Genuine Question on Slaughter - Please No Flamethrowers

[JSwan]

Don't forget Glanders - the US hasn't had a case in over 100 years! Let's hope for another 100.

[bryn]

JSwan, do you really think these kill buyers are going to pay the tariff to transport riding horses across the border? I seriously doubt it.

Again, perhaps you should ask some of the big haulers. I have. They said "hell no. . . bill passes and I'm out of horses. . . I'll just haul more cows and pigs".

[Beverley]

Jetsomom wrote, 'Ck out this link- It answers your questions

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

This 'white paper' hasn't gotten any better since my last couple of readings. Rather than truly giving the data an objective look, the TRF simply came up with those numbers that support their conclusions, a popular thing to do, I do it myself now and then . However, again, posting skewed data and giving the thing a really serious and official sounding name, 'white paper,' doesn't lend it more credence.

[Beverley]

"In that case you would be constructive in your criticizm and not condem the whole idea of banning horse slaughter."

Susan P, I agree completely. For my part I have tried to emphasize that outright ban is not the answer given that a) the slaughter of horses is not inherently inhumane, b) what to do with all those horses has not been accounted for by those advocating a complete ban, c) there is a market for horsemeat, and I think everyone here agrees that regardless of our personal preferences, once the horse is dead, it makes no difference what happens to his carcass, and d) so long as the economics are viable, an outright ban will only serve to make the condemned horses suffer more via hauling to further destinations for slaughter. I continue to emphasize that the appropriate answer is new regulation and enforcement of existing laws, particularly as regards to transport which has always been the bigger problem in the process, to ensure that the transportation and slaughter of horses is done correctly.

Now, it seems every time that I post something along these lines, there follows a post that basically says 'no, no, no, horse slaughter is inhumane, period, and must be banned.' So let me just observe that your suggestion to offer constructive criticism rather than just condemning the whole opposing viewpoint cuts both ways.

[bryn]

Beverley, the USDA is not interested in better enforcement of existing transport laws. I posted earlier here that we have pursued this all the way up the ladder. The answer repeatedly is that existing staff needs to focus on the food animals Americans eat. They are also not interested in horses because horses represent just a small number of the total population of animals slaughtered in this country. I guarantee you there is no way the existing laws will ever be a priority for the USDA or the DOT or the State Ags or the local law enforcement.

In my opinion, the USDA is another FEMA - out of touch - in this case, with what is really happening at the low end auction lots, the transport centers, the feedlots and the horse slaughter plants. For an employee to raise a ruckus is a sure way for that employee to be fired or sent to a less appealing government job.

Change just ain't going to happen.

[Beverley]

Bryn, I do recall your earlier post, and I don't know who the 'we' is that you stated went up the USDA ladder, but as a Fed myself I have some doubt regarding the responses from the USDA that you cite. We in the Federal agencies do not have latitude as to 'how well' we enforce the laws on the books, we have a duty to uphold ALL the laws (even ESA ).

As to where the relevant laws stand on the various agencies' lists of priorities, that list boils down to available manpower and budget more than 'wanting' to enforce one law in favor of another.

So while I agree that you raise valid points, I don't agree that change cannot happen. There are ways to change an agency's priorities .

[bryn]

I would love to hear how Beverley. WE are several folks who have spent hours talking to local law enforcement, state law enforcement, DOT both fed and state, state ag officials in charge of auctions and horses specifically, the USDA officials, both working the sales in my state and neighboring states, their bosses in Iowa, and their bosses in Washington. Their candor was shocking and very much all the same. . . horses are not a priority and therefore we are not inclined to enforce or interfere with the status quo. The top dog we spoke to in Washington said, "look, I am less than a year to retirement. It is really not my problem."

I too am a government worker. I know how it works. If I did my job the way these folks did, my boss would have booted me a long long time ago.

Trying FOIAing the USDA. It is a joke. And they know if they do not answer your FOIA, your only recourse is to hire an attorney to sue them in US District Court. They gamble that you won't.

The USDA sucks.

[onthebit]

Just to chime in here in support of farmers. Most family farms (I said most, not all) treat their animals well and feed them well. Where you see the questionable to downright horrifying approaches is usually on the farms that are part of large conglomerates. And that is where most of the beef, poultry and pork products in the grocery stores come from b/c the factory farms own trucking lines to ship it around the country. If anyone would like to buy meat that they know the history of, we ship Check out www.webbfamilyfarms.com

As far as banning horse slaughter, I support that, but I do question what the fate will be of the horses that would have gone to slaughter once the option is gone. Is it a better or a worse fate? Is there any way to actually know, have any studies or "scientific guesses" been done?

[JumpingPaints]

As far as banning horse slaughter, I support that, but I do question what the fate will be of the horses that would have gone to slaughter once the option is gone. Is it a better or a worse fate? Is there any way to actually know, have any studies or "scientific guesses" been done?

OntheBit - I'm sorry if this sounds repetitive, but this question has been asked and answered over and over on any thread pertaining to slaughter. A very thorough study was conducted on behalf of the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and is available here. It answers this question.

Here are some highlights of what the projected outcomes are based on:

Results of past reductions in number of horses slaughtered:
Over the past several years, the number of horses slaughtered has declined - in some years by similar amounts to what it would be if we stopped slaughter today. And these horses have been absorbed without repercussions. Like any profitable business, the number of horses slaughtered is based on overseas demand for American horsemeat, NOT by the number of horses available.

Rescues and others no longer bidding against the meatman:
Often at auction, rescues and other potential buyers lose out when bidding against the meatman. So there are homes out there that want these horses. It also means rescues would spend less on buying horses and more on rehabilitation and care.

Increased monies dedicated to caring for retired racehorses; increased awareness about owner/trainer responsibility:
As major contributors to the number of horses looking for homes each year, the thoroughbred and standardbred racing industries are pledging more money, working with re-sale groups and generating awareness of owner/trainer responsiblity for horses after they retire from racing. Please refer here and you will see the enormous number of racing and breed organizations that support the ban on horse slaughter and are doing what they can to ensure the welfare of horses retired from racing.

Cost/legality of transporting horses to Mexico or Canada for slaugther:
Some horses may illegally slip through to Mexico or Canada for slaughter, but it will be significantly less than current numbers, and the costs of transporting them and taking across the borders will be higher.

Common Sense:
If you owned a car and sent it to auction and it didn't sell, what would happen? You would still own it and be responsible for it. Perhaps you would reduce the price or give it away, but you likely wouldn't just walk away from it. It's the same with horses. If the meatman doesn't buy them, owners won't just abandon their horses to roam the countryside. Most likely, they will hang on to them until they can sell them, give them away, or humanely euthanize them, should that be appropriate.

No evidence that banning slaughter leads to increase in abuse/neglect:
There is not a shred of evidence that banning slaughter leads to an increase in abuse or neglect - as seen when California banned horse slaughter. The educated guess behind this, is that the type of people who abuse/neglect usually have to have their animals forcefully taken away.

Law of Supply and Demand:
Less demand for a product (and greater supply) results in lower prices, which results in lower profitability, and then, in reduced manufacturing. This economics theory is what makes markets the world over work, and what will reduce future excess horses. Many of the horses going to slaughter today are the results of indiscriminate breeding (mainly QH), where breeder just throws together stallions and mares, hoping for the one or two stars that will bring in $$$. The cost of the rest of the foals can be offset by selling them for horsemeat. When these breeders can no longer dump their unwanted offspring for $$, and they have to pay to keep these horses longer, their profitability will diminish, and they will need to change their unprofitable business practices.

There will be exceptions to the above - no law is perfect, but it is progress designed to improve the current situation. I hope this addresses your concerns.

[jerry]

All this discussion about organic meats always reminds me of a very old cartoon I once saw. Two cavemen roasting an animal over a fire, one says "I don't get it. Everything we eat is 100% natural and we live to what, 26?" Just a laugh.

[enjoytheride]

"Common Sense:
If you owned a car and sent it to auction and it didn't sell, what would happen? You would still own it and be responsible for it. Perhaps you would reduce the price or give it away, but you likely wouldn't just walk away from it. It's the same with horses. If the meatman doesn't buy them, owners won't just abandon their horses to roam the countryside. Most likely, they will hang on to them until they can sell them, give them away, or humanely euthanize them, should that be appropriate."


This is ridiculous. If you owned a car and it didn't sell you may do these things OR you may set it out in your front lawn until it rusted into the ground and became part of the landscape. Havn't you ever been to a neighborhood where the nonworking cars outnumber the working vehicles?

These horses will sit in people's backyards and pastures until they die. They don't take care of their horses now, there is nobody to make them or put them in jail if they don't. Why on earth would they change their minds if slaughter was banned? "oh, I'd better feed dobin and doctor his bleeding wounds because I can't sell him by the pound" It doesn't work that way.

Have you ever seen the kinds of horses that wind up at low end auctions? It is not about making money by sending horses to auction. People don't think this way, they don't think ahead when they stop feeding the horse or breed randomly. They just do it. They will not stop breeding or starving just because there is no auction. And rescues can't save them all.

[CANTERSoIL]

They don't take care of their horses now, there is nobody to make them or put them in jail if they don't.

Which goes to show that the availability (or not) of slaughter as an 'option' has little to no bearing on neglect. People who neglect horses are a special kind of sick, and 99% of them see nothing wrong and believe they are a great home. Horses are not being neglected because the owners don't have the option of getting rid of them without spending a dime. Every single person neglecting a horse in the US & Canada right now has the option to get rid of it and put a couple of hundred bucks in their pocket tomorrow, and has had since they first gained possession of the animal. And they just don't do it.

[county]

I'd like to know where all these " rescue " peoile or whatevewr term you want to use are now? If its a no brainer these horses are going to have happy homes why aren't those people buying the horses? I was at a sale near here last week where there was about 40 head of loose horses that mostly were bought up by meat buyers. A freind thats in that business bought 13 head for a total of $320. Thin for the most part but all under 20 years old he'll feed them up to weight. If there broke to ride he'll resell as riders if not they'll go to Can. slaughter plant. But if the so called anti slaughter types don't want them at that price why would anyone think they ever will?

[bryn]

EnjoytheRide, yes I have seen the kinds of horses that end up at "low end" auctions. . . ALL Kinds. Remember the Ramey double decker crash in Indiana? Those 50 some horses were going to auctions in Maysville, Shepherdsville, New Richmond and Sugarcreek. . . low end auctions. Many of those horses were registered paints with papers. . . bought cheaply at a couple Minnesota auctions, including one sale which was an end of year sale sponsored by the local club. I have watched killer buyers buy pregnant registered aged appaloosa mares at appaloosa sponsored sales at Maysville. The con is to get the little people from far away to haul in hoping to sell their couple home raised horses so they can buy up. Well the fancy ones sell at the beginning and everyone spends their money. When it comes time for the home raised ones to be sold, no one has any money left but the killer buyers. It is a setup. . . it is a scam. These folks have already bought something to take home so suddenly there is no trailer space, or they promised their spouse they would sell . . . the stories are plentiful. One person I witnessed tried to undo the purchase of another horse and "no saled" her home raised filly. She was told nothing doing. She could run the newly purchased horse back through the sale. She did. She did not get the same sale amount because the plants in the audience did not bid up the price. She took the loss, took her homebred filly home and swore she would tell all she Knew from the east coast what a crooked sale it was. Many are just as furious and swear never to return, but there are always enough unknowing folks who show up the next year.

Those registered paints on the Ramey load and some extraordinary quarter horses were GORGEOUS. The sellers thought they were going to nice homes. They had no idea.

There are horses like that every week at low end auctions. There is absolutely no way these horses should end up at slaughter and if slaughter were not an option, these horses would either take longer to sell to a home, would sell to a dealer who did not have slaughter as an option or would remain with their owners to be tended to. I do not believe these horses would "die in the field" or be turned loose in the streets.

Perhaps law enforcement and some veterinarians would have to step up to the plate and be more pro-active in their professional lives. Not a bad thing.

[blrm]

Where do these 65,000 horses a year come from?
Is the slaughter industry not a symptom of the problem. Until you address the issue of why there are so many apparently unwanted horses that are willingly being sold to slaughter there will always be an issue. The slaughter industry is just trying to make a profit from what YOUR industry is discarding everyone is so concerned about the horses then how about some legislation that if you breed it you are responsible for it until the day a vet verifies that it can be humanely put down.And only a written contract can allow change of ownership and its associated responsibilities.This is like blaming the scrap man cause your car rusts out.

[county]

They come from all over the country and 65,000 is small compared to the 350,000 that used to be slaughtered a year. Why are they butchered? Same reason cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry are. Theres a demand for product and a profit in the business its very basic economics. The price paid for horses across the board right now is down very low hence so are the number slaughtered. When the price goes back up bet the farm more numbers will be slaughtered. Its worked that way since the dawn of time I can't think of any reason thats going to change. I've bred and raised horses since the mid 60's and this is the third time the market has bottomed out, each time its turned back around and slaughter numbers go up when prices do. Same thing happens with every species of meat animal. Market is high slaughter numbers are high. Market is low so are the number slaughtered.

Yes yes I know its terrable to butcher horses yada, yada, yada. I'm talking reality here doesn't matter about personal opinions either way.

[luvmytbs]

Where do these 65,000 horses a year come from?
Is the slaughter industry not a symptom of the problem. Until you address the issue of why there are so many apparently unwanted horses that are willingly being sold to slaughter there will always be an issue.

If you read all the comments on these threads, you will find that a lot, and I mean a lot of horses are not being sold to kill buyers knowingly or willingly. They are being sold to "nice" people with a great story to make the seller feel good.

Again, as in the past, I urge people to attend one of these low end auctions, get there a few hours before the sale starts and watch certain "nice" people approach each trailer that pulls into the lot, to "buy your horse right now, so you don't have to pay commission to the auction house or have to wait around until the horse goes through".

And talk to people, like I have, who advertised horses in a local paper and had "nice" people, with expensive rigs come by and promise a good home, just to find out later, that that certain person is known to "collect" all kinds of horses with that line and they end up in the kill pen.

[luvmytbs]

They come from all over the country and 65,000 is small compared to the 350,000 that used to be slaughtered a year.

So basically, if the 285,000 horses who are no longer going to slaughter today, have been absorbed somehow, why wouldn't it be possible to absorb another 65,000?

[county]

I'm not saying they couldn't be. I am saying that absorbing all those horses has raised the number from 6 million to 9 million in a few years. Keep absorbing them and the count goes up rapidly while the market continues to go down. More and more horses show up like around here neglected, starved, injured and standing around.

[luvmytbs]

County,

IMO interest in horse ownership has gone up in the past ten years. More people are moving to the burbs where you can have a horse or horses in your "backyard".

I had one horse in 98 and now have three.
A friend of mine started with two she was boarding; she bought 43 acres outside of town and now has 15 horses, all fat and happy by the way.
Anther friend went from 3 acres to 15 acres and from two to six horses (her son is now starting to show one in 4H) And yes, most of these horses were absorptions if you wan to call them that, they weren't expensive riding horses, but horses who needed new caring homes or new jobs (OTTB's for instance).



If the market is going down perhaps it is up to the breeders to be a little more responsible to only produce quality horses instead of indisciminately breed "cute" to "big".