• 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

  • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
    Mr Holland is not a USDA representative.
    He is president of the Equine Welfare Alliance.
    Isn't that what LauraKY said - "Yes, it's an animal welfare website, but it's USDA data"?

    Another name suggestion: Rabid About Slaughtering Horse. Then they can be called RASH-es.

    Edited to fix it. This came to me in the shower this morning, and I was typing too rapidly just now.
    Last edited by Jeito; Apr. 5, 2013, 10:32 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Discobold View Post
      Isn't that what LauraKY said - "Yes, it's an animal welfare website, but it's USDA data"?

      Another name suggestion: Rabid About Horse Slaughter. Then they can be called RASH-es.
      Best one yet!

      Rabid About Slaughtering Horses Extremists Sleuths

      Cause it is not about the horses really. It seems more about extremists. Takes one to know one.
      from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Angela Freda View Post
        It doesn't matter if there are or are not studies to prove anything.
        .....

        The agencies for the buying nations/groups of nations have put out lists of substances they have themselves, because they feel ornery or because they suspect or have proof of harm, decided they do not want in the meat they import.
        I think the point was that the label stated not for use in food animals.

        Ignore them all you want, and don't be shocked when they stop buying.
        Or address the issue, that US horses do not have a verifiable, traceable source of information [and the EU has already determined the IED is not it] to insure that each/every one of them is 'clean'.
        What?
        They can stop buying because the geomancer told them the Feng Shui was bad that day. Or they buy form someplace else, what does that matter. It's called market.

        While you may blame me for predicting the end of the exporting if US horses for slaughter, you all who are pro-slaughter who are unable to address the problem, have only yourselves to blame for not addressing the problem other than with shovels full of sand.
        I can assure you, I have not and will not blame you for predicting that, because it's been 5 years and the prediction has not come to pass.

        Shovels full of sand? What?
        Address what problem?

        See, the problem is:
        You want to make changes that affect other people.
        What I want does really not affect you one iota.
        So do explain why the burden of proof should be on my shoulders.

        In short:

        Your argument is flawed. <initiate major back peddle>

        You list a bunch of medicines (and lazily restricted yourself to brand names on many) that are not labeled for use in food animals.
        You are making the assumption that those compounds are actually bad if consumed. A few clicks and Google-Fu reveals that most of these medications are actually in use or in studies for humane medicine.
        That leaves one conclusion: The studies required by the USDA/FDA to label it for meat animals have not been conducted. It really is that simple.

        Another solution: Feed lots. Which are already being implemented.
        It kills two birds with one stone: It satisfies the withdraw period for most drugs as well as finishes the horses out/maximizes weight. really ot loss for the plant, as it is done with cows.

        Yes, I know, when it is convenient for you, you point at the regulations that suit your need. When you don't like it you claim the regulations are faulty.
        You cannot have it both ways, try as you may.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Discobold View Post
          Isn't that what LauraKY said - "Yes, it's an animal welfare website, but it's USDA data"?

          Another name suggestion: Rabid About Horse Slaughter. Then they can be called RASH-es.
          The data is disputable. It is a plain number.

          However the man featured as 'expert' is not a representative of the agency that collected the number.

          Clear enough?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
            Bring studies that proof it's bad, not just evidence that it has not been tested.
            Like I said: more than half on the list is actually used in humans.
            Please explain that away with more than 'there is more to it'
            Well, antibiotics are used in humans, but their unrestricted use caused problems in efficacy. Steroids are used in humans, but their unrestricted uses.... You can reason out the rest.

            Chill please.

            You are not a scientist - and this is a discussion.
            from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor

            Comment


            • The link regarding the drop in Mexico bound horses was made abundantly clear by the person who referenced it. I am sure the unbiased folks did not miss it.
              from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor

              Comment


              • Sorry, I transposed the letters I should have said Rabid About Slaughtering Horses.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Discobold View Post
                  Sorry, I transposed the letters I should have said Rabid About Slaughtering Horses.

                  And no "ben-a-drill" will stop the itch!
                  from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor

                  Comment


                  • Alagirl, why don't you find someone nearby who owns a horse. Swing on over and spend some time with that horse, grooming, tacking up, and maybe even getting up into the saddle. It'll cheer you up, I promise
                    "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


                    • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                      .....


                      I think the point was that the label stated not for use in food animals.


                      What?
                      They can stop buying because the geomancer told them the Feng Shui was bad that day. Or they buy form someplace else, what does that matter. It's called market.



                      I can assure you, I have not and will not blame you for predicting that, because it's been 5 years and the prediction has not come to pass.

                      Shovels full of sand? What?
                      Address what problem?

                      See, the problem is:
                      You want to make changes that affect other people.
                      What I want does really not affect you one iota.
                      So do explain why the burden of proof should be on my shoulders.

                      In short:

                      Your argument is flawed. <initiate major back peddle>

                      You list a bunch of medicines (and lazily restricted yourself to brand names on many) that are not labeled for use in food animals.
                      It's not my list, it's the USDA/FDA list.
                      I did crop it to use only the most commonly used name so that those reading could easily, readily ID them. The entire list was posted by another person on this thread, and by myself various other times with tradename, generic name and a link to information about the drug itself.

                      As to why the agencies have these drugs on their lists... whether it's because of the label on the product restricting it's use or because of why the label restricting it's use was slapped on to begin with really isn't relevant.


                      Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                      You are making the assumption that those compounds are actually bad if consumed. A few clicks and Google-Fu reveals that most of these medications are actually in use or in studies for humane medicine.
                      That leaves one conclusion: The studies required by the USDA/FDA to label it for meat animals have not been conducted. It really is that simple.
                      Again not my list, and not my assumption.
                      Your conclusion is faulty, as it does not take into account the differing doseages, administration methods, and the metabolites that may be what is more harmful to the consumer when s/he eats it vs. uses the original form themselves
                      [for example Phenylbutazolidone it metabolized in the horse to oxy [iirc], and is suspected of being more harmful to humans per a study I found]

                      Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                      Another solution: Feed lots. Which are already being implemented.
                      It kills two birds with one stone: It satisfies the withdraw period for most drugs as well as finishes the horses out/maximizes weight. really ot loss for the plant, as it is done with cows.
                      And yet it does not address the issue of the banned substances that do not have a clearance time.
                      Feedlots do not address that issue to the satisfaction of the buyer.
                      EIDs do not address that issue to the satisfaction of the buyer.
                      Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                        Bring studies that proof it's bad, not just evidence that it has not been tested.
                        Like I said: more than half on the list is actually used in humans.
                        Please explain that away with more than 'there is more to it'
                        So that makes it okay not to disclose? You'd willingly eat anything as long as any residuals are used by humans? Good luck with that in your old age and any drug interactions you may experience.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                          The data is disputable. It is a plain number.

                          However the man featured as 'expert' is not a representative of the agency that collected the number.

                          Clear enough?
                          The data is not disputable, only the interpretation of the data could be disputable. And I said, I don't know if I am buying his interpretation (it's certainly a possibility, but not the only possibility), but there's no disputing the decrease.

                          Comment


                          • I really love to catch up on some of these threads a few times per week. Invariably, I find old Angela having to back-peddle on some ancient stat she pulled from her old bff, John Holland. I still remember when Angela's buddy John posted that the Mexican plant had closed and HS had ended forever! That goofball had thought a weekend shutdown had been a permanent shutdown! He had to correct his enormous error on his website the following week.
                            The John Holland connection explains why Angela's post are always so 'yesterday's news' and in many cases were proven false 5-10 years ago!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alagirl View Post
                              .....


                              In short:

                              Your argument is flawed. <initiate major back peddle>

                              You list a bunch of medicines (and lazily restricted yourself to brand names on many) that are not labeled for use in food animals.
                              You are making the assumption that those compounds are actually bad if consumed. A few clicks and Google-Fu reveals that most of these medications are actually in use or in studies for humane medicine.
                              That leaves one conclusion: The studies required by the USDA/FDA to label it for meat animals have not been conducted. It really is that simple.
                              Common sense would indicate the recommended dosage for humans is much less than what a horse would get. Add the two together and it becomes excessive.

                              Human hair is a reliable indicator of substance abuse and occasionally used after the window of opportunity for a urine or blood sample because it shows a timeline of use and/or frequency. When a habitual drug or alcohol abuser is out on probation and their “scheduled” tests are clean, sometimes they use hair sample results in court to prove or disprove sobriety.

                              Common sense would also indicate drugs stay in body tissue for a while but no one does that testing on humans until they are on the autopsy table. Too expensive for a slaughter horse.

                              Common sense should indicate that anyone taking the recommended human dosage for any drug on that list should not be consuming horse meat with the same drug in its system. And, they should have a choice about the others. But that would require disclosure and cutting into the profit of horse slaughter, which isn't likely to happen.

                              It really is that simple. <initiate major back peddle>

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                                The data is not disputable, only the interpretation of the data could be disputable. And I said, I don't know if I am buying his interpretation (it's certainly a possibility, but not the only possibility), but there's no disputing the decrease.
                                The data is not in dispute.
                                No

                                But the conclusion is conjecture, speculation.

                                For all anybody knows Canada pays better or - and that is not out of the realm of possibilities either - the Mexican drug lords blocked the roads...there is no offered explanation with the data.

                                Mr Holland is not a representative of either the USDA nor the processing plants. That means he is not in the know. He can guess, same as you and I, but his guess is no more relevant than yours or mine.


                                Not to mention it's not his meat being sold.....I know, it's semantics to you....

                                Comment


                                • I have a question and apologize if it's already been answered. Does anyone know how long it takes on average for a horse to get from the auction to the slaughter house? If you don't know, don't speculate.

                                  I am wondering because I've known people who have taken very sick horses to New Holland, pumping them full of drugs to disguise the condition.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by 7arabians View Post
                                    I really love to catch up on some of these threads a few times per week. Invariably, I find old Angela having to back-peddle on some ancient stat she pulled from her old bff, John Holland. I still remember when Angela's buddy John posted that the Mexican plant had closed and HS had ended forever! That goofball had thought a weekend shutdown had been a permanent shutdown! He had to correct his enormous error on his website the following week.
                                    The John Holland connection explains why Angela's post are always so 'yesterday's news' and in many cases were proven false 5-10 years ago!
                                    Angela's post are always insightful, show good research and generally provide the links to the information she has found. You, on the other hand, simply exist to come on these threads late, accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about, and providing NO proof that is the case. If Angela's info has been proven false, why aren't you providing evidence of it?
                                    Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
                                    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
                                    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg

                                    Comment


                                    • Wow,
                                      Point out how dated all of this info is and those who panic resort to personal attacks! Seriously, Jenn, Angela can defend her ancient, incorrect info posts herself!
                                      The first plant should begin running in just over 3 weeks.

                                      Comment


                                      • Those who panic like to point to bute as a killer in humans. A human would have to eat 500-600 horse burgers/day for years to simply register any level of bute in their systems! Amounts which have shown up in horse meat have been so miniscule as to warrant no true concern.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                          I think that every time those for the ban slaughter drive come out with their copy and paste with the bute card, we will just copy and paste this post of yours.
                                          Let the readers decide what makes sense to them, according to how much science they may know.
                                          Funny, some other parts of the article were conveniently left out:

                                          “In European law, the horse is regarded as a food producing animal, so as with farm animals there are prohibitions on animals entering the food chain, and horses treated with Bute cannot be humanely slaughtered and then the meat passed into the food chain. To ensure this happens, each horse has its own passport, and for those horses that have had Bute, a section in the passport is amended so the horse cannot enter the food chain.

                                          “If Bute is being found in horsemeat it will be because either the original passport has not been amended after Bute was prescribed by the vet, or because the passport has been altered or substituted, or because controls at the abattoir have failed; all these circumstances are unacceptable as they pose a potential risk to human safety.

                                          “However it is important to note that the levels of Bute in horsemeat, even if it is found, will be very low, and greatly below the doses following medical treatment in people that have been associated with occasional rare adverse reactions; therefore whilst this is unacceptable the actual risk to consumers is very small.”


                                          There is no research stated to back up the claim the risk is small.

                                          If the risk is so small, why all the measures to try to keep those horses out of the human food chain?

                                          It's already been proven the passport or EID program doesn't work and can be easily manipulated. There is no proven withdrawal time of toxins so Alagirl's suggestion of a feedlot for the mythical withdrawal time is just putting pearls on a pig.

                                          Again, I offer up this paper showing research of Bute staying in a horse's system. If anyone bothers to take the time to read it, you will see at the end it says: The authors declare there is not conflict of interest.

                                          http://www.horseprotection.it/docs/phenylbutazone.pdf
                                          Proud owner of a Slaughter-Bound TB from a feedlot, and her surprise baby...!
                                          http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/Jen4USC/fave.jpg
                                          http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e3...SC/running.jpg

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X