Horse Slaughter on CBS tonight [Archive]

View Full Version : Horse Slaughter on CBS tonight

Las Olas

Jun. 16, 2004, 07:51 AM

This came through on my email, so I thought I'd share it with everyone. I think it starts at 6:30.

Subject: Horse Slaughter Story to Air on CBS Evening News this Wednesday
June 16, on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather.

Ferdinand was a former Kentucky Derby winner...but did the prize-winning
horse and thousands of others deserve what happened to them after they
crossed the finish line? That story on Wednesday's CBS Evening News with
Dan Rather.

Las Olas

Jun. 16, 2004, 07:51 AM

411

Jun. 16, 2004, 08:12 AM

Thanks for the info. I'm bummed I'll miss it. Wish I had TIVO!!!

Kellsboro Jack

Jun. 16, 2004, 08:15 AM

Ugh - CBS News. The days of the Tiffany Network being anything more then a sensationalistic CNN-chasing wannabe are long gone.

(And for the record, I have friends who are news reporters for CBS!)

Well, lets hope for the best, but I'm sure you will hear the exploitive "while this fate might not befall the beloved Smarty Jones [cue images of the crowds cheering Smart at Derby] there are others less fortunate" ...

I really would love to see (and maybe they will in their piece) a segment that says slaughter has been a fact of life even back in the days of Man O War and yet today a lot of organization are making a difference. CANTER, Old Friends, TRF, et al. Then show the New York State prisoners who are rehabilitated like the horses they care for.

One of the best articles done in years: NY Times 8/10/03 "Partners, Horse and Man, in Prison Pasture" (http://www.kaufmanzoning.net/horsemeat/NYTimes08102003.htm)

caffeinated

Jun. 16, 2004, 11:39 AM

Just what I was thinking, KJ...

I was also thinking that it sounds as though it will be racehorse-centric piece, and I doubt they will mention that the racing industry is one of the smallest "contributors" to slaughter and one of the few equine industries doing so much to help retirees...

SeaOat

Jun. 16, 2004, 01:27 PM

Ditto. Dan Blather......

jrstark

Jun. 16, 2004, 04:58 PM

This was a really good segment, they interviewed Nick Zito and local trainer Gail Vacca, who have been working to end slaughter.

It's up on the CBS website now:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/16/eveningnews/main623549.shtml

Barnfairy

Jun. 16, 2004, 05:36 PM

Sorry, jrstark, I beg to differ.

Slaughter causes horses as a species to have a mistrust of man? Surely, they could have put together a better clip than that...one with a more believable argument. It ended up making the IL slaughterhouse manager even more credible, IMO.

I liked the bits with Nick Zito, though.

And what a neat thin strip that chestnut has!

caffeinated

Jun. 17, 2004, 05:06 AM

Thought the segment was decent for the amount of time that they had... Nick Zito especially http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do wish that instead of talking about horses in human terms they had talked to one of the veterinarians or rescue workers opposed to the bills so they could talk about rescue infrastructure and what would be necessary to have in place before a slaughter ban could work.

But then again, they only had about thirty seconds, so... *shrug*

Enough

Jun. 17, 2004, 06:15 AM

I don't know much about what happens to the horses once they get to the slaughterhouse. I can only imagine the horrors, and therefore chose to stay ignorant to the issue. However, I think they could have done a better representation of what these horses truly go through, from the auction to slaughter. The horrors of the hauling and treatment these animals witness in the last hours of their lives. Whether they miss often or not when they kill the horses, the horrors these animals have been victim to in the last hours of their lives are undeniabley unacceptable and inhumane.

We as equine community must do all we can to end this senseless inhumanity. Whether it be adopting rescue horses (our farm currently has 8, ranging from a one eyed Amish draft horse to a Japanese bred OTTB to a mini), contributing to anti-slaughter groups, or writing our local and state representatives, it is important that we all make our voices heard.

jrstark

Jun. 17, 2004, 09:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Barnfairy:
Sorry, jrstark, I beg to differ.

Slaughter causes horses as a species to have a mistrust of man? Surely, they could have put together a better clip than that...one with a more believable argument. It ended up making the IL slaughterhouse manager even more credible, IMO.

I liked the bits with Nick Zito, though.

And what a neat thin strip that chestnut has! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read that quote again Barnfairy, she said it is a betrayal, nothing about how the horses feel.

That's the first time I've heard Tucker called "credible."

The Fjord Jockey

Jun. 17, 2004, 11:19 AM

You know, you look at those horses being unloaded off of that trailer, quite a few being very decent-looking horses, and wonder why in the world anyone would breed a hum-drum horse just because they have a stallion and a mare. Why not go to an auction and save one of THOSE poor horses?

Makes me sick, really.

Barnfairy

Jun. 17, 2004, 11:35 AM

jrstark, I did read the (Vacca) quote from the CBS News Slaughter Segment (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/16/eveningnews/main623549.shtml), and here's what the report said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Gail Vacca of American Horse Protection Coalition treats her retired racehorses like rich uncles. She believes that slaughter betrays a horse's trust in man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see a major difference between the direct quote and my paraphrase.

Slaughterhouse manager Tucker spoke about facts. Vacca spoke about sentiment, and an unbelievable one at that (unless you really think that domestic horses can feel betrayed by man).

IMO, if you want to appear credible to more than just touchy-feely PETA people, then it is important to stick to cold hard facts, not this kind of sentiment.

jrstark

Jun. 17, 2004, 11:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by caffeinated:
Thought the segment was decent for the amount of time that they had... Nick Zito especially http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do wish that instead of talking about horses in human terms they had talked to one of the veterinarians or rescue workers opposed to the bills so they could talk about rescue infrastructure and what would be necessary to have in place before a slaughter ban could work.

But then again, they only had about thirty seconds, so... *shrug* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which rescues are against the bills? I only know of one, all the others strongly support ending slaughter.

Here's a letter from Lydia F. Gray, DVM, Executive director, Hooved Animal Humane Society that addresses this issue:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/opinions/letters/w17letters.htm

caffeinated

Jun. 17, 2004, 12:18 PM

Day's End Farm here in Maryland, for one. I know several other people who rescue horses on a smaller level who are also opposed. Not because they "like" horse slaughter but because they feel an infrastructure needs to be in place first. Pretty much for the same reasons that the veterinary association and AAEP oppose it.

The DEFHR people wrote a long article about it in one of their newsletters, I have it somewhere...

Las Olas

Jun. 17, 2004, 12:58 PM

Whether or not you are against slaughter for humane reasons, here are a couple of websites that I thought would interest you. The first is called HoofPAC and they discuss the side of the arguement that has to do with the safety of the horse meat and regulations regarding antiobiotic use, among others.

http://www.hoofpac.com/press/bsehoofandmouth.html

The next link is for Smithfield Foods USA. We complain that the slaughterhouses here are foreign-owned, but one of the largest in Europe is US owned. Here is Smithfields link. You can check out all of their product brands if you wish to boycott them. They supposedly send up to 100,000 horses to slaughter in Poland every year from other European countries. My Mother helped start one of the top five mutual fund companies and I just found out that they carry this stock in some of their portfolios. They had no idea that they dealt in horse meat. How many of your retirement plans are investing in Smithfield Foods USA stock? Scary.

http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/Brands/See/bretonne.asp

The last website is for an anti slaughter website based in Europe called Thenausea.com. This will show pictures and give some more detailed information of what I've already mention. Not for the faint-hearted.

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/special%20topics/crimesagainstanimals/poland/polish%20horses/polish%20horses.html

onthebit12000

Jun. 18, 2004, 05:34 AM

Dear Barnfairy,

Not that I particulrly feel the need to defend what I said, but for the record, CBS news spent 4 hours interviewing me at my farm.
They had hours worth of non emotive facts on tape that they could have used.

The statement they used was the choice of the producers and editors at CBS. I for one am very grateful that they cared enough about the issue to do the story at all.

As they say, some see the glass half full.
Some don't.

BaldEagle

Jun. 18, 2004, 06:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by caffeinated:
I do wish that instead of talking about horses in human terms they had talked to one of the veterinarians or rescue workers opposed to the bills so they could talk about rescue infrastructure and what would be necessary to have in place before a slaughter ban could work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you have any idea about related costs and from where the money is supposed to come from ??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enough:
I don't know much about what happens to the horses once they get to the slaughterhouse. I can only imagine the horrors, and therefore chose to stay ignorant to the issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It happens exactly the same that happens to any other animal that goes to slaughter houses... Nothing more, nothing less...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enough:
Whether they miss often or not when they kill the horses, the horrors these animals have been victim to in the last hours of their lives are undeniabley unacceptable and inhumane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you vegetarian ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enough:
We as equine community must do all we can to end this senseless inhumanity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enough:
Whether it be adopting rescue horses (our farm currently has 8, ranging from a one eyed Amish draft horse to a Japanese bred OTTB to a mini), contributing to anti-slaughter groups, or writing our local and state representatives, it is important that we all make our voices heard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are many voices that also belongs to the community that will not fail to be heard too and that do not agree with you at all.
The fact that it is "conventionally accepted" for some animals while it is not for others, is unnacceptable and unjustified discrimination too...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Soup From the Store:
Makes me sick, really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why don't you and the "horse community" don't start a fund raising campaign to buy every single horse risking a trip to the slaughter house and retiring them, feeding them and providing veterinarian care for all of them until their biological end comes.
Lots of cash needed but in the end you would put the slaughter houses out of business...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
Which rescues are against the bills? I only know of one, all the others strongly support ending slaughter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course almost all of them support the Bill and it doesn't come as a surprise because they stand to be the biggest "beneficiaries" or, if you prefer, "recipients" of the funds needed to care for hundreds of thousands of animals...
The whole idea of a paradise on earth for horses with so many human needs pending is just http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by caffeinated:
Day's End Farm here in Maryland, for one. I know several other people who rescue horses on a smaller level who are also opposed. Not because they "like" horse slaughter but because they feel an infrastructure needs to be in place first. Pretty much for the same reasons that the veterinary association and AAEP oppose it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its reasonable. And where are the funds coming from to pay for that hhhuuummm "infrastructure" ?
What do you mean by infrastructure ? Do you mean a nationwide chain of private "rescue" operations ?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
The first discuss the side of the argument that has to do with the safety of the horse meat and regulations regarding antiobiotic use, among others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the US does not consume any horse meat so I do not understand the interest for US nationals of those concerns. Anyway the new microchip wil put an end to whatever problem might subsist.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
We complain that the slaughterhouses here are foreign-owned, but one of the largest in Europe is US owned.
They supposedly send up to 100,000 horses to slaughter in Poland every year from other European countries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody has the right to complain about ownership of anything.
This argument of "foreing ownership" that two toofs also like very much to use, if is wasn't useless and harmless it would be outrageous. You must know that a lot of agreements between countries were signed to open up the World economy. It would be against every single rule to take in consideration the ownership of a company to discriminate against it or even to cause them problems let alone try to close it !!!
The EU is the US biggest trading partner and if someone thinks that something could be done just because some company is not American just doesn't know in wich world is living rignt now. For those too busy to follow those matters I recall that Europe now is Union of 25 countries with 450 Million consumers, and will grow to more then 30 with more then 550 Million in the very near future. It is already a bigger market then the US and the World single biggest economic block. (The US still leads in GNP but not for long).
Nobody would ever dare to start a trade war between the planet's biggest trading partners because of some slaughter house. The whole idea of using the "foreign ownership" banner for some purpose is absolutely ridiculous. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
If for you its hard to consider this sort of "equations" please read this BBCNews from today June 18th to give you an idea about how things work:
US passes tax bill to calm EU row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3818153.stm)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
The last website is for an anti slaughter website based in Europe called Thenausea.com. This will show pictures and give some more detailed information of what I've already mention. Not for the faint-hearted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In that website there are no pictures that can't be found in ANY country and in ANY slaughter house for ANY kind of animal... You know, the ones that give you the bacon for breakfest and the hamburgers at McDonalds and those rosy chicken brests or your Christmas turkey...
Oh please don't come again with that old slogan that "horses are not foodstock at least in the US" because for the purpose in question is useless and nobody can justify different kinds of treatment for different kinds of animals just to give an exception to horses when we all know that they all belong to the same "Animal Kingdom" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by onthebit12000:
They had hours worth of non emotive _facts_ on tape that they could have used.
The statement they used was the choice of the producers and editors at CBS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its abolutely normal. In a documentary they normally never use 10% of the material they got for it. The norm is more like 3 to 5 %.
However they keep everything in archives and sometimes they fish this unused portion for other purposes like opposite points of view during some news and so on...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by onthebit12000:
As they say, some see the glass half full. Some don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And many more think that not a single taxpayer dollar should be spent to pay to fill in the other half http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Everyone should pay from his own pocket his own drinks http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Barnfairy

Jun. 18, 2004, 11:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Not that I particulrly feel the need to defend what I said, but for the record, CBS news spent 4 hours interviewing me at my farm.
They had hours worth of non emotive facts on tape that they could have used.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's exactly my point, onthebit12000! As I said in my first post:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Surely, they could have put together a better clip than that... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it's nice that CBS aired it. However, it would have been nicer if they could have presented the argument against the slaughter of horses in a way that would sway those who actually send horses to slaughter, not just show something that appeals to those of us who already appreciate the nobility of this animal.

Las Olas

Jun. 18, 2004, 12:27 PM

Bald Eagle - I'll try to keep this short. Not sure where you are from, but you are obviously an "armchair" economist. In other words, you know just enough to be dangerous. People in the US are entitled to their opinions. I see both sides of the equation and I happen to like the idea of "passports" so owners have the option of designating their animals as food animals (also cuts down on theft, fraud, etc). The fundamental economic principal that you must have missed in Econ 101 is that people in capitalistic countries can "vote with their feet." You are right about the GNP. However, at least we didn't need to rope in 25 countries to have that GNP. And, you're a fool to think that a trading war couldn't evolve from a single incident such as a slaughterhouse. Have you not heard of the Banana War? Not to mention that I posted the information regarding antibiotic use in horses to give people a different angle to their arguement, since this same issue has been a problem with our beef cattle industry in the past. But hey, here's the link. Now you can educate yourself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/wto-m14.shtml

If you're going to get ugly with the people on this board for expressing their opinions, then expect some retaliation. The majority of the folks here have good hearts and are well-meaning and everyone is entitled to have their own cause. If a horse slaughter ban is passed, it will be because it's what the MAJORITY wanted. This is why we vote.

Also, try to brush up on your American english if you post here. When I said that "We complain that the slaughterhouses here are foreign-owned, but one of the largest in Europe is US owned." What I was saying is that "people in glass houses...."

The Fjord Jockey

Jun. 18, 2004, 06:29 PM

Bald Eagle:

I think I do my part: I help find homes for racehorses where I work who can't run anymore. Sorry but not all of us have oodles of money to spend, but we still do what little we can. Like, for instance, NOT contributing to the population.

SeaOat

Jun. 18, 2004, 07:38 PM

BaldEagle.....SFTS wrote a bit pointing (out) TOO MANY people breed animals that foal into something equal to, or less than, the quality of what is often readily ofered for sale. Not only at general auctions but at racing auctions as well.
Her point was CLEARLY aimed at responsible breeding or no breeding at all....and to buy something already on the ground and on the downward path that so many (who don't fetch more $ per pound than their weight in sales ring) end up traveling.
Your remark was un-necesarily sarcastic, IMO. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Having worked w/ a veterinarian who inspects plants, I have seen very healthy horses, many quite handsome, going to slaughter. Sounds like you don't understand the process of how, say, little Susie's outgrown pony (who failed to bring it's cost over it's weight) ended up being bought by a killer. Often without the person selling knowing the buyer was such.
Unless you REALLY can improve a breed, don't. And if you are just another average breeder, whine and cry over the slaughter issue all you want, but it's a fact of business waste and most of you do contribute. No different than small pet breeders who can't top what the local pound has to offer....

Beezer

Jun. 18, 2004, 10:17 PM

Put me firmly in the camp of "none of my horses will ever go to slaughter and I think it's a horrible, horrible end" but I can and do, unfortunately, realize that until people take responsiblility for the animals they bring into this world, we are never gonna put an end to (equine) slaughter houses or mass kilings in animal shelters.

On a whole nother subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Barnfairy:
jrstark, I did read the (Vacca) quote from the http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/16/eveningnews/main623549.shtml, and here's what the report said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Gail Vacca of American Horse Protection Coalition treats her retired racehorses like rich uncles. She believes that slaughter betrays a horse's trust in man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see a major difference between the direct quote and my paraphrase.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there's quite a bit of difference. Your paraphase was: "Slaughter causes horses as a species to have a mistrust of man?"

Big, big difference. In Vacca's quote and sentiment, man is doing the disservice (causing the betrayal) by sending horses -- particularly his or her individual horse -- to slaughter. In your paraphrase, your have an entire species mistrusting man because of slaughter. I might see your point if entire herds of horses started running in the opposite direction every time they saw a human, yelling for fear of their lives, but that ain't happening. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry, but as a journalist who is really, really sick and tired of hearing people say we "misquote" people or "misunderstood" what someone was saying or "just plain lied," I tend to be exremely sensitive about the nuances of language and the meaning of words.

OK, linguistic rant now over. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

SeaOat

Jun. 19, 2004, 02:27 AM

Actually, I'm always amazed at the trust horses keep in spite of their treatment. Speaking with a friend, who with me, watched a horse in the ambulance go by the receiving barn & back to the garage (where they are put down at this paticular track) we noted such. I mean, they trust us for everything, to the point of (even with a broken whatever) loading up and keeping this "OK, where are we off to now to make this better" expression. I ride in the ambulance sometimes and that look of trust right to the end just tears me up. And that's a very humane ending that some humans fight for themselves.
My feeling is: as a domestic animal, & especially one who has served us so honorably in our history, we should not process them for consumption. I feel there are A LOT of people with the means to dispose of their horses properly but take the easier/quicker/more profitable path. Often choosing to run them through the sales w/out a high enough (or any) reserve, or either taking their horse to slaughter directly. Without that option many would be forced to take resposibility for their horses. Some claim not to have the resources to bury an animal, or the $$ to euthanize. In actual #s I would guess these people are a drop in the bucket.
Regardless, it's usually just a way to make a few more dollars off the animal. I think there was a 30 day hold attached to kill pens in this state (I believe that is correct, but I heard it second hand & am very fuzzy on details) resulting in killers not offering as much or at all recently. Owners, I heard, were doing more to hussle the horses into private sells/homes. I would imagine in the long run it (lack of kill buys) would force a good many smaller breeders out of business & put a hurt on the larger ones. $800.00 +/- brought at auction isn't much, compared to the total cost of getting foals to sale, but it is something. Plus the actual foal/yearling/broodmare returning home to be delt with.
I personally would give support/approval to any organization who's sole purpose would be humane euthanization/disposal as quickly as I'd support/applaude re-hab groups. I just can't accept horses being processed as cattle, no matter how practical (or even needed) under current conditions.

BaldEagle

Jun. 20, 2004, 11:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Bald Eagle - you are obviously an "armchair" economist. In other words, you know just enough to be dangerous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW thank you for the compliment but you are being too kind. In fact I have some direct experience in "economics" and run companies for about 20 years... The rest of the statement is just because you don't know me or what I am able to do http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
People in the US are entitled to their opinions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As everybody else in free countries http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
I see both sides of the equation and I happen to like the idea of "passports" so owners have the option of designating their animals as food animals (also cuts down on theft, fraud, etc). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good: At least you know a thing or two about the good results of the "tracking control" of all living animals for our own good and protection. That's a good start !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
The fundamental economic principal that you must have missed in Econ 101 is that people in capitalistic countries can "vote with their feet." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did it only once in my life because I was forced to. I made a pledge of never do it again. Now I stay and instead of "voting with my feet" I fight back... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
You are right about the GNP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was an easy one http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
However, at least we didn't need to rope in 25 countries to have that GNP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course not. You see there is a fundamental difference between Europe and the US. In Europe everyone that tried to "conquer" that space always met with stiff resistance and if they didn't achieve that aim it was not for lack of trying...<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>First 2,000 years ago the Romans transformed the Mediterranean Sea into a Roman lake and a "Pax Romana" in the whole territory... they were eventually defeated
<LI>Second the Barbarians (Huns) started taking over the territory but were contained...
<LI>Third was the Moors (Arabs) around 700 that started taking over the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and Spain) and went over taking half of France to be contained there... 500 years later (1200) they start loosing ground everywhere and the Christian recon quest began and in 1492 they lost forever their last stronghold, the Caliphate of Granada...
<LI>Fourth the Germans with their Holy Roman Empire... were also contained...
<LI>Fifth the French and their Emperor Napoleon tried to conquer all of Europe up to their Eastern geographic borders, (The Ural Mountains)... After some early successes he was defeated and exiled in a remote island and poisoned to death...
<LI>In more recent times, the Germans (again) with their Kaiser Wilhelm II. They were defeated too (with US help)
<LI>Then the Germans (yet again) with Chancellor Adolph Hitler tried to conquer the "German Vital Space" and was defeated too (also with US help)...[/list]
(this is just a few major events as many others with similar attempts happened there)

Now they are "roping up" 25 countries, as you say, in a Union , with more three to add by 2007, (Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia) but at the negotiating table, negotiating on an equal base with respect for each and everyone, language, culture, traditions and individual freedoms safeguarded...

The fundamental difference between what happened during 2,000 years in Europe and the US (thank God) is that in Europe the "others" weren't "Indians" didn't accept "Reservations" and fought back... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif Hence the need for "roping" the 25 countries http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
And, you're a fool to think that a trading war couldn't evolve from a single incident such as a slaughterhouse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not a fool at all and may know a thing or two that you don't. You touched in something very delicate in Europe: "Foreign Ownership" as been used in several threads here as one more reason to close the slaughterhouses. You probably don't know how sensitive this matter is and Europe would NEVER accept that ANY of the European owned enterprises could be discriminated against for being European without reacting or even over-reacting... These things might "snowball" so they must be fought at their very early stages... Anyone trying to discriminate against European companies will face a tremendous response in kind.
You see the biggest "foreign investor" in Europe is the US. Just the auto industry apart Daimler/Benz and Volkswagen groups and two other factories the family owned BMW and Rover (car division only) everything else belongs to US companies. Nobody says a thing about it because the simple concept of "foreign ownership" is an alien concept in the global economy today. A factory belongs to whom paid for it and that is all it is said...

I am a very well informed person and the only reference about "foreign ownership" in the last 10 years I heard and saw some concerns, it was about the attempts from US companies to buy all the defence industries in Europe and the perception that this policy was being "encouraged" at high levels of the US Administration, leaving Europe in US hands for its defence, something that is unacceptable as you also might also agree...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Have you not heard of the Banana War? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I did. Europe was indeed protecting the interests of their former colonies giving preference to their products. Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: CQB) a US very well connected fruit company (bananas) complained and the US administration followed suit an won...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Not to mention that I posted the information regarding antibiotic use in horses to give people a different angle to their arguement, since this same issue has been a problem with our beef cattle industry in the past. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its not in the past. It still a bad and ugly issue today. The European market is closed to North American beef because in this side of the pond you bloat the cattle to maturity in 18 months with all kinds of drugs, steroids and growth hormones something that gives long jail terms for anyone in Europe trying to do the same and were the maturity of a cow come at 4/5 years of age, not 18 months...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
But hey, here's the link. Now you can educate yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am the kind of person that think that "knowledge" is never enough regardless the amount I already have. Any suggestion or opportunity to increase my knowledge regardless the area is always accepted. However in this case is useless because all that an d a lot more I already know.
As an example the European steel taxes unilaterally imposed by the US and that were repealed after the US lost in the WTO and this only when 2.3 billion worth of retaliation duties, carefully designed to affect the interest of the states where the American President NEED support for the upcoming election was about to enter in effect...
Another is the Canadian softwood illegal duties at the tune of 27% that the US applied claiming that low stumpage fees were tantamount to a "de facto" subsidy (talk about messing with other country's sovereignty) also lost in the WTO and now, still illegal but already al half that amount...
The Mexican Avocado, and access of Mexican trucks to your country in clear violation of NAFTA free trade agreements that the recent US Supreme Court decision favoured Mexico...
Last week was the turn of the Chinese furniture...
I could write a book on it just by heart...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
If you're going to get ugly with the people on this board for expressing their opinions, then expect some retaliation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That of "being ugly" is your opinion that I do not agree with and I am entitled to this different position too, don't I ? And about "retaliation" just be my guest. I am the kind of person that NEVER gets offended by what others say in Forums so you are absolutely safe http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To be offended with something I need to know the person first and give a high value to his/her opinion. Apart this situation I don't react to the "other side" of the Forum but always reserve the right to an adequate answer http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
The majority of the folks here have good hearts and are well-meaning and everyone is entitled to have their own cause. If a horse slaughter ban is passed, it will be because it's what the MAJORITY wanted. This is why we vote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't comment anything about what kind of hearts the others have and so far a "referendum" on the matter was not made so you don't know what the "majority" thinks about it. The "majority" of politicians is a completely different matter... they do what can bring them more votes NOT what should be done...
However they all "forget" to mention and never talk about is FROM WHERE the hundreds of millions of dollars needed for that "infrastructure" for a horse paradise on earth is coming from... (Did you see that nobody answered my questions above about this matter ?)
Some even have spectacular theories about the "absorption" of all the unwanted horses and their disappearance in thin air without tax payer's money footing the bill but that is just another "fairy tale"...
Of course we all know where they are supposed to came from. The simple idea of spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer's money for "horse welfare" and their long term care, a "horse paradise" when so many "human needs" remain unfulfilled for lack of adequate funding is repulsive for me and for many other people that do not fall in schemes that put "horse welfare" above and before "human welfare".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Also, try to brush up on your American english if you post here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will answer this in another post later on http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
When I said that "We complain that the slaughterhouses here are foreign-owned, but one of the largest in Europe is US owned." What I was saying is that "people in glass houses... " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do NOT consider that the US has "glass houses" simply because as I said above, the concept of "foreign ownership" is just "passé" and do not apply anywhere anymore. Its an EUROPEAN company for ALL effects because it is in Europe and if it still there is because it is filling some market needs or it would already be closed.
The fact that the major shareholder might be "American" is just a detail that determines who will receive its profits (or absorb the losses) and is of no concern to Europeans and they couldn't care less about WHO owns what... That's the new Europe http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BaldEagle

Jun. 20, 2004, 01:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Soup From the Store:
Bald Eagle:
I think I do my part: I help find homes for racehorses where I work who can't run anymore. Sorry but not all of us have oodles of money to spend <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If so, you are doing more then most people that are fignting for "Horse Paradises" on Earth. You are also doing the only thing that seems reasonable. Trying to give second careers to horses and on the lookout for unwanted ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Soup From the Store:
but we still do what little we can. Like, for instance, NOT contributing to the population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I do not contribute too but I stop short of saying or suggesting what the others should do. That would be interfering with people's rights someting unnaceptable in free countries http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They do what they want to and there is nothing we can do about it, except trying to minimize the effects.
For many reasons I also defend racing with all my heart and have no part in it except being eventual spectator. I am waiting for the opportunity to benefit from the racing industry myself by buying a super horse (I would say a pair as they are social animals) for more then a very reasonable price as soon as the right conditions pop up http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
For the time being I am drooling at the CANTER website http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BaldEagle

Jun. 20, 2004, 01:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
BaldEagle.....SFTS wrote a bit pointing (out) TOO MANY people breed animals that foal into something equal to, or less than, the quality of what is often readily ofered for sale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its a risk that every breeder has to take anytime it attempts to breed any horse. Genes are a kind of lottery...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Not only at general auctions but at racing auctions as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think most breeders are responsible people and they always try their best as it is in their own financial interest. Sometimes things just don't happen as expected http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Her point was CLEARLY aimed at responsible breeding or no breeding at all... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody has the right to interfere with the freedom of the others.
We see in the PMU industry as an example: Many of those in the industry selling their foals before they were even conceived and others that have to send their foals to rescue operations.
You might become an activist, try to persuade, show the financial advantages of good and responsible breeding but you can't interfere with their ultimate choice.
Like Mr. Donald Rumsfeld said in a completely different context "When people is free is free even to make mistakes"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
and to buy something already on the ground and on the downward path that so many (who don't fetch more $ per pound than their weight in sales ring) end up traveling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When a horse "who don't fetch more $ per pound than their weight in sales ring" as you say, then it is doomed and there is nothing that can be done about it except someone buy it with his/her own money and keep it instead of going for a better one.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Your remark was un-necesarily sarcastic, IMO. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, sometimes being sarcastic is the only alternative of being I would say "inconvenient".
I feel myself absolutely outraged about the simple "suggestion" of ANY tax-payers money going for "horse welfare" with so many "human needs" still pending. We simply do not live in a World that can take that kind of care for unwanted animals be it horses or anything else.
On the other end, all those pro "horse paradise" on Earth NEVER touch in the funding problem! Some even attempt to mislead everybody that their objectives can be achieved without taxpayer money footing the astronomic bills that will be generated. Its a dishonest way of promoting anything.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Having worked w/ a veterinarian who inspects plants, I have seen very healthy horses, many quite handsome, going to slaughter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ALL horses that go to slaughter they ALL have an issue: NOBODY wants to pay more for them then their own worth as meat so, they are UNWANTED. THIS is their "issue". So please do not tell us again that they do not have any "issue" because they have a quite big one. Its value alive is below its value dead and there is nothing that can be done about this market condition without interfering with other people's rights and freedoms or spending taxpayers money in outrageous circumstances.
One thing could maybe help. A gigantic website like CANTER to show all "unwanted" horses and in need of being rescued. Just this costs a lot of money to be maintained and up do date. It would require hundreds of volunteers in every single state for photos and information, money to vet the horses to write something about their health situation and so on.
Its a gigantic operation but may be a lot more people would jump on the opportunity to buy cheap one of those in need.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Sounds like you don't understand the process of how, say, little Susie's outgrown pony (who failed to bring it's cost over it's weight) ended up being bought by a killer. Often without the person selling knowing the buyer was such. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its unfortunate that any eventual seller of a horse be duped but everybody knows by now that, if they sell a horse cheap, for close or by its meat value, they are taking a huge risk if they don't know the buyer.
If nobody wants the horse for more then that, so it will end its days in the slaughterhouse and there is nothing you can do about it except trying that the process be the less traumatic possible. However a lot of people is wasting their energies in a non productive way instead of using them in a more profitable and realistic way... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Unless you REALLY can improve a breed, don't. And if you are just another average breeder, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can't interfere with the other people's rights and freedoms. See above quote of Mr. Rumsfeld http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
whine and cry over the slaughter issue all you want, but it's a fact of business waste and most of you do contribute. No different than small pet breeders who can't top what the local pound has to offer.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't whine or cry about the slaughter issue because its a result of, or consequence of, market conditions and the respect of other people's rights.
Again the simple idea of using taxpayers money for that purpose is absolutely repulsive because there are many humans with tremendous needs that are not taken care for lack of appropriate funding.
I simply don't accept to put whatever kind of animal ahead of any human being. Sorry but this his shared by more people then you can imagine. They simple do not bother to let the others know about it...

BaldEagle

Jun. 20, 2004, 03:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Bald Eagle -
Also, try to brush up on your American english if you post here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As promised in my above post here it goes the answer:

I am the son of a language teacher. My mother just seemed to think that I wouldn't never know enough languages. I study 6 of them and for many years. Two of them, for lack of use, are almost gone but I still be fluent in four of them. Englsih is my third language and not my mother tongue. What you see in my posts is the result of only two years of formal studies of the English language.

However I run in several difficulties and I will try to show some of them and think that English is a kind of crazy language dificult to learn:

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox became oxen not oxes.

One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice;
yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,
and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,
yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
and the plural of cat is cats, not cose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
but though we say mother, we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him, but imagine the feminine, she, shis and shim.

Some other reasons to be grateful if you grew up speaking English:

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) At the Army base, a bass was painted on the head of a bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) After a number of Novocain injections, my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
22) I spent last evening evening out a pile of dirt.

Screwy pronunciations can mess up your mind! For example...If you have a

rough cough, climbing can be tough when going through the bough on a tree!

Let's face it - English is a crazy language.

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

English muffins weren't invented in England.

You take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes,

We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?

If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I think all the folks who contributed to the English language should have been committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.

In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?

Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wiseguy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on.

If Dad is Pop, how come Mom isn't Mop?

Oh well I promise you I will keep trying to brush-up my English...
BTW what does brush-up mean ? Is that what I usually do to my boots so they look good and shiny ? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Galloway

Jun. 20, 2004, 05:19 PM

Oh, dear. I am so sorry I read the last few posts. Should have worn my glasses, eased the headache a bit....

I really want to shout "What was THAT all about..."

We come to this board because we are involved with horses. A lot of kind hearted people (including me) hate to see the creatures we love suffer.
It's human.
True, it happens to lots of other critters as well, but I never owned and loved a cow or a pig or a chicken. Never read a book romantizing a proud and wild cow.
Can't remember ever seeing a movie about the loving relationship between a girl and her chicken.
So I guess my adversion to slaughter is purely emotional.
I'm no neophyte. I know the ways of the world, all the reasons, valid or not so valid that slaughter shouldn't be abolished, and probably never will.

But here unfortunately I vote with my heart and I wish it could stop.
And if someone wants to start a thread and vote with their heart too, then I for one would be highly reluctant to stomp on their toes and their emotions.

(yes...I'm a vegetarian too, and I have two formerly slaughter bound equines fat and happy in my own backyard.
Maybe I can't move mountains, but I can pick up pebbles....)

Las Olas

Jun. 21, 2004, 07:23 AM

Galloway - Not a BABE fan? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bald Eagle - I've PT'd you. Nice post, even if I don't completely agree with you.

I personally, would like to see registration fees increased, with that increase going towards retirement facilities. Breeders need to take more responsibilty for the animals or "product" that they produce. I also think that passports are a good idea. I think that they allow the horse owner to state that the animal is not for human consumption. There was a KY Horse Council meeting on Saturday, and educating the horse public on the ID program is going to be one of their priorities over the next year. I think this topic has already been covered in another forum, so I'll leave it at that.

Galloway

Jun. 21, 2004, 08:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Galloway - Not a BABE fan? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shucks, forgot about that one. Didn't like the second one much.
Not really sure if it counts though, since it was about a pig acting like a dog and his loving relationship with an older man.

(boy, that sounds weird. wonder how that movie ever got made. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

BaldEagle

Jun. 22, 2004, 08:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
Oh, dear. I am so sorry I read the last few posts. Should have worn my glasses, eased the headache a bit... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry for your headache. If I was closer I could go and give you a box of aspirins http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
We come to this board because we are involved with horses. A lot of kind hearted people (including me) hate to see the creatures we love suffer. It's human. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The conflicting opinions results from the fact that the "solution" for the unwanted that some of the "kind hearted people" want, in my opinion is absolutely inhuman. In fact, they want to divert hundreds of millions of dollars a year from badly needed areas to make a horse paradise on hearth, something humans still don't have!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
True, it happens to lots of other critters as well, but I never owned and loved a cow or a pig or a chicken. Never read a book romanticizing a proud and wild cow.
Can't remember ever seeing a movie about the loving relationship between a girl and her chicken. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That doesn’t change anything because you simply can't find legitimate arguments to accept the fate and eventual suffering of animals that are as close to humans as the horse, and, on top of this, are fulfilling the vital function of feading us, and, at the same time, to make an "exception" for the horse for no good reason at all, when this one is just a pleasure and recreation animal because very few use them for work nowadays.
About the movies I must call your attention for the fact that life is not made out of movies but of realities, sometimes very harsh ones. The opposite sometimes is true.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
So I guess my aversion to slaughter is purely emotional. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the other part of the problem ! In fact its not only you but most of those willing to put "horse welfare" before and above "human welfare" take an emotional approach to this issue instead of a more rational and pragmatic one.
The heart that "conventionally" is the "source" of our sentiments and the "manager" of our emotions is not the organ that should be used to think or for reasoning. That is brain's function...
It is no wonder that those that "think" and "reason" with their heart, instead of using their brains, come to "solutions" to this issue that I and many other consider totally inappropriate, to put it very mildly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
But here unfortunately I vote with my heart and I wish it could stop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Should use your brain instead...
If you do it you will see that you will change to a more pragmatic and reasonable approach.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
And if someone wants to start a thread and vote with their heart too, then I for one would be highly reluctant to stomp on their toes and their emotions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not stomping on toes or emotions of anyone. I am only expressing a different position and calling the attention to the economic implications of the "solutions" called for by others.
If I have time available I can promise you that, any thread that comes up about this issue that relinquishes humans to a second place behind horses will always have my "contribution" to alert everybody about the injustice of such a waste of money with animals with so many human needs pending adequate funding.

What I would like to see from those that put “horse welfare” ahead of “human welfare” was an honest discussion of the issue starting with:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Where all the unwanted horses will end up?
<LI>How they will be taken care off?
<LI>Who will take care of all the horses?
<LI>Description of the “infrastructure” that must be erected to take care of the horses.
<LI>How big are the costs supposed to be to erect such infrastructure?
<LI>The operating costs of the “infrastructure” from the first to the tenth year and above?;
<LI>From WHERE the required money is supposed to come from?
<LI>WHO will pay for those operating costs;
<LI> All the other details of the economic side of the issue.[/list]
The only “fairy tales” I really enjoyed to read were those written by Hans Christian Andersen. So please don’t come and tell me that all the unwanted horses (40 to 50 thousand or so a year) will miraculously be “absorbed” by the industry when they are presently a surplus, or that they will vanish in thin air as a virtue of some legislation because I don’t believe in such “fairy tales”.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
(yes...I'm a vegetarian too, and I have two formerly slaughter bound equines fat and happy in my own backyard.
Maybe I can't move mountains, but I can pick up pebbles....) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If all those that can afford it would be “picking up pebbles” as you say, then this issue would be solved in a completely different and more acceptable manner. The problem is that I do not foresee the possibility of doing the same for 40 or 50 thousand horses a year, plus those that come from the PMU industry, plus all those that are injured, and so on, without severely interfering with the rights and freadoms of others.
Anyway any little private help is good for the cause. I can't do anything else but to thank you for that.
For my part what I can tell you is that, when time comes, I will also be doing my modest part too...

BaldEagle

Jun. 27, 2004, 10:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaldEagle:
What I would like to see from those that put “horse welfare” ahead of “human welfare” was an _honest_ discussion of the issue starting with:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> Where all the unwanted horses will end up?
<LI> How they will be taken care off?
<LI> Who will take care of all the horses?
<LI> Description of the “infrastructure” that must be erected to take care of the horses.
<LI> How big are the costs supposed to be to erect such infrastructure?
<LI> The operating costs of the “infrastructure” from the first to the tenth year and above?;
<LI> From WHERE the required money is supposed to come from?
<LI> WHO will pay for those operating costs;
<LI> All the other details of the economic side of the issue.[/list] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOBODY http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

breezymeadow

Jun. 27, 2004, 11:40 AM

Uh - if the answers were that friggin' easy, not only would this post not be necessary, but we wouldn't have to weed thru your answers - lol!

That said from someone who has rescued more than one horse from the meat guys.

How many have you rescued Bald Eagle?

I'll be honest here & say that Bald Eagle - whoever they are & where they're from - that's a not-so-subtle REQUEST here - raises salient points that have been raised over & again.

Everyone wants to jump up & say that horses shouldn't be slaughtered, yet no one wants to take the responsibility for these unwanted animals.

I've taken two, which is all I have room for. How about the rest of big-mouthed protesters? And I don't necessarily mean COTHers when I say that. What I mean is that the vast majority of animal slaughter protesters most probably don't have a corral full of rescues in their backyard. Yes, their hearts are in the right place, but. . . .. put your money where your MOUTH IS.

As far as Bald Eagle's diatribes as to "animal money" versus "people money" - that is an entirely different contraversy. And one that shouldn't be so.

I'm sorry, but I don't relate the two at all. To be honest, after doing some social service work, I'm happier spending my money for animals than people. Bald Eagle may feel differently, but you know, animals tend to respond automatically to donations of home, food, kindness. Yet you can extend these same things to people, & they'll spit in your face.

I'll go with the animals any day. Sorry Bald Eagle.

Sarabeth

Jun. 27, 2004, 05:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As far as Bald Eagle's diatribes as to "animal money" versus "people money" - that is an entirely different contraversy. And one that shouldn't be so.

I'm sorry, but I don't relate the two at all. To be honest, after doing some social service work, I'm happier spending my money for animals than people. Bald Eagle may feel differently, but you know, animals tend to respond automatically to donations of home, food, kindness. Yet you can extend these same things to people, & they'll spit in your face.

I'll go with the animals any day. Sorry Bald Eagle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Breezymeadow, you HEATHEN! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Have been in a similar situation, and completely agree with you. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

SeaOat

Jun. 28, 2004, 01:44 PM

Crike BaldEagle! Who in the hell has time to muck through all your writings? Sorry, but skimming along......I may not have a right to stop people from breeding (horses) and creating an ENORMOUS amount of industry waste, but I do have the right to voice my opinions on such. Letting show/sport horse people know what we have lends to the saying "One man's junk is another's treasure". Much of what will not do well on the race track will be great in the show/sport horse world. Just trying to save a life as well as offer others a way to go easy on their wallet.
Your thinking most people are responsible breeders is wishful thinking, something I know NOT to be true and did not conclude from being an "eventual spectator", as you called yourself.
Also, your thinking the % of crap on the ground is a result of some risky genetic lottery is too simple....Note: when two DONE NOTHINGs mate there is little news when baby NEVER WILLDO NOTHING arrives. Oh the surprise. Even better when physical wrecks unite to create another eye-sore no one wants. And when you see foals born to a breeder who thinks it's beautiful, & an experienced professional eye knows it's far from, then I suggest *GO TO THE SALES* where you (the not very talented breeder) can find lots of somethings just as nice (& cheaper), if not better, ALREADY born! The market is flooded. Most breeders do have a better chance of hitting Powerball than making money. Dreamers all, judging by their profits.
At year's end, & after you've totaled all the breeding bills to conclude your profits (let's hope) payed you well for your efforts....then you most probably should be a breeder. Unfortunately not many can say that!
Please don't take snipets of this post to reply....it gets taken out of text and is very tiresome to read http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fjord Jockey

Jun. 28, 2004, 08:37 PM

Holy cow. That's a whole load of writing. I think you've just completed the War and Peace of COTH. You need a virtual bookmark to read BE's posts.

Galloway

Jun. 29, 2004, 12:24 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BaldEagle

Jul. 3, 2004, 11:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Soup From the Store:
Holy cow. That's a whole load of writing. I think you've just completed the War and Peace of COTH. You need a virtual bookmark to read BE's posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody just touched one of my raw nerves http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

BaldEagle

Jul. 3, 2004, 11:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet you didn't read them http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

BaldEagle

Jul. 3, 2004, 12:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
Uh - if the answers were that friggin' easy, not only would this post not be necessary, but we wouldn't have to weed thru your answers - lol! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually I am not that loquacious
I just felt like not letting go without adequate answers and I have fast fingers...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
How many have you rescued Bald Eagle? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this side of the Atlantic none yet (I came in 2001 from Europe) but there my family were rescuing Lusitanos that no longer could go the Bullfighting ring. Some get hurt by the bull, got scared or chicken out and then they are reluctant or even afraid to go back to the ring.
Since they are absolutely sound, extremely well trained horses (haute ecole) and, on top of that, they are sold for a fraction of its former value, my family never owned anything else. They knew whom to contact to place those horses no longer able to the ring. Not that many anyway and at the time there was no races there, so no OTTB's.
In North America I am waiting for the right conditions to arise (bad beginnings) to go for an OTTB or two. (I want to win the Olympics some day with a TB http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
I'll be honest here & say that Bald Eagle - whoever they are & where they're from - that's a not-so-subtle REQUEST here - raises salient points that have been raised over & again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a quite new in this Forum and the darn "search" feature is unable to work properly because people don't pay too much attention when writing the titles on their posts.
Some threads have a tremendous amount of good info but loose all its value because we can't retrieve that info. Sorry for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
Everyone wants to jump up & say that horses shouldn't be slaughtered, yet no one wants to take the responsibility for these unwanted animals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you really understand where the problem is… Now I think that those that are on that type of "jumping" just want the taxpayer's money to do the trick for them at the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That's why I do not agree at all with their position and blast them with long posts protesting their position.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
I've taken two, which is all I have room for. How about the rest of big-mouthed protesters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know. I bet the most vociferous anti everything have done nothing but vitriolic rhetoric...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
Yes, their hearts are in the right place, but. . . .. put your money where your MOUTH IS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They want other people's money for that purpose. They just have the “good” ideas, are the most compassionate, their love for horses is absolutely "unique", some go as far as saying that the jobs provided "are not needed because they are low pay" but do very little (There are some exceptions).
That’s why I am always insisting on that point: Where is the money coming from ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
As far as Bald Eagle's diatribes as to "animal money" versus "people money" - that is an entirely different contraversy. And one that shouldn't be so.
I'm sorry, but I don't relate the two at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Highly convenient for you...
If fact and contrary to what you say, both are absolutely and inextricable related.
Taxpayer's money is the sole source of government money. This sole source of money must be allocated by “budgeting” to different needs. Its obvious and above all discussions that if certain amounts goes for animals, sure that same amount is not going tom be available for human needs... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Its basic arithmetic’s and please remember that mathematics are one of the very few exact sciences. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
To be honest, after doing some social service work, I'm happier spending my money for animals than people. Bald Eagle may feel differently, but you know, animals tend to respond automatically to donations of home, food, kindness. Yet you can extend these same things to people, & they'll spit in your face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately I have seen that too from disgruntled, depressed people, some of whom are at odds with our society because, in their opinion, didn't gave what they feel and think they deserved, or they were entitled to, or because it let them down in an hour of need and many other reasons.
We must forget that and keep on helping whenever possible. Be compassionate towards yor fellow human beings is almost an obligation of us all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by breezymeadow:
I'll go with the animals any day. Sorry Bald Eagle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where our main and irreconcilable difference is.
In spite of all the difficulties that arise from human relationship I will never put any animal ahead of any human being for any reason or purpose, let alone allocation of taxpayer's financial resources to horses with so many human needs that lack adequate funding.
And you don't have to be sorry for that. If, in face of your previous experiences, that the way you think its right so stick to it.
I think its grossly wrong and that’s where the main difference is. And no apologies http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

BaldEagle

Jul. 4, 2004, 09:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Please don't take snipets of this post to reply....it gets taken out of text and is very tiresome to read http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I wont http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Well you have some good points about the physical wrecks. I am completely innocent there. When time comes I will be in the market for those already on the ground that don't want to run anymore http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Laurierace

Jul. 4, 2004, 09:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaldEagle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Please don't take snipets of this post to reply....it gets taken out of text and is very tiresome to read http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I wont http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Well you have some good points about the physical wrecks. I am completely innocent there. When time comes I will be in the market for those already on the ground that don't want to run anymore http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can have about 900 of them delivered to your doorstep tomorrow. Hope you have a big farm!

BaldEagle

Jul. 6, 2004, 09:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Laurierace:
I can have about 900 of them delivered to your doorstep tomorrow. Hope you have a big farm! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Opss I don't need anyware near 900 http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I will start just with a pair of good jumper prospects. After this only time will tell.
Thanks for the offer. I will contact you, if you don't mind, to use you as my eyes and hears until I get the deal done http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

SeaOat

Jul. 6, 2004, 09:30 AM

BaldEagle & Laurierace:
"Physical Wrecks".....beauty is in the eye of the beholder http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and boy-o-boy is there a bunch of beauty http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif in our barns. But don't even the less than average look wonderful when given a chance to perform where their real talent lay?!
You're a good guy Baldeagle for keeping those great ponies (already on the ground) in mind! Mucho thanks!!

BaldEagle

Aug. 14, 2004, 01:21 PM

Las Olas

I am bringing this thread up again, just because I found something that might be of interest for you to help you understand how the economic relationships work today between countries…

You stated:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Las Olas:
Bald Eagle - I'll try to keep this short.
... ... ...
And, you're a fool to think that a trading war couldn't evolve from a single incident such as a slaughterhouse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I answered to you:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaldEagle:
I am not a fool at all and may know a thing or two that you don't. You touched in something very delicate in Europe: "Foreign Ownership" as been used in several threads here as one more reason to close the slaughterhouses. You probably don't know how sensitive this matter is and Europe would NEVER accept that ANY of the European owned enterprises could be discriminated against for being European without reacting or even over-reacting... These things might "snowball" so they must be fought at their very early stages... Anyone trying to discriminate against European companies will face a tremendous response in kind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, today I found something in a newspaper that shows how accurate my answer to you was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Aug. 12, 2004. 11:54 AM

EU wades into Hwy. 407 spat

MADRID, Spain - The European Union is working to resolve a dispute between Canada and a Spanish-led consortium seeking to raise tolls on Highway 407, an EU spokesperson said today.
Economists say the dispute threatens a proposed trade deal between the 25-member bloc and Canada.
Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty is balking at rate increases levied on the 108-kilometre highway north of Toronto that was leased in 1999 to a consortium dominated by the Spanish conglomerate Grupo Ferrovial SA.

The European Commission has contacted Canadian officials to try to resolve the conflict, commission spokesperson Antonia Mochan said from Brussels.

"It is a serious issue that we would like to see resolved as soon as possible," she said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full text here (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092305287913&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968342212737)

This is not at all comparable to the forced closure of a plant like some people in the US wanted your Government to do.
This is just an important EU group that wants to raise Highway 407 tolls and the Canadian Government doesn’t allow it… its something rather milder then the forced and arbitrary closure of a EU union company on discriminating grounds. However Economists say the dispute threatens a proposed trade deal between the 25-member bloc and Canada.

So just the commercial interests of a single company "is a serious issue" that stands in the way of a trade deal between 25 countries of the EU and Canada...
Now imagine what would happen if the US ordered the plants closed down...

SeaOat

Aug. 15, 2004, 07:50 AM

"Now imagine what would happen if the US ordered the plants closed down... "

Well Bald Eagle, I would imagine we would move on to better solutions in spite of whatever setbacks arrise from wherever.
Keep doing your homework and read on, link provided below.

http://www.horse-protection.org/info.php?id=9

I'm very glad a determined person like Wayne Pacelle, who fully understands world trade and economics, is at the helm, and not you, since you seem bent on preaching the "why nots & can nots" instead of reaching "why should" and "how to" solutions.
Edited to add a video for your memory, a bit old but NOT outdated, except we now have more plants than mentioned. Most feel this is an issue that MUST be corrected no matter how strong an opposition. Many wrongs in history have been righted, thankfully by people who wouldn't give up or tire climbing governmental hilltops.
http://www.horse-protection.org/info.php?id=34

BaldEagle

Aug. 15, 2004, 09:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Keep doing your homework and read on, link provided below. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will of course. I like to be well informed, even if I do not agree with the information provided, its always useful to know what the others think about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
I'm very glad a determined person like Wayne Pacelle, who fully understands world trade and economics, is at the helm, and not you, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
since you seem bent on preaching the "why nots & can nots" instead of reaching "why should" and "how to" solutions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is the money coming from ??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
Edited to add a video for your memory, a bit old but NOT outdated, except we now have more plants than mentioned. Most feel this is an issue that MUST be corrected no matter how strong an opposition. Many wrongs in history have been righted, thankfully by people who wouldn't give up or tire climbing governmental hilltops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing is transport regulations for ALL animals (not only horses) wich I agree entirely, another is horse slaughter in wich we are completely in oposite ends.

SeaOat

Aug. 15, 2004, 09:55 AM

"Where is the money coming from ??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif"

Why Bald Eagle, as I've answered a *few* times to you before, it will come from the same places as small animal control. If you don't like your tax dollars spent on this issue, tough. A lot of people do want their tax dollars spent on good programs, and enough to see better laws passed eventually. Hense the ongoing need to keep people correctly informed.
I'm a meat eater (except for a few) and I think all animals who are intended to provide food SHOULD and WILL be humanely grown if people insist against factory farming. Government incentives abound to promote better programs. Often it's just a matter of changing people's habits and mind-sets. Example: Was not so many years prior that few wore seatbelts, but we know better now. If your common sense won't get you to buckle-up, your insurace company (both health & auto) will offer you a reminder. I predict in the not so distant future, we consumers will want a better food sourse. As a start, you can buy free range, a pretty new introduction. Pricey now but as more insist, more will provide and costs will drop. Like all food products.
I do NOT think horses are meant for consumption, nor should be processed as such.
More info from the program we know gets it done...

http://www.hsus.org/ace/352

BaldEagle

Aug. 15, 2004, 02:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
"Example: Was not so many years prior that few wore seatbelts, but we know better now. If your common sense won't get you to buckle-up, your insurace company (both health & auto) will offer you a reminder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Changing habits is always difficult especially without a strong reason http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif
IMHO not a single dollar to go that way, a single one. Too many humans in need that have absolute priority.

At least you didn’t post the URL of a PETA website. I wouldn’t forgive you for that. However that HS is not much better anyway.

About the seat belts I started used them “before” having a car. (Can’t fly without them) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Did you see the film "Tucker: The Man and His Dream" by Francis Ford Coppola, about Preston Tucker and his 51 cars he built the very furst ones to have seat belts? That fellow was brought down by the big Detroit companies that didn’t want a “safe” car to be built?
It’s something really worth seeing. If you did not try ASAP.
One can be right from the beginning but if it is ahead of its times it’s a tragedy. I personally know what this means, literally.

Preston Tucker -- A Rebel, A Visionary, A Hero (http://www.richardcole.com/Tucker/preston.htm)

SeaOat

Aug. 15, 2004, 04:40 PM

"IMHO not a single dollar to go that way, a single one. Too many humans in need that have absolute priority."

Then you should be displeased w/ the many programs aimed to benefit humans that are used inappropriatly. With not wanting to waste your single dollar, be advised you will spend a fortune in search of the human who won't take your $$ and run. Most anyone who is entitled will take advantage of government programs (welfare, food stamps, tax shelters,.. to name a few), needed or not, and many laugh at the ability to do so. As you know, you pay for it all.
Forget military waste, like the amounts we throw into S. & Central America that make $500. screwdrivers look like a coupon clipping party. Yeah, like we're really going to keep coke out of this country, what a joke. Any money spent on Animal rights pales to that alone.
I personally am sickened by how our elderly & mentally ill are treated. I'm also appalled at our farming practices AND horse slaughter (those two equally, actually).
I think there is room for change/improvement w/ all. It often starts with a vision and an intelligent campaign, "Buckle Up, Don't be a Litter Bug http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, Smokey the Bear says (what did he say, anyway??), No Smoking, Just Say NO", .. crike, these really are hysterically lame examples but I'm tired and loopy....point is programs can be penny wise, educational and effectively better so I don't see doing nothing because "changing habits is hard" as reason not to push on.
You seem intelligent but very narrow minded (unlike Preston Tucker), to think that incredible amounts of money wasted on humans is better than any at all managed properly on animals. In your world would there be nothing spent on endangered animals or preserving nature?
How bland a world. Good thing you're a pilot, it's much prettier from up there.

BaldEagle

Aug. 28, 2004, 09:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
We come to this board because we are involved with horses. A lot of kind hearted people (including me) hate to see the creatures we love suffer. It's human. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaldEagle posted Jun. 22, 2004 11:43 AM:
The conflicting opinions results from the fact that the "solution" for the unwanted that some of the "kind hearted people" want, in my opinion is absolutely _inhuman_. In fact, they want to divert hundreds of millions of dollars a year from badly needed areas to make a horse paradise on hearth, something humans still don't have! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
So I guess my aversion to slaughter is purely emotional. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaldEagle posted Jun. 22, 2004 11:43 AM:
This is the other part of the problem ! In fact its not only you but most of those willing to put "horse welfare" before and above "human welfare" take an _emotional_ approach to this issue instead of a more rational and pragmatic one.
The _heart_ that "conventionally" is the "source" of our sentiments and the "manager" of our emotions is not the organ that should be used to _think_ or for _reasoning_. That is _brain's_ function...
It is no wonder that those that "think" and "reason" with their heart, instead of using their brains, come to "solutions" to this issue that I and many other consider totally inappropriate, to put it very mildly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Galloway:
But here unfortunately I vote with my heart and I wish it could stop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaldEagle posted Jun. 22, 2004 11:43 AM:
Should use your brain instead...
If you do it you will see that you will change to a more pragmatic and reasonable approach. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To illustrate what I was talking about when the above posts were being exchanged in this Forum, I can’t resist today to post an article from the New York Times dated 2004 Aug 27.

That's why I can’t accept diverting financial resources to animals, “paradises on earth”, “retirement” facilities forever, “health care” and everything else.
In the present circumstances it’s very inhuman.
Those that support the taxpayers money for those purposes either are “too rich” or completely unaware of some basic human needs that are still waiting to be addressed, or have their scale of values grotesquely deformed.
Nobody has the right to put animals ahead of children, IMHO. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

More Americans Were Uninsured and Poor in 2003, Census Finds
By DAVID LEONHARDT

Published: August 27, 2004

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 - The ranks of the poor and those without health insurance grew in 2003 for the third straight year, the government reported on Thursday, in a sign of the lingering pain being caused by a long slump in the job markets.
Those trends, spelled out by the United States Census Bureau, signaled a clear shift in the way the 2001 recession and its aftermath have spread across the country. The economy's troubles, which first affected high-income families even more than the middle class and poor, have recently hurt families at the bottom and in the middle significantly more than those at the top.
Median household income rose at about the same rate as inflation last year after three years of relative declines, according to the report. But the disparity in incomes between the rich and poor grew after having fallen in 2002. Pay did not keep pace with inflation in the South, already the nation's poorest region, in cities, or among immigrants. And the wage gap between men and women widened for the first time in four years.
Poverty rose most sharply among single-parent families last year. Health-insurance coverage fell only for families with annual income of less than $75,000. [Page C1.]
… … …

The national poverty rate rose to 12.5 percent last year, from 12.1 percent in 2002. After dropping rapidly in a long economic boom and a government war on poverty in the 1960's, from more than 22 percent in 1960, the rate has changed relatively little over the last four decades. It was slightly higher in 2003 than in 1969. A family of two adults and two children with an income of less than $18,660 was considered poor last year.

"We have had a generation with basically no progress against poverty," said Sheldon Danziger, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. "The economic growth is not trickling down to the poor."

Depending on their political beliefs, economists tend to place varying portions of blame for this on a rise in single-parent families, a withering of good jobs for people without college degrees and a shift away from anti-poverty programs by the federal government.

The number of uninsured Americans rose last year largely because fewer companies were providing health benefits to their workers than in the past, the Census Bureau reported. Almost 16 percent of people did not have health insurance last year, up from 14.2 percent in 2000.
Median household income declined slightly last year, by $63 to $43,318, but census officials said the change was not statistically significant. Since peaking in 1999 at the equivalent of $44,922 in 2003 with inflation taken into account, median household income has fallen more than $1,600, or 3.6 percent, though it remained higher last year than at any point before the late 1990's.
… … …

Unlike most economic downturns, the one that began in early 2001 was something of an equal-opportunity recession, hurting high-income and low-income families alike. The bursting of the stock market bubble, the collapse of many technology ventures and the decline of the manufacturing sector all led to the elimination of many good-paying jobs.
But as the economy continues its uneven recovery, growing but adding many fewer jobs than is typical, families in the lower part of the spectrum have begun to lose ground again, as they did in much of the 1970's, 80's and 90's.
Pay fell last year for households in rural areas and in cities, where income is less than the national average, by a greater percentage than it did for those in suburbs, the bureau said. After reaching an all-time high in 2002, the earnings of full-time female workers relative to their male counterparts fell slightly last year, to 75.5 percent. Income also dropped more for Hispanics than for whites, though it remained essentially unchanged for black households.
Over all, the highest-earning fifth of households took home 49.8 percent of the nation's income last year, up from the 49.7 percent in 2002 and 44.7 percent in 1983. Those figures exaggerate income inequality somewhat, however, because they do not include taxes and because wealthy households are larger on average than poor ones.
"There's a very large transfer of resources to poor people that is not captured in these poverty numbers,'' said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a research group. Whatever the true level of inequality, though, it grew last year, with the greatest increases in poverty coming among some of the nation's poorest groups. The poverty rate among households headed by a single woman rose to 28 percent, from 26.5 percent in 2002.
Of families with children under 6, 19.8 percent, or 4.6 million, were considered poor last year, up from 18.5 percent in the previous year.

Full text can be seen in the links below.

New York Times - 2004 Aug 27 - More Americans Were Uninsured and Poor in 2003, Census Finds (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/national/27census.html?pagewanted=2&th)

CNN - 2004 Aug 26 Census: More Americans living in poverty. Number of uninsured also rise (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/index.html)

Edited to add link from CNN

free

Aug. 28, 2004, 09:41 AM

Why couldn't the revenue needed oome directly from horse owners? A slight fee could be added when registering any horse, in any venue. Owners with unregistered horses would slip by, but this would cover the vast majority of horses in the U.S..

SeaOat

Aug. 28, 2004, 10:15 AM

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Come on into Baltimore/DC BaldEagle, there are alot of single mothers you can support. It's your right.....

I personally know money from taxes should go to MANY divisions in this democracy. The rest of us may choose who we care to fund privatly, as well as financial needs being boosted through fines, penalties, royalties and dues. Treat large animal abuse like small animal abuse. Some people think that by stopping slaughter, or at least making in difficult, is going to solve world peace and end hunger. Good grief. Take a look at the products you use, BaldEagle, and tell me none are government subsidized.

Laurierace

Aug. 28, 2004, 11:44 AM

I have to question why we are even discussing human welfare vs. horse slaughter. I have been involved with horse rescues for going on 8 years now and aside from making us 503-C we get no money from the government. We certainly don't get hundreds of millions, not even hundreds of pennies. I don't disagree that humans need to be looked after as well, I just don't see why it is a competition in your eyes.

SeaOat

Aug. 28, 2004, 11:57 AM

He brings this up because if horse welfare falls the way small animals are, there most likely will be gov. funding needed. This isn't in referance to rescue groups or private agencies. Still, I agree, it's apples & oranges and funds are deserved by both IMO. But not all people see it that way.
Bless the beasts AND the children, they say....not meaning to sound sappy but it is an emotional issue for many. IMO it's just another place to send my taxes that I happen to approve of. Crike, we certainly pay enough for programs we don't, ay?

BaldEagle

Aug. 28, 2004, 03:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Come on into Baltimore/DC BaldEagle, there are alot of single mothers you can support. It's your right.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi SeaOat
Thank you for the invitation. You are very kind but I must decline your invitation because, for the time being I need to make my best to support a VIP… myself, that is… http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Laurierace:
I don't disagree that humans need to be looked after as well, I just don't see why it is a competition in your eyes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have seen in other threads that 50.000 horses a year going on “welfare” with an average life span left of about 10 years, will mean half a million horses to take care in a not so distant future…
It is a competition because those that defend those “heavens on earth” for animals forget to say from where the money is coming from, something that everybody knows, by know.
The source is only one: taxpayers money
Being so, what will be available for animals comes always in detriment of the availability of the same amount of money for humans in need.
That’s why one thing is inextricably connected with the other and it is a competition.
Please do not try to tell me that all this can be made with private money because nobody will believe you. The “horse rescues” are up to the neck just as it is, (see the recent emergency of CANTER a very well run org with an all volunteer staff). Now imagine what would happen with a flow of 50,000 horses a year to take care of…

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
He brings this up because if horse welfare falls the way small animals are, there most likely will be gov. funding needed. This isn't in reference to rescue groups or private agencies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. With the bill enforced the flow of horses would be of such magnitude that there would be only one way to provide adequate care for all of them. Large scale government funding. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it.
Of course initially they would say "not needed" but after we would all see those stories about the neglected animals and all the marketing coups to siphon the necessary millions.
That’s where the unfair and inhuman competition would start.

Laurierace

Aug. 28, 2004, 03:57 PM

While I agree that it won't be easy to take care of the surplus horses if slaughter is made illegal, I disagree that the only way it can be handled is with government money. That is a cop out if you ask me. You have obviously made up your mind, and I have learned long ago not be waste my breath on someone who isn't listening. If you were up to listening I could enlighten you on some of the ways we are planning to handle it when slaughter is made illegal. Its pretty simple.

free

Aug. 28, 2004, 08:31 PM

Laurierace...I will listen. I see no need for large scale government spending.

SeaOat

Aug. 29, 2004, 04:53 AM

Funny, I don't recall ever saying "only" or "large scale" gov. spending. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

While most, as in small animal protection groups, can operate as 501(c)(3), as funding comes from donations, pet license sales and fines, animal control contracts, fees, pet adoptions and even cremation services. They enter into contracts with local municipalities to enforce their animal control laws. This is where/how I would expect horses to fall as well.
But when you are talking about policing borders and checking livestock ID across country lines, I'm curious as to how that can be done w/out relying on gov agencies & support? I am also saying we should back both the senate and house versions of the proposed ban on horse slaughter, with favorable regards to spending tax $$ to enforce the laws where needed.

Another site, in addition to the others previously listed, that gives support of H.R. 857 & S.2352....

https://secure2.convio.net/aspca/site/Advocacy?id=893&JServSessionIdr004=gf4n4wqmt1.app25b

Edited to add site http://www.horse-protection.org/ where more questions can be answered. F&Q... http://www.horse-protection.org/info.php?id=9

BaldEagle

Aug. 29, 2004, 08:55 AM

May be its here where we have absolutely different opinions. In my view a flow of 50,000 horses a year with an average life span of 10 years or so, means half a million horses to take care of sometime in the future.

Lets say that you can put all those animal “pensioners” on a $200 dollars a month, something I find rather short, for food, staff that would need to be hired because I don’t think anyone can find enough volunteers for this, plus vet bills, farrier bills and all the needed stuff.

500,000 X 200 X 12 = 1.2 billion dollars a year.

And how about the financial costs to erect and maintain the huge facilities needed to accommodate half a million horses ?

The whole idea is just so ludicrous and ridiculous that I find it very “strange” to say the least how come there are people (I mean human beings) that can defend such an outrageous situation.

Only people that have no idea of the magnitude of the task, the tremendous costs involved, can have the nerve to think that this can be accomplished without large scale government funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year!!!
Its an "insult" to anyone's intelligence to say that this can be privately funded only.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SeaOat:
He brings this up because if horse welfare falls the way small animals are, there most likely will be gov. funding needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also Sea Oat I must call your attention that the tax payers money (i.e. people’s money) that go into the “small animals” is not going to them because of THEM. That money is going there because those animals can be or are a health hazard for humans. So that money is money invested in the protection of human health and can’t be considered “animal welfare”. Not the case of the horses anyway.
If it wasn’t that risk it would be unacceptable too.

I am a person that managed companies for two decades, so "numbers" are not a strange thing for me. And if something of my past experience tell me is that we do not live in a society that can spend with animals that kind of money.

The horse slaughter is a good way to dispose of unwanted animals and if in the end the French, Belgians, and Japanese want to eat them and pay for the costs of the disposal, so be it, they can be my guests, provided they do not invite me to their table.

Of course I absolutely agree that this is a tremendous marketing coup for the "horses rescues" that would be asked to step in and be the main recipients of those hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from very basic human needs that will be displaced in the name of "animal welfare". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
That's why I posted the article of the New York Times and the smaller CNN one. Because it seems that there are Americans that do not know the kind of country they live in or, at least, do not know everything about it. "Too rich" syndrome ? May be.

jrstark

Aug. 29, 2004, 09:54 AM

Bald Eagle is making a number of wrong assumptions.

The 50,000 horses slaughtered every year are not all in need of "welfare." Many are healthy, sound animals with potentially useful lives, that were just sold in the wrong place or at the wrong time.

"For sale" does not mean unwanted.

One reason why the pro-slaughter forces keep talking about government subsidies is because the government is already paying ranchers to warehouse mustangs on their property. They literally do not believe that anyone else will pay to keep a horse without getting income from it.

BaldEagle

Aug. 29, 2004, 02:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
Bald Eagle is making a number of wrong assumptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I doubt it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
The 50,000 horses slaughtered every year are not all in need of "welfare." Many are healthy, sound animals with potentially useful lives, that were just sold in the wrong place or at the wrong time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. Its not where the problem is. This has already be an "issue" in many threads, so I am not going to repeat myself.
Horse that end up in those auction the ALL have big problems. ALL OF THEM - NO exceptions.
Those that you say that are healthy also have one BIG problem. They are unwanted and their value dead is above their value alive
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
"For sale" does not mean unwanted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I know a little about philosophy too and we could go that way if you want. But if a horse can't be sold for more then what its meat is worth... I don't have any difficulty in saying that he is unwanted.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
One reason why the pro-slaughter forces keep talking about government subsidies is because the government is already paying ranchers to warehouse mustangs on their property. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two wrongs never made a good. I didn't knew that tax payers money was already going to mustangs. In my opinion is something that it must end and very soon.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
They literally do not believe that anyone else will pay to keep a horse without getting income from it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

- Why do they need the Bill for that purpose ???
- Why they don't start right now without the bill ???
- Why are they letting all those horses go if it could be different as you say ???
- Its not only a question of income...

If it was the way you say it is, then the anti-slaughter bill wasn't necessary AT ALL.
Everybody with his own dollars would jump in and give a "paradise" for the horses with private money something I find CRUEL but acceptable because I respect other people's rights.

But IT IS NOT SO.

Those that want the bill want the government to foot the tremendous costs without ever saying it. They are trying to deceive everybody with some arguments that only an innocent child could accept.

The pro-bill personel is making it in a two phase marketing coup.

- FIRST they create the circumstances that will generate a monumental logistical problem and a true nightmare with all those horses lining up for "welfare"
- AFTER this, OFF COURSE they show that they can't cope with the flow and they will ask for Federal and State money to solve the problem they WANT to create.

This is Business by decree at tax payer's expense...

jrstark

The auctions are open for everyone not only the meat men.
Anyone can go there and buy everything they want and cheap. Meat prices make a TB around $400.

If 50,000 horses end up each year being slaughtered is because nobody wanted them and nobody was willing to give meat prices for them. They are not "for sale" they are unwanted and going to be disposed of.
Its like a car. If nobody wants to buy your old lemon for more then is worth as junk, they end up in the junk yard... You wanted to sell it, but nobody wanted it and left you without alternative but the junk yard.

Why those that are pro-bill don't go there and buy all the horses and beat the meat men ? Wouldn't that would put the slaughter houses out of business and solve the problem ?????????????????

The reason they don't do it is because its NOT feasible without hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money first to erect an infrastructure to accomodate them, then to maintain it and of course to take care of them too.
The Illinois Bill was rejected because that infrastructure didn't exist and they know their costs.

That's why some people want the bill to PREVENT unwanted horses from their unavoidable fate and to PROFIT from it by spawning a whole new industry related to "animal welfare".

Read the article I posted above and tell me that if diverting money for "Horse Welfare" in these circumstances is acceptable http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif

free

Aug. 29, 2004, 06:28 PM

Bald Eagle...Thank goodness...now we have come full circle and are going to make a 'PROFIT' and create a 'WHOLE NEW INDUSTRY'. A positive for the economy, since new industries can replace old and something of this magnitude will create jobs! Since there will be 'profit', it will not be a burdon to the taxpayers. You have finally figured it out!

liontina

Aug. 29, 2004, 08:43 PM

If horse slaughter is banned in the US, horses will be hauled in trucks to Canada and Mexico where they will be slaughtered. I have heard that live horses for slaughter have been flown in jumbo cargo jets to Europe. Can you imagine what hellish conditions prevail in an unregulated slaughterhouse in Mexico? There are farms in Canada that raise horses solely as meat animals.The market is there. This isnt going to go away just because we legislate. So I think it best to be as open as possible , which includes oversight. Open the whole subject up and stop treating horse slaughter like a dark dirty secret.

jrstark

Aug. 29, 2004, 09:05 PM

The federal bill, HR 857, will ban the export of live horses for slaughter.

We can't legislate what they do in Canada, but if we ban slaughter here, they will stop shipping in horses for slaughter like they do now.

BaldEagle

Aug. 30, 2004, 06:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by free:
Bald Eagle...Thank goodness...now we have come full circle and are going to make a 'PROFIT' and create a 'WHOLE NEW INDUSTRY'. A positive for the economy, since new industries can replace old and something of this magnitude will create jobs! Since there will be 'profit', it will not be a burdon to the taxpayers. You have finally figured it out! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

very funny. You are either pulling my leg or you missed the whole point, once again.
Those are profits that will be generated by taxpayers money. Its OUR money that some want to foot the costs of this nonsense.

The words "spawing a whole new industry" are not mine. I just borrowed them from a post in this Forum from an active suporter of the BILL. And that "new industry" is not good at all as you seem to pretend because its with money that will have to be stolen away from more needed sectors.

The "industry" I am talking about is the "horse rescue" industry, paid for by our money...
The name is correct "profits" but they are supposed to be generated with public funds something I find absolutely unnaceptable.

It seems that you badly need to study this issue because it looks that you know nothing about the intricacies of the disposal of unwanted animals.

You have just a very superficial and emotional approach to this rather complex problem. Not the way of solving issues of this magnitude.

capisci ?

BaldEagle

Aug. 30, 2004, 06:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jrstark:
The federal bill, HR 857, will ban the export of live horses for slaughter.

We can't legislate what they do in Canada, but if we ban slaughter here, they will stop shipping in horses for slaughter like they do now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem there. They can always claim its for raiding and then...

Remember jrstark "for sale" doesn't mean that you can effectively sell something if nobody wants to by it.

Unwanted things must be disposed of somehow.

SeaOat

Aug. 30, 2004, 06:44 AM

Thump. Thump. Thump.

(The sound of my head hitting the desk)

No schnit, people can give feasible answers to reasonable questions (provide EASY TO READ links even!) and a few of you plow right on over it, all just to repeat the same elementary crap. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif
This isn't about keeping cocaine or weapons or intelligence or humans from crossing boarders. It's trucks of horses. I'm sure there's a way, not 100% foolproof (as nothing ever is), but golly gee & THANKFULLY there are real people out there who know how to put a plan into action.

I'm w/ Laurierace on this one. this is a waste of keyboard tread. The intelligent get it by now or are at least are honestly trying.

jrstark

Aug. 30, 2004, 06:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Remember _jrstark_ "for sale" doesn't mean that you can effectively sell something if nobody wants to by it.

Unwanted things must be disposed of somehow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Media Empire ended up at a slaughter sale, the rescue has since received numerous offers for him ranging from $25-30,000.

"Unwanted" horses can also be donated or euthanized.

SeaOat

Aug. 30, 2004, 07:28 AM

B.Eagle: "Capisci?" Si Aquilo, comunque non importa perche` voi siete testa duro. Tu hai trovato tutte le scuse possibili e immaginabili per non assist le cavalli. Stancarsi...... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sleepy.gif

free

Aug. 30, 2004, 07:38 AM

Its not kind to bait Bald Eagle...its not kind to bait Bald Eagle...But, golly gee...a girl's got to have some fun and this thread, while very serious, is going nowhere!