Genuine Question on Slaughter - Please No Flamethrowers

[cowgirljenn]

One of the things that concerns me with the horse slaughter issue is the prospect of increasing regulation (and decreasing availability) of medicines, wormers etc for our horses due to concerns over the possiblity of human consumption.

Me too. I fear that the anti-slaughter people's campaigns of 'do you know what's in that horsemeat you just ate?' are going to translate into increased regulations for all of us who own horses - what we can give, when, how our records are kept, etc. And honestly, I'm an educated person who takes great time to make the best possible decisions for my horses. I don't want some government bureaucrat who has never actually touched a horse telling me what I can and cannot do as far as my horses' health care.

[cowgirljenn]

I'm a little disturbed...

By the posters that say they HOPE those who ate horse meat get sick, get cancers, and even possibly -die- from eating horsemeat.

I don't like the practice of killing horses any more than anyone else - but I don't wish serious illness or death on those who do. Compassion should extend to all species.

[JumpingPaints]

Me too. I fear that the anti-slaughter people's campaigns of 'do you know what's in that horsemeat you just ate?' are going to translate into increased regulations for all of us who own horses - what we can give, when, how our records are kept, etc. And honestly, I'm an educated person who takes great time to make the best possible decisions for my horses. I don't want some government bureaucrat who has never actually touched a horse telling me what I can and cannot do as far as my horses' health care.

It would be an epic battle for the government to try to regulate this. Imagine the resistence from horse owners, vets, competitors, drug companies and their lobbyists, etc!! If the USDA actually became concerned about drug residues, the logical, easy path to take would be testing animals that come in for slaughter, as they do other animals.

[JSwan]

Uh - what do you think I do with my time? That bill is the result of the type of thinking that pervades this issue. Overwrought with emotion, misinformation, and lack of knowledge of the big picture and unintended consequences. I try and correct a lot of that misinformation here - to no avail.

If it's going to be done - do it right. Or don't do it at all lest you end up with more problems.

Condemming a bill is easy, no bill is without problems, I've never seen a perfect bill, it could be tweaked, you could call your congressman and say I like the concept of banning horse slaughter but this, that and the other needs to be addresses before a bill is put together for a vote and this is my idea of how to fix it. Have you heard that along with criticizm of the bill? Nope, just tear it down, don't fix it up.

[JSwan]

Ahhh - but did the extremists hinder the effort or help it. During that time - extremists were seen as obstructionist and detrimental to "the cause" by the mainstream who were trying to garner support from both sexes.

This is the trouble with "causes". Folks who do the daily grind stuff finally get to the point they have enough credibility that the opposing side will sit down at the table - only to be thwarted by some nut who takes their clothes off and runs around naked. Gets attention - but not results.

The ones who accomplished the goal were the ones who worked quietly diligently, used their innate intelligence, developed consensus - and often went unlauded because they did NOT enage in extreme measures.

Great post. I saw a documentary recently that pointed out that the suffragists set mailboxes on fire and did things that made people think they were extremist whackos in their time - but today we all applaud them for ensuring that women had the right to vote. History usually takes a different view of those who fight for what's right than their society does at the time the fight is happening.

[JumpingPaints]

Uh - what do you think I do with my time? That bill is the result of the type of thinking that pervades this issue. Overwrought with emotion, misinformation, and lack of knowledge of the big picture and unintended consequences. I try and correct a lot of that misinformation here - to no avail.

JSwan,

You have referred to this misinformation a number of times, and I am wondering if you could please cite exactly what the misinformation is, as I haven't seen anything myself that would qualify as such.

Also, did you provide this feedback to those drafting the legislation, or volunteer to be involved? I am not asking to be rude, I am just wondering if you gave the group the benefit of your input.

[enjoytheride]

My question is, what is the plan for all the horses that would end up at the slaughter house?

I don't think anti slaughter people have thought this through, if you have a couple horses running wild, lame, sick, old, starving, you take them to the sale barn and get a couple bucks out of them. If there is no killer buyer, then what happens to these horses? You can't say that animal control will catch it because they already don't.

[jetsmom]

Enjoy the ride- it's not the old, sick starving horses that make up the majority of those slaughtered. It's the young, healthy horses in good weight. (see USDA stats...92.3% in good shape)

There were several yrs in the 80's and 90's where the number of horses slaughtered decreased by about the same amount that they would be decreasing now, with no dire consequences. We don't have slaughter as a means of population control, but because of a foreign demand for horsemeat.

These questions are addressed on the thread titled "0" (probably on pg 1 or 2 of the off course forum.)

Ck out this link- It answers your questions

http://www.trfinc.org/news/TRF_WhitePaper.pdf




.

[Angela Freda]

"if you have a couple horses running wild, lame, sick, old, starving, you take them to the sale barn and get a couple bucks out of them."

How about you do the responsible thing and instead of making a few extra bucks off that old, lame, sick or starving horse (How did it get this way in the first place?)... you put it down?

As jetsmom noted, the horses you describe represent a very small percentage of those horses slaughter plants will accept

In the sick/lame/old/starving cases it all boils down to making a little money versus spending it.
And I find it very sad that someone would prefer to do the former to an animal that has served it's human steward well.

[Sannois]

I think it has to be realistic..

In that case you would be constructive in your criticizm and not condem the whole idea of banning horse slaughter. I hate it when people put down someone else's plan without offering one in it's place to accomplish the same goal. When the bill has been criticized the only option suggested is to make it more humane, HA! HOW? WHY? One of the reasons to object to continuing slaughtering horses in the USA is the volume of horses killed. Yes, it will always be inhumane because the people doing it are greedy and are after the almighty dollar and do not seem to care how they get it. This is a highly profitable business and to make it reach it's maximum profitability you have to operate efficiently. Well they're not making widgets, they are killing animals in mass. They hire inexperienced people, they don't train them well before they go on the line, it's an assembly line which must keep moving without regard to what state of consciousness the animal is in and they just need to kill X number of horses during each operation to maximize their profits on the operating days.

I've spent my childhood on a working dairy farm with my grandparents, I do understand that slaughtering animals is part of life but my grandparents didn't kill their horses for dinner though they did kill their chickens and pigs. Horse was not on the menu. All slaughter is disgusting and needs reform. So I support the efforts of Certified Humane Farming http://certifiedhumane.org/ to improve the lives of farm animals in general. But I don't support allowing horse slaughter to continue. Now if you have an idea to improve the existing bill or wording or thoughts for a new ban then you need to write one or close the pie hole, that is unless you really don't want horse slaughter to end at all. Some people only criticize and I find that useless unless it can be constructive. Condemming a bill is easy, no bill is without problems, I've never seen a perfect bill, it could be tweaked, you could call your congressman and say I like the concept of banning horse slaughter but this, that and the other needs to be addresses before a bill is put together for a vote and this is my idea of how to fix it. Have you heard that along with criticizm of the bill? Nope, just tear it down, don't fix it up.

and all the sides weighed, and what reprocussions will happen IF the ban is enacted. No one has answered this yet... WHAT will happen to all those horses if the ban is put through?? And as we all know they are not old sick starving horses.. And if the industry could absorb them , Would they not be going to auction and to slaughter as it is now??

[enjoytheride]

"How about you do the responsible thing and instead of making a few extra bucks off that old, lame, sick or starving horse (How did it get this way in the first place?)... you put it down? "

And how do you want to regulate that? How do you make people care more? how do you make people want to get their horse vet care, be good breeders, feed their horses in the winter? While the good people of COTH would never ever think of taking a horse to a auction with killer buyers there are lots of people that do not blink about it. The sale barn is how they get rid of excess horses. Lame, sick, unsound, healthy, sound, old, etc.

Why on earth would you PAY to have some vet come out, put down the horse you don't care about down humanly, then PAY for someone to haul the body away? Why not take it to the Tuesday sale, and MAKE a couple hundred bucks. Hell, if you don't want to take the horses there you just make few phone calls and someone will pick it up for you.

What happens to these horses that don't have a slaughter house as the end of the road?

I'm not saying that I'm against a slaughter ban, and that I don't get upset at the horrible condition of horses that come through the sale barn, but there doesn't seem to be much thought as what to do with all these horses that wouldn't get slaughtered.

[Susan P]

Sannois, I understand your concern and I do consider that. There is a risk but as you know you can't prove a negative. We have never given a chance to the horses to find out except in the case of local plant closings and state wide bans such as when Cavel was closed after the fire and there were no negative repercussions but there were some positive changes as were repeatedly hashed out in past threads. I know you haven't been a part of a lot of the discussions but while the Cavel plant was closed there was a similar reduction in reported horse theft and abuse and neglect cases. I don't understand why, I'm only repeating what I've heard. I can't even offer you a reliable source for the information but there's no good source that can deny it either nor has anyone offered any counter evidence. If this information was not true or inaccurate you can be sure the slaughterhouse lawyers would be on it and challenging facts would support the contrary. There has been no denial, no attempt to make this correction.

and all the sides weighed, and what reprocussions will happen IF the ban is enacted. No one has answered this yet... WHAT will happen to all those horses if the ban is put through?? And as we all know they are not old sick starving horses.. And if the industry could absorb them , Would they not be going to auction and to slaughter as it is now??

By the way, many of the horses that are now slaughtered that are lame, sick whatever could be shot and sent to the hounds, zoos and other places for carnivore animals. This would be a huge difference in numbers of horses killed and I would expect breeders would be more selective in their breeding habits if they don't have a dumping ground. There is a new effort to start rescue organizations too and perhaps there should be more support from the horse industry and organizations that support the industry to participate in helping horses in need. I think the QH industry and the AQHA should be pushing to help rescues of their breed. Instead they seem to prefer to have their members breed everything and cull.

[JSwan]

As I mentioned several times, Susan P - the Bill would outlaw that as well. The phrase "and for other purposes" - did you read that? No horses eaten - emphasis place on human consumption - but the phrase means - no zoos - no hunts - nada. Besides - how many people approve of such measures? There were threads on here that considered feeding a horse to hounds or lions to be abuse, cruel, yatta yatta - without knowing anything about how it's done - in fact - they didn't even WANT to know how it's done - the mere idea was enough to get everyone up in arms.

Jumping Paints - believe it or not, the groups behind this bill did not want input from anyone other than groups like themselves. So anyone pro-hunting, pro-slaughter, zoo professionals - etc were not appreciated.

Yes - I said pro-slaughter. It's called developing a consensus among a broad, diverse range of groups. Now - it's stuck in committe with various lobbies arguing for their position.

Sannois,

By the way, many of the horses that are now slaughtered that are lame, sick whatever could be shot and sent to the hounds, zoos and other places for carnivore animals. This would be a huge difference in numbers of horses killed and I would expect breeders would be more selective in their breeding habits if they don't have a dumping ground.

[JSwan]

Yes - that is the question isn't it. That one, I guarantee you, will be met with silence.

If horses will be "absorbed" after the ban, and abuse cases won't go up - then why aren't they absorbed now?

Will there be facilities for mass euthanasia of unwanted horses? If some guy in Utah has 5 horses that no one wants, he can't afford them anymore, and they don't sell as riding horses at auction - exactly what is he supposed to do with them? Pay perhaps as much as 1500$ for the vet, rendering, or vet, and backhoe? What if he doesn't have the money? What if he's ill? Old? Bankrupt?

MSP said owners should HAVE to take them home if they don't sell as riding horses at an auction. So exactly how does that not prevent neglect of a horse?

and all the sides weighed, and what reprocussions will happen IF the ban is enacted. No one has answered this yet... WHAT will happen to all those horses if the ban is put through?? And as we all know they are not old sick starving horses.. And if the industry could absorb them , Would they not be going to auction and to slaughter as it is now??

[county]

The withdrawl time for drugs in horse meat is set by the countries buying it. And the same drugs used in horses are used in cattle and beleive me not all cattle are checked by any means. Theres been a huge amount of talk about this law or that law being passed but fact is they haven't been anything but talk or some keep adding things to them that never were actually done. Horses are still shipped from the U.S. to Can. for slaughter thats never changed despite lots of talk it has. Theres 4 loads each month leave near here and always has been. Much cheaper to haul from Mn. to Can. then Mn. to Il. or Tx. plants.

[Sannois]

I agree J...

If the industry would absord them, then why arent they absorbed now!
I would have no problem shooting, an old horse of mine, and sending it to the zoo or the hounds. At least we are serving other critters who need the food, especially Zoo animals.. Man where do all the zoos in this country get all their meat for the big cats???
Interesting point about the wording of the legislation, No consumption at all.. So where are the dead ones going to go?? Cremation?? a bit pricey, Not everyone can bury them.
Man this is certainly not a cut a dry situation at all.. One I truly wish folks would see, and realize that us "Cyber Bullys" are not bullys at all, just trying to really see it from all angles and possibilities, so if it does go thru, we all wont be scratching our heads after shooting ourselves in the foot!

[Susan P]

I think you have to look at the two examples in CA and IL and how they managed. There was not a problem at all. In fact the opposite evidence is recorded. In all fairness perhaps the burden of proof should be equally borne on the other side since we do have somethng to support our claim and there is no evidence that there will be a problem. Shouldn't there at least have been the trial period that was asked for through the Amendment that the USDA circumvented? Why did they do that anyway? In fact, how dare they do that? In my opinion it was a violation. The job they were given to do was enforce the Amendment, not make law or find away around it to please foreign entities. So we lost our opportunity to prove our case on a temporary measure, not fair. Now of course I want the whole enchilada.

If the industry would absord them, then why arent they absorbed now!
I would have no problem shooting, an old horse of mine, and sending it to the zoo or the hounds. At least we are serving other critters who need the food, especially Zoo animals.. Man where do all the zoos in this country get all their meat for the big cats???
Interesting point about the wording of the legislation, No consumption at all.. So where are the dead ones going to go?? Cremation?? a bit pricey, Not everyone can bury them.
Man this is certainly not a cut a dry situation at all.. One I truly wish folks would see, and realize that us "Cyber Bullys" are not bullys at all, just trying to really see it from all angles and possibilities, so if it does go thru, we all wont be scratching our heads after shooting ourselves in the foot!

[JSwan]

And yet you still trust the USDA to have the manpower, the will, and the budget to enforce a ban.

You can't have it both ways either. The devil is in the details. Had the same folks behind this legislation known what they hell they were doing the last go-round' - this bill would not have been needed. And if you don't remember - anti-slaughter folks touted this as a solution the last time - and people like me responded with EXACTLY the scenario that occurred - and last time we were told we were wrong and we didn't know what we were talking about.

Feel good legislation fails. Always.

I'm not willing for horses to suffer the consquences of our glad handing and photo ops that go along with this poorly conceived and drafted bill. In the end - they are the ones that get trucked to Canada and Mexico. And they will. Even after this ban. That is unacceptable. Inspectors will see truckloads of nice fat horses and the correct paperwork - they will be told they are "riding horses" - and get waved on. Out of sight, out of mind.

Shouldn't there at least have been the trial period that was asked for through the Amendment that the USDA circumvented? Why did they do that anyway? In fact, how dare they do that? In my opinion it was a violation. The job they were given to do was enforce the Amendment, not make law or find away around it to please foreign entities. So we lost our opportunity to prove our case on a temporary measure, not fair. Now of course I want the whole enchilada.

[Moonie]

Well, I hope that my horse never ends up in slaughter, his current supplement has a BIG warning on side saying "DO NOT FEED TO HORSES INTEDED FOR FOOD".

[LNG]

Thomas

Where in my response did I say anything about the Brits eating horsemeat. I am aware that they don't and that the French do.

Last time I was in England was June of 2001. That was the year of hoof and mouth. I stayed for a few nights in the town of Swaffam. I can't say if that was the town I saw the shops at(yes at least 2) or if it was in a adjacent town. But they were just as described. Because of H &M when I went to Newmarket I had to drive in and out through disinfectant same as when I went to a horse trial. My cousin who has a small horse farm outside of Leicester took us for a walk down some of the paths said that some of the paths had just been open but not all. Is my timing and description of what was going on at the time about right.

Now its time for your geography lesson. The US is a very large country that shares 2 long borders with 2 very different countries both culturally and economicaly. Cattle are raised in various climates and conditions from extreme cold in the north to subtropical in Florida to the desserts of the SW.These different conditions require require different management styles, vaccinations vary as does parasite control. Our neighbors to the north and south both raise cattle. The cattle population of the US is approximately 97million head. We have had 2 cases of BSE. One was traced back to a cow from Canada. Canada has had I believe 2 or 3 cases of BSE. Canada has traced their BSE to imported British Cattle.

Great Britian a island with no shared borders in a area about the size of Colorado with about what 9million head of cattle had how many cases over the years. I think the total is well over 100,000 and that is with 4,500,000 cattle eradicated. In fact last year there were still 203 cases of BSE in GB. But this is what I don't understand. That with all your so called wonderful regulations and controls and eradication your officials still let an estimated 1,000,000 suspect cattle into the food chain. 1,000,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is a major sin. What about human deaths. I think the figure is somewhere about 150. Continental Europe banned British cattle for 5 years until you got your act cleaned up. But with 203 cases last year I don't think its cleaned up.

You stated that that GB hoof & mouth with meat imported from Brazil. I assume that the meat came in frozen and partially cut up. If so how did it come in contact with livestock and if your inspections and regulations are so tight how did it pass inspection.

So lets see 97million cattle 2 cases of BSE(2 to many) no major livestock disease outbreaks. No major human disease outbreaks from consumption of US beef.

GB 9 million head of cattle,4 1/2million eradicated,over 100,000 confirmed cases of BSE, including 203 last year, 150 human deaths.

And you won't eat our beef .

So despite our so called lack of proper inspections and regulations(according to you) we have not had any major animal or human disease outbreaks related to beef production in this country. It will only get better once NAIS is implemented. But with 97million head of cattle and with both Federal Ag and State Ag regulations it will take a few years. So until it is impemented we will have to rely on our Forest Gump luck to keep our beef herd healthy. After all it can't be our management or husbandry skills can it Thomas?

P.S. You can't buy bute over the counter in the US. You have to get it from a vet.