The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 116
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec. 14, 2003
    Location
    Southern New Jersey
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    As for bute, the amounts to do any good for arthritis and pain can cause humans to get sick, although many grooms can tell you it didn't make them sick at all for all the years they have been using it.

    Bute as a residue on meat, well, you would have to eat 10 lbs of horse meat with high residues a day to eventually maybe make you sick.
    :
    Bluey, despite the fact that you keep repeating this mis-information does not make it true. Some grooms stating that they did not get sick from using it does not mean that it is safe. The FDA pulled it from the human market for the exact reason that it caused very serious adverse events in humans. There are no studies to prove how much a person has to consume in order to experience adverse events and there is clinical evidence that miniscule amounts can cause serious adverse events in some individuals, especially the very young and the very old.

    You spewing incorrect pro-slaughter propaganda is as annoying and unhelpful as reading incorrect propaganda from PETA. Try to stick to the facts, actual proven facts.
    Annabelle Mayr, Arcadia Farm
    Home of Fitz, Max, Daeo & Austria
    Now over the Rainbow Bridge: Finn, Jake & Seamus


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ADM7040 View Post
    Bluey, despite the fact that you keep repeating this mis-information does not make it true. Some grooms stating that they did not get sick from using it does not mean that it is safe. The FDA pulled it from the human market for the exact reason that it caused very serious adverse events in humans. There are no studies to prove how much a person has to consume in order to experience adverse events and there is clinical evidence that miniscule amounts can cause serious adverse events in some individuals, especially the very young and the very old.

    You spewing incorrect pro-slaughter propaganda is as annoying and unhelpful as reading incorrect propaganda from PETA. Try to stick to the facts, actual proven facts.
    Ok, find that one study that said bute may harm.

    Then look at those that dispute that one study, saying you would have to be unlucky enough to buy all horse meat with bute residue, last time someone checked that was 2% and eat 10 lbs of it a day for many days to get enough to even have any possible effect.

    Still, I will repeat, if that one study was taken by animal rights extremist groups and used for their propaganda against eating meat, here horse meat and politicians pushed thru a regulation against bute, based on that ONE study, against the recommendations of other scientists, well, then we shall not have bute in horse meat.

    Ok, so we now test and take any meat that shows any residue out of the line, no problem there.

    What don't you understand about the difference in how to manage better for whatever regulations you have to live with, as all industries do and fighting one of the largest non-profit groups out there living off the controversies they can stir up against your industry to ban it?

    Why do we have to repeat the same time and again,?
    You have now asked that many times, in several threads, how hard is that to understand?

    I don't mind, will keep repeating as long as it takes.



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    PM the Moderator if that is what you think we should do.
    well here is the current list that is on the first page of Off cource... thanks for the advise will send off to the mods:



    When horses go to slaughter

    Cattle industry comes clean about why it supports horse slaughter

    Wow..."Horsemeat found in beef burgers on sale in UK and Ireland"

    How does a horse like this end up at Camelot???

    Horse Slaughter Ban Lifted by Oklahoma Senate -- Needs Gov Signature -- YOU can help!

    overlooked:

    How does a horse like this end up at Camelot???

    so edited to add, rather than repost again, and again and again and again and again

    but in my glazed over reading it seems I did include "How does a horse like this end up at Camelot??? "

    so must edit a second time to explain why I edited it the first time...
    Last edited by clanter; Mar. 9, 2013 at 08:51 AM.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2009
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    238

    Default

    People are winter bound, caged up and have cabin fever. It will go away in good time, when riding actually begins again. Then it will be

    What saddle to get that will fit my horse?



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,433

    Default

    Bluey, your lack of any study that shows bute is not harmful unless you eat extraordinary amounts has been completely outed on the cattle industry thread. Give it up.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec. 14, 2003
    Location
    Southern New Jersey
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Ok, find that one study that said bute may harm.

    Then look at those that dispute that one study, saying you would have to be unlucky enough to buy all horse meat with bute residue, last time someone checked that was 2% and eat 10 lbs of it a day for many days to get enough to even have any possible effect.

    Still, I will repeat, if that one study was taken by animal rights extremist groups and used for their propaganda against eating meat, here horse meat and politicians pushed thru a regulation against bute, based on that ONE study, against the recommendations of other scientists, well, then we shall not have bute in horse meat.

    Ok, so we now test and take any meat that shows any residue out of the line, no problem there.

    What don't you understand about the difference in how to manage better for whatever regulations you have to live with, as all industries do and fighting one of the largest non-profit groups out there living off the controversies they can stir up against your industry to ban it?

    Why do we have to repeat the same time and again,?
    You have now asked that many times, in several threads, how hard is that to understand?

    I don't mind, will keep repeating as long as it takes.
    Bluey, you are completely out of your element in this issue and your hysterical cries that it is the raras behind the bute issues are just that, histrionics.

    There is not one study that states "bute will harm". That is not how the FDA works. The drug was initially approved for human use, afterwards, post marketing experience (which means what actually happens in real life when people used the drug outside of clinical trials) demonstrated an unacceptably high level of numerous, serious adverse events. Therefore not studies, but actual events that happened in real patients who were using the drug. As a result, the FDA pulled bute from the human market. Use in horses did not demonstrate unacceptable adverse events. Medications frequently have different effects and adverse events in different species, that is why controlled studies are needed to determine efficacy and adverse events. As clearly documented by the FDA, no threshold levels have been determined to be safe for human consumption. Someone trying to extrapolate data to determine what exposure in contaminated meat would be equal to injesting a formerly approved human dose of bute does not have any acceptable value as scientific data. This has been explained to you over and over, but you want to continue to spread around unfounded information.

    It is also untrue that "...we now test and take any meat that shows any residue out of the line, no problem there." Published data from the USDA and CFIA demonstrates that less than 1% of the horse carcasses are tested for residues of banned substances. That is not a statistically representative sample from a group of animals that have come from diversified backgrounds and owners with no QA ensuring that they are not fed or medicated with substances that are banned for animals intended for human consumption.

    You are the one who does not understand how to "...manage better for whatever regulations you have to live with, as all industries do..." The regulations regarding bute and other medications aready exist, the cattle and pork industries have QA programs to adhere to these regulations, the horse industry does not. Therefore the only way to ensure the safety of the horse meat is to test every single horse. Fairfax keeps claiming that the industry is coming up with this test but has not produced any information about it and no one else has either. I hope it really exists, because it needs to be implemented.

    Truly there is a population of unwanted horses that something needs to be done about. Compromising the human food chain is not an acceptable option so the horse slaughter industry needs to step up to the plate (pun!) and test more thoroughly.

    So, you can keep repeating your false information, but that will not somehow transform it into the truth. How hard is that to understand?
    Annabelle Mayr, Arcadia Farm
    Home of Fitz, Max, Daeo & Austria
    Now over the Rainbow Bridge: Finn, Jake & Seamus


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun. 1, 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    11,077

    Default

    Not every horse that goes to slaughter is used for human consumption, there are many other uses for horses. Kill buyers take anything that shows up at the auction, lame or sound, sick or healthy. They are simply a transport funnel for horses.

    I think the claim that horses who go to slaughter are all nice useful horses is false and used by anti slaughter people, just like the claim that the horses are all useless or dangerous is used by pro slaughter people. Horses can be registered or unregistered, but a registered horse can be just as useless as a registered horse.

    The fact is that slaughter is used as a place to dispose of unwanted horses and there are simply not enough homes for all of them and people will NEVER do what YOU think is the right thing. There is a broad range of care options for horses and you can't get everyone to agree on what is the "right" thing to do.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,433

    Default

    Alagirl, you threw out the Russian horse meat is shipped to EU without a passport and still haven't provided any back-up. As I said, I believe they import to Russia, not export from Russia.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ADM7040 View Post
    Bluey, you are completely out of your element in this issue and your hysterical cries that it is the raras behind the bute issues are just that, histrionics.

    There is not one study that states "bute will harm". That is not how the FDA works. The drug was initially approved for human use, afterwards, post marketing experience (which means what actually happens in real life when people used the drug outside of clinical trials) demonstrated an unacceptably high level of numerous, serious adverse events. Therefore not studies, but actual events that happened in real patients who were using the drug. As a result, the FDA pulled bute from the human market. Use in horses did not demonstrate unacceptable adverse events. Medications frequently have different effects and adverse events in different species, that is why controlled studies are needed to determine efficacy and adverse events. As clearly documented by the FDA, no threshold levels have been determined to be safe for human consumption. Someone trying to extrapolate data to determine what exposure in contaminated meat would be equal to injesting a formerly approved human dose of bute does not have any acceptable value as scientific data. This has been explained to you over and over, but you want to continue to spread around unfounded information.

    It is also untrue that "...we now test and take any meat that shows any residue out of the line, no problem there." Published data from the USDA and CFIA demonstrates that less than 1% of the horse carcasses are tested for residues of banned substances. That is not a statistically representative sample from a group of animals that have come from diversified backgrounds and owners with no QA ensuring that they are not fed or medicated with substances that are banned for animals intended for human consumption.

    You are the one who does not understand how to "...manage better for whatever regulations you have to live with, as all industries do..." The regulations regarding bute and other medications aready exist, the cattle and pork industries have QA programs to adhere to these regulations, the horse industry does not. Therefore the only way to ensure the safety of the horse meat is to test every single horse. Fairfax keeps claiming that the industry is coming up with this test but has not produced any information about it and no one else has either. I hope it really exists, because it needs to be implemented.

    Truly there is a population of unwanted horses that something needs to be done about. Compromising the human food chain is not an acceptable option so the horse slaughter industry needs to step up to the plate (pun!) and test more thoroughly.

    So, you can keep repeating your false information, but that will not somehow transform it into the truth. How hard is that to understand?
    That is what you believe, you don't have proof of that.

    Hysterical are those that are yelling of the roof tops for slaughter to be banned, when I have time and again explained that is like throwing away the baby with the bathwater.
    No one can dispute that.

    There is no reasonable way to dispute that it is silly to ban one more process to use the natural, renewable resource SOME horses are.
    The unreasonable that the anti side brings is all about how to manage slaughter as a reason to ban.

    Well, you don't ban driving because some drive drunk, you don't ban religion or schools because some priests and teachers abuse kids, don't ban police because some beat people, don't ban rescues because some mismanage donations to downright starve horses.

    What do we do?
    We make the processes as good as we can, regulate and supervise.
    The same with slaughter, why is that so hard to understand?

    I know, because this is not about slaughter, but about demonizing all we do with animals, slaughter just the low hanging fruit, the "ick" factor a big hit for the animal rights extremist groups to run with and so get more free publicity and donations.

    Again, you may disagree and that is fine, but that is the way a very large number of people see this situation, for what they tell me.

    I have a hard time believing your protests that you would not mind slaughter if it was this or that.
    Why don't I believe it?
    Because you are going by myths and misinformation and demand that be corrected when, guess what, that is not so, it is a red herring, like bute or abuses, etc.

    Not that such may not happen, but that any of that is cause to ban slaughter, when all it is is what management of slaughter addresses, as any other we do in life has to address, like priests, teachers, policemen, rescues have to address and we don't run around asking they be banned.

    You keep confusing the issues here, bringing the mismanagement and abuse card, saying without that I would not follow the ban drive.
    Well, if that really was so, you would not keep bringing management issues and siding with those that follow animal rights extremists asking for a ban.

    We really can't have it both ways, say something and insist on other and expect not to be called on it.
    A bit like saying everyone has the right to smoke if they want, but I want selling cigarettes banned.
    That logic doesn't add up.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2011
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post


    The same applies to those that are for the ban slaughter drive.
    As soon as someone post anything about slaughter, here they come.
    How ironic that you were the first one to respond to this thread ...


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,433

    Default

    Bluey, what does drunk driving have to do with a safe food supply?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Bluey, what does drunk driving have to do with a safe food supply?
    I know I don't express myself that well, but some I say should be obvious to anyone, I would think.

    We don't ban driving because some break regulations or we don't like the supervision, like some drive drunk and there may not be enough policing to catch all.
    We do find other ways to handle what is not working right, with driving, maybe cars that won't start if someone is drunk.

    Similar with slaughter, there is no reason to ban it because someone thinks it is not done right, we work to make any that is not good enough better.
    Bute is against regulations?
    Test and send any positives to other production lines.

    Again, why is that so hard to understand, no matter how poorly I may express that?



  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2011
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    We don't ban driving because some break regulations or we don't like the supervision, like some drive drunk and there may not be enough policing to catch all.
    We do find other ways to handle what is not working right, with driving, maybe cars that won't start if someone is drunk.
    This is the very same argument that could be used to counter the ridiculous "slippery slope" argument that horse slaughter defenders love to use:

    If we use their 'logic', then if we "ban" drunk driving then it's only a matter of time before cars are 'banned"

    Oh wait. Drunk driving *is* banned ... and we still have cars! So the 'slippery slope' argument only applies to banning the slaughter of an animal for human consumption. Got it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Alagirl, you threw out the Russian horse meat is shipped to EU without a passport and still haven't provided any back-up. As I said, I believe they import to Russia, not export from Russia.

    That came from me. According to Robby den Hartog, who is the major importer of horsemeat in Europe and is located in Holland. He imports FROM RUSSIA and their Satelites 35000 plus tonnes. The lack of passport was first discusssed with den Hartog and then was published by the EU on their food and drug page.

    If you also google Equine meat consumption increases you will find a raft of articles from page 1-3 (many of them do not allow a clip and paste)

    Russia has been an exporter of horse meat since the 1960's. That was started as it was a means to acquire American Dollars expecially during the cold war. den Hartog (who also breeds Arabian horses and was and is well known for his breeding program AND his assistance to Patricia Linsay of England and Howie Kale of America when the "russian" Arabian took off.) still operates one of the largest privately owned corporations for importing horsemeat to Europe FROM Europe and parts of Asia.



  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abercrombie View Post
    This is the very same argument that could be used to counter the ridiculous "slippery slope" argument that horse slaughter defenders love to use:

    If we use their 'logic', then if we "ban" drunk driving then it's only a matter of time before cars are 'banned"

    Oh wait. Drunk driving *is* banned ... and we still have cars! So the 'slippery slope' argument only applies to banning the slaughter of an animal for human consumption. Got it.
    Driving doesn't has some mega million non-profit groups making their millions of the fight to ban it.
    Those of us that have animals do, in those animal rights extremist groups.

    Did it ever occur to you that, without those groups, we would not be having these discussions?
    No one else would think it makes any sense to ban our uses of animals, including slaughter, as we have used them for millennia.



  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Aber...wasn't sure if you would come back on line to poast ....you are one tough person..getting continually whupped and still coming back into the ring.

    ADMIN...the ban re FDA is EXACTLY how it came about. There is absolutely NO scientific tes that confirms what is reported. I have asked the U of Saskatoon and Guelph (both vet universities) and they have not provided me with ONE s tukdy that was conducted over a period of time sufficient to determine an outcome. Merely saying, based on ONE study..given to the EU, that it could cause cancer should not be enough.

    Now here is a big big kicker. Parasites have been found in horse meat imported from USSR. Although they are killed upon correct cooking procedures, there is talk the EU MAY remove the ban on wormer.

    Here you go folks

    IF Slaughter of horses was banned tomorrow...

    What is YOUR proposal to, at the very least, take care of the 100,000 horses that would go into the slaughter lineup over the nest 12 months.

    Remember you must take care of them..i.e. consider county legislation where there are bans on burial of euthanized horses due to water contamination before you just say...euthanization clinics.

    Consider the lack of burial of horses in many counties on property losts less then 160 acres.

    Consider the cost of euthanization and rendering pick up...who is going to pay

    NOW...post away...we want to read your solutions



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Slipper slope re alcohol and driving. In many parts of Canada .08% is the LEGAL limit BUT if you are caught with .05% (one drink plus a very little more) you vehicle will be impounded and you will have to wait until your court date to get it back. That could take up to 6 months and you must pay "board" for it.

    Mothers Against Drunk Drivers told politicians the "community supported" the .05...turns out THEY LIED...now we have a bill on the books that is making MONEY big time for the government and they will NOT remove it.

    Lawyers, judges and constitutional experts have stated this is a violation but the government IGNORES IT.

    That is what governments do...once they accept a test or anything else...they refuse to make changes. Again...most of government and rules are about CONTROL..

    Look at prohibition during the 20's in the U.S. It was started with the womens movement and women THOUGHT that if liquor was outlawed ...husbands would NOT "wander" It was to control ..and it didn't work..



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jun. 29, 2011
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Driving doesn't has some mega million non-profit groups making their millions of the fight to ban it.
    Those of us that have animals do, in those animal rights extremist groups.
    Really? What about the mega-millions spent by industries like Cattlemen's, Meat, Dairy, Poultry, Pork, and Farm Bureau's to lobby for things like horse slaughter, ag-gag laws, and the defense of some pretty egregious animal "farming" methods? They are *hardly* out-gunned by any of the "animal rights extremist groups"

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Did it ever occur to you that, without those groups, we would not be having these discussions?
    No one else would think it makes any sense to ban our uses of animals, including slaughter, as we have done for millennia.
    Right. And instead of baseball, bear baiting could have been our National Sport.
    Damn those "animal rights" people.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    Opinions are conflicting regarding the carcinogenicity of phenylbutazone in animals; no evidence indicates it causes cancer in humans at therapeutic doses. Maekawa et al. (1987) found no increased cancer incidence in DONRYU rats fed a diet containing 0.125% or 0.25% phenylbutazone over two years.[10] On the other hand, Kari et al. (1995) found a rare type of kidney cancer in rats (13 of 100) and an increased rate of liver cancer in male rats fed 150 and 300 mg/kg body weight of phenylbutazone for two years.[11] Tennant (1993) listed phenylbutazone as a non-mutagenic carcinogen.[12] Kirkland and Fowler (2010) acknowledged that, while phenylbutazone is not predicted to be a mutagen by computer software that simulates the chemicals interaction with DNA,[13] one laboratory study indicated phenylbutazone subtly altered the structure of chromosomes of bone marrow cells of mice.[14] Kirkland and Fowler (2010) furthermore explained that the theoretical carcinogenic effects of phenylbutazone in humans cannot be studied because patients prescribed the drug were given doses far below the level any effect may become apparent (<1 mM).[13] The World Health Organisation's International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC) stated in 1987 that there was inadequate evidence for a carcinogenic effect in humans.[15]

    High doses of phenylbutazone may be considered a rules violation under some equestrian organizations, as the drug may remain in the bloodstream four to five days after administration.

    (IF it was found in the meat it would still have an effect according to the anti slaughter groups. This is NOT supported by USEF)

    Phenylbutazone was originally made available for use in humans for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and gout in 1949. However, it is no longer approved, and therefore not marketed, for any human use in the United States.[2] In the UK it is used to treat ankylosing spondylitis, but only when other therapies are unsuitable



  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,433

    Default

    What on earth would USEF have to do with our food supply?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



Similar Threads

  1. What countries DO NOT eat or slaughter horses?
    By msrobin in forum Off Course
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: Mar. 12, 2013, 01:07 PM
  2. Replies: 196
    Last Post: Jan. 24, 2012, 11:43 AM
  3. Saving Horses From Slaughter
    By Lord Helpus in forum Off Course
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: Feb. 21, 2011, 12:56 PM
  4. Do 1/2 of Sugarcreeks horses go to slaughter?
    By RU2U in forum Off Course
    Replies: 408
    Last Post: May. 4, 2007, 07:38 PM
  5. Replies: 144
    Last Post: Oct. 1, 2005, 09:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness