The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 311
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct. 26, 2005
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    4,602

    Angry ***READ THIS- PRO SLAUGHTER ARTICLE***

    Maybe I read this wrong, but it smells like pro-slaughter to me, in the name of the almighty dollar.
    http://www.thehorse.com/viewarticle.aspx?ID=7074
    SPAY/NEUTER/RESCUE/ADOPT!
    Little Star Chihuahua Rescue
    The Barkalicious Bakery
    On Facebook!!!



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    7,025

    Default

    I saw this. I think it is incredibly one sided.

    We are talking about only 1% of the equine population needing to be absorbed back into the equine community, rather than slaughtered. I would be ashamed of my bretheren horse-lovers if that percentage of horses is not something we could/would not all step-up to help and take care of.

    The idea that an excuse to keep slaughter legal is so that those who can not afford to provide end of life care to the horses they own is also incredibly impalateable to me. Every horse owner should have an emergency fund for the situation where the horse is no longer viable. Whether this means simply having a bank account or credit card expressly set up with funds for euthenasia, I think it's the least we can offer a companion who does so much for us. I think it boils down to responsability... which imo you accept fully when you purchase a horse (or dog, cat, etc... or have a child)



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2005
    Location
    SW Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    I am shocked that The Horse would run an article like this. Not so shocked however, that 4 of the 9 contributors were from Texas, home of two of the three US plants.

    Things like, "If United States policy were to forbid selling to food commerce, there may be potential political ramifications," is IMHO ridiculous.

    They do not address the fact that when people learn they cannot make a last buck off of their unwanted horses by sending them to slaughter, they may actually euthanize them humanely and/or become more selective about indiscriminate breeding.
    "There's something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man" ~ Sir Winston Churchill



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda
    We are talking about only 1% of the equine population needing to be absorbed back into the equine community, rather than slaughtered. I would be ashamed of my bretheren horse-lovers if that percentage of horses is not something we could/would not all step-up to help and take care of.
    Right. Because we are doing such a good job of that right now. What makes you think underfunded, overworked rescues & private horse-owners already stretched to the limit of horses they can foster/adopt are going to suddenly have money, room, and time if slaughter is banned? Isn't the whole mission of many rescues (& individuals) as it is to save as many horses from slaughter as possible? If they can't save them all now, how can they next year?

    The idea that an excuse to keep slaughter legal is so that those who can not afford to provide end of life care to the horses they own is also incredibly impalateable to me. Every horse owner should have an emergency fund for the situation where the horse is no longer viable. Whether this means simply having a bank account or credit card expressly set up with funds for euthenasia, I think it's the least we can offer a companion who does so much for us. I think it boils down to responsability... which imo you accept fully when you purchase a horse (or dog, cat, etc... or have a child)
    SHOULD, yes. And if you'd like to get legislation passed mandating that, just go right ahead and try. But until then (and after then, since there will always be those who break the law), something has to be done with the horses whose owners AREN'T responsible and DON'T care that much. Ending slaughter is not going to suddenly make only responsible people buy horses.

    I think slaughter is awful, and I don't think the money made from shipping horse meat overseas (or the money that goes to the owners who aren't responsible enough to care for the horses themselves) is an excuse to keep the industry going. But if you think that we can just ban slaughter and hey presto! all the horses that would have been slaughtered will have happy homes, you are living in a dream world.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug. 30, 2005
    Location
    Up and down the west coast!
    Posts
    3,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela Freda
    The idea that an excuse to keep slaughter legal is so that those who can not afford to provide end of life care to the horses they own is also incredibly impalateable to me.
    Same here. I cannot for the life of me fathom what anybody is doing owning a horse who cannot come up with $200 or $300 for euthanasia and disposal.

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpingPaints
    Things like, "If United States policy were to forbid selling to food commerce, there may be potential political ramifications," is IMHO ridiculous.
    Then why don't we have dog slaughter facilities? After all, some countries eat dog. I'm sure they'd buy the meat. The truth is that the fact that we don't slaughter cats and dogs hasn't affected the beef industry, and if we stop slaughtering horses, it won't affect the beef industry either.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug. 30, 2005
    Location
    Up and down the west coast!
    Posts
    3,886

    Default

    something has to be done with the horses whose owners AREN'T responsible and DON'T care that much. Ending slaughter is not going to suddenly make only responsible people buy horses.
    No, enforcing abuse/neglect laws and lobbying lawmakers for stiffer penalties is what's going to improve that situation. Saying that slaughter should be legal to prevent abuse is like saying killing your children is an acceptable alternative to abusing or neglecting them if you realize you can't really afford kids.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2005
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    It sounds like pragmatic and realistic to me. Unlike the pie-in-the-sky unachievable fool's idealism represented as the ONLY acceptable option by the horse worshipers and that odd phemonenon of horses with human parents.

    And, Angela Freda, that is 1% PER YEAR. Get out your little calucalator and figure out what that amounts too after ten years, twenty years. Oh, wait, that article already did it for you. Only took them five years to get to get past FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in what it would have cost to keep the over 300,000 horses slaughtered from 2000-2005. Figure they have an agenda here and over inflated their numbers by 100% -- that is still $250,000,000. And the cost of keeping horses for sure as heck ain't going down any.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by catknsn
    No, enforcing abuse/neglect laws and lobbying lawmakers for stiffer penalties is what's going to improve that situation. Saying that slaughter should be legal to prevent abuse is like saying killing your children is an acceptable alternative to abusing or neglecting them if you realize you can't really afford kids.
    But that needs to be done FIRST. And how much luck have we all had lobbying for better abuse/neglect laws over the past, say decade? Even when the laws are there, no one wants to enforce them. If we don't fix that problem FIRST, then we just end up with another .5% (allowing for the fact that some people will euthanize or find suitable homes for their horses if slaughter isn't an option) of the US horse population each year starving and being otherwise neglected in people's back fields. Or garages. And that is NO kind of solution.

    The government pays for taking care of kids (after a fashion) whose parents cannot or will not provide for them. Will the government pay for the horses, too? And where will that money come from?



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2006
    Location
    Lodi Ohio
    Posts
    1,435

    Default Numbers don't make sense

    They say that the racehorses are 2% of the slaughtered horses, about 94,000. Doesn't that make less than 2,000 going? All the studies I've read say 13,000 racehorses to slaughter. It brings the entire study into question. It actually is around 14% if the total number is correct. Or is my math off?

    Nancy



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct. 31, 2004
    Posts
    4,769

    Default

    You are exactly correct, it is no excuse and what we need is better enforcement of the laws and tougher sentences. Judges do not protect those that do not vote or have money. Police do not respond properly to these cases too often, they trivialize it as do the judges as seen in the sentencing. I can tell you a local judge came down hard on traffic violations sending someone to jail in shackles while letting one of the most severe animal abuse and neglect cases go with a minimal sentence and he had guns. I have met this judge through personal reasons, not in his court and I got to know his wife pretty well. To this day I don't understand his rulings. I am very familiar with both cases and have first hand knowledge. It's just an example of judges not punishing cases involving animal cruelty because they trivialize the importance of what happened. Personally I think the guy that committed the animal cruelty offence needed psychiatric attention...forever.



    Quote Originally Posted by catknsn
    No, enforcing abuse/neglect laws and lobbying lawmakers for stiffer penalties is what's going to improve that situation. Saying that slaughter should be legal to prevent abuse is like saying killing your children is an acceptable alternative to abusing or neglecting them if you realize you can't really afford kids.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    24,716

    Default

    *sigh* The article isn't pro slaughter...it's anti the current anti. Which, BTW, isn't working. Things went from frying pan to fire.
    Without a workable, viable plan, no amount of sentimental slaughter banning will ever work. Bns are talked about and extremely poorly planned, if planned at all. Heart string decisions are good, heart string implementation in a hurry to stop everything isn't so good.
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte



  12. #12
    Join Date
    May. 22, 2003
    Posts
    9,634

    Default

    Wait a minute... Are some of you actually suggesting that people who have a different view or who disagree with you should be silenced? Or that magazines should censor them because they have a different viewpoint?


    All of the anti-slaughter articles I've read are pretty darn one-sided, too!

    I'm anti-slaughter myself, but I'm also a big believer in the idea that people are free to have their own opinions AND voice them.



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2005
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    TheHorse.com and The Horse magazine are in some type of partnership with the AAEP, I subscribe but am not %100 what the affiliation is. The AAEP is Pro-slaughter so you will see articles of a pro-slaughter nature coming from this magazine.

    I have heard most of these arguments from them before however the new angle of horse meat being part of the “horse Industry” I disagree with. Horse meat is part of the meat industry not the horse industry. And its profits should not be combined with horse industry profits. We have no way of knowing whether that 1% of horses that are being slaughtered would have generated more money alive as part of the horse industry. We really don’t have good figures as to how many horses slaughtered were crippled or injured vs. how many could still be part of the usable or wanted horse category. We merely know that the majority of horses slaughtered are not crippled and are young usable horses. For all we know the horse industry could be loosing revenue due to usable horses being slaughtered.

    I really see no point in debating this issue; you simply are pro or anti slaughter, no need to talk about it!
    No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle. ~Winston Churchill



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar. 14, 2006
    Location
    East Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    860

    Default

    Someone explain to me why horse slaughter is abominable, yet killing cows, sheep, goats, and chickens is a-okay?

    It seems awfully hypocritical for people, animal lovers, to pull for the animal that they deem worthy enough to save from slaughter because we view them as "pets"...wheareas the rest of the livestock population isn't given a second thought? What makes horses any more worthy, other than our perception of what is right/wrong (which is a risky thing to discuss, especially in America)? Simply because our culture no-nos the killing of pets for consumption, we go through hell and high water to save them, but in reality...they are no more important than a cow, sheep, goat, or what have you.

    I straddle the fence. I love animals, and it does make me sad to see anything die in less than a dignified manner, but I also like meat.
    Roo & Lulu



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct. 26, 2005
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    4,602

    Default

    I think the operative word here is SLAUGHTER. No one will deny that there are horses who need to be euthanized for whatever reason. But not sent to a slaughterhouse, shot in the head, and cut up for meat. IF horse slaughter were banned, people would be forced to dispose of them in a better way - donation, selling, or euthanizing humanely. Of course some would still resort to the shotgun-in-the-backyard method, but the horse would at least be spared the horror of the meat sale and slaughter truck.
    There are no statistics or explanations anyone can give me to make me pro-slaughter. None. Most every horse owner I know can spare some change for rescues, and the ones who have their own places might be able to actually foster or rescue ONE HORSE themselves. As a group, horse owners could make a difference. But go ahead and call me idealistic....I just saved a pony mare and her baby and have absolutely no real "use" for a pony. But my heart is fuller for having them now.
    SPAY/NEUTER/RESCUE/ADOPT!
    Little Star Chihuahua Rescue
    The Barkalicious Bakery
    On Facebook!!!



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSP
    I really see no point in debating this issue; you simply are pro or anti slaughter, no need to talk about it!
    Sorry, but it isn't that black and white.

    I, for example, am fully against the way horse slaughter is carried out in the US, for a number of reasons. (So I guess that means I'm anti-slaughter. )

    I am not, however, against the idea of anyone killing and eating a horse (I'm not saying *I* would ever eat horsemeat, but I don't think it's wrong that some people do). (Whoops - now I'm pro-slaughter! )

    I am also against the idea of just banning slaughter without considering the consequences of that action and including remedies to those consequences within (or prior to) the slaughter-banning legislation. (Hmm, now I don't know what that makes me...pro or anti?? )

    The answers, I suspect, will ultimately be found somewhere in the shades of grey.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    May. 22, 2003
    Posts
    9,634

    Default

    Kementari - I agree with what you said completely.

    I'm anti-slaughter b/c of the way it's carried out, though I'm not against the idea of people slaughtering horses to eat them... though personally I wouldn't do it.



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb. 8, 2004
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    977

    Default

    [QUOTE=JumpingPaints]I am shocked that The Horse would run an article like this. Not so shocked however, that 4 of the 9 contributors were from Texas, home of two of the three US plants.
    QUOTE]


    If you are shocked at this.. how shocked will you be to learn that the Texas A&M contributors are also well known to the slaughter plants? Texas A&M routinely sends horses from their various programs to slaughter...what's worse.... Recently we receieved Freedom of Information Act request returns indicating that Texas A&M has also been reprimanded by the USDA for Humane Transport To Slaughter Act violations!!! Yep...just the right people to give an "unbiased" report on horse slaughter.

    Absolutely appalling what lenghts these people will go to in order to eek that last few hundred bucks out of a horse!!

    Gail
    www.horse-protection.org

    No Horses to Slaughter Clique



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    9,911

    Default

    I agree with you Kementari.I've been labelled "pro slaughter" many times because I'm very concerned with all the various consequences of the legislation, and how it will effect me as a horse owner. Because I think that there are other things that need attention first (all those horses are unwanted in the first place, and then the whole issue of 'if horses aren't livestock')

    I also feel it's hypocritical of us to be so horrified by horse slaughter but not by the slaughter of other living, thinking, and feeling animals. Because I want improvements across the board, and think that banning slaughter right now would cause some problems (some of which are major problems, IMO), I've been called 'pro slaughter' more times than I can count.

    Personally, I call it being 'logical'

    Then again, if you're any brand of pro choice at all, people screech that you're 'pro abortion' as if you think abortions are fabulous and wonderful.

    Black and White thinking is very dangerous. It puts a road block in the way of compromise, and slows the process of actually coming to a solution. Just my opinion, though.*shrug*
    Last edited by caffeinated; Jun. 15, 2006 at 12:53 PM. Reason: posting editor doesn't come up right and messes up my spacing. Having to edit to put in proper spacing so it's readable, sorry.
    "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

    My CANTER blog.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct. 31, 2004
    Posts
    4,769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSP
    TheHorse.com and The Horse magazine are in some type of partnership with the AAEP, I subscribe but am not %100 what the affiliation is. The AAEP is Pro-slaughter so you will see articles of a pro-slaughter nature coming from this magazine.
    I believe that this magazine is part of the AAEP, it really looks like it in the newsletters they send me. They have sent information that is also anti slaughter such as articles about Nick Zitto and John Hettinger who are leading the way to end horse slaughter and not just for race horses but for all horses. Even though Ferdinand wasn't slaughter in the US it still brought the issue to the forefront and many in the race industry are taking a stand against it. Certainly Church HIll Downs has taken a clear position.

    If you are truly looking for a kinder way to treat all animals then have you supported Certified Humane Farming? http://certifiedhumane.org/ or are you just blowing smoke?



Similar Threads

  1. Article on slaughter - pretty ballsy
    By Eventfan4LIFE in forum Eventing
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: Jun. 6, 2013, 09:37 AM
  2. Salon.com article on Slaughter (no trainwrecks please!)
    By Penthilisea in forum Off Course
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun. 30, 2009, 06:04 PM
  3. NY Times article: Effects of no-slaughter law
    By M. O'Connor in forum Off Course
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: Jan. 13, 2008, 08:52 PM
  4. A Must Read about Slaughter hot off the press
    By luvmytbs in forum Off Course
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: Aug. 11, 2005, 01:26 PM
  5. Chronicle Article on Horse Slaughter
    By Moesha in forum Off Course
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: Apr. 5, 2002, 07:41 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
  •  
randomness