• 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

And another one falls through the cracks! :(

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So was it this...

    Originally posted by Bluey View Post
    I don't know about the Illinois case, but the one in TX was a railroading of an old law the HSUS president bragged "his ten lawyers found in the books, after weeks of looking for something".
    Then found a sympathetic judge, that ruled that one law, intended to keep unscrupulous butchers from selling horse meat as beef, not to ban all sales of horse meat, could be interpreted as meaning a wholesale ban on horse meat in the state.

    No one has yet found reason to contest that ruling, as the ones that made it counted on, because, well, no one has needed to do so, but it is a tenuous interpretation.
    or this...
    Originally posted by Bluey View Post
    Yes, we know the plant had an old water treatment system, that had failed and been repaired many times.
    We know the plant was being run off the place and were not modernizing or doing more than maintenance and so it was having problems and fixing them and more problems.

    There are many plants of all kinds in the USA in the same situation and eventually will be closed.
    That is what happens with plants like that, be it slaughter or textile or manufacturing or whatever they are.

    They closed in 2007, what else do you want?
    Why do I bring the same story... because you all never actually address the issues... the actual facts of why the plants were closed and why people are not interested in opening new ones.
    You just keep saying 'nothing was wrong, those plants were railroaded... and we'll do better when we open new plants. But nothing was wrong with the old plants. Except the old water treatment system. And the lack of modernization of a cattle plant that was never modified to accomodate horses,...'
    Last edited by Angela Freda; Apr. 4, 2013, 08:13 PM. Reason: spelling
    Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

    http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
      I don't know about the Illinois case, but the one in TX was a railroading of an old law the HSUS president bragged "his ten lawyers found in the books, after weeks of looking for something".
      Then found a sympathetic judge, that ruled that one law, intended to keep unscrupulous butchers from selling horse meat as beef, not to ban all sales of horse meat, could be interpreted as meaning a wholesale ban on horse meat in the state.

      No one has yet found reason to contest that ruling, as the ones that made it counted on, because, well, no one has needed to do so, but it is a tenuous interpretation.
      I just googled your quote by the HSUS pres, and nothing comes up. Can you link to something showing that?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Angela Freda View Post
        Animal Rights Extremists?
        And there we go again. The name calling. I think we should call the extreme pro side (only a couple of them) the Radical Animal Slaughter Extremists. What do you think? RASE.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jetsmom View Post
          I just googled your quote by the HSUS pres, and nothing comes up. Can you link to something showing that?

          It was in an interview in the Dallas paper, right after the closing.
          I even have the newspaper somewhere in the attic, I think.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
            And there we go again. The name calling. I think we should call the extreme pro side (only a couple of them) the Radical Animal Slaughter Extremists. What do you think? RASE.
            Wrong, it is those against the ban, TATBs.
            You didn't notice who started the name calling, I see.

            Many of us don't care if we have or not any slaughter plants, myself have said time and again we are better off without, as they would only be one more showcasing forum for those groups that shall not be named.

            Those against the ban are just that, against the ban, for many reasons, already discussed.
            Those against the ban are way more than "two", including every one I have talked about that has horses or is in the horse industry, because it is the sensible way to go in this situation, in most of those people's opinion.

            There is way more than just what some antis want to acknowledge here at play when we are talking of the "ban slaughter" drive, as we are here.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
              Wrong, it is those against the ban, TATBs.

              Many of us don't care if we have or not any slaughter plants, myself have said time and again we are better off without, as they would only be one more showcasing forum for those groups that shall not be named.

              Those against the ban are just that, against the ban, for many reasons, already discussed.
              But you already said there was no ban, there was no funding for inspectors. So then it's really Those Against the Ban That Doesn't Exist. TATBTDE.

              I still say extremist...if the shoe fits wear it. I'm curious, do you or Fairfax have a financial interest in horse slaughter? Not that you would admit it if you do.

              If you don't care about whether we have slaughter plants, what's your beef (or horse as the case may be.)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                But you already said there was no ban, there was no funding for inspectors. So then it's really Those Against the Ban That Doesn't Exist. TATBTDE.

                I still say extremist...if the shoe fits wear it. I'm curious, do you or Fairfax have a financial interest in horse slaughter? Not that you would admit it if you do.

                If you don't care about whether we have slaughter plants, what's your beef (or horse as the case may be.)
                I will type slowly, those against the ban slaughter drive by certain groups that shall not be named.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                  And there we go again. The name calling. I think we should call the extreme pro side (only a couple of them) the Radical Animal Slaughter Extremists. What do you think? RASE.
                  I think it suits.
                  "Anti-intellect and marketing, pretty, pretty, who needs talent
                  Crying eyes, we're so outnumbered, fight for the right to remain silent" Buck 65

                  Comment


                  • YES!!!

                    Originally posted by JBD View Post
                    No comparison was intended. Adding the info about working local dog rescue was to help those who need to label people to put me in the right category. And I don't care what horses are when they are dead. It's how they "get dead" that matters to me. We do not have a good process to slaughter horses no matter how good the use afterwards.
                    The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                    H. Cate

                    Comment


                    • What I am saying is that their own report -a government agency- I will repeat a government agency said the process was not good enough. Had nothing to do with activists.
                      I know I'm spittin the wind but it was a G O V E R N M E N T report. Temple Grandin concurred with the USDA report.

                      Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                      Since you bring the same over and over again, I will respond to that one more time.
                      Those that object to my answering, remember, I didn't bring that up and have a right to answer when a response is clear.

                      Here it is, again:
                      Those are all management and regulation questions, that ANY business has to deal with.
                      Do you ever read inspectors reports from your local restaurant or hospital?
                      Really terrible all they find lacking, but those business don't have some of the largest non-profit organizations living off looking thru those reports with hordes of attorneys for all and any they can hand pick to use in their propaganda, where you got that.

                      What "those we may not mention without offending some" and their followers keep bringing up is taken out of context, obvious to anyone not one of them, when it comes to wanting to brand slaughter as evil and call for a ban.
                      Makes as much sense as handpicking inspection reports from restaurants or hospitals and pushing a drive to call all restaurants and hospital evil places, ban restaurants and hospitals, because see how badly they operate, the inspectors said so.

                      When you think about that, you can see that maybe some are barking up the wrong tree there?

                      Edited to keep certain posters happy.
                      The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                      H. Cate

                      Comment


                      • Well, Bluey, et al -- I wondered if my comments about "apathy, laziness" etc. would get a rise. YOU don't name call???? REALLY???? We are all EXTREMISTS and are too stupid to see the HSUS/PETA for what it is? Uh huh!
                        Let me make this crystal clear -- I don't EVER follow anyone, agenda or otherwise -- my philosophy is get out of my way. My feelings are strictly my own and don't fall under any category. I am against any horse slaughter, period. I don't care how sanitized you make the plants. It's still disgusting. In addition, if those who are called out for "misbehavior" weren't called out and acknowledged nothing would happen. OF COURSE they should be outed! It follows the same example of the laws stopping any undercover whistle-blowers with cameras on commercial farms or in slaughter houses in states that have now passed those stupid laws. You can only correct problems that you see and get rid of people who perpetuate them. Do you really think pretending cruelty doesn't exist or that it's rare and isolated is true? Now who is drinking the koolade? I support groups or people who agree with how I feel -- let's get that straight. If you are comfortable with killing horses for meat - fine -- stay on there in your comfort zone and don't get involved with anyone who cares about the horses. Because we CARE doesn't make us "extremists" -- it makes us unafraid to speak or act and get things done or make a difference. That takes feelings and activity. OK? I believe Rose Kennedy said something to the effect that "polite women don't make history". I don't care about making history, I just care.

                        PennyG

                        Comment


                        • Fairfax, would your last name start with an F??? Hmmmmmm
                          "Anti-intellect and marketing, pretty, pretty, who needs talent
                          Crying eyes, we're so outnumbered, fight for the right to remain silent" Buck 65

                          Comment


                          • Don't you all get it?
                            Anyone who says anything negative about horse slaughter or the slaughter pipeline is a RARA.
                            That includes government agencies and their reports, the DOT and their long lists of violations, Temple Grandin, Tom Vilsack, any vet who opposes slaughter and the list goes on and on.
                            Even that kill buyer who, in an interview, stated how disgusted he was with the whole process - he is a RARA.
                            ************************
                            \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Discobold View Post
                              I didn't say there was a federal ban on horse slaughter. The highest courts that have ruled on the constitutionality of ANY BAN on horse slaughter are the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which found Illinois' 2007 ban on horse slaughter to be constitutional) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which upheld an old Texas law banning horse slaughter). So that's what I meant when I wrote that "the BAN on horse slaughter has been found to be constitutional by the highest courts that have ruled on it." Do you understand how the court system works?
                              Not being a member of the bar, I am sure my knowledge of the court system is less in depth than many others.

                              This was your earlier post:
                              …”Your example of the Catholic Church is especially odd because religion is protected by the constitution. There is no constitutional right to sell horses for slaughter. On the contrary, the BAN on horse slaughter has been found to be constitutional by the highest courts that have ruled on it.”

                              I do understand how the English language works. And how you chose to work it.

                              As there was no referral to individual State constitutionality immediately after referring to Federal constitutional protection for religion, your statement implied the larger Federal constitution. This is, of course as you wanted to imply to people.

                              The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin for those interested. The case in 2007 was in Illinois, which has banned slaughter for human consumption. ‘The BAN’ is in Illinois State Law. Which you omitted -by oversight?


                              Are there currently more than 3 of the 50 states that ban horse slaughter for human consumption? -That would be 6% for the math experts.

                              None ban slaughter for zoo animals’ consumption. Now what does that imply?

                              Federal legislation actually banning the process of horse slaughter has failed to pass Congress.


                              The Federal Appropriations committee proposal to not fund Inspection was ommitted? (sorry, I'm not clear exactly what happened) this year; which opened the door to Oklahoma deciding to set up a plant.

                              The Legal right to sell a horse to slaughter decision has been reserved to each individual state so far (each may decide for themselves); we will see IF that someday becomes a Federal reservation and whether it will be a right or a prohibition.
                              Last edited by D_BaldStockings; Apr. 5, 2013, 05:29 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Moving slaughter access outside the USA has impacted the number of US horses ultimately slaughtered by what numbers?

                                To those 'in the know' who have worked to buy horses from the post auction, to- kill-line end; what methods are successful at what stages?

                                I have heard of horses bought direct from Kill buyers before their trucks leave the auction, off of transport trucks post auction, from feedlots and holding facilities (if they were pre-importing to Canada as meat only - that seems to be a no way out ironclad).

                                What is a successful way to approach owners at each of these waypoints?

                                Thanks,

                                Comment


                                • a somewhat good resource regarding legislation:


                                  http://www.horsechannel.com/horse-re...-timeline.aspx

                                  Illinois for those who want to read

                                  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...6&SessionID=51

                                  http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters...%20opinion.pdf

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                                    But you already said there was no ban, there was no funding for inspectors. So then it's really Those Against the Ban That Doesn't Exist. TATBTDE.

                                    I still say extremist...if the shoe fits wear it. I'm curious, do you or Fairfax have a financial interest in horse slaughter? Not that you would admit it if you do.

                                    If you don't care about whether we have slaughter plants, what's your beef (or horse as the case may be.)
                                    That accusation was made before about me.

                                    I have absolutely NO financial involvement in any slaughter plant in Canada, U.S.A. Mexico or any other country of the world.

                                    I have stated all along it is how the horses "get dead" that is important.

                                    I am pro equine feedlots as they can control the environment for 6 months.

                                    I am against the ban of Bute because there has been absolutely NO test done on it that has ever proven a connection to cancer nor any other disease. It was "just banned" in horses based on opinion.

                                    I did volunteer for many years as you are all tired of hearing about, but I do believe we were heard and we made a difference.

                                    The old and tiresome information posted on this board over and over is as boring as my tirades.
                                    The Elephant in the room

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by up-at-5 View Post
                                      Fairfax, would your last name start with an F??? Hmmmmmm
                                      No..I have no idea what you are implying
                                      The Elephant in the room

                                      Comment


                                      • Why are you anti slaughter so upset?

                                        Angela Freda has emphatically stated..it will all come to an end in July.

                                        Period.

                                        Lets wait and see.

                                        She has been wrong before
                                        The Elephant in the room

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                                          No..I have no idea what you are implying
                                          Nothing, just wondering is all.
                                          "Anti-intellect and marketing, pretty, pretty, who needs talent
                                          Crying eyes, we're so outnumbered, fight for the right to remain silent" Buck 65

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X