[Guilherme]

Dammit, G. Now what will I do this afternoon?

Do what I'm going to do: round pen a couple of youngsters then start doing some basics with my potential competition horse for this year.

Of course, you will have to use your horses, not mine, unless you want to take a spin over here to East TN!!!

G.

[candyappy]

I think the fundamental difference is whether you feel your horse is a pet, and therefore you are obliged to care for it until its natural death, or it is livestock and has a purpose, in which case there is no reason to keep and pay for it when it no longer serves the purpose for which it was purchased.

People get muddled about which it is, and then when you throw in some empathy for the animal (and anthropomorphism), the decision gets very difficult. I think the only thing we "owe" a horse is that his life be pleasant and he be well cared for.


Sometimes that is not just standing around in a field and being bored --


so selling is actually a good thing for a horse that wants a job and attention. Some horses need lots of turn out; others love being in a stall and pampered. An owner isn't doing a horse any favors by keeping it in a bad situation where the animal is unhappy -- and that includes amateurs overhorsing themselves, or talented people pushing a lower level packer and getting frustrated.

A talented, easy horse has no problems at all being sold and resold; it's the problem horses or the older ones that are at risk for suffering, either by being placed in a home that doesn't care for them properly or being sent to the slaughterhouse. I think as a horse owner the obligation is to make sure we try our best to give that horse the best life it can have.

I have never, ever known a horse who is bored standing in a field!! I don't think there is anything wrong with buying a horse for yourself in hopes of never having to sell him. I would never put that requirement on someone I was selling a horse to and truly, how can you prove at the time of sale that they will keep him till next week?

The best thing you can do for your horse is keep him useful and ridable in case the unthinkable happens and you can no longer keep him.

[JSwan]

And then we eat them.

So? I raise all kinds of livestock on my farm. From wee little things.

Then one day I take them to the butcher and pick them back up in a couple of weeks.

If there was no use for domestic livestock, they'd be extinct. That includes horses, by the way.

Your worldview is not something you have the right to impose on me. Or anyone else for that matter. Get over yourself.

Horses aren't pets. We can treat them as pets - but most horses have a job. They work for a living.

If an owner is willing to work within the horses limitations - that's great. More power to 'em.

If it's a bad match, if the horse isn't happy in the discipline of the riders choosing, if the owner has too many horses and needs to cut back - whatever the reason. There's no shame in moving a horse on.

The notion that there is only one possible model of horse ownership is ridiculous.

[Fairfax]

What is the seller's responsibility? To either sell the horse to a legitimate home, or if he can't, to put him down humanely. Even if a horse is sold 20 times in the course of his life, if each seller in the chain does this, then very few horses would go to slaughter.

And by legitimate, I don't mean "forever," i mean a real buyer is buying the horse for a purpose other than meat. Meat buyers would be required by law to disclose that to seller in writing.

The buyer accepts these terms in the contract and specifically initials the line that states that he understands that he must be in possession of sufficient funds to cover euthanasia on the day of purchase.

And/ or

Perhaps breed associations require breeders to deposit a fee for each foal born, to be retained under his registration number. The association may invest this money and use the interest to pay for the program and possibly even keep a percentage to put back into programs important to their breeders. This would allow them to pay for euthanasia and body disposal when necessary. It discourages breeders from irresposibly adding to over-population and provides a "humane death" insurance policy for the horse. Perhaps the current owner pays a small co-pay. Maybe the cost share has a sliding scale, professionals that make money from the horse pay slightly more, amateur owners less. I'm sure all sorts of clever and creative ideas would come forth if we started giving a dang about treating these animals with the dignity they deserve.

It would go a long way toward keeping track horses from getting used, broken and then sent for slaughter. The fact that the great and beautiful Ferdinand won the Kentucky Derby and was killed at a slaughterhhouse in 2002, shows just how diabolically greedy horse industries can be.

From ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ory?id=2432046

The point is we have got to stop telling ourselves and each other that it's okay, or that there is nothing we can do. It isn't okay, and there is a lot more we can do.

PETA first proposed a foal tax and then they were challenged by HSUS as to who would manage it. They had estimated it would bring in $10 million per year (I am not sure where they came up with that amount). AQHA stated IF that was mandated by legislation THEY would manage their own breed foal fund. HSUS advised that only they could properly, and with integrity, manage the funds and it would be non partisan.

They estimated the foal charge should start at $750.00 knowing this would further remove individuals who are responsible breeders from producing.

By your calculation...20 people would dodge the "what do I do bullet" and it would be the last..one..who would pull the plug. How do you think that horse would not go to slaughter because it had a bunch of owners?

Why should meat buyers have to produce in writing their intentions regarding the horse they just purchased any more than a dressage person (who ight use Rokur) would have to disclose what their intentions would be.

To make sure that everyone who owns a horse has sufficient funds to "meat" someone elses requirements seems hard to implement. We have been unable to restrict the production of children by unsuitable or individuals without any means of support..why would legislators ever agree to such a draconian "means" test...? Who would administer it? How would one verify it?

Pros paying more than amateurs?

This post does not demonstrate dignity to horses...it does demonstrate one individuals attempt to control many others.

Imposing charges and verifications would result in an exodus from the horse industry unseen by any economic decline due to recession.

But then, that is what HSUS and its supporters want.

[Bluey]

I have never, ever known a horse who is bored standing in a field!! I don't think there is anything wrong with buying a horse for yourself in hopes of never having to sell him. I would never put that requirement on someone I was selling a horse to and truly, how can you prove at the time of sale that they will keep him till next week?

The best thing you can do for your horse is keep him useful and ridable in case the unthinkable happens and you can no longer keep him.

How many pastured horses have you known?

I can tell you of plenty of horses that are unhappy just turned out and standing in a field and I am talking pastures miles long, not the little trap that some call pastures.

What do they do when bored?
They start picking on the other horses turned in with them.
That is how my 22 year old retired ranch horse was injured, he has a chip on his stifle now.
He was on the receiving end of a bored pastured six year old.

Another, a 14 year old, started this little game of cutting one horse off and keeping it away from the others, all day long, his personal toy.
That happen to be my 30 year old retired ranch horse most of the time.
He had to be moved to a stable where he gave lessons and was contented in work.

Yes, there are plenty of horses that are not happy just turned out, as there are many that are fine as pasture ornaments.

[Fairfax]

This may cause a few raised eyebrows and put more gusto into the debate. There might just be an alternative to slaughter.

I have been informed by a contact who retired from the USDA that PMU farms may be back into production. There have been numerous studies, conducted in Europe, that the synthethic estrogen therapy is causing other health issues and they also believe it could be linked to ADD and Bi-Polar disorders in teens.

There is now a growing demand that the "natural" estrogen programs be reinstated.

The collection equipment is small and sophisticated. Yes, the mares are tethered to a ring in front of them and they are beded on straw (the same as many European farms keep their broodmares) They are free to lie down and there are not the big harnesses and attachments that were in style in the 70's and were slowly replaced in the 80's

This will drive the cost of slaughter horses back up into the $500 plus range and mares will not have to be "shipped"

Opens a new can of worms for some people, I expect

[Bluey]

This may cause a few raised eyebrows and put more gusto into the debate. There might just be an alternative to slaughter.

I have been informed by a contact who retired from the USDA that PMU farms may be back into production. There have been numerous studies, conducted in Europe, that the synthethic estrogen therapy is causing other health issues and they also believe it could be linked to ADD and Bi-Polar disorders in teens.

There is now a growing demand that the "natural" estrogen programs be reinstated.

The collection equipment is small and sophisticated. Yes, the mares are tethered to a ring in front of them and they are beded on straw (the same as many European farms keep their broodmares) They are free to lie down and there are not the big harnesses and attachments that were in style in the 70's and were slowly replaced in the 80's

This will drive the cost of slaughter horses back up into the $500 plus range and mares will not have to be "shipped"

Opens a new can of worms for some people, I expect

We are all part of a whole, working with and depending on each other.

I would say, we need to work so all have the best lives they can, for who they are, not to invent some strange utopia where no one eats other, no one lives off others.
That is sure not what our world is all about.

Have be all and any use we make sensible and not abusive is I think what we should work for, against the animal rights extremists ideas that we should keep our hands off animals altogether.

Talking about can of worms:

---"Horse Processing Facility To Re-Open In Western Missouri. The company plans to re-open an existing meat processing facility at Rockville, Mo., to humanely process horses. Unified Equine Missouri announced last week it hopes to have the western Missouri plant open by the end of the summer. The facility will be regulated and inspected by USDA to ensure all horses are humanely transported and processed according to federal regulations.
Unified Equine Missouri says it will adhere to standards that go above and beyond minimum government requirements. Developed by the International Equine Business Association, these standards will include video surveillance to ensure humane handling and a sophisticated, market-driven testing and traceability protocol. These systems ensure, to the extent possible, no stolen horse is mistakenly processed and all horses processed are safe for human consumption.
"We believe this is a win-win-win for both horses and people," said Unified Equine Missouri Chief Executive Officer Sue Wallis. "By ensuring every horse has value, we ensure they are handled appropriately at every stage, that they are used for good purposes that contribute to the overall economy, that owners have the option of selling a horse they no longer want or need for a good price and that as many as 50 good jobs that were lost almost a year ago are restored to a deserving rural community."---

[jetsmom]

Slaughterhouse Sue isn't exactly known for being truthful about things. My money is on no SH in MO.

[SwampYankee]

This may cause a few raised eyebrows and put more gusto into the debate. There might just be an alternative to slaughter.

I have been informed by a contact who retired from the USDA that PMU farms may be back into production. There have been numerous studies, conducted in Europe, that the synthethic estrogen therapy is causing other health issues and they also believe it could be linked to ADD and Bi-Polar disorders in teens.

There is now a growing demand that the "natural" estrogen programs be reinstated.

The collection equipment is small and sophisticated. Yes, the mares are tethered to a ring in front of them and they are beded on straw (the same as many European farms keep their broodmares) They are free to lie down and there are not the big harnesses and attachments that were in style in the 70's and were slowly replaced in the 80's

This will drive the cost of slaughter horses back up into the $500 plus range and mares will not have to be "shipped"

Opens a new can of worms for some people, I expect

Ever wonder why there's so much infertility around? Or why little boys are increasingly underweight, hyperactive, or autistic? Why little girls are experiencing puberty at age 8? Why some places it seems 2 out of 3 women have breast cancer? Why there suddenly seem to be more gay men than straight? YA THINK it could be all the endocrine disruptors in our environment? Take it, pee it, it's in the groundwater, folks!

I fully understand that there are some women whose menopause is so incredibly dangerous or uncomfortable they have no recourse but to take these drugs--but that segement of the population runs about 5%. The rest have bought into the Big Pharma BS that this is a "youth pill," or they're such freakin' wimps they can tolerate no discomfort or inconvenience whatsoever, and their MD's are more than happy to oblige all the way to the bank.

Just be aware we have NOT been told the TRUTH about conjugated estrogen and its effects on the patient, the environment, and God knows the horses. The thought of that stuff in the ground water makes my blood run cold--it doesn't break down when it's flushed, you know . . . for more information read The Menopause Industry by Sandra Coney; a book that had to be published by Penguin Books New Zealand because the pharmaceutical industry got it killed here. If you are between 35 and 60, this is NEED TO KNOW.

Do you really want to trade a temporary nuisance for a life-threatening cancer? Just say NO to taking estrogen/progesterone! And I say that as someone who's been living for 6 years now with the whole 9 yards--SUCK IT UP and LAUGH AT IT! Nature is "croning" you!

[Bluey]

Ever wonder why there's so much infertility around? Or why little boys are increasingly underweight, hyperactive, or autistic? Why little girls are experiencing puberty at age 8? Why some places it seems 2 out of 3 women have breast cancer? Why there suddenly seem to be more gay men than straight? YA THINK it could be all the endocrine disruptors in our environment? Take it, pee it, it's in the groundwater, folks!

I fully understand that there are some women whose menopause is so incredibly dangerous or uncomfortable they have no recourse but to take these drugs--but that segement of the population runs about 5%. The rest have bought into the Big Pharma BS that this is a "youth pill," or they're such freakin' wimps they can tolerate no discomfort or inconvenience whatsoever, and their MD's are more than happy to oblige all the way to the bank.

Just be aware we have NOT been told the TRUTH about conjugated estrogen and its effects on the patient, the environment, and God knows the horses. The thought of that stuff in the ground water makes my blood run cold--it doesn't break down when it's flushed, you know . . . for more information read The Menopause Industry by Sandra Coney; a book that had to be published by Penguin Books New Zealand because the pharmaceutical industry got it killed here. If you are between 35 and 60, this is NEED TO KNOW.

Do you really want to trade a temporary nuisance for a life-threatening cancer? Just say NO to taking estrogen/progesterone! And I say that as someone who's been living for 6 years now with the whole 9 yards--SUCK IT UP and LAUGH AT IT! Nature is "croning" you!

Remember, the much maligned science doesn't only make frankenstein people, it also has helped most of us reliably live healthy and twice as long in the past century alone.

Perspective always help.
"Disruptors" are in all our environments, "natural" ones too.
Ever heard of phytoestrogens?
Maybe it is all that soymilk that is changing some kids?

Seriously, I was born right after WWII in a Europe with little for anyone.
I had pneumonia at two and was one of the first to get that new wonder medicine just becoming available to the general public, "antibiotic".
That saved me, as it did so many sick people then.

I think it is important that we learn science, so we can understand how our world ties in, not let the pseudo science of odd agendas drive the day or worse, as it tries, direct government policy.

[SwampYankee]

I totally hear you about antibiotics, and many other legitimately life-saving medications and procedures which have come along since WWII. No argument there.

However, it is an oft-repeated myth that life expectancies were that low before 1900--that statistic includes infant mortality. My own ancestors' records, which we have going back 400 years, show very clearly that if infectious diseases or accidents didn't get you, you lived most often to a ripe old age; 70's, 80's, even 90's were not the least bit unusual.

You're quite right about soy. Those wanting more information should see the www.westonaprice.org website. Soy in unfermented form contains not only phytoestrogens, which are not exactly what you want little boys drinking in their formula, but also nutrient-blockers that prevent the absorption of other vital minerals and vitamins. Vegetable oil, made from soy, does not exist in nature until created by cracking the beans with petroleum-derived hydrocarbons, creating a free-radical stew you do NOT want in your body at any age.

Interestingly, this year I've weaned nearly all the horses off of every feed type that contains soybeans or soybean oil--should I be surprised they're suddenly all much easier keepers? This stuff messes with the thyroid gland and I think it may be the real source of a lot of the "metabolic" horses. We did NOT see that 30 years go--before soy in horse feed!

But what I'm talking about here is something that was marketed for years as a "lifestyle" drug, not a life-saving one, and which was prescribed to millions of women as a health enhancer--without full disclosure of its dangers, which some physicians still don't like to admit. Do not think for one minute that pharmaceutical company money doesn't influence the FDA, the USDA, and the information allowed to make it into the media mainstream.

There is also a vast amount of poorly designed, purposely skewed, incorrectly reported or just plain wrong "science" out there, much of it bought and paid for by corporations with an agenda for profit. Medicine has brought many advantages, but it also has its dark side; the food industry does too.

[paulaedwina]

Yeah, off topic, but the soy thing is a real concern. I know that in the US (and among progressively more wealthy people in developing countries) the practice is to give lactose intolerant babies soy formula. I'm no doctor, but that makes me wince. Back when I was a kid in the Caribbean lactose intolerant babies drank goats milk which was much better tolerated than cows milk (and that is barring breast milk at the outset).

Paula

[mbm]

fwiw i agree with those expressing concerns re: premerin , soy, etc.

and if that means i wear a tin hat - so be it it will look smashing with my outfit today

[Guilherme]

Be care of the word "if." It is the largest in the English language.

To say "which we have going back 400 years, show very clearly that if infectious diseases or accidents didn't get you, you lived most often to a ripe old age; 70's, 80's, even 90's were not the least bit unusual" is to be perfectly general, perfectly true, and perfectly meaningless. Why? Because infectious disease and accidents DID kill huge numbers of people. Historically, if a child made it to about 5 years of age they had a good chance of achieving puberty. Before 5 the rates of death from diseases we no longer much hear about (measles, mumps, poxes, etc.) took a dreadful number of children (often well in excess of 50%). Diarrhea was a major killer of children, as was fever. At puberty women became at risk from death during pregnancy/birth and men from the risks of life in those days (job related accident, military service, crime, etc.). Yes, a few people did make it to significant old age, but their relative number was extremely small.

Do we abuse some modern drugs (particularly antibiotics)? Indeed. The consequences of this abuse can be serious on a very large scale. But that doesn't mean "don't use them when they are indicated." It means "don't use them when they are not indicated."

Because we stand on the shoulders of giants in many fields of human knowledge, and because we no longer teach history in schools, we often find our society "reinventing the wheel." That, IMO, is a Very Bad Thing.

G.

[SwampYankee]

Yeah, off topic, but the soy thing is a real concern. I know that in the US (and among progressively more wealthy people in developing countries) the practice is to give lactose intolerant babies soy formula. I'm no doctor, but that makes me wince. Back when I was a kid in the Caribbean lactose intolerant babies drank goats milk which was much better tolerated than cows milk (and that is barring breast milk at the outset).

Paula

Lactose intolerance only occurs when drinking pasteurized milk. This has every live enzyme and "good" flora killed by heat, then they "homogenize" it, otherwise known as breaking cholesterol particles down from the size nature intended to a size it distinctly didn't; then they add back in Vitamins A and D, synthsized aritificially in China, which are not even absorbed in the absence of fat--which is the only worthwhile part of the milk. "Skim" or 1% milk is glorified liquid sugar. Again, go look at www.westonaprice.org. There is a reason I drive 20 miles out of my way every week to buy raw milk! And it's YUMMY!

[SwampYankee]

Be care of the word "if." It is the largest in the English language.

To say "which we have going back 400 years, show very clearly that if infectious diseases or accidents didn't get you, you lived most often to a ripe old age; 70's, 80's, even 90's were not the least bit unusual" is to be perfectly general, perfectly true, and perfectly meaningless. Why? Because infectious disease and accidents DID kill huge numbers of people. Historically, if a child made it to about 5 years of age they had a good chance of achieving puberty. Before 5 the rates of death from diseases we no longer much hear about (measles, mumps, poxes, etc.) took a dreadful number of children (often well in excess of 50%). Diarrhea was a major killer of children, as was fever. At puberty women became at risk from death during pregnancy/birth and men from the risks of life in those days (job related accident, military service, crime, etc.). Yes, a few people did make it to significant old age, but their relative number was extremely small.

Do we abuse some modern drugs (particularly antibiotics)? Indeed. The consequences of this abuse can be serious on a very large scale. But that doesn't mean "don't use them when they are indicated." It means "don't use them when they are not indicated."

Because we stand on the shoulders of giants in many fields of human knowledge, and because we no longer teach history in schools, we often find our society "reinventing the wheel." That, IMO, is a Very Bad Thing.

G.

It is also true that the "Diseases of Western Civilization" arose at exactly the same time as industrialization--particularly, the machine refining of flour and sugar. Prior to that point, the chronic degenerative conditions we are being brainwashed to believe are normal and inevitable--cancer, diabetes, hypertension, atherosclerosis--were almost completely unknown in any population prior to the consumption of large quantities of refined grains and sugar.
Read Gary Taubes' book, Good Calories/Bad Calories.

This is why any native people who eat their OWN culture's food--be it Mediterranean, Okinawan, Aboriginal, even Inuit--
can eat that food without these modern problems. But the minute the missionaries brought the flour and sugar--BAM! Within 5 years those isolated populations started having all of the above.

Now, take that--and we're up to 150 lbs. of sugar per capita nowadays in addition to all the starch--and add in the soy, the other endocrine disruptors in a thousand different products we're exposed to every day, and all the myriad ways in which we're constantly exhorted to alter our blood chemistry, sometimes for the most trivial of reasons, via drugs many of which are for practical purposes experimental. Quite frankly, if it's been on the market less than 25 years, YOU are the guinea pig. And I was told this by a doctor!

Want to really go scratch your head? The European Union will not import our hormone-laced beef (oh, yes, every cow in the feedlot has that estrogen plug behind his or her ear!) or our genetically-modified crops; yet they import 30-year old Bute-marinated HORSE from Mexico under the rubric of "Wild Mustang Meat." Human ignorance marches on . . .

[Guilherme]

Lactose intolerance does not come from pasteurized milk. Most of the world's ethnic populations are lactose intolerant after weaning age. Only those populations whose base is in Northern Europe regularly consume milk as adults. The highest rate of tolerance is in Sweden (at 90%+). It goes down from there.

There's a theory among some historians that one reason Northern Europeans were the great explorers and colonizers of the world is that they were better able to eat cheese without ill effects. The ability to consume food stored on long ocean voyages without ill effect would have given people with a "tolerant gut" a major advantage.

I ran you "industrial age" theory past my wife (MD, MPH, Board Certified in Environmental and Aerospace Medicine) and her impression was "probably not." Most of the diseases mentioned are those that come with age. The great cause of death in older times was infection. That and "bleeding." As to dietary connected illnesses, maybe so and maybe not. It's not that "cut and dried." Also, different ethnic groups have different health problems completely unrelated to diet.

Note that "probably not" does not mean "never." Only that the evidence is very unclear.

G.

[Bluey]

Spambot bringing old threads to life reported.