No. I do understand there are problems but I also understand there are laws that can be enforced and I also know that truckers who are going to ship to Canada and break those laws will NOT be able to bring the horses in through the Sweetgrass Mt/Coutts Alberta crossing.
I observed FOR TWO YEARS the Fort MacLeod plant. Many improvements were made, many changes in the culture were implemented.
You don't want to hear about those as they rebut your slaughter comments.
So..you will go after transportation amd auctions. They WILL have to undergo numerous changes and they will as it will make them more money.
There is ALWAYS going to be a u tube of a woman striking her child in the face.
Does that mean ALL women strike their children in the face and therefore Motherhood should be banned?
THIS is what the industry battles daily...this woman IS a PETA member and in a "non threatening" interview this morning managed to slip in...of course a LITTLE beef or meat is good for you, but there are substitutes that are not of an ethical nature regarding abusive animal care and if we have the right to consume another being....Direct quote from the Dave Rutherford Show, CHQR Calgary..11:15 am
Here is her book she is pushing:
Publication Date: October 16, 2012
Each year the average North American ingests well over two hundred pounds of animal protein. Meanwhile the global appetite for meat has increased dramatically. But feeding our meat addiction comes at tremendous cost. Mainting our current level of consumption is ecologically impossible in the longterm and undermines our personal health and community well-being.
High Steaks documents the disastrous consequences of modern large-scale industrial meat production and excessive consumption, including:
The loss of vast tracts of arable land and fresh water to intensive livestock production
Increased pollution, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and accelerating climate change
The environmental and health impacts of too much animal fat, and of antibiotics and other chemicals in our food.
Timely and compelling, this powerful book offers a modest, commonsense approach to a serious problem, suggesting strategies for all of us to cut back on our consumption of animal products and ensure that the meat we do consume is produced in a sustainable, ecologically responsible manner. At the same time, High Steaks describes progressive food policy shifts that will discourage factory farming and encourage people to eat in ways that support ecosystems and personal health.
Eleanor Boyle has been teaching and writing for twenty-five years, with a focus on food systems and their social, environmental, and health consequences. As well as working with organizations aiming for better food policy, she holds an MSc in food policy and is an instructor at the Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia.
Climate change/////here we go AGAIN...COW FARTS ARE DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT
Loss of land IS of concern...but NOT by livestock and farming interests. It is by the overrun of housing developments AND golf courses.
H$U$' campaign manager for Measure 5 in North Dakota claims ) that Measure 5 has "nothing to do with animal agriculture"... But WE KNOW that H$U$ doesn't do ANYTHING without setting a precedent! Why else would they be grouping horses, cats and dogs together unless they were making an attempt to reclassify horses from livestock to companion animals?!
Also in this link is a recording of Jason Schmidt, with North Dakota Animal Stewards to defeat Measure 5 and he is really giving HSUS a run for their money in North Dakota! Please support their campaign!!!
Measure 5 Town Hall Meeting Tonight in Valley City | NewsDakotawww.newsdakota.com
VALLEY CITY, N.D. (NewsDakota.com) Opponents of Measure 5 will hold a meeting in Valley City tonight...
Lovey..ya need to get out of Kentucky and travel America.
That's where some of us have the on the ground experience.
You could build the most incredible slaughter plant in the world, but there will NEVER be any changes in the pipeline unless the plant contracts someone like Sallee's for transportation and auctioneers/feedlot owners/KB's who give a damn.
On the other hand, plenty of bad legislation DOES make it through. Well intentioned, perhaps. But bad public policy in the long run.
Which is why it's possible to be against specific legislation, but not necessarily opposed to the intent behind it.
It's unfortunate, because often poorly drafted legislation pits groups against each other when if folks would pull their heads out.... some good could be done.
I guess that's a whole 'nother subject....
Climate Change and the Livestock Industry - Eleanor Boyle
I'm not finished reading it yet.
Modern industrial meat production causes global warming by several means, including:
1) Deforestation. Unknown to most citizens, the livestock industry is “the major driver of
deforestation” (FAO, 2006, p.xxiii). Most of the Amazon rainforest that has been cut
down is used for livestock pasture, and much of the rest is used to grow the huge amounts
of feed needed to fatten cows and pigs to produce steak and pork chops. Not only does
deforestation cause environmental problems such as loss of biodiversity, but it removes a
link in the carbon cycle in which trees would naturally take some of the atmosphere’s
excess carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen. Deforestation therefore decreases nature’s
ability to mitigate global warming.
The KY Ag Dept. put a board together to write minimal care standards for equines, because in the past they used the one for cattle/livestock.
Well intentioned? Or just a passifier to calm the mounting horse neglect calls they have been receiving in recent years.
The majority of this board is AG or industry related. Only one member has some animal welfare experience, but he doesn't have a back bone :(.
Thus some of the changes would override good county ordinances already in place for horses.
Even at the local level, the people responsible for drafting the legislation know little to nothing about the subject matter. Or, they might know the subject matter (let's say... hog farming), but not be really educated on laws and regulations pertaining to hog farming. But because they're the only hog farmer willing to chip in and help - he's "it".
Or, you have a very urban oriented planner - who might be a fantastic county employee, a hard worker, the works, who gets stuck drafting an ordinance on a something he knows nothing about.
An example where I live would be a proposed ordinance directed at something very specific, but had the unintended consequence of banning all unloading or loading of livestock except at certain places on farms. All kinds of setback requirements, screening requirements, etc. HUH?
That didn't go over too well with the farmers. Or horse owners - because we load and unload horses at parks, shows, meets, schooling facilities, on private land to trail ride (with permission of course)... etc etc etc.
When that was pointed out - the shock on people's faces was obvious.
Here's the problem. That proposed ordinance was pretty close to being voted on and put into law.
All because people didn't realize what they were doing.
This sort of things happens a great deal. If I was to put on my tin foil hat and look in the sky for the black helicopters - I could accuse the locality of being infiltrated by RARA's and hating horsies and ponees and cute widdle cows.
The truth is, it was an extremely well intentioned effort to promote agriculture, which is our largest industry. (where I live) It was just poor drafting by very well educated, wonderful, competent people our locality is blessed to have working for us. That's all.
Personally, I chalk that up in the "sh** happens" category. And happily work with these terrific people.
Here's another example.
My state created a minimum care standard for livestock not too long ago. It was part of a larger effort to update the animal care code. (as time went one changes here and there had made a bit of a muddle out of it - which was NOT helpful for anyone.)
It wasn't an "agribusiness" bill. The bill was the result of a cooperative effort between animal care professionals, veterinarians, and yes, ag interests. But note - leadership within the animal shelters were at the forefront of the effort.
It was a good Bill. No longer was the mere presence of food or water on the premises sufficient to thwart animal control officers, even when the animal was starved or dehydrated. The animal COULD NOT be starved or dehydrated. There was a lot more to the Bill - including an exception for Acts of God (massive flooding with stranded livestock, hurricane, etc.)
But it was a big improvement, it was reasonable, it balanced the desire to protect animal welfare with the need to have exceptions for Acts of God, and did not venture into animal rights territory, and it had the full support of law enforcement, shelter leadership, the AG's office, the ag community, etc.
Who opposed the Bill and put a lot of money and effort into defeating it?