The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 30 of 50 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 993
  1. #581
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
    Now HERE's a constructive solution, FINALLY! Because most of the people I've known who are "breeding for the killers" horses of indifferent quality, and then frequently not properly training them, have one BIG, FAT thing in common:

    They are breeding for the tax write-off.

    They don't really have a ~USE~ or a ~MARKET~ for their output, because the entire point is to write it off against something else. I've known people with thousand-acre ranches and postage-stamp side yards who do this.

    What's the definition of a horse breeder? Someone who's making a large fortune into a small one. Since virtually no one MAKES money at it, they're generally writing off their losses and if we eliminate THAT, I guarantee you Quarter Horses will be on the Endangered Species List within five years!

    You'll still have a RIGHT to breed--you just won't be subsidized to produce surplus horses!
    Since you have proof they are breeding for slaughter please publish their names. You can not be sued IF youare speaking the truth.

    Senerio. John buys 10 mares and one stallion. Breeds all of the mares for slaughter (no stud fee) 9 mares produce so he has purchased feed for these mares during pregnancy and now has to feed them for two more years until they will be of a sufficient weight. Since they are not trained they might actually bring more money as they would not be given any banned substances (due to non handling) and therefore can be guaranteed for their passport

    Now they write off their losses. Which would be considerable however under U.S. IRS laws they must show a profit 2 out of 7 years. You can get away with not filing for a couple of years however when you go after the deductions..that is the trip wire.

    The IRS does not allow deductions for very long when the sale price on the horse would be an absolute maximum of $250.00 due to passport and then have losses of $2500.00 (at a minimum) per horse.

    If all of these individuals are, as you state, BREEDING for slaughter they should be in big demand as they would have passport horses available.

    URBAN LEGEND. Regan closed that loophole many many years ago.



  2. #582
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    I don't want my tax dollars to support the richest non-profit animal rights extremists in this world either, that are working so hard to eliminate the use of animals I have cared for all my life, but they still get by with that designation and avoid paying taxes on all those millions in income.
    Why would you assume that the HSUS would get these funds?
    Do you really think that no-one else is capable of coming up with a legit way of promoting equine welfare?

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #583
    Join Date
    Jan. 29, 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, VA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Why would you assume that the HSUS would get these funds?
    Do you really think that no-one else is capable of coming up with a legit way of promoting equine welfare?
    If modeled similarly to the beef check-off, then state horse councils would nominate individuals to an operating committee.
    "No matter how cynical I get its just not enough to keep up." Lily Tomlin


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #584
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahf View Post
    If modeled similarly to the beef check-off, then state horse councils would nominate individuals to an operating committee.
    I would be leery about state horse councils. The KY one is definitely pro-slaughter.

    And they just wasted $ 300,000 on a survey which they claimed to be the most comprehensive ever conducted in KY. Yet they only sent out 15,000 questionnaires.

    http://www.kentuckyhorse.org/KES-Results/

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  5. #585
    Join Date
    Jan. 29, 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, VA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    I would be leery about state horse councils. The KY one is definitely pro-slaughter.

    And they just wasted $ 300,000 on a survey which they claimed to be the most comprehensive ever conducted in KY. Yet they only sent out 15,000 questionnaires.

    http://www.kentuckyhorse.org/KES-Results/
    There will always be people who don't see things like you do, sitting down to the table.

    I was involved in the middle 90's for the first Virginia horse industry surveys. It cost considerably more than 300k to do, and that was 20 years ago. Those surveys do not come cheap.
    "No matter how cynical I get its just not enough to keep up." Lily Tomlin



  6. #586
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Why would you assume that the HSUS would get these funds?
    Do you really think that no-one else is capable of coming up with a legit way of promoting equine welfare?
    Sorry, I was talking about the HSUS non-profit status, that lets them not pay taxes for all those millions income they get every year, year after year.
    Those are taxes the rest of us have to make up with our taxes and money the HSUS has to spend to fight our uses of animals.
    Kind of like helping those that are out to harm you, never a smart idea.

    Right now, the HSUS has a lawsuit against the pork board and beef checkoff, just to make them spend money on fighting that, not promoting pork and beef, as they should with the money they get from producers.

    I expect if we have some kind of horse checkoff, the same will happen, the HSUS will see that the money is spend on any other than helping horses, as that is the least thing they want.
    They want to ELIMINATE any use of animals by humans.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #587
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    3,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairfax View Post
    Since you have proof they are breeding for slaughter please publish their names. You can not be sued IF youare speaking the truth.

    Senerio. John buys 10 mares and one stallion. Breeds all of the mares for slaughter (no stud fee) 9 mares produce so he has purchased feed for these mares during pregnancy and now has to feed them for two more years until they will be of a sufficient weight. Since they are not trained they might actually bring more money as they would not be given any banned substances (due to non handling) and therefore can be guaranteed for their passport

    Now they write off their losses. Which would be considerable however under U.S. IRS laws they must show a profit 2 out of 7 years. You can get away with not filing for a couple of years however when you go after the deductions..that is the trip wire.

    The IRS does not allow deductions for very long when the sale price on the horse would be an absolute maximum of $250.00 due to passport and then have losses of $2500.00 (at a minimum) per horse.

    If all of these individuals are, as you state, BREEDING for slaughter they should be in big demand as they would have passport horses available.

    URBAN LEGEND. Regan closed that loophole many many years ago.
    I'm talking about people breeding, GENERALLY, for the tax write off, not specifically for meat. And I think you know that, too . . .

    As in, East Coast Urban Cowboy Wannabe hides some of his hedge-fund money in a Montana "dude ranch." He buys a well-bred QH stallion (with a club foot) and turns him out to run with a dozen mares chosen by his "ranch manager" who's totally seen him coming. Wait 25 years, 5 dispersal sales and a divorce. Exactly how many young horses looking for a home is THAT? Do the math? Hey, they got tons off their taxes for their "livestock breeding operation."

    To their credit, these people DID find real homes for their horses and not sell them off through at auction. I've got one of their good-hearted but dink-legged offspring out back right now. If I hadn't bought her, she'd probably have been a Premarin prospect. Capice?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #588
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2011
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    If individuals are abusing the tax system there are many ways those loop holes can be closed.

    Horse Councils. Maryland Horse Council is composed of the "owner" of DEFHR which is a HSUS affiliate, Equiery Magazine..the voice of the Maryland horsemen..whoops..they are actually the mouth piece of the HSUS and so on. I understand Oregon and numerous other states have the same issue. HSUS is so imbeded into state infrastructure and councils that they can get ammendments to give them control, once the money starts rolling in.

    Overall, however, it might be the only solution...so I wouldn't be too quick to toss out the idea...just understanding there would ahve to be laws in place that would prevent HSUS and other groups, rescuess etc from using it as their own piggy bank



  9. #589
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2010
    Location
    Where humidity isn't just a word, it's a way of life.
    Posts
    729

    Default

    [QUOTE=Bluey;6900207]
    Quote Originally Posted by Sannois View Post

    Sannois, I will try one more time, hope not to offend, but where does that any one place of work lets any one that wants to in there "to watch they do it right"?
    Where does anyone demand they have videos streaming so all can see that "they do it right?"

    That is an absurd demand and that is why animal rights extremists make such, they know the gullible will follow their thought there and not think on how absurd that is.

    How would you feel if you had video cameras streaming all day long in what you do to any and all out there, just to be sure you do what you do right?
    In your Drs office, in hospital exam and operating rooms?

    How far do we want nanny cams in all we do, to be sure to catch those few that may abuse by not doing their job or do it right and that be out there for all the public to comment on, ALL of it?

    We already have inspectors and regulations and now independent observers.
    What else do we want that makes sense and why do absurd demands by animal rights extremists even get traction in some minds?
    Follow the pattern, if there were open video streaming, what do you think animal rights extremists would do with that?
    Remember the "ick" factor so much we do in life has, including slaughter.
    How will that go over as daily entertainment of the masses?

    Right.
    Actually, that was my suggestion, and if you review my posting history, you will see that I am more "pro" than "anti", so at least apologize for the suggestion I must be an animal rights extremist pandering to the gullible.

    And if you don't think there is a large difference between a video to ensure and to prove that animals that can't complain are treated with respect and without cruelty, and video to make sure your gynocologist is doing your pap smear correctly then you may have to consider that your paranoia is a bit extreme.

    If my employer states my job will be videotaped to allow others to ensure my job is done accurately I have a choice as to whether I want to work there or not: it is his business and his decision, not mine. My choice is limited to whether I want to work there.

    Yes, I think that the filming being more widely accessable would benefit the slaughterhouses.

    Of course some of the 'exaggerated" antis are going to try to twist things: that is the point of having the entire thing available; to easily show that those parties have "jumped the rail" and are making things up.....Oh right, that already happens and then the plants have to try to prove it's not what it seems: that has certainly worked well, as seen right here with many still referencing those altered tapes; how's that working out for them, again?


    And it will show that they are willing and able to compromise in order to satisfy all parties. Yes, they have inspectors and some independent observers; are you saying that enlarging that to make a show of faith is such a bad thing?

    I'm not saying post in on youtube for kids to see, I'm saying available to more parties than those entrenched in the process.
    I find it kind of insincere to bemoan the average person being so removed from agricultural processes that they think hamburger is raised in pink styrofoam trays in the back of the grocery store, and then fearing the "ick" factor will turn them off meat forever.

    And no one has to allow the videos; it would be the slaughterhouses' option, obviously.
    But you want to stop the stories of how bad it is (the stories that encourage people to demand legislation to stop it)?
    Then you have to think outside of the box, because staying in it isn't working so well.

    If thinking so makes me suddenly an "animal rights extremist" in your eyes I'll easily live with it.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  10. #590
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2010
    Location
    Where humidity isn't just a word, it's a way of life.
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSwan View Post
    So? Duck hunters don't necessarily hunt deer. And yet all sportsmen pay the ammunition tax.

    I think most of you are interested in trying to punish only a few people you have decided are 100% responsible for horse slaughter. And I'm telling you - every one who owns or rides are horse is part of the horse industry. All of us. IF you want an industry wide solution, the industry as a whole must be part of it.

    It seems that everyone is all up in arms about equine welfare, but the second they might have to pay a few pennies to improve welfare all of a sudden everyone is coming up with excuses as to why it cannot be done or why they are completely devoid of any responsibility or complicity. It's always "the other guy" who must be made to pay.

    We are all "the other guy". Maybe y'all would prefer equine rescues beg and plead and live hand to mouth to save horses, rather than having access to consistent revenue.

    Or maybe y'all would prefer the slaughter industry continue to offer a really easy and expedient way out for policymakers with constituents to please and an election coming up.

    Because the slaughter industry is indeed offering a really easy and profitable way to dispose of a local, regional, or nationwide problem. If y'all want that to change, come up with a better solution. One that beats what that industry is currently offering, rather than shooting down ideas because you might have to pay a few pennies here or there.
    Excellent idea and a possible solution most would get behind!
    I would happily pay a small tax on my equine purchases for such a reason, and agree that we all need to be part of the solution.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #591
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahf View Post
    There will always be people who don't see things like you do, sitting down to the table.

    I was involved in the middle 90's for the first Virginia horse industry surveys. It cost considerably more than 300k to do, and that was 20 years ago. Those surveys do not come cheap.
    That survey actually cost $ 600,000. The other 300,000 was paid by IIRC some local university......

    Problem I have with this particular survey is that the HC only contacted x number of their members, in the industry.
    You cannot call it comprehensive if you ignore all the horse owners out there who are not part of the industry nor a member of the HC.

    KY has way more horses than the numbers they came up with.
    The KHC should have made a statement to that effect instead of giving the impression they were counting each and every horse in KY. (Which yes they did when they first announced the survey).

    And you are right, in a committee you hope to find common ground among the members. And select individuals who are working for the intended purpose rather than some agenda.

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  12. #592
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2010
    Location
    Where humidity isn't just a word, it's a way of life.
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post
    GREAT comment.

    I can already predict the argument the pro-slaughter would bring up? Who's going to buy those horses?

    Nailed it. Who is going to pay for those horses? And why aren't they already doing so in large enough numbers to make a dent?

    If the horses were properly assessed as to training, health and personality, I bet a lot of people would purchase them, especially if the price was not inflated.

    I completely agree; again, who is going to pay or donate the feed and training for them? And why aren't they doing so already?
    Wait, that's what many traders already do for a living, and it seems that unless they are doing so with the pricey horses they are looked down on as one step above a kill buyer (you know "he's just a horse trader").

    Kill buyers don't have some majikal lock on the market; anyone can buy a cheap horse at auction or off craigslist, so why aren't they doing so in numbers large enough to make a dent in the slaughter trade already?
    .



  13. #593
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    3,909

    Default

    What in the world is so hard to understand about this. Fairfax??? Bluey??
    Here you are back again - because we do not agree with your philosophy of "slaughter - one size fits all" Suddenly the innuendos come out and the OMG you must be RARA's rhetoric.
    I personally will probably never eat horsemeat no matter what - but there are also a whole bunch of other things I don't want to eat.
    Most of us have said we would be much more likely to support the small local abattoir than what happens now - the sad fact is that now most of the animals we eat end up making a much longer trip than is really necessary. The system that we now have in place is not particularly working as it should for what we are already doing - why do you insist we need more when what we already have needs fixing??
    The other thing you need to think about is this - if we put horses in the food chain do you not realize that they will have to be tracked from day 1 just like every other "processed" animal. How much less invasive to your "rights" do you really think that will be??
    But yea I totally get it WE aren't listening and WE are all just RARA's who support PETA and HSUS. You two are just fine for pointing fingers at everyone who doesn't agree with you and yet you are usually the first to start calling names.
    IMHO the only one that can talk the talk and walk the walk is JSWAN and she can out argue the 2 of you with one hand tied behind her back.

    Quote Originally Posted by EKLay View Post
    I am perfectly okay with euthanasia via well placed gunshot. I am perfectly okay with eating horsemeat. I am perfectly okay with my cats/dogs eating horsemeat. (Assuming, of course, the meat is actually free from drugs.)

    However, I also think that anytime a large business has to choose between profit and doing the right thing, profit will inevitably win out. (In the case of horse slaughter, I would personally define "the right thing" as always providing humane, respectful transport and slaughter.) Because of this, I cannot support horse slaughter as it is currently available. If there were small, local places that could do the job, I would absolutely support them.

    For the record, I do eat meat and I do get it from small, local places I can trust. Interestingly, everyone I personally know who does not support horse slaughter refuses to support it for the same reasons - not trusting that large companies are always humane and not being able to be sure that there are no drugs in the meat. Not a single person I know is refusing to support horse slaughter just because it's horses getting slaughtered, but that is a statement/accusation that seems to come up a lot. I know 'the plural of anecdote is not data', but it is interesting.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  14. #594
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenm View Post
    GREAT comment.

    I can already predict the argument the pro-slaughter would bring up? Who's going to buy those horses?

    If the horses were properly assessed as to training, health and personality, I bet a lot of people would purchase them, especially if the price was not inflated.
    When considering the hand wringing question 'but what will we do if we can't slaughter them???!!!'... comparing the Horse slaughter industry to the beef industry can be enlightening...

    Secondly and an even more compelling in dismissing this argument is the fact that in the overall picture of livestock disposal, horses aren’t even a blip on the screen. According to a study commissioned by the National Renderers Association[11] in which no mention of horses was made, almost 3.5 billion pounds of livestock and poultry mortalities were reported in 2000. During that same year, the US based horse slaughter facilities slaughtered 47,134 horses. Had all of these horses been disposed of by non-slaughter methods resulting in the need to dispose of approximately 47,134,000 pounds of matter (based on an average weight per horse of 1,000 pounds), this would have represented a measly 1.3% increase in the total livestock and poultry mortalities that year.

    [11] Livestock Mortalities: Methods of Disposal and Their Potential Cost - March 2002, National Renderers Association, http://www.renderers.org/Economic_Im...itiesFinal.pdf



    http://www.vetsforequinewelfare.org/white_paper.php


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #595
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Of course, all those antis don't listen at all, that is why we have to repeat the same over and over and over again.

    I have already stated there ARE already surveillance cameras and independent auditors and why that is so, why those are not on youtube for all to see, as some would love to have, to pick at all and everything anyone does and give it their "interesting" spin.

    Where does asking for general public access to streaming videos of any work place, especially a slaughter plant, makes any sense, but to animal rights extremists with agendas?

    For those that don't believe who the HSUS really is and what they are after, well, there is enough out there to prove what I say, including the lawsuit they lost after finally being caught paying someone to lie about abuse in a circus.

    When any of us present irrefutable reasons to be careful of animal rights extremist groups, like the truths in those web sites, then there are attacks on the messenger and absolute silence on what is exposed and a change to another subject of attack, as some just did when I again posted the links and why those are true, go back to the old worn abuse or mismanagement card, that has been explained again time again as not a reason to ban slaughter.

    I don't care if there is or not a slaughter plant in the USA, best really if there was not, less of a target for animal rights extremists, but I do think it is foolish to ban slaughter, that is a perfectly good process to use the one natural, renewable resource SOME horses have always been for us thru it.
    Please, those that still don't understand what "natural" and "resource" are, go back to grade school and get a refresher on what you obviously missed.

    You ignore what animal rights extremists do, that will affect all of us that have animals so cavalierly, on your zest to ban slaughter or else?
    Cutting your nose to spite your face.
    SOME cattle SH's have video cameras monitored by a company THEY hire. Tapes are only reviewed by SH mgmt. There are NO surveillance cameras in any of the horse SH, which even TG confirmed. She even asked them to do it, because she said that things were fine when she was there, but every time she turned her back or left, serious problems occurred.

    Having a week of streaming live video avail to be seen by people would show how humane it is. If there is less than a 10% miss rate, and no egregious humane violations, it would benefit the SH's. The fact that they won't do it, makes them suspect. As to doctoring the videos, the SH would have the original footage, so it would be quite easy for them to show that the tapes were edited.
    My offer to Fairfax still stands.

    Re- Tax- I'd be all for it if the money was used to benefit the horses.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #596
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    SOME cattle SH's have video cameras monitored by a company THEY hire. Tapes are only reviewed by SH mgmt. There are NO surveillance cameras in any of the horse SH, which even TG confirmed. She even asked them to do it, because she said that things were fine when she was there, but every time she turned her back or left, serious problems occurred.

    Having a week of streaming live video avail to be seen by people would show how humane it is. If there is less than a 10% miss rate, and no egregious humane violations, it would benefit the SH's. The fact that they won't do it, makes them suspect. As to doctoring the videos, the SH would have the original footage, so it would be quite easy for them to show that the tapes were edited.
    My offer to Fairfax still stands.

    Re- Tax- I'd be all for it if the money was used to benefit the horses.
    Oh, yes, have rabid animal rights extremists there to check how they do their work.
    Makes perfect sense.

    By the way, I explained before when you keep repeating TG words that you are taking them out of context, just as you are about the independent auditing company, already explained above how that works.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #597
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,580

    Default

    Considering the fact that even office workers are under "surveillance", simply by IT monitoring the activities on their PC's.
    No, they are not checking if you are picking your nose at your desk even though that could be possible with most work laptops now also having a built in camera.

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  18. #598
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Considering the fact that even office workers are under "surveillance", simply by IT monitoring the activities on their PC's.
    No, they are not checking if you are picking your nose at your desk even though that could be possible with most work laptops now also having a built in camera.
    Yes, except there are no multi-million non-profits watching the cameras pointed at the office workers and wanting to shut them all, the whole process of working in offices down for the least infraction, maybe picking their nose would count?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #599
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Sorry, I was talking about the HSUS non-profit status, that lets them not pay taxes for all those millions income they get every year, year after year.
    Those are taxes the rest of us have to make up with our taxes and money the HSUS has to spend to fight our uses of animals.
    Kind of like helping those that are out to harm you, never a smart idea.

    Right now, the HSUS has a lawsuit against the pork board and beef checkoff, just to make them spend money on fighting that, not promoting pork and beef, as they should with the money they get from producers.

    I expect if we have some kind of horse checkoff, the same will happen, the HSUS will see that the money is spend on any other than helping horses, as that is the least thing they want.
    They want to ELIMINATE any use of animals by humans.
    It's interesting with all the money the HSUS has to throw around and as tenacious as many make them out to be on this horse slaughter issue, HSUS did nothing, that I can find to help the citizens of Kaufman TX when the plant was not only not paying their taxes and fines, but also stretching out the process so as to make it financially impossible for the town to fight them:

    Over one six-week period, Kaufman issued 29 citations for wastewater violations, each accompanied by a potential fine of $2,000. Dallas Crown responded by requesting 29 separate jury trials, potentially causing yet another economic strain on the city’s budget.

    Kaufman could not afford to litigate in order to collect the fines, which went unpaid. “But things got a lot worse,” says Bacon. During a 19-month period in 2004–2005, there were 481 violations, at which point Dallas Crown refused entry to Kaufman’s engineers, preventing them from doing any environmental tests for nine months.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/vickerye...cks-some-tail/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #600
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda View Post
    It's interesting with all the money the HSUS has to throw around and as tenacious as many make them out to be on this horse slaughter issue, HSUS did nothing, that I can find to help the citizens of Kaufman TX when the plant was not only not paying their taxes and fines, but also stretching out the process so as to make it financially impossible for the town to fight them:

    Over one six-week period, Kaufman issued 29 citations for wastewater violations, each accompanied by a potential fine of $2,000. Dallas Crown responded by requesting 29 separate jury trials, potentially causing yet another economic strain on the city’s budget.

    Kaufman could not afford to litigate in order to collect the fines, which went unpaid. “But things got a lot worse,” says Bacon. During a 19-month period in 2004–2005, there were 481 violations, at which point Dallas Crown refused entry to Kaufman’s engineers, preventing them from doing any environmental tests for nine months.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/vickerye...cks-some-tail/
    When the plant was closed, the illustrious HSUS president gave an interview to the Dallas paper and was bragging that his herd of lawyers, if I remember well he assigned ten of them to this, were the ones that made it happen, getting the plant closed by finding that one 1947 law, intended to avoid horse meat being sold as beef and making a case in front of a helpful judge that meant no horse meat was to be sold at all.

    Now, what were you saying again, that the HSUS didn't help close the plants?


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 347
    Last Post: Oct. 17, 2012, 07:54 PM
  2. Stallion Book Photos: Head shot, Conf shot, Action shot???
    By Emy in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Oct. 13, 2011, 06:07 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec. 25, 2010, 09:57 PM
  4. Horse shot in the head.
    By Bluey in forum Off Course
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jan. 23, 2010, 11:30 PM
  5. Replies: 231
    Last Post: Oct. 5, 2007, 12:42 PM

Posting Permissions

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