Bill to ban slaughter passes in Illinois, signed by Gov. 5/24 - update p. 27

[Blueshadow]

Coming from a very small country, England, as I do, which produces a large number of cattle, sheep, horses (none of which are raised for slaughter) I'm rather suprised to hear that you think so. New Zealand - very small - somehow manages to produce an awful lot of sheep. Anyway, if all you want to do is raise an animal for slaughter, you really don't need a lot of room to do so. I see 100,000 cattle in a very small area off the I-5 in California.

[Claddagh]

Here's my feeling.

If the majority of Japanese, Mexican, Swedish, French, and Belgian people want to eat horsemeat, or condone their fellow citizens eating horsemeat, I'm not going to challenge their culture - but I would ask that they breed, raise and slaughter their own horses FOR THAT PURPOSE, on their own soil. Alternatively, they could establish a trade agreement among themselves I guess - French horses raised for slaughter, or more likely French horsemeat, could be shipped to Sweden and vice versa (just as we import beef from Argentina, lamb from New Zealand etc.).

Blueshadow - I am in complete agreement with you. I absolutely feel, as you do, that those foreign countries where horsemeat is eaten should slaughter their own horses or have a trade agreement with other horse eating countries. We cannot dictate how foreign countries treat their animals or what their citizens eat for dinner but we can definitely decide how animals are treated in our own country.

(And County - regarding your statement about the oil trade - oil doesn't suffer if it is drilled out of the ground and shipped on long trips to it's final destination of being burned somewhere. But horses can and do suffer when they are anywhere within the slaughter industry. There is a big difference between oil and horses).

[Bluey]

BTW, one way to enforce Federal Regulation pretty costlessly would be for all three NAFTA partners to agree to slap a 100 percent tariff on imports of horses for slaughter. Some hope!

Well, we know that people can designate horses in transit for other purposes than slaughter, keep them for a time in someone's pasture and then sell them to a broker.
You can't hardly raise the import fees enough, or set time limits to resell, without burdening normal riding horse trade unnecessarily.
There are considerations over considerations no one on the ban slaughter camp seems to want to look at.

One more question, if I may?

How do you think we will absorb some 100,00 horses or so, every year, for the foreseable future, if slaughter and all exports are stopped ?

Remember that most people that keep breeding are not going to stop, not for many years, since the majority of horses produced are grade and registered horses people with one or three pet mares in some backyard bred.
The next large number of people breeding are producing registered horses in numbers to hopefully get a few top horses out of every crop, be it for racing or cutting or any other such horse activity with substantial numbers produced for the few that become stars.

So, assuming that breeding will continue anyway as it is, since profit on each of the foals raised is not that much of a concern for many breeders, selling a few top horses for much pais for producing all of them, how do we manage the excess, many of them with physical or mental issues or just horses no one took time to do much with and so most don't have a future to fill the few numbers of homes out there per horse?

The horse industry is shrinking now, less people seem to enter horse ownership today, than in years past.
We are not apt to create new homes for horses, if we are not indeed losing some number of them, the tightening economy, inflation in owning horses, all part of the trend.
No matter how cheap, many people that would like to have horses don't have or want to spend the money it takes today to have and care for horses, once they realize what it does take in money, time and energy.

Is society at large wanting now to support the excess horses for the rest of their lives, fed, sheltered and medical needs attended to, at society's cost, for such a large amount of horses for so many years, rememebring a horse can live easily today to 30 and beyond?
Our society already supports those feedlot kept unadoptable feral horses at a cost of $4 million a year.
Each one of us can support "forever" a few horses we are attached to, but can we ask that we support all of those no one wants, the cost of that being so tremendous? Who will pay for that?

How long before the general polulation finds out such kind of money is spent on those horses, that could have been sold as an asset thru slaughter, when so many humans themselves have still very important needs not met yet?

---"Each year the BLM helicopters and riders round up excess horses and burros which are offered for adoption to the public and a nationwide adoption program. Unfortunately though the BLM is presently sheltering more than 6,000 unadopted wild horses and burros, these animals are costing the taxpayers about $50,000 a week. Many have become unadoptable, and in many instances, due to old age and the present spread of disease, have precluded their successful adoption. Also, these unadoptable animals are being held contrary to the resolution set forth in the Act of 1971, and done so at a great expense to taxpayers as well as we mentioned previously. Unfortunately many of these animals are destined to live out their days as Federal welfare cases as facilities across the United States are filled beyond capacity. Without adoption or commercial demand the horses and burros are consigned to death in captivity. A situation which is ironic at best considering the attempt of the statue to preserve them."---
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...hii50579_0.HTM
These depositions happen in 1998, the cost today is up to $4 millions.

Are we willing to add to that cost now for unwanted horses that can't be considered a symbol, etc. as the feral horses are?

Remember, rescues are already full with the real abuse and neglect cases out there, not the slaughterbound horses (other than a few rescues that grandstand doing that).
Rendering plants are already mostly full, at times not needing any more and so closed right now, since their products are not in that much demand, they serve them fully already with the horses that die or are euthanized now.

Will animal control have to step up and start euthanizing and disposing of unwanted horses now, at society's cost?
That will create a few more jobs, if maybe not enough to be statistically significant for the cost involved, so as that be a benefit to our society.

Well, what do you think may be a solution, if horse slaughter and shipping horses alive to other countries may become against the law?
Where will all those unwanted horse numbers go for the next few years?

[xegeba]

BTW, one way to enforce Federal Regulation pretty costlessly would be for all three NAFTA partners to agree to slap a 100 percent tariff on imports of horses for slaughter. Some hope!

Does anyone know what the Mexicans charge per horse that comes through their border? Is the SH in Juarez owned by a Mexican Corporation, or is this another Belgium owned SH? How many SH in Mexico are in close proximity to our borders? Thanks , Blueshadow for that informative writeup...

[Blueshadow]

Where did all the unwanted horses go to?

Hi. I completely understand your concerns, really. And, I might add, I am a small breeder of TBs and thinking long and hard about the futures that they face. But look at the data. We slaughtered roughly 100,000 horses last year. Not long ago, that number was more than three and a half times as high. Where did all the unwanted horses go to? Are they being slaughtered in backyards, are they being starved to death at a rate 3.5 times higher than in the 1990's, are they being shipped to Canada and Mexico at a rate that is 3.5
times higher? No. They aren't. (As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are even some pretty definitive studies of the impact of HS plant closures on local rates of horse abuse showing that they are not affected by the closures). Yes, there are some retirement and rescue facilities that are filled to capacity. But there are MANY MORE of those facilities now than there were 10 or 15 years ago. The point is - and I'm trying to be an objective economist here! - that the market (and individuals) respond when policies change. Just about everything we teach about economics makes this point - policy changes affect people's incentives and cause behaviour changes. If people aren't making a living from, or profit from, horse slaughter they will find an alternative way to do so. If changes in policy, law, did not affect people's incentives or behavior, they'd be pretty useless to enact, right?

There are lots of ways in which I can see the end of this industry affecting people's economic incentives. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, I have just recently been defrauded of a horse - a former racehorse and broodmare that needed a good home, healthy and sound and pretty but no longer sound for breeding - by two women who knew that they could obtain a base price for her at the local killer sale within days of taking her from me. No need to feed her for any period of time whatsoever. I see the absence of this opportunity (were the laws enforced) as eliminating many (certainly not all) of the current incentives to steal and defraud people of horses. These events are themselves economically and socially costly.

What I see in my local killer sale is that people don't need to worry about feeding or caring or providing veterinary care for their horse when they know they can bring it down the road to the killer sale and get a positive price for it before it actually expires on their property.

I firmly believe that, IN THE LONG RUN, the end of slaughter and shipping for slaughter in this country will reduce incentives to overbreed, and will reduce incentives for those that can't afford to care and feed a horse appropriately to ever buy one. Yes, there may be a transition period. But based on the evidence we see to this point of reducing the numbers of horses slaughtered from 350,000 in the US to a 100,000 a year, I'm not convinced that reducing the number by a further 100,000 a year will have the dire consequences that slaughter advocates claim. Not one bit.

[xegeba]

Coming from a very small country, England, as I do, which produces a large number of cattle, sheep, horses (none of which are raised for slaughter) I'm rather suprised to hear that you think so. New Zealand - very small - somehow manages to produce an awful lot of sheep. Anyway, if all you want to do is raise an animal for slaughter, you really don't need a lot of room to do so. I see 100,000 cattle in a very small area off the I-5 in California.

I think it was explained to me by a couple of posters why we don't raise horses for food... it takes too much time and money to get them to the point of tasty. Not worth it... BUT! If you can raise horses for other things, get tax write-offs for doing so... and then still sell them after they have become no use to you... GREAT!

[xegeba]

The point is - and I'm trying to be an objective economist here! - that the market (and individuals) respond when policies change. Just about everything we teach about economics makes this point - policy changes affect people's incentives and cause behaviour changes. If people aren't making a living from, or profit from, horse slaughter they will find an alternative way to do so.

THANK GOD!!! I'm going to make a Bellini and celebrate that someone other than me thinks this.
I love you , Blueshadow.

[RainyDayRide]

A couple of other points...

- Although CA horses are still winding up at SHs, one study showed that the number of horses stolen annually in CA dropped by a third after Prop 6 went into effect and there was no increase in the reports of abuse. (I've seen claims that 30% of slaughtered horses may have been stolen - that seems high to me, but it wouldn't suprise me to learn that a hefty percentage of the 100,000 killed last year were stolen or obtained under false pretenses. I did note a post from a NetPosse person on another thread that said they had started to get more reports of missing horses in Texas and another state(?) - I wonder if that might be connected to the increase in number of horses exported to Mexico... just speculation, obviously.)

- It has been reported that some of the slaughter bound horses are heading to Mexico in trailers that would otherwise have been returning south empty, after dropping off cattle in the US. That would reduce the transport cost to the difference in gas between hauling a full vs empty trailer.

[Bluey]

---"I firmly believe that, IN THE LONG RUN, the end of slaughter and shipping for slaughter in this country will reduce incentives to overbreed, and will reduce incentives for those that can't afford to care and feed a horse appropriately to ever buy one. Yes, there may be a transition period. But based on the evidence we see to this point of reducing the numbers of horses slaughtered from 350,000 in the US to a 100,000 a year, I'm not convinced that reducing the number by a further 100,000 a year will have the dire consequences that slaughter advocates claim. Not one bit."---

I disagree that assimilating such amount of horses are of no concern to the horse industry.
There have been several studies conducted, that the AQHA and several other associations, including the AVMA had meetings to discuss and their conclusions were that the ban horse slaughter bill was not in the best of the horses, because of this issue and others.

I was not expecting you to dismiss it, no matter what side you were for, but to give a solution on HOW they were going to be absorbed, not that "THEY WILL BE, DON"T WORRY".
You choose to dismiss it, so I assume you are for this ban.

We had warned that closing the plants would shuffle many more horses to Mexico and Canada and we were poh-poed the same way, even now some are saying that doesn't matter, really.

In my opinion, to dump on the regular horse markets whatever number you choose, 100,000 has been thrown around, 135,000 is what was really slaughtered last year, counting in the USA and those that have been traveling to Canada, in my humble opinion, to absorb those horses we need to have more provided for than the cavalier attitude of "I am not worried about it".

[Blueshadow]

Xegeba, the SH in Juarez is Mexican owned, I believe. I'm trying to find out the other information you want.

It's true that the number of horses stolen in California has dropped significantly since the passing of Proposition 6. It's also true that there are still a bunch of killer sales operating unhindered, either by enforcement of that legislation or by enforcement of California's very broad animal cruelty act. Without enforcement, all of this is pointless. I've tried to get law enforcement interested in my fraud case without ANY success. Zero. Big fat zero.

One point of note, the USDA figures show zero horses being exported to Mexico from California for the first five months of this year. They don't cross here. They cross through New Mexico and Texas, since Juarez is right on the border at El Paso.

[Blueshadow]

Actually, I was trying to explain exactly how I thought they would be absorbed (and have been absorbed over the past 15 years). Sorry if you feel I wasn't clear enough. And I certainly did not say "don't worry".

[xegeba]

One point of note, the USDA figures show zero horses being exported to Mexico from California for the first five months of this year. They don't cross here. They cross through New Mexico and Texas, since Juarez is right on the border at El Paso.

If the SH in Juarez is the only SH close to the US border... then the haul for the East Coast horses is long... unless those horses go to Canada... I would imagine that tariff's are going to go up...

[Bluey]

Actually, I was trying to explain exactly how I thought they would be absorbed (and have been absorbed over the past 15 years). Sorry if you feel I wasn't clear enough. And I certainly did not say "don't worry".

If yo mean policy changes will take care of that, remember that we are talking of horses that are already bred, people that won't feel any changes for several years, so there is still an immediate problem for a few years that will need to be addressed.

Rescues won't be able to take that many horses for life, adding to those numbers for several years, since they are already now full.
Some of those springing up are having to go thru a learning curve and are competing with each other for donations already.
Some have been shown not to be very good at caring for their charges and raising the necessary money to do so.
We have to watch not to be falling into a different kind of abuse there, if we now try to open that many rescues with well meaning but unprepared people at the helm.

Who knows, I guess that we will see what happens soon enough, if that so poorly written bill passes.

[Ridge Runner]

I firmly believe that, IN THE LONG RUN, the end of slaughter and shipping for slaughter in this country will reduce incentives to overbreed, and will reduce incentives for those that can't afford to care and feed a horse appropriately to ever buy one. Yes, there may be a transition period. But based on the evidence we see to this point of reducing the numbers of horses slaughtered from 350,000 in the US to a 100,000 a year, I'm not convinced that reducing the number by a further 100,000 a year will have the dire consequences that slaughter advocates claim. Not one bit.

This is my feeling also and while I'm not an economist (I'm a CPA) I do also believe that ultimately the market will adjust and the lack of incentives to overbreed will cause a change in behavior in people reducing foal production. I don't care if you are only a hobby breeder...as things get more expensive (think hay for example) and no longer is it as easy to dump a horse at a sale fast and walk away with some pocket monoey...people will think that maybe they should breed less babies.

I have had a number of discussions with other small breeders...most hobby breeders versus business breeders...and nearly all of them are looking at the market and planning to cut back on foal crops, geld colts, etc... People are already anticipating a soft market with the closing of the slaughter industry and planning ahead. I have not spoken to one breeder in our registry who plans to breed more mares or even maintain the same level next year. One breeder in Texas already cut back from 29 foals last year to 8 this year due to the drought and the market being soft.

[xegeba]

---"I firmly believe that, IN THE LONG RUN, the end of slaughter and shipping for slaughter in this country will reduce incentives to overbreed, and will reduce incentives for those that can't afford to care and feed a horse appropriately to ever buy one. Yes, there may be a transition period. But based on the evidence we see to this point of reducing the numbers of horses slaughtered from 350,000 in the US to a 100,000 a year, I'm not convinced that reducing the number by a further 100,000 a year will have the dire consequences that slaughter advocates claim. Not one bit."---

I disagree that assimilating such amount of horses are of no concern to the horse industry.
There have been several studies conducted, that the AQHA and several other associations, including the AVMA had meetings to discuss and their conclusions were that the ban horse slaughter bill was not in the best of the horses, because of this issue and others.

I was not expecting you to dismiss it, no matter what side you were for, but to give a solution on HOW they were going to be absorbed, not that "THEY WILL BE, DON"T WORRY".
You choose to dismiss it, so I assume you are for this ban.

We had warned that closing the plants would shuffle many more horses to Mexico and Canada and we were poh-poed the same way, even now some are saying that doesn't matter, really.

In my opinion, to dump on the regular horse markets whatever number you choose, 100,000 has been thrown around, 135,000 is what was really slaughtered last year, counting in the USA and those that have been traveling to Canada, in my humble opinion, to absorb those horses we need to have more provided for than the cavalier attitude of "I am not worried about it".

Bluey... let's pretend that in 5 years NO horses from the US went to slaughter... because the business of killing horses is no longer a profit maker for those who do it. In those 5 years... horses (that are getting whacked somewhere) are sacrificed for what is best for future generations... and while we are at it... why not change the tax code ?

[Blueshadow]

Xegeba, I imagine you're right about east coast horses going to Canada. (Are the SHs in Ontario still operating? I thought it was only Alberta now.) The question about tariffs is interesting. I think NAFTA prevents or certainly is supposed to prevent any short-term changes in tariff rates. They are all "legislated". Of course, you only have to look (just an example) at the US refusal to continue to import Canadian timber to realize that the agreement doesn't have to be upheld. I don't know what the Mexicans will do if they suddenly found themselves with an excessive inflow of horses for slaughter. In the absence of NAFTA, sure, you could imagine they'd pump up the tariff rate, particularly since it's expensive to expand holding facilities and increase capacity (land ownership) in a city the size of Juarez.

[Bluey]

Bluey... let's pretend that in 5 years NO horses from the US went to slaughter... because the business of killing horses is no longer a profit maker for those who do it. In those 5 years... horses (that are getting whacked somewhere) are sacrificed for what is best for future generations... and while we are at it... why not change the tax code ?

You are talking about shrinking the horse industry by considerably more than the 1% deemed going to slaughter today.
Do you realize the unintended consequences of that?
Less manufacturers of supplies, feeds, saddles, fly spray, gizmos and gadgets, less research money, less equine vets and centers, less people fighting to keep riding access to parks and other lands, less subscribers to COTH...

Many already foresee that because of demographics. We don't seem to be raising that many kids interested in horses, not in the numbers that older people in the horse industry will be leaving as they age and die off.

I don't know how to put this so it doesn't come across as a personal comment towards anyone, not my intent at all, but I have trouble understanding how anyone today can bred horses and intend to continue doing so at any level, in today's horse glut, with that many horses out there without homes AND want to stop slaughter.

To want to ban slaughter and contribute to the excess of horses out there seem, as in the small animal world, antagonistic with each other.
Why be part of the problem, not the solution and quit breeding?
Someone has to start somewhere.

[xegeba]

Xegeba, I imagine you're right about east coast horses going to Canada. (Are the SHs in Ontario still operating? I thought it was only Alberta now.) The question about tariffs is interesting. I think NAFTA prevents or certainly is supposed to prevent any short-term changes in tariff rates. They are all "legislated". Of course, you only have to look (just an example) at the US refusal to continue to import Canadian timber to realize that the agreement doesn't have to be upheld. I don't know what the Mexicans will do if they suddenly found themselves with an excessive inflow of horses for slaughter. In the absence of NAFTA, sure, you could imagine they'd pump up the tariff rate, particularly since it's expensive to expand holding facilities and increase capacity (land ownership) in a city the size of Juarez.

How motivated is the Belgium faction going to remain if they can no longer own and operate?

[Blueshadow]

Daydream Believer, thanks. I absolutely agree. We've already seen it work. I don't care what numbers you look at, they ALL show a massive drop in the rate of slaughter in the US and Canada. I agree with Bluey that sometimes Rescue facilities are not well-prepared and that's a concern. However, I also believe in learning by doing.

[xegeba]

You are talking about shrinking the horse industry by considerably more than the 1% deemed to go to slaughter.
Do you realize the unintended consequences of that?
Less manufacturers of supplies, feeds, saddles, fly spray, gizmos and gadgets, less research money, less equine vets and centers, less people fighting to keep riding access to parks and other lands, less subscribers to COTH...

Many are already foreseee that because of demographics. We don't seem to be raising that many kids interested in horses, not in the numbers that older people in the horse industry will be leaving as they age and die off.

I don't know how to put this so it doesn't come across as a personal comment, but I have trouble understanding how someone can bred horses and intend to continue doing so at any level, in today's horse glut, with that many horses out there without homes AND want to stop slaughter.

To want to ban slaughter and contribute to the excess of horses out there seem, as in the small animal world, antagonistic with each other.
Why be part of the problem, not the solution and quit breeding?
Someone has to start somewhere.

forget the tax code for a second... do you think for the greater good of horsekind... that we could do a wait and see on this slaughter experiment? Gotta start somewhere.. Martin Luther King had a dream...