The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 90 of 90
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area, California
    Posts
    5,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7arabians View Post
    Many thanks to my peep, jg, for backing me up on that magical 95%. Your support is much appreciated. By the way, I wasn't quoting, I was summarizing. But thanks again for proving me right!
    That "magical 95%" is the MINIMUM she recommends. MINIMUM is hardly something to strive for nor be proud of.
    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg


    1 members found this post helpful.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Mar. 18, 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Agree that a 95% minimum is not ideal. Would a 98% minimum be acceptable? Chemical euthanasia is far from 100% in my experience. I have seen several horses react badly with this form of putting a horse down. Since I have not seen 100 horses put down this makes chemical euth less than 98%. I do not expect a processing plant to do better than a vet doing a single horse under very quiet conditions.
    I support equine meat processing as an option for those who choose to use it.



  3. #83
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,781

    Default

    I've never seen a chemical euthanasia go wrong. I've seen 4 of my horses put down that way and they have no idea what happened.
    I think the % is a goal.
    Anything should be as quiet and stress free as possible.
    In the plant with a horse they should do them 1 at a time.
    There are videos out there where it's done correctly - I'm not sure where that was. It did take a bit of time but the horse had no idea.


    Quote Originally Posted by wonderhorseguy View Post
    Agree that a 95% minimum is not ideal. Would a 98% minimum be acceptable? Chemical euthanasia is far from 100% in my experience. I have seen several horses react badly with this form of putting a horse down. Since I have not seen 100 horses put down this makes chemical euth less than 98%. I do not expect a processing plant to do better than a vet doing a single horse under very quiet conditions.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Jingle Town
    Posts
    35,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE View Post
    I've never seen a chemical euthanasia go wrong. I've seen 4 of my horses put down that way and they have no idea what happened.
    I think the % is a goal.
    Anything should be as quiet and stress free as possible.
    In the plant with a horse they should do them 1 at a time.
    There are videos out there where it's done correctly - I'm not sure where that was. It did take a bit of time but the horse had no idea.
    Yes, with everything 100% is the goal.

    But

    it isn't.

    One of my first internet experiences, back on the good old AOL boards, a lady described how her beloved mare did not go quiet into this good night, but fought it, broke away, slid down a ravine to end up resting in a creek where the vet had to finish her off. The backhoe operator had to drag the body back up to the hole....

    I suppose you have not seen it gives your percentage a greater value?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
    GNU Terry Prachett



  5. #85
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    25,040

    Default

    Well according to Bluey, from the thread about Chemical Euthanasia....

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    I have seen more problems with dogs struggling a little.
    The horses I have seen went quietly, if with a thump.
    They may wiggle a little when first down, but they are gone already.
    You never get used to how enormous a horse's body seem, just laying there.

    Most horses go easy, I would not worry.
    Join the Clinton 2016 campaign...Hillary For America. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,781

    Default

    Yea and your point???
    Would you be ok with your doctor only being 95% all the time??? What would that OOPS mean to you - missing an arm or a leg or leaving a tool in your body or taking out the wrong kidney?? Or removing the wrong breast??



    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    Yes, with everything 100% is the goal.

    But

    it isn't.

    One of my first internet experiences, back on the good old AOL boards, a lady described how her beloved mare did not go quiet into this good night, but fought it, broke away, slid down a ravine to end up resting in a creek where the vet had to finish her off. The backhoe operator had to drag the body back up to the hole....

    I suppose you have not seen it gives your percentage a greater value?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    In Jingle Town
    Posts
    35,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE View Post
    Yea and your point???
    Would you be ok with your doctor only being 95% all the time??? What would that OOPS mean to you - missing an arm or a leg or leaving a tool in your body or taking out the wrong kidney?? Or removing the wrong breast??
    Do you really want an answer to that?

    A real, honest answer?

    I give you this much: Why do you think doctors carry malpractice insurance out of the Whazoo?!

    I give you one guess!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bristol Bay View Post
    Try setting your broomstick to fly at a lower altitude.
    GNU Terry Prachett



  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep. 11, 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    4,781

    Default

    The goal is to be better than 95%
    Sure you can sue them and get your money but would that really make up for a loss like that?? Likely not.
    I get that crap happens that does not mean we should just say "oh well oops" and move along. We should always be working to make it better.
    I don't see why that should be such a stupid argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    Do you really want an answer to that?

    A real, honest answer?

    I give you this much: Why do you think doctors carry malpractice insurance out of the Whazoo?!

    I give you one guess!



  9. #89
    Join Date
    Nov. 10, 2000
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Back to the original subject....

    As long as you have a bill of sale the horses belong to the new owner. They can take them to the auction if you desire with no official repercussions.

    However, since your profile states that you live in WV than I'm assuming that the horses would have come from Charles Town Racetrack in WV. Here is part of the Horseman's Guide for Trainers at the Track. I would imagine many tracks have a very similar policy.

    Page 6. F: Animal Warefare

    "In addition, any horseman stabled at the Racetrack who knowingly, or without conducting proper due diligence, sells a horse for slaughter, directly or indirectly, will have his or her stalls revoked and may, in addition, be barred from all of PNGI’s racetracks."

    So if these horses ended up at auction and at risk for slaughter than the trainer would risk losing his stalls at the track. So the trainer the owners got them from would be incredibly upset and word would spread exceptionally fast and it would be doubtful that anyone at the track would give the owners another horse.
    Hanlon's Razor

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    10,514

    Default

    Thanks for the exact wording, tootsie!

    I would also add that in some cases where other license holders at the track (vendors, etc) have been involved in selling horses to slaughter or neglect situations, their licenses can and have been pulled as well, or they may be restricted from entering the track with trailers. I'm not sure this is codified anywhere but I know of a few people whose names have been sent down to security to not be allowed in anymore.
    "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

    My CANTER blog.


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: Mar. 25, 2011, 09:57 AM
  2. Thoroughbreds in Dallas Area at Auction
    By coymackerel in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct. 29, 2010, 09:41 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec. 14, 2009, 04:09 PM
  4. Replies: 172
    Last Post: Sep. 29, 2005, 08:37 AM
  5. Replies: 168
    Last Post: Oct. 14, 2004, 10:09 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