The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 98
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,914

    Default

    No, the owner would not be, bald stockings, because what I am describing is a regulation that would be a condition of licensing to operate a slaughterhouse. Only for operators of slaughterhouses. Repeat: only for operators of slaughterhouses. As a condition of their obtaining a license to do so, since slaughterhouses require the expenditure of our tax dollars.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,914

    Default

    And an owner choosing to euthanize a horse isn't doing so because they are making money doing it; I am therefore ready to suppose that their decision to do so is their own business. Last time I checked, the main conversation around here is that euthanization and proper disposal of horses is so danged expensive that responsible owners are financially discouraged from euthanizing even when it is the wisest and most humane course of action.

    Since this is true, I am willing to accept that if an individual owner wants to euthanize, it is for reasons of horse health, soundness and safety of handling that are the business of the owner. And euthanization done properly is not cruel, and I have not heard anyone say there is some kind of scandalous racket of people making money euthanizing their horses.

    But operating a slaughterhouse is a business that essentially turns an individual (Pookey, the horse) into a commodity (horse meat, $X a pound). It makes no damned difference to the SH operator which horse they put in a can. It can make a great deal of difference to the past owner of Pookey who was lied to about his intended destination. Not to mention Pookey himself. So I say, tell the slaughterhouse operator that they are obligated as a condition of their license to sell any horse that an individual shows up to buy w/ cash and a trailer. No questions asked, no bull$hit about what they were told to do.

    And if an individual owner wants a horse to be put down unequivocally, they have to do it themselves and not kick the can down the road.

    What I am proposing is ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES as a provision of their licensure.

    This accomplishes 2 things: no more Backstreet Bully stories, or SH loses its license, and people who deem a horse to dangerous to be owned by someone else are obligated to see the deed done themselves.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,409

    Default

    You know, I wonder if anyone has done a study to see if humanely euthanizing and disposing of say 100,000 horses a year would be less expensive than the strain on our infrastructure.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun. 21, 2009
    Location
    Hunterdon County NJ
    Posts
    3,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
    Thinking of the situations where a buyer's offer is refused where the owner of a horse destined for death would make a profit by selling to a 'live home' - and could legally do so.

    Should the seller be 'required' to sell?


    Asking as this seems to be an underlying sense of fairness to this situation.

    Thanks,
    Sure. And if you are a bad parent, and a better parent shows up and offers to adopt your kids, then you should be required to give them up. Because they are better parents than you. Likewise, if someone who will take better care of your house, your land, or your cat offers to 'purchase' them from you, you should be required to sell them to someone who is going to do a better job managing them than you.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,914

    Default

    Reading comprehension fail! I propose this rule ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES. Not for individual owners. For crying out loud.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,225

    Default

    Bluey I actually agree with you on this point. Shall we mark it on our calendars??

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Yes, it is about power some times, like when rescues make it difficult to adopt a horse, because they don't think you are good enough, when they really don't know anything about your horse management.

    Some people just have the upper hand and love to use it.
    Not saying that was the case here, there may have been other involved we don't know about.



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep. 18, 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReSomething View Post
    Can of worms.


    I also have some issues with horsemeat from a mixed pool of owners being sold for human consumption. The waiting periods are there for a reason, to allow potentiallly dangerous drugs to clear the system, and some drugs are specifically not to be used, and I don't believe there is a reliable cost effective way to test all animals. The system is too lax both in following the waiting periods and in disclosure of drugs used.
    Not to mention that people LIE!!! since there is not a good tracking system in place...and therefore no accountability...the unscrupulous 'horse trader' is going to LIE about drugs, period of ownership. We have proof of that all over!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    And an owner choosing to euthanize a horse isn't doing so because they are making money doing it; I am therefore ready to suppose that their decision to do so is their own business. Last time I checked, the main conversation around here is that euthanization and proper disposal of horses is so danged expensive that responsible owners are financially discouraged from euthanizing even when it is the wisest and most humane course of action.

    Since this is true, I am willing to accept that if an individual owner wants to euthanize, it is for reasons of horse health, soundness and safety of handling that are the business of the owner. And euthanization done properly is not cruel, and I have not heard anyone say there is some kind of scandalous racket of people making money euthanizing their horses.

    But operating a slaughterhouse is a business that essentially turns an individual (Pookey, the horse) into a commodity (horse meat, $X a pound). It makes no damned difference to the SH operator which horse they put in a can. It can make a great deal of difference to the past owner of Pookey who was lied to about his intended destination. Not to mention Pookey himself. So I say, tell the slaughterhouse operator that they are obligated as a condition of their license to sell any horse that an individual shows up to buy w/ cash and a trailer. No questions asked, no bull$hit about what they were told to do.

    And if an individual owner wants a horse to be put down unequivocally, they have to do it themselves and not kick the can down the road.

    What I am proposing is ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES as a provision of their licensure.

    This accomplishes 2 things: no more Backstreet Bully stories, or SH loses its license, and people who deem a horse to dangerous to be owned by someone else are obligated to see the deed done themselves.
    Thank you for going into detail, it helps me see a bit more of your thinking.

    May I question? What of the owner retaining pasture puffs whose finances change and they foresee not being able to care for horses in future - to cut expenses as soon as possible they choose death for the horses. This is a profit to them however you look at it.
    Now a buyer comes along before the deed and 'wants to buy Pookie' with cash - that is a profit to an owner looking at an expense, too.

    Why is this owner not subject to the same standards of: resale is more valuable so you must do that: when their (I'll assume) chemically euthed horse) puts an additional burden on taxpayer financed landfills or introduces the same not for human consumption residues into rendered products vs. keeping a live animal that provides need for many other supporting industries?

    Are you saying Slaughter is targetted here because of the profit factor?
    The scale of the sheer numbers of horses being killed so they may become meat?
    The method of death?
    Because the meat of the dead animal is eaten by humans (Please set aside the contamination by drugs factor for a moment so I can see your position on humans eating horses only)?

    Thanks,


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    9,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    IF, IF, IF it seemed likely that slaughter were going to be re-authorized in the U.S., I think it would be great if SH's were required by law to sell any animal at cost to a non-SH buyer who showed up with cash in hand and the ability to do a 2 hour coggins. Exceptions for horses certified dangerous by their previous owner.

    Whatever else goes on, there is simply no excuse for SH's turning away someone who wants to pay their cost for a horse and give it a chance not to wind up in a can.

    And I don't care about "Mine, mine, mine, property, property, property, blah blah blah" I know it's incredibly difficult for many to believe this, but there are things in life that are more important than ownership and its inviolable sanctity.
    Ownership of property is a Constitutional right, like free speech, voting, right to counsel, etc. Like those rights it is not absolute. If government interferes with that ownership it may well be obligated to compensate an owner for that interference.

    An owner may sell, or not sell, property to whoever they wish (as long as they don't run afoul of Civil Rights Laws, public heath and safety rules, licensing requirements, etc. Creating some sort of a duty to sell a live animal to a "life" buyer (as opposed to a "death" buyer) can create a veritable nightmare scenario of "last minute offers" that can make the morass surrounding the human death penalty for crime appear both sane and sensible.

    We have a sufficiency of "busy body horsemen" trying to tell everybody else how they should run their business. Let's hold the line on any more.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    4 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,225

    Default

    Speaking for myself I have a huge ick factor about horsemeat. I do about eating oysters as well. It doesn't matter what happens after the animal is dead, only how it gets that way. These days 80% of our processed animals are handled in only 4 places in the US. So much for the short ride.
    Seemingly there have been many violations around horses being slaughtered. From transport to death. Previous plants had many violations that go unpaid and unenforced. For whatever reason. Why do we think it's going to be any better this time?? What's changed??

    Quote Originally Posted by D_BaldStockreasonaymd74
    Thank you for going into detail, it helps me see a bit more of your thinking.

    May I question? What of the owner retaining pasture puffs whose finances change and they foresee not being able to care for horses in future - to cut expenses as soon as possible they choose death for the horses. This is a profit to them however you look at it.
    Now a buyer comes along before the deed and 'wants to buy Pookie' with cash - that is a profit to an owner looking at an expense, too.

    Why is this owner not subject to the same standards of: resale is more valuable so you must do that: when their (I'll assume) chemically euthed horse) puts an additional burden on taxpayer financed landfills or introduces the same not for human consumption residues into rendered products vs. keeping a live animal that provides need for many other supporting industries?

    Are you saying Slaughter is targetted here because of the profit factor?
    The scale of the sheer numbers of horses being killed so they may become meat?
    The method of death?
    Because the meat of the dead animal is eaten by humans (Please set aside the contamination by drugs factor for a moment so I can see your position on humans eating horses only)?

    Thanks,


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jun. 21, 2009
    Location
    Hunterdon County NJ
    Posts
    3,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    Reading comprehension fail! I propose this rule ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES. Not for individual owners. For crying out loud.
    I still think it's ridiculous. It's silly to go making a LAW/rule because of the one, dumb incident. If the slaughter house owns the horse they own the horse. BS that they have to surrender the animal to ANYONE who shows up and wants it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,409

    Default

    I have to wonder, in Backstreet Bully's case, if he was given away for free to someone pretending to be a good home, who then turned around and sold him to a KB with the requirement he be sold for meat to keep them from being found out.

    We have someone around here who does that...posts on craigslist offering to find good homes for your horse if you can't afford him or need to move him to a better home. He's a kill buyer. Comes out with his kids and sings a great song.

    Remember Kelsey Lefever?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,225

    Default

    May never know the answer to that one.
    I've heard of it but do not know first hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I have to wonder, in Backstreet Bully's case, if he was given away for free to someone pretending to be a good home, who then turned around and sold him to a KB with the requirement he be sold for meat to keep them from being found out.

    We have someone around here who does that...posts on craigslist offering to find good homes for your horse if you can't afford him or need to move him to a better home. He's a kill buyer. Comes out with his kids and sings a great song.

    Remember Kelsey Lefever?



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,914

    Default

    JGHIRetire, I am pretty sure I've read stories like this, where SH's refuse to sell a horse to an interested individual, more than once or twice on COTH. And if we hear about it a few times, stands to reason it may be even more common than that.

    What bad and realistic consequence would it cause? I think there is no excuse for such behavior on the part of SH employees. It's cruelty without reason inflicted on both the animal and the person who finds out that their ex-horse is in a feedlot. If a slaughterhouse is just a business that wants to make money, why should they care whether they make their $$ selling a live or a dead horse?

    The answer here is that the slaughteristas just love the idea of acting out their role as Lord of All Creation and Owner and Judge of All by sending some animals to a life of usefulness and care and others to a cruel death in an abattoir. And even the slightest constraint on their ability to operate as such is seen as totally unconscionable.

    If your sense of yourself depends on what you can destroy and kill, that's pretty telling.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  15. #55
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2007
    Location
    Andover, MA
    Posts
    5,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    .

    We have someone around here who does that...posts on craigslist offering to find good homes for your horse if you can't afford him or need to move him to a better home. He's a kill buyer. Comes out with his kids and sings a great song.
    I do wonder, if there are that many *truly* unwanted horses out there, with owners who really don't care whether they go to a good home, a bad home, get slaughtered, whatever, why this KB finds it necessary to employ this ruse at all.

    I mean.... roughly 100,000 horses per year in the US go to slaughter in Canada or Mexico. That's not a huge number of horses. Is it really necessary to deceive people to find those 100,000?

    Or is it that these guys get them for free this way, rather than having to pay for them?

    Brings a new meaning to the phrase "free market"
    You have to have experiences to gain experience.

    Proudly owned by Mythic Feronia, 1998 Morgan mare; G-dspeed Trump & Minnie; welcome 2014 Morgan filly MtnTop FlyWithMeJosephine



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jul. 1, 2011
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Shouldn't LoriB properly credit Mein Kampf for her OP and subsequent posts?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    19,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7arabians View Post
    Shouldn't LoriB properly credit Mein Kampf for her OP and subsequent posts?
    Methinks you need to research fascism. Good job though, only 56 posts for Godwin's law to appear.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2007
    Location
    Andover, MA
    Posts
    5,833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    JGHIRetire, I am pretty sure I've read stories like this, where SH's refuse to sell a horse to an interested individual, more than once or twice on COTH. And if we hear about it a few times, stands to reason it may be even more common than that.
    Yes, I see these threads at least a couple of times per year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    What bad and realistic consequence would it cause? I think there is no excuse for such behavior on the part of SH employees. It's cruelty without reason inflicted on both the animal and the person who finds out that their ex-horse is in a feedlot. If a slaughterhouse is just a business that wants to make money, why should they care whether they make their $$ selling a live or a dead horse?
    ... especially since a private buyer is likely to pay more money than the horse will gain the SH, slaughtered and priced per pound? I mean, we have entities like AC4H whose entire business model is based on this.

    Pure speculation, but here are some reasons I can think of:

    A. The SH has a quota to fill. A buyer wants XXXXX pounds of horsemeat by 4 p.m. today, and XXXXX - 1000 is not acceptable.
    B. No holding facility for that one horse. (Think hay, water source, safe fencing etc. which are not really needed if the horses show up and get slaughtered right away.)
    C. Relatedly, since my bet is that a lot of SHs don't really want horse-loving members of the public on their premises, it's a hassle to find another place to keep that horse until the buyer picks it up.
    D. What happens if the private buyer shows up and discovers it's not their horse?
    E. Insurance/liability issues (a catch-all for everything these days)
    F. Well, the uglier psychological issues suggested below -- power tripping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    If your sense of yourself depends on what you can destroy and kill, that's pretty telling.
    And if the SH folks get particular pleasure out of killing a horse that *does* have other options.... ewww. Ick.
    You have to have experiences to gain experience.

    Proudly owned by Mythic Feronia, 1998 Morgan mare; G-dspeed Trump & Minnie; welcome 2014 Morgan filly MtnTop FlyWithMeJosephine


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,914

    Default

    7arabians, your historical ignorance alone is staggering.

    And yes, Quietann, that's what I'm talking about.

    I am not proposing confiscation of any property. I am proposing what amounts to a last resort claim for anyone who shows up with a trailer and $$$ to take a live horse for the same price it was going to fetch the slaughterhouse once it was slaughtered. Since money is fungible, why does that hurt them? Money is money, right? And isn't that what all this is about, according to the steely-eyed capitalists on this board?

    What I propose is that since the SH is buying horses to instantly resell as meat, why does it matter to them to sell a few live horses out of their supply chain?

    It doesn't, except for in Crazy World, where "it's mine so I am going to slaughter it and if you try and stop me for any reason, you hate America".

    Yes, you found me out. I hate stupidity, and cruelty for no reason.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul. 1, 2011
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Lori,

    Why don't you just push for what you really want. Some sort of horse registration where you will be able to determine who does and does not own horses?
    What if one of your so-called last minute buyers shows up with cash in-hand and then takes that horse and neglects it. How are you going to 'police' these new owners?
    Of course, your suggestion will never succeed because we live in America. But you could probably institute this in Cuba.
    Don't pretend that all horses end up in good homes or that all rescues keep horses until they pass in their sleep of old age!
    https://sites.google.com/site/dontkillourhorses/



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Dec. 18, 2012, 03:35 PM
  2. What can a vet require an owner to do?
    By Sacred_Petra in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Oct. 20, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Best age to sell for a profit...
    By DLee in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Feb. 4, 2010, 03:21 PM
  4. Starting a horse non-profit to help re-home horses?
    By want_to_help in forum Off Course
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Dec. 9, 2009, 01:20 PM
  5. *Spinoff* To sell or not to sell show clothing
    By pleasedaspunch in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Aug. 18, 2009, 12:41 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
  •  
randomness