Horse Slaughter Returning

[tkhawk]

No one in this world is perfect. Otherwise we would not have problems in this world at all.

In hindsight it might seem very clear-everything from the Iraq war to the current stimulus bill. But when it is happening, we are in the present. Could they have planned it better-yes. But probably they did not envision the day when probably the same amount of horses would be shipped to Canada and mexico-I beleive there is a bill by both Republican and Democratic senators that has been sponsored to end horse transport for slaughter over borders? There is no word on that.

Horses are not the only animals being shipped long distance. Almost every animal is. There are a few local slaughterhouses here and there, but economics and logistics dictate mega plants. Even before the slaughter plants, we only had three for horses I think-for a big chunk of border states-a plant in either country was closer than the U.S ones.

Although I would agree with Bluey-those AR groups are scary. If they can ban a circus and try and shut down carraiges for whatever frivolous reasons-who knows what is next. Slaughtering horses-they are moving in today's realm from beasts of burden to pets. Cows are there for meat and milk-not for companionship. Before horses were livestock-they still are-but for a growing majority, they are recreational/optional-not a car. That is why slaughter will evoke this debate.
Will it fix the unwanted horses problem-how do you expect it to when the unwanted cat and dog problem has never ever been fixed either? Those are separate issues. The growing majority of horse owners are kind of viewing them closer to cats and dogs as opposed to chicken or pigs or cows. It may not be fair-but apart from that and a few ranches, what use does a horse have in today's world?

[NoDQhere]

Slaughter does not = euthanasia

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree. Dead is dead.

[Ambrey]

Slaughter does not = euthanasia

Exactly my point- slaughter MAKES money, euthanasia COSTS money.

[War Admiral]

Are you also against cattle slaughter for the same reason? The number of horses stolen that go to slaughter isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the number of cattle.

No, because I freely admit that I fall into the "horses are pets not livestock" school of thought.

Heaven forbid anyone should suggest that the breeders OVERBREEDING is the real problem, and that the laws of supply and demand suggest this might be a real good time for a smart businessman to change the focus of his business and BREED LESS.

But you and I have been down this road so many fruitless pointless times before, I withdraw at this point.

[county]

So its not stealing livestock your against its stealing certain species of livestock?

[Dispatcher]

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree. Dead is dead.

Yes, dead is dead. But euthanasia means "good death". When it goes wrong, slaughter is a painful death.

[MSP]

Most states do not have laws banning slaughter so most certainly a slaughter house could be built and slaughter for human consumption return. Not new news.

However, it is a meat industry and it runs on demand. Just because we have more horses being abandoned and abused and for sale does not mean there is a market for more horse meat. We need to deal with the problem at hand. Many of us have taken in all the horses we can afford. Should I loose my job I will join the ranks of the struggling to keep them fed and healthy. I may even be forced to euthanize them. Slaughter isn't the solution. Slaughtering more horses than the demand of meat is bad business!

I would think if the market grows the plants that are already running may increase their production first and secondly expand in Mexico and Canada where they are already doing business.

The hard times we are going through is the reason we have a surplus of horses but I see no indication of an increase in demand of horse meat.

[Ambrey]

No, because I freely admit that I fall into the "horses are pets not livestock" school of thought.

Heaven forbid anyone should suggest that the breeders OVERBREEDING is the real problem, and that the laws of supply and demand suggest this might be a real good time for a smart businessman to change the focus of his business and BREED LESS.

How are you going to accomplish that? It seems to me that that "solution" has been tried to no avail.

That "solution" hasn't kept 2 million smaller pets from having to be euthanized at taxpayer expense (despite costly media campaigns). Why would it work for horses?

And what is the "solution" in the meantime? Who's going to pay for this solution, since you seem to think using the meat makes the killing WRONG, while just burying them in a field would be RIGHT.

[Ambrey]

However, it is a meat industry and it runs on demand. Just because we have more horses being abandoned and abused and for sale does not mean there is a market for more horse meat. We need to deal with the problem at hand. Many of us have taken in all the horses we can afford. Should I loose my job I will join the ranks of the struggling to keep them fed and healthy. I may even be forced to euthanize them. Slaughter isn't the solution. Slaughtering more horses than the demand of meat is bad business!

No, you miss the point- this would bring the slaughter money into the US instead of Canada and Mexico, and allow us to provide for whatever demand there IS economically (usually if costs go down, demand will go up).

eta: When it goes wrong, vet-administered death is painful as well. When it goes wrong, any kind of death is painful.

[Coyoteco]

Immediately after the inauguration, the horse slaughter bill was reintroduced. Obama had the endorsement of the HSUS so he's certainly behind the bill. It is poised to move quickly through the legislative process and become federal law.

It's very odd for a state to spend money on a feasibility study with that current state of the pending legislation.

I will never understand how people who profess to love this species of animals can support its slaughter, but there is no reason to argue this point now as I believe it to be moot.

Here is one article:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=2&gl=us

[JSwan]

Heaven forbid anyone should suggest that the breeders OVERBREEDING is the real problem, and that the laws of supply and demand suggest this might be a real good time for a smart businessman to change the focus of his business and BREED LESS.

We don't have legions of weanlings going to slaughter. We have horses of all ages and breeds and backgrounds.

The overbreeding argument never made sense to me. Horses have long gestation periods, they don't breed like rabbits or have big litters. An economy can tank during the gestation period, divorce, illness or job loss can occur, or another breed can suddenly become de rigeur in that time.

I'd agree that overbreeding might be a factor in unwanted dogs or cats, but in horses? I'm just not seeing truckloads of weanlings.

I'm seeing mostly adult horses going to slaughter. At some point, the breeder can no longer be held responsible for the destiny of the horse produced. If a horse is going to slaughter at the age of 18, that is not a "backyard breeder" problem.

The only person responsible for sending a horse to slaughter is the individual that actually hands over ownership. Breeders aren't doing that - individual horse owners are.

I agree that there are morons who have no business breeding horses (or themselves for that matter). I remain unconvinced that people who breed horses are responsible for horse slaughter. There are many impeccably bred and papered horses that end up on a dinner plate, and no doubt the breeder would be horrified to find out one of their horses ended up that way.

Anyone who sells a horse takes a risk that it will end up in a bad situation.

[county]

We slaughter .5% of our horse population a year even at its peak we only slaughtered 5% . I see nothing that indicates how many horses bred relates to how many are slaughtered.

[Blinkers On]

No, because I freely admit that I fall into the "horses are pets not livestock" school of thought.

Heaven forbid anyone should suggest that the breeders OVERBREEDING is the real problem, and that the laws of supply and demand suggest this might be a real good time for a smart businessman to change the focus of his business and BREED LESS.

But you and I have been down this road so many fruitless pointless times before, I withdraw at this point.

The pet thing is a part of the problem. They are livestock. I know and understand that there really is little distinction between a horse and a pet for many of us. BUT they are not pets. We treat many of them like pets. But the "pets" aren't necessarily the ones being abandoned or going to slaughter. Some do of course.
They are being carelessly over bred and have been for years. The supply is far out weighing the demand. People need to not have to raise the pretty little baby without a thought as to what happens in the future as far as cost if you keep it, or market if you try to sell. What product are you trying to sell? People love to be a "breeder." That needs to be curbed as well!
A friend of mine who lives in a different area than I said they are paying $25/ bale of alfalfa in their area. How do we sustain our stock well when the price of even feeding them is outrageous. The current stimulus package isn't the answer yet. I thank the good Lord the Republicans have enough sense to object at present. They need to do better than to try to ram through $920 billion dollars. I digress, sorry

[county]

Like spend trillions the past 8 years? Ya that worked out real well.

If breeding drives slaughter then we have bred to many since theres been horses thats how long we've slaughtered them. In 92 we peaked at slaughtering 350,000 out of 6,000,000. Today we slaughter about 175,000 out of 9,250,000. Numbers don't add up that says the more we breed the more we slaughter.

[MSP]

No, you miss the point- this would bring the slaughter money into the US instead of Canada and Mexico, and allow us to provide for whatever demand there IS economically (usually if costs go down, demand will go up).

eta: When it goes wrong, vet-administered death is painful as well. When it goes wrong, any kind of death is painful.

I think you are missing the point. The slaughter plants are companies who need to make a profit. They are not going to produce more product than the demand. What profit? If I remember correctly the plants paid very little taxes. They were Belgian owned and made a tidy profit for sure but not US tax payers.

Are you proposing Government run slaughter plants for euthanizing horses? So we use tax payer money to run a non-profit slaughter house and what... throw the meat away? Oh maybe we can give the meat away in place of food stamps. Do you think the welfare folks would mind eating horse meat?

The slaughter plants do not operate to reduce the population of horses they operate to fill the demand of horse meat. Now if the demand goes up, which it could if folks get hungry enough, then maybe some company will find it feasible to open a plant. However don't forget you have the beef and pork US industry that would be competing against the horse meat industry that they don't have a slice of. They hold a lot of clout and might have some thing to say about having their profits cut into by horse meat.

This is, or was a free market. Demand should dictate whether we have a need for horse meat and so slaughter plants. Find another solution.

[county]

There is a large demand for horse meat hence the plants in Can. and Mex. no demand they close up instead new plants have been built to meet demand. We export many species of livestock for slaughter to meet the demand world wide. Taxes? They paid exactly the amount our gov. told them to pay we do the same world wide for the differant business places our companies have.

[MSP]

If they had more demand for horse meat they would expand where ever they thought it most feasible. That is my point. You can't just open a slaughter plant and produce meat with out a market for it.

The two slaughter plants that closed in the US simply moved their business out side the US. It was business as usual. Yup, if demand goes up I am confident they will fulfill it. But you don't open up plants when there is not enough demand to handle the extra product on the market.

Taxes! In general Foreign owned operations pay less taxes. Can't find Dallas crowns tax records right now but I remember them being limited!

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville...1/daily37.html

Foreign corporations with operations in the U.S. tend to pay less in taxes than their domestic counterparts and are more likely to pay no income taxes at all, according to a federal report released this week.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office report said 72 percent of foreign companies in the U.S. reported no federal tax liability for at least one year between 1998 and 2005 versus 55 percent of U.S.-based corporations.

The GAO report also found foreign companies had lower tax liabilities than U.S. firms - 1.4 percent versus 1.7 percent of sales receipts and assets.

[tkhawk]

The pet thing is a part of the problem. They are livestock. I know and understand that there really is little distinction between a horse and a pet for many of us. BUT they are not pets. We treat many of them like pets. But the "pets" aren't necessarily the ones being abandoned or going to slaughter. Some do of course.
They are being carelessly over bred and have been for years. The supply is far out weighing the demand. People need to not have to raise the pretty little baby without a thought as to what happens in the future as far as cost if you keep it, or market if you try to sell. What product are you trying to sell? People love to be a "breeder." That needs to be curbed as well!
A friend of mine who lives in a different area than I said they are paying $25/ bale of alfalfa in their area. How do we sustain our stock well when the price of even feeding them is outrageous. The current stimulus package isn't the answer yet. I thank the good Lord the Republicans have enough sense to object at present. They need to do better than to try to ram through $920 billion dollars. I digress, sorry

Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, the United States was the biggest creditor in the world. Today it is the biggest debtor. The only thing that separates the U.S dollar from the junk that is the Zimbabwe dollar-is the faith in the U.S government. Over the last few years, the faith in the financial sector has been shattered. people who bought billions of U.S private debt which by the way were rated very high by the credit agencies , now sit on pretty much useless piles of paper. The only thing of value is treasuries. Right now, nobody wants to lend. Those that have money are sitting tight -not knowing where the next curveball is going to come from. The confidence has been shattered-without that you won't have functioning market. Which is why the govt is stepping in to guarantee bad assets-not because they care about banks-because if those assets go sour-then our entire foundation will collapse. How can you buy stock or anything, if you don't know the other end of the bargain will stick up. What use is a legal agreement, if the other end is close to bankruptcy. There is a chokehold on the private sector and now that almost every country is being affected-they are all stimulating the heck out of their own economies. In CA, for the first time in our history, they are furloughing state employees. Somehow the ball needs to get rolling. We have to get to a place where people can let their guard down a little and feel just a little bit safe again. I am pretty ok and can go a few years supporting me and my horses-but even people like me are scared of the future-it is just too scary and right now the private side of our economy is too badly bruised and wounded to come roaring back. if they have funds, they are hoarding it. So if this stimulus can help jumpstart things-so be it-what other options do we have now? When I came to this country, I leaned more republican-fiscally conservative, less govt intrusion into private space, individuals right-but after the last few years-I am more democratic. but I will always be an independandant-that way you don't have to defend the guy-just focus on his performance. Maybe the repubs got the message-but when the house is burning down, that is not the time to be fiscally conservative about how many fire hoses we need to help fight the fire. This is bad-I trade, have investor friends-it is getting slightly better now-but some of my friends were just in shock the last year or so. No one has a crystal ball-but right now somebody needs to get the ball rolling-half the battle is perception. I have been looking for a house. if they give a credit -I may just jump and get me a multi unit type thing -just in this environment, better to have something you can rent out too. If they give a car credit-I may buy a car too-I sold mine and only have the truck(dumb when gas was 5 bucks a gallon-but the horsies need to be towed.) A lot of people I know are just scared-have money-but in this market really would like to keep it as money. if the ball gets rolling and a few people start taking the plunge and it "looks" ok-more people will join. That is how markets function-ebbs and flows. Remember just a few years ago, when everybody said housing would never drop and expected it to go up 10/20% every year for the near future.It is just cycles -just this one, the private side is badly bruised and needs someone to push it till it can start again.

Horses as pets-take that away-what do you have? Except ranch work, what possible purpose does a horse serve in today's world? You take the "pet" away and they become just like any other meat animal-like the PMUs. There is a huge industry around them-from farriers to trainers to even up to the Olympics to supplements to boarding places to camping spots. So they are different in their use. They have gone from working animals to companion/pleasure/recreation/sports animals. Which is why people think of them differently. Same animal-just perception and use have shifted over the decades.

[Ambrey]

I think you are missing the point. The slaughter plants are companies who need to make a profit. They are not going to produce more product than the demand. What profit? If I remember correctly the plants paid very little taxes. They were Belgian owned and made a tidy profit for sure but not US tax payers.

Are you proposing Government run slaughter plants for euthanizing horses? So we use tax payer money to run a non-profit slaughter house and what... throw the meat away? Oh maybe we can give the meat away in place of food stamps. Do you think the welfare folks would mind eating horse meat?

The slaughter plants were employing people and putting money into the US economy before they were closed by anti-slaughter activists (they did not close due to lack of money).

Now the horses are being shipped to Canada and Mexico to slaughter, but the activists want to shut that down too.

Your "free market" system is exactly what I'm proposing as a good thing- let the plants open and operate, and relieve the overpopulation with a positive, rather than negative, impact on the economy. Because right now the only other option is taxpayer funded euthanasia (or letting them slowly starve to death).

[greysandbays]

Horses as pets-take that away-what do you have? Except ranch work, what possible purpose does a horse serve in today's world? You take the "pet" away and they become just like any other meat animal-like the PMUs. There is a huge industry around them-from farriers to trainers to even up to the Olympics to supplements to boarding places to camping spots. So they are different in their use. They have gone from working animals to companion/pleasure/recreation/sports animals. Which is why people think of them differently. Same animal-just perception and use have shifted over the decades.

PARAGRAPHS ARE YOUR FRIEND!!!!

Anyway, that last paragraph is pure foolishness. There is no reason a horse can't serve as "livestock" and as "pet". Much of Europe manages to wrap their head around this dual-purpose concept just fine.