• 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

SPINOFF: Should a 'live home' offer at a profit require a 'for kill' owner to sell?

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

  • #41
    No, the owner would not be, bald stockings, because what I am describing is a regulation that would be a condition of licensing to operate a slaughterhouse. Only for operators of slaughterhouses. Repeat: only for operators of slaughterhouses. As a condition of their obtaining a license to do so, since slaughterhouses require the expenditure of our tax dollars.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

    Comment


    • #42
      And an owner choosing to euthanize a horse isn't doing so because they are making money doing it; I am therefore ready to suppose that their decision to do so is their own business. Last time I checked, the main conversation around here is that euthanization and proper disposal of horses is so danged expensive that responsible owners are financially discouraged from euthanizing even when it is the wisest and most humane course of action.

      Since this is true, I am willing to accept that if an individual owner wants to euthanize, it is for reasons of horse health, soundness and safety of handling that are the business of the owner. And euthanization done properly is not cruel, and I have not heard anyone say there is some kind of scandalous racket of people making money euthanizing their horses.

      But operating a slaughterhouse is a business that essentially turns an individual (Pookey, the horse) into a commodity (horse meat, $X a pound). It makes no damned difference to the SH operator which horse they put in a can. It can make a great deal of difference to the past owner of Pookey who was lied to about his intended destination. Not to mention Pookey himself. So I say, tell the slaughterhouse operator that they are obligated as a condition of their license to sell any horse that an individual shows up to buy w/ cash and a trailer. No questions asked, no bull$hit about what they were told to do.

      And if an individual owner wants a horse to be put down unequivocally, they have to do it themselves and not kick the can down the road.

      What I am proposing is ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES as a provision of their licensure.

      This accomplishes 2 things: no more Backstreet Bully stories, or SH loses its license, and people who deem a horse to dangerous to be owned by someone else are obligated to see the deed done themselves.
      I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
      I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

      Comment


      • #43
        You know, I wonder if anyone has done a study to see if humanely euthanizing and disposing of say 100,000 horses a year would be less expensive than the strain on our infrastructure.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by D_BaldStockings View Post
          Thinking of the situations where a buyer's offer is refused where the owner of a horse destined for death would make a profit by selling to a 'live home' - and could legally do so.

          Should the seller be 'required' to sell?


          Asking as this seems to be an underlying sense of fairness to this situation.

          Thanks,
          Sure. And if you are a bad parent, and a better parent shows up and offers to adopt your kids, then you should be required to give them up. Because they are better parents than you. Likewise, if someone who will take better care of your house, your land, or your cat offers to 'purchase' them from you, you should be required to sell them to someone who is going to do a better job managing them than you.
          "Friend" me !

          http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

          Comment


          • #45
            Reading comprehension fail! I propose this rule ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES. Not for individual owners. For crying out loud.
            I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
            I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

            Comment


            • #46
              Bluey I actually agree with you on this point. Shall we mark it on our calendars??

              Originally posted by Bluey View Post
              Yes, it is about power some times, like when rescues make it difficult to adopt a horse, because they don't think you are good enough, when they really don't know anything about your horse management.

              Some people just have the upper hand and love to use it.
              Not saying that was the case here, there may have been other involved we don't know about.
              The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
              H. Cate

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by ReSomething View Post
                Can of worms.


                I also have some issues with horsemeat from a mixed pool of owners being sold for human consumption. The waiting periods are there for a reason, to allow potentiallly dangerous drugs to clear the system, and some drugs are specifically not to be used, and I don't believe there is a reliable cost effective way to test all animals. The system is too lax both in following the waiting periods and in disclosure of drugs used.
                Not to mention that people LIE!!! since there is not a good tracking system in place...and therefore no accountability...the unscrupulous 'horse trader' is going to LIE about drugs, period of ownership. We have proof of that all over!

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  #48
                  Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                  And an owner choosing to euthanize a horse isn't doing so because they are making money doing it; I am therefore ready to suppose that their decision to do so is their own business. Last time I checked, the main conversation around here is that euthanization and proper disposal of horses is so danged expensive that responsible owners are financially discouraged from euthanizing even when it is the wisest and most humane course of action.

                  Since this is true, I am willing to accept that if an individual owner wants to euthanize, it is for reasons of horse health, soundness and safety of handling that are the business of the owner. And euthanization done properly is not cruel, and I have not heard anyone say there is some kind of scandalous racket of people making money euthanizing their horses.

                  But operating a slaughterhouse is a business that essentially turns an individual (Pookey, the horse) into a commodity (horse meat, $X a pound). It makes no damned difference to the SH operator which horse they put in a can. It can make a great deal of difference to the past owner of Pookey who was lied to about his intended destination. Not to mention Pookey himself. So I say, tell the slaughterhouse operator that they are obligated as a condition of their license to sell any horse that an individual shows up to buy w/ cash and a trailer. No questions asked, no bull$hit about what they were told to do.

                  And if an individual owner wants a horse to be put down unequivocally, they have to do it themselves and not kick the can down the road.

                  What I am proposing is ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES as a provision of their licensure.

                  This accomplishes 2 things: no more Backstreet Bully stories, or SH loses its license, and people who deem a horse to dangerous to be owned by someone else are obligated to see the deed done themselves.
                  Thank you for going into detail, it helps me see a bit more of your thinking.

                  May I question? What of the owner retaining pasture puffs whose finances change and they foresee not being able to care for horses in future - to cut expenses as soon as possible they choose death for the horses. This is a profit to them however you look at it.
                  Now a buyer comes along before the deed and 'wants to buy Pookie' with cash - that is a profit to an owner looking at an expense, too.

                  Why is this owner not subject to the same standards of: resale is more valuable so you must do that: when their (I'll assume) chemically euthed horse) puts an additional burden on taxpayer financed landfills or introduces the same not for human consumption residues into rendered products vs. keeping a live animal that provides need for many other supporting industries?

                  Are you saying Slaughter is targetted here because of the profit factor?
                  The scale of the sheer numbers of horses being killed so they may become meat?
                  The method of death?
                  Because the meat of the dead animal is eaten by humans (Please set aside the contamination by drugs factor for a moment so I can see your position on humans eating horses only)?

                  Thanks,

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                    IF, IF, IF it seemed likely that slaughter were going to be re-authorized in the U.S., I think it would be great if SH's were required by law to sell any animal at cost to a non-SH buyer who showed up with cash in hand and the ability to do a 2 hour coggins. Exceptions for horses certified dangerous by their previous owner.

                    Whatever else goes on, there is simply no excuse for SH's turning away someone who wants to pay their cost for a horse and give it a chance not to wind up in a can.

                    And I don't care about "Mine, mine, mine, property, property, property, blah blah blah" I know it's incredibly difficult for many to believe this, but there are things in life that are more important than ownership and its inviolable sanctity.
                    Ownership of property is a Constitutional right, like free speech, voting, right to counsel, etc. Like those rights it is not absolute. If government interferes with that ownership it may well be obligated to compensate an owner for that interference.

                    An owner may sell, or not sell, property to whoever they wish (as long as they don't run afoul of Civil Rights Laws, public heath and safety rules, licensing requirements, etc. Creating some sort of a duty to sell a live animal to a "life" buyer (as opposed to a "death" buyer) can create a veritable nightmare scenario of "last minute offers" that can make the morass surrounding the human death penalty for crime appear both sane and sensible.

                    We have a sufficiency of "busy body horsemen" trying to tell everybody else how they should run their business. Let's hold the line on any more.

                    G.
                    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Speaking for myself I have a huge ick factor about horsemeat. I do about eating oysters as well. It doesn't matter what happens after the animal is dead, only how it gets that way. These days 80% of our processed animals are handled in only 4 places in the US. So much for the short ride.
                      Seemingly there have been many violations around horses being slaughtered. From transport to death. Previous plants had many violations that go unpaid and unenforced. For whatever reason. Why do we think it's going to be any better this time?? What's changed??

                      Originally posted by D_BaldStockreasonaymd74
                      Thank you for going into detail, it helps me see a bit more of your thinking.

                      May I question? What of the owner retaining pasture puffs whose finances change and they foresee not being able to care for horses in future - to cut expenses as soon as possible they choose death for the horses. This is a profit to them however you look at it.
                      Now a buyer comes along before the deed and 'wants to buy Pookie' with cash - that is a profit to an owner looking at an expense, too.

                      Why is this owner not subject to the same standards of: resale is more valuable so you must do that: when their (I'll assume) chemically euthed horse) puts an additional burden on taxpayer financed landfills or introduces the same not for human consumption residues into rendered products vs. keeping a live animal that provides need for many other supporting industries?

                      Are you saying Slaughter is targetted here because of the profit factor?
                      The scale of the sheer numbers of horses being killed so they may become meat?
                      The method of death?
                      Because the meat of the dead animal is eaten by humans (Please set aside the contamination by drugs factor for a moment so I can see your position on humans eating horses only)?

                      Thanks,
                      The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                      H. Cate

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                        Reading comprehension fail! I propose this rule ONLY FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES. Not for individual owners. For crying out loud.
                        I still think it's ridiculous. It's silly to go making a LAW/rule because of the one, dumb incident. If the slaughter house owns the horse they own the horse. BS that they have to surrender the animal to ANYONE who shows up and wants it.
                        "Friend" me !

                        http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          I have to wonder, in Backstreet Bully's case, if he was given away for free to someone pretending to be a good home, who then turned around and sold him to a KB with the requirement he be sold for meat to keep them from being found out.

                          We have someone around here who does that...posts on craigslist offering to find good homes for your horse if you can't afford him or need to move him to a better home. He's a kill buyer. Comes out with his kids and sings a great song.

                          Remember Kelsey Lefever?

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            May never know the answer to that one.
                            I've heard of it but do not know first hand.


                            Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                            I have to wonder, in Backstreet Bully's case, if he was given away for free to someone pretending to be a good home, who then turned around and sold him to a KB with the requirement he be sold for meat to keep them from being found out.

                            We have someone around here who does that...posts on craigslist offering to find good homes for your horse if you can't afford him or need to move him to a better home. He's a kill buyer. Comes out with his kids and sings a great song.

                            Remember Kelsey Lefever?
                            The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.
                            H. Cate

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              JGHIRetire, I am pretty sure I've read stories like this, where SH's refuse to sell a horse to an interested individual, more than once or twice on COTH. And if we hear about it a few times, stands to reason it may be even more common than that.

                              What bad and realistic consequence would it cause? I think there is no excuse for such behavior on the part of SH employees. It's cruelty without reason inflicted on both the animal and the person who finds out that their ex-horse is in a feedlot. If a slaughterhouse is just a business that wants to make money, why should they care whether they make their $$ selling a live or a dead horse?

                              The answer here is that the slaughteristas just love the idea of acting out their role as Lord of All Creation and Owner and Judge of All by sending some animals to a life of usefulness and care and others to a cruel death in an abattoir. And even the slightest constraint on their ability to operate as such is seen as totally unconscionable.

                              If your sense of yourself depends on what you can destroy and kill, that's pretty telling.
                              I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                              I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Originally posted by LauraKY View Post
                                .

                                We have someone around here who does that...posts on craigslist offering to find good homes for your horse if you can't afford him or need to move him to a better home. He's a kill buyer. Comes out with his kids and sings a great song.
                                I do wonder, if there are that many *truly* unwanted horses out there, with owners who really don't care whether they go to a good home, a bad home, get slaughtered, whatever, why this KB finds it necessary to employ this ruse at all.

                                I mean.... roughly 100,000 horses per year in the US go to slaughter in Canada or Mexico. That's not a huge number of horses. Is it really necessary to deceive people to find those 100,000?

                                Or is it that these guys get them for free this way, rather than having to pay for them?

                                Brings a new meaning to the phrase "free market"
                                You have to have experiences to gain experience.

                                1998 Morgan mare Mythic Feronia "More Valley Girl Than Girl Scout!"

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Shouldn't LoriB properly credit Mein Kampf for her OP and subsequent posts?

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by 7arabians View Post
                                    Shouldn't LoriB properly credit Mein Kampf for her OP and subsequent posts?
                                    Methinks you need to research fascism. Good job though, only 56 posts for Godwin's law to appear.

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                      JGHIRetire, I am pretty sure I've read stories like this, where SH's refuse to sell a horse to an interested individual, more than once or twice on COTH. And if we hear about it a few times, stands to reason it may be even more common than that.
                                      Yes, I see these threads at least a couple of times per year.

                                      Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                      What bad and realistic consequence would it cause? I think there is no excuse for such behavior on the part of SH employees. It's cruelty without reason inflicted on both the animal and the person who finds out that their ex-horse is in a feedlot. If a slaughterhouse is just a business that wants to make money, why should they care whether they make their $$ selling a live or a dead horse?
                                      ... especially since a private buyer is likely to pay more money than the horse will gain the SH, slaughtered and priced per pound? I mean, we have entities like AC4H whose entire business model is based on this.

                                      Pure speculation, but here are some reasons I can think of:

                                      A. The SH has a quota to fill. A buyer wants XXXXX pounds of horsemeat by 4 p.m. today, and XXXXX - 1000 is not acceptable.
                                      B. No holding facility for that one horse. (Think hay, water source, safe fencing etc. which are not really needed if the horses show up and get slaughtered right away.)
                                      C. Relatedly, since my bet is that a lot of SHs don't really want horse-loving members of the public on their premises, it's a hassle to find another place to keep that horse until the buyer picks it up.
                                      D. What happens if the private buyer shows up and discovers it's not their horse?
                                      E. Insurance/liability issues (a catch-all for everything these days)
                                      F. Well, the uglier psychological issues suggested below -- power tripping.

                                      Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                      If your sense of yourself depends on what you can destroy and kill, that's pretty telling.
                                      And if the SH folks get particular pleasure out of killing a horse that *does* have other options.... ewww. Ick.
                                      You have to have experiences to gain experience.

                                      1998 Morgan mare Mythic Feronia "More Valley Girl Than Girl Scout!"

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        7arabians, your historical ignorance alone is staggering.

                                        And yes, Quietann, that's what I'm talking about.

                                        I am not proposing confiscation of any property. I am proposing what amounts to a last resort claim for anyone who shows up with a trailer and $$$ to take a live horse for the same price it was going to fetch the slaughterhouse once it was slaughtered. Since money is fungible, why does that hurt them? Money is money, right? And isn't that what all this is about, according to the steely-eyed capitalists on this board?

                                        What I propose is that since the SH is buying horses to instantly resell as meat, why does it matter to them to sell a few live horses out of their supply chain?

                                        It doesn't, except for in Crazy World, where "it's mine so I am going to slaughter it and if you try and stop me for any reason, you hate America".

                                        Yes, you found me out. I hate stupidity, and cruelty for no reason.
                                        I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                                        I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Lori,

                                          Why don't you just push for what you really want. Some sort of horse registration where you will be able to determine who does and does not own horses?
                                          What if one of your so-called last minute buyers shows up with cash in-hand and then takes that horse and neglects it. How are you going to 'police' these new owners?
                                          Of course, your suggestion will never succeed because we live in America. But you could probably institute this in Cuba.
                                          Don't pretend that all horses end up in good homes or that all rescues keep horses until they pass in their sleep of old age!
                                          https://sites.google.com/site/dontkillourhorses/

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X