The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 311
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov. 15, 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    6,149

    Default

    This is not about saying "Let's end slaughter without reviewing ways to handle the 1% PER YEAR of unwanted horses that would be created by removing the option of slaughter"...it's about saying we think this sucks (as does the slaughter of other animals) and brainstorming ideas of how to get slaughter ended AND deal with those horses.

    I for one think that 1% PER YEAR of the equine population is handelable... as someone mentioned, many would require euthanasia, and others could be taken in by those wanting to be part of the solution. I for one will be more than willing to take in a horse. If we each stepped up and did what we could, I think we would be a force to be reckoned with... but go ahead and call me idealistic if you wish.

    Perhaps after a couple years those backyard breeders would stop breeding seeing no profit in it?
    Perhaps other industries would do the responsible and economical thing and do the same... thus that 1% per year might in fact decrease every year.
    As long as there is an option that makes them money (slaughter) irresponsible breeding will continue. Take away that last resort opp for cashola and maybe we could slow down the churning out of foals.

    Maybe we would require a Horse license like those for dogs, and this would help insure that care was provided and end of life issues were dealt with? The fee from this could help fund care for that 1% PER YEAR.
    Maybe we could impose a breeders tax, putting 10% of sale price of all young stock into a fund that also helps deal with end of life issues- paying it forward so to speak?

    Sticking your head in the sand and saying "there are no answers to what to do with them, so we'd better keep slaughter going" isn't any more impressive to me than being idealistic. Thimk people!
    I certainly can not say that I think slaughter is ok cause if it goes away having a horse is going to be too expensive for me to have one!

    California has banned slaughter, and the sale to slaughter. Below is some info and a link to a site that can help those who are unfamiliar learn a little about the topic.

    http://www.saplonline.org/horses_ahspafaq.htm

    Won’t a ban on horse slaughter mean that there will be a rise in the number of horse neglect and abuse cases?
    No, in 1998 California passed a law banning the slaughter of horses and the sale of horses for slaughter. Since then, there has been no discernible increase in cruelty and neglect cases in the state. Opponents of the AHSPA claim that the only option for some people who are unable/unwilling to keep their horse and who can’t afford to have their horse euthanized by a veterinarian is to sell their horse to slaughter, or to turn him/her out into the field to starve to death. While prices vary across the country, it costs on average between $50 and $150 to have a horse humanely euthanized and disposed of – a tiny fraction of the cost involved in keeping a horse as a companion or work animal. Further, it is illegal to neglect and starve a horse, and animal control agents and humane officers across the country are charged with enforcing our humane laws.
    Carolyn Stull, Ph.D., animal welfare specialist at the Veterinary Medical Extension at the University of California, Davis, noted that there has been no increase in the number of horses being neglected in California as a result of the law. "One concern when the law passed was that there might be an increase in neglected or starved horses," she says. "This has not been the case."
    Furthermore, figures from Illinois show that the number of abuse cases leveled off and dropped in Illinois after the state’s only horse slaughtering facility was destroyed by fire in 2002. They had been increasing by about 100 new cases a year until the facility was destroyed when they then leveled off.* During 2002, the Illinois based Hooved Animal Humane Society (HAHS), the* received 262 complaints of potential hooved animal (primarily equine) abuse and neglect in the state of Illinois. As of December 23, 2003, The Society had received 165 complaints according to Lydia F. Gray, DVM, MA, HAHS Executive Director.
    Last edited by Angela Freda; Jun. 15, 2006 at 12:15 PM.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug. 11, 2004
    Location
    north San Diego County
    Posts
    2,399

    Default Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kementari
    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.

    Most of life is in shades of grey. I am VERY opposed to the way slaughter is currently carried out for ALL commercially processed animals in this country rather you're talking about horses, cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens or whatever. For that matter, I loathe the way eggs are produced in this country and will not eat store-bought eggs.

    On the other hand, I'm not opposed to people eating meat (do it myself, though only through home-grown or wild and home processed animals) any more than I'm opposed to an owl eating a mouse. And frankly I really don't see any difference between a cow, a chicken, a duck, a horse, a pig, a dog, or a snake. They all feel pain & suffering. They all have intelligence. They all form social bonds. They all have distinctive individual personalities. They could all contribute something if they were kept alive instead of eaten.

    I think a lot of people forget that while we don't eat much horse meat in this country NOW, that wasn't the case 40 or 50 years ago. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that just about everyone on this board who was alive during WWII has eaten horse meat. And there were quite a few rural areas where it was still popular into the 70s.


    I have 2 horses sitting in my pasture right now that were rescued from slaughter and I don't regret saving them for one instant...they're lovely horses.



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2005
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kementari
    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.
    The answer will be found when you contact your senators and reps and tell them how you want them to vote! There is no maybe vote!
    /Don't Judge...
    1 in 100 children, 1 in 94 boys and 1 in 88 military children...
    It’s time to listen.
    Every day!/



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb. 8, 2004
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    977

    Default

    I found it very interesting that The Horse magazine article attempts to link a rise in abuse and neglect to the proposed ban on horse slaughter and yet, the offer absolutely NO evidence!

    In fact, the article states " Data published on the number of horse neglect cases from the years 1994 and 1995 in California showed there were a total of 2,177 malnutrition cases, with 321 horses impounded for periods ranging from 15 days to 7 months. The average cost for impounding was $10.50 per day or $225 per month. The most common reason (67% response) for horse neglect was owner ignorance, with economic hardship as the second leading cause. Litigation costs averaged $5,735 per case (Witham et al., 1998). The cost of litigation for cases involving animals is a consideration for the regulatory agencies in proceeding with animal neglect cases. Without the option and economic incentive to process horses, the number of animal neglect cases may double or triple in local communities".

    Well...Californin banned horse slaughter 8 years ago (1998) WHY DID THIS ARTICLE NOT GIVE THE FIGURES ON ABUSE AND NEGLECT...POST THE CA BAN????
    www.horse-protection.org

    No Horses to Slaughter Clique



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MSP
    The answer will be found when you contact your senators and reps and tell them how you want them to vote! There is no maybe vote!
    Yes, there is: it's called abstension.

    Which is exactly what I intend to do on the issue if speaking to my reps about this, because while I cannot support a bill that simply bans slaughter with no thought to the consequences, I also don't want them to think that I support the continuation of slaughter as it is.

    Sorry, but the world just ISN'T black and white!



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2002
    Posts
    1,213

    Default

    The article makes the assumption that every horse that would otherwise be slaughtered will have to be cared for by taxpayers. I think that is a strange assumption. When a horse does not sell at auction, the person who brought it there still owns it. It doesn't just become the property of the public. Where will the unwanted horses go? That will be the problem of the individuals who already own them. When they can't get that $300 for them, they can donate them to a rescue or humanely euthanize them. Right now they don't choose those options because they don't have to. And yes some people will neglect horses. Just like they do now while slaughter is legal.

    One of the reasons rescues can't accommodate all of the unwanted horses right now is because they have to bid against kill buyers to buy them. There's a big difference between a rescue coming up with a few hundred dollars to buy each unwanted horse, and not having to compete with the kill buyers at all. If unwanted horses were free to rescues, rescues could take in more of them. But there will always be those people who would rather pocket the $300 than give a horse to a rescue as long as it's an option. And there is no reason rescues can't euthanize some of the horses if that is their only alternative. It's better than the slaughter option.
    \"Non-violence never solved anything.\" C. Montgomery Burns




  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb. 8, 2004
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    977

    Default

    The Horse article states....

    "Rendering is becoming less available as an option for horse carcass disposal. Rendering processes animal carcasses into usable proteins and fats that were once commonly used in animal feeds. Disease concerns, primarily with BSE, have decreased the marketability of rendered products. Rendering will not destroy the BSE prions and incinerators have to operate at extremely high temperatures to effectively inactivate the prions (AVMA, 2004). Although horses are not BSE carriers, it is the declining market in rendered products and thus the decline in the number of rendering plants reduces options for horse carcass disposal".

    Question...IF this is true, where oh where then are the millions and millions of tons of cow heads, legs and offal then going? Not to mention the gazillion tons of pig, sheep, poultry etc. "remains" that are rendered each and every day throughout the US.

    Come on The Horse...do you really think that we are naive?
    www.horse-protection.org

    No Horses to Slaughter Clique



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2005
    Location
    SW Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    To all who keep comparing horses to other livestock, here's one fundamental difference: horses are not bred and raised to be eaten. Most horses spend their time on earth interacting with and loyally serving humans. It's a moral question, really, about whether you believe the just reward for their efforts is a terrifying trip to the slaughterhouse, or humane euthanasia, when the time comes. It's not about eating meat vs. not eating meat.

    My argument with this article is some economic theory they are ignoring. They site the loss of $26 million in annual revenues if slaughter is banned. While I realize some of those monies come from overseas and cannot be replaced, what about the revenues generated (through board, feed, training, vet care, euthanasia, etc.) that would make their way into the economy were the horse to live and/or die humanely?

    And then there's the good ol' supply and demand argument:
    orignially posted by Angela Freda:Perhaps after a couple years those backyard breeders would stop breeding seeing no profit in it? As long as there is an option that makes them money (slaughter) irresponsible breeding will continue. Take away that last resort opp for cashola and maybe we could slow down the churning out of foals.
    If you could make a hundred bucks from sending a dog to slaughter, do you think more dogs would be carelessly bred? Of course! So the reverse - as was shown in California - would undoubtably prevail. Less demand/profit = production reduction by suppliers. It may take awhile for people to adjust their indiscriminate breeding practices, but banning slaughter would ultimately be a deterrent.
    "There's something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man" ~ Sir Winston Churchill



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul. 27, 2005
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    3,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kementari
    Yes, there is: it's called abstension.

    Which is exactly what I intend to do on the issue if speaking to my reps about this, because while I cannot support a bill that simply bans slaughter with no thought to the consequences, I also don't want them to think that I support the continuation of slaughter as it is.

    Sorry, but the world just ISN'T black and white!
    If you are not willing to take a stand and make up your mind up one way or another why even talk about it?

    I know every thing isn’t black or white but if you can’t make up your mind where you stand on the issue just get it out of your head and go do something else. You want some kind of guarantee all horses will be taken care of and no horses will ever be abused; that is never going to happen with or with out the ban. It is a simple question; do you or do you not feel it is ok to slaughter horses for human consumption? See, yes or no answer! If you are having doubts then more than likely your answer should be yes, slaughter of horses for food is OK.

    We have had countless debates on the COTH about slaughter and no good ever comes of it. The people on the fence stay there and the pros are still pro and antis are still anti; so my point is why talk about it. Talk about Breyers or complain about a boarder or trainer how no one wears helmets!

    And when ever this discussion comes up everyone seems to forget about the group that was formed to handle the “Unwanted” horse, last I heard they meet a couple of times a year and are made up of groups from both sides of this issue. What more do you want?
    /Don't Judge...
    1 in 100 children, 1 in 94 boys and 1 in 88 military children...
    It’s time to listen.
    Every day!/



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr. 4, 2006
    Location
    An American Living In Ireland
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    This is such a complex issue and to be honest I don't know what side of the fence I lean towards. All of us on this board would probably never send a horse to slaughter. I know I never would. But for all of us horse lovers there are people that have horses and end up way over their heads. They can't pay for basics and the horse suffers for months, years, until they finally die having been neglected and or abused. So how do we make sure this doesn't happen.

    I'm also in Europe, horsemeat heaven. We are not allowed to bury any livestock including horses on the land. Not too many pet disposal places here either. You can give your horses a dignified end with euthinasia, but mostly your options after that are the hunting kennels which I'm sure some people will find most appaling. Not just horses go to the kennels either, any livestock can go.

    I am a very small breeder of TB's and the only riding horses here are ex-racehorses. As a matter of fact my husband will be looking for a hunter soon and it will be an ex racehorse. I'm doing what I love and I'm trying to make good choices in breeding. I know this will annoy people too, but we do try to give back and it's why we only have TB riding horses.

    I think in every country laws suck as far as prosecuting people for animal cruelty. I know a slaughterhouse is a horrible place for horses, but sometimes living in their own backyard is a horror story too. So really what do you do?

    Terri
    COTH, keeping popcorn growers in business for years.

    "I need your grace to remind me to find my own." Snow Patrol-Chasing Cars. This line reminds me why I have horses.



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug. 11, 2004
    Location
    north San Diego County
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpingPaints
    To all who keep comparing horses to other livestock, here's one fundamental difference: horses are not bred and raised to be eaten. Most horses spend their time on earth interacting with and loyally serving humans. It's a moral question, really, about whether you believe the just reward for their efforts is a terrifying trip to the slaughterhouse, or humane euthanasia, when the time comes. It's not about eating meat vs. not eating meat.
    .
    On the contrary, there are quite a few horses in this country that are raised primarily for slaughter. In eastern WA, the reservation ponies are a great example. A lot of low-end quarterhorses as well in states like TX where land and feed is cheap.

    And apparently you weren't aware that all those 4-Hers who show cattle, hogs, sheep, etc instead of (or in addition to horses) raise their show animals as pets...they get daily handling, grooming, training, etc. Then after the show, they're auctioned off and slaughtered. No different but 4-H is such to be SUCH wonderful, upstanding thing for youth to do...soooo wholesome!


    The world is rarely as straight-forward as we want it to be.



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    9,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MandyVA
    One of the reasons rescues can't accommodate all of the unwanted horses right now is because they have to bid against kill buyers to buy them. There's a big difference between a rescue coming up with a few hundred dollars to buy each unwanted horse, and not having to compete with the kill buyers at all.
    I would say it's much less about the purchase price, and much more about the cost of keeping and rehabilitating the horse, and the fact that many rescues are overburdened and crowded as it is.

    Don't quote me on that, since I don't work for a rescue, but many may well have the money to purchase the horse for a few hundred, but as we all know, the purchase price is only a teeny portion of the total investment.
    "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

    My CANTER blog.



  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2005
    Location
    SW Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critters Everywhere
    On the contrary, there are quite a few horses in this country that are raised primarily for slaughter. In eastern WA, the reservation ponies are a great example. A lot of low-end quarterhorses as well in states like TX where land and feed is cheap.

    And apparently you weren't aware that all those 4-Hers who show cattle, hogs, sheep, etc instead of (or in addition to horses) raise their show animals as pets...they get daily handling, grooming, training, etc. Then after the show, they're auctioned off and slaughtered. No different but 4-H is such to be SUCH wonderful, upstanding thing for youth to do...soooo wholesome!

    The world is rarely as straight-forward as we want it to be.
    Yes, I agree the world is rarely straighforward - there are always exceptions, but I for one, make my decisions based on how the vast majority of horses and humans interact. With regards to the 4-Hers, I revert back to my original point: these animals were bred and raised to ultimately go to slaughter for food.
    "There's something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man" ~ Sir Winston Churchill



  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2005
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    To all those who say "if we ban slaughter, it will force people to breed more responsibly", I would say that this logic is as idiotic as telling fat people that if they'd poop less, they'd eat less, and therefore lose weight.

    The "backyard breeder" that gets blamed for much of the "problem" of "irresponsible breeding" will not be affected by loss of profit. There hasn't been a "profit" in haphazard breeding, backyard or otherwise for a hundred years. It's not the lure of a sure profit that these people breed for -- it's like buying the scratch-off lottery ticket at the grocery store. MAYBE they'llwin big. Probably not, but they don't consider that when they hand over their money and eagerly scratch off that thin layer that could (but probably won't) make them a big winner. And when they jubilantly rejoice when they win a thousand bucks, they do not remember the two thousand times they dropped a buck trying to do it.



  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov. 23, 1999
    Location
    South Coast Plaza
    Posts
    20,334

    Default

    This is why I am glad I canceled my sub to this magazine a few years ago. Remember when the double decker trailer crashed, filled with horses? The editor of The Horse came out in defense of it all. And that was the end of my sub.

    Of course, it took months of emails assuring me the check was being processed, and finally a threatening letter to the publisher, to get the refund.
    EDDIE WOULD GO



  16. #36
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2005
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpingPaints
    Yes, I agree the world is rarely straighforward - there are always exceptions, but I for one, make my decisions based on how the vast majority of horses and humans interact. With regards to the 4-Hers, I revert back to my original point: these animals were bred and raised to ultimately go to slaughter for food.
    And are you using as the basis for "how the vast majority of horses and humans interact", are you considering the world-wide horse population, or just those in your little enclave of anti-slaughter folks?

    Race horses are not bred and raised to be somebody's "pet" -- they are bred and raised to race and win money, then breed more money winners, and if that does not happen, they have NOT fulfulled their intended purpose. The fact that some groom or trainer might get mushy over one or two where and there is no different than the 4-H lamb that gets cuddled then slaughtered.

    Ranch horses are not bred and raised to be somebody's "pet" -- they are bred and raised to be a ranching tool, and if that doesn't happen, or their usefulness ends, they are not fulfilling their intended purpose. The fact that some cowboy might get mushy over one or two here and there is no different than the 4-H steer that gets primped and preened and slaughtered.

    Show horses are not bred and raised to be somebody's "pet" -- they are bred and raised to compete and bring glory to their owners/trainers/riders in the "big leagues". When that doesn't happen, they have not fulfulled their intended purpose. The fact that some youth or amateur rider gets a crush on one or two here and there is no different that the dairy farmer who loves his milk cows.

    Come to think of it, darn few horses are bred and raised to be "pets". By the logic that "horse slaughter should be banned becauses horses are not bred and raised for meat", well, they (for the most part) aren't bred and raised to be pets, either, so perhaps owning horses as "pets" should be banned as well?

    You and your couple dozen buddies may think your several horses represents a vast proportion of the horse world. But the two ranchers with a combined herd of 150 head outnumbers you many times over. Who is the "majority" here? Why must the ranchers who do not subscribe to your notion that horses are pets, and do not treat their horses as such, be forced to comply with your notions on what is "right"?



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2006
    Location
    The rocky part of KY
    Posts
    9,194

    Default Flame me to a cinder, but

    I am with Kementari (and others) in the grey group.

    I am inclined to think that the situation in CA reflects more on the rising cost of horse ownership, land and housing in that state - to the point where only the more affluent and hopefully more responsible individual can own a horse, and more thought goes into the breeding process, resulting in no net change in neglect cases.

    I seriously doubt that anybody breeds a horse with the thought in the front of their minds that they will be selling the offspring for slaughter. I really don't think it is a money making proposition.

    And no, the idea of slaughtering a horse does not bother me. Euthanasia is slaughter. The animal is dead and you have killed it. In what manner the carcass is disposed of - as animal feed, or for human consumption is not of consequence. What bothers me are the less than humane conditions leading up to the death of the animal, and the manner of death. I would far prefer that the US had the small abbatoirs that I have heard exist in Europe. Or on-farm butchering.

    My suggestion here would be that those of us who have time, get involved in our local HSU, SPCA or Animal Control volunteer groups, donate money to those groups, or donate money and time to the various rescues / adopt a rescue. Education is a key here, and respect of the values of others while showing them a more humane way to end the days of animals that are not-quite companion animals yet not-quite livestock.
    Courageous Weenie Eventer Wannabe
    Incredible Invisible



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2005
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    5,219

    Default

    The study was funded by the http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/ This is NOT an Animal Rights group. Don't be confused. They're an
    "Animal Welfare" group which means their focus is on what animals give people, not necessarily what is best for the animals.

    I love how their web site has this big picture of an elephant; right now zoos & circuses are being blasted for their poor care of captive elephants. Most circuses still use sharp bullhooks to "train" their elephants and heavy chains to keep them still when not in training. What a great (ironic!) icon for them to use -- the well-loved animal is also one of the most poorly treated in captivity.

    Shame on The Horse for printing such a one-sided story! I think we all owe The Horse's editor an email. It's the only way they'll realize how upset their readers are by this extremely biased & misleading article. You can reach their editors by emailing editorial@TheHorse.com or call (800) 866-2361



  19. #39
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Thumbs up Well said greys and bays

    Horses are livestock and they are bred for a purpose that stroked the ego and makes their human owner happy. I totally agree that while we may choose not to slaughter and wemay may choose not to eat horse does not mean we have the right to impose our will on others.

    We have the right to live our lives as we choose without the need to please what other people feel we should do. That means in our bedroom and in our kitchen. I would eat horse, I would not feed horse to my dogs and I have serious doubt about whether pelleted feed is good for animals. I do not object to horse being fed to the animals at the zoo and any other meat eaters in preference to filling the land fill with decaying animals.



  20. #40
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2005
    Location
    SW Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greysandbays
    And are you using as the basis for "how the vast majority of horses and humans interact", are you considering the world-wide horse population, or just those in your little enclave of anti-slaughter folks?

    Race horses are not bred and raised to be somebody's "pet" -- they are bred and raised to race and win money, then breed more money winners, and if that does not happen, they have NOT fulfulled their intended purpose. The fact that some groom or trainer might get mushy over one or two where and there is no different than the 4-H lamb that gets cuddled then slaughtered.

    Ranch horses are not bred and raised to be somebody's "pet" -- they are bred and raised to be a ranching tool, and if that doesn't happen, or their usefulness ends, they are not fulfilling their intended purpose. The fact that some cowboy might get mushy over one or two here and there is no different than the 4-H steer that gets primped and preened and slaughtered.

    Show horses are not bred and raised to be somebody's "pet" -- they are bred and raised to compete and bring glory to their owners/trainers/riders in the "big leagues". When that doesn't happen, they have not fulfulled their intended purpose. The fact that some youth or amateur rider gets a crush on one or two here and there is no different that the dairy farmer who loves his milk cows.

    Come to think of it, darn few horses are bred and raised to be "pets". By the logic that "horse slaughter should be banned becauses horses are not bred and raised for meat", well, they (for the most part) aren't bred and raised to be pets, either, so perhaps owning horses as "pets" should be banned as well?

    You and your couple dozen buddies may think your several horses represents a vast proportion of the horse world. But the two ranchers with a combined herd of 150 head outnumbers you many times over. Who is the "majority" here? Why must the ranchers who do not subscribe to your notion that horses are pets, and do not treat their horses as such, be forced to comply with your notions on what is "right"?
    greysandbays - I never once referred to horses as "pets".

    I said they "served humans," which differs them from livestock raised solely for slaughter. This servitude also applies to the roles of working ranch horses and probably the roles of the horses owned by the rest of your pro-horse slaughter "buddies".

    Also, could you please provide numbers of pro vs. anti-horse slaughter people in the US to back up your claim that there are only a couple dozen who are anti-slaughter?
    "There's something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man" ~ Sir Winston Churchill



Similar Threads

  1. Article on slaughter - pretty ballsy
    By Eventfan4LIFE in forum Eventing
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: Jun. 6, 2013, 08:37 AM
  2. Salon.com article on Slaughter (no trainwrecks please!)
    By Penthilisea in forum Off Course
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun. 30, 2009, 05:04 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, 07:52 PM
  4. A Must Read about Slaughter hot off the press
    By luvmytbs in forum Off Course
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: Aug. 11, 2005, 12:26 PM
  5. Chronicle Article on Horse Slaughter
    By Moesha in forum Off Course
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: Apr. 5, 2002, 06:41 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
  •