The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 98
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,894

    Default

    7arabians: Please stick to arguing with what I say, not what the voices in your hear are telling you that I have said. You will be much less confused.

    I am not going to police the last minute buyer. It's not a perfect proposal, it's just better than what we do now, letting slaughter house assholes power trip and execute horses who have legitimate opportunities to live.

    I don't pretend that all horses end up in good homes. Far from it. But that's not an excuse for letting this practice continue.

    And if you are going to compare my thinking to some form of totalitarianism, please try to make up your mind which one, and stick with it. (Hint: fascism and communism are pretty much opposites)
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09



    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    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?

    A slaughterhouse is in the business of processing live animals, not selling live animals. There are issues of liability, licensing, taxes, etc. involved. Money is "fungible" but the ways it can be earned is not. While a "sale mandate" might not involve confiscation it is a massive intrusion into the affairs of the business. We have quite enough of that from the rest of the Alphabet Soup, thank you very much.

    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?

    See above.

    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.
    Do you, now? Actually, what I think you love in enforcing your will upon others. You don't have to wear a swastika or hammer & sickle to fall into that category. You just have to be a "busybody" convinced of the absolute rectitude of your own views and completely unwilling to consider that opposing views have merit. Your very words tell me this is your view. ("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".) This is common in the "anti-slaughter" community.

    If you want to end slaughter in the U.S., permanently, establish a fund that will buy unwanted horses and keep them in private hands until their natural deaths. Problem solved without resort of governmental processes.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,811

    Default

    LoriB, although it may appear I'm switching sides, I'm not. I have my own side. There are worse things than death and I can see a lot of unintended consequences in your idea.

    However, I do wonder if we did end slaughter, and the transportation outside of the U.S. for slaughter, if, after a blip, the number of horses that would have ended up going to the slaughter plant would diminish.

    For example, the Calgary Stampede (not in the U.S., I know), culls their horses by sending them to slaughter. Maybe it would change some of the breeding practices in this country, who knows. And really, none of us know, although we all have our preferences. There's always the good old law of unintended consequences. Let's point them out instead of hurling the accusations. I do understand full well that some people are just not reasonable, but that's true on both sides of the equation. Why do we let them control the conversation?

    G, I really respect a lot of what you say, but I really hate it when people throw around the commie, fascist, socialist label...it does nothing to add to the conversation and, as a result, we end up with the same few people posting the same tired old rhetoric because everyone else is driven away.

    Can't we have a reasonable conversation? I for one would really like one...my ideas on slaughter seem to be evolving daily.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2011
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Most of the 100,000 horses that are slaughtered were offered to the highest bidder, sometimes at more than one auction. Where were your new buyers with cash-in-hand prior to arrival at the SH? Often, these horses could have been purchased for less than $100. But there was no interest!
    Look at the rescues (often breed specific) who take days to raise enough in donations to purchase a horse from the kill pen.
    Your ideas will do nothing but delay the inevitable for a few months. Just as we learned from the housing crisis, not everyone can afford what they want. To push for all of these horses to be absorbed to 'life' homes would result in another crash as these well-meaning owners would eventually have to admit that they can't afford to care for their horses.
    Now we have Carol 'hfs' in Oklahoma bemoaning that her Governor signed the Oklahoma slaughter bill. Carol is now proclaiming that slaughter will result in the ultra wealthy having horses. She claims that slaughter will result in horses being priced out of reach to the average person! How could that be! Too many 'sky is falling' excuses by the anti-slaughter folks, and it is preventing any possible good ideas from surfacing on that side of the discussion.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,894

    Default

    Of course there are things that are worse than death. But when employees of a slaughterhouse look someone in the eye who wants to give a horse the opportunity to live, and chooses to lie to them, they can do that, because there are no consequences for that person's lying and cruelty. And once you kill the horse in question, monetary damages are pretty meaningless and not what anyone is really after.

    There are also worse things than inconveniencing the sacred activity of killing horses for meat, which seems to be the main crime I am being accused of.

    I propose this simple rule because I find it utterly and profoundly unacceptable for these employees to do what they are well documented to have done in this case and in others like it. I doubt it would happen very often, but when someone calls the slaughter house and shows up w/ a trailer and $$$ and says, "give me hip #621", there is no good reason why the SH shouldn't just hand over the horse for the money, unless this is about something else than money. And I am curious if any of them even understand their own therapy-worthy, bloodthirsty, whacked-out propertarian obsessions well enough to see it.

    I think the slaughteristas advocate for this cone of sacred business, oh, no one is allowed to talk to them, or look at them, oh, not the public! Because they know that the more the practices of slaughterhouses are seen for what they are, the less welcome they will be. And I'm ok with that too.

    Please also remember, I only advocate for this rule if slaughter is re-authorized in the U.S. I would be perfectly happy for it not to start up again, and I've always been honest about that.

    And reasonable dialogue is the last thing they are interested in.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    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'm not able to distinguish an individal who chooses to kill vs. a slaughter buyer.

    And while I have deep reservations about the safety of horsemeat, that has nothing to do with the issue here of 'must sell' to anyone at cost (or even at profit) so long as they are not also slaughter buyers or buying to kill.

    If a vegetable processor was running their plant and random person wanted to buy unprocessed vegetable for some non-competitive reason, there is NO obligation to sell and the processor is not a slimeball for refusing to disrupt their proceesing day to accommodate random person. Time loss and production downtime/restart could be significantly beyond the profit from a few pounds of vegetables.

    Slaughter (in Canada) is a legitimate business. Expecting concessions without real benefit and at damage to the businessman when there is no law being broken (they have the right to kill and process the horse they legally own) is not a viable way of dealing.

    Name calling when people pursue their business rather than your plan is nothing but venting and makes your interest in doing future business with them likely to be dismissed in advance.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7arabians View Post
    Most of the 100,000 horses that are slaughtered were offered to the highest bidder, sometimes at more than one auction.
    If they're bought by the highest bidder that means the KBs aren't the only bidder.
    If these horses were not bought by the KB, they'll be bought by the next highest bidder.

    And maybe without the KBs with their over full pockets running the prices up [sometimes artificially] as they drag these horses from sale to sale [Frank? Brian?]... the rescues wouldn't have such a hard time getting the money to buy the horses because the prices, again, would not be so high.

    What's the problem again?



  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,894

    Default

    I love that when slaughteristas do something awful (like killing an animal that has a potential home for no reason other than cruelty) we are told "This is a business! Money money money! Be a realist, silly girls!"

    But when I propose a straightforward financial solution, I am told "You are being so mean to us! It makes us sad! We will crawl into a corner with our captive bolt gun and quietly weep, because you are so not nice to us."

    Which one is it?

    Horses aren't rutabagas. You can look it up.

    And if slaughterhouses wanted to avoid the threat of such regulation, they could stop doing crap like the case we are talking about, and work with owners who want to PURCHASE a not yet killed horse. Then I would say, "Gee, there's no need."

    But they don't.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2011
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Sadly, Angela, the KB is often the only bidder! There are not enough homes, let alone 'good' homes for all of the surplus horses.
    And most of the ideas to 'fix' the situation by those against slaughter will not work and could have unintended consequences. Remember when hsus and some of the big rescues were pushing for extra fees to register horses and fees to be paid whenever a horse was sold? Those extra fees were expected to be used to provide a nice retirement home when the horse grew old. That idea was a train wreck and seems to have died out. Look at how many rescues are overloaded. Trying to do a good thing, but too many of those horses have no quality of life as the rescues are now failing.



  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,811

    Default

    LoriB, I understand you are dead against slaughter, really, I get it. But your solution is really unworkable. What we need to do is get to these horses before they get to the slaughter plant.

    How would you propose, exactly, how buying a horse from the slaughter plant would work? Would they have to hold the horses for a certain period of time, and how would they be compensated for that? Would you expect them to shut down production so you could retrieve a horse? Exactly how would it work? And let's just suppose that a horse did go to a home where he was starved or worse. There's no way to prevent that...as I said there are worse things than death.

    I'm not disagreeing with you...I would like to see an end to slaughter of horses, but instead of emotional rhetoric, can we discuss things in a reasonable manner without calling names?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2011
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Exactly, help must arrive long before a horse reaches the SH. I suspect and in some cases know that many at this site actively rescue/support rescue. But there aren't enough owners or money to save them all. The return of slaughter will create a bottom-line value for horses which will allow owners to make informed decisions. If the existence of slaughter is viewed as 'pricing' horses out of the reach of average people, then it is clear that they really couldn't have afforded a horse in the first place.



  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7arabians View Post
    Sadly, Angela, the KB is often the only bidder!
    That's not what you wrote, and that hasn't been my experience....

    Quote Originally Posted by 7arabians View Post
    There are not enough homes, let alone 'good' homes for all of the surplus horses.
    And most of the ideas to 'fix' the situation by those against slaughter will not work and could have unintended consequences.
    Such as.....?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7arabians View Post
    Remember when hsus and some of the big rescues were pushing for extra fees to register horses and fees to be paid whenever a horse was sold? Those extra fees were expected to be used to provide a nice retirement home when the horse grew old. That idea was a train wreck and seems to have died out. Look at how many rescues are overloaded. Trying to do a good thing, but too many of those horses have no quality of life as the rescues are now failing.
    Well those on COTH certainly did not like the chip idea that the was suggested a few years ago, I'm not terribly confident that a passport that requires you Vet to sign off on the myriad of drugs on the list of banned substances will be more popular... so what then? We have horses that can not be slaughtered cause the buyer wants confidence that the product isn't tainted.

    From Forbes:

    ...the EU, which has banned the import of U.S. horse meat pending receipt of a USDA drug-residue testing plan, according to John Holland, President of the Equine Welfare Alliance. Once received, it could take years to audit and approve says Mr. Frédéric Vincent, Spokesperson for Health and Consumer Policy for the European Commission.



  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    4,229

    Default

    Want to see slaughter go away, permanently? Stop providing them with "product." That's really the alpha and omega of the whole dilemma. Take personal responsibility in seeing no horse of yours ever ends up there.

    It all starts with us.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
    Want to see slaughter go away, permanently? Stop providing them with "product." That's really the alpha and omega of the whole dilemma. Take personal responsibility in seeing no horse of yours ever ends up there.

    It all starts with us.
    well, that sounds good; except that free and clear ownership would never transfer in a sale because the initial seller would have to be able to enforce some sort of physical ownership of the horse's body.

    People have tried first refusal clauses to no avail.
    Contacting a new owner monthly to see if they still have Pookie may be harassment, and doesn't ensure they don't up and sell Pookie over the weekend and never tell you until months have passed because they don't want you souring their buyer.

    And keeping part ownership means you have part liability if Pookie hurts someone $$ or has an outstanding board/vet/farrier bill.

    There are many who won't buy a horse if they don't have a clear bill of sale without strings; ask around.



  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    I love that when slaughteristas do something awful (like killing an animal that has a potential home for no reason other than cruelty) we are told "This is a business! Money money money! Be a realist, silly girls!"

    But when I propose a straightforward financial solution, I am told "You are being so mean to us! It makes us sad! We will crawl into a corner with our captive bolt gun and quietly weep, because you are so not nice to us."

    Which one is it?

    Horses aren't rutabagas. You can look it up.

    And if slaughterhouses wanted to avoid the threat of such regulation, they could stop doing crap like the case we are talking about, and work with owners who want to PURCHASE a not yet killed horse. Then I would say, "Gee, there's no need."

    But they don't.
    At least you are clear on threatening as your modus operandi for dealing with this business. Which gets you no cooperation from them -isn't that what you want them to do: work with prospective purchasers? (not owners, purchasers).

    The reason for killing horses in slaughter plants has to do with turning them into meat, the reason is not cruelty. Labeling that as something awful when there is a potential home (there is a human purchaser involved) means that you are requiring the businessman to have an obligation to appease emotional upset (he isn't killing the human, though they are stressed and unhappy).

    Not a factor he/she is going to consider in a potential business transaction.

    The Being nice? Suggested method because the Slaughter operators are NOT crying, nor sad, they have put the 'emotional overload person' out the door and themselves beyond being reached (not taking calls, unresponsive); as professionals who have the ability to shielld themselves from perceived unstable people will do after they have stated their final word on a matter.

    While you and I may feel horses are 'like family', noble, intelligent, companionable, etc., etc....
    To a Slaughter operator horses have no more emotional value alive than rutabagas. This is why emotional pleas based on keeping the horse alive are mostly wasted on them.

    Unless you can figure how to get them to want to turn loose of a rutabaga, you aren't going to have a lot of luck purchasing a horse out of the line, either.

    Lori, I know you feel strongly about slaughter issues; I must bore you with the lack of emotion in my posts.
    I'm just trying to say I don't think you can win with emotion as it is unpredictable and too often causes negotiations to shut off.

    What do you feel would be a good approach?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
    well, that sounds good; except that free and clear ownership would never transfer in a sale because the initial seller would have to be able to enforce some sort of physical ownership of the horse's body.

    People have tried first refusal clauses to no avail.
    Contacting a new owner monthly to see if they still have Pookie may be harassment, and doesn't ensure they don't up and sell Pookie over the weekend and never tell you until months have passed because they don't want you souring their buyer.

    And keeping part ownership means you have part liability if Pookie hurts someone $$ or has an outstanding board/vet/farrier bill.

    There are many who won't buy a horse if they don't have a clear bill of sale without strings; ask around.
    Restrictive clauses in sales contracts can be enforced. The route is civil suit. That means the person seeking enforcement must hire an attorney (@ $250/hr. or so) and sue to enforce the clause. This is not different than the enforcement mechanism in any contract.

    Any person who wants to "Stop providing them with 'product'" need only never sell a horse. Those who are determined to keep horses from slaughter and kill buyers only need to attend all the auctions out there and buy up all the horses offered for sale.

    Horses are property. That's the way the law is, and ought to be.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    2 members found this post helpful.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    Restrictive clauses in sales contracts can be enforced. The route is civil suit. That means the person seeking enforcement must hire an attorney (@ $250/hr. or so) and sue to enforce the clause. This is not different than the enforcement mechanism in any contract.

    Any person who wants to "Stop providing them with 'product'" need only never sell a horse. Those who are determined to keep horses from slaughter and kill buyers only need to attend all the auctions out there and buy up all the horses offered for sale.

    Horses are property. That's the way the law is, and ought to be.

    G.
    Clear, to the point and accurate.

    Thank you.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,298

    Default

    Yikes ! All this talk of 'forcing' and 'must' Have we lost the concept of freedom and liberty for all?



  19. #79
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    When I've heard of this happening before it's usually because the KB ended up getting harassed by other people. If someone is giving you death threats it doesn't make one more likely to cooperate.
    I've also heard of auctions trying to sell sick/laminitic horses that would lead a short miserable life anyway. The horse in question was in pain when they started to try to get the poor thing trotting around the ring. The owner was right there and started yelling that the horse was supposed to go to the KB's only.
    This was supposedly a horse he dearly loved - He had a bullet - don't know why he didn't shoot the poor horse.
    You can't possibly know what motivates the people - there may be a reason.
    Not one you might agree with but a reason.

    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.

    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.



  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Yikes ! All this talk of 'forcing' and 'must' Have we lost the concept of freedom and liberty for all?
    Sadly, yes.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Dec. 18, 2012, 02:35 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, 04:43 AM
  3. Best age to sell for a profit...
    By DLee in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Feb. 4, 2010, 02:21 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, 12:20 PM
  5. *Spinoff* To sell or not to sell show clothing
    By pleasedaspunch in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Aug. 18, 2009, 11:41 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
  •