh, lots of people get speeding tickets and run red lights. Oh, the driver has to do what his boss tells him to do (in this case he owned his own truck). Oh, how can the rest of you be so uncompassionate?

Oh, What Bullshit!

The driver, of his own free will, crammed 59 large horses in a double decker truck and went speeding through the night, only slowing down when some poor guy in a pickup happened to cross his path because the pickup had the green light. This caused many, many people to risk their lives and their emotional well being by working through the night to save at least some of those 59 horses. It cost the community thousands of dollars, at least, in man hours and equipment use.

If you can spare a little of that understanding and compassion being showered on the driver of the double decker, you could direct some toward the rescuers and, oh yeah, the horses they helped to survive.

I guess you skimmed over the compassion for the horses and the rescuers.

There are therapists who specialize in anger management. Maybe you should seek one out? It can't be good for your mental well being to be filled with so much hatred and contempt!

[Liberty]

As stated earlier, the driver, James Anderson, was the owner of the rig, which I now believe included the DD trailer as well as the tractor. Here is his business info, which shows he was, in fact, in the business of livestock hauling:

(deleted)
Nature of Business:
TRUCKING - TRANSPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK & FREIGHT
(deleted)

The above is public information that anyone can find at the following link:
https://secure.apps.state.nd.us/sc/busnsrch/busnSearch.htm#Search_Results

IMO, he's most likely hauled many loads of livestock and, as such, should have been aware of the dangers of live, shifting cargo (and overloading, as the case may be).

I just hope and pray that any subsequent loads he hauls consists of inanimate freight and that he takes the time and effort to have the proper paperwork (i.e., Bill of Lading, etc.) and abides by the rules of the road and DOT/American Trucking Association rules and regulations.

[horse crazy inTX]

I just love how you guys post personal information of people on the internet. Geesh! As some on ABR stated - do not contact these people or interfere with the investigation. Talk about hanging people out to dry based on personal opinion.

If any are interested here is a report about hauling livestock in a DD presented in a court case. I've been looking to find info on the stability of DDs vs Single Deck trailers and haven't found much.

http://www.edccorp.com/library/HveWpPdfs/WP2000-4.pdf

The BIGGEST problem with DDs besides head room is the sheer numbers of animals involved in transit. Anytime large numbers are transported, if there is an accident more animals are going to be harmed.

Someone mentioned earlier about going back to transporting on freight trains. Does anyone recall seeing pictures of wrecked trains, jack-knifed and overturned. Think of the numbers that would be involved in a train wreck?

[gwenrowdy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-horse_adoptnov01,1,3374769.story?ctrack=4&cset=true

[Liberty]

I just love how you guys post personal information of people on the internet. Geesh! As some on ABR stated - do not contact these people or interfere with the investigation. Talk about hanging people out to dry based on personal opinion.

I didn't post any info that isn't already public information easily found on the internet. I did leave out the driver's business phone number and street address, but apparently even mentioning the business name and city, state of origin is a no-no (my apologies to the moderator for including that info).

As for "hanging out people to dry based on personal opinion", most of my opinions have been based upon facts as they've been presented thus far, and I have never "hung anyone out to dry".

Sure, my opinions, in and of themselves, aren't facts, which is why they're called opinions, and I preface them as such. This being a "discussion" forum, I figured discussions were open to opinions; not restricted to stating only facts.

I still haven't had anyone who is expressing sympathy for the driver specifically answer my question as to if they'd feel the same had it been themselves, their family member(s)/horse(s), etc. that had been smacked by that semi-truck. But that's okay; I think I know the reason why, but that's only my opinion. ;)

Leaving this discussion, for now anyway. When moderators start moderating my posts, it's time for me to fly (and I've got hungry horses and stalls to clean anyway).

Here's hoping those surviving horses find the homes they all deserve.

[Liberty]

Thanks gwen - that's GOOD news!

Okay, NOW I'm leaving (I promise!).... :)

[JaneeneSings]

I haven't read this entire thread, but can someone please tell me why it's okay to haul horses in DDs if they're going to sale, but not okay if they're going to slaughter? That makes absolutely no sense to me....:confused:

[luvmytbs]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-horse_adoptnov01,1,3374769.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-horse_adoptnov01,1,3374769.story)


Horses in Wadsworth crash to be put up for adoption

Minnesota owner must OK process

By Tara Malone | Tribune staff reporter
10:59 PM CDT, October 31, 2007

Belgian draft horses recovering from the overturning in Wadsworth of the
tractor-trailer in which they were riding could be adopted or go home
with many of the dozens of volunteers who rescued them from the weekend
wreckage.

Adoptions will begin as soon as the horses' owner authorizes the
process, which is expected to occur Thursday, animal rescuers and
insurance officials said Wednesday.

The surviving 42 horses—nursing bruised eyes and limbs swollen from
Saturday's crash—will go to local owners who are committed to caring for
them, said Donna Ewing of the Hooved Animal Rescue and Protection
Society in Barrington.

"[The horses] are not going to go to slaughter," said Ewing, who worked
with the owner's insurance company to enable the adoptions and will
evaluate adoption requests. Lake County sheriff's officials have
declined to name the owner, describing him only as a horse broker from
Minnesota.

"Our hope is to keep them here. They don't need to go to Minnesota or
anything," Ewing said.

Prospective owners, with priority going to volunteers who helped at the
accident scene, must complete an application indicating the veterinarian
they will use, previous horse experience and access to a stable. If
approved, they will pay $50 to $100 per horse to the insurance company.
Ewing hopes to pair every horse with a qualified owner in the next 10 days.

Federal and state investigators, meanwhile, continue to probe the manner
in which the horses were transported: stacked in a double-deck trailer
typically reserved for cattle or swine.

"We are exploring every avenue of possible violation," said Karen
Eggert, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's animal
and plant inspection service.

The tractor-trailer was heading north on U.S. Highway 41 when it was
struck by a pickup truck Saturday just before 7 p.m. Big-rig driver
James E. Anderson, 34, of McLeod, N.D., lost control and the truck
overturned. He was charged Monday with failing to reduce speed,
disregarding a red light and not having a bill of lading.

An estimated 17 horses were killed or later euthanized because of their
injuries, Kenosha County, Wis., veterinarian Kevin Nelson said.
Volunteers worked alongside veterinarians and firefighters for more than
five hours Saturday night to free horses from the wreck.

Bruised and battered, the surviving horses were transported to Fred and
Vicki Carney's farm in Wadsworth to begin recovering.

"We're treating about a dozen with what we consider non-life-threatening
injuries," Nelson said. "The majority of them are doing well."

The horses include geldings and mares and range from 6 months to 6 years
old. Despite their injuries, they came in good condition with smooth,
rounded hooves, trimmed tails and hair cut along their jawline.

"Many of these are young horses. They need to be trained, handled and
not just fed," Vicki Carney said.

Additional information about the horses' adoption is available at the
Hooved Animal Rescue and Protection Society's Web site, www.harpsonline.org (http://www.harpsonline.org/).

tmalone@tribune.com

[MSP]

I haven't read this entire thread, but can someone please tell me why it's okay to haul horses in DDs if they're going to sale, but not okay if they're going to slaughter? That makes absolutely no sense to me....:confused:

The intent was to ban the use of DDs for transporting horses but the language was changed and we were left with a giant loop hole.

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

2. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service recognized that transporting horses in double-deck trailers is both inhumane and unsafe. [5] However, the regulation in Section 88.3 allowed horses to continue to be transported to slaughter in double-deck trailers until December of 2006. Unfortunately, many horses continued to suffer serious injuries and trauma during this “grace” period , and many are still at risk. The remaining risk results from a loophole in the regulations that bans double-deck trailer use only for hauling directly to slaughter plants. Horses in the slaughter pipeline can still legally be hauled in double-deck trailers to feedlots or other holding points (sometimes in close proximity to the slaughterhouses), provided they are off-loaded and transferred to single-deck trailers for final delivery.

[Sannois]

Does no one ever get hysterical when a semi load of cattle :confused:

[MistyBlue]

Unfortunately many bans rushed through end up with many large loopholes. Rushing anything is never worth the effort because it rarely results as intended.

[MSP]

Does no one ever get hysterical when a semi load of cattle :confused:


This is just a guess but I think if we had a thread because of a cattle trailer spill the mods would shut it down for not being horse related! :rolleyes:

[Alagirl]

Unfortunately many bans rushed through end up with many large loopholes. Rushing anything is never worth the effort because it rarely results as intended.



It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, and nobody ever learns from it...

[MSP]

Unfortunately many bans rushed through end up with many large loopholes. Rushing anything is never worth the effort because it rarely results as intended.

I think corruption and big Ag interest and power have more to do with it. The animal welfare groups can work for years to get some thing passed only to have some one change the language while they are voting on it. They take the bite out of it and then pass it.

[MSP]

Does no one ever get hysterical when a semi load of cattle :confused:

Here! I will sneak this one in for you!

Tractor Trailer Loaded with 62 Cattle Crashes on Poplar Street Bridge in Downtown St. Louis
http://www.longmeadowrescueranch.org/whatsnew.php

[summerhorse]

Does no one ever get hysterical when a semi load of cattle :confused:

Of course we do but this isn't Chronicle of the Cow. Or the goat, there was a terrible accident a couple months ago with goats but since this isn't the Chronicle of the goat I didn't post about it here!

Jeesh!

Frankly I'd like to see all double decker hauling for horses AND cows over 400 lbs. or so banned but that isn't realistic. So banning the use of them for the animals the least suited for them would be a victory for me.

[MistyBlue]

I think corruption and big Ag interest and power have more to do with it. The animal welfare groups can work for years to get some thing passed only to have some one change the language while they are voting on it. They take the bite out of it and then pass it.

Not necessarily...for those who lobby and follow everything day to day...it's not really big Ag corruption. Many, many times the loopholes are already there. And those who are following constantly warn and warn and warn about them. Doesn't work.
And sometimes it's a tad more vague...like mini-loopholes that are already there and purposely put into place to allow for last minute loophole changes. The politicians everyone is pandering to with calls and letters and online petitions are the ones who put them there. On purpose. They know the average person who speaks the loudest about a ban is usually the one who has the least interest in how politics work.
A little completely unbiased research (and not just online from the comfort of home) can uncover these things and make them a lot more obvious.
Those that do perform the legwork as well as the clickwork find it...then try to pass it along. And get shut down for it.
And so the ban passes...completely controlled by emotions...and doesn't work. The politicians have their votes lined up...and they kept the ones who actually make income and can donate it to them. By making sure there's a loophole.
Emotions have zero place in politics. I'm beginning to believe the equine community may be too emotional for trying to force political changes.
JMHO ;)

[MSP]

You just described the corruption! In general big companies have the money and so the power and so the control. The USDA, politicians and special interest groups are making deals!

Frankly, I have given up. I have seen the game that is played and for people like me and the vast majority of us we have no say, no power and no hope. We are just like the livestock in those trailers; we can't control where we are going or what will happen to us.

[Daydream Believer]

We had a bad wreck with a pig hauler up here on it's way to Smithfield. It was on the news and folks helped the pigs out also but I think horses have a bit more of a romantic image than pigs in the US and that is probably why they get more attention...as well as the fact that most people feel that the use of double deckers to haul them in is inhumane.

[Alagirl]

Not necessarily...for those who lobby and follow everything day to day...it's not really big Ag corruption. Many, many times the loopholes are already there. And those who are following constantly warn and warn and warn about them. Doesn't work.
And sometimes it's a tad more vague...like mini-loopholes that are already there and purposely put into place to allow for last minute loophole changes. The politicians everyone is pandering to with calls and letters and online petitions are the ones who put them there. On purpose. They know the average person who speaks the loudest about a ban is usually the one who has the least interest in how politics work.
A little completely unbiased research (and not just online from the comfort of home) can uncover these things and make them a lot more obvious.
Those that do perform the legwork as well as the clickwork find it...then try to pass it along. And get shut down for it.
And so the ban passes...completely controlled by emotions...and doesn't work. The politicians have their votes lined up...and they kept the ones who actually make income and can donate it to them. By making sure there's a loophole.
Emotions have zero place in politics. I'm beginning to believe the equine community may be too emotional for trying to force political changes.
JMHO ;)

Aye

[summerhorse]

It amazes me that there are any people here who are falling all over their fingers trying to make excuses for this tragedy; yet before my eyes I see: Oh, the driver has poor little children to feed. Oh, accidents happen all the time. Oh, lots of people get speeding tickets and run red lights. Oh, the driver has to do what his boss tells him to do (in this case he owned his own truck). Oh, how can the rest of you be so uncompassionate?

Oh, What Bullshit!

The driver, of his own free will, crammed 59 large horses in a double decker truck and went speeding through the night, only slowing down when some poor guy in a pickup happened to cross his path because the pickup had the green light. This caused many, many people to risk their lives and their emotional well being by working through the night to save at least some of those 59 horses. It cost the community thousands of dollars, at least, in man hours and equipment use.

If you can spare a little of that understanding and compassion being showered on the driver of the double decker, you could direct some toward the rescuers and, oh yeah, the horses they helped to survive.


Great post!

While I'm not saying HANG THE DRIVER it is clear that he was careless and broke the law resulting in a huge mess. I do not want to be on the same road as drivers with big rigs who run red lights because they are going too fast to stop. Doesn't matter what they are hauling! Let's hope he learns a big lesson from this. He's just lucky he only killed horses this time.

[J Swan]

We had a bad wreck with a pig hauler up here on it's way to Smithfield. It was on the news and folks helped the pigs out also but I think horses have a bit more of a romantic image than pigs in the US and that is probably why they get more attention...as well as the fact that most people feel that the use of double deckers to haul them in is inhumane.

I find this very sad because, as the owner of a pig, I can tell you that pigs are extremely sensitive, intelligent creatures no more deserving of being injured in an accident than these horses. Actually, I think it was probably easier to handle and treat the horses than it was to treat those pigs - who were not doubt loaded back up and sent on their way.

Dunno - seems kind of odd that few people have empathy and compassion for those animals.... the excuse that this isn't the "chronicle of the cow" doesn't seem to have much merit when the discussion is about general transport matters.

Just thought I'd get that out. Like I said - I have a Duroc pig and he's the smartest, most sensitive species of livestock on my farm.

[J Swan]

EBO - take some Xanax or something. I'm not making excuses for anybody. I'm trying to put this accident into perspective. People are comparing this guy to a serial killer. Well you know what - that's just over the top. Enough with the hysterics; it's very unattractive.

Everyone who has posted is horrified by the accident, and grateful for the response from EMS, the local horse community, and thrilled that so many were saved.

We don't have to be on the anti-slaughter bandwagon to feel compassion and empathy for animals in distress. It's not that groups sole purview. Give it a rest.




It amazes me that there are any people here who are falling all over their fingers trying to make excuses for this tragedy; yet before my eyes I see: Oh, the driver has poor little children to feed. Oh, accidents happen all the time. Oh, lots of people get speeding tickets and run red lights. Oh, the driver has to do what his boss tells him to do (in this case he owned his own truck). Oh, how can the rest of you be so uncompassionate?

Oh, What Bullshit!

[J Swan]

Well, having had a good friend killed in an accident caused by a guy falling asleep at the wheel.... I can safely say that yes, I do feel compassion for everyone involved.

Compassion, true compassion, isn't reserved for just those people we agree with or like. It also doesn't imply that we forgive the person or think that what they did is ok or shouldn't be punished. True compassion is very difficult to achieve. If in doubt - ask any Buddhist.





I still haven't had anyone who is expressing sympathy for the driver specifically answer my question as to if they'd feel the same had it been themselves, their family member(s)/horse(s), etc. that had been smacked by that semi-truck. But that's okay; I think I know the reason why, but that's only my opinion. ;)

[horseandhound]

I find this very sad because, as the owner of a pig, I can tell you that pigs are extremely sensitive, intelligent creatures no more deserving of being injured in an accident than these horses. Actually, I think it was probably easier to handle and treat the horses than it was to treat those pigs - who were not doubt loaded back up and sent on their way.

Dunno - seems kind of odd that few people have empathy and compassion for those animals.... the excuse that this isn't the "chronicle of the cow" doesn't seem to have much merit when the discussion is about general transport matters.

Just thought I'd get that out. Like I said - I have a Duroc pig and he's the smartest, most sensitive species of livestock on my farm.

I agree with you on the pigs. I have two pot bellied pigs that I adore (horses here are happy with them too!) and hell, they're so smart.

Bet nobody lined up to save or divert those poor pigs in the accident you speak of. Imagine how traumatic it must have been for them.

[MistyBlue]

You just described the corruption! In general big companies have the money and so the power and so the control. The USDA, politicians and special interest groups are making deals!

Frankly, I have given up. I have seen the game that is played and for people like me and the vast majority of us we have no say, no power and no hope. We are just like the livestock in those trailers; we can't control where we are going or what will happen to us.

Yes, it's how politics are run. They always have been, they always will be. The fault that is immediately fixable is how the general public reacts to work within the hundreds-year-old model. Instead the GP gets a tiny bit of skewed info online, becomes overly emotional about it (understandably in some cases) and tries forcing changes too fast and mostly from online without ever researching unbaisedly on their own and shooting down people who have done the research and start informing others of possible future dangers with whatever the ban-du-jour is.
Nobody wants to *wait* one second longer to hammer in place the correct changes in steps over time so that in the end things are better all around for everyone. It's an instant gratification world. :no: And no...those of us "pro-slaughter" (a ridiculous term BTW) can not keep the right cahnges moving along in the slow normal wolrd of politics when tens of thousands of the uniformed jump onto the emotional bandwagon and start hollering.
Don't misunderstand me...I fully understand the emotions behind the bans. Yet I had *hoped* that people wouldn't ban solely on emotion and at the most rapid speed possible. I was wrong. As were so many others working on the issues who had been doing it for ages but just not setting up blogs and websites and videos and forums just to pat ourselves on the backs for it.
You *can* help...every single human in this country of voting/tax paying age can help. The way to not lose your compassion and yearning to help is to remain completely unbiased and do more for the causes you want to help other than what can be done at your home computer. If the majority got on the same page and stopped arguing timing...the ball had been rolling quite well for the types of changes that would have completely avoided DD's used for any equine transportation whatsoever, the USDA inspection fiasco never would have happened and horses would not now be heading to Mexico. Some argue that the Mexico trip is "necessary collateral damage." That's hogwash...wouldn't the extra time have been better spent in our own USDA watched houses for the horses rather tha in Mexico? Not saying it's a good thing...but it's a VAST improvement on what's going on now. Sometimes you have to wait on what you consider is bad to get something that's truly good. Now the shite's fallen out of the frying pan and into the fire and it's heartbreaking.
But *you* can still cause changes...just don't leap into anything with both feet and all emotions on internet info. :yes:
Please don't feel helpless...this country needs everyone with a heart AND ANALYTICAL mind to help. :)

[wasagroom]

As for if it had been my horses...

I suppose it would be hard to stomach, yes. But you know what is even harder to stomach? Blame and anger toward someone. For that reason, I do most everything for myself (keep my horse at home, etc etc), because I hate living with the feeling of blame... it eats your soul. So yes, hard as it might be, if it were me, I would find a way to forgive and show compassion.

[Alagirl]

Yes, it's how politics are run. They always have been, they always will be. The fault that is immediately fixable is how the general public reacts to work within the hundreds-year-old model. Instead the GP gets a tiny bit of skewed info online, becomes overly emotional about it (understandably in some cases) and tries forcing changes too fast and mostly from online without ever researching unbaisedly on their own and shooting down people who have done the research and start informing others of possible future dangers with whatever the ban-du-jour is.
Nobody wants to *wait* one second longer to hammer in place the correct changes in steps over time so that in the end things are better all around for everyone. It's an instant gratification world. :no: And no...those of us "pro-slaughter" (a ridiculous term BTW) can not keep the right cahnges moving along in the slow normal wolrd of politics when tens of thousands of the uniformed jump onto the emotional bandwagon and start hollering.
Don't misunderstand me...I fully understand the emotions behind the bans. Yet I had *hoped* that people wouldn't ban solely on emotion and at the most rapid speed possible. I was wrong. As were so many others working on the issues who had been doing it for ages but just not setting up blogs and websites and videos and forums just to pat ourselves on the backs for it.
You *can* help...every single human in this country of voting/tax paying age can help. The way to not lose your compassion and yearning to help is to remain completely unbiased and do more for the causes you want to help other than what can be done at your home computer. If the majority got on the same page and stopped arguing timing...the ball had been rolling quite well for the types of changes that would have completely avoided DD's used for any equine transportation whatsoever, the USDA inspection fiasco never would have happened and horses would not now be heading to Mexico. Some argue that the Mexico trip is "necessary collateral damage." That's hogwash...wouldn't the extra time have been better spent in our own USDA watched houses for the horses rather tha in Mexico? Not saying it's a good thing...but it's a VAST improvement on what's going on now. Sometimes you have to wait on what you consider is bad to get something that's truly good. Now the shite's fallen out of the frying pan and into the fire and it's heartbreaking.
But *you* can still cause changes...just don't leap into anything with both feet and all emotions on internet info. :yes:
Please don't feel helpless...this country needs everyone with a heart AND ANALYTICAL mind to help. :)



How many times can I quote you before Erin disengages my Haunches? :cool:

[Sannois]

I find this very sad because, as the owner of a pig, I can tell you that pigs are extremely sensitive, intelligent creatures no more deserving of being injured in an accident than these horses. Actually, I think it was probably easier to handle and treat the horses than it was to treat those pigs - who were not doubt loaded back up and sent on their way.

Dunno - seems kind of odd that few people have empathy and compassion for those animals.... the excuse that this isn't the "chronicle of the cow" doesn't seem to have much merit when the discussion is about general transport matters.

Just thought I'd get that out. Like I said - I have a Duroc pig and he's the smartest, most sensitive species of livestock on my farm.
I dont care what kind of animal or human it is, Cars Trucks trailers become steel coffins in those kind of accidents.
I Have never come upon any such wreck but I can tell you if it were pigs, cows, Horses, Chickens, sheep ducks, humans whatever, I would help.
I agree that pigs are so sensative and intelligent and vocal it would be horrid with a truck of pigs, or anything.
I merely was wondering why you hardly ever hear people say OMG a truck load of What ever besides horses flipped.
It was an accident, Yes a traffic accident. And the driver was at fault by running the red light.
What I have never understood is why is hauling horses like that legal if they aren't going to slaughter and illegal if they are.. Who thought up that brilliant law.
:confused:

[MistyBlue]

What I have never understood is why is hauling horses like that legal if they aren't going to slaughter and illegal if they are.. Who thought up that brilliant law.

It was done by those attempting to stop equine slaughter in the USA at that time. The reasoning was if the use of Double Deckers to transport horses was made illegal, it would cost too much and be too inconvenient to get horses to the slaughter plants. Which would be true...shipping is an enormous part of any business.
However...when the Act was introduced by harried politicians who had been receiving a lot of pressure to pass a ban on that...it was termed the humane transportation of horses to slaughter act. And since that's what the agenda for stopping double deckers for equine transport at the time was...to stop slaughter first and foremost...it was met with open arms. People either didn't guess that other people would transport horses in that manner outside of slaughter or they didn't believe it when tons of folks were pointing frantically to the enormous holes in the wording that not only allowed it for certain conditions...but that those words were set up in a way that it was basically unenforceable anyways. By not researching any other laws or acts that this piggy backed from...few either realized or believed that those holes existed. They wanted slaughter stopped as soon as possible and this was the current plan to do it.
It backfired. To say the least. Politicians knew DD's wouldn't be checked by anyone but the USDA since it was for slaughter bound horses only. Local and national highway enforcement wouldn't give it a second thought...being grossly understaffed as it was. And the USDA has regular office hours...and when do truckers looking to make the best time travel? Overnight. They weren't thinking "Oh now we have to travel at night to hide." They already were mainly travelling by night...politicians knew this and knew the bulk of the issue would be placed with the USDA and that they would have their hands tied due to office hours. They *knew* it wouldn't work at all. Horses heading to slaughter were shipped overnight in DDs in many areas, and dropped at holding facilities closer to plants to be picked up during office hours by smaller trucks and shuttled back and forth legally. And politicians *knew* before even writing the act that the way it was written ensured it being practically impossible to prosecute...or to even stop because the ways of checking for legal DD equine travel (rodeos, brokers/sales, etc) weren't within the capacity of any of the highway departments. No way would they have training done on those officers because the general public would raise a stink that resources and time were being taken away from humans travelling and given to livestock.
All of this was known before the act was done and when it was passed. The only people who didn't know it or want to know it are the ones who were responsible for it's actual conception...because they were so focused on emotins and not researching the actual process.
Same exact thing happened with having the USDA inspections halted at slaughter plants. That was another very fast way for trying to stop slaughter without thinking it through. It passed fast alright...and caused a fiasco. The *only* thing that saved that mess was that someone else found and equally bad loophole in that stopped indepedent inspections. It was only dumb luck that stopped that problem...not any savvy at all.
Now we have the same issues with the slaughter ban. Again...pass it at the speed of light and by harassing politicians with half-info based solely on emotional propaganda...garner public attention with a heart warming way to "save animals" and politicians jump on it if they fear re-election. They humor it enough to gain popularity and pass something assinine. The policians do NOT care about horses. Period. They never will. They care about public opnion, TV time, votes and faking the warm fuzzies to the public. Fast and easy is not the way to work with these people.
The holes in all 3 acts/bills/bans were as obvious as the nose on your (collectively) faces...but one can't see thier nose when their eyes are filled with tears.
I understand the tears...but before doing aything permanant...wipe those tears for a clear view, roll up the sleeves and go to work fixing it the right way so it's only done once. JMHO.

[I'm EBO]

Misty Blue, I understand what you're saying, although I think I qualify as Radical Fringe on some of the issues. Here are a few of the questions that need answers from those of you who don't like horse slaughter, but see no good way out of it in the next 10 years or so:

1. Is it reasonable that we require rescues and/or individuals to have everything in place for housing and maintaining "excess" horses in advance, given the manner in which our political system works? (Here, I refer to the congressional foot dragging and the turnover in legislators and administrations.) Also to be considered is inflation and true rising costs of goods and services.

2. Exactly what about the US horse slaughter process was considered humane? The USDA inspectors were concerned about meat quality. The captive bolt wasn't designed for horses. The turnover among workers on the kill floor assured that training was rudimentary, at best. Although prohibited by law, blind, crippled and heavily pregnant mares were transported and killed on a regular basis, all in the quickest way possible.

3. Why aren't transport regulations enforced? They weren't when there were operating horse slaughter houses in the United States. They aren't now, even on the way to our borders.

4. What is wrong with emotion and passion in the service of a cause? I submit that most of the positive changes that have occurred in the past two centuries have occurred because of emotion and passion. Look at the end of slavery in the US; the granting of voting rights to women and people of color; the rights of women to own property separate from their husbands; equal rights in the work place; and laws regulating child labor.

IMO, if the two anti-horse slaughter factions (now and later) are ever going to have dialog, the first two of these questions must be considered and answered before there is common ground.

The internet is just a tool. Just as most adults don't believe everything they read in the newspapers or see on TV, most adults don't take information found in blogs as gospel.

[MSP]

MistyBlue,

The whole internet involvement does put a twist on politics that we have never had and it does have a negative side, I will agree with that. We have so much that needs to change. I was involved long before the internet and I will say the internet has also opened up lots of info I may never have seen with out it. Downsize DC has been trying to get a Bill passed called “Read the Bills Act”. The point being that reps sign Bills with out reading them and if they had to read them maybe they wouldn’t sign it. If some one is telling you how to vote what do you need to read it for! That is what’s wrong.

Regarding the DD regulations…

I did not follow the whole DD debacle as it took place but I was told that the wording was changed from essentially banning transport of horses in DDs to only banning the last leg of transport to slaughter by the USDA or slaughter side to take the bite out of it. Looking at some old articles it looks like it wasn’t approved by everyone and there is some hint at discontent on its passing. From the horse an article from on the transportation regs Dec 1999 http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=417


Ultimately, the job of creating the regulations was passed to Veterinary Services of APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services). Heading up the effort for the Veterinary Services has been Tim Cordes, DVM, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Equine Programs.
It is not the role of the Department of Agriculture either to condone or condemn the human consumption of horse meat, Cordes said, but the department does involve itself with all phases of agriculture. For Cordes, who was in private veterinary practice for many years before joining the USDA, involvement as the Veterinary Services representative responsible for spearheading the effort to fulfill the requirements was a challenging learning experience.

‘I knew nothing about the slaughter horse industry,’ he said, ‘and I’m sure the same can be said of a great many veterinarians in the field today. I had to educate myself.’

Before he finished his ‘education,’ Cordes visited the horse slaughter facilities in the United States and also took an active part in research efforts aimed at learning more about the stresses horses undergo when being transported.
One of the key components of the proposed regulations, something that came out of the research, is the elimination of double-deck trailers for the transportation of horses to slaughter facilities. However, there is a grandfather clause. This part of the regulations will not be implemented for five years in order to give truckers time to replace their double-deck trailers. Under the proposed regulations, only single-deck trailers that are of a size to allow the tallest horse being hauled to have sufficient head room will be permitted. However, double-deck trailers with ‘floating decks’ that can be raised or lowered will meet the standards proposed, providing that the ‘floating deck’ is lowered so that the trailer is a single-decker.

The trailer requirement is only one of many rules included in the proposed regulations. There are a number of other requirements that came after a good deal of expert study and discussion, said Cordes. Providing input on establishment of the regulations was a select panel of one representative each from the USDA, American Horse Council, Animal Welfare Council, New Holland Sales, Inc., American Horse Protection Association, American Humane Association, The Humane Society of the United States, American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Veterinary Medical Association, managers of each of the three largest equine slaughter plants, and researchers.

The panel, armed with information from a number of research projects, worked to determine what should be covered in the regulations. The group was able to reach consensus on nearly all key points, said Cordes.
As part of the effort to obtain data concerning the transportation of horses by commercial conveyances, the USDA funded studies at three universities. Research was carried out at the University of California, Davis, Texas A&M University, and Colorado State University. Cordes was personally involved in the Texas A&M research work.

Here is an article after it passed http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=3207&nID=14&n=Transportation%20to%20Slaughter&case=2

Groups such as the American Horse Council, the American Horse Protection Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and the American Horse Defense Fund support the rule. There was some negative response to the rule from other humane organizations that feel that the regulations fall short and will be difficult to enforce. “These regulations will legalize every inhumane practice identified in the transport of horses to slaughter,” noted one humane organization, “AND, put the very people identified as the abusers in charge of the horses. This is the fox guarding the hen house.”




Speaking of pigs…

Have you all seen these little sweeties?
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=49750&cl=4578641&ch=61492&src=news
net flix commercial comes up but wait through it to see the pigs.
Too cute!

[J Swan]

Misty Blue, I understand what you're saying, although I think I qualify as Radical Fringe on some of the issues. Here are a few of the questions that need answers from those of you who don't like horse slaughter, but see no good way out of it in the next 10 years or so:

1. Is it reasonable that we require rescues and/or individuals to have everything in place for housing and maintaining "excess" horses in advance, given the manner in which our political system works? (Here, I refer to the congressional foot dragging and the turnover in legislators and administrations.) Also to be considered is inflation and true rising costs of goods and services.

2. Exactly what about the US horse slaughter process was considered humane? The USDA inspectors were concerned about meat quality. The captive bolt wasn't designed for horses. The turnover among workers on the kill floor assured that training was rudimentary, at best. Although prohibited by law, blind, crippled and heavily pregnant mares were transported and killed on a regular basis, all in the quickest way possible.

3. Why aren't transport regulations enforced? They weren't when there were operating horse slaughter houses in the United States. They aren't now, even on the way to our borders.

4. What is wrong with emotion and passion in the service of a cause? I submit that most of the positive changes that have occurred in the past two centuries have occurred because of emotion and passion. Look at the end of slavery in the US; the granting of voting rights to women and people of color; the rights of women to own property separate from their husbands; equal rights in the work place; and laws regulating child labor.

IMO, if the two anti-horse slaughter factions (now and later) are ever going to have dialog, the first two of these questions must be considered and answered before there is common ground.

The internet is just a tool. Just as most adults don't believe everything they read in the newspapers or see on TV, most adults don't take information found in blogs as gospel.


1) I don't think it's reasonable for a net to be in place. However, the problem is that the "faction" has assumed that net is there and will catch excess horses - and that is a basis for the argument that slaughter can safely end - all will be well.

2) Your question is rhetorical. The real answer lies within the laws and regulations involving the slaughter of all species - not just horses.

3) Transport laws are enforced. Do they catch every bad guy? No. Just like any other law we have. What we read and hear are the failures of those laws, or horrible cases of cruelty and/or accidents. And..... loopholes or incompetence. I don't think there is any answer to your question - because again - you're asserting that NO laws are enforced and that is simply not true. I think what you're saying is that it isn't perfect. On that point - I agree.

4) Emotion and passion were not the basis for the causes you mention. Those causes were based in law and justice; equal justice for human beings. While many did indeed scream and cry how awful it was - no arguments for change were based upon emotion. Only upon law. To be a bit crass - the slaves weren't freed because we thought their skin color was pretty. Women weren't granted the right to vote because men felt sorry for them or liked them better than negroes. Those are emotional/subjective based arguments that have no merit and are easily dismissed as being fanciful, the results of hysterics, etc.
Same with the horse slaughter argument. Emotion and passion are simply not productive - and so far - have done nothing but backfire.

[summerhorse]

Dunno - seems kind of odd that few people have empathy and compassion for those animals.... the excuse that this isn't the "chronicle of the cow" doesn't seem to have much merit when the discussion is about general transport matters.



I'm sure there are many people on here that love pigs, cows, goats, whatever but one of the rules of the board is it must be horse related. And they are not which is why nobody posts about them here not because nobody cares about them.

[horse crazy inTX]

To put this accident in perspective here is some data that was complied by FarmSanctuary.org

Over 9 billion animals are slaughtered every year in the US for food. The assumption is that the same 9 billion are also transported to slaughter.

Independent research done by FarmSanctuary.org for accidents occurring when transporting found the following:

From January 1, 2000 to May 15, 2006 - 233 highway accidents involving transported farm animals occurred.

More than half the accidents were single-vehicle rollovers, and the most common cause was driver failure to negotiate a curve or corner in the roadway. A total of at least 27,000 animals were killed in the incidents reviewed, with many more injured.

Break down of animals involved in the accidents:
Cattle/Calves--50.6%
Hogs/Pigs-----25.8%
Chickens------15.0%
Turkeys--------3.4%
Sheep---------3.4%
Goats----------1.3%
Bison----------1.3%
Horses---------1.3%

Using their data this conclusion can be drawn:

27,000 animals were killed over a period of 6 years

27,000/6=4,500 average number of animals killed in accidents annually

9 billion animals slaughtered/transported annually

4,500/9,000,000,000 = .00005% of farm animals are killed in transit to slaughter annually.

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/FINALAccidentReport.pdf

OK, I know this data is only as good as the research it is taken from but this shows a minuscule percentage of animals involved in accidents being transported to slaughter.

The linked article also infers that Double Deckers are more unstable. Honestly, I have found nothing to support that claim in any of my research. If anyone does have data indicating DDs are not as stable as a SD I'd really like to read it.

[J Swan]

summerhorse - I have read many posts in which folks stated that other species were "different" because they were raised for slaughter and horses were not.

A distinction that is incomprehensible to the animal. ;)

[wasagroom]

summerhorse - I have read many posts in which folks stated that other species were "different" because they were raised for slaughter and horses were not.

A distinction that is incomprehensible to the animal. ;)

I have been to several mildly horse related boards (horse related, but folks don't mind if you share a little NHR), and the only incident I can recall ever talking about another species of animal dying on a DD or in transport AT ALL, were the pigs last year, I believe, that overheated on the stock trailer when (I believe) the trucker's rig broke down. In a DECADE of being "online" and visiting a variety of horsey related boards, I can tell you for certain that they're not talking about them not because they're not allowed, but because horses are a "superior" species of livestock (yes, that's right, I said livestock, and no, I'm not hard hearted), and require further consideration than a pig, cow, etc. I don't share the same view, personally, but that's the general concensus of the "horse lover" out there and if you suggest that horses are not superior to other species of livestock, you are immediately NOT a "horse lover"!

On the subject of pigs - I still consider them livestock. We raise most of our own meat animals on the farm here, and we have been enjoying one of our most recent pigs... she was very well cared for while she did live with us and I take pleasure in knowing she didn't live in a factory farm setting, got a chance to stretch her legs regularly, and enjoyed a good peppermint stick every now and again. :) Likewise, though, I don't have any issues with the underlying "issue" here - slaughter of horses. I can't be two faced about something like that.

[J Swan]

T
The linked article also infers that Double Deckers are more unstable. Honestly, I have found nothing to support that claim in any of my research. If anyone does have data indicating DDs are not as stable as a SD I'd really like to read it.

Without researching it - the only thing I can think of is that DD may be more unstable because they are tall and you have a live load that is not secured many feet off the ground.

Think of Jeep rollovers - you'll get the picture. Particularly if a DD was not loaded properly (more weight on top), I believe it might be more prone to rolling over.

There is a science to properly loading live or dead weight - I think in the case of live weight it's more of an art - and live cargo shifts - making it more difficult to secure. I'm not an engineer though - I just learned this stuff in the Army many years ago. So it's just a guess.


wasagroom - thank you for your post. My pig is pretty cool - we may end up eating him - but there is no doubt he has a pretty darn good life. Same with my goats. The rest of their species are worthy of the same consideration.

[horse crazy inTX]

Without researching it - the only thing I can think of is that DD may be more unstable because they are tall and you have a live load that is not secured many feet off the ground.

Think of Jeep rollovers - you'll get the picture. Particularly if a DD was not loaded properly (more weight on top), I believe it might be more prone to rolling over.

I understand the thinking on that but on the other hand if the weight is heavy in the belly you would think the trailer would be MORE stable because some of the weight is closer to the ground whereas a single deck trailer would have all weight above the wheel base? :confused:

We had a school bus rollover last year because a sub driver took a sharp corner too fast. Fortunately most of the kids had been dropped including my daughter before the accident occurred. Only a couple kids were still on the bus and they only had minor cuts and abrasions. Aren't SUVs more prone to roll overs than passenger cars because of a higher wheel base? Anyway, you would think there would be some actual data on trucks and their stability instead of people trying to make educated or uneducated (as the case may be) guesses.

The link I posted earlier was a brief written specifically for a court case about the stability of DDs transporting cattle. It disproved some of the theories about load shift and instability.

[MistyBlue]

1. Is it reasonable that we require rescues and/or individuals to have everything in place for housing and maintaining "excess" horses in advance, given the manner in which our political system works? (Here, I refer to the congressional foot dragging and the turnover in legislators and administrations.) Also to be considered is inflation and true rising costs of goods and services.
Legally we cannot require rescues to do or provide anything. Those are privately run for the most part and the government cannot require them to take on excess horses if they get rid of other means to handle those animals. On average...equine rescues here in the US fall most heavily into two categories: Overpopulated and underfunded is the first. The second is inadequately run. Rescues on the whole are not capable of a large influx of horses...nor even a moderate influx of them.
One thing that has a possibility of being a future partial solution to this issue has been research into new ways of ending equine lives that do not include the cattle model of a slaughter house coupled with new ways of shipping them to processing plants so that they are still viable bodies for any food source. It's still in it's infancy stages...but one thing being looked at is training and hiring people to work in states doing non-chemical euthanising in facilities that have basic rendering capabilities to prep a carcass to then be transported to a processing plant via refridgerated trucks to then be processed for any type of products/consumption. Keeping transportation humane since it's a cold carcass, keeping the overseas markets supplied and ending assembly line type captive bolt use. It also removes the cost of euthanization from the owner who no longer wants the horse, but will not garner the owner any profit from the death and processing of the animal.

2. Exactly what about the US horse slaughter process was considered humane? The USDA inspectors were concerned about meat quality. The captive bolt wasn't designed for horses. The turnover among workers on the kill floor assured that training was rudimentary, at best. Although prohibited by law, blind, crippled and heavily pregnant mares were transported and killed on a regular basis, all in the quickest way possible.
All parts of the slaughter floor operations were considered humane by the legal definition of it. The same exact things happen to cows...houses could have been fitted with separate rooms for equine processing to improve the manner. Slaughter by any definition is not going to sit well with those who've never had to turn a live animal into a meal...all animals are not happily going to be processed. Fear cannot be controlled by the USDA, vets, government, anyone. It's a sad and unfortunate fact..but one that's a necessity unless the entire planet turns to veganism. Turnover among workers is misstated by many popular information gathering sites. Those working the guns are rotated in and out of the killing floor section. It does not mean any new person operating the gun has never used one before. FWIW...it's also not an extremely difficult device to use.
The law prohibitions being ignored from time to time go on in every single job and industry in this country and other countries. Contrary to website info...it is not the normal SOP in any business, slaughter included. Tighter control is necessary for all of it.

3. Why aren't transport regulations enforced? They weren't when there were operating horse slaughter houses in the United States. They aren't now, even on the way to our borders.
They most certainly were being enforced to the extent that it was possible with the amount of employees out there available to enforce it. Please remember that what makes news is what's out of the ordinary...normal everyday things never make the news. Our borders have been understaffed for generations. This is and was common knowledge since pretty much forever. The ban was passed despite that common knowledge anyways...because the ideal in the mind was that after the ban passed government would jump on the happy bandwagon and enforce it's own new law. That would make the news...because it's unusual.
4. What is wrong with emotion and passion in the service of a cause? I submit that most of the positive changes that have occurred in the past two centuries have occurred because of emotion and passion. Look at the end of slavery in the US; the granting of voting rights to women and people of color; the rights of women to own property separate from their husbands; equal rights in the work place; and laws regulating child labor.
Emotion has been the main manipulative tool used by goverment and politicians since the beginning of this country. The government never makes any decisions based on emotions...this country and even our Constitution are one enormous corporation. The government might not be emotional themselves but they sure know and exploit the fact that the American citizens surely are and always ready to jump on any cause du jour. The ones that "sell" votes, funds, etc for the politicians are ones that seem to benefit minority classes, children and lastly animals. They will pick and choose certain animal related causes each year, purely for awareness to the general public that these are warm and fuzzy politicians. The GP eats it up.
Not a single one of those emotional causes you listed were changed due to emotions. They all had political and monentary value to those who got them passed. Yes, they were emotional issues. No, the changes they caused had nothing to do with public opnion or emotions. Yes, they all had good outcomes...some took a good long while for that to happen but they did. Those were "icing" side affects. Not the reasons for the changes. And shows a definite misunderstanding of how government works. Government is a big ol' business...public opnion only counts when it can be manipulated.

I do believe in our government...I'm not a conspiracy theorist not a Big Brother hater or anything. I just accept it for what it is and learn to work within it's structure in order to enjoy the American way.

[J Swan]

Yeah - I can only think of cases in which the rig is improperly loaded. But that is true of pretty much all trailering/towing, not just DD. So SUV's probably aren't the best example.

I didn't read the brief - sorry. We had a schoolbus full of kids go off the road a few days ago too - knowing the road they were on it was probably going around a corner and skidding on a wet road covered with leaves.

My pea brain was envisioning a DD being less stable because the live weight might act to pull the trailer over in an accident.

I think we have some engineer types on this BB that might be able to explain it. I don't care for them for transporting livestock so I might be biased.

[horse crazy inTX]

Yeah - I can only think of cases in which the rig is improperly loaded. But that is true of pretty much all trailering/towing, not just DD. So SUV's probably aren't the best example.

I didn't read the brief - sorry. We had a schoolbus full of kids go off the road a few days ago too - knowing the road they were on it was probably going around a corner and skidding on a wet road covered with leaves.

My pea brain was envisioning a DD being less stable because the live weight might act to pull the trailer over in an accident.

I think we have some engineer types on this BB that might be able to explain it. I don't care for them for transporting livestock so I might be biased.

I really don't have an opinion on DDs either way. I just haven't been convinced that DDs are as evil as they are portrayed for 2 reasons.

1) I know ranchers that use them to move their cattle, not just to slaughter but back and forth between summer and winter pastures. I just can't fathom why they would use them if they were harmful to their livestock. I didn't witness any ill effects with the DDs being used.

2) There is a gal on Horsecity that is familiar with BLM mustangs and the use of DDs in the past for transporting them. She has testified that there was no harm done to any of the horses in transporting them. I know they have been banned for transporting mustangs since then but they were used successfully prior to the ban. Most mustangs are relatively short so head room wouldn't have been a major issue.

I really am interested to understand it from a structural / engineering aspect. Maybe some of the engineers could jump in here.

[MandyVA]

Misty Blue, I think the fact that the transport regs are so difficult to enforce is exactly why there is such an outcry when one of these horse dd wrecks occurs as opposed to when a cattle truck overturns. It's legal to transport cattle to slaughter in dds, but not horses. And since it's so hard to catch them, for one to end up in a horrific wreck, while no one wants that to happen, is simply the only way sometimes to catch these criminals in the act. All the defending of the driver is ridiculous. That callous ass stuffed 59 horses in a cattle truck. Anyone who thinks that is ok should not have the word "thinks" applied to their mental process.

[I'm EBO]

Misty Blue: It looks as if we're further apart than I thought. That's too bad; but to keep things straight, let's go back to our Q & A format to see if we can find any common ground. I've deleted my original statements and condensed yours. For brevity, I've just given each section a title of sorts. You're in blue. I'm black.

1.( Regarding excess horses): Legally we cannot require rescues to do or provide anything. ....Rescues on the whole are not capable of a large influx of horses...nor even a moderate influx of them.
One thing that has a possibility of being a future partial solution to this issue has been research into new ways of ending equine lives that do not include the cattle model of a slaughter house coupled with new ways of shipping them to processing plants so that they are still viable bodies for any food source. It's still in it's infancy stages...but one thing being looked at is training and hiring people to work in states doing non-chemical euthanising in facilities that have basic rendering capabilities to prep a carcass to then be transported to a processing plant via refrigerated trucks to then be processed for any type of products/consumption. Keeping transportation humane since it's a cold carcass, keeping the overseas markets supplied and ending assembly line type captive bolt use. It also removes the cost of euthanization from the owner who no longer wants the horse, but will not garner the owner any profit from the death and processing of the animal.

A big point of disagreement is the fate of horses should slaughter/now transport be stopped abruptly. One of the standard bromides the pro-slaughter organizations trot out (sorry), is that if slaughter is stopped, the country will be overcome with stray horses running wild through steets and towns, OR they will all be standing in fields, starving to death. Unless we (the anti-slaughter people and the rescues) are prepared to take these horses in, and/or find homes for them, the government would have to raise everyone's taxes. About here in this litany, they tell us that the few thousand mustangs collected and currently held by the BLM cost 50 MILLION dollars a year to keep and feed. (Both the number of mustangs and the cost vary according to the source.) Since I can provide hay for one horse for about $500 this year, a particularly expensive year for hay, then I could feed another 100,000 horses by BLM standards. There are estimated to be between 25 to 35 thousand wild mustangs and wild burros, total, in the U.S.

To look at the horse overpopulation problem another way, if we arbitrarily pick 75,000 as an average number of horses going to slaughter each year, each of our 50 states would need to absorb 1,500 extra horses the first year following the end of slaughter.* We have 3,141 counties or county-like divisions in the US, an average of around 63 counties per state. That means that each county would need to absorb about 24 horses the first year following the end of slaughter.* To me, that doesn't sound impossible. Not easy, but not impossible, either.

Your solution of kinder, gentler slaughter houses that provide non-chemical euthanasia sounds promising, if there were to be strict and adequate oversight. I expect it would be a temporary measure if no compensation was paid to those people bringing horses to such a plant. It should also remove the profitability for truckers like James Anderson.

2. (Humane treatment of slaughter horses.) All parts of the slaughter floor operations were considered humane by the legal definition of it. ...................houses could have been fitted with separate rooms for equine processing to improve the manner. ............It's a sad and unfortunate fact..but one that's a necessity unless the entire planet turns to veganism. Turnover among workers is misstated by many popular information gathering sites. Those working the guns are rotated in and out of the killing floor section. It does not mean any new person operating the gun has never used one before. FWIW...it's also not an extremely difficult device to use.
The law prohibitions being ignored from time to time go on in every single job and industry in this country and other countries. Contrary to website info...it is not the normal SOP in any business, slaughter included. Tighter control is necessary for all of it.

The fact that slaughter plants could have been made more humane for horses but were not made more humane for horses speaks volumes on the management and owners of the plants, and the USDA officials who pandered to them. If the next administration doesn't rebuild the USDA from the ground up, then a separate entity should regulate the slaughter of food animals since it's obviously beyond the capabilities of the USDA.

The captive bolt was designed to stun cattle, whose skull structure is different from that of a horse. Further, cattle have shorter necks, and to my knowledge, do not rear. In Canada, horses are rendered senseless with a bullet. I can only guess why it wasn't done by the same method in this country.

3. (Transport laws) They most certainly were being enforced to the extent that it was possible with the amount of employees out there available to enforce it. Please remember that what makes news is what's out of the ordinary...normal everyday things never make the news. Our borders have been understaffed for generations. This is and was common knowledge since pretty much forever. The ban was passed despite that common knowledge anyways...because the ideal in the mind was that after the ban passed government would jump on the happy bandwagon and enforce its own new law. That would make the news...because it's unusual.

If our government cannot afford to fully enforce its laws, then it should make the trespass of its laws punishable by the financial equivalent of a firing squad.


4. (Emotions regarding social movements) Emotion has been the main manipulative tool used by goverment and politicians since the beginning of this country. The government never makes any decisions based on emotions...this country and even our Constitution are one enormous corporation. The government might not be emotional themselves but they sure know and exploit the fact that the American citizens surely are and always ready to jump on any cause du jour. The ones that "sell" votes, funds, etc for the politicians are ones that seem to benefit minority classes, children and lastly animals. They will pick and choose certain animal related causes each year, purely for awareness to the general public that these are warm and fuzzy politicians. The GP eats it up.
Not a single one of those emotional causes you listed were changed due to emotions. They all had political and monentary value to those who got them passed. Yes, they were emotional issues. No, the changes they caused had nothing to do with public opnion or emotions. Yes, they all had good outcomes...some took a good long while for that to happen but they did. Those were "icing" side affects. Not the reasons for the changes. And shows a definite misunderstanding of how government works. Government is a big ol' business...public opnion only counts when it can be manipulated.

I disagree that emotion/passion for ethical and moral issues have not influenced and do not influence our politicians. The starting place for all human rights movements was a sense of moral and/or ethical alarm. There was agitation to abolish slavery long before the slaves were freed by decree, although there were political and financial motives behind the Civil War. Women and men worked long and hard for women’s suffrage, although it was finally adopted nationally in 1920. Go back and reread the history of the movement if you want to learn about tenacity. Several states granted suffrage to women, only to have the US lawmakers override their action. I do agree that politicians use emotion to further their agendas. Our current administration specializes in fomenting fear. (If you're one of the 28% who think Bush is doing a good job, I apologize for offending you.) Hitler played on fear and pride. Quasi governmental groups such as Al Qaeda play upon religious chauvinism. I think manipulative politicians play upon negative emotions, but that positive movements come from the people who recognize right and wrong, and CARE about it.

One of the COTH posters has as her signature a quote by Margaret Mead: to paraphrase: we should not think that one person is helpless to bring about change; in fact, that's the only way that change ever happens.


*I presume that after the first year of no outlet for unsold horses, breeders will cut back on their production, so that there will be fewer and fewer "unwanted" horses that need homes or the alternative

__________________

[horse crazy inTX]

To look at the horse overpopulation problem another way, if we arbitrarily pick 75,000 as an average number of horses going to slaughter each year, each of our 50 states would need to absorb 1,500 extra horses the first year following the end of slaughter.* We have 3,141 counties or county-like divisions in the US, an average of around 63 counties per state. That means that each county would need to absorb about 24 horses the first year following the end of slaughter.* To me, that doesn't sound impossible. Not easy, but not impossible, either.


The BIG disagreement is the POTENTIAL number of horses that are unwanted, surplus, excess. Most people want to use the recent high slaughter numbers of 100,000. There is nothing to substantiate whether that number is too much or too little. 100,000 does seem manageable. 'Note' I said seems. What years did you use to achieve an average of 75,000?

If we turn back the clock to the years when 350,000 horses went to slaughter and then we suddenly stopped US slaughter what do you think would have happened to those horses? Over 1 million horses went to slaughter in the US in a time frame of 4 years. What IF there are way more horses at risk than 100,000? What IF the current average is more like 250,000?

According to Dr. Stull from a survey done in California the main causes of horse neglect were the owner's lack of knowledge or financial hardship. By eliminating a last option sale these same owners will be FORCED to keep an animal they maybe shouldn't have had to begin with. This is the welfare concern many of us have. And for some reason the anti-slaughter movement can't seem to wrap their arms around the thinking.

What if this IS true:
“So today we are facing over 212,000, documented starving horses in the United States,” said Howell.

What benefit is it for many of us 'PRO' slaughter folks to support slaughter when our horses are well taken care of, we are not selling horses, don't intend to sell any horses and we ARE NOT breeders? I gain nothing personally from slaughter being left as an option or being banned. My concern is for the horse that needs to be rehomed and can't be. I can't save them, can you?

There is no secure safety net for unwanted horses, rescues are struggling through out the majority of the US.

There is NO structured funding to help support the rescues or to support other means of euthanasia.

Do you go with the thinking of "Plan for the worst but HOPE for the best"? There is NO PLAN for the worst case scenario. What IS the worst case scenario?

Horses Slaughtered
------Canada----Mexico-----U.S.-----Total
1989--133,000--560,000--348,400--1,041,400
1990--129,900--575,000--345,700--1,050,600
1991--113,800--590,000--276,900----980,700
1992---88,800--606,000--246,400----941,200
1993---85,200--610,000--167,300----862,500
1994---59,700--618,000--107,000----784,700
1995---59,600--626,000--109,200----794,800
1996---63,500--630,000--103,700----797,200
1997---64,500--630,000---87,100----781,600
1998---65,400--630,000---72,000----767,400
1999---62,300--626,000---61,700----750,000
2000---60,900--626,000---50,400----737,300
2001---66,300--626,000---62,000----754,300

If you use the above US numbers from over a 13 year period the average # is 145,138 annually.

[horse crazy inTX]

The fact that slaughter plants could have been made more humane for horses but were not made more humane for horses speaks volumes on the management and owners of the plants, and the USDA officials who pandered to them. If the next administration doesn't rebuild the USDA from the ground up, then a separate entity should regulate the slaughter of food animals since it's obviously beyond the capabilities of the USDA.

The captive bolt was designed to stun cattle, whose skull structure is different from that of a horse. Further, cattle have shorter necks, and to my knowledge, do not rear. In Canada, horses are rendered senseless with a bullet. I can only guess why it wasn't done by the same method in this country.


The penetrating captive bolt is an accepted method of humane euthanasia for a horse. Some vets even use them when making farm and ranch calls as a means to put animals down including horses. Iceland, a country that raises horses for meat, uses the penetrating captive bolt. The meat horses there are relatively young when slaughtered and are by all intents and purposes wild as in not much human handling. They do use a restraining device because the horses are wild, US horses are for the most part handled extensively by people. Most horses going through the slaughter process do not need to be restrained because they are NOT wild and are used to having handlers touching their face. Of course there are exceptions where there are some head shy or wild horses that lack proper training. Dr Stull witnessed 306 horses being put down with the captive bolt in the slaughter house and saw no abuse or misses, all put down with the first shot.

I think your Canada information is incorrect. Bullets are not used because of the danger to the operator. Please show where it states Canadian horses are put down by gunshot? The safest and fastest method is the penetrating captive bolt. Bullets can ricochet and cause harm if the gun misfires or the shooters aim is off.

There are a number of misconceptions about cattle vs horses. The skull structure varies more on bulls than between cows and horses. Bulls have a very thick skull requiring special treatment. The placement of the bolt gun on the horse's forehead is a slightly higher placement but the penetrating bolt is effective as proved by use in Iceland and also in the US.

Can a cow rear? Can a cow JUMP? I've seen a longhorn bull jump a 4 1/2' fence from a standstill. I've seen many calves and also older cattle rear up when being pushed into corrals trying to escape. Cattle are very athletic and can pretty much do anything a horse can. Cattle can get scraped up when being trailered too, it is not exclusive to horses. Probably the biggest difference between horses and cattle is that cattle can't bite the same way horses can so horses can injure each other more because of aggressive biting.

Neck length varies amongst animals. Some cattle have longer necks than others. A stocky Quarter horse can have a short thick neck too. A cow can move evasively just as a horse and because cattle are handled less than horses they are actually more skittish.

Note the size and athleticism of the longhorn steer...

Scroll down to
...It's the Texas Longhorn that put the "COW" in "COWBOY"!

http://www.premierlonghorns.com/RidingLonghorns.html

Can a cow jump? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwMfcne2TSc

[Luckydonkey]

"Legally we cannot require rescues to do or provide anything. ....Rescues on the whole are not capable of a large influx of horses...nor even a moderate influx of them.
One thing that has a possibility of being a future partial solution to this issue has been research into new ways of ending equine lives that do not include the cattle model of a slaughter house coupled with new ways of shipping them to processing plants so that they are still viable bodies for any food source. It's still in it's infancy stages...but one thing being looked at is training and hiring people to work in states doing non-chemical euthanising in facilities that have basic rendering capabilities to prep a carcass to then be transported to a processing plant via refrigerated trucks to then be processed for any type of products/consumption. Keeping transportation humane since it's a cold carcass, keeping the overseas markets supplied and ending assembly line type captive bolt use. It also removes the cost of euthanization from the owner who no longer wants the horse, but will not garner the owner any profit from the death and processing of the animal."

So the basic plan that is in infancy stages is that we will have a new "euthanasia facitlity" for horses that humanely kills them with no chemicals, and then sends their bodies off for consumption and other uses? Isn't this still considered slaughter? Hmmmmm-

[MSP]

I really don't have an opinion on DDs either way. I just haven't been convinced that DDs are as evil as they are portrayed for 2 reasons.

1) I know ranchers that use them to move their cattle, not just to slaughter but back and forth between summer and winter pastures. I just can't fathom why they would use them if they were harmful to their livestock. I didn't witness any ill effects with the DDs being used.

2) There is a gal on Horsecity that is familiar with BLM mustangs and the use of DDs in the past for transporting them. She has testified that there was no harm done to any of the horses in transporting them. I know they have been banned for transporting mustangs since then but they were used successfully prior to the ban. Most mustangs are relatively short so head room wouldn't have been a major issue.

I really am interested to understand it from a structural / engineering aspect. Maybe some of the engineers could jump in here.

Read the article I posted on post #170. A large group including people on both sides of the slaughter issue did pass regulations stating that transporting horses to slaughter in DD's is inhumane. Now they may have came to a compromise with this regulation to give both side what they wanted but they also stated their decisions were based on studies. I believe the study I posted earlier in the thread was one of them.

This regulation basically says it is inhuman to use DDs to ship horses to slaughter. Based on that alone I think we should all conclude it is inhumane to ship them anywhere in DDs. And so DDs should be banned for shipping all horses. Now this doesn't mean they can't be used it just means horses must only be load in the upper decks. One would also have to ponder the stability of a trailer when the pot belly is empty and its shifting heavy load is all on the top!

This is the study I posted earlier http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/77/11/2925.pdf It has been a while since I read it but one fact from it that I remember is that their are more injuries to horses in DDs then SD. I am not aware of any stability issues that played a part in the banning of DDs when this regulation was created. Here is the part about injuries, also explains the advantage of DDs, note they refer to them as PB (pot belly):

Trailer Design. Two major types of trailers with capacity
of over 15 horses are currently used to transport
horses to slaughter. The PB trailers in this study carried
up to 44 mature horses, and the SD hauled 38
horses, showing the economic advantage of increased
capacity with the PB trailer. No difference was shown
between PB and SD trailers for weight loss or increases
in hct, total protein, or lactate responses to transportation.
Thus, neither trailer design is advantageous in
minimizing dehydration. The elevation in lactate was
minimal, so muscle fatigue by anaerobic metabolism
was not a limiting factor. Rectal temperature, WBC,
cortisol, and N:L showed greater responses in horses
shipped via SD trailers than in those shipped in PB
trailers. Rectal temperature may reflect environmental
heat stress, which ventilation assists in alleviating. The
rubber padding lining the interior walls of the SD trailers
limited the ventilation capacity and may have added
to the heat stress. The WBC, cortisol, and N:L data
indicate that the horses traveling in PB, as compared
to SD, trailers experienced less stress and fewer immunological
changes, supporting the use of PB trailers.
However, there is the possibility, although it was not
measured, that a specific design feature other than
decking may have contributed to the difference.

Sustained injures approximately 3.5 times greater in
PB (29.2%) than in SD (8.0%) trailers may have occurred
during loading, transport, or unloading. The
door width of SD trailers is the same as entire width
of the trailer, whereas doors in the PB trailer are only
approximately one-third the width of the trailer. Because
the head and face were the most prevalent area
for injury, the width of the door opening may be a factor
in the greater injury rate in the PB horses. Horses
loading into PB trailers used ramps from the door located
at the back of the trailer to enter the appropriate
compartment, and this may have contributed to the
increase in injury rate of horses in the front (28.6%)
and middle (31.0%) as compared to the rear (16.7%)
compartment. However, head injuries do not represent
an economic loss to meat quality or quantity from the
carcass.

One last point I would like to make is that many times these trailers are overloaded. Not based on over all weight of the loaded trailer but based on the Regulations for shipping horses to slaughter in DD trailers. They require a certain spacing and loading to maintain the comfort for the horse and this study goes into it in detail.

These data support
the recommendation of providing not less than 1.40 to
1.54 m2/horse during travel. This may depend on the
weight, conformation, and size of the horse. However,
there was a twofold increase in the percentage injured

Based on this data alone and both these articles stated the average is 44 horses per trailer, it is clear that the trailer carrying the drafts did indeed have too many horses loaded in it.

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/79/E-Suppl/E12.pdf

Proper loading density is important from an economic
standpoint but may have welfare implications for individual
horses. Both physiological and injury data have been used to examine loading density. The floor space
in commercial two-tiered and straight-deck trailers
traveling to slaughter facilities provided between 1.14
and 1.54 m2/horse. Responses of pre- and post-transit
physiological data analyzed for weight loss and immunological
and stress indices demonstrated smaller responses
(P 0.05) for horses provided with a high floor
area (1.40 to 1.54 m2/horse) than for those with a low
floor area (1.14 to 1.31 m2/horse). However, injuries
increased twofold (P 0.05) in horses provided with a
high floor area (29%) compared with a low floor area
(12%) while in transit to slaughter (Stull, 1999). In
contradiction to these results, horses undergoing shortduration
transport (25 min) using severe driving conditions
of hard braking, rapid acceleration, and severe
turns showed more injuries and falling incidences under
conditions of high stocking density (1.28 m2/horse)
vs low stocking density (2.23 m2/horse) (Collins et al.,
2000). Thus, recommendations for stocking density may
depend on several factors, including road conditions,
driving maneuvers, weather, sorting and compatibility
of horses, and flooring.

[county]

Maybe I missed something but why is there so much uproar about slaughter and these horses? They weren't going to slaughter they were on their way to a sale 40 miles from here that sale company has draft horse sales, mini horse sales, cutting and reining horse sales, etc. They also have loose horse sales but I've seen nothing that says these draft horses are going to be in one I would think they will be in the upcoming draft horse sale there having.

[trubandloki]

Maybe I missed something but why is there so much uproar about slaughter and these horses? They weren't going to slaughter they were on their way to a sale 40 miles from here that sale company has draft horse sales, mini horse sales, cutting and reining horse sales, etc. They also have loose horse sales but I've seen nothing that says these draft horses are going to be in one I would think they will be in the upcoming draft horse sale there having.

Geez County ;) .... If they do not blame it on slaughter then they can't complain about it? You should know that by now. The fact the horses were being shipped in a manner that is legal has to be made evil by adding the slaughter portion.

[county]

Thats certainly what its looking like. And hang someone because he got in a traffic accident? Wonder how many prisons we'd need if everyone who was in an accident got locked up?

[MSP]

Hmm.. I think slaughter probably came into the conversation when we started discussing the Regulations that banned DDs which was pertaining to the transport of horses to slaughter. I guess I could just repost all my previous post since it appears a couple of you have leap over them!

Then again such thoughtful post add so much to our discussion please continue. :sigh:

[county]

Oh count on it after reading the garbage you post you can certainly count on it.

[county]

BTW MSP not everything is about slaughter. My point was these horses weren't heading to slaughter so I really wondered why it was brought up?

[MSP]

BTW MSP not everything is about slaughter. My point was these horses weren't heading to slaughter so I really wondered why it was brought up?

Why don't you just read what I posted?

That garbage I posted was the study done by the USDA and was part of the data gathered to create the Regulations for transporting horses to slaughter and was the basis for banning DDs for use in transporting horses to slaughter.

Soooooo, if they are not humane for use with horses going to slaughter why would they be human for use in bringing horses to sales or rodeos. Especially when this particular DD was overloaded based on all the studies that were done by the USDA and Temple Grandin.

One other point, I am not interested in discussing slaughter but in order to discuss the state to which we are in regarding the use of DDs in transporting horses I did have to mention these taboo regulations. So sorry!

[county]

Because the anti slaughter groups pushed to get them banned for those horses but were not concerned about the others. Personally I go by the laws on the books if I want them changed I work to do so if I don't then I don't worry about them. If you want the laws changed work to do so but until that happens like it or not others don't have to do what you want.

[trubandloki]

Thats certainly what its looking like. And hang someone because he got in a traffic accident? Wonder how many prisons we'd need if everyone who was in an accident got locked up?

I know someone who ran a stop sign and caused the death of TWO PEOPLE. I know he never served a day in any jail or such.

But these people think someone who had a tragic, yes tragic, traffic accident and some horses were injured/killed should be hung up to dry.

[philosoraptor]

The #1 Scary Award goes to drivers who say it's ok to run yellow-to-red lights in any truck, much less a truck towing a heavy trailer. Being heavy is not an excuse not to stop for a light.

Second Scariest thing I've heard all week goes to horsepeople who are defending the use of a double-deck trailer with 5' clearance for horses, much less draft horses which may be over 5' tall at the withers.

All I want to know is where do I get a double-decker horse trailer complete with living quarters and tack compartment so I can really wow people at the next horse show? :lol:

And I give an honorable mention for scariness to those who are defending a professional driver who was speeding, overweight & top heavy, missing paperwork, and ignoring traffic signals. If you drive with a CDL it is your responsibility to follow laws, maintain safe speed, gather all paperwork, and know if your cargo is loaded properly. This man could've killed someone.

[horse crazy inTX]

MSP - Thanks for posting that. I've read both Dr Stull's and Dr Grandin's reports. I'm at work so can't comment much.

What I've been looking for is the congressional? 54 page discussion of how they arrived at the current rules and regs. I thought I had book marked it. :(

As far as the draft horses and height goes and also the stocking rate - the majority of these horses were youngsters not adults.

Ahhh, I think I found it - only 31 pages, hmmmm....

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-30259-filed.pdf

[chai]

Well said, May S.

[county]

I read it all and don't see where anyone defended the driver breaking the law. I did see a number ofd times where it was mentioned it was an accident and they do happen any one here going to ask to be locked up if their ever in one/

Also don't see any where that full size draft horses were in an area with 5 feet of head room. I think alot of stuff here just has been made up.

[MSP]

MSP - Thanks for posting that. I've read both Dr Stull's and Dr Grandin's reports. I'm at work so can't comment much.

What I've been looking for is the congressional? 54 page discussion of how they arrived at the current rules and regs. I thought I had book marked it. :(

As far as the draft horses and height goes and also the stocking rate - the majority of these horses were youngsters not adults.

Ahhh, I think I found it - only 31 pages, hmmmm....

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-30259-filed.pdf

Thank you for that link, I had not seen that yet.

I too need to get back to work but I did skim it and it sounds like they had a commenting period and changed some things that were challenge as a result but did not change others. I did read where it was requested that sale yards be included and that was denied. So I think my assertion that the USDA was in control of what was actually passed was correct.

[I'm EBO]

If this guy killed anybody so far, it's probably himself, at least professionally and financially speaking. Given the publicity, which is nationwide, the DOT almost has to take some action. His insurance, if he can get any, won't come cheap; and from what we know of his record, it wasn't a bargain before this.

If you (generic) are a cattle or hog producer, are you going to hire someone with such faulty judgement to haul your animals to market and run the risk of losing almost 30% of them before they get where they're going? Even if you're not concerned about your animals' welfare, that's quite a loss to absorb, even occasionally. I would think even a horse dealer, whether he was sending horses to a sale or a slaughter house, would prefer they arrive in one piece.

And the lawsuits and insurance claims! I'll bet the Illinois lawyers are lining up as I type to make sure the Wadsworth city and/or county government(s) are reimbursed for their clean-up and rescue expenses. Personal civil lawsuits? Probably.

Best Mr. Anderson start practicing his burger flipping skills.

[MSP]

Because the anti slaughter groups pushed to get them banned for those horses but were not concerned about the others. Personally I go by the laws on the books if I want them changed I work to do so if I don't then I don't worry about them. If you want the laws changed work to do so but until that happens like it or not others don't have to do what you want.

It's pretty bad when you have to repost for some one!

APHIS is the USDA, it was there job! They involved many groups from both sides of the issues. Do you think perhaps that all these people had a say in the regs?

American Horse Council, Animal Welfare Council, New Holland Sales, Inc., American Horse Protection Association, American Humane Association, The Humane Society of the United States, American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Veterinary Medical Association, managers of each of the three largest equine slaughter plants, and researchers

Ultimately, the job of creating the regulations was passed to Veterinary Services of APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services). Heading up the effort for the Veterinary Services has been Tim Cordes, DVM, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Equine Programs.
It is not the role of the Department of Agriculture either to condone or condemn the human consumption of horse meat, Cordes said, but the department does involve itself with all phases of agriculture. For Cordes, who was in private veterinary practice for many years before joining the USDA, involvement as the Veterinary Services representative responsible for spearheading the effort to fulfill the requirements was a challenging learning experience.

‘I knew nothing about the slaughter horse industry,’ he said, ‘and I’m sure the same can be said of a great many veterinarians in the field today. I had to educate myself.’

Before he finished his ‘education,’ Cordes visited the horse slaughter facilities in the United States and also took an active part in research efforts aimed at learning more about the stresses horses undergo when being transported.
One of the key components of the proposed regulations, something that came out of the research, is the elimination of double-deck trailers for the transportation of horses to slaughter facilities. However, there is a grandfather clause. This part of the regulations will not be implemented for five years in order to give truckers time to replace their double-deck trailers. Under the proposed regulations, only single-deck trailers that are of a size to allow the tallest horse being hauled to have sufficient head room will be permitted. However, double-deck trailers with ‘floating decks’ that can be raised or lowered will meet the standards proposed, providing that the ‘floating deck’ is lowered so that the trailer is a single-decker.

The trailer requirement is only one of many rules included in the proposed regulations. There are a number of other requirements that came after a good deal of expert study and discussion, said Cordes. Providing input on establishment of the regulations was a select panel of one representative each from the USDA, American Horse Council, Animal Welfare Council, New Holland Sales, Inc., American Horse Protection Association, American Humane Association, The Humane Society of the United States, American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Veterinary Medical Association, managers of each of the three largest equine slaughter plants, and researchers.

The panel, armed with information from a number of research projects, worked to determine what should be covered in the regulations. The group was able to reach consensus on nearly all key points, said Cordes.
As part of the effort to obtain data concerning the transportation of horses by commercial conveyances, the USDA funded studies at three universities. Research was carried out at the University of California, Davis, Texas A&M University, and Colorado State University. Cordes was personally involved in the Texas A&M research work.

[MandyVA]

If these horses weren't on their way to slaughter, point us out, County, to the sale in Verndale where the other 150 horses must be getting boarded until the next sale there on the 17th. Seems unlikely to me that these horses' owner was planning to board over 200 horses for three weeks while waiting for the next sale. You're familiar with the sales there, where did these horses go?

[county]

Where did they go? You'd have to ask the owner that question if he wants you to know he'll tell you. As far as boarding them I had no idea they were being boarded what gave anyone that idea other then just guessing or making assumptions based on pretty much nothing. Some people don't board there livestock they own or rent land to keep them on. I could easily go out and buy 100 head and keep on pastures we own and rent and theres people with 10 times the pasture land we have.

[MSP]

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=10723

the horses were owned by an unnamed Minnesota breeder, and were en route from a horse sale in Indiana to another sale in Minnesota.

"It's our understanding that the horses were eventually meant to go to the Amish to be used as draft horses," Thompson said.

[county]

Lots of Amish here and lots of draft horse people here theres draft horse sales in a number of places each year here.

[MandyVA]

"Curran said Anderson had been hired by the horses' owner to drive them from Millersburg, Ind., about 20 miles southeast of Elkhart, to Verndale, Minn., for auction. The horses arrived with numbered stickers taped to their backs, a means of identification often used at horse auctions."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-horse_weboct29,0,5960426.story

The sale at Verndale isn't until the 17th.
http://www.sundbyenterprises.com/

I call bullshit. And some of the witnesses think the horses had usda stickers on them (according to some of the other boards).

[county]

The sale isn't till the 17th? And thats an issue because? None of the 3 loads that are here have USDA stickers why would those in the 4th load have them. They do have sales stickers on them but then every horse I've seen go through a sale does.

[horse crazy inTX]

Some of you might find this humorous. :D The cartoon at the top of the page that is!

http://www.afac.ab.ca/careinfo/transport/articles/0406truckwest.pdf

[Liberty]

Some of you might find this humorous. :D The cartoon at the top of the page that is!

http://www.afac.ab.ca/careinfo/transport/articles/0406truckwest.pdf

Yes, the cartoon was mildly amusing, but only until I read that article, which was anything but amusing. :no:

Words in quotes below are the words of the article's author, Mr. Menzies:

While legal guidelines in Canada allow for hauling durations of 81 hours straight (nearly 3.5 days) with no food and 57 hours straight (nearly 2.5 days) without water, how nice that Mr. Menzies refers to that as being "socially unacceptable". "Socially"? How about inhumane? I know that a 12-hour period without food, with horses anyway, can bring on a bout of colic. I hate to think of what those periods of time w/out food OR water could do, to any kind of livestock. Does anyone here know what the U.S. regs are regarding transport duration w/out food or water?

I am thankful for those "do-gooders everywhere" up there with their camcorders to record "slip-ups" or "mistakes" like showing up at the abaittors "with a load of downers or dead animals". Sad that Mr. Menzies' concerns for "mistakes" are that they "risk" the hauling company and the entire industry of sustaining "irreparable harm". What about those dead/downed animals? No concern for them?

I was surprised and dismayed at the durations allowed by Canada's current livestock hauling regs. I hope those "do-gooders" continue their "smear campaigns" against irresponsible haulers who make the "mistake" of showing up with loads of downed/dead animals after subjecting them to days on end of no food or water.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread, which I'm sure will fire right back up as folks arrive for their daily dose of COTH repartee. It's a gorgeous fall day today - perfect for equine activities, and I'm going to go make the most of it. :)

Carry on.

[horse crazy inTX]

Liberty - At least he said it was no longer acceptable, I agree socially was a poor choice of words.

Have a good ride, I plan to do the same as soon as the sun comes up and everyone is done with breakfast.

[Annetta]

While legal guidelines in Canada allow for hauling durations of 81 hours straight (nearly 3.5 days) with no food and 57 hours straight (nearly 2.5 days) without water, how nice that Mr. Menzies refers to that as being "socially unacceptable". "Socially"? How about inhumane? I know that a 12-hour period without food, with horses anyway, can bring on a bout of colic. I hate to think of what those periods of time w/out food OR water could do, to any kind of livestock. Does anyone here know what the U.S. regs are regarding transport duration w/out food or water? I don't know where anyone got those "legal guidelines" for Canada, but they aren't true. I checked into this awhile back and for horses the time they can be in transit without a stop for feed or water is 36 hours. It's longer for ruminants, but still not as long as 81 hours--I think it was 48?

[horse crazy inTX]

From: Advance Notice of Possible Changes to Animal Transportation Regulations in Canada - 2006

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/transport/notavie.shtml

3) Feed, water and rest intervals:
Changes are being considered to reduce these intervals to better reflect animal needs related to water, food and rest. For example, under the existing Health of Animals Regulations and Meat Inspection Regulations, cattle in transit may not be offered water for up to 57 hours - five hours before loading plus 52 hours in transit. It is also possible for them not to be fed for up to 81 hours - five hours before loading, 52 hours on the truck and 24 hours after arrival at a federally registered slaughter plant.

That was for cattle, not horses.

[luvmytbs]

Introduced , by Rep. Robert S. Molaro (Illinois)


SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:


510 ILCS 70/7.2 new


Amends the Humane Care for Animals Act. Provides that no person may transport any equidae in a vehicle or trailer containing 2 or more levels of equidae, one on top of the other. Sets out penalties for the illegal transport of equidae. Effective immediately.

LRB095 14312 CMK 40200 b

CORRECTIONAL BUDGET AND IMPACT NOTE ACT MAY APPLY

A BILL FOR

HB4166 LRB095 14312 CMK 40200 b


1 AN ACT concerning animals.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Humane Care for Animals Act is amended by
5 adding Section 7.2 as follows:

6 (510 ILCS 70/7.2 new)
7 Sec. 7.2. Transport of horses.
8 (a) No person may transport any equidae in a vehicle or
9 trailer containing 2 or more levels of equidae, one on top of
10 the other.
11 (b) Any person that violates this Section shall be guilty
12 of (i) a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and (ii) a
13 Class 4 felony for all second or subsequent offenses. Each
14 violation of this Section constitutes a separate offense.

15 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
16 becoming law.

[I'm EBO]

GREAT news. Now if they can get it passed asap and signed by the governor (who had some promptness issues on the bill to end horse slaughter in IL, as I recall), it will be a true blessing for those horses who pass through IL on the way to Canada.

[MistyBlue]

8 (a) No person may transport any equidae in a vehicle or
9 trailer containing 2 or more levels of equidae, one on top of
10 the other.

Unfortunately the highlighted part means that equines can still be hauled in a 2 level vehicle as long as both levels do not have horses. So it allows horses to be in a DD as long as other level is empty or the other level has cattle or sheep or something non-equine.
This is what is meant by holes in language...it pacifies those who want it done quickly and they never see the holes until afterwards. The politicians count on that...they can make happy those who want a change when those people read the ammendment...and they can make happy those working in the business that the ammendment affects. And once it's passed...the people who wanted it in the first place have to start lobbying all over again and it takes time to get any more changes...if they get any changes at all.
They need to put a period in the sentence of that ammendment right in front of the spot that's highlighted in red. Then it will carry a bit more weight.
But...most likely it will be passed ASAP...and then we can gripe about it later.

[J Swan]

[quote=MistyBlue;2779212
They need to put a period in the sentence of that ammendment right in front of the spot that's highlighted in red. Then it will carry a bit more weight.
But...most likely it will be passed ASAP...and then we can gripe about it later.[/quote]

MB - you're wasting your grey cells pointing out errors in drafting. They won't believe you - and you'll be labeled pro-slaughter and dismissed. Bad laws and regs get passed all the time - and you're 100% correct. We gripe about them later.

I never could understand why people think a bad law is better than no law. It isn't.

[Kenike]

I thought hauling horses in DD's was illegal, but now I see that I was mistaken. Funny, too, considering my husband team ropes and we've been around plenty of rodeos. I never paid that close of attention, obviously, since I thought they were just big stock trailers....the number of horses hauled seemed to fit my thoughts. How humbling to be so very wrong :no:

I am extremely saddened that horses can be transported, still, in DD's because the clearance just isn't humanely comfortable for them. I don't care where they're going.

And while we're on the subject, I've been shocked at some of the comments in the past 11 pages from both sides. I have gained some serious respect for a couple of people, though (like EBO and Liberty). Not that it really matters.

[MSP]

Unfortunately the highlighted part means that equines can still be hauled in a 2 level vehicle as long as both levels do not have horses. So it allows horses to be in a DD as long as other level is empty or the other level has cattle or sheep or something non-equine.
This is what is meant by holes in language...it pacifies those who want it done quickly and they never see the holes until afterwards. The politicians count on that...they can make happy those who want a change when those people read the ammendment...and they can make happy those working in the business that the ammendment affects. And once it's passed...the people who wanted it in the first place have to start lobbying all over again and it takes time to get any more changes...if they get any changes at all.
They need to put a period in the sentence of that ammendment right in front of the spot that's highlighted in red. Then it will carry a bit more weight.
But...most likely it will be passed ASAP...and then we can gripe about it later.

I read the same thing! I emailed a couple of people about it; it will be interesting to see if it is fixed or if I am told its OK as is!

The thing I like about putting it in writing is I can remind people of what actually went wrong last time! If you know what I mean! :rolleyes:

[Alagirl]

I read the same thing! I emailed a couple of people about it; it will be interesting to see if it is fixed or if I am told its OK as is!

The thing I like about putting it in writing is I can remind people of what actually went wrong last time! If you know what I mean! :rolleyes:

Well, don't bother, because those who pointed it out all along have just been discredited.

[MistyBlue]

nm..I hit reply on one thread and somehow it ended up on this one.
Sometimes I astound myself with my ineptitude. ;)

[MSP]

I was told they are trying to amend the Bill and the wording was changed by another group that is among the list of groups who were involved with the original national DD ban debacle; listed below.

American Horse Council, Animal Welfare Council, New Holland Sales, Inc., American Horse Protection Association, American Humane Association, The Humane Society of the United States, American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Veterinary Medical Association, managers of each of the three largest equine slaughter plants, and researchers

I can not confirm this just passing on what I was told. Personally I don't care who messed up as much as I care that it is fixed and not passed as is. :(
If I lived in IL I would be making sure my reps understood not to sign the Bill as it is written and ask for it to be changed!

[MistyBlue]

You do realize how those who are related to a bill or ammendment are questioned, correct? The list means nothing except to point out who made a comment on something. They were not the deciding factors...the person who wrote it is the drafting factor and the drafting is done with many an attorney present to make *sure* it can satisfy both sides. And the satisfaction of both sides is measured by what keeps the loudest quiet until it's signed and who makes the most income off of it happiest after it's signed.
It's how politics have worked since...ohhh...the constitution. ;)
The orgs and reps on the lists that are made public are invited for specific reasons to be listed...none of them relating to welfare.
It's a very strong misunderstanding on how politics chug along that harms the most in the long run.
Those who have the very best intentions usually happen to be those who have the least working knowledge of the process. This is gleefully accepted and promoted by the talking head politicians. Because it always works out in their favor.
Continuously pointing out the faulty knowledge of the process to those who aren't familiar with it on BBs only labels those doing the pointing as something similar to frothing murder-loving horse hating fringe lunatics. Which isn't the actual case. And which also points out all too well the gigantic holes in the entire system and process because the loudest are usually the least correct...and are exploited for that...and they refuse to believe it. And when it's pointed out...they come up with new "I've heards" when those who know insteaad of "have heard" are still fringe lunatics.
There are always "reasons" pointed out afterwards why the changes didn't work. From conspiracy theories to whatever.
The actual reasons these changes haven't worked out well at all were blatant before they were pushed through. Nobody wanted to hear it...nobody wanted to wait and get it right. Nobody wanted to research on their own off their computer chairs. Nobody wanted to seem they may agree with the "crazy pro slaughter" folks. Rush, rush, rush...justify during the rushing...get is passed and excuse it later. :(
It's a sad cycle that continues...and seems it always will be the "system." :no:
When those "consulting" lists are formulated, do you want to know what they're referred to by the politicians? They're called Pacifiers. They call them that because it's a false teat that quiets the loudest children long enough to get what you want done. And yes..I find that as insulting as anyone else would. But I can't feel overly insulted because it works.

[luvmytbs]

Quick update on the horses on the following webpage. Once you scroll down you can enjoy a slideshow of the survivors.

http://www.harpsonline.org/index.php?src=news&refno=13&category=News

[MSP]

You do realize how those who are related to a bill or ammendment are questioned, correct? The list means nothing except to point out who made a comment on something. They were not the deciding factors...the person who wrote it is the drafting factor and the drafting is done with many an attorney present to make *sure* it can satisfy both sides. And the satisfaction of both sides is measured by what keeps the loudest quiet until it's signed and who makes the most income off of it happiest after it's signed.
It's how politics have worked since...ohhh...the constitution. ;)
The orgs and reps on the lists that are made public are invited for specific reasons to be listed...none of them relating to welfare.
It's a very strong misunderstanding on how politics chug along that harms the most in the long run.
Those who have the very best intentions usually happen to be those who have the least working knowledge of the process. This is gleefully accepted and promoted by the talking head politicians. Because it always works out in their favor.
Continuously pointing out the faulty knowledge of the process to those who aren't familiar with it on BBs only labels those doing the pointing as something similar to frothing murder-loving horse hating fringe lunatics. Which isn't the actual case. And which also points out all too well the gigantic holes in the entire system and process because the loudest are usually the least correct...and are exploited for that...and they refuse to believe it. And when it's pointed out...they come up with new "I've heards" when those who know insteaad of "have heard" are still fringe lunatics.
There are always "reasons" pointed out afterwards why the changes didn't work. From conspiracy theories to whatever.
The actual reasons these changes haven't worked out well at all were blatant before they were pushed through. Nobody wanted to hear it...nobody wanted to wait and get it right. Nobody wanted to research on their own off their computer chairs. Nobody wanted to seem they may agree with the "crazy pro slaughter" folks. Rush, rush, rush...justify during the rushing...get is passed and excuse it later. :(
It's a sad cycle that continues...and seems it always will be the "system." :no:
When those "consulting" lists are formulated, do you want to know what they're referred to by the politicians? They're called Pacifiers. They call them that because it's a false teat that quiets the loudest children long enough to get what you want done. And yes..I find that as insulting as anyone else would. But I can't feel overly insulted because it works.

Not sure if you are talking in general or responding to my last post but the reason I pasted the list of groups was because I didn’t want to name the group that is being accused of changing the wording on the Bill because I can not confirm it is true.

I also feel there is a little finger pointing going on and I could careless who is playing games at this point. Just like the Reps should be READING THE BILLS so should we.