• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Cattle industry comes clean about why it supports horse slaughter

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by trubandloki View Post
    You are not really making sense here.
    Ranchers using horses until they are not usable anymore does not equal over breeding.
    Well, unless the fact that having a horse available to use when needed because an old horse is not usable anymore equals over breeding. I would assume someone with logical thinking would realize that the rancher needs a sound horse to do their job and riding a lame horse is not overly nice.
    Yeah, I hardly think 5,000 ranching families are going to be a big contributor of horses to the slaughter industry. There are ranchers that will send their un-usable ranch horses to the auction with a load of cattle. But I know a lot of ranchers, and many of them DO keep their old ranch horses until they die. Cowboys can get attached to a good horse too!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by randomequine View Post
      Here ya go honey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqYYXswono <-- this is how it really works. Stress in an animal right before slaughter drastically reduces meat quality. It would be absolutely, straight up STUPID to do that -- it means less money. If you'd like more info, please check out www.grandin.com.



      That 5% is not the allowed amount to be conscious when they enter to be exsanguinated, it's the the percentage allowable that need a second stunning/bolt gun shot before being bled. The average. The average, however, is 96%-98% complete insensibility on the first stunning. Typically, the second stun is if the worker is concerned the animal *might* return to sensibility.

      I can't find the info right at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the USDA has a ZERO tolerance policy for sensible animals being bled, limbs removed, etc.
      You are correct. Zero Tolerance.

      I am waiting to see the "new" bolt that is supposed to be 100%. I am sure hoping it is.
      The Elephant in the room

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by cutter99 View Post
        How many slaughter plants have you been in Devon's Girl? How many production agriculture animals have you yourself cared for? Have you ever castrated a pig or docked its tail? They walk away with no hesitation after.

        I don't know ANYONE in the hog industry who kills piglets because they don't grow fast enough as you say. Around here we fight to save every pig that is born to the extent our pigs never farrow alone.

        Where does you information come from? RARA propaganda?
        I'd love to go inside a slaughterhouse but unfortunately that isn't possible. I don't need to work with livestock to know that it's painful for them to be castrated or tail docked. That's just common sense and basic biology.

        Many of the larger factory farms do kill runt piglets. Look it up.

        My information comes from both the agriculture industry and animal rights groups. The truth typically lies in the middle.
        Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
          I'd love to go inside a slaughterhouse but unfortunately that isn't possible. I don't need to work with livestock to know that it's painful for them to be castrated or tail docked. That's just common sense and basic biology.

          Many of the larger factory farms do kill runt piglets. Look it up.

          My information comes from both the agriculture industry and animal rights groups. The truth typically lies in the middle.

          I have not seen much in terms of truth coming from AR groups....

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by MoonoverMississippi View Post
            Um, did you read what I wrote?

            Those who are currently hauling their horses to the auction obviously aren't the ones dumping them, or sticking them in other people's pastures: they are selling them, usually with the knowledge of where they might go.

            But there is a growing segment of owners who are dumping their horses, as I said, and many of those doing so are the ones who are avoiding the "easy" way of taking them to auction, prefering to "assume" that some nice person will be thrilled to take on another mouth to feed.

            So again, what is the solution?
            You are implying that if slaughter were not available 100k+ horses would be needing homes or rescues to take them so they aren't dumped or starved. I am asking you what makes you think that 100k horses will be dumped/starved. All of those horses have owners. Many people have horses die or are put down when no longer useful, without starving or dumping them. So why is that what you think will happen. Both are illegal. What percentage of those horse owners that currently sell to slaughter do you think are criminals, or willing to do criminal acts? Because I would bet that 99.9% of them would not starve or dump their horses. Right now they are sending to slaughter not out of necessity and no other options, but because they are greedy and just want some easy money or lazy and don't want to try to use one of the other options. But I don't think they are all willing to do something illegal. So I want to know what percentage YOU think are willing to starve a horse/dump a horse, both which are criminal acts?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by tuppysmom View Post
              Do you suppose that there is any cow, pig, chicken, rabbit, horse, who upon waking up in the morning says to him/her self, "Man! I could be out fishing, shopping, if I wasn't stuck on this Factory Farm!" or do they just hang out eating and making manure?
              Wow, good thing that you own animals since apparently this is what you think entails their emotional capacity: eating and pooping. Of course they can't feel depression, fear, deprivation, and stress from factory farm conditions, because humans monopolize emotion and thought. I hate to be rude, but people never fail to disgust me with their flippant disrespect for the lives of animals.

              Comment


              • #67
                What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

                This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Fiera View Post
                  What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

                  This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.
                  Because under those regulations 99% of the breeders would be categorized as 'back yard breeder'

                  Then you have the big breeders left who - GASP - try to make money....surely we have to regulate them out of business!

                  Point is, who gets to decide on who is allowed to breed?

                  I am sure you would not consider yourself a BYB for breeding that mare you consider a one in a lifetime, in the hope to duplicate her.
                  But everybody else sure would....

                  breeding as scapegoat, not cop out.

                  Breeders take a calculated risk, with every pairing, that many years down the road their cross will reach the top.

                  (and frankly, there is more demand for middle of the road horses than the top one, so even the breeders of those have their justification)

                  In the meantime both dam and foal try their best t kill themselves....

                  so in 3 or 5 years from the pairing we can hope to see some $$$

                  It is the RARAs favorite point of attack, because what is not born, they don't have to kill off. But t has the biggest impact.

                  Over the last 5 years breeders have cut back considerably, many have thrown in the towel completely.

                  Naturally that will not affect the market right away.....

                  but I am expecting we will see a major backlash in the not so distant future.

                  When in Ky they lost about 400 foals to the cherry/caterpillar the expert were worried about the quality of the Derby field. I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that, with a whole lot less foals produced as it is....

                  Horses (and dogs, the first ti incure the wrath of the RARAs in terms of breeding regulations) are perishable commodities: You have a pretty small window of opportunity to do something with that mare, that stallion in your possession. You can't put it on blocks like a car, hoping for the gas priced to drop. Use it or lose it....

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Fiera View Post
                    What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

                    This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.
                    What is interesting to me is that anyone would think banning slaughter makes any sense at all, other than crazy animal rights extremists.

                    Do we ask HOSPITALS be BANNED?
                    Look at all those infections patients get there, even when we know better, we have many regulations to avoid them, but workers there still don't wash hands properly.
                    Do we ask POLICE be BANNED?
                    Look at all the beating they do.
                    Do we ask SCHOOLS be BANNED?
                    Right now, they caught yet another teacher with a 14 year old "girlfriend".
                    Do we ask RELIGION be BANNED?
                    So many priests are molesting kids.
                    Do we ask textile/chemical/printing/logging, you name be BANNED, because look how they treat their workers, look how they pollute, look how they keep having some rules not followed properly?

                    Why BAN?

                    The same applies to how we raise our domestic animals and what we do with them.
                    Someone that doesn't know any better may drive by a cattle feedlot and say that is terrible, poor little "calvies" are stuck in jail there, how sad.:rolleyes"

                    What they don't realize is that cattle spend all their lives out to pasture and some of them, at a certain age, are slaughtered.
                    That is why we raise cattle, so we can use them thru slaughter.
                    There is no other purpose to them.
                    They are not fast enough to race, quick enough to jump a three day event course, can't goosestep prettily to prance around a ring.

                    So, those cattle, that used to be slaughtered off grass at 800 lbs now the past 50 years we found a way to, thru feeding them a grain based ration for a few more weeks, now from the same calf we are getting, in a few weeks, 1/3 more meat.

                    Those cattle can only do that if they are healthy and contented.
                    Any stress and they won't gain well, that only works with happy cattle.

                    There are whole college degrees in how to run a feedlot.
                    All kinds of engineers make plans for it, regulatory agencies of all kinds have to give permits and inspect them regularly and demand there be logs kept of all the maintenance to comply.
                    There is EPA, OSHA, USDA and so on, a whole alphabet soup of government agencies overseeing CAFO's.
                    Some are even using drones today to keep check on them.

                    Those cattle, at that stage of their lives, are not slaughtered off grass, but have now some more weeks to live and live in, what for cattle, is the Ritz.
                    The pens are engineered with space to very strict specifications as determined by years of studies, not too much space and definitely not too small, with properly aligned mounds for the location, with shed or windbreaks where needed, waterers in the proper places and adjustable bunks the right size for the different cattle.

                    Someone comes by before each feeding to "read bunks" and send the requirement for the next ration to the mill and to the maintenance crew if there are some needing cleaning.
                    Truck drivers get told what to fed and how much to each pen, according to the bunk reader's order.

                    The cattle have the equivalent of room and board in the best place on earth for them, with congenial friends.
                    Open the gates to "free" them and you will find few if any will wander off and all will be back in there after a while and the gate can stay open for days and not one will even think to go out.
                    Cattle ARE happy in there, room and board and congenial friends, for a few more weeks of the good life.
                    Who would object to those weeks more of the good life, for an animal we are raising just to slaughter?

                    That is where animal rights extremists come in, those are the ones that have this crazy idea that this little world evolved to keep the human animal separate from all other animals.
                    That we depend on each other and each that is alive is eventually going to feed some other at death, is the way the world works.
                    Animal rights extremists want to say that doesn't apply to humans and the rest of the animals.
                    It is ok for a lion to eat a lamb, it is not ok for a human to eat a lamb.
                    Does that really make any sense?

                    Now, if a feedlot is not managed properly, if the pens are not cleaned and maintained, if regulations are not followed, that is not because feeding cattle in pens is "bad", is because someone is doing it badly and they won't stay in business long.

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #70
                      Hey Bluey, easy with the name calling. Not everyone who is against slaughter is an animal rights extremist. This is how things get so polarized, with no middle ground or negotiation and you are not helping.

                      There are many here who simply think that although we have a problem with unwanted horses, slaughter houses are not the answer. Pretty straightforward, don't you think?

                      You like many other pro-slaughter folks that are so vocal here, are also for raising horses for meat. Why don't you just be honest and propose that you have no problem with the horse meat industry instead of hiding behind the "overpopulation" reason?
                      Rest in peace Claudius, we will miss you.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by ToTheNines View Post
                        Hey Bluey, easy with the name calling. Not everyone who is against slaughter is an animal rights extremist. This is how things get so polarized, with no middle ground or negotiation and you are not helping.

                        You like many other pro-slaughter folks that are so vocal here, are also for raising horses for meat. Why don't you just be honest and propose that you have no problem with the horse meat industry instead of hiding behind the "overpopulation" reason?
                        Hey, easy with the name calling back at you.

                        You evidently have not been listening to what I say.
                        Obviously you don't know anything about what I do or why I think banning slaughter is a terrible idea, even if I have stated that time and again.

                        Give the personal attack another try, that one is not flying too well.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                          I have not seen much in terms of truth coming from AR groups....
                          And I haven't seen much in terms of truth coming from the agriculture industry. But what can you expect from a multibillion dollar industry whose only goal is to stay in business.

                          If you could point me in the direction of this deceitful information you speak of I'd greatly appreciate it. Aside from PETA (don't even get me started on those wackos) I haven't seen a heck of a lot of incorrect information coming from AR groups. Unfortunately we don't need to make things up, sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction.

                          Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                          That is where animal rights extremists come in, those are the ones that have this crazy idea that this little world evolved to keep the human animal separate from all other animals.
                          That we depend on each other and each that is alive is eventually going to feed some other at death, is the way the world works.
                          Animal rights extremists want to say that doesn't apply to humans and the rest of the animals.
                          It is ok for a lion to eat a lamb, it is not ok for a human to eat a lamb.
                          Does that really make any sense?
                          The goal of "animal rights extremists" isn't to completely separate people from animals. If that were the case then ARA wouldn't have pets, but the large majority do.

                          So it's ok to eat animal's because other animals do? Well then by that logic I guess cannibalism is ok too since many animal species eat members of their own species. It's completely natural. And heck I know some people who deserve to go to slaughter more than an innocent animal

                          We have evolved to the point where it's no longer necessary for us to act like wild animals, or at least so I've heard.
                          Proud owner of Finger Lakes' Finest Devilshire.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
                            And I haven't seen much in terms of truth coming from the agriculture industry. But what can you expect from a multibillion dollar industry whose only goal is to stay in business.

                            If you could point me in the direction of this deceitful information you speak of I'd greatly appreciate it. Aside from PETA (don't even get me started on those wackos) I haven't seen a heck of a lot of incorrect information coming from AR groups. Unfortunately we don't need to make things up, sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction.



                            The goal of "animal rights extremists" isn't to completely separate people from animals. If that were the case then ARA wouldn't have pets, but the large majority do.

                            So it's ok to eat animal's because other animals do? Well then by that logic I guess cannibalism is ok too since many animal species eat members of their own species. It's completely natural. And heck I know some people who deserve to go to slaughter more than an innocent animal

                            We have evolved to the point where it's no longer necessary for us to act like wild animals, or at least so I've heard.
                            Your logic is faulty there.
                            The reason some animal rights extremists may have animals and not be vegans is because, well, their logic failed them.

                            Animal rights extremists are demanding all animals be hands off, no human use of any animals.
                            Those that follow their little battles here and there, here ban slaughter, are not thinking, or they would understand that the main idea behind animal rights extremists is to eventually ban their uses of animals also.

                            Thus, some animal rights extremists may have animals, just don't know any better what they are fighting for, lack of foresight.

                            "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
                            What don't you understand there, to say animal rights extremists are not after all uses of animals?

                            Oh, don't tell me that "horses are not domestic animals", so that didn't meant horses, as some clueless animal rights extremist follower said.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Fiera View Post
                              What's interesting to me is that instead of people collectively pushing to change law so that animals are treated in a way that can legitimize breeding regulations that can greatly discourage backyard breeders, in all species, and instead of taking the responsibility and burden of such regulations solely upon ourselves--we chose the palliative solution and euthanize/slaughter the overpopulation. That is just bizarre to me. Is the problem really so monumental that that is all we can do? Seriously? What generation Iphone are we on again? We have satellites in space? We're splicing genes across species in laboratories? But we can't find and enact better solutions to overpopulation? Nonsense. There just isn't that incentive when people agree to opt for the simpler solution of euthanasia/slaughter. The conversation should be geared towards stopping backyard breeders, not whether a horse classifies closer to a dog or a cow and the ethics of eating horses and what not. I think that's seriously missing the point of the entire situation.

                              This being said, I'm not necessarily against or for slaughter. But I'm sick of it being used as a cop-out instead of generating real solutions to a serious problem.
                              It would be great if there was a solution, but we haven't even managed to take care of the small pet population issues yet, and one would think that would be easier as there are more available homes and they are cheaper.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Devon'sGirl26 View Post
                                And I haven't seen much in terms of truth coming from the agriculture industry. But what can you expect from a multibillion dollar industry whose only goal is to stay in business. .

                                Umm, no the goal of agriculture is not to stay in business, the goal is to put food on YOUR table every day. Yes, we do have to make a living while doing it.

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  I expect most everyone here is too young to remember when most animal control was managed by a local veterinarian, that euthanized unwanted animals and sold them to industries that used them, labs and fur trade?

                                  That money went then to help as many more unwanted dogs and cats.
                                  They had enough to sustain those for weeks and many more had a chance of being adopted.

                                  Today?
                                  Animal control is running on three days and euthanizing and sending to the landfill.
                                  Why?
                                  Because some ill informer do-gooders thought that selling the poor little dogs and cats after death was not PC enough for them, no matter that such system was letting so many more dogs and cats live.

                                  What kind of twisted people think like that?
                                  The same that demand horse slaughter be banned, because such noble animals we may use once more after death should not be used one more time for any other than discarded as we do trash, that is ok.

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
                                    You are implying that if slaughter were not available 100k+ horses would be needing homes or rescues to take them so they aren't dumped or starved. I am asking you what makes you think that 100k horses will be dumped/starved. All of those horses have owners. Many people have horses die or are put down when no longer useful, without starving or dumping them. So why is that what you think will happen. Both are illegal. What percentage of those horse owners that currently sell to slaughter do you think are criminals, or willing to do criminal acts? Because I would bet that 99.9% of them would not starve or dump their horses. Right now they are sending to slaughter not out of necessity and no other options, but because they are greedy and just want some easy money or lazy and don't want to try to use one of the other options. But I don't think they are all willing to do something illegal. So I want to know what percentage YOU think are willing to starve a horse/dump a horse, both which are criminal acts?
                                    I do not think that all or even most of these animals would be "left wandering he streets." But the horses that end up at low-end kill buyer auctions or given away to KBs aren't usually the ones who have owners who will step up and do the right thing.....or why would they be in the pipeline to start with?

                                    So out of these 100,000 horses whose owners are currently willing to sell cheaply or ship, say 1/2, or 50,000 horses (roughly 4,000/mo.) are now kept at home by owners willing to suddenly do the right thing (or put to sleep by the owners).

                                    Now say 1/2 of those remaining (or 2,000/mo.) find a regular, non KB buyer for their horses (that's 2,000 more horses sold each month than currently happening, pretty good considering the complaints about no sales and the giveaways currently constantly offered).

                                    That leaves only 2,000 horses/month whose owners still want them gone, but haven't been able to sell.

                                    What happens now? Let the owners starve them, and actually hope AC responds before they are dead?
                                    Look away when they are no- saled at auction and the owner refuses to pick them back up (sucks to be you, auction owner!)

                                    But heck, now we're down to only 2,000 horses/month!
                                    Certainly the rescues or well-meaning people can take them in!

                                    Sounds good, until you consider feeding them or putting them down at a very reasonable rate of $100/each equals $200,000 each and every month (if you can feed or euthanize them for that).
                                    And remember, next month it's another $200,000 to do it again, plus the cost of feeding the previous month's horses if they aren't euthanized.....

                                    So now, if over 75% of hose people who are willing to sell their horses at low end auctions (knowing where they will likely go) or give free to anyone who will pick them up suddenly decide to keep those horses and 1/4 of those people find a decent home for theirhorses.....so now 75% of the horses currently going to slaughter are absorbed.....what about the rest?


                                    Where is the $$ going to come from to absorb the rest? Cut it in 1/2 again, that's still $100,000 every month to feed or kill (at $100/horse/month) the leftovers of the people who didn't care in the first place.

                                    Do you really expect the type of people who will currently sell their horses for $50-100 less commission, less the cost to haul them there to all be the kind that will shrug and take care of the horses when they now are stuck with the expense of feeding and caring for them?

                                    Give me a solution that doesn't entail "oh, the people who will currently ship them to slaughter so they can pocket $25 will suddenly care for them".
                                    Show me that the $$ and homes are available and able to handle these horses and I will be 100% anti-slaughter.

                                    Comment


                                    • #78
                                      The 100,000 is the number sent to slaughter. It is NOT the number of excess horses which USDA and the Horse Council have stated is between 800,000 and 1 million. These are horses that may be at great risk due to lack of boarding facilities, money, the economy, the drought etc. They are not factoring in the number of horses (13 million) that are in active use.

                                      The Rara's do not have a solution except condemn breeders and tax tax tax..of course THEIR groups will handle the money. Watch how quickly they take the money and slaughter the horses.

                                      No one BREEDS for a horse meat market. This is a very very old story going back to the 80's when slaughter horses could bring up to 600$ depending on the weighjt. UKsual price now is 25-150$

                                      With hay at 15$ per bale and more in some places...nah...just doesn't happen./

                                      The horses always presented from the feedlots have not been bred on those properties. These were skinny starving horses or unwanted. and sold at action.

                                      They do.,.what horses do..stand around and eat.

                                      And eat

                                      And eat

                                      No different that the activity of old Dobbin kept by his owners.

                                      This has nothing to do with animals. It is all about control. How to control the masses..and move them in the direction a few elitists think they should go.

                                      There is a vegan agenda. And how about the First Ladies proposed FAT TAX...if you are fat...you will pay a high high tax on all food Not on the approved list.
                                      The Elephant in the room

                                      Comment


                                      • #79
                                        Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                        Your logic is faulty there.
                                        The reason some animal rights extremists may have animals and not be vegans is because, well, their logic failed them.

                                        Animal rights extremists are demanding all animals be hands off, no human use of any animals.
                                        Those that follow their little battles here and there, here ban slaughter, are not thinking, or they would understand that the main idea behind animal rights extremists is to eventually ban their uses of animals also.

                                        Thus, some animal rights extremists may have animals, just don't know any better what they are fighting for, lack of foresight.

                                        "One generation and no more domestic animals and none too soon for me".
                                        What don't you understand there, to say animal rights extremists are not after all uses of animals?

                                        Oh, don't tell me that "horses are not domestic animals", so that didn't meant horses, as some clueless animal rights extremist follower said.
                                        But you see Bluey, you are conflating anti horse slaughter with animal rights activist. They aren't necessarily the same thing. If they were, all anti horse slaughter people would not own pets and would be vegans.

                                        Comment


                                        • #80
                                          Originally posted by Fairfax View Post

                                          This has nothing to do with animals. It is all about control. How to control the masses..and move them in the direction a few elitists think they should go.

                                          There is a vegan agenda. And how about the First Ladies proposed FAT TAX...if you are fat...you will pay a high high tax on all food Not on the approved list.
                                          Your politics are showing....and maybe what you watch and read for your news...I'm guessing it's not very objective.

                                          Mrs. Obama was asked about a fat tax by NBC's Al Roker at a "Let's Move" jumping jack event at the White House on Tuesday.

                                          Roker: "We just had a story about in Denmark they're planning on instituting, like, a, quote, "fat tax," foods that are either high in sugar or high in fat. Do you think something like that is needed here?"

                                          Mrs. Obama: "I think folks need information. You know, knowledge is power. And, you know, we're lacking that. I mean, people eat what they eat because they think it's OK. They don't need government telling them what to do. They just need good information and access."

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X