American horses slaughtered in Mexico and Canada

[onthebit12000]

Warning...Contains extremely graphic and disturbing footage.


http://www.hsus2.org/specials/mexico-horses-2.wmv

HSUS Press Release December 5, 2006.

Exclusive Video Showing American Horses Slaughtered in Barbaric Ways Across U.S. Borders



Legislation in Congress to Ban Horse Slaughter Would Halt Shipment of Live Horses to Canada and Mexico for Slaughter



WASHINGTON (December 5, 2006) – The Humane Society of the United States today released exclusive video obtained by its undercover investigators that reveals the brutal slaughter of American horses at a Mexican slaughterhouse in Juarez.



In addition, one slaughterhouse official, whose operation supplies 95 percent of company lunchrooms in and around Juarez, told HSUS investigators the carcasses of these animals are being flavored with beef and served to unwitting factory workers.



These findings were part of an investigation completed last month by The HSUS that documents the abuses of American horses caught in a slaughter pipeline that kills nearly 100,000 horses a year at three plants in this country – two in Texas and one in Illinois -- and thousands more at plants in Mexico and Canada. Legislation passed in the House and pending in the Senate would put an end to the slaughter of American horses – either in the United States or in Canada or Mexico. The HSUS argued today that the release of this shocking footage adds to the urgency for Senate action to halt this inhumane killing.



The HSUS is also releasing a December 4, 2006 letter from more than a quarter of the Senate to Senate Majority Leader Frist and Senate Minority Leader Reid urging them to support the immediate passage of The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The Senate bill, S. 1915, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), would prohibit the slaughter of horses in the United States as well as the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption. It has a bipartisan roster of 34 Senate co-sponsors. The House of Representatives approved identical legislation, H.R. 503, in September by an overwhelming vote of 263 to 146.



"We invite the foreign-owned horse slaughter industry and its supporters to view this footage with us in a public forum and then try and justify their claims that shipping American horses all across North America and across our borders for slaughter is a ‘humane form of euthanasia’ and is ‘for their own good.’ This appalling and tremendously saddening footage shows that the slaughter industry’s argument is ludicrous on its face,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “This is a barbaric and inhumane industry, and further delays in Congress in securing final passage of the legislation translate into untold suffering and misery for American horses in transport and slaughter.”



HSUS investigators crisscrossed the United States and traversed the Canadian and Mexican borders to chronicle the process by which horses wind up at slaughterhouses. From auctions to remote feedlots to the interstate highways across which “killer-buyers” transport the horses, HSUS investigators documented cruelty, abuse, and on the kill floor in Juarez, a shocking method of slaughter.



In Juarez, where thousands of American horses are currently exported for slaughter each year, investigators found that workers kill the animals before first rendering them unconscious. Instead, the horses are “stunned” by stabbing them several times with a short dagger in an attempt to sever the spinal cord, leaving them paralyzed and unable to breath, but still sensible to pain as they are hoisted up by a chain and their necks slit. The puntilla or boning knife practice is considered inhumane by both supporters and opponents of horse slaughter and is banned in this country by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.



“Proponents of horse slaughter use the canard that if slaughter is banned in the U.S. the horses will endure even worse abuse in foreign slaughterhouses,” said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Society of Animal Protective Legislation. “But thousands of American horses are being butchered in Canada and Mexico, and the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act has unambiguous provisions to stop the live export of these animals, putting an end to the killing of American horses here in the United States or just over the border in Canada or Mexico.”



According to figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as of mid-November, some 90,000 horses have been slaughtered at the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in this country so far this year. In addition, more than 19,000 horses have been exported to Canada for slaughter and another 8,500 to Mexico.

[Eventer13]

I'm sure this has already been answered before, but if the bill goes through, does that mean horses cant be exported for slaughter? Because if exportation will still be legal, I'd much rather keep the option of sending them to a US slaughterhouse that kills them humanely than risking sending them over the boarder. That method (the knife in the spinal cord, and bleeding them out) is just disgusting.

[onthebit12000]

Eventer13,

Yes, the bill will outlaw the export of horses to both Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Currently thousands of horses are crossing the borders each year to be slaughtered inhumanely in these two countries. Whats worse, we are now aware that one of the Texas plants has nearly completed a new slaughter plant in Mexico, meaning that even MORE American horses will be brutally slaughtered should this bill not pass.

Gail

[abrant]

I really, honestly, don't know how they will suceed in securing the borders that well, especially to Mexico.

How hard is Dekalb to pronounce? Seriously....

I've said it before. I would like to see caring people get involved and make the system better rather than pursuing the ban and all of its implications. If horse people could step up and change the horse slaughter systems like Temple Grandin has stepped in and changed the cattle slaughter systems, I think that would go a lot further in helping horses.

~Adrienne

[Horsecrazy27]

Makes me want to be a vegitarian. :(

Humans....we have really messed things up in this world.

What has happened to respect----gosh, I could go on, but my heart is just aching.

God forgive us.

[Appassionato]

I'm sure this has already been answered before, but if the bill goes through, does that mean horses cant be exported for slaughter? Because if exportation will still be legal, I'd much rather keep the option of sending them to a US slaughterhouse that kills them humanely than risking sending them over the boarder. That method (the knife in the spinal cord, and bleeding them out) is just disgusting.

Exactly. :no:

[onthebit12000]

Abrant,

It is very difficult to export horses for slaughter or any other purpose to Mexico. Securing the borders is NOT an issue at all.

As far as making horse slaughter more humane....it is simply not do-able.
The horse slaughter industry is on its way out in this country for many reasons, and there will never be enough overseas demand to support the dozens of slaughter plants it would take to ensure humane transport in this VAST country of ours.

[abrant]

Abrant,

It is very difficult to export horses for slaughter or any other purpose to Mexico. Securing the borders is NOT an issue at all.


Sorry if I don't believe you. In my line of work, I interact with tons of mostly illegal immigrants. It's still *easy* for them to get across the border and get fake papers and work. I've talked with them about how easy it is. This is a HUGE national political issues and it's not anywhere close to resolved. Are horses going to be a higher priority?

Sure, you can't not make a law because it might be broken... but you shouldn't make laws that you don't have the funding or ability to enforce (see: prohibition in the 20's)

If every horse was shipped to slaughter in a double-decker trailer it would be easy. But almost half of horses arrive to slaughter in regular gooseneck trailers. How many of those are in south Texas?

And... if you're saying it's difficult WHILE posting a video essentially saying it's common. I don't understand??

~Adrienne

[onthebit12000]

It is common now because it is legal.

It is far different to export livestock to other countries than it is for immigrants to cross the borders. We have done volumes of research with regard to both Mexican and Canadian animal import policies, and I can tell you straight from the horses mouth (both Mexican and Canadian) that they are certain that horses will not be able to enter their countries for slaughter once this bill is passed. They also attest that horses are unlikely to enter for other purposes (such as under the guise of saddle horses etc.) because the import fees alone are so high that it would be a losing financial endeavor.




Sorry if I don't believe you. In my line of work, I interact with tons of mostly illegal immigrants. It's still *easy* for them to get across the border and get fake papers and work. I've talked with them about how easy it is. This is a HUGE national political issues and it's not anywhere close to resolved. Are horses going to be a higher priority?

Sure, you can't not make a law because it might be broken... but you shouldn't make laws that you don't have the funding or ability to enforce (see: prohibition in the 20's)

If every horse was shipped to slaughter in a double-decker trailer it would be easy. But almost half of horses arrive to slaughter in regular gooseneck trailers. How many of those are in south Texas?

And... if you're saying it's difficult WHILE posting a video essentially saying it's common. I don't understand??

~Adrienne

[Angela Freda]

If every horse was shipped to slaughter in a double-decker trailer it would be easy. But almost half of horses arrive to slaughter in regular gooseneck trailers. How many of those are in south Texas?~Adrienne

That's an interesting statistic, almost half of the horses arrive at slaughter in goosenecks. Where did you get that stat?

IMO it would not make sense to ship 4,6,8, or however many horses fit on a gooseneck to Mexico or Canada... the cost of shipping to slaughter in such small numbers across so many miles would considerably outweigh the payout.

[JumpingPaints]

Re: Exporting horses into Mexico for slaughter

I am crossposting from another poster on an earlier thread, hope that's okay:
I just spoke to the USDA vet at the Santa Teresa crossing into MX which is the only point where horses and livestock can cross. He gave me some interesting info.

First, all horses are off loaded and a pen inspection is done for soundness/Humane transport violations. He stated that 4 downed horses were removed yesterday from a double decker. Two of them were dead on the trailer. The other two were refused to be allowed to be reloaded and are being cared for at the location of the pens. Sadly, he did say that they do not charge the shippers with violations as he said that it is too much paperwork, and he'd rather just get the horses off. If they recover enough, they may be reloaded in the future to go to slaughter.

Currently slaughter horses do not need coggins or health cert or vaccination.
Regular horses reguire Coggins, International health cert, proof of vaccination for EEE, WEE within 15 days prior to crossing. You must pay a broker to cross a non slaughter horse. Fees will vary, up to 200.00-800.00 per horse. Plus you must pay yardage at a holding site.

He did say, that if transport to slaughter is banned, that he will be enforcing it, as he said that if you see transporters cramming horses in trailers frequently crossing, it is pretty easy to tell that they are going to slaughter. He even laughed and said that the slaughter horses he gets through couldn't be mistaken for show horses.

He also said that when double deckers are banned he would enforce that.


Re: Exporting horses for slaughter in Canada:
If the ban goes through, to import slaughter horses legally into Canada under the pretenses of "riding horses" requires the following: A Federal Veterinary inspection certificate, which must be done in person by a vet (cost involved). The Canadian border patrol will generally just look at the horses on the trailer, but occasionally they will request that the horses be unloaded. Importation papers must be filled out and a broker is required to process the paper work, (yes, more $$$ required here). They will want to see the vet papers, bill of sale, Coggins results, way bill and vessel clearance papers. Depending on how busy the crossing is, it can take two hours to clear for one horse. Not every border crossing has a vet. You will require a broker to clear your horse. It generally costs about $75 US. plus the GST (7% of bill of sale) coming into Canada.

So if slaughter is banned here, for those who are really intent on breaking the law, it would would be a very likely futile or at the very least time-consuming and expensive process to taking truckloads of horses for slaughter in Mexico and Canada.

[onthebit12000]

Thank You JumpingPaints! You've just saved me a great deal of time!

Im amazed that anyone could watch that video and worry about what might hypothetically happen should the bill pass. What about what is happening RIGHT NOW to literally thousands and thousands of American horses? What about them?

This horrific cruelty is taking place RIGHT NOW....each and every day that legislation to end this cruelty is delayed, hundreds more suffer needlessly.

If you care about horses, please take action to end this!!! Call your senators tomorrow and demand that they vote on S 1915! Here is a link to the latest action alert http://www.saplonline.org/Alerts/102506.htm

[BabyGoose]

I live only about 40 minutes from the Santa Teresa crossing. Does anybody know if the horses that show up get checked for bills of sale, ownership etc.? What I am getting at is what if the horses are stolen? Is somebody there making sure they are rightfully titled, bill of sale, etc.? This has me concerned since I live so close I am afraid someone could steal my horse and it would end up in Mexico before anything could be done. I will be looking into this myself, but just wondering if anybody here already knows from their research.

I knew that slaughter in Mexico had to be far worse with no regulations. But I never dreamed that they would be killing them that way. I am just sick! Since they do the same thing to the bulls at the end of a bullfight I guess it shouldn't suprise me. While the thought of killing and eating a horse is highly disgusting to me, I guess I could live with it if it was done humanly. And that humane treatment at slaughter should extend to cattle, sheep, chickens, etc. No animal should have to suffer so we can eat it. We can walk on the moon but we can't figure out how to treat animals that give their lives so we can eat a kind end. We raise our own beef, lamb and chickens. At least I know they lived a happy, stress free life and are killed humanely.

[summerhorse]

They probably have to have some brand inspection or bills of sale or something but I doubt they are checking for stolen horses. They don't even do that here! BOS papers would be easy to fake or they could just run them through a cheap auction and "launder" them that way.

[abrant]

That's an interesting statistic, almost half of the horses arrive at slaughter in goosenecks. Where did you get that stat?

IMO it would not make sense to ship 4,6,8, or however many horses fit on a gooseneck to Mexico or Canada... the cost of shipping to slaughter in such small numbers across so many miles would considerably outweigh the payout.

http://www.grandin.com/references/horse.transport.html

~Adrienne

[jetsmom]

Hi Baby Goose!
Jet is boarded 15 min from the Santa teresa border crossing. I have him at what I consider a safe barn, but I don't think they are checking for stolen horses at the crossing. At least I got the impression they weren't from the USDA vet at the crossing that I spoke with.
And currently, the majority of horses that are crossing are in double deckers, although I think that is supposed to become illegal Dec 7th. Onthe bit, perhaps you can link something verifying the date.
Our local news showed a clip of that plant (not the actual slaughter, but a horse going into the kill box while another got his head smashed from a sliding door that dropped down when he tried to move forward.) The link to the broadcast is probably still on the news' website www.kvia.com
OK- It is still on their website. Click on the link above, then put "horse slaughter" in the search box at the top right hand side. It is the first result that shows up. (You can see the knife in the guys hand right before he kills one, but they don't show the actual slaughter.)

[county]

I've been asking what about the horses slaughtered every day for years. But with the anti slogan of " all our nothing " the horses continue to have the same problems at slaughter decade after decade. IMO if you care about horses those groups and people would work with the other side to make changes and improvements rather then settle for nothing.

And lots of horses go to slaughter other then in double deck semis. Theres two loads by gooseneck trailers from here in Mn. every month just from one place I know. But theres also lots of gooseneck trailers that haul more then 4,6,or 8 head.

[Angela Freda]

You will require a broker to clear your horse. It generally costs about $75 US. plus the GST (7% of bill of sale) coming into Canada.

So anyone shipping horses to slaughter under the guise of "riding horses" will perhaps have to pay $75 (for the load or each horse) to be inspected, PLUS 7% of the bill of sale (again of each horse?).
Seems that would cut into the slaughter profits drastically.

[Angela Freda]

"... plants in Texas were observed in July and August of 1998. A total of 1008 horses were surveyed. Forty-two percent of the horses were transported on double decks, 9% on straight single deck semi-trailers and 49% on goosenecks. "
This is from the link Adrienne posted.

So half the horses coming to the plant in TX got there either on double deckers (42%) (which will soon be/is now illegal) and another half got there by gooseneck (49%).

With the paperwork Jumpingpaints illustrated, and the costs incurred, does it really seem probably that the profit will be there for the same numbers that went to TX on double deckers to go to Mexico/Canada in goosenecks?
"The average number of horses on each load was double decks 28, single deck straight trailers 22 and goosenecks 11" (again from the link Adrienne posted)
11 horses shipping in a gooseneck all the way to Canada or Mexico?
Or will they lead them one at a time across the border under the cover of night?
Doesn't look like there would be much profit in that.
I certainly hope there isn't.

But hope is not enough, call your legislators and tell them how you wish them to vote on this issue that is important to you.

[luvmytbs]

So anyone shipping horses to slaughter under the guise of "riding horses" will perhaps have to pay $75 (for the load or each horse) to be inspected, PLUS 7% of the bill of sale (again of each horse?).
Seems that would cut into the slaughter profits drastically.

Plus coggins and international health certificate.

[county]

How much profit there is will depend on how far they travel. Loads from here in Mn. to Can will certaily see more profit then loads from say Ok. to Can will. And 7% plus $75 a head will cut into profit but thats a pretty standard fee for horse sales. But price of meat will determine profit margin if its .20 a lb or .90 a lb will determine if $75 and 7% is worth it or not.

[county]

You also have to keep in mind getting horses into Can isn't exactly hard to do I can take you to a dozen places to cross with no inspectors Mex is no differant. Illegal? Yes but beleive it or not people are taking things accross those borders not that are ilegal.

[Erin]

So, say slaughter of horses becomes illegal in the US. Demand for horsemeat overseas stays the same. Where are the horses going to come from to satisfy the demand?

Oh, yeah, they'll be slaughtered in countries where it's still legal. Like Mexico.

So, if the ban passes, it will actually mean MORE SUFFERING for horses because more of them will be slaughtered in other countries where the facilities are WORSE than the admittedly bad facilities here.

But, because they are not American horses, apparently that's OK.

[hackinaround]

I have a question related to the ban of double deckers. I know how cruel they can be to horses who are to tall to raise their heads and often over croweded.

Ive seen seveal threads where horses have been crowded into other types of trailers headed for slaughter including one where 15 plus draft horse types were crammed into a 30 ft trailer built for 8 horses. Thus causing a fatal accident for driver and some of the equines.

Is the problem mearly double deckers or the over crowding of trailers. Should there be legistation stating #'s of horse placed into a transport.

[Horsecrazy27]

There has to be a different answer to all this........maybing thinking out of the "box"........ this is disgusting and no "animal/person" should be treated like this----the Mexico thing--- oh my.

There are soooooo many smart people on this board---we need to brain storm and approach from a different angle???? I agree with Erin----so, what can we do!?!?!

[Sannois]

So, say slaughter of horses becomes illegal in the US. Demand for horsemeat overseas stays the same. Where are the horses going to come from to satisfy the demand?

Oh, yeah, they'll be slaughtered in countries where it's still legal. Like Mexico.

So, if the ban passes, it will actually mean MORE SUFFERING for horses because more of them will be slaughtered in other countries where the facilities are WORSE than the admittedly bad facilities here.

But, because they are not American horses, apparently that's OK.
We do agree totally on this one!!! I have been saying this all along, I think your last line is very telling.. seems to me you ae right!

:yes:

[gwenrowdy]

So, say slaughter of horses becomes illegal in the US. Demand for horsemeat overseas stays the same. Where are the horses going to come from to satisfy the demand?

Oh, yeah, they'll be slaughtered in countries where it's still legal. Like Mexico.

So, if the ban passes, it will actually mean MORE SUFFERING for horses because more of them will be slaughtered in other countries where the facilities are WORSE than the admittedly bad facilities here.

But, because they are not American horses, apparently that's OK.

Right-o, my theory exactly. When the going gets tough, do nothing. By the way, the anti-slaughter movement isn't unique to the U.S.

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/horses/index.htm

[Erin]

Right-o, my theory exactly. When the going gets tough, do nothing.

Oh please. How many people do you see on this forum who believe that the current system is just dandy and want it to stay exactly the same?

I'll wait while you go find those posts. Oh. Wait. There aren't any.

Sorry to point out the awful truth but in "doing something," you all are going to INCREASE SUFFERING. That is the bottom line.

Until the demand for horsemeat goes away, horses will be slaughtered. Just because it's not happening in your backyard doesn't mean you've improved the lot for horses as a group at all. In actuality, you'll have worsened it. Good job!

[hitchinmygetalong]

Hooray for Erin! I stay far, far away from this issue (except for the occasional call/email to congress) but I have to pop in to say thank you to Erin for very clearly stating my main argument against the slaughter ban bill.

Thank you. :yes:

[gwenrowdy]

Oh please. How many people do you see on this forum who believe that the current system is just dandy and want it to stay exactly the same?

I'll wait while you go find those posts. Oh. Wait. There aren't any.

Sorry to point out the awful truth but in "doing something," you all are going to INCREASE SUFFERING. That is the bottom line.

Until the demand for horsemeat goes away, horses will be slaughtered. Just because it's not happening in your backyard doesn't mean you've improved the lot for horses as a group at all. In actuality, you'll have worsened it. Good job!


Thank you. Oh, and here's another one:
http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/index.php

[Erin]

Am I supposed to be surprised that there are movements in other countries to ban/regulate slaughter? Not really news to me...

I notice you have yet to post a link from a group in Mexico, though.

[OakesBrae]

What's interesting to me is all this after a thread about rescues turning away horses becasue they cannot handle the overflow.

And hay prices rising (even though the one article seems to be debunked, it's a common thread within COTH of how hay prices continue to rise).

What is going to happen to these animals?

[cookie-monster]

Thank you Erin!

It seems people want to end slaughter, period. Well I don't see how that can ever be done. There will be horses slaughtered somewhere, because there will be a demand for their meat, and there will always be unwanted horses with nowhere else to go.

If people would actually THINK about it, they might realize it is better to keep slaughter houses in the US, and to work on laws improving the treatment of the horses once there. And use their energies to make sure those laws are enforced. That will be difficult enough.

[Erin]

Thank you Erin!

If people would actually THINK about it, they might realize it is better to keep slaughter houses in the US, and to work on laws improving the treatment of the horses once there. And use their energies to make sure those laws are enforced. That will be difficult enough.

Exactly.

The problem, I think, is that it is more difficult to do what you suggest. It's actually easier to ban slaughter outright (in this country), because it's a more exciting/"sexy" campaign for people to get behind. It's not as exciting to be in favor of better regulation.

So, all these well-meaning idealists have jumped on the bandwagon, because YAY, no American horses will ever end up on a dinner plate in Belgium!! And they can look at the horses in their barn and feel happy, not realizing that they've just passed the buck on the suffering. But, now it's someone else's problem.

[caffeinated]

Exactly.

The problem, I think, is that it is more difficult to do what you suggest. It's actually easier to ban slaughter outright (in this country), because it's a more exciting/"sexy" campaign for people to get behind. It's not as exciting to be in favor of better regulation.

I think it's more than just being a sexy campaign though- making improvements to the process is very difficult to actually do. More slaughterhouses on a more local level would improve a lot of things, but makes no sense economically. So that's out. More regulations are great, but as the past has proven, enforcement is really very difficult. It's not just that banning it is more attractive and attention getting, it may actually be *physically* easier (and more cost effective for the government). I don't really agree with that approach, but given past history, making those changes is harder not just because of public support...

There are lots of existing regulations now, as far as transport and handling and horses at auction, but we've all heard many stories about poor enforcement (or nonexisting enforcement).

It's sort of sad that it's easier to ban outright than it is to make improvements to the system. It makes finding common ground on the issue next to impossible.

[gwenrowdy]

Exactly.

The problem, I think, is that it is more difficult to do what you suggest. It's actually easier to ban slaughter outright (in this country), because it's a more exciting/"sexy" campaign for people to get behind. It's not as exciting to be in favor of better regulation.

So, all these well-meaning idealists have jumped on the bandwagon, because YAY, no American horses will ever end up on a dinner plate in Belgium!! And they can look at the horses in their barn and feel happy, not realizing that they've just passed the buck on the suffering. But, now it's someone else's problem.


I beg your pardon?

[Lildunhorse]

I don't think it's logical to assume that allowing horse slaughter in the U.S. and populating the country with more slaughter plants is going to do anything to stop what's happening in Mexico. Sure, conditions might improve (doubtfully) for the horses in the U.S., but it will only satisfy the demand which will continue to grow because the price will decrease for the importing countries. Are we thinking that horse slaughter will cease to exist in Mexico when the U.S. corners the market with Canada? And is it illogical to assume that if the U.S. takes a stand on the slaughter issue, the rest of the world might follow suit?

[sabby]

For instance, how would banning slaughter effect breeders of say large cutting horse farms, TB farms, breeders in general? I did see on another thread that County sells most of his stock anywhere from $500 to $2500. If slaughter is banned, would breeding be scaled back? I'm just curious because the pro-slaughter group is just as passionate as the anti-slaughter group.

Would breeders be directly hit in the pocket book if this is passed into law? Would the demand for horse meat stall out if the law is passed?

Stacy

[Lora]

For instance, how would banning slaughter effect breeders of say large cutting horse farms, TB farms, breeders in general? I did see on another thread that County sells most of his stock anywhere from $500 to $2500. If slaughter is banned, would breeding be scaled back? I'm just curious because the pro-slaughter group is just as passionate as the anti-slaughter group.

Would breeders be directly hit in the pocket book if this is passed into law? Would the demand for horse meat stall out if the law is passed?

Stacy

Hopefully!

[FatPalomino]

Abrant,

It is very difficult to export horses for slaughter or any other purpose to Mexico. Securing the borders is NOT an issue at all.

As far as making horse slaughter more humane....it is simply not do-able.
The horse slaughter industry is on its way out in this country for many reasons, and there will never be enough overseas demand to support the dozens of slaughter plants it would take to ensure humane transport in this VAST country of ours.

The video shows our local sale, here in Colorado.

I've personally seen BLM mustangs, blind horses, and 3 legged lame broken bone horses, and babies, pregnant mares, all go to Mexico. If the borders are secured and these rules are enforced, why werent they stopped?

I have a racehorse that was on his was to Illionois slaughter plant who was sold at auction in California, that bans the export of horses for slaughter. Him and 51 others got here!!!!!!!!!!

[county]

Why would banning slaughter change how I breed? I sell foals for way way more then the slaughter market is. I don't breed horses for the slaughter market thats what I breed cattle for. Two totally differant markets.

[FatPalomino]

Sorry to point out the awful truth but in "doing something," you all are going to INCREASE SUFFERING. That is the bottom line.

Until the demand for horsemeat goes away, horses will be slaughtered. Just because it's not happening in your backyard doesn't mean you've improved the lot for horses as a group at all. In actuality, you'll have worsened it. Good job!

Amen Erin. I've seen it with with my own eyes and hope to get it up on my website so others can see what I see.

Mexico slaughter plants make the US ones seem like heaven.

Like I said Champion Lodge got out of California, where they have passed this anti slaughter, anti transport for slaughter legistlation. If it worked how did an imported, stakes winning, young racehorse slip through the cracks???? He is not the first one or the last one that will.

[Appassionato]

So, say slaughter of horses becomes illegal in the US. Demand for horsemeat overseas stays the same. Where are the horses going to come from to satisfy the demand?

Oh, yeah, they'll be slaughtered in countries where it's still legal. Like Mexico.

So, if the ban passes, it will actually mean MORE SUFFERING for horses because more of them will be slaughtered in other countries where the facilities are WORSE than the admittedly bad facilities here.

But, because they are not American horses, apparently that's OK.

I mentioned that months ago when the ban was brought up. The price of horsemeat will simply go up. Just like we pay more now for hay (some of us anyway), the ones eating horse meat will pay more. They will pay the transporting costs. Shoot, how many of us boycotted work when gas prices more than doubled?

While our system isn't perfect, at least in the US I have the power to vote on changing the slaughter houses. I don't have that at all in Mexico.

As far as transporting horses over the border, that's a simple change in paperwork. They just won't write slaughter. Guys, this goes on in business every day. Laws are broken daily under the noses of authority. Look at the blacklist thread if you don't believe me. We haven't shut that woman down yet. I know I called, I have no doubt that J Swan called/wrote. That's two right there. Others either haven't admitted calling, or just won't call. And if no one does something, things won't change. Same with slaughter. I'd way rather focus on perfecting our slaughter methods than risk a horse being knived in the neck.

[Angela Freda]

I've personally seen BLM mustangs, blind horses, and 3 legged lame broken bone horses, and babies, pregnant mares, all go to Mexico. If the borders are secured and these rules are enforced, why werent they stopped?

The ruling about shipping to slaughter/border crossings has not taken effect yet.

The atrocities you describe in which the current regulations are flagrantly being ignored is exactly why many are looking for a ban. Because the regulations in place now are not enforced or followed. How do you expect to institute and enforce more/harsher/stricter regulations when the present reguations are treated as mere "recommendations"? The industry has had years to comply and avoid this "mess" and all the bad press it has created for them by following the regulations more closely. That they have not, and have sought out the available loopholes illustrates why some think that a ban is the only way to protect a majority of horses.

[jetsmom]

Considering that the slaughter plant in Juarez states that "80% of the horses they slaughter come from the US", banning slaughter here will definitely have an impact on them. If they could fulfill the demand for horse meat using horses from MX, don't you think that in a country of people DESPERATE for ways to make money, they would be slaughtering their own horses? The answer is, that they do not have enough horses to fill the demand. Once slaughter is banned here, around 100,000 horses will no longer be assured of a horrible death here or in MX/CAN.
Canada may step up their killing of Canadian horses, but don't have the facilities to handle that much of an increase. MX doesn't have enough horses to fill that demand, so horses will be saved.
And getting a ban here will have an impact on CA banning it eventually. Just look at the cities that went "smoke free" in public places. Now it is becoming the norm since everyone is "jumping on board" and using the previos places that did it to set a precedent.
Canada has an active "Anti slaughter" group working on getting a ban, and if the uS does, Canada won't be far behind.

[Appassionato]

Considering that the slaughter plant in Juarez states that "80% of the horses they slaughter come from the US", banning slaughter here will definitely have an impact on them. If they could fulfill the demand for horse meat using horses from MX, don't you think that in a country of people DESPERATE for ways to make money, they would be slaughtering their own horses? The answer is, that they do not have enough horses to fill the demand. Once slaughter is banned here, around 100,000 horses will no longer be assured of a horrible death here or in MX/CAN.
Canada may step up their killing of Canadian horses, but don't have the facilities to handle that much of an increase. MX doesn't have enough horses to fill that demand, so horses will be saved.
And getting a ban here will have an impact on CA banning it eventually. Just look at the cities that went "smoke free" in public places. Now it is becoming the norm since everyone is "jumping on board" and using the previos places that did it to set a precedent.
Canada has an active "Anti slaughter" group working on getting a ban, and if the uS does, Canada won't be far behind.

Exactly. Using methods of which we cannot control.

[county]

So if the supply dies from one area do you actually think there not going to raise or buy enough to fill their demand? Do you really beleive that people who barely make a living are going to care that the U.S. says they can't move horses across a border? Ever lived on the Az./Mex and N.M./Mex border and see how easy it is to cross it in 1000's of places?

[Appassionato]

So if the supply dies from one area do you actually think there not going to raise or buy enough to fill their demand? Do you really beleive that people who barely make a living are going to care that the U.S. says they can't move horses across a border? Ever lived on the Az./Mex and N.M./Mex border and see how easy it is to cross it in 1000's of places?

A more interesting question would be: WHO owns the slaughter houses in Mexico? They will pay the transport costs so long as there is a demand. Thinking that since the US banned slaughter is naive, we aren't the only country in the world, and we aren't the only ones that have horses.

[county]

Most slaughter places in Mex. are mom and pop type operations there are no huge plants. Theres also no gov. type regulations they follow what ever works for them is whats done. Anyone and everyone can bring in a horse or a truck load they don't contract buy like in the U.S.

[Appassionato]

Most slaughter places in Mex. are mom and pop type operations there are no huge plants. Theres also no gov. type regulations they follow what ever works for them is whats done. Anyone and everyone can bring in a horse or a truck load they don't contract buy like in the U.S.

Well, another question: Aren't our slaughter houses in the US not US-owned? If so, how lucrative would it be for them to fly to Mexico?

[county]

The U.S. plants are not owned by U.S. business. Fly to Mex for what? Not sure what you mean?

[Lildunhorse]

Since Mexico can't even feed or house so many of their people, how are they going to feed horses for slaughter? When people are living in tarpaper shacks, how are they going to BUY horses for slaughter?
Since the slaughter plants in Canada seem to have recently raised their standards as to what they will accept for slaughter and have been turning away more and more, it seems logical to me that the quality of meat from Mexico would have to improve drastically to make the slaughter industry viable and competitive. How will they do that with the horses available to them? Broken down Charro horses aren't exactly grade A.

[Appassionato]

The U.S. plants are not owned by U.S. business. Fly to Mex for what? Not sure what you mean?

To park new slaughter houses! CHEAP labor too! No regulations! Shoot, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.

[county]

Transport costs are higher. The U.S. has a huge supply of cheap product thats why there here. If its banned here then I'd not be surprised they move to Mex. but why operate at higher cost unless you have to? As any other business they would pass most the cost onto the consumer but there not going to do it on purpose.

[Appassionato]

Since Mexico can't even feed or house so many of their people, how are they going to feed horses for slaughter? When people are living in tarpaper shacks, how are they going to BUY horses for slaughter?
Since the slaughter plants in Canada seem to have recently raised their standards as to what they will accept for slaughter and have been turning away more and more, it seems logical to me that the quality of meat from Mexico would have to improve drastically to make the slaughter industry viable and competitive. How will they do that with the horses available to them? Broken down Charro horses aren't exactly grade A.

Mexico is a lot like some other countries of that socioeconomic status: I would gander that 5% of the citizens own over 50% of the land...sometimes people too.

And for the record, I believe some of our slaughter houses are not US-owned, I'm pretty sure Callas Crown isn't. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though!

[Appassionato]

Transport costs are higher. The U.S. has a huge supply of cheap product thats why there here. If its banned here then I'd not be surprised they move to Mex. but why operate at higher cost unless you have to? As any other business they would pass most the cost onto the consumer but there not going to do it on purpose.

But we also pay the employees far more here...I believe there are regulations on health care and such for full-time US workers that don't exist in Mexico. Hence I asked.

[county]

What the labor costs are here would be a drop in the bucket compared to transport costs. But its all a moot point unless the ban is passed here. How many actually think thats going to happen this month raise your hands.

[Appassionato]

What the labor costs are here would be a drop in the bucket compared to transport costs. But its all a moot point unless the ban is passed here. How many actually think thats going to happen this month raise your hands.

Oh, I agree it would even out. but I could see the less headche ratio as far as the actual workers of the plant itself.

Whether or not the ban is to be passed, raise my hand? I don't think it will pass. But I could be wrong!

[sabby]

Why would banning slaughter change how I breed? I sell foals for way way more then the slaughter market is. I don't breed horses for the slaughter market thats what I breed cattle for. Two totally differant markets.

What I meant was would it effect you indirectly? Why are some horse breeders and owners opposed to a slaughter ban?

[county]

Very few people I know are opposed to a slaughter ban. But many including myself are opposed to the ban thats been propsed. I can't get behind something thats had no thought or made any allowences for problems that will arise from a ban. The anti side has taken the " all or nothing " stance. I'm more then willing to go that route also but it looks more and more like its nothing. But I'm betting if that happens then there going to want something else. At which time theres no reason for the slaughter industry to work with them in any way. I think once again there going to end up shooting themselves in the foot.

[Sannois]

Oh please. How many people do you see on this forum who believe that the current system is just dandy and want it to stay exactly the same?

I'll wait while you go find those posts. Oh. Wait. There aren't any.

Sorry to point out the awful truth but in "doing something," you all are going to INCREASE SUFFERING. That is the bottom line.

Until the demand for horsemeat goes away, horses will be slaughtered. Just because it's not happening in your backyard doesn't mean you've improved the lot for horses as a group at all. In actuality, you'll have worsened it. Good job!
PLEASE Print the last paragraph of Erins post and Memorize it!! Put it up on your Medicine cabinet so its the first thing you see in the morning.
Thats the facts the way it is! WHY do you all keep sugar coating it and say Oh no it wont be worse, horses wont endure worse conditions by shipping out of the country, cause it will be illegal!!! LMAO!! since when has that ever stopped anyone! I dont care if theres laws on the books, how many laws are there in this country that are simply never enforced! MAny! People say oh well make more laws, Ummm gee try enforcing the ones that exist. The horses will suffer thats for damn sure!
:no:

[Angela Freda]

I dont care if theres laws on the books, how many laws are there in this country that are simply never enforced! MAny! People say oh well make more laws, Ummm gee try enforcing the ones that exist. The horses will suffer thats for damn sure!
:no:

So really what you are saying is that those people who propose that we just get more slaughter regs passed and drop this silly idea of a ban... are wrong cause as you said above..."I dont care if theres laws on the books, how many laws are there in this country that are simply never enforced! ... Ummm gee try enforcing the ones that exist. " ???

[Lildunhorse]

I dont care if theres laws on the books, how many laws are there in this country that are simply never enforced! MAny! People say oh well make more laws, Ummm gee try enforcing the ones that exist.

Until the law in every state is the same, and every state is funded to carry out the law, it does no good to try and enforce it. Until the law is uniform, it is useless.

Even if the ban is not passed, the effort to get it passed will have lasting effects. Already, we have seen an increase in the number of charges filed for illegal hauling, animal cruelty, etc. It has raised awareness, if nothing else.

The ambiguity with which the law is currently stated is our biggest problem, in my opinion, followed by the apathy with which it is enforced. The push to ban slaughter addresses that better than any campaign so far.

[county]

But at what cost has that effort taken? By attacking the pro slaughter people, calling them names, telling them their greedy, making death threats to them and their family, etc. whats that cost the chances of helping horses and stopping slaughter? Without those people working with you what are the odds of a ban? And if you should get a ban what are the odds the rules aren't going to be broken? The very people you attack are the same ones if worked with can show how enforcement can be done. I really don't think horses have ever beern the #1 prority all along. Peoples agendas and feelings have been horses are just a front for those things.

[Lildunhorse]

But at what cost has that effort taken? By attacking the pro slaughter people, calling them names, telling them their greedy, making death threats to them and their family, etc. whats that cost the chances of helping horses and stopping slaughter? Without those people working with you what are the odds of a ban? And if you should get a ban what are the odds the rules aren't going to be broken? The very people you attack are the same ones if worked with can show how enforcement can be done. I really don't think horses have ever beern the #1 prority all along. Peoples agendas and feelings have been horses are just a front for those things.

!. Anyone who knows me will attest to the fact that I do NOT routinely attack people, call them names, tell them they are greedy, or make death threats to them or their families;
2. I have always tried to get to know folks on the other side of the issue, including kill buyers and those who support the pro-slaughter campaign. They are a wealth of information and some of them can even communicate without exclamation points and four letter words;
3. There is no guarantee with any law that it won't be broken, but that doesn't stop us from making new laws;
4. and last but certainly not least, the horses have always been my number 1 priority.

[county]

I never meant it as you or anyone one person. I'm talking the whole anti movement as a whole. I really think they have turned away the very people who could have gotten them a big part of what they want.

[MSP]

I think it's more than just being a sexy campaign though- making improvements to the process is very difficult to actually do. More slaughterhouses on a more local level would improve a lot of things, but makes no sense economically. So that's out. More regulations are great, but as the past has proven, enforcement is really very difficult. It's not just that banning it is more attractive and attention getting, it may actually be *physically* easier (and more cost effective for the government). I don't really agree with that approach, but given past history, making those changes is harder not just because of public support...

There are lots of existing regulations now, as far as transport and handling and horses at auction, but we've all heard many stories about poor enforcement (or nonexisting enforcement).

It's sort of sad that it's easier to ban outright than it is to make improvements to the system. It makes finding common ground on the issue next to impossible.

caffeinated hit the nail on this one!

I don’t believe this is the end all! I think we need a major change in the structure of the USDA for many reason beyond the horse slaughter industry.

I posted this on another thread and do to my work load forgive me for just reposting this:

The way I look at it odds are it will sharply reduce the current number of horses being transported to slaughter and that is a good thing. The double deckers are an abomination and both sides of this issue can't wait for them to be halted.

Horses are not categorized as meat animals in this country because we do not eat them. So if the USDA has X amount of inspectors and has X+20 amount of inspecting to do then horses are at the bottom of the list because our food source is a higher priority. The welfare of all our animals is low on the priority list because the USDA’s primary function and first priority is to promote US agriculture. Some times finding problems is contrary to promoting so guess what happens?

If you really want to fix this problem it would mean a major over haul of our government agencies that are involved and probably it would be best to create a new agency whose job is to inspect and protect animals. Horses would need to be classified as meat animals and every substance put in to them would need to be monitored and controlled. The USDA doesn’t do a good job of this with our meat animals so I doubt they could do any better with horses.

To affectively improve the lives of meat animals (horses now included) you would then need some good protection for animals regarding their transportation and care at sale yards, en-route and at slaughter facilities. The methods of slaughter would also need to be improved and finally all this would need to be heavily enforced by the new agency.

To reduce large factory farms that cause in them selves abuse, limits would need to be set as far as how far an animal can travel to be slaughtered and how many can be slaughtered in a given time frame. Another words slaughter plants should be smaller and more of them strategically placed in every state so animals will not have long distances to travel.

As you can see this is a lot of change and the only way to move this mountain would be a major amount of cash and political backing and the support of the vast majority of US consumers. An of course all this would most likely make the cost of your food go up so how likely will this be?

To better understand the problem with USDA read this (http://www.citizen.org/documents/USDAInc.pdf).

[onthebit12000]

Erin,

First we must do what we can to protect OUR horses.

There is already an effort underway in Canada to outlaw horse slaughter there as well. Canadians also overwhelmingly want horse slaughter outlawed.

There are also groups working in Mexico to improve conditions for horses at slaughter. Rome wasnt built in a day...




So, say slaughter of horses becomes illegal in the US. Demand for horsemeat overseas stays the same. Where are the horses going to come from to satisfy the demand?

Oh, yeah, they'll be slaughtered in countries where it's still legal. Like Mexico.

So, if the ban passes, it will actually mean MORE SUFFERING for horses because more of them will be slaughtered in other countries where the facilities are WORSE than the admittedly bad facilities here.

But, because they are not American horses, apparently that's OK.

[Lildunhorse]

I never meant it as you or anyone one person. I'm talking the whole anti movement as a whole. I really think they have turned away the very people who could have gotten them a big part of what they want.

Fair enough. However, since I am only a small part of the effort, and I know there are thousands more out there just like me, the perception of the effort as a whole may not be entirely accurate.

[county]

And that works both ways.

[onthebit12000]

To park new slaughter houses! CHEAP labor too! No regulations! Shoot, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.

There is only one horse slaughter plant in Mexico that is approved by the EU for export. The EU has strict guidelines on food safety, transport and slaughter.

The EU does not approve the export of any other meat from Mexico.

Also, the current demand for domestic horsemeat consumption in Mexico is a bit of an abberation. The demand has only increased because of the Mexican beef shortage caused by the outbreak of Mad Cow in the US.

Once Mexico reopens the border to US beef, the demand for US horsemeat will drop off as rapidly as it began. Gee, you'd think the cattle producers would better spend their time getting those borders reopened rather than fighting to keep horse slaughter in place.

[Lildunhorse]

And that works both ways.

I agree 100%

[county]

I don't think you know much about the beef industry.

[Lildunhorse]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or have gotten off track.

I was under the impression that after the NAFTA agreement, 50% of the beef being imported into Mexico was for the purpose of increasing their breeding stock, and that Mexico sends its beef cattle to the U.S. for fattening before slaughter.
Does Mad Cow affect the importation of breeding stock ?

[onthebit12000]

Mexico has not accepted the import of ANY U.S. cattle for well over 2 years now. The resulting drastic shortage of beef has led directly to the increased demand for US horses.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/AL_LS635.txt


Gail

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or have gotten off track.

I was under the impression that after the NAFTA agreement, 50% of the beef being imported into Mexico was for the purpose of increasing their breeding stock, and that Mexico sends its beef cattle to the U.S. for fattening before slaughter.
Does Mad Cow affect the importation of breeding stock ?

[county]

What happen to all the people that flip out when cattle are mentioned on this board? Me thinks its not cattle that bothers them its who brings cattle up. Pretty much an example why the pro slaughter groups just don't take the other side seriously. To many one way streets.

[county]

BTW the whole Mad Cow thing is all politics. We don't want Mex. to open the border back up for U.S. beef. If they do then we have to open our border to let live Can. beef back in the U.S. Since the Can. border has been closed to their beef our prices have hit record highs for live beef animals in the U.S. If we open the Can. border back up 1000's of beef animals will come into the U.S. each month and push U.S. beef back down. What Mex. buys from us is a drop in the bucket over the world market.

[onthebit12000]

What happen to all the people that flip out when cattle are mentioned on this board? Me thinks its not cattle that bothers them its who brings cattle up. Pretty much an example why the pro slaughter groups just don't take the other side seriously. To many one way streets.

County,

The Mexican ban on US beef has directly affected US horses being exported to Mexico for slaughter. I would say that this makes the current discussion perfectly relative.

By the way, who were you talking to when you said "I dont think you know much about the beef industry"?

[DMK]

For anyone who thinks Mexico can't afford to feed horses for slaughter needs to explain how it is their #4 commodity export is ... cattle (behind tequila but ahead of coffee). Somehow I just don't think a rational person can say they are sending starving, underfed cattle to slaughterhouses in other countries (under commodity listings if their export was processed beef/veal it would be listed as such). So I am left to believe that if it was profitible for them to raise horses for slaughter, there would be a way to do so.

And implying that Mexico is so poor it cannot feed itself is really shameful. Mexico is certainly not as wealthy as the US (because who is?) and it certainly has more than its fair share of hungry people (and we don't?) but it also has some seriously wealthy people, and more importantly it has a decent middle class. It's not a third world economy, notwithstanding images of tar paper shacks and starving people trotted out on this thread.

[county]

So I think that when cattle have been brought up before it was relitive to the discussion taking place also. Why should one side be attacked and not the other by the same people? I'd say because they live on a one way street.

[abrant]

Everyone, please look at this:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/AL_LS635.txt
Thu, Dec 7, 2006 USDA Market News
US to Mexico Weekly Livestock Export Summary

Also: Mexico to US... we get lotsa feeder cows from Mexico:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/AL_LS625.txt

There is no such summary for Canadian Exports. Do they even keep track?

Any way...

Another kudos for Erin for good posts. I agree with her too.

Also, I do believe that when the supply of horsemeat diminishes and the demand remains the same, the price will go up. Since people don't seem to eat horsemeat because it's cheap. I think the market will support it. This is more value into the process... thus I think it makes it worth people's while to circumvent the laws... or pay the fees associated with export. Also, I think, especially a developing nation like Mexico, it might encourage the breeding of horses specifically for slaughter.

Random...

So many of these anti-slaughter websites have the address and maps of slaughterhouses... What's up with that? I'm halfway tempted to drive down to Dekalb and see if Cavel attracts protesters...

~Adrienne

[Lildunhorse]

GUSTAVO TORRES, who at one time (not sure who it is now) was the President of the Mexican Cattleman's Association, was complaining about the fact that Australian cattle, which were being imported into Mexico for exportation to other countries, were being counted as Mexican cattle. So many of those cattle which are being included in the total exports, might be actually Australian and not Mexican at all. Not that this is relevant to the conversation, but I just thought I would throw that out there. And if my comments earlier about the condition of the Mexican people offended anyone, I apologize. I don't have any personal interaction with immigrants from the middle or upper classes, so I am not able to speak to that.

[MSP]

I am confused. Are we or are we not exporting beef to Mexico? The USDA report says none but this article says Mexico is the USA’s biggest customer.

Added: Never mind I see now, the USDA report is live cattle and the article is meat. Sorry! Well maybe this article will add some new fact to the discussion.


http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=85015

Beef exports in the third quarter reached 307 million pounds, more than double the export total from the same period in 2005. While important Asian markets have reopened to U.S. beef, the strength seen to date is the result of exports to Mexico and Canada returning to pre-BSE levels.

U.S. beef exports to Canada jumped sharply in the second quarter of 2006 and were sustained above 20 million pounds per month through the third quarter. Part of the explanation was the differential in beef cutout values: Canadian prices came down more slowly through this period than U.S. prices, so U.S. beef was attractive while the differential persisted. The Canadian AAA (comparable to U.S. Choice) cutout price was above C$170 (about US$151) most of third quarter and only dropped below C$165 (about US$146) in October. Exports to Canada are expected to remain strong into 2007.

The biggest customer for U.S. beef, however, has been Mexico, which is on a pace to shatter its previous record of 629 million pounds of U.S. beef bought in 2002. The same factors supporting the Mexican market earlier are still at work: a healthy Mexican economy, large U.S. beef supplies, and U.S. beef prices constant or declining in nominal terms. The reopening of the Asian markets has not appeared to reduce exports to Mexico to date.

As mentioned, both Japan and South Korea reopened their markets to U.S. beef in the third quarter. Japan was the top destination for U.S. beef for many years prior to the U.S. BSE discovery in December 2003, and South Korea had pulled even with Mexico as the number two U.S. customer. Small amounts of U.S. beef have started moving into Japan, as beef prices there are relatively high and consumers are beginning to accept U.S. beef again. However, exports seem constrained on the supply side by the requirement that this beef may only come from animals under 21 months of age. South Korea agreed in September to begin accepting U.S. beef again, with the restrictions that it be boneless product from animals less than 30 months of age. At this date, only a limited amount of beef has gone to South Korea, apparently due to uncertainty regarding how shipments with bone fragments or other non-permitted materials might be handled.

The beef export forecast for the fourth quarter of 2006 was also raised by 10 million pounds from last month, to better reflect the strength seen in exports to Mexico and Canada, which is expected to continue. The forecast for 2007 was unchanged.

[Alagirl]

Ahhhh.....kissing cousins to PETA....gotta love'em!


Am I being snarky telling y'all *I told you so!*?

quote=onthebit12000;2045376]Warning...Contains extremely graphic and disturbing footage.


http://www.hsus2.org/specials/mexico-horses-2.wmv

HSUS Press Release December 5, 2006.

Exclusive Video Showing American Horses Slaughtered in Barbaric Ways Across U.S. Borders



Legislation in Congress to Ban Horse Slaughter Would Halt Shipment of Live Horses to Canada and Mexico for Slaughter



WASHINGTON (December 5, 2006) – The Humane Society of the United States today released exclusive video obtained by its undercover investigators that reveals the brutal slaughter of American horses at a Mexican slaughterhouse in Juarez.



In addition, one slaughterhouse official, whose operation supplies 95 percent of company lunchrooms in and around Juarez, told HSUS investigators the carcasses of these animals are being flavored with beef and served to unwitting factory workers.



These findings were part of an investigation completed last month by The HSUS that documents the abuses of American horses caught in a slaughter pipeline that kills nearly 100,000 horses a year at three plants in this country – two in Texas and one in Illinois -- and thousands more at plants in Mexico and Canada. Legislation passed in the House and pending in the Senate would put an end to the slaughter of American horses – either in the United States or in Canada or Mexico. The HSUS argued today that the release of this shocking footage adds to the urgency for Senate action to halt this inhumane killing.



The HSUS is also releasing a December 4, 2006 letter from more than a quarter of the Senate to Senate Majority Leader Frist and Senate Minority Leader Reid urging them to support the immediate passage of The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The Senate bill, S. 1915, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.), would prohibit the slaughter of horses in the United States as well as the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption. It has a bipartisan roster of 34 Senate co-sponsors. The House of Representatives approved identical legislation, H.R. 503, in September by an overwhelming vote of 263 to 146.



"We invite the foreign-owned horse slaughter industry and its supporters to view this footage with us in a public forum and then try and justify their claims that shipping American horses all across North America and across our borders for slaughter is a ‘humane form of euthanasia’ and is ‘for their own good.’ This appalling and tremendously saddening footage shows that the slaughter industry’s argument is ludicrous on its face,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “This is a barbaric and inhumane industry, and further delays in Congress in securing final passage of the legislation translate into untold suffering and misery for American horses in transport and slaughter.”



HSUS investigators crisscrossed the United States and traversed the Canadian and Mexican borders to chronicle the process by which horses wind up at slaughterhouses. From auctions to remote feedlots to the interstate highways across which “killer-buyers” transport the horses, HSUS investigators documented cruelty, abuse, and on the kill floor in Juarez, a shocking method of slaughter.



In Juarez, where thousands of American horses are currently exported for slaughter each year, investigators found that workers kill the animals before first rendering them unconscious. Instead, the horses are “stunned” by stabbing them several times with a short dagger in an attempt to sever the spinal cord, leaving them paralyzed and unable to breath, but still sensible to pain as they are hoisted up by a chain and their necks slit. The puntilla or boning knife practice is considered inhumane by both supporters and opponents of horse slaughter and is banned in this country by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.



“Proponents of horse slaughter use the canard that if slaughter is banned in the U.S. the horses will endure even worse abuse in foreign slaughterhouses,” said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Society of Animal Protective Legislation. “But thousands of American horses are being butchered in Canada and Mexico, and the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act has unambiguous provisions to stop the live export of these animals, putting an end to the killing of American horses here in the United States or just over the border in Canada or Mexico.”



According to figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as of mid-November, some 90,000 horses have been slaughtered at the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in this country so far this year. In addition, more than 19,000 horses have been exported to Canada for slaughter and another 8,500 to Mexico.[/quote]

[abrant]

HSUS investigators crisscrossed the United States and traversed the Canadian and Mexican borders to chronicle the process by which horses wind up at slaughterhouses.


They spent all the time and all that money and just came up with that six minutes mostly in Mexico and Texas?

~Adrienne

[Alagirl]

They spent all the time and all that money and just came up with that six minutes mostly in Mexico and Texas?

~Adrienne


:yes: :lol:

[bryn]

The statistics from the Temple Grandin study are from 9 years ago and not relevant to today's kill buyer commercial haulers. The USDA has repeatedly said that 80% or more of the slaughter loads are in double deckers. I can vouch for that statistic by looking at the FOIA's owner shipper forms from several states. The Safe Transport to Slaughter regs also address this topic. The vast majority of loads are loads of 35 horses or more.

[summerhorse]

some of the horse traders have gooseneck stock trailers that hold up to 10 or so full size horses (albeit crowded) and more smaller ones. Probably the ones transported via this method are mostly "local" (one day drive or so) as I would think the time and gas prices would eat away any profits on small loads from further away.

[jetsmom]

Alagirl- Go to the link I posted on Pg 1 or 2 of this thread for KVIA and watch the news report. This was filmed by the tv station here in El Paso. The slaughter facility is in Juarez which is about a 15 min drive from here (although it is a 40 min drive from the Santa Teresa port of entry (where livestock must cross to the slaughterhouse). You can see that the HSUS video is in fact, true.

DMK- Juarez is one of the poorer large cities in MX that is close to the border. Mexico city , Mazatlan and some of the other cities that attract tourists may have a decent sized middle class, but speaking dfrom first hand experience dealing with Juarez citizens (and friends that live there), there is a HUGE problem with their economy/pay/jobs/income.

[Annetta]

I heard a report last week that said if/when the US ban on slaughtering horses takes effect, horse slaughter in Canada will increase by 25%. I expect that is quite true; I actually would have expected that percentage to be higher. The demand will still be there, and the meat will come from somewhere. And yes, I would expect that reduced supply will mean a price increase, and those who want horse meat for their tables will pay it.

A few years ago--before the fall of the PMU industry--slaughter horse prices here were at $1.00 per pound. That was before BSE closed our borders to beef, so beef shortages somewhere weren't responsible for the high horsemeat prices.

I also expect that if and when the US ban takes effect, we will see horses crossing the borders for slaughter. Increased meat prices will make the extra cost of importing worthwhile. Incidentally, as of July 1st 2006 the GST charged on horse imports dropped from 7% to 6%. BTW, I imported horses from the US earlier this year and did not have to pay broker fees--I did pay for coggins & federal health papers plus the 6% tax at the border, and that was it. There is no vet inspection at the border as long as you have the proper federal stamp on the export papers.

[JumpingPaints]

But at what cost has that effort taken? By attacking the pro slaughter people, calling them names, telling them their greedy, making death threats to them and their family, etc. whats that cost the chances of helping horses and stopping slaughter? Could you offer proof of these allegations? Because from everything I've heard and read, it's certain people on the pro-slaughter side trying to intimidate the anti-slaughter side, and the only documented cases of death threats I've heard about are John Holland and Wild Horse Annie, both of whom worked in the anti-slaughter movement.

[JumpingPaints]

I also expect that if and when the US ban takes effect, we will see horses crossing the borders for slaughter. Increased meat prices will make the extra cost of importing worthwhile. Unless the shippers get caught and fined, since it would be illegal.

[SuperSTB]

Could you offer proof of these allegations? Because from everything I've heard and read, it's certain people on the pro-slaughter side trying to intimidate the anti-slaughter side, and the only documented cases of death threats I've heard about are John Holland and Wild Horse Annie, both of whom worked in the anti-slaughter movement.

Thank you and....

[SuperSTB]

Unless the shippers get caught and fined, since it would be illegal.

Thank you!!!

[Erin]

Erin,

First we must do what we can to protect OUR horses.

We must? Why? Who says so? How does doing so do anything to solve the overall problem, other than make us in the U.S. feel better?

Personally, I think it's just another marketing line that the slaughter ban folks have fed to the masses. "Why should OUR horses be eaten overseas? WE don't eat horse meat!" It's a bunch of baloney that has nothing to do with the actual issue and is simply an emotional ploy.

There is no logic behind this argument. You will have have spared "our" horses some suffering, but will have caused exponentially MORE suffering to horses in other countries. It will be a net loss for the horses, and I don't think the ones that aren't "ours" will be thanking you for it.

[jetsmom]

Erin, you are assuming that if our 100,000 horses aren't slaughtered that CA and MX will slaughter that many instead. What you don't seem to be taking into account, is that if MX, for example, could provide that number of horses for slaughter, they would already have been doing so, since there are less regulations and lower labor costs there. However, the Juarez plant, by their own admission are importing 80% of the total numbereed slaughtered. They NEED money and jobs. If they could supply the demand, they would, but apparently cannot.
In addition, they do not export horse meat overseas from there, so, the number slaughtered would be nowhere near the current total.
The CA slaughter facilities are already full, even with our 3 slaughterhouses open. I don't see that they will be able handle 100,000 more, nor will the killer buyers all be willing to engage in an illegal activity.
So the huge number of horses that don't end up slaughtered WILL indeed be thanking us.

[county]

JP all you have to do is read these threads and you can find plenty of attacks. My parents and myself got phone calls, my dads car tires were slashed when he worked at a slaughter plant, I've had e-mails making threats. If you honestly beleive no one does these things its because you don't want to beleive it.

[bryn]

So Erin, should we start slaughtering our dogs and cats to ease the suffering of dogs and cats in China where dogs and cats are slaughtered for gourmet dining?

Oh yes, it is a real feel good issue.

Just who is eating the baloney here?

[caffeinated]

Unless the shippers get caught and fined, since it would be illegal.

Not if they were taking them to Canada for "Sale." It would be perfectly legal to take a load over to a sale, even if at that sale they'd be going to slaughter.

They would simply have to pay more fees per horse (from what I'm getting out of this conversation), which we can only hope makes that economically unviable. But not illegal.

[bryn]

The shippers have to sign documents saying where the horses are going and what the intended purpose is. They would be falsifying the documents and thus subject to confiscation of truck/trailer/horses, prosecution, fines, and jail. We are not talking about crossing state lines. We are talking about crossing a border illegally. . . with a semi full of horses on a regular basis. . . gotta be pretty stupid to do that.

[caffeinated]

Um, if they were taking the horses to a sale, how would that be falsifying documents?

I'm not saying it's going to happen, or that it would be economically advantageous to go to those lengths, just that all they have to do is drop a load at a sale and it's perfectly legal, even if the buyers at that sale are slaughter buyers.

[county]

But its not ilegal to sell horses at a sale in Can. Unless you want this unthought out bill to do that also.

[SuperSTB]

Not if they were taking them to Canada for "Sale." It would be perfectly legal to take a load over to a sale, even if at that sale they'd be going to slaughter.

They would simply have to pay more fees per horse (from what I'm getting out of this conversation), which we can only hope makes that economically unviable. But not illegal.

Horses taken across the border even for 'sale' are subject to documentation which for the time being is waived for slaughter bound horses. Taking slaughter out of the mix makes if probable that *all* horses crossing would now need proper documentation. Illegal activity happens regardless of any law on the book but laws to curb many otherwise there wouldn't be a point in them. Doucmentation means $$$ means less profit. I'm sure some will continue but it deters overall.

[county]

I don't understand the concept its going to cost to much to haul horses to Can. for slaughter. Its a whole lot cheaper to haul from partsa of the U.S. to Can. then it is Tx. And the fees etc. are not going to break anyone they cut into the profit of course but hardly cost more then what there sold for. And when the cycle goes back up to say twice what meat price is now theres a whole lot more profit.

[caffeinated]

All depends on the economics of the situation. If prices remain as they are, no, there's not much profit in it. If prices go up, there are some that might find the endeavor worthwhile. Again, I'm not saying this definitely will happen, because no one can predict the future... just saying it's possible- there seem to be a lot of people who think that the ban means no american horses will ever see a foreign slaughterhouse ever again. There's a good probability that that's true, but there are also ways around it, if it becomes profitable enough to make that effort.

[county]

Does anyone actually beleive the only profit margin being made now from horses going to slasughter in Can. is what its going to cost extra to go over the border? If you do then you know very little about the slaughter industry. They don't haul 1 horse at a time.

[SuperSTB]

We must? Why? Who says so? How does doing so do anything to solve the overall problem, other than make us in the U.S. feel better?

Personally, I think it's just another marketing line that the slaughter ban folks have fed to the masses. "Why should OUR horses be eaten overseas? WE don't eat horse meat!" It's a bunch of baloney that has nothing to do with the actual issue and is simply an emotional ploy.

There is no logic behind this argument. You will have have spared "our" horses some suffering, but will have caused exponentially MORE suffering to horses in other countries. It will be a net loss for the horses, and I don't think the ones that aren't "ours" will be thanking you for it.

Canada grass root movement to end slaughter as well.

The emotional argument in regards to 'OUR' horses is simple and logical albeit yes emotional.

OUR horses means... that a vast majority of US are owned as pleasure animals akin to our household pets but obviously cared under livestock conditions since I don't think many of us would want a pony curled at the foot of our bed (or maybe yes :) ) So we treat our horses as recreational companion animals. To discard such pets carelessly is abhorrent to many of us. And some of us believe that an outlet that allows a person to get a few bucks for horses *fosters* irresponsibility and throw away society. It also provides a cash line for theft.

No, OUR horses aren't better than any other nation's horses but we live in this country and can affect OUR government and since OUR horses are no longer traditional livestock but companion or recreational livestock and we do not as a practice eat OUR horses, logically is stands to reason that one would want to protect OUR horses first.

[county]

Then don't sell your horses how hard can it be to figure out? As far as banning it because someonme might steal a horse and sell it. Theres way more cattle stolen and sold I hardly think it makes sense to ban eating cattle either.

[SuperSTB]

It's also been argued that horse meat consumption is on the decline again internationally... With improved tracking for disease and meat contamination of beef, pork, chicken, people are more confident about consuming those perferred product.

Once again US horse slaughter is dependant on demand so yes demand will seek elsewhere for supply however it does stand to impact internationally... "Why would the US ban horse meat? What's wrong with it?"

Since the Japanese are allowing beef imports- I wonder what the impact has been. It also amazes me that they will eat untested horsemeat but make the beef industry jump through hoops... (I know the answer)

[Erin]

Erin, you are assuming that if our 100,000 horses aren't slaughtered that CA and MX will slaughter that many instead. What you don't seem to be taking into account, is that if MX, for example, could provide that number of horses for slaughter, they would already have been doing so, since there are less regulations and lower labor costs there. However, the Juarez plant, by their own admission are importing 80% of the total numbereed slaughtered. They NEED money and jobs. If they could supply the demand, they would, but apparently cannot.
In addition, they do not export horse meat overseas from there, so, the number slaughtered would be nowhere near the current total.
The CA slaughter facilities are already full, even with our 3 slaughterhouses open. I don't see that they will be able handle 100,000 more, nor will the killer buyers all be willing to engage in an illegal activity.
So the huge number of horses that don't end up slaughtered WILL indeed be thanking us.

Please don't tell me what I am assuming jetsmom, since I have said no such thing.

This is not rocket science. There is a demand for horsemeat. The supply will come from somewhere. If not the U.S. (or Canada, if that country is trying for a similar ban), there are plenty of other countries who don't care all that much about animal welfare who will step up to fill the void.

Horses will still be slaughtered to meet the demand. And they will be slaughtered in ways that are worse than what is happening now.

[SuperSTB]

Then don't sell your horses how hard can it be to figure out? As far as banning it because someonme might steal a horse and sell it. Theres way more cattle stolen and sold I hardly think it makes sense to ban eating cattle either.

Well here is your oppurtunity to start a cow/pig/chicken slaughter ban! Since you point out numerous times that all slaughter/transport needs improvement (and both sides can't seem to work it out together) and no one species is better than the other, than I assume you'll be leading the vegan masses? Just think of how many PETA and HSUS fans you'll accumulate and you won't have to worry about death threats, slashed tires, and whatnot that seem to get more violent exponentially as you post.

[Erin]

So Erin, should we start slaughtering our dogs and cats to ease the suffering of dogs and cats in China where dogs and cats are slaughtered for gourmet dining?

Oh yes, it is a real feel good issue.

Just who is eating the baloney here?

Gee, that's a logical response.

Personally, I'd have no problem with it if the 3-4 million animals put to sleep in shelters every year could be sent to China for human consumption. They're dead; what do they care? Whoever owned them didn't care enough about them while they were alive to take care of them.

They can't be, of course, because they're euthanized with drugs. (And because there would be huge public outcry... why there isn't already huge public outcry over the fact that 3-4 million animals are put to sleep every year is beyond me.) But yes, that WOULD be the logical thing to do to alleviate the suffering of animals in China. It would never happen, because no one seems to consider these things logically...

But I sure do appreciate you responding to the substance of my post instead of trying to paint me as a maniacal animal killer who wants to slaughter puppies and kittens! :winkgrin:

[county]

Why would I do that I have no problems with slaughter if people want to eat meat. And theres nothing getting more violent at all and never has been.

[Erin]

Canada grass root movement to end slaughter as well.

The emotional argument in regards to 'OUR' horses is simple and logical albeit yes emotional.

Simple? Yes. Emotional? Yes. Logical? No.

The slaughter ban is about feeling good. It does nothing to address the problems.

There is no logic involved, as people have pointed out repeatedly that "our" cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. suffer just as much as "our" horses. Would your solution to those problems be a ban also?

[SuperSTB]

Simple? Yes. Emotional? Yes. Logical? No.

The slaughter ban is about feeling good. It does nothing to address the problems.

There is no logic involved, as people have pointed out repeatedly that "our" cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. suffer just as much as "our" horses. Would your solution to those problems be a ban also?

But what 'problems' are you referring to? The problems as I see it are- inhumane transport to slaughter for horses, inhumane process (10% allowable human error), and does little to nothing to curb an unwanted or neglected horses.

[kazaban]

I am just curious to what will happen to the 70,000+ horses a year that are currently slaughtered if the houses are shut down? My assumption is that there are not sufficient homes/buyers for them now. So what will happen to them?
The next logical step would be to go after the racing and other industries that people breed horses for? This would eliminate the problem in the first place.
Kazaban

[county]

How would not breeding horses make people not want to eat horse meat?

[Erin]

But what 'problems' are you referring to? The problems as I see it are- inhumane transport to slaughter for horses, inhumane process (10% allowable human error), and does little to nothing to curb an unwanted or neglected horses.

The reason there are horses available to slaughter in this country in the first place is because we have a glut of cheap horses. Backyard breeders produce some, purebred breeders produce some (QHs, TBs, etc.), some are decent horses that are lame/old/have issues or are otherwise undesirable, etc. That's one problem.

The transport is another problem. And the treatment of horses at the slaughterhouse is a third problem.

The ban, in my mind, does little to nothing to address any of these problems. Nothing is being done to improve the slaughter situation except removing horses from the equation at the end.

Nor does a ban do anything to address the fact that there is a demand for horsemeat, and as long as that demand exists, horses will be slaughtered and eaten.

[caffeinated]

The next logical step would be to go after the racing and other industries that people breed horses for? This would eliminate the problem in the first place.
Kazaban

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? DO you mean forcing race owners to keep horses? Stopping the racing industry completely?

I don't think measures like that would really work- we have to figure out where the overpopulation comes from. The racing industry, though usually the first one people think of, isn't the biggest part of the problem. If you look at the numbers of breeds at the slaughter plants, the majority are QH or QH type- the 'overstock' of horses seems largely to be the result of willy nilly breeding of those stock type horses from the biggest breed registries in america.

Do you "go after" people who bought cheap ponies and the kids lost interest? People who bred for their dream foal but it didn't turn out quite right? People who are getting out of the business and selling all their stock? What do you do? Imprison people for trying to sell horses or not wanting them anymore?

[kazaban]

I personally think that when/if the slaughter houses close you will see unwanted horses piling up and then all the bad press that comes with it. I have already heard stories about horses being released into the wild because hay is too expensive this year.
The next logical thing to do is punish the people that produce the unwanted horses in the first place.
I do think the racing industry will fix the problem by euthanasia. There is the money in the industry to handle the problem.
I think the QH industry will lag a little and struggle with the problems of what to do with unwanted horses
Kazaban

[county]

So your going to punish people. And your going to do that how?

[caffeinated]

The next logical thing to do is punish the people that produce the unwanted horses in the first place.

But who do you punish? The breeder? The first owner? The last owner? Does it matter why the horse is unwanted or people are trying to sell it?

I don't think if a horse shows up at auction and nobody wants to buy it, that you can logically punish anybody. I think I see what you're trying to say, but in action don't see how it can work (or even if it should work- it is a free country and people are allowed to sell/get rid of animals- it's not their fault, exactly, if no one else wants that animal)

[kazaban]

But right now people can't handle the slaughter industry. So if you take away the outlet or the people who do want these animals then another bigger problem is created. Then the next logical solution is to not create the unwanted horses in the first place.
It is kind of like the problems that Australia has had with the introduction of new species. The new species thrives and kills off indiginous species. This changes the balances in the food chain. To fix the problem, they introduce animals that consume the new species until this second species over runs Australia.
My point is that shutting down the slaughter houses doesn't fix any of the problems it just will mask it until it is manifested in another way. The more logical approach would be to make the conditions for the slaughter horses better.
I know I am an old hardened person, but there wasn't anything in that video that really bothered me.
Kazaban

[caffeinated]

Now I'm confused- I agree with you that there's an issue of unwanted horses that doesn't go away when slaughter does.

I was just not understanding who you'd punish for the existence of such animals.

[bryn]

Kazaban, from another thread:

There are more than 9 million horses in the United States. This 100,000 which are brutally slaughtered are a very small percent of the millions of horses in the US. If you divide out the 100,000 per state, you are talking about finding a humane alternative for 2,000 horses per state. In Ohio, that would be 2,000 out of an Ohio horse population of 307,000 horses. That doesn't seem so hard to me, particularly when it is a known fact that many of the horses bought by kill buyers are bought without disclosure to the seller that the horses are going to slaughter. I believe many would not sell to kill buyers if they knew the fate of their horses. They would either hold on to their horses, find a more suitable buyer, or euthanize their horse.

As with anything, the market adjusts to the reality. Take away the brutal slaughter of horses from the market and the market will adjust and that market includes backyard breeders, the racing industry, and the AQHA to name a few. The kill buyers are not exclusively in horses. They will adjust by doing more cows, sheep, hogs, and chickens.

[kazaban]

I never said I would punish anyone... but the people who will be the next target in this issue and therefore pusnished will be the breeders, trainers, and owners of any unwanted horse that makes someone feel emotionally uncomfortable. If that horse becomes neglected than the breeders, trainers, and owners will be punished.
Kazaban

[county]

All this is fine and well but the fact is the ban has not been passed and its looking more and more like its not going to be. In the mean time nothings being done to improve anything for horses. And unless people wake up and work together nothings going to change.

[Erin]

Kazaban, from another thread:

There are more than 9 million horses in the United States. This 100,000 which are brutally slaughtered are a very small percent of the millions of horses in the US. If you divide out the 100,000 per state, you are talking about finding a humane alternative for 2,000 horses per state. In Ohio, that would be 2,000 out of an Ohio horse population of 307,000 horses. That doesn't seem so hard to me ...

See, this is what bugs me about the support offered by the ban people. This kind of oversimplification in no way reflects reality.

You are talking about increasing the horse population by 100,000 EVERY YEAR.

Look at what has happened at Days End trying to deal with the 70-odd horses that were found starving in MD. That kind of effort takes a rescue MONTHS to deal with. Now multiply that by 30. Every year.

2,000 horses per year per state (which isn't really an accurate way to look at it, considering that horses are not spread evenly throughout all states in the U.S.) may not sound like a lot to you, but when you talk to the people who actually do the rescuing (like Days End, who is against the ban, I believe), they disagree pretty vehemently.

... particularly when it is a known fact that many of the horses bought by kill buyers are bought without disclosure to the seller that the horses are going to slaughter. I believe many would not sell to kill buyers if they knew the fate of their horses. They would either hold on to their horses, find a more suitable buyer, or euthanize their horse.

You are quite possibly right. There's something that might actually address the root of the problem. So why not support legislation that would require it?

[kazaban]

Bryn,
I don't agree with your arguments as the market will not just adjust and absorb 100,000 horses a year. The problem with that logic is that there is work and expense involved in owning and caring for a horse. Ask any rescue how hard it is to find good homes. The other problem is that these horses could live 10-15 more years after they are absorbed into the market. So you will need 2000 aditional homes every year/state. And even if those homes rotated every 5 years, the supply will (as I think it already has) out grow the demand and you will still be left with the fact that there needs to be an outlet for unwanted horses.
I appreciate any hard facts that show these horses will be absorbed into the horse community that you might have?
Can you explain to me how the ending of horse slaughter will increase the demand for livestock?
Kazaban

[trubandloki]

Thank you Erin!
I agree with you 100% and you are saying it all so well! Thank you!

[SuperSTB]

The reason there are horses available to slaughter in this country in the first place is because we have a glut of cheap horses. Backyard breeders produce some, purebred breeders produce some (QHs, TBs, etc.), some are decent horses that are lame/old/have issues or are otherwise undesirable, etc. That's one problem.

We have X-amount of horses in the US for X amount of reasons. Most are produced in hope of financial gain. A depressed economy will naturally increase the amount of horses on the market. All types and breeds of horses are slaughter from stakes winners to grade foals. Slaughter is indiscriminate however does not like the old and infirmed.

Slaughter houses set the quota based on demand- NOT the US horse population. That demand is filled through a very small percentage of a niche selling venue. Horses unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time will end up slaughter bound. There have been high quality registered animals that end of in the kill pens.

Many such horses are only undesirable at the wrong time- does not mean they are invaluable and undeserving to exist.

I'd also like to point out that buying at the auction is *not* for everyone. Therefore the chances of selling horses to *quality* homes are severely limited. Just the way the kill buyers like it because that means cheaper horses.

The transport is another problem.

Yes- take out slaughter and you have a decrease in inhumane transportation. Yes some horses may illegally cross borders but there is no question it will decrease.

And the treatment of horses at the slaughterhouse is a third problem.

Yes- eliminate slaughter and eliminate the inhumane slaughterhouse treatment.

The ban, in my mind, does little to nothing to address any of these problems. Nothing is being done to improve the slaughter situation except removing horses from the equation at the end.

Nor does a ban do anything to address the fact that there is a demand for horsemeat, and as long as that demand exists, horses will be slaughtered and eaten.

We can't control other nations obviously but at least we ended some inhumane treatment somewhere which is better than nothing.

[Erin]

All this is fine and well but the fact is the ban has not been passed and its looking more and more like its not going to be. In the mean time nothings being done to improve anything for horses. And unless people wake up and work together nothings going to change.

And a record number of horses have been slaughtered this year (what is it estimated to be, 125,000 or so?), because the industry was afraid the ban might pass.

So, 2006 will likely close with no ban and 25,000 more horses having been killed inhumanely.

[SuperSTB]

Kazaban

Somehow the equine population managed to absord the shift from almost 400,000 horses to 40,000 in the span of 10 years now it's up to 100,000. Where's the correlation in slaughter curbing unwanted horses, neglect, or even improving the equine market through higher meat price market values?

[I'm EBO]

I think the QH industry will lag a little and struggle with the problems of what to do with unwanted horses
Kazaban

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

"LAG a little"??? The AQHA is one of the largest, if not the largest, proponent of slaughter. Why, you ask? Because they collect $$ for every registration of every new qh foal. One scenario goes this way: Start horses in heavy work at 18 months for the futurities. Horses break down? No problem, there's a new one that'll be ready to go next week. What to do with the crippled one? Auction. The same thing can happen to a qh that doesn't live up to the owner's expectations, whether they manage to cripple it or not.

What the AQHA should do with unwanted horses is stop encouraging mass producing of horses. Those guys should be in Detroit, making cars, instead of promoting the creation of living beings. They'll probably do that at about the same time they publicize the problems with the Impressive line.

[Marcella]

I've been asking what about the horses slaughtered every day for years. But with the anti slogan of " all our nothing " the horses continue to have the same problems at slaughter decade after decade. IMO if you care about horses those groups and people would work with the other side to make changes and improvements rather then settle for nothing.

And lots of horses go to slaughter other then in double deck semis. Theres two loads by gooseneck trailers from here in Mn. every month just from one place I know. But theres also lots of gooseneck trailers that haul more then 4,6,or 8 head.


County--negotiation is not in their vocabulary. Unfortunately, life is negotiation, which is why we are still at the same impass as many years ago. If they were smart, they would change the system first, and then possibly work towards stopping the whole industry as costs rise for processing and the number of horses being processed slows down because of all the standards put in place. But alas, that makes too much sense.

[Erin]

Slaughter houses set the quota based on demand- NOT the US horse population. That demand is filled through a very small percentage of a niche selling venue. Horses unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time will end up slaughter bound. There have been high quality registered animals that end of in the kill pens.

Yes, and how does the ban do ANYTHING to affect the demand for horsemeat? It doesn't.

Slaughter is not dependent upon the horse population, but the PRICE of horses is. Were horses (as a whole) a more valuable commodity, they would not be financially feasible to slaughter. You don't see killer buyers showing up at Fasig-Tipton or the warmblood sales, do you?

Many such horses are only undesirable at the wrong time- does not mean they are invaluable and undeserving to exist.

The 3-4 million dogs and cats put to sleep every year would argue that they deserve to exist also. But there are no homes for them, and most communities realize that warehousing them so they can simply "exist" is not particularly humane either.

Yes- take out slaughter and you have a decrease in inhumane transportation.

Yes- eliminate slaughter and eliminate the inhumane slaughterhouse treatment.

Make it illegal to breed horses and the price of horses would go up considerably and they'd no longer be viable to slaughter.

Just because an action will have one beneficial result does not mean that it is overall beneficial. You could also improve transportation and treatment in other ways.

We can't control other nations obviously but at least we ended some inhumane treatment somewhere which is better than nothing.

No, it's not. If X is the sum of all the suffering horses in the US endure on their way to becoming horsemeat, and a ban shifts that suffering to other countries, where the sum of all the suffering horses endure on their way to becoming horsemeat is Y, and Y is exponentially greater than X, that is WORSE than nothing.

[Erin]

Kazaban

Somehow the equine population managed to absord the shift from almost 400,000 horses to 40,000 in the span of 10 years now it's up to 100,000. Where's the correlation in slaughter curbing unwanted horses, neglect, or even improving the equine market through higher meat price market values?

Again, you are oversimplifying statistics to prove your point.

The high (400,000) was an artificial and temporary high created by (as I recall) a terrible economy and changes in the tax laws that led to a LOT of horses being dumped into the market. You cannot look at that one number without an understanding of the external forces at the time and claim it corresponds to a DRAMATIC shift in the market that will be caused by introducing a ban and removing a major outlet for horses.

This is basic economics. Remember how gas prices jumped after Katrina? Small changes can have big effects on markets. BIG changes can have disastrous effects.

[Erin]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

"LAG a little"??? The AQHA is one of the largest, if not the largest, proponent of slaughter. Why, you ask? Because they collect $$ for every registration of every new qh foal. One scenario goes this way: Start horses in heavy work at 18 months for the futurities. Horses break down? No problem, there's a new one that'll be ready to go next week. What to do with the crippled one? Auction. The same thing can happen to a qh that doesn't live up to the owner's expectations, whether they manage to cripple it or not.

And how will a ban change this?

Answer -- it likely won't. The AQHA will still pump out babies, and (best case scenario) they'll be euthanized instead of slaughtered. And the AQHA will keep pumping out babies.

If you're going to demonize the AQHA, fine, they deserve it. But don't pretend that the ban will change the way they do things one iota.

[Lildunhorse]

Hey, wait a minute...

There are people, believe it or not, that let their horses breed, because they know the auction is an easy way to dispose of the "extras". One gal in particular, who I know quite well, disposes of her less "flashy" paints, imperfect foals, pissy mares, etc., by taking them to the sale at the end of every month, where she is on a first name basis with every kill buyer on the floor. She knows darn well where these horses are going. And she is grateful for the easy out.

If she knows that she can't dispose of the extras quite so easily, will she stop breeding? This is beer money, folks. This isn't someone raising high quality horses. If she had to pay a license fee for that stud she has running around breeding every mare she owns, some of them before they are even two years old, what would she do?

I will not be convinced that she is an anomaly and that other people like her don't exist...by the thousands. If she takes 10 horses a year to the kill sale, and you multiply her by thousands...well....

[Erin]

County--negotiation is not in their vocabulary. Unfortunately, life is negotiation, which is why we are still at the same impass as many years ago. If they were smart, they would change the system first, and then possibly work towards stopping the whole industry as costs rise for processing and the number of horses being processed slows down because of all the standards put in place. But alas, that makes too much sense.

Uh... you think the companies that slaughter horses should work toward stopping the whole industry? And you wonder why they aren't amenable toward negotiating with people who think like that?

Businesses exist to make money. If you make conditions such that the slaughter industry makes more money by being humane, they will absolutely jump on the bandwagon. (Not because they care about the horses, but who cares, if the end result is that horses are treated better.)

How do you do this? You mount a PR campaign in the countries that eat horsemeat, publicizing what happens to the horses, the drugs in their systems, etc. This decreases demand for horsemeat produced via traditional slaughter facilities in the US, and would increase demand for "certified humane" horsemeat. (I don't know if any such product exists yet, but a la the huge growth in organics and Whole Foods-type stores here in the US, there is certainly a market for it.)

You pass legislation that imposes STIFF financial penalties for inhumane treatment at slaughter facilities and during transport, and you aggressively enforce those laws. Abuse is currently cheap, fast and easy. Make it difficult and expensive and it will lessen.

You work to educate horse owners about what happens to horses that are sold at auctions, and you educate them about other alternatives, whether it's referrals to trainers (to fix problem horses), rescues (to find homes for unwanted but useful/adoptable horses), or inexpensive euthanasia.

You try to establish actual alternative MARKETS for the horses that are currently going to slaughter, so they can find useful lives somewhere, rather than being euthanized or warehoused at a rescue. CANTER does this. The COTH giveaways forum does this.

You pass legislation to require slaughterhouses to scan horses for microchips and check for brands, and cross-reference against lists of stolen horses. And then you educate horse owners about microchipping and branding.

Finally, you educate breeders (backyard and "expert") about their roles in the problem, and you get the registries to work to address the issue in their own realms. (Like the Jockey Club supporting CANTER and TRF, and promoting their work at the tracks.)

Yes, it would take a long time, and it would be very, very difficult. But it would actually address the causes of the current situation, rather than slapping a band-aid on it.

When you look at the work that CANTER and similar groups have done in finding markets for useful, valuable horses that were going to slaughter simply because their owners didn't feel they had other options, you see the ways in which these kinds of things WORK. They start small, they network, and they grow organically.

Compare this to the drastic measure of wholesale elimination of an existing and widely-used outlet for horses, the potential effects of which HAVE NOT been thoroughly investigated. (i.e. studied by economists or population experts who can predict the effect on the market and the horse population)

THAT is why so many people fear that the ban will have disastrous and unintended effects.

[DMK]

DMK- Juarez is one of the poorer large cities in MX that is close to the border. Mexico city , Mazatlan and some of the other cities that attract tourists may have a decent sized middle class, but speaking dfrom first hand experience dealing with Juarez citizens (and friends that live there), there is a HUGE problem with their economy/pay/jobs/income.

Hey, I wouldn't want the whole US judged by the standard of living in Brownsville, Texas, so I'll extend the same courtesy to Mexico's border cities as well. :lol: (and before anyone leaps all over me, I have TONS of family in Brownsville. They would agree).

Regardless, Mexico is still not a poor nation by world standards. It's not a third world country by any reasonable measure. And somehow it manages to raise enough beef to manage a decent export business. If it can feed cattle up to a #4 export, it's hard to argue they could not raise horses as well. Whether they have the inclination or if the industry is profitable enough to divert those resources from food/cattle production, I don't know. But that is entirely different from saying they can't afford to feed horses for slaughter.

[Erin]

I will not be convinced that she is an anomaly and that other people like her don't exist...by the thousands. If she takes 10 horses a year to the kill sale, and you multiply her by thousands...well....

OK, but how is this different from the farmer who raises beef cattle? He obviously knows where all his cattle are going. He is in it as a business, and as long as it is financially viable for him, there's no reason for him not to be in that business.

You don't see people breeding and raising horses intending them to go exclusively for meat, because they can make more money selling them as riding horses. I would assume breeding horses for meat wouldn't be a very lucrative business, as the price per pound for horsemeat doesn't seem to be particuarly high, but if you are breeding to try to sell riding horses and have some that you can't sell, you minimize your loss if you sell them for slaughter.

But... so what? It's not the way most people here would deal with their horses, but IF the horses are humanely treated, well, I don't have a problem with it.

county, you would probably know the answer to this... how does the price paid for horses bound for slaughter compare with what someone gets for selling beef cattle? Would someone actually be able to make money raising horses to be sold for meat?

[Lildunhorse]

I was actually trying to address the issue of unwanted horses. If this person wasn't given an opportunity to profit from her irresponsibility, she might become more responsible. Might. I believe this person is what most of us would consider a backyard breeder, not for the purpose of producing high quality animals.

[DMK]

I'm not county (obviously), but we have been breeding cattle for 1000's of years with an eye to constantly increase meat yield per pound of energy/food (be it grain or grazing) to achieve such yield. I can't say for sure if cattle are more profitable to raise for meat, but damn... if they weren't, did we miss the boat over the last couple thousand years.

[county]

And you quit attacking people it serves no purpose other then to make them even more against change. Well maybe it makes people feel good because they cuss and threanten someone but thats not useful to the horses.

[bryn]

My turn . . . back at you Erin. You are way oversimplifying the issue.

The USDA will never invest the time, money or energy into enforcement when it comes to horse slaughter regardless of what legislation is out there. If you ask them, they will tell you. I did. Here's what one of the undersecretaries said . . . "horse slaughter is not important because we do not eat horses. We call this industry sugar for the livestock dealer. Those horses are candy for the kill buyers. They don't need it, but we've got much more important issues such as the livestock we eat. Don't expect that to change. You're upset about horses being slaughtered and how they are treated? The only solution is to end horse slaughter."

[Erin]

I was actually trying to address the issue of unwanted horses. If this person wasn't given an opportunity to profit from her irresponsibility, she might become more responsible. Might. I believe this person is what most of us would consider a backyard breeder, not for the purpose of producing high quality animals.

Well, she would still be able to breed horses to sell for non-slaughter purposes (it sounded from your original post that she sells most of the horses to legitimate homes, but the less marketable ones to slaughter?) ... that is the bulk of her "business," yes?

Assuming a slaughter ban is in place, I would think it would only discourage her if she's not managing to sell many for riding horses. Let's say she breeds 10 horses a year and sells 7 as riding horses. If she euthanizes the 3 unsellable horses, and still manage to make a profit even without the money she'd have made selling the 3 to kill buyers, there would be no incentive for her to stop breeding. So it would all depend on the economics of it.

Now, if she had to pay a licensing fee for all 10 of those horses she bred, THAT might discourage her from breeding if she wasn't breeding good enough quality horses to sell for good prices...

[county]

Horses for slaughter are less then beef as a rule. Can someone make a profit raising for meat? Yes they can and I know a few that do but its not common. You need two things to make money at it. Cheap young horses and cheap feed. Both those things are plentiful here in central Mn. and I know three people who do it at this time. Theres virtually an unlimited supply of weanling to three year olds here for $50 to $100. Theres literally 1000's of acres of grass land you can rent for about the time to keep up the fence plus $10 an acre per year. You can buy all the oats you want for .04 a lb. all the brome/orchard hay you want for $35 a ton. Turn them out on grass and feed oats or corn till snow gets to deep then some hay. Cost very little to keep them young horses will grow just fine and stay in good shape if there stock types. Last 45 to 60 days put them in a feed lot and pump the grain to them with some hay and they bring top slaughter price

[Erin]

My turn . . . back at you Erin. You are way oversimplifying the issue.

The USDA will never invest the time, money or energy into enforcement when it comes to horse slaughter regardless of what legislation is out there. If you ask them, they will tell you. I did. Here's what one of the undersecretaries said . . . "horse slaughter is not important because we do not eat horses. We call this industry sugar for the livestock dealer. Those horses are candy for the kill buyers. They don't need it, but we've got much more important issues such as the livestock we eat. Don't expect that to change. You're upset about horses being slaughtered and how they are treated? The only solution is to end horse slaughter."

You realize that the USDA works for us, right? You and me, the taxpayers?

You and me and the rest of the people in this country are the bosses. If you want something to happen, and are loud enough about it, it will eventually happen. Not saying it will happen easily, or that even a "better" system will ever work perfectly. But this "the USDA will never" stuff is hogwash.

There were lots of people who swore that blacks and women would never be able to vote, too.

[DMK]

My turn . . . back at you Erin. You are way oversimplifying the issue.

The USDA will never invest the time, money or energy into enforcement when it comes to horse slaughter regardless of what legislation is out there. If you ask them, they will tell you. I did. Here's what one of the undersecretaries said . . . "horse slaughter is not important because we do not eat horses. We call this industry sugar for the livestock dealer. Those horses are candy for the kill buyers. They don't need it, but we've got much more important issues such as the livestock we eat. Don't expect that to change. You're upset about horses being slaughtered and how they are treated? The only solution is to end horse slaughter."

It's your government. They will (eventually and with no small amount of persistence and downright annoying refusal to let go of an issue) care about what you want them to care about.

I know regulators seem a lot like authoritarian fascist dictatorships, but bottom line is we have not adopted that form of government... yet. Well, unless we approach it with total defeatism.

[FatPalomino]

Assuming a slaughter ban is in place, I would think it would only discourage her if she's not managing to sell many for riding horses. Let's say she breeds 10 horses a year and sells 7 as riding horses. If she euthanizes the 3 unsellable horses, and still manage to make a profit even without the money she'd have made selling the 3 to kill buyers, there would be no incentive for her to stop breeding. So it would all depend on the economics of it.



Key point: euthanizes them. Spends hundreds to do that between vet and disposal. I wish more people did than let that nice horse they had bi shipped in double deckers packed with 50 horses without food or water for 2 days to slaughter....

How many people do you know that gave away a horse "free to good home" and how many actually euthanized that young, lame horse they offered "free to good home". People would rather drop their horse off at the sale and take $50 for it than pay money to put it down. Some cant afford to do otherwise. But others just need to beleieve "Wilbur's someone's kids horse now". I've seen it firsthand. Americians are selfish. And thats a big problem with the slaughter issue.

[county]

I've never looked at making a living as selfish. Around here its considered normal and a good thing.

[Lildunhorse]

Well, she would still be able to breed horses to sell for non-slaughter purposes (it sounded from your original post that she sells most of the horses to legitimate homes, but the less marketable ones to slaughter?) ... that is the bulk of her "business," yes?



I suppose she could, but she breeds mostly junk. It pains me to refer to any living creature that way, but these are horses are not conformationally desireable in any shape or form. They have a lot of color. Period.

[SuperSTB]

Uh... you think the companies that slaughter horses should work toward stopping the whole industry? And you wonder why they aren't amenable toward negotiating with people who think like that?

Businesses exist to make money. If you make conditions such that the slaughter industry makes more money by being humane, they will absolutely jump on the bandwagon. (Not because they care about the horses, but who cares, if the end result is that horses are treated better.)

How do you do this? You mount a PR campaign in the countries that eat horsemeat, publicizing what happens to the horses, the drugs in their systems, etc. This decreases demand for horsemeat produced via traditional slaughter facilities in the US, and would increase demand for "certified humane" horsemeat. (I don't know if any such product exists yet, but a la the huge growth in organics and Whole Foods-type stores here in the US, there is certainly a market for it.)

You pass legislation that imposes STIFF financial penalties for inhumane treatment at slaughter facilities and during transport, and you aggressively enforce those laws. Abuse is currently cheap, fast and easy. Make it difficult and expensive and it will lessen.

You work to educate horse owners about what happens to horses that are sold at auctions, and you educate them about other alternatives, whether it's referrals to trainers (to fix problem horses), rescues (to find homes for unwanted but useful/adoptable horses), or inexpensive euthanasia.

You try to establish actual alternative MARKETS for the horses that are currently going to slaughter, so they can find useful lives somewhere, rather than being euthanized or warehoused at a rescue. CANTER does this. The COTH giveaways forum does this.

You pass legislation to require slaughterhouses to scan horses for microchips and check for brands, and cross-reference against lists of stolen horses. And then you educate horse owners about microchipping and branding.

Finally, you educate breeders (backyard and "expert") about their roles in the problem, and you get the registries to work to address the issue in their own realms. (Like the Jockey Club supporting CANTER and TRF, and promoting their work at the tracks.)

Yes, it would take a long time, and it would be very, very difficult. But it would actually address the causes of the current situation, rather than slapping a band-aid on it.

When you look at the work that CANTER and similar groups have done in finding markets for useful, valuable horses that were going to slaughter simply because their owners didn't feel they had other options, you see the ways in which these kinds of things WORK. They start small, they network, and they grow organically.

Compare this to the drastic measure of wholesale elimination of an existing and widely-used outlet for horses, the potential effects of which HAVE NOT been thoroughly investigated. (i.e. studied by economists or population experts who can predict the effect on the market and the horse population)

THAT is why so many people fear that the ban will have disastrous and unintended effects.

First off- you hit the nail on the head why anything BUT banning slaughter would not work. There is no financial incentive for the industry to change. It's simple- if they could do it cheaper they would. Adding or imposing stricter regulation without out right banning increases operating costs decreases any profit...

So you PR in other countries. Well the plants are foreigned own, they are making a nice profit, why would they do anything else but defend the quality of their product IE LOBBY against negative PR? They've been doing it for decades. US Horse meat contaminated- nonsense- can't be- we sell quality product.

Second imposing stiff penalties? Well your going to have to convince the Govt to allocate more budget to the USDA. Then convince the USDA it's in their best interests to put said extra money into horse plant facility oversight. Yes I see how that can be done :D

Microchipping and branding- it's gaining popularity but it's still a vast minority. I'm still holding out hope for this but it's still expensive for the average horse owner. I was quoted $125 for each horse microchipped, declined, not because I don't believe in advancing the technology but last time I checked a good security system to thwart off theft is cheaper. Once they leave the property the chance of retrieval are nill.

Educating Breeders should be happening and should always have been happening- it's *THE* issue that affect market value of horses... not the 100K processed this year.

I notice you mentioned a few organizations- who coincidentally support ending slaughter...

Look- fighting to end slaughter is not a band-aid for anything. It's merely an attempt to stop an inhumane industry for operating on US soil. We cannot controll what other nations do. They raise horses for meat- have and always will. It's their society to determine that limits of morality. Doesn't make it right or wrong just not OUR ballgame.

Yes- some old, unwanted, infirmed, crazy, neglected horses are slaughtered but it is not the gauge everyone would think it to be regarding issues of unwanted/overpopulation of horses, overbreeding issues, economical woes, neglect... Slaughter ban does not equal equine economy suicide. Most likely the average horse owner in the US wouldn't even feel a quiver of change.

I swore I'd not post on COTH about this issue as it is a wasted breath and I'm just repeating myself as is everyone else here. If any of us are passionate enough there are plenty of resources/outlets in which to put our words to actual fruitation. Love the COTH board but at this point any thread on slaughter is just 'hot air'.

[trubandloki]

Microchipping and branding- it's gaining popularity but it's still a vast minority. I'm still holding out hope for this but it's still expensive for the average horse owner. I was quoted $125 for each horse microchipped, declined, not because I don't believe in advancing the technology but last time I checked a good security system to thwart off theft is cheaper. Once they leave the property the chance of retrieval are nill.


Wow, whoever was going to do your microchipping is charging you tons. I had my vet do my horse and it was only like $30.

[SuperSTB]

Wow, whoever was going to do your microchipping is charging you tons. I had my vet do my horse and it was only like $30.


Yeah that's to put the chip in- not to cover the other crap that goes with it... registries, tracking, yadda yadda

Who tracks the little grain of rice? Who carries the chip readers with them, and for what purpose is anyone going to read the chip?

[Erin]

Boy, talk about defeatist attitudes...

First off- you hit the nail on the head why anything BUT banning slaughter would not work. There is no financial incentive for the industry to change. It's simple- if they could do it cheaper they would. Adding or imposing stricter regulation without out right banning increases operating costs decreases any profit...

How is that different from any other industry on earth?

Do you think that my local Jiffy Lube would pay to haul used oil away if they could just dump it in the Chesapeake for free? Of course not. But because regulations exist and are enforced, it would be WAY more expensive for them to dump and get caught than it would for them to dispose of it properly. So, they dispose of it properly.

Regulations ARE the financial incentive. Expecting the industry to change out of the goodness of their hearts is what will not work, because there is no financial incentive.

So you PR in other countries. Well the plants are foreigned own, they are making a nice profit, why would they do anything else but defend the quality of their product IE LOBBY against negative PR? They've been doing it for decades. US Horse meat contaminated- nonsense- can't be- we sell quality product.

Again... how is this different from any other industry? Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? Despite the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly believes that global warming is having real effects, the oil companies have used their PR machines to create doubt in people's minds. The tobacco industry managed to create doubt about the hazards of smoking for decades. We haven't banned smoking -- yet people now understand it's harmful. Because the tobacco PR was combatted with more PR. That's how it works.

Second imposing stiff penalties? Well your going to have to convince the Govt to allocate more budget to the USDA. Then convince the USDA it's in their best interests to put said extra money into horse plant facility oversight. Yes I see how that can be done :D

Yup. It can be done. Not easily, but most things worth doing aren't easy...

I notice you mentioned a few organizations- who coincidentally support ending slaughter...

And there are lots of other organizations who don't. Your point is?

Yes- some old, unwanted, infirmed, crazy, neglected horses are slaughtered but it is not the gauge everyone would think it to be regarding issues of unwanted/overpopulation of horses, overbreeding issues, economical woes, neglect... Slaughter ban does not equal equine economy suicide. Most likely the average horse owner in the US wouldn't even feel a quiver of change.

And you know this how? Are you an economist? An expert on populations?

I don't think I, an average horse owner in the US, will personally feel any change. But I was never planning to send a horse to slaughter, and I keep my horses til they keel over from old age. It's not my personal horseownership that is the issue here. I'm worried about horses OTHER than my own, and I'm worried about the effect on the already overburdened rescues.

[Marcella]

Uh... you think the companies that slaughter horses should work toward stopping the whole industry? And you wonder why they aren't amenable toward negotiating with people who think like that?

Businesses exist to make money. If you make conditions such that the slaughter industry makes more money by being humane, they will absolutely jump on the bandwagon. (Not because they care about the horses, but who cares, if the end result is that horses are treated better.)

How do you do this? You mount a PR campaign in the countries that eat horsemeat, publicizing what happens to the horses, the drugs in their systems, etc. This decreases demand for horsemeat produced via traditional slaughter facilities in the US, and would increase demand for "certified humane" horsemeat. (I don't know if any such product exists yet, but a la the huge growth in organics and Whole Foods-type stores here in the US, there is certainly a market for it.)

You pass legislation that imposes STIFF financial penalties for inhumane treatment at slaughter facilities and during transport, and you aggressively enforce those laws. Abuse is currently cheap, fast and easy. Make it difficult and expensive and it will lessen.

You work to educate horse owners about what happens to horses that are sold at auctions, and you educate them about other alternatives, whether it's referrals to trainers (to fix problem horses), rescues (to find homes for unwanted but useful/adoptable horses), or inexpensive euthanasia.

You try to establish actual alternative MARKETS for the horses that are currently going to slaughter, so they can find useful lives somewhere, rather than being euthanized or warehoused at a rescue. CANTER does this. The COTH giveaways forum does this.

You pass legislation to require slaughterhouses to scan horses for microchips and check for brands, and cross-reference against lists of stolen horses. And then you educate horse owners about microchipping and branding.

Finally, you educate breeders (backyard and "expert") about their roles in the problem, and you get the registries to work to address the issue in their own realms. (Like the Jockey Club supporting CANTER and TRF, and promoting their work at the tracks.)

Yes, it would take a long time, and it would be very, very difficult. But it would actually address the causes of the current situation, rather than slapping a band-aid on it.

When you look at the work that CANTER and similar groups have done in finding markets for useful, valuable horses that were going to slaughter simply because their owners didn't feel they had other options, you see the ways in which these kinds of things WORK. They start small, they network, and they grow organically.

Compare this to the drastic measure of wholesale elimination of an existing and widely-used outlet for horses, the potential effects of which HAVE NOT been thoroughly investigated. (i.e. studied by economists or population experts who can predict the effect on the market and the horse population)

THAT is why so many people fear that the ban will have disastrous and unintended effects.

Actually, I meant groups and individuals such as HSUS will not put negociations on the table. For instance, they will not negotiate to work towards stricter and enforceable regulations and work with the slaughter plants to try and make sure everything is done humanely or keep the borders secure to keep American horses from getting stolen and crossing country lines. However, as county said, they want slaughter to end immediately. Period. Since they won't negotiate, they never get anything accomplished.

[SuperSTB]

Boy, talk about defeatist attitudes...


And you know this how? Are you an economist? An expert on populations?



Because it's been regurgitated so many many times- you can look up the various links and data posted on the gizillion other COTH threads.

Defeatist- no.

I've been closely studying this issue for eons- from so many angles and most from experience gathered 'in the flesh' not on the internet. People like myself have been asking for changes without a ban, if you've read my many postings before on the subject... I have no qualms about horse slaughter *if* it were performed under much improved conditions. But there is no incentive to the industry and quite frankly if it weren't for a movement of a downright ban- nobody would be talking about it here.

You know- I'm going to point this out... There is a 'mobile' butcher who drives his truck- a moble slaughterhouse. He slaughters and dresses the animal at the farm site. He provides a valuable service to the community he serves. I'm going to have to put my elderly mare down in the very near future and sure as hell I would call him up in a nano second if he could provide the service of a quick euthanasia and my mare could provide a resource beyond just burying her in the ground...

[MSP]

You realize that the USDA works for us, right? You and me, the taxpayers?

You and me and the rest of the people in this country are the bosses. If you want something to happen, and are loud enough about it, it will eventually happen. Not saying it will happen easily, or that even a "better" system will ever work perfectly. But this "the USDA will never" stuff is hogwash.

There were lots of people who swore that blacks and women would never be able to vote, too.

The link in my last post must have been missed! The USDA has been paid for in full by the big Ag businesses. They run the USDA not “we the people”, read and learn. Like I said in my last post nothing can be accomplished to help horses going to slaughter until we gut the USDA.

I can not emphasize enough how important this first step is and I wish everyone would take the time to read this document. I would attach it but it is too big so here is a link to it

http://www.citizen.org/documents/USDAInc.pdf

USDA INC. :
HOW AGRIBUSINESS HAS HIJACKED
REGULATORY POLICY AT THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BY PHILIP MATTERA

IN ITS EARLY DAYS, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was dubbed the “People’s Department” by President Lincoln, in recognition of its role in helping the large portion of the population that worked the land. Some 140 years later, USDA has been transformed into something very different.

Today it is, in effect, the “Agribusiness Industry’s Department,” since its policies on issues such as food safety and fair market competition have
been shaped to serve the interests of the giant corporations that now dominate food production, processing and distribution. We call it USDA Inc.
The reorientation of USDA has been occurring over many years, but it has now reached a dramatic stage. Thanks to its growing political influence within the Bush Administration, Big Agribusiness has been able to pack USDA with appointees who have a background of working, lobbying, or performing research for large food processing companies and trade associations.

Conversely, there are virtually no high-level appointees at USDA with ties to family farm, labor, consumer or environmental advocacy groups.
The extent to which agribusiness has packed USDA with its people is apparent when looking at the biographies of the top officials of the Department, up to and including Secretary Ann Veneman. In addition to her time as a public official, Veneman served on the board of biotech company Calgene (later taken over by Monsanto). Many of Veneman’s key aides and the heads of various USDA agencies are political appointees who spent much of their career working for agribusiness companies and trade associations.

For example, Veneman’s chief of staff Dale Moore was executive director for legislative affairs of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a trade association heavily supported by and aligned with the interests of the big meatpacking companies, such as Tyson and Cargill. Deputy Secretary James Moseley was a co-owner of a large factory farm in Indiana. Floyd Gaibler, a Deputy Under Secretary, used to be executive director of the dairy industry’s National Cheese Institute.

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Mary Waters was a senior director and legislative counsel for ConAgra Foods, one of the country’s largest food processors. These industry-linked appointees have helped to implement policies that undermine the regulatory mission of USDA in favor of the bottom-line interests of a few economically powerful companies.

This paper documents USDA’s abandonment of its public mission from two perspectives. Through five case studies, it both reviews the questionable policies the Department has adopted in key areas and the background of the key officials who helped to determine those policies.
….

This paper concludes that until there is greater stakeholder representation inside USDA, a substantive movement toward more balanced farm and trade polices is impossible. Excessive industry influence is the central obstacle to redirecting U.S. agriculture in a more sustainable and fair direction.

The paper thus calls for broad collaboration on an alternative agenda for addressing the problems at USDA, including:

Reappraisal of ethics rules to prevent government officials from overseeing policies that directly affect the interest of their former employers;

Enhancement of Congressional oversight over regulatory appointees;

Evaluation of whether USDA can continue to serve both as a promoter of U.S. agricultural products and a regulator of food safety; and

Further research on revolving-door conflicts of interest at USDA.

Progress on these measures will begin to turn USDA Inc. back into an arm of government that represents the public interest.
…

Many observers believe that there is an inherent contradiction between USDA’s mandate to promote American agricultural products and its duty to regulate food safety and guarantee fair competition. Given that USDA performs both promotional and regulatory functions, the agency must
continually work for a balanced approach. But when revolving door appointments of industry insiders predispose the agency to promote the interests of Big Agribusiness at the expense of public health,
major problems arise.

[caffeinated]

You know- I'm going to point this out... There is a 'mobile' butcher who drives his truck- a moble slaughterhouse. He slaughters and dresses the animal at the farm site. He provides a valuable service to the community he serves. I'm going to have to put my elderly mare down in the very near future and sure as hell I would call him up in a nano second if he could provide the service of a quick euthanasia and my mare could provide a resource beyond just burying her in the ground...


You know, that's actually a pretty interesting idea. How much business does he get, and what's the majority of the business? (cattle, sheep, pigs?)

[Erin]

Because it's been regurgitated so many many times- you can look up the various links and data posted on the gizillion other COTH threads.

Data posted by desk jockeys who have looked it up on the internet. (And I would include myself in that group -- however, I'm not the one claiming there are absolutely positively not going to be any bad things happening as a results of this ban.) None of us are economists.

On the last slaughter thread, I asked if there had been any impartial, thorough studies done to look at the possible effects of a ban. I was told they existed, but no one ever produced one.

Defeatist- no.

Well, how else do you explain the attitude of "this can never happen... it's too difficult"?

... quite frankly if it weren't for a movement of a downright ban- nobody would be talking about it here.

Nope, because no one got excited about humane transport laws like they get excited about a ban. The animal groups figured that out, so now they're marketing a ban instead of improved legislation. It's easier. Consequences be damned, apparently...

[Erin]

The link in my last post must have been missed! The USDA has been paid for in full by the big Ag businesses. They run the USDA not “we the people”, read and learn. Like I said in my last post nothing can be accomplished to help horses going to slaughter until we gut the USDA.

"We the people" can still fire their asses, if enough of us get pissed off about it! :D

That's why it's too bad that this isn't an industry-wide push -- the issue isn't just confined to horses. It's also a humane issue for other livestock, and for PEOPLE -- our factory farming system is endangering our food supply, and working conditions in slaughter facilities are horrendous.

[jetsmom]

Nobody got excited about the humane transport laws, because they were written to be so vague as to be almost unenforceable.

[summerhorse]

Hey, wait a minute...

There are people, believe it or not, that let their horses breed, because they know the auction is an easy way to dispose of the "extras". One gal in particular, who I know quite well, disposes of her less "flashy" paints, imperfect foals, pissy mares, etc., by taking them to the sale at the end of every month, where she is on a first name basis with every kill buyer on the floor. She knows darn well where these horses are going. And she is grateful for the easy out.

If she knows that she can't dispose of the extras quite so easily, will she stop breeding? This is beer money, folks. This isn't someone raising high quality horses. If she had to pay a license fee for that stud she has running around breeding every mare she owns, some of them before they are even two years old, what would she do?

I will not be convinced that she is an anomaly and that other people like her don't exist...by the thousands. If she takes 10 horses a year to the kill sale, and you multiply her by thousands...well....


Absolutely. There are many many people producing many more horses than they "need" because they have an easy disposal system. Slaughter. Take that away and they get stuck with disposing of or giving away tons of extra horses then they will stop breeding extra horses. there will be no money in it and killing and disposing of bodies will COST them. Economic incentive will be gone. the market will adjust and absorb the horses.

And the number of horses killed here is decided entirely on demand for horsemeat overseas. Right now it is at a low (maybe an all time low) thus horses are standing around in dealer pens, feedlots and packing plants because the price is SO low. I guess they didn't think about flooding the market when they began their killing spree earlier this year!

The horses will go somewhere. They will stay home, be given away or be euthanized. Even if that means being shot in the head in the back 40 or by the local butcher (you can still butcher and eat your OWN horse...) that beats the horrible trip to the plants via auctions, feedlots and overcrowded trucks with no food and water and who knows what injuries.

Horse owning is a responsibility, not a right. If you own any animal you have to take the responsibility for its bills whether that is feed, farrier, vet or disposal of a body. If you can't afford the vet, don't have the pet. (that goes if you are a business too, then you are in the wrong business)

[trubandloki]

Absolutely. There are many many people producing many more horses than they "need" because they have an easy disposal system. Slaughter. Take that away and they get stuck with disposing of or giving away tons of extra horses then they will stop breeding extra horses. there will be no money in it and killing and disposing of bodies will COST them. Economic incentive will be gone. the market will adjust and absorb the horses.



That thought pattern has not worked for people with small animals that are cheaper to keep and/or dispose of when not wanted so I am confused how anyone would think it will work with horses.

The responsible people will continue to be responsible, the irresponsible people will continue to do what irrespsonsible people do.

Ending slaughter will not make them stop!

[Lora]

Absolutely. There are many many people producing many more horses than they "need" because they have an easy disposal system. Slaughter. Take that away and they get stuck with disposing of or giving away tons of extra horses then they will stop breeding extra horses. there will be no money in it and killing and disposing of bodies will COST them. Economic incentive will be gone. the market will adjust and absorb the horses.

And the number of horses killed here is decided entirely on demand for horsemeat overseas. Right now it is at a low (maybe an all time low) thus horses are standing around in dealer pens, feedlots and packing plants because the price is SO low. I guess they didn't think about flooding the market when they began their killing spree earlier this year!

The horses will go somewhere. They will stay home, be given away or be euthanized. Even if that means being shot in the head in the back 40 or by the local butcher (you can still butcher and eat your OWN horse...) that beats the horrible trip to the plants via auctions, feedlots and overcrowded trucks with no food and water and who knows what injuries.

Horse owning is a responsibility, not a right. If you own any animal you have to take the responsibility for its bills whether that is feed, farrier, vet or disposal of a body. If you can't afford the vet, don't have the pet. (that goes if you are a business too, then you are in the wrong business)


Nicely said!

[kazaban]

Does anyone have hard numbers on how many horses are bred and raised just for slaughter?
Looking into my crystal ball, the ban on horse slaughter will not reduce the numbers of horses being bred every year. If the slaughter option is eliminated there will be other venues for these horses and many of them make slaughter attractive.
I am still looking for a practical approach to what will happen to these horses?
Kazaban

[SuperSTB]

That thought pattern has not worked for people with small animals that are cheaper to keep and/or dispose of when not wanted so I am confused how anyone would think it will work with horses.

The responsible people will continue to be responsible, the irresponsible people will continue to do what irrespsonsible people do.

Ending slaughter will not make them stop!

Now that's a defeatist attitude!

Long before there were internet desk jockey's purporting evidence- I've been involved with this issue- sparked by concern over the BLM and mustangs actually.

Could it simply be that an industry such as slaughter could actually be validating the social concept of disposable animals? Provides a nice little profitable outlet now doesn't it?

[I'm EBO]

Kazaban--I've said this before on this forum, but at the risk of boring others--I have four of these slaughter bound horses on my farm. Two were (unhandled) reservation ponies, 2 to 3 year olds when I took them; one is a super cute spotted saddlehorse, 10 yrs old, green but sound; one is from a bucking string, dumped for a wire cut.

I am only one of many, many people who can and do provide homes for the "excess". THAT is what does happen and will happen to many of the of the horses that are unwanted by their owners.:yes:

As a ps, all of these horses were in the kill pens of a dealer's lot, and the clock was ticking.

[trubandloki]

Now that's a defeatist attitude!

Long before there were internet desk jockey's purporting evidence- I've been involved with this issue- sparked by concern over the BLM and mustangs actually.

Could it simply be that an industry such as slaughter could actually be validating the social concept of disposable animals? Provides a nice little profitable outlet now doesn't it?

Well there is no slaughter associated with dogs and cat and the concept of disposing of them when you let your cats have three litters seems totally valid to most people.

I am not defeatist I am a realist. I wish people would not breed willy nilly. But I know very well from personal experience that no one that is willing to breed Fido the happy dog or Star the wonder horse because they KNOW their animal is the best is going to look past that thought.

Frequently I have conversations with people about Fido being intact or not spayed at dog obedience classes (held at the humane society non-the-less) and you would be suprised the number of people who insist their dog is worth breeding simply because it is purebred. Who cares if its conformation sucks and it shows no real good breed characteristics. They are sure that since Fido has papers he is worth breeding.

I am sure the people like the breeder mentioned here feel the same way. Her horses are worth breeding.

[SuperSTB]

Dogs and cats are different for many reasons and logistics cannot be applied from them to horses.

They require different environments, reproduce more frequently, easy to 'hord', easier to breed, easier to handle, easier to transport, and anyone can think they can provide care without experience.

[souvenir]

After reading through most of the previous posts, I've a question:

Is there anything in particular being done, say, to possibly limit the number of horses that can be bred each year?
I realize this may be asking some breeders to lasso the moon, but what of it? Are there limits already in place that I don't know of?
I know of one "breeder" in my area who simply breeds every year for a tax break. That is the only reason she breeds. Another person I know bred two of her horses so her kids could see "the miracle of birth."
I realize there is a market for a "perfect" warmblood, quarter horse, hunter, etc. And there are breeding farms whose incomes rely on breeding and selling the perfect horse, or specialize in a particular breed.
I guess I'm asking if there are enough people in the equine industry willing to take personal responsibility for the babies they breed and sell? Or would the industry collapse? Is it possible to regulate breeding and thus take the pressure off the other side of the industry, which would be slaughter?
And no, I'm not advocating any ideas stated above. I'm just asking.

[Erin]

I am not defeatist I am a realist.

Exactly.

You cannot FORCE people to be responsible. You can educate them some, and you can regulate them some. And you hope that that takes care of most of the problem.

Remember "Black Beauty"? How it used to be acceptable to beat your horse because it was YOUR horse, and your property, and no one had a right to tell you how to treat it?

Gradually, society came not to accept that. Laws were passed, and then stricter laws were passed, and the punishments for violating those laws became harsher.

Animal abuse is NOT considered acceptable by most of our society, but it still happens. So we keep working on the laws and the enforcment.

Realist, not defeatist.

[county]

So no one wants to work together, its obvious the gov. isn't going to ban slaughter, what EXACTLY do those of you who want the " all or nothing " ban suggest to ACTUALLY accomplish something? I'm talking REALISTICALLY not dream land.

[caffeinated]

souvenir, I'm not sure you could, overall.

I think it would be a step if certain breed registries required more than just papers to breed- if in order to get your foal registered you had to use 'approved' parents, I think that might be a step in the right direction. But unfortunately the registries where that might make the biggest difference are the ones least likely to consider something like that

[Erin]

Dogs and cats are different for many reasons and logistics cannot be applied from them to horses.

Again... who says so?

I think there are many parallels. Not an exact correlation, to be sure, but plenty of common ground.

[county]

So if you have to have approved stock to breed who does the approving? What I want in a horse will be very differant then someone else many times.

When and if they have approvals for people who can breed then I'll consider livestock until then no way.

[caffeinated]

didn't say that you'd have to get approval to breed, just if you want to register the babies.

I know that sounds all horrible, especially given how some horses are judged on conformation these days, but I was just throwing it out there as a possibility. Stallions in warmblood registries get approved, as do mares. I don't hear a whole lot of complaints that the judges doing the approvals are holding down the industry.

county, you and I agree on more than we disagree on, I think. I'm just thinking that there are a lot of yahoos out there who breed to whatever stallion just because they can, and they can still get papers for the baby, even if they bred the two worst specimens in existence. If there was some sort of system that said "hey, horses should meet a breed standard (whether it's halter type, WP type, cutting type) to have registerable babies" it might put a damper on it.

That doesn't stop anybody from breeding, but does take away some of the incentive to breed inferior animals. I would think that if you're not breeding inferior animals, it wouldn't be a problem.

Again, it's just a thought I had. Whether slaughter is legal or not, there's a still a problem with idiots in this country and it might be a way to make some of them think before they go get old sadie knocked up.

[souvenir]

souvenir, I'm not sure you could, overall.

I think it would be a step if certain breed registries required more than just papers to breed- if in order to get your foal registered you had to use 'approved' parents, I think that might be a step in the right direction. But unfortunately the registries where that might make the biggest difference are the ones least likely to consider something like that

Caffeinated, another question, as I'm not a breeder and I'm not privy to what goes on in breed registries.
Why would those registries (where you mentioned it could make the biggest difference) why are those registries least likely to consider something like that? Is it just pressure from others in the industry?

[Lildunhorse]

When and if they have approvals for people who can breed then I'll consider livestock until then no way.


Two words: Soylent Green! :-)

[caffeinated]

I'm not a breeder either, this is just stuff I've gleaned from the other desk jockeys over the years. LOL

Anyway, I was just thinking of one in particular- they have the largest registry in the country, thus make a WHOLE LOT of money. BY restricting breeding in any way, they lose money, so they'd be very unlikely to do it. They're also against any ban on slaughter, and their breed represents the largest group of horses going to slaughter. So on a purely economic basis, they don't really have an incentive to try and limit breeding or registrations.

[county]

I have no problems with anyone breeding what they want to not everyone wants the same thing nor does everyone care if their livestock is perfect. Theres no reason I can think of that they should unless thats what they want. I have a neighbor with what IMO is poor quality stock. He and his family love them just as much as anyone else and take very good care of them. Good enough for me. Idiots that breed? There are no doubt but there breeding each other not livestock.

[county]

At no time has the AQHA said there against any ban on slaughter. Actually they have said just the opposite. They are against the proposed one as are many many people. But all bans? Not true.

[MSP]

souvenir, I'm not sure you could, overall.

I think it would be a step if certain breed registries required more than just papers to breed- if in order to get your foal registered you had to use 'approved' parents, I think that might be a step in the right direction. But unfortunately the registries where that might make the biggest difference are the ones least likely to consider something like that

At a registry level I agree!




So if you have to have approved stock to breed who does the approving? What I want in a horse will be very differant then someone else many times.

When and if they have approvals for people who can breed then I'll consider livestock until then no way.


County, just like the registry says your horse is AQHA or Appendix it should qualify you as a responsible breeder. I would invision a system like the warmbloods have. A judging system based on breed standards that would promote quality over quantity. Your breeding stock would have a score that you can advertise. Getting the grade cost so in turn increase the value of your horses.

People that are breeding large quantities of low grade horses that don’t have them scored will no longer qualify as registered breeders. The AQHA can still make there money but in the form of scoring fees and qualifying breeders rather than promoting over breeding as they do now. If a system is design properly with incentives they could reduce the "breed for the heck of it" mentality that exist.

[county]

Sorry I don't get into telling people they don't have the right to breed livestock if they choose. What one person wants can be very differant then another and I consider that not only normal but a good thing. If someone just wants some horses to breed for no certain reason. So be it

[caffeinated]

That wouldn't stop people from breeding horses if they want- it would just place some responsibilities on them if they wanted to register the resulting foals.

Which just takes away some of the incentive. But again, doesn't actually stop anybody- there are a whole lot of us who own grade horses ;)

[county]

Sorry can't buy it. I had a mare that never would pass an inspection I'm sure. She raised 9 foals all excellant and all won money and or points. Why keep her out of the gene pool for reg. stock in her breed because someone wanted her to look a differant way? Theres a whole lot more to what some people want then what a horse looks like. I raise cow horses their conformation is a small part if they turn out to be good at cow work.

[Erin]

county, I don't think it's telling people they don't have the "right" to breed... just that they don't have the right to register what they breed. ;)

It works well for the WB groups, but then again, that's a pretty small segment of the equine population.

There should already be some incentive to not breed "junk" TBs, QHs (the non-halter ones), and STBs because a horse with horrid conformation is not usually going to be particularly successful performance-wise. Can't run very fast if your knees are knocking together!

Theoretically, I suppose it could help somewhat, but considering how many TBs and QHs especially are bred every year, I'm not sure there would be enough impact for it to be worth the monumental effort involved. It seems like most of the TBs that go to slaughter aren't necessarily "junk" but are injured or just needed to be liquidated quickly, no?

[county]

Like I said I'm not into telling people whats good or bad each person has their own ideas and thats IMO a good thing.

[MSP]

If your horses are registered then the AQHA can tell you how to breed! They could pass a rule affective Jan 1 that tells you what you can and can’t do as long as you want to register your horse with them or compete at their shows. The grading isn’t a halter contest it includes performance!

That is the difference from having the registry govern breeding vs. having the government do it.

Caffeinated, we were thinking the same thing! Imagine that! :D

You people type fast!

[bryn]

Dream on if you think the USDA, the entity "owned" by the cattle industry tax payers will spend any effort on horse slaughter. Scream on Erin and those who think you can make a difference there. It is simply not as important as regulating and enforcing our own food industry.

The same applies to enforcement of the safe transport to slaughter regs. The USDA will not spend time on this at the expense of regulation and enforcement of issues involving the food we eat in the US.

I am a realist on this.

The chief Ag vet in one of the three states which make up our tri-state said, "Horse Kill Buyers are the slimiest of them all. They slide through every loophole and know no one will enforce the law because we are required to manage our own food industry issues. That won't change. So you'd better end horse slaughter."

[Erin]

Boy, bryn, glad the country wasn't full of people like you during the civil rights movement... "Sure, MLK, you just dream on!"

Too bad everyone pooh-poohs the idea of working with other livestock groups, since the slaughter of other animals isn't too hunky-dory either. And those ARE food animals, whose welfare DOES affect our food supply. Mad cow, anyone? E. coli?

[Sannois]

Boy, bryn, glad the country wasn't full of people like you during the civil rights movement... "Sure, MLK, you just dream on!"

Too bad everyone pooh-poohs the idea of working with other livestock groups, since the slaughter of other animals isn't too hunky-dory either. And those ARE food animals, whose welfare DOES affect our food supply. Mad cow, anyone? E. coli?
But we have been told by the Anti's that this is a horse board and we are discussing horse slaughter and cannot compare the other meat animals. Seems to me it would benefit all.
:yes:

[Lildunhorse]

Too bad everyone pooh-poohs the idea of working with other livestock groups, since the slaughter of other animals isn't too hunky-dory either. And those ARE food animals, whose welfare DOES affect our food supply.

It seems to me that this is exactly the point. Horses AREN'T considered food animals in the U.S. Therefore, the USDA has not, nor will they ever, expend any extra energy towards equine slaughter issues. Not until horses are considered food animals like pigs, cows, sheep and chickens. What are the chances of that happening?

[MSP]

I agree that it “all” has to be addressed but the goal is to stop the abuse and inhuman treatment ASAP. I really don’t think there is another viable way to stop it. Any regulation that is put in place will have to be enforced by the USDA which brings us back to the square one. Other meat animal issues can be influenced by the consumer rejecting it. We as consumers have power but with horses meat we are not the consumer.

I think many of us know the heart of the problem and will work toward the change but in the mean time this BS needs to stop.

You can not legislate on “what can happen if”, you can merely look at a problem and see that it is wrong and when you have exhausted all other options just slam the door shut!

It is true that you can have better control of something if it is legal and it is being regulated but you must have the funds and man power to regulate it (as well as control over corruption). It is the same thing with drugs. They make it illegal because they just need to slam the door shut; they can’t regulate it properly.

[kazaban]

[QUOTE=
I am only one of many, many people who can and do provide homes for the "excess". THAT is what does happen and will happen to many of the of the horses that are unwanted by their owners.:yes:[/QUOTE]

The problem is that there is more excess than you are taking. If the ban increases the excess will these many, many people step up and take the rest.

I just can't get over the fact that right now there is a thread about saving a horse going through Unadilla tom (probably for slaughter) and there haven't been a whole bunch of people here stepping up to save it. So where are these many, many people for that horse.

[Erin]

It is true that you can have better control of something if it is legal and it is being regulated but you must have the funds and man power to regulate it (as well as control over corruption). It is the same thing with drugs. They make it illegal because they just need to slam the door shut; they can’t regulate it properly.

I dunno about that one... I think the hurdle to legalizing drugs is more societal than regulatory. We regulate alcohol and cigarettes just fine. And that ban we tried during Prohibition didn't work so well! :winkgrin:

[MSP]

What we are doing now is failing miserably also! ;)

[Erin]

It seems to me that this is exactly the point. Horses AREN'T considered food animals in the U.S. Therefore, the USDA has not, nor will they ever, expend any extra energy towards equine slaughter issues. Not until horses are considered food animals like pigs, cows, sheep and chickens. What are the chances of that happening?

The USDA also regulates puppy mills (perhaps not terribly successfully, but...), the use of laboratory animals, and enforcing the ban on transport of animals for dogfighting/cockfighting, so their mission is not specifically confined to food animals.

[Lildunhorse]

I need to learn to be more specific, or just not post when I'm "multi-tasking". :-)

If horses were capable of spreading disease by way of the American consumer, the USDA would be more attentive.

[souvenir]

Ok, I'll throw out another one, just from my own experience.
You know what I have? An abundance of kids - an abundance of kids whose parents cannot afford an expensive horse.
I sometimes lease horses for my limited riding program, or I purchase less-expensive horses so my kids can ride and show. I'm sure there are many, many riding instructors like me, who cater to a lower-level (equine experience and disposable income) crowd of riders.
I would personally love to get a cast-off horse from a breeder who would assist me in putting even minimal time and effort into getting that particular imperfect horse ready enough to be sold/leased to a "lower-level" competition market.
What about a tax incentive for selling that horse at a lower price if said animal is listed as "not meeting breeder expectations." or something like that. Is this already happening in the racing industry?

[bryn]

Different part of the USDA Erin. . . perhaps we could legislate horses into the companion animal classification so they could be regulated by the puppy mill USDA people!

[Alagirl]

Different part of the USDA Erin. . . perhaps we could legislate horses into the companion animal classification so they could be regulated by the puppy mill USDA people!



Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here?

[Alagirl]

Alagirl- Go to the link I posted on Pg 1 or 2 of this thread for KVIA and watch the news report. This was filmed by the tv station here in El Paso. The slaughter facility is in Juarez which is about a 15 min drive from here (although it is a 40 min drive from the Santa Teresa port of entry (where livestock must cross to the slaughterhouse). You can see that the HSUS video is in fact, true.

DMK- Juarez is one of the poorer large cities in MX that is close to the border. Mexico city , Mazatlan and some of the other cities that attract tourists may have a decent sized middle class, but speaking dfrom first hand experience dealing with Juarez citizens (and friends that live there), there is a HUGE problem with their economy/pay/jobs/income.


Sorry for being slow on the literature....


Anyhow, that's what I was saying all along: The problem closing slaughter in the US does not help the horses...quiet contrary! They have it a lot worse going abroad.

[summerhorse]

Sorry for being slow on the literature....


Anyhow, that's what I was saying all along: The problem closing slaughter in the US does not help the horses...quiet contrary! They have it a lot worse going abroad.


Some horses near the border may still go but the majority of the horses would be too far from the border to economically "sneak" them across. So yes it would help OUR horses.

[jetsmom]

Transporting to slaughter will be illegal in the ban. I spoke to the USDA vet at the Santa Teresa port of entry that stated that it is pretty easy to spot the horses going to slaughter, and if it is banned, it would be enforced. And it would be pretty hard to take a bunch of horses into the desert to cross the Rio Grande illegally.
So banning it will help.

[county]

So just when is this ban going to happen? Anyone think soon? Anyone care about the 100's of 1000's of horses slaughtered in the mean time? Anyone going to actually work with the opposing side to help those horses? Or stick to the " all or nothing stance "?

[Alagirl]

Sweet dreams, Ladies!

Like I also mentioned before...so they go to a sale across the border, and then to slaughter...big deal....sell a few for more than meat, kill the rest, it all comes out in the wash...

It is naive to assume that a ban would stop transport....

[summerhorse]

The problem is that there is more excess than you are taking. If the ban increases the excess will these many, many people step up and take the rest.

I just can't get over the fact that right now there is a thread about saving a horse going through Unadilla tom (probably for slaughter) and there haven't been a whole bunch of people here stepping up to save it. So where are these many, many people for that horse.

That last part isn't true. In two pages bail, a home and transport was raised for this horse. The problem was TIME. If this horse can be found he will be saved. It is just the lack of notice that kept someone from intercepting him at the auction.

[summerhorse]

So just when is this ban going to happen? Anyone think soon? Anyone care about the 100's of 1000's of horses slaughtered in the mean time? Anyone going to actually work with the opposing side to help those horses? Or stick to the " all or nothing stance "?


Does anyone care? Of course they care or they wouldn't have worked so hard on this ban legislation (which will now have to wait until next year thanks to a senator who forgot who he was supposed to be working for). So next year it will start all over again.

What else are we supposed to do? Until the ban these people are engaged in a legal business and will continue to do so. The rest of us will do what we can, one horse at a time. Once the meatmen realize a "rescue" whether it be an organization or a single person is after the horse the price sky rockets in too many instances. Letting them blackmail people willing to take in these cheap, unbroke, injured, old, whatever horses means they can buy only a fraction of what they could otherwise.

[Erin]

Different part of the USDA Erin. . . perhaps we could legislate horses into the companion animal classification so they could be regulated by the puppy mill USDA people!

Well, gee, I didn't think that needed to be specified, but, yeah, they are different parts of the USDA.

BTW, in case anyone is confused... the USDA people who designed the food pyramid and the ones who provide rural home financing are also NOT in the part of the USDA that regulates horse slaughter. Just to clear that up.

So, we've established that it's impossible for the USDA to regulate horse slaughter because horses are not food animals and the USDA doesn't care... but apparently the enforcement of laws regarding horses will suddenly matter when it's the USDA checking papers at the border. Ah. Gotcha.

[county]

What else are people supposed to do? How about spending the time and money to set down with all the players on the issue, drop the " all or nothing " stance and work out some solutions? The all or nothing approach has been around and worked on since I've had horses ( 65 ) and its not working out real well. Time for a differant approach I'd say.

[county]

BTW blackmail? Come on join up with reality here.

[bryn]

another different part of the USDA. . . .hmmm.

[bryn]

Let's go back to an earlier thread where Cavel refused to compromise. Now just which side was it now that was "all or nothing"?

"... let me tell you a little story....over the course of the past 4 or 5 years, and while we were working on the IL state bill to ban horse slaughter, I had on many an occassion the joyous (hahaha) thrill to take part in "negotiations" with the "other side", meaning, the plant manager from Cavel (James Tucker), IL Farm Bureau, IL Beef Assc., IL Pork Producers, their lobbyists, etc, etc...

The purpose of this meeting was to see if we could come to any type of agreement that would satisfy both sides so that we would drop pursuit of the legislation and Cavel could go about slaughtering horses. Cavel said that they would consider making changes to the way they do business in order to satisfy our humane concerns.

Our first suggestion was to have an animal welfare expert present during kill days...their answer...NO WAY.

Second suggestion...stop using double deckers before the 2007 deadline...their answer...NO WAY."

Now let's all remember that the Safe Transport to Slaughter regs specifically stated that hauling horses in double deckers was neither safe nor humane.

Now one last time who is inflexible and is all about "all or nothing"?

[Sannois]

Some horses near the border may still go but the majority of the horses would be too far from the border to economically "sneak" them across. So yes it would help OUR horses.

we have any idea what people will do in that situation until it happens. to say they wont or it wont happen is just plain pie in the sky! :no:

[county]

Bryn, it would have been sucide for Cavel to do those things and not the other plants as you well know. If you want change you need to have it done for the industry accross the board not try and force one out of business at a time. REALISTIC is the only way it will work not dream land.

[summerhorse]

Bryn, it would have been sucide for Cavel to do those things and not the other plants as you well know. If you want change you need to have it done for the industry accross the board not try and force one out of business at a time. REALISTIC is the only way it will work not dream land.


They are NOT going to change the way things are done because they won't make money. They are NOT going to change unless they are FORCED to. Since they have the USDA in their back pocket WHY should they change?

Current laws are ignored every day.

It truly IS all or nothing.

[county]

People said the exact same thing about the beef industry, turns out they didn't know what they were talking about either.

So hows that " all or nothing " stance been working out the last 40 plus years? Howe many more will go by before maybe something else is tryed?

[War Admiral]

Transporting to slaughter will be illegal in the ban. I spoke to the USDA vet at the Santa Teresa port of entry that stated that it is pretty easy to spot the horses going to slaughter, and if it is banned, it would be enforced. And it would be pretty hard to take a bunch of horses into the desert to cross the Rio Grande illegally.
So banning it will help.

I agree, and that's exactly why I support the ban on slaughter.

As of now, there are NO laws on the books that the border patrol can enforce.

The slaughter ban would PUT those laws in place.

I happen to be a big believer in the US Border Patrol - they did, after all, manage to FIND my old War Admiral gelding when he hit the border in a truck bound for slaughter in Canada after my trainer alerted them to his theft.

So if they say they will enforce any law that is passed, I believe them.

[county]

I do to, but theres no law in this ban saying horses cannot cross for sale. So theres no reason to think horses will not be transported for sale to someone who then sells them for slaughter.

[Angela Freda]

Like I also mentioned before...so they go to a sale across the border, and then to slaughter...big deal....sell a few for more than meat, kill the rest, it all comes out in the wash...

It is naive to assume that a ban would stop transport....

Do you not concede that with the shipping regulation changes, ie: without using double deckers, they will be able to transport fewer per load, costing them more money in shipping post ban for a comparable number of horses?
Then there is the issue of papers that will then be required (as they are now "riding horses") and verification at the border and the tax.

ALL of that, do you not agree, will make the profit margin far less and perhaps drive some of the people involved to another more lucrative industry???

[Appassionato]

Do you not concede that with the shipping regulation changes, ie: without using double deckers, they will be able to transport fewer per load, costing them more money in shipping post ban for a comparable number of horses?
Then there is the issue of papers that will then be required (as they are now "riding horses") and verification at the border and the tax.

ALL of that, do you not agree, will make the profit margin far less and perhaps drive some of the people involved to another more lucrative industry???

No, not if there is a demand. There's no sense in a lot of things people will pay big bucks for.

My point is that I don't think people eat horse in Europe and Japan due to cost. Matter of fact, I think it will make it appear more upscale when the cost is driven up.

[county]

When the cost in the cattle slaughter industry no one quit why would they if the cost in the horse slaughter industry does. The cost is passed onto the consumer same as any business. Plus there seems to be alot of people thinking this ban is going to take affect soon or ever. Why?

[Alagirl]

Do you not concede that with the shipping regulation changes, ie: without using double deckers, they will be able to transport fewer per load, costing them more money in shipping post ban for a comparable number of horses?
Then there is the issue of papers that will then be required (as they are now "riding horses") and verification at the border and the tax.

ALL of that, do you not agree, will make the profit margin far less and perhaps drive some of the people involved to another more lucrative industry???



Why should I consider or concede this. Gas prices go up, goods cost more, we pay, we carry on. Truck size is limited, the cost rises, we pay, we go on. It's the cost of doing business.

When the dual waste disposal system was introduced in Germany packaging didn't go away, the added cost was - well, added...


It is naive to assume that the effects will make huge ripples....thus far horses fromFlorida go to Canada for slaughter - or Texas....that isn't exactly *near by* so why should a national ban on slaughter keep them from crossing into Mexico?


Besides, y'all are not eating horse (at least not knowingly) what is it to you, how much it costs!


I saw a TV show on a rabbit breeder one time. He was breeding for some sort of litter competition. However, he also culled the animals that did not match the standart...can we say Hasenpfeffer?! Anyhow, what got me was the competition on crafts with rabbit fur (I am sure they also had cook offs) that went along with the exibit of life rabbits....Now there is a concept! Don't avoid the responsibility for the animals you have created or used and put the burden on a third party. Step up to the plate. And quitt being hypocritical, while eating meat complaining how horrible slaughter of horses is. Wear those pony boots with pride and throw a horse steak or two on the grill on occation.

[DMK]

Do you not concede that with the shipping regulation changes, ie: without using double deckers, they will be able to transport fewer per load, costing them more money in shipping post ban for a comparable number of horses?
Then there is the issue of papers that will then be required (as they are now "riding horses") and verification at the border and the tax.

ALL of that, do you not agree, will make the profit margin far less and perhaps drive some of the people involved to another more lucrative industry???

Doesn't the double decker ban only apply to horses transported to slaughter? Isn't it perfectly legal for Joe Schmoe to transport his horses in a double decker is he so chooses? (I thought that point was clarified when that dealer's trailer flipped over). So if there is no transport to slaughter, isn't this law moot? So If Joe Schmoe chooses to put his horses in a double decker and take them to Mexico to sell them as riding horses how is that illegal?

And yes, Jetsmom did some great research about the costs of bringing a riding horse across the border (either for a proposed or current law - can't remember). Anyway, my suspicion was that it might not even result in an extra dollar to the end user's purchase.

So the real question is will the market bear that cost and what is the alternative's price (meaning if alternative desired meat is still within that new price range, then the additional cost of horse meat is relative)? If the market will, I suspect Adam Smith rules and horses will ride in double deckers to Mexico. If the market can provide the same thing for less elsewhere, it will. Praise be the NIMBY Prinicple, this problem isn't in our backyard.

So far that is the only outcome I see.

[bryn]

It becomes pretty obvious when the same hauler is hauling doubles full of wild horses into Mexico, along with some foundered, broken down ones supposedly for riding horses week after week from the same origination point to the same destination that these are not riding horses. Since you have to fill out forms stating the owner, the shipper, the origination point, the destination and purpose for each horse on the load, saying something not true is falsifying government documents in a criminal way since you are falsifying BORDER documents.

If these haulers are stupid enough to take this risk, I don't think they will be doing it for long. Not only will they lose their truck, ability to be a trucker by FMC standards, but they will end up in jail.

Hauling more cattle seems more likely to me.

[county]

Got any proof of your claims? Have you seen these documents? Have you reported this law breaker? How long is not long? How long has it been going on?

[bryn]

The documents necessary to ship horses across the border into Mexico are public record. So are the owner shipper forms for slaughterbound horses.

[county]

None of which actually answers any of the questions.

[FatPalomino]

If these haulers are stupid enough to take this risk, I don't think they will be doing it for long. Not only will they lose their truck, ability to be a trucker by FMC standards, but they will end up in jail.

Hauling more cattle seems more likely to me.

Or poor enough to take the risk. Horses are gong through our sales at about 20 cents a pound now, and Cavel is paying out guy 70-90 cents a pound. Imagine if the price of horses goes down (increased unwanted horses...) and the price drops to 5 cents a pound or something rediulcous like that.... dont' you think it'd be worth the extra money to to the paperwork.

Sorry, but our dealer,the biggest horse dealers for Cavel, doesnt haul any cattle. No need when you have folks selling their horses for $30 and he gets 200 + in a week (and ships out that many).

[luvmytbs]

FP

so now that the double decker to slaughter ban is in effect, how does your dealer ship to Cavel?

[county]

When did that go into effect? I thought it was in 2007?

[bryn]

December 7, 2006

[county]

I'll have to ask the guy I know that uses a double here what he'll do I would imagine he'll start using his single trailer it would be the biggest they can have I think there 54 feet so you could still haul alot of livestock.

[JumpingPaints]

Re: Improving transportation of slaughterbound horses:

In addition to the non-enforcement of USDA regs for slaughterbound horses, pressure from the powerful trucking lobbies have led to the easing of DOT trucking safety regs over the last six years, including recently easing rules on work hours, re-jecting proposals for electronic monitoring to combat widespread cheating on drivers' logs and resistance to improving driver training. All of this only increases the risk of accidents, and is another huge obstacle in any effort to improve transportation safety for horses going to slaughter.

From: NY Times Editorial Dec 10, 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/opinion/10sun2.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fT% 2fTrucks%20and%20Trucking&oref=slogin)

MAKING THE HIGHWAYS LESS SAFE

To describe the Bush administration’s policy toward the trucking industry as deregulation is farcical. The word empowerment is so much more fitting for the array of trucking executives the White House appointed to be the ranking regulators of their own industry. While avowing professionalism, this cadre of political contributors and industry insiders has brazenly relaxed federal standards for truck safety over the last six years. Rather than tightening drivers’ hours as safety specialists advised, the political powers at the truck safety agency have actually loosened them — increasing the maximum driving hours to 77 from 60 over seven days, and to 88 hours from 70 over eight consecutive days on the road.

The industry’s deep-pocketed lobbyists made sure the Republican-controlled Congress remained as passive as any glassy-eyed driver involved in the annual toll of 5,000 truck-related fatalities. A detailed report in The Times by Stephen Labaton has laid bare the administration’s shameful policy of industry pandering as the worst in a generation. Rather than fulfilling the standard set a decade ago to halve the death rate by now, the administration has let the industry continue as the nation’s most treacherous. The accident fatality rate is nearly double that involving only cars.

The list of highway foxes embedded in the regulatory henhouse highlights the Bush era’s anointment of big industry across the spectrum of public and worker safety, from mines to Interstates. The head of the government truck safety agency, Joseph Clapp, was a trucking executive who led a foundation that produced research ludicrously discounting driver fatigue as a factor in accidents. David Addington, a trucking industry force for loosened regulations, eventually became chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney — and a zealot for overweening executive power.

Reprimanded in court rulings for ignoring its own experts’ findings about driver fatigue, the truck safety agency responded by reissuing the same faulty controls. These evade such obvious needs as stronger training and reliable electronic trip logs in place of “comic books,” as grizzled long-haulers call their paper logs. Safety specialists point out there would be a national uproar if airline regulators dared to tolerate a fatality rate of 5,000 a year.

[DMK]

It becomes pretty obvious when the same hauler is hauling doubles full of wild horses into Mexico, along with some foundered, broken down ones supposedly for riding horses week after week from the same origination point to the same destination that these are not riding horses. Since you have to fill out forms stating the owner, the shipper, the origination point, the destination and purpose for each horse on the load, saying something not true is falsifying government documents in a criminal way since you are falsifying BORDER documents.

If these haulers are stupid enough to take this risk, I don't think they will be doing it for long. Not only will they lose their truck, ability to be a trucker by FMC standards, but they will end up in jail.

Again, what is illegal about Joe Schmoe selling horses to Jose Shmoe who lives in Mexico? How exactly does a US based USDA officer sitting on the border station PROVE Jose Schmoe is the controlling interest in X slaughterhouse?

Given that any moron with two fuctioning synapses can hide all kinds of ownership interest in things as highly regulated (and with a hell of a lot more public interest at stake) such as ownership in a medical practice by parties who are prohibited from having a stake in such practice thanks to the millions they bilked out of Medicaid and Medicare. If this shit happens on US soil with the CMMS, OIG and various state authorities up their a$$ all day and every day... Well I want to hear this plan you have for one highly underfunded, overworked USDA office sorting out the intricacies of legal ownership in a foreign country.

Tenterhooks. I'm on tenterhooks. Because it would be so easy to set it up so it would be legal from the US side. And I think we are pretty confident nothing will be illegal on the other side of the border.

So yes, it WILL be pretty obvious that the same hauler selling to the same buyer is clearly NOT selling riding horses no matter what the carefully documented papers might say. But this ain't about what YOU think, it's about what can be proved in a court of law, and like I said, hidden ownership interest can be very difficult and expensive to prove. Yep, I see that funding being approved by congress. Tops on their list, I'm sure. It's not like the legal system is stressed to the max or anything like that. There's plenty of time, money and resources to add this enforcement to the list!

[bryn]

DMK, no one is forcing my thoughts, opinions or documented research on you. You make think what you want. I view COTH as a place for exchanging ideas, information, learning, and friendship. If you have such a problem with my posts, then put me on your ignore list.

[county]

But shouldn't ones thoughts be the truth and not fantasy?

[bryn]

I find that last post hilariously funny coming from you.

[county]

Why would that be bryn? I think a big part of why the bans etc have just never worked is no one stays in the real world with them. I really think if the anti side would look at things through reality and drop this " all or nothing " stance theyv'e had the last 40 years they could get somewhere.

[SuperSTB]

We can all debate on COTH till the cows come how. It's a bunch of hot air. 'Fantastical' statements is a description that could be applied to both sides arguing on this thread.

The absolute BEST anyone here can do is ASSUME what may or may not happen, nobody is going to know for sure.

[county]

Thats very true except I know for sure the " all or nothing " stance has gotten no where for 40 years. Why not try a new approach? Wonder if the horses would like to see something differant?

[DMK]

DMK, no one is forcing my thoughts, opinions or documented research on you. You make think what you want. I view COTH as a place for exchanging ideas, information, learning, and friendship. If you have such a problem with my posts, then put me on your ignore list.

Ah, you live on a one way street and I'm going the wrong way? So sorry, my bad.

I am of the mind that if you want to craft effective legislation for implementation and support, you need to be prepared to blow holes in it BEFORE implementation. All legislation has holes, loopholes and occassionally holes so large a double decker trailer full of slaughter bound horses can drive through. Putting your faith in a regulatory agency without making explicit plans for how they would enforce anything other than the blatantly obvious, would be such a hole. Planning how something might NOT work is in the 101 series of quality management and acknowledging the inherent difficulties enforcing anything multinational is a good place to start thinking about how to tighten up legislation.

Honestly, I hope legislation that truly protects horses can be crafted (while totally recognizing Erin's point about NIMBY - not one damn thing has been done for the root cause of the problem). But if your response to someone telling you there are (fixable) holes in your grand plans is to tell them to please take their toys and find another sandbox is a recipe for failure. You know, you won't get too many chances to capture public and regulatory attention to address this problem, but if it makes sense to go blow your wad with poorly crafted proposed regulations, because you don't want to hear what could go wrong, you go, girl.

[SuperSTB]

To take it into a different light- which part of the legislation do people take issue with IN PARTICULAR. Yes- breakdown the legislation and explain why you don't like this or that.

What type of legislation would you rather see?

I'll start:
To circumvent a total ban... I would be much more comfortable with enforcement of a double decker trailer outlaw.
Ownership papers for each horse- so they may be tracked in case of theft. IE if they were sold at auction, list the sellers name, auction facility, and buyers name all signed with addresses, just like a title.
The captive bolt human error factor reduced from allowable 10% to less than 4%.

[luvmytbs]

Ownership papers for each horse- so they may be tracked in case of theft. IE if they were sold at auction, list the sellers name, auction facility, and buyers name all signed with addresses, just like a title.


And that is going to work how?????? Unless you chip every single horse. A piece of paper is only worth as much as a piece of toilet paper when it comes to horse trading.

[county]

Show me the money thats the biggest thing IMO. Ideas are great reality says they have to be funded. The auction idea is fine but wheres the funding coming from for enforcement? And you can bet if its tax dollars us cattlemen want the same treatment stolen horses is a drop in the bucket compared to stolen cattle.

[SuperSTB]

So- outside of an outright ban- changes can't be proposed?

[SuperSTB]

And that is going to work how?????? Unless you chip every single horse. A piece of paper is only worth as much as a piece of toilet paper when it comes to horse trading.


Tattos and brands can be done as easily as a microchip.