If the borders were closed to slaughter trucks today....

[BaroquePony]

Posted by Bluey:

Good ideas, but based on some false premises, that means the real world doesn't work quite like you think.

-Starting horses at two or later.
Studies have shown that, for most disciplines, starting colts early tends to produce sounder, better performers that last longer.
The ones started later tend to not be as good performers and have more injuries, their bodies are not conditioned and trained from young as well for their task as those started young.
No matter when you start them, you have to use the proper management, that is also important.
A bad trainer can run into the ground or work a sore horse started at any age and that is what causes most problems, bad management and training, not when colts are started.

Where on Earth did you find these ^ studies?

There are going to be huge differences between young horses allowed to grow up in large fields where they can run, make fast turns, negotiate some hills, buck and play, and those that get raised in a more confined and pampered situation. I see a lot more of the *confined* stall bunny/paddock raised types than ever before.

There is a BIG, BIG difference between lightly backing and conditioning a young prospect when it is done by an experienced, proficient, knowledgeable horseman/rider (must have a very good Independent Seat) and the average rider trying to start a young horse. The first sort of rider will produce a stronger horse with better bone development, but those types of riders are a much smaller percentage of riders as a whole group, and often don't start young horses that aren't their own. The second type of rider will produce a mess. They don't know how to condition themselves, let alone a horse. I cannot tell you how many green horse-green rider combinations that I have seen that have produced horses that are basically crippled by the age of fifteen.

Oh, I forgot the *3rd* type - the overlly competitive riders ... how much carnage lies in the wake of their path? Whoops ... forgot the racing industry .... younger, faster and loaded with bad bone now we've sucked good breeding down the toilet ...

It is very hard to find horses that have been started properly these days.

Telling people to start their horses *younger* so they will be stronger ... without putting it into some kind of responsible context, is irresponsible in my eyes.

[Bluey]

Where on Earth did you find these ^ studies?

There are going to be huge differences between young horses allowed to grow up in large fields where they can run, make fast turns, negotiate some hills, buck and play, and those that get raised in a more confined and pampered situation. I see a lot more of the *confined* stall bunny/paddock raised types than ever before.

There is a BIG, BIG difference between lightly backing and conditioning a young prospect when it is done by an experienced, proficient, knowledgeable horseman/rider (must have a very good Independent Seat) and the average rider trying to start a young horse. The first sort of rider will produce a stronger horse with better bone development, but those types of riders are a much smaller percentage of riders as a whole group, and often don't start young horses that aren't their own. The second type of rider will produce a mess. They don't know how to condition themselves, let alone a horse. I cannot tell you how many green horse-green rider combinations that I have seen that have produced horses that are basically crippled by the age of fifteen.

Oh, I forgot the *3rd* type - the overlly competitive riders ... how much carnage lies in the wake of their path? Whoops ... forgot the racing industry .... younger, faster and loaded with bad bone now we've sucked good breeding down the toilet ...

It is very hard to find horses that have been started properly these days.

Telling people to start their horses *younger* so they will be stronger ... without putting it into some kind of responsible context, is irresponsible in my eyes.

Those studies are now some years old.
The results were reported then in horse magazines and have been quoted time and again.

Anyone training horses in a very physically demanding, competitive venue can attest to that being right.
Go to any cutting, reining, racing stable and compare those horses started as two year olds with those started later.
Follow them over the years and then come back and say those started later were as competitive or sound during their top performing years and onto their old age.

During the early years, a six month difference already means a colt won't do as well, is said "is behind".
That difference tends to fade soon in the older horses, but you always wonder if that one colt had an earlier start, if he had been better.

I wonder how many colts you have started, competed with and followed into old age, to dismiss what horsemen have known and studies now have shown?
Some of those studies were conducted, best I remember, in TX A+M about ten years ago or so.

Now, as I said previously, someone not training right, as you posit there, is not what I am talking about.
That a colt has a bad trainer and so doesn't train well can happen at any age the colt is started, really.

[danceronice]

Helping Heart, maybe you should go look at the thread about horses in the Civil War before alleging life is just getting worse and worse. Horses nowdays are increasingly treated like pampered pets. The life of the horse has only gotten worse in the sense that most nonprofessional owners don't like in places that are really conducive to horse ownership. Heck, if racing practices are cruel, places like SoCal are horribly abusive (tiny dry lots.) People are increasingly disconnected from what it means to raise LARGE LIVESTOCK. Heck, you see it with so-called companion animals--look at idiots who buy dogs like Australian Shepards and then are horrified that it needs somemthing to work at or it ends up neurotic and destructive. People who really shouldn't be involved with animals becoming involved with animals without a drastic reeducation about how domestic animals were created and what they're for is far more dangerous to all livestock than a few people making some money off their meat.

And yes, animals all over the world die in water sources (it's not just rivers, people, you ever heard of a thing called a 'water table?' That's one major reason there are rules about how you dispose of a body.) And lots of people die of vaious and sundry diseases from contaminated water. Plants can control their output. Allowing random burials, you just kind of hope people aren't dumb enough to bury a large dead animal choked with toxic chemicals right in the local water table.

As for "we have lots of land", only if you think all land is exactly alike, with precisely the same carrying capacity for all forms of animal. Not to mention, there's still the issue of who pays for it all. There is no magic unending supply of money, as a two-second glance at the news would tell you.

[Brandy76]

WOW. Here we are, for the first time that I can see, actually having a useful discussion of solutions!

No nastiness, just a lot of positive back and forth. Oh, if we could all just meet and really hammer out some ideas.

It is true. We ( at least most of us, and certainly those in this discussion, DO care about the horses, and realize that there will be no one solid answer, but a combination of many)


Forgive my ignorance, but what products are produced from rendering? Is there any way to expand? Though I guess those that had the plants would have thought of that.

I mentioned maybe 10 slaughterhouses, across the country, thinking less volume, less chance for cruelty, etc. And someone mentioned about small places, that you could bring your horse to yourself if you wanted. That would be great.

Someone mentioned there are only so many homes, and THAT is really a major issue, too.

It seems to me that doing any kind of breed regulating would impact the responsible breeders, who would comply (being respnsible), and the trash breeders and BYB would continue merrily on.

Are there many that breed large amounts with the intention of using slaughter for cull?

I guess to get in front of it, it might do to maybe see where the most horses that go to slaughter come from?

[Bluey]

Studies at slaugter plants on horse breeds were only indicating many were "of quarter horse type".
Hard to tell, because horses there don't come with papers and questionable, because quarter horses come in many types, from short and squatty, to short and lean, to bigger and big and TB looking.
Horses of many breed mixes can have quarter horse or look like one just standing there.
Many also were at that time called "of arabian type", also without papers, who knows, many part arabians do look pure bred too.
There were TB, draft, pony and others, but in reality, who knows.
I would guess most were not papered horses, part of the many that just breed in their backyard, at least those have been for years the majority of what comes thru the local horse sales, rarely finding there registered horses.
Registered horses generally went to the better, catalog sales.

The last few years, with the horse market tanking for several reasons, I expect we also can't say what many of the horses are, where they come from.
I know the AQHA has been reporting sharp drop in registrations those years.
I know many breeders that didn't breed hardly or at all, or went out of business.
For many people, today it makes more sense to buy a cheap well bred young horse at today's prices, than try to breed one and you may not even get what you are after in talent, quality, conformation, color, sex, size, whatever you are breeding for.

I think one reason we have so many unwanted horses is because the horse industry has contracted so much so fast, too fast to absorb that many horses dumped on the market at once and I am afraid it has not stopped contracting yet.

Animal rights propaganda didn't spend the last 30 years bashing animal use without some consequences, one that fewer people want animals is one more reason a smaller percentage of the population has an interest in horses.
Even high school kids are looked down for participating in horse activities with "riding horses is abusive" and mentions of whips and spurs by other kids.

So, you cut use, throw in an economic melt down and now add dumping another 100,000 horses by closing borders?
Well, I sure hope those bright eyed idealists have money and room to spare to take in all those horses they so hard worked to "help" by following on the animal rights pied piper bandwagon of animal welfare, that hides the real intent of eventually eliminating all use of animals.

[Nojacketrequired]

Someone asked about how the actual position of kill operator is dealt with in slaughter plants.

In the ones I'm familiar with, (beef and poultry, large company), the kill operator is very well-trained long before they ever get near the kill-floor, they are paid more than the average employee but are also aware of the fact that they can and WILL be fined/suspended/fired etc if there is ever any suspicion of abuse. They are also aware that we have a federal inspector on the floor at all times and that each and every carcass IS inspected. Also, there is 24/7 surveillance on the kill floor by a third party.

We have and maintain a very low "miss" rate, below industry standards, partly because we rotate kill operators. As mentioned, no one WANTS to do that job and it is proven that if a person is left in that position (in factory conditions) for too long, they begin to (subconciously) hate the animal for what they have to do to it. Strange but true. That can sometimes lead to abuse by people who otherwise never would imagine doing such a thing. That position is hard on you and well-run plants know that.

So, in short, that is how the position is handled correctly in the bigger plants in the slaughter industry in Canada.

NJR

[Brandy76]

You're right

That is a sad reality - that the kids have that perception.

I think I am pretty sure I am an animal rights person. However.

I'm really okay with them having a job, even if it means sometimes a whip os spur.

I do consider myself a realist, and try hard to see all sides. I live in a rural, farming community, so I get to see it up close and personal, etc., etc.

But I agree that we are going to need some solutions from every, viewpoint to make a difference.

It's too bad that there is no way to see if there is a majority or several majorities, if you will, where the most horses are entering the slughter pipeline. For instance:

The TB racing industry
The quarterhorse show circuit
Back yard owners
Etc.

I am not saying these are in anyway the majority, Iam just wondering, if by discipline/breed/culture, slaughter is the most popular option so to speak.

Again, that's the out in front of it part.

The other part is, we will never legislate/force, etc. some people to not send thier horses to slaughter. Ok. So how do we make it as kind and humane as possible for the horses?

And, hate to say it, not a financial incentive for the owners to do so? What I mean is, how do you differentiate between that large scale, somewhat shady breeder that breeds large numbers of marginal horses knowing they can easily dispose of them and make a profit?

There will still always be those that will take an old(infirm), injured, etc. horse to slaughter.

Again, I am referring to slaughter as it exists now. It's that damn long ride, the conditions, etc. that I hate so much, and the auction/slaughter/meat on the hoof attitude I detest.

I think when you do ANY animal "processing" - (I HATE that word) on a large scale, the larger the number, the more difficult to avoid cruelty. Maybe not outright, but through sheer numbers, corners are cut, etc.

[Brandy76]

Exactly!

Someone asked about how the actual position of kill operator is dealt with in slaughter plants.

In the ones I'm familiar with, (beef and poultry, large company), the kill operator is very well-trained long before they ever get near the kill-floor, they are paid more than the average employee but are also aware of the fact that they can and WILL be fined/suspended/fired etc if there is ever any suspicion of abuse. They are also aware that we have a federal inspector on the floor at all times and that each and every carcass IS inspected. Also, there is 24/7 surveillance on the kill floor by a third party.

We have and maintain a very low "miss" rate, below industry standards, partly because we rotate kill operators. As mentioned, no one WANTS to do that job and it is proven that if a person is left in that position (in factory conditions) for too long, they begin to (subconciously) hate the animal for what they have to do to it. Strange but true. That can sometimes lead to abuse by people who otherwise never would imagine doing such a thing. That position is hard on you and well-run plants know that.
So, in short, that is how the position is handled correctly in the bigger plants in the slaughter industry in Canada.

NJR

Bolded by me. People are human, and though I am not excusing anyone, I can't imagine how hard this must be, even for one who is normal and not like me. Particularly in numbers.

I had a friend who worked at a large shelter, and the shelter paid to have their people occassionally go to a counselor to deal with how hard it is to euthanize animals day after day.

So. We work together from every angle to make it better for the horses.

More slaughterhouses. Smaller ones. SHORTER trips.
Owners can bring horses in.
More inspectors that ARE not in anyway connected or incentivized (is that a word?) to look the other way.

[Bluey]

Someone asked about how the actual position of kill operator is dealt with in slaughter plants.

In the ones I'm familiar with, (beef and poultry, large company), the kill operator is very well-trained long before they ever get near the kill-floor, they are paid more than the average employee but are also aware of the fact that they can and WILL be fined/suspended/fired etc if there is ever any suspicion of abuse. They are also aware that we have a federal inspector on the floor at all times and that each and every carcass IS inspected. Also, there is 24/7 surveillance on the kill floor by a third party.

We have and maintain a very low "miss" rate, below industry standards, partly because we rotate kill operators. As mentioned, no one WANTS to do that job and it is proven that if a person is left in that position (in factory conditions) for too long, they begin to (subconciously) hate the animal for what they have to do to it. Strange but true. That can sometimes lead to abuse by people who otherwise never would imagine doing such a thing. That position is hard on you and well-run plants know that.

So, in short, that is how the position is handled correctly in the bigger plants in the slaughter industry in Canada.

NJR

That is the way it was in the one TX plant I know about, the stations were rotated, so no one was in the same long.
That insured repetitive motion injuries were less apt to happen and averted fatigue.
Also, those that did the shooting there were offended if anyone questioned their accuracy and brought up any misses.
If and when one missed, it was a personal tragedy, because of the horse struggling and that they missed, both.
There was much pride in doing their job right and what many don't realize is that those working there were kind of cliquish and held each other to certain standards, or they would run anyone not working up to them off, they had a sub culture of their own.
Just ask any plant inspector about this.

[JGHIRETIRE]

There was an article a while back about a woman who put 200 yearlings through an auction earlier in the summer. It was a big deal as she felt slaughter was her only recourse. They were quarterhorses.
If someone said that already sorry for the repeat.


Are there many that breed large amounts with the intention of using slaughter for cull?

[Alagirl]

There was an article a while back about a woman who put 200 yearlings through an auction earlier in the summer. It was a big deal as she felt slaughter was her only recourse. They were quarterhorses.
If someone said that already sorry for the repeat.


Are there many that breed large amounts with the intention of using slaughter for cull?

Well, cull is anything you take out of your program.

My Dad, with a degree in agriculture, animal husbandry, once put it bluntly: 1/4 of your product is tops. about 1/2 soso, and 1/4 is cull.
We were specifically talking race bred TB, but it is the law of averages.

Naturally, there are different levels of use: Once bottom quarter is another's treasured bomb proof trail buddy.

[JSwan]

So. We work together from every angle to make it better for the horses.

More slaughterhouses. Smaller ones. SHORTER trips.
Owners can bring horses in.
More inspectors that ARE not in anyway connected or incentivized (is that a word?) to look the other way.

As I have mentioned before, utilization of existing small and medium sized plants is possible. Many small and medium sized plants currently (and legally) process wildlife for Hunters for the Hungry programs, as well as handle processing for a variety of species.

But it would require the entire regulatory framework to be reworked, and there would still be a significant cost to owners; though that might vary depending on location.

That does not mean it is not possible. It is most certainly possible, and the carcass never has to enter the human food chain - just processed and picked up by the renderer.

However, it appears that no one is interested in pursuing a workable solution. Extremists rule the day.

So really, wants the point of discussing the matter any further. If an extremist can do nothing but scream about their superior morality, or hurl accusations and epithets... it's pretty darn obvious they're not interested in consensus building.

[Alagirl]

However, it appears that no one is interested in pursuing a workable solution. Extremists rule the day.

So really, wants the point of discussing the matter any further. If an extremist can do nothing but scream about their superior morality, or hurl accusations and epithets... it's pretty darn obvious they're not interested in consensus building.

It bears repeating

[JSwan]

It bears repeating

Why bother. Horse slaughter is a clumsy national solution to what is essentially a local problem.

Any attempt to solve the problem is met with howling disapproval from activists. They complain about medication - but when a passport system is proposed they oppose it.

They complain about the method of slaughter - but when someone proposes to use Dr Grandin's system they oppose it.

They complain about transport times, but when someone proposes a local plant, which would shorten times for many species, not just horses, they oppose it.

They complain about inhumane treatment over our borders - but when it is pointed out that they are largely culpable for sending even more horses over the borders - they refuse to accept responsibility for the unintended consequences of their activism.

We all love horses and want was is best for them. That is what activists refuse to even consider - that ALL of us are deeply committed to animal welfare, even though many of us don't share the activists views.

There cannot be a single solution to a local problem. Our shelter and rescue system is already clogged with unwanted pets and livestock - even before the economic crisis. We are never going to convince the American population that every single unwanted animal must be kept in sanctuary its entire life. Solutions, if they are to be had, must be practical, workable, and multifacted - and must ensure the continued viability of the horse industry.

So far - activists have not helped the situation at all - so again - why bother with them.

[Alagirl]

Why bother. Horse slaughter is a clumsy national solution to what is essentially a local problem.

Any attempt to solve the problem is met with howling disapproval from activists. They complain about medication - but when a passport system is proposed they oppose it.

They complain about the method of slaughter - but when someone proposes to use Dr Grandin's system they oppose it.

They complain about transport times, but when someone proposes a local plant, which would shorten times for many species, not just horses, they oppose it.

They complain about inhumane treatment over our borders - but when it is pointed out that they are largely culpable for sending even more horses over the borders - they refuse to accept responsibility for the unintended consequences of their activism.

We all love horses and want was is best for them. That is what activists refuse to even consider - that ALL of us are deeply committed to animal welfare, even though many of us don't share the activists views.

There cannot be a single solution to a local problem. Our shelter and rescue system is already clogged with unwanted pets and livestock - even before the economic crisis. We are never going to convince the American population that every single unwanted animal must be kept in sanctuary its entire life. Solutions, if they are to be had, must be practical, workable, and multifacted - and must ensure the continued viability of the horse industry.

So far - activists have not helped the situation at all - so again - why bother with them.

yeah, but evil grows when good people stay silent.

Granted a lot of what you say is answered with the proverbial fingers in the ears and a mature 'NENENENENENE, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!'

[Ridge Runner]

Jess,

I have to ask for clarification on just what you are trying to say. Who exactly are the "activists?" I certainly hope you are not painting everyone with the same brush. I'm not an animal rights activist at all and don't like being called one. I am pretty pragmatic though and I really don't think the US will ever get past the drug issue to make slaughtering horses viable for EU markets as the restrictions tighten, and I've said so on here several times.

Any attempt to solve the problem is met with howling disapproval from activists. They complain about medication - but when a passport system is proposed they oppose it.

Who proposed a passport solution and when was it opposed? That is the first I have ever heard of it. Who opposed it? It's been discussed on here several times. I personally would not oppose it any longer as it would guarantee that my own horses would never be slaughtered.

I'm willing to do it but I still don't think it will ever fly when so few horses are ever slaughtered out of the huge population of 9 million in the US. As a number have pointed out...NAIS was met with such outrage from all horse owners...you yourself was outraged as I recall...so I really think forcing a passport system onto US horses owners is not going to be easy at all. When you think of the cost alone, it's staggering.

They complain about the method of slaughter - but when someone proposes to use Dr Grandin's system they oppose it.

What system has she proposed exactly? That's the first I've ever heard she came up with anything for horses to make slaughter less stressful for them. She's done a lot of work for cattle. Has she also proposed how to solve the shipping issues or how to at least get the existing laws enforced? I know she did some studies and papers but that's all I've ever seen from her. I'd truly love to know what restraint system she could come up with to make stunning accurate and humane.

[JSwan]

DB - I'm referring to the most extreme voices; some of the ones on this thread who represent an extreme viewpoint.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle but it seems anyone who does not agree with the extremist viewpoint is labeled a horse hating whatever.

It's not productive and I'm tired of hearing that crap. We all love horses or we would not work with them.

One of the subjects discussed in the symposium these activists oppose so much is a registry/passport or do not slaughter type of system.

Dr Grandin designed a system for horses a while ago. Since existing plants could not afford to retool - and I'm sure for a variety of other reasons - it was not implemented. Should a new plant be built, her system would likely be installed.

But if that happens it would not solve other problems. Only one - concerns about the process itself. Still - it is an improvement.

It does not solve the issue of transport - an issue which affects all species of livestock in the US - the closure of plants, the consolidation of agriculture, and the export of livestock for slaughter. Only building more plants - for all species - addresses that problem. And I opposed NAIS not because of traceback - I opposed NAIS because it would have cemented the large corporate model as the only method of farming in the US with a couple of megacorporations controlling the global food supply. Which is happening anyway....

When auctions close, when plants close, when renderers close, when ordinances prohibit burial, when tracks close, when equine facilities close, when times get bad, when shelters can't take a horse, when a rescue is full, when horse owners are boxed in with fewer and fewer options - the slaughter option moves higher on the list.

Merely shouting at owners to do the responsible thing doesn't help - and that is essentially what the hard core activists do. It's their right to do it of course- but I'm sick of reading their crap on this BB.

We ALL love horses and no one wants any of them to suffer.

[HealingHeart]

Civil War period; horses were used and appreciated more for their ability to allow man to work and travel easier. i.e, no machine, only the power of the horse

Supply of Money; no amount of money can buy back the emotional, mental or spiritual lost that our actions have created. Change is a must. We can not continue to do everything in the same fashion as we are today. We must evolve and make changes for the better of all, including our wonderful gift, the horse.

Helping Heart, maybe you should go look at the thread about horses in the Civil War before alleging life is just getting worse and worse. Horses nowdays are increasingly treated like pampered pets. The life of the horse has only gotten worse in the sense that most nonprofessional owners don't like in places that are really conducive to horse ownership. Heck, if racing practices are cruel, places like SoCal are horribly abusive (tiny dry lots.) People are increasingly disconnected from what it means to raise LARGE LIVESTOCK. Heck, you see it with so-called companion animals--look at idiots who buy dogs like Australian Shepards and then are horrified that it needs somemthing to work at or it ends up neurotic and destructive. People who really shouldn't be involved with animals becoming involved with animals without a drastic reeducation about how domestic animals were created and what they're for is far more dangerous to all livestock than a few people making some money off their meat.

And yes, animals all over the world die in water sources (it's not just rivers, people, you ever heard of a thing called a 'water table?' That's one major reason there are rules about how you dispose of a body.) And lots of people die of vaious and sundry diseases from contaminated water. Plants can control their output. Allowing random burials, you just kind of hope people aren't dumb enough to bury a large dead animal choked with toxic chemicals right in the local water table.

As for "we have lots of land", only if you think all land is exactly alike, with precisely the same carrying capacity for all forms of animal. Not to mention, there's still the issue of who pays for it all. There is no magic unending supply of money, as a two-second glance at the news would tell you.

[Bluey]

DB - I'm referring to the most extreme voices; some of the ones on this thread who represent an extreme viewpoint.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle but it seems anyone who does not agree with the extremist viewpoint is labeled a horse hating whatever.

It's not productive and I'm tired of hearing that crap. We all love horses or we would not work with them.

One of the subjects discussed in the symposium these activists oppose so much is a registry/passport or do not slaughter type of system.

Dr Grandin designed a system for horses a while ago. Since existing plants could not afford to retool - and I'm sure for a variety of other reasons - it was not implemented. Should a new plant be built, her system would likely be installed.

But if that happens it would not solve other problems. Only one - concerns about the process itself. Still - it is an improvement.

It does not solve the issue of transport - an issue which affects all species of livestock in the US - the closure of plants, the consolidation of agriculture, and the export of livestock for slaughter. Only building more plants - for all species - addresses that problem. And I opposed NAIS not because of traceback - I opposed NAIS because it would have cemented the large corporate model as the only method of farming in the US with a couple of megacorporations controlling the global food supply. Which is happening anyway....

When auctions close, when plants close, when renderers close, when ordinances prohibit burial, when tracks close, when equine facilities close, when times get bad, when shelters can't take a horse, when a rescue is full, when horse owners are boxed in with fewer and fewer options - the slaughter option moves higher on the list.

Merely shouting at owners to do the responsible thing doesn't help - and that is essentially what the hard core activists do. It's their right to do it of course- but I'm sick of reading their crap on this BB.

We ALL love horses and no one wants any of them to suffer.

This is also more or less reflected in most other states:

http://www.porknetwork.com/NLA_WEDXX...49&tid=Archive

Animal agriculture is changing and with that the horse industry will also change.
The question is, where are we going?
Can't act properly, if we don't know, don't have some direction.



For those interested in those questions, here is more to learn about them, on UWTV:

Water Undone: The Efforts to Save the Puyallup River Watershed
Sunday, January 16 at 7 p.m.
Wednesday, January 19 at 6 p.m.
Saturday, January 22 at 8:30 p.m.
The Puyallup River watershed is a major source of fresh water into Puget Sound through Commencement Bay in Tacoma. But it suffers from a multitude of pollution problems, including policies on "land use favoring paving and shingles," as detailed in this documentary from UW Tacoma. The program takes viewers through the interwoven watershed-river system that supplies water for drinking, irrigation, recreation, food, wildlife and the natural beauty of the Northwest.




Urban Water: Sustainability in the Balance
Sunday, January 16 at 8 p.m.
Saturday, January 22 at 9:30 p.m.
Today's urban water problems are difficult to see without knowledge of watershed processes and the impacts of human development. Experts predict that by the end of the 21st century, over 80 percent of the world's population will be concentrated in urban areas. This documentary guides viewers across three continents to look at three watersheds and the problems they are facing.

How will horses fit in the world we are changing into?
Stay tuned, we are in for an interesting ride.

[jetsmom]

I'd be all for a passport system/tatoos that mean "No slaughter", or something similar. Something that can be matched to the horse. Not just paperwork that can be easily forged.

I'd even be ok with having to buy certain drugs from vets at a higher cost, if that is what it entailed.

I'd be fine with local rendering/abbatoirs, that don't sell horsemeat for human consumption, but use the byproducts for hides, pet foods, etc. Once you introduce mass factory type production of a product we don't eat here, then all care about safety/handling go out the window, in lieu of obtaining the most profit.

I'm kinda curious who some of you are accusing of being AR people. As far as I know, AR people don't believe in owning pets, and most here own/ride horses and own pets.