If slaughter is banned, what happens to all the unwanted horses?

[Rodeio]

What is going to happen with all the unwanted horses that currently end up in these slaughter houses if slaughter is banned in the US?

[Rodeio]

What is going to happen with all the unwanted horses that currently end up in these slaughter houses if slaughter is banned in the US?

[jetsmom]

Go look at the Sen Ensign on CSPAN2 thread on pg 4 of this forum. It pretty much answers that question.

A brief explanation is that we have horse slaughter not because there is an excess of horses but because there is a demand for horse meat for human consumption overseas, and foreign companies that have slaughter houses here (and those that buy horses for slaughter, sell horses for slaughter and transport for slaughter) make a profit from it. Saying they are slaughtered to control the excess is like saying we slaughter pigs, cows and chickens because we have too many...we slaughter them because people want to eat them.
In the late 80's we slaughtered over 300,000 horses. Now we slaughter about 60,000 per yr. THere hasn't been a huge increase in unwanted horses as a result. During 2 yrs in the 90's we decreased slaughter by about 60,000 (about the amount currently being slaughtered). There was no huge unwanted horse problem.
The horses being slaughtered are not all old, crippled or dangerous horses. Check out CBER's website for examples of what is being slaughtered...
CBER (http://www.columbiabasinequinerescue.org)

In fact over 80% of the horses slaughtered are healthy, usable horses. They are not unwanted, just unlucky enough to have been sold to killer buyers.

[Hopefully]

Excellent question, and one that is given short shrift by the anti-slaughter faction. Many of the horses that end up at slaughter are there because their owners don't want/can't use them anymore - whether old, unsound, or whatever. Anyone can own a horse in this country, and not everyone is the conscientious caretaker that we all (presumably) are. These owners are not that concerned about their animals, and some of them, if the slaughter option is removed, will just neglect them to death. Literally. If they can't make any money off these animals, their thinking goes, they sure as heck will not SPEND any money on them. As we all know, the rescue organizations are stretched beyond their capacity now. Thousands of horses that were bound for slaughter will now be thrown into that system, where some number (fill in your own blank) will fall through the cracks, and die very slowly of neglect. There are problems with the transport of horses to slaughter, and also problems with slaughtering them (although that situation has improved drastically in recent years - read Temple Grandin's books), but if reality is faced, one realizes that death by starvation or thirst is a LOT slower and perhaps more agonizing than anything that might happen to a horse on its way to the slaughterhouse.

Having said all that, and while I don my asbestos suit, let me also say that I have gone and am going to great lenghts to make sure my horses, whether current or former, do not end up in this situation.

[poltroon]

I expect many will end up at the rendering plant instead.

[shawnee_Acres]

I agree totally with Hopefully. It is a reality that the anti slaughter folks DON'T want to realize. There IS no easy answer to this, and yes the responsible owners are also the ones makign sure that unwanted hroses aren't brought into the world, but it is those "others" who breed indiscriminantly, hoping to make a quick buck and therefore we have these hroses that no one wants.

[Chef Jade]

Even with slaughter as an available option, there is still way too much neglect out there. Therefore, the people who neglect their animals aren't necessarily the same people sending them to slaughter. Though I agree there is a business aspect to it, you can't compare horses to cows, pigs, and chickens that are SPECIFICALLY BRED to be slaughtered. I don't know of any circumstance where a horse was brought into this world solely for its meat. That ia a financially losing proposition!

I really don't know what may happen to those horses that otherwise would have been slaughtered, but I do believe that euthenasia or even a bullet to the head (as gruesome as that may be) has to be better than a multi-day foodless, waterless trip on a double decker trailer and a crushed skull. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif

Now I really do worry about the horses that may get smuggled into Canca or Mexico to be sluaghtered. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[county]

Until it happens no one knows for sure but I don't think its going to be a positive for the overall horse markwet. Anytime you take away part of a market for a product it doesn't help bring prices up for that product overall. I don't see rescues taking in even more horses they seem to be full up at least around here. I don't see people like myself buying any again if theres no chance to recover costs to take in the next ones. I'm guessing some will just stand around till they die. Some will be left unwanted, some will be hauled to sales and let go for what ever they bring.

[bjrudq]

well, you did say earlier that you thught there would be no real increase in abuse? i don't want to put words in your mouth, honstly i don't remember exactly what you said.

some stand around and die now, don't they?that's not gonna change.

[jetsmom]

Hopefully...The people selling to slaughter are not the people abusing/neglecting horses. We have had horse slaughter available for years and yet we have people starving/abusing horses. By your reasoning we shouldn't have that now.
In fact when horse slaughter was outlawed in CA in 98, abuse/neglect rates DROPPED. And in Illinois, for the year that Cavel was shut down due to fire, horse abuse/neglect cases dropped.
Horse abuse/neglect is illegal in every state. People selling horses to slaughter, supporting or working in the slaughter industry are not a bunch of law breakers. You are not suddenly going to turn a bunch of people into animal abusers/lawbreakers by taking away slaughter. You will still have the same people that are now neglecting horses, doing it after slaughter is banned.
Less than 1% of horses sold to slaughter are owner turn in's/drop offs. Most of the other horses sold to slaughter are done so by sending them to an auction that doesn't exactly advertise the fact that killer buyers are present. Right now, a horse that brings a low bid with no reserve has been given a death sentence that the owner selling the horse may not be aware of. Without slaughter, that horse now has a chance. If you own an undesireable horse with no redeeming qualities (pedigree, training, performance, conformation, health, etc) except that they are big, you won't get much money for it after the slaughter option is gone. Which is as it should be. If you want more money for a horse, put some training into it, get it healthy etc. If a horse is too permanently crippled to live pain free, you should humanely euthanize it. You will save future board/upkeep costs. It costs the same to feed a healthy horse as a crippled one.

[county]

Oh I don't think abuse or neglect will increase those type people will do so regardless of what a horse is worth. I do think a number of neglected and abused horses will not get out of their situation though because of slaughter being banned.

[JoZ]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying they are slaughtered to control the excess is like saying we slaughter pigs, cows and chickens because we have too many... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe this is accurate at all. Pigs, cows and chickens are raised to be slaughtered. For the most part, and I realize there might be exceptions, horses are NOT raised to be slaughtered.

There are folks I know who would never send their horse to auction, and folks who do. I have things in common (everything from "world view" all the way to horse feeding/training methods) with folks in both camps. There is no black and white. If someone brings their horse to an auction and there are no kill buyers there, what will happen? Someone else will get the horse for a ridiculously low price, or it won't sell at all. Some of the people who buy horses for ridiculously low prices are good people looking for a deal -- some shouldn't own horses. Some people whose horses don't sell (at auction or anywhere else) will continue to give them exemplary care till they do sell; others will neglect them or abandon them or give them away. By eliminating slaughter as an option, we have removed one outlet in the economic equation, and this will cause swelling in another area. I doubt it will be a good one.

[county]

Jetsmom I agree with almost everything in your post except that abused horses will now have no chance or very little chance to be bought by people like me. Most of those end up in good homes a few go to a sale. Now if theres no chance to recover costs they stay in the abused home. And the numbers of cases in CA. and Ill. are spun by both sides to show what they want.

[Pat Ness]

The way I see it is when you are alive, you have a chance of a "good" life, even if things are bad at stages in your life.

When you are walking down the plank to your death, your chances are slim to none.

It should mean I can work harder now to stop neglect as I won't need to work on the slaughter issue any longer.

[Drumbiggle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rodeio:
What is going to happen with all the unwanted horses that currently end up in these slaughter houses if slaughter is banned in the US? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I imagine that many of them will still die, they just won't end up on a plate in France or Belgium.
They'll become Alpo or they'll get a bullet in the head and be buried in a field.

[nettiemaria]

All I know, is I'm not buying or selling any more horses for a VERY LONG TIME, so I'm not going to worry about the horse market anymore, or what is going to happen to my horses I have now. If I sell again, it will be because of divorce (which I don't see happening), or disability (of myself). I don't care if the horse breaks it's leg, as long as it can walk around, they're here to stay (unless Cujo kills another one of my animals!, but I know he would not be going to slaughter for a VERY LONG time)

Maybe one of these days I can realize my dream to have a rescue for old horses, so I could take on some then! Plan: 8 years, moving WAY out, alot of acreage, and ALOT of old "unwanted" and "unusable" horses just moping about, munching on hay, enjoying their last days in comfort, not having to do anything, and having nothing but th best and kindness before they go.

Can I just get a wee tad off topic here?

Here is something I came across today that is a small micro-victory, in our department. Please take a look at the new AQHA unwanted horse article, revised and certainly more politcally correct than the one with the flies buzzing around the face:

http://www.aqha.com/association/who/unwantedhorse.pdf

[onthebit12000]

Huh? What "unwanted" horses are you talking about? Do you mean horses that are for sale at auctions? hmmm..I thought they were called sale horses!

Surely you dont think that because a horse is offered for sale by one owner that it should be labled "unwanted"? I have sold hundreds of horses in my life at all price levels, and not one of them was "unwanted" they were just simply for sale.

Does this mean that classified ads will now read "Unwanted Horses" instead of "Horses for Sale"?

[jetsmom]

County- I don't understand why you say that you wouldn't have a chance to buy/recoup your money..

For example...I think you agree that not having slaughter removes the basis for the bottom of the market. (currently, weight).
Now the bottom of the market will be determined by the desirability of the horse based on pedigree, performance, training, conformation, health, manners, availability. So a well bred, but skinny abused horse without much training, will still bring a small amount. If you buy that horse for very little, get him healthy and put some training into him, you should get a profit. Your horse should bring more money than a fat unbroke draft.
Prices are relative. If you can buy for less, because you aren't bidding against slaughter buyers, then, even though the prices of horses have dropped a little, you will still realize an over all profit if you have improved the desirability your purchase.
I don't think you are buying a skinny abused horse, fattening them up with no training with the intention of running them back through the sale to be sold for slaughter at a higher price because they weigh more. At least that is what I gathered from your previous posts.

[Drumbiggle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onthebit12000:
Huh? What "unwanted" horses are you talking about? Do you mean horses that are for sale at auctions? hmmm..I thought they were called sale horses!

Surely you dont think that because a horse is offered for sale by one owner that it should be labled "unwanted"? I have sold hundreds of horses in my life at all price levels, and not one of them was "unwanted" they were just simply for sale.

Does this mean that classified ads will now read "Unwanted Horses" instead of "Horses for Sale"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're being delibrately obtuse.
The OP never said that all Auction/For Sale horses are unwanted.

[county]

Actually most the neglected horses I've bought aren't even halter broke much less trained for anything. And alot aren't reg. although could be if a person wanted to spend more then I could possably get for the horse. To me a neglected horse is just that training and breeding never enter into the picture if I buy them or not. I just hate to see neglected animals period sometimes its cattle I buy

[EBO]

I currently have two rescues who are aged (over 10 years considered "aged") and have just taken on two yearlings/2yr old POA (?) ponies to gentle and halter break.

Just as there is nothing apparantly wrong with the older horses, there is nothing wrong with the ponies--other than they've never been handled. They were born either wanted or "accidently", but finally ended up in a west coast feedlot waiting to be shipped to slaughter. Reason? See above. Whoever allowed them to be born couldn't be bothered to teach them to be solid equine citizens, so they became "unwanted".

When these two ponies learn to do what is usually required of domestic horses and ponies, they will become desirable. They're cute, large enough for a small adult to ride, and wouldn't make a bad looking driving pair. See these unwanted ponies at: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/eorndoff/album?dir=5e0f&.src (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/eorndoff/album?dir=5e0f&amp;.src) When you link there, then go to the Pony Girls album. These were taken right after they arrived.

[Daydream Believer]

I am so sick of the "unwanted horse" excuse to justify the torture and killing of tens of thousands of horses to hypothetically save them from abuse that has not yet even happened yet. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Like OntheBit said...they aren't unwanted, they were for sale. They were unluckily bought by a killer buyer instead of a private person for a riding horse.

Yes, some of the horses slaughtered are lame, crazy, dangerous or otherwise unuseful, but the vast majority are sound useful young animals that just ended up there due to bad circumstances. Perhaps they were culls from a large breeders herd...or like one poster here on COTH who posted once that breeds paints...her breeding stock paint colt was unlucky enough to be born without "color" and was less than perfectly built so she was fattening him up for slaughter.

The people who abuse horses are sick people who currently have slaughter as a legal option to rid themselves of their horses...yet they don't use it...instead they starve their horses anyway. Slaughter does not prevent abuse but statistics show us that it has the opposite effect. Texas has two slaughterhouses and the highest abuse/neglect rate in America...how can that be? It is ridiculous to assume that all 60,000 of the horses killed in slaughterhouses annually will end up abused or starving yet I hear it thrown out all the time as a impending crisis.

[onthebit12000]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The OP never said that all Auction/For Sale horses are unwanted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your right the OP never said this, but this is what the horse slaughter plants and their propagandists would like us all to believe.

I have asked the proslaughter contingent repeatedly over the past 4 years to show us the data, facts, statistics to prove that the horses slaughtered in the US were "unwanted".
Tim Cordes himself replied to me in a public forum in front of 100+ people this past April at the "unwanted" horse summit that they did not have any data, FACTS, or statistics to answer my question!

So, basically, the horse slaughter industry (and its proponents) keep perpetuating this "unwanted" horse MYTH in order to fool people who care about horses into believing that what they do is somehow "necessary".

There is no such thing as an unwanted horse. The problem as I see it is lies in educating horse owners and breeders to become more responsible about the business or hobby of horse ownership. Some people just arent responsible enough to own horses and some just shouldnt own them because they cant afford them. Why should the horses be blamed for our failures as their human stewards?

[county]

How can it be Tx. has the highest abuse numbers? Law of averages, they have the highest number of horses in that state.

[jetsmom]

So why do you feel that you can't recoup your money? I guess I would think that if prices dropped, you would pay less for them to start with, put the same training into them as you currently would, and be able to sell them for more money.

A hypothetical example for what I am talking about-

Currently- Purchase for 400.00/sell for 800.00

if prices dropped-purchase for 200.00/sell for 600.00.

Same profit, just lower starting/ending points.

Kind of like when the used car market drops, due to heavy incentives on new ones. They are appraised for a lower trade in value, but then sold for less money...same profit margin, just different numbers.

[Drumbiggle]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daydream Believer:
It is ridiculous to assume that all 60,000 of the horses killed in slaughterhouses annually will end up abused or starving yet I hear it thrown out all the time as a impending crisis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, I think it's ridiculous to assume that.

[county]

Its alot like rescue people that go to a sale and say they rescued or saved a horse. They did nothing differant then anyone else at the sale. They bought one for the highest bid. Not an umwanted one but one that someone sold. Theres no rescue or saving about it. Unless someone made the statement " for sure if I buy the horse I'm sending it to kill" They have no idea what the next highest bidder would do with it. I've seen many horses sell where the two bidderrs at the end were " rescue people " I've seen horses sell for three times what meat price is and the buyer tell others they saved it from slaughter. I don't hardly think so. They just bought a horse that was for sale nothing more nothing less.

[county]

Your talking way bigger numbers then these horses ever bring jetsmom. I'm talking horses that are pretty skinny, have feet curled back, wild, in many cases. A freind and I bought 5 this spring for $300 if we get $66 for the 5 were happy. No training on our part I have plenty of the ones I breed to train. Just feed these till there 1/2 ways looking like a horse and try to find homes for them. If they have to go to a sale where no one there wants them you can't give them away. But many find great homes two went to Fl last fall, one to Pa. some around here I just like to give them a chance at life again. But realistically there not all going to get one. But why condem them all to an abused fate because of a few?

[BabyGoose]

In my book, if a horse goes through a sale yard and nobody BUT the killers bid on it, then it is an unwanted horse.

I think there is a problem with unwanted horses in this country. Take for example the thousands of race horses that don't cut it at the track. They may not be exactly "unwanted" because I want to take all of them. But obviously I can't afford to do that. Only so many will be "rescued" by people who want them and have the means to take them. The rest will go through the auction and get bought by the killer, because nobody else wanted them.

There is no good solution. Try to cut down on the numbers by responsible breeding would be a start. I think the first thing that should be done is to make the transport and slaughter more humane. Pass laws on trucking, redo the stun guns to better fit horses. At least those unwanted horses won't suffer as much while we work on way to ban slaughter without the glut of excess horses that might occur.

[montanamanda]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by county:
. Theres no rescue or saving about it.

There certainly is if you outbid the killer buyer for it and you know who they are, which is easy enough to figure out.

[equinelaundry]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pat Ness:
The way I see it is when you are alive, you have a chance of a "good" life, even if things are bad at stages in your life.

When you are walking down the plank to your death, your chances are slim to none.

It should mean I can work harder now to stop neglect as I won't need to work on the slaughter issue any longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts exactly but I would never have written it so well. The last paragraph is especially close to my heart. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[spookhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by county:
Its alot like rescue people that go to a sale and say they rescued or saved a horse. They did nothing differant then anyone else at the sale. They bought one for the highest bid. Not an umwanted one but one that someone sold. Theres no rescue or saving about it. Unless someone made the statement " for sure if I buy the horse I'm sending it to kill" They have no idea what the next highest bidder would do with it. I've seen many horses sell where the two bidderrs at the end were " rescue people " I've seen horses sell for three times what meat price is and the buyer tell others they saved it from slaughter. I don't hardly think so. They just bought a horse that was for sale nothing more nothing less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a scenario: you are at a sale and a 2 yo colt goes through who can barely hobble because of a horribly blown up and twisted hock. He's near skeletal with that big worm belly. You watch as the ring stewards try to get this poor guy to perform and the only bidder is a known kill buyer... well at that point you know if you don't bid, the next place that poor colt will be is on a trailer headed for Cavel. An $80 horse in this shape is truly a rescue. And this is a true story.

Yes, sometimes people say that they rescued something that wasn't likely a rescue. But when you are talking a horse in very poor condition going so cheaply... do the math. If you frequent the sales and talk to people or watch who's picking up a trailer load of the worst horses in there every week, you know who's buying to kill. You want to hope that it's a rescue picking up all those horses, but fact of the matter is that any rescuer's I know can only afford to pick up so many at a time. Usually only 1-2 horses every few months. And they will as long as the money and space holds out.

[county]

So do you know for sure the killer buyer was going to send it to slaughter? Everyone that I know resells the horses they buy for the most they can get. The majority for riders. I know a lady at a sale two months ago that out bid a killer buyer for a horse that sold for $900. No way that horse was going to kill but she told everyone she saved it from that fate.

[county]

spookhorse yes that horse was no doubt going to a kill buyer but then theres the case like I mentioned. Is the horse unwanted? I don't think so if it were no one would buy it. And I'm sure theres people here that would say if I bought it I'm a kill buyer. Even if I took it home fed it up and sold it to a good home.

[gazenna]

one thing that the pro folks never mention is how the killer buyers also go to the trouble to seek horses out to sell to the slaughter houses.Some not all go beyond the auctions and look in the newspapers and go look at peoples horses and lie when it comes to what their intentions are for the horses they buy from unsuspecting owners. I bet this happens more often then some may think. Now I would not classify horses sold and bought this way as being unwanted by any means. I have actually had people just drive past my place and see my horses and stop to see if I have any for sale, I do live on a busy road so there is traffic and maybe some are innocent and maybe some are just hopeing to get a cheap horse to resell for whatever reason. I have never and never will ever sell a horse that way. You pro folks just make it sound as if every single horse that happens to find its way into the slaughter house was meant to end up there no matter what. I am getting sick and tired of people asking that question of where will all the horses go. Plain and simple it is up to the owner to see to it that their horses are taken care of. Slaughter is just a easy out for so many cause they are to cheap to advertize the horses they have to sell, and then again it is up to the owner to try their best to make sure that their horse go to a good home. Do the pro slaughter people have no compassion?

[spookhorse]

People who ship horses to a slaughter plant are not likely to wait around long enough for other possible owners to come and look them over just to make a profit. They will already make one once they get the horses to the plant. If they hold them they have to feed them. If the kill buyer doesn't bother to feed them, then he will lose profits the longer the horse waits and starves off weight.

Kill buyers will pick up as many cheap horses as they can fit on their trailers then make a run straight for the plant to get rid of them. If you pay attention to stolen horse alerts, the stolen horses that ended up slaughtered were done so usually within 2 days of being auctioned and sold to the kill buyer.

[Rodeio]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they aren't unwanted, they were for sale </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am really not trying to be snarky here, honestly, but if a horse is for sale the seller no longer wants it right? Otherwise they would be keeping it? It could be for a variety of reasons...rider out grew the horse and needs a different one, was kids horse now kid is leaving for college, getting out of horses due to health or age...etc.

I agree that there are people out there that will continue to neglect horses regadless of whether slaughter is an option or not. It also seems to me that when these cases of neglect are reported very little is done by the authorities to correct the situation. How many times has someone posted on this board about neglect or abuse with the authorities doing nothing? How much energy is put into getting bills passed to increase authority control in getting the neglecters and abusers out of business?

I do not think because there is no slaughter option anymore people are going to wise up and all of a sudden start taking care of their horses and humanely put them down. If they will not take care of them in life and spend the money on them to live they really are not going to spend the money on them in death. There will be animals out there that will slowly die because their owners are too cheap to put them down and have them disposed of properly. I am not sure what the rates are for euthanasia of a horse but last spring when we put down our old granny mare due to old age it only cost $50, I was not charged a farm call for it either and even if I was the farm call is $25. Now to me that is not a lot of money and I will always humanely put my old or injured animals that do not have a positive prognosis for having the quality of life they deserve down.

I guess my question was more for the horses that are in the kill pens at the auctions. Specifically in the kill pens, if there are no buyers for them what happens to those horses? Do they go back to the owners? What if the owners refuse to take them back? If a horse is consigned to a sale/auction and does not sell and the owner refuses to take it back what happens to that horse? Somewhere along the way that has to have happened.

Even when doing your best and selling a horse to another person through a private sale, not through a sale or auction, you still cannot control what that person does to that horse once they no longer have a need for that horse.

Its a nasty situation all around isn't it?

Edited because my fingers typed faster than my brain should have allowed.

[MSP]

I started to write this on page one but got side tracked by work, so forgive me if this has all been said already!

The laws of supply and demand should kick in and the horse population will eventually be reduced to what the market can handle. Matter of fact I would guess that the market is reducing already. Sales in my area are so low that one of the horse sale yards is closing down. And, I have been watching the price of horses drop in the last year in Mississippi.

If you look at other animals and abuse cases like dogs, it is a constant battle and no doubt abuse of horses will remain about the same. Organizations that spend their time and resources rescuing well horses from feedlots can now spend their time rescuing abused horses. Energy can be shifted to education, and new laws with stiffer penalties for animal abuse.

I am no expert and can't predict the future any more than any one else but I would much rather deal with the extra horses (no such thing as an unwanted horse, one mans trash is another mans treasure) than to continue to see them inhumanly slaughtered. As long as horses are being slaughtered every horse I own is a rescue because they will never be sold, I keep my horses for life.

[ise@ssl]

Well we see people send horses to New HOlland in Pennsylvania with this DELUSIONAL idea that someone will BUY THEM. Yes the killers do - but it's almost as though they are in denial about that and refuse to face their own responsibility to these animals. They've convinced themselves - someone else will buy them. I'd rather euthanize a horse than have it end up in some killer transport destined for a plate in France.

There are many many nice TB's and Standardbreeds going to New HOlland because those trainers and arm's length owners have decided this horse can't run - so it's just plain EASY to send truckloads to the sale - and many go to meat.

It's like rescuing greyhounds - are you helping save animals or aiding the owners ability to just breed more dogs that will be mis-treated??

If people have to FACE the responsibility of finding a home for a horse or having it put down and removed - they might not be so quick to own so many.

[Daydream Believer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by county:
How can it be Tx. has the highest abuse numbers? Law of averages, they have the highest number of horses in that state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and they also have the most slaughterhouses available so they should have the least abuse of any state if you believe that the slaughterhouses are somehow preventing abused by eliminating unwanted horses.

There just is no understanding why people abuse horses. I was watching Animal Planet..Animal Cops Houston the other day and there was a pregnant starving mare in that area owned by some folks they seized. The mare ended up dying but they saved the foal. Anyway, they showed this creep in court being sentenced and for the horrible abuse of this mare, he got 2 days in jail and a $1000 fine. Our laws protecting animals are a joke. When animal abuse is finally taken seriously and punished appropriately, maybe then we will see a decrease in it. That guy could have hauled her to Beltex or Kaufman any time he wanted and actually been paid for her but instead he chose to starve her.

[LostFarmer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People who ship horses to a slaughter plant are not likely to wait around long enough for other possible owners to come and look them over just to make a profit. They will already make one once they get the horses to the plant. If they hold them they have to feed them. If the kill buyer doesn't bother to feed them, then he will lose profits the longer the horse waits and starves off weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not around here. The local kill buyer sends a load every 2 weeks. If you have one for the load, you drop it off at his place. He also has people shop at his kill pen. I have go out an looked at his "killers" and made a gamble or two on horses. I know a kid the has done very well in the HS rodeo world on kill pen rope horses. My team is from the kill pen. Some out of that kill pen become rodeo bucking stock. Not all killers get shipped to the plant. In fact less than half the horses that pass through this kill buyers lot are sent to slaughter.

LF

[spookhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LostFarmer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People who ship horses to a slaughter plant are not likely to wait around long enough for other possible owners to come and look them over just to make a profit. They will already make one once they get the horses to the plant. If they hold them they have to feed them. If the kill buyer doesn't bother to feed them, then he will lose profits the longer the horse waits and starves off weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not around here. The local kill buyer sends a load every 2 weeks. If you have one for the load, you drop it off at his place. He also has people shop at his kill pen. I have go out an looked at his "killers" and made a gamble or two on horses. I know a kid the has done very well in the HS rodeo world on kill pen rope horses. My team is from the kill pen. Some out of that kill pen become rodeo bucking stock. Not all killers get shipped to the plant. In fact less than half the horses that pass through this kill buyers lot are sent to slaughter.

LF </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not around here anymore that I know of. Long time ago (when I first moved here 10 yrs ago)there used to be a trader like that. Guy around here now just loads em up and goes!

[TheOrangeOne]

I'm in the camp thet there's too many. Stopping slaughter here isn't going to stop it everywhere. it's a leaky faucet. You can keep mopping up the water, but there's still gonna be an overflow.

[Rodeio]

Lost Farmer, that is the way that the two kill buyers around here work too. I know that they have bought horses at auctions above meat price because they think they may be able to turn them around. It is almost as if they are pseudo rescue people because they do sell off some of the stock that they get but some also do go to slaughter.

Here is another thought...what about the rescue groups that go to auctions and buy nice horses who are in need then go home and breed them? There is a rescue group around here that picked up a registered Shire stallion somewhere. They go to auctions and buy other horses. In their ads that I have seen on the Internet they have their set price for what they want for the horse and if it happens to be a mare they give you the option of a free breeding to their registered Shire stallion. To my knowledge they do not stand this stallion to any other mares, just the rescue mares they bring in. I actually inquired about the stallion because I thought he would make one heck of gelding to drive but he was not available for adoption.

[jetsmom]

My personal opinion is that if you are going to rescue, you shouldn't breed. And I would love to see gelding a horse/not breeding a mare a requirement of rescues that put them up for adoption.

[Susan P]

Exactly, and people will be more willing to give away their unwanted horses rather than to look for that last buck. When money is the bottom line the cheapest route will be taken and giving the horse away is still cheaper than feeding them or euthanizing them.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pat Ness:
The way I see it is when you are alive, you have a chance of a "good" life, even if things are bad at stages in your life.

When you are walking down the plank to your death, your chances are slim to none.

It should mean I can work harder now to stop neglect as I won't need to work on the slaughter issue any longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[MSP]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rodeio:

Here is another thought...what about the rescue groups that go to auctions and buy nice horses who are in need then go home and breed them? There is a rescue group around here that picked up a registered Shire stallion somewhere. They go to auctions and buy other horses. In their ads that I have seen on the Internet they have their set price for what they want for the horse and if it happens to be a mare they give you the option of a free breeding to their registered Shire stallion. To my knowledge they do not stand this stallion to any other mares, just the rescue mares they bring in. I actually inquired about the stallion because I thought he would make one heck of gelding to drive but he was not available for adoption. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is another good reason for having standards and laws for rescue organizations. Most I have seen geld all their stallions so they can be placed as riding horses more easily.

[Susan P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">her breeding stock paint colt was unlucky enough to be born without "color" and was less than perfectly built so she was fattening him up for slaughter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Appaloosa Arabian cross is flea bitten grey, I read where the Appy people hate that color most of all. He also has a U shaped neck and it's short. One foot toes in. He's the wrong size too short for the popular hunter world as a horse but at 15H not a pony for the pony classes.

Fortunately for him he's registered as half Arabian and cleaned up in the hunter shows, clearing 3'9" fences when the shows where held at the Devon Horse Show grounds. He was champion at this show for 5 years in a row and year end champion the last 2 years. He jumped, he did side saddle, pairs, teams, dressage, driving, western pleasure, games, 4-H, Pony Club and now that he's 34 year old with his heaves and allergies and I'm sure he must have arthritis somewhere he is retired on a farm I named after him, Nomad's Oasis, the king of Chester County, PA http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif He bosses his Nokota buddies around, he rules his pasture and is loving his life and would still take a kid for an occasional pony ride quite willingly then follow them around and love them.

Nomad is in great shape but I've chosen not to ask him to do anything he doesn't want to but last year someone came and we took him and his buddy to a farm and his buddy was being ridden and I asked if they wanted to ride him too. The young girl got on him and he gave her a great ride, I just said don't push him to do anything he doesn't want to. She gently asked him to canter and he did quite willingly and pleasantly and he eyed up the jumps too. Of course he was just a baby of 33 then.

I think after all he offered to so many kids and adults he deserves a nice retirement and he thinks so too. His pasture mates think he's the bomb. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[Rodeio]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">giving the horse away is still cheaper than feeding them or euthanizing them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how do you know that the person who you are giving your horse to is not going to turn around and see if they can make a buck off the deal?

It really is not that easy to give a horse away. I tried to free lease a horse that I had 8 weeks of under saddle training put on this past spring, then found out I was pregnant and not willing to get on a greenie. Even with the help of the trainer who had him those 8 weeks I could not find one person to take him for the summer. He was not a difficult horse either, very willing, why no one wanted to ride him I have no idea! So he spent the summer in the pasture, with some ground driving on the side to keep some of what he learned intact.

[3fatponies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ise@ssl:
Well we see people send horses to New HOlland in Pennsylvania with this DELUSIONAL idea that someone will BUY THEM. Yes the killers do - but it's almost as though they are in denial about that and refuse to face their own responsibility to these animals. They've convinced themselves - someone else will buy them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's exactly what is going on, and it's the same as the people who drop an animal off at the shelter with excuses like "I don't have enough time," or "I'm moving." It's highly likely that neither of those situations is an emergency, and the owner could at least attempt to work with their vet and friends to place the animal. But they don't, because it is far easier to dump the animal off and make someone else accept responsibility if something bad happens, like euthanasia. For every "innnocent" seller who doesn't understand what could happen (and isn't it telling that they don't try to find out?), there are plenty who don't want to know because it will cause their shriveled conscience to flare up, which could be painful for them. The killer buyers, the auctions, even the slaughter plants are just doing their jobs, no matter how distasteful we may think it. No, the real criminals are the sellers who don't want to know, they just want the horse gone. So the next time you hear somebody say things like "I can't afford to keep a horse I can't ride," or see an ad for an owner looking for someone else to provide lifetime care for the horse that they rode into the ground, think about where that mentality may lead that horse.

People are brutal to one another, and if not brutal, are happy to remain indifferent and uneffected so their little world remains secure and pleasant. Speaking as someone who spent yesterday at the vet with an abandoned week-old kitten (one of three that were dumped by someone's trashcan) helping to pick maggots out of his sheath, I have to ask: why should that surprise anyone?

[montanamanda]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by county:
So do you know for sure the killer buyer was going to send it to slaughter?

Yes I do. I even talk to them when they are outside before the horses sell with their little calculators trying to eyeball how much they weigh x the price per pound. I have seen them electric prodding them off and on their double decker trailers. I watch them and what they bid on during the sales. And for those of you who think they only buy the lame skinny ones you are wrong. They want the fat healthy ones. I know they also buy occasional riding horses to resell too. I wait til the end of the sales when they run the loose horses through like cattle, that is when they get the majority of the horses to take to slaughter. Also I have lived at the two ends of the lines. Texas within a couple of hours of both slaughter houses and now Montana within a couple of hours of the Shelby Feedlot.

[FLAbreds]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BabyGoose:
In my book, if a horse goes through a sale yard and nobody BUT the killers bid on it, then it is an unwanted horse.

I think there is a problem with unwanted horses in this country. Take for example the thousands of race horses that don't cut it at the track. They may not be exactly "unwanted" because I want to take all of them. But obviously I can't afford to do that. Only so many will be "rescued" by people who want them and have the means to take them. The rest will go through the auction and get bought by the killer, because nobody else wanted them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, most of these horses at the track are bought AT THE TRACK by killer buyers and loaded up AT THE TRACK because some trainers need to squeeze that extra buck out of a horse. Most are perfectly sound, young horses that didn't make the cut, former stakes winners that have nagging injuries that the owner or trainer does not want to deal with anymore or horses that at one time did well and now just can't hit the board anymore. It's not that people don't want them, it's because most people DON'T KNOW about them. And with the TRF available to these trainers? Why donate a horse for free when they can make that extra buck?

Here are several examples thanks to our trainer nagging the living hec out of her fellow trainers at the track to give these horses a chance!

This mare, a 16.3h 3 yr old, was just toooooo slow for the track. She was being walked onto the "kill truck" when my trainer stepped in.

Jerry At the Bar (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Flabreds/Beth.jpg)

9 yr old, 17.1 hand gelding, a former stakes winner of $192K!!! Trainer couldn't keep him sound to run so he was going to sell him to a kill buyer. Uh, no ya don't! Horse is currently SOUND and training dressage.

Stretch (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Flabreds/DSCN0776.jpg)

We kept this filly. She was a $50K yearling, broke down as a 2 yr old, has screws in her RF ankle and the trainer couldn't keep her sound to run. Off to the slaughterhouse you go...until our trainer stepped in. This filly is bred to the HILT with a page so loaded in blacktype we bred her and she is expecting her first foal in '06.

Philly (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Flabreds/Follow.jpg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is no good solution. Try to cut down on the numbers by responsible breeding would be a start. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this. But how to regulate? As long as commercial breeders are hellbent on getting that classic winner, $9mil yearling, world champion, etc., the culling will continue.

[gazenna]

Lost farmer, I bet most of those horses that get pulled are just lucky for the time being and eventually end up back there again.

[FLAbreds]

Oh, one more example of an "unwanted" horse (well, not really unwanted because I wanted her!) I bought this QH mare at auction and in the first pics you can still see her hip numbers. The trader had her mane all banded (maybe hoping someone that shows would want her) but ran her thru a sale that the kill buyers do frequent. The first pic was taken in May the day I bought her and brought her home.

Mia (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Flabreds/Leaguer.jpg)

And what she looked like 3 months ago

Mia - August (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Flabreds/DSCN1302.jpg)

The point I'm trying to make is that there aren't unwanted horses because someone somewhere will want it!

[nettiemaria]

That CAN'T be the same horse!

Congrats!

[SafeHorses]

Does anyone know for a fact if the horse population in the US is going up or going down?

[LostFarmer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lost farmer, I bet most of those horses that get pulled are just lucky for the time being and eventually end up back there again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. I have taken some home to work with and returned them the next week. One was a nut case that was great on the ground but a spoiled widow maker when you tried to ride him. He reared over backwards twice on me. I am guessing it was a man made fault but I am not goint to take the risk.

Some do make it out and become great mounts but many are there for a reason.

I have been around a horse or two I would take great pleasure in eating a steak from.

[2ndDressageNut]

The population has increased significantly over the last 10 years. There are statistics on the http://www.hr857.com web site. Just go to "what to do with the horses" link.

[gabz]

What I'm concerned about is, we cannot even support the wild mustang herds in the west... there isn't enough grazing land for them.

How can we support all of the horses; because every year, there will be more, and more, and more.... and unless there are controls against breeding - there's no end in sight.

Consider the changes in breeding rules that have happened... embryo-transfer...

[LostFarmer]

I guess we could be like china and limit the number of kids while we are at it.

[gabz]

on the other hand, there's France, where they are "paying" (some sort of tax incentive) couples to have children....

and... then all those children will want to eat un cheval.

tongue, firmly in cheek....

[nettiemaria]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I'm concerned about is, we cannot even support the wild mustang herds in the west... there isn't enough grazing land for them.

How can we support all of the horses; because every year, there will be more, and more, and more.... and unless there are controls against breeding - there's no end in sight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand why they don't MOVE some of the wild horses to land that can sustain them, such as here in Missouri. We have so much land, thousands and thousands of acres, i.e., Mark Twain National Forest, which is actually serviced and probably owned BY THE USDA. I brought this up to Senator Bond who ignored my suggestion. BTW for some reason he was an advocate for MO wild horses, but still voted Nay on the Amendment????

[SafeHorses]

I think there isn't enough grazing land for them because the cattle barons want to use all that land for their cattle. Plenty of land out west, just some people aren't very good about sharing.

[SafeHorses]

So, if the horse population is going up and slaughter figures have been going down, why do people think that slaughter is what controls the horse population?

In the 90's, over 300,000 horses per year were slaughtered. Now it's 90,000 if you include the horses that were transported over the border. Where are all those non slaughtered horses going?

[gabz]

Well... if you read of SOME of the neglect/abuse cases, you discover that there are dead bodies of horses throughout the properties... or piled up... or...???

and what of all the ones that are NOT reported or discovered?

I don't keep track of these sorts of things... but when 57 horses were rescued from a "collector" in Davison, Michigan many years ago, I think there were nearly that many skeletons/ bodies on the property too.

[Equine Adhesive]

Er, horse population up, slaughter pop. down is a balanced equation (more horses owned = less horses not owned (slaughter), more horses not owned (slaughter) = less horses), if indeed slaughter is a qualifier (which it is according to that pattern). In other words, if more horses were slaughtered, there would be a lower horse pop. (unless breeding increased). It follows that if less horses are slaughtered, the higher the horse pop. (as originally stated).

To the person who said there are National Parks available-- grazing horses in a National Park would ruin the ecosystem and that's not a viable option.

[SafeHorses]

That depends on how much the population is up versus how much the slaughter figures declined.

I wasn't the one who mentioned National Parks, but I was referencing public land. If horses grazing there would ruin the ecosystem, what do we think the cattle is doing?

[Susan P]

That's right in China they kill the newborn babies at birth.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LostFarmer:
I guess we could be like china and limit the number of kids while we are at it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[LNG]

Horses are much more destructive grazers then cattle. Plus they require more acerage to sustain them then a cow. Cattle are very efficient grazers, sheep even more so. Cattle have essentially replaced buffalo on the vast lands out west they are cloven hoofed runinants just like the buffalo. National Park lands are preserved and cannot be used for grazing or lumber production. They are controlled by the Dept of the Interior. National Forest Land can be used lumber and other commercial operations they are managed by the USDA. BLM land is also controlled by the Interior Dept and can be used for grazing,hunting etc. This is not to say that some lands out west are not overgrazed many are. One has to remember that the amount of animal units varies from area to area. Take a pasture in Virginia or Kentucky. An acre or 2 will support a cow/calf unit. When you get into the plains states with its short grass arid climate that may go up to 20 to 30 acres or more. And when you hit Utah,Nevada where a lot of wild horses are you may need 100 acres or more to support a animal unit horse or cow. Regarding horse populations the TB market is having its best years ever so the number of horses has gone up from approx 33000 a few years ago to about 38000 or so. Since this is the segment that provides the most horse related money in states like Kentucky,Florida, and many others try to stop them from breeding more horses. The warmblood market is exploding here in this country. Are you going to tell breeders that they cannot breed. Most breeders I know can't stand to have a open mare around the farm. It costs them money in a business where you don't make a lot of it.

[Maggie G]

So let me ask you this,if its ok to slaughter horses why not start a cat and dog slaughter plant after all there are way to many of them, so whats the difference, I love my dog, cat and horse, they are my pets and no one can say that the way in which these horses are killed is humane, would you have your vet out with his captive bolt gun to kill your horse, then when its down you watch as his throat is slit, and you watch the very life drain out of his body along with his blood. The problem is out of site out of mind, once its off of your property somehow that makes you less responsible for whats about to happen, you just dont think about it. Yesterday for example a very old grey thin sway backed horse covered in filth was brought to the sale, did I mention he had no vision in his left eye and very little left in his right, he was ridden into the ring yes ridden, I bought him for $50.00 I also paid to have him humanly put down. This horse gave someone 20+ years of his life, Im sure have gave hundreds of rides and this was his thanks, this was how he was repaid, when I saw him tears welled up in my eyes, this is not the way I would have repaid my dear friend. He will be with me in my heart.

[jetsmom]

Maggie, thank you for doing that. Until slaughter is banned and the incentive to bleed the last 300.00 (or whatever amount) is removed, you will have uncaring owners greedily looking for that last bit of money. When slaughter buyers are no longer buying at auctions and horses are bringing what they are truly worth as horses instead of by the pound, then maybe people will start euthanizing those with no quality of life.

[aregard]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MSP:
The laws of supply and demand should kick in and the horse population will eventually be reduced to what the market can handle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there's also the bell curve. Out of any population, there are some excellent individuals (in the top 10%) and a bunch in the middle who are 'average', and some dreadful individuals (about 10%).

Whether you're talking a group of 10,000 horses or 100,000 horses, about 10%, by definition, are not desireable animals.

So, what happens to them? I think that's the underlying question. Sure, the young animals who simply haven't been trained--well, all they need is some training. But the lame, the damaged, the broken, the mix of giraffe and polar bear. What do you do with those animals?

I love horses, but really, I am not going to spend some $5000 a year to keep a giraffe/polar-bear cross alive in my back yard. Are you?

[philosoraptor]

"Horses are much more destructive grazers then cattle. Plus they require more acerage to sustain them then a cow. Cattle are very efficient grazers, sheep even more so. "

But that has nothing to do with why wild horses are being pushed off government lands. The government leases these huge tracts of land to the big cattlemen. The cattlemen only care about making money. Make up lame excuses for downsizing wild horse herds = more open land for more cattle. Very sad when we sell of a bit of our national history just so a few rich rancher can get even richer.

(It has nothing to do with the ecosystem)

"That's right in China they kill the newborn babies at birth. "

You're joking, right? You know this is not true. In poorer areas some people did kill unwanted extra babies (pretty much only the girls). China does alot to keep peoples' opinions quiet or to keep outsiders from seeing what might be negative... so we really don't know if this is true or to what extent. Not sure what it has to do with horse slaughter either way though. :-D

"In my book, if a horse goes through a sale yard and nobody BUT the killers bid on it, then it is an unwanted horse."

But does your "unwanted" horse deserve to be killed just because someone was in a hurry to sell it and it had to go to auction?

You have to think many people looking for horses don't go to auctions (i.e. the low end "meat" buyer type auctions). Low end auctions aren't friendly places for the average buyer. The one near me won't let you mount the horse much less put it through its paces... so you know you're rolling the dice.

"I imagine that many of them will still die, they just won't end up on a plate in France or Belgium.
They'll become Alpo or they'll get a bullet in the head and be buried in a field."

That's oversimplifying things.

Yes, the really bad-off ones will be put down. What you're missing is that they won't spend their last few weeks crammed into tractor trailers or overcrowded feedlots where they're certain to go without everything they need except the bare minimum water and cheap food.

The even bigger picture is what it means for horses as a whole group. Suddenly the greed TB racehorse stable can't count on that last $250 profit for the horses who don't win... it's suddenly much harder to breed in huge numbers and kill off the 90% who break down, lose, or just aren't cut out of racing. The tracks would actually HAVE to sell these horses to the outside world if they want to make anything off them (as rendering plants pay little if anything). Individuals like you or I now have access to these horses and other large lots of horses (eg. big breeding operations who cull old mares).

It would change how auctions work! You could now safely sell your horse at auction without wondering if it was a death sentence.

It'll change the whole economics of horses. Having no kill buyers means at auction the horses are bid on based on their actual worth, not the number of pounds their dead carcass has on it.

"We have had horse slaughter available for years and yet we have people starving/abusing horses. By your reasoning we shouldn't have that now."

I agree 110%. The pro-slaughter people want people guilt-tripped into thinking anyone who bans slaughter is now personally responsible for the neglect/abuse that happens in the future. But the stats show otherwise!

"Many of the horses that end up at slaughter are there because their owners don't want/can't use them anymore - whether old, unsound, or whatever."

Have you ever been to a low-end auction, the kind the meat buyers get their 'inventory' from? Hundreds of horses -- all broke to ride or drive or both -- most should be sound & sane. It's NOT a handful of 35 yr old vicious nags.... it's just a dumping ground for people who don't feel like bothering to screen their buyers.

The other interesting thing about the auction is that nobody CARES the conditon the animal is brought in because it is a meat auction (and we all know it's ok for meat animals to suffer). A farmer thinking of dumping a few of his extras in the fall can just stop feeding them through the summer while he finishes harvesting the crops. Who cares if they arrive emaciated at the fall auction... there will always be a meat buyer who will give $50 or $150 or something for it. It becomes an excuse to abuse.

I speak from experience. I've bought an "unwanted" at the local auction (New Holland PA, the place where many meatmen fill their trucks). I paid about $275 for him, and because the auction caters to meatmen nobody got to ride him or show off his good points. You know what... it was the BEST $275 I've ever spent on anything! He's in my back yard right now, beautiful as can be. I ride him and we're starting work on basic dressage. He's also well broke to drive, and I'll be taking lessons to learn horse driving. I've seen ads for similar horses private-party for $1500-2500+. But since this was a "meat" buyer auction, buyers expect "meat" quality(assumption: defective) horses and the only winners are the brokers/meatmen who buy good horses for nothing.

I can't believe anyone would throw away such a wonderful animal! If I had bought my next horse elsewhere, this sweet gelding would've been taken by the meat-buyer that bid against me .... and all the horse's training, beauty, and smarts would've been reduced to a bloody puddle staining the concrete on some slaughterhouse floor. How evil are horses that they deserve such a horrible end?

Ban slaughter and give these marginal horses a second chance at a good home! Ban it and end the dumping ground for the huge-volume breeders, the racehorse people, and others who just want to make that $200 bucks who cares where the horse ends up.

[onthebit12000]

Bravo, MayS! Well said!

[Sparkle's Jewel]

Well I am absolutely tickled that there will be no more slaughter!!I can't tell you how many times I've bid and lost to the meat man.I think it is easier emotionally for most people to just send their animals to the auction and keep telling themselves "blaze got a nice new home" and get a check mailed to them.Some people brought a beautiful German Shepherd to the clinic I work at.It died on the way.The poor thing died of bloat and it had been suffering for more than 24 hours before they came to have it euthanized.The woman remarked how glad she was the dog died on it's own so she didn't have to "go through the process" of the euthanasia.While that was one of the stupidest things I have ever heard I think many people just have an easier time sending a horse to the auction and "believing" it got a good home than making that life or death decision first hand.Like once they go to the auction it's out of their hands and now someone else will be the bad guy. Back to the dog story...I can't imagine coming home to a dead horse that I was plnning on euthanizing and saying "gee I'm glad flash coliced all day while I was at work and suffered and died so now I don't have to go through the process of euthanizing him,I'm so relieved!!" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

[3fatponies]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aregard:
I love horses, but really, I am not going to spend some $5000 a year to keep a giraffe/polar-bear cross alive in my back yard. Are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not to be contrary, but if I rode and enjoyed that giraffe/polar bear cross until he could not be ridden, then yes, scary though he may look, I would pay $5000 a year to retire him. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Would I buy him? Maybe--depends on if I liked his temperment. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[LostFarmer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wasn't the one who mentioned National Parks, but I was referencing public land. If horses grazing there would ruin the ecosystem, what do we think the cattle is doing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How long do you think it would be before the wolves started eating the horses? Now that is an envionmental quandry. Is the wolf recovery more higher priority than the horse?

Both the cow and the horse are non-native to north america. Why sould either be on public grounds? Shouldn't we let the wolves and the buffalo fight it out?

LF

[luvmytbs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LostFarmer:

Both the cow and the horse are non-native to north america. Why sould either be on public grounds? Shouldn't we let the wolves and the buffalo fight it out?

LF </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Neither are Americans! So what is your point?

[LNG]

Actually a lot of the pressure comming from keeping horses of off public lands are comming from enviromental groups. They want to restrict all grazing of public lands and also do not want trailriding and horse camping on National Forest Land. Most of the cattle ranches out west are not owned by rich cattlemen. Government leases are mostly used by family ranches. Its just that out west large tracks are needed to sustain a animal. For example in Kentucky you can maintain 50 cows on 100 acres of good grass. Out west you may need 2500 acres or more depending on where you are to maintain those 50 cows. Those 50 cows may gross you about $31,000.00 in calf sales in a good market. After expenses that doesn' leave you much. So go ahead and figure how much land you need to make a living on. So many people think well this guys a rich cattle farmer because he controlls 15000 acres of land when in actuality he may be just getting by. Since the amounts of lands leases are controlled by the government and figure enviromental factors like weather and you can't blame them from being stingy with their land. Parts of the west were in a very severe drought situation for several years. Hay was almost non existent and there was no grass. Put a lot of cattle ranchers out of business, many had to disperse their herds for almost next to nothing. Thats one of the reasons for the high beef prices the past couple of years. So if you are a rancher and a cow is going to make you money to feed your family and a wild horse is just going to take away from it what do you want grazing on the land. Another problem is people moving out west and carving up private ranches into 20 acre mini ranches eliminating those grazing lands and putting more pressure onto government lands. As far as history the cow is as much as a part of the history of this country as the horse. I am not against keeping horses of public lands I like the idea. Its just that you can't let these herds get out of control. There is just to much competition for the land and water out west much of it comming from people moving to lands that are arid in nature and putting mini ranches,golf courses housing developments etc. All that puts more and more pressure on both the horses,cattle and the ranchers.

[bjrudq]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you can't blame them from being stingy with their land. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


their land? THEIR land?

i thought it was the TAXPAYERS' land.

no one owes these people a living.

another example of welfare. it's ok to pick on poor people about it, but not ranchers?

ok, back to topic. the problem of horse abuse and neglect wasn't solved by slaughter and it won't be solved by ending slaughter. they are two different issues.

[LNG]

They pay leases on this land. Maybe you should tell me what shoud be done with this land. Open it up completely to horse herds, and hikers. Thats ok. Lets get rid of the cattle after all we can get all the food we want from the grocery store shelves after all. People seem to forget that the largest industry in this country is not oil or steel or auto production. Its agriculture plain and simple. Its our most important export and it why we have a relatively cheap and plentiful food source. Keeping these lands open for cattle grazing helps maintain this food source for us taxpayers.

[county]

I've always felt why does the tax payer have all this land to start with. I'd like to see it sold to private owners. If the cattle producer wants to buy it fine. If someone wants to buy it for horses to run on let them. I raise cattle and figure if folks want to drive the price of beef up and other foods thats a good thing more money for my beef and grain I produce.

But why have the tax dollars tyed up in land thats not a park or protected? Sell it and use the money for better purposes.

[SafeHorses]

County: I don't remember where I read this, but I seem to remember reading that the cattle ranchers get this public land for little or next to no money. If that's the case, why buy it when you can use it as your own for very little money?

Does anyone know what they have to pay to put their cattle on public land?

[Lildunhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aregard:
I love horses, but really, I am not going to spend some $5000 a year to keep a giraffe/polar-bear cross alive in my back yard. Are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I am. Until they stop makin' 'em. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

[Lildunhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SafeHorses:

Does anyone know what they have to pay to put their cattle on public land? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not much. My Mother gets a check from the Bureau of Indian Affairs every year for grazing rights on her Reservation Land. It's a mere pittance. Some of her cousins got tired of it and took their land back for raising buffalo.

[BabyGoose]

"In my book, if a horse goes through a sale yard and nobody BUT the killers bid on it, then it is an unwanted horse."

But does your "unwanted" horse deserve to be killed just because someone was in a hurry to sell it and it had to go to auction?"

No, I didn't mean that the unwanted horse deserves to die, I was simply pointing out that there are not enough people that can afford to or have the room to keep all the horses that only the slaughter buyer is buying now. If I had millions of dollars I would buy up as many unwanted horses as I could and retire them all.

So without the slaughter buyer, what happens to all the horses that nobody bids on at the auction. The owner has to take it back I guess and obviously he didn't want it either!

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing I would like more to see than no more horse slaughter. But I wonder what would happen to all these horses. I still think the more important thing to tackle is humane slaughter laws. Then at least the suffering is minimized for those that do end up at slaughter.

[nettiemaria]

I am pretty sure it's $1.75 per month per head.

[MSP]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aregard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MSP:
The laws of supply and demand should kick in and the horse population will eventually be reduced to what the market can handle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there's also the bell curve. Out of any population, there are some excellent individuals (in the top 10%) and a bunch in the middle who are 'average', and some dreadful individuals (about 10%).

Whether you're talking a group of 10,000 horses or 100,000 horses, about 10%, by definition, are not desireable animals.

So, what happens to them? I think that's the underlying question. Sure, the young animals who simply haven't been trained--well, all they need is some training. But the lame, the damaged, the broken, the mix of giraffe and polar bear. What do you do with those animals?

I love horses, but really, I am not going to spend some $5000 a year to keep a giraffe/polar-bear cross alive in my back yard. Are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your definition of undesirable? A horse that can't be shown? A horse that is over ten years old? A horse that can't be ridden? I own all the above and I think he is the best dam thing that has ever happened to me. Some people find joy in just owning and caring for a horse, your trash is my treasure.

And BTW it dosn't cost me any where near $5000 a year to keep two horses.

[LostFarmer]

The cost to graze on public lands depends on the lease. I ride with a friend that leases some of these public lands. The cows have made some nice mt. bike trails on these lands. They are clean except for the few "spots" and are easy to ride. I love these multi use lands. I benifit the cattleman benifits, the bike rider/hiker benifits. I see this as a win all the way around.

Back on topic. Those unwanted horses that are currently going to slaughter will end up like the unwanted dogs and cats. They are left on the sides of roads, abandoned, neglected and abused. Therefore we will need to increase the role of the animal control officers to deal with the problems. This will lead to higher taxes to support the animal control personel. We have a small dairy that my family assists my parents opperate. We get nearly a litter of kittens a month dropped off on the barn door step. Now what happens to them? I get to try and find them homes, or do what needs done. It is an ugly job and one I don't enjoy. The difference is that a 5 lb cat body is cheap to dispose of. A 1200 lb horse body is a different story. Why aren't the pound dogs and cats used for vet research? Because too many people have objected so now a vet student pays to buy a cadavior dog that is raised on a puppy farm for that end purpose.

In our efforts to be humane we have caused far more injustices. In our efforts for fairness we have created inequality.

LF

[2ndDressageNut]

Except your logic is incorrect LostFarmer.

There has been no increase of abuse to horses in California where slaughter is illegal - infact there has been a decrease. In Texas - which has two of this countries 3 slaughter houses, they have the highest rate of abuse to horses in the country. Go figure...

The current figure of 60,000 horses that are slaughtered every year represents approx. 1% of the horses in this country. A 1% increase is not significant. Of that 1% though, 70% of the horses that go to slaughter in the US are Quarter Horses. A breed with a lot of back yard breeders. With less demand, and no outlet for breeders to dispose of their animals while they make an easy $300, there is usually less breeding.

Slaughter is not an option to prevent abuse to horses - education is. Slaughter is NOT - and I absolutely mean NOT - a humane option to prevent animal abuse. If you believe that, you've drank the coolaid of the horse slaughter industry propoganda. Have you taken the time to educate yourself on what REALLY happens in the horse slaughter industry? It is a horror - animals shipped in double decker buses w/out water or food, trampled, crammed in, poked w/ cattle prods. Then they get to the slaughter house where they are sent into a kill box designed for short necked cattle. Horses have long, flexible necks - combine that with the fact that horses are an intelligent flight animal that can smell the blood & fear of what's coming. The "bolt" operator has to then place the stun bolt squarely & just above the horses eyes - nearly impossible to do with a horse that can easily fling it's neck & head around. It takes about three or 4 tries, & they off they go down the slaughter line - numerous cases are documented of horses being conscious as they are skinned alive & butchered.

The horse slaughter industry is truly "black market". Horses are not raised in this country for meat - they are companion animals, pets, and sporting partners.

You can judge a country - and an indivudual - by how they treat their animals. -Ghandi_

[LNG]

Last figures that I heard was $1.92/ animal.These figures are many yeras old. But I to think that it varies from lease to lease and area. There is a formula that is used to determine grazing potential of land and I think that may play into it. The government wanted to raise the leases a few years ago to a I believe to $8.00 per head. I thought it was a done deal. Whatever it is it is low compared to the private sector. However unlike the private sector in which the landlord pays for many of the improvements and maintenence, fences,gates windmills etc are maintained by the rancher on public lands. So this narrows the cost by some $.

[SafeHorses]

Yeah, having to keep up the land does cost something, but they are getting the land for next to nothing. If they had to buy it outright, they'd still have to pay for upkeep. Seems like a good deal. How many millions of head are now being kept on public land?

[poltroon]

Is there less abuse in California or are there just fewer animal control officers?

The law in California is a joke. People still hit me up to save horses in California from slaughter. There has been no enforcement. I see no difference in the market at all.

What bothers me about slaughter is how many horses are slaughter bound just due to logistics and poor marketing and bad credit. Rather like those new dog crates in Louisiana. It's not that they're not useful, it's just that right now there's no place to put them, that they need time to find the right situation. Ideally I'd like to see the answer be that every inner city child gets a free pony, but somehow I don't think that's practical or likely. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[LNG]

You bet they are getting a good deal but so are we in the form modestly priced beef and lamb. Also the public is allowed to use that land for hunting,hiking,fishing,camping.bikeing etc at no charge. So its not like the land is shut off. As to numbers I couldn't tell you. But this land is also utilized by sheep ranchers so cattle are not the only grazing animals on it.

[bjrudq]

why should i subsidise people who want to eat large quantities of meat? why should i subsidize anyone who isn't truly in need?

i buy organic and whooeee that costs. and it's good for my health too, becasue i don't eat nearly as much.in my view, subsidising the meat industry is encouraging people to make unhealthy food choices. why do i, as a taxpayer, have to support that? i don't care if the price of meat goes up; let it go up and maybe then people will eat more vegetables.

it's socialism, the very thing that so many red staters are against-unless THEY are the beneficiaries.

the public is "allowed" to use the land at no cost? and why the hell not, it's OUR land!

god, talk about an attidude of entitlement!

[SafeHorses]

bjrudq: I am with you on the type of meat I buy. I only buy from Whole Foods as they have told me on more than one occasion that they only sell organic, certified humane meat. I don't balk at the price because if I am going to continue to eat meat, then I am only going to buy from these producers and the cost is a secondary consideration.

I'm also with you on your point regarding what these cattle producers are getting and at what price. You call it socialism, I call it welfare. It's funny that folks on welfare are looked down upon yet businesses on welfare aren't. Go figure.

[Snowbird]

Well 60,000 horses at an acre a horse times 10 years is a piece of land that 600,000 acres needed quick. No supervision of Rescues; need a lot of inspectors to check those out too. Our wild horses have over populated. Someone better find a use for horsemeat in a hurry.

Remember it doesn't say that they can't be slaughtered just not to make a profitable market for human uses. Canada and Mexico win we lose. With the current estimates for the cost of gas I'll bet those trailers will be packed solid heading over the border.

Too bad it doesn't do anything in that bill about supervising Rescue Farms that may get overpopulated and what about all that polution from livestock. Will all the rescues have to abide by the clean water acts.

[SafeHorses]

If those horses slaughtered only make up about 1% of the US horse population how is it that that 1% is going to cause all the dire consequences we've been debating? It sounds ominous to use the number 60,000 all by itself, but it's much less ominous when you realize that it's a small fraction of the overall horse population.

Horses won't be slaughtered for human consumption because the vast majority of companies slaughtering them are only doing for the human consumption market. And packed animal trailers full of horses better have the right paperwork if they expect to get across the border. On top of the higher gas costs, the increased cost on the types of paperwork you need on non slaughter horses will punch a hole in profits pretty quickly.

And instead of worrying about rescues violating clean water acts, how about worrying about the water Dallas Crown has been polluting in Kaufman for years now.

[BoldChance]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daydream Believer:
Like OntheBit said...they aren't unwanted, they were for sale. They were unluckily bought by a killer buyer instead of a private person for a riding horse.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they were wanted - someone would have outbid the kill buyer on them. I mean, honestly. If I found a horse I really liked, I would spent more than $200 or $300 on it.



The meat buyer around here is also one who would actually PREFER to sell horses privately. The only ones that go to slaughter are the ones that either a) nobody wants, or b) he is specifically requested NOT to sell horse privately as horse is not safe.

[LNG]

People should eat more veggies I agree. If we want to get rid of animal agriculture. I will go along with you. No subsidies ok. Pay me then what I want for that head of lettuce,pound of beef etc. Most farmers will go along with that. So lets start eliminating animal agricultire less cattle,hogs, chickens,milk,dairy products. People still will have to eat so the good grazing lands will have to be utilized for growing more veggies, soybeans,peanuts and other products so we can meet our amino acid and vitamin reuirements that we easily get from animal products. We can do it, it just is going to be a little harder. Also soybeans and corn production can be increased to fuel bio diesel and ethanol production. So here we are the farmer no livestock no need for hay production. The land is too valuable for grain and veggie production. So where is the incentive to produce hay at that point. Without the small dairies in states like Penn, New York,Wisconsin,Southern Minn that produce small bales primarily because they still feed in stancion barns and sell of their excess. Or hay producers that sell to small livestock owners. That land all of sudden becomes to valuable to produce hay. Of course you will still be able to buy it but you will pay through your nose. Irrigated hay lands out west with no livestock farms will grow more beans etc for the demand. Anyway so what will happen at that point to horses as we know it today. Notice I said good grazing lands that can be tillable not Federal Lands. Daniel Webster said that "Farmers are the Founders of Civilization" and I agree with him. Because if it wasn't for farmers and ranchers people like you and me would still be hunting and gathering and not having the time to discuss this. Oh by the way if you lease an apartment is it your apartment or the landlords. If the apartment is subsidised by the government is it your apartment or the government. In other words are you going to say lets go to the landlords apartment or the governments apartmemt for dinner or are you going to say lets go to my apartmemt for dinner since you are the lessee.

[bjrudq]

who wants to get rid of animal agriculture?

i am fine with animal agriculture; i just think that if public lands are used the people who use them should pay what it's worth. i just think that food animals should be humanely raised and slaughtered. i just want the meat i eat to be free of anitbiotics, hormones, and to not have been fed any animmal products. and i want it to be handled in a way so that it is fairly clean when i get it, so i don't get e coli or camphylobacter.

if this means less, more expensive animal agriculture, so be it.

what does you apartment analogy have to do with anything? does the government let you rent an apartment for $25 a month?

more analogous would be the small business owner. should the government turn over public buildings to them and let them rent them for next to nothing?

no question that farmers are the founders of civilization. but when they feed at the public trough, the public is entitled to discuss whether that is appropriate and to what extent.

and to what extent is big agribusiness feeding at the public trough-subsidies, imo, w should be used to encourage and support family farms, not big business.

[AJHorsey]

I do not normally become part of these discussions (Which, BTW, has been kept very civil, IMO, thanks all!) but I see a recurring theme here that I don't know if anyone has seen as well:

Situation now- we, as horse lovers, want to rescue everything that is out there from slaughter, and have the happily ever after effect for all animals, whether it be by natural causes or by euthanasia. There is also the fact that there is a meat market that we are all aware of and want to save these creatures. So we go out to auctions and buy these animals with the intentions of keeping them from the slaughter houses, generally not paying much for the "true rescue" cases. Great, we have done a great deed for the animal, and it lives happily ever after, or gets euthanized humanely if that is what is deemed best.

New situation- now "the threat" is gone, and we focus on abused horses more. Who is going to continue going to the auctions for those previously known as rescues? Where are these now unwanted horses (and yes, if the horse is for sale, it is by definition not wanted/ cannot be kept for some reason, be it small or big) going to be going fter the sales? I know many rescue and adoption organizations- that's where I got my first horse- are already overwhelmed with horses to feed and care for. Yes, some of them do well and have a large turnover, but others struggle oh-so-much more. I know that even I truely would love to bring in more horses, and be able to rescue a few from abuse, but I can't do that because my barn is full, as are many other people's, and though we have good intentions, we are not capable of doing anything about it.

As a note, all of my horses are with us for the rest of their lives. They will be humanely put down, and loved through their retirement days. I am very passionate about my love for horses, and my dislike for the neglect and abuse. Anyone who knows me and my treatment of my animals knows how much of my heart is into each and every one of them- even ones who have proven to not be well liked. ( http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)
Through this message, I am not stating an opinion on slaughter, or anti- slaughter. This issue is over for now, as the vote is already in, and my opinion is nothing either way. This opinion I will keep private. I am simply voicing the same concern that the OP is.

[ClemsonGraduateRider]

I really did not want to enter this discussion but . . .

No one is answering the OPs question. We KNOW that slaughter is not used to reduce the population of horses, okay? That was not the question. The question is, what is the solution for the horses that had previously been bought for slaughter but may no longer be purchased by "killers"? Where do those horses go? Who buys them now? You can't possibly think there are enough responsible horseowners with the monetary means to take all of these horses and give them homes.

As many people have already said, many rescues are already at capacity. I anticipate that more "rescues" will be set-up by people who really should not be in the rescue business or who want to help but do not really have the means to take care of all of these horses properly, i.e., the collectors. What happens to those horses? Are they living well? Not always.

Also, I know I will get flamed for this but horses are livestock. They may not be bred to be slaughtered in this country, like cows, but just because we have turned them into pets does not mean that the rest of the world may not still see them as livestock. While I would certianly never send my horses to slaughter, I don't have a problem with people eating horsemeat. It would be very hypocritical for me, as a meat eater, to criticize what kind of meat anyone else wants to eat just because I happen to have named mine. That is oversimplifying it, but hopefully you understand my point.

I'm sure I am just setting myself up to be labeled a cruel, horse-hater. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[LostFarmer]

"i just want the meat i eat to be free of anitbiotics"

Would you deny yourself the use of antibiotics when needed? Would you tell your child with and infection "Sorry son no antibiotics for you? If my cattle are sick and need meds, they are used and the milk and meet withdrawls are observed.

I can tell you this farmer would love nothing more than the true price of food to be reflected in the store. Would you as a consumer like to see a food market that goes up and down like a yo-yo. After the depression there was pressure put on congress create a cheap and stable food market. The subsidies and grazing leases are part of this. I personally disagree that it is working but that is another debate.

The OP wanted to know what happens to the unwanted horses if there is no slaughter. In this part of the country there will be many turned loose on public lands to become a wild band.

[EBO]

One of the rescues I'm aware of, and have helped, does things a little differently. They find people who are willing to foster horses until they can be adopted. The foster home usually pays for feed and minor expenses, and the rescue pays for vet services and farriery.

I currently have two little foster horses; some people have fewer or more. Eventually these horses will find screened homes and hopefully live happily ever after. This is just a different method of meeting "rescue" needs that doesn't require a really major outlay from any one person. Wouldn't work all over, but it does work in a limited way.

Ultimately, we need to educate breeders..anyone here from AQHA or the Arabian associations?

[poltroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LostFarmer:
"i just want the meat i eat to be free of anitbiotics"

Would you deny yourself the use of antibiotics when needed? Would you tell your child with and infection "Sorry son no antibiotics for you? If my cattle are sick and need meds, they are used and the milk and meet withdrawls are observed.

I can tell you this farmer would love nothing more than the true price of food to be reflected in the store. Would you as a consumer like to see a food market that goes up and down like a yo-yo. After the depression there was pressure put on congress create a cheap and stable food market. The subsidies and grazing leases are part of this. I personally disagree that it is working but that is another debate.

The OP wanted to know what happens to the unwanted horses if there is no slaughter. In this part of the country there will be many turned loose on public lands to become a wild band. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with antibiotics being used to treat infections. My issue is with antibiotics being fed to every animal in the herd, day in, day out, as a management practice.

Biodynamic farming is getting popular in my neck of the woods - and it mandates a balance of plant and animal crops. They fit together nicely actually - the animals help create fertilizer for the other crops. It's a little bit kooky/religious in nature, but I find the basic concepts attractive.

I do try to buy locally, and I have a freezer with a substantial fraction of one of the neighbor's steers in it. I don't know how farmers can produce food for the amount they are paid by supermarkets and survive.

It's not just about educating breeders, though. Even the finest, most careful breeders will produce culls. In Europe they eat them. No waste.

[bjrudq]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"i just want the meat i eat to be free of anitbiotics"

Would you deny yourself the use of antibiotics when needed? Would you tell your child with and infection "Sorry son no antibiotics for you? If my cattle are sick and need meds, they are used and the milk and meet withdrawls are observed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree with poltroon. if an animal needs it, that's different. but if there is antibiotic residue in the meat or milk, i don't want it.

likewise, when my child i sick we try to limit antibiotic use. so, yes, sometimes the doctor DOES tell her, or me, "sorry, no anibiotics for you."

we try to fight the infection off ourselves if at all possible.

geez even vets are aware of and combatting excess antibiotic use in pets! farmers need to become aware of this issue and do their part.

[2ndDressageNut]

The real point is this: it's not the fact that people eat horse meat. It's the fact of how horses are treated before & during slaughter.

No where in the world are horses raised as meat animals. They may be livestock, but they are not raised in herds & managed as meat animals.

It is a discrace.

[LostFarmer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No where in the world are horses raised as meat animals. They may be livestock, but they are not raised in herds & managed as meat animals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
WRONG!! The french have been breeding for meat for years. They have developed breeds that with grow and gain weight at rates similar to cattle.

Platoon and bjrudq: It sounds to me like you want a return to the family farm instead of the large corperate farms. I agree! The cash crop at my farm (following my day job) is a 45 cow dairy. Livestock on the farm are, 40 laying hens, 2 to 6 pigs, and the horses. Crops are barley and alfalfa for animal feed with field peas used as a soil amendment. All the manure is spread on the fields following soil tests to know at what rates it will be benificial.

I have only one problem with horse slaughter and that is the method and means. Otherwise I think it is far better that the overpopulation of horses that we see now. I also have no problem with slaughter of cats and dogs that are overproduced. I don't have a desire to eat one but if someone does then it is far better to be eaten than wasted. (Applying flame suit.)

[2ndDressageNut]

What horses in france are bred for meat - what breeds?

Most of the meat they eat is the WB's that don't pass inspection, plus the imported meat from the US & Canada.

Prove it

[Snowbird]

Only slaughter for "human" consumption is affected. The horse meat can still be sold for other uses such as feeding zoo animals and I would assume indigenous wild animals inclined to eat meat. Who knows perhaps we will be feeding many zoo animals in many countries.

Nothing has changed about the conditions, the cruelty and the abuse of horses on their way to and during the process of slaughter. Nothing has been done to assure that unwanted animals will find room in a Rescue Shelter; or that there will be any provisions and regulation of Rescue Shelters that may spring up or expand to make sure they are humanely treated and fed or watered. Since there will be no inspectors for the horses at the slaughter houses there is no assurance how the horses will be treated or slaughtered.

In my opinion this is a great diservice to those of us who love horses and will be further horrified by the results of this well intentioned but poorly conceived bill. By cancelling the inspectors they make sure the horse meat cannot be sold for human consumption and that is all.

They can be transported anyway at all for slaughter as long as it's not for humans.

[LostFarmer]

According to Charles Phinney a british draft enthusiast one of the breeds was berd for meat. I don't have the article in where I can get to it to site chapter and verse. If I remember correctly it was the Barbants. If you look at them, they certainly could have been bred for meat by the looks. I will post later with all the details.

Maybe we would have better warmbloods if we ate the junk instead of breeding it.

[LostFarmer]

For those that have never seen a barbant here is a link. barbant (http://www.ruralheritage.com/brabant/)

[WildBlue]

2DN,

I've actually heard that, too. A quick Google turned up some matter-of-fact comments such as:

"The larger Boulonnais, the direct heir to the warhorse bloodlines, is still bred in small numbers. Due to the fineness of its musculature and light bone structure, the prevailing use of Boulonnais today is as a meat animal."

and

"equine race COMTOIS &lt;snip&gt; The second breed in France in numbers. Use: carriage horse, work and leisure activities. Remarkable for its meat qualities. "

They seem to prefer a medium-sized draft type. I do recall seeing pictures of the "meat breed" some years ago, and they were pretty cute drafties.

[SafeHorses]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LostFarmer:
WRONG!! The french have been breeding for meat for years. They have developed breeds that with grow and gain weight at rates similar to cattle.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have heard that they grow their own horses for foodstock...I don't have a problem with that and even if I did, there's very little, if anything, I could do about it. But I did just read an article that interviewed French butchers who preferred US horsemeat and that is why the meat being sent overseas is getting such top dollar. I think I remember where I read it...if I can pull it back up again, I'll post it here.

Why isn't the pro slaughter side trying to institute any changes in the way horses are transported and slaughtered? If they think it's so necessary, why aren't they trying to "clean up" the slaughtering process? Again, I don't have a problem with people who want to eat horsemeat...I object to the way horses are processed in this country. I also object to killer buyers at auctions picking up horses whose owners had no intention of their horses ending up on a kill line, etc. This is all stuff I've posted here before, so I won't bore everyone with a rehash.

I am tired of those three slaughter plants not being upfront with the citizens of this country...they try and pass themselves off as a benefit to the horse industry and really the only thing they are about is lining their own profit. They hide what they do because they know the public would be angry to find out the whole picture. They have heard all the objections to the brutality of what they do and they haven't lifted a finger to change their ways. I hope they are put out of business for all that they've done and not done.

As to overpopulation, you and I are just going to have to disagree. I don't think there are going to be horses wandering the streets...we're talking about 1% of the overall population. There will be horses that cannot be rehomed, those will have to be humanely euthanized. It sure beats the awful treatment they would suffer at the hands of the slaughter industry.

Edited to take out a paragraph I meant to delete before posting...

[2ndDressageNut]

Doesn't say anything about the Barbant being bred and raised exclusively as a meat animal though.....

As has been discussed, some horses body types are what the kill buyers & slaughter plants prefer. 70% of the horses that go to slaughter in this country are QH. Most of the Europeans slaughter WB's. Japan prefers draft horses - draft horses that come from the US (there is a large draft horse feedlot near Yelm, Washington - my back door).

Just watch a video of what happens to horses at a slaughter plant - it is not like cattle or lamb or pigs. It is absolutely HORRIFIC.

So - I guess some think it is better to do nothing than to try and effect change & progress? I certainly see nothing wrong with zoo animals eating horses - I see nothing wrong w/ a person eating horse meat if they so choose. It's about the horrors of how horses are treated in this country before & during slaughter process.

[carol_okc]

well, you asked about someone from the AQHA or AHA community. I fear we've had much the same discussion on some of our arab forums, and sadly one common thread (which I also suspect is true among other groups patronized by breeders) is 'NO ONE is going to tell me who and what I can or can't breed!!!!'
Remember, there are far too many people in the horse community who appear to believe a uterus exists to be filled, regardless of the body containing it. Discuss establishing a 'paper spay' to designate a mare that cannot be used to produce registered offspring and you end up getting the equivalent of being strung to the nearest tree.
I quit breeding my arabians over 10 years ago, though I'm currently supporting 13 (soon to be 14), many of which are rescues and/or retirees. And like most sanctuaries, I'm full to the brim. I suspect that the best I can hope for is that people recognize that by trying to force a view, an ethical posture, on others you give them license to force theirs on you. Maybe someday people will take some responsibility for the power of life and death they have.... or maybe not. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[jetsmom]

There won't be an "excess "horse problem with horses being turned loose all over the place.
We slaughtered over 350,000 horses per yr in the late 80's. It dropped to less than 100,000 within 6 yrs. We didn't have 250,000 turned loose then, did we? The numbers of horses owned in this country has increased, but horse slaughter is dropping. Still no horses being turned loose.
Without slaughter buyers at auctions, you may actually get a better selection of horses going through auctions, as more people will be comfortable using that as a sales option. There are people now that would never sell their horse at one because they worry about it's fate. This is especially true if you have an older or special needs horse, that should bring a few hundred, but you don't want them slaughtered. If you have a truly undesirable horse due to age, health or dangerous behavior, you probably won't get much for it and will probably find it cost effective to euthanize it rather than pay board. Look at the CBER horses. They are at a feedlot destined for slaughter. Yet on the last load, alll horses were placed. This isn't a huge organization doing a lot of advertising. Most horses would find new homes if people would advertise them and market them properly. Getting them healthy, fit, and trained will make them easier to sell. The backyard breeders who breed 2 or 3 a year and then send them to auction as unbroke yearlings will quickly find out that it isn't profitable to do that anymore. to maximize profit you will need to have something desirable about that horse. Just being a draft cross will no longer get much money when they aren't being bought by the pound.

[EBO]

A Brabant is the same breed that we call Belgian, and I believe it is Belgium that breeds them for meat, or most of them for meat. Who knows what the French do? I'm still eating Freedom Fries http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[LNG]

Just to let you all know I am pretty neutral on the slaughter issue. I probably lean more toward slauhgter but really have not made up my mind. I have been reading your numbers regarding horse slaughter #'s in the 90's 300,000 being brought down yearly to about 60,000 last year. My assumption was that it was going down and for whatever reason less and less horses were being sent to slaughter every year. I never thought that the remaining would be abused. Some would, some I figured would be euthanized,some turned loose, and some would make it to Canada or Mexico for slaughter. The numbers presented on the board have been consistant 300,000 down to 60,000 and decreasing. Last night I was reading a article in this weeks Throughbred Times which sort of disputes those figures. The article is anti slaughter but shows USDA horse slaughter figures that shows a significant increase in the last 3 years with the amount of horses going to slaughter. I honestly don't know how many horses went to slaughter in th 90's so I will assume your figures of 300,000 are correct and that there was a significant drop. But can someone explain to me why there has been such a significant increase in the amount of slaughter horses in the past 3 years. And you can't use the fact that Cavel reopening caused a increase because they were closed in the 3 years with the greatest increases. Here are the #'s from the TB times.

2004 66,183 (10% more than has been quoted
on this board)
2003 50,062
2002 42,312
2001 56,332
2000 47,134

Also the article stated that through May 21 of 2005 33,489 have gone to slaughter if those #'s hold true and if slaughter were not to be banned than approx 80,000 horses would go to slaughter this year. That would be another big significant increase.

THat doesn't count the numbers that go to Canada or Mexico.

With increasing #s like these I am beginning to side with those that believe that our neighbors are going to be slaughtering a lot more American horses than before.

So any way. What I really want to know is what has happened to cause these increases going on 4 years now.

[lawndart]

Great discussion that thankfully is staying civil http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I would like to address the question that was posted:

"My personal opinion is that if you are going to rescue, you shouldn't breed. And I would love to see gelding a horse/not breeding a mare a requirement of rescues that put them up for adoption."

I volunteered for an equine adoption agency that had a no breeding, no re-sale policy. Those two conditions caused much screaming, yelling, and knashing of teeth by potential adopters. Their view was 'if that horse was their responsibility, then they could do whatever they wanted with it.' Had one adopter that lived only a couple of miles from the main office who put the no breeding rule to the test. The Mom and Baby were both confiscated and re-adopted out http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But the sad truth of these rules is they must be enforced, which means a physical check at least once a year on every single horse in the program. That means a lot of man hours in a volunteer organization that is already stretched for help. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

A side note, this adoption agency went under several years ago because of all the 'retirees' being dumped into the program. Its one thing to try to adopt out a younger, still rideable animal, a lot harder to adopt out one that can't do much but eat, sleep, and look pretty.

I'm with the poster that said if you have had many years of use from a horse, have ridden it into the ground, it is your responsibility to care for it in its 'golden years'. If you can't afford to do that and own a rideable horse, well, then I guess you should forgo the rideable horse until you can afford both, or *gasp* take the responsibility for that animal who has given you everything it knows how to give and either find a retirement home you can be sure of, or put him/her down.

And yes, I do have a personal interest in retirees since that is my business. But the truth is I started this business because I could see a vast need for somewhere for these old campaigners to go. I just wish I could do it for free. But since I can't I try to keep my fees as reasonable as possible. For sure I'll never be able to support myself http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But if I can make enough to support my personal retirees, and hopefully help a few rescues thru the year, I feel I'm rich in more important things then money. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

To the OP, I wonder if there is no slaughter, and the only other option is euthanasia, where are we burying all these large animals? Its not even legal to bury carcasses in some states. Of course, I'm not sure we should be burying humans either http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Lildunhorse]

There's a place back east that manufactures large animal crematories. I see a business opportunity here. (Providing you can get you County officials to cooperate.)

[poltroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 2ndDressageNut:
No where in the world are horses raised as meat animals. They may be livestock, but they are not raised in herds & managed as meat animals.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Icelandics are also dual use. They are bred for riding and meat (much as for example, sheep are raised for wool and for meat).

[county]

Talked to one of the kill buyers from this area today and asked what his thoughts were on all this. He had some interesting things to say I thought. He felt if and when this actually becomes law and if and we they actually enforce it that slaughter doesn't stop here it just changes how the business is done. Only one thing he felt will stop it and thats profit. Take away profit it stops by itself no need to try and makes laws against it.

He felt horses in the central U.S. will have less chance of going to slaughter then those closer to Can. and Mex. but if anyone thinks they won't be hauled to sales say in Can. is very mistaken. It actually will work to Can. plants benifit in part because instead of them paying for horses to be delevered they now will have them brought virtually to their doorstep so to speak.

This week plants in the U.S. stopped paying for anything but #1's so the only horses being slaughtered are younger ones in good flesh he wasn't sure what Can. was paying for but expects that they will do the same if they haven't yet. The live market is very deprssed this week which was expected becasue of the uncertaity of this amendment and because it always drops here this time of year because of more numbers sold going into winter.

This week he bought a total of 17 head of young good fleshed horses some were riders and he'll resell them as such. The others he paid a top price of $60 for. All were in the 800 to 1100 lb range. None were halter broke, he brought them to the feed lot for finishing and later to be hauled to the gathering point where there loaded to go to the plants. I asked him what happens is the plants are shut dowm? He felt it was no differant then anyone who speculates in any business might lose but you might make a good profit. He checked with the USDA about hauling horses to sales in Can. they say this ammendment has no bearing on that. As long as he has the proper paperwork anyone can haul horses into Can. I asked how he can come out if he spends alot on paperwork. He said if he can buy horses for $60 and resell at $500 to $600 he can afford alot of paperwork. Other then the $38 USDA sig. the rest is minor here in Mn. any vet can do coggins and health papers. He runs about 200 head of cattle and has always used his cow vet for anything possable for the horses. And around here cow vets work cheaper then horse vets by a mile. Coggins are $10 health papers $5. Add that to the $38 and hes spending less then he was when he bought those $60 horses for $120 to $150.

It will be interesting to see what happens but I think the big thing he said that will always be true is. If theres a demand and profit for a business the business will exist. If Can. and Mex. make it illegal to slaughter then I think it would shut down in N.A. but until then I think theres still going to be horses from the U.S. slaughtered.

[onthebit12000]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He said if he can buy horses for $60 and resell at $500 to $600 he can afford alot of paperwork. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hahahahaha!!!!!!!! Now THAT is funny!!! Has your killer buyer friend ever been to a Canadian kill auction? You think the prices are low here, just wait til you see what they are paying up there. LOL! He cant seriously believe that he's going to be able to resell horses at a Canadian auction for more that what he has into them for purchase here, paperwork and transport? Oh and dont forget the Canadian tax at the border, and the exchange rate on the currency.

[county]

I have no idea about it. THe OP asked a question I only told what the thoughts were of someone. Same as you did.

[county]

To me one of the big things he said was " when and if the ammendment is approved and enforced" if both don't happen the whole thing means nothing

[onthebit12000]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To me one of the big things he said was " when and if the ammendment is approved and enforced" if both don't happen the whole thing means nothing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally... something we agree upon!

[2ndDressageNut]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lildunhorse:
There's a place back east that manufactures large animal crematories. I see a business opportunity here. (Providing you can get you County officials to cooperate.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually sheep are not raised for dual purpose commercially. There are specific meat breeds & specific wool breeds. There is very little market to no market for mutton in this country, so the "dual purpose" sheep is non-existant except for the small farm. Lambs just don't grow enough wool to get sheared before market.

Still doesn't make horse slaughter a good thing.

[bjrudq]

there should be a focus on spaying mares. i guess that it is not a simple or easy operaion and i wish it could be. mares should be left "intact" as often as male horses; that would greatly cut down on breeding. maybe rescues should only sell mares that have been spayed.

this is a tough problem. banning slaughter is only the first step.

[poltroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 2ndDressageNut:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lildunhorse:
There's a place back east that manufactures large animal crematories. I see a business opportunity here. (Providing you can get you County officials to cooperate.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually sheep are not raised for dual purpose commercially. There are specific meat breeds & specific wool breeds. There is very little market to no market for mutton in this country, so the "dual purpose" sheep is non-existant except for the small farm. Lambs just don't grow enough wool to get sheared before market.

Still doesn't make horse slaughter a good thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is hardly any money in wool, even in very high quality wool sold directly to spinners. Even people who maintain sheep for wool breed the ewes and sell lambs for meat - it's very much like a dairy.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bjrudq:
there should be a focus on spaying mares. i guess that it is not a simple or easy operaion and i wish it could be. mares should be left "intact" as often as male horses; that would greatly cut down on breeding. maybe rescues should only sell mares that have been spayed.[QUOTE]

We spay dogs and cats because they tend to get loose and because there tend to be loose intact males wandering around. This isn't a problem with horses.

[TB or not TB?]

To answer the OP's specific question:

I heard somewhere that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the horses slaughtered are OTTBs. There are actually a couple outcomes for this type - best case scenario, the extra availability of the thoroughbred will mean an increase in their popularity, possibly coming back up to counter the huge influx of WBs. I also imagine that there are trainers who will really cash in by having all the track-rejects funneled to them by trainres. I know my 'grand plan' when I get out of school is have a stable solely dedicated to retraining, reselling, and retiring the OTTB. If one checks out sites like CANTER, TRF, Exceller fund, and others, it's clear that there's a huge demand for these horses. Anyway, there are a lot that are sound but just not fast, and those are easy to place. Those that aren't sound enough for heavy jumping or eventing are harder to place, however, if someone would give them a foundation in dressage or make them a bombproof trail horse, I think that the desirability will increase a bunch. That part is JMO but I have hope.

As for the others - the majority I believe are the typical 'backyard' type horse - QH or Arabs that aren't stunning or spectacular, but just kinda average joes. I believe the biggest 'discipline' in the US is trail riding, pure and simple. Honestly, I don't think that many casual type riders would think to look at an auction for a horse - it's often word of mouth or through a stable or something (when it comes to selling, though, that same word of mouth points them toward an auction). This brings me to my point - there are tons of riding camps, trail or rental facilities, and other recreational use stables, as well as lesson barns and colleges that really utilize these horses. I know it can be hard to find steady lesson horses that are sound and quiet enough for beginning-intermediate jumping, and a lot of the horses that end in slaughter would be ideal for that.

Now, for the unsound, old, or neglected horse, the path to a happy home is a little tougher. It's fortunate, then, that this group makes up the smallest percentage of slaughter animals. The older horses are a tad easier to place - again, lesson barns and colleges (one college I looked at was a big H/J place and had hardly any horses under age 18!) are possibilities, as well as places that do therapy (mental, emotional, physical). Even scientific research isn't necessarily a bad life (how many horses would complain about having to eat different brands of food for a living, or getting some experimental supplements). Yes there are some cruddy studies, but I believe the majority are just testing new treatments or products. For the permenantly unsound this is also an option, and sometimes they can actually be in demand. If a study is being done, for instance, about a new treatment for ringbone or fused fetlocks or severe laminitis or chronic colic or what ever, a horse with said condition can both aid research and have the possibility of improvement. Even if they are just put down, that is a WAY better fate than slaughter. At least this way they might get a chance.

Now, for the neglected horses, I think that this could really benefit them. Here's why: Our rescues are filled with horses who are often young and sound, or have only slightly limited rideability. I know my local rescue has maybe two horses out of 30 that are pasture pals - the others can be ridden/competed/trained. Rescues have to choose which horses to take, and sound horse has a much better chance of being placed, ergo they are chosen over the neglected and lamed horse, if both are definitely slaughter bound. Sad, but true. Now, what if the rescues didn't have to worry that a healthy, useful horse was going to be brutally murdered? What if they could focus entirely on the neglected animals? They could save MANY more abused horses this way, and not only because their price might be cheaper since they don't have to outbid a meat buyer. I think this in itself is a huge win, especially since many slaughter advocates only support it because they don't want horses to be neglected.

There you go - the answer to the OP, no more. Notice that there's little talk of donations to handicapt places or flooding the horse rescues, and hardly any talk of even euthanasia. Those things would happen, too, but apparently many pro-slaughter people think of those fates as sort of a cop out (arguably true about the handicapt option).

This isn't meant to start a war or anything of the sort, but I just wanted to point out something that I've noticed. In my experience, much of the pro-slaughter faction is comprised of breeders. Before everyone jumps on me, I'm not saying that EVERY breeder is pro slaughter, or that ONLY breeders are pro slaughter. I just have noticed that it seems more breeders tend to be for slaughter than against. I think that for the responsible breeders, this stems from the thought that they'd rather their horse have a quick death at the slaughter house than an extended death through starvation. Also, were I a breeder, I would want to think that any horse I sold would go to a home so well screened that it couldn't end in slaughter. Now, unfortunately, not every breeder is this responsible. How many people just decide "hey, I want to breed my mare!" Too many. This is where the problem of neglect stems from. I am all for civil liberties, but there's no excuse for all the junky horses in America. That sounds very harsh, I know, but how many horses would YOU consider for your next competition animal? Compared to the overall number, when you think of all the ill-conformed, terrible gaited, ill-tempered, inbred, over bred and generally low quality horses in the US, my guess is that under 50% are of enough quality for the average, local show. A horse that isn't going to be an improvement or a good representative of the breed or type should not be bred. No excuses. THIS is where the neglect comes from. My guess is that all of the pro-slaughter people have seen this type of horse, and that's why they wonder why anyone would want them. Some people do, and they're appropriate for other used. However, until the back yard breeders are shut down, neglect will continue. That is what you need to support, not the continuation of a horrific industry like slaughter.

[luvmytbs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ChestnutTBMare:
If one checks out sites like CANTER, TRF, Exceller fund, and others, it's clear that there's a huge demand for these horses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This only means there are a lot of horses looking for a new home, not that there is a huge demand. If there was a huge demand, these OTTB's wouldn't end up at TRF, Exceller Fund and the likes and be offered for adoption for next to nothing.

I would like to see more programs like at the Blackburn facility in Lexington, where a lot of retired TB's are being hooked up with inmates and seem to be an incredible asset to their rehabilitation

[Daydream Believer]

Someone posted the statistics by breed slaughtered once and I think at least 90% of the horses were stock type horses...mostly QH's, and only a small percentage were TB's. The racing industry has done a lot to prevent TBs from going to slaughter while the AQHA has encouraged it by lobbying for continuing slaughter and doing nothing to provide alternatives for QH owners.

As a breeder I will say that I am very much against slaughter. I don't ever want any horse I breed to go to it's death that way. I am breeding a small foal crop of high quality foals of a rare breed that is on the endangered list of the American Livestock Conservancy. I have stated before and will say it again, that I would not oppose a reasonable breeders tax or fee for foals produced if it would go to help horses genuinely in need of help once slaughter is abolished.

Instituting a tax like that would go a long way to stopping the indiscriminate breeding and taking away the slaughter industry will help to quell the mass production breeders who use it as a way to get money out of culls.

[poltroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I volunteered for an equine adoption agency that had a no breeding, no re-sale policy. Those two conditions caused much screaming, yelling, and knashing of teeth by potential adopters. Their view was 'if that horse was their responsibility, then they could do whatever they wanted with it.' Had one adopter that lived only a couple of miles from the main office who put the no breeding rule to the test. The Mom and Baby were both confiscated and re-adopted out But the sad truth of these rules is they must be enforced, which means a physical check at least once a year on every single horse in the program. That means a lot of man hours in a volunteer organization that is already stretched for help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will say that I am not willing to adopt a horse under a no resale, no breeding restriction. This isn't because I'm irresponsible or greedy or wicked - it's because I need the flexibility to be able to sell a horse into a situation that will work better for it. If I bring along a nice unhandled horse and make it into a nice amateur mount, I'd like to be able to sell it to a nice amateur. If I lose my job and can't pay board, I need the option to find it a new home.

As for the breeding, if I take on a horse that was rescued because it was unhandled and unlucky, or fresh off the track, and I get it going at a high level of competition - say a TB mare winning at 3rd, 4th level dressage - I think it could be appropriate to breed her. I'm not going to breed a grade mare that I trail ride.

I know some people abuse those provisions and I understand the reasoning behind them, but IMHO it's better to screen the adopter in the first place and then hope for the best.

[gabz]

To the person that asked why the numbers had gone up the last 3 years... that COULD be due to the Premarin farms shutting down when it was discovered that Premarin medication is not as safe as once thought.
THere was a SIGNIFICANT number of farms that had to shut down and disperse herds.

Many were adopted out, but I'm sure there were a greater number that went to slaughter.

[lawndart]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by poltroon:
I will say that I am not willing to adopt a horse under a no resale, no breeding restriction. This isn't because I'm irresponsible or greedy or wicked - it's because I need the flexibility to be able to sell a horse into a situation that will work better for it. If I bring along a nice unhandled horse and make it into a nice amateur mount, I'd like to be able to sell it to a nice amateur. If I lose my job and can't pay board, I need the option to find it a new home.

As for the breeding, if I take on a horse that was rescued because it was unhandled and unlucky, or fresh off the track, and I get it going at a high level of competition - say a TB mare winning at 3rd, 4th level dressage - I think it could be appropriate to breed her. I'm not going to breed a grade mare that I trail ride.

I know some people abuse those provisions and I understand the reasoning behind them, but IMHO it's better to screen the adopter in the first place and then hope for the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Poltroon</span> I posted that about adoption agencies. In that particular agency, if you for any reason could not keep the horse, they would pick it up ASAP and find it a new home, so that worry was ours, not yours. If you and the horse did not suit each other, you could trade for another who would.

As for breeding, since they were former race horses that were donated by kind owners that could have made money selling them to an auction, our policy was no breeding so that kindness would not slap them in the face 5 years later when a colt or filly from that horse was competing against the former race horse owner. That happening even once would be enough to turn off the racing world, word gets around quick.

I know you would not be the type to adopt a horse hoping to get a cheap broodmare, but the unfortunate truth is many are. We did screen our adopters, and did surprise checks. Unfortunately, the stricter the adoption procedures, the less horses you adopt out, making a top heavy agency. If someone didn't want those restrictions, we gave them info on adopting a mustang, or PMU horse.

I don't know if most people who inquire about adopting a horse realize its a lot like adopting a child. You aren't going to make money, you are going to spend it. Its a serious commitment, not to be made lightly. Much research and consideration should go into your decision, not just emotion. (I don't mean Poltroon specifically, just the generic 'you)

[Justina]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by onthebit12000:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He said if he can buy horses for $60 and resell at $500 to $600 he can afford alot of paperwork. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hahahahaha!!!!!!!! Now THAT is funny!!! Has your killer buyer friend ever been to a Canadian kill auction? You think the prices are low here, just wait til you see what they are paying up there. LOL! He cant seriously believe that he's going to be able to resell horses at a Canadian auction for more that what he has into them for purchase here, paperwork and transport? Oh and dont forget the Canadian tax at the border, and the exchange rate on the currency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
$60US equals $72.60 Canadian, so someone bringing that $60US horse into Canada would pay a whopping $5.08 GST at the border.

I cannot say for sure what meat horses are bringing here at the moment--it's not great, but last I did hear it was still a bit more than $80 Cdn. Hmmm, I'll have to ask around & see what they are bringing.

[bjrudq]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We spay dogs and cats because they tend to get loose and because there tend to be loose intact males wandering around. This isn't a problem with horses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


no, that's not the ONLY reason we spay. RESPONSIBLE breeders will spay or neuter, or insist on spaying or neutering, when selling a dog who isn't up to breed standard. and many dog and cat rescues will not sell a an animal without it being spayed or neutered. (the person who sold me my purebred dog would not give me papers withouut proof of spaying.)

and we geld male horses becasue they are easier to handle that way, and also becasue only the best are kept intact(or should be.)same rule should apply to mares.

[Snowbird]

I thought it was because we were a female oriented industry and thought it was proper to fix the male who can create 5 babies a week versus the female who only produces one a year.

I'm disappointed, I thought it was intellectualism and not convenience.

[perfectionist]

I think chestnutTbmare has a good point; there are/were some breed associations that are pro-slaughter, and I think also the Am. Vet Asso. is too. It may be because they had rather see the horses go to slaughter instead of suffer through starvation if they are not "sellable". I think it could also be because if they turn out a horse that is not "sellable" they do not want the word getting around or do not want that horse to be representative of their farm or stable, so they eliminiate it quickly.

Some of the receipts that are posted on one site show a particular quarter horse farm in Texas to deliver horses to one of the two plants down there. Now we do not know if these horses had broken legs, etc. or were sound "culls."

Cattle breeders do the same thing; I know of one in particular that keeps detailed records on bull prospects. If that bull calf does not measure up to the EPD's standards, it is cut and sent to the market. It is not sold. Two reasons; that breeder does not want his reputation diminished by a bull with his brand passing on those traits to calves. ALSO, he wants to pass on traits that will improve the breed.

Likewise this could be the reason the breed associations are for horse slaughter. But I am not, and I realize it may be for selfish reasons, but after viewing the process, I cannot approve of it. If the process was much different, I could at least partially accept that it is a way to provide an alternative to poor care or end the suffering of a disabled animal.......

[equinelaundry]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snowbird:
I thought it was because we were a female oriented industry and thought it was proper to fix the male who can create 5 babies a week versus the female who only produces one a year.

I'm disappointed, I thought it was intellectualism and not convenience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

[bjrudq]

"I thought it was because we were a female oriented industry and thought it was proper to fix the male who can create 5 babies a week versus the female who only produces one a year.

I'm disappointed, I thought it was intellectualism and not convenience."

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

noting intellectual about the breeding decisions some people make. you are no longer breeding best to the best when you cut the inferior males but continue to breed the inferior females.

[Snowbird]

May I point out that you have to have a "breeding program" in order to get a "farm" mortgage and for farmland assessment as a horse farm.

The definitions need to be changed if you want to change the number of foals produced without due consideration of purpose and use.